NOW, THEREFORE, we, , the undersigned Contractor, as Principal, and , a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of , and duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto City and to any and all persons, companies or corporatio ns entitled to file stop notices under Section 3181 of the California Civil Code, in the penal sum of FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($567,000), lawful money of the United States, said sum being not less than 100 percent of the total amount payable by City under the terms of the Agreement, for which payment well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that, if said Contractor, his/her or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, or subcontractors, shall fail to pay for any materials, provisions, provender or other supplies, items, implements or machinery used in, upon, for or about the performance of the Work required by the Agreement; or fails to pay (1) any of the persons named in Civil Code Section 3181, (2) amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed under the Agreement, or (3) for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the Contractor and subcontractors p ursuant to Section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to the work and labor provided pursuant to the Agreement, said Surety will pay for the same in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, otherwise the above obligation shall be void. In the event suit is brought upon this bond, said Surety will pay to City a reasonable attorney's fee to be fixed by the Court. In addition to the provisions hereinabove, it is agreed that this bond will inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies and corporations entitled to serve stop notices under Section 3181 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond.
The Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agr ees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Agreement or to the Work to be performed thereunder or the Specifications accompanying the same; shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby wai ve notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Agreement or to the Work or to the Specifications. Said Surety also hereby waives the provisions of sections 2819 and 2845 of the California Civil Code.
294
No final settlement between the City and the Contractor hereunder shall abridge the right of any beneficiary hereunder, whose claim may be unsatisfied.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above-bounded parties have executed this instrument this _____ day of ____________, ____ _, the name and corporate seal of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative, pursuant to authority of its governing body.
PRINCIPAL:
(seal)
_______________________________
By _____________________________
SURETY:
(seal)
_______________________________
By _____________________________
Attorney-in-Fact
IMPORTANT: Surety companies executing Bonds must possess a certificate of authority from the California Insurance Commissi oner authorizing them to write surety insurance defined in Section 105 of the California Insurance Code, and if the Work or Project is financed, in whole or in part, with federal grant or loan funds, must also appear on the Treasury Department's most curre nt list (Circular 570 as amended). Notary acknowledgements for Principal and Surety signatures and Power of Attorney for Surety must be attached. THIS IS A REQUIRED FORM.
Any claims under this bond may be addressed to:
(Name and Address of Surety) (Name and Address of Agent/Representative in California if different) ________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ (Telephone Number of Surety/Agent _________________________________________________________________ or Representative in California)
295
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF _______________ )
On this _____ day of _______________, in the year _____, before me, __________________________, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared , known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument as the Attorney-in-Fact of the (Surety) and acknowledged to me that he/she subscribed the name of the
(Surety) thereto and his/her own name as Attorney-in-Fact.
_____________________________________
Signature of Notary Public in and for said State
(SEAL)
My commission expires on: _____________
NOTE: A copy of the power of attorney to local representatives of the bonding company must be attached hereto.
CERTIFICATE AS TO CORPORATE PRINCIPAL
I, _______________________________________, certify that I am the ________________________________ Secretary of the corporation named as Principal to the within bond; that _________________ _________________________ who signed the said bond on behalf of the principal was then ___________________________ of said corporation; that I know his/her signature, and his/her signature thereto is genuine; and that said bond was duly signed, sealed and attested for and in behalf of said Corporation by authority of its governing board.
_______________________________
Signature of Corporate Principal
(CORPORATE SEAL)
296
1.4.4 CERTIFICATES / PROOF OF INSURANCE
AND ENDORSEMENTS
The Contractor shall not commence any of the Work or begin any performance under the Agreement until he/she obtains, at his/her own and sole cost and expense, all required insurance as stipulated by the City. The required insurance shall be provided by the Contractor in conformance with the requirements of Subsection 2.7.2 of the Special Provisions and may include the following:
Workers' Compensation Insurance
Commercial General Liability and Business Automobile Liability Insurance Course of Construction or Builder’s Risk Insurance
Flood Insurance
The insurance company or companies utilized by the Contractor shall be authorized and admitted to transact business in the State of California and to issue policies in the amounts required pursuant to the provisions of Subsection 2.7.2 of the Special Provisions. All insurance required shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, and shall contain the endorsements specified in Subsection
2.7.2. Within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall furnish to the City for approval as to sufficiency and form, certificates of ins urance and original endorsements evidencing the required coverage set forth in Subsection 2.7.2 of the Special Provisions. Endorsements and certificates are to be signed by a person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage on the insurer’s behalf. If the insurance called for is provided by more than one company, a separate certificate and the required endorsements shall be provided by each company.
City reserves the right to request complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies and endorsements at any time.
Failure to provide City with the required insurance coverage, proof of insurance and/or endorsements within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the Notice of Award, may result in withdrawal of award and forfeiture of the Bidder's Bid Security.
297
ADDENDUM
By executing this Addendum, Contractor acknowledges and agrees that the work performed pursuant to the above referenced Agreement is subjected to all applicable provisions.
Payment of Minimum Compensation to Employees. Contractor shall be obligated to pay not less than the General Prevailing Wages Rate as required by applicable law.
A. Prevailing Wage Requirements. California Labor Code requires the payment of not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and rates for holiday and overtime and adherence to all labor standards and regulations. The General Prevailing Wages Rates may be adjusted throughout the term of this Agreement.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Contractor shall not be entitled to any adjustment in compensation rates in the event there are adjustments to the General Prevailing Wages Rates.
B. Reports. Contractor shall not perform on site work on this contract until labor compliance documents are filed. Contractor agrees to cooperate with the City to fulfill its notifications requirement to the DIR, as required by DIR’s PWC-100 form or any other required form, and Contractor agrees to provide to the City the information required by the DIR, as generally set forth in Labor Code Section 1773.3. By signing this form, Contractor, and all of its subcontractors, represents that it has registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions under Labor Code section 1771.1(a)] and paid the annual fee due to the DIR, unless the Contractor meets an exception recognized by the DIR or by the law.
C. Furnishing of Electronic Certified Payroll Records to Labor Commissioner.
Contractor and subcontractor agree to furnish the required electronic certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner (aka Division of Labor Standards Enforcement), in the manner and under the time frame required by law.
D. Audit Rights. All records or documents required to be kept pursuant to this Agreement to verify compliance with the Wage Requirement shall be made available for audit at no cost to City, at any time during regular business hours, upon written request by the City Attorney, City Auditor, City Manager, or a designated representative of any of these officers. Copies of such records or documents shall be provided to City for audit at City Hall when it is practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be available at CONTRACTOR’s address indicated for receipt of notices in this Contract.
298
E. Enforcement.
1. General. CONTRACTOR acknowledges it has read and understands that, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, it is required to comply with the Wage Requirement and to submit certain documentation to the City establishing its compliance with such requirement. (“Documentation Provision.”) CONTRACTOR further acknowledges the City has determined that the Wage Requirement promotes each of the following (collectively “Goals”):
a. It protects public job opportunities and stimulates the City’s economy by reducing the incentive to recruit and pay a substandard wage to labor from distant, cheap-labor areas.
b. It benefits the public through the superior efficiency of well-paid employees.
c. It increases competition by promoting a more level playing field among contractors with regard to the wages paid to workers.
2. CONTRACTOS’s Breach of Prevailing Wage/Living Wage Provisions.
WITHOLDING OF PAYMENT: CONTRACTOR agrees that the
Documentation Provision is critical to the City’s ability to monitor CONTRACTOR’s compliance with the City’s public wage obligations.
CONTRACTORS further agrees its breach of the Documentation Provision or general public wage obligations results in the need for additional enforcement action to verify compliance with this Addendum. In light of the critical importance of the Documentation Provision, the City and CONTRACTOR agree that CONTRACTOR’s compliance with this Addendum is an express condition of City’s obligation to make each payment due to the CONTRACTOR pursuant to this Agreement. THE CITY IS NOT OBLIGATED
TO MAKE ANY PAYMENT DUE THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL
CONTRACTOR HAS PERFORMED ALL OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER
THESE PROVISIONS. THIS PROVISION MEANS THAT CITY CAN
WITHOLD ALL OR PART OF A PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR UNTIL ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION IS SUBMITTED. Any payment by the City despite CONTRACTOR’s failure to fully perform its obligations under these provisions shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term or condition contained in this Agreement or a waiver of the right to withhold payment for any subsequent breach of this Documentation Provision or public wage obligations of the Contractor and the City.
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
1 RESOLUTION NO. xxxx.xxx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AWARDING A CONTRACT TO ONYX PAV ING COMPANY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $567, 000 FOR
THE CDBG STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (NORTON AVENUE AND C ARLIN AVENUE), FY25/26 (CIP NO. 2941.68.179); AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF CDBG FUNDS IN THE AM OUNT OF $ 779,933., AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT.
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2025, the Notice Inviting Bids (NIB) was advertised on the City’s website (PlanetBids) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the bid opening took place on the PlanetBids Platform on Thursday, September 25, 2025, at 10:00 A.M.; and
WHEREAS, staff received a total of nine (9) bids; and
WHEREAS, an analysis of all bidders, including their bid schedule, license, references, and required documents, showed that Onyx Paving Company , Inc. was the lowest resp onsible and responsive bidder with a base bid of $ 567,000 and has the necessary experience and license for this type of project.; and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that the project will take sixty (60) working days to complete the work set forth in the bid; and
WHEREAS, the project includes street resurfacing, construction of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant curb ramps, partial replacement of concrete sidewalks, and new street striping.; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated project cost is $765,450.00; and
WHEREAS, the adopted FY 25-26 CDBG budget includes funds for CDBG street improvements; and
WHEREAS, an appropriation of $779,933 from CDBG fund 2941 to project account 2941.68.179 is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD DOES HEREBY FIND, PROCLAIM, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Lynwood hereby finds that the above recitals are true and correct and incorporates them herein by this reference.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Lynwood authorizes the Mayor to execute the agreement between the City of Lynwood and Onyx Paving Company, Inc. in a form approved by the City Attorney in the amount of $567,000. 442
2 Section 3. Authorize the appropriation of 779,933 from CDBG fund 2941 to CIP Project account 2941.68.179
Section 4. The City Council of the City of Lynwood authorizes the City Manager under LMC 6-3.14(d) to exceed the specific dollar amounts or percentage limitations under LMC 6 -3.15(a) and authorizes the City Manager to approve consultant, vendor agreements, modifications, change orders, or agreement amendments related to the Project up to the available Project Budget.
Section 5. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Resolution for and on behalf of the City of Lynwood.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption of this R esolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions, and it shall become effective immediately upon its approval.
Signatures on next page
443
3 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, this 21st day of October 2025.
Rita Soto
Mayor
ATTEST:
Maria Quinonez
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Noel Tapia Gabriel A. Gonzalez
City Attorney Interim City Manager
444
4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
\I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lynwood at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of October 2025, and passed by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Maria Quinonez, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Lynwood, and the Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the above foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of Resolution No. XXX.XXX on file in my office and that said Resolution was adopted on the date and by the vote therein stated. Dated this 21st day of October 2025.
Maria Quinonez, City Clerk
445
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE:
October 21, 2025
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY:
Gabriel A. Gonzalez, Interim City Manager
PREPARED BY:
R
ita Montalvo P.E., Director of Public Works
SUBJECT:
AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO MKN &
ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $281,293 FOR ADDITIONAL
DESIGN SERVICES AND PREPARATION OF THE STATE WATER
RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD DRINKING WATER STATE
REVOLVING FUND LOAN APPLICATION FOR THE HAM PARK
RESERVOIR AND BOOSTER PUMP STATION (CIP NO.
4011.67.056 &
6305.68.164)
Agenda Item # 10.6.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution entitled:
“A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNWOOD AWARDING A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO MKN & ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $281,293 FOR FINAL DESIGN SERVICES AND PREPARATION OF THE STATE WATER
RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN
APPLICATION FOR THE HAM PARK RESERVOIR AND BOOSTER PUMP STATION (CIP NO. 4011.67.056 & 6305.68.164), AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT."
Background:
In September 2022, the City awarded a Professional Services Agreement to MKN & Associates in the amount of $599,692 to prepare a preliminary design report to recommend the reservoir capacity, material type, and booster pump design, to prepare final design plans, bidding specifications package with an engineering cost estimate, and to prepare environmental and permit related documents/applications for overall project construction needed for the DWSRF Application.
City Council City Council Regular Meeting 446
In October 2023, the City approved an amendment to the professional service agreement for $100,000 for additional scope of work changes to complete the design of the reservoir and booster station.
MKN has completed 90% of the plan design for the reservoir and booster station including permitting submittals to the SWRCB, Los Angeles County Flood Control District, and approval of the CEQA documentation.
Discussion and Analysis:
The City will be requesting a $22.0 million dollars DWSRF Disadvantage Community low interest loan from SWRCB for the construction of the new reservoir and booster station. The City has received preliminary approval, and the next step will be to send a final DWSRF application to the SWRCB that will detail the project scope, environmental documentation, engineer’s cost estimate, and project timeline.
The City requested MKN to provide additional professional service for design including modifications to the overflow pipe connection, coordination with LA County Flood Control District, revisions to the Booster Pump Station Building and project coordination.
The City also
requested MKN to prepare the DWSRF application that will be submitted to the SWRCB. The application includes three (3) separate sections, Technical, and Environmental, which will provide a comprehensive summary of the proposed project.
MKN provided a proposal of $281,293 to complete the design, environmental review and prepare the DWSRF application, as shown in the attached proposal titled “Ham Park Reservoir and Pump Station Design - Additional Design, Permitting, and SRF Support” dated July 16, 2025.
It is anticipated that MKN will submit the final application by the end of 2025. SWRCB will review the application and provide final approval before the City can move forward. It is anticipated, from discussions with SWRCB, that the application process can take 18 to 24 months before final approval. Project construction will occur during FY28 and be completed by the end of 2029.
Project Expenditures:
The estimated project expenditures are as follows:
City Council City Council Regular Meeting 447
Lynwood - 2019 Draft-Final Ham Park Report.pdf
Lynwood Reservoir Amendment_Additional Eng & SRF_July 2025.pdf MKN & Associates - Agreement Design Ham Park Reservoir.docx Original Contract – MKN & Associates $599,692 Amendment No. 1 – MKN & Associates $100,000 Amendment No. 2 - Professional Engineering Services
for Ham Park Reservoir and Pump Station Design
Additional Design, Permitting, and SRF Support
$
281,293
Total Design Phase $ 850,897
The preliminary construction costs for the Project are estimated at $18.5 million dollars, and the remaining costs are for construction inspection and testing services, project management, and any increase in construction costs due to inflation and tariffs.
Fiscal Impact:
The City’s FY 26 CIP budget includes $175,000 in Water Direct funds (6051) for Project 4011.67.065 and $175,000 in LUA 2020-A Revenue Bonds (6035) for Project 6035.68.164 for a total of $350,000.
No additional appropriation is needed.
