Draft Environmental Impact Report - East Bay Municipal Utility District

Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportAnalysis of AlternativesIn the meantime, EBMUD would continue to operate the system as it does today. Thecurrent excess storage problem in the Dingee Pressure Zone (Estates and Dingee Reservoirs)would remain unresolved. Maintaining oversized facilities also diverts resources away frominvestment in other, necessary system wide improvements. Aging systems becomeincreasingly inefficient and costly to operate and maintain, and could eventually pose safetyhazards and impact water quality. The DSOD request for improvements to resolve damfoundation issues would be costly without guaranteeing permanent resolution ofseismic/regulatory issues. DSOD would retain regulatory responsibility for the dam and byextension, the reservoir, and that oversight would in turn entail unspecified futureexpenditures to ensure on-going compliance.4.5. Comparison of Selected Alternatives and Identification ofthe Environmentally Preferred ProjectCEQA requires that an EIR identify an environmentally preferred alternative (Guidelines 15126.6(e) (2).The analysis presented in Chapter 3 of the EIR indicates that most of the impacts associated withthe proposed Project (Alternative 2) are construction related and can be mitigated to a less thansignificant level. Exceptions include cultural resource impacts related to demolition of the EstatesReservoir roof and roof features, short-term construction-related noise impacts at the Project site,and short-term off-site traffic impacts on LaSalle Avenue, west of Trafalgar. Even withmitigation, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative, minimizing construction costs, and in turn, constructionduration and related impacts, relative to the other alternatives. The preferred Project alsooptimizes the potential to reuse existing materials on site, thus minimizing impacts on traffic, airquality and greenhouse gas emissions.In the near term, the No Project Alternative would avoid the construction related impactsassociated with the proposed Project. However, the No Project Alternative would not address anyof the Project needs or objectives as stated in Chapter 2 of this EIR or noted above which includeenvironmental impacts to water quality and public safety from seismic hazards.The proposed Project (Alternative 2) is the environmentally superior, feasible alternativesince it involves construction at only one and not two or three reservoir sites. Also, theproposed Project would have a lower potential for impacts to traffic and circulation, airquality, GHG, noise, visual, geotechnical, and biological resources with one exception.Demolition of the Estates roof and features constitutes a permanent loss of facilities whichconstitutes a Significant and Unavoidable impact to Cultural Resources (even withmitigation).sb09_001.doc 4-12 7/23/2009