HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03201990 - S.1 S. l
THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on _March 20, 1997,_ by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Flett Water Study & State Grant Application
In response to Supervisor Fanden's inquiry, Phil Batchelor, County
Administrator, presented his report on the Flett Water Study and State Grant
Application. A copy of the report is attached and included as a part of this
document.
The following persons commented:
Corinne Vieville, 15675 Marsh Creek Road, Clayton;
Mary H. Williams, Marsh Creek Association, 13950 Marsh Creek Road,
Clayton;
David Tam, 1322 Making Jr. Way, #5, Berkeley 94709;
Dr. Marsh Mason, West County Group Sierra Club, 1215 Roosevelt,
Richmond; and
Wilbert E. Cossel, Clayton Regency Residents Association,
16711 Marsh Creek Road, #134, Clayton.
All persons desiring to speak were heard.
Board members discussed the report of the County Administrator and on
the speakers' comments presented this day.
Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the report of the County
Administrator on the D. B. FLett Water Study for the Clayton Regency Mobile
Home Part is ACCEPTED.
1 hereby certify that this Is a um andC°rtatt aoPY 01
an action taken and entered on the minutes of h
Board of Supervisors on the date
sho.ow .•
Arrcsreosu—BATCHELOR,Clerk
ofpm ancnty Am
/yyd
.� �� Do"
cc: County Administrator
Health Services Director
County Counsel
Community Development Director
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Supervisor Nancy Fand I en Contra
March 13, 1990 �%
Costa
DATE: FLETT WATER STUDY & STATE GRANT APPLICATION oio Cxyint�y
SUBJECT:
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
REQUEST:
That the Administrator provide a written background report
regarding the D.B. Flett water study for the Clayton Regency
Mobile Home Park including the following questions:
1. Who authorized acceptance of $26,000 from Eric
Hasseltine on behalf of Waste Management to do the study?
2. County policy requires contracts over $25,000 to be
approved by the Board, why wasn' t the $26,000?
3 . If the final consultants bill was $21, 397 . 33 what was
planned with the remainder? I 'm told there is no intention
to return the money to Waste Management.
4. Do you consider accepting an "unconditional gift" from
Waste Management through their representative to be an
ethical county practice?
5. Who in Community Development authorized acceptance of
$26,000 and who authorized the transfer to the Health
Department?
6. 1 understand that Flett was told not to mention Waste
Management in his report, why?
7 . Was the 12" line recommended in the Flett report sized
to include the 1000 gallons per minute flow required by the
dump?
8 . Since an individual cannot apply to the State for a
water grant, what agency made the application? Were they
aware that Waste Management would likely benefit? Does the
State know that the grant would benefit Waste Management?
9. Since the project would cost about $1. 8 million, and
the State would provide $400,000, who was expected to pay
the balance. $1. 4 million is a lot of money for a trailer
park to finance.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTt- YES SIGNATURE;
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
e,
Phil BatcheloCounty Administrator
March 20, 1990
FLETT WATER STUDY & STATE GRANT APPLICATION
On March 20, 1990, I met with Dr. William Walker, Dr. Wendel Brunner, and
Jim Blake of the Health Services Department; Harvey Bragdon and Chuck
Zahn of the Community Development Department; and Vic Westman and Silvano
Marchesi of the County Counsel' s Office to prepare a response to the
following inquiry:
1 . Who authorized acceptance of $26,000 from Eric Hasseltine on behalf
of Waste Management to do the study?
Our Health Department has been involved in the effort to obtain a
source of water for the Marsh Creek area residents since January
1987 . In the Fall of 1989 the Health Department was faced with the
ultimatum of having to conduct a study to confirm the need for the
extension of a water line. The County had no money for that study;
neither did the people living at the mobile home park. Dr. Walker
suggested Waste Management, Inc. as a possible contributor. Dr.