Coordinated With:
City Manager’s Office
City Attorney’s Office
Department of Finance and Administration
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
City Council City Council Regular Meeting 448
Draft-Final
Reservoir and Booster Study
for the
City of Lynwood
Prepared Under the Responsible Charge of:
Christopher G. Deiter
California R.C.E. No. 80618, Expires 3/31/2021
Michael J. Goymerac
California R.C.E. No. 84894, Expires 3/31/2020
6/17/2019
3/31/2020
6/12/2019 6/12/2019
449
i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... iii Glossary of Terms......................................................................................................................................... IV 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Population ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Distribution System ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Water Supply ................................................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Historical Production .................................................................................................................... 4 2 System Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Evaluation Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Peaking Factors ............................................................................................................................. 8 3 Existing and Future Demand ............................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Existing Demands ........................................................................................................................ 10
3.2 Future Demand Projections ........................................................................................................ 11 4 Reservoir and Booster Analysis ........................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Supply Reliability Analysis ........................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Storage Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 16
4.3 Booster Pump Capacity Analysis ................................................................................................. 18
4.4 Recommended System Improvements ....................................................................................... 19
4.4.1 Recommended New Supplies ......................................................................................... 19
4.4.2 Recommended New Storage .......................................................................................... 20
4.4.3 Recommended New Booster Facilities ........................................................................... 22 5 Conceptual Site Layout ....................................................................................................................... 23
5.1 Site Screening .............................................................................................................................. 23
5.1.1 Lynwood City Park ........................................................................................................... 25
5.1.2 Carnation Park and Rose Park (traffic circles) ................................................................. 25 450
ii
5.1.3 Yvonne Burke-John D. Ham Park .................................................................................... 26
5.2 Preliminary Conceptual Design ................................................................................................... 27
5.2.1 Design Considerations ..................................................................................................... 27
5.2.2 Conceptual Site Layout ................................................................................................... 29
5.2.3 Preliminary Schedule ...................................................................................................... 31
5.2.4 Preliminary Estimate of Construction Cost ..................................................................... 32
5.3 Permitting and Constructability Considerations ......................................................................... 33
5.3.1 Well Permitting Considerations ...................................................................................... 34
5.3.2 Reservoir Regulatory Considerations .............................................................................. 36
5.3.3 Constructability Considerations ...................................................................................... 37
5.4 Recommended Next Steps .......................................................................................................... 38 6 References ............................................................................................................................................ A 7 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ A
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Groundwater Wells1 ..................................................................................................................... 3 Table 1-2. Reservoir1 ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 1-3. Booster Pumps1 ............................................................................................................................ 4 Table 1-4. 2005-2017 Production ................................................................................................................. 5 Table 2-1. Demand Projection and Supply Reliability Criteria ...................................................................... 7 Table 2-2. Storage Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 7 Table 2-3. Booster Pump Criteria .................................................................................................................. 8 Table 2-4. SCADA Data Compared to Production Data ................................................................................. 8 Table 2-5. Peaking Factors ............................................................................................................................ 9 Table 3-1. 2015 to 2017 Average Demands ................................................................................................ 10 Table 3-2. Existing Peaked Demands Used for Analysis .............................................................................. 11 Table 3-3. 2015 UWMP Projected Demands .............................................................................................. 11 Table 3-4. Planned Projects Calculated 2020 Demands ............................................................................. 12 Table 3-5. Projected 2040 Demands Used for Analysis .............................................................................. 13 Table 4-1. Firm Capacity.............................................................................................................................. 15 Table 4-2. Supply Reliability ........................................................................................................................ 15 Table 4-3. Storage Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 17 Table 4-4. Storage Analysis with Additional Groundwater Supplies.......................................................... 17 451
iii
Table 4-5. Booster Pump Firm Capacity ...................................................................................................... 18 Table 4-6. Existing Booster Pump Capacity Analysis ................................................................................... 18 Table 4-7. Future Booster Pump Firm Capacity .......................................................................................... 19 Table 4-8. At Grade Storage Reservoirs ...................................................................................................... 20 Table 4-9. Below Grade Reservoirs ............................................................................................................. 21 Table 5-1. Potential Sites Evaluated for Screening ..................................................................................... 23 Table 5-2. Preliminary Engineers Opinion of Costs for Various Project Options ........................................ 33
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Location Map .............................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 1-2. Historical Production .................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 5-1. Reservoir Site Screening Locations ........................................................................................... 24 Figure 5-2. Location Map ............................................................................................................................ 30 Figure 5-3. Reservoir and Booster Station Project Preliminary Timeline ................................................... 31 Figure 5-4. Well Project Preliminary Timeline ............................................................................................ 31 452
iv
Glossary of Terms
2005 WMP City of Lynwood 2005 Water Master Plan
2015 UWMP City of Lynwood 2015 Urban Water Management Plan ADD average day demand
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
AGS above ground surface
ASL above sea level
AWWA American Water Works Association
BGS below ground surface
Blvd Boulevard
City City of Lynwood
CMU concrete masonry unit
FF fire flow
GPCD gallons per capita per day
gpm gallons per minute
LWL low water level
MDD max day demand
MG million gallons
MGD million gallons per day
MWD Metropolitan Water District
PHD peak hour demand
Rd Road
SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition
WSC Water Systems Consulting, Inc
453
Introduction
Reservoir and Booster Study
1 SECTION 1
1 Introduction
The City of Lynwood (City) provides potable water service to most of the City, excluding a small portion in the southeast area of the City that is served by Liberty Utilities (Park Water) Corp. (Liberty Park Water). As part of the water distribution system, the City owns and operates a 3 million gallon (MG) reservoir and a booster pump station. The City selected Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC) to evaluate the need for a new storage reservoir and booster station and to provide an analysis of the considerations for construction of a new reservoir.
A new reservoir would:
• Enable the City to maintain supply reliability during future reconstruction or rehabilitation of the existing 3 MG reservoir
• Further increase public safety and the reliability of local groundwater supplies by providing additional emergency and fire flow (FF) storage; a new reservoir would also be constructed to current seismic safety standards, further increasing reliability
• Improve water management by providing more flexibility for operations to maintain high water quality in the reservoir and an acceptable range of distribution system pressures
Study Area
The City is a mostly residential community of approximately 63,000 people and covers approximately 4.6 square miles. The City is located approximately 15 miles south of the City Los Angeles . Interstate 105 and 710 both run through the City and it is bordered by the Cities of South Gate to the north, Compton to the south, Willowbrook to the west and Downey to the east. The City provides water service over an area of approximately 2,946 acres, which excludes approximately 180 acres in southeast Lynwood which is served by Liberty Park Water. City location, service area, and the area served by Liberty Park Water are presented in Figure 1-1.
IN THIS SECTION
Study Area
Distribution System
Water Supply
Historical Production
454
Introduction
Reservoir and Booster Study
2 Figure 1-1. Location Map
455
City of Lynwood Introduction
Reservoir and Booster Study
iii
1.1.1 Population
The City’s population as of 2015 was estimated to be approximately 63,000. The City’s population is projected to grow to approximately 66,400 by the year 2040. The projected population comes from the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan ( 2015 UWMP) and was based on projections obtained from the Southern California Association of Governments.
1.2 Distribution System
The City’s water distribution system is comprised of five active groundwater wells, one additional groundwater well that has been drilled but not equipped, one storage reservoir, and three booster pumps located at the reservoir. The distribution system consists of one pressure zone and is composed of roughly 95 miles of distribution mains ranging from 4-inch to 12-inch diameter.
The existing 3 MG reservoir is a ground-level reservoir, which has a basketball court over the top, is now nearly 60 years old and may be nearing the end of its useful life. A reservoir inspection was conducted on 11/15/107. The inspection report noted tight cracking on the interior and exterior and that this should be referred to engineering for analysis. It was also recommended that the reservoir be re -inspected in two years’ time to identify if any gross changes have occurred. Re -inspection was also recommended after any notable seismic event.
The three booster pumps draw water from the reservoir during periods of high demand and deliver water to the system. During period s of low demand, water is delivered to the reservoir through a 16 -inch diameter pipeline, equipped with a 12 -inch diameter pressure relief valve at the northeas t corner of McNerney Avenue and Imperial Highway. When pressure in the water system at this location exceeds 56 psi, the pressure relief valve gradually closes to maintain the system pressure below 56 psi (1), because the pipes are not expected to be capable of handling higher pressure.
Additional information regarding these facilities are provided in Table 1-1 through Table 1-3.
Table 1-1. Groundwater Wells1
Well No. Year
Drilled Status Tested Capacity2
(gpm)
Well No. 5 1932 Active 549
Well No. 8 1948 Active 1,021
Well No. 9 1947 Active 1,014
Well No. 11 1950 Active 716
Well No. 19 1971 Active 1,965
Well No. 223 -- Future 2,500
Total Existing Production Capacity: 5,265
1. Table adapted from Table 4.1 & 4.3 in the City of Lynwood's Water Master Plan (2005).
2. Based on Southern California Edison Tests Conducted in 2018.
3. Well is drilled but not equipped per 2015 City of Lynwood UWMP.
456
City of Lynwood Introduction
Reservoir and Booster Study
iv
Table 1-2. Reservoir1
Year of
Construction Location Type of
Construction
Dimension
(ft)
Depth
(ft)
Storage
Volume
(MG)
Existing Reservoir 1960’s Well No.
8 Site
Ground Level
Reinforced
Concrete
182 X 122 21 3.0
1. Table adapted from Section 4.2 in the City of Lynwood's Water Master Plan (2005).
Table 1-3. Booster Pumps1
Booster ID. Location Tested Capacity2
(gpm)
Speed
(rpm)
Discharge
Head (ft)
Rated
Head (ft)
Reservoir 1 City Reservoir at Well No 8 Site 1,231 1,760 126 175 Reservoir 2 City Reservoir at Well No 8 Site 1,214 1,760 126 175 Reservoir 3 City Reservoir at Well No 8 Site 1,447 1,760 127 175
1. Table adapted from Table 4.3 in the City of Lynwood's Water Master Plan (2005).
2. Based on Southern California Edison Tests Conducted in 2018.
1.3 Water Supply
As of 2015, the City serves approximately 9,015 connections for a total of 5,720 AFY. The main source of water supply is groundwater . The City also has the availability of imported water through an existing agreement with Central Basin M unicipal Water District, which is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District (MDW) . Water is delivered to the City through the CENB-33 connection, which has a capacity of 12.5 cfs (2).
1.4 Historical Production
Monthly water production data from 2005 to 2018 was provided by the City . Since 2005, the water production has reduced from approximately 6,500 AFY to approximately 5,300 AFY , most likely due to conservation. The City’s annual production from 2005-2018 is shown in Table 1-4 and Figure 1-2. As discussed, the City receives water supply from groundwater wells and imported water from MWD but does not provide water to any other agencies . Therefore, this production data can be translated into demand within the City’s service area.
457
City of Lynwood Introduction
Reservoir and Booster Study
v
Table 1-4. 2005-2017 Production
Year Groundwater
(AF)
Imported
Water
(AF)
Total
Production
(AF)
2005 5,366 1,076 6,442
2006 4,675 1,449 6,124
2007 5,570 564 6,134
2008 5,982 614 6,596
2009 5,371 583 5,954
2010 5,559 262 5,821
2011 5,717 20 5,737
2012 5,749 108 5,857
2013 4,893 974 5,867
2014 5,736 50 5,786
2015 5,234 129 5,364
2016 4,611 442 5,054
2017 5,170 112 5,282
2018 5,382 16 5,398
Figure 1-2. Historical Production
458
City of Lynwood System Evaluation Criteria
Reservoir and Booster Study
vi
SECTION 2
2 System Evaluation
Criteria
Four key categories of evaluation criterion were developed to evaluate the City’s need for a new storage reservoir and booster station . As part of this evaluation, supply reliability was also analyzed. The four key categories are Demand Projections, Supply Reliability, Storage and Booster Pumps.
2.1 Evaluation Criteria
The criteria used for demand projections and supply reliability analysis are outlined in Table 2-1. For additional information on demand projections, please see the City’s 2015 UWMP.
Table 2-2 and Table 2-3 outline the accepted standards and evaluation criteria used for storage reservoirs and booster pumps, respectively.
IN THIS SECTION
Evaluation Criteria
Peaking Factors
459
City of Lynwood System Evaluation Criteria
Reservoir and Booster Study
vii
Table 2-1. Demand Projection and Supply Reliability Criteria Purpose Regulation or
Reference
Engineering and Planning Criteria
Future System
Demand1
2015 UWMP and
California Senate Bill
x7-7 (SB x7-7) 2
Calculate Buildout demand from:
(1) Buildout Population Projection from the Southern
California Association of Governments
(2) Conservations goals set by SB x7-7
Reliable Supply California Waterworks
Standards
City Preference
Calculate reliable supply by determining system capacity with the City’s largest source out of service (known as “firm capacity”).
To improve reliability and provide the most cost -effective water service, the City desires to meet the above criteria using groundwater sources only unde r normal operating
conditions, supplemented by imported water under
emergency conditions.
Source Capacity California Waterworks
Standards
System must be able to meet maximum daily demand
(MDD) with source capacity only, considering the
reliability requirements identified above.
System must be able to meet four hours of Peak Hour
Demand (PHD) with source capacity and storage capacity.
System Pressure City Preference Pressure shall remain between 56-60 psi.
Table 2-2. Storage Criteria
Purpose Regulation or
Reference
Engineering and Planning Criteria
Operational
storage
California Waterworks
Standards
Peak hour demand for 4 hours minus reliable supply (firm capacity)
Fire flow
storage
California Fire Code
(Appendix B)
Volume required to supply a single fire flow event using the h ighest fire flow requirement in the water service area. (5,000 gpm for 5 hours)
Emergency
storage
AWWA M19: City
Preference and Risk
Tolerance
Six hours of MDD , based on the expected duration of
power outages in the summer
460
City of Lynwood System Evaluation Criteria
Reservoir and Booster Study
viii
Table 2-3. Booster Pump Criteria
Purpose Regulation or
Reference
Engineering and Planning Criteria
Reliable
Pumping
Capacity
California Waterworks
Standards and City
Preference
City Preference
Engineer’s Judgement
System without gravity storage must meet difference
between MDD and PHD or meet fire flow with the largest
booster pump out of service. Whichever is greater.
Due to the relatively flat topography in the vicinity of the City, it is not feasible to construct an elevated storage reservoir at a higher elevation. Therefore, a local storage facility will require a companion booster station to supply water from storage into the distribution system.
Booster stations should be equipped with an on -site
emergency backup generator and one spare pump (n+1
configuration) to improve the reliability of access to the stored water and considering the history of power outages in the area.
2.2 Peaking Factors
Maximum Day Demand (MDD) and Peak Hour Demand (PHD), known as peaking factors, are expressed as a multiple of the Average Day Demand (ADD) and are used for analysis of the City’s system. In an effort to determine current customized peaking factors, SCADA data was obtained from the City and reviewed.
The City provided SCADA data at 15-minute intervals from June 1st through August 21st, 2018 to cover the most recent high demand period. However, when comparing the SCADA data to the production data for the same Jun e through August period, it was found that the SCADA data indicated much lower water production than shown in the City’s production reports. Table 2-4 shows the SCADA data compared to production data. Based on this discrepancy, it was assumed that the available SCADA data was either incomplete or inaccurate, so it was not considered a reliable source to calculate peaking factors.
