HomeMy WebLinkAbout22-Planning
CITf>OF SAN BERNARDIIO - REQUEQ FOR COUNCIL AC1:bN
From: Frank A, Schuma
Planning Director
Dept: Planning
Date: July 16, 1985
Subject: Nega ti ve Declara Uon to ins tall two
treatment operation towers at the
Newmark Water Plant
Mayor and Council Meeting of
August 5, 1985, 9:00 a.m,
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Recommended motion: To adopt the Negati ve Decl arati on proposed by the City of San Bernar-
di no Muni ci pal Water department to install two (2) 38 feet hi gh by 12 feet in
diameter water treatement operation towers at the Newmark Water Plant, The sub-
ject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of 8,5 acres
having a frontage of approximately 600 feet on the north side of 48th Street and
being located approximately 400 feet east of the centerline of Little Mountain
Dri ve,
C~L~
Signature Frank A, Schuma
Contact person:
Frank A. Schuma
Phone: 383-5057
Ward: 5
Supporting data attached:
Yes,
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
Aoenda Item N"z ,<,.
CI-t:i OF SAN BERNARD~ - REQU~T FOR COUNCIL AcQON
STAFF REPORT
In 1980. the State of Californi a. Department of Health Servi ces conducted a
Trichloroethylene (TCE) and Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) survey of the San
Bernardino Bunker Hill Basin domestic water supply, The Bunker Hill study
included sampling all of the major producing wells in the San Bernardino Basin,
The lab tests indicated that eight (8) City wells contained TCE and PCE solvent
concentrations at levels ranging from 5.0 parts per billion (ppb) to 21,0 ppb,
The Health Department action levels for TCE and PCE are 5,0 and 4,0 ppb. respec-
tively.
When the solvents were detected. the City Water Department voluntarily limited
the use of these eight (8) wells to comply with the State Health Department's
interim operating plan. The cause or exact place of the chemical spill in the
San Bernardino Basin has been isolated to an area north of 42nd Street and
Magnolia Avenue and southeast of the San Bernardino State University, Due to
the depth of 9round water. it is speculated that the spill may have occured 10
to 15 years ago, Based upon the miles of width and length of the or9anic plume
in the groundwater. it is estimated that 40 more or less barrels of TCE/PCE may
have entered the aquifer north of the City's Newmark plant.
The vol atil e organi c solvents have mi grated southeasterly. wi th the natural
movement of groundwater from their suspected point of origin to 23rd Street and
Acacia Avenue where three (3) additional City wells indicate traces of TCE/PCE,
The ei9ht (8) wells that the City voluntarily removed from service in 1984 and
the three (3) wells showing traces of solvents represents approximately 30% of
the City's water supply,
In 1984. the City Water Department contracted the professional services of John
Carollo Engineers to determine the best method(s) for removing the solvents from
the ground water supply at the Newmark reservoir and pumping plant, Through
tests conducted by Carollo and the City Water Department. it was concluded that
the installation of aeration towers was the most cost-effective method of ini-
tially removing the solvents from the water at the Newmark pumping plant, The
estimated cost of the Newmark aeration project is $500.000, If approved. the
proposed units could be on line by April. 1986.
The Water Department proposes the installation of two (2) 12 foot diameter. 38
foot high air stripping towers. and a 2.000 square foot. single story hydroge-
nerator. chlorination and blower building at the Newmark reservoir site located
at 42nd Street and Magnolia Avenue. Pilot testing conducted at the Newmark site
indicates that the units will remove 99% of the volatile organic solvents from
the well water. If and as may be required. the stripping towers may be retro-
fitted with treatment facilities to further treat the discharged stripping air,
It is anticipated. based on the lateral movement of ground water. that the pro-
posed units wi 11 be requi red at the Newmark site for 6 years or less. The Water
Department has requested that the towers be designed for removal and reinstalla-
tion at other locations in the system should the need arise,
75-0264
CIA- OF SAN BERNARDQO - REQU~T FOR COUNCIL AcQ.ON
STAFF REPORT
In order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and provide the
maximum opportunity for public notification and involvement, the proposal was
forwarded from the Environmental Review Committee to a public hearing held on
July 2, 1985,
The pub 1 i c heari ng, whi ch was a joi nt heari ng wi th the Mayor and Common Counci 1
and Board of Water Commissioners, was advertised to the public through a legal
noti ce in "THE SUN" and a mai lout of 150 publi c noti ces to property owners
within 500 feet of the Newmark Water Plant. No public response was received at
the pub 1 i c heari ng.
