03 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton Pleasanton Climate Action Plan 2.0 a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 3. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4. Landslides? Pleasanton is located in a seismic hazard zone and there are eight active faults within the vicinity of the City that could cause seismic -related impacts. The Calaveras Fault is the closest fault and is located immediately adjacent to the City in the Pleasanton Ridge area. According to the Pleasanton General Plan Public Safety Element, there is minimal risk of fault rupture within the City; however, earthquakes from the nearby faults have the potential to generate severe to violent ground shaking within the City.54 Approximately, 12,000 acres within Pleasanton are susceptible to liquefaction and the majority of the City has no to low potential for landslides except for in the foothills area adjacent to Pleasanton Ridge and in the southern portion of the City adjacent to the Southeast HiIIs.55 In 2018, the Tri -Valley Cities (Pleasanton, Livermore, and Dublin), adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to assess hazards and reduce risks prior to a disaster event and fully cover the necessity to address seismic and geological hazards.S6 According to the LHMP, Pleasanton is at high risk of earthquake impacts and medium risk of geologic hazards such as Iandslide.57 Although Pleasanton is at risk of earthquake -induced ground shaking and associated hazards, the CAP 2.0 is a policy document containing climate strategies and supporting actions to reduce GHG emissions and is consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan, LHMP, and other regional and State seismic regulations. The CAP 2.0 does not propose habitable development or policies that could result in exposure of people to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic - related ground failure including liquefaction, or landslides. Therefore, the CAP 2.0 would result in no impact related to seismic- and landslide -related hazards. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The CAP 2.0 would not involve land use or zoning changes but would promote sustainable infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the CAP 2.0 would not directly require ground -disturbing activities. However, implementation of several CAP 2.0 actions may result in small-scale construction activities that could cause soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction. CAP 2.0 Action P2 promotes electrification of existing buildings, Actions S2 and S3 eiicuurdge energy efficiency upgrades and retrofits to existing buildings and municipal facilities, and Action P5 would expand EV charging stations and supporting infrastructure throughout Pleasanton. CAP 2.OAction P15 would incentivize water efficiency retrofits to existing buildings and landscaped areas, and Action S8 seeks to increase green stormwater infrastructure within the City, 54 Pleasanton, City of. 2009. Pleasanton General Plan Public Safety Element. Available: <https://www.cityofp16asantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdIoad.aspx?BIobID=23899>. Accessed October 13, 2021. 55 Ibid 56 Pleasanton, Livermore, and Dublin, Cities of. 2018. Tri -Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available: <http://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BIobID=35090>. Accessed October 13, 2021. 57 I bid. 48