Table 2-4. SCADA Data Compared to Production Data
June July August1
2018 Monthly Production (AF) 464 513 508
2018 SCADA Production Data (AF) 370 406 3981
Difference (AF) 94 107 110
Difference (%) 20.3 20.9 21.7
1. Pro-rated data to account for a 21 day data range in a 31-day month
461
City of Lynwood System Evaluation Criteria
Reservoir and Booster Study
ix
Therefore, peaking factors from the 2005 WMP were considered. These factors were compared to recent peaking factors used by neighboring agencies, such as Liberty Park Water and California American Water.
The peaking factors in the 2005 WMP were similar to those used by neighboring agencies and were found to be reasonable for use in this analysis. The peaking factors used in this analysis are presented in Table 2-5.
Table 2-5. Peaking Factors
Purpose Engineering and
Planning Criteria
MDD Factor 1.8 x ADD
PHD Factor 2.7 x ADD
462
City of Lynwood Existing and Future Demand
Reservoir and Booster Study
x
SECTION 3
3 Existing and Future
Demand
This section discusses the existing and future (year 2040) demands for the City.
3.1 Existing Demands
Existing demands for the City’s system have been calculated using an average of the available historical water production data. Through review and analysis of the historical water production data in Section 1.4, it was determined that an average of the last four years (2015- 2018) would provide the best representation of existing demands within the City for use in this analysis. As shown in Figure 1-2, the production dropped off in 2015 and has remained consistent through 2017, and is likely reflective of a permanent lowering of demands in response to recent conservation regulations, which will be even more stringent in the coming years .
Table 3-1 summarizes the existing demands and Table 3-2 summarizes the peaked demands used for the existing demands in this analysis.
Table 3-1. 2015 to 2017 Average Demands
Year (ADD)
AFY MGD gpm
2015 5,364 4.79 3,372
2016 5,054 4.51 3,177
2017 5,282 4.72 3,320
2017 5,398 4.82 3,393
Average 5,274 4.71 3,315
IN THIS SECTION
Existing Demands
Future Demand
Projection
463
City of Lynwood Existing and Future Demand
Reservoir and Booster Study
xi
Table 3-2. Existing Peaked Demands Used for Analysis
ADD MDD PHD
Demand (MGD) 4.71 8.45 12.67
Demand (gpm) 3,315 5,948 8,922
3.2 Future Demand Projections
The 2015 UWMP utilized a demand projection methodology developed to comply with the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X 7-7), which established a goal to reduce water consumption by 20 percent by the year 2020. This methodology incorporated historical per capita water use and developed reduced per capita water use targets to be applied to projected population. More information on these calculations can be found in the 2015 UWMP. The 2015 UWMP demand projections are summarized i n Table 3-3.
Table 3-3. 2015 UWMP Projected Demands
Year ADD (AFY) ADD (MGD)
2020 5,986 5.34
2025 6,041 5.39
2030 6,096 5.44
2035 6,152 5.49
2040 6,208 5.54
There are several near- term planned projects within the City, including residential and commercial developments as well as permitted commercial cannabis cultivation properties. The demands from these potential new customers were calculated and then added to the 3 -year average (2015-2017) demand to estimate the potential 2020 demands with these developments in place. Table 3-4 summarizes these calculations. The calculated 2020 demand estimates were then compared to the projected demands from the 2015 UWMP to determine if the demand of these prospective customers could be accommodated within the UWMP demand projections. The calculated 2020 demands were estimated to be 5,551 AFY, which is significantly lower than the 2015 UWMP 2020 demand projections of 5,986 AFY. Furthermore, development unit data for years beyond 2020 were not available. Therefore, it was determined that the demands from these planned projects are captured within the 2015 UWMP projections and no adjustments to the projections are needed. For the purposes of this analysis, the demand projections from the 2015 UWMP will be utilized as it is the more conservative approach. 464
City of Lynwood Existing and Future Demand
Reservoir and Booster Study
xii
Table 3-4. Planned Projects Calculated 2020 Demands
Site
Number Customer Site Use
Description Unit Unit Type
Demand
Factor
(gpd/unit)
Demand
(AFY)
1 Plaza Mexico -
Residential
Residential
Units 370 DU 2521 104
1 Plaza Mexico -
Retail Retail 28,000 sqft 0.131 4
2 Atlantic Affordable
Housing
Residential
Units 70 DU 3001 24
3 Veterans housing Residential
Units 600 DU 2521 169
4 Northgate Market Retail 50,000 sqft 0.131 7
5 Car Wash on
Imperial Car Wash 400 weekly
vehicles
902 6
6 Residential
Subdivision
Residential
Units 13 DU 2521 4
7 ADUs ADUs DU 1123 X 4
8 Cannabis Growers Cannabis
License, or
45,000 sqft
building, or
10,000 sqft
of
cultivation
area
2,7405 X5
Planned Project Total Demand 318
Existing Demand (3-year average) 5,233
Calculated 2020 Demand 5,551
1 WSC compared multiple other agencies’ demand factors from previously published studies and assumed the most comparable demand factors to the City’s come from the City of Paso Robles’ 2014 Water Master Plan.
2 Demand factor of 90 gallons per vehicle from http://www.carwashmag.com/issues/mar- 2011/environment.cfm
3 Demand Factor from Soquel Creek Water District New Applicant Water Demand Offset Form. 4 An estimate of Average Dwelling Units ( ADU’s) was not provided and therefore, a demand could not be estimated. However, it would take 3,321 ADUs to make up the gap between the total projected demand and the 2015 UWMP’s 2020 demand of 5,986, which is not considered realistic. 5 Based on information from City staff member, Kristan Lloyd, provided by email on November 14, 2018. Assumptions are that an average licensee would use about 1,000,000 gallons per year based on 10,000 sqft of a 45,000 sqft building being used for cultivation, where there are 720 lights and
10.5 plants per light, totaling 7,560 plants. Plants use 0.3 gallons per plant per day, yielding 827,800 gallons per year plus other water uses such as bathro oms, kitchens, manufacturing, offices, etc., totaling approximately 1,000,000 gallons per year. An estimate of cannabis units was not provided and therefore, a demand could not be estimated. However, it would take 142 licenses for 10,000 sqft of cultivatio n area to make up the gap between the total projected demand and the 2015 UWMP’s 2020 demand of 5,986, which is not considered realistic. 465
City of Lynwood Existing and Future Demand
Reservoir and Booster Study
xiii
When sizing a new reservoir for a system like the City’s it is prudent to consider the long- term future demands of the system because the City is near buildout . It is anticipated that the next reservoir will be the last new reservoir ever needed, except for replacements when reservoirs the reach end of their useful life. T herefore, this analysis consider demands for the existing and 2040 scenarios. Table 3-5 presents the projected 2040 demands as well as the peaked demands that will be used in the analysis.
Table 3-5. Projected 2040 Demands Used for Analysis
ADD MDD PHD
Demand (AFY) 6,208 - -
Demand (MGD) 5.54 9.94 14.91
Demand (gpm) 3,849 6,905 10,358
466
xiv
SECTION 4
4 Reservoir and
Booster Analysis
This section discusses the supply, storage, and booster pump analysis based on the criteria described in Section 2.
4.1 Supply Reliability Analysis
As discussed in Introduction, the City has two sources of supply; groundwater and imported water. However, the City’s goal is to utilize only groundwater sources for supply under normal conditions, saving imported water for emergencies only . According to WRD’s online Water Rights Calculator the City of Lynwood has 1,756.70 acre -feet of potential unused pumping (3). For this supply analysis, only groundwater supplies are compared to the existing and future demands. As discussed in Section 2 , the evaluation criteria require that the water system meet MDD with the largest source of supply out of service. This is known as firm capacity. It is assumed that Well 22, which is drille d but not yet equipped, will be operational before the year 2040 and therefore, it is included in the 2040 future system firm capacity. Table 4-1 shows the firm capacity for the for the existing system to be 3,300 gpm (4.75 MGD) and 5,265 (7.58 MGD) for the future 2040 system.
IN THIS SECTION
Supply Reliability
Analysis
Storage Analysis
Booster Pump Capacity
Analysis
Recommended System
Improvements
467
xv
Table 4-1. Firm Capacity
Well Status Tested Capacity
(gpm)1
Existing Firm
Capacity2
(gpm)
2040 Firm
Capacity2
(gpm)
Well No. 5 Active 549 549 549
Well No. 8 Active 1,021 1,021 1,021
Well No. 9 Active 1,014 1,014 1,014
Well No. 11 Active 716 716 716
Well No. 19 Active 1,965 - 1,965
Well No. 223 Future 2,500 - -
Existing Firm Capacity 3,300
2040 Firm Capacity 5,265
1. Based on Southern California Edison Tests conducted in 2018, except for Well No. 22 (see note 3).
2. Firm Capacity is the system supply capacity with the largest well out of service.
3. Well No. 22 is drilled but not equipped, capacity of new well will be 2,500 gpm per 2015 City of Lynwood UWMP. It is assumed Well No. 22 will be equipped and operational prior to the 2040 scenario.
Comparing the firm capacity to the MDD determines whether there is a supply surplus or shortage. Table 4-2 shows that there is an existing supply shortage of 2,648 gpm. Once Well No. 22 is equipped, the supply shortage will be reduced to 148 gpm. Due to the rather small shortage, the City could elect to supplement supplies with imported water in the short term as desired and/or needed to ensure reliability. However, Table 4-2 shows that even with the equipping of Well No. 22, there will be a shortage of 1,640 gpm in the 2040 scenario. To resolve the future deficit, this analysis assumes that the City will drill and equip a future Well No. 23 with an assumed capacity of 2,000 gpm based on the capacity of the City’s newer wells in this area. This would provide the City with a supply surplus of 360 gpm in the 2040 scenario.
Table 4-2. Supply Reliability
Scenario MDD
(gpm)
Firm
Capacity
(gpm)
Surplus /
Shortage
(gpm)
New
Supply
Well
Added
Supply
New Surplus /
Shortage
Supply
Existing 5,948 3,300 -2,648 1 2,5001 -148
2040 6,905 5,265 -1,640 1 2,0002 360
1. Well No 22 is assumed to be online before the year 2040 with a capacity of 2,500 gpm.
2. A future Well No. 23 is assumed to have a capacity of 2,000 gpm. 468
City of Lynwood Reservoir and Booster Analysis
Reservoir and Booster Study
16 4.2 Storage Analysis
The City currently has one 3 MG reservoir that provides stored supply to the system as needed. This reservoir is located below grade and includes a companion booster station to supply water from the reservoir into the distribution system. The criteria of the storage components are described in Section 2.
This analysis compares existing storage volumes to required storage, which consists of components known as operational, fire flow, and emergency storage.
Table 4-3 presents a storage analysis considering the City’s existing firm capacity of 4.75 MGD (3,300 gpm). The analysis shows that the existing 3 MG reservoir is not of sufficient volume due to the storage requirements of 4.93 MG in the existing scenario and 5.68 MG in the 2040 scenario. There is a minimum need for 2.68 MG of additional storage. Table 4 -3 demonstrates that the construction of a 2. 75 MG reservoir would alleviate the existing 1.9 3 MG shortage and would also provide for 0. 07 MG of surplus through the 2040 scenario.
If the City elects to develop additional groundwater supplies with the equipping of Well No. 22 and construction of a new Well No. 23, with the respective capacities of 2,500 gpm and 2,000 gpm, then the required operational storage decreases due to the increase in firm capacity. Table 4-3 presents a storage analysis based on an increased firm capacity of 7.58 MGD (5,265 gpm) from Well No. 22 in the existing scenario and 10.46 MGD (7,265 gpm) with addition of Well No . 23 in the 2040 scenario. The analysis shows that the existing 3 MG reservoir is not of sufficient volume due to the storage requirements of 4.46 MG in the existing scenario and 4.73 MG in the 2040 scenario. There is a minimum need for 1.73 MG of additional storage. Table 4-4 demonstrates that the c onstruction of a smaller 2.0 MG reservoir would alleviate the existing 1.46 MG shortage and would also provide for 0.27 MG of surplus through the 2040 scenario.
Based on the analysis in this section, it is reasonable to construct a new reservoir as small as 1.73 MG and as large as 4.73 MG. With the construction of a new 1.73 MG reservoir the minimum amount of storage could be achieved when combined with the existing 3.0 MG reservoir , provided that a new Well 23 is added and can supply 2,000 gpm. If the City desired to not rely on the existing reservoir due to concerns over age, condition or redundancy , then a new 4.73 MG reservoir would be required. A new 4.73 MG reservoir could be constructed with multiple cells to allow for periodic maintenance related shutdowns.
The selected size of the future reservoir take s City goals, risk tolerance, and site constraints into consideration and is discussed further in Section 4.4.
469
17 Table 4-3. Storage Analysis
Scenario
Demands (MGD) Supply (MGD) Storage Requirements (MG)1 Storage Analysis (MG) New Storage (MG) ADD MDD PHD Firm Capacity Operational Emergency Fire
Flow Total Storage
Volume
Surplus /
Shortage
Added
Storage
Surplus /
Shortage
Existing 4.71 8.45 12.67 4.75 1.32 2.11 1.50 4.93 3.00 -1.93 2.75 0.82 2040 5.54 9.94 14.91 4.75 1.69 2.49 1.50 5.68 5.75 0.07 - - 0.07
1. Operational Storage = 4 hours PHD minus firm capacity, Emergency Storage = 6 hours MDD, Fire Flow = 5,000 gpm for 5 hours
Table 4-4. Storage Analysis with Additional Groundwater Supplies Scenario
Demands (MGD) Supply (MGD) Storage Requirements (MG)1. Storage Analysis (MG) New Storage (MG) ADD MDD PHD Firm Capacity Operational Emergency Fire
Flow Total Storage
Volume
Surplus /
Shortage
Added
Storage
Surplus /
Shortage
Existing 4.71 8.45 12.67 7.58 0.85 2.11 1.50 4.46 3.00 -1.46 2.00 0.54 2040 5.54 9.94 14.91 10.46 0.74 2.49 1.50 4.73 5.00 0.27 - - 0.27
1. Operational Storage = 4 hours PHD minus firm capacity, Emergency Storage = 6 hours MDD, Fire Flow = 5,000 gpm for 5 hours
470
City of Lynwood Reservoir and Booster Analysis
Reservoir and Booster Study
18 4.3 Booster Pump Capacity Analysis
Because system storage is not elevated, the City’s booster pumping facilities must always be capable of supplying the difference between MDD and PHD or the single highest fire flow demand with the largest pump out of service ; this is known as booster pump firm capacity. This will require standby power or auxiliary engine drivers for the boosters due to the lack of elevated storage and history of power outages in the City . This analysis includes booster pumps only and it should be noted that the capacity of the production wells, which also supply water directly into the distribution system, has been allocated to meet MDD as discussed in Section 4.1. As described in Section 1.2, the City has three boosters, located at the 3 MG reservoir and Table 4-5 shows an existing booster pump firm capacity of 2,445 gpm.
