Laserfiche WebLink
If a mutually agreeable strategy cannot be reached with the City of Livermore, City <br />of Dublin and Alameda County, or any one of them, then the City of Pleasanton will <br />not require the contribution of mitigations for contributions to impacts in any other <br />jurisdiction unwilling to agree to reciprocity within the City of Pleasanton. This is <br />because, under such circumstances, the City could not be assured that projects it <br />approves are being assessed for mitigation only in proportion to their impact and <br />because the City may need to require reallocation of the mitigation contribution to <br />intersections and roadway segments within Pleasanton itself, lacking assurance of <br />mitigation funding from projects that may be approved by other jurisdictions. In the <br />event that a mutually agreed upon strategy is not reached, then mitigation of the <br />Project's contribution to the impacted intersection or roadway segment would be <br />infeasible, and the impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. <br />Based on this cooperative agreement, the project developer will pay its share of <br />costs of improvements in question in proportion to the benefits received. The fair <br />share costs will be contributed to the local agency that has entered into an <br />agreement with the City of Pleasanton when the local agency is ready to <br />implement the improvements at issue, provided the aforementioned strategy has <br />been mutually agreed upon by the City of Pleasanton and such other local agency. <br />If a mutually agreeable strategy is reached, the project developer will provide for its <br />share of the improvements in question prior to the issuance of a building permit for <br />its project. Since the improvements may not be constructed for several years, the <br />provision shall include an inflationary provision, as determined by the City <br />Engineer. The total amount of the provision, the share of improvements plus the <br />inflationary provision, shall be determined by the City Engineer. <br />18. Archaeological Resources. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building <br />permit for the project, the project developer shall retain the services of a qualified <br />archaeological consultant having expertise in California prehistoric archaeology. <br />The archaeological consultant shall determine if planned development could <br />potentially impact important archaeological resources and shall then design an <br />appropriate archaeological monitoring program. Upon completing the <br />archaeological monitoring program, the archaeological consultant shall submit a <br />written report of findings first and directly to the Director of Community <br />Development. At a minimum, the archaeological monitoring program shall include <br />the following: <br />a. An archaeological monitor shall be on site during native soils disturbing <br />activities. <br />b. The archaeological consultant shall advise all project contractors to be on <br />the alert for evidence of expected resources, of how to identify the evidence <br />of the expected resources, and of the appropriate protocol in the event of <br />discovering an archaeological resource. <br />12 <br />