RECENT AND NEXT EVENTS – as of November 26, 2007

The Triunfo Sanitation District Board approved the resolution certifying the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and selected tank site A7 (Oak Canyon Community Park). the resolution and resulting Notice of Determination can be viewed by clicking the links below.

	Resolution 07-02 Cert FEIR A7.pdf
	Department of Fish and Game Form and Notice of Determination

RECENT AND NEXT EVENTS – as of November 13, 2007

	November 8 – Mailed notice of final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to all who commented (with a return address) on the draft EIR.
	November 13 – Posted the final EIR at this website.
	November 14 – Two hard copies of the final EIR available at the Oak Park Library.
	November 26 – Triunfo Sanitation District Board meeting to consider certifying the final EIR and approving a project.
	The Staff Report and Resolutions concerning the Final EIR Certification can be viewed by clicking this link: Conifer Tank FEIR Certification Res. No. T07-02.pdf

Download components of the Final Environmental Impact Report:

- Table of Contents. PDF

- A. Draft Environmental Impact Report (follow this link to view DEIR)

- B. Introduction. PDF

- C. NOA-NOC & Distribution List .PDF

- D. Comments & Responses to Comments

Comments by Governmental Agencies. PDF

Comments by Organizations. PDF

Comments by Individuals. PDF

Comments Received During Public Hearing. PDF

Materials Provided in Response to Comments

- TSD Minutes and Agendas. PDF

- Conifer Alternatives Presentation 11-14-05.pdf

- Conifer Presentation Slides 11-28-05.pdf

- Conifer Workshop 11-14-05.pdf

- Triunfo Sanitation District Oak Park Water Service Vicinity Map .pdf

- No on A8 Petitions9-24-07.pdf

- No on A8 Petitions10-1-07.pdf

- Noise Level Data Tables.pdf

- E. Errata Pages .PDF

- F. Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation Monitoring Plan. PDF

Mitigation Monitoring Program. PDF

Activity as of August 1, 2007

Week of July 30 – Publish the July 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). (The Draft EIR is available on the website. Two hard copies are at the Oak Park Library. 15 copies of the summary and a CD will be mailed today to the State Clearinghouse (Case No. 2005051158). The Notice of Availability is being mailed on the 1^st and 2^nd to potentially interested agencies. The individuals are those who provided written comments (with addresses) on the Initial Studies. The Notice of Completion/Availability will also be placed on signs at the site;

August and September – Agencies and individuals send comments.

	September 24, 2007 – Receive public comments on the Draft EIR, 6:15 pm, in the Oak Park High School, Room G-9, 899 North Kanan Road, Oak Park, California; and
	October 1, 2007 – Close the Draft EIR comment period (Minimum is 45 days. October 1 is about 60 days after publication.
	October and November – The Draft EIR comments and responses are incorporated into a Final EIR.
	November 26, 2007 – Tentative date of public meeting for Triunfo Sanitation District Board to consider the Final EIR and associated project.

Download components of the July 2007 Draft EIR and revised 2007 Initial Study:

DEIR Cover. PDF

DEIR Table of Contents. PDF

DEIR 1.0 Introduction. PDF

DEIR 2.0 Summary. PDF

DEIR 3.0 Project Description .PDF

DEIR 4.0 Environmental Setting. PDF

DEIR 5.0 Environmental Analysis .PDF

DEIR 6.0 Project Alternatives. PDF

DEIR 7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant. PDF

DEIR 8.0 Significant Irreversible Changes. PDF

DEIR 9.0 References and Consulted Agencies. PDF

DEIR 10.0 Report Contributors. PDF

Figures in the Draft EIR:

