Draft Environmental Impact Report - East Bay Municipal Utility District

Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportAnalysis of AlternativesB. Adaptive Reuse – The Project site will be altered and portions of the existingvisible structure may be preserved or retained with some change to its distinctivematerials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. There were two alternatives inthe adaptive reuse category (i.e., Options 2 and 3):Option 2 removes the roof structure entirely. However, the form of the existingroof is copied with retaining walls surrounding the inside of the reservoir basin.Both fountain structures are preserved, with the new tanks partially buried in thenorthwest and southeast corners.Option 3 removes the roof structure entirely and preserves the large fountainstructure. The new tanks are significantly buried in the northwest and southeastcorners of the basin.C. Complete Alteration – The Site will be completely redesigned with significantportions altered both physically and visually. There were two alternatives in thecomplete alteration category (i.e., Options 4 and 5):Option 4 removes the roof structure entirely. The new tanks are located on theeastern end of the basin. They are entirely buried with the exception of the curvedwest-facing architectural wall. Both fountain structures are removed.Option 5 removes the roof structure entirely. The new tanks are located on theeastern end of the basin. They are entirely buried with the exception of their westfacingwalls, which are covered by a low architectural landscape wall. Other wallsare configured to the natural contours of the landscape and offset to form a terracedlandscape. Both fountain structures are removed.Environmental AssessmentTable 4.2 presents a more detailed assessment of the Project construction and potentialenvironmental impacts for the three basic concept design categories. Options 5 and 2 arenot listed specifically in Table 4.2, however the environmental impacts and costs relatedto Option 5 are similar to those for Option 4 (the preferred option), while those forOption 3 are similar to those presented for Option 2.Options 1, 2 and 3 are more costly, but preserve or reuse some of the site architecture,including fountain structures. The fountains however, would remain dry in order to beconsistent with EBMUD's drought management and water conservation practiceseliminating water features. The neighborhood in general was not interested in the idea ofpreserving the fountains if the water was turned off. Options 4 and 5 completely alter thesite, incorporating the new buried water tanks into a natural landscape design. Based onpublic input and specific selection criteria, Option 4 was selected as the preferred plangiven its more natural-looking and aesthetically pleasing design.sb09_001.doc 4-9 7/23/2009