Additionally, the proposed Negative Declaration was forwarded to the State of
California clearing house for distribution to State Agencies, As required by
C,E,Q,A, the thirty (30) day response time will expire Qn August 2, 1985. At
this time, no comments have been received.
The Environmental Review Committee recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration
for the proposal. The Committee recommends that site screening be provided
along the 42nd Street frontage. Site screening in the form of a 6-foot high
block wall and 1 andscapi ng wi th trees wi 11 help vi sua 11y screen the towers and
provide noise reduction to the adjoining residential areas to the south and west
of the site,
75-0264
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMEN'rAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
~,.--., ,.--... ""Il
SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES
01416 NINTH STREET, ROOM 1311
2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SACRAMENTO, CA. 95814
0 ENV'RONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 0
II: 300 NORTH 0 STREET, 3rd FLOOR .- CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
II.
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92418 0175 WEST 5th STREET
'---" '---" SAN BERNARD'NO, CA. 92415
( PROJECT NAME; Cons tructi on of two(2) water treatment towers J
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATI~N: The City of San Bernard~no ~ater Department
proposes to construct twol2 38 foot high by 12 feet 1n d1amete~ ~ater.treatment
operation towers at the Newmark Water Plant. The trea~ment fac1l1ty w111 .remove
organic contaminants from the water produced by four C~tY,wells, The ~ubJect
property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land cons1st1ng of approx1mately.
8 5 acres having frontage of 600 feet on the North side of 48th Street. and ~e1 ng
l~cated approximately 400 feet east of the centerline of Little Mountaln Drlve .
d further described as the Newmark Water Plant within the City of San Bernard1no,
~hen implemented, the Water Department will regain approximatey B,OOO Gallons per
minute of water supply,
THIS 's TO ADVISE THAT THE C'TY OF SAN BERNARDINO HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION
REGARDING THE PROJECT DESCRIBED ABOVE:
I. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN oAPPROVED, oDENIED.
2. THE PROJECT o WILi.. , oWILL NOT, HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
3. DAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE
PROV.lSIDNS OF CEOA.
o A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF CEOA. A COP"" OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW IN THE
, " "
PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY HALL, 300 NORTH 0 STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92814.
4~ A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS oWAS, oWAS NO!, ADOPTED FOR THIS PROJECT,
,
i' ,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Sarah Knecht
(714) 383 -5057
SECRETARY 001. Received for Fi lino TELE PHONE
'" ~
MAY 198'
ER.C. FOR M E
CITY OF ,SAN BERNA DINO PLA
ING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL: REVIEW COMMI TTEE .
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
00 G """IIi
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SUPERVISORS
300 NORTH "d' STREET 3rd FLOOR 175 WEST 5th STREET
, SAN BERNARDINO, CA, 92418 SAN BERNARDINO, CA, 92415
THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
CALIFORNIA REVIEWED THE PROJECT DESCRIBED BELOW AT IT'S MEETING OF
7 /2/85 AND FOUND THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE INITIAL STUDY
THE PROJECT WiLl NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
PROJECT NAME: Construction of two(2) water treatment towers
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: The City of San Bernardino Water Department
proposes to construct two(2) 38 feet high by 12 feet in diameter water treatment
operation towers at the Newmark Water Plant, The treat~ent facility will remove
or!)anic contaminants from the water produced by four City wells, Subject propertj
is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 8.5 acres
having frontage of 600 feet on the North side of 48th Street and being located
approximately 400 feet east of the centerl ine of l. itt're Mountain Orive and
further described as the Newmark Water Plant, Whr:n implemented, the Water Dept.
will regain use of approximately 8,000 Gallons pel" minute of Water supply,
MITIGATION MEASURES, IF ANY, TO AVOID POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS;
.