Figure 1Regional Location Map. PDF

Figure 2 Site Location Map. PDF

Figure 3 A7B Topography & Profile. PDF

Figure 4 A8B Topography & Profile. PDF

Figure 5 Pipe Alternative A Map, goes with Site A7.pdf

Figure 6 Pipe Alternative B Map, goes with Site A7.pdf

Figure 7 Pipe Alternative C Map, goes with Site A8.pdf

Figure 8 Pipe Alternative D Map, goes with Site A8.pdf

Figure 9 Pipe Alternative E Map, goes with Site A8.pdf

DEIR Appendix A - DEIR Appendix A - Revised Initial Study.pdf

DEIR Appendix B - DEIR Appendix B - NOP and Responses.pdf

DEIR Appendix C - Project Description Support Material

County Trenching Standards 1,500 KB

Fugro Geotechnical Study Site A7 10-06 Text 1,800 KB

Fugro Geotechnical Study Site A7 10-06 Maps (Plates) 2,200 KB

Fugro Geotechnical Study Site A7 Appendix A 700 KB

Fugro Geotechnical Study Site A7 Appendix B 2,400 KB

Fugro Geotechnical Study Site A7 Appendix C 3,900 KB

Fugro Geotechnical Study Site A8 11-06 Text 1,800 KB

Fugro Geotechnical Study Site A8 11-06 Maps (Plates) 1,900 KB

Fugro Geotechnical Study Site A8 Appendix A 800 KB

Fugro Geotechnical Study Site A8 Appendix B 1,500 KB

Fugro Geotechnical Study Site A8 Appendix C 3,500 KB

DEIR Appendix D - DEIR Appendix D - Recreation Related. PDF

DEIR Appendix E - DEIR Appendix E - Alternatives Support Material. PDF

2005 Alternatives Maps & Matrixes

Boyle Oak Park Water Reliability Study 1998

Fugro Preliminary Geohazards 1998

Fugro Bucket-Auger at A1 12-19-05

Brown & Caldwell Options Analysis 7-04

Brown & Caldwell Presentation 2004

Fugro Geotechnical Conditions at Sites A1 – A4 9-14-05

Southwest Anticipated Geotech Conditions A1-A4 & A8

Las Virgenes MWD memo on Kimberly Tank 12-13-05

Figures in the Revised Initial Study¹

Fig. 1 Regional Location Map 300 KB

Fig. 2 Site Location Map 300 KB

Fig. 3 A7A Topography & Profile² 300 KB

Fig. 4 A7B Topography & Profile 300 KB

Fig. 5 A8A Topography & Profile ² 300 KB

Fig. 6 A8B Topography & Profile 300 KB

Fig. 7 Pipe Alternative A Map, goes with Site A7 200 KB

Fig. 8 Pipe Alternative B Map, goes with Site A7 200 KB

Fig. 9 Pipe Alternative C Map, goes with Site A8 200 KB

Fig. 10 Pipe Alternative D Map, goes with Site A8 200 KB

Fig. 11 Pipe Alternative E Map, goes with Site A8 200 KB

Fig. 12 Aerial Photo of A7 Views 300 KB

Fig. 13 A7 Photo Existing from Trail 400 KB

Fig. 14 A7A Photo from Trail² 400 KB

Fig. 15 A7B Photo from Trail 400 KB

Fig. 16 A7 Photo Existing from Napolean 200 KB

Fig. 17 A7A Photo from Napoleon ² 200 KB

Fig. 18 A7B Photo from Napoleon 200 KB

Fig. 19 A7 Photo Existing from Oak Canyon Comm. Park 200 KB

Fig. 20 A7A Photo from Oak Canyon Comm. Park ² 200 KB

Fig. 21 A7B Photo from Oak Canyon Comm. Park 200 KB

Fig. 22 Aerial Photo of A8 Views 200 KB

Fig. 23 A8 Photo Existing from Trail 300 KB

Fig. 24 A8A Photo from Trail ² 300 KB

Fig. 25 A8B Photo from Trail 300 KB

Fig. 26 A8 Photo Existing from Doubletree 300 KB

Fig. 27 A8A Photo from Doubletree ² 300 KB

Fig. 28 A8B Photo from Doubletree 300 KB

Fig. 29 A8 Photo Existing from SMM National Recreation Area 300 KB

Fig. 30 A8A Photo from SMM National Recreation Area ² 300 KB

Fig. 31 A8B Photo from SMM National Recreation Area 300 KB

Fig. 32 Existing Traffic Diagram 100 KB

Fig. 33 A7 Traffic Diagram 100 KB

Fig. 34 A8 Traffic Diagram 100 KB

Fig. 35 Existing + A7 Traffic Diagram 100 KB

Fig. 36 Existing + A8 Traffic Diagram 100 KB

¹ Appendix A of the DEIR

²DEIR is focused on buried tanks

2007 Initial Study Appendix A has moved to the DEIR Appendix C

2007 Initial Study Appendix B – County General Plan Checklist 4,600 KB

2007 Initial Study Appendix C – Air Quality 500 KB

2007 Initial Study Appendix D – Noise 1,700 KB

2007 Initial Study Appendix E – Transportation 1,600 KB

Associated Transportation Engineers Traffic Study 1,800 KB

2007 Initial Study Appendix F – Recreation Maps & NPS Letters 500 KB

2007 Appendix G has moved to the DEIR Appendix E

BACKGROUND

The Triunfo Sanitation District (Triunfo) owns and operates the Oak Park Water Service (OPWS), which is the potable water provider for Oak Park. The Triunfo Board of Directors has, for several years, been considering replacement of the existing Conifer potable water tank because it does not meet current seismic standards. Having been built in 1966, the tank is at the end of its useful life.