Walker raised this suggestion as a policy issue at the weekly
landfill management committee meeting to see if there were any
feelings that this would interfere with the processing of the Marsh
Canyon Landfill application. It. was the opinion of that committee
and Dr. Walker' s opinion that there was no interference; they were
two separate issues. Therefore, the four departments (Health
Services, Community Development, County Counsel and County
Administrator) concurred that we should approach Waste Management
for a contribution for the study.
2 . County policy requires contracts over $25,000 to be approved by the
Board, why wasn't the $26,000?
County regulations require that any contract to be entered into with
a consultant which exceeds $25,000 has to be approved by the Board
of Supervisors. Since this contract did not exceed $25,000, those
same regulations permit the staff to enter a contract with a
consultant. In connection with development applications, funding
routinely is accepted from the developer for various studies and
related problems. This situation was viewed by staff as being in
that category.
3 . If the final consultants bill was $21,397.33 what was planned with
the remainder? I'm told there is no intention to return the money
to Waste Management.
The $26, 000 covered the anticipated costs of the contract as well as
compensation for a small portion of overhead ( staff time used to
make application to the State and to develop the contract) .
4 . Do you consider accepting an "unconditional gift" from Waste
Management through their representatives to be an ethical county
practice?
Staff requested these funds in order to allow the completion of a
study for the possible funding of a public improvement, and
therefore did not perceive it as any ethical problem.
5 . Who in Community Development authorized acceptance of $26,000 and
who authorized the transfer to the Health Department?
Consistent with previous discussions with the Health Department, the
Community Development department received the check and transferred
the funds to the Health Department.
6 . I understand that Flett was told not to mention Waste Management in
his report, why?
The Health Department wanted the report to address only the Health
Department' s concerns to bring water to residents of the area and
not to consider other issues such as a potential landfill. Other
consultants employed by the County for the preparation of the Marsh
Creek Landfill Site EIR were in the process of evaluating that
site' s water service needs.
7 . Was the 12" line recommended in the Flett report sized to include
the 1000 gallons per minute flow required by the dump?
Both the Health Services Department and the consultant understood
that the Contra Costa Water District' s policy for extending its
water service into a new area requires a 12-inch line; for that
reason it was used in the study.
8 . Since an individual cannot apply to the State for a water grant,
what agency made the application? Were they aware that Waste
Management would likely benefit? Does the State know that the grant
would benefit Waste Management?
The County has been assisting the applicant (Regency ' Clayton, Inc. )
with the documents needed for filing an application for State
funding, with the expectation that the Contra Costa Water District
would eventually receive the funds. Staff has had no discussions
with the State regarding the effects of the grant on Waste
Management, Inc.
9 . Since the project would cost about $1.8 million, and the' State would
provide $400,000, who was expected to pay the balance? $1.4 million
is a lot of money for a trailer park to finance.
This assumption is incorrect. The State has set aside $1.8 million
for this project, which is the cost estimated by the Contra Costa
Water District staff in 1987 . $400,000 of that is expected to be in
grants, with $1. 4 million issued as long term, low interest bonds to
be paid by the Water District. It is still uncertain as to whether
the application will be funded or if the funding will be sufficient
to carry out . the project.
The circumstances surrounding this issue are detailed in a more
comprehensive report dated March 12, 1990, which is attached.
Provision of water service was discussed in the Fall of 1989 in the Draft
EIR which was publicly circulated at that time to approximately 200
people and to the State Clearinghouse. An excerpt from the Draft EIR is
attached.
E r'
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: March 12, 1990
TO: Nancy C. Fanden
Chair, Board of Supervisors
96
FROM: Phil Batchelor
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Response to Inquiry on Water System Study
In response to your inquiry on the Water System Study for the March Creek
(Clayton Regency) Mobile Home Park, I consulted with the Health Services
Department, County Counsel and the Community Development Department. The Water
System Study is a prerequisite to eligibility for state grants/loans to fund the
extension of the distribution system of the Contra Costa Water District. This
project is the culmination of approximately 312 years of effort by the Health
Services Department to work with the residents of the mobile home park to ensure
an adequate, safe water supply.
