Laserfiche WebLink
City of Pleasanton Recycled Water Project <br />CEQA Addendum <br />Table 1 <br />Environmental Review of Proposed Project Changes <br />Environmental Issue Area <br />Where Impact(s) <br />were Analyzed <br />in <br />Prior <br />Environmental <br />Documents. <br />What were the <br />Environmental <br />Impact <br />conclusions for <br />the Original <br />Proposed <br />Project? <br />Do Proposed <br />Changes <br />Involve <br />New <br />Significant <br />or <br />Substantially <br />More <br />Severe <br />Impacts? <br />Any New <br />Circumstances <br />Involving New <br />Significant <br />Impacts <br />or Substantially <br />More Severe <br />Impacts? <br />Any New <br />Information <br />Requiring <br />New <br />Analysis or <br />Verification? <br />Are Prior <br />Mitigation <br />Measures <br />Sufficient for <br />Addressing <br />Any New <br />Potential <br />Changes or <br />Impacts? <br />Page 3-35 <br />NI <br />No <br />No <br />No <br />Yes <br />IS/MND Discussion: <br />The Proposed Project would not generate population growth and the operation and maintenance of the Proposed <br />Project would not be labor intensive. In addition, the Proposed Project would not increase the demand for the kinds <br />of public services that would support new residents, such as schools, parks, fire, police, or other public facilities. As <br />a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. <br />IS/MND Mitigation Measures: <br />• None identified or necessary <br />Project Change Discussion: <br />The proposed changes to the Proposed would have the same or less impact on public services as the Original <br />Proposed Project. The addition of new booster pump station would not result in any new impacts to public services <br />as was evaluated in the IS/MND. Also, the construction activities associated with the new booster pump station <br />would be substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND. The Revised Proposed Project <br />therefore would not have any incrementally significant effects on public services as defined in CEQA Guideline <br />section 15162(a). <br />Recreation <br />IS/MND <br />Page 3-36 <br />NI <br />No <br />No <br />No <br />Yes <br />IS/MND Discussion: <br />The Proposed Project would not contribute to population growth. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not <br />increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial <br />physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. As a result, no impact is expected and no <br />mitigation is required. <br />IS/MND Mitigation Measures: <br />• None identified or necessary. <br />Project Change Discussion: <br />The proposed changes to the Proposed would have the same or less impact on recreation as the Original Proposed <br />Project. The addition of the new booster pump station would not result in any new impacts to recreation resources as <br />was evaluated in the IS/MND. The new booster pump station would be located in a sports park, but would be <br />located away from the sports fields and would not change or affect any recreational use at the park. In fact, the new <br />booster pump station will help the irrigation of the park fields, which would improve the parks facilities and <br />recreation activities. Also, the construction activities associated with the new booster pump station would be <br />substantially the same as they were originally described in the IS/MND. The Revised Proposed Project therefore <br />would not have any incrementally significant effects on recreation as defined in CEQA Guideline section 15162(a). <br />Socioeconomics <br />IS/MND <br />Pages 3-37 <br />and 3-38 <br />LTS <br />No <br />No <br />No <br />Yes <br />IS/MND Discussion: <br />April 2018 <br />3-14 <br />