As a water agency, the goal of OPWS is to provide a reliable supply of water to preserve public health and safety with minimal environmental impacts and the best possible efficiency.

Triunfo retained Boyle Engineering to prepare an Operations Plan for OPWS in July 1996. During Plan preparation, Fugro West, a geotechnical sub-consultant to Boyle Engineering, noted the soils under the Conifer Tank would not support seismic anchors needed to bring the Conifer Tank up to current earthquake standards. It is this seismic concern that is driving the project.

A follow-up 1998 Reliability Study addressed both the seismic and additional water storage needs by suggesting increasing the size from a 1 million gallon to a 2.1 million gallon tank serving both the Conifer and Lindero Zones. It also recommended and system infrastructure improvements throughout OPWS. Triunfo added pipelines to connect zones, improved automated controls, and installed emergency generators at pump stations. The pipelines and other reliability improvements allow water transfers from any of the four potable water tanks within the District to any other tank or zone.

An above-ground tank storing 2.1 mg is approximately 32 feet high and 110 feet in diameter.

SITE SELECTION

Over the past 5 years, Triunfo has considered 16 alternative potable water tank sites. Please refer to the Overall Sites Map. Sites A1 – A7 were considered from 1999 through 2002, with site A6 being the best of that group. Sufficient information was developed on Site A6 to include it in a future Draft Environmental Impact Report; however, the geology, topography, and long pipelines associated with A6 make it expensive. Triunfo paused to consider other alternatives.

In 2003, the proposed Ahmanson Ranch Development became a national recreation area. This opened the potential to rehabilitate the 4 mg Chesebro Tank and Palo Commado Pump Station, built in the late 1960s to serve the Ahmanson Ranch. The Chesebro Tank proved not to be feasible for OPWS because the 2-mile distance from Oak Park presents water quality, pipeline reliability, operations, and maintenance issues. Plus, the cost of rehabilitating the 4 mg Chesebro Tank and rebuilding the Palo Commado Pump Station exceeds the cost of a new 2.1 mg tank.

While investigating the Chesebro Tank, Triunfo noticed a potential potable water tank site having both a flat site and a gently sloped access road, hidden in a saddle. The site was along the existing facility access and fire road for the Palo Commado Pump Station. The flat and hidden topography means relatively fewer geotechnical and construction impacts. The access/fire road is also used as a trail to the national recreation area. This site was designated A8.

Triunfo took comments on the first Initial Study from June through November 2005. During and after review of the first Initial Study, Triunfo adjusted the project by:

	Preparing a complete list of conceivable sites, adding A9 – A12, B1 – B3, and C1;
	Dropping the potential for a trail users’ parking lot along the access/fire/road/trail which passes A8 site;
	Eliminating the alternative Sunnycrest pipeline; and
	Commissioning a second Initial Study for a buried tank and associated pipelines at potential A7 and A8 sites.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) governs the environmental review process. The District has elected to prepare a second Initial Study. Although not required, the District plans a public workshop on the second Initial Study in summer 2006.

The comments on the second Initial Study will be used to prepare a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The draft EIR will be available a few months after the second Initial Study for another comment period. Although not required, the District anticipates a public workshop on the draft EIR.

Comments on the draft EIR are incorporated into a final EIR. CEQA requires providing a written response to public agency comments on the DEIR at least 10 days before certifying the final EIR. The Board would then certify the EIR or move to have the EIR sent back for more work at a public meeting.

Building a new water tank is an iterative process. Simple investigations are used for the first designs and the first comments. As investigations become more detailed and more costly, the designs become more detailed or even change entirely. The details and changes generate more comments, which may change the design.