Agenda packet — Livermore City Council, July 11, 2022 (part 2 of 3)

City’s and County’s zoning designations for property in the vicinity of the proposed sewer extension alignment. ECAP serves as the County’s General Plan for the Sewer Expansion Project area. The SLVAP was incorporated into ECAP upon ECAP’s adoption in 1994.

The general plan land use designation for the parcels on either side of Buena Vista Avenue along the proposed sewer expansion alignment is “Rural Density Residential,” which allows a maximum density of one housing unit per five-acre parcel. These parcels are in the “R-1-L-B-E” zoning district which allows single family residences and limited agricultural uses.

The general plan designation for the unincorporated parcels along the expansion project alignment on South Livermore Avenue, Tesla Road, and Greenville Road is “Large Parcel Agriculture” which allows a minimum parcel size of 100 acres. The zoning is “Planned Development” and “A-CA” (Agriculture with Cultivated Agriculture overlay). The ECAP policies pertaining to the South Livermore Valley and the CA overlay district allow a density bonus of up to four additional building sites per 100 acres if certain criteria are met, including permanently setting aside a minimum of 90% of the parcel for viticulture or other cultivated agriculture. To support and enhance the development of the South Livermore Valley as a flourishing wine region, the CA overlay district allows wineries, winery-related uses, and various visitor-serving commercial uses. Because the Sewer Expansion Project Letter 2

2.1 2.2
6 EXHIBIT A
187
Draft Livermore SEIR
South Liv Sewer Extension
June 20, 2022

Page 2 ends

would not change the land uses currently allowed adjacent to the proposed alignment, it is consistent with the County’s current general plan and zoning designations.

Consistent with ECAP Policies 343 and 344, the sewer expansion project would contribute to fulfilling the vision of South Livermore as an important wine region by enabling the development of future wineries and visitor-serving uses that is permitted by the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance but is currently constrained by groundwater issues and lack of available infrastructure.

Policy 343: The County shall encourage the development of additional wineries with a range of sizes, and other wine-country uses that promote the South Livermore Valley as a premier wine-producing area.

Policy 344: The County shall encourage the promotion of the South Livermore Valley as a premier wine-producing center by encouraging appropriate tourist attracting and supporting uses, such as bed and breakfast establishments, bicycle and equestrian facilities, a conference center, a wine museum, or other uses, and by establishing clear, well-signed travel corridors from major highways to the area.

The County Planning Department supports the goal of the Sewer Expansion Project to enhance the South Livermore Valley wine region. Please contact Liz McElligott at (510) 670-6120 or [email protected] with any questions.

Sincerely,
Albert Lopez
Planning Director

2.2 2.3
7 EXHIBIT A
188
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter 2
COMMENTER: Albert Lopez, Planning Director, Alameda County Community Development Agency
DATE: June 20, 2022
Response 2.1
The commenter states that because the project would not change the land uses currently allowed adjacent to the proposed alignment, it is consistent with the County’s current General Plan and zoning designations. The commenter also states that the project would be consistent with the East County Area Plan Policies 343 and 344. Overall, the commenter states that the Alameda County Planning Department supports the goal of the Sewer Expansion Project to enhance the South Livermore Valley wine region.

This comment is noted and no response is warranted.
8 EXHIBIT A
189

3 .1
Letter 3
F
rom: Alex Abey < >
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2022 1:54:47 PM
To: Planning Web email <[email protected]>; Gina DiPrima < Subject: Sewer Extension Plans
E
xercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Mr. Ross and Planning Department,
I will not be able to attend the June 21, 2022 meeting in person, so I wanted to submit written comments in advance.

I am a long-time resident on Buena Vista Ave and my comments are related to possible impacts of the extension specifically related to Buena Vista Ave.

My understanding (based on comments recently in The Independent) is that Buena Vista is not covered by the South Livermore Valley plan and therefore does not inherit any of the zoning protections provided under that plan to other rural areas.

I am not an authority on zoning laws, but I believe that current Alameda County zoning provides certain protections against sub-division of properties and against having more than one primary residence and one sub-1200 square-foot auxiliary residence on the same property.

Furthermore, I believe one of the justifications for this zoning, in addition to the street's quasi-rural history, is that there are prohibitions against additional septic systems (for ground water quality reasons) and that this limit on septic systems is a primary rationale against allowing greater residential density on the street.

Given the above, my primary concern is that making sewer available on Buena Vista will remove the rationale for maintaining rural zoning and pave the way for changes in zoning that allow landowners to subdivide or build additional units. This would eventually turn Buena Vista into another generic subdivision. It may also pave the way for the City of Livermore to annex Buena Vista, which is something I do not support.

Therefore, my position on this topic is to only support the sewer line on Buena Vista if the City and County agree to not change the zoning and/or create protections that preserve the rural nature of the street and prevent subdivision or additional units beyond what is allowed today.

Thank you for considering my opinion in this matter.

Sincerely,
Alex Abey
9 EXHIBIT A
190
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter 3
COMMENTER: Alex Abey
DATE: June 11, 2022
Response 3.1
The commenter states they are concerned that the sewer extension on Buena Vista Avenue will allow for changes to current zoning that restricts landowners from subdividing their properties or building additional units on their property, and that the sewer extension will allow for the annexation of Buena Vista Avenue into the City of Livermore.

The project being analyzed within the Draft Supplemental EIR does not propose the annexation of parcels along Buena Vista Avenue into the City of Livermore, nor does the project propose a change to any existing land use designations or zoning of parcels adjacent to the proposed alignment. As stated in Section 2 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the project would only “support uses that are consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP [South Livermore Valley Specific Plan], or current zoning; should development on adjacent parcels that is not consistent with existing land use designations and zoning be proposed, additional CEQA review would be required” (page 2-10 of the Draft Supplemental EIR). Furthermore, parcels along Buena Vista Avenue would not be required to connect to the City’s wastewater system. As stated on page 2-12 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, “[f]ollowing project completion, individual properties would require subsequent approvals including permitting and service agreements with the City subject to Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission approval, County, and/or Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency, prior to connection to the wastewater system.”
10 EXHIBIT A
191

2 ) In the "Appendix Initial Study" it states that approximately 20' access will be required for the daily work area during construction. As you are most likely aware, Buena Vista does not have sidewalks therefore property fence lines (or lack of fences) and mail box alignment (on the west side of the street) varies. Therefore we have the following questions and concerns; a) Who would have the responsibility to determine if something needs to be relocated or removed (such as mailboxes) and who would be responsible for that cost? b) If there is any private property damage as a result of the construction activities what recourse does the property owners have to ensure repairs are completed at the cost of the project? c) If access to these mailboxes are blocked during construction, whose responsibility will it be to coordinate with the Livermore Post Office to ensure delivery of mail? d) How far in advance will property owners be notified if access to their property will be impacted due to lane closure or construction activities? We ask that consideration is made for the many residents who have trailers (i.e. Utility, Horse, RV and flat bed) that require larger radius to access driveways/property.
e) What is a reasonable duration where property owners may not have access to their driveway/property?
f) What previsions will be put into place in the event of an emergency where emergency vehicles need to access blocked property?
4 .1

4.2 Letter 4
F
rom: Donna Governor < >
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 6:47 PM
To: Andy Ross <[email protected]>
Cc: Eddie Governor <
Subject: Question regarding Sewer Extension Project
E
xercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

G
ood Evening,
We are Buena Vista Avenue residents and have a couple of questions and concerns. Unfortunately we are not available to attend the meeting scheduled for the 21st of June, so thought I would send you an email.

If you are not able assist us, maybe you can point us in the right direction. 1) The NOA states "the project would also allow existing residences on Buena Vista Avenue to connect to the City’s
wastewater system and cease the use of their on-site septic systems." Therefore we have the following questions and concerns;
a) Because it says "allow" does this mean that it is at the property owners discretion to tie into the City’s
wastewater system ?
b) Is there a time table that the residents need to make a decision? c) If the property owners decide to tie-in, what is the cost to the property owners? c) Would any pre-work for these tie-in connections happen when the main is installed and exposed? d) When would these connections be made?
11 EXHIBIT A
192
I think those are all of our initial questions and concerns. Again, if you are not the correct person to contact please let me know.

Thank you for your time.

Donna Governor
12 EXHIBIT A
193
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter 4
COMMENTER: Donna Governor
DATE: June 13, 2022
Response 4.1
The commenter asks if it is at the discretion of the property owner to tie into the City’s wastewater system; if there is a timeframe within which a decision must be made regarding individual property tie-ins; what the tie-in cost would be to property owners; if any pre-work would be required during the installation of the main sewer line extension for the tie-in connections to happen; and when the tie-in connections would be made.

As described in Response 3.1, the project would not require property owners along Buena Vista Avenue to tie into the City’s wastewater system. No pre-work would be required during initial construction of the main sewer line extension for properties on Buena Vista Avenue to be able to tie into the City’s wastewater system in the future. There are currently no details available regarding the timeline for decision and connection to the City’s wastewater system. In addition, there are currently no details available regarding the cost to an individual property desiring to connect to the City’s wastewater system; however, a connection fee (pricing to be determined) would be required.

This comment will be passed on to City decision-makers for consideration.

Response 4.2
The commenter asks who is responsible for determining if private property would need to be relocated or removed during construction of the project, and who would be responsible for those costs; what recourse is available to property owners if private property is damaged as a result of project construction; who will be responsible for coordinating with the Livermore Post Office to ensure delivery of mail if mailboxes are blocked during construction; how far in advance property owners will be notified if access to private property is impacted due to lane closures and construction activities; how long private property access will be disturbed; and what provisions will be put in place for emergency vehicle access during construction.

Page 2 ends

parking would be provided along the project alignment into one travel lane, one bike lane, and one shoulder…. Approximately 20 feet of width in the daily work area would be required. There is approximately 40 feet of pavement width on South Livermore Avenue, Tesla Road, Buena Vista Avenue, and Greenville Road.” Project construction would take place within the existing right-of- way and would not require the relocation or removal of structures or facilities located on private property. Damage to private property is unlikely; it is reasonable to assume no private property damage would occur during construction activities, as construction would be limited to the existing right-of-way and any accidental damage to private property would be compensated. Construction duration and staging is discussed page 2-11 of the Draft Supplemental EIR. It is anticipated that the contractor would install up to 150 linear feet (LF) of sewer line per day; therefore, disturbed access to an individual private property is expected to be limited to a few days over the entire span of the construction period. Furthermore, Section 2.5 of the Draft Supplemental EIR states:
13 EXHIBIT A
194
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Construction staging, laydown areas, and worker parking would be provided along the project alignment into one travel lane, one bike lane, and one shoulder. The contractor may work with private property owners as feasible, or use the City’s Maintenance Service Center for additional staging. The City would post signage along the alignment and on roadways leading up to it before and during construction to give advance warning of road closures and detours.

As staging areas would be limited to designated locations, it is not anticipated that delivery of mail would be inhibited or delayed during project construction. Signage would be posted along the project alignment and on roadways leading up to the alignment at least 72 hours prior to construction activities, which is standard practice in construction contracts and would be enforced by the City.

Emergency vehicle access is discussed in Section 17, Transportation, of the Initial Study, attached as Appendix IS to the Draft Supplemental EIR. Specifically, page 103 of Appendix IS states:

Project construction would require one lane of public roadways to be temporarily closed at any given time. A county-approved traffic control plan would be implemented to regulate worker parking, construction staging, roadway improvements and potential traffic detours during construction. Signage would be posted along the alignment and on roadways leading up to the alignment it before and during construction to give advance warning of road closures and detours. Additionally, lane closures during project construction would only occur along limited segments of the alignment, as approximately 150 linear feet of pipeline would be constructed each day. As a result, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.
14 EXHIBIT A
195
f
rom untrusted sources.

Hi Andy,
I see you are the city contact for the proposed Livermore sewer extension.

As you know, laws in California around CEQA mandate the disclosure of significant environmental effects of a proposed project. In conjunction with this, I have not read anything about any reports the city is conducting on the ramifications on increasing the vineyards scale due to this project in terms of the increased exposure to pesticides our community will face.

Numerous studies have shown that living near vineyards increases rates of cancer, childhood asthma and other health conditions due to pesticide drift.

Therefore, in order to understand the effects of the sewer line project in terms of increasing the winemakers footprint, it is paramount that the city of Livermore includes this in their reporting.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,
Victoria
5 .1
Letter 5
F
rom: < >
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 4:14 AM
To: Andy Ross <[email protected]>
Subject: Question regarding proposed Livermore Sewer extension Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments 15 EXHIBIT A
196
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter 5
COMMENTER: Victoria Kamerzell
DATE: June 18, 2022
Response 5.1
The commenter states that there is no discussion of the ramifications of increasing the vineyards scale on increased exposure to pesticides.

Air quality is discussed beginning on page 25 of Appendix IS to the Draft Supplemental EIR; and hazardous materials are discussed beginning on page 65 of Appendix IS to the Draft Supplemental EIR. As stated in Section 2 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the project would only “support uses that are consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, or current zoning; should development on adjacent parcels that is not consistent with existing land use designations and zoning be proposed, additional CEQA review would be required” (page 2-10 of the Draft Supplemental EIR). 16 EXHIBIT A
197
F
rom: Tim Johnston < >
S
ent: Monday, June 20, 2022 3:43 PM
To: Andy Ross <[email protected]>
S
ubject: South Livermore Draft SEIR comments

Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments f
rom untrusted sources.

T
he following comments are in response to the "South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report" As a lifelong resident of the local area with nearly always living on Buena Vista Avenue, I have much concern on the ramifications of a sewer servicing the area.

There are numerous flaws in the apparently bias, hastily, and superficially prepared report including:
• There are comments about only allowing existing residences to the sewer. There currently are properties that are entitled to building a house (primary dwelling as well as an Accessary Dwelling Unit) and the report is saying they will not be able to connect to sewer thereby restricting property rights of owners.
• There are conflicting and unclear statements on development that cannot happen with septic systems but will happen with a sewer but other comments saying there will be no development simply as a result of a sewer being available. • There is incorrect information on pavement width. This includes discussion of width and impact during possible construction. There appears to be unrealistic expectations of production and length of construction time.
• There is reference to Civil Engineering work but the report lacks any reference to reports by a Civil Engineer.
• The report makes broad assumptions on need to remove septic systems and restrictions supposedly in place. Where is supporting documentation of restrictions form State Regional Water Quality Control Board? Where is any project that has been restricted due to septic system where a complete and realistic proposal was rejected? • There is a statement of recycled paper content on a report that is transmitted electronically. This taints a reader’s understanding and detracts for the point of the report.
• The discussion of noise is not complete. Very subjective statements are made and not supported with any fact. There is a comment that no major project is planned, perhaps implying nothing will occur simultaneously and compounding noise. This is flawed in that a nearby project unknow will have impact on the vicinity, there does not Letter 6

6.1 6.2

6.3 6.4

6.5 6.6
17 EXHIBIT A
198
need to be a “major” project to compound noise from the construction of the possible sewer.
• There is inadequate justification for not addressing noise issues past the initial stu
dy.

There are conflicting statements:
• Impact Analysis a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population gr
owth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The proposed project would not involve the construction of new residences or businesses, nor would it extend existing roadways. The project would involve the construction of sanitary sewer infrastructure intended to support existing uses and serve existing development potential consistent with the vision of the General Plan and SLVSP. The project would not support uses that are not consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, or current zoning. The project would not cause unanticipated growth in the City. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial unplanned growth, directly or indirectly. Impacts to population or housing would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR • There is a statement that this project will not create new jobs in the City. If this pr
oposed project does will not create jobs (within or out of the city as support, secondary jobs) then why consider this work? If there are to be new wineries then by definition there will be new jobs and these new jobs will need staff.

Other discrepancies that should be addressed:
• There is reference to a library . The use of the Library is not limited to just citizens of Li
vermore.
• If there is an increase in visitors then there will be increase use of parks, within and ou
t of Livermore as a result of increased visitors to new facilities. If a 1997 report said otherwise then this is not valid in today’s conditions. • There is a statement that, th e project would not result in impacts related to recreation.

The project, through the building of visitor facilities, will therefore increase visitors, some of these visitors who will use recreation and park facilities. Use of recreational facilities is not limited to City of Livermore residences.
• The county is considering work on Tesla Road. Work on Tesla Road can impact the ti
ming and noise.

6.7 6.9

6.10 6.6

6.8 18

EXHIBIT A
199
• There is a statement that the project will not change existing roadways, increase com
mercial or residential development... or create an increase in traffic in the project vicinity. This cannot be correct, there will be an increase in traffic if there are people using (going to) additional facilities. If not, then the project has no purpose.

Project Objectives discrepancies:
• Improve groundwater quality. The means of improvement of groundwater quality is no
t explained.
• The members of the community outside of the city should be able to have a vote in el
ections both for the allowing of modifications to Measure D and for choosing elected officials that make decisions controlling use of their property.

Alternatives:
• The no project alternative incorrectly states:

Pa
rcels adjacent to the alignment are constrained from growth by existing septic systems, which are not eligible for expansion due to water quality concerns in the county.

This is false. There are mitigation means that have been and can continue to be used to provide for the requirements as a result of the alleged nitrate issue. • There is mention of groundwater improvement. But there is not mention of how gr
oundwater would improve. Nitrate will persist for decades and it is very possible that the source is other than from sewage going into septic systems. There is no firm data provided showing the sources of elevated nitrate.
• Alternative 2: This mentioned WWTP but failed to mention use of septic systems wi
th pretreatment which are currently in use and can serve additional properties. • Alternative 3: mentioned objectives of sewer on Buena Vista Avenue to reduce gr
oundwater quality issues but there is not mention of how sewer would help groundwater nor is there appropriate explanation of an existing water quality issue. • Impact 6a. The project would not result in a potentially significant environmental im
pact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. This impact would be less than significant • Impact 6b. The project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for re
newable energy or energy efficiency. No impact would occur • Impact 7a.3. The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial ad
verse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related

6.17 6.11

6.12 6.13

6.14 6.15

6.16 19

EXHIBIT A
200
ground failure, including liquefaction. This impact would be less than significant This area includes an area with liquefaction concerns. No Engineering proposed document. • Impact 7a.4. The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial ad
verse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. This impact would be less than significant.
• Answering this requires an engineering study which has not been done or has not be
en referenced.
• The same engineering need applies for Impact 7b, 7c, 7d. • Impact 7e. The project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. No impact would occur. • Impact 7e, is self service. The claim of not have capacity for septic system should be
properly supported or not made. This statement of the entire basis of the supposed need
• This concern, of soil supporting septic systems or sewers being available, was re
ported as being n/a in the 1997 EIR. This is a major blunder of the 1997 report and should invalidate the 1997 report or at least have a major revision and update. The sewer or septic system issues is the entire motivation of the current project consideration, but the need is being pushed aside and ignored. • Impact 9g, wildland fire. The 1997 report if flawed, according to current witness of fi
re spread, there have been changes in the area from local response to state response. Need to have this evaluated
• Impact 11b: This is an issue, this should be addressed. • Impact 13a, noise. There will be increase in noise from ongoing activities in the ne
w facilities to be created. This should be evaluation on current understanding of noise and sound.
• Impact 13b, Ground borne noise. There is no engineering information presented to an
swer this concern.
• Impact 14b: This project can induce growth. This should be adequately answered. • Impact 15a: Increased governmental facilities likely will be needed, this should be ad
dressed.

6.17 6.18

6.19 6.20

6.21 20

EXHIBIT A
201
• I
mpact 15a-b: Park facilities use can be expected if there is an increase in recreational uses, such as winery visitations.
• Impact 20a-d: there will be increase for fires including wildland fires with increases facilities.
• Impact There is a claim that groundwater would improve. There is no supplied evidence to support improvement expectations. There is no supporting evidence of source. The current natural attenuation of nitrate is not being considered. • Impact UTIL-1: This is wrong in statement of no development. Impact util-2: This is wrong, there are concerns for water rationing recommendations therefore cannot state there is sufficient supply for the demand.
• Groundwater will be encountered at the death mentioned for sewer excavation. There is no mention on how this will be mitigated. • There is very vague mention of impact to property owners along the sewer alignment. Will there be requirements to connect to the sewer and abandoning an operating septic system? Will connection be required when a septic system receives maintenance or repair? Will connection be required for house expansions? Will connections be required if a property owner does building or additions, such as an ADU?
• What is the consideration for costs to public agencies and to property owners for connections and ongoing fees?
• Has there been any analysis of costs for sewer connection? To continue with this project, I see the need for the above comments to be adequately addressed and recirculated for public comment.

Submitted by,
Tim Johnston

Livermore, CA 94550

6.21 6.22

6.23 6.24

6.25 6.26
21 EXHIBIT A
202
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter 6
COMMENTER: Tim Johnston
DATE: June 20, 2022
Response 6.1
The commenter expresses concern regarding the addition of sewer service to Buena Vista Avenue, and asks if the project would only allow existing residences to connect or if new residences or other future development would also be allowed to connect to the proposed pipeline. The commenter also states that the EIR provides conflicting statements regarding future sewer connections.

The commenter’s concerns are noted and will be passed on to City decision-makers for consideration.

As stated in Section 2.5 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the proposed sewer pipeline would allow adjacent parcels to connect to support existing and future development consistent with the City General Plan, SLVSP, and current zoning.

Response 6.2
The commenter states that the Draft Supplemental EIR provides incorrect pavement widths, and states that construction assumptions are unrealistic.

Project construction details are provided on page 2-11 of the Draft Supplemental EIR. The description provided here in is based on the City’s experience with past pipeline installation projects. As stated therein, construction would occur within existing rights-of-way, last for approximately 12 months for the entire pipeline length, with approximately 150 LF of sewer pipeline installed per day.

Response 6.3
The commenter states that a Civil Engineering work is referenced but not provided.

It is unclear what report the commenter is referring to, as a page reference is not provided.

References used in preparation of the EIR are cited in Section 7 of the Draft Supplemental EIR.

Response 6.4
The commenter requests supporting documentation from State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regarding septic system restrictions and projects that have been restricted due to septic systems.

The following reference cited in the Draft Supplemental EIR describes the constraints to development related to septic systems in the area: HydroScience. 2022. Sewer System Extension Hydraulic Analysis. Livermore, CA. January 31, 2022. The following information is provided:

Most of the wineries in this region receive potable water from California Water Service Company (Cal Water), are connected to Zone 7 raw water or well water for irrigation on the vineyards, and operate on septic systems for disposal of their wastewater. These septic systems are believed to be contributing to groundwater contamination in the area. Development 22 EXHIBIT A
203
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
approval in this area has been paused until/unless the area is able to obtain wastewater collection services to alleviate the groundwater contamination.

The SWRCB identifies nitrates as a specific constituent of concern found within groundwater. In their groundwater information sheet, the SWRCB cites septic systems and discharges from wastewater as common anthropogenic sources of nitrate in groundwater. 1 Septic systems collect
organic nitrogen in the form of human wastes. Organic nitrogen within the septic tank is first converted into ammonium in a process called ammonification; the ammonium is then converted into nitrites, which are then converted into nitrates, by aerobic bacteria in a separate process called nitrification.
2 Nitrates are water-soluble and can therefore be easily passed through soils into the groundwater table when treated septic tank effluent is discharged into the drain field. Once in groundwater, nitrates attenuate slowly and have been known to persist for decades. When multiple sources of nitrates are located in close proximity to one another, such as in neighborhoods with multiple septic systems, nitrate concentrations in the groundwater can concentrate at unacceptable levels (James R. Taylor 2003).
3 Zone 7 Water Agency prepared a Nutrient Management Plan for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin in July 2015, which provides an assessment of existing and future groundwater nutrient concentrations, and describes planned actions to address existing nutrient loads and high groundwater nitrate concentrations in identified Areas of Concern. 4 Additionally, the County of
Alameda prepared a Local Agency Management Program for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in June 2018, which describes on-site wastewater treatment system requirements within the county; identifies areas of concern within the county regarding nitrate concentrations from on-site systems (including the Tesla Avenue and Greenville Road, and Buena Vista Avenue areas in the South Livermore Valley); and describes corrective actions, requirements, procedures, and prohibitions.
5 Response 6.5
The commenter states that the EIR provides a statement of being printed on recycled paper.

Hard copies of the Draft Supplemental EIR were printed and provided for public review at Livermore City Hall and Civic Center Library. These documents were printed on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content. The note was not removed from the electronic version.

1 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2017. Groundwater Information Sheet. Nitrates. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gama/docs/coc_nitrate.pdf (accessed June 2022). 2 Zhu, Y., Ye, M., Roeder, E., Hicks, R. W., Shi, L., and Yang, J. 2016. Estimating ammonium and nitrate load from septic syste ms to surface water bodies within ArcGIS environments. Journal of Hydrology, Volume 532, pp. 177-192. 3 James R. Taylor. 2003. Evaluating Groundwater Nitrates from On-Lot Septic Systems, a Guidance Model for Land Planning in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State University.
4 Zone 7 Water Agency. 2015. Nutrient Management Plan Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. July 2015. https://www.zone7water.com/sites/main/files/file-attachments/nmp-2015_final.pdf?1619906689 (accessed June 2022). 5 Alameda, County of. 2018. Local Agency Management Program for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. June 5, 2018. https://deh.acgov.org/landwater-assets/docs/OWTS-LAMP.PDF (accessed June 2022). 23 EXHIBIT A
204
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.6
The commenter expresses the opinion that the noise discussion is incomplete. The commenter states that the EIR implies no major project is planned and no simultaneous noise would occur. The commenter states that an adjacent construction project need not be ‘major’ to compound noise impacts. The commenter expresses the opinion that noise should have been addressed in the EIR.

Noise impacts are addressed in Appendix IS to the Draft Supplemental EIR, beginning on page 79. As described therein, construction noise would not exceed applicable thresholds following the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 to reduce construction noise levels. Cumulative projects are listed in Table 3-1 (page 3-3 of the Draft Supplemental EIR). None of these projects would result in substantial construction noise directly adjacent to the proposed alignment during the anticipated project construction schedule, as the construction periods would not likely overlap; therefore, cumulative construction noise impacts are correctly characterized on page 112 of Appendix IS. Additionally, the noise analysis included in Appendix IS concludes that noise impacts resulting from the project would be less than significant; therefore, additional discussion in the Supplemental EIR is not warranted.

Response 6.7
The commenter quotes page 89 of Appendix IS to the Draft Supplemental EIR, and does not provide a comment. No response is required.

Response 6.8
The commenter asks why the project is being considered if it would not create new jobs.

The following project objectives are provided in Section 2.4 of the Draft Supplemental EIR:
 Improve groundwater quality in the South Livermore Valley area relative to nitrates, which is associated with residential septic systems and livestock keeping.  Facilitate the development potential of existing and new wineries, visitor serving commercial uses, and residences consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, and South Livermore Valley Area Plan (SLVAP) subject to Alameda County Measure D.
 Enhance the short- and long-term economic viability of agriculture and viticulture in the South Livermore Valley area, consistent with Goals LU-13 and LU-14 of the City’s General Plan.

Response 6.9
The commenter states that a library is referenced, and use of the library is not limited to city citizens. The commenter states that if visitors to the area are increased, the use of nearby parks and recreation facilities would also increase.

Page 93 ends

The project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the vision of the General Plan and SLVSP.… The project would not involve construction of residences and would not generate new jobs in the City; therefore, the project would not result in impacts to Livermore library services or facilities, or other public facilities in City.
24 EXHIBIT A
205
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report

Page 96 ends

The project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP.

Additionally, the project would not involve construction of residences and would not generate new jobs in the City. Therefore, the project would not increase the demand for existing recreational services.

Based on the above, the commenter’s concerns were addressed in Appendix IS. Because the project would not induce unanticipated growth, no increase in demand for libraries, parks, or recreational facilities would occur.

Response 6.10
The commenter states that the County is considering work on Tesla Road, which could impact noise.

The City is aware of the County’s proposed improvement project along Tesla Road, and is working in conjunction with the County to determine an appropriate timeline for constructing both projects. 6 As described in Response 6.6, noise impacts are addressed in Appendix IS.

Response 6.11
The commenter expresses the opinion that the EIR incorrectly states that the project will not change existing roadways, increase development, or increase traffic.

Page 2 ends

Daily construction tasks would include excavation/grading, installing pipe, backfilling, patching pavement, and coordinating traffic control. Once an area is complete, final paving would be installed over the trench.

No other modifications to the roadways would occur as a result of the project.

As described on page 2-10 of the Draft Supplemental EIR: “The project is intended to support uses that are consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, or current zoning; should development on adjacent parcels that is not consistent with existing land use designations and zoning be proposed, additional CEQA review would be required.” Construction of the proposed sewer pipeline would not directly result in the construction of new development along the pipeline. Additionally, operation of the sewer pipeline would not result in new daily vehicle trips in the project vicinity (please refer to page 102 of Appendix IS).

Response 6.12
The commenter states that the project objectives do not describe how groundwater quality will be improved. The commenter also states that community members outside of the City should be allowed to vote on the proposed modification to Measure D.

The proposed project would provide an opportunity for municipal sewer connections in the South Livermore Valley area, which is experiencing groundwater quality issues related to nitrates from

6 Altman, Larry. 2022. Livermore’s Tesla Road Safety Project Beginning First Stages. April 3, 2022. The Independent. https://www.independentnews.com/news/livermore_news/livermores-tesla-road-safety-project-beginning-first- stages/article_a28ba9ba-b3ad-11ec-acc5-8fc95b2883b2.html (accessed June 2022). 25 EXHIBIT A
206
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
residential septic systems and livestock keeping (refer to page 2-7 of the Draft Supplemental EIR).

Page 4 ends

the City’s wastewater system, and the existing septic systems at these properties would be abandoned or removed. As a result, groundwater quality in the South Livermore Valley would be improved due to reduced reliance on septic systems.”
As described on page 2-7 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, Measure D was passed by Alameda County voters in November 2000. Measure D was not limited to voters within the City of Livermore.

However, the vote to amend to the UGB language will be restricted to the residents of the City, as the UGB is specific to the City of Livermore and certain policies within the City’s General Plan.

Response 6.13
The commenter asserts that parcels adjacent to the alignment are not constrained from growth as there is mitigation available to address the nitrate issue.

Please refer to Response 6.4 regarding groundwater contamination from septic systems and existing restrictions on development in the area.

Response 6.14
The commenter states that it is not explained how groundwater would improve as a result of the project, and states there is no firm data showing sources of elevated nitrate.

Please refer to Response 6.4 regarding groundwater contamination from septic systems, and Response 6.12 regarding how the project would improve groundwater quality.

Response 6.15
The commenter states that Alternative 2 does not mention the use of septic systems with pretreatment.

Alternative 2 includes the construction of “shared small-scale WWTPs [wastewater treatment plants] to treat and dispose of additional wastewater generated by the maximum development of each property under the General Plan and SLVSP” (page 6-3 of the Draft Supplemental EIR). The commenter is suggesting a similar alternative of wastewater treatment prior to septic system disposal. This suggested alternative is not substantially different from Alternative 2; therefore, a discussion of this suggested alternative has not been added to the Draft Supplemental EIR, as pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), “an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project."
Response 6.16
The commenter states that Alternative 3 does not explain how sewer would help alleviate groundwater issues and does not explain the existing water quality issue.

Please refer to Response 6.12 for an explanation of how municipal sewer service would improve groundwater quality. The existing groundwater quality issue is described in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft Supplemental EIR. Specifically, Section 2.3 states:
26 EXHIBIT A
207
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
In South Livermore Valley, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, County Department of Environmental Health, and Zone 7 Water Agency (Agencies) have restricted issuing permits for new septic systems or replacing failing septic systems.

These issues have the potential to adversely affect water quality and public health, safety, and quality of life.

Response 6.17
The commenter references Impacts 6a, 6b, 7a.3, 7a.5, and 7b through 7d of Appendix IS, and states that the alignment is in an area of liquefaction concerns and no engineering study for landslide risk has been completed.

Page 53 ends

liquefaction susceptibility (City of Livermore 2015).” The commenter has not provided a source for their claim that the area is within an area of high liquefaction susceptibility; therefore, no additional response is required.

Page 52 ends

project alignment (City of Livermore 2015).” The commenter has not provided a source for their claim that the area is within an area of high landslide susceptibility; therefore, no additional response is required.

Overall, the project would not result in the construction of new habitable structures or workplaces not already contemplated under with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP. As such, the project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from liquefaction or landslides.

Response 6.18
The commenter references Impact 7e of Appendix IS, and states that there is no support for the claim of not having septic system capacity. The commenter states that the 1997 EIR should be invalidated for reporting “n/a” for the impact related to soils capable of supporting septic systems.

The statute of limitations for challenging the 1997 EIR closed following its certification in September 1997. The CEQA Appendix G checklist question related to soils capable of supporting septic systems is addressed on page 58 of Appendix IS as it relates to the proposed project. As stated therein, no septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed, and no impact would occur.

Please refer to Response 6.12 for an explanation of how municipal sewer service would improve groundwater quality.

Response 6.19
The commenter states that there have been changes to wildland fire hazards since 1997, and it should be evaluated. The commenter states that conflicts with land use plans is an issue that should be addressed.
27 EXHIBIT A
208
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
CEQA Appendix G checklist question 9g is addressed on page 70 of Appendix IS. As stated therein, “[t]here are no wildland conditions on or adjacent to the project alignment,” as the surrounding area is developed with primarily agricultural and residential land uses.

CEQA Appendix G checklist question 11b is addressed on page 75 of Appendix IS. As stated therein:
“The project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP. No development beyond the current vision of the General Plan and SLVSP would occur as a result of the project.”
Response 6.20
The commenter states that there will be ongoing noise from proposed facilities, which should be addressed, and states that no engineering information is presented regarding groundborne noise.

As described in Response 6.6, potential noise impacts would be limited to project construction.

Project operation would not result in operational noise, as proposed sewer pipelines would be installed underground and no lift stations or other noise-generating infrastructure is proposed as part of the project. Please refer to Amendments to the Draft Supplemental EIR regarding an addition to Appendix IS describing operational noise.

Groundborne noise is caused by groundborne vibration.
7 Because no groundborne vibration would
be generated by project operation (refer to page 87 of Appendix IS), no groundborne noise would occur. Please refer to Amendments to the Draft Supplemental EIR regarding an addition to Appendix IS describing groundborne noise.

Response 6.21
The commenter references questions 14b, 15a, and 16a-b of Appendix IS, and states that the project will induce growth, require increased governmental facilities, and increase demand for parks and recreational uses from winery visitors.

CEQA Appendix G checklist question 14b is addressed on page 90 of Appendix IS. As stated therein, “[t]he project would not involve the demolition of existing residences and would not displace existing housing units or people.”
CEQA Appendix G checklist question 15a is addressed on pages 92 and 93 of Appendix IS. CEQA Appendix G checklist question 16a-b is addressed on page 96 of Appendix IS. As stated therein, “[t]he project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP.” No additional analysis is required.

Response 6.22
The commenter references questions 20a-d of Appendix IS, and states the project would increase wildland fires.
7 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment- manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf (accessed October 2021). 28 EXHIBIT A
209
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
CEQA Appendix G checklist questions 20a through 20d are addressed on page 110 of Appendix IS. As stated therein:

Although the project alignment is located in an SRA [State Responsibility Area], the project would be constructed within paved rights-of-way. The project would not result in population growth or expose new residents to wildfire risks. As such, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency evacuation plan, exacerbate wildfire risks, require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk, or expose people or structures to significant risks. Overall, the project would not generate impacts from wildfire hazards.

The commenter has not provided support for their claim that underground sewer infrastructure would increase wildland fires and no additional response is required.

Response 6.23
The commenter states that no evidence is provided to support the claim that groundwater would improve, and the current natural attenuation of nitrate was not considered.

As described in Response 6.4 and Response 6.12, groundwater quality concerns in the South Livermore Valley area are related to septic systems in the area. The project would install a sewer pipeline allowing for the connection of adjacent parcels to municipal sewer service, which would result in the abandonment or removal of existing septic systems. The disuse of these septic systems would improve groundwater quality by removing the identified source of the local water quality issue.

Nitrate attenuation within the groundwater is not related to the proposed project, as the project is not a groundwater remediation project.

Response 6.24
The commenter asserts that the project would result in development, and asserts that water rationing recommendations indicate there is not sufficient water supply.

As described in Section 2 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the project would install a sewer pipeline, but does not propose the development of any parcels adjacent to the alignment. However, the project would allow adjacent parcels to connect to support existing and future development that is consistent with the City General Plan, SLVSP, and current zoning.

As described in Response 7.6, Groundwater supply is discussed in Section 4.2, Utilities and Service Systems. Table 4.2-1 on page 4.2-1 of the Draft Supplemental EIR shows Cal Water’s total water supply, and Table 4.2-2 on page 4.2-3 of the Draft Supplemental EIR shows total demand for potable and raw water is projected to meet the projected water supply in future years. Furthermore, page

4.2-3 of the Draft Supplemental EIR states:

According to the 2020 UWMP [Urban Water Management Plan], the combination of groundwater and purchased water supply is expected to be enough to support Cal Water’s projected water demand through 2045 (Cal Water 2021).

There is adequate water supply available to meet anticipated future year demands, as described in the 2020 UWMP.
29 EXHIBIT A
210
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response 6.25
The commenter states that groundwater would be encountered during project excavation and mitigation is required.

Page 2 ends

Excavation depths would vary by location, with most depths between 5 and 15 feet below ground surface. Approximately 1,000 LF [linear feet] along Greenville Road south of Tesla Road would require excavation between 15 and 18 feet, and approximately 1,200 LF along Tesla Road east of Vasco Road would require excavation between 15 and 26 feet.

Page 4 ends

Stormwater Requirements Checklist for the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, which includes water quality controls related to dewatering. Dewatering would be required if groundwater is encountered during excavation and construction activities along the proposed alignment. Dewatering is a standard construction procedure, and mitigation would not be required.

Because construction dewatering would be temporary and limited to the construction period, a permanent reduction in available groundwater would not occur as a result of the project. This clarification has been added to Impact HYD-2 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, as shown in Amendments to the Draft Supplemental EIR.

Response 6.26
The commenter asks for more details related to impacts to property owners along the alignment, including requirements to connect, and fees to connect.

As described in Response 3.1, the project would not require property owners along Buena Vista Avenue to tie into the City’s wastewater system. As described in Response 4.1, there are currently no details available regarding the cost to an individual property desiring to connect to the City’s wastewater system. This comment will be passed on to City decision-makers for review. 30 EXHIBIT A
211
F
rom: cindraw < >
S
ent: Monday, June 20, 2022 12:32:06 PM
To: Michele Donley <
S
ubject: RE: June 21 Public Hearing

Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments f
rom untrusted sources.

I
s this a signal that Livermore will annex Buena Vista? I hope not.

Which side of Buena Vista will this pipe system be on, west or east? When finished, it sounds like Buena Vista would be repaved. If so, can it be widened just a bit or a sidewalk installed at least on one side? It is hazardous for pedestrians and horse traffic.

In Table 4.2-1, California Water Water Supplies, I see that ground water is projected to increase as a source from 1066 (2020) to 3069 (2025). I am concerned about the impact of that on current well owners. We rely on that source for our animals and forage for the animals.

I appreciate your attention to my questions. Please note my opinion on these matters for the public hearing. While I plan to attend the public hearing, this will allow me to not take up someone else's time for comments.

Cindy Wheeler
S
ent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-
------- Original message --------
From: Michele Donley <
Date: 6/20/22 7:13 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: cindraw < >
Subject: RE: June 21 Public Hearing
Good morning Cindra,
The EIR is accessible by clicking on the link on the cover page. The document is too large to attach.

Please see the link below:
7 .1
I
am reading through the EIR, but I have a few other questions. 7 .3

7.4 7.5
7 .6
L
etter 7
W
ill Buena Vista residents be required to hook up or can we continue using our septic system? I hope we will be able to continue with our septic.

Will this allow a higher density on lots? I hope not. 7 .2
31 EXHIBIT A
212
E
nvironmental Documents for Projects Currently Under Review | Livermore, CA (livermoreca.gov) P
lease let me know if you have any other questions.

Thanks,
Michele
From: cindraw < >
S
ent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 2:30 PM
To: Planning Web email <[email protected]>
S
ubject: June 21 Public Hearing

Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments f
rom untrusted sources.

I
need additional information regarding the proposed extention of city sewer including Buena Vista Avenue. I tried accessing the EIR, but only see the cover page.

Thank you.

Cindra Wheeler
S
ent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
32 EXHIBIT A
213
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter 7
COMMENTER: Cindy Wheeler
DATE: June 10, 2022
Response 7.1
The commenter asks if Buena Vista residents would be required to hook up to the City’s wastewater system, or if they can continue to use existing septic.

As described in Response 3.1, Buena Vista Avenue residents would not be required to connect to the City’s wastewater system. While the project would allow existing residences to connect to the City’s wastewater system and phase out the use of their on-site septic systems, such connection would be optional and subject to approvals by the City of Livermore, the Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission, and other responsible agencies.

Response 7.2
The commenter asks if the project would allow higher density on lots.