.
"
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, CITf OF SAN BERNAROINO
Sarah Knecht
(714) 383-5057
SECRETARY DATE TELEPHONE
.... .J
MAY 'el sk,
E,R.c. fORM G
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINOPL NNING DEPARTMEN
ENVIRONMENTAL' REVIEW COMMITTEE
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION fORM
~
A. GENERAL INFOID1ATION
1. Applicant/Developer
San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
Individua1's/Firm's Name
300 North "0" Street
Street Address
San Bernardino, CA 92401
2. Contact Person
Ronald Hendricks
Name
300 North "0" Street
Street Address
City
State
Zip
San Bernardino, CA 92401
City State Zip
3. Address/General Location of Project
42nd & Magnolia - 42nd to Reservoir Drive - Western to Magnolia
4. Assessor's Parcel Number(s)
151-231-01-11
151-232-01-10
5. Description of Project Installation of air stripping towers to remove
volatile organic substances from four, (4) City water wells. (See Attachment
"A" and location map for complete description attached)
B. PHYSICAL SITE
6. Indicate any unique topographic features prior to any grading:
No grading required.
.
.
7. Describe the general type and extent of development within one-quarter
(~) mile of the project:
Residential and vacant' land.
,.
,
"'-
~
EJlC. FORM 8
PAGE I OF 4
" '0 - -
,- '~ "l.A
,
C. FLORA AND FAUNA
8. List types of vegetation and trees in proj ect area: Site is an existing
City'water reservoir with some trees and grass which will not change.
9, List types of wildlife found in project area:
NOne
10, Types of wildlife to be displaced by the project:
NOne
D, LANDFORM
It. If applicable, estimate cubic yards of grading involved in project:
No significant
cut = grading required fill = -0-
12. Maximum height and grade of constructed slopes: -0-
13. Methods used to prevent soil erosion in project area: -0-
E. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
14. Zoning 15. General Plan Designation:
a. Present 0 Open space & Conservation
b. Proposed 0
16. Present Land Use: Citv Water Wells & Reservoir Site
17. Site Area: 9 Ac. 18. No. of Units:
-0-
19. Parking Provided -0-
20. Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning:
.
Land use Zoning
North: Residential R-3-3600
.
South: Open Space .r C-2 ,
East: Residential Single Family
West: Residential ~Iul ti-Family
"- ~
MAY II
lAC. FORM 8
PAGE 2 Of ..
&:i r
-- 1....0
F. ARCHAELOGICAL/HISTORICAL
21- Is there any known archaelogical or historical significance of the site
area or within ~ mile from the proposed site? If so, explain:
None
,
G, HUMAN SAFETY POTENTIAL
22. Will the project produce significant increases in either noise levels,
dust, odors, fumes, vibration, or radiation either during construction
or when completed? Explain:
(See Attachment "B" Attached)
H. FACILITY AND SERVICE IMPACTS N/A
23. If applying for a Conditional Development Permit, Tentative Subdivision
Map or Change of Zone, describe:
a. Distance to nearest municipal facility from project:
1- Fire 5, Library
2. Police 6. Sewer
3. Schools 7, Water
4. Pa>:ks 8. Flood Channel
b. How will the proposed project disrupt or affect the capabilities of
the fo~lowing services and facilities: water supply, sewage disposal,
solid waste disposal, electrical power, natural gas and telephone:
.
. i'
,
,
'\... '~
MAY '81
EAC. FORM .
'AGE $ ilF 4
I. MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach additional sheets, if necessary).
Describe type and anticipated effect of any measures proposed 'to mitigate or
eliminate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts:
(See Attachment "c" Attached)
J. CERTIFICATION
24. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached
exhibits present the data and information required for this initial eval-
uation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
C. 7 ~r','
4~ _' __ c:
~ C'"? ..)
