02 ATTACHMENT 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 22 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480022/FOF/21480022 Pleasanton Housing Element FOF.docx Facts in Support of Findings: On February 25, 2022, a letter was sent to the NAHC as described in Impact CUL-4. The response indicated the search returned negative results for TCRs within the potential sites for housing and recommended contacting tribal representatives from seven tribes for additional information. On April 20, 2022, in accordance with requirements promulgated by Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City notified the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, the Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band, the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of San Francisco Bay, the North Valley Yokuts Tribe, the Ohlone Indian Tribe, and Wilton Rancheria of the Housing Element Update and invited the tribes to participate in consultation. To date, no responses have been received. The City has not identified TCRs on the potential sites for housing pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. Nonetheless, as described under Impact CUL-4, future development consistent with the Housing Element Update could affect previously unidentified TCRs. As discussed under Impact CUL-1 through Impact CUL-4, the General Plan includes policies and programs to conserve and reduce impacts to TCRs, such as Policy 5 and Programs 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. Additionally, Policy 1 of the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan minimizes impacts to TCRs. By adhering to the policies and actions in the General Plan, the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, and applicable current State, federal and local regulations, including, but not limited to, SB 18 and AB 52, potential impacts to existing or undiscovered eligible TCRs within the potential sites for housing would be reduced to less than significant (Draft Program EIR, Page 3.4-24). Potential Effect Cumulative Impact: Development consistent with the Housing Element Update, rezonings, and General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments would not cause cumulative impacts to a Cultural Resource or Tribal Cultural Resource. (Draft Program EIR, Page 3.4-24–25). Findings: Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Findings: The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for cultural resources and TCRs is the Tri-Valley Planning Area, which includes the City of Pleasanton as well as the surrounding Cities of Dublin, Livermore, and San Ramon and the Town of Danville. Development within the cumulative geographic context would be required to comply with federal, State, and local laws and policies that protect cultural resources and TCRs, including the provisions of SB 18 and AB 52, Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, and Sections 5024.1 and 5097 of the Public Resources Code. Compliance with these policies may also require development projects to prepare site-specific, project-level analysis to fulfill CEQA requirements, which would include additional consultation that could lead to the identification of potential site-specific cultural resources and TCRs. Accordingly, cumulative development would be required to comply with long-term planning documents, and regulatory agency policies (including, but not limited to, evaluation requirements and inadvertent discovery procedures) that would reduce impacts to potential cultural resources and TCRs. The Housing Element Update’s incremental contribution to these less than significant cumulative impacts would not be significant with implementation of the policies and programs included in the General Plan, the Vineyard Avenue