As stated in Section 2 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the project would only “support uses that are consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, or current zoning; should development on adjacent parcels that is not consistent with existing land use designations and zoning be proposed, additional CEQA review would be required” (page 2-10 of the Draft Supplemental EIR).

Response 7.3
The commenter asks if this is a signal that Livermore will annex Buena Vista.

As described in Response 3.1, the project being analyzed within the Draft Supplemental EIR does not propose the annexation of parcels along Buena Vista Avenue into the City of Livermore, nor does the project propose a change to any existing land use designations or zoning of parcels adjacent to the proposed alignment. As stated in Section 2 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the project would only “support uses that are consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, or current zoning; should development on adjacent parcels that is not consistent with existing land use designations and zoning be proposed, additional CEQA review would be required” (page 2-10 of the Draft Supplemental EIR).

Response 7.4
The commenter asks if the sewer extension pipe would be on the east or west side of Buena Vista.

The sewer extension would be constructed underneath the existing Buena Vista Avenue roadway, with the exact location within the roadway right-of-way to be determined.

Response 7.5
The commenter asks if Buena Vista Avenue can be widened or if a sidewalk could be installed during the project’s construction re-pavement phase.
33 EXHIBIT A
214
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
The project does not include roadway widening or sidewalk improvements. The overall project elements and detailed information on construction activities are provided in Section 2, Project Description, on Draft Supplemental EIR page 2-10 and 2-11. This request will be passed on to City decision-makers for consideration.

Response 7.6
The commenter states that EIR Table 4.2-1 shows that groundwater is projected to increase as a source from 1,066 acre-feet per year (AFY; 2020) to 3,069 AFY (2025), and expresses concern regarding that impact on current well owners.

Page 4 ends

Cal Water provides a combination of local groundwater, pumped from 12 wells across the Livermore Valley, and surface water purchased from the Zone 7 Water Agency.

As described in Section 2.4.1(a) of the Draft Supplemental EIR, Cal Water relies on groundwater as a portion of its overall water supply, with a total Groundwater Pumping Quota of 3,069 AFY, pursuant to a contract with Zone 7 Water Agency. The 2020 and 2025 groundwater usage by Cal Water noted by the commenter is based on information from the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).

The 2020 data shows the actual groundwater from 2020 Cal Water used, whereas the 2025 estimate equals the maximum groundwater usage Cal Water has been allocated.

It should be noted that groundwater used by Cal Water in the Livermore District is sourced from the Livermore-Amador Valley aquifer through 12 separate wells across the Livermore Valley. Annual rainfall and the flow of local surface waters help to replenish the groundwater that was used in previous years. This groundwater recharge in combination with the distribution of wells used to source Cal Water’s groundwater supply would ensure the use of such groundwater supplies would not create an impact to individual well owners in the vicinity of the project alignment.

Groundwater supply is discussed in Section 4.2, Utilities and Service Systems. Table 4.2-1 on page

4.2-1 of the Draft Supplemental EIR shows Cal Water’s total water supply, and Table 4.2-2 on page

4.2-3 of the Draft Supplemental EIR shows total demand for potable and raw water is projected to meet the projected water supply in future years. Furthermore, page 4.2-3 of the Draft Supplemental EIR states:

According to the 2020 UWMP, the combination of groundwater and purchased water supply is expected to be enough to support Cal Water’s projected water demand through 2045 (Cal Water 2021).
34 EXHIBIT A
215
L
etter 8

8.1 8.2

8.3 8.4

8.5 8.6

8.7 8.8
35 EXHIBIT A
216
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter 8
COMMENTER: Christine Massey
DATE: June 21, 2022
Response 8.1
The commenter asks if the City will be paying for the sewer extension or if the residents will have to pay for it.

The total project costs are estimated at $11.5 million. Phase 1 of the project is estimated to cost approximately $8 million. The city has secured $6.5 million from Alameda County for the construction of the sewer extension project. As described in Response 4.1, there are currently no details available regarding the cost to an individual property desiring to connect to the City’s wastewater system. This comment will be passed on to City decision-makers for consideration.

Response 8.2
The commenter asks if all residents would be required to hook up to the City’s wastewater system, or if they can continue to use existing septic.

As described in Response 3.1, the project would not require property owners along Buena Vista Avenue to tie into the City’s wastewater system.

Response 8.3
The commenter asks if the property taxes will go up as a result of the project.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15131, economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as a significant effect on the environment. As such, formal analysis of economic or social impacts is not required, which includes property values and property taxes.

Response 8.4
The commenter states that Concannon Winery has become a large wine factory and raises concern about the growth that would occur as a result of the project. The commenter also states that the project will attract larger wineries that could cause more traffic and noise.

The past and future growth of Concannon Winery is not relevant to the proposed project. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR, or the CEQA process.

Therefore, no further response is required. As stated in Section 2 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the project would only “support uses that are consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, or current zoning; should development on adjacent parcels that is not consistent with existing land use designations and zoning be proposed, additional CEQA review would be required” (page 2-10 of the Draft Supplemental EIR). Transportation is discussed beginning on page 97 of Appendix IS to the Draft Supplemental EIR. Noise is discussed beginning on page 79 of Appendix IS to the Draft Supplemental EIR.
36 EXHIBIT A
217
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response 8.5
The commenter questions why wineries are still dumping manure and fertilizer in the vineyards each year if nitrates and groundwater are a concern.

As described in Response 6.4, the HydroScience report, Sewer System Extension Hydraulic Analysis, states that both residences and wineries in the region operate on septic systems for disposal of their wastewater, which are believed to be contributing to groundwater contamination in the area.

Furthermore, as described in Response 6.16, existing groundwater quality issues are described in Section 2.3 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, and Response 6.12 provides explanation of how municipal sewer service would improve groundwater quality.

Response 8.6
The commenter expresses concern about who would pay for the project expenses and if it would be added to the taxes of residents.

Response 8.1 describes the estimated construction costs associated with the project. As described in Response 4.1, there are currently no details available regarding the cost to an individual property desiring to connect to the City’s wastewater system; the City would charge a connection fee, the amount of which is not known at this time. This comment will be passed on to City decision-makers for consideration. Furthermore, as described in Response 8.3, CEQA Guidelines Section 15131 states that economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as a significant effect on the environment. As such, formal analysis of economic or social impacts is not required, which includes property taxes.

Response 8.7
The commenter suggests that the location of the sewer extension location be changed to Almond Avenue to Concannon’s buildings.

Municipal sewer service is already available along Almond Avenue, and Concannon is connected to that sewer pipeline. Furthermore, as described on page 6-6 in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft Supplemental EIR, Alternative 3 would include 3,800 LF of pipeline within agricultural land located approximately 1,200 feet east of Buena Vista Avenue rather than the proposed 5,400-LF alignment along Buena Vista Avenue. The commenter is suggesting a similar alternative regarding different placement and alignment of the extended sewer pipeline. This suggested alternative is not substantially different from Alternative 3; and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), “an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project." Response 8.8
The comment expresses opposition to the project, including the changes to the urban growth boundary and additional sewer hookups.

This comment is acknowledged and will be passed on to City decision-makers for consideration.

However, this comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR or the CEQA process. Therefore, no further response is required. 37 EXHIBIT A
218
L
etter 9

9.1 9.2

9.3 38

EXHIBIT A
219
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter 9
COMMENTER: Owen Parker
DATE: June 21, 2022
Response 9.1
The commenter expresses concerns regarding project construction on Buena Vista Avenue. The comment adds that there was no information regarding traffic and the change in quality of life during construction.

Transportation is discussed beginning on page 97 of Appendix IS to the Draft Supplemental EIR. As indicated on pages 102 and 103 of Appendix IS, transportation impacts were found to be less than significant. Additionally, as stated on pages 97 and 98 of Appendix IS, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable transportation mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

Regarding quality of life, potential impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise were discussed in Appendix IS to the Draft Supplemental EIR. As indicated on pages 31 through 35 of Appendix IS, air quality impacts were found to be less than significant. Additionally, as stated on pages 25 through 27 of Appendix IS, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable air quality mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR. As indicated on pages 63 and 64 of Appendix IS, As indicated on pages 68 through 70 of Appendix IS, hazards and hazardous materials impacts were found to be less than significant. As indicated on pages 84 through 87 of Appendix IS, noise impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Response 9.2
The commenter requests that information be provided regarding the costs for residents to connect to the sewer system and other details regarding connection.

As described in Response 4.1, there are currently no details available regarding the cost to an individual property desiring to connect to the City’s wastewater system. This comment will be passed on to City decision-makers for consideration.

Response 9.3
The commenter asks if the rural residential ambiance will be maintained within the existing roadway. Furthermore, the comment provides support for the project; however, the comment suggests that the City should also consider the needs of other parts of the city.

Visual resources are discussed beginning on page 15 of Appendix IS to the Draft Supplemental EIR.

As indicated on page 16 of Appendix IS, the project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and the SLVSP. Therefore, the project would not have an impact on existing scenic vistas or scenic resources. Furthermore, as indicated on page 17 of Appendix IS, the project would be subject to current regulations governing scenic qualities, including Goal LU-15 of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element that specifically aims to preserve South Livermore’s unique rural and scenic qualities.
39 EXHIBIT A
220
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Transportation is discussed beginning on page 97 Appendix IS to the Draft Supplemental EIR. As indicated on page 102 of Appendix IS, the project would not change the existing roadways, increase commercial or residential development in the area, generate growth, or create an increase in traffic in the project vicinity. Therefore, the “rural ambience” along the project alignment would not change.
40 EXHIBIT A
221
1 J
ohn & Joanne Bezis
Livermore, CA 94550
June 21, 2022
Andy Ross, Senior Planner Planning Commission
City of Livermore c/o Community Development Department
1052 South Livermore Avenue 1052 South Livermore Avenue Livermore, CA 94550 Livermore, CA 94550
BY E-MAIL TO: [email protected]; [email protected] R
e: (1) Comment on Draft SEIR – South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project (2) Planning Commission meeting of June 21, 2022, Item 5.1 To the City of Livermore Planning Commission, Planning Division, and Mr. Ross:

This communication is to serve two purposes. First, it is a comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project. Second, it is a “Public Comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for South Livermore Valley Specific Plan to extend sewer infrastructure and service to protect water quality and agriculture in the South Livermore Valley,” Item 5.1 on the June 21, 2022 Planning Commission agenda.

The June 21, 2022 Planning Commission meeting agenda packet states on page 97 (Item 5.1): “A draft document was published on May 6 for a 45-day comment period, which closes on Wednesday, June 22 at 5 pm. ” I am submitting this comment on June

21. I have lived on the parcel at for nearly 48 years. My parcel at the southeasterly corner of South Livermore Avenue and Concannon Boulevard long has been described as “The Gateway to the Vineyards. ” I support the South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project in general concept, but I am strongly op
posed to the “Phase 1” project alignment, which omits my South Livermore A
venue neighborhood without good reason.

A sewer line extension should be included in “Phase 1” a few hundred feet down South Livermore Avenue to my neighborhood, which includes Page Mill Winery and several homes and small vineyards between Concannon Boulevard and Tesla Road. South Livermore Avenue in this neighborhood already is within City limits, with a nearby existing sewer line.

The Staff Report for tonight ’s SEIR public hearing claims, “The purpose of the project is to improve groundwater quality and enhance the economic viability of agriculture and viticulture in the South Livermore Valley area. ” (p. 99.) The SEIR describes the “project objectives” as:
 “Improve groundwater quality in the South Livermore Valley area relative to nitrates, which is associated with residential septic systems and livestock keeping
1 0.1

10.2 Letter
10 41

EXHIBIT A
222
2  Facilitate the development potential of existing and new wineries, visitor serving commercial uses, and residences consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, and SLVAP subject to Alameda County Measure D
 Enhance the short- and long-term economic viability of agriculture and viticulture in the South Livermore Valley area, consistent with Goals LU-13 and LU-14 of the City’s General Plan” (SEIR, p. 6-1.)
My neighborhood on South Livermore Avenue is closer to an arroyo (Arroyo Mocho) than any other parcels served by the “Phase 1” alignment. See the map in Figure 4.1-2 in the SEIR. Yet my neighborhood is excluded from “Phase 1.” My neighborhood is “The Gateway to the Vineyards ” at the very edge of city limits. Yet it is excluded from “Phase 1.” After the John Madden-owned bed and breakfast notoriously failed nearly 15 years ago near me in the historic Gordon-Nielsen House due to a prohibitively expensive septic system as a condition of project approval, many wine-related businesses refused to consider opening up operations in the South Livermore Valley, including on my property. Several prospective winery operators have approached me in recent years to explore placing operations on my property, but they have turned out to be infeasible because of septic tank-related issues.

The SEIR is deficient because it should have considered hooking up the “South Livermore Sewer Expansion ” to the existing line on South Livermore Avenue instead of to East Avenue. That would avoid burdening the East Avenue sewer “Bottlenecks” (capacity constraints) described in the SEIR.

If “Improve groundwater quality ” is an authentic project objective, then the SEIR is deficient because it does not quantify the environmental benefits (e.g., amount of nitrates diverted from septic systems) associated with various alignments.

The proposed “Phase 1” alignment also is not cost effective relative to the supposed en- vironmental benefits. The “dollars spent per ton of nitrates diverted ” is much lower for my neighborhood than for the proposed “Phase 1” alignment. My neighborhood, which is along a road already within city limits and just a few hundred feet away from an exist- ing City sewer line, is excluded from “Phase 1,” yet more than 1.5 miles of sewer line extension from Vasco Rd. is proposed in “Phase 1” in order to serve the politically-po- werful Poppy Ridge Golf Course. (Traversing the Vasco/Tesla hill might incur additional operating expense.) The City and County should not be making what appears to be an unconstitutional “gift of public funds ” (multi-million subsidies, including at least $6.5 million in County funds) to big wineries and golf courses while excluding small property owners like my neighbors and me. (See California Constitution, art. XVI, section 6.) This project and its SEIR should provide real environmental and economic benefits to all South Livermore Valley property owners, not just to the big winery and golf course owners. Unless the “Phase 1” alignment is amended to include my neighborhood on South Livermore Avenue, I intend to join with other small property owners to strongly and vociferously oppose the South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project.

Sincerely,
/s/ John Bezis

JOHN BEZIS

10.2 10.3

10.4 10.5

10.6 42

EXHIBIT A
223
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter 10
COMMENTER: John Bezis
DATE: June 21, 2022
Response 10.1
The commenter states they live at the southeast corner of South Livermore Avenue and Concannon Boulevard. The commenter expresses support for the project concept but is strongly opposed to Phase 1 of the project alignment because it omits his South Livermore Avenue neighborhood.

Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft Supplemental EIR, specifically, Section 2.2 states:

As described on page 2-1 and shown on Draft Supplemental EIR’s Figure 2-1, the western future phase of the project would extend sewer service to the commenter’s South Livermore Avenue neighborhood. It is the intent of the City to expand sewer service to this area.

Response 10.2
The commenter summarizes the Staff Report’s public hearing purpose and states the project objectives. The commenter states their parcel is closer to Arroyo Mocho than any of the parcels along the Phase 1 alignment.

Water Quality is addressed beginning on page 4.1-1 of the Draft Supplemental EIR in Section 4, Hydrology and Water Quality. As indicated on pages 4.1-21 through 4.1-29, water quality impacts to Arroyo Mocho were found to be less than significant. Furthermore, as described in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft Supplemental EIR, water quality issues in the South Livermore Valley are related to high nitrate concentrations in groundwater, whereas Arroyo Mocho is a surface water feature.

Response 10.3
The commenter states they are unable to support wine-related business operations on their property due to septic tank-related issues.

Response 10.1 explains that the western future phase of the project would extend sewer service to the commenter’s South Livermore Avenue neighborhood.

Response 10.4
The commenter states the Supplemental EIR is deficient because it does not consider hooking up to an existing line on South Livermore Avenue rather than on East Avenue to avoid the Bottleneck capacity constraints.

Section 2.5 of the Draft Supplemental EIR on page 2-10 states:
43 EXHIBIT A
224
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
The City’s 2017 Sewer Master Plan also identifies a Bottleneck Project (BO-CIP-P06) located on East Avenue. Preliminary analysis of the proposed project identified four segments of 12-inch sewer pipes that may need to be upsized on East Avenue between Maple Street and Buena Vista Avenue (City of Livermore 2017).

The Bottleneck Project has been identified by the City of Livermore since 2017. The Bottleneck Project would need to be undertaken on East Avenue, regardless of the proposed Sewer Expansion Project. Furthermore, as described in Response 10.1 and Response 10.3, the western future phase of the project would extend sewer service to the South Livermore Avenue neighborhood. As such, the extended sewer pipeline would connect to the existing pipeline on South Livermore Avenue.

Response 10.5
The commenter states that the EIR does not quantify the environmental benefits associated with the alignment.

The purpose of CEQA review is to identify adverse environmental impacts. If a project undergoing CEQA review will result in environmental benefits, that can also be included in the analysis. It is unknown at this time how many existing and future residences and wineries located along the alignment would choose to connect to the extended sewer pipeline, as connection to the City’s wastewater system would be optional and left to the discretion of individual property owners.

Therefore, quantification of environmental benefits is not possible as there is not enough information available at this time.

Response 10.6
The commenter states the proposed Phase 1 is not cost effective relative to the environmental benefits because the cost would be lower if Phase 1 of the project were to serve the South Livermore Avenue neighborhood. The commenter states that the project would only provide an environmental and economic benefit to the golf course and to wineries. The commenter also mentions that traversing the hill on Vasco Road/Tesla Road could incur additional operating expenses.

As described in Response 4.1, there are currently no details available regarding the cost to an individual property desiring to connect to the City’s wastewater system; the City would charge a connection fee, the amount of which is not known at this time. This comment will be passed on to City decision-makers for consideration.

As stated in Response 10.1, Response 10.3, and Response 10.4, the western future phase of the project would extend sewer service to the South Livermore Avenue neighborhood. Furthermore, as described in Response 6.4, the HydroScience report, Sewer System Extension Hydraulic Analysis, states that both the residences and wineries operating on septic systems for disposal of their wastewater are believed to be contributing to groundwater contamination in the area. As such, groundwater quality degradation is concentrated along Buena Vista Avenue due to the number of existing septic tanks used by property owners in the area. Page 2-7 in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft Supplemental EIR describes the project’s intent to improve groundwater quality in the South Livermore Valley area relative to nitrates, which are associated with the residential septic systems. Therefore, the project would provide environmental benefits to the golf course, to the wineries, to the residents along Buena Vista Avenue, and to the entire Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin.
44 EXHIBIT A
225
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
The city is aware of the topography along Tesla Road, and anticipates drilling depths between 15 and 26 feet along this section; please refer to page 2-11 of the Draft Supplemental EIR. 45 EXHIBIT A
226
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplem This page
intentionally left blank.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
46 EXHIBIT A
227
Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 2022
Public Comments Submitted
Item 5.1
Anonymous Attendee 7:14pm
Re: Proposed South Livermore Sewer Alignment
Laws in California around CEQA mandate the disclosure of significant environmental effects of a proposed project. In conjunction with this, I have not read anything about any reports the city is conducting on the ramifications of increasing the vineyards scale due to this project regarding the increased pesticide exposure our community will face.

Numerous studies have shown that living near vineyards increases rates of cancer anchildhood asthma.

ALAN 7:45pm
Is this project in conjunction with the County’s slated powerline undergrounding and sewer project on Tesla/S Livermore? Or is this in complement to that project? We live at in the County near the Concannon/S Livermore streetlight.

Back ground:The county has indicated that as planning, our property and two others would not be included in it’s planned improvements. They claim the road in front of our properties is in City bounds and that would prevent the project continuing to our location. This does not seem logical as we are within the County (paying taxes and receiving our services). The County explained that laying sewer line /undergrounding would occur within our property lines not on the road.

We find this this be short-sighted (just finish the job up to the City) and frustrating since our property is within the County (expectation to benefit from this improvement).

Would you please describe the timeline and staging of this project? Meaganw 8:11pm
What is the timeline on this project?
Chris Grimes 8:13pm
Enable but not require residents of Buena Vista to hookup to sewer line? How long is that "enable but not require" to last. Will there be any eminent domain land siezures for sewer line installation on Buena Vista?
Lyn Gomes 8:15pm
I am a resident of Buena Vista Ave. I support this project because it will preserve groundwater quality. I wish this would happen sooner. Can the committee also designate a representative to help facilitate coordination with County Santitation for residents actively considering replacement of their septic tanks vs connecting to the sewer?
Anonymous Attendee 8:23pm
Yes, how is the City's sewer development related to the County's planned development on Tesla? 47 EXHIBIT A
228
Christina Danskin 8:27pm
Thank you Commissioner Anderson for recommending a meeting with the Buena Vista residents so their concerns can be acknowledged and considered in the planning of this project.

Chris Grimes 8:28pm
@ John Stein - there is no bike lane on Buena Vista as you stated. Separate Buena Vista meetings for undersatnding would be greatly appreciated by our neighborhood!!! THANK YOU! Anonymous Attendee 8:35pm
It would be appreciated if a meeting would also include other stakeholders along the project - not only Buena Vista residents
48 EXHIBIT A
229
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Public Hearing Comments
Public comments received during the June 21, 2022, Planning Commission meeting are summarized and responded to below.

Response 1
One commenter expressed concern related to increased pesticide exposure from expansion of vineyards.

Please refer to Response 5.1 regarding pesticide exposure.

Response 2
Several commenters asked about the project timeline and staging, and mentioned the County’s powerline undergrounding project on Tesla Road and South Livermore Avenue.

Please refer to Response 6.10 regarding the County’s project on Tesla Road. The anticipated project timeline for the proposed project is described in Section 2.5 of the Draft Supplemental EIR on page 2-11: “Construction is anticipated to commence in 2024 and last for approximately 12 months, ending in 2025.” Additional details on project timing are not available at this time.

Response 3
Several commenters asked if adjacent parcels would be required to connect to the proposed sewer line, if there is a timeline or restrictions regarding the connection of adjacent parcels, and what the associated costs with connecting to the sewer line would be. Commenters asked if the project includes zoning changes along the proposed alignment.

Please refer to Response 3.1 and Response 4.1. As stated therein, parcels would not be required to connect, and there is no timeline for adjacent property owners to make a decision on sewer connection. There are currently no details available regarding the costs of tying in, although a connection fee will be required; and no zoning changes are proposed as part of the project.

Response 4
One commenter asked if a representative can be designated to help facilitate coordination with the County for residents wishing to replace their septic tanks rather than connecting to the sewer line.

One commenter suggested the City provide a Frequently Asked Questions sheet to address common concerns.

This comment is acknowledged and will be passed on to decision-makers for consideration.

Response 5
Commenters asked how the City handle will noticing for construction and sewer connection.

Please refer to Response 4.2 regarding construction notification; as stated therein, it is the City’s standard practice to require notification at least 72 hours prior to construction activities. 49 EXHIBIT A
230
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response 6
One commenter suggested a project alternative of underground storage tanks that are pumped and transferred by truck to the wastewater treatment plant for disposal.

Alternative 2 includes the construction of “shared small-scale WWTPs to treat and dispose of additional wastewater generated by the maximum development of each property under the General Plan and SLVSP” (page 6-3 of the Draft Supplemental EIR). The commenter is suggesting a similar alternative of one-site wastewater treatment prior to off-site disposal. This suggested alternative is not substantially different from Alternative 2; therefore, a discussion of this suggested alternative has not been added to the Draft Supplemental EIR, as pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), “an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project." Response 7
One commenter noted that Section 1, Introduction, of the Draft Supplemental EIR could be clarified to state that development of parcels adjacent to the proposed alignment would be consistent with existing land use and zoning designations, subject to Alameda County Measure D.

The requested clarification has been added to page 1-1 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, as shown in Amendments to the Draft Supplemental EIR.

Response 8
Commenters asked where within Buena Vista Avenue the sewer pipeline would be installed.

Please refer to Response 7.4 regarding the location of the pipeline within Buena Vista Avenue; as stated therein, the exact location has not yet been determined.

Response 9
Commenters mentioned the knoll on Tesla Road, which may require increased depths of drilling.

As described in Response 10.6, the City is aware of the topography along Tesla Road, and anticipates drilling depths between 15 and 26 feet along this section; please refer to page 2-11 of the Draft Supplemental EIR.
50 EXHIBIT A
231

The f
ollowing pages provide a summary record of all proposed text amendments to the Draft Supplemental EIR. Most amendments are the result of comments received during the public review period, and directly respond to those comments, or correction of typographical errors within the Draft Supplemental EIR. These amendments serve as clarifications and amplifications on the content of the Draft Supplemental EIR. None of the changes would warrant recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The amendments serve to clarify and strengthen the content of the EIR, but do not introduce significant new information.

Changes in text are signified by strikeouts (strikeouts) where text is removed and by underlined font (u
nderline font) where text is added. Other minor clarifications and corrections to typographical e
rrors are also shown as corrected in this format, including corrections not based on responses to comments.

D
raft Supplemental EIR
Section 1, Introduction
P
age 1-1:

The proposed project alignment is located southeast of the City of Livermore, with most of the alignment within unincorporated Alameda County. The 1997 EIR discusses the environment impacts of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, which was designed to combat urban sprawl, and preserve existing vineyards and prime vineyard soil within the southern Livermore Valley. This Supplemental EIR discusses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, which would amend the urban growth boundary (UGB) language to allow the extension of sanitary sewer lines to serve residences and wineries within or near the City of Livermore.

This amendment would allow for the installation of approximately 5 miles of new sewer lines to s
upport existing uses and future development consistent with the General Plan, SLVSP, and SL
VAP in South Livermore Valley, subject to Alameda County Measure D.

P
age 1-2:

In 1997, the City of Livermore certified the Final EIR for the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP). This document planned development for 30 residential lots in the City of Livermore, in A
lameda County. The SLVSP is a policy document that establishes criteria and a regulatory fra
mework for future development in South Livermore Valley. I n March 2000, City voters
a
pproved the UGB Initiative, which aims to prevent uncontrolled urban development.

Section 4.1, Hydrology and Water Quality
P
age 4.1-5:
… These materials consist of continental deposits from alluvial fans, outwash plains, and lakes (DWR 2006). Groundwater in the vicinity of the project alignment is known to occur at depths b
etween approximately 10 and 50 feet below ground surface (Zone 7 Water Agency 2021b).

F
inal Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
51 City of L
ivermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Amendments to the Draft Supplemental EIR
Amendments to the Draft Supplemental EIR

EXHIBIT A
232

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 52 City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Amendments to the Draft Supplemental EIR

Page 4 ends

.1-24:
… P
roject construction water use would also comply with California Gre en Building Standards
Code water use efficiency requirements (additional details provided in Ap pendix IS:

Environmental Checklist Section 3, Ai
r Quality). N
ecessary dewatering during excavation, sh
ould
groundwater be encountered, would be conducted consistent with the City’s MS4 Permit requirements and would not result in a permanent reduction in available groundwater supplies.

Facilitation of adjacent development p
otential...

Section 7, Refe
rences

Page 7 ends

Zone 7 Water Agency. 2021b. Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. December 2021.
https://www.zone7water.com/sites/main/files/fileattachments/alt_gw_sustainability_plan.pdf? 1619903254
(ac
cessed June 2022).

Appendix IS
Environmental Checklist Section 13, Noise

Page 84 ends

a. Would the project result in generation of
a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Operation of the proposed sewer pipeline would not result in permanent sources of noise, as no lift stations or other associated noise-generating infrastructure is proposed. No impact would occur.

Construction activity would generate temporary noise in the project vicinity, exposing surrounding sensitiv
e receivers to increased noise levels.…

Page 87 ends

There would be no groundborne vibration o
r groundborne noise g
enerated by project
operation.

EXHIBIT A
233
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). This mitigation monitoring and reporting program is intended to track and ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during the project implementation phase. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR), specifications are made herein that identify the action required, the monitoring that must occur, and the agency or department responsible for oversight.

EXHIBIT A
234
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

2 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Nesting Bird Avoidance and Minimization Efforts
If project construction activities occur during
t
he nesting season (between February 1 and
August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a
pre-construction survey for nesting birds no
more than 14 days prior to construction. The
survey shall include the entire project alignment
and a 300-foot buffer to account for nesting
raptors. If nests are found, the qualified
biologist shall establish an appropriate species-
specific avoidance buffer of sufficient size to
prevent disturbance by project activity to the
nest (up to 300 feet for raptors, up to 150 feet
for other birds). The qualified biologist shall
perform at least two hours of pre-construction
monitoring of the nest to characterize “typical”
bird behavior.

During construction, active nests identified
during the pre-construction survey shall be
monitored by the qualified biologist to
determine if construction activities are causing
disturbance to the bird and shall increase the
buffer if it is determined the birds are showing
signs of unusual or distressed behavior
associated with project activities. Atypical
nesting behaviors that may cause nest
abandonment include, but are not limited to,
defensive flights, vocalizations directed towards
project personnel/activities, standing up from a
brooding position, and flying away from the
nest. The qualified biologist shall have authority
to order the cessation of construction activities
if the nesting birds exhibit atypical behavior that
may cause nest failure (nest abandonment and
loss of eggs and/or young) until a refined
appropriate buffer is established. To prevent
If initial disturbing activities occur
outside February 1 and August 31,
retain a qualified biologist to conduct
pre-construction surveys. Review and
approve the report prepared by the
qualified biologist recording the results
of protective measures.

Prior to construction Once City of
Livermore
Community
Development

EXHIBIT A
235
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
encroachment, the established buffer(s) shall be
clearly marked by high visibility material. The
established buffer(s) shall remain in effect until
the young have fledged or the nest has been
abandoned as confirmed by the qualified
biologist. The monitoring biologist shall
determine the appropriate protection for active
nests on a case-by-case basis using the criteria
described above. The qualified biologist shall
prepare a nest monitoring report at the time
monitoring has been completed. The report will
document the methods and results of the
monitoring, and the final status of the nest (i.e.,
successful fledging of the nest, nest
depredation, nest failure due to construction
activity). The report shall be submitted to the
City for approval.

Cultural Resources
CR-1: Unanticipated Archaeological Resources
If archaeological resources are encountered
dur
ing ground-disturbing activities, work within
50 feet of the find shall be halted and an
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards
for archaeology shall be contacted immediately
to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation
may require preparation of a treatment plan
and archaeological testing for California Register
of Historical Resources eligibility. If the
discovery proves to be significant under CEQA
and cannot be avoided by the project,
additional work, such as data recovery
excavation, may be warranted to mitigate any
significant impacts to archaeological resources.

Require in the construction contract
that work within 50 feet of
archaeological finds be halted. Retain
an archaeologist meeting the Secretary
of Interior’s Professional Qualifications
Standards for archaeology following
discovery of cultural artifacts to
evaluate the find.

Prior to grading
permit approval and
during construction
Once and
as needed
City of
Livermore
Community
Development

EXHIBIT A
236
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
Geology and Soils
GEO-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources Prior to the commencement of project
c
onstruction, a qualified paleontological
monitor (i.e., a paleontologist who meets the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [2010]
standards as a Paleontological Resource
Monitor) shall be retained to conduct
paleontological monitoring during ground-
disturbing activities (including, but not limited
to site preparation, grading, excavation, and
trenching) of intact (i.e., previously undisturbed)
areas mapped as high sensitivity geologic units
(QTlp) located along the alignment. This
includes areas along Tesla Road near Vasco
Road and along Greenville Road approximately
3,000 feet south of Tesla Road (refer to geologic
unit map prepared by Dibblee and Minch
[2006a]), which are anticipated to require
ground disturbance to depths greater than 15
feet. Monitoring shall be performed by a
Qualified Paleontologist (i.e., a paleontologist
who meets the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology [2010] standards as a Qualified
Professional Paleontologist).

Full-time monitoring shall be conducted for all
ground-disturbing activities that impact
previously undisturbed geologic units mapped
at the surface as Pliocene to Pleistocene age
Livermore Gravel (Qtlp), which has a high
paleontological sensitivity. Additionally, initial
part-time monitoring (i.e., spot-checking) shall
be conducted for all ground-disturbing activities
that impact previously undisturbed geologic
units mapped at the surface as middle to late
Holocene alluvial deposits (Qa) to check for the
presence of geologic units of high sensitivity
Retain a qualified paleontological
monitor who meets the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology standards to
conduct paleontological monitoring
during ground-disturbing activities of
intact sensitive geologic units.

Require in the construction contract
that the monitor have the authority to
temporarily divert construction
equipment around paleontological
finds until the resource is assessed.

Review and approve the report
prepared by the qualified
paleontologist.

Prior to grading
permit approval and
during ground-
disturbing activities
of intact sensitive
geologic units
Once and
as needed
City of
Livermore
Community
Development

EXHIBIT A
237
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
(i.e., early Holocene older alluvium [Qoa, QTlp]).

If older sediments are observed at depth, then
full-time monitoring shall be conducted.

Ground-disturbing activities that impact
previously disturbed sediments only do not
require paleontological monitoring.

The duration and timing of the monitoring shall
be determined by the Qualified Paleontologist.

If the Qualified Paleontologist determines that
full-time or part-time monitoring is no longer
warranted, they may recommend reducing
monitoring to periodic spot-checking or may
recommend that monitoring cease entirely.

Monitoring shall be reinstated if any new
ground disturbances of previously undisturbed
areas are required, and reduction or suspension
shall be reconsidered by the Qualified
Paleontologist at that time.

If a paleontological resource is discovered, the
monitor shall have the authority to temporarily
divert construction equipment around the find
until it is assessed for scientific significance and
collected. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall
be prepared to a curation-ready condition and
curated in a scientific institution with a
permanent paleontological collection (such as
the University of California Museum of
Paleontology). Curation fees are the
responsibility of the project owner.

A final report shall be prepared describing the
results of the paleontological monitoring efforts
associated with the project. The report shall
include a summary of the field and laboratory
methods, an overview of the project geology
and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if
any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and
their scientific significance, and

EXHIBIT A
238
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

6 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
recommendations. The report shall be
submitted to the City. If the monitoring efforts
produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall
also be submitted to the designated museum
repository.

Noise
NOI-1: Construction Noise Reduction
The following requirements are provided to
reduce construction noise:
 Prior to the start of and for the duration
of construction, the contractor shall
properly maintain and tune all
construction equipment in accordance
with the manufacturer’s
recommendations to minimize noise
emissions.
 Prior to use of any construction
equipment, the contract shall fit all
equipment with properly operating
mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine
shrouds no less effective than as originally
equipped by the manufacturer.
 During construction, the construction
contractor shall place stationary
construction equipment and material
delivery (loading/unloading) areas to
maintain the greatest distance from the
nearest residences, or within noise
reducing enclosures.
 The construction contractor shall post a
sign along the work alignment that is
clearly visible to the public, providing a
contact name and telephone number for
filing a noise complaint.

Review and approve pre-construction
and construction plans to ensure that
all recommendations are incorporated
into project construction.

Monitor compliance with required
measures during active construction
activities.

Prior to grading
permit approval and
during construction.

Once and
as needed
City of
Livermore
Community
Development

EXHIBIT A
239
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
 These measures shall be listed on all
grading plans and monitored by the City
of Livermore during construction.

Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources If cultural resources of Native American origin
are identified during project construction, all
earth-disturbing work within 50 feet of the find
must be temporarily suspended or redirected
until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature
and significance of the find and an appropriate
Native American representative, based on the
nature of the find, is consulted. If the City
determines that the resource is a tribal cultural
resource and thus significant under CEQA, a
mitigation plan shall be prepared in accordance
with state guidelines and in consultation with
Native American groups and reviewed and
approved by the City prior to implementation.

The plan would include avoidance of the
resource or, if avoidance of the resource is
infeasible, the plan would outline the
appropriate treatment of the resource in
coordination with the archeologist and the
appropriate Native American groups, as
necessary.

Require in the construction contract
that work within 50 feet of discovered
tribal cultural resources be temporarily
suspended or redirected.

Retain a qualified archaeologist and
contact the proper Native American
representative to evaluate the
resource.

Consult with Native American groups
to create a mitigation plan for the
unanticipated significant tribal cultural
resources.

Prior to grading
permit approval and
during construction.

Once and
as needed
City of
Livermore
Community
Development

EXHIBIT A
240
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

8 This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
241

South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse Number 2021120386
prepared by
City of Livermore
Community Development Department
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
Contact: Andy Ross, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
May 2022

EXHIBIT A
242

EXHIBIT A
243

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

EXHIBIT A
244
Table of Contents

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. v Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Synopsis .........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................ES-2 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ES-3 Areas of Known Controversy .....................................................................................................ES-4 Issues to be Resolved .................................................................................................................ES-4 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the Supplemental EIR ...............................................................ES-4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ES-4 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Basis for a Supplemental EIR ........................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Project Requiring Environmental Analysis ...................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Environmental Impact Report Background .................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Purpose and Legal Authority ........................................................................................... 1-3

1.5 Scope and Content .......................................................................................................... 1-3

1.6 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR ............................................................................ 1-4

1.7 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ....................................................................... 1-9

1.8 Environmental Review Process ..................................................................................... 1-10

1.9 Draft Supplemental EIR Content ................................................................................... 1-13 2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Proponent/Lead Agency ..................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Project Location and Setting ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Project Background ......................................................................................................... 2-6

2.4 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................... 2-7

2.5 Proposed Project Elements ........................................................................................... 2-10

2.6 Required Approvals ....................................................................................................... 2-12

2.7 Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? ........................................................................................................ 2-12 3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Regional Setting .............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Project Site Setting .......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Cumulative Development ............................................................................................... 3-2 4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.1-9

EXHIBIT A
245
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.1-20

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.1-28

4.2 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.2-7

4.2.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.2-14

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.2-20 5 Other CEQA Required Discussions .............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Growth Inducement ........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1.1 Population Growth ......................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2 Economic Growth ........................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.3 Removal of Obstacles to Growth .................................................................... 5-2

5.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects .................................................................................. 5-2 6 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Construction ..................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Description ...................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 6-2

6.2 Alternative 2: No Project/On-Site Wastewater Treatment ............................................ 6-3

6.2.1 Description ...................................................................................................... 6-3

6.2.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 6-4

6.3 Alternative 3: Alternative Alignment .............................................................................. 6-6

6.3.1 Description ...................................................................................................... 6-6

6.3.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 6-8

6.4 Alternatives Considered but Rejected .......................................................................... 6-10

6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................... 6-10 7 References .................................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 L ist of Preparers .............................................................................................................. 7-5 Tables
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Areas, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts .........................................................................................................ES-6 Table 1-1 NOP Comments and Supplemental EIR Response ....................................................... 1-3 Table 1-2 Issues Not Studied in the EIR ....................................................................................... 1-4 Table 3-1 Cumulative Projects List............................................................................................... 3-3 Table 4.1-1 Groundwater Basin Inflow and Outflow Volumes .................................................... 4.1-5 Table 4.1-2 Beneficial Uses for Surface Waters ........................................................................... 4.1-6 Table 4.2-1 Cal Water’s Water Supplies – Current and Projected (acre feet per year) .............. 4.2-1 Table 4.2-2 Projected Demands for Potable and Raw Water (acre feet per year) ...................... 4.2-3 Table 4.2-3 Cal Water Supply and Demand in Multiple Dry Years .............................................. 4.2-4

EXHIBIT A
246
Table of Contents

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report iii
Table 4.2-4 Zone 7 Supply and Demand in Multiple Dry Years ................................................... 4.2-5 Table 4.2-5 Estimated Landfill Capacities and Closure Date ....................................................... 4.2-7 Table 6-1 Impact Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................... 6-12 Figures
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process .................................................................................. 1-12 Figure 2-1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Project Location ........................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-3 Bottleneck Segment Locations .................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-4 Sewer Extension and Urban Growth Boundary – West ............................................... 2-8 Figure 2-5 Sewer Extension and Urban Growth Boundary – East ................................................ 2-9 Figure 4.1-1 Watershed Map ........................................................................................................ 4.1-2 Figure 4.1-2 Surface Water and Drainage Map ............................................................................ 4.1-4 Figure 4.1-3 FEMA Flood Zones .................................................................................................... 4.1-8 Figure 4.2-1 Local Water Provider Service Areas .......................................................................... 4.2-2 Figure 6-1 Alternative 3 Alignment ............................................................................................... 6-7 Appendices
Appendix IS Initial Study for South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project Appendix NOP Notice of Preparation and Comments Received

EXHIBIT A
247
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
248
Acronyms and Abbreviations

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report v
Acronyms and Abbreviations
af acre-foot
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AGTV Agriculture/Viticulture
amsl above mean sea level
AB Assembly Bill
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan
BMP best management practices
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CF Community Facility
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIWMA California Integrated Waste Management Act
CTR California Toxics Rule
CWA Federal Clean Water Act
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOF California Department of Finance
DWR California Department of Water Resources
DWP Drinking Water Program
E Education and Institutions
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps
GHG greenhouse gas
GSP groundwater sustainability plan
I-580 Interstate 580
IRWMP San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan LF linear feet
LMC Livermore Municipal Code
LTS Less than Significant

EXHIBIT A
249
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

vi
LTS-M Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated LWRP Livermore Water Reclamation Plant
MCL maximum contaminant levels
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NI No Impact
NOA Notice of Availability
NOC Notice of Completion
NOD Notice of Determination
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OS-A Open Space Agricultural
OSP Parks, Trailways, Recreation Areas
PD-SLVSP Planned Development – South Livermore Valley Specific Plan PFAS perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PRC Public Resources Code
RR Rural Residential
RWQCB San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SLV-AG South Livermore Valley Agricultural
SLVAP South Livermore Valley Area Plan
SLVSP South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
SR State Route
SU Significant and Unavoidable
SV-AP Agricultural Preserve
SV-VC Vineyard Commercial
SWMP stormwater quality management plan
SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan

EXHIBIT A
250
Acronyms and Abbreviations

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report vii
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
UC University of California
USGS United States Geological Survey
UGB Urban Growth Boundary
UH Urban High Residential
UMH Urban Medium High Residential
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UV ultraviolet
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WWTP wastewater treatment plants

EXHIBIT A
251
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

viii

This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
252
Executive Summary

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-1
Executive Summary
This document is a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan EIR (“1997 EIR,” State Clearinghouse #1996052025), analyzing the environmental effects of the South Livermore Sewer Extension Project (proposed project). This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, alternatives to the proposed project, and the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project.