Under state law, the Health Services Department has a responsibility to monitor
wells and other water supply facilities as part of its charge to safeguard
public health. Over the past several years, the Department has been involved in
a number of projects that involved state funding of water supply systems,
including systems for Knightsen, Sandhill, Castlerock, Northgate and Byron. The
Marsh Creek project is • another case where the County is working with the
community to assure all citizens with a safe, dependable water supply.
The water system that serves the mobile home park has posed a potential public
health problem for several years, both from quality and quantity of water
perspectives. The existing wells are poorly constructed and subject to
bacteriological contamination from surface waters and the adjacent septic tank
leachfield system. Brine from the reverse osmosis ststem is discharged
underground and subjects the groundwater to further increases in total dissolved
solids. In 1986 the water system was contaminated, resulting in a number of
complaints from residents that they had become ill from consuming the water. In
addition, water quantity at the Park is extremely limited. Currently, up to 30% .
of the water used by the residents is imported by tank trucks_ Some of the
wells have gone dry periodically.
In late 1986, Park residents brought a lawsuit against the Park owners
specifying, in part, that there was an inadequate quantity of unsafe water. In
recognition of the compounding problem for the mobile home park, the Health
Services Department has worked closely with the supervisor of the district,
Tom Torlakson, to develop a permanent solution for the water quality and
quantity problem. As part of that effort, Staff encouraged the Park owner to
apply for state funds to extend the Contra Costa Water District service to the
Park. This application was filed with the state on January 2, 198"1 . The
applicant was the Park owner, while the recipient of the funds would be the
Contra Costa Water District— On June 22, 1987 the state placed the project on
the state priority list as a fundable project. However, prior to granting
funding, the state requires an independent consultant analysis of alternatives
to the project.
The Water System Study examines alternative ways to supply water to current
residents along Marsh .Creek Road. This project description does not include the
landfill and has not changed since 1987. Specifically, the Study calls for an
examination of (1) alternative methods of providing a safe and reliable water
supply; (2) estimation of the cost of implementing the various alternatives; and
(3) evaluation of alternatives in terms of reliability, possible environmental
impacts, water quality and health and safety. Sizing of the water main was
determined by the Contra Costa Water District, in accordance with their service
criteria.
The Health Services Department examined several funding alternatives for this
Study. The Park owner had funded a previous study on water supply and was not
in a position to fund this study without significant participation by others.
Obviously, the residents of the Park, being primarily low-income families and
senior citizens, did not have the resources to finance the study. On a policy
basis, the Contra Costa Water District does not fund such studies either.
In 1989, I began to hold weekly meetings on landfill issues with representatives
from the Health Services Department, Community Development and County Counsel.
At one of those meetings, the Health Serices Department reported its difficulty
in finding a funding source for the Water System Study and reported its intent
to request funding from Waste Management, Inc. The request to Waste Management,
Inc. was made on the basis that it was unconditional funding, with no commitment
implied with regard to extension of the water system to the landfill.
You asked why the Board of Supervisors did not review the consultant's contract.
The contract limit was $24,000, under the $25,000 consulting- services limit
established for Board review (the contribution from Waste Management, Inc. was
actually $26,000 which handled the Health Services' administrative costs) . The
final.. consultant bill was $21,397.33.
Will the Marsh Canyon Landfill project reap benefit from this study? While it
is possible that Waste Management, Inc. could benefit at some later time, that
benefit cannot be determined at this time. From a public relations perspective,
Waste Management's funding of this study may result in a more favorable
community attitude towards the landfill; however, the Environmental Impact
Report for the landfill project specifically requires the Marsh Canyon Landfill
to apply for and receive permits for a water system separate and distinct from
this project. In addition, it should be noted that if the state funds the $1.8
million project, as recommended by the District Office, the residents of the
mobile home park and other area residents would be able to receive a reliable,
good quality water.. supply. This water system is important, regardless of
whether or not a landfill is ever built.
This memo provides background on the Marsh Creek Mobile Home Park Water System
Study. Please let me know if you would like to discuss it further.
