11 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton Recycled Water Project CEQA Addendum Table 1 Environmental Review of Proposed Project Changes Environmental Issue Area Where Impact(s) were Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. What were the Environmental Impact conclusions for the Original Proposed Project? Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Are Prior Mitigation Measures Sufficient for Addressing Any New Potential Changes or Impacts? AestheticsNisual IS/MND Page 3-2 LTS No No No Yes IS/MND Discussion: As identified in the IS/MND, implementation of the Proposed Project would have no to less than significant potential impacts to aesthetic and visual resources. As a result, implementation of the Proposed Project as described in the IS/MND would not result in significant unavoidable impacts to the visual character or add substantial amounts of light and glare. IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • None identified or necessary. Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes to the Proposed Project would generally have the same impacts to aesthetic/visual resources as the Original Proposed Project. The addition of the booster pump station would not result in any new significant aesthetic or visual impacts that were evaluated in the IS/MND. The new building would be located in the Ken Mercer Sports Park, which is not considered to be a scenic vista or resource area and would be designed to blend in with the other facilities such as the existing restrooms. In addition and as noted in the design plans, the building would be surrounded by Rhamnus California Coffee Berry Plants per the City's design code/standard 809 which will help conceal or shield the building. Also, the construction activities associated with the new booster station would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND as it would also be constructed within an existing disturbed area. The Revised Proposed Project therefore would not have any incrementally significant aesthetics/visual effects as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). Agricultural Resources IS/MND Page 3-4 LTS No No No Yes IS/MND Discussion: As identified in the IS/MND, potential impacts to agricultural Farmland, or Farmland Farmland Mapping and Proposed Project would Project will not be located not convert any farmland IS/MND Mitigation Measures: • None identified Project Change Discussion: The proposed changes Proposed Project. The implementation of the Proposed Project would have no to less than significant resources. The Proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. The be primarily constructed within existing roadways within the City. In addition, the Proposed on any existing agricultural fields or farmlands. As a result, the Proposed Project would to non-agricultural usage. No mitigation is required or necessary. or necessary. to the Proposed Project would have the same impacts to agricultural resources as the Original addition of the new booster pump station would not be located on an existing agricultural April 2018 3-7