Project Synopsis
Leady Agency Name and Address
City of Livermore
Community Development Department
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
Contact Person and Phone Number
Andy Ross, Senior Planner
[email protected]
(925) 960-4475
Project Description
This Supplemental EIR has been prepared to examine the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The following is a summary of the full project description, which can be found in Section 2, Project Description.

The project alignment is located southeast of the City of Livermore, within unincorporated Alameda County, California. In addition, a portion of the project alignment is located within the City of Livermore, and another portion aligns with the City’s Sphere of Influence boundary. The project alignment would be located on South Livermore Avenue (western future phase), Tesla Road (Phase 1, western future phase, and eastern future phase), Buena Vista Avenue (Phase 1), and Greenville Road (Phase 1). The Bottleneck Project (2017 Sewer Master Plan (BO-CIP-P06); would be completed as part of Phase 1) is located within the City of Livermore, in segments along East Avenue. Interstate 580 (I-580), which is located approximately 2.6 miles north of the project alignment and approximately 1.5 miles north of the Bottleneck Project, provides regional access to the project alignment.

The project alignment is currently fully developed and would take place within existing paved rights- of-way. The alignment is predominantly flat, with a slope from approximately 566 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the northern portion of project alignment, to approximately 591 amsl at the southern portion along Tesla Road. The alignment generally drains from southeast to northwest.

EXHIBIT A
253
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

ES-2
Project Characteristics
The proposed project would amend the South Livermore Valley Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) language to allow the extension of sanitary sewer lines to serve residences and wineries located within and near the City of Livermore. The proposed sewer extension would be installed in phases within South Livermore Avenue from approximately 520 feet northwest of Concannon Boulevard to Tesla Road, within Tesla Road from South Livermore Avenue to approximately 3,000 feet east of Greenville Road, within Buena Vista Avenue from East Avenue to Tesla Road, and within Greenville Road from Tesla Road to approximately 5,900 feet south of Tesla Road.

In total, approximately 950 Linear Feet (LF) would need to be upsized to accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project may require the Bottleneck Project to be undertaken sooner than originally anticipated. The Bottleneck Project will also be included in this environmental analysis.

The expanded sewer facilities would allow existing and future wineries, visitor serving uses, and residences to connect to the City’s wastewater system in conformance with the Livermore General Plan, South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, and/or South Livermore Valley Area Plan, subject to the provisions of Alameda County Measure D. The project would also allow existing residences on Buena Vista Avenue to connect to the City’s wastewater system and cease the use of their on-site septic systems. The project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or its Sphere of Influence because it would serve existing and permitted uses to achieve the vision of the Livermore General Plan, the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP), and the South Livermore Valley Area Plan (SLVAP), in conformance with Alameda County Measure D.

Construction and Grading
Construction is anticipated to commence in 2024 for approximately 12 months, ending in 2025. The project may be constructed in phases based on funding availability. Daily construction tasks would include excavation/grading, installing pipe, backfilling, patching pavement, and coordinating traffic control. The proposed project would implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would include use of best management practices (BMP) during project construction, as well as a traffic control plan to regulate worker parking, construction staging, and potential traffic detours during construction. The proposed project would require approximately 27,000 cubic yards of excavation, 26,400 cubic yards of backfill, and 2,140 cubic yards of asphalt is anticipated to be imported.

Project Objectives
The objectives for the proposed project are as follows:
 Improve groundwater quality in the South Livermore Valley area relative to nitrates, which is associated with residential septic systems and livestock keeping  Facilitate the development potential of existing and new wineries, visitor serving commercial uses, and residences consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, and South Livermore Valley Area Plan (SLVAP) subject to Alameda County Measure D

EXHIBIT A
254
Executive Summary

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-3
 Enhance the short- and long-term economic viability of agriculture and viticulture in the South Livermore Valley area, consistent with Goals LU-13 and LU-14 of the City’s General Plan Alternatives
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Supplemental EIR examines alternatives to the proposed project. Studied alternatives include the following three alternatives.

Based on the alternatives analysis, Alternative 3 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative.
 Alternative 1: No Project/No Construction
 Alternative 2: No Project/On-Site Wastewater Treatment  Alternative 3: Alternative Alignment
Alternative 1 (No Project/No Construction) assumes that the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) language revision is not approved by a majority of voters, and that the proposed pipeline and upsizing of existing pipeline along East Avenue are not constructed. The current uses of adjacent parcels for residential and agricultural uses would continue, and wastewater would continue to be discharged to on-site septic systems. Parcels adjacent to the alignment are constrained from growth by existing septic systems, which are not eligible for expansion due to water quality concerns in the county. Alternative 1 would not achieve any project objectives because groundwater quality would not be improved in the South Livermore Valley, existing wineries and residences would be unable to realize their development potential under the General Plan and SLVSP, and economic viability of agriculture and viticulture in the region would not be enhanced.

Alternative 2 (No Project/On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems) would not require a revision to the UGB language or install municipal sewer pipelines. Under this alternative, individual wineries and property owners would coordinate to construct small-scale wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) on individual properties to treat and dispose of additional wastewater generated by the maximum development of each property under the General Plan and SLVSP. It is anticipated that approximately five or six such small-scale WWTPs would be required to treat anticipated wastewater associated with implementation of the General Plan and SLVSP. Treated wastewater could be used for crop irrigation. It is likely that biosolids would need to be trucked off site for disposal, and the WWTPs could include lift stations, screening through a rotary screen, and equalization with automated pH aeration. The final design of the small-scale WWTP would be up to individual wineries and property owners. This alternative would require approvals from the County of Alameda, which would act as the CEQA lead agency for small-scale WWTPs on parcels within the unincorporated county. However, Alternative 2 would not fulfill all project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project because it would not enhance the short-term economic viability of agriculture and viticulture in the area, as the construction and installation of individual WWTPs would likely have high individual costs and have uncertain timing due to the necessary coordination between landowners and permit approval process.

Alternative 3 (Alternative Alignment) would involve pipeline upsizing associated with the Bottleneck Project and installation of new sewer pipelines along South Livermore Avenue, Tesla Road, and Greenville Road. Instead of the proposed 5,400-linear foot (LF) alignment along Buena Vista Avenue, Alternative 3 would include 3,800 LF of pipeline within agricultural land located approximately 1,200 feet east of Buena Vista Avenue, to connect to an existing pipeline in Carnegie Loop. Carnegie Loop is located northwest of Bruno Canziani Neighborhood Park. The advantage of

EXHIBIT A
255
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

ES-4
connecting to the existing pipeline in Carnegie Loop would be that the total length of new sewer pipeline would be 1,600 LF shorter than under the proposed project. This alternative would require the same change to the UGB language as the proposed project. However, Alternative 3 would not achieve all of the project objectives because it would not extend municipal sewer service to existing residences along Buena Vista Avenue and reduce groundwater quality issues.

Refer to Section 6, Alternatives, for the complete alternatives analysis.

Areas of Known Controversy
The EIR scoping process did not identify areas of known controversy for the proposed project.

Responses to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR are summarized in Section 1, Introduction.

Issues to be Resolved
The proposed project would require approval from the Livermore City Council to modify the UGB and place it on the ballot, and approval by the majority of voters of the modified UGB language.

Issues Not Studied in Detail in the Supplemental EIR
As indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix IS), there is no substantial evidence that significant impacts would occur to the following issue areas: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Wildfire. Impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated in the Initial Study. Mitigation measures for those issue areas are listed below in Table ES-1 and will be carried forward into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality, and Utilities and Service Systems were found to be potentially significant and are addressed in this Supplemental EIR.

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental impacts of the proposed project, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts (the impact after application of mitigation, if required). Table ES-1 also provides the 1997 EIR impact conclusions for Subareas 1 and 2 of the SLVSP. Mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR are only included if they would apply to construction of the Livermore Sewer Extension Project (please note that those measures are still applicable to development along the alignment as studied in the 1997 EIR and allowed in the relevant adopted plans and zoning regulations). Impacts are categorized as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable (SU). An impact that cannot be reduced below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (LTS-M). An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.

EXHIBIT A
256
Executive Summary

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-5
 Less than Significant (LTS). An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.
 No Impact (NI). The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

EXHIBIT A
257
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

ES-6
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Areas, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Environmental Impact
1997 EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Project
Impact
Conclusion Mitigation Measures
Residual
Project Impact
Initial Study Impacts (refer to Appendix IS)
Aesthetics (Environmental Checklist Section 1)
Impact 1a. The project would have no substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. No impact would occur.

LTS NI None required NI
Impact 1b. The project would not substantially damage
scenic resources. No impact would occur.

LTS NI None required NI
Impact 1c. The project would not substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. No impact would occur.

LTS NI None required NI
Impact 1d. The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in the area. No impact would occur.

LTS NI None required NI
Agriculture and Forestry Resources (Environmental Checklist Section 2) Impact 2a. The project would not convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur.

LTS-M NI None required NI
Impact 2b. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.

No impact would occur.

LTS-M NI None required NI
Impact 2c-d. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land; timberland; or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The project
would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.

N/A NI None required NI
Impact 2e. The project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.

LTS-M NI None required NI

EXHIBIT A
258
Executive Summary

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-7
Environmental Impact
1997 EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Project
Impact
Conclusion Mitigation Measures
Residual
Project Impact
Air Quality (Environmental Checklist Section 3)
Impact 3a. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. This impact would be less than significant.

N/A LTS None required LTS
Impact 3b. The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

This impact would be less than significant.

SU LTS None required LTS
Impact 3c. The project would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS LTS None required LTS
Impact 3d. The project would not result in other
emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of
people. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS-M LTS None required LTS
Biological Resources (Environmental Checklist Section 4) Impact 4a. The project would potentially have a
substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Impacts to nesting birds during project
construction activities would be potentially significant.

LTS PS BIO-1 Nesting Bird Avoidance and Minimization Efforts. If project construction activities occur during the nesting season (between February 1 and August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds no more than 14 days prior to construction. The survey shall include the entire project alignment and a 300-foot buffer to account for nesting raptors. If nests are found, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate species-specific avoidance buffer of sufficient size to prevent disturbance by project activity to the nest (up to 300 feet for raptors, up to 150 feet for other birds).

The qualified biologist shall perform at least two hours of pre- construction monitoring of the nest to characterize “typical” bird behavior.

EXHIBIT A
259
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

ES-8
Environmental Impact
1997 EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Project
Impact
Conclusion Mitigation Measures
Residual
Project Impact
nest abandonment include, but are not limited to, defensive flights, vocalizations directed towards project
personnel/activities, standing up from a brooding position, and flying away from the nest. The qualified biologist shall have authority to order the cessation of construction activities if the nesting birds exhibit atypical behavior that may cause nest failure (nest abandonment and loss of eggs and/or young) until a refined appropriate buffer is established. To prevent encroachment, the established buffer(s) shall be clearly marked by high visibility material. The established buffer(s) shall remain in effect until the young have fledged or the nest has been abandoned as confirmed by the qualified biologist. The
monitoring biologist shall determine the appropriate protection for active nests on a case-by-case basis using the criteria described above. The qualified biologist shall prepare a nest monitoring report at the time monitoring has been completed.

The report will document the methods and results of the monitoring, and the final status of the nest (i.e., successful fledging of the nest, nest depredation, nest failure due to construction activity). The report shall be submitted to the City for approval.

Impact 4b-c. The project would not have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; or on State or federally protected wetlands through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

No impact would occur.

LTS NI None required NI
Impact 4d. The project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites. No impact would occur.

LTS NI None required LTS

EXHIBIT A
260
Executive Summary

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-9
Environmental Impact
1997 EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Project
Impact
Conclusion Mitigation Measures
Residual
Project Impact
Impact 4e. The project would not conflict with any local p
olicies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impact would occur.

LTS NI None required LTS
Impact 4f. The project would not conflict with the
provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.

N/A NI None required NI
Cultural Resources (Environmental Checklist Section 5)
Impact 5a. The project would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5. No impact would occur.

LTS NI None required LTS
Impact 5b. The project has the potential to cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5. Impacts to archaeological resources during project construction
activities would be potentially significant.

LTS PS CR-1 Unanticipated Archaeological Resources. If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 50 feet of the find shall be halted and an
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for California Register of Historical Resources eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts to archaeological resources.

LTS-M
Impact 5c. The project would not disturb any human
remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS LTS None required LTS
Energy (Environmental Checklist Section 6)
Impact 6a. The project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation. This impact would be less than significant.

N/A LTS None required LTS

EXHIBIT A
261
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

ES-10
Environmental Impact
1997 EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Project
Impact
Conclusion Mitigation Measures
Residual
Project Impact
Impact 6b. The project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency. No impact would occur.

N/A NI None required NI
Geology and Soils (Environmental Checklist Section 7)
Impact 7a.1-a.2. The project would not directly or
i
ndirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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; or strong seismic ground shaking. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS-M LTS None required LTS
Impact 7a.3. The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS LTS None required LTS
Impact 7a.4. The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS LTS None required LTS
Impact 7b. The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS LTS None required LTS
Impact 7c. The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS LTS None required LTS
Impact 7d. The project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS LTS None required LTS

EXHIBIT A
262
Executive Summary

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-11
Environmental Impact
1997 EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Project
Impact
Conclusion Mitigation Measures
Residual
Project Impact
Impact 7e. The project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of wastewater. No
impact would occur.

N/A NI None required NI
Impact 7f. The project has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Impacts would be
potentially significant.

N/A PS GEO-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources.

Prior to the commencement of project construction, a qualified paleontological monitor (i.e., a paleontologist who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [2010] standards as a Paleontological Resource Monitor) shall be retained to conduct paleontological monitoring during ground-disturbing activities (including, but not limited to site preparation, grading, excavation, and trenching) of intact (i.e., previously
undisturbed) areas mapped as high sensitivity geologic units (QTlp) located along the alignment. This includes areas along Tesla Road near Vasco Road and along Greenville Road
approximately 3,000 feet south of Tesla Road (refer to geologic unit map prepared by Dibblee and Minch [2006a]), which are anticipated to require ground disturbance to depths greater than 15 feet. Monitoring shall be performed by a Qualified Paleontologist (i.e., a paleontologist who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [2010] standards as a Qualified Professional Paleontologist).

Full-time monitoring shall be conducted for all ground- disturbing activities that impact previously undisturbed geologic units mapped at the surface as Pliocene to Pleistocene age Livermore Gravel (Qtlp), which has a high paleontological sensitivity. Additionally, initial part-time monitoring (i.e., spot- checking) shall be conducted for all ground-disturbing activities that impact previously undisturbed geologic units mapped at the surface as middle to late Holocene alluvial deposits (Qa) to check for the presence of geologic units of high sensitivity (i.e., early Holocene older alluvium [Qoa, QTlp]). If older sediments are observed at depth, then full-time monitoring shall be conducted. Ground-disturbing activities that impact previously LTS-M

EXHIBIT A
263
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

ES-12
Environmental Impact
1997 EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Project
Impact
Conclusion Mitigation Measures
Residual
Project Impact
disturbed sediments only do not require paleontological monitoring.

The duration and timing of the monitoring shall be determined by the Qualified Paleontologist. If the Qualified Paleontologist determines that full-time or part-time monitoring is no longer warranted, they may recommend reducing monitoring to
periodic spot-checking or may recommend that monitoring cease entirely. Monitoring shall be reinstated if any new ground disturbances of previously undisturbed areas are required, and reduction or suspension shall be reconsidered by the Qualified Paleontologist at that time.

If a paleontological resource is discovered, the monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert construction equipment around the find until it is assessed for scientific significance and collected. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be prepared to a curation-ready condition and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology). Curation fees are the responsibility of the project owner.

A final report shall be prepared describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts associated with the project.

The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the project geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations.

The report shall be submitted to the City. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Environmental Checklist Section 8) Impact 8a. The project would not generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. This impact
would be less than significant.

N/A LTS None required LTS

EXHIBIT A
264
Executive Summary

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-13
Environmental Impact
1997 EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Project
Impact
Conclusion Mitigation Measures
Residual
Project Impact
Impact 8b. The project would not conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

No impact would occur.

N/A NI None required NI
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Environmental Checklist Section 9) Impact 9a-b. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. This impact would be less than
significant.

N/A LTS None required LTS
Impact 9c. The project would not emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an
existing or proposed school. This impact would be less
than significant.

N/A LTS None required LTS
Impact 9d. The project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment This impact would be less than
significant.

N/A LTS None required LTS
Impact 9e. The project would not be located within an
airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; and thus would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area. No impact would occur.

N/A NI None required NI
Impact 9f. The project would not impair implementation
of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. This impact would be less than significant.

N/A LTS None required LTS

EXHIBIT A
265
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

ES-14
Environmental Impact
1997 EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Project
Impact
Conclusion Mitigation Measures
Residual
Project Impact
Impact 9g. The project would not expose people or
structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur.

N/A NI None required NI
Land Use and Planning (Environmental Checklist Section 11) Impact 11a. The project would not physically divide an
established community. No impact would occur.

LTS-M NI None required NI
Impact 11b. The project would not cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No impact would occur.

LTS NI None required NI
Mineral Resources (Environmental Checklist Section 12)
Impact 12a-b. The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state; or a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No impact would occur.

LTS NI None required NI
Noise (Environmental Checklist Section 13)
Impact 13a. The project would potentially result in
generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impacts are potentially significant.

LTS PS NOI-1. Construction Noise Reduction. The following requirements are provided to reduce construction noise:
 Prior to the start of and for the duration of construction, the contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s
recommendations to minimize noise emissions.
 Prior to use of any construction equipment, the contract shall fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer.
 During construction, the construction contractor shall place stationary construction equipment and material delivery (loading/unloading) areas to maintain the greatest distance from the nearest residences, or within noise reducing
enclosures.

LTS-M

EXHIBIT A
266
Executive Summary

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-15
Environmental Impact
1997 EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Project
Impact
Conclusion Mitigation Measures
Residual
Project Impact
 The construction contractor shall post a sign along the work alignment that is clearly visible to the public, providing a contact name and telephone number for filing a noise
complaint.
 These measures shall be listed on all grading plans and monitored by the City of Livermore during construction.

Impact 13b. The project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS LTS None required LTS
Impact 13c. The project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; and thus would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur.

N/A NI None required NI
Population and Housing (Environmental Checklist Section 14) Impact 14a. The project would not induce substantial
u
nplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. This impact would be less than significant.

N/A LTS None required LTS
Impact 14b. The project would not displace substantial
numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No
impact would occur.

N/A NI None required NI
Public Services (Environmental Checklist Section 15)
Impact 15a.1-a.3, a.5. The project would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services: fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities. No impact would occur.

LTS NI None required NI

EXHIBIT A
267
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

ES-16
Environmental Impact
1997 EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Project
Impact
Conclusion Mitigation Measures
Residual
Project Impact
Impact 15a.4. The project would not result in substantial ad
verse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for parks. No impact would occur.

LTS NI None required NI
Recreation (Environmental Checklist Section 16)
Impact-15a-b. The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

The project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impact would occur.

LTS NI None required NI
Transportation (Environmental Checklist Section 17)
Impact 17a. T he project would not conflict with a
program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This impact would be less than
significant.

SU LTS None required LTS
Impact 17b. The project would not conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b). No impact would occur.

N/A NI None required LTS
Impact 17c. The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use
(e.g., farm equipment). No impact would occur.

LTS NI None required NI
Impact 17d. The project would not result in inadequate
emergency access. No impact would occur.

N/A NI None required NI

EXHIBIT A
268
Executive Summary

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-17
Environmental Impact
1997 EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Project
Impact
Conclusion Mitigation Measures
Residual
Project Impact
Tribal Cultural Resources (Environmental Checklist Section 18) Impact 18a-b. The project would potentially cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) or that is a resource
determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. Impacts to tribal cultural resources during project construction activities would be potentially significant.

N/A PS TCR-1. Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. If cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during project construction, all earth-disturbing work within 50 feet of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups and reviewed and approved by the City prior to implementation. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archeologist and the appropriate Native American groups, as necessary.

LTS-M
Wildfire (Environmental Checklist Section 20)
Impact 20a-d. The project would not substantially impair an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan; due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire; require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No impact would occur.

LTS NI None required NI

EXHIBIT A
269
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

ES-18
Environmental Impact
1997 EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Project
Impact
Conclusion Mitigation Measures
Residual
Project Impact
Supplemental EIR Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 4.1)
Impact HYD-1. Construction of the proposed project could result in an increase in pollutants in stormwater and
wastewater via runoff during grading and excavation
activities in the vicinity of existing surface water resources and storm drain infrastructure. Compliance with NPDES
permit requirements, Livermore Municipal Code
requirements, Alameda County Codes and Ordinances,
and Livermore General Plan goals, objectives, and policies would prevent substantial discharges of pollutants via
stormwater runoff. Such compliance would minimize
adverse effects on water quality. In addition, the disuse and removal of existing residential septic systems would result in an overall improvement in groundwater quality in the project vicinity. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS LTS None required LTS
Impact HYD-2. The proposed project would not create an
incremental increase in demand for groundwater supplies, nor would it directly interfere with the groundwater table or its recharge. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS LTS None required LTS
Impact HYD-3. The proposed project would not alter the
existing drainage pattern of the project alignment, alter the course of a stream or river, or add new impervious
surfaces. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS LTS None required LTS
Impact HYD-4. The proposed project is not subject to
flooding from a tsunami or seiche, and regulations for
development within a Federal Emergency Management
Agency-designated flood zone would reduce the risk of
pollutant release. This impact would be less than
significant.

SU LTS None required LTS
Impact HYD-5. The proposed project would not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS LTS None required LTS

EXHIBIT A
270
Executive Summary

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-19
Environmental Impact
1997 EIR
Impact
Conclusion
Project
Impact
Conclusion Mitigation Measures
Residual
Project Impact
Utilities and Service Systems (Section 4.2)
Impact UTIL-1. The project would not induce
unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area
because it would serve existing development potential
consistent with the General Plan and SLVSP. Further, the project would not directly result in wastewater
generation; however, the project would indirectly
increase wastewater in the City’s conveyance and
treatment system by replacing septic systems as the
primary treatment method of parcels along the project
alignment. Impacts from the proposed project related to water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities would be less than
significant; however, water and wastewater facility
impacts from the development potential of the SLVSP
would remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the findings in the 1997 EIR.

SU LTS None required LTS
Impact UTIL-2. The project would not directly result in increased water demand. Based on Cal Water’s water
supply and demand projections, projected water supplies are sufficient to meet the anticipated water demand of
reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years, as shown in Table 4.2- 3 and Table 4.2-4. This impact would be less than
significant.

N/A LTS None required LTS
Impact UTIL-3. The project would not generate solid
waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. The project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. This impact would be less than significant.

N/A LTS None required LTS
NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant impact; LTS-M = less than significant impact with mitigation; PS = potentially significant impact; SU = significant and unavoidable impact; N/A = impact not addressed 1997 EIR; EIR = Environmental Impact Report; SLVSP = South Livermore Valley Specific Plan; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Qu ality Management District; CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act; MT = Metric Tons; CO2e = Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

EXHIBIT A
271
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

ES-20

This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
272
Introduction

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Introduction
The City of Livermore has prepared this Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan EIR (“1997 EIR”), State Clearinghouse #1996052025, certified in September 1997, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15163.

This section discusses (1) the basis for preparation of a Supplemental EIR; (2) the project requiring environmental analysis; (3) the EIR background; (4) the legal basis for preparing a Supplemental EIR; (5) the scope and content of the Supplemental EIR; (6) lead, responsible, and trustee agencies; (7) the environmental review process required under CEQA; and (8) an overview of the content of the Supplemental EIR. The proposed project is described in detail in Section 2, Project Description.

1.1 Basis for a Supplemental EIR
When an EIR has been adopted and a project is modified or expanded upon, additional CEQA review may be necessary. The key considerations in determining the need for the appropriate type of additional CEQA review are outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), no subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless one or more of the following conditions is present:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
 The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration;
 Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

EXHIBIT A
273
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

1-2
 Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or  Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the proposed project would amend UGB language to allow the extension of approximately 27,000 linear feet of sanitary sewer lines, as well as upsize approximately 950 linear feet of pipe to accommodate the proposed sewer expansion. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, a supplemental EIR may be prepared when no substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162).

A supplemental document may only be used when minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15163[a][2]). The proposed project has not substantially changed from the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, and the general environmental conditions have largely remained the same.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, the 1997 EIR is incorporated into this document by reference.

1.2 Project Requiring Environmental Analysis
The proposed project would include the following:
 Amendment to the UGB to allow extension of sanitary sewer lines  Construction of new sanitary sewer lines to serve winery, agricultural, and residential parcels south of the City of Livermore
 Implementation of the Bottleneck Project, consisting of upsizing existing pipes to accommodate the extended sewer system
For additional information on the proposed project, see Section 2, Project Description.

1.3 Environmental Impact Report Background
In 1997, the City of Livermore certified the Final EIR for the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan.

This document planned development for 30 residential lots in the City of Livermore, in Alameda County. In March 2000, City voters approved the UGB Initiative, which aims to prevent uncontrolled urban development.

The City of Livermore distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental EIR for the proposed project for a 30-day agency and public scoping period, which started on December 16, 2021, and ended on January 17, 2022. The City received one written response to the NOP regarding the scope and content of the Supplemental EIR, which is summarized in Table 1-1. The NOP and the NOP responses are included in Appendix NOP. Written comments applicable to the environmental analyses under CEQA are addressed, as appropriate, in the analysis contained in the various subsections of Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, and/or in the Initial Study (Appendix IS).

EXHIBIT A
274
Introduction

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-3
Table 1-1 NOP Comments and Supplemental EIR Response
Commenter Comment/Request How and Where It Was Addressed Native American
He
ritage Commission
The commenter recommends
consultation with California Native
American tribes that are traditionally
and culturally affiliated with the
geographic area of the proposed
project as early as possible. The
purpose of this early consultation is
to avoid inadvertent discoveries of
Native American human remains and
best protect tribal cultural resources.

Tribal cultural resources and Assembly Bill 52
consultation are addressed in Environmental
Checklist Section 18 of the Initial Study (Appendix IS).

1.4 Purpose and Legal Authority
The proposed project requires the discretionary approval of the City of Livermore; therefore, the project is subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15121 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14), the purpose of this Supplemental EIR is to serve as an informational document that:
“will inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.”
As discussed above, this document is a Supplemental EIR to the 1997 EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and Section 15163. A Supplemental EIR is appropriate when “(1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and (2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.” The general environmental conditions along the proposed alignment have not substantially changed since preparation of the 1997 Final EIR for the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan; thus, a Supplemental EIR is appropriate to achieve CEQA compliance.

This Supplemental EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for the public and City of Livermore decision makers. The process would include public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council to consider certification of a Final Supplemental EIR and approval of the proposed project.

1.5 Scope and Content
This EIR addresses impacts identified in the Initial Study to be potentially significant (Appendix IS).

The following issues were found to include potentially significant impacts and have been studied in the EIR:
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Utilities and Service Systems
In preparing this EIR, pertinent City policies and guidelines, certified EIRs and adopted CEQA documents, and other background documents were referenced. A full reference list is contained in Section 7, References and Preparers.

EXHIBIT A
275
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

1-4
The alternatives section of the EIR (Section 6) was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. Section 6 focuses on alternatives that are capable of eliminating or reducing significant adverse effects associated with the project while feasibly attaining most of the basic project objectives. In addition, the alternatives section identifies the “environmentally superior” alternative among the alternatives assessed. The alternatives evaluated include the CEQA-required “No Project” alternative and two alternative development scenarios for the project area.

The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and applicable court decisions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 provides the standard of adequacy on which this document is based. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 states:
“An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.”

1.6 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR
Table 1-2 summarizes issues from the environmental checklist that were addressed in the Initial Study (Appendix IS). As indicated in the Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that significant impacts would occur in any of these issue areas.

Table 1-2 Issues Not Studied in the EIR
Issue Area Initial Study Findings
Aesthetics T he proposed project would not impact the distant views of Altamont Hills and the Diablo Mountain Range from South Livermore Road and Tesla Road. There would be no impact to scenic vistas.

The proposed project is located approximately 1.6 miles south of the nearest eligible state scenic highway, and would not damage scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. There would be no impacts to scenic resources.

The proposed project would not conflict with current applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic qualities, and would not change or disrupt existing uses in the area. There would be no impacts regarding conflict with applicable regulations governing scenic quality.

The proposed project would not add sources of substantial light or glare; thus it would not cause adverse effects to daytime or nighttime views in the area. There would be no impacts to light or glare.

Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
The project alignment is adjacent to agricultural land but would be constructed within existing paved rights-of-way. No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be affected by project implementation, and no impact to agricultural land would occur. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

Multiple parcels of land adjacent to the project alignment are enrolled under the California Land Conservation Act and are subject to Williamson Act contracts. However, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impacts would occur. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

EXHIBIT A
276
Introduction

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-5
Issue Area Initial Study Findings
The project alignment and surrounding areas are not designated as, nor adjacent to lands zoned f
or forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production; result in the loss of forest land; or convert forest land to non-forest use. No impacts to forest land would occur.

Proposed project construction would not directly or indirectly result in the conversion of farmland or forestland adjacent to the project alignment to non-agricultural use or non-forest use. There would be no impact regarding conversion of forest land to non-forest use or farmland to non-agricultural use. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

Air Quality The proposed project would not generate new operational emissions. Emissions generated during construction would be temporary and cease upon completion. Construction activities would adhere to air quality plan control measures and construction-related emissions would not exceed the applicable Bay Area Air Quality Management District significance thresholds. Impacts regarding obstruction of applicable air quality plans would be less than significant.

Project operation would not increase energy use in the form of electricity, natural gas, or gasoline and diesel fuel consumption. No buildings would be constructed, no vehicle traffic would be generated, and the project would not result in unanticipated growth in its vicinity.

Impacts regarding the net increase of criteria pollutants would be less than significant.

Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

Construction-related activities would result in temporary emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy duty diesel equipment. However, DPM generated by project construction would not create conditions where the probability is greater than 10 in one million of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual; or generate ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic toxic air contaminants that exceed a Hazard Index greater than one for the Maximally Exposed Individual. Project operation would not result in new toxic air contaminant emissions. Impacts regarding exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

Heavy equipment and vehicles used during construction would temporarily emit odors associated with engine exhaust. The proposed project does not include any odor-generating uses. Impacts regarding other emissions that adversely affect a substantial number of people would be less than significant. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

Biological
Resources
The proposed alignment is within previously disturbed and existing paved rights-of-way and would not require additional ground disturbance. Given these factors, no special status species have the potential to occur along project alignment, and there would be no impacts to special status plant species. The alignment could be used by numerous species of migratory birds that utilize sparse ground cover or ornamental shrubs and landscaping as nesting habitat. Potential impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (as described in the Executive Summary and Appendix IS).

The proposed alignment is located within riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands located in its vicinity. Thus, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, or state or federally protected wetlands, and no impact would occur.

The proposed alignment is not located directly adjacent to intact wildlife habitat, corridor, aquatic habitat, or suitable connected natural areas. No impacts would occur.

The proposed project would not result in the removal of existing trees. The project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and there would be no impacts.

EXHIBIT A
277
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

1-6
Issue Area Initial Study Findings
Currently, there are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation P
lans, or other habitat conservation plans in the City and County. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.

Cultural Resources There are currently two designated resources listed in the California Register of Historical Places located adjacent to the project alignment on Tesla Road. The project would not involve the demolition of existing buildings or structures or construction of new buildings near the project alignment; therefore, the built environment in the City of Livermore or adjacent unincorporated areas would not be altered. No changes in significance of a historical resource would occur, and no impact would occur.

The proposed project would not result in ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas.

However, there is always a possibility that previously undiscovered archaeological resources are encountered during project ground disturbance. Potential impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 (as described in the Executive Summary and Appendix IS).

The proposed project would not result in ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas.

With adherence to existing regulations, impacts to unanticipated human remains would be less than significant.

Energy Project-related energy consumption would be limited to energy consumed during project construction, such as fuel consumed by vehicles and equipment. Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of similar- sized construction projects in the region. Project operation would not increase energy use in the form of electricity, natural gas, or gasoline and diesel fuel consumption. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would not result in unplanned growth, alter energy efficiency, or affect existing renewable energy resources. The proposed project would not conflict with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and no impact would occur.

Geology and Soils There is the potential for fault rupture along the project alignment and construction workers would be present at the site and working on a mapped fault; however, no structures are proposed as part of the project. Therefore, the project would not cause direct or indirect adverse effects resulting from fault ruptures or seismic activities. With adherence to the requirements of the California Building Code the project would result in less than significant impacts related to seismically-induced ground shaking from nearby faults. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

The project alignment is located within a low liquefaction hazard zone, and liquefaction-related impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

The project alignment is in a very low landslide risk area, and impacts involving landslides would be less than significant. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

Construction activities would disturb soil along the project alignment, resulting in potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Implementation of Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations would reduce the potential for project construction to result in substantial wind erosion or loss of topsoil. Compliance with other existing regulatory requirements, including implementation of applicable best management practices related to wind and water erosion control, would reduce potential soil loss and erosion from the alignment. Impacts would be less than significant. Additional discussion of the project’s potential to cause erosion or siltation off- site are discussed in Section 4.1, Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact HYD-3. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

EXHIBIT A
278
Introduction

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-7
Issue Area Initial Study Findings
Given the nature of the proposed project and existing conditions along the alignment, the p
otential for lateral spreading is very low. Project construction would not cause the ground to become unstable or result in landslide, lateral spreading, or liquefaction because the existing roadway would be maintained, and proper construction techniques and regulations would be followed. Impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

The project alignment overlays soils that are not expansive; therefore, impacts regarding expansive soils would be less than significant. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

The proposed project would not include any septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Thus, there would be no impact.

The proposed project would not result in ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas.

However, there is always a possibility that previously undiscovered paleontological resources are encountered during project ground disturbance. Potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (as described in the Executive Summary and Appendix IS).

Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Project construction would generate approximately 734 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, which would be temporary GHG emissions due to the operation of construction equipment. Project operation would not generate GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

The State’s 2017 Scoping Plan was created to outline goals for California to achieve Greenhouse Gas reductions; one strategy is water conservation. Upgrading the pipes would promote wastewater conveyance efficiency and would minimize the existing system wastewater losses associated with leaks and reduced efficiencies due to age. The project would be consistent with energy efficiency goals and policies in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
Project construction would temporarily increase the use and transport of hazardous materials in the project area through the operation of vehicles and equipment. These materials would not be transported, stored, or used in quantities which would pose a significant hazard to the public or construction workers themselves. Project operation would not require transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant.

There are four schools located within 0.25 mile of the project alignment. Hazardous materials used during project construction would be disposed of offsite in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Therefore, potential impacts associated with an accidental emission or release of hazardous materials in proximity to a school would be less than significant.

The project alignment and adjacent properties are not included on existing lists of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

The project alignment is not located within a Safety Compatibility Zone as designated by the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not subject people working along the alignment to safety hazards or excessive noise, and there would be no impact.

The proposed project would require temporary lane closures throughout the duration of construction, but traffic would be managed by a County-approved traffic control plan. Project operation would not change or disrupt the existing roadway and traffic patterns, and no streets would be closed once construction is complete. Thus, the project would have a less than significant impact regarding interference with emergency response or evacuation plans.

The project alignment is adjacent to existing residential and commercial uses. There are no wildland conditions on or adjacent to the project alignment, and the project is not located in a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The project would be constructed within

EXHIBIT A
279
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

1-8
Issue Area Initial Study Findings
existing paved rights-of-way, and it would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. There would be no impact.

Land Use and
Planning
Project construction would not physically or socially divide an established community or limit movement, travel, or other interaction between established land uses. Therefore, no impact would occur. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

No development beyond projected buildout of the City and County General Plans would occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would have no impact regarding conflicts with existing land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No impact would occur.

Mineral Resources The project alignment is within existing paved rights-of-way, and no existing mineral resource mining operations occur along the alignment. The proposed project would not require the use of mineral resources valuable to the region and residents of the state, and no mining activity is planned as part of the project. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of mineral resources. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Noise Construction activity would generate temporary noise in the project vicinity, exposing adjacent sensitive receivers to increased noise levels. Project construction noise would be generated by heavy-duty diesel construction equipment used for site preparation, excavation/grading, construction, and paving activities. Potential noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (as described in the Executive Summary and Appendix IS).

No change to existing operations would result from the proposed project. Construction would intermittently generate vibration on and adjacent to the project alignment. Construction activity would be limited to daytime hours and would not disrupt residential receivers during recognized hours of sleep. Overall, vibration caused by project construction would result in a less than significant impact.

The project alignment is not within an area covered by an airport land use plan, nor is it located in the vicinity of a private air strip. The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to significant aircraft-generated noise. No impact would occur.

Population and
Housing
The proposed project would not involve the construction of new residences, businesses, or roadways. The proposed project would not cause unanticipated growth in the city or county, either directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant.

While there are housing units in the project vicinity, the project would not involve the demolition of existing residences and would not displace existing housing units or people. No impact would occur.

Public Services The project would not result in unanticipated new development or generate direct or indirect population growth in the City. Thus, the project would not increase the demand for fire, police, school, library, or other public facility services beyond the development currently anticipated in the City and County General Plans. No impact would occur.

Recreation The proposed project would not impact existing recreational areas. The project would not result in new development or generate direct or indirect population growth in the City. Therefore, the project would not increase the demand for existing recreational services in its vicinity, and there would be no impacts.

Transportation Construction would require one lane of public roadways to be closed at any given time. The City would post signage along the alignment and on roadways leading up to the project alignment before and during construction to give advance warning of road closures and detours. Once completed, the project would not alter roadways or transit stops, increase commercial or residential development, generate growth, or cause an increase in traffic in the vicinity of the project alignment. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the goals, objectives, or policies addressing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the City’s General Plan Circulation Elements or the City’s Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails Active Transportation Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the South Livermore

EXHIBIT A
280
Introduction

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-9
Issue Area Initial Study Findings
Valley Specific Plan area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 Environmental Impact Report.

The proposed project would not generate vehicle trips for project operation, and there would be no change to existing roadways or increase in vehicle miles travelled. As such, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) and no impact would occur.

The proposed project would not alter or affect the existing street and intersection networks in its vicinity, nor increase hazards due to a new geometric design feature. The proposed project would not introduce incompatible uses, including vehicles or equipment, to the alignment or the surrounding area, and would have no impact.

Project construction would require one lane of public roadways to be temporarily closed at any given time. Signage would be posted along the alignment and on roadways leading up to the alignment it before and during construction to give advance warning of road closures and detours. As a result, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.

Tribal Cultural
Resources
The proposed project would not result in ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas.

However, there is always a possibility that previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources are encountered during project ground disturbance. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 (as described in the Executive Summary and Appendix IS).

Wildfire Although the project alignment is located in a State Responsibility Area, the project would not result in population growth or expose new residents to wildfire risks. As such, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency evacuation plan, exacerbate wildfire risks, require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk, or expose people or structures to significant risks. There would be no impact with regards to wildfire.

Notes: EIR = Environmental Impact Report; SLVSP = South Livermore Valley Specific Plan

1.7 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies
The CEQA Guidelines define lead, responsible and trustee agencies. The City of Livermore is the lead agency because it holds principal responsibility for approving the proposed project. The proposed project would require approval by the City of Livermore City Council for the following items:
 Approval of language to modify the UGB and place the amendment on the ballot  Certification of an EIR prepared in accordance with CEQA prior to approving the modified language
A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval over the proposed project. There are no responsible agencies for the proposed UGB amendment and sewer expansion project.

Trustee agencies have jurisdiction over certain resources held in trust for the people of California but do not have a legal authority over approving or carrying out the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 designates four agencies as trustee agencies: the California Department of Fish and Wildlife with regards to fish and wildlife, native plants designated as rare or endangered, game refuges, and ecological reserves; the State Lands Commission, with regard to State-owned “sovereign” lands, such as the beds of navigable waters and State school lands; the California Department of Parks and Recreation, with regard to units of the State park system; and, the

EXHIBIT A
281
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

1-10
University of California, with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water Reserves System.