Table 4-5. Booster Pump Firm Capacity
Booster Pump
No. Status
Tested
Capacity
(gpm)1
Existing Firm
Capacity (gpm)1
R1 – B1 Existing 1,231 1,231
R1 – B2 Existing 1,214 1,214
R1 – B3 Existing 1,447 -
Existing Pump Capacity 3,892 2,445
1. Firm Capacity is the system supply capacity with the largest pump out of service.
Booster capacity is evaluated by comparing the above firm capacity to either the difference between PHD and MDD or the fire flow, whichever is greater. In this case, the FF requirement governs and is applied in this analysis. Table 4-6 demonstrates that there is a shortage of 2,555 gpm in the existing system.
Table 4-6. Existing Booster Pump Capacity Analysis
Scenario
Criteria
(gpm)
Controlling
Requirement
(gpm)
Booster Summary
(gpm)
PHD -MDD FF1 FF1 Firm
Capacity
Surplus /
Shortage
Existing 2,974 5,000 5,000 2,445 -2,555
1. Highest system fire flow requirement = 5,000 gpm for 5 hours (1.5 MG total volume).
The construction of an additional booster station will accompany the construction of the new storage reservoir discussed in Section 4.2. The new booster station could be constructed in an n+1 configuration where one booster remains on standby in case of an emergency or maintenance event, providing the City with operational redundancy and flexibility.
It is reasonable to construct the future booster station with similar sized pumps and motors as found at the existing booster station. Three 1,300 gpm booster pumps in a 2+1 configuration would allow for a 471
City of Lynwood Reservoir and Booster Analysis
Reservoir and Booster Study
19 reliable 2,600 gpm of boosting capacity with one pump on stand -by. Table 4-7 demonstrates that the new booster station would increase the City’s booster firm capacity to 5,045 gpm and thus meeting the 5,000 gpm requirement. The firm capacity presented here is based on the largest pump at each booster station out of service.
Table 4-7. Future Booster Pump Firm Capacity
Booster
Pump No. Status
Tested
Capacity
(gpm)
New Existing
Firm Capacity
R1 - B1 Existing 1,231 1,231
R1 - B2 Existing 1,214 1,214
R1 - B3 Existing 1,447 -
R2 - B11 Proposed 1,300 1,300
R2 - B21 Proposed 1,300 1,300
R2 - B31 Proposed 1,300 -
Future Pump Capacity 7,792 5,045
1. Assumed capacity of proposed boosters at new reservoir to be 1,300 gpm.
4.4 Recommended System Improvements
As discussed above, the City desires to reduce its use of imported water relying more on groundwater supplies while continuing to provide safe reliable supplies for drinking water and fire protection. This section presents the recommended storage and booster station improvements that will support the City’s goals. The City has identified a portion of Yvonne Bur ke-John. D Ham Park (Ham Park) as the preferred site for the future improvements. Additional sites were screened as described in Section 5.1, and Ham Park was confirmed as the preferred site.
4.4.1 Recommended New Supplies
It is recommended that the City pursue the equipping of Well No. 22 in the near term in order to meet the firm capacity supply requirements identified in Section 4.1 . Additionally, the future drilling and equipping of Well No. 23 will be required in order to meet the firm capacity supply requirements of 2040.
Ideally, new wells would be constructed on existing City owned properties to avoid the added cost of land acquisition. It is assumed that Well No. 23 will be constructed at the Ham Park site along with the reservoir and booster station. Permitting and drilling requirements for an additional well are discussed in Section
5.3. 472
City of Lynwood Reservoir and Booster Analysis
Reservoir and Booster Study
20 4.4.2 Recommended New Storage
As discussed in Section 4.2 , additional storage is required in the near term. Based on the scenario presented in Table 4-4, the construction of a 2.0 MG storage reservoir will meet the storage demands of the City through the year 2040 while retaining 0.27 MG surplus. Another approach could be to consider constructing a 3.0 MG reservoir to match the existing reservoir storage volume. This would allow the City to retain the existing level of service being provided today during maintenance events when one of the
3.0 MG reservoirs would be offline. Both options are evaluated in this section.
There are three different types of reservoir construction that the City can consider: Elevated Storage, At Grade Storage, and Below Grade Storage.
4.4.2.1 Elevated Storage
Elevated storage would entail co nstructing a water storage reservoir on top of a structure tall enough to provide the desired pressures to the distribution system. In order to provide appropriate system minimum system pressure (56 – 60 psi), the low water level (LWL) of the reservoir wo uld have to be approximately 130-150 feet above ground surface (AGS). It is expected that an elevated reservoir of this size would be very costly due to seismic design requirements and may encounter permitting constraints due to the aesthetic impacts. As a result, it is assumed that elevated storage will not be pursued.
4.4.2.2 At Grade Storage
The City could elect to construct either a welded steel, bolted steel, or concrete reservoir at ground surface level. Based on an assumed maximum shell height of 32 fee t and a maximum operating level of 28 feet, Table 4-8 shows the required reservoir diameters for storage volumes of 2.00 MG,
2.75 MG, and 3.00 MG. At grade storage reservoirs would require a companion booster station to pump water into the distribution system.
Table 4-8. At Grade Storage Reservoirs
Storage
Volume
(MG)
Storage
Volume
(ft3)
Height of
Reservoir
(ft)
High Water
Level
(ft)
Diameter
Required
(ft)
2.00 267,361 32 28.5 109
2.75 367,622 32 28.5 128
3.00 401,042 32 28.5 134
An at grade reservoir may also face permitting constraints due to the aesthetic impacts. An at grade reservoir at the Ham Park site would permanently occupy a large portion of the site currently used for recreation, which is not desirable to the City and also not in compliance with the required use of the site to meet the terms of a grant that was used to construct improvements at Ham Park. The City would need to find a different available site to place an at grade reservoir. 473
City of Lynwood Reservoir and Booster Analysis
Reservoir and Booster Study
21 4.4.2.3 Below Grade Storage
The City could also elect to construct a below grade reservoir which would reduce visual impacts and maintain the original use of most of the park site after construction; with only the well and booster facilities to be constructed above grade . The tank access hatch and vent will also be constructed at grade . Due to constructability, structural, corrosion , and maintenance concerns, concrete, rather than steel, is the most cost-effective material for below grade water storage reservoirs. There are generally two types of concrete reservoirs that can be constructed : (1) traditional cast-in-place concrete reservoirs and (2) prestressed concrete reservoirs , as described in American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard D110. Traditional concrete reservoirs can be constructed in various shapes (i.e., trapezoidal, rectangular, square, or circular), ho wever, require thicker walls resulting in additional concrete and steel to meet structural and seismic requirements. Below grade concrete reservoirs are most often AWWA Standard D110 prestressed concrete at this volume and size due to their ability to meet project-specific seismic and structural analysis at reasonable costs compared to at grade steel reservoirs.
The reservoir could be constructed in a circular configuration or in a rectangular or square configuration similar to the existing 3 MG Reservoir. It is assumed that a similar reservoir depth (21’) and working depth (17.5’) to the existing reservoir would be utilized.
Table 4 -9 shows the required diameters for circular reservoirs and the dimension for square reservoirs of 2.00 MG, 2.75 MG, and 3.00 MG volume capacity.
Table 4-9. Below Grade Reservoirs
Reservoir
Configuration
Storage
Volume
(MG)
Storage
Volume
(ft3)
Depth of
Reservoir
(ft)
Working
Depth
(ft)
Required
Dimension1
(ft)
Circular 2.00 267,361 25 21.5 126
Circular 2.75 367,622 25 21.5 148
Circular 3.00 401,042 25 21.5 154
Square 2.00 267,361 25 21.5 112
Square 2.75 367,622 25 21.5 131
Square 3.00 401,042 25 21.5 137
1. Circular Dimension = Diameter, Square Dimension = Length and Width
474
City of Lynwood Reservoir and Booster Analysis
Reservoir and Booster Study
22 4.4.3 Recommended New Booster Facilities
Due to the flat topography of the City and lack of suitable area to construct storage facilities at elevated locations, the new reservoir is assumed to be constructed at or below grade wit hin the City and will require the construction of new companion booster station at the same time. The new booster station would be constructed adjacent to the proposed reservoir at ham Park and would boost water supplies into the distribution system at the required pressures identified in Section 2.1.
Three 1,300 gpm booster pumps in a 2+1 configuration would be constructed allow for a reliable 2,600 gpm of boosting capacity with one pump on stand-by and an ultimate capacity of 3,900 gpm.
475
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
23 SECTION 5
5 Conceptual Site
Layout
5.1 Site Screening
WSC screened preliminary locations as potential sites for the future reservoir, booster station, and well. This preliminary screening analysis considered the following factors: sites must be large enough to house at least a 2.00 MG reservoir (considering the construction buffer required), must be sited to reduce impacts to the local community both during and post construction, and must provide a distributed sup ply and capacity within the City’s greater system. Additional siting constraints will need to be considered during future preliminary design including but not limited to: utility conflicts and impacts, disruption of nearby residential communities, and environmental impacts.
The site screening was limited to parcels owned by the City to avoid additional project costs for land acquisition. The City currently owns 37 sites of varying size and shape which are dispersed within the City limits. Of the 37 total sites only four (4) are large enough to locate a
2.00 MG reservoir, booster station, and well without additional property acquisition. The sites evaluated as a part of this Study are presented in Table 5-1 and shown in Figure 5-1.
Table 5-1. Potential Sites Evaluated for Screening
Site Name Nearest
Crossroads
APN(s) Available
Area
(acres)
Description
Lynwood
City Park
Martin Luther
King Jr. Blvd &
Bullis Rd
6173-021-900
6173-022-901
32.49 Located in north-central portion of the City
houses open soccer and baseball fields,
community center, swimming pool, skate park,
and other community assets
Carnation
Park
(traffic circle)
Los Flores Blvd &
State Street
6170-022-901 0.91 Small circular park bound by the traffic circle at the junction of Los Flores Blvd and State Street
Rose Park
(traffic circle)
Flower Street &
State Street
6169-009-900 0.91 Small circular park bound by the traffic circle at the junction of Flower Street and State Street
Yvonne
Burke-John
D. Ham Park
Atlantic Avenue &
Josephine Street
6189-019-903 to 929
6186-036-900 to 913
9 Large park in the southeast portion of the City
houses open baseball, recreation fields,
basketball courts, and community center
IN THIS SECTION
Site Screening
Preliminary
Conceptual Design
Permitting and
Constructability
Considerations
Recommended Next
Steps
476
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
24 Figure 5-1. Reservoir Site Screening Locations
477
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
25 A brief consideration of each site presented in Table 5-1. Potential Sites Evaluated for Screeningis provided as follows.
5.1.1 Lynwood City Park
The Lynwood City Park is located across from City Hall and is the primary site for City recreation services.
The park contains several spaces large enough to site a reservoir, booster station, and well including the baseball fields on the western portion of the site and the soccer fields in the central portion of the site. A subsurface reservoir would allow for future recreation to continue, however, there would be significant temporary construction -phase impacts to the park and the City’s recreation services. The existing reservoir is already located at the site beneath the basketball courts in the eastern portion of the park along Bullis Road. Co-locating a second reservoir at the site would result in a concentration of supply and storage facilities at the same place in the water system . Separating the future reservoir and booster station from existing facilities would allow for a more dispersed s upply and storage across the City’s distribution system , which provides more supply reliability and redundancy in the case of a localized power outage, water main break or other emergency. Due to the potential for significant impacts to the City’s recreation services and the preference for separating the new facilities from existing facilities, this site is considered a low priority and therefore is not considered further in the conceptual design (Conceptual Design).
5.1.2 Carnation Park and Rose Park (traffic circles)
The Carnation Park and Rose Park are combined together due to their similarities. Both sites are contained within traffic circles along State Street. Each site is listed as approximately 39,457 square feet (0.91 acres) and are approximately 224 feet in diameter . These sites , while being an inconspicuous place to have a subsurface circular reservoir, would present numerous constructability issues and likely drive up the cost.
Due to the small area of the site, it is expected that construction impacts to the traffic circle and nearby neighborhoods would be too severe to warrant pursuing unless there were no other viable alternative locations. The sites are also only large enough to locate a 2.00 to 3.00 MG reservoir. The booster station would either need to be located subsurface as well (beneath the road or nearby median) or constructed on top of the subsurface reservoir and the well would need to be sited elsewhere altogether . Due to these constraints, it is not likely either of these two sites would be viable options and therefore are not considered further in the conceptual design (Conceptual Design). 478
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
26 5.1.3 Yvonne Burke-John D. Ham Park
Yvonne Burke-John D. Ham Park (Ham Park) is approximately 9.8 acres total and is located in the southeast portion of the City’s service area. The park includes an open grass area in the south ; an 8,680 sq. ft Community Center, parking lot, basketball court, and playground in the center; and a baseball field in the north (Figure 5-2. Conceptual Site Layout ). Ham Park is a sufficient size and location for the proposed reservoir, booster station, and well. If the reservoir and booster station were to be sited within the open grass area to the south this would allow for the City to maintain current recreation activities associated with the baseball fields on the northern portion of the park and potentially expand recreation services in this area in the future. The Ham Park site also allows the City to distribute their storage and supply facilities by locating this away from existing reservoirs and booster stations, which provides more supply reliability and redundancy in the case of a localized power outage, water main break or other emergency.
Given these benefits, the City has preliminarily identified Ham Park is as the preferred location. Further evaluation performed as a part of the conceptual design ( Conceptual Design) assumes that the future reservoir, booster station and well will be sited at Ham Park.
479
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
27 5.2 Conceptual Design
As discussed in Recommended System Improvements, the recommended system improvements include a new well, storage reservoir, and booster station facilities. This section presents recommended conceptual site layout and preliminary design considerations at the Ham Park site.
5.2.1 Design Considerations
5.2.1.1 Well Design Considerations
As presented in Recommended New Supplies, it is recommended the City pursue development and equipping of a future Well No. 23 to meet future capacity requirements. A draft well design will be required for the well permitting phase (see requirements listed under Well Permitting Considerations). Once the appropriate permits and applications have been submitted and approved using the draft well design, a pilot hole is drilled during the exploratory phase to collect data on the lithology of the formation. This data is used to develop the final well design and will dictate well features such as final depth, screening interval, screening size, and annular seal depth.
A conceptual layout of the well location at the Ham Park site is provided in Conceptual Site Layout.
Well materials such as blank casing, louvered screen, gravel feed tube, and sounding tube are commonly constructed of ASTM A778 316L stainless steel materials to increase the life of the well.
At a minimum, ASTM 139 High Strength, Low Alloy (HSLA) steel may be considered as a cost- effective alternative to 316L Stainless Steel.
The casing diameter of the well s hould be large enough to provide adequate installation and safe operation of the pump, and it should be sufficient to enable up hole velocity of 5ft/sec or less, to minimize friction loss. As presented in Section 4.1, the target capacity for the Well 23 is anticipated to be approximately 2,000 gpm, which corresponds to an optimal casing size of between 20 and 24 inches inside diameter (ID) and a nominal 1 4- or 16 -inch pump bowl. A gravel envelope and louvered screen will ultimately be sized depending on t he lithology recorded during drilling of the pilot hole.
