Draft Environmental Impact Report - East Bay Municipal Utility District

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportCultural Resourcesparcel. Ms. Arrigoni recorded the historic structures on the parcel (referred to as the‘Estates Reservoir site’ and consisting of the concrete-lined basin, earthen dam, theMontclair Pumping Plant, the valve and meter pit, the stilling basin and culvert, therubble retaining wall, and the pathways). Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., recorded the roofstructure designed by Robert Royston.ResultsThe records search revealed that two cultural resource studies have been undertaken thatinclude the Project area (Chavez, 1985; Mayfield, 1978). However, both studies areregional overviews and did not include field reconnaissance. One additional study, thatdid involve an archaeological survey, has been conducted within one-quarter-mile of theProject area (Chavez and Hupman, 2000).There are no previously recorded archaeological sites within the record search area.Three historic buildings have been recorded within one-quarter-mile of the Project area,although none are located within the Project area (Oakland Cultural Heritage, 1994a,1994b, 1994c). An additional seven historic buildings located within one-quarter-mile ofthe Project area are listed in the Office of Historic Preservation Historic PropertiesDirectory, but none are within the Project area (Office of Historic Preservation # 106064,106105. 106106, 106267, 092992, 106298, 106397).In 1986, the Estates Reservoir roof structure designed by Robert Royston was rated “*C3Potential Designated Historic Property, Post 1945,” in the Oakland Cultural HeritageReconnaissance Survey. The asterisk indicates that the property was less than 45 yearsold at the time of rating with a contingency rating of “C”. The “C” indicates that theproperty is of “Secondary Importance,” as a superior or visually important example, andthe “3” indicates that the property is not within a historic district.Circa 2007, the Estates Reservoir fountains, planter and surface planes were nominatedfor designation as a City of Oakland historic landmark (Parish 2007). The CulturalLandscape Foundation supported this designation, and stated that, in early 2008, they had“recognized the Estates Drive Reservoir as a nationally significant historic designedlandscape in the Foundation’s Landslide feature.” The Cultural Landscape Foundationstated that they thought that Royston’s design may be eligible for the National Register ofHistoric Places (Birnbaum 2008).On January 14, 2008, the Estates Reservoir fountains, planters and covers werepreliminarily determined by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, City ofOakland, to be eligible for City of Oakland historic landmark designation, and theproperty was given a preliminary evaluation rating of “B,” denoting “Major Importance”(Pavlinec 2008). Later in 2008, the Estates Reservoir roof structure was included in theCultural Landscape Foundation’s Landslide list, which is “a yearly designation ofsignificant landscapes at risk of being lost” (The Cultural Landscape Foundation 2008).However, the Cultural Landscape Foundation’s website states that the reservoir design issb09_001.doc 3-5.9 7/22/2009
Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportCultural Resources“not considered one of the most important examples of Royston’s work” (The CulturalLandscape Foundation 2007).No prehistoric cultural material was observed during the field survey. Considering theextent of disturbance to the site, and the steepness of the hill upon which the Project areais situated, there is very low potential for intact prehistoric deposits. The Project area hasbeen heavily disturbed through construction of the reservoir, earthen dam and associatedinfrastructure. Landscaping has been undertaken, primarily around the perimeter of theparcel. The reservoir is currently in use, and the concrete-lined basin contained water atthe time of survey.The Estates Reservoir site, consisting of the concrete-lined basin, earthen dam, theMontclair Pumping Plant, the valve and meter pit, the stilling basin and culvert, therubble retaining wall, and the pathways, is recommended as not eligible for listing in theCalifornia Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and is not considered a culturalresource for CEQA purposes. The Estates Reservoir, constructed in 1903, is related tothe continued development of an adequate water supply for the Oakland area. As thedevelopment of a safe and reliable water supply was essential to the growth andprosperity of the City of Oakland and its neighborhood communities, the EstatesReservoir is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broadpatterns of Oakland’s history (Criterion 1). The Estates Reservoir site is also associatedwith William J. Dingee, a person important to the San Francisco Bay Area’s history(Criterion 2). However, subsequent modifications have affected the integrity of the 1903design, and the current state of the property is not reflective of this period. Themodifications to the reservoir, including the installation of a concrete lining and of theroof structure, the raising of the earthen dam, construction of pathways and retainingwalls, and construction of the Montclair Pumping Plant, have been undertaken as part ofnormal maintenance and necessary upgrades to the system, and occurred in conjunctionwith maintenance and upgrades at other reservoir and pumping plant sites in the Oaklandarea. These modifications and upgrades have affected the integrity of the EstatesReservoir site as it relates to this early period, and the site now lacks integrity of design,materials, workmanship and feeling.The reservoir was originally constructed as an open-cut reservoir, although the cut itselfis no longer visible, and lined with concrete in 1938-1939. Distribution reservoirsconstructed by the East Bay Water Company, which had control of the reservoir in theearly 1900s, were typically lined with concrete, and while EBMUD had been created bythis time, the 1930s modifications may be reflective of this type of construction. Thecomponents of the site appear to have been constructed in a style and using constructiontechniques consistent with that used at other reservoir and pumping plant sites in theSan Francisco East Bay region. However, subsequent modifications and upgrades,primarily the installation of the roof structure, have affected the integrity of the 1930sdesign of the reservoir. The site does not represent the work of an important creativeindividual, or possess high artistic values (Criterion 3). The site is unlikely to yieldinformation important in history (Criterion 4).sb09_001.doc 3-5.10 7/22/2009
Page 1:
Estates Reservoir ReplacementDraft
Page 4 and 5:
TABLE OF CONTENTSEstates Reservoir
Page 6 and 7:
Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft
Page 8 and 9:
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSABABAGAPC
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
SUMMARYS.1 IntroductionThis Draft E
Page 14 and 15:
Estates Reservoir Improvements Draf
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Chapter 2Project Description2.1 Ove
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59: Chapter 3Environmental Setting, Imp
Page 60 and 61: Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft
Page 100 and 101: 3.5 Cultural Resources3.5.1 Approac
Page 126 and 127: 3.6 Traffic and Circulation3.6.1 Ap
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
CHAPTER 5Cumulative Impacts, Growth
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
CHAPTER 6Report Preparers6.1 Lead A
Page 232 and 233:
APPENDIX APublic InvolvementPublic
Page 234:
APPENDIX BNotice of PreparationAUGU
Page 238 and 239:
Dingee Pressure Zone Improvement Pr
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
FIGURESDingee Pressure Zone Improve
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280:
show all

Draft Environmental Impact Report - East Bay Municipal Utility District

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?