There are no trustee agencies for the proposed UGB amendment and sewer expansion project.

1.8 Environmental Review Process
The environmental impact review process, as required under CEQA, is summarized below and illustrated in Figure 1-1. The steps are presented in sequential order.

1. Determination that Supplemental EIR is warranted. When an EIR has been certified for a project, a lead agency must determine if a Supplemental EIR should be prepared due to minor changes to the project, circumstances under which the project was approved, or new information. As described in Section 1.1, Basis for a Supplemental EIR, the proposed project would involve minor changes to make the 1997 EIR applicable to the proposed project.

Therefore, the City has determined that the preparation of a Supplemental EIR is the appropriate approach to CEQA compliance.

2. Notice of Preparation (NOP). Pursuant to the provision of CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City (as lead agency) issued a NOP for public review and comment (see Appendix NOP). As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15375, an NOP is a brief document sent by the lead agency to notify the responsible agencies, trustee agencies, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and other involved agencies that the lead agency plans to prepare a Supplemental EIR for a project. The purpose of the notice is to solicit guidance from those agencies as to the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the Supplemental EIR and to solicit recommendations and develop information regarding the scope, focus, and content of the Supplemental EIR.

The public review and scoping period for the project NOP began on December 16, 2021, and ended on January 17, 2022, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section15082. Comments on the scope and content of the Supplemental EIR were received and written comments are included in Appendix NOP of this Supplemental EIR.

3. Draft Supplemental EIR. Public and agency review of the environmental documentation will be further encouraged through distribution of the Draft Supplemental EIR for at least the required 45-day public review period. Written comments should be submitted by mail or email with appropriate contact information, to the following:

Andy Ross, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
Email: [email protected]
Any agency, organization, or members of the public desiring to comment on the Supplemental EIR must submit their comments prior to the end of the public comment period.

4. Notice of Completion. The provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section15085(a) and Section15087(a)(1) require that as soon as the Draft Supplemental EIR is completed, the lead agency must file a Notice of Completion (NOC) with OPR and that a public Notice of Availability (NOA) be provided to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested notification. The City, serving as the lead agency, will provide the NOC to OPR and circulate an NOA of the Draft Supplemental EIR to public agencies, special districts, tribal representatives,

EXHIBIT A
282
Introduction

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-11
organizations, and individuals that commented on the NOP and/or requested to be kept informed of the proposed project.

5. Final Supplemental EIR. A Final Supplemental EIR consists of the Draft Supplemental EIR; revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR; responses to comments addressing concerns raised by individuals, organizations, and public agencies or other reviewing parties; and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). According to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, for projects in which significant impacts would be minimized by mitigation measures, the lead agency must include an MMRP. The purpose of an MMRP is to ensure compliance with required mitigation measures during implementation of the project. After the Final Supplemental EIR is completed, and at least 10 days prior to its certification, a copy of the response to comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR will be provided or made available to all commenting parties.

6. Certification of Final Supplemental EIR. Prior to deciding on the proposed project, the lead agency must certify that: (a) the Final Supplemental EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (b) the Final Supplemental EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and (c) the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final Supplemental EIR prior to approval (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090).

7. Lead Agency Project Decision. The lead agency may: (a) disapprove the project because of its significant environmental effects; (b) require changes to the project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or (c) approve the project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15042 and Section 15043).

8. Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the proposed project identified in the Supplemental EIR, the lead agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: (a) the proposed project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; (b) changes are within another agency's jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or (c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision.

9. Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. When the lead agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the Supplemental EIR, it must adopt an MMRP for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects.

10. Notice of Determination (NOD). The lead agency must file a NOD after deciding to approve a project for which a Supplemental EIR is prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094). A local agency must file the NOD with the County Clerk. The NOD must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA legal challenges (Public Resources Code Section 21167[c]).

EXHIBIT A
283
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

1-12
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process

EXHIBIT A
284
Introduction

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-13

1.9 Draft Supplemental EIR Content
The contents of the Supplemental EIR include the following:
 Executive Summary – presents a brief synopsis of the proposed project, including project objectives, and an overview of project alternatives. This section also provides a table summarizing project environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and the level of significance of impacts after mitigation.
 Section 1, Introduction – provides an overview of the purpose and type of Supplemental EIR, the Supplemental EIR process, the intended uses of the Supplemental EIR, and an overview of the format and contents of the Supplemental EIR.
 Section 2, Project Description – provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including its location, background information, objectives, and physical characteristics.  Section 3, Environmental Setting – provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the proposed project, including the regional setting and the project site setting.  Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis – presents an analysis of environmental impacts for each environmental factor. Each subsection contains a description of the environmental setting (or existing conditions); identifies the significance criteria used to determine whether impacts would be significant or less than significant; discusses the impacts; describes mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental impacts; and describes cumulative impacts.  Section 5, Other CEQA Considerations – summarizes impacts that would result from the proposed project, including significant environmental effects, significant and unavoidable environmental effects, irreversible changes to the environment, and growth-inducing impacts.  Section 6, Alternatives – describes potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project that may attain most of the basic project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening any of its significant effects. The analysis evaluates the environmental effects resulting from each alternative, compares these effects to those resulting from the proposed project, and describes the relationship of each alternative to the project objectives.  Section 7, References – lists the documents and materials referenced in the text of the document, and lists report preparers.

EXHIBIT A
285
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

1-14

This page intentionally left blank

EXHIBIT A
286
Project Description

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-1
2 Project Description
The South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project (proposed project) would consist of an amendment to the voter-approved South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Initiative within the City of Livermore, to extend sanitary sewer lines. This section describes the proposed project, including the project proponent, lead agency, existing setting of the project site, project objectives, key elements of the project, potential buildout under the project, and the approvals needed to implement the proposed project.

2.1 Project Proponent/Lead Agency
City of Livermore
Community Development Department
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
Andy Ross, Senior Planner
[email protected]
(925) 960-4475

2.2 Project Location and Setting
The project alignment is generally located southeast of the City of Livermore within unincorporated Alameda County, California. A portion of the project alignment is located within the City of Livermore and another portion aligns with the City’s Sphere of Influence boundary. Phase 1 of the alignment would be located on Tesla Road from Buena Vista Avenue to Greenville Road, Buena Vista Avenue from East Avenue to Tesla Road, and Greenville Road from Tesla Road to approximately 5,900 feet south of Tesla Road. The alignment along Tesla Road is adjacent to the City’s Sphere of Influence, with the western portion of the alignment along South Livermore Avenue within the city boundary and UGB. The portion along Buena Vista Avenue is within the City’s Sphere of Influence and adjacent to the city boundary and UGB at East Avenue. The alignment along Greenville Road is outside the City’s Sphere of Influence. The alignment along Buena Vista Avenue and Tesla Road from Buena Vista Avenue to Greenville Road is adjacent to SLVSP Subareas 1 and 2.

The project also includes two potential future phases of the sewer alignment. The western future phase would be located on South Livermore Avenue from approximately 520 feet northwest of Concannon Boulevard to Tesla Road, and on Tesla Road from South Livermore Avenue to Buena Vista Avenue. The eastern future phase would be located on Tesla Road from Greenville Road to approximately 3,000 feet east of Greenville Road.

An additional component of the project that would involve sewer improvements in the City limits (the Bottleneck Project) is located within the City of Livermore, in segments along East Avenue (three segments between 7
th Street and Dolores Street and one segment just west of Buena Vista Avenue). The Bottleneck Project would be completed as part of Phase 1.

The project alignment (all phases) is located within existing paved rights-of-way.

EXHIBIT A
287
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

2-2
Figure 2-1 shows the regional context of the project alignment and Bottleneck Project, Figure 2-2 shows the project alignment, and Figure 2-3 shows the Bottleneck Project in its vicinity context.

Regional access to the project alignment and Bottleneck Project is available via Interstate 580 (I- 580), which is located approximately 2.6 miles north of the project alignment and approximately 1.5 miles north of the Bottleneck Project.

General Plan Designation
The project alignment is located within existing public roadways rights-of-way and does not have a land use designation. Land use adjacent to much of the project alignment is designated in the City’s General Plan Map as Agriculture/Viticulture (AGVT). Additional parcels alongside the alignment are designated as Rural Residential (RR), Urban Medium High Residential (UMH), and Urban High Residential (UH), Community Facility (CF) Parks, Trailways, Recreation Areas (OSP), Agricultural Preserve (SV-AP), and Vineyard Commercial (SV-VC) land uses (City of Livermore 2015).

Zoning
The project alignment is located within existing public roadway rights-of-way and is not zoned. A portion of the parcels adjacent to the project alignment are zoned by the City of Livermore, while others are zoned by Alameda County. Parcels zoned by the City primarily include Planned Development – South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (PD-SLVSP), along with one adjacent parcel zoned as Education and Institutions (E), one adjacent parcel zoned as Open Space Agricultural (OS- A), and one adjacent parcel zoned as South Livermore Valley Agricultural (SLV-AG) (City of Livermore 2015). Parcels zoned by Alameda County include Agriculture, Single Family Residential, and Planned Development (County of Alameda 2021). Generally, surrounding and adjacent parcels in the area consist of residential development, commercial development, vineyards and wineries, and open space uses compliant with City’s General Plan Land Use element and the County’s Zoning Ordinance.

Furthermore, the project alignment is also located within the Vineyard Area of the SLVAP.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project alignment is currently fully developed and would take place within existing paved rights- of-way. The alignment is predominately flat, with a gentle slope from approximately 566 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the northern portion of the project alignment to approximately 591 feet amsl at the southern portion along Tesla Road. The alignment generally drains from the southeast to the northwest. The Bottleneck Project alignment is also predominately flat and currently a fully developed roadway and the project would take place within existing paved rights-of-way.

The SLVSP includes two Subareas (1 and 2) that are located adjacent to the project alignment.

Subarea 1 is described as including horse ranches, the Stivers Academy elementary school, and Rios- Lovell Winery in the SLVSP, and is located north of the project alignment along Tesla Road east of South Vasco Road. Subarea 1 has since been developed with single-family residences, with the existing vineyard and winery still present within the subarea. Subarea 2 is described as including vineyards in the SLVSP, and is located north of the project alignment along Tesla Road between Buena Vista Avenue and South Vasco Road. Subarea 2 has since been developed with residences along Buena Vista Avenue and single-family residences surrounding the Bruno Canziani Neighborhood Park, with vineyards and wineries still present adjacent to Tesla Road and between the Buena Vista residences and Bruno Canziani neighborhood.

EXHIBIT A
288
Project Description

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-3
Figure 2-1 Regional Location

EXHIBIT A
289
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

2-4
Figure 2-2 Project Location

EXHIBIT A
290
Project Description

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-5
Figure 2-3 Bottleneck Segment Locations

EXHIBIT A
291
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

2-6
Figure 2-2 shows the project alignment and surrounding land uses, which are primarily residential and agriculture, located directly along the alignment. The parcels directly bordering South Livermore Avenue and Tesla Road are in active agricultural uses (viticulture). Several parcels that directly border Buena Vista Avenue and Greenville Road are residential. Parcels located adjacent to the project alignment are zoned as PD - SLVSP with a General Plan designation of SLVSP. The nearest school, Livermore High School, is located adjacent to the Bottleneck Project on East Avenue.

2.3 Project Background
South Livermore Valley Area Plan
The County of Alameda adopted the South Livermore Valley Area Plan (SLVAP) in November 1992 as part of a collaborative effort between the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore, and Alameda County to create a planned area that preserves, promotes, and enhances viticulture and other cultivated agriculture. The SLVAP is a policy document that establishes criteria for future development for approximately 15,500 acres of undeveloped land in unincorporated areas south and east of the City of Livermore. The SLVAP limits development to areas that do not conflict with current or proposed agricultural uses in order to preserve and enhance viticulture and other cultivated agriculture. The County prepared a Draft EIR for the SLVAP (State Clearinghouse No. 1996052025). The Alameda County Planning Department certified the Final EIR (1992 EIR) and approved the project in November 1992 (County of Alameda 2003).

South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
The City adopted the SLVSP on November 17, 1997, and amended it in February 2004. In 1993, the City initiated the specific planning process to implement the urban component of the County’s Area Plan to guide development and promote and enhance viticulture and agriculture in South Livermore Valley. The SLVSP is a policy document that establishes criteria and a regulatory framework for future development in South Livermore Valley, which is located south of the City of Livermore boundary. The SLVSP incorporates several goals, development standards and policies that aim to conserve agricultural and natural resources in the plan area. The City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the SLVSP and General Plan Amendment (State Clearinghouse No. 96052025). The City certified the Final EIR and General Plan Amendment (1997 EIR) and approved the SLVSP in September 1997.

The proposed sewer expansion would remove a constraint to and serve development potential of adjacent parcels as envisioned under the SLVSP; therefore, this analysis relies on the 1997 EIR for the SLVSP.

South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative
In March 2000, the City of Livermore voters approved the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This voter initiative adopted policies into the City’s General Plan for the establishment of the UGB in South Livermore. The UGB forms a southern border, beyond which urban development (including extended sewer and water service) is permitted only under limited exceptions. In addition, the UGB further protects and enhances agriculture and open space in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP) area by regulating where development is permitted within South Livermore. Finally, the initiative reduces urban sprawl by preventing uncontrolled urban development that could otherwise encroach into existing agricultural land or open space areas.

EXHIBIT A
292
Project Description

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-7
Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 show the UGB in relation to the proposed east and west segments of the project.

Because connection to urban services such as sanitary sewer is limited by the UGB, many residential and commercial uses in South Livermore Valley rely on on-site wastewater treatment systems (septic systems). In South Livermore Valley, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, County Department of Environmental Health, and Zone 7 Water Agency (Agencies) have restricted issuing permits for new septic systems or replacing failing septic systems.

The Agencies’ positions reflect their missions to protect the Tri-Valley’s groundwater basin. The Agencies have identified high nitrate concentrations in groundwater throughout the Tri-Valley resulting from past livestock operations and failing, undersized, or inefficient septic systems. These issues have the potential to adversely affect water quality and public health, safety, and quality of life. The inability to construct, expand, or replace septic systems or connect to the sanitary sewer is negatively affecting the South Livermore Valley wine industry and related uses thus preventing the vision of the Livermore General Plan, SLVAP and SLVSP.

Alameda Urban Growth Boundary Initiative
In November 2000, Alameda County voters passed Measure D. The purpose of Measure D is to preserve agricultural lands and to protect open space, watersheds, and wildlife habitat. Measure D set a county urban growth boundary that restricts subdivisions of the farms and ranches in eastern Alameda County, including North Livermore and the South Livermore Valley. Measure D amended portions of the County General Plan, including the East County Area Plan (ECAP). The initiative did not supersede or change the provisions of the SLVAP in the area to which the plan applied on February 1, 2000. However, the amended ECAP programs and policies place limits on density, development standards, and the geographical extent of the SLVAP.

2.4 Project Objectives
The objectives for the proposed project are as follows:
 Improve groundwater quality in the South Livermore Valley area relative to nitrates, which is associated with residential septic systems and livestock keeping  Facilitate the development potential of existing and new wineries, visitor serving commercial uses, and residences consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, and SLVAP subject to Alameda County Measure D.
 Enhance the short- and long-term economic viability of agriculture and viticulture in the South Livermore Valley area, consistent with Goals LU-13 and LU-14 of the City’s General Plan

EXHIBIT A
293
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

2-8
Figure 2-4 Sewer Extension and Urban Growth Boundary – West

EXHIBIT A
294
Project Description

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-9
Figure 2-5 Sewer Extension and Urban Growth Boundary – East

EXHIBIT A
295
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

2-10

2.5 Proposed Project Elements
The project would amend the South Livermore Valley UGB language to allow the extension of sanitary sewer lines to serve adjacent parcels containing residences and wineries located within and near the City of Livermore. This amendment would allow for the installation of approximately 5 miles of new sewer lines to support existing uses and future development consistent with the General Plan, SLVSP, and SLVAP in South Livermore Valley, subject to Alameda County Measure D.

The purpose of the project is to improve groundwater quality in the South Livermore Valley area, serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP, and enhance the short- and long-term economic viability of agriculture and viticulture in the South Livermore Valley area. Subject to necessary approvals and annexation into the City, the project would also allow existing residences to connect to the City’s wastewater system and cease the use of their on-site septic systems. The project is intended to support uses that are consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, or current zoning; should development on adjacent parcels that is not consistent with existing land use designations and zoning be proposed, additional CEQA review would be required.

Phase 1 of the proposed sewer extension would be installed Tesla Road from Buena Vista Avenue to Greenville Road, within Buena Vista Avenue from East Avenue to Tesla Road, and within Greenville Road from Tesla Road to approximately 5,900 feet south of Tesla Road. The expanded sewer facilities would allow existing and future wineries, visitor serving uses, and residences to connect to the City’s wastewater system in conformance with the Livermore General Plan, South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, and/or South Livermore Valley Area Plan, subject to the provisions of Alameda County Measure D.

The City’s 2017 Sewer Master Plan also identifies a Bottleneck Project (BO-CIP-P06) located on East Avenue. Preliminary analysis of the proposed project identified four segments of 12-inch sewer pipes that may need to be upsized on East Avenue between Maple Street and Buena Vista Avenue (City of Livermore 2017). The locations of each segment are shown in Figure 2-3. In total, approximately 950 linear feet (LF) would need to be upsized to accommodate the proposed project.

Therefore, the proposed project may require the Bottleneck Project to be undertaken sooner than originally anticipated.

Two potential future phases of the sewer alignment would install sewer pipelines within South Livermore Avenue from approximately 520 feet northwest of Concannon Boulevard to Tesla Road, and on Tesla Road from South Livermore Avenue to Buena Vista Avenue (western future phase); and within Tesla Road from Greenville Road to approximately 3,000 feet east of Greenville Road (eastern future phase). The western future phase would provide redundancy within the sewer collection system, and the eastern future phase would expand the availability of services to several parcels east of Greenville Road.

The project would not require ground disturbance in agricultural or other natural areas, nor would it require vegetation removal.

EXHIBIT A
296
Project Description

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-11
Construction
Construction is anticipated to commence in 2024 and last for approximately 12 months, ending in 2025. The project may be constructed in phases based on available funding. Construction would require one lane of the affected public roadways to be closed at any given time. To that end, a traffic control plan is proposed that would regulate worker parking, construction staging, roadway improvements and potential traffic detours during project construction. Construction staging, laydown areas, and worker parking would be provided along the project alignment into one travel lane, one bike lane, and one shoulder. The contractor may work with private property owners as feasible, or use the City’s Maintenance Service Center for additional staging. The City would post signage along the alignment and on roadways leading up to it before and during construction to give advance warning of road closures and detours. Detour signs for bicycle lane users would also be provided to facilitate safe crossing while portions of the bicycle lanes are closed.

Construction would occur 5 days per week to expedite the work and minimize traffic impacts.

Limited weekend work may occur to accommodate the project schedule at the discretion of the City; however, total working days per month are not expected to exceed 22 days. Construction of the project would involve the installation of approximately 27,000 LF of sewer. If the contractor installs 150 LF per day as anticipated, then this would take approximately 180 working days.

Equipment would include excavators, backhoes, front loaders, dump trucks, and shoring and paving equipment.

Excavation depths would vary by location, with most depths between 5 and 15 feet below ground surface. Approximately 1,000 LF along Greenville Road south of Tesla Road would require excavation between 15 and 18 feet, and approximately 1,200 LF along Tesla Road east of Vasco Road would require excavation between 15 and 26 feet.

There is approximately 40 feet of pavement width on South Livermore Avenue, Tesla Road, Buena Vista Avenue, and Greenville Road. Therefore, construction would either require one-way traffic around the active work zone with one bike lane open, or two-way traffic without a bike lane. Once an area is completed, final paving over the trench and one foot beyond the trench would be installed. The County may require the entire road to be slurry sealed. The project would not increase the total impervious area.

In accordance with the Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ), the proposed project would implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would include the use of best management practices (BMPs) during project construction. The project would require approximately 27,000 cubic yards of excavation, of which approximately 26,400 cubic yards would be used as backfill. Approximately 2,140 cubic yards of asphalt is anticipated to be exported. The Bottleneck Project may require roadway closures similar to the expansion project, and construction staging would occur on an adjacent property.

EXHIBIT A
297
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

2-12

2.6 Required Approvals
The City of Livermore is the lead agency for the CEQA documentation and process. The modified UGB language must be approved by the voters of the City of Livermore. The project would require the following approvals from the City of Livermore:
 City Council certification of a Supplemental EIR prepared in accordance with CEQA prior to approving the modified UGB language.
 City Council approval of language to modify the UGB and place on the ballot.

The project would also require the following:
 Approval of the modified UGB language by a majority of voters.

The project would require the following approvals from the County of Alameda:
 Encroachment Permit
 Traffic Control Plan
Following project completion, individual properties would require subsequent approvals including permitting and service agreements with the City subject to Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission approval, County, and/or Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency, prior to connection to the wastewater system.

2.7 Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area
Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21080.3.1?
In accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1, the City sent consultation request letters to two tribes (Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista and Ione Band of Miwok Indians).

EXHIBIT A
298
Environmental Setting

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-1
3 Environmental Setting
This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the proposed project.

More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be found in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis.

3.1 Regional Setting
The project alignment is located within unincorporated Alameda County, in the East Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area. The East Bay region generally includes cities along the eastern shores of the San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay and inland communities in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Approximately one-third of the Bay Area’s population resides in the East Bay. Figure 2-1 in Section 2, Project Description, shows the regional location of the project alignment.

The City of Livermore has a population of 91,216 people and is the fifth largest city in Alameda County in population, following Oakland, Fremont, Hayward, and Berkeley (California Department of Finance 2021). Livermore is bordered by the City of Pleasanton to the west, the City of Dublin to the northwest, and unincorporated Alameda County to the north, east, and south.

Since the certification of the 1997 EIR, the regional setting has not changed substantially. Livermore is located in the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region. Drainage flows generally to the west towards the San Francisco Bay. Livermore is in a seismically active region, with the Greenville Fault, Las Positas Fault, and Calaveras Fault all in the project vicinity. The nearest active fault is the Las Positas Fault, which intersects a portion of the project alignment along Tesla Road (Appendix IS).

Roadways, including arterials, collectors, and local streets, provide vehicular access throughout the city. Major roadways include Livermore Avenue, First Street, East Stanley Boulevard, Holmes Street, Murrieta Boulevard, and East Avenue; these roadways converge in the City’s Downtown in a radial system. Interstate 580 (I-580) and State Route 84 (SR 84) provide regional access to Livermore and connect the Bay Area with San Joaquin County.

Livermore enjoys a mild climate characterized by cool winters and warm summers. Average high temperatures range from 56°F in January to 83°F in June. Annual rainfall averages approximately

15.2 inches, with most rainfall occurring between December and March (U.S. Climate Data 2022).

3.2 Project Site Setting
The project alignment is located in southern Livermore, along South Livermore Avenue, Tesla Road, Buena Vista Avenue, and Greenville Road. One portion of the project alignment is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence boundary, and another portion is located within the City of Livermore. I- 580 is approximately 2.6 miles north of the proposed alignment. The Bottleneck Project is located in segments along East Avenue.

As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the project alignment is located within existing public roadways rights-of-way and does not have a land use or zoning designation. Parcels along the alignment are designated as Agriculture/Viticulture (AGVT), Rural Residential (RR), Urban High Residential (UH), Urban Medium High Residential (UMH), Community Facility (CF) Parks, Trailways, Recreation Area (OSP), Agricultural Preserve (SV-AP), and Vineyard Commercial (SV-VC) land uses.

EXHIBIT A
299
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

3-2
City-zoned parcels adjacent to the proposed alignment included Planned Development—South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (PD-SLVSP), Education and Institutions (E), Open Space Agriculture (OS-A), and South Livermore Valley Agricultural (SLV-AG) (City of Livermore 2015). County-zoned parcels adjacent to the project alignment include Agriculture, Single Family Residential, and Planned Development (County of Alameda 2021).

3.3 Cumulative Development
As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15335, “cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are substantial or will compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other nearby projects. For example, transportation impacts of two nearby projects may be insignificant when analyzed separately but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impacts analysis provides a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), a discussion of significant cumulative impacts shall include a list of past, present, and probably future projects related to cumulative impacts; or a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect.

The cumulative setting for each environmental issue area is described in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis. The project alignment is located geographically in the southern portion of Livermore; however, cumulative impacts as analyzed in this Supplemental EIR may be spread throughout Livermore or the region. Cumulative impact discussions of hydrology and water quality, and utilities and service systems, rely on larger geographic areas such as the hydrologic region, watershed, or utility district boundary.

CEQA requires cumulative impact analysis in Supplemental EIRs to consider either a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to cumulative effects or a forecast of future development potential. Currently planned and pending projects in Livermore and surrounding areas are listed in Table 3-1. In particular, the 220 Greenville Road Project, 3258/3322 East Avenue Project, 3356 East Avenue Project, and 3451 East Avenue Project are either located in proximity or along the same major arterial as the project alignment or Bottleneck Project. This list of projects is an update to the cumulative setting from the 1997 EIR. The 1997 EIR considered development of cumulative projects through the year 2020; therefore, the cumulative time frame has also been extended in this EIR to account for the passage of time. It should be noted that the projections provided in the 1997 EIR for anticipated growth in the City of Livermore for 2010 exceed the actual growth experienced. In fact, in 2021 the City had a population of 91,216 and 33,004 housing units (California Department of Finance 2021). The 1997 EIR anticipated a population of 98,200 and 35,100 housing units in 2010 for the city.

EXHIBIT A
300
Environmental Setting

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-3
Table 3-1 Cumulative Projects List
Project
No. Project Location Land Use Project Details
County of Alameda1
1 8588 T esla Road Agriculture: cannabis
cultivation
Outdoor cannabis cultivation project on a 4.36-acre
parcel.

City of Livermore2
2 2 20 Greenville Road Commercial 111-room Fairfield Inn and Suites hotel 3 2108 Third Street Mixed-Use Three-story mixed-use building 4 4696 Bennett Drive Residential 437-unit residential subdivision, with mixed-unit type buildings
5 3258/3322 East
Avenue
Residential 33-unit, three-story residential care facility 6 3356 East Avenue Residential 7,668-square foot addition to an existing Senior Living Facility, with 13 new beds
7 1934 First Street Residential/Commercial 221 new apartment units and 12,000 square feet of new commercial development
8 3733 First Street Residential 101 new townhomes
9 4260 First Street Residential Six new apartment buildings with 44 units 10 460 N. Livermore
Avenue
Mixed-Use Mixed-use development with three separate buildings containing 24 total units of low-income housing, a
resource center, and a food service kitchen
11 2855 Old First Street Residential Subdivision of two parcels with 7 new residential units 12 2787 Old First Street Residential Subdivision of two parcels with 7 new residential units 13 3541 East Avenue Residential 9 new townhomes
14 434-454 School Street Residential Three-lot residential subdivision 1 County of Alameda planned project details were sourced from the County of Alameda Community Development Agency (2021). 2 City of Livermore planned project details were sourced from the City of Livermore Community Development Department (2021).

EXHIBIT A
301
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

3-4

This page intentionally left blank

EXHIBIT A
302
Environmental Impact Analysis

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-1
4 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project (proposed project) for the specific issue areas that were identified through the scoping process as having the potential to experience significant effects. “Significant effect” is defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 as:
“a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment but may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.”
The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the environmental setting related to the issue, which is followed by the impact analysis. In the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the “significance thresholds,” which are those criteria adopted by the City and other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for this analysis to determine whether potential effects are significant. The next subsection describes each impact of the proposed project, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation. Each effect under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in bold text with the discussion of the effect and its significance. Each bolded impact statement also contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
 Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.  No Impact. The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

Following each environmental impact discussion is a list of mitigation measures (if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after implementation of the measure(s). These are also summarized in the Executive Summary of this Supplemental EIR. In cases where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed and evaluated as a secondary impact. The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed project in conjunction with other planned and pending developments in the area listed in Section 3, Environmental Setting.

EXHIBIT A
303
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4-2

This page left intentionally blank

EXHIBIT A
304
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-1

4.1 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed project related to water quality, drainage, groundwater, and flooding. The analysis includes a review of surface water, groundwater, inundation zones, and water quality. Water supply is discussed in Section 4.2, Utilities and Service Systems. Wetlands and waters of the U.S. are discussed in the Initial Study in Environmental Checklist Section 4, Biological Resources, provided as an attachment to this document (Appendix IS). Assessment of impacts is based partially on pertinent analysis provided in the 1997 EIR, which evaluated impacts of development potential under the SLVSP.

4.1.1 Setting
The City of Livermore is located in the easternmost portion of the San Francisco Bay Area of California, approximately 34 miles east of Oakland and 46 miles east of San Francisco within Alameda County. Weather in the City is characterized by a warm and temperate climate with hot, arid summers and cold, wet winters. Rainfall is concentrated in the winter months with the wettest months being January and February, which each have average monthly rainfall totals of 2.9 inches (U.S. Climate Data 2021).
a. Surface Water and Drainage
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) divides surface watersheds in California into 10 hydrologic regions. The project alignment is within the San Francisco Bay hydrologic region, which covers approximately 4,500 square miles of California. The San Francisco Bay is an estuary with a deep central channel, broad mudflats, and fringing marsh. Water features in the region either flow into the estuary or into the Pacific Ocean. The San Francisco Bay Hydrological Region includes all of San Francisco County and parts of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, and Alameda Counties. Significant geographic features include the Santa Clara, Napa, Sonoma, Petaluma, Suisun-Fairfield, and Livermore valleys; the Marin and San Francisco peninsulas; San Francisco, Suisun, and San Pablo bays; and the Santa Cruz Mountains, Diablo Range, Bolinas Ridge, and Vaca Mountains of the Coast Ranges (DWR 2015).

DWR subdivides hydrologic regions into hydrologic units. Within the San Francisco Bay hydrologic region, the City is located entirely in the South Bay hydrologic unit and is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (Region 2). The State Water Board administers water rights, water pollution control, and water quality functions for the state and provides both policy guidance and budgetary authority to Regional Water Control Boards, who are then able to conduct planning, permitting, and enforcement activities (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2019).

Within the South Bay hydrologic unit, the project alignment extends across two watersheds: the Arroyo Mocho Watershed (hydrologic unit code 1805000403) and the Arroyo Las Positas Watershed (hydrologic unit code 1805000402) (refer to Figure 4.1-1). The southwestern and southeastern portion of the project alignment, including most of South Livermore Avenue, the western and eastern portions of Tesla Road, the southern portion of Buena Vista Avenue, and all of Greenville Road, is within the Arroyo Mocho Watershed. The remainder of the project alignment including East Avenue, the northern portion of South Livermore Avenue, the central portion of Tesla Road, and the northern half of Buena Vista Avenue, is within the Arroyo Las Positas Watershed.

EXHIBIT A
305
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1-2
Figure 4.1-1 Watershed Map

EXHIBIT A
306
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-3
The Arroyo Mocho Watershed drains approximately 97 square miles (University of California [UC] Davis 2021a). Arroyo Mocho originates near Mount Mocho of the Diablo Range in the northeastern corner of Santa Clara County and flows west to meet South San Ramon Creek near Pleasanton and Dublin, where it becomes Arroyo de la Laguna. Arroyo de la Laguna continues west to converge with Alameda Creek, and eventually drains into the San Francisco Bay (United States Geological Survey [USGS] 2021). The Arroyo Mocho Watershed is dominated by agricultural land use designations, but also includes urban areas of Livermore and Pleasanton.

The Arroyo Las Positas Watershed drains approximately 81 square miles (UC Davis 2021b). Arroyo Las Positas originates north of I-580 near the City of Livermore at the confluence of Altamont Creek and Arroyo Seco, and converges with Arroyo Mocho between Pleasanton and Dublin (USGS 2021).

The Arroyo Las Positas Watershed is also dominated by agricultural land use designations and includes a portion of Livermore’s eastern urban areas.

Figure 4.1-2 identifies surface waters and existing drainages, both natural and manmade, in the vicinity of the project alignment. The major surface water features near the project alignment are Arroyo Mocho and Arroyo Seco (City of Livermore 2015). The project alignment is predominately flat, with a gentle slope from approximately 510 feet above mean sea level at the northwestern portion of the project alignment at the intersection of South Livermore Avenue and East Avenue to approximately 720 feet above mean sea level at the southeastern portion of the project alignment at the intersection of Tesla Road and Greenville Road. Overall, surface waters in Livermore Valley drain westerly to the Arroyo de la Laguna and Alameda Creek, eventually reaching the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean. Impervious surfaces within the project alignment include major and minor roadways and impervious surfaces alongside the alignment include residential and commercial development.

Storm drains generally serve the roadways and developed areas of the City. The existing storm drainage system largely consists of underground pipes and local creeks that carry runoff within the drainage basin to nearby flood control channels and arroyos (City of Livermore 2015). The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's Zone 7 (Zone 7) owns and maintains the majority of storm drainage facilities, while the City owns the storm drain mains, collection pipes, culverts, and drainage ditches. Storm drain infrastructure (i.e., curb and gutter) is located along East Avenue, South Livermore Avenue, and the portion of Tesla Road west of Mines Road. Catch basins are located on South Livermore Avenue, on Tesla Road at its intersection with Mines Road, and on East Avenue. There is no storm drain infrastructure located along the portion of Tesla Road east of Mines Road, Buena Vista Avenue, or Greenville Road. Stormwater along these roads is transported via roadside ditches. The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is ultimately responsible for flood control and stream management along the project alignment (City of Livermore 2015). Stormwater from the project alignment primarily drains from the southeast to the northwest, and eventually to the San Francisco Bay. b. Groundwater Resources
According to the California Department of Water Resource’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, the City of Livermore and the project alignment overlies the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin 2-10), which is managed by the Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7). The basin is located approximately 40 miles east of San Francisco and 30 miles southwest of Stockton within a structural trough of the Diablo Range. The basin spans from the Altamont Hills 14 miles east to the Pleasanton Ridge and stretches from the Livermore Upland 3 miles north to the Orinda Upland (DWR 2006). The basin includes approximately 772 wells, including water supply wells, domestic and livestock supply wells, and

EXHIBIT A
307
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1-4
Figure 4.1-2 Surface Water and Drainage Map

EXHIBIT A
308
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-5
monitoring wells to track groundwater quality and flow patterns. Overall, approximately 30 percent of the total water supply for the Zone 7 service area is extracted from the groundwater basin (Groundwater Exchange 2021).

The general groundwater gradient is east to west, and south towards the Arroyo de la Laguna.

Faults are the major structural features that restrict the lateral movement of groundwater in the basin, and the resulting groundwater levels are higher on the up-gradient side (east) in Livermore Valley. Groundwater-bearing materials can be found beneath the entire floor of Livermore Valley and portions of the upland areas surrounding the valley. These materials consist of continental deposits from alluvial fans, outwash plains, and lakes (DWR 2006).

In 2002, the total storage capacity of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin was estimated at 500,000 acre-feet (af). Zone 7 maintains an annual hydrologic inventory of supply and demand in the basin. At the end of water year 2020, the total storage capacity of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin was estimated at 247,232 af (Zone 7 Water Agency 2021). Table 4.1-1 identifies the inflow and outflow volumes of groundwater in the basin for water year 2020.

Table 4.1-1 Groundwater Basin Inflow and Outflow Volumes Category Water Year 2020 (acre-feet)
Total Groundwater Inflow 13,515
Stream Recharge Artificial 2, 461
Stream Recharge Natural 3,511
Rainfall Recharge 2,869
Applied Water Recharge 2,465
Pipe Leakage 1,209
Subsurface Inflow 1,000
Total Groundwater Outflow 21,447
Zone 7 Pumping 11,101
Other Pumping 5,248
Agricultural Pumping 112
Mining Losses 700
Evapotranspiration 4,140
Subsurface Outflow 146
Source: Zone 7 Water Agency 2021
Artificial recharge is the practice of increasing the amount of water that enters an aquifer through human-controlled means, which is managed by Zone 7. Natural recharge is not managed or pumped by Zone 7, and rather occurs as water infiltrates into soils and moves through pore spaces down to the water table. Applied water recharge is considered natural recharge because of its steady, sustainable, contribution to groundwater recharge from irrigation (Zone 7 Water Agency 2021).

Subsurface inflow comes from the natural flow of water beneath earth’s surface as part of the water cycle; for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, subsurface inflow is from the Northern Fringe Basin, which is a water-bearing area outside of the Main Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (Zone 7 Water Agency 2021). Similarly, subsurface outflow is overflow groundwater leaving the Basin.

Other pumping demands include pumping by the City of Pleasanton, California Water Service, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Alameda County Fairgrounds, domestic pumping from active

EXHIBIT A
309
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1-6
domestic, supply, and potable wells, and pumping by golf courses (Zone 7 Water Agency 2021).

Agricultural pumping in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin is unmetered and strictly for agricultural use.
c. Water Quality
Surface Water
Stormwater runoff transports pollutants from urban development, agricultural areas, streets, parking lots, and other sources to local waterways. Major sources of surface water pollution, such as construction sites, parking lots, and household and industrial sites, contribute petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, fertilizers, insecticides, and other chemicals to the water system (City of Livermore 2015). Activities such as land clearing, excavation and filling, illegal dumping, municipal operations, improper disposal of pet waste, and use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides can exacerbate stormwater pollution.

Water quality in the area is governed by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, which sets water quality standards in the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan, San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2019). The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses for surface water and groundwater and establishes water quality objectives to attain those beneficial uses. The identified beneficial uses and water quality objectives to maintain or achieve those uses are together known as water quality standards. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB designates beneficial uses for some individual water bodies in the San Francisco Bay Basin. All other water bodies not designated individually are assigned the designated uses of municipal and domestic water supply and protection of recreation and aquatic life. Table 4.1-2 presents the designated beneficial uses listed in the Basin Plan for the surface waters in the vicinity of the project alignment.

Table 4.1-2 Beneficial Uses for Surface Waters
Water Body Beneficial Uses
Arroyo Mocho G roundwater Recharge, Cold Freshwater Habitat, Fish Migration, Fish Spawning, Warm Freshwater Habitat, Wildlife Habitat, Water Contact Recreation, Noncontact Water Recreation Arroyo Las Positas Groundwater Recharge, Cold Freshwater Habitat, Fish Migration, Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species, Fish Spawning, Warm Freshwater Habitat, Wildlife Habitat, Water Contact Recreation, Noncontact Water Recreation
Arroyo Seco Groundwater Recharge, Cold Freshwater Habitat, Fish Migration, Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species, Fish Spawning, Warm Freshwater Habitat, Wildlife Habitat, Water Contact Recreation, Noncontact Water Recreation
Source: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Basin Plan 2019 Groundwater
As designated in the Basin Plan, existing beneficial uses of groundwater in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin include municipal and domestic water supply, industrial process supply, industrial service supply, and agricultural water supply. The four main constituents of concern in groundwater in the main basin, where the majority of the project alignment is located, include total dissolved solids, nitrate, boron, and chromium. Additionally, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were added to the list of analytes for all municipal supply wells and select monitoring wells in the 2019 water year (Zone 7 Water Agency 2021).

EXHIBIT A
310
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-7
d. Flooding
Flooding during storm events occurs when the amount of rainfall exceeds the infiltration capacity of the surrounding landscape or the conveyance capacity of the stormwater drainage system. Most flooding within the City of Livermore is caused by heavy rainfall and subsequent runoff volumes that cannot be adequately conveyed by the existing storm drainage system combined with surface water bodies (City of Livermore 2015). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) delineates regional flooding hazards on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as part of the National Flood Insurance Program. Higher flood risk zones are called Special Flood Hazard Areas; these areas have a 1 percent chance or greater of flooding in any given year (also called the 100-year floodplain). Areas that have a 0.2 percent chance of flooding in any given year are called the 500-year floodplain. As shown in Figure 4.1-3, the project alignment is located outside areas designated by FEMA as being outside of FEMA high flood risk zones. The alignment is located within FEMA Flood Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard. However, an existing Flood Hazard Zone associated with low-lying areas near Arroyo Mocho is located directly adjacent to South Livermore Avenue, south and southwest of the project alignment near South Livermore Avenue’s intersection with Concannon Boulevard (FEMA 2021).

Inundation can sometimes occur as a result of tsunamis and seiches. A tsunami is a wave generated by the sudden displacement of a large amount of water. Tsunamis can be triggered by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or similar events that occur under the water or the shore. Impacts of tsunamis can be both immediate and long-term. The project alignment is located approximately 40 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. According to the State of California Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, the City of Livermore is not located within a tsunami inundation area (California Department of Conservation 2021). Seiches are a related hazard that can occur when a sudden displacement event or very strong winds happen in an enclosed or semi-enclosed body of water such as a lake or reservoir.

According to the City of Livermore General Plan Public Safety Element, portions of the city are located within the dam failure inundation hazard areas for Lake Del Valle and Patterson Reservoir.