To provide additional protection against migration of surface contaminants, a deep annular cement seal is typically installed from ground surface to at least 50 feet below ground surface ( BGS), but sometimes further. The final depth of the annular cement seal will be determined based on the results of borehole drilling, geophysical borehole logging, and water quality testing during the exploratory phase. This annular seal is to be installed in multiple lifts to avoid collapsing the casing during installation.
Several accessory tubes are typically installed in wells and include several gravel fill pipes which penetrate through the annular cement seal and a sounding pipe to measure water line level. These are typically constructed of 2- to 3-inch nominal stainless-steel piping. 480
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
28 5.2.1.2 Reservoir Design Considerations
Recommended New Storage looked at elevated, at grade, and below grade storage. Elevated and at grade reservoirs will have additional seismic design requirements, permitting constraints from aesthetic impacts, and undesirable impacts on community and recreation opportunities offered by Ham Park. Therefore, the City prefers to pursue a below grade reservoir. A conceptual layout of the reservoir location at the Ham Park site is provided in Conceptual Site Layout . Below grade concrete reservoirs are most often prestressed concrete at this size and volume due to their ability to meet project-specific seismic and structural analysis at reasonable costs compared to at grade steel reservoirs.
Prestressed concrete reservoirs in the 2.00 to 3.00 MG range are typically constructed with a sidewall height of about 25 to 35 feet. Below Grade Storage assumed a sidewall height of 25 feet which included approximately 3.5 feet of freeboard (to be determined upon future structural analysis) and 28.5 feet of water volume. The thickness of the walls, roof and floor will be determined based on site- specific conditions. Special considerations such as traffic loads and/or high soil loads from deeper burial depth will result in increased thickness and a higher construction cost.
Considering the typical roof and floor thickness, a typical burial depth of approximately 2 feet (i.e., depth to top of roof), and subgrade depth (e.g., subgrade typically consists of permeable aggregate and permeated drain pipes) the minimum required excavation depth to the bottom of the reservoir subgrade is assumed to be approximately 31 feet, plus any additional over excavation and re - compaction recommended in the geotechnical report for the project to provide a stable subgrade.
Excavation considerations are discussed further in Permitting and Constructability Considerations.
Additional protection measures may be required to protect the subsurface reservoir from surface irrigation and other potentially contaminating activities as described in Reservoir Regulatory Considerations.
Based on review of publicly available data through the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker website (4) and a geotechnical report prepared prior to design of the Ham Park Community Center (dated September 28, 2007) (5) it is expected that groundwater would be encountered around 34 feet BGS. More accurate groundwater data is recommended to be collected during future geotechnical investigations and analysis to be performed during the preliminary design phase. While previous geotechnical data may be used in an updat ed report, there are likely data gaps that will need to be identified and addressed in an updated investigation specific to the proposed facilities. The investigation may require additional soil borings depending on the extent of previous investigation to identify subsurface soil conditions, provide recommendations for excavations, adequately specify suitable import soils or remediation of existing soils, collect groundwater elevation data, and inform structural and earthwork design. 481
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
29 5.2.1.3 Booster Station and Well Building Design Considerations As discussed in Section 4.4.3, it is recommended the City design and install three 1,300 gpm booster pumps in a 2+1 configuration. T he booster pumps would likely be housed within a concrete masonry unit (CMU) building to attenuate noise, reduce visual impacts and deter vandalism. The CMU building would also likely house necessary electrical and instrumentation control equipment for the reservoir and booster station.
The well is assumed to be sited in a different area of the site within its own CMU building. Along with the well pump, motor, mechanical piping, etc., this building would have independent electrical, instrumentation, and controls systems as well as chemical feed equipment for disinfection. If there was the need for additional treatment beyond disinfection, the well building would be sized to accommodate the additional equipment, or a separate adjacent building would be constructed depending on City preference.
A conceptual layout of the booster station and well building locations at the Ham Park site is provided in the Conceptual Site Layout (Figure 5-2. Conceptual Site Layout).
In order to construct a booster station, well and possible treatment system, a future preliminary design report is recommended, and would include pump selection and sizing along with pressure surge analysis based on the selected pumps. A project specific geotechnical report is also recommended in c onjunction with design of the storage facility (see Reservoir Design Considerations). The preliminary design will also need to c onsider additional evaluation of emergency operational scenarios.
5.2.2 Conceptual Site Layout
Figure 5-2. Conceptual Site Layout shows a proposed layout of the reservoir, booster station and well.
The reservoir and booster station are shown located at the southern portion of the Ham Park site. The reservoir structure itself is expected to be completely buried, however, a maintenance access hatch and vent will be located on the roof and above ground surface. Ventilation is required to allow for airflow to fluctuate in and out of the reservoir as the water level changes. A vent will be sized during future design and is dependent on the final reservoir volume and rate of water flow. Maintenance access hatches are typically as small as 4 -ft by 4 -ft for personnel and small equipment or as large as 8 -ft by 8 -ft for larger pieces of equipment. During a meeting with the City on May 9, 2019, it was decided that locating the reservoir and booster station to the south would allow the City to pursue near term construction of a soccer complex project in the northern half of the s ite. The City owns the parcels to the north adjacent to Interstate I-105 which provide a convenient location for the future well site. To minimize the impacts to the south of the site and the nearby residences to the extent possible, it was decided to separate the well site from the reservoir and booster station site. The City indicated the well project would also likely be pursued as a separate project and would not be on the same timeline as the reservoir and booster station components. It is expected the well site will include its own facilities such as backup power generation, chemical treatment, piping, electrical equipment, and site development. 482
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
30 Figure 5-2. Conceptual Site Layout
483
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
31 5.2.3 Preliminary Schedule
Given the size and complexity of the reservoir and booster station project, it is anticipated the schedule from start of the design and permitting to the completion of construction is expected to take approximately 34 months. The design and permitting will take 1 4 months, the bidding and contracting phase will take 3 months, and construction will occur in the remaining 26 months. The City indicated that the well project would likely be pursued separately from the reservoir and booster station. Figure 5-3 presents an approximate project timeline for the reservoir and booster station project.
Figure 5-3. Reservoir and Booster Station Project Preliminary Timeline
It is anticipated the reservoir and booster station project will take about 34 months from preliminary design through construction. The well project is depicted in a separate timeline presented in Figure 5-4.
Figure 5-4. Well Project Preliminary Timeline
Reservoir and Booster Station Project
Tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
1.0 Design and Permitting
1.01 Geotechnical Investigation
1.02 CEQA and Environmental
1.03 Permitting
1.04 Design
1.05 City Design Review and Bid Preparation
2.0 Construction
2.01 Bid Phase
2.02 Contracting
2.03 Submittals and Material Lead Time
2.04 Mobilization
2.05 Site Preparation, Clearing, Grubbing, and Demolition
2.07 Reservoir Construction
2.08 Booster Station and Treatment Building Construction
2.09 Electrical Site Work
2.10 Disinfection, Testing, Startup, and Commissioning
2.11 Grading, Paving, and Site Restoration
2.12 Project Closeout and Demobilization
Estimated Project Schedule (Months)
Well Project
Tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1.0 Well Design and Permitting
1.01 Well Permitting
1.02 Preliminary Well Design
1.03 Well Equipping Design
1.04 City Design Review and Bid Preparation
2.0 Well Pilot Hole Drilling
2.01 Bid Phase
2.02 Contracting
2.03 Mobilization
2.04 Site Preparation, Conductor Install, Pilot Hole
3.0 Well Equipping Construction
3.01 Bid Phase
3.02 Contracting
3.03 Submittals and Material Lead Time
3.04 Mobilization
2.06 Well Drilling and Development
3.07 Well Equiping and Well Building
3.08 Project Closeout and Demobilization
Estimated Project Schedule (Months)
484
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
32 It is anticipated the well project will take about 20 months from preliminary design through construction.
Since the well project is separate from the reservoir and booster station project both in location and scope this project can occur on its own timeline and concurrent with the other project. These schedules are for approximate and for planning purposes only, depicting the most conservative cases for each respective project and task. Design and permitting timelines as well as construction timeline s can be streamlined based on the City’s desires and needs, occurring within shorter time spans than are presented in Figures 5-3 and 5-4, resulting in shorter overall schedules.
5.2.4 Preliminary Estimate of Construction Cost
A preliminary planning level engineer’s opinion of project cost was prepared for this study which included construction as well as soft costs . This opinion of construction cost is based on an AACE International Class 4 level estimate with an accuracy range of -20 percent to +30 percent and a 25 percent construction contingency. As the project progresses into detailed design the amount of contingency will reduce, and the accuracy range will narrow. A large portion of the opinion of construction cost for the reservoir is based on budgetary level estimates provided by DN Tanks, an experienced concrete reservoir contractor, via email dated February 26, 2019 for the specific purposes of this project . The reservoir portion of the project is estimated at $2,700,000 for a 2.00 MG, 126 ft in ner diameter reservoir and a $3,600,000 for a
3.00 MG, 144 ft inner diameter reservoir, assuming 26 ft side water depth and 3.5 ft of freeboard for each reservoir. The 2.75 MG reservoir was estimated between these costs. These estimates are just for the reservoir structure itself and do not include items such as but not limited to mobilization, excavation and grading, backfill, appurtenances, piping, the booster station, and demobilization.
The remaining construction -related items were developed using recent construction -level estimates or bid tender-level engineer’s estimates for similar projects in the Southern California region. In addition to the contingency an escalation to mid -point of construction calculation was performed which was developed using ENR’s Construction Cost Index. Soft costs such as design, permitting, and environmental were estimated at 1 5 percent of the construction cost and construction administration and inspection were estimated at 10 percent of the construction cost. A summary of the costs associated with the various potential project options is provided in Table 5-2.
485
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
33 Table 5-2. Preliminary Engineers Opinion of Costs for Various Project Options Project1 Estimate of
Construction2 ($)
Estimate of
Soft Costs ($)
Estimate Total
($)
AACE Estimate Accuracy4
(+/- %)
-20% 30%
2.00 MG Reservoir
and Booster
Station
$9,796,000 $2,449,000 $12,245,000 $9,796,000 $15,918,500
2.75 MG Reservoir
and Booster
Station
$11,121,000 $2,781,000 $13,902,000 $11,121,600 $18,072,600
3.00 MG Reservoir
and Booster
Station
$11,427,000 $2,857,000 $14,284,000 $11,427,200 $18,569,200 Well and
Treatment System $2,616,000 $471,000 $3,087,000 $2,469,600 $4,013,100 Assumptions:
1. See Appendix 1 for a breakdown of unit costs for each project.
2. Construction estimates include construction contingency and escalation to mid-point of construction.
3. Soft costs include design, engineering, permitting, and environmental as well as construction administration and inspection.
4. The estimates included in this report are intended for a study/feasibility level effort to evaluate costs associated with the various projects. The estim ates are expected to match an AACE International Class 4 Estimate for project feasibility studies and reflects an approximate 10% or less design level. The expected accuracy range spans - 20% to +30% and is anticipated to narrow as the project moves from planning into design and eventually towards bid phase (full bid accuracy is assumed at -2% to +5%).
In the example of the 3.00 MG reservoir and booster station above, WSC estimates the project cost to be $14,284,000 with an estimate accuracy range of between $11,427,200 to $18,569,200. Variations in costs between the three reservoir sizes are mainly attributed to the excavation and required import fill material volumes as well as differences in costs to construct the reservoirs themselves based on the estimates from DN Reservoirs as discussed previously in this section . WSC estimates the well project to cost approximately $3,087,000. The breakdown of the construction and soft costs for each project are included as Appendix 1.
5.3 Permitting and Constructability Considerations
This section will discuss permitting and constructability considerations required for a project of this size and complexity. The project will have varying components from well installation to construction of a new below grade storage facility.
486
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
34 5.3.1 Well Permitting Considerations
5.3.1.1 Well Drilling Permit
Prior to construction, an approved well drilling permit will be required from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH). Based on prior experience, this permit takes approximately 2 weeks to obtain. Early coordination with the LACDPH and California State Water Resources Control Board Department D rinking Water (DDW) is highly recommended to confirm that the proposed location of the new well meets all setback requirements. This effort will likely include a site visit by local and/or state public health representatives, City personnel, and the consulting engineer and hydrogeologist.
The permit application shall include a plot plan showing the location of the new well with respect to various features within 500 feet of the well, a legal description of the property (including assessor’s parcel map), the location/classification of waste disposal sites within 2,000 feet of the well, and any other information requested by LACDPH.
5.3.1.2 WRD Watermaster Central Basin “Application to Drill Water Well” The proposed well would be located in the Central Basin o f which WRD is the appointed Watermaster. WRD does not have any additional permits outside of the permitting requirements by DDW and LACDPH. WRD does require the well be constructed with an appropriate meter for recording and reporting groundwater usage to WRD. WRD will work with the City when the well is brought online to ensure proper recording and reporting of the well production is occurring on a monthly basis.
5.3.1.3 Required Setbacks
The California Department of Water Resources and LACDPH require that certain minimum horizontal distances be maintained between a potable water supply well and specific activities and infrastructure which may present a sanitary hazard. These minimum setback requirements include the following:
• Dwelling: 25 feet
• Sanitary Sewer Line or Lateral: 50 feet
• Animal Enclosure, Sewer Manhole, Septic Tank, Pump Station, Ponds/Lakes/Streams: 100 feet
• Sewage Treatment Plant, Seepage Pit: 150 feet
• Percolation Basin and Petroleum Transmission Line: 500 feet • Sanitary, Industrial, and Storm Sewers: Case by Case Basis
The proposed location of the well will need to be further reviewed during detailed design with considering the minimum setback requirements to confirm that no sewer lines are installed within 50 feet of the well. Early coordination with the LACDPH is recommended to confirm the proposed design will be satisfactory.
487
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
35 5.3.1.4 Control Zone Requirement
The location of the proposed well will need to comply with the California Code of Regulations (CCR) control zone requirement whic h states that the area surrounding a new municipal water supply well must be under the control of the well owner to a radius of at least 50 feet. DDW may request submittal of a letter stating as such, and providing proposed measures that will be taken to protect the well and conform to the appropriate (i.e., Chapter 16, Title 22) CCR standards. Appropriate measures will typically take the form of security enclosures (such as fencing, block walls, and structures). The City will need to consider this requi rement when determining the size and configuration of the well site.
5.3.1.5 Drinking Water Source Assessment Program (DWSAP) Documentation In 1996, the F ederal Safe Drinking Water Act was amended to require each state to implement a Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) for public water systems. The primary purpose of the SWAP program is to promote source water protection by conducting assessments of those sources.
DDW administers this program in California under its Drinking Water Source Assessment Program (DWSAP). The DWSAP provides a proactive “multiple -barrier” approach to protecting drinking water sources by assessing Possible Contaminating Activities (PCAs) within protection area boundaries delineated for a particular source. An assessment of the actual drinking water source and its vulnerability to sources of contamination is also conducted. The ultimate goal of the DWSAP is to provide a baseline of information that will be used to prioritize and direct source water protection measures.
