Draft Environmental Impact Report - East Bay Municipal Utility District

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 5Cumulative Impacts, Growth Inducement andOther Topics Required by CEQA5.1 Cumulative Impacts5.1.1 Approach to AnalysisA cumulative impact is caused by implementation of the proposed Estates ReservoirReplacement Project (Project) evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)together with other projects with related environmental effects. The purpose of thisanalysis is to disclose the potential for significant cumulative impacts resulting from theProject in combination with other projects or conditions, and to indicate the severity ofthe impacts and their likelihood of occurrence.The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15130) requirethat EIRs discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the Project’s incrementaleffect is “cumulatively considerable,” meaning that the Project’s incremental effects areconsiderable when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probablefuture projects. The discussion of cumulative impacts should include:Either 1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related orcumulative impacts; or 2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted generalplan or similar document, or in an adopted or certified environmental document,which described or evaluated conditions contributing to a cumulative impactA discussion of the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effectA summary of expected environmental effects to be produced by these projectsReasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the Project’s contribution toany significant cumulative effectsThis cumulative impact analysis uses a list of probable future projects under the purviewof various agencies with jurisdiction in the Project area, including other East BayMunicipal Utility District (EBMUD) projects. The analysis does not address cumulativeimpacts for resource issues not analyzed for the Project, i.e., for issues not found to bepotentially significant and therefore excluded from analysis in the EIR. Issues excludedinclude: Land-Use/Planning; Hazard/Hazardous Materials; Public Services;Utilities/Service Systems; Agricultural Resources; Recreation; Population and Housing.sb09_001.doc 5-1 7/22/2009
Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportCumulative Impacts, Growth Inducement and Other Topics Required by CEQA5.1.2 Projects with Potentially Related or Cumulative EffectsThis evaluation considers cumulative impacts associated with construction andoperation of the proposed Project based on the geographic scope of the affectedenvironmental resource and the proposed Project schedule. The cumulativeanalysis considers the impacts of the Project described in Chapter 3 incombination with potential environmental effects of other projects proposed forthe Project area.The project sponsors contacted for this chapter include service districts (PG&E), localjurisdictions (Cities of Oakland and Piedmont), responsible and other agencies(California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] and Alameda-Contra Costa [AC]Transit). Proposed EBMUD projects are also considered. Projects were generallyidentified by the planning, community development, and public works/engineeringdepartments of these agencies, as well as through information posted on websites.Projects with a potential for cumulative impact within the proposed construction timeframe are assumed to be those within a one to three mile radius of the Estates Reservoirsite. The complete list of projects provided by jurisdiction and agencies is available forreference upon request.The City of Oakland provided a table of 96 proposed projects, of which 29 areprojects for which a pre-application hearing has been held and 67 are projects thathave been approved. A list of 65 completed projects was also provided. Using aone, two and three mile radius to determine potential cumulative significancerelative to geographic proximity, only two proposed projects are in close proximityto the reservoir site and therefore have a potential for cumulative impact relative totraffic and circulation (travel time, access and haul routes to/from the reservoir site).The City subsequently indicated that one of those projects was indefinitely deferreddue to a lack of financing.The City of Piedmont mentioned three potential projects that were being considered ofwhich two are planning studies, but noted that there is no established schedule orfunding to implement any project. No detail was provided for these projects.Caltrans provided a list of six potential projects. Four are projects that will bedispersed throughout Alameda County with no specific locations provided. Addition ofa fourth bore to the Caldecott Tunnel North side, and storm drain improvements alongthe Warren Freeway (SR-13) between Redwood Road to Carson Street, would bewithin the three mile radius.A review of AC Transit’s website showed dispersed small scale improvement projects inOakland and Alameda County along major arterials in the flatland/downtown area. Noneare within the three miles radius of the Estates reservoir site.sb09_001.doc 5-2 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:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
3.5 Cultural Resources3.5.1 Approac
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
3.6 Traffic and Circulation3.6.1 Ap
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169: Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft
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 268 and 269:
Dingee Pressure Zone Improvement Pr
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?