Patterson Dam is located east of Greenville Road and north of Patterson Pass Road, approximately

2.25 miles northeast of the project alignment, while the Del Valle Dam is located at the northern end of Lake Del Valle south of Tesla Road and west of Mines Road, approximately 4 miles south of the project alignment. The depth of inundation resulting from dam failure would vary from near zero at topographic highs or uplands to many feet in low-lying areas and in creek channels.

However, the project alignment falls outside of the inundation hazard areas.

EXHIBIT A
311
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1-8
Figure 4.1-3 FEMA Flood Zones

EXHIBIT A
312
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-9

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal
Clean Water Act
The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since, is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States and forms the basis for several State and local laws throughout the country. The Clean Water Act established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act gave the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) the authority to implement federal pollution control programs, such as setting water quality standards for contaminants in surface water, establishing wastewater and effluent discharge limits for various industry contaminants in surface water, establishing wastewater and effluent discharge limits for various industry categories, and imposing requirements for controlling nonpoint-source pollution.

At the federal level, the Clean Water Act is administered by the USEPA and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). At the state and regional levels in California, the Clean Water Act is enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine RWQCBs.

Section 303(d): List of Impaired Water Bodies
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify water bodies that do not meet water quality objectives and are not supporting their beneficial uses. Each state must submit an updated biennial list identifying which water bodies are impaired, called the 303(d) list, to the USEPA. In addition to identifying the water bodies that are not supporting beneficial uses, the list also identifies the pollutant or stressor causing impairment and establishes a priority for developing a control plan to address the impairment. If a water body is designated as “impaired,” then a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is developed and identified for the affected water body. A TMDL establishes the maximum daily amount of a pollutant from point, nonpoint, and natural sources that a water body can receive without exceeding applicable water quality standards (often with a “factor of safety” included, which limits the total load of pollutants to a level well below that which could cause the standard to be exceeded). Once established, the TMDL is allocated among current and future dischargers into the water body.

Arroyo Mocho is listed on the 303(d) list as impaired for diazinon, a pesticide, and for eutrophication (SWRCB 2018). Arroyo Las Positas is listed on the 303(d) list as impaired for diazinon and for water temperature (SWRCB 2018). The potential source of diazinon is urban runoff and storm sewers, while the potential source of eutrophication and water temperature impairment is unknown (SWRCB 2018). A TMDL was approved by the USEPA for both Arroyo Mocho and Arroyo Las Positas for diazinon impairment on May 16, 2017, with an expected TMDL completion date of 2021 (SWRCB 2018).

Section 401
Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the State RWQCBs have regulatory authority over actions in waters of the United States and the State of California through the issuance of water quality certifications, which are issued in conjunction with any federal permit (e.g., permits issued by the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, described below). Section 401 of the Clean Water Act provides the SWRCB and the RWQCBs with the regulatory authority to waive, certify, or deny any proposed activity that could result in a discharge to surface waters of the State. To waive or

EXHIBIT A
313
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1-10
certify an activity, these agencies must find that the proposed discharge would comply with State water quality standards, including those protecting beneficial uses and water quality. If these agencies deny the proposed activity, the federal permit cannot be issued. This water quality certification is generally required for projects involving the discharge of dredge or fill material to wetlands or other bodies. Jurisdictional streambeds and associated riparian habitat are also regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Section 402: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In 1987, amendments to the CWA added Section 402, which established a framework to protect water quality by regulating industrial, municipal, and construction-related sources of pollutant discharges to waters. In California, the NPDES program is administered by the SWRCB through the RWQCBs, and requires municipalities to obtain permits outlining programs and activities to control wastewater and stormwater pollution.

The CWA prohibits discharges of stormwater from construction projects unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. The SWRCB, which is the permitting authority in California, adopted an NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) (Order 2009-0009, as amended by Orders 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ). Compliance with the Construction General Permit is required for projects that result in more than one acre of ground disturbance, including through clearing, grading, grubbing, excavating, stockpiling, and removing or replacing existing facilities. The Construction General Permit requires the landowner and/or contractor to file permit registration documents prior to commencing construction and pay a fee annually throughout the duration of construction. These documents include a notice of intent, risk assessment, site map, stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), and signed certification statement. The Construction General Permit specifies minimum BMP requirements for stormwater control based on the risk level of the site. The SWPPP must include measures to ensure the following:
 All pollutants and their sources are controlled;
 Non-stormwater discharges are identified and eliminated, controlled, or treated;  Site BMPs are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges; and  BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants post-construction are completed and maintained.

Section 404
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, proposed discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States require USACE authorization. Waters of the United States generally include tidal waters, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), and wetlands (with the exception of isolated wetlands). The USACE identifies wetlands using a multi-parameter approach, which requires positive wetland indicators in three distinct environmental categories:
hydrology, soils, and vegetation. According to the USACE (1987) Wetlands Delineation Manual, except in certain situations, all three parameters must be satisfied for an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland. When an application for a Section 404 permit is made, the applicant must show it has:

EXHIBIT A
314
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-11
 Taken steps to avoid impacts to wetlands or waters of the U.S. where practicable;  Minimized unavoidable impacts on waters of the U.S. and wetlands; and  Provided mitigation for unavoidable impacts.

National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Program is a program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide subsidized flood insurance for property owners in communities. The National Flood Insurance Program established regulations that limit development in flood-prone areas. The boundaries of flood-prone areas are delineated on FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rates Maps, which provide flood information and identify the flood hazard in the community. In certain high-risk areas, federally regulated or insured lenders require property owners to have flood insurance before issuing a mortgage. b. State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970
The federal Clean Water Act places the primary responsibility for the control of water pollution and planning the development and use of water resources with the states, although it does establish certain guidelines for the states to follow in developing their programs. California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Division 7 of the California Water Code). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and RWQCBs the authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, to regulate discharges to surface water and groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites, and to require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, oil, or petroleum product. Each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality control plan for its region. The regional plans are to conform to the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and established by the SWRCB in its State water policy. The Porter-Cologne Act also provides that an RWQCB may include in its region a regional plan with water discharge prohibitions applicable to particular conditions, areas, or types of waste. The project alignment is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Region 2), which has adopted a Water Quality Control Plan, discussed below.

California Toxics Rule
Because California had not established a complete list of acceptable water quality criteria for toxic pollutants, EPA Region IX established numeric water quality criteria for toxic constituents in the form of the California Toxics Rule (CTR). The CTR provides water quality criteria for certain potentially toxic compounds for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, estuaries, and waters designated for human health or aquatic life uses. The CTR is often used by the RWQCBs when establishing water quality objectives and TMDLs. Although the CTR criteria do not apply directly to discharges of stormwater runoff, they are utilized as benchmarks for toxics in urban runoff. The CTR is used as a benchmark to evaluate the potential ecological impacts of stormwater runoff to receiving waters. The CTR establishes acute and chronic surface water quality standards for certain water bodies. Acute criteria provide benchmarks for the highest permissible concentration below which aquatic life can be exposed for short periods of time without deleterious effects. Chronic criteria provide benchmarks for an extended period of time (i.e., four days or more) without

EXHIBIT A
315
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1-12
deleterious effects. The acute CTR criteria have a shorter relevant averaging period (less than four days) and provide a more appropriate benchmark for comparison for stormwater flows.

CTR criteria apply to the receiving water body and are calculated based on the probable hardness values of the receiving waters. At higher hardness values for receiving waters, certain constituents (including copper, lead, and zinc) are more likely to be complexed (bound with) components in the water column. This in turn reduces the bioavailability and resulting potential toxicity of these metals.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 is a comprehensive three-bill package that provides a framework for sustainable management of groundwater supplies by local authorities, with a limited role for State intervention, if necessary, to protect the resource. The plan is intended to ensure a reliable groundwater supply for California for years to come. The SGMA requires governments and water agencies of high- and medium-priority basins to halt overdrafts of groundwater basins. The SGMA requires the formation of local groundwater sustainability agencies that are required to adopt groundwater sustainability plans to manage the sustainability of the groundwater basins.

The project alignment falls within the jurisdiction of the Zone 7 Water Agency, which has been designated as the exclusive Groundwater Sustainability Agency within its service area. Zone 7 adopted its first Groundwater Management Plan in 2005, prior to the enactment of SGMA, to document ongoing policies and programs for managing groundwater to support existing and beneficial uses in Livermore Valley. Zone 7 adopted an Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin in December 2016, and prepares an annual report of the groundwater basin that summarizes the basin conditions over the standard water year from October to September.
c. Regional and Local
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit
The Municipal Stormwater Permitting Program regulates stormwater discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). The NPDES MS4 permits in California are generally issued in two phases by the SWRCB and RWQCBs. Phase I MS4 permits are issued by the RWQCBs to medium (i.e., serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large (i.e., serving more than 250,000 people) municipalities. Most of these permits are issued to a group of co-permittees encompassing an entire metropolitan area. Phase II MS4 permits are issued by the SWRCB and is applicable to smaller municipalities (i.e., populations of less than 100,000 people) and nontraditional small MS4s (e.g., military bases, public campuses, and prison and hospital complexes).

On November 19, 2015, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB re-issued county-wide Phase 1 municipal stormwater permits as one Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit to regulate stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo. The Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES No.

CAS612008) became effective on November 19, 2015 and covers Phase I permittees regionwide, including the City of Livermore and unincorporated areas of Alameda County. The Phase I, Phase II, and Regional MS4 Permits require the permittees to develop a stormwater management program

EXHIBIT A
316
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-13
and individual dischargers to develop and implement Stormwater Quality Management Plans (SWMP) to manage discharges to municipal storm drain systems.

San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB has adopted a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for their region of responsibility that delineates water resource area boundaries based on hydrological features. For the purposes of achieving and maintaining water quality protection, specific beneficial uses have been identified for each of the surface waters and groundwater management zones described in the Basin Plan. Once beneficial uses are designated, appropriate water quality objectives are established, and programs that maintain or enhance water quality are implemented to ensure the protection of beneficial uses.

The Basin Plan also established implementation programs to achieve water quality objectives to protect beneficial uses and require monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs. These objectives must comply with the State antidegradation policy (SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16), which is designed to maintain high-quality waters while allowing some flexibility if beneficial uses are not unreasonably affected.

Zone 7 Water Agency Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan The Zone 7 Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) fulfils the requirement for a Groundwater Sustainability Agency to prepare either a GSP or an Alternative Plan that covers the entire groundwater basin. The Zone 7 Alternative GSP demonstrates that the basin has been operating within a sustainable yield for at least 10 years. A sustainable yield is defined by SGMA as the maximum quantity of water, calculated over a base period representative of long-term conditions in the basin, that can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply without causing an undesirable result (Zone 7 Water Agency 2016). The purpose of the Alternative GSP is to characterize current and historical groundwater conditions in the basin and to detail groundwater use, groundwater occurrence and flow, groundwater levels, groundwater in storage, groundwater quality, potential subsidence, and surface water-groundwater interactions in order to evaluate the sustainability of Zone 7’s groundwater management criteria. The Alternative GSP also develops a current water budget while identifying the projected water budget and future groundwater management.

Overall, Zone 7’s ongoing sustainable management goal is to continue to operate the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin within its sustainable yield and to manage the groundwater resources to prevent significant and unreasonable lowering of groundwater levels, reduction in basin storage, degradation of groundwater quality, inelastic land subsidence, or depletion of surface water supplies that may adversely impact beneficial uses (Zone 7 Water Agency 2016). To achieve this sustainable management goal, the Alternative GSP adopted a series of policies, ordinances, and basin management objectives. Primary objectives outlined in the Alternative GSP include, but are not limited to, maintaining the balance between the combination of natural and artificial recharge and withdrawal; preventing overdraft that would otherwise occur from too much pumping; protecting and enhancing the quality of the groundwater; minimizing threats of groundwater pollution through groundwater protection; and protecting the storage capacity of the aquifer.

EXHIBIT A
317
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1-14
Alameda Clean Water Program
The Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program works to facilitate local compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act by reducing or eliminating the pollution of receiving waters. The Alameda County Public Works Clean Water Program works closely with the Countywide Clean Water Program to prevent water pollution from urban runoff in unincorporated areas of Alameda County. The program includes public outreach, inspection of industrial areas, assessment and monitoring of watersheds, and monitoring of construction sites. Overall, the Clean Water Program ensures that Alameda County meets the requirements of its Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

Alameda County General Plan
The Alameda County General Plan was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in on November 23, 1976 and amended in May 1994. The General Plan acts as a long-range policy document to guide physical, economic, and environmental growth in Alameda County. The Plan expresses the County's vision for the future and is the roadmap for achieving the community's desired quality of life. The Plan also includes an assessment of current and future needs, and the resources needed to implement the goals and policies established within (County of Alameda 2022). The General Plan Conservation Element and Safety Element contain the following goals and objectives relevant to the proposed project (County of Alameda 2022):

Conservation Element Goal: T
o insure and maintain a continuing supply of high water quality for the citizens of Alameda County.

Objective 1: To insure sufficient water supplies of high quality for all beneficial uses.

Objective 2: To conserve ground water resources and prevent overdraft of existing ground water supplies.

Objective 3: To define areas of periodic flooding and reduce loss through the application of sound land use planning.

Objective 4: To reduce man-caused stream and ground water pollution and general resource degeneration through cumulative impacts on surface and ground water systems.

Objective 5: To maintain all water resources in their highest quality.

Objective 6: To educate government, business and citizens to assist in the conservation of water and energy and to minimize pollution.

Objective 7: Through sound design of drainage systems throughout the County and by regulation of land use, erosion or soil caused by water could be controlled.

Objective 8: To achieve coordination of state, regional, and local water management agencies and policies throughout the County.

Safety Element Goal 3: To reduce hazards related to flooding and inundation.

Policy P1: Within flood hazard areas, all new construction of buildings, structures, and portions of buildings and structures, including substantial improvement and restoration of substantial damage to buildings and structures, shall be designed and constructed to resist the effects of flood hazards and flood loads.

EXHIBIT A
318
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-15
Policy P2: Surface runoff from new development shall be controlled by on-site measures including, but not limited to structural controls and restrictions regarding changes in topography, removal of vegetation, creation of impervious surfaces, and periods of construction such that the need for off-site flood and drainage control improvements is minimized and such that runoff from development will not result in downstream flood hazards.

Policy P10: The County shall work with the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Zone 7 Water Agency to provide for development of adequate storm drainage and flood control systems to serve existing and future development.

Policy P13: The County shall regulate new development on a case-by-case basis to ensure that project storm drainage facilities shall be designed so that peak rate flow of storm water from new development will not exceed the rate of runoff from the site in its undeveloped state.

South Livermore Valley Area Plan
The County of Alameda adopted the South Livermore Valley Area Plan (SLVAP) in November 1992 to create a planned area that preserves, promotes, and enhances viticulture and other cultivated agriculture. The SLVAP is a policy document that establishes criteria for future development for approximately 15,500 acres of undeveloped land in unincorporated areas south and east of the City of Livermore. SLVAP policies relevant to the proposed project include the following (County of Alameda 2003):

Agricultural Preservation and Enhancement Policy 9: Encourage the development of additional sources of irrigation water for vineyards and other cultivated agriculture by investigating wastewater reclamation and development of other supply and delivery resources. Encourage Zone 7 to consider developing a pump monitoring and cost allocation system to cover the cost of new water in the event that additional supplies are needed.

Land Use Vineyard Area Policy 2A: The applicant must show, to the satisfaction of the County, that adequate water supplies are available to the proposed parcels for both domestic and irrigation needs, and that all proposed homesites can be served by individual septic systems. The County shall consult with the appropriate water purveyor.

Land Use Vineyard Area Policy 2G: The applicant must meet the following site development review standards: (i) Parcels that include, or are adjacent to, arroyos shall maintain a minimum 100 foot uncultivated and undeveloped buffer, as measured from top of bank.

Annexation and Urban Development Policy 2: Require any urban development proposal within the Vineyard Area to meet the following criteria, at a minimum:

A. All necessary public utilities and services are available.

B. The project will contribute funds for a recycled water treatment system.

Contributions should equal or exceed the cost of providing recycled water equal in volume to 120% of anticipated water use of the development,

EXHIBIT A
319
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1-16
East County Area Plan
The East County Area Plan was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors on May 5, 1994, and amended in 2000 with intent to provide a clear statement concerning future development and resource conservation in East County. The East County encompasses 418 square miles of eastern Alameda County including the cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, a portion of Hayward, and surrounding unincorporated areas. The policies and implementation programs discussed within the East County Area Plan are similar to the components within the Alameda County General Plan. The policies and implementation programs in the East County Area Plan relevant to meeting water quality goals are listed below (County of Alameda 2000).

Policy 306: The County shall protect surface and groundwater resources by:
− Preserving areas with prime percolation capabilities and minimizing placement of potential sources of pollution in such areas;
− Minimizing sedimentation and erosion through control of grading, quarrying, cutting of trees, removal of vegetation, placement of roads and bridges, use of off‐road vehicles, and animal‐related disturbance of the soil;
− Not allowing the development of septic systems, automobile dismantlers, waste disposal facilities, industries utilizing toxic chemicals, and other potentially polluting substances in creekside, reservoir, or high groundwater table areas when polluting substances could come in contact with flood waters, permanently or seasonally high groundwaters, flowing stream or creek waters, or reservoir waters; and − Avoiding establishment of excessive concentrations of septic systems over large land areas.
 Implementation Program 108. The County shall implement all federal, state and locally imposed statutes, regulations, and orders that apply to stormwater quality. Examples of these include, but are not limited to:
 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program and amendments thereto;
 State of California NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges (General Industrial Permit, General Construction Permit) and amendments thereto;  Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin Region (Basin Plan) and amendments thereto; and
 Letters issued by the RWQCB under the California Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Act.  Implementation Program 109. The County shall endeavor to minimize herbicide use by public agencies by reviewing existing use and applying integrated pest management principles, such as mowing and mulching, in addition to eliminating or scaling back the need for vegetation control in the design phase of a project.
 Implementation Program 110. The County shall conform with Zone 7 Wastewater Management Plan and the Regional Water Quality Control Board's San Francisco Bay Basin Plan.

Alameda County Codes and Ordinances
Section 13.08.070 of the Alameda County Codes and Ordinances prohibits the discharge of non- stormwater discharges to the waters of the United States or to the county storm drain system

EXHIBIT A
320
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-17
unless it is regulated under an NPDES permit issued to the discharger and administered by the state under the authority of the USEPA. Similarly, Section 13.08.080 prohibits any discharge that would result in or contribute to a violation of the county NPDES permit. Section 13.08.100 requires any person engaged in activities that could result in pollutants entering the waters of the United States or the county storm drain system to undertake all practicable measures to reduce or eliminate such pollutants. In addition, Section 13.08.100 requires each discharger identified in a Municipal NPDES permit relating to stormwater discharges to comply with and undertake all activities required by the NPDES permit, including compliance with Best Management Practices (BMPs). Section 13.12.090 prohibits any person to discharge or connect to any pipe or channel to a watercourse.

Section 15.36.060 prohibits grading to be undertaken in such a manner that quantities of dirt, soil, rock, debris, or other material substantially in excess of natural levels are washed, eroded, or otherwise discharged into a watercourse, a flood control facility, or other drainage system by the forces of nature, or could be so washed, eroded, or discharged onto, within, or from the site.

Similarly, Section 15.36.070 prohibits grading that obstructs, impedes, or interferes with the natural flow of stormwater in such manner as to cause flooding where it would not otherwise occur, aggravate any existing flooding condition, cause accelerated erosion, or result in an illicit discharge, except where said grading is in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations of the county, including but not limited to the requirement to obtain a permit or permits where so specified. Section 15.36.600 outlines the requirements that apply to erosion and sediment controls from grading operations, and Section 15.36.652 prohibits grading work within any area designated as a floodplain.

City of Livermore General Plan 2003-2025
The City of Livermore General Plan Infrastructure and Public Services Element contains goals, policies, and actions that support the protection and availability of water resources within the City.

The General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element contains goals, policies, and actions that ensure the comprehensive and long-range preservation and management of open space land for the protection of natural resources. Finally, the General Plan Public Safety Element contains goals, policies, and actions that are designed to protect the community as much as possible from seismic, flood, geologic and wildfire hazards. The following goals, objectives, and policies from the City’s General Plan apply to the proposed project (City of Livermore 2015):

Goal INF-1: P
rovide sufficient water supplies and facilities to serve the City in the most efficient and financially sound manner, while maintaining the highest standards required to enhance the quality of life for existing and future residents.

Policy INF-

1.1 P5: Development will not result in a reduction of water quality below those standards set forth in State and federal laws and regulations.

Goal INF-3: C ollect, store, and dispose of stormwater in ways that are safe, sanitary, environmentally acceptable, and financially sound while maintaining the highest standards required to enhance the quality of life for existing and future residents.

Policy INF- 3.1 P1: Design local storm drainage improvements to carry appropriate design-year flows resulting from build out of the General Plan.

Objective INF-3.2: Encourage coordination between land use planning, site design and stormwater pollution control.

EXHIBIT A
321
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1-18
Policy INF-3.2 P3: The City shall take all necessary measures to regulate runoff from urban uses to protect the quality of surface and ground-waters and other resources from detrimental conditions.

Objective INF-3.3: Maintain creeks and arroyos in as natural a state as possible, while maintaining the health and safety of residents, providing flood control, preserving habitat and providing recreational use.

Policy INF-3.3 P5: New development shall be required to incorporate appropriate measures to minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff to local creeks and channels.

Goal OSC-2: C
onserve Livermore’s waterways, tributaries and associated riparian habitats.

Objective OSC-2.1: Continue efforts to ensure that development does not harm the quality or quantity of Livermore’s surface or ground water.

Policy OSC-2.1 P1: Require the implementation of BMPs to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and water quality degradation resulting from the construction of new impervious surfaces.

Policy OSC-2.1 P2: The City shall take all necessary measures to regulate runoff from urban uses to protect the quality of surface and ground water.

Goal PS-2 : Reduce hazards related to flooding or inundation.

Objective PS-2.1: Minimize flood risks to development.

Policy PS-2.1 P2: When feasible, arroyos and creeks shall be preserved in their natural state, and shall not be channelized or otherwise altered. Floodways should remain undeveloped and be allowed to function as natural flood protection features where flood waters are temporarily stored and conveyed during intense storms.

City of Livermore Municipal Code
Section 13.25.100 of the Livermore Municipal Code (LMC) requires grading of a project site be designed to minimize soil erosion, runoff, and water waste. Section 13.32.050 prohibits unauthorized discharges to the City’s sanitary sewer system. Section 13.45.030 prohibits discharge of non-stormwater discharges to the city storm sewer system, and Section 13.45.040 prohibits discharge that would result in or contribute to a violation of the most currently-issued and effective NPDES permit. Section 13.45.090 requires construction contractors to provide filter materials at catch basins to retain debris and dirt flowing into the City’s storm sewer system. Section 13.45.110 requires use of best management practices for any activity, operation, or facility which may cause or contribute to stormwater pollution or contamination. Section 16.08.070 prohibits any person from degrading the water quality of flowing water. Chapter 16.12 of the LMC regulates development within flood hazard zones, including the control of filling, grading, dredging and other development which may increase erosion or flood damage.

South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
The South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP) was adopted by the City of Livermore in November 1997 and amended in February 2004. Subareas 1 and 2 of the SLVSP are located adjacent to the project alignment. The following policies from the SLVSP apply to the proposed project and/or development potential of parcels served by the proposed project (City of Livermore 1997):

EXHIBIT A
322
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-19
Policy 8-19: A detailed drainage design plan will be prepared for each development area and submitted as part of each tentative subdivision map application. The drainage plan must document pre- and post-development flows in the critical channel reaches within the project watershed and the available flow capacity in any off-site drainage systems proposed for discharge from planning area development.

Policy 8-20: Peak period discharge rates shall not increase off-site flood hazards or exceed the design capacity of any off-site drainage facility. Before designing and building any drainage improvements, sponsors of individual projects should consult the City of Livermore’s Master Drainage Plan and the supplemental Drainage Facilities Planning Guidelines. All improvements should adhere to those City requirements and guidelines. In addition, hydraulic structures (such as storm drains and culverts) should be over-sized to accommodate sediment and debris conveyed in stormwater runoff.

Policy 8-21. Consistent with the rural image of the planning area, encourage the use of permeable surface drainage and runoff detention systems both inside and outside the development areas. The use of grass-lined swales and detention basins is encouraged wherever feasible as a means of: 1) minimizing the increase in the rate and volume of stormwater runoff associated with new urban development, 2) maximizing the potential for groundwater recharge, and 3) filtering the urban pollutants that get carried into the major drainage channels.

Policy 8-22. Require proposed development to provide drainage facilities which minimize impact upon existing streams and arroyos.

Policy 8-23: For all agricultural mitigation land required by Specific Plan development, require preparation of an agricultural sediment management plan for each parcel of grassland converted to vineyard cultivation within the proposed City limits. Such plans should describe appropriate erosion control measures and schedules to operate and maintain related facilities (such as detention / sediment basins). Each plan should reflect consultation with and input of the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) in Livermore and should implement NRCS recommendations. Sufficient optional measures are available to enable each property owner flexibility to satisfy the requirements for erosion and sedimentation control for the particular parcel without significant loss of arable land.

Policy 8-24: Prepare and implement a comprehensive Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for each residential development project and / or commercial facility built in the SLVSPA. The SWPPP must accompany any application to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (required for any development which would disturb more than five acres of land) The SWPPP should be submitted to the City of Livermore Engineering Department for review and approval before construction begins. No grading should occur during the winter season, and, therefore, grading activities should be restricted to the period between April 1 and October 15.

Policy 8-25: Install adequate energy dissipation at all culvert outlets to deter local channel incision and erosion.

Policy 8-26: For all earthen (defined) channel reaches within new or established drainageways, install geosynthetic stabilization or targeted natural stabilization to deter erosion and channel incision. Full lining of earthen channels with concrete or rock rip rap shall be prohibited in favor of vegetated channels. The vegetated channels can be

EXHIBIT A
323
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1-20
stabilized with occasional rock grade checks and / or biodegradable or geosynthetic elements (such as long-life erosion control blanket or geoweb).

4.1.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
This section identifies the potential environmental impacts from construction of the proposed project related to hydrology and water quality. Assessment of impacts is based on review of site information and conditions, pertinent analysis provided in the 1997 EIR, and an assessment of baseline conditions in the project vicinity including watersheds and surface waters, groundwater, and inundation areas, as described above under Section 4.1.1, Setting. Potential impacts to hydrology and water quality are evaluated based on the adherence to local, State, and federal standards and implementation of BMPs for control of surface runoff and reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff.

The following thresholds of significance are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For the purposes of this Supplemental EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant impact if it would:

1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface of ground water quality.

2. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.

4. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

5. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
b. Prior Environmental Analysis
Chapter 4.3 (Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the SLVSP’s impacts related to water quality standards, groundwater supplies, impervious surfaces, and flooding. The 1997 EIR does not address the issues of conflicts or obstruction of implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, as this was not yet included as a significance criterion used to analyze project impacts to hydrologic conditions under CEQA. The project would involve the construction of new sewer pipelines that were not analyzed in the 1997 EIR and could therefore result in new impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, all

EXHIBIT A
324
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-21
the CEQA checklist items listed above under the Methodology and Significance Thresholds section are addressed in this analysis.
c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Impact HYD-1 CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN

POLLUTANTS IN STORMWATER AND WASTEWATER VIA RUNOFF DURING GRADING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES IN THE VICINITY OF EXISTING SURFACE WATER RESOURCES AND STORM DRAIN INFRASTRUCTURE. COMPLIANCE

WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS, ALAMEDA COUNTY

CODES AND ORDINANCES, AND LIVERMORE GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES WOULD PREVENT SUBSTANTIAL DISCHARGES OF POLLUTANTS VIA STORMWATER RUNOFF. SUCH COMPLIANCE WOULD MINIMIZE ADVERSE EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. IN ADDITION, THE DISUSE AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING

RESIDENTIAL SEPTIC SYSTEMS WOULD RESULT IN AN OVERALL IMPROVEMENT IN GROUNDWATER QUALITY IN THE PROJECT VICINITY. THEREFORE, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Construction
Project construction would occur along existing paved roadways and would involve removal of the existing roadbed, grading and excavation, installation of the new sewer pipe, backfill of the trench, and repaving. Once an area is complete, the contractor would install final paving over the trench.

Construction activities could result in temporary impacts to water quality due to runoff leaving active construction areas along the project alignment in the proximity of nearby water resources and storm drain infrastructure. Such nearby water resources include Arroyo Mocho, located approximately 265 feet southwest of the project alignment at its closest point to South Livermore Avenue, and Arroyo Seco, located approximately 150 feet east of the easternmost portion of the project alignment on Tesla Road. Arroyo Mocho flows generally parallel to the project alignment along South Livermore Avenue while Arroyo Seco crosses Greenville Avenue approximately 1,200 feet north of the project alignment and flows parallel to the project alignment as it nears Tesla Road. Such nearby storm drain infrastructure includes curb and gutter along East Avenue, South Livermore Avenue, and the portion of Tesla Road west of Mines Road, and catch basins on South Livermore Avenue, on Tesla Road at its intersection with Mines Road, and on East Avenue.

Excavation activities during construction have the potential to impact water quality through erosion and debris carried in runoff. Project construction would involve heavy equipment that could also result in an increase in fuel, oil, and lubricants in stormwater runoff due to leaks or accidental releases. These contaminant sources could degrade the water quality of receiving water bodies (i.e., the Arroyo Mocho located approximately 265 feet southwest of the project alignment on South Livermore Avenue, Arroyo Seco located approximately 150 feet east of the project alignment on Tesla Road, and local flood control channels and creeks that collect stormwater from catch basins and storm drains), potentially resulting in a violation of water quality standards. To minimize these impacts, the project would be required to maintain the following BMPs for site design and stormwater treatment, as outlined in the City of Livermore Stormwater Requirements Checklist for the MS4 Permit:
 Establish temporary erosion controls to stabilize all denuded areas until roadways are repaved;  Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering;

EXHIBIT A
325
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1-22
 Protect all storm drain inlets in vicinity of the project alignment using sediment controls such as berms, fiber rolls, or filters;
 Trap sediment on-site, using BMPs such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, check dams, soil blankets or mats, covers for soil stock piles, etc.;  Divert on-site runoff around exposed areas; divert off-site runoff around the project alignment (e.g., swales and dikes);
 Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate;  Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in a designated area where washwater is contained and treated;
 Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly to prevent contact with stormwater; and/or
 Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediments, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses.

Further, in accordance with Chapter 13.45 of the LMC (Stormwater Management and Control Program) and Chapter 13.08 of the Alameda County Codes and Ordinances (Stormwater Management and Discharge Control), the proposed project would be required to undertake all practicable measures to reduce pollutants. The contractor would also be required to provide filter materials at the nearest catch basins, such as those located on South Livermore Avenue, on Tesla Road at its intersection with Mines Road, and on East Avenue, to retain any debris and dirt flowing into the City’s stormwater system, which would ultimately empty into local flood control channels and creeks.

The proposed project would also be subject to the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, issued by Order No. R2-2015-0049 on November 19, 2015, to discharge stormwater runoff to storm drains and watercourses. Under the conditions of the permit, the project would be required to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to waters of the nation, develop and implement a SWPPP for construction activities, and perform inspections of the stormwater pollution prevention measures and control practices to ensure conformance with the SWPPP. Additionally, because the proposed project would disturb at least one acre of land, the project must provide stormwater treatment and would be required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ).

In addition to compliance with mandatory CWA requirements (NPDES Construction General Permit and MS4 General Permit), LMC requirements, and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s post-construction requirements for stormwater management, implementation of the goals, policies, and actions outlined in the City’s General Plan, described under Section 4.1.2, Regulatory Setting, above, would minimize erosion and siltation, prevent substantial discharges of contaminated stormwater to the municipal storm drain system or surface waters, and reduce the potential for violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Operation
Impervious surfaces can cause stormwater runoff to carry a variety of pollutants, such oil, grease, metals, sediment, and pesticide residues from roadways into adjacent waterways via the storm

EXHIBIT A
326
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-23
drain system. After completion, the proposed project would maintain the same area of impervious surfaces along the alignment compared to existing conditions, as no buildings or expansion of paved areas would be constructed. In addition, the project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or the surrounding area because it would serve development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP. As such, the proposed project would not contribute to an unanticipated increase in impervious surfaces within its vicinity.

Following construction, the project would not modify stormwater flow or introduce additional urban pollutants to the stormwater system through runoff. Since the proposed project would not introduce new impervious surfaces and no substantial change to existing roadway operations would result from the project, the project would not result in operational impacts to water quality.

However, project operation would allow residences and existing wineries to connect to the City’s wastewater system, and the existing septic systems at these properties would be abandoned or removed. As a result, groundwater quality in the South Livermore Valley would be improved due to reduced reliance on septic systems.

The 1997 EIR concluded that the development potential of the SLVSP would result in increased stormwater runoff, resulting in increased potential for pollution to be conveyed in runoff; however, potential impacts would be reduced by SLVSP Policies 8-21 through 8-26 because they would require the use of permeable surfaces and detention basins to maximize groundwater recharge and minimize impacts on local surface waters; and erosion control measures in agricultural land, implementation of SWPPPs, and channel stabilization to control stormwater quality.

Since the project would not result in an increase in the development potential of sites within the SLVSP and General Plan area, impacts related to water quality would not be more severe than those analyzed in the 1997 EIR. Therefore, the direct impact of the proposed project on water quality would be less than significant, and impacts from the development potential of the General Plan and SLVSP would remain less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(3) and 15163(a), because the proposed project would not result in a significant effect that is substantially more severe than determined in the 1997 EIR, no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Conclusion
Overall, compliance to the applicable laws, regulations, and policies discussed above, adherence to identified BMPs, and implementation of relevant SWPPP requirements would reduce the risk of water quality degradation from pollutants related to construction activities in the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition, operation of the proposed project would allow residences and wineries to connect to the City’s wastewater system, which would result in an overall improvement in groundwater quality in the South Livermore Valley. Because violations of water quality standards would be minimized and groundwater quality would be improved, impacts to water quality related to the proposed project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant without mitigation.

EXHIBIT A
327
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1-24
Threshold 2: Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Impact HYD-2 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN DEMAND

FOR GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES, NOR WOULD IT DIRECTLY INTERFERE WITH THE GROUNDWATER TABLE OR ITS RECHARGE. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The proposed project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP. Project construction would require minimal amounts of water for dust suppression, in order to comply with Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulations regarding dust suppression during construction activities. Project construction water use would also comply with California Green Building Standards Code water use efficiency requirements (additional details provided in Appendix IS: Environmental Checklist Section 3, Air Quality). Facilitation of adjacent development potential would be consistent with the City and County General Plans, and SLVSP, and operation of the proposed project would not result in an unanticipated demand for groundwater as a result of adjacent development potential. Therefore, no substantial increase in demand on groundwater supplies would occur.

The proposed project would maintain the same area of impervious surfaces along the alignment compared to existing conditions, as no buildings or expanded paved areas would be constructed and the project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or the surrounding area. The existing drainage system would not be modified by the project, and stormwater would continue to runoff from the repaved roadway into the existing stormwater drainage system. Because the project would not result in an increase in impervious surfaces, groundwater recharge would continue as it does under existing conditions. Impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant without mitigation.

EXHIBIT A
328
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-25
Threshold 3: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; and/or
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Impact HYD-3 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT ALTER THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN OF THE PROJECT ALIGNMENT, ALTER THE COURSE OF A STREAM OR RIVER, OR ADD NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Construction activities would involve site preparation, excavation and grading, paving, and other earth-disturbing activities that could temporarily alter existing drainage patterns. However, compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ) and LMC Chapter

13.45 would reduce the risk of short-term erosion and increased runoff resulting from drainage alterations during construction. Additionally, the proposed project would maintain the same area of impervious surfaces and would maintain the existing drainage pattern along the project alignment following completion of construction. Project construction would not require additional ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas. Rather, construction would take place within existing roadways and would not directly alter Arroyo Mocho or Arroyo Seco, which are located within 300 feet of the alignment. As such, the project would not permanently alter the course of either the Arroyo Mocho or the Arroyo Seco, as both resources flow generally parallel to the project alignment along South Livermore Avenue and Tesla Road.

In addition, the City of Livermore General Plan includes goals and policies, such as Goal INF-3, Policy INF-3.1 P1, Objective INF-3.2, Policy INF-3.2 P3, Policy INF-3.3 P5, and Policy OSC-2.1 P2, identified in Section 4.1.2, Regulatory Setting, that are intended to ensure efficiency in the stormwater drainage system and regulate runoff from existing uses. Implementation of these goals and policies would reduce the potential for substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, reduce the rate and amount of surface runoff, reduce the potential to exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and reduce the potential to redirect flood flows. This impact would be less than significant.

The 1997 EIR concluded that the development potential of the SLVSP would result in increased impervious surfaces, runoff, and erosion potential; however, potential impacts would be reduced by compliance with state, regional, and local erosion control requirements, including SWPPPs and the NPDES Construction General Permit. Additionally, SLVSP Policies 8-19 through 8-26 would further reduce potential impacts because these policies would require drainage plans that specify stormwater flow controls; limit peak discharge rates and properly size storm drainage facilities; require the use of permeable surfaces and detention basins; and require erosion control measures in agricultural land, implementation of SWPPPs, and channel stabilization to control stormwater quality.

EXHIBIT A
329
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1-26
Since the project would not result in an increase in the development potential of sites within the SLVSP and General Plan area, impacts related to drainage patterns would not be more severe than those analyzed in the 1997 EIR. Therefore, the direct impact of the proposed project on drainage patterns would be less than significant, and impacts from the development potential of the General Plan and SLVSP would remain less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(3) and 15163(a), because the proposed project would not result in a significant effect that is substantially more severe than determined in the 1997 EIR, no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 4: W ould the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Impact HYD-4 THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO FLOODING FROM A TSUNAMI OR SEICHE,

AND REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A FEMA-DESIGNATED FLOOD ZONE WOULD REDUCE THE RISK OF POLLUTANT RELEASE. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As described in Section 4.1.1, Setting, the proposed project is located within FEMA Flood Zone X, which is an area of minimal flood hazard that has been determined to be outside of the 500-year floodplain and is protected by a levee from 100‐year flooding. The nearest regulatory floodway to the proposed project is the Arroyo Mocho, located approximately 265 feet south of South Livermore Avenue. A Zone AE floodplain associated with the Arroyo Mocho is located adjacent to the regulatory floodway approximately 50 feet southwest of South Livermore Avenue. A 500-year floodplain is also associated with Arroyo Mocho, located approximately 15 feet southwest of South Livermore Avenue. The Zone AE floodplain identifies an area that is subject to inundation by a 100- year flood. The 500-year floodplain identifies an area with a 0.2-percent-annual-chance of flooding.

However, the project would ultimately result in the replacement of existing roadway surfaces after the sewer pipelines are installed, which would not introduce new pollutants to the roadway and would result in no change to the existing flood patterns within the project alignment. In addition, compliance with Chapter 15.36 of the Alameda County Codes and Ordinances would ensure that construction would not interfere with the natural flow of stormwater in a way that would cause flooding where it would not otherwise occur or aggravate an existing flooding condition. Similarly, compliance with LMC Chapter 16.12 would ensure the control of grading and other development that could increase erosion or create flood damage.

The project alignment is located approximately 40 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and is not located within a tsunami inundation area (California Department of Conservation 2021). Therefore, the project alignment is not subject to flooding from tsunami. Similarly, seiches are a related hazard that can occur when a sudden displacement event or very strong winds happen in an enclosed or semi-enclosed body of water, such as a lake or reservoir. The closest body of water, Lake Del Valle, is located approximately 3 miles south of the project alignment. Therefore, inundation by seiche is not a potential hazard.

EXHIBIT A
330
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-27
The project alignment falls outside of the inundation hazard areas for both the Patterson Dam and the Del Valle Dam. In addition, regular DWR inspections and required maintenance of the Patterson Dam and the Del Valle Dam substantially reduces the potential for dam failure. As a result, flooding due to dam failure is not a potential hazard.

Overall, the project alignment is not expected to experience inundation from a tsunami, seiche, or flooding. Additionally, implementation of the goals and policies in the Livermore General Plan, such as Objective PS-2.1 that focuses on minimizing flood risks, and Policy PS-2.1 P2 that requires arroyos and creeks be preserved in their natural state with regard to flooding, would further reduce the possibility of flooding in the vicinity of the project alignment. This impact would be less than significant.

The 1997 EIR concluded that the development potential of the SLVSP would result in increased development and thus potential for flooding of development in the SLVSP area; however, potential impacts would be reduced by proper siting of future development based on land use. Since the project would not result in an increase in the development potential of sites within the SLVSP and General Plan area, impacts related to flooding and inundation would not be more severe than those analyzed in the 1997 EIR. Therefore, the direct impact of the proposed project on flooding would be less than significant, and impacts from the development potential of the General Plan and SLVSP would remain less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(3) and 15163(a), because the proposed project would not result in a significant effect that is substantially more severe than determined in the 1997 EIR, no additional mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 5: W ould the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Impact HYD-5 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF A WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN OR SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s Basin Plan identifies specific beneficial uses and water quality objectives for each of the surface waters and groundwater management zones described in the Basin Plan, including for Arroyo Mocho and Arroyo Seco, which are located in the vicinity of the project alignment (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2010). The proposed project would require compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit and the LMC Chapter 13.45, which would reduce the risk of short-term erosion and increased runoff resulting during construction. The proposed project would also be subject to the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit No.

