RES 221270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources Final Initial Study – Negative Declaration 41 identified.45 Hence, there is a possibility for archaeological sites not previously recorded to be present in areas where CAP 2.0 projects could occur. In particular, CAP 2.0 Actions P2, S2, S3, P5, P13, and S8 would result in small-scale construction that may expose previously undiscovered archaeological resources during ground disturbing activities. The CAP 2.0 projects would be located and designed strategically to reduce ground disturbance to the maximum extent possible. In addition, CAP 2.0 projects and actions would be reviewed for consistency with applicable local, regional, and State archeological regulations prior to final siting and construction and would be required to implement BMPs in accordance with the Pleasanton General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Goal 4 and its associated policies and programs, including the Pleasanton Standard Specifications and Details.46,47 These policies include a standard requirement during all ground disturbing activities that if potential archaeological resources are unearthed, construction must be halted, the City must be contacted, and a qualified professional must be hired to investigate and make recommendations. As such, archeological resources would be protected prior to and/or upon discovery and, thus, impacts would be reduced to a minimal level. Therefore, the CAP 2.0 would result in a less-than-significant impact related to archaeological resources. c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? There is a possibility of encountering unknown buried human remains throughout the City where CAP 2.0 project could occur. In particular, CAP 2.0 Actions P2, S2, S3, P5, P13, P15, and S8 would result in small-scale construction that may expose unknown human burial sites ground disturbing activities. CAP 2.0 projects and actions would be reviewed for compliance with applicable local, regional, and State regulations regarding cultural resources and human remains to avoid impacts related to unknown human interments. In addition, CAP 2.0 projects would be required to comply with State coroner requirements related to burial findings, including assessment and mitigation incorporation once project details and locations are known. Therefore, the CAP 2.0 would result in a less-than-significant impact related to human remains. Cumulative Impacts The cumulative projects scenario is overall General Plan buildout for Pleasanton in 2025 plus Pleasanton population projections through 2045. Implementation of the CAP 2.0 projects, in combination with other cumulative projects anticipated under Pleasanton General Plan buildout, would include infrastructure that could have an impact on cultural resources during construction. Impacts to historic and archaeological resources are generally site-specific. Additionally, there is a possibility of encountering buried archaeological deposits and human remains throughout the City. Accordingly, potential impacts associated with cumulative developments would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In addition, future projects in the City, including those associated with implementation of the CAP 2.0, would be required to comply with the Pleasanton General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element policies and programs that require the identification and protection of sites and structures of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance 45 Pleasanton, City of. 2009. Pleasanton General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element. Available: <https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23910>. Accessed October 7, 2021. 46 Ibid. 47 Pleasanton, City of. 2016. Pleasanton Standard Specifications and Details. Available: <http://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=28996>. Accessed October 13, 2021.