Prior to constru ction activities, preliminary DWSAP documents shall be prepared for the well to identify potential sources of contamination that could impact the water quality. Preparation of the permit documents requires identification of all PCAs within two -, five -, and ten -year protection zones for the replacement well. The protection zones will be delineated using one of the methods approved under the DWSAP. The zones will be shown in relation to PCAs and overlain on a USGS topographical map.
5.3.1.6 Water Supply Permit Amendment
DDW coordination is critical to begin at the onset of the project to ascertain well setback requirements, as described above, and begin discussions to dete rmine conditions to acquire approval for amendment to the City’s existing DDW Domestic Water Supply Operating permit. An application for an amended domestic water supply permit shall be made as required by California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 12, Chapter 4 (California Safe Drinking Water Act), Section 116550.
488
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
36 It is our understanding that the City and/or its consultant will compile a complete submittal package and file it with DDW. The components of that permit application are summarized in the following list. As part of the permit application, preliminary plans, and specifications for the well drilling and construction should be submitted to DDW for review and comment. A Water Well Driller’s Report will be filed with the California Department of Water Resources by the drilling contractor and must be submitted upon completion. Preliminary and final DWSAP program documents will be prepared by the City and selected consultant and submitted to DDW, as necessary. Following construction of the new well and upon completion of aquifer testing, Title 22 ground water samples shall be collected for water quality analysis, the results of which must be submitted to DDW for review. The following are the components required in the DDW permit. • Completed Permit Amendment Application
• CEQA Documentation
• Well Drilling Specs (Construction Plans) including Surface Construction Features • Well Plot Plan (scale 1” = 50’) and a Completed Min. Horizontal Distances Table • Water Well Driller’s Report
• A Completed Well Data Sheet and Chlorination Data Sheet (if applicable) • Drinking Water Source Assessment Program (DWSAP) Documentation • Water Quality Reports
5.3.2 Reservoir Regulatory Considerations
A reservoir will require soil stability analysis provided by a licensed geotechn ical engineer along with a structural integrity, freeboard, and sloshing wave analysis provided by licensed structural engineer. All construction plans, geotechnical review, structural analysis, and specifications will require a stamp and signature from a licensed engineer and must be submitted for review and approval to DDW prior to construction. The CEQA process will also be required prior to or concurrent with the design phase as shown on the schedule presented in Preliminary Schedule.
5.3.2.1 DDW Permitting
A permit is likely to be required for the storage reservoir if the storage capacity is over 100,000 gallons. Per the requirements of Title 22, Chapter 16, Article 6 Se ction 64585 the below listed requirements for may also apply for subsurface reservoirs. • The City shall submit to the State Board for review the design drawings and specifications for each proposed distribution reservoir prior to its construction. • The reservoir shall be constructed to AWWA standards relevant to the application. For subsurface reservoirs, the most updated AWWA D -110 Wire-and Strand-Wound, Circular, Prestressed Concrete Water Tanks standard will apply.
• The reservoir shall be e quipped with drainage facilities that allow the tank to be drained and all residual sediment removed.
489
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
37 • The reservoir shall be equipped with an overflow device designed and constructed to prevent the entry of surface runoff, subsurface flow, or drainage into the reserv oir.
Although not specifically called out in Title 22, this shall also apply to irrigation via recycled water. It is not clear the required setbacks for recycled water use for subsurface reservoirs but recycled water usage directly on top of the reservoir or near air vents or access points will not be permitted.
• The reservoir shall include design elements to protect against flooding and shall include underdrain facilities to divert water in proximity of the reservoir away from the reservoir. • Shall be site d a minimum of 50 feet horizontally from a sanitary sewer and 100 feet horizontally from any other waste facilities and any force main. • The reservoir bottom shall be designed so that it is located above the highest anticipated groundwater level. This shal l be determined based on a site investigation that includes actual measurements of the groundwater level during peak rainfall and expected high groundwater periods.
• The facility shall include a minimum of two groundwater level monitoring wells drilled to a depth at least 20 feet below the reservoir bottom and sited within 100 feet and on opposite sides (upgradient and downgradient) of the reservoir.
• Additional water main separation requirements as detailed in Title 22 will also apply.
5.3.3 Constructability Considerations
While access to the site and size of the subgrade excavation are considered means and methods and will be left up to the eventual contractor, it is critical to success and delivery of the project to understand how the site and surrounding communi ty will be impacted during construction . This understanding will help navigate environmental constraints during the CEQA process as well as reduce risk in the eventual contract between the City and the selected contractor. T he excavation to subgrade will extend several feet below the sidewall height of the eventual reservoir to accommodate for construction of a suitable subgrade. Subgrade material typically consists of engineered fill compacted to a project -specific recommendation to be determined based on the results of a future geotechnical analysis . Upon establishment of the subgrade, a construction buffer zone of approximately a 10 ft around the reservoir footing will be required for construction. For the purposes of this report it was assumed that no shoring system will be installed and instead the excavation for reservoir construction will require a minimum 1:1 slope for safe working conditions and movement of materials in and out of the excavation . The sloping, construction buffer and reservoir diameter are all considered within the excavation limit impact zone shown on Figure 5-2. Conceptual Site Layout.
490
City of Lynwood Conceptual Site Layout
Reservoir and Booster Study
38 With an impact zone as large as the one estimated for this project, space is expected to be limited onsite.
Construction activities likely to be the most restricted may include: site demol ition and off haul of demolished materials, excavation and grading to subgrade elevations, transfer and temporary storage of excavation cuttings, import and export of materials, and construction of the reservoir including pouring of the floor slab and walls. Nearly 360-degree access around the reservoir will be required for pouring of membrane slab and walls. Accommodations for placement and temporary storage of the excavation spoils for eventual onsite reuse will need to be made. Further analysis may be required to ensure that spoils can be handled and temporarily stored within the site boundaries preventing the need for offsite spoils storage or off haul and disposal of materials which can add costs and increase traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods. Some of the spoils will be off hauled for disposal, while some will remain onsite for reuse (pending geotechnical recommendation), and some engineered material will be hauled to the site for use.
Additional analysis will be required during design particularly as it relates to the feasibility of the reservoir location in the southern portion of the Site. Offsets from sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and recycled water utilities will need to be considered. For the purposes of this report WSC had very limited background utility information and could not determine if rerouting of utilities would need to be required for the project to be feasible.
5.4 Recommended Next Steps
WSC has evaluated the need for a new storage reservoir and booster station and provided an analysis of the considerations for construction of a new reservoir, booster station, and well. A 2.00 MG to 3.00 MG reservoir and an additional 2,600 gpm of pumping capacity would sufficiently meet the City’s goals for the project by allowing t he City to maintain supply during future maintenance of their other reservoir; increase additional supply; and improve water management and flexibility . WSC recommends the City pursue additional water sources through installation and development of a new well to increase public safety and the reliability. In preparation for the project the City should begin taking the following steps:
1. Secure funding or financing necessary to deliver the project.
2. Gather preliminary site information including but not limited to : updated topographic survey, geotechnical investigation, and environmental review and permitting.
3. Contract a consulting design firm(s) with experience in designing water storage reservoirs, booster stations, and wells. Such firm(s) can assist w ith permitting, data collection, and various investigations before moving towards final design.
4. Contract a consulting firm with experience in construction administration and inspection to assist with delivery of the projects.
491
City of Lynwood References
Reservoir and Booster Study
A
SECTION 6
6 References
1. Parsons. Water System Master Plan and Water Distribution System GIS Map. 2005.
2. Stetson Engineers, Inc. City of Lynwood 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. 2016.
3. Water Replenishment District (WRD). Water Rights Calculator. [Online] https://rights.wrd.org/.
4. California State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. [Online] geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov.
5. Converse Consultants. Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed New Lynwood Ham Park.
Lynwood, California : s.n., 2007.
6. American Water Works Association. AWWA Manual M19, Fourth Edition. Emergency Planning for Water Utilities. 2001.
7. Rules and Regulations, Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District v. City of Alhambra, et al., ,. Los Angeles County : s.n., Revised 2013.
492
City of Lynwood Appendices
Reservoir and Booster Study
A
7 Appendices
List of Appendices:
Appendix 1. Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Project Costs
493
City of Lynwood Appendices
Reservoir and Booster Study
B
Appendix 1. Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
494
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost ‐ 3.00 MG Tank and Booster Station Project: Ham Park Reservoir and Booster Station
Client: City of Lynwood
Date: 5/29/2019
Estimate: AACE Class 4 Estimate (‐20% to +30%)
Estimate Task Unit Quantity Unit Price1 Extended Cost
General Items $546,255
Mobilization LS 3% $246,255 $246,255
Project Requirements, Temporary Facilities, Stormwater LS 1 $130,0 00 $130,000 Site Preparation, Clearing, Grubbing, and Demolition LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 Traffic Control and Community Outreach LS 1 $70,000 $70,000 New 3.00MG Prestressed Concrete Tank Items $5,685,500
Reservoir Excavation and Subgrade Preparation LS 1 $200,000 $200,00 0 Excavation Safety and Dewatering LS 1 $60,000 $60,000
Reservoir Construction LS 1 $4,140,000 $4,140,000
Export and Disposal of Onsite Soil TON 18,000 $40 $720,000 Imported Drain and Subbase Material CYD 4,100 $55 $225,500 Backfill and Grading LS 1 $300,000 $300,000
Monitoring Wells for Subsurface Tank LS 1 $40,000 $40,000 New Booster Station Items $2,359,600
Booster Station Construction LS 1 $1,117,600 $1,117,600 Pump Can Excavation and Install LS 1 $105,000 $105,000
Suction and Discharge Piping (Welded Steel) LS 1 $222,000 $222,000 Site Piping FT 800 $240 $192,000
Valves and Appurtenances LS 1 $70,000 $70,000
Pour Concrete and Slabs LS 1 $50,000 $50,000
Construct Building SQFT 700 $390 $273,000
Electrical Site Work LS 1 $330,000 $330,000
Other Site Work and Miscellaneous Items $163,400
Disinfection, Testing, Startup, and Commissioning LS 1 $50,000 $50, 000 Fine Grading LS 1 $50,000 $50,000
Site Restoration, Landscaping, Field Replacement LS 1 $33,400 $33,4 00 Project Closeout and Demobilization LS 1 $30,000 $30,000 Estimate Total, Soft Costs, and Contingencies
Estimate Item Subtotal $8,754,755
Escalation to Midpoint of Construction
2 5.52% percent $483,262 $9,238,017
Construction Contingency 25% percent $2,188,689 $11,426,706 TOTAL ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST $11,427,000
Design, Permitting, and Environmental 15% $1,714,050
Construction Administration and Inspection 10% $1,142,700 TOTAL ESTIMATE OF SOFT COSTS $2,857,000
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF PROJECT $14,284,000
AACE Estimate Accuracy (‐/+ %) 3 ‐20% to 30%
Anticipated Estimate Range $11,427,200 $18,569,200
Estimate of Soft Costs (Percent of Constrution Cost)
Assumptions:
1. Unit prices are based on assumptions of cost for March 2019 in the greater Southern California region. See Escalation to Midpoint of Construction.
2. Escalation to Midpoint of Construction assumes 24 months from onset of design and permitting phase. If significant time occurs between preparation of this estimate and the start of the design phase additional escalation may need to be accounted for (assume 2.5% to 3.0% per calendar year).
3. This estimate is for a study/feasibility level effort to evaluate costs associated with this project. This estimate is expected to match an AACE International Class 4 Estimate for project feasibility studies and reflects an approximate 10% design level. The expected accuracy range spans ‐20% to +30% and is anticipated to narrow as the bid phase approaches (full bid accuracy is assumed at ‐2% to +5%).
Estimate of Construction Costs
percent of construction
percent of construction
495
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost ‐ 2.75 MG Tank and Booster Station Project: Ham Park Reservoir and Booster Station
Client: City of Lynwood
Date: 5/29/2019
Estimate: AACE Class 4 Estimate (‐20% to +30%)
Estimate Task Unit Quantity Unit Price1 Extended Cost
General Items $539,421
Mobilization LS 3% $239,421 $239,421
Project Requirements, Temporary Facilities, Stormwater LS 1 $130,0 00 $130,000 Site Preparation, Clearing, Grubbing, and Demolition LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 Traffic Control and Community Outreach LS 1 $70,000 $70,000 New 2.75MG Prestressed Concrete Tank Items $5,459,000
Reservoir Excavation and Subgrade Preparation LS 1 $200,000 $200,00 0 Excavation Safety and Dewatering LS 1 $60,000 $60,000
Reservoir Construction LS 1 $3,954,000 $3,954,000
Export and Disposal of Onsite Soil TON 17,400 $40 $696,000 Imported Drain and Subbase Material CYD 3,800 $55 $209,000 Backfill and Grading LS 1 $300,000 $300,000
Monitoring Wells for Subsurface Tank LS 1 $40,000 $40,000 New Booster Station Items $2,359,600
Booster Station Construction LS 1 $1,117,600 $1,117,600 Pump Can Excavation and Install LS 1 $105,000 $105,000
Suction and Discharge Piping (Welded Steel) LS 1 $222,000 $222,000 Site Piping FT 800 $240 $192,000
Valves and Appurtenances LS 1 $70,000 $70,000
Pour Concrete and Slabs LS 1 $50,000 $50,000
Construct Building SQFT 700 $390 $273,000
Electrical Site Work LS 1 $330,000 $330,000
Other Site Work and Miscellaneous Items $162,100
Disinfection, Testing, Startup, and Commissioning LS 1 $50,000 $50, 000 Fine Grading LS 1 $50,000 $50,000
Site Restoration, Landscaping, Field Replacement LS 1 $32,100 $32,1 00 Project Closeout and Demobilization LS 1 $30,000 $30,000 Estimate Total, Soft Costs, and Contingencies
Estimate Item Subtotal $8,520,121
Escalation to Midpoint of Construction
2 5.52% percent $470,311 $8,990,432
Construction Contingency 25% percent $2,130,030 $11,120,462 TOTAL ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST $11,121,000
Design, Permitting, and Environmental 15% $1,668,150
Construction Administration and Inspection 10% $1,112,100 TOTAL ESTIMATE OF SOFT COSTS $2,781,000
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF PROJECT $13,902,000
AACE Estimate Accuracy (‐/+ %) 3 ‐20% to 30%
Anticipated Estimate Range $11,121,600 $18,072,600
Assumptions:
1. Unit prices are based on assumptions of cost for March 2019 in the greater Southern California region. See Escalation to Midpoint of Construction.
2. Escalation to Midpoint of Construction assumes 24 months from onset of design and permitting phase. If significant time occurs between preparation of this estimate and the start of the design phase additional escalation may need to be accounted for (assume 2.5% to 3.0% per calendar year).
3. This estimate is for a study/feasibility level effort to evaluate costs associated with this project. This estimate is expected to match an AACE International Class 4 Estimate for project feasibility studies and reflects an approximate 10% design level. The expected accuracy range spans ‐20% to +30% and is anticipated to narrow as the bid phase approaches (full bid accuracy is assumed at ‐2% to +5%).