CAS612008, which would require the contractor to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to waters of the nation, develop and implement a SWPPP for construction activities, and perform inspections of the stormwater pollution prevention measures and control practices to ensure conformance with the SWPPP. Compliance with such regulations would ensure that the project does not conflict with the Basin Plan, and beneficial uses would be protected for Arroyo Mocho and Arroyo Seco in the vicinity of the project alignment.

EXHIBIT A
331
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1-28
The Zone 7 Water Agency’s Alternative GSP, which applies to the groundwater basin underlying the project alignment, outlines sustainable management goals and objectives, including the prevention of overdraft that would otherwise occur from too much pumping and the protection/enhancement of groundwater quality. The facilitation of adjacent development would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP, and operation of the proposed project would not result in an unanticipated demand for groundwater at the adjacent development. Small amounts of water would be required for project construction, such as water needed for dust suppression. This temporary, construction- related water demand would be similar to other construction projects in the area and would not result in a substantial decrease in available water supplies. In addition, the project would facilitate the disuse of existing residential septic systems, which would result in an overall improvement in groundwater quality in the South Livermore Valley.

Overall, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. In fact, the project would result in improvements to groundwater quality aligned with the goals and objectives outlined in the Alternative GSP. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant without mitigation.

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). The geographic scope for cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts is the Arroyo Mocho Watershed, Arroyo Las Positas Watershed, and Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. This geographic scope is appropriate because water quality impacts along the project alignment would affect the water quality of the entire watershed, and groundwater impacts would affect the entire groundwater basin. Development that is considered part of the cumulative analysis includes construction of nearby projects in Livermore and Alameda County that are within the same watershed and/or draw water from the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin.

Cumulative development would generally increase impermeable surface area, which could cumulatively increase peak flood flows, alter drainage patterns, reduce groundwater recharge, and increase pollutants in the regional stormwater. However, cumulative development would also be required to adhere to all applicable State and local regulations designed to control erosion and protect water quality, including the LMC, the NPDES Construction General Permit, and the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Any construction sites larger than one acre in size would be required to prepare and submit a SWPPP to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit, thereby reducing the risk of water degradation on- and off- site from soil erosion and other pollutants. In addition, for certain projects, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB post-construction requirements for stormwater management encourage and require on- site treatment and infiltration of stormwater runoff. This would reduce the quantity of stormwater runoff that enters the storm drainage system which ultimately discharges to the San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. In addition, implementation of NPDES and LMC requirements would reduce

EXHIBIT A
332
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-29
the potential for increased pollutants in stormwater and groundwater. Compliance with mandatory state and regional permitting requirements as well as implementation of the goals and policies in the City of Livermore General Plan would reduce the potential for water quality degradation and violations of water quality standards as a result of cumulative development.

Overall, potential impacts associated with hydrology and water quality would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT A
333
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.1-30

This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
334
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-1

4.2 Utilities and Service Systems
This section analyzes the effects of the proposed project on utilities and service systems. It considers potential impacts with respect to water supply and infrastructure, wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities, stormwater and drainage facilities, solid waste disposal, and electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. Assessment of impacts is based partially on pertinent analysis provided in the 1997 EIR, which evaluated impacts of development under the SLVSP.

4.2.1 Setting
The following section describes the existing setting with respect to wastewater treatment providers, water suppliers, stormwater drainage facilities, solid waste facilities, electricity and natural gas providers, and telecommunications facilities serving the project alignment. a. Water
Water Supply
The project area is served by Cal Water’s Livermore District. Cal Water provides water service to approximately 69 percent of the City of Livermore’s population and covers 48 percent of the area incorporated by the City of Livermore. The Cal Water Livermore District had a service population of approximately 59,814 in 2020. The Cal Water Livermore District’s service population and growth projections are based on Association of Bay Area Governments census tract level projections of population, housing, and employment. Cal Water delivers water to residential, commercial, and governmental customers. Residential customers account for most of the Cal Water’s service connections and 73 percent of its water uses. Cal Water provides a combination of local groundwater, pumped from 12 wells across the Livermore Valley, and surface water purchased from the Zone 7 Water Agency. Table 4.2-1 summarizes Cal Water’s current and projected water supplies.

Cal Water Livermore District’s groundwater supply is pumped from the Livermore Valley Basin, which is not adjudicated and is not considered to be critically over-drafted. Non-residential water uses account for 22 percent of total demand and system water losses account for 5 percent (Cal Water 2021). Figure 4.2-1 shows Cal Water Livermore District’s service area and the project alignment.

Table 4.2-1 Cal Water’s Water Supplies – Current and Projected (acre feet per year) Water Supplies 20201 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Zone 7 Water Agency
Purchased or Imported Water 8,505 6,264 6,292 6,446 6,486 6,563 Livermore Valley Basin
Groundwater (not desalinated) 1,066 3,069 3,069 3,069 3,069 3,069 Supply Total 9,571 9,333 9,361 9,515 9,555 9,632
The groundwater supply values shown are equivalent to the District’s Groundwater Pumping Quota, pursuant to the contract with Zone

7. The purchased water supply values are the difference between total projected demand and the Groundwater Pumping Quota . 1Actual supplies in 2020.

Source: Cal Water 2021 (Tables 6-8 and 6-9)

EXHIBIT A
335
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.2-2
Figure 4.2-1 Local Water Provider Service Areas

EXHIBIT A
336
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-3
Water Demand
All Cal Water customers are considered urban (i.e., non-agricultural water users). Zone 7 provides water for agricultural uses. The Cal Water 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) details water demand from 2016 to 2020 by sector, including single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial/institutional, industrial, and landscape irrigation (Cal Water 2021). Water demand increased steadily from 2016 to 2020 due to statewide drought and water conservation measures, including conservation pricing applied by Cal Water and increased appliance water use efficiency standards. Water demand was 7,625 af in 2016, 8,110 af in 2017, and 9,571 af in 2020.

Zone 7’s 2020 UWMP determined that agricultural water demand was 5,810 af in 2020 (Zone 7 Water Agency 2021).

The 2020 UWMP projects future water demand through 2045 based on a water and sewer capacity rate study prepared in 2016. The executive summary of this study is included in Appendix H of the 2020 UWMP. According to the 2020 UWMP, the combination of groundwater and purchased water supply is expected to be enough to support Cal Water’s projected water demand through 2045 (Cal Water 2021). Table 4.2-2 shows Cal Water Livermore District’s and Zone 7’s projected demands by sector, as stated in the 2020 UWMP.

Table 4.2-2 Projected Demands for Potable and Raw Water (acre feet per year) Use Type 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single Family 6,393 6,383 6,461 6,488 6,545
Multi-Family 524 662 773 814 858
Commercial 1,222 1,175 1,144 1,120 1,100
Institutional/Gov’t 714 693 680 668 657
Industrial 0 0 0 0 0
Other Potable 10 10 10 10 10
Landscape 6 6 6 6 6
Losses1 464 431 441 449 457
Demand Total 9,333 9,361 9,515 9,555 9,632
Agricultural Irrigation2 5,500 7,800 8,300 8,300 8,300
1 Real and apparent losses.
2 Zone 7 supplies water for agricultural uses in the City of Livermore.

Source: Cal Water 2021 (adapted from Tables 4-1 and 4-2), Zone 7 Water Agency 2021 (adapted from Table 4-3) Dry Year Projections
Cal Water estimates future water supply availability under single- and multiple-dry year scenarios.

Cal Water projects multiple-dry year demand based on measured water use data from the multi- year drought extending from 2016-2020. Cal Water assumes the first dry year through the fourth dry year would result in no change in demand as increasingly stringent conservation measures are implemented. Table 4.2-3 summarizes Cal Water’s multiple-dry year supply and demand through 2045. Under all scenarios for all years, demand remains below anticipated supply.

EXHIBIT A
337
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.2-4
Table 4.2-3 Cal Water Supply and Demand in Multiple Dry Years Year-Type 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Dry Year
First Dry Year Supply 9,822 9,846 10,006 10,047 10,128
First Dry Year Demand 9,822 9,846 10,006 10,047 10,128
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second Dry Year
Second Dry Year Supply 9,822 9,846 10,006 10,047 10,128 Second Dry Year Demand 9,822 9,846 10,006 10,047 10,128 Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Third Dry Year
Third Dry Year Supply 9,822 9,846 10,006 10,047 10,128
Third Dry Year Demand 9,822 9,846 10,006 10,047 10,128
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth Dry Year
Fourth Dry Year Supply 9,822 9,846 10,006 10,047 10,128 Fourth Dry Year Demand 9,822 9,846 10,006 10,047 10,128 Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Units in acre feet per year
Source: Cal Water 2021 (adapted from Table 7-4)
Zone 7 Water Agency estimates future water supply availability under single- and multiple-dry year scenarios. Zone 7 Water Agency predicts adequate water supply would be available under normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios. Table 4.2-4 summarizes Zone 7 Water Agency’s multiple-dry year supply and demand through 2045. Under all scenarios for all years, demand remains below anticipated supply.

EXHIBIT A
338
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-5
Table 4.2-4 Zone 7 Supply and Demand in Multiple Dry Years Year-Type 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Normal Year
Normal Year Supply 76,700 90,700 84,700 83,200 83,200
Normal Year Demand 50,300 52,800 53,800 55,300 55,300
Difference 26,400 37,900 30,900 27,900 27,900
Single Dry Year
Single Dry Year Supply 65,600 92,100 94,200 92,500 92,300 Single Dry Year Demand 50,300 52,800 53,800 55,300 55,300 Difference 15,300 39,300 40,400 37,200 37,000
First Dry Year
First Dry Year Supply 89,200 116,600 118,500 117,100 116,800 First Dry Year Demand 50,300 52,800 53,800 55,300 55,300 Difference 38,900 63,800 64,700 61,800 61,500
Second Dry Year
Second Dry Year Supply 74,800 105,800 108,000 106,600 106,800 Second Dry Year Demand 51,700 53,360 54,200 55,300 55,300 Difference 23,100 52,440 53,800 51,300 51,500
Third Dry Year
Third Dry Year Supply 69,100 100,600 102,700 102,300 102,300 Third Dry Year Demand 52,000 53,520 54,400 55,300 55,300 Difference 17,100 47,080 48,300 47,000 47,000
Fourth Dry Year
Fourth Dry Year Supply 63,600 96,700 99,500 98,900 99,200 Fourth Dry Year Demand 52,250 53,580 54,700 55,300 55,300 Difference 11,350 43,120 44,800 43,600 43,900
Units in acre feet per year
Source: Zone 7 Water Agency 2021 (adapted from Tables 7-12 through 7-17) b. Wastewater
The sewer collection system in the City of Livermore serves development within the City limits, which includes a population of approximately 87,000 people. In addition to the area within the City limits, the sewer service area includes small areas that are outside of the City limits but within the City’s UGB, as well as the Ruby Hill portion of the City of Pleasanton. The City’s sewer service area comprises approximately 28 square miles and the collection system consists of approximately 296 miles of gravity mains and approximately 3 miles of force mains and four pump stations (City of Livermore 2017). The City of Livermore receives sewer and wastewater treatment services from the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (LWRP). The plant includes primary, secondary and tertiary treatment processes, and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. LWRP solids undergo thickening,

EXHIBIT A
339
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.2-6
stabilization, and dewatering prior to transport offsite for use as landfill cover. The LWRP can treat up to 8.5 million gallons per day and treats an average of 2.3 billion gallons of wastewater each year from throughout the Livermore area (City of Livermore 2021a).

In 2012, the City of Livermore assessed the operations at the LWRP and prepared an updated Master Plan. The master plan develops a roadmap for upgrading and expanding the LWRP in a manner that incorporates the appropriate technology, optimizes operations, and minimizes cost (City of Livermore 2012). Furthermore, the Sewer Master Plan was prepared in 2017 to define the City’s long-term collection system infrastructure capacity needs, and to develop a plan that will provide the flexibility and system reliability that the City needs to accommodate changing future capacity needs.

Currently, most parcels along the project alignment dispose of wastewater via on-site septic systems. Parcels located along East Avenue and the western portion of Livermore Avenue are currently connected to the City’s wastewater conveyance system. Parcels using septic systems for wastewater treatment and disposal are constrained from growth by existing septic systems, which are not eligible for expansion due to water quality concerns in the county. c. Stormwater Drainage
The City of Livermore manages stormwater and regulates discharge into storm drains. The City’s stormwater infrastructure includes 7,000 storm drains and miles of drainage ditches in public areas and along city streets. These drains and ditches divert rain and debris away from roads and other impermeable surfaces to prevent flooding. After stormwater flows into a storm drain, it then flows through a network of 225 miles of stormwater pipes that discharge into local flood control channels, detention ponds, and creeks. The stormwater then flows into the San Francisco Bay (City of Livermore 2021b). The City adheres with the SWRCB requirements for permitting for specific types of industrial and construction activities, such as obtaining a NPDES permit prior to construction. The City also participates in the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which facilitates local compliance with the CWA and provides BMPs for residents and businesses (County of Alameda 2017). Currently, existing drainage facilities along the project alignment are managed and operated by the City. Such facilities includes storm drain inlets and catch basins along South Livermore Avenue from East Avenue to Concannon Boulevard, along the south side of Tesla Road from South Livermore Avenue to Mines Road, along the north side of Tesla Road at Mines Road, and at the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and East Avenue. No storm drain inlets are present along the remainder of Buena Vista Avenue, Tesla Road east of Mines Road, and Greenville Road along the project alignment.
d. Solid Waste
Solid waste generated by development in the city is collected by Livermore Sanitation.

Approximately 98 percent of the City’s solid waste was sent to seven landfills in 2019: Altamont Landfill, Fink Road Landfill, North County Landfill and Recycling Center, Potrero Hills Landfill, Recology Hay Road Landfill, Redwood Landfill, and Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill (CalRecycle 2021a).

As shown in Table 4.2-5, all seven landfills have a substantial amount of remaining capacity. The Altamont Landfill has the most remaining capacity of 65.4 million cubic yards and has an anticipated closure date of 2025. Recology Hay Road Landfill has the latest closure date of 2077 and has a remaining capacity of 3.4 million cubic yards.

EXHIBIT A
340
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-7
Table 4.2-5 Estimated Landfill Capacities and Closure Date Landfill Facility
Permitted
Capacity
(cubic yards)
Remaining
Capacity
(cubic yards)
Maximum
Permitted
Throughput
(tons per day)
Anticipated
Closure Date
Altamont Landfill 124,400,000 65,400,000 11,150 2025
Fink Road Landfill 14,640,000 7,184,701 2,400 2023
North County Landfill and Recycling Center 41,200,000 35,400,000 825 2048 Potrero Hills Landfill 83,100,000 13,872,000 4,330 2048 Recology Hay Road Landfill 37,000,000 30,433,000 2,400 2077 Redwood Landfill 26,077,000 26,000,000 2,300 2036
Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill 32,970,000 7,379,000 2,518 2022 Source: CalRecycle 2021b
e. Electricity and Natural Gas
Natural gas and electricity are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). PG&E has a service area of 70,000 square miles in northern and central California. The service area stretches from Eureka to Bakersfield, and from the Pacific Ocean to the Sierra Nevada. PG&E operates 106,681 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,466 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines. Furthermore, PG&E operates 42,141 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines and 6,438 miles of transmission pipelines (PG&E 2022). The company is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, which was created by the state Legislature in 1911. f. Telecommunications
Numerous private wireless and cellular phone service providers serve the Livermore area (City of Livermore 2015). Telephone and residential internet services are provided by SBC Pacific Bell, Verizon, and Metro; and cable services are provided by Comcast Corporation.

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
See the Regulatory Setting of Section 4.1 of this Supplemental EIR, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a detailed discussion of the federal Clean Water Act.

Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates public water systems that supply drinking water (42 United States Code [USC] Section 300(f) et seq.; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 141 et seq). The principal objective of the federal SDWA is to ensure that water from the tap is potable (safe and satisfactory for drinking, cooking, and hygiene). The main components of the federal SDWA are to:

EXHIBIT A
341
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.2-8
 Ensure that water from the tap is potable
 Prevent contamination of groundwater aquifers that are the main source of drinking water for a community
 Regulate the discharge of wastes into underground injection wells pursuant to the Underground Injection Control program (see 40 CFR Section 144)
 Regulate distribution systems
Implementation of the federal SDWA is delegated to California. b. State
California Green Building Standards Code
In January 2020, the State of California adopted the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) which establishes mandatory green building standards for all buildings in California. The code covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality.

These standards include a mandatory set of guidelines, as well as more rigorous voluntary measures, for new construction projects to achieve specific green building performance levels, including:
 Reducing indoor water use by 20 percent
 Reducing wastewater generation by 20 percent
 Recycling and/or salvaging 50 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris  Providing readily accessible areas for recycling by occupant California Safe Drinking Water Act
The California SDWA (Health & Safety Code Section 116270 et seq.; 22 Cal. Code Regs. Section 64400 et seq.) regulates drinking water more rigorously than the federal law. Like the federal SDWA, California requires that primary and secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCL) be established for pollutants in drinking water; however, some California MCLs are more protective of health. The act also requires the SWRCB to issue domestic water supply permits to public water systems. The SWRCB enforces the federal and State SDWAs and regulates more than 7,500 public water systems.

The SWRCB’s Division of Drinking Water oversees the State’s comprehensive Drinking Water Program (DWP). The DWP is authorized to issue public water system permits.

California Plumbing Code
The California Plumbing Code is codified in Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 5. The Plumbing Code contains regulations including, but not limited to, plumbing materials, fixtures, water heaters, water supply and distribution, ventilation, and drainage. More specifically, Part 5, Chapter 4, contains provisions requiring the installation of low flow fixtures and toilets. Existing development will also be required to reduce its wastewater generation by retrofitting existing structures with water efficient fixtures (Senate Bill [SB] 407 [2009] Civil Code Sections 1101.1 et seq.).

EXHIBIT A
342
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-9
Regional Water Management Planning Act
Adopted by the State legislature in 2002, the Regional Water Management Planning Act, or SB 1672, authorizes preparation of integrated regional water management plans. Such plans are developed by regional water management groups, defined as three or more local public agencies, at least two of which have statutory authority over water supply. Integrated regional water management plans address qualified programs and projects relating to water supply, water quality, flood protection, or other water-related topics undertaken by the participating public agencies. Qualified projects, as detailed in the legislation, include but are not limited to groundwater, urban, and agricultural water management planning efforts, levee or flood control infrastructure maintenance or construction, water recycling projects, and water conservation programs.

UWMP Act
The California UWMP Act applies to municipal water suppliers that serve more than 3,000 customers or provide more than 3,000 acre-feet per year of water. The Act requires these water suppliers to update their UWMP every five years to identify short -
term and long-term water
demand management measures to meet growing water demands during normal, dry, and multiple -
d
ry years. The UWMP should include a description of existing and planned water sources, alternative sources, conservation efforts, reliability and vulnerability assessments, and a water shortage contingency analysis.

Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill [AB] 939) The California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA) of 1989 created the (former) California Integrated Waste Management Board, now CalRecycle. Responsible for oversight of waste management in California, CalRecycle assists cities, counties, businesses, and organizations with meeting state waste reduction, reuse, and recycling goals. The CIWMA requires that local jurisdictions meet waste diversion goals and establish a framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and landfill compliance. The CIWMA was primarily intended to encourage minimization of the volume of solid waste disposed of through “transformation” (including incineration, pyrolysis, distillation, and bioconversion) and land disposal through the establishment of solid waste diversion goals for all cities and counties. c. Regional and Local
Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Report Cal Water participated in the 2019 Update of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP), which covers the Livermore District. Groundwater in the region is managed by the Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7). As part of a regional groundwater management plan, Cal Water has agreed to a Groundwater Pumping Quota of 3,069 af annually. While the IRWMP focuses on long- range water planning needs in Cal Water’s service area, the document includes a regional-scale assessment of water planning efforts, infrastructure, and pending studies and projects. The IRWMP also discusses regional water management efforts in the context of other applicable water and environmental regional plans (IRWMP 2019).

EXHIBIT A
343
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.2-10
Alameda County General Plan
Alameda County’s General Plan provides the policy context for the County of Alameda to achieve its vision for adequate utility infrastructure in order to maintain the health and safety of residents of Alameda County. General Plan objectives and policies from the Conservation Element that are relevant to the proposed project include the following (County of Alameda 2022):

Conservation Element Goal: To insure and maintain a continuing supply of high water quality for the citizens of Alameda County.

Objective 1: To insure sufficient water supplies of high quality for all beneficial uses.

Objective 2: To conserve ground water resources and prevent overdraft of existing ground water supplies.

Objective 4: To reduce man-caused stream and ground water pollution and general resource degeneration through cumulative impacts on surface and ground water systems.

Objective 5: To maintain all water resources in their highest quality.

Objective 6: To educate government, business and citizens to assist in the conservation of water and energy and to minimize pollution.

Objective 7: Through sound design of drainage systems throughout the County and by regulation of land use, erosion or soil caused by water could be controlled.

Objective 8: To achieve coordination of state, regional, and local water management agencies and policies throughout the County.

South Livermore Valley Area Plan
The County’s South Livermore Valley Area Plan (SLVAP) provides the policy context for the SLVAP Area to achieve its vision for water conservation and utility infrastructure. The SLVAP Area includes all portions of the project alignment that are outside city limits. The SLVAP identifies sources of water supply in the SLVAP Area, and various policies intended to manage utility infrastructure.

SLVAP policies relevant to the proposed project include the following (County of Alameda 2003):

The County shall consult with the appropriate water purveyor.

Annexation and Urban Development Policy 2: Require any urban development proposal within the Vineyard Area to meet the following criteria, at a minimum:

A. All necessary public utilities and services are available.

B. The project will contribute funds for a recycled water treatment system. Contributions should equal or exceed the cost of providing recycled water equal in volume to 120% of anticipated water use of the development.

EXHIBIT A
344
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-11
City of Livermore General Plan 2003-2025
Chapter 7, Infrastructure and Public Services Element, of the City’s General Plan provides the policy context for Livermore to achieve its vision for water conservation and utility infrastructure. The chapter identifies regional sources of water supply in Livermore, and various goals and policies intended to protect water supply and water quality. General Plan goals and policies relevant to the proposed project include the following (City of Livermore 2015):

Goal INF-1: Provide sufficient water supplies and facilities to serve the City in the most efficient and financially sound manner, while maintaining the highest standards required to enhance the quality of life for existing and future residents.

Policy INF-1.1 P1: Potable water shall be available to the City’s residents and businesses.

Policy INF-1.1 P2: The City shall maintain a water system capable of sustaining required fire flows at all times. The City shall work with California Water Service Company to insure its system also meets required fire flows.

Policy INF-1.1 P3: Support the development of additional sources of irrigation water for vineyards and other cultivated agriculture by investigating recycled water and development of other supply and delivery resources.

Policy INF-1.1 P5: Development will not result in a reduction of water quality below those standards set forth in State and federal laws and regulations.

Policy INF-1.2 P3: Structures with plumbing that are located within City limits shall connect to the water system, unless distance from public water system or other factors indicate a need for an exemption.

Policy INF-1.3 P2: Projects deemed appropriate for the use of recycled water shall be required to use recycled water, when available, for uses outlined in the State Water Code.

Policy INF-1.3 P3: The City shall adopt a series of Best Management Practices for water conservation measures that will be mandatory in new development and strongly encouraged in existing developments.

Goal INF-2: Collect, treat and dispose of wastewater in ways that are safe, sanitary, environmentally acceptable and financially sound while maintaining the highest standards required to enhance the quality of life for existing and future residents.

Policy INF-2.1 P1: Municipal sewer treatment shall be available to the City’s residents and businesses.

Policy INF-2.1 P3: The approval of new development shall be conditioned on the availability of adequate long-term capacity of wastewater treatment, conveyance and disposal sufficient to service the proposed development.

Policy INF-2.1 P4: The City shall implement a wastewater disposal master plan designed to provide for the disposal of peak wet weather flows anticipated under the current vision of the General Plan. No new development entitlements shall be granted once the Average Dry Weather Flow reaches 7.0 million gallons per day at the Water Reclamation Plant until a master plan for sewer has been adopted that addresses the capacity shortfall, including a schedule for implementation.

EXHIBIT A
345
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.2-12
Policy INF-2.1 P5: All new development shall demonstrate to the City that the downstream sanitary sewer system is adequately sized and has sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated sewage flows. If the downstream mains are found to be inadequate, the developer shall provide additional facilities to accept the additional sewage expected to be generated by the development.

Policy INF-2.1 P6: Structures with plumbing that are located within City limits shall connect to the public wastewater collection system, unless topography, or distance from the public sewer system indicate a need for an exemption.

Policy INF-2.1 P7: Major sewer collection and transmission systems shall be carefully planned where they cross a seismic fault. They shall cross at right angles, or nearly so, be accessible for rapid repair, and be provided with safety features such as automatic switches, expansion joints and sufficient drop between manholes to accommodate vertical displacement across faults. Other equipment shall be provided to ensure minimal adverse impact on adjacent and surrounding areas and to facilitate restoration of service in the event of fault displacement.

Policy INF-2.1 P8: Sewer collection and transmission systems shall be designed and constructed in such a manner as to minimize potential inflow and infiltration.

Policy INF-2.1 P9: The criteria used to design the sanitary sewer system shall be in the master plan prepared for sewer as well as the guidelines for facilities planning, including reliance on gravity drainage to minimize pumping to the extent feasible and basing pipe size on the wet weather flow required pursuant to the master plan prepared for sewer.

Policy INF-2.1 P10: All new development projects shall be responsible for construction of a sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system as part of the Citywide infrastructure plan. This system shall be designed to serve developments within the approved General Plan only and shall not be extended to serve uses outside of the Urban Area.

Policy INF-2.1 P11: The sanitary sewer system shall be designed and constructed in such a manner as to minimize potential environmental impacts.

Goal INF-3: Collect, store and dispose of stormwater in ways that are safe, sanitary, environmentally acceptable and financially sound while maintaining the highest standards required to enhance the quality of life for existing and future residents.

Policy INF 3.1 P1: Design local storm drainage improvements to carry appropriate design-year flows resulting from build out of the General Plan.

Policy INF 3.1 P3: The City shall take all necessary measures to regulate runoff from urban uses to protect the quality of surface and ground-waters and other resources from detrimental conditions.

Goal INF-4: Provide utilities in ways that are safe, environmentally acceptable and financially sound.

Policy INF-4.1 P1: The City shall ensure that utilities, including electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and cable, are available or can be provided to serve the projected population within the City in a manner which is fiscally and environmentally responsible, aesthetically acceptable to the community, and safe for residents. However, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the utilities are available to support new development rests on the sponsor of proposed projects.

EXHIBIT A
346
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-13
Policy INF-4.2 P2: Process permits and approvals for utility expansions in a fair and timely manner in accordance with the expansion of new development.

South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Chapter 8, Public Utilities Element, of the City’s SLVSP provides the policy context for the SLVSP Area to achieve its vision for water conservation and utility infrastructure. The chapter identifies sources of water supply in the SLVSP Area, and various policies intended to manage utility infrastructure.

SLVSP policies relevant to the proposed project include the following (City of Livermore 1997):

Policy 8-1: City shall request that its water supply be augmented to allow development of up to an average of 200 units per year in accordance with the growth management policies of the Specific Plan. The City shall impose a condition on all tentative maps that prior to approval of a final subdivision map that (1) Zone 7 has agreed to provide the water supplier for the uses permitted by the map, an adequate and permanent domestic water supply and an emergency firefighting supply sufficient to service the proposed development and (2) the quality of the domestic water meets all applicable state and local standards. The City shall deny approval of a tentative subdivision map unless, at the time of tentative map approval, the City determines that the domestic water supply and emergency firefighting supply available from Zone 7 is sufficient to serve all existing domestic uses within the City and uses that may be permitted in accordance with the number of units available for allocation pursuant to the city’s growth management program. Development that requires agricultural mitigation shall be prohibited if adequate and permanent irrigation water is unavailable for the land to be used for agricultural mitigation.

Policy 8-2: City shall condition adoption of individual development proposals for the planning area on adequate delineation of the capacity, phasing, and financing of required domestic water system improvements, including the full cost of securing, conveying, and storing new water sources. The City shall work with Zone 7 to determine water supply needs and sources.

Policy 8-5: New development in the Specific Plan area shall contribute funds for a recycled water treatment and distribution system. Each unit shall pay an additional 20% of the Zone 7 water connection fee to support the City's use of reclaimed water.

Goal: Provide an adequate, efficient, and environmentally compatible sanitary sewer system for the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan area.

Policy 8-13: Adequate sewage treatment and export capacity to accommodate Specific Plan development shall be reserved at the time of Specific Plan adoption.

Policy 8-14: The City shall investigate alternative methods for municipal sewage treatment and disposal, and give priority to alternatives which utilize water recycling or reclamation, such as the City's demonstration Reverse Osmosis plant.

Policy 8-16: In accordance with the polices of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board policies, on-site wastewater treatment systems, such as package plants and septic systems, will be prohibited within the Specific Plan area, except that on-site septic systems that conform with the policies of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board and Zone 7 policies may be permitted for uses outside of the City's Urban Growth Boundary.

EXHIBIT A
347
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.2-14
Livermore Municipal Code
Chapter 8.08 of the Livermore Municipal Code provides solid waste management provisions for the City and Chapter 13.32 discusses the City’s provisions for wastewater collection and treatment.

Specifically, Chapter 13.32 regulates direct and indirect discharge into the wastewater collection and treatment systems by establishing standards of discharge through regulations as necessary to control the quality and quantity of wastewater entering the system, to comply with all applicable state and federal laws required by the Clean Water Act and the general pretreatment regulations.

Chapter 8.08 finds that a recyclable materials and compostable materials collection and processing program is necessary for the City to achieve the diversion goals mandated by the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. In addition, is also establishes regulations to properly store and dispose of solid waste safely.

4.2.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Assessment of impacts is based on review of site information and conditions, pertinent analysis provided in the 1997 EIR, analysis provided in the CLWD’s current UWMP, and City information regarding utility-related issues, including water supply and facilities, wastewater facilities, and solid waste. For the purposes of this
Supplemental EIR and in accordance with the environmental checklist contained in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, a utilities and service systems impact is considered significant if the project would:

Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple-dry years.

Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Not comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
b. Prior Environmental Analysis
Chapter 4.9 (Public Services) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the SLVSP’s impacts related to water supplies and wastewater treatment capacity. The 1997 EIR does not address the issues of construction or relocation of stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities; sufficient water supplies during normal, dry, and multiple dry years; or of solid waste generation.

The project would involve the construction of new sewer pipelines that were not analyzed in the 1997 EIR and could therefore result in new impacts related to utilities and service systems.

Therefore, all the CEQA checklist items listed above under the Methodology and Significance Thresholds section are addressed in this analysis.

EXHIBIT A
348
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-15
c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Threshold 3: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Impact UTIL-1 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT INDUCE UNANTICIPATED GROWTH IN THE CITY OR

SURROUNDING AREA BECAUSE IT WOULD SERVE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND SLVSP. FURTHER, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT DIRECTLY RESULT IN WASTEWATER GENERATION; HOWEVER, THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE WASTEWATER IN THE CITY’S CONVEYANCE AND

TREATMENT SYSTEM BY REPLACING SEPTIC SYSTEMS AS THE PRIMARY TREATMENT METHOD OF PARCELS ALONG THE PROJECT ALIGNMENT. IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT RELATED TO WATER, WASTEWATER,

STORMWATER, ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT; HOWEVER, WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITY IMPACTS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE SLVSP WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE, CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS IN THE 1997 EIR.

Water
Water would be required for temporary construction activities on the project alignment, including dust suppression, grading and grubbing, compaction, construction equipment wheel washing, and concrete mixing and casting. Water consumption by construction workers and cleaning of portable toilets on the project alignment may also account for a small portion of overall construction water demand.

Watering for dust suppression would demand the most water during construction. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has not established a quantitative threshold for fugitive dust emissions but rather states that projects that incorporate BMPs for fugitive dust control during construction, such as watering exposed surfaces and limiting vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour, would have a less than significant impact related to fugitive dust emissions. The project would be required to include implementation of these BMPs consistent with Objective OSC-6.1 Policy 1 in City’s General Plan (2015).

This small amount of water would be similar to other construction projects in the vicinity and would result in a similar temporary impact. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.2.1, Setting, there are adequate supplies available and the project would not include installation of new lateral extensions, valves, or other appurtenances for potable water; project operation would not require water supply. Lastly, the project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the General Plan and SLVSP.

As such, no change to existing operations is expected to result from the project. The project would facilitate the development potential consistent with the General Plan and SLVSP, which could result in the construction of event center-type facilities and domestic water use on wineries adjacent to the project alignment. The additional water demand from this development potential would not

EXHIBIT A
349

4. 2-16

1 De
finition: the amount of dissolved oxygen that must be present in water for microorganisms to decompose the organic matter in the water, used as a measure of the degree of pollution.

C
ity of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project
include increased water demand for agricultural uses, as the land adjacent to the project alignment is already in active agricultural use.

The 1
997 E
IR concluded that Z
one 7 does not have a
dequate capacity to accommodate increased
water d
emand from development potential of the SL
VSP b
ut that p
otential impacts from the
construction of water infrastructure would be less than significant. Since the project would n ot
result in an increase in the development potential of s ites w
ithin the SLVSP a
nd General P
lan area,
impacts related to w
ater supplies and water infrastructure w
ould not be more severe than those
analyzed in the 1
997 E
IR. T
herefore, p
roposed project w
ould not result in the relocation or
construction of new w
ater infrastructure, and i
mpacts w
ould be less than significant; however,
impacts from t
he development potential of the General Plan and SLVSP would remain s ignificant
and unavoidable. P
ursuant to C
EQA Guidelines Se
ction 15162(a)(3) a
nd Section 15163(a), because
the proposed project would not result in a significant effect that is substantially more severe than determined i
n the 1997 EIR, n
o additional mitigation measures would be required.

Wastewater Treatment
The project would i
nvolve an extension of e
xisting City sewer lines and t
he project itself w
ould not
generate wastewater d
uring construction or operation. However, the project would enable increased w
astewater in the system by replacing septic systems as the primary treatment method.

Approximately 5 miles of sewer lines would be installed and would support the existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP. T he expanded sewer
facilities would allow existing wineries to connect to the City’s wastewater system. Su bject to
necessary approvals, the project would also allow existing residences to connect to the City’s wastewater system and cease the use of their on-site septic systems. T he project would also allow
new development that is located along the sewer alignment and consistent with the General Plan and SLVSP to connect to the expanded sewer facilities. T his would result in an increase in
wastewater transported to and treated at the LWRP, consistent with the development potential of the adjacent parcels pursuant to the General Plan and SLVSP.

Most o
f a winery’s typical w
astewater generation occurs during the crush season (
between
September and November), b
ased on the w
eather f
rom year to year a
s well as w
inery size
(HydroScience 2022). T
he highest organic loading that could impact facilities a t the LWRP would
occur during the crush season. T
otal p
eak s
ewer flow from all existing uses t
hat could potentially
discharge t
o the L
WRP w
ith implementation of the proposed project i
s estimated at 1
06,464 g
allons
per day during crush season. P
eak sewer flow during crush season could increase to 141,335 gallons per day when buildout occurs along the sewer alignment. Peak sewer flows from the sewer expansion are predicted outside the crush season during wet w eather. Peak wet weather sewer
flows are estimated at 308,800 gallons per day and peak ultimate wet weather flows are estimated at 396,000 gallons per day. These peak wet weather flows are used to analyze impacts to the existing sewer collection system. A preliminary analysis indicates that, with implementation of the Bottleneck Project, t
he existing sewer c
onveyance s
ystem could handle the estimated peak wet
weather instantaneous flow (
HydroScience 2022).

Untreated sewer flows during crush and bottling a
ctivities have a b
iochemical o
xygen d
emand1 t
hat
is 14 to 28 times h
igher t
han typical residential sewage. Based on the 2012 WRP Plant Master Plan, the primary clarifiers and aeration tanks at the L
WRP c
ould handle an additional 400,000 gallons per
day of average dry weather residential wastewater, or approximately 1 4,000 gallons per day of

EXHIBIT A
350
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-17
untreated winery sewage beyond currently projected General Plan buildout flows (City of Livermore 2021c). The preliminary analysis estimates that existing flows from South Livermore Valley wineries along the proposed sewer expansion alignment are approximately 33,715 gallons per day (HydroScience 2022). Therefore, untreated organic flows from wineries could overload the treatment processes at the LWRP. Livermore Municipal Code Section 13.32.060 prohibits discharge into the City’s system that would interfere with the performance or operation of the LWRP.

Therefore, pre-treatment of the organic flows from wineries that apply for a sewer connection to the proposed system may be required upon City approval of future connections to the proposed alignment to reduce the potential for the increased sewer flows to overload the treatment processes at the LWRP.

The project is intended to support uses that are consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, SLVAP or current zoning, and subject to Alameda County Measure D; should development on adjacent parcels that is not consistent with existing land use designations and zoning be proposed, additional environmental review would be required and, potentially, amendments to the governing land use plans and zoning. Furthermore, the project would comply with General Plan Goal INF-2 and all policies under Goal INF-2 as shown above in Section 4.2.2. These policies support the goal to collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater in ways that are safe, sanitary, environmentally acceptable, and financially sound while maintaining the highest standards required to enhance the quality of life for existing and future residents.

The 1997 EIR concluded that the LWRP would require expansion to accommodate increased wastewater generated from development potential of the SLVSP; however, potential impacts from the construction of wastewater infrastructure would be less than significant since they would be constructed during the construction of new streets and installation of other utilities. Since the project would not result in an increase in the development potential of sites within the SLVSP and General Plan area, impacts related to wastewater capacity would not be more severe than those analyzed in the 1997 EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of wastewater infrastructure, and impacts would be less than significant; however, impacts from the development potential of the General Plan and SLVSP would remain significant and unavoidable. The impacts of organics in sewage from wine production on the treatment processes at the LWRP would need to be studied further to determine whether and what level of pre-treatment by individual users would be required. The City would conduct infrastructure analysis as part of the comprehensive 2045 General Plan Update and corresponding Sewer Master Plan Update, which would determine the types and thresholds of any necessary and future LWRP improvements needed to support city-wide wastewater treatment needs.

Stormwater Drainage
As discussed in Section 4.1, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would maintain the same area of impervious surfaces because no buildings would be constructed as a result of the proposed project, and the project would not create unanticipated growth in its vicinity. The existing stormwater drainage system would not be modified by the project, and the repaved roadways would convey stormwater runoff to existing stormwater drainage systems consistent with existing conditions. In addition, no new drainage facilities would be needed, and the amount of surface runoff would not increase as a result of the project. Therefore, the project would not result in the relocation or construction of new stormwater drainage infrastructure, and impacts would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT A
351
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.2-18
Electricity and Natural Gas
The project would not involve any components requiring electrical or natural gas service to the project alignment during both construction and operation. There would be no impacts with respect to new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities. Additionally, the project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, and SLVAP, in conformance with Alameda County Measure D. Therefore, the project would not result in the relocation or construction of new electricity or natural gas infrastructure, and impacts would be less than significant.

Telecommunications
The project would not involve any components requiring telecommunications infrastructure and would not involve the relocation of existing telecommunications facilities. Additionally, the project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, and SLVAP, in conformance with Alameda County Measure D. Therefore, the project would not result in the relocation or construction of new telecommunications infrastructure, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required for the proposed project.

None adopted in the 1997 EIR related to the development potential of the SLVSP.

Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant without mitigation for the proposed project.

Significant and unavoidable water and wastewater facility impacts in the 1997 EIR related to the development potential of the SLVSP.

Threshold 2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Impact UTIL-2 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT DIRECTLY RESULT IN INCREASED WATER DEMAND. BASED ON CAL WATER’S WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS, PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES ARE SUFFICIENT TO

MEET THE ANTICIPATED WATER DEMAND OF REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT DURING NORMAL, DRY, AND MULTIPLE DRY YEARS, AS SHOWN IN TABLE 4.2-3 AND TABLE 4.2-4. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

In order to mitigate potentially significant construction dust impacts, the City would require implementation of the BAAQMD's basic construction dust control measures as conditions of approval for all individual development projects or infrastructure improvement contracts in the SLVSP area which includes watering areas at least twice daily. This would result in demand for small quantities of water during construction. However, water demand would be temporary and would not result in a long-term strain on water supplies. Given the temporary and minimal nature of construction water demand, impacts related to construction water consumption would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT A
352
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-19
The project would support existing and future permitted uses to achieve the vision of the General Plan, SLVSP, and SLVAP, in conformance with Alameda County Measure D. As a result, the project would not indirectly cause unanticipated growth in the area. Therefore, no significant increase in demand on water supplies would occur under project operation. Furthermore, as shown in Table 4.2-3, the 2020 UWMP shows that Cal Water will have sufficient water supplies to meet the City’s water demand through 2045 for normal, single dry, and multiple dry year scenarios. Cal Water’s 2020 UWMP considers all urban water demand from the development potential described in the City’s General Plan; therefore, the 2020 UWMP projections of adequate water during normal, single dry, and multiple dry year scenarios incorporate the potential development of wineries and residences along the project alignment. Similarly, Zone 7’s 2020 UWMP considers all agricultural irrigation water demand in the vicinity of the City and projects adequate water for agricultural uses along the project alignment (refer to Table 4.2-4). The project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, and SLVAP, in conformance with Alameda County Measure D.

