My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
08
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
012015
>
08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2015 2:02:27 PM
Creation date
1/14/2015 12:08:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/20/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
8
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br /> City of Pleasanton Recycled Water Project <br /> CEQA Addendum <br /> Table 3 <br /> Environmental Review of Proposed Project Changes <br /> Do Proposed <br /> Changes Are Prior <br /> Involve Any New Mitigation <br /> What were the New Circumstances Measures <br /> Where Impact(s) Environmental Significant Involving New Any New Sufficient for <br /> were Analyzed Impact or Significant Information Addressing <br /> in conclusions for Substantially Impacts Requiring Any New <br /> Prior the Original More or Substantially New Potential <br /> Environmental Proposed Severe More Severe Analysis or Changes or <br /> Environmental Issue Area Documents. Project? Impacts? Impacts? Verification? Impacts? <br /> Project Change Discussion: <br /> The proposed changes to the Proposed Project would have the same impacts to biological resources as the Original <br /> Proposed Project. The addition of 720 feet or 0.1 mile of new pipeline would not result in any new impacts to air <br /> quality as was evaluated in the IS/MND. Also, the construction activities associated with the revised pipeline <br /> conveyance facilities would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as they <br /> would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. The <br /> Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on biological resources as <br /> defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). <br /> IS/MND <br /> Cultural Resources Pages 3-16 LTS/M No No No Yes <br /> _ through 3-18 <br /> IS/MND Discussion: <br /> The IS/MND concluded that the construction of the Proposed Project would not have any direct impacts on <br /> identified historical and archeological resources. However, construction of the Proposed Project could have <br /> significant impacts on unidentified and undiscovered buried cultural resources. However, with the implementation <br /> of the following mitigation measures, any impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. <br /> IS/MND Mitigation Measures: <br /> • Mitigation Measure CR-1: Halt work if cultural resources are discovered <br /> • Mitigation Measure CR-2: Stop work if paleontological remains are discovered <br /> • Mitigation Measure CR-3: Halt work if human remains arc found <br /> Project Change Discussion: <br /> The proposed changes to the Proposed Project would have the same impacts to cultural resources as the Original <br /> Proposed Project. The addition of 720 feet or 0.1 mile of new pipeline would not result in any new impacts to <br /> cultural resources as was evaluated in the IS/MND. Also, the construction activities associated with the revised <br /> pipeline conveyance facilities would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as <br /> they would also be constructed within existing roadways, highly disturbed areas, and/or public right-of-ways. The <br /> Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on cultural resources as <br /> defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). <br /> IS/MND <br /> Geology and Soils Pages 3-19 LTS/M No No No Yes <br /> and 3-20 <br /> IS/MND Discussion: <br /> As described in the IS/MND, the Proposed Project may be located in areas that consist of medium dense to dense <br /> fine granular soils. In addition, perched groundwater could be present. As such, the soil in some areas of the <br /> alignment may have a high susceptibility to liquefaction during seismic shaking. Other portions of the Project may <br /> be less susceptible to liquefaction and related damage. Lateral spreading, often associated with liquefaction, is less <br /> likely because there are no steep banks or hard ground bordering the Project area, but could still potentially be a <br /> hazard. However, with the implementation of the following mitigation measure, any impacts are reduced to less <br /> than significant levels. As a result,the following mitigation is proposed: <br /> December 2014 34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.