Date
For:
.
.
I'
,
MAY'"
E.R.C. fORM .
PAGE 4 OF 4
o
o
o
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION FORM
ATTACHMENT NO. "A"
The project consists of installing two (2) 12 foot diameter
by approximately 38' high fiberglass volatile organic air
scrubbing towers, a 1800 square foot conventional cement
block and wooden roof pressure regulating and air blower
equipment building on City Water Department land immediately
adjacent to an existing 22 million gallon water storage
reservoir.
.
.
.
/'
.
o
o
1"= 2001 ci
o
z
;:!
z
::::>
o
::E
~
~
'0
o
"
-,
I
I
I
~e.~~VO\~ I
NQ 2 I
I
I '
I
~e.~e.~O\~ I
NQ3 I
I
I
_______J
W
...J
l-
I- .
...J~
...Jr
~ I '
~I
I
I
I
o 1 tc.e.>e:.~VO\~
a I NQ4
o
01
...J ,......... J
LL I C '{.(.(-, ",
I '75f/'
L _ _.-L_
J
TREATMENT
FACILITY
)1..."-,:,, I" f:,
.
.
,.
,
o
LOCATION MAP..,
City of
Bernardino
~OHN CAROLLO
ENGINEERS
DATE: Jut-.le. Ie?
o
0' 0
. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION FORM
o
ATTACHMENT "B"
During construction there will be potential for minor impacts
from noise and dust. These impacts, as a result of the
nature and small magnitude of the construction work, and the
short period of construction, will be minor and easily
mitigated. These impacts are not considered to affect human
safety.
potential impacts from operation of the completed project
involve noise and the discharge of the stripping air. Noise
emissions emanate from the air supply fans and from the water
trickling through the packing material in the stripping
columns. The fans are low pressure, air condition type
units, and will be housed in a masonry building. Noise
levels from both sources will meet Federal guidelines on
sound pressure.
The stripping air discharged from the tops of the columns
will contain the volatile organic impurities removed from the
groundwater being treated. Neither EPA, AQMD, nor the State
Department of Health Services currently has ambient air
concentration limits for the impurities involved.
.
.
.
,.
,
o
o
o
o
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION FORM
ATTACHMENT "C"
The potential for negative impacts during construction
(construction noise and dust) will be mitigated through
proper preparation and enforcement of the construction
specifications. The specifications will require that
adequate dust and noise control measures be practiced
throughout the construction period.
Operational impacts from noise will be mitigated by proper
selection of equipment and housing noise producing mechanical
equipment in a building.
No significant adverse impacts are expected from the project.
,
,
,.
,.
,
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT
PROPOSAL TO INSTALL ORGANIC REMOVAL FACILITIES
AT THE NEWMARK RESERVOIR AND PUMPING PLANT
In 1980, the State of California, Department of Health Ser-
vices conducted a Trichloroethylene (TCE) and Tetrachloro-
ethylene (PeE) survey of the San aernardino Bunker Hill Basin
domestic water supply. The Bunker Hill study included sam-
pIing all of the major producing wells in the San Bernardino
Basin. The lab tests indicated that eight (8) City wells
contained TeE and PeE solvent concentrations at levels
ranging from 5.0 parts per billion (ppb) to 21.0 ppb, The
Health Department action levels for TeE and PCE are 5,0 and
4.0 ppb, respectively.
Prior to 1980, Trichloroethylene and Tetrachloroethylene were
commonly used as solvents, degreasing agents, dry cleaning
and paint drying additives. TCE and PCE are volatile organic
solvents suspected of causing cancer in laboratory animals
when induced in high concentrations over a period of years.
When the solvents were detected, the City Water Department
voluntarily limited the use of these eight wells to comply
with the State Health Department's interim operating plan,
o
o
o
o
The interim plan allowed the City to blend the water contain-
ing low levels of TCE/PCE with water free of volatile organic
solvents for a certain number of months during the year.