Therefore, there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 4: Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Threshold 5: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Impact UTIL-3 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATE SOLID WASTE IN EXCESS OF STATE OR LOCAL STANDARDS, OR IN EXCESS OF THE CAPACITY OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE. THE PROJECT WOULD NOT IMPAIR

THE ATTAINMENT OF SOLID WASTE REDUCTION GOALS AND WOULD COMPLY WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO SOLID WASTE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Project construction would generate construction debris, including concrete, asphalt, and land- clearing debris. Approximately 2,140 cubic yards of asphalt is anticipated to be exported. The project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. In accordance with 2016 CALGreen requirements, the project would be required to achieve a minimum of 65 percent diversion rate for construction waste. The project would also comply with the City’s Solid Waste Ordinance, codified in LMC Chapter 8.08, which establishes regulations to properly store and dispose of solid waste safely. Pursuant to applicable regulatory requirements, the project would comply with construction waste BMPs to divert a minimum of 50 percent of construction and demolition debris and 100 percent of concrete, asphalt, and land- clearing debris. Furthermore, the project would not involve the development of solid waste- generating uses and project construction would generate minimal solid waste that would not exceed the capacity of the landfills, as shown in Table 4.2-5. Additionally, the project would not

EXHIBIT A
353
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.2-20
induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, and SLVAP, in conformance with Alameda County Measure D. Because the project would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure and would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant without mitigation.

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]).
a. Water
The geographic scope for cumulative water supply impacts is the Cal Water Livermore District service area, which includes areas located in eastern Alameda County, including the Livermore- Amador Valley. This geographic scope is appropriate because, as the local water purveyor, Cal Water is responsible for supplying potable water to all residential, commercial, industrial, and fire protection uses within its service area, including the project site. Development that is considered part of the cumulative analysis includes construction of nearby projects in Livermore and Alameda County that would be served by Cal Water. Land uses include residential, mixed-use development, senior living facilities, residential care facilities, commercial retail, and agricultural.

Cumulative development in the Cal Water service area would continue to increase demands on water supplies. By 2045, Cal Water anticipates a total normal year demand of 9,632 acre feet per year, an increase of 61 acre feet per year from the anticipated 2020 demands (Cal Water 2021). This anticipated increase in demand is based on planned and pending future development included in the 2020 UWMP. A substantial portion of the cumulative projects included in this analysis, as well as the project site, therefore, at least a portion of the cumulative water demand associated with these projects is accounted for in Cal Water’s demand projections in the 2020 UWMP.

As demonstrated in Impact UTIL-2, above, the project would account require small quantities of water during construction, which would not affect Cal Water’s excess water supply during all normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2040 and water demand from project construction would be both near-term and temporary. Cal Water has projected that it will be able to fulfill future demand associated with planned, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Cal Water service area. Furthermore, future projects would be required to obtain service commitments from Cal Water prior to construction, and those meeting the definition of a project pursuant to SB 610 would be required to prepare project specific Water Supply Assessments. As such, cumulative impacts related to water would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT A
354
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-21
b. Wastewater
The geographic scope for cumulative wastewater facilities impacts is the service area for the LWRP, which includes areas throughout Livermore and portions of the unincorporated County (City of Livermore 2022). This geographic scope is appropriate because the LWRP would receive wastewater flows from sites that would connect to the project alignment. Impacts would be cumulatively significant if cumulative development in the service area would exceed the capacity of the LWRP.

As described in Impact UTIL-1, the LWRP can currently treat approximately up to 8.5 million gallons per day and treats an average of 2.3 billion gallons of wastewater each year from throughout the Livermore area. Planned, pending, and reasonably foreseeable development would continue to increase demands on the existing wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities in the LWRP service area. However, the project itself would not generate additional wastewater and would solely convey wastewater. As such, the project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, and SLVAP, in conformance with Alameda County Measure D. Furthermore, in accordance with Policy 3 under Goal INF-2.1 of the General Plan, future projects would be required to obtain commitments from the City of Livermore to provide wastewater treatment services prior to construction, which would be dependent on remaining treatment capacity at the LWRP.

Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with wastewater services would be less than significant. c. Stormwater
Cumulative impacts to stormwater/drainage facilities are discussed in Section 4.1, Hydrology and Water Quality. Individual projects would be subject to the stormwater capture and treatment requirements of the applicable MS4 Permit, reducing potential impacts to stormwater drainage facilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts to stormwater/drainage facilities would be less than significant.
d. Solid Waste
The geographic scope for cumulative solid waste impacts encompasses all areas in the region that contribute solid waste to the following landfills: Altamont Landfill, Fink Road Landfill, North County Landfill and Recycling Center, Potrero Hills Landfill, Recology Hay Road Landfill, Redwood Landfill and Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. This geographic scope is appropriate because, as discussed in Section 4.2.1, Setting, 98 percent of the City’s solid waste was sent to those seven landfills. These landfills would receive project-generated solid waste and, consequently, the project would contribute to capacity constraints at these solid waste disposal facilities.

Planned, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the service area of these seven landfills would result in increased solid waste generation. As discussed in detail under Impact UTIL-3, the project does not propose the development of any solid waste-generating uses and project construction would generate minimal solid waste that would not exceed the capacity of the landfills (CalRecycle 2021a). Compliance with applicable solid waste regulations and, for projects in Livermore, General Plan policies that would maintain or improve upon solid waste diversion rates.

Other cities in the region are also subject to solid waste diversion requirements and implementation of waste diversion programs and policies in order to meet State-mandated solid waste diversion rates. For example, AB 939 requires cities to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills. Given the nominal fraction of annual throughput accounted for by the project and local, regional, and

EXHIBIT A
355
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4.2-22
statewide efforts to improve solid waste diversion rates, cumulative impacts to solid waste facilities would be less than significant.
e. Electric Power and Natural Gas Facilities
The geographic scope for cumulative electricity and natural gas impacts is the service boundary of PG&E. This geographic scope is appropriate because local providers are responsible for providing adequate electricity and natural gas infrastructure to all land uses within Livermore, including parcels along the project alignment. Cumulative development projects would be subject to applicable local, regional, State, and federal policies regarding energy efficiency, in turn reducing the need for new or expanded electrical and natural gas facilities. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
f. Telecommunication
The geographic scope for cumulative telecommunications impacts is the service boundary of local telecommunications providers, such as SBC Pacific Bell, Verizon, Metro, and Comcast Corporation.

This geographic scope is appropriate because local providers are responsible for providing adequate telecommunication infrastructure to all land uses within the City and surrounding area, including the project site.

As discussed above under Impact UTIL-1, the project would not involve undergrounding of telecommunications lines. Cumulative development would increase demand for telecommunications infrastructure in Livermore. However, cumulative projects would each be required to provide adequate telecommunications infrastructure upgrades on a project-by-project basis and would be subject to the appropriate level of project-specific environmental review. As with the project, such upgrades would typically be expected to occur within the development footprints of other cumulative projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to telecommunications infrastructure would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT A
356
Other CEQA Required Discussions

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-1
5 Other CEQA Required Discussions
This section discusses growth-inducing impacts, irreversible environmental impacts, and energy impacts that would be caused by the proposed project.

5.1 Growth Inducement
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d) requires a discussion of a proposed project’s potential to foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment.

However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant adverse environmental effects. The proposed project’s growth-inducing potential is therefore considered significant if project-induced growth could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas.

5.1.1 Population Growth
As determined by the California Department of Finance and the Association of Bay Area Governments, Livermore has an estimated population of 91,216 with 33,004 housing units and the population growth forecast is 112,905 households by 2040 and 847,000 households in Alameda County by 2050 (California Department of Finance 2021, Association of Bay Area Governments 2021). As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 14, Population and Housing, of the Initial Study (Appendix IS), the proposed project would not induce unanticipated growth in Livermore or the surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the General Plan and SLVSP. The project would not result in an increase in population above the projections provided in the 1997 EIR (population of 4,160 people in the SLVSP area from the development potential of the SLVSP). Therefore, the project would not cause unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area. The proposed project would not involve the construction of residences and would not generate new jobs in the City, aside from temporary construction jobs, which would be expected to be drawn from the existing regional work force. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial unplanned growth, directly or indirectly.

5.1.2 Economic Growth
The proposed project would generate temporary employment opportunities during construction.

Because construction workers would be expected to be drawn from the existing regional work force, project construction would not be growth-inducing from a temporary employment standpoint. The proposed project would not induce substantial economic expansion to the extent that direct physical environmental effects would result. The project would amend the UGB language to allow the extension of sanitary sewer lines to serve adjacent parcels containing residences and wineries located within and near the City of Livermore. The expansion of wineries to meet existing development potential that is currently constrained by septic system limitations would contribute to the region’s economy and is considered economic growth. However, the project is intended to support uses that are consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, and/or current zoning. Should development on adjacent parcels that is not consistent with existing land use designations and zoning be proposed, additional environmental review would be required. Because the project would

EXHIBIT A
357
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

5-2
serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP, no unanticipated economic growth would occur as a result of the project.

5.1.3 Removal of Obstacles to Growth
The project would amend the UGB language to allow the extension of sanitary sewer lines to serve adjacent parcels containing residences and wineries located within and near the City of Livermore.

These adjacent parcels are currently constrained from meeting their development potential by septic systems, as the County Department of Environmental Health is not allowing for the expansion of existing septic systems or installation of new septic systems in this area due to documented groundwater quality issues. The project would involve the construction of sanitary sewer lines that would remove this development constraint, allowing adjacent parcels to meet their existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP, the impacts of which were studied in the 1997 EIR. While the project would remove an obstacle to growth along the alignment, it would not result in unforeseen new construction or associated environmental impacts along the alignment. The project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP. Should development on adjacent parcels that is not consistent with existing land use designations and zoning be proposed, City or County approval of ordinance and/or plan amendments may be required, and additional environmental review would be required. Because the project would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP, no unanticipated growth would occur as a result of the project.

5.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects
The CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs contain a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes. This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed uses, and irreversible impacts associated with the proposed project.

Project construction would involve an irreversible commitment of construction materials and non- renewable energy resources. Construction would involve the use of materials and energy, some of which are non-renewable resources, to construct the expanded sewer lines. Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and is not unique to the proposed project.

The proposed project would also irreversibly increase local demand for non-renewable energy resources such as petroleum products during construction. However, energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the region. In addition, construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel vehicles from idling for more than 5 minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. Pursuant to applicable regulatory requirements, the project would comply with construction waste BMPs to divert a minimum of 50 percent of construction and demolition debris and 100 percent of concrete, asphalt, and land-clearing debris. These practices would result in efficient use of energy necessary to construct the project. Furthermore, in the interest of cost-efficiency, construction contractors would not utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary.

EXHIBIT A
358
Other CEQA Required Discussions

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-3
Consequently, the project would not use unusual amounts of energy or construction materials and impacts related to consumption of non-renewable and slowly renewable resources would be less than significant. Again, consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and is not unique to the proposed project.

Additional vehicle trips associated with project construction would incrementally increase local traffic and regional air pollutant and GHG emissions. However, as discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 3, Air Quality, and Environmental Checklist Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Initial Study (Appendix IS), project construction would not generate air quality or GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact. Project operation would not increase energy use in the form of electricity or gasoline and diesel fuel consumption. The project would not result in unanticipated growth in the vicinity; no change to existing operations would result from the project.

Additionally, Environmental Checklist Section 17, Transportation and Traffic, of the Initial Study (Appendix IS) concluded that the proposed project would not change the existing roadways, increase commercial or residential development in the area, generate growth, or create an increase in traffic in the project vicinity. Project operation would not generate vehicle trips, and there would be no change to existing roadways or increase in vehicle miles travelled.

The project would not involve construction of residences and would not generate new jobs in the City; therefore, the project would not increase the demand for fire, police, or other public services beyond what is anticipated in the City’s General Plan and SLVSP, the impacts of which were studied in the 1997 EIR. Therefore, as discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 15, Public Services, of the Initial Study (Appendix IS) and Section 4.2, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Supplemental EIR, impacts to public and utility service systems would not be significant. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. The analysis contained in this Supplemental EIR concludes that the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts.

EXHIBIT A
359
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

5-4

This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
360
Alternatives

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-1
6 Alternatives
As required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, this Supplemental EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts. As described in Section 2, Project Description, the objectives for the proposed project, are as follows:
 Improve groundwater quality in the South Livermore Valley area relative to nitrates, which is associated with residential septic systems and livestock keeping  Facilitate the development potential of existing and new wineries, visitor serving commercial uses, and residences consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, and SLVAP subject to Alameda County Measure D
 Enhance the short- and long-term economic viability of agriculture and viticulture in the South Livermore Valley area, consistent with Goals LU-13 and LU-14 of the City’s General Plan Included in this analysis are three alternatives, including the CEQA-required “no project” alternative, that involve changes to the project that may reduce the project-related environmental impacts as identified in this Supplemental EIR. Alternatives have been developed to provide a reasonable range of options to consider that would help decision makers and the public understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed project. The following alternatives are evaluated in this Supplemental EIR:
 Alternative 1: No Project/No Construction
 Alternative 2: No Project/On-Site Wastewater Treatment  Alternative 3: Alternative Alignment
Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are included in the impact analysis for each alternative. The potential environmental impacts of each alternative are analyzed in Sections 6.1 through 6.3.

6.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Construction

6.1.1 Description
Alternative 1 assumes that the UGB language revision is not approved by a majority of voters, and that the proposed pipeline and upsizing of existing pipeline along East Avenue are not constructed.

The current uses of adjacent parcels for residential and agricultural uses would continue, and wastewater would continue to be discharged to on-site septic systems. Parcels adjacent to the alignment are constrained from growth by existing septic systems, which are not eligible for expansion due to water quality concerns in the county. Alternative 1 would not achieve any project objectives because groundwater quality would not be improved in the South Livermore Valley, it would be economically infeasible for existing wineries and residences to realize their development potential under the General Plan and SLVSP, and the economic viability of agriculture and viticulture in the region would not be enhanced.

EXHIBIT A
361
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

6-2

6.1.2 Impact Analysis
a. Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 1 would maintain the existing UGB, which would not allow for the construction of sewer pipeline outside of City limits. As a result, activities such as removal of the existing roadbed, grading and excavation, installation of the new sewer pipe, backfilling of the trench, and repaving would not take place. Alternative 1 would avoid the potential water quality impacts associated with construction and upsizing of the pipelines. However, Alternative 1 would not allow residential and agricultural parcels adjacent to the project alignment to connect to the City’s wastewater system, and wastewater would continue to be discharged to on-site septic systems. Therefore, groundwater quality would not improve in the South Livermore Valley area. Overall, Alternative 1 would have less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. However, this alternative would result in increased impacts to hydrology and water quality compared to the project due to the continued groundwater impacts resulting from discharging wastewater to on-site septic systems. b. Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 1 would result in no construction activities and would not facilitate the development potential of sites adjacent to the alignment. Alternative 1 would not result in additional demand for water from temporary construction activities and development of adjacent sites. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 1 would result in no changes to operational stormwater runoff.

Neither Alternative 1 nor the proposed project would require expanded electric power, natural gas facilities, or telecommunications infrastructure. Alternative 1 would not result in an increase in water demand or wastewater generation; therefore, the demand for wastewater treatment facilities would not increase. In addition, Alternative 1 would not generate solid waste from construction. Therefore, impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant under Alternative 1, and reduced as compared to the proposed project. c. Other CEQA Topics
Overall, Alternative 1 would maintain the existing conditions along the project alignment and construction activities would not occur. As a result, there would be no impact to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, public services, recreation, or wildfire, similar to the project.

Alternative 1 would not involve the construction or expansion of new residences or businesses, nor would it extend existing roadways. This alternative would not achieve the development potential of the SLVSP and would therefore not be consistent with the SLVSP development goals for the South Livermore Valley. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not support uses that are consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, or current zoning and impacts to population and housing would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Alternative 1 would not result in construction activities along the alignment and would therefore eliminate the potential for emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHG) associated with construction, resulting in reduced impacts related to air quality and GHG emissions as compared to the proposed project. Similarly, Alternative 1 would not require energy to power construction equipment or worker vehicles, resulting in reduced impacts to energy as compared to the proposed project. Alternative 1 would result in no construction noise or groundborne vibration from construction equipment, resulting in reduced noise impacts as compared to the proposed

EXHIBIT A
362
Alternatives

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-3
project. Alternative 1 would not require implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 to reduce construction noise impacts. Impacts to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and noise would be less than significant and reduced compared to the proposed project.

Because there would be no construction associated with Alternative 1 there would be no potential for accidental spills from construction vehicles and equipment, and there would be no need to excavate or transport paving materials and soils that could possibly be contaminated by vehicle- related pollution or asbestos containing materials. Therefore, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced as compared to the proposed project. Similarly, Alternative 1 would not need to temporarily close one lane of public roadway and the Class II bicycle lane during project construction, resulting in reduced impacts related to transportation as compared to the proposed project. Impacts to hazards and hazardous materials and transportation would be less than significant and reduced compared to the proposed project.

Alternative 1 would not require ground disturbance along the project alignment, resulting in no impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, and geology and soils.

With no ground disturbance there would be no potential for disturbance of unanticipated resources, such as archeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources. Alternative 1 would not require implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, GEO-1, and TCR-1 to reduce impacts related to the unanticipated discovery of archaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources. Impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant and reduced compared to the proposed project.

6.2 Alternative 2: No Project/On-Site Wastewater
Treatment

6.2.1 Description
Alternative 2 would not require a revision to the UGB language or installation of municipal sewer pipelines. Under this alternative, individual wineries and property owners would coordinate to construct shared small-scale WWTPs to treat and dispose of additional wastewater generated by the maximum development of each property under the General Plan and SLVSP. It is anticipated that approximately five or six such small-scale WWTPs would be required to treat anticipated wastewater associated with implementation of the General Plan and SLVSP along the entire project alignment. Treated wastewater could be used for crop irrigation. It is likely that biosolids would need to be trucked off site for disposal, and the WWTPs could include lift stations, screening through a rotary screen, and equalization with automated pH aeration. Individual wineries and property owners would select the placement and design of the small-scale WWTPs. This alternative would require approvals from the County of Alameda, which would act as the CEQA lead agency for small-scale WWTPs on parcels within the unincorporated county. However, Alternative 2 would not fulfill all project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project because it would not enhance the short-term economic viability of agriculture and viticulture in the area, as the construction and installation of individual WWTPs would likely have high individual costs and have uncertain timing due to the necessary coordination between landowners and permit approval process.

EXHIBIT A
363
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

6-4

6.2.2 Impact Analysis
a. Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 2 would not result in the removal of existing roadbeds, installation of new sewer pipe, backfill of trenches, and patching pavement. However, land clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the WWTPs would occur on individual properties.

Construction of Alternative 2 would result in an overall increase in impervious surfaces due to the construction of multiple small-scale WWTPs and associated on-site facilities, unlike the proposed project. As such, the existing drainage pattern in the vicinity of the WWTPs would be altered under Alternative 2, and new localized drainage facilities may be needed to accommodate the increased amount of surface runoff. Construction of the WWTPs would require implementation of BMPs for site design and stormwater treatment along with full compliance with the Livermore Municipal Code, the goals, policies, and actions of the City’s General Plan, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s post-construction requirements for stormwater management, and mandatory CWA requirements (NPDES Construction General Permit and MS4 General Permit) if construction of a WWTP would disturb more than one acre of land, similar to the proposed project.

Alternative 2 would allow wastewater generated at adjacent residential and agricultural parcels to be treated with shared, small-scale WWTPs. The existing septic systems currently in use at these properties would be abandoned or removed, and the groundwater quality degradation associated with wastewater discharge to septic systems would be eliminated. Therefore, groundwater quality would be improved, as a result of septic system abandonment or removal, in the South Livermore Valley, similar to the proposed project. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in slightly increased impacts to hydrology and water quality as compared to the proposed project due to the increase in impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff. However, compliance with the Livermore Municipal Code, the goals, policies, and actions of the City’s General Plan, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s post-construction requirements for stormwater management, and potential mandatory CWA requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant, similar to the proposed project. b. Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 2 would result in an increased demand for electric power during operation and maintenance of the small-scale WWTPs. Alternative 2 would also result in an increase in impervious surfaces due to construction of the WWTPs, and new drainage facilities may be needed to accommodate the increased amount of surface runoff. However, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not increase the demand for natural gas facilities, or telecommunications infrastructure. Both Alternative 2 and the proposed project would result in a temporary increase in water supply needs for construction activities, such as dust suppression and concrete manufacturing. Alternative 2 would not increase the demand for wastewater treatment because this alternative would treat wastewater generated at adjacent residential and agricultural parcels with shared, small-scale WWTPs. Overall, impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant; however, impacts under Alternative 2 would be greater than the proposed project due to the incremental increase in utility service demands for operation and maintenance of the WWTPs. In addition, this alternative would not require increased treatment at the treatment plant.

EXHIBIT A
364
Alternatives

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-5
c. Other CEQA Topics
Construction of small-scale WWTPs on private properties would not alter the existing pattern of land use in the project vicinity, introduce new land uses, divide connected neighborhoods, require the use of valuable mineral resources, result in mining activities, result in population growth, result in the construction of new residences or businesses, increase the demand for public services, or exacerbate the risk of wildfire. Therefore, impacts to land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and wildfire would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project.

The small-scale WWTPs would have increased impacts on aesthetics due to the addition of new aboveground structures associated with the WWTPs. The structures associated with the WWTPs could result in partially obstructed views of the Altamont Hills and the Diablo Mountain Range from small segments of designated Scenic Routes in Livermore, such as South Livermore Road and Tesla Road. Additionally, small-scale WWTPs in the South Livermore Valley would be contrary to the vision of the General Plan and SLVSP by introducing aboveground utilities infrastructure to primarily agricultural areas. However, the WWTP infrastructure would be approximately up to one story in height and would not block such views entirely. This impact would remain less than significant; however, this impact would be greater than that of the proposed project.

This alternative could potentially convert small portions of existing agricultural land to non- agricultural uses for the small WWTPs. No forestland or timberland exists on parcels adjacent to the project alignment; therefore, this alternative would not covert forestland or timberland to non- forest use. Overall, this alternative would result in greater impacts to agriculture and forestry resources.

Construction of the small-scale WWTPs would result in temporary air quality and GHG emissions associated with construction equipment, construction worker vehicles, and heavy trucks transporting materials and soil. However, air quality and GHG emissions associated with construction of the WWTPs would be similar to the air quality and GHG emissions that would result from project construction. These impacts would remain less than significant. Operation of the WWTPs would result in long-term air quality and GHG emissions, as well as unpleasant odors generated as a result of wastewater treatment processes. Additional review of potential air quality and GHG emissions would be required, as the operation of several small-scale WWTPs may be greater than the proposed project due to the increased efficiency of treating all wastewater from the development potential of parcels in the City General Plan and SLVSP areas at one facility, as proposed under the project. Depending on the precise location of the shared WWTPs and distance to sensitive receivers, which would require further environmental review under the County prior to approval, mitigation measures related to odor control in the vicinity of the small-scale WWTP facilities may be required.

Construction activity associated with the WWTPs would generate temporary noise in the project vicinity, exposing surrounding sensitive receivers to increased noise levels. However, noise associated with construction of the WWTPs would be similar to the noise that would result from project construction, and Alternative 2 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 to reduce construction noise at the sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the WWTPs to less than significant. Nonetheless, ongoing operation of the WWTPs would result in operational noise associated with wastewater treatment, unlike the proposed project. Operation of the WWTPs would also result in an increase in energy usage, which would be needed to power the WWTPs and associated facilities during wastewater treatment. Depending on the precise location of the shared

EXHIBIT A
365
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

6-6
WWTPs and distance to sensitive receivers, which would require further environmental review under the County prior to approval, mitigation measures related to operational noise control in the vicinity of the small-scale WWTP facilities may be required. Therefore, impacts to energy and noise would be greater than the proposed project.

Construction of the small-scale WWTPs could result in ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas. Therefore, impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources would continue to require the implementation of the following Mitigation Measures to reduce impacts to less than significant:
 Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nesting Bird Avoidance and Minimization Efforts;  Mitigation Measure CR-1: Unanticipated Archaeological Resources;  Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation; and  Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources.

Overall, impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources would be greater under Alternative 2 than the proposed project.

Construction of Alternative 2 would result in the increased potential for hazardous materials exposure and releases from historic pesticide uses on the adjacent parcels. Depending on the precise location of the shared WWTPs, which would require further environmental review under the County prior to approval, mitigation measures related to the release of hazardous materials during ground disturbance may be required. Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts related to both hazards and hazardous materials, and transportation than the proposed project, due to the need for biosolids to be regularly trucked off-site for disposal. The City has established designated truck routes, including I-580 and SR 84, which would be used by the operational truck trips of biosolids under Alternative 2. Operation of Alternative 2 would comply with federal, state, and local requirements regulating the transport of hazardous materials, and the number of trips added to local roadways by Alternative 2 would be minimal, as biosolid removal would not require daily trips to each of the small-scale WWTPs. While impacts to hazards and hazardous materials and transportation would be less than significant, they would be greater than the proposed project.

6.3 Alternative 3: Alternative Alignment

6.3.1 Description
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would involve pipeline upsizing associated with the Bottleneck Project and installation of new sewer pipelines along South Livermore Avenue, Tesla Road, and Greenville Road. Instead of the proposed 5,400-LF alignment along Buena Vista Avenue from East Avenue to Tesla Road, Alternative 3 would include 3,800 LF of pipeline within agricultural land located approximately 1,200 feet east of Buena Vista Avenue, to connect to an existing pipeline in Carnegie Loop. Carnegie Loop is located northwest of Bruno Canziani Neighborhood Park. The advantage of connecting to the existing pipeline in Carnegie Loop would be that the total length of new sewer pipeline would be 1,600 LF shorter than under the proposed project and would be returned to active agricultural use after construction. Figure 6-1 shows the location of the pipeline alignment under this alternative. This alternative would require the same change to the UGB language as the proposed project. However, Alternative 3 would not achieve all of the project objectives because it would not extend municipal sewer service to existing residences along Buena Vista Avenue or reduce groundwater quality issues.

EXHIBIT A
366
Alternatives

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-7
Figure 6-1 Alternative 3 Alignment

EXHIBIT A
367
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

6-8

6.3.2 Impact Analysis
a. Hydrology and Water Quality
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would require removal of the existing roadbed, grading and excavation, installation of the new sewer pipe, backfill of the trench, and repaving on South Livermore Avenue, Tesla Road, Greenville Road, and East Avenue. No construction along Buena Vista Avenue would occur. Additionally, both the proposed project and Alternative 3 would require implementation of BMPs for site design and stormwater treatment along with full compliance with the Livermore Municipal Code, the goals, policies, and actions of the City’s General Plan, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s post-construction requirements for stormwater management, and mandatory CWA requirements (NPDES Construction General Permit and MS4 General Permit).

The alignment associated with Alternative 3 would be 1,600 LF shorter than under the proposed project; however, 3,800 LF of sewer pipeline would be constructed within active agricultural land located east of Buena Vista Avenue. With adherence to the requirements detailed in Section 4.1, Hydrology and Water Quality, Alternative 3 would result in a similar potential for temporary impacts to water quality due to runoff leaving the project alignment from grading and excavation activities or accidental leaking of fuel, oil, and lubricants from heavy construction equipment as compared to the proposed project.

Unlike the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not allow residential parcels on Buena Vista Avenue to connect to the City’s wastewater system, and wastewater would continue to be discharged to on-site septic systems. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in reduced improvements to groundwater due to the removal of septic systems as compared to the proposed project. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality; however, Alternative 3 would result in increased impacts to hydrology and water quality as compared to the proposed project.
b. Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 3 would not result in an unanticipated demand for water at the existing uses in the project vicinity, similar to the proposed project. Additionally, Alternative 3 would continue to allow runoff from the existing paved impervious surfaces along South Livermore Avenue, Tesla Road, and Greenville Road after construction, and the overall amount of surface runoff would not increase, similar to the proposed project. Since construction of Alternative 3 would not result in the addition of impervious surfaces within the agricultural land, no new drainage facilities would be required to accommodate an increased amount of surface runoff, similar to the proposed project. Also similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not require expanded electric power, natural gas facilities, or telecommunications infrastructure.

Both Alternative 3 would result in a temporary increase in water supply needs for construction activities, such as dust suppression and concrete manufacturing, similar to the proposed project.

However, implementation of Alternative 3 may require more dust suppression as compared to the proposed project due to proposed construction within active agricultural land. Alternative 3 would increase the demand for wastewater treatment from expanded residential and commercial use of the City’s wastewater system along South Livermore Avenue, Tesla Road, and Greenville Road, similar to the proposed project. Untreated organic flows from adjacent wineries could overload the treatment processes at the LWRP, as the same wineries would be able to connect to the proposed sewer extension as under the proposed project. As with the proposed project, Livermore Municipal

EXHIBIT A
368
Alternatives

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-9
Code 13.32.060 prohibits discharge into the City’s system that would interfere with the performance or operation of the LWRP. Therefore, pre-treatment of the organic flows from wineries that apply for a sewer connection to the proposed system may be required upon City approval of future connections to the proposed alignment to reduce the potential for the increased sewer flows to overload the treatment processes at the LWRP. However, Alternative 3 would result in a lesser increase in the demand for wastewater treatment, as residences along Buena Vista Avenue would not be able to connect to the City’s wastewater system under this alternative. Overall, impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and reduced in comparison to the proposed project due to the reduced increase in demand for wastewater treatment. c. Other CEQA Topics
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would require construction along existing roadways, which would result in the closure of one lane of roadway and the Class II bicycle lane at any given time. However, Alternative 3 would not require the closure of travel lanes along Buena Vista Avenue. Therefore, transportation impacts would be less than significant and slightly reduced as compared to the proposed project.

Construction under Alternative 3 would temporarily increase the use and transport of hazardous materials in the project area through the operation of vehicles and equipment and would require the excavation and transport of paving materials and soils that could possibly be contaminated by vehicle-generated pollution, as well as agricultural pesticides, to a slightly greater extent than the proposed project. Construction of Alternative 2 would also result in the increased potential for hazardous materials exposure and releases from historic pesticide uses along the portion of the proposed alignment that would be located within active agricultural land. Mitigation measures related to the release of hazardous materials during ground disturbance may be required.

Alternative 3 would result in greater impacts to hazards and hazardous materials than the proposed project.

Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not result in aboveground improvements, alter the existing pattern of land use in the project vicinity, introduce new land uses, divide connected neighborhoods, require the use of valuable mineral resources, result in mining activities, directly result in population growth, directly result in the construction of new residences or businesses, increase the demand for public services, increase the use or need for expanded recreational facilities, or exacerbate the risk of wildfire. Therefore, impacts to aesthetics, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and wildfire would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project.

Soils along the proposed alignment within agricultural land associated with Alternative 3 consist of Livermore very gravelly course sandy loam, which is considered farmland of statewide importance, as well as Pleasanton gravelly loam and Rincon loam, both of which are considered prime farmland if irrigated (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2022). Construction of Alternative 3 would not result in the permanent conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use because existing agricultural uses would continue after construction is complete; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. However, construction of the pipeline within agricultural land would result in the temporary disruption of existing agricultural uses during project construction, which would result in slightly greater impacts to agricultural resources as compared to the proposed project.

Alternative 3 would result in disturbance of land at greater depths than what has historically occurred through active agriculture. Therefore, construction of Alternative 3 would result in a greater potential for impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal

EXHIBIT A
369
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

6-10
cultural resources that would require the same mitigation measures as the proposed project (refer to Appendix IS) to reduce impacts to less than significant levels:
 Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nesting Bird Avoidance and Minimization Efforts;  Mitigation Measure CR-1: Unanticipated Archaeological Resources;  Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation; and  Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources.

Overall, Alternative 3 would have greater potential impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources than the proposed project.

The 1,600-LF reduction in total pipeline length under Alternative 3 would reduce both the construction footprint and the total days of construction. Therefore, impacts to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and noise, would be slightly reduced as compared to the proposed project.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would still be required to reduce construction noise at the sensitive residential receivers along East Avenue and South Livermore Avenue, as well as additional sensitive residential receivers on Carnegie Loop, Lawson Circle, and Hall Circle, which are located adjacent to the proposed Alternative 3 alignment within the agricultural land (Figure 6-1). Impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and noise under Alternative 3 would remain less than significant and reduced as compared to the proposed project.

6.4 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
One alternative considered included changing the location of the existing UGB boundary to allow for urban development, such as extended sewer service, to occur within a larger area in the southeast portion of the City. This change would allow for construction of the extended sewer pipeline to occur within the UGB boundary without requiring a change to the UGB language, which would require voter approval. However, a change in the location of the existing UGB boundary would also require voter approval, and this alternative would ultimately result in the same construction as the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not avoid the potential impacts anticipated under the proposed project. Because this alternative involve similar voter requirements, construction, and impacts as the proposed project, it was rejected as an alternative to the project.

6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Table 6-1 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is greater than, less than, or similar to that of the proposed project for each of the issue areas studied. Based on the alternatives analysis provided above, Alternative 1 would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the No Project Alternative is determined to be environmentally superior, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Therefore, Alternative 3 would be the environmental superior alternative, as it reduces impacts to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, noise, and utilities and service systems by shortening the linear footage of new sewer pipeline, compared to the proposed project. Overall, in comparison to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to five environmental issue areas and increase impacts to six environmental issue areas, and would result in a similar level of impact to nine environmental issue areas.

EXHIBIT A
370
Alternatives

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-11
Alternative 1 (No Project/No Construction Alternative) assumes that the UGB language revision is not approved by a majority of voters, and that the proposed pipeline and upsizing of existing pipeline along East Avenue are not constructed. Under this alternative, potential water quality impacts associated with construction and upsizing of the pipelines would not occur. Similarly, potential impacts to utilities associated with the additional demand for water from temporary construction activities and development of adjacent parcels would not occur. However, Alternative 1 would result in an overall increase in impacts to hydrology and water quality due to water quality issues associated with the degradation of groundwater from continued discharge to residential and commercial on-site septic systems. However, as no construction would occur under this alternative, the mitigation measures associated reducing construction noise, avoiding and minimizing impacts to nesting birds, and monitoring for unanticipated archeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources would not be required. Alternative 1 would not fulfill the Project Objectives because the existing conditions would not improve groundwater quality in the South Livermore Valley, existing wineries and residences would be unable to realize their development potential under the General Plan and SLVSP, and economic viability of agriculture and viticulture in the region would not be enhanced.

Alternative 2 (No Project/On-Site Wastewater Treatment) would not install new municipal sewer pipelines and would not require a revision to the UGB language. Instead, individual wineries and property owners would coordinate to construct shared small-scale WWTPs on individual properties to treat and dispose of additional wastewater generated by the maximum development potential of each property under the General Plan and SLVSP. Construction of the WWTPs would result in an increase in impervious surfaces, which could alter the existing drainage pattern in the vicinity of the facilities. As a result, new drainage facilities may be needed to accommodate the increased amount of surface runoff. Alternative 2 would also have an increased demand for electric power during operation and maintenance of the small-scale WWTPs. Therefore, this alternative is expected to have increased impacts to hydrology and water quality and utilities and service systems as compared to the proposed project. In addition, Alternative 2 would have increased impacts to aesthetics due to the addition of new aboveground structures that could result in result in obstructed views of scenic vistas from South Livermore Road and Tesla Road, which are designated Scenic Routes. Alternative 2 would also result in increased impacts to noise, air quality, GHG, and energy associated with the ongoing operation of the WWTPs. Similarly, ongoing operation of the WWTPs would require frequent truck trips for off-site disposal of biosolids, resulting in an increase in impacts to both hazards and hazardous materials and transportation as compared to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would also have increased hazards and hazardous materials impacts during construction, due to the potential release of historic agricultural pesticides. As with the proposed project, the same mitigation measures during the construction period for noise, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources would be required.

Additional mitigation measures related to odor control and operational noise control may be required during operation of the WWTPs under this alternative. Alternative 2 would not fulfill all Project Objectives because it would not enhance the short-term economic viability of agriculture and viticulture in the area, as the construction and installation of individual WWTPs would likely have high individual costs and have uncertain timing due to the necessary coordination between landowners and permit approval process.

Alternative 3 (Alternative Alignment) would involve the construction of the same segments of new and upsized pipeline with the exception of the alignment on Buena Vista Avenue. Under this alternative, 3,800 LF of pipeline would be constructed within agricultural land located approximately 1,200 feet east of Buena Vista Avenue instead of the proposed 5,400-LF alignment along Buena

EXHIBIT A
371
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

6-12
Vista Avenue. As a result, construction of the pipeline within agricultural land would result in the temporary disruption of existing agricultural uses in soils considered farmland of statewide importance and prime farmland if irrigated during project construction, which would have greater impacts to agriculture resources as compared to the proposed project. In addition, Alternative 3 would not allow residential parcels on Buena Vista Avenue to connect to the City’s wastewater system which would result in increased impacts to hydrology and water quality due to ongoing groundwater quality degradation associated with residential discharge to on-site septic systems.

However, Alternative 3 would result in reduced impacts to utilities and service systems due to a lesser increase in the demand for wastewater treatment (pretreatment of winery organic flows may still be required by the City to maintain the performance), as residences along Buena Vista Avenue would not be able to connect to the City’s wastewater system. As with the proposed project, the same mitigation measures during the construction period for noise, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources would be required. Alternative 3 would not fulfill all Project Objectives because it would not extend municipal sewer service to existing residences along Buena Vista Avenue and reduce groundwater quality issues.

Table 6-1 Impact Comparison of Alternatives
Issue
Proposed Project
Impact Classification
Alternative 1:

No Project/No
Construction
Alternative 2:

No Project/On-Site
Wastewater Treatment
Alternative 3:

Alternative
Alignment
Aesthetics No impact = - =
Agriculture and Forestry Services No impact = - -
Air Quality Less than significant + - +
Biological Resources Less than significant
with mitigation
+ - -
Cultural Resources Less than significant
with mitigation
+ - -
Energy Less than significant + - +
Geology and Soils Less than significant
with mitigation
+ - -
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than significant + - +
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than significant + - - Hydrology and Water Quality Less than significant - - - Land Use and Planning No impact = = =
Mineral Resources No impact = = =
Noise Less than significant
with mitigation
+ - +
Population and Housing Less than significant = = =
Public Services No impact = = =
Recreation No impact = = =
Transportation Less than significant + - +
Tribal Cultural Resources Less than significant
with mitigation
+ - -
Utilities and Service Systems Less than significant + - + Wildfire No impact = = =
Overall Impact Comparison 11 +
8 =
1 -
0 +
7 =
13 -
6 +
7 =
7 -
+ Superior to the proposed project (reduced level of impact) - Inferior to the proposed project (increased level of impact) = Similar level of impact to the proposed project

EXHIBIT A
372
References

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-1
7 References

7.1 Bibliography
Executive Summary
No references in this section.

Section 1, Introduction
No references in this section.

Section 2, Project Description
Alameda, County of. 2003. South Livermore Valley Area Plan. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/SounthLivermoreAreaPlanc ombined.pdf (accessed March 2022).
______. 2021. Unincorporated Alameda County Public Access Map. https://acpwa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=4a648cb409d744b8a4f645e6 e35fe773 (accessed January 2022).

Livermore, City of. 2015. General Plan 2003-2025.
https://www.cityoflivermore.net/government/community-development/planning/2003- 2025-general-plan (accessed January 2022).
______. 2017. Sewer Master Plan. December 2017.
https://www.cityoflivermore.net/home/showpublisheddocument/7540/637744925442970 000 (accessed January 2022).

Section 3, Environmental Setting
Alameda, County of. 2021. Unincorporated Alameda County Public Access Map. https://acpwa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=4a648cb409d744b8a4f645e6 e35fe773 (accessed January 2022).

California Department of Finance. 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark. 2021. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ (accessed January 2022).

City of Livermore Community Development Department. 2021. Summary of Major Development Projects. August 2021.
https://www.cityoflivermore.net/home/showpublisheddocument/7762/637655916770030 000 (accessed January 2022).

County of Alameda Community Development Agency. 2021. “Current Development Projects”. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/landuseprojects/currentprojects.htm (accessed January 2022).

