Agmt12 TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. MIG/TRA Environmental Services Inc.

Browse Search

Alternatives Considered but Reiected: 1. Alternative Project Location: The new water tank needs to be located at the project site to have the California Pressure Zone and other directly connecting zones operate efficiently. Existing pipelines and infrastructure are already at the site. This discussion will elaborate on the functioning of the California Pressure Zone requirements so the constraints of locating the tank at a different site are clearly described. This discussion will not include an analysis of potentially suitable alternative sites. 2. Fully Covered Project Alternative: Moving the water tank more than 80 feet into the site is not feasible because of geotechnical and slope stability problems with the cut slope. 3. Fully Buried Project Altemative: The site is underlain by moderately-severely to severely weathered Franciscan greenstone bedrock and serpentinite (asbestos containing soils). Construction of a fully buried water tank would required extensive excavation in bedrock and asbestos containing soils and would create problematic geologic conditions. The EIR will discuss each alternative rejected in enough detail to substantiate its rejection. Alternatives to be Considered in the EIR: Below is the list of alternatives the EIR will address. This list has been developed in consultation with City staff and the project design team but may be modified as engineering analysis of each alternative is done. 1. No Project Alternative (required by CEQA). 2. Increased Setback Alternative. Under the proposed project the water tank is setback from west edge of the pavement along California Way by 50 feet (to the nearest edge of the proposed tank). The tank could be pushed further back into the site, increasing the setback distance from California Way. The distance that the tank can be pushed back into the site is constrained by hillside excavation, geotechnical and slope stability issues and the maximum height which a retaining wall can be constructed. The discussion of this alternative would provide information on the geotechnical and slope stability considerations of placing the tank further into the site. 3. Reduced Project Alternative: This alternative would focus on reducing the mass of the water tank on the project site. It would discuss a tank that would be reduced in size enough to make a noticeable difference in the visual impacts of the project. Determining the size of the reduced tank to analyze is somewhat arbitrary but since the residents didn't seem to mind the two previous wooden water tanks, we propose to analyze a water tank that is approximately the size of the two previous water tanks combined. This approach resulted in a tank with an internal diameter of 55 feet and 19.3 feet high which would hold 284,195 gallons of water. This size tank would measurably reduce the mass ATTY/AGR/2014/AMENDMENTS/AMEND NO.1 TRA ENVIRONTENTAL SCIENCES INC.—CALIfORNIA TANK REV:06-05-14 VR Page 5 of 17