14 ATTACHMENT 6 - Appendix A - E

City of Pleasanton–Spotorno Ranch Reduced Development Project Initial Study/Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 97 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480021/Consistency Checklist/21480021 Spotorno Ranch Consistency Checklist ScreenCheck.docx proposed project would be located in the Spotorno Flat Area on western portion of the site. A “Building Restriction Zone” would extend to 50 feet on both sides of the Verona Fault Area. The building design would adhere to all applicable requirements from the California Building Standards Code (CBC) at a minimum, as well as Pleasanton General Plan policies. Furthermore, consistent with MM H7, a 2015 Geotechnical Feasibility Report was prepared for the project site by ENGEO, Inc. and can be found in Appendix E. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to fault rupture beyond what was previously analyzed in the 1998 HVSP FEIR. ii) Ground Shaking The 1998 HVSP FEIR determined that ground shaking at the site during the expected earthquakes on regional faults could cause structural and nonstructural damage to the proposed structures at the project site. Structures and constructed slopes would be required to implement the most recent Uniform Building Code (UBC), as well as requirements to prepare a soils report, consistent with MM H1; disclosure of earthquake hazards to purchasers, consistent with MM H2; and preparation of an earthquake preparedness and emergency response plan, consistent with MM H3. The 1998 HVSP FEIR concluded that impacts related to seismic ground shaking were significant and unavoidable. The project site is located is a seismically active region. Small earthquakes occur within the region every year, and large earthquakes have occurred and are expected to occur in the future. Based on the proximity of the project site to known active seismic sources, it should be expected that the project site would experience moderately strong to strong seismic ground shaking during the project’s lifetime. To mitigate the ground shaking effects, all structures would be designed using sound engineering judgment and the latest CBC requirements, at a minimum. Additionally, consistent with the 1998 HVSP FEIR, the proposed project would implement MM H1, which requires preparation of a soil study; MM H2, which requires disclosure of earthquake hazards to purchasers; and MM H3, which requires preparation of an earthquake preparedness and emergency response plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to ground shaking beyond what was previously analyzed in the 1998 HVSP FEIR. iii) Ground Failure As discussed in greater detail in the response to Checklist Question 4.7c, the 1998 HVSP FEIR determined that moderate to strong ground shaking at the project site could result in liquefaction. The alluvial deposits within Happy Valley are recognized in the City's General Plan as having a high susceptibility to seismic shaking and "moderate to high" and "high" potential for liquefaction. Therefore, the 1998 HVSP FEIR required implementation of a soils report and geotechnical report, consistent with MM H1; disclosure of seismic hazards to purchasers, consistent with M2; and preparation of an earthquake preparedness and emergency response plan, consistent with M3. The 1998 HVSP FEIR concluded that impacts related to seismic hazards, including liquefaction and ground failure, were significant and unavoidable.