AGENDA FULL PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton 475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project 30 would be required to comply with the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and incorporate tribal consultation into the CEQA environmental review process. The Final EIR concludes that with existing General Plan policies and state requirements, the impact of the DSP on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Overall, impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Impacts of the Barone’s Project Historical Resources The following analysis incorporates information from the Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) prepared for the project by TreanorHL in February 2021. The HRE is included as Appendix B to this Addendum. The project site is primarily occupied by a restaurant building, which was originally constructed prior to 1888 and incorporates small, recent additions on every building façade. A single-story, gable-roof building and four small single-story structures are adjacent to the restaurant building and dining area, and these structures were added to the site within the last two decades. The single-family residence within the project site, 493 St. John Street, was also constructed prior to 1888 and has experienced several modifications since its original construction, including window replacement, relocation of the main entrance, siding replacement, and several other small additions. The accessory dwelling unit associated with the house was constructed by 1943. Additionally, three prefabricated single-story accessory structures are associated with the house, all of which were added to the site within the last five years (Appendix B). Due to their age, the restaurant building and the single-family residence required evaluation for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criterion 1. These criteria pertain to properties associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history. The HRE determined that the restaurant and the single-family residence are not eligible for listing under other criteria of the NRHP or CRHR, and the other accessory structures on the site are not eligible for listing under any criteria of the NRHP or CRHR (Appendix B). The HRE evaluated the integrity of the restaurant and the single-family residence to determine if the properties qualified for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion A and Criterion 1, respectively. The HRE determined that although the restaurant building retains integrity for remaining in its original location, the property does not retain integrity of its original form and massing, its original scale, or its original use as a residential structure. Therefore, the HRE concludes the restaurant building does not retain sufficient integrity to be significant under Criterion A of the NRHP and Criterion 1 of the CRHR, and the property is not eligible for listing as a historic resource (Appendix B). Similarly, although the single-family residence retains integrity for remaining in its original location, the residence has been substantially altered and does not retain integrity of its original architectural style, design and workmanship. Additionally, the residence does not retain integrity of setting due to surrounding new development. Therefore, the HRE concludes that the single-family residence does not retain sufficient integrity to be significant under Criterion A of the NRHP and Criterion 1 of the CRHR, and the property is not eligible for listing as a historic resource (Appendix B). The project would involve demolition of the restaurant structure, while the single-family residence would remain on site. Because the restaurant does not qualify as a historic resource, its removal