My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-2026-15
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2026
>
PC-2026-15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/5/2026 12:52:06 PM
Creation date
8/5/2026 12:48:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/24/2026
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
444
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT <br /> ADDENDUM <br /> <br /> <br />98 FCS <br />Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx <br />2026). A response was received from Wilton Rancheria on March 17, 2026, stating that the Tribe did <br />not have any comments and did not wish to open consultation at this time. The Lisjan Nation <br />responded on March 17, 2026, requesting additional information related to the proposed project. The <br />City provided additional information in response to their request, and the Tribe did not request any <br />further consultation. No other responses were received pursuant to SB 18 consultation requirements. <br />The proposed project would still require the implementation of MM CUL-2a, MM CUL-2b, and MM <br />CUL-3 to reduce potential impacts on TCRs to a less than significant level. As such, the proposed <br />project’s impacts related to TCRs would be less than significant with mitigation, consistent with the <br />impact conclusions of the Prior FEIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce new <br />significant impacts or create substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously <br />identified in the Prior FEIR. No additional analysis is required. <br />e) Lead Agency Determined Tribal Cultural Resources <br />Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal <br />Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 <br />as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is <br />geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the <br />landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California <br />Native American Tribe , and that is a resource determined by the lead <br />agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to <br />be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of <br />Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? <br />Prior FEIR Conclusions <br />The Prior FEIR found that no TCRs were identified during Tribal consultation or field investigations. <br />Nonetheless, given that inadvertent discovery of TCRs during construction activities is always <br />possible, the Prior FEIR identified MM CUL-2a, MM CUL-2b, and MM CUL-3, which would apply to <br />ensure appropriate evaluation and treatment if such resources are discovered during construction. <br />With respect to Alternative 2, ground disturbance would be less than that of the County Project, <br />reducing the area where archaeological or TCRs could be affected. While mitigation for inadvertent <br />discovery would still be required, the overall potential for impact would be lower than the County <br />Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-14). Therefore, the Prior FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than <br />significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-28, 6-14). <br />Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusion <br />Because the proposed project would be constructed in the same location as the County Project, the <br />findings of the Tribal consultation and field investigations conducted under the Prior FEIR would still <br />apply. Additionally, as described above, the City completed Tribal consultation pursuant to SB 18. A <br />response was received from Wilton Rancheria on March 17, 2026, stating that the Tribe did not have <br />any comments and did not wish to open consultation at this time. The Lisjan Nation responded on <br /> <br />Plan Amendment was not previously triggered by the County Project, SB 18 consultation with California Native American <br />Tribes is required prior to its adoption by the City.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.