Oak Park seeks water tank solution

Input from the community and a potentially unorthodox partnership between two water districts could help lead to a satisfactory location for the new water tank needed in Oak Park.

Influenced by comments from nearly 200 Oak Park residents at a recent town hall meeting where replacement of the Conifer Street tank was discussed, officials from the Triunfo Sanitation District said they are now considering a new site for the tank.

The newest location is in southeast Oak Park above Kimberly Drive. Because an existing tank is already there, Triunfo officials would not have to grade the area for a tank pad or create an access road, officials said.

The problem with the new site, however, is it sits on property owned by the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District. To use the location, Truinfo and Las Virgenes would be required to work out a contractual agreement.

Mark Lawler, Triunfo’s district manager, said the parternship with Las Virgenes is extremely tentative and seems unlikely.

“Their tank is sized for their community,” Lawler said. “It’s relatively new. It’s only 15 years-old. They are not looking for a financial partnership. If we build something there, it’s solely at our expense.”

Lawler said that state law prohibits Las Virgenes from selling water to Triunfo.

There are Triunfo board members, though, who beleive the new site location may solve this longstanding debate.

“I think it’s a win-win,” said Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks, who also is a Triunfo board member.

“I like the precedent it would set for the two agencies to work cooperatively for the betterment of the community, and that this alternative doesn’t require the grading, traffic disruption, road building, and wouldn’t effect viewsheds.”

Parks said the site would not require an environmental impact report because Triunfo would simply be replacing the existing tank with a larger one.

For nearly a decade, water officials have said the 35-year-old Conifer tank is unsafe because of deterioration. A geological survey of the Conifer site in the late 1990s showed the tank could slide down the hill if the area were hit by a sizable earthquake.

The town hall meeting was an opportunity for Triunfo staff to explain why the Conifer tank needs to replaced and where the various water agencies stand in the site selection process.

“This is an unofficial meeting,” Lawler said. “This is not for the board of directors to take action. . .but to give (residents) a chance to hear about the prospective sites. . .and to give comment.”

In October, the Triunfo board of directors looked at a report comparing 16 possible locations and selected five sites for serious consideration. For each site, the report compared landslide concerns, traffic, total acres affected, aesthetic issues and environmental impacts, as well as estimated construction costs.

The list immediately drew complaints from residents, who worried about how the tank relocation would affect home values.

Palo Comado Canyon above Doubletree Street is the site preferred by the Triunfo staff. It’s the least expensive location and satisfies a number of building conditions,officials said.

Local environmentalists, however, object to the Palo Comado site because it sits on a number of trailheads that lead into national parkland.

“Why even consider impacting our scenic and much-used national parkland entrance?” said Sue Boecker, a member of Save Open Space. “Moreover, (the) engineer’s report expresses serious reservations about the geology under this trailhead area.”

Two potential comprises were discussed during the meeting. The first solution would be to construct and bury the tank at the Palo Comado site.

Another solution calls for a sixth location, known as the A3 site, to be added back to the list of sites under consideration.

The A3 site is located west west of the aging Conifer tank. According to the report by Triunfo, the site has no apparent geological p r o b l e m s , would impact less than eight acres of open space, is only visible from 30 homes in Agoura Hills, and would have slight mpact on traffic during construc

ion.

The problem with the A3 site, however, is cost. At an estimated $6.3 million, the site would cost nearly $2 million more than the other sites.

Because of its higher price tag, he A3 site was earlier dismissed by

he board of directors.

The feeling at the town hall meeting was that most residents would be willing to pay slightly higher water bills to cover the cost of burying the two-million-gallon tank in the canyon.

Burying the tank and hiding it from view could bring up to $1 million in additional construction costs, Triunfo officials said.

Triunfo provides water for nearly 4,500 homes in Oak Park. According to Triunfo, for every $1 million spent on construction projects such as the new water tank, each customer will see a $1 increase on their monthly bill.

Lawler said burying the tank has been a possibility since the project started.

“If the board just wants to say bury (the tank). . .we’ll factor that into the costs,” Lawler said. It’ll certainly show up anyway as one of the mitigation measures during this CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process.”

Dennis Gillette, a Triunfo board member, said the decision on whether or not to bury the tank might be premature.

“It’s one of those things that can’t be determined until you know where the tank is going to go,” Gillette said.