H5/waterlin.mmo
cc: Supervisor Tom Powers
Supervisor Robert Schroder
Supervisor Sunne McPeak
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
Mark Finucane, Director of Health Services Department
Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Develoment
Vic Westman, County Counsel
A N y o Ai S.or�l TA r,?—-i L
III. Environmental Setting, Impact, and Mitigation
C. WATER SERVICE
SETTING
Contra Costa Water District(CCWD)provides water service in the project region.
No water service currently extends to the project site. CCWD's nearest water delivery
facilities are located approximately 2.1 miles west of the site at the Royal Oaks
Country Club,just east of the Gill Drive and Marsh Creek Road intersection (see
Figure III-C.1). There is a fire hydrant at the Gill Drive intersection.
The Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park at 16711 Marsh Creek Road, northeast of the
site, is served by on-site wells and water imported by truck from a hydrant on Morgan
Territory Road approximately 100 yards south of Marsh Creek Road. Though the Gill
Drive hydrant is closer, it does not have sufficient pressure for water withdrawal./l/
The mobile home park experiences difficulty in obtaining potable water of adequate
quantity and quality with its present system. (See Section III-E, Public Health and
Safety, for a description of water supply and treatment methods, and water quality at
the mobile home park).
T In 1986, the mobile home park applied for extension of water service and for funding
of this extension under the 1986 California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law. The
proposed water service extension was studied by D.B. Flett and Associates,Inc., of
Walnut Creek. This study,Marsh Creek Area.Contra Costa County, Study of Water
q Assessment District(March 1986), defined the area likely to be annexed and served by
CCWD. The area extends east approximately four miles from the end of the CCWD's
existing pipeline in Marsh Creek Road to the Deer Valley Road intersection. This area
comprises 33 separate parcels totalling approximately 1,800 acres. In this area,
W CCWD's existing service area boundary already extends beyond the Sphere of
Influence (SOI) boundary set by the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCo), see Figure III-C.1. As a result, 18 parcels, representing
approximately 50% of this area, are within the current CCWD boundaries, while
only seven are within CCWD's Sphere of Influence./2/ CCWD's study determined
J that a 12-inch pipeline and a 300,000-gallon reservoir would be needed to serve the
L-L mobile home park and other existing and potential land uses allowed in the proposed
? service area under current zoning. No funding or annexation approval for'tlnis
extension has been approved./3/
� III-48
n_
till, f
:...•:�,;x � J ,,,• it.:J•.. is L:. __,,_ •"� ,� _ ;7:,.r..-��''
3
r• �'
1
CL
,
W
ytfl
m LU
ra
co, •' .,. ':r 1:ir; :.-, � -
jg
uj
CL
_� ;gym' '', - ,�,'�"'-:y..'.•'%-;1' :]' ,.��'•�,jt:'ll;.j;r� , ,stir `. _
.J
l a 7 ?\ 0 6 p
- ~ri
•;�____' ._:�_,,,.;-Yi 31 ,. -
0 ,
1..
f/�`a; .;a:'lig:\\ ,r (::i:iF if /�',"r r+r-rl r( �.:✓%� "�Yr'....,. �-�,,.�_ ,,,�- .. 01.`.` (;'.
��. t0 "�, .' (;?''-•i=iii• ir•-''" -•..- �p"�.• �° �ii
1, � ` \ :,, " /`;• �i-'•:,;..�_ f�. '
�:+�� "�t.} :.:114`� .,r"+ t,.ii' �/:' ,y♦, ,:(�:::.:',�
,t;;;-e�,( G3 1-•:�� :Y: .a` .� _ s t". , ,,fix, -+ :1:�'_
..:psi:,Ila
•
' :.). �\.K„!,,,j `” "�f,r„�� fJJ t.,, t�i, �;'`�r'J:'a�`f;r,�: ;:+..; -:n'{,.r..:='t' ���'i•'
�nl• :.I! ��r '.r r';;;. ,!'% �rt .JIB: •r'.�
^.� j?7C,'t::a. --y.. g:r .,a.l'i;t. ",� ..,'.", l'` E7� .;/i%;. _ �,`�'•-
i-. ,Y
l 1t..
