Laserfiche WebLink
Environmental Checklist <br />Mineral Resources <br /> <br />Final Initial Study – Negative Declaration 65 <br />12 Mineral Resources <br /> <br />Potentially <br />Significant <br />Impact <br />Less than <br />Significant <br />with <br />Mitigation <br />Incorporated <br />Less than <br />Significant <br />Impact <br />No <br />Impact <br />Would the project: <br />a. Result in the loss of availability of a known <br />mineral resource that would be of value to <br />the region and the residents of the state? □ □ □ ■ <br />b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally <br />important mineral resource recovery site <br />delineated on a local general plan, specific <br />plan, or other land use plan? □ □ □ ■ <br />a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of <br />value to the region and the residents of the state? <br />b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource <br />recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? <br />The Pleasanton General Plan and Pleasanton General Plan EIR identify the Livermore-Amador Valley <br />Quarry area in the easternmost portion of the City as an aggregate resource area of regional <br />significance for sand and gravel. These areas are designated for Sand and Gravel Harvesting use in <br />the Pleasanton General Plan Land Use Element.75 The majority of the City is classified as having no <br />significant mineral deposits, while the developed portion of the City west of I-680 is classified as an <br />area containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated based on available <br />data.76,77 The Pleasanton General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element includes Policy 4 that <br />reserves all areas designated for Sand and Gravel Harvesting exclusively for mineral resource <br />extraction until the resources have been depleted, and the CAP 2.0 would not conflict with this <br />policy or otherwise impact operations in the Livermore-Amador Valley Quarry area. Furthermore, <br />the CAP 2.0 would not facilitate additional urban growth or infrastructure development projects <br />within the City that could result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. Therefore, the <br />CAP 2.0 would result in no impact related to mineral resource. <br />Cumulative Impacts <br />The cumulative projects scenario is overall General Plan buildout for Pleasanton in 2025 plus <br />Pleasanton population projections through 2045. Identified mineral resources within the City are <br />limited to sand and gravel quarries located in the east of the City. These areas are designated by the <br />Pleasanton General Plan exclusively for mineral resources extraction, and the CAP 2.0 would not <br /> <br />75 Pleasanton, City of. 2012. Pleasanton General Plan Land Use Map. Available: <br /><https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23897>. Accessed October 14, 2021. <br />76 Pleasanton, City of. 2009. Pleasanton General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element. Available: <br /><https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23910>. Accessed October 7, 2021. <br />77 Pleasanton, City of. 2008. Pleasanton General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Available: <br /><https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23910>. Accessed October 7, 2021.