Estimate of Construction Costs
Estimate of Soft Costs (Percent of Constrution Cost)
percent of construction
percent of construction
496
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost ‐ 2.00 MG Tank and Booster Station Project: Ham Park Reservoir and Booster Station
Client: City of Lynwood
Date: 5/29/2019
Estimate: AACE Class 4 Estimate (‐20% to +30%)
Estimate Task Unit Quantity Unit Price1 Extended Cost
General Items $509,850
Mobilization LS 3% $209,850 $209,850
Project Requirements, Temporary Facilities, Stormwater LS 1 $130,0 00 $130,000 Site Preparation, Clearing, Grubbing, and Demolition LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 Traffic Control and Community Outreach LS 1 $70,000 $70,000 New 2.00MG Prestressed Concrete Tank Items $4,478,000
Reservoir Excavation and Subgrade Preparation LS 1 $200,000 $200,00 0 Excavation Safety and Dewatering LS 1 $60,000 $60,000
Reservoir Construction LS 1 $3,105,000 $3,105,000
Export and Disposal of Onsite Soil TON 15,200 $40 $608,000 Imported Drain and Subbase Material CYD 3,000 $55 $165,000 Backfill and Grading LS 1 $300,000 $300,000
Monitoring Wells for Subsurface Tank LS 1 $40,000 $40,000 New Booster Station Items $2,359,600
Booster Station Construction LS 1 $1,117,600 $1,117,600 Pump Can Excavation and Install LS 1 $105,000 $105,000
Suction and Discharge Piping (Welded Steel) LS 1 $222,000 $222,000 Site Piping FT 800 $240 $192,000
Valves and Appurtenances LS 1 $70,000 $70,000
Pour Concrete and Slabs LS 1 $50,000 $50,000
Construct Building SQFT 700 $390 $273,000
Electrical Site Work LS 1 $330,000 $330,000
Other Site Work and Miscellaneous Items $157,400
Disinfection, Testing, Startup, and Commissioning LS 1 $50,000 $50, 000 Fine Grading LS 1 $50,000 $50,000
Site Restoration, Landscaping, Field Replacement LS 1 $27,400 $27,4 00 Project Closeout and Demobilization LS 1 $30,000 $30,000 Estimate Total, Soft Costs, and Contingencies
Estimate Item Subtotal $7,504,850
Escalation to Midpoint of Construction
2 5.52% percent $414,268 $7,919,118
Construction Contingency 25% percent $1,876,213 $9,795,330 TOTAL ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST $9,796,000
Design, Permitting, and Environmental 15% $1,469,400
Construction Administration and Inspection 10% $979,600 TOTAL ESTIMATE OF SOFT COSTS $2,449,000
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF PROJECT $12,245,000
AACE Estimate Accuracy (‐/+ %) 3 ‐20% to 30%
Anticipated Estimate Range $9,796,000 $15,918,500
Assumptions:
1. Unit prices are based on assumptions of cost for March 2019 in the greater Southern California region. See Escalation to Midpoint of Construction.
2. Escalation to Midpoint of Construction assumes 24 months from onset of design and permitting phase. If significant time occurs between preparation of this estimate and the start of the design phase additional escalation may need to be accounted for (assume 2.5% to 3.0% per calendar year).
3. This estimate is for a study/feasibility level effort to evaluate costs associated with this project. This estimate is expected to match an AACE International Class 4 Estimate for project feasibility studies and reflects an approximate 10% design level. The expected accuracy range spans ‐20% to +30% and is anticipated to narrow as the bid phase approaches (full bid accuracy is assumed at ‐2% to +5%).
Estimate of Construction Costs
Estimate of Soft Costs (Percent of Constrution Cost)
percent of construction
percent of construction
497
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost ‐ Well and Treatment System Project: Ham Park Well
Client: City of Lynwood
Date: 5/29/2019
Estimate: AACE Class 4 Estimate (‐20% to +30%)
Estimate Task Unit Quantity Unit Price1 Extended Cost
General Items $82,490
Mobilization LS 3% $59,490 $59,490
Project Requirements, Temporary Facilities, Stormwater LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Site Preparation, Clearing, Grubbing, and Demolition LS 1 $10,000 $ 10,000 Traffic Control and Community Outreach LS 1 $8,000 $8,000 Production Well Items $1,950,000
Well Drilling and Development LS 1 $850,000 $850,000
Well Equiping, Site Piping, and Well Building LS 1 $1,100,000 $1,10 0,000 Other Site Work and Miscellaneous Items $33,000
Disinfection, Testing, Startup, and Commissioning LS 1 $10,000 $10, 000 Site Restoration LS 1 $15,000 $15,000
Project Closeout and Demobilization LS 1 $8,000 $8,000
Estimate Total, Soft Costs, and Contingencies
Estimate Item Subtotal $2,065,490
Escalation to Midpoint of Construction
2 1.61% percent $33,254 $2,098,744
Construction Contingency 25% percent $516,373 $2,615,117 TOTAL ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST $2,616,000
Estimate of Soft Costs (Percent of Constrution Cost)
Design, Permitting, and Environmental 15% $392,400
Construction Administration and Inspection 10% $261,600 TOTAL ESTIMATE OF SOFT COSTS $654,000
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF PROJECT $3,270,000
AACE Estimate Accuracy (‐/+ %) 3 ‐20% to 30%
Anticipated Estimate Range $2,616,000 $4,251,000
Assumptions:
1. Unit prices are based on assumptions of cost for March 2019 in the greater Southern California region. See Escalation to Midpoint of Construction.
2. Escalation to Midpoint of Construction assumes 7 months from onset of design and permitting phase. If significant time occurs between preparation of this estimate and the start of the design phase additional escalation may need to be accounted for (assume 2.5% to 3.0% per calendar year).
3. This estimate is for a study/feasibility level effort to evaluate costs associated with this project. This estimate is expected to match an AACE International Class 4 Estimate for project feasibility studies and reflects an approximate 10% design level. The expected accuracy range spans ‐20% to +30% and is anticipated to narrow as the bid phase approaches (full bid accuracy is assumed at ‐2% to +5%).
Estimate of Construction Costs
percent of construction
percent of construction
498
16310 Bake Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618
949-637-3999 PHONE
July 16, 2025
Mir T. Fattahi, PE
City Engineer
City of Lynwood
(Submitted Electronically)
Re: Ham Park Reservoir and Pump Station Design – Additional Design, Permitting, and SRF Support Services
Dear Mr. Fattahi,
We are pleased to provide the following proposal for the City of Lynwood’s (City) Ham Park Reservoir and Booster Station Project. This addendum focuses on providing additional support related to the final design and bid phase services of the water storage reservoir and booster station. In addition, this addendum includes technical support related to completing the required application materials for the DWSRF.
Scope of Work
The following scope of work is provided; the task numbering is consistent with the base contract and will either augment existing budgets or create new tasks.
Task 1.4 Project Management and QA/QC
The original contract was awarded with a contract start date of October 17, 2022. The project management budget was prepared with a stated assumption of 10 months, which equated to August 2023, and it was further extended to March 2024 through Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 2 intends to extend the project management task through December 2025 which is the anticipated time for finalizing plans. An additional 12 months is provided for 2026 to assist with SRF processing.
Task 2.4 Cost and Schedule
Provide an updated construction cost and schedule for 90 and 100 percent deliverables.
Task 2.7 Additional Engineering Design (90 and 100 percent) The current design budget has been expended due to the following changes in scope:
• Revise design calculations and design drawings for the overflow piping 499
CITY OF LYNWOOD
HAM PARK RESERVOIR AND PUMP STATION – ADDENDUM NO. 3 | 2 • Modifications related to review by LA County Flood Control District for overflow pipe connection
• Addition of deep valve vault for pump station suction lines • Inclusion of grant requirements into the final specifications and bid documents • Extended project schedule
• Additional meetings (2 total) with City staff to review and address comments The project is currently near 90% completion. The requested budget will provide for completion of the 90% and 100% plans and specifications. Budget is included to address additional modifications resulting from permitting review and City review, assumed to be completed at the 90% deliverable.
Deliverables: 90% Plans and Specifications (PDF) and 100% Plans and Specifications (PDF) Task 3.2 Permitting
The permitting process requires coordination with both the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). MKN submitted the 2nd revision to the permit application to LACFCD in April 2024, which included a review fee to provide further review. The workflow of the permit approval process includes the following steps, all of which are currently outstanding:
• Assess Fees
• Flood Completeness Check
• Flood Permit Plan Review
• Agency Clearances
• Draft Permit
• Add Notes to the Inspector
• Print Flood Permit
• Continuous Inspection
• Pre-Construction Meeting
• Underground Inspection
• Final Approval-Underground
• Final Approval- Stormwater Maintenance Division
• Notice of Field Acceptance
• Create/Link CND Recycling and Reuse Plan
It is anticipated that the County will provide comments, which MKN will address as part of this scope.
MKN will coordinate all permitting efforts, including any necessary redesign and updated calculations needed to obtain permit approval. It is assumed that the City will pay permit review fees directly to LACFCD.
500
CITY OF LYNWOOD
HAM PARK RESERVOIR AND PUMP STATION – ADDENDUM NO. 3 | 3 Following LACFCD approval, MKN will prepare and submit a complete DDW approval application. This submittal will include the DDW data sheet, permit application, supporting calculations, relevant previous studies, and other required documentation for DDW review. MKN will also facilitate coordination between the City and DDW throughout the approval process.
Task 5.1 SRF Technical Application
MKN will provide support to the City’s consultant in preparing the Technical Package for the City’s DWSRF Financing efforts. Support will be provided on an as-needed basis, not to exceed the task amount, and is assumed to consist of technical input related to design related portions of the application. The following items serve as the basis for the estimated level of effort:
• T1 – Engineering Report. The major component of this will be the Consolidation Study. The other elements are assumed to exist in previously completed reports or only require minor modifications to meet DWSRF requirements. The Engineering Report is required to address the following elements:
o Executive Summary
o Background Project Information
o Problem Description
o Consolidation Assessment
o Alternatives Analysis (assumed to be satisfied by the 2019 Reservoir and Booster Study) o Selected Project (assumed to be the Preliminary Design Report) • T2 – TMF Assessment Form. MKN will work City staff to complete a Technical Managerial Financial (TMF) Assessment Form per DWSRF requirements. The TMF Assessment Form requires the following sections (items with * are assumed to be provided by City and reviewed against State requirements and assembled into report by MKN):
o Consolidation Feasibility Study
o System Description
o Certified Operators*
o Source Capacity Assessment
o Operations Plan*
o Training*
o Ownership*
o Water Rights
o Organization*
o Emergency Response Plan*
o Policies*
o Budget Projection/ Capital Improvement Plan*
o Budget Control*
• T3 – Professional Services Contract. MKN to package contract documents. • T4 – Plans and Specifications. MKN to package final contract documents. 501
CITY OF LYNWOOD
HAM PARK RESERVOIR AND PUMP STATION – ADDENDUM NO. 3 | 4 • T5 – Water Rights Documentation. MKN will coordinate with City staff, and the local groundwater watermaster (Water Replenishment District of Southern California) to complete the required documentation.
• T6 - Comprehensive Response to Climate Change. This document will be included as part of the Engineering Report.
Additional effort is included to support responding to deliverable comments from the State, including both technical and environmental documents.
Task 5.2 Environmental Application
Once the City provides confirmation that the project is consistent with underlying zoning/land use designation AND the project is not subject to LID requirements, MKN’s subconsultant, Rincon, will finalize the Class 32 Categorical Exemption report for CEQA which will then need to be brought to City Council for action. Following Council action, Rincon will complete the SRF Environmental Package Application and submit with the adopted Class 32 Categorical Exemption. If confirmation and Council action is delayed, additional effort may be required to update CEQA analysis.
Task 5.3 – SRF Management
MKN’s subconsultant, Jon Robinson, will provide management and coordination of the overall SRF application package, including coordinating and submissions to the State, administrative review of deliverables and coordination with City staff to prepare the Financial Application.
Fee Estimate
MKN proposes to complete this work on a time and materials basis with a budget not to exceed $281,293 based on the 2025 MKN rate schedule. The estimated level of effort is provided as Exhibit A.
We would like to express our thanks to the City of Lynwood for the opportunity to work on this important project. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss any of the information presented herein, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. My phone number is (714) 213-9758 and email is [email protected].
Sincerely,
Ryan Gallagher, PE
Principal
Enclosures:
1. Exhibit A – Level of Effort
2. Exhibit B – 2025 Rate Sheet
502
City of Lynwood
Ham Park Reservoir and Pump Station
Additional Eng and SRF Support
Senior Project Director - SK
QA/QC - DP
Principal Engineer - RG
Construction Manager
Senior Projet Engineer I - KL
Project Engineer II - IS
Assistant Engineer II - SR
Assistant Engineer I - Sai
Senior Designer
Administrative Assistant
Total Hours (MKN)
Labor (MKN)
ODCs (MKN)
Rincon
Architectural (AO)
Structural (PSE)
Electrical (GGI)
SRF Management (JR)
Non-Labor Costs
Total Fee
Hourly Rates 329 289 289 289 238 218 184 165 185 113
Scope of Work
Task 1.4 - Project Management and QA/QC (18 mos.) 2 12 54 36 12 116 $29,656 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $0 29,656$ Task 1.6 - Meetings (16 Bi-Weekly, 2 Design) 16 8 16 16 56 $14,024 - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,100$ - $ $1,100 15,124$ Task 2.4 - Cost Estimate and Schedule (90, 100) 16 16 16 48 $11,072 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $0 11,072$ Task 2.7 - Additional Engineering Design 16 8 45 24 24 60 177 $37,762 - $ - $ 10,799$ 16,046 $ 8,800 $ - $ $35,645 73,407$ Task 3.2 - Permitting 12 4 36 16 24 92 $20,752 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $0 20,752$ Task 5.1 - SRF Technical Support 20 16 24 0 98 53 129 116 16 44 516 $103,826 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $0 103,826$ T1 - Engineering Report 4 4 8 20 45 60 24 16 4 185 $37,766 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $0 37,766 $ T2 - TMF Assessment Report 4 4 8 36 45 60 40 197 $36,052 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $0 36,052 $ T3/T4 - Contract/ Plans & Specs 2 4 6 $1,136 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $0 1,136 $ T5 - Water Rights 2 4 4 12 12 34 $7,806 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $0 7,806 $ T6 - Climate Change 2 4 4 12 24 16 62 $12,882 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $0 12,882 $ Response to DWSRF Comments 8 16 8 32 $8,184 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $0 8,184 $ Task 5.2 - SRF Environmental Application 8 8 8 24 $5,536 - $ 6,600$ - $ - $ - $ - $ $6,600 12,136$ Task 5.3 - SRF Management 4 8 12 $3,220 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 12,100$ $12,100 15,320$ TOTAL BUDGET 70 56 94 0 263 53 153 196 100 56 1041 225,848 $ - $ 6,600$ 10,799 $ 16,046 $ 9,900 $ 12,100 $ 55,445 $ 281,293 $ 503
CATEGORY POSITION HOURLY RATE
Communications
and
Administrative
Administrative Assistant $113
Strategic Communications Coordinator $126
Strategic Communications Specialist $168
Designers and
Technicians
CAD Technician I $152
CAD Design Technician II $173
Senior Designer $185
Planning
Assistant Planner I $165
Assistant Planner II $184
GIS Specialist $184
Planner I $203
Planner II $218
Senior Planner $246
Engineers
Engineering Technician $123
Assistant Engineer I $165
Assistant Engineer II $184
Project Engineer I $203
Project Engineer II $218
Senior Engineer I $238
Senior Engineer II $251
Senior Engineer III $267
Principal Engineer $289
Project
Management
Project Manager $256
Senior Project Manager $267
Project Director $312
Senior Project Director $329
Construction
Management
Services
Scheduler $179
*** Construction Inspector $200
Assistant Resident Engineer $200
Resident Engineer $212
Construction Manager $231
Principal Construction Manager $272
The foregoing Billing Rate Schedule is effective through December 31, 2025 and will be adjusted each year after at a rate of 2 to 5%.