\: _ L:- i��f .. /. :( •1,f. r-7:(i'i {i. .,/,:�. .1r, :"V -,1
r c
,,. _�,_�--;' :•: w;i:�;: ::.;: , ..moi _ f�;w'; _
ftF
o
1 i/..'.
i5
�.. :.`;`1�'• '.U c, rr�. ��tii :�. •" ',�'/if'~ 'il.�� �/% �./%.._;'.Yj/':.:";�.,�. it.'. C
\,•,rtt, LLI to
_ _a•4:,M; ':(rt .t{ ,J»if�;/ .�C asri''ants'` U'.'r �/','';,J';/'Jy 7/.1i;r p
.-`:.�, 'V :\ r-;te��.t\•!,\ :S��..,'; \-v.i,'-' :/ •� p J. 3 ;i Lc) >
'»rX
.'1::::rye%i;,"•,'a, ! / ,::.t�rt �.�` �x'�/ .:,�,e`� 'ahJ,::,r-. 3 N .��:
•:'/ •re• _ ,.tea r.:=:5'li i�� r;•( Yt , y !!! _ ':. -�5,�, i'..wevd,r;�?/ cD
It-
V571.
./^.. r.t
ILL
CID
�. W
� 'x
uj
��'�'�� �q9`tii 'A:�.r,' :?: ':� (',�'t^��:;�!?'fit � •t' .t�'t "'��" —
W
111-49
JIII. Environmental Setting, Impact, an(i Mitigation
CCWD is now studying alternatives for providing improved water service to the
mobile home park without extending a water line down Marsh Creek Road. The study
is expected to be available in early 1990.
On the Project site,deep exploratory wells have been constructed to evaluate and
monitor water-bearing zones underlying the site. Preliminary tests performed within
these wells indicate that pumping yields are inadequate to meet the water needs of a
landfill. At a depth of 200 feet,wells produced an on-site water flow of one gallon per
minute (gpm)./4/ The minimum 24-hour water flow required for site development and
operation is 40 gpm, according to Golder Associates,engineering consultant to the
project applicant./4/ No wells of adequate capacity exist in the area to serve the
landfill. !
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Project water requirements for construction and operation are described below.
Because there is not adequate groundwater onsite nor existing water service to the site,
water would have to be brought to the site for the project. Two alternative methods of
bringing water supply to the project site have been considered by the applicant:
1)extending water service via a water pipeline,or 2)hauling water from a local fire
hydrant using water trucks on a permanent basis.
Extension of a'water pipeline would require Contra Costa County LAFCo actions,
A, including amendment of CCWD's Sphere of Influence and annexation of the project
x area by CCWD. At the applicant's request, CCWD has prepared a preliminary design
h for extending piped water service to the project site. CCWD would design the water
hfacilities extension to serve Zone 5E,which encompasses land between elevations of
340 and 500 feet./5/ CCWD has identified two alternative scenarios for service area
a annexation around the project site. Service Area 1 extends from the existing
keight-inch main in Marsh Creek Road and includes all of the landfill site (Sections 31
4, and 6) and the areas within Sections 35, 36 and 37 below an elevation of 500 feet,
' including the mobile home park (see Figure III-C.1). The facilities required to serve
0 this area include: 11,400 feet of 12-inch maim, a pressure regulating station, and a
550,000-gallon buried concrete reservior with an overflow elevation of 587 feet. The
7"
}� 4 Service Area 2 scenario includes all of Service Area I but extends further east almost
v to Deer Valley Road (see Figure III-C.1). This alternative would require a
V 625,000-gallon reservoir and about 19,000 feet of 12-inch main./6/
111-50
r-.
III. Environmental Setting, Impact, and Mitigation
The project applicant has identified two possible reservoir site alternatives on the
project site (see Figure II-2). Site 2 is the applicant's preferred site, as this location
would minimize visual impacts, and the other site is located within the stand-by
_ borrow area. The design of water service extension to the Project site would depend in
part on the findings of the CCWD study on serving the mobile home park. If water
service does not need to be extended to the mobile home park, then the water facilities
would be designed to serve the landfill site and a smaller additional service area.