The cause or exact place of the chemical spill in the San
Bernardino Basin has been isolated to an area north of 42nd
Street and Magnolia Avenue and southeast of the San Bernar-
dino State University,
The depth to groundwater in the Newmark area is over 100
feet; therefore, it is speculated that the spill may have
occurred 10 to 15 years ago, and could have taken place over
a period of years. The State Department of Health Services
has estimated, based on the miles of width and length of the
organic plume in the groundwater, that 40 more or less
barrels of TCE/PCE may have entered the aquifer north of the
City's Newmark plant.
The volatile organic solvents have migrated southeasterly,
with the natural movement of groundwater from their suspected
point of origin to 23rd Street and Acacia Avenue where three
(3) additional City wells indicated traces of TCE/PCE from
samples taken in February, 1985.
The eight (8) wells that the City voluntarily removed from
service in 1984 and the three (3) wells showing traces of
solvents represent approximately 30% of the City's water
supply.
- 2-
L
c
o
o
o
The plume of volatile organic solvents is moving in the
groundwater aquifer toward five other City wells located in
the southern portion of the San Bernardino Basin south of
Highland Avenue, It is conceivable that sixteen (16) of the
City's largest producing wells could require volatile organic
solvent removal equipment within five (5) years, Wells serv-
ing other agencies may also be in jeopardy.
In 1984, the City Water Department contracted the profes-
sional services of John Carollo Engineers to determine the
best methodes) for removing the solvents from the groundwater
supply at the Newmark reservoir and pumping plant. Through
tests conducted by Carollo and the City Water Department, it
was concluded that the installation of aeration towers was
the most cost-effective method of initially removing the
,
solvents from the water at the Newmark pumping plant. The
estimated cost of the Newmark aeration project is $500,000,
If approved, the proposed units could be on line by April,
1986.
The 24 million gallon Newmark reservoir and pumping plant is
located at an elevation of 1414 feet. The four (4) wells
located on the plant site provide 7,500 gpm of water in a
critical location to more than 1/3 of the City's residents,
The cost to drill new wells, install transmission mains and
boosting equipment is in excess of 1,2 million dollars,
-3-
-
1
c
o
o
o
A significant result of the completed project is that the
removal of volatile organic solvents from the groundwater at
the Newmark location will reduce and/or slow down the
southerly migration of these solvents in the City's ground-
water aquifer,
If these solvents enter the artesian pressure zone, it could
force the City of San Bernardino and Riverside to install
additional aeration units or stop producing wells in this
zone, which would ultimately cause the high groundwater
levels in the southern portions of the City to rise even
more.
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa
Ana Region, is primarily concerned with enforcing toxic
clean-up of the water basin. The Department of Health,
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering staff are responsible for
monitoring and enforcing the public drinking water standards.
Both agencies respectively have been working with the City
staff to define the exact area of contamination. Since 1980,
extensive sampling and investigation programs have failed to
identify potential sources.
The Water Department, with support from the Regional Board
and State Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, is seeking funding
from the State Toxic Clean-Up Bond Act to initiate an exten-
-4-
c
o
o
o
sive clean-up program in the City's groundwater basin.
Samples taken this year at the Newmark plant indicate that
the PCE levels have risen to 144,9 ppb and TCE to 20,5 ppb,
The Water Department proposes the installation of two (2) 12
foot diameter, 38 foot high air stripping towers, and a 2000
square foot, single story hydrogenerator, chlorination and
blower building at the Newmark reservoir site located at
42nd Street and Magnolia Avenue, pilot testing conducted at
the Newmark site indicates that the units will remove 99% of
the volatile organic solvents from the well water. If and as
may be required, the stripping towers may be retrofitted with
treatment facilities to further treat the discharged strip-
ping air,
It is anticipated, based on the lateral movement of ground-
water, that the proposed units will be required at the
Newmark site for six years or less. The Water Department has
requested that the towers be designed for removal and rein-
stallation at other locations in the system should the need
arise,