DIRECT PROJECT EXPENSES
Outside Reproduction Cost + 10%
Subcontracted or Subconsultant Services Cost + 10%
Travel & Subsistence (other than mileage) Cost
Auto Mileage Current IRS Rate
*** 40 hrs per week assumed; part-time rates can be provided upon request Rates also subject to prevailing wage mandatory increases during a calendar year 2025 FEE SCHEDULE
504
1 DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement (“Agreement”) is made as of October 22, 2025 by and between the City of Lynwood, a municipal corporation ("City") and MKN & Associates(“Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as a “Party” and collectively referred to as the “Parties.”
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, City desires to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor for final design services and preparation of the State Water Resources Control Board Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan Application for the Ham Park Reservoir and Booster Pump Station as set forth in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, Consultant represents that it is fully qualified to perform such consulting services by virtue of its experience and the training, education and expertise of its principals and employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the covenants and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Company's Scope of Services. The nature and scope of the specific services to be performed by Consultant are as described in Exhibit A.
2. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall commence on October 22, 2025 (the “Commencement Date”) and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described in Exhibit A are completed, but in no event later than April 22, 2027 unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
3. Compensation.
A. City agrees to compensate Consultant for services under this Agreement in compliance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit A. Consultant shall submit proper monthly invoices in the form and manner specified by City. Each invoice shall include a monthly breakdown of all monthly services performed together with the hours spent on each service. Consultant shall maintain appropriate and necessary documentation supporting the monthly invoices detailing the type of service provided. It shall be available for review by the City at all reasonable times upon request.
B. Total payment to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed Two Hundred Eighty-one Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Three Dollars ($281,293.00)
C. If at the request of the City, Consultant is required to incur out of pocket expenses (including but not limited to, out-of-town travel and lodging) which are above and beyond the ordinary expenses associated wit h performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall be entitled to reimbursement of such expenses. Consultant shall only 505
2 be reimbursed for those expenses which: (I) appear on Consultant’s monthly invoices; (II) are accompanied by a copy of the City’s written authorization for Consultant to incur such expenses; and (III) receipts documenting such expenses.
4. General Terms and Conditions. The General Terms and Conditions set forth in Exhibit B are incorporated as part of this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between the General Terms and Conditions and any other exhibit to this Agreement, the General Terms and Conditions shall control unless it is clear from the context that both parties intend the provisions of the other exhibit(s) to control.
5. Addresses.
City of Lynwood
City of Lynwood
11330 Bullis Road
Lynwood, CA 90262
Attn: Public Works Director
Consultant
MKN and Associates
16310 Bake Parkway
Irvine, CA. 92618
Attn: Ryan Gallagher, P.E.
6. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are listed here and are incorporated and made part of this Agreement by this reference.
Exhibit A – Scope of Services and Compensation Schedule Exhibit B – General Terms and Conditions
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
506
3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates written below.
CITY OF LYNWOOD MKN & Associates
By: ____________________________ By: ____
Rita Soto, Mayor Name
Title
Date: Date:
ATTEST:
By: _____________________________
Maria Quinonez, City Clerk
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _______________________________
Noel Tapia, City Attorney
Date:
507
1 EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
508
1 EXHIBIT B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Status as Independent Contractor.
A. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of the City of Lynwood or otherwise act on behalf of Lynwood as an agent. Neither the City of Lynwood nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of the City of Lynwood.
B. Consultant agrees to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Consultant under this Agreement, and to indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interests asserted against City by reason of the independent Consultant relationship created by this Agreement. In the event that City is audited by any Federal or State agency regarding the independent status of Consultant and the audit in any way fails to sustain the validity of a wholly independent Consultant relationship between City and Consultant, then Consultant agrees to reimburse City for all costs, including accounting and attorney's fees, arising out of such audit and any appeals relating thereto.
C. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers' compensation law regarding Consultant and Consultant’s employees. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with applicable worker's compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 1.
D. Consultant represents to the City, and City relies on Consultant’s representations, that Consultant shall serve solely in the capacity of an independent contractor to the City. Neither the City nor any of its agents will have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees, except as otherwise set forth in the Agreement. Consultant may not, at any time or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or emplo yees of the City. The City has no duty, obligation, or responsibility to the Consultant’s agents or employees, including the Affordable Care Act coverage requirements. Consultant is solely responsible for any tax penalties associated with the failure to o ffer affordable coverage to its agents and employees under the Affordable Care Act with respect to Consultant’s agents and employees. Consultant warrants and represents that the City will not be responsible and will not be held liable for issues related to Consultant’s status as an independent contractor, including Consultant’s failure to comply with Consultant’s duties, obligations, and responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act.
Consultant further agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the City harmless for any and 509
2 all taxes, claims, and penalties against the City related to Consultant’s obligations under the Affordable Care Act.
2. Standard of Performance
Consultant shall perform all work consistent with but limited to, that degree of skill and care ordinarily used by other reputable members of Consultant ’s profession, practicing in the same or similar locality and under similar circumstances. to the highest professional standards and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to the City Manager or his/her designee. No additional or different tasks or services shall be performed by Consultant other than those specified in Exhibit A.
3. Indemnification.
A. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, to the extent they arise out of, pertain t o, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. Consultant’s duty to defend shall consist of reimbursement of defense costs incurred by City in direct proportion to the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.
Consultant’s percentage of fault shall be determined, as applicable, by a court of law, jury or arbitrator. In the event any loss, liability or damage is incurred by way of settlement or resolution without a court, jury or arbitrator having made a determ ination of the Consultant’s percentage of fault, the parties agree to mediation with a third party neutral to determine the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault for purposes of determining the amount of indemnity and defense cost reimbursement owed to the City.
B. Notwithstanding the foregoing and without diminishing any rights of City under Section 3(a), for any liability, claim, demand, allegation against City arising out of, related to, or pertaining to any act or omission of Consultant, but which is not a design professional service, Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its officials, employees, and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from a nd against any and all damages, costs, expenses (including reasonable attorney fees and expert witness fees), judgments, settlements, and/or arbitration awards, whether for personal or bodily injury, property damage, or economic injury, and arising out of, related to, any concurrent or contributory negligence on the part of City, except for the sole or active negligence of, or willful misconduct of City. If it is determined the City’s negligence or willful misconduct contributed to the liability or damage, Consultant shall be required to provide indemnification to the City and reimbursement of defense costs incurred by City in direct proportion to the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.
C. It is understood that the duty of Con sultant to indemnify and hold harmless is subject to and includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2782.8 of the California Civil Code as further addressed in Section 3(a) above. Acceptance by the City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under th is Agreement does 510
3 not relieve Con sultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration.
4. Insurance.
A. Without limiting Consultant’s indemnification of Indemnities pursuant to Section 3 of this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain and provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement the types and amounts of insurance as described below:
(I) Consultant shall maintain Commercial General Liability Insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability Form CG 00 01 in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence, $4,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. Defense costs must be paid in addition to limits. There shall be no cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted.
(II) Consultant shall maintain Business Auto Coverage on ISO Business Auto Coverage Form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non- owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.
(III) Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation I nsurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance with on a state approved policy form providing statutory benefits as required by law with employer’s liability limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for all covered losses;
(IV) Consultant shall maintain Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance that covers the services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate.
Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three (3) years after comp letion of the services required by this Agreement.
B. City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers shall be named as additional insureds on the policy(ies) as to commercial general liability and automotive liability.
511
4 C. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Risk Manager.
D. All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be non-renewed, canceled, reduced, or otherwise modified (except through the addition of additional insureds to the policy) by the insurance carrier without the insurance carrier giving City thirty (30) days' prior written notice thereof. Any such thirty (30) day notice shall be submitted to CITY via certified mail, return r eceipt requested, addressed to City of Lynwood, 11330 Bullis Rd. Lynwood, CA. 90262 Attn: Rita Montalvo, Public Works Director. Consultant agrees that it will not cancel, reduce or otherwise modify said insurance coverage.
E. Consultant shall submit to City (I) insurance certificates indicating compliance with the minimum worker's compensation insurance requirements above, and ( II) insurance policy endorsements indicating compliance with all other minimum insurance requirements above, not less than one (1) day prior to beginning of performance under this Agreement. Endorsements shall be executed on City’s appropriate standard forms entitled "Additional Insured Endorsement".
F. Consultant’s insurance shall be primary as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunt eers shall be excess of Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
G. Consultant agrees that if it does not keep the aforesaid insurance in full force and effect, and such insurance is available at a reasonable cost. City may take out the necessary insurance and pay the premium thereon, and the repayment thereof shall be deemed an obligation of Consultant’s and the cost of such insurance may be deducted, at the option of City, from payments due Consultant.
5. Release of Information/Confidentiality.
A. Consultant in the course of its duties may have access to confidential data of City, private individuals, or employees of the City. Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or receiv ed by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony a t depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement 512
5 or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. Consultant’s covenant under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
B. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, inte rrogatories, request for admissions, or other discovery request, court order, or subpoe na from any person or party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder. City retains the right, but has no obli gation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response
6. Ownership of Work Product.
A. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by the City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally ac cepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of the City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give the City the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit the City to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
B. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files , surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to the City, at the Consultant's office and upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and printing computer files.
7. Conflict of Interest.
A. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the services to be performed by Consultant under this Agreement, or which would conflict in any manner with the 513
6 performance of its services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it.
Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid the appearance of having any interest which would conflict in any manner with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement.
B. Consultant covenants not to give or receive any compensation, monetary or otherwise, to or f rom the ultimate vendor(s) of services to City as a result of the performance of this Agreement, or the services that may be procured by the City as a result of the recommendations made by Consultant’s covenants under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
8. Termination. Notwithstanding any other provision, this Agreement may be duly terminated at any time by the City at its sole discretion with or without cause by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice (“Notice of Termination”).
Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. Unless expressly agreed upon in writing by the City, the City shall not be obligated to pay for any services rendered nor any costs or expenses paid or incurred after the date of termination. The effective date of termination shall be upon the date specified in the written Notice of Termination.
Consultant agrees that in the event of such termination, Consultant must refund the City its prorated share, except for services satisfactorily rendered prior to the effective date of termination. Immediately upon receiving written Notice of Termination, Consultant shall discontinue performing services, preserve the product of the services and upon payment for services, turn over to City the product of the services in accordance with written instructions of City.
In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City.
9. Personnel. Consultant represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform the services under this Agreement. All of the services required under this Agreement will be performed by Consultant or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be qualified to perform such services.
Consultant reserves the right to determine the assignment of its own employees to the performance of Consultant’s services under this Agreement, but City reserves the right, for good cause, to require Consultant to exclude any employee from performing services on City's premises.
10. Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity.
A. Consultant shall not discriminate as to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation, in the performance of its services and duties pursuant to this Agreement, and will comply with all rules and regulations of City relating thereto. Such 514
7 nondiscrimination shall include but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfers, recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship.
B. Consultant will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Consultant state either that it is an equal opportunity employer or that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation.
C. Consultant will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all subcontracts for any work covered by this Agreement except contracts or subcontracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials.
11. Assignment. Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of Consultant obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of City, and any attempt by Consultant to assign this Agreement or any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect.
12. Performance Evaluation. For any Agreement in effect for twelve months or longer, the City Manager may require a written annual administrative performance evaluation within ninety (90) days of the first anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, and each year thereafter throughout the term of this Agreement. The work product required by this Agreement shall be utilized as the basis for review, and any comments or complaints received by City during the review period, either orally or in writing, shall be considered. City shall meet with Consultant prior to preparing the written report. If any noncompliance with the Agreement is found, City may direct Consultant to correct the inadequacies, or, in the alternative, may terminate this Agreement as provided herein.
13. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall keep itself informed of State, Federal and Local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations which in any mann er affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall at all times comply with such laws, ordinances, codes and regulations. The City, its officers and employees shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of Consultant to comply with this Section.
14. Licenses. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect all licenses (including a City business license) required of it by law for performance of the services hereunder.
15. Non-Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City of any payment to Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of 515
8 any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Consultant, and the making of any such payment by City shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default.
16. Attorney's Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall commence any legal or equitable action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including costs of expert witnesses and Consultant.
17. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by this Agreement shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand during Consultant regular business hours or by facsimile before or during Consultant regular business hours; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses heretofore set forth in the Agreeme nt, or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this section.
18. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to validity and to performance of the Part ies in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. However, the Parties may agree to submit any dispute to non-binding arbitration.
19. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be the original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
20. Severability. If any provision or any part of any provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, the balance of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and any other documents incorporated herein by specific reference, represents the entire and integrated agreement between Consultant and City. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed by the Parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. Amendments on behalf of the City will only be valid if signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk.
22. Authority. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
516
9 23. Force Majeure. A Party’s performance of any obligation under this Agreement shall be suspended if, and to the extent that, the Party is unable to perform because of any event of Force Majeure. In any such event, the Party unable to perform shall be required to resume performance of its obligations under this Agreement upon the termination of the event or cause that excused performance hereunder. “Force Majeure” herein means an event which is beyond the reasonable control of a Party, including without limitation, (a) acts of God including flood, fire, earthquake, hurricane or explosion, pandemic; (b) war, invasion, hostilities (whether war is declared or not), terrorist threats or acts, riot or other civil unrest; (c) government order or law that prevents either Party from performing its obligations as set forth in this Agreement; (d) actions, embargoes or blockades in effect on or after the date of this Agreement; (e) action by any governmental authority that prevents either Party from performing its obligations as set f orth in this Agreement; (f) national or regional emergency; (g) strikes, labor stoppages or slowdowns or other industrial disturbances, other than those involving the affected parties employees; (h) shortage of adequate power or transportation facilities.
Neither Party shall be liable for any delay or default in, or failure of, performance resulting from or arising out of any Force Majeure event, and no such delay, default in, or failure of performance shall constitute a breach by either Party hereunder . Where a Force Majeure event gives rise to a failure or delay in either Party performing its obligations under this Agreement (other than obligations to make payment), those obligations will be suspended for the duration of the Force Majeure event. A Party who becomes aware of a Force Majeure event which gives rise to, or which is likely to give rise to, any failure or delay in performing its obligations under this Agreement, will forthwith notify the other and inform the other of the period for which it is estimated that such failure or delay will continue. The affected Party shall take reasonable steps to mitigate the effects of the Force Majeure event.
517