CCWD is also investigating the feasibility of extending water service to the site from
the east. CCWD and Oakley Water District are building the Joint Water Treatment
Plant in Oakley to serve East Contra Costa County. The treatment plant is in the
design stage,with construction scheduled for completion in 1992. CCWD would
evaluate the feasibility of serving the project site and the surrounding area from this
® direction, depending upon when an application for water service is received from the
project applicant (see Appendix L)./6/
The applicant's water-hauling method, or"rubber tire extension," would require
approval by the CCWD Board of Directors.17/ CCWD has expressed disapproval of a
permanent rubber tire extension to the site./8/ According to CCWD Water Service
regulations, water service may only be provided by a rubber tire extension for
locations where CCWD finds it impractical to extend water service through a normal
connection and when the water is to be used either for human consumption only or for
a justifiable temporary need./9/ Contra Costa County has previously opposed "rubber
tire" permanent water service to the Kirker Pass,Central, and East Contra Costa
landfills./10/
Construction
Construction of the proposed landfill would require a large amount of water prunarily
for dust control, compaction, and other moisture conditioning, and for consumption by
construction employees. Water demand for construction would range from
50,000 gallons per day (gpd) to 96,000 gpd, or from 35 gpm to 67 gpm on a 24-hour
basis./11/ If a water pipeline were not extended to the site by the start of construction,
water.would be imported via trucks from a nearby hydrant. The closest hydrant with
adequate pressure is approximately five miles to the west on Morgan Territory Road.
100 yards south of Marsh Creek Road; this hydrant has a minimum flow of
1,000 gpm./1/
I11-51
III. Environmental Setting, Impact, and Mitigation
During construction,water trucks with 5,000-gallon, 8,000-gallon,or 10,000-gallon
capacity are proposed to be used for dust suppression,compaction, and other water
requirements. Filling one 8,000-gallon truck requires eight minutes at a hydrant with a
minimum flow of 1,000 gpm. If 8,000 or 10,000-gallon trucks are used, the trucks
may not carry more than approximately 7,500 gallons of water due to standard load
limits for paved roads./12/ Using 8,000- or 10,000-gallon trucks, seven to 13 truck
deliveries of water would be required each day during construction. At a minimum,
either two 5,000-gallon trucks, or one 8,000-or 10,000-gallon truck would be needed
to support construction activities./13/
The East Diablo Fire Protection District (EDFPD)requires that 240,000 gallons of
water be stored on-site or a continuous flow of 1,000 gpm with a pressure of 20 pounds
per square inch (residual) be guaranteed on-site to meet fire prevention
requirements./14/ If the proposed water pipeline is not completed prior to
construction, fire prevention requirements could be met by constructing the 550,000-
or 625,000-gallon reservoir required as part of the water service extension to the site,
and filling it via water trucks. Initial filling of the reservoir to meet fire prevention
requirements would require 32 trips using a large water truck. Additional truck trips
would be required to maintain the required water supply prior to completion of the
pipeline. Hauling water to the project site could affect local traffic, air quality,road
surface, and noise, and possibly would affect fire protection services in the project
area. None of these effects are considered to be a significant impact. If the pipeline
extension were completed prior.to project construction, the fire prevention requirement
would be met. i
Construction of the proposed 550,000-or 625,000-gallon water storage reservoir
would remove about 0.4 acre of land now used for grazing. The storage reservoir
would be sited on a hill on the applicant's property, in the foothills above the proposed
service area. Most of the storage reservoir would be buried. A portion of the reservoir
would extend above the ground surface; soil would be placed around the reservoir and
over the top to completely cover it and blend it with the surrounding topography.
