Laserfiche WebLink
<br />6.2A <br />Page 50 <br /> <br />significant impacts and their ability to meet Project objectives. This comparative analysis is used <br />to consider reasonable, potentially feasible options for minimizing environmental consequences <br />of the Proj ect. <br /> <br />A. Reasons for Approval of the Project <br /> <br />The overall goals of the WSIP for the regional water system are to: <br /> <br />· Maintain high-quality water and a gravity-driven system <br />· Reduce vulnerability to earthquakes <br />· Increase delivery reliability <br />· Meet customer water supply needs through 2018 <br />· Enhance sustainability <br />· Achieve a cost-effective, fuHy operational system <br /> <br />The BDPL No.5 Project contributes to achievement of these goals. In addition, the BDPL No.5 <br />Project was designed to ensure adequate service over time and to resist damage from <br />earthquakes. Specifically, the objectives of the BDPL No.5 Project are to: <br /> <br />· To provide a new seismically reliable pipeline between Mission Boulevard (near the <br />Irvington Tunnel) in Fremont and the Pulgas Tunnel in unincorporated San Mateo <br />County, so that the new pipeline provides a higher probability of remaining in operation <br />and being able to contribute toward a system delivery of 229 mgd (i.e., estimated average <br />winter month demand) within 24 hours following a design seismic; <br />· To size and configure the BDPL transmission system for both the transmission of water <br />across the Bay and for distribution to customers west of Mission Boulevard in Fremont <br />and to replenish local reservoirs; and <br />· To contribute toward meeting the estimated average annual demand of up to 300 mgd by <br />2030 under the conditions of one planned shutdown of a major facility for maintenance <br />concurrent with one unplanned facility outage caused by a natural disaster, emergency, or <br />facility failure or upset. <br /> <br />B. Alternatives Rejected and Reasons for Rejection <br /> <br />The Comnlission rejects the Alternatives set forth in the Final EIR and listed below because the <br />Commission finds that there is substantial evidence, including evidence of economic, legal, <br />social, technological, and other considerations described in this Section in addition to those <br />described in Section VI below under CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(3), that make infeasible such <br />Alternatives. In making these determinations, the Commission is aware that CEQA defines <br />"feasibility" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable <br />period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological <br />factors." The Commission is also aware that under CEQA case law the concept of , 'feasibility" <br />encompasses (i) the question of whether a particular ~~e~~,~i.Y.~HP~9~9.t.~~Jl:1~H~,~4.~:r.IYi.:I1g ,g9.'~~~HH" <br />,'and objectives '6faprojecf'iiid'(ii} thE'qu'estionofwhetheran alternative'isH"desirable" frorti' a ' , <br />policy standpoint to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant <br />economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. <br /> <br />Alternative 1: No Project <br /> <br />Under the No Project Alternative, BDPL Nos. 1,2, 3, and 4 would continue to operate as they do <br />currently, and thus no deconlffiissioning of the Bay crossing reach ofBDPL Nos. 1 and 2, <br />including the bridge, trestles, and caisson, would occur, as they would in the proposed Proj ect. <br />Each pipeline would continue to be vital to continued water conveyance. No additional pipeline <br />or Bay Tunnel would be constructed and no coordinated rehabilitation or upgrades would be <br /> <br />40 <br />