Looking west toward Marsh Canyon from Marsh Creek Road, the reservoir at Site 1
would sit atop a saddle at an elevation of 580 feet. This hill is set apart from the sides
of the canyon. At this location, the reservoir would be visible from Marsh Creek Road
along the mouth of the canyon. At Site 2, the reservoir would be set into the hillside
and would not interrupt the existing ridgeline, as it would at Site 1. The reservoir at
III-52 �,
III. Environmental Setting, Impact, and Mitigation
this site would be visible from a smaller portion of Marsh Creek Road west of the
Site I saddle. It would not be visible from Morgan Territory Road. Reservoir
development would cause a minor topographic alteration. The soil material used to
cover the reservoir would be contoured into the existing slopes around either site.
Both reservoir sites would be visible from portions of Marsh Creek Road. However,
with the reservoir completely buried and allowed to revegetate, its presence would not
be easily detected and no significant impact to regional views would occur.
While Site 1 has no mature trees or significant vegetation,Site 2 is within a blue oak
woodland. Construction of a reservoir at the latter site would displace up to 40 mature
blue oaks..
Operation
The operation of a landfill requires appreciable.quantities of water for dust
suppression,landscape irrigation,fire control,human consumption, and other uses.
During initial operation of the landfill,water demand would be approximately
31,000 gpd. This figure includes approximately 1,500 gpd needed for production of
the alternative foam daily cover material, SaniBlanket. This synthetic foam material
has been proposed as an alternative to soil for daily cover. 4n the bases of a one-inch
thick layer of foam and 20,000 square feet of working waste face per day, the water
demand for the daily cover would be approximately 1,500 gpd./4/
The applicant proposes that water would continue to be supplied by trucks until the
water pipeline were extended. Water would be hauled from a local fire hydrant, the
closest being approximately five miles to the west of the site on Morgan Territory
Road 100 yards south of Marsh.Creek Road. Initial demand would require four to six
trips per day, using a large water truck filled with 7,500 gallons of water per trip.
These trips could be made during daytime, non-peak hours. This method of temporary
extension of water service would affect local traffic, air quality, road surface, and
noise, and possibly local fire protection services. None of these impacts are
environmentally significant; truck trips could occur during daytime non-peak hours.
The average water demand during the life of the landfill would be about 56,900 gpd,or
40 gpm over a 24-hour period, while peak water demand for the landfill in 2050 is
estimated to be about 98,000 gpd./l I/ CCWD's preliminary design findings indicate
III-53
III. Envirorunental Setting, Impact, and Mitigation
that a I2-inch pipeline would be required to serve the site. It would be extended along
Marsh Creek Road from the current end of service about 2.1 miles to the west,.
between Gill Drive and the Royal Oaks Country Club. Approximately 11,400 to
19,000 feet of pipeline would be required, as well as a pump station and a 550,000- to
625,000-gallon reservoir on the project site. The project applicant has identified two
potential locations on the project site for the reservoir(see Figure 11-2). The reservoir
would be approximately 28 feet high and partially buried. The proposed pump station
would only remove about 0.02 acre of land from rural residential use, since the
pipeline would be buried within roadway right-of-way. No structures would be
displaced for pipeline installation. To allow for long-term access for pipeline
maintenance and repair, development of permanent structures would be prohibited
within the pipeline easement.
Construction of the water pipeline extension would require closing one lane of Marsh
Creek Road to install the pipeline within the roadway right of way. The pipeline
would be paved over to protect against local landslide hazards. Traffic along segments
of Marsh Creek Road would be disrupted for about one month during installation.
CCWD can install about 600 feet of pipeline in one day./5/
Land use impacts would be primarily short-terns, construction-related impacts that
would include: construction-related safety hazards due to the increased risk of
accidents with open trenches and heavy equipment; access disruption for residences
and businesses; increased'noise and dust in residential areas; and increased traffic
congestion due to partial street closure. Pipeline construction directly in front of a
given residence could be expected to last for one to two days. Potential operational
impacts would be limited to use of an access road to the reservoir site and noise from
the pump station.
Closure
Water demand during closure would be similar to the amounts needed during
construction, with the majority being used for dust suppression.
Postclosure
Postclosure water demand for the project site would depend upon proposed future
uses. A golf course would represent a high water demand use, while open space
III-54