EXHIBIT A
373
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

7-2
Livermore, City of. 2015. General Plan 2003-2025.
https://www.cityoflivermore.net/government/community-development/planning/2003- 2025-general-plan (accessed January 2022).

U.S. Climate Data. 2022. “Climate Livermore – California.” https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/berkeley/california/united-states/usca0087 (accessed January 2022).

Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis
No references in this section.

Section 4.1, Hydrology and Water Quality
Alameda County. 2000. East County Area Plan. A Portion of the Alameda County General Plan. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/EastCountyAreaPlancombin ed.pdf (accessed December 2021).
______. 2003. South Livermore Valley Area Plan.
https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/SounthLivermoreAreaPlanc ombined.pdf (accessed March 2022).
______. 2022. General Plan, Specific Plans & Ordinances. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/index.htm (accessed March 2022).

California Department of Conservation. 2021. California Tsunami Maps and Data. Alameda County Tsunami Hazard Areas. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/alameda (accessed January 2022).

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. California Groundwater Bulletin 118. San Francisco Hydrologic Region, Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. https://water.ca.gov/- /media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin- 118/Files/2003-Basin-Descriptions/2_010_LivermoreValley.pdf (accessed December 2021). ______. 2015. California’s Groundwater Update 2013. Chapter 4 – San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region Groundwater Update. Available at: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR- Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Data-and- Tools/Files/Statewide-Reports/California-Groundwater-Update-2013/California- Groundwater-Update-2013---Chapter-4---San-Francisco-Bay.pdf (accessed November 2021).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2021. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=south%20livermore%20avenue%2C%20 livermore%20CA#searchresultsanchor (accessed January 2022).

Groundwater Exchange. 2021. Livermore Valley.
https://groundwaterexchange.org/basin/livermore-valley/ (accessed December 2021).

Livermore, City of. 1997. South Livermore Valley Specific Plan. Adopted November 17, 1997.

Amended February 2004. https://www.cityoflivermore.net/government/community- development/planning (accessed February 2022).

EXHIBIT A
374
References

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-3
______. 2015. General Plan 2003-2025. https://www.cityoflivermore.net/government/community- development/planning/2003-2025-general-plan (accessed December 2021).

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2010. Surface Water Body Beneficial Use Documentation Tables.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/planningtmdls/a mendments/WaterBodies/Documt%20tables%20FINAL%20new%20cover%20BOOKMARKS %204-6-2012.pdf (accessed February 2022).
______. 2019. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2). https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/planningtmdls/b asinplan/web/docs/ADA_compliant/BP_all_chapters.pdf (accessed December 2021).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2018. Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2018 _integrated_report.html (accessed December 2021).

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. January 1987.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2021. The National Map. Advanced Viewer. https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ (accessed December 2021).

University of California (UC) Davis, Department of Environmental Science and Policy. 2021a.

California Water Indicators Porter. Arroyo Mocho.
https://indicators.ucdavis.edu/cwip/huc/1805000403 (accessed December 2021). ______. 2021b. California Water Indicators Porter. Arroyo Las Positas. https://indicators.ucdavis.edu/cwip/huc/1805000402 (accessed December 2021).

U.S. Climate Data. 2021. Climate. Livermore – California. https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/livermore/california/united-states/usca0618 (accessed December 2021).

Zone 7 Water Agency. 2016. Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. https://www.zone7water.com/sites/main/files/file- attachments/alt_gw_sustainability_plan.pdf?1619903254 (accessed February 2022). ______. 2021. Annual Report for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Program - 2020 Water Year. Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin.
https://www.zone7water.com/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/gsp2020annrptfinal.pdf?1619988363 (accessed February 2022).

Section 4.2, Utilities and Service Systems
Alameda, County of. 2003. South Livermore Valley Area Plan. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/SounthLivermoreAreaPlanc ombined.pdf (accessed March 2022).
______. 2017. Alameda County Clean Water Program. https://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/about- us.html (accessed November 2021).

EXHIBIT A
375
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

7-4
______. 2022. General Plan, Specific Plans & Ordinances. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/index.htm (accessed March 2022).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2021a. Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacilit y (accessed November 2021).
______. 2021b. Solid Waste Facilities, Sites and Operations. https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/ (accessed November 2021).

California Water Service Company (Cal Water). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/LIV_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf (Accessed December 2021).

HydroScience. 2022. Sewer System Extension Hydraulic Analysis. Livermore, CA. January 31, 2022.

Livermore, City of. 1997. South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP). Amended 2004. https://www.cityoflivermore.net/home/showpublisheddocument/5551/637230313456300 000 (accessed October 2021).
______. 2012. Livermore Water Reclamation Plant Master Plan Update. https://www.cityoflivermore.net/home/showpublisheddocument/7538/637744925322970 000 (accessed February 2022).
______. 2015. General Plan 2003-2025. https://www.cityoflivermore.net/government/community- development/planning/2003-2025-general-plan (accessed October 2021). ______. 2017. Sewer Master Plan. December 2017.
https://www.cityoflivermore.net/home/showpublisheddocument/7540/637744925442970 000 (accessed January 2022).
______. 2021a. Livermore Water Reclamation Plant.
https://www.cityoflivermore.net/government/public-works/water-resources/wastewater- service/livermore-water-reclamation-plant (accessed November 2021). ______. 2021b. Livermore Stormwater Management.
https://www.cityoflivermore.net/government/public-works/water-resources/stormwater- management (accessed February 2022).
______. 2021c. Preliminary Summary: Sewer Expansion to South Livermore Plan Area. November 2021.
______. 2022. Environmental Services. https://www.cityoflivermore.net/government/public- works/environmental-services (accessed January 2022).

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2022. Company profile. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/profile/profile.page (accessed February 2022).

EXHIBIT A
376
References

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-5
San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.
https://www.ccwater.com/DocumentCenter/View/8741/Bay-Area-IRWM-Plan-2019- Update-PDF (accessed February 2022).

Zone 7 Water Agency. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.zone7water.com/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/0_final_2020_uwmp.pdf?1624903044 (accessed February 2022).

Section 5, Other CEQA Related Discussions
Association of Bay Area Governments. 2021. Plan Bay Area. http://projections.planbayarea.org/ (accessed November 2021).

Section 6, Alternatives
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed February 2022).

7.2 List of Preparers
This EIR was prepared by the City of Livermore, with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Abe Leider, AICP CEP, Principal
Darcy Kremin, AICP, Director
Aileen Mahoney, Project Manager
Taylor Freeman, Associate Environmental Planner
Destiny Timms, Associate Environmental Planner
Nicholas Carter, Associate Environmental Planner
Audrey Brown, GIS Specialist
Gina Gerlich, GIS Specialist
Luis Apolinar, Publishing Specialist

EXHIBIT A
377
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

7-6

This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
378

Appendix IS
Initial Study for South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

EXHIBIT A
379
Sou
th Livermore Sewer Expansion Project
I
nitial Study
pr
epared by
C
ity of Li
vermore
1052
South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
Co
ntact: An
dy Ross, Senior Planner
pr
epared with the assistance of
Ri
ncon C
onsultants,
Inc.
449
15th Street, Suite 303
O
akland, California 94612
May 2022
RINCON CONSULTANTS INC.

Environmental Scientists |Planners | Engineers
rinconconsultants.com

EXHIBIT A
380

Sou
th Livermore Sewer Expansion Project
I
nitial Study
pr
epared by
C
ity of Livermore
1052
South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
Co
ntact: An
dy Ross, Senior Planner
pr
epared with the assistance of
R
incon Consultants, Inc.
449
15th Street, Suite 303
O
akland, California 94612
May 2022

RINCON CONSULTANTS INC.

Environmental Scientists | Planners | Engineers
rinconconsultants.com

EXHIBIT A
381

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

EXHIBIT A
382
Table of Contents

Initial Study i
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. iii Initial Study .............................................................................................................................................1

1. Project Title .........................................................................................................................1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address .........................................................................................1

3. Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................1

4. Project Location ..................................................................................................................1

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address .................................................................................2

6. General Plan Designation ....................................................................................................2

7. Zoning..................................................................................................................................2

8. Project Description ..............................................................................................................5

9. Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses ..................................................................... 11

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ....................................................... 12

11. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? ....................................................................................................................... 12 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................................ 13 Determination ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Environmental Checklist ...................................................................................................................... 15 1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 15 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................. 19 3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 25 4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 37 5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 43 6 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 47 7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 51 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................. 61 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 65 10 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 71 11 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 73 12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 77 13 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 79 14 P
opulation and Housing ................................................................................................... 89 15 Public Services .................................................................................................................. 91 16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 95 17 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 97 18 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 105 19 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................... 107 20 Wildfire .......................................................................................................................... 109 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................... 111 References ......................................................................................................................................... 115 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 115 Preparers ................................................................................................................................... 120

EXHIBIT A
383
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

ii
Tables
Table 1 Health Effects Associated with Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants ............................... 28 Table 2 Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds .................................................................. 29 Table 3 Estimated Average Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) ............................................ 32 Table 4 2020 Electricity Consumption .......................................................................................... 48 Table 5 2020 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Consumption .............................................................. 48 Table 6 Proposed Project Construction Energy Usage ................................................................. 49 Table 7 Project Compliance with Energy Efficiency Goals and Policies ........................................ 64 Table 8 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage .......................................... 82 Table 9 Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria ........................................................................... 82 Table 10 Construction Noise Criteria .............................................................................................. 84 Table 11 Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................................ 85 Table 12 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment at Noise-Sensitive Receivers.................... 86 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................3 Figure 2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................4 Figure 3 Sewer Extension and UGB - West .......................................................................................6 Figure 4 Sewer Extension and UGB - East .........................................................................................7 Figure 5 Bottleneck Segment Locations ......................................................................................... 10 Figure 6 Geologic Units and Paleontological Sensitivity of the Project Alignment ....................... 54 Appendices
Appendix AQ Road Construction Emissions Model Inputs and Outputs Appendix EN Energy Fuel Consumption Calculations

EXHIBIT A
384
Acronyms and Abbreviations

Initial Study iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AGVT Agriculture/Viticulture
amsl above mean sea level
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMP best management practice
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGS California Geological Survey
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO2 carbon dioxide
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibels
dBA A-weighted sound pressure level
DNL Day-Night Average Level
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOF California Department of Finance
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GWP global warming potential
I-580 Interstate 580

EXHIBIT A
385
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

iv
Lea equivalent noise level
LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District
LF linear feet
LPD Livermore Police Department
LPFD Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department
LMC Livermore Municipal Code
LRA Local Responsibility Area
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PBDB Paleobiology Database
PD-SLVSP Planned Development – South Livermore Valley Specific Plan PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns PM10 particulate matter with a diameter equal to or less than 10 microns PPV peak particle velocity
ROG reactive organic gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SLVAP South Livermore Valley Area Plan
SLVSP South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SRA State Responsibility Area
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
TAC toxic air contaminant
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
UGB Urban Growth Boundary
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VOC volatile organic compound

EXHIBIT A
386
Initial Study

Initial Study 1
Initial Study
The City of Livermore, as the Lead Agency, prepared this Initial Study for the South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and policies of the City of Livermore, California.

1. Project Title
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project (project)

2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Livermore
Community Development Department
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550

3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Andy Ross, Senior Planner
[email protected]
(925) 960-4475

4. Project Location
The project alignment is generally located southeast of the City of Livermore within unincorporated Alameda County, California. A portion of the project alignment is located within the City of Livermore and another portion aligns with the City’s Sphere of Influence boundary. Phase 1 of the alignment would be located on Tesla Road from Buena Vista to Greenville Road, Buena Vista Avenue between East Avenue and Tesla Road, and Greenville Road from Tesla Road to approximately 5,900 feet south of Tesla Road. The alignment along Tesla Road is adjacent to the City’s Sphere of Influence, with the western portion of the alignment along South Livermore Avenue within the city boundary and UGB. The portion along Buena Vista Avenue is within the City’s Sphere of Influence and adjacent to the city boundary and UGB at East Avenue. The alignment along Greenville Road is outside the City’s Sphere of Influence. The alignment along Buena Vista Avenue and Tesla Road from Buena Vista Avenue to Greenville Road is adjacent to SLVSP Subareas 1 and 2.

EXHIBIT A
387
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

2 An additional component of the project that would involve sewer improvements in the City limits (the Bottleneck Project) is located within the City of Livermore, in segments along East Avenue (three segments between 7th Street and Dolores Street and one segment just west of Buena Vista Avenue). The Bottleneck Project would be completed as part of Phase 1.

The project alignment (all phases) is located within existing paved rights-of-way. Figure 1 shows the regional context of the project alignment and Bottleneck Project, and Figure 2 shows the project alignment and Bottleneck Project in its vicinity context. Regional access to the project alignment and Bottleneck Project is available via Interstate 580 (I-580), which is located approximately 2.6 miles north of the project alignment and approximately 1.5 miles north of the Bottleneck Project.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
City of Livermore
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550

6. General Plan Designation
The project alignment is located within existing public roadways rights-of-way and does not have a land use designation. Land use adjacent to much of the project alignment is designated in the City’s General Plan Map as Agriculture/Viticulture (AGVT). Additional parcels alongside the alignment are designated as Rural Residential (RR), Urban Medium High Residential (UMH), and Urban High Residential (UH), Community Facility (CF) Parks, Trailways, Recreation Areas (OSP), Agricultural Preserve (SV-AP), and Vineyard Commercial (SV-VC) land uses (City of Livermore 2015).

7. Zoning
The project alignment is located within existing public roadway rights-of-way and is not zoned. A portion of the parcels adjacent to the project alignment are zoned by the City of Livermore, while others are zoned by Alameda County. Parcels zoned by the City primarily include Planned Development – South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (PD-SLVSP), along with one adjacent parcel zoned as Education and Institutions (E), one adjacent parcel zoned as Open Space Agricultural (OS- A), and one adjacent parcel zoned as South Livermore Valley Agricultural (SLV-AG) (City of Livermore 2015). Parcels zoned by Alameda County include Agriculture, Single Family Residential, and Planned Development (County of Alameda 2021). Generally, surrounding and adjacent parcels in the area consist of residential development, commercial development, vineyards and wineries, and open space uses compliant with City’s General Plan Land Use element and the County’s Zoning Ordinance.

Furthermore, the project alignment is also located within the Vineyard Area of the SLVAP.

EXHIBIT A
388
In
itial Study

In
itial Study 3
Fig
ure 1 Regional Location

Stanislaus
National
Forest
Elk Grove
Livermore City Boundary
Livermore Sphere of Influence
Vacaville
Fairfield
Vallejo
StocktonAntioch
San Francisco
Modesto
Mateo 99Fremont
P
acific
Merced
Jose
Santa Cruz
Salinas
Monterey

EXHIBIT A
389
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

4 Figure 2 Project Location

EXHIBIT A
390
Initial Study

Initial Study 5

8. Project Description
Project Background
South Livermore Valley Area Plan
The County of Alameda adopted the South Livermore Valley Area Plan (SLVAP) in November 1992 as part of a collaborative effort between the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore, and Alameda County to create a planned area that preserves, promotes, and enhances viticulture and other cultivated agriculture. The SLVAP is a policy document that establishes criteria for future development for approximately 15,500 acres of undeveloped land in unincorporated areas south and east of the City of Livermore. The SLVAP limits development to areas that do not conflict with current or proposed agricultural uses in order to preserve and enhance viticulture and other cultivated agriculture. The County prepared a Draft EIR for the SLVAP (State Clearinghouse No. 1996052025). The Alameda County Planning Department certified the Final EIR (1992 EIR) and approved the project in November 1992 (County of Alameda 2003).

Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the UGB in relation to the proposed east and west segments of the project.

EXHIBIT A
391
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

6 Figure 3 Sewer Extension and UGB - West

EXHIBIT A
392
In
itial Study

In
itial Study 7
Fig
ure 4 Sewer Extension and UGB - East

EXHIBIT A
393
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

8 Because connection to urban services such as sanitary sewer is limited by the UGB, many residential and commercial uses in South Livermore Valley rely on on-site wastewater treatment systems (septic systems). In South Livermore Valley, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, County Department of Environmental Health, and Zone 7 Water Agency (Agencies) have restricted issuing permits for new septic systems or replacing failing septic systems.

Project Overview
The project would amend the South Livermore Valley UGB language to allow the extension of sanitary sewer lines to serve adjacent parcels containing residences and wineries located within and near the City of Livermore. This amendment would allow for the installation of approximately 5 miles of new sewer lines to support existing uses and future development consistent with the General Plan, SLVSP, and SLVAP in South Livermore Valley, subject to Alameda County Measure D.

The purpose of the project is to improve groundwater quality in the South Livermore Valley area, serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP, and enhance the short- and long-term economic viability of agriculture and viticulture in the South Livermore Valley area. Subject to necessary approvals and annexation into the City, the project would also allow existing residences on Buena Vista Avenue to connect to the City’s wastewater system and cease the use of their on-site septic systems. The project is intended to support uses that are consistent with the City’s General Plan, SLVSP, or current zoning; should development on adjacent parcels that is not consistent with existing land use designations and zoning be proposed, additional CEQA review would be required.

Phase 1 of the proposed sewer extension would be installed within Tesla Road from Buena Vista Avenue to Greenville Road, within Buena Vista Avenue from East Avenue to Tesla Road, and within Greenville Road from Tesla Road to approximately 5,900 feet south of Tesla Road. The expanded sewer facilities would allow existing and future wineries, visitor serving uses, and residences to connect to the City’s wastewater system in conformance with the Livermore General Plan, South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, and/or South Livermore Valley Area Plan, subject to the provisions of Alameda County Measure D.

EXHIBIT A
394
Initial Study

Initial Study 9
The City’s 2017 Sewer Master Plan also identifies a Bottleneck Project (BO-CIP-P06) located on East Avenue. Preliminary analysis of the proposed project identified four segments of 12-inch sewer pipes that may need to be upsized on East Avenue between Maple Street and Buena Vista Avenue (City of Livermore 2017). The locations of each segment are shown in Figure 5. In total, approximately 950 linear feet (LF) would need to be upsized to accommodate the proposed project.

Therefore, the proposed project may require the Bottleneck Project to be undertaken sooner than originally anticipated.

The project would not require ground disturbance in agricultural or other natural areas, nor would it require vegetation removal.

Construction
Construction is anticipated to commence in 2024 and last for approximately 12 months, ending in 2025. The project may be constructed in phases based on available funding. Construction would require one lane of the affected public roadways to be closed at any given time. To that end, a traffic control plan is proposed that would regulate worker parking, construction staging, roadway improvements and potential traffic detours during project construction. Construction staging, laydown areas, and worker parking would be provided along the project alignment in one travel lane, one bike lane, and one shoulder. The contractor may work with private property owners as feasible, or utilize the City’s Maintenance Service Center for additional staging. The City would post signage along the alignment and on roadways leading up to it before and during construction to give advance warning of road closures and detours. Detour signs for bicycle lane users would also be provided to facilitate safe crossing while portions of the bicycle lanes are closed.

Construction would occur 5 days per week to expedite the work and minimize traffic impacts.

Equipment would include excavators, backhoes, front loaders, dump trucks, and shoring and paving equipment.

EXHIBIT A
395
C
ity of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

10 Fig
ure 5 Bottleneck Segment Locations

Bottleneck Segments
Project Alignment
Future Phase (West)
Phase 1
Livermore City Boundary
Livermore Sphere of Influence
0 Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2022.

EXHIBIT A
396
Initial Study

Initial Study 11
Daily construction tasks would include excavation/grading, installing pipe, backfilling, patching pavement, and coordinating traffic control. Once an area is complete, final paving would be installed over the trench. Approximately 20 feet of width in the daily work area would be required.

9. Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
The project alignment is currently fully developed and would take place within existing paved rights- of-way. The alignment is predominately flat, with a gentle slope from approximately 510 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the northwestern portion of the project alignment at the intersection of South Livermore Avenue and East Avenue to approximately 720 feet amsl at the southeastern portion of the project alignment at the intersection of Tesla Road and Greenville Road. The alignment generally drains from the southeast to the northwest. The Bottleneck Project alignment is also predominately flat and currently a fully developed roadway and the project would take place within existing paved rights-of-way.

The SLVSP includes two Subareas (1 and 2) that are located adjacent to the project alignment.

Figure 2 shows the project alignment and surrounding land uses, which are primarily residential and agriculture, located directly along the alignment. The parcels directly bordering South Livermore Avenue and Tesla Road are in active agricultural uses (viticulture). Several parcels that directly border Buena Vista Avenue and Greenville Road are residential uses. Parcels located adjacent to the project alignment are zoned as PD - SLVSP with a General Plan designation of SLVSP. The nearest school, Livermore High School, is located adjacent to the Bottleneck Project on East Avenue.

EXHIBIT A
397
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

12 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required The City of Livermore is the lead agency for the CEQA documentation and process. The modified UGB language must be approved by the voters of the City of Livermore.

Required Approvals
The project would require the following approvals from the City of Livermore:
 City Council certification of a Supplemental EIR prepared in accordance with CEQA prior to approving the modified UGB language.
 City Council approval of language to modify the UGB and place on the ballot.

The project would also require the following:
 Approval of the modified UGB language by a majority of voters.

11. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area
Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.3.1?
In accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1, the City sent consultation request letters to two tribes (Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista and Ione Band of Miwok Indians).

EXHIBIT A
398
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

Initial Study 13
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that requires further study beyond the impacts identified in the certified 1997 EIR, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. The checklist is a modified version of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Initial Study checklist, based on evaluating the need for supplemental CEQA documentation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and oriented to identifying topics requiring further analysis in a Supplemental EIR. The following impact areas were determined to have at least one impact identified as “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” where new mitigation not included in the 1997 EIR is required:
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
■ Geology and Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
■ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Land Use and
Planning
□ Mineral Resources
■ Noise □ Population and
Housing
□ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation ■ Tribal Cultural Resources ■ Utilities and Service
Systems
□ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

EXHIBIT A
399
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "less than significant with mitigation incorporated" impact on the environment,but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
28 DateAndy Ross,Senio Planner
1 4

EXHIBIT A
400
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics

Initial Study 15
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics

4.8-10
through

4.8-27
No No No N/A
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
EIR
Pages

4.8-10
through

4.8-27
No No No N/A
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of
the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced
from a publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
EIR
Pages

4.8-10
through

4.8-27
No No No N/A
d. Create a new source of substantial light
or glare that would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in the area?
EIR
Pages

4.8-10
through

4.8-27
No No No N/A
1997 EIR Summary
Chapter 4.8 (Visual and Aesthetic Quality) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the existing SLVSP’s impacts on visual quality. Visual impacts identified in the 1997 EIR are summarized as follows:
 Subarea 1: The EIR finds that no new development is considered for areas with high sensitivity.

Therefore, it determines that this impact on scenic views would be less than significant.  Subarea 2: The EIR states that development in the area would be consistent with the existing visual quality in the area. Therefore, it determines that this impact on scenic views would be less than significant.

The 1997 EIR determined that aesthetic impacts in Subareas 1 and 2 would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT A
401
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

16 Setting
The alignment is primarily surrounded by residential development and maintained grassy lots with scattered trees along Buena Vista Avenue; residential development, commercial development, vineyards and wineries, and open space along South Livermore Avenue; vineyards and wineries, and residential development along Tesla Road; and vineyards and wineries along Greenville Road. There are distant views of Altamont Hills, located east of Livermore, and the Diablo Mountain Range, located north, south, and east of Livermore, from South Livermore Avenue and Tesla Road. The City’s General Plan identifies such views as one of the primary visual characteristics and amenities of the City, and the General Plan includes both South Livermore Avenue and Tesla Road as Major Streets on the City’s Planned Scenic Routes Map (City of Livermore 2015). The project alignment is approximately 1.6 miles south of the nearest eligible state scenic highway, I-580 (Caltrans 2021).

Regulatory Setting
City of Livermore General Plan 2003-2025
The City’s General Plan Land Use and Community Character Elements both contain goals and policies regarding to the City’s scenic qualities. Specifically, Goal LU-15 aims to preserve South Livermore’s unique rural and scenic qualities (City of Livermore 2015). Goal CC-4 encourages protection and enhancement of public views within and from established scenic routes. Policy CC

4.6 P1 suggests that landscaping be maintained in scenic route corridors to provide added visual interest, to frame scenic views, and to screen unsightly views. Policy CC 4.7 P2 encourages new, relocated, or existing utility distribution lines be placed underground wherever feasible. Objective CC-4.14 outlines the control of removal of vegetation along scenic routes (City of Livermore 2015).

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? A scenic vista is usually defined as a panoramic view from an elevated position or a long-range view from a public vantage point. This can include views of natural features or of the built environment, when architecture and landscaped boulevards offer high-value views of an area considered important to the sense of place. Although South Livermore Road and Tesla Road are identified as Scenic Routes by the City, the project would not impact the distant views of Altamont Hills and the Diablo Mountain Range from these roads as the project would not involve aboveground improvements. The project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and there would be no impact. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
402
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics

Initial Study 17
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The project alignment is located approximately 1.6 miles south of the nearest eligible state scenic highway, I-580. The project alignment is not visible from I-580. The project would not damage, nor require removal of, scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings, none of which exist in the proposed area of disturbance (existing paved roadway alignments). Therefore, the proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway and there would be no impact. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The project would be below grade and would not result in new or substantially altered visual or aesthetic conditions. Additionally, the project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP. The project would not conflict with current applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic qualities, such as Goal LU-6 in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element that ensures development minimizes potential visual impacts, Objective LU-6.1 that encourages development that does not detract from the scenic character of Livermore, and Goal LU-15 that specifically aims to preserve South Livermore’s unique rural and scenic qualities (City of Livermore 2015). The project would be consistent with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and no aesthetic impacts would occur. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
The project would not create additional permanent sources of light or glare; therefore, no permanent adverse effects to daytime or nighttime views in the area would occur. Additionally, the project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP.

Construction would take place during daytime hours as required by the Livermore Municipal Code (LMC) Chapter 9.36, with the potential for limited nighttime construction during the winter months; therefore, the construction of the proposed project would not result in extended periods of time where construction lighting would affect road users and sensitive receptors adjacent to the project alignment. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
403
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

18 This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
404
Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Initial Study 19
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Where
was
Impact
Analyzed
in the
EIR?
Does the
Proposed
Project
Require
Major
Revisions
to the
EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
EIR Page

4.1-24
through

4.1-26
No No No N/A
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract?
EIR Page

4.1-27
through

4.1-28
No No No N/A
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
N/A No No No N/A
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
N/A No No No N/A
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
EIR Page

4.1-24
through

4.1-26
and 4.1-
35 through

4.1-42
No No No Yes
1997 EIR Summary
Chapter 4.1 (Land Use) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the existing SLVSP’s agriculture and forestry impacts. The 1997 EIR does not address the issues related to forest land or timberland. The 1997 EIR determined that agriculture impacts would be less that significant in Subareas 1 and 2, with mitigation required for potential urban-residential conflicts in these subareas. Agricultural resources mitigation measures that were incorporated in the 1997 EIR to reduce potentially significant impacts are summarized below:

EXHIBIT A
405
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

20 Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a)
The package of actions the City plans to consider at the same time as the Draft Plan includes a right- to-farm ordinance. The ordinance currently encourages dispute resolution methods to address any significant conflicts. The ordinance should be modified to require that an Information Officer be designated by each developer to formalize communications between homeowners and agriculturists. The role of the Information Officer should include at a minimum:
 Responsibility for organizing periodic briefings on agricultural activities.  Responsibility for receiving grievances related to use conflicts in the South Valley.  Responsibility for coordinating and facilitate meetings between homeowner associations and agriculturalists so that there is ongoing communication between these groups.  Responsibility for preparing a quarterly newsletter describing what activities are upcoming in the vineyard and agricultural areas.
 Responsibility for developing a brochure which describes the role of the Information Officer and provides telephone and facsimile numbers for grievances or information requests. The brochure should be provided to new homeowners prior to close of escrow.

In the event of
a conflict between a homeowner and an adjacent use, the Information Officer's responsibilities would include:
 Obtaining a clear understanding of the conflict
 If the agricultural operation is within typical agricultural practices, the Information Officer would explain the operation including equipment, the reason for the operation and likely duration of the operation to the resident.
 If the agricultural operation is performing activities which are not consistent with typical agricultural practices the Information Officer will contact the operator. If after discussion the Information Officer is not satisfied that typical agricultural practices are being followed, the Officer shall contact the City of Livermore. The City would be responsible for enforcing applicable policies and ordinances.
 In the event that either the agricultural operation or the resident is located in the County, the County's right-to-farm ordinance and grievance procedures would apply.

Periodic briefings should correspond to cyclical agricultural activities (e.g., spraying, harvesting, etc.) that have the potential to create a nuisance to nearby homeowners. Such briefings and meetings should be held at least twice a year (more if significant grievances are being communicated to the Information Officer).

The ordinance should modify the distance of the right-to-farm deed restrictions. This modification would change the distance of 1,000 feet presently provided by the draft ordinance to a distance of 2,000 feet. This latter distance exceeds the width of the urban shadow which agriculturists generally estimate extends beyond urbanized areas into farmland.

Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(b)
Amend the Draft Plan to encourage assembly or consolidation of potential agricultural land and/or for coordinated long-term agricultural operations on those parcels. The latter could be accomplished through leases by single farmers within individual subareas to plant, manage, and

EXHIBIT A
406
Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Initial Study 21
harvest agricultural mitigation land located within the SLVSPA, and could be accomplished as part of the review of the required eight-year maintenance contract.

Setting
Roadways within the City of Livermore do not have a zoning or land use designation. However, most parcels adjacent to the project alignment are currently zoned by the City as PD-SLVSP along with one adjacent parcel zoned as Education and Institutions (E), one adjacent parcel zoned as Open Space Agricultural (OS-A), and one adjacent parcel zoned as South Livermore Valley Agricultural (SLV-AG) (City of Livermore 2015). Parcels in the project vicinity are zoned by Alameda County as Agriculture, Single Family Residential, and Planned Development (County of Alameda 2021).

However, the proposed alignment is developed as a roadway.

The California Department of Conservation (DOC) manages the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program to assess and record suitability of land for agricultural purposes. In each county, the land is analyzed for soil and irrigation quality. The highest quality land is designated as Prime Farmland. The DOC lists the project alignment as entirely Urban and Built-Up Land. However, adjacent parcels in the vicinity of the project alignment are designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Grazing Land, Urban and Built-Up Land, and Other Land (DOC 2016).

Regulatory Setting
PRC Section 12220(g) defines forest land as:
land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.

PRC Section 4526 defines timberland as:
land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis.

Government Code Section 51104(g) defines a timberland production zone as:
“an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision (h).”
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The project alignment is located adjacent to lands classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC 2016). However, the project would be constructed entirely within existing paved rights-of way and would not require additional ground disturbance in adjacent agricultural or other natural areas. The project would not induce unanticipated growth in

EXHIBIT A
407
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

22 the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP. As such, no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be affected by project implementation and no impact would occur.

Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
Multiple parcels adjacent to the project alignment are enrolled under the California Land Conservation Act and are subject to a Williamson Act contract as Prime Agricultural Land and Non- Prime Agricultural Land (DOC 2015a). Similarly, parcels alongside the project alignment are zoned by the City as both Open Space Agricultural and South Livermore Valley Agricultural, while other parcels adjacent to the project alignment are zoned by the County as Agriculture (City of Livermore 2015; County of Alameda 2021). However, the project would only extend sanitary sewer lines along existing paved roadways, which are not subject to Williamson Act contracts and do not have zoning designations or land use designations. The project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and no impact would occur. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The project alignment and surrounding areas are not designated as, nor adjacent to lands zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production (CDFW 2021). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production; result in the loss of forest land; or convert forest land to non-forest use and no impact would occur. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The project would not directly or indirectly result in the conversion of farmland or forestland adjacent to the project alignment to non-agricultural use or non-forest use. The project would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or surrounding area because it would serve existing development potential consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP. Therefore, the project

EXHIBIT A
408
Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Initial Study 23
would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR. There would be no impact. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
409
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

24 This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
410
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Initial Study 25
3 Air Quality

Where
was
Impact
Analyzed
in the EIR?
Does the
Proposed
Project
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to the
EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in New
or Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan?
N/A No No No N/A
b. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant
for which the project
region is non-attainment
under an applicable
federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
EIR Pages

4.6-5
through

4.6-6
No No No Yes
c. Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
EIR Pages

4.6-5 to

4.6-8
No No No Yes
d. Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of
people?
EIR Page

4.6-9
No No No Yes
1997 EIR Summary
Chapter 4.6 (Air Quality) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the existing SLVSP’s air quality impacts. This chapter does not address the issues of conflicts with air quality plans. The 1997 EIR determined that air quality impacts related to carbon monoxide from buildout under the SLVSP would be less that significant. All other air quality impacts were determined to be potentially significant or significant and unavoidable in Subareas 1 and 2. Air quality mitigation measures that were incorporated in the 1997 EIR to reduce potentially significant impacts are summarized below.

Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a)
In order to mitigate potentially significant construction dust impacts, the City should require implementation of the BAAQMD's following basic construction dust control measures as conditions of approval for all individual development projects or infrastructure improvement contracts in the SLVSPA:
 Water all active areas at least twice daily
 Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizer on all unpaved roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites
 Sweep paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites daily with water sweepers

EXHIBIT A
411
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

26  Sweep streets daily with water sweepers, if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets
Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(b)
In order to mitigate potentially significant construction dust impacts at construction sites larger than four acres in size, the City should also require implementation of the BAAQMD's enhanced construction dust control measures as conditions of approval for those projects:
 Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or longer)
 Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.)
 Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour  Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways  Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible  Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour
Mitigation Measure 4.6-3
The Draft Plan would provide off-street trail corridors to accommodate separate bicycle/pedestrian and equestrian use. The trail system would be an amenity for SLVSPA residents and visitors. Use would be primarily recreational and, therefore, would have only a minimal effect in reducing vehicle trips from SLVSPA land uses.

The generally low-density, predominantly residential, and semi-rural nature of SLVSPA development under the Draft Plan would severely limit available mitigation strategies to reduce trip generation.

Therefore, the City should provide information to encourage individual residential development projects in all subareas to:
 Wire each housing unit to allow use of emerging electronic communication technology to encourage home employment
 Provide electrical recharge outlets in residential garages for electric cars Residences include a number of intermittent air pollutant sources. Therefore, the City also should encourage the following measures for individual residential development projects in all subareas:
 Limit the number of fireplaces in residences to one per household and / or use EPA-certified wood stoves, pellet stoves, or fireplace inserts in housing units. EPA-certified fireplaces and fireplace inserts are 70 to 90 percent effective in reducing emissions from this source. Also encourage the use of natural gas fired fireplaces.
 Provide outdoor electrical outlets at residences to allow use of electrical lawn and landscape maintenance equipment
 Make natural gas available in residential backyards to allow use of natural gas-fired barbecues

EXHIBIT A
412
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Initial Study 27
Mitigation Measure 4.6-4
 Draft Plan's site planning standards provide 20-foot rear setbacks for residences. This distance is not expected to be sufficient to avoid dust-related impacts where residential development is located east of agricultural operations. In order to mitigate this air quality-land use conflict, the City should require the following measures as conditions of approval for residential development in Subareas 1, 2, 4, and 7:
 Where residential development would occur east of adjacent active agricultural lands, require developer to provide disclosure statements to prospective buyer warning of possible agricultural nuisances (see Mitigation Measure 4.1-5(a) related to the City's pending right-to- farm ordinance)
 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-5 (to reduce urban-rural conflicts) Setting
Overview of Air Pollution
The federal and State Clean Air Acts mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants.

Under these laws, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other pollutants.

Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC)/reactive organic gases (ROG),
1 nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter with diameters of ten microns or less (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and lead. Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between ROG and NOX.

Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog).

Air pollutant emissions are generated primarily by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories:
 Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack.

Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat.  Area sources are widely distributed and include such sources as residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some consumer products.

Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and can also be divided into two major subcategories:
 On-road sources that may be legally operated on roadways and highways.  Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment.

Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds suspend fine dust particles.

1 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term ROG is used in this Initial Study.

EXHIBIT A
413
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

28 Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The project alignment is located in the Livermore – Amador Valley subregion of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (the Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). As the local air quality management agency, BAAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the USEPA classifies specific geographic areas as “attainment area” or “nonattainment area” for each pollutant. Under state law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-compliance. BAAQMD is a designated nonattainment area for the ozone NAAQS and CAAQS, the PM

2.5 NAAQS and CAAQS, and the PM10
CAAQS and is required to prepare a plan for improvement (BAAQMD 2017a). The health effects associated with criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in non-attainment are described in Table 1.

Table 1 Health Effects Associated with Non- Attainment Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Adverse Effects
Ozone ( 1) Short-term exposures: (a) pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals and (b) risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (2) long-term exposures: risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (3) vegetation damage; and (4) property damage.

Suspended particulate
matter (PM
10)
(1) Excess deaths from short-term and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease (including asthma).

Suspended particulate
matter (PM2.5)
(1) Excess deaths from short- and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children, such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease, including asthma.1 1 More detailed discussion on the health effects associated with exposure to suspended particulate matter can be found in the following documents: USEPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, October 2004.

PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter Source: USEPA 2021a
Regulatory Setting
Air Quality Management
The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (the 2017 Plan) provides a plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health as well as the climate. The legal impetus for the 2017 Plan is to update the most recent ozone plan - the 2010 Clean Air Plan - to comply with state air quality planning requirements as codified in the California Health & Safety Code. Although steady progress in reducing ozone levels in the Basin has been made, the region continues to be designated as non‐ attainment for both the one‐hour and eight‐hour ozone CAAQS. In addition, emissions of ozone precursors in the Bay Area contribute to air quality problems in neighboring air basins. Under these circumstances, state law requires the 2017 Plan to include all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors (BAAQMD 2017b).

EXHIBIT A
414
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Initial Study 29
In 2006, the USEPA reduced the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS regarding short-term exposure to fine particulate matter from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 35 µg/m3. Based on air quality monitoring data for the 2006-2008 cycle showing that the region was slightly above the standard, in December 2008 the USEPA designated the Basin as non-attainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

This triggered the requirement for the BAAQMD to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to demonstrate how the region would meet the standard. However, data for both the 2008-2010 and the 2009-2011 cycles showed that PM

2.5 levels in the Basin currently meet the standard. On October 29, 2012, the USEPA issued a proposed rulemaking to determine that the Basin now meets the 24- hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Basin will continue to be designated as nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as the BAAQMD elects to submit a “redesignation request” and a “maintenance plan” to the USEPA, and the USEPA approves the proposed redesignation.

BAAQMD Significance Thresholds
The BAAQMD recommends that lead agencies determine appropriate air quality emissions thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. The BAAQMD’s significance thresholds in the updated May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for land use development projects within the Basin are the most appropriate thresholds for use in determining air quality impacts of the proposed project (BAAQMD 2017b). The BAAQMD significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants, shown in Table 2, were used to evaluate the project’s potential air quality impacts.

Projects that would result in criteria air pollutant emissions below these significance thresholds would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants for which the Basin is in non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards.

Table 2 Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds
Pollutant
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10
Fugitive Dust Construction Dust Ordinance or other
Best Management Practices
Not Applicable
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter

2.5 microns or less in diameter; lbs/day = pounds per day Source: BAAQMD 2017b
The BAAQMD also provides a preliminary screening methodology to conservatively determine whether a proposed project would exceed CO thresholds. If the following criteria are met, a project would result in a less than significant impact related to local CO concentrations:
 Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.  Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.

EXHIBIT A
415
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

30  Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

The BAAQMD has also established screening criteria applicable to projects that would introduce new stationary sources of toxic air contaminants (TAC) emissions. A project would result in significant impacts if TAC emissions would result in an increased cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million or a non-cancer (i.e., chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0.

City of Livermore General Plan 2003 – 2025
The City’s Climate Change Element contains policies focused on designing, constructing, and operating new development in a way that reduces potential for future air quality problems, such as Policies 1 through 4 under Objective CLI-1.1, which ensure that best available control technology is used for operations that could generate air pollutants; encourages energy conservation and low- polluting energy sources; promotes landscaping and tree planting to absorb CO and other pollutants; and implements complementary strategies to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) identified in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). Additionally, Policy 1 under Objective OSC-6.1 of the Open Space and Conservation Element requires that construction and grading practices minimize airborne dust and particulate matter (City of Livermore 2015).

Methodology
Air pollutant emissions generated by project construction were estimated using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0. This model utilizes project-specific information including the project type, construction time, project area, and project location to model a project’s construction emissions.

The analysis reflects project construction and operation as described under Initial Study Section 9, Project Description. Model inputs and calculations are included in Appendix AQ.

Construction
Construction emissions modeled include emissions generated by construction equipment used along the alignment and emissions generated by vehicle trips associated with construction, such as worker and vendor trips. Construction would begin in January 2024 and would last for approximately 12 months with an assumption that there would be 22 working days per month. The construction equipment list used in the model was based on project-specific information, and it was assumed to be diesel-powered.

Operational Emissions
While the conveyance of wastewater and additional wastewater treatment demand would require an incremental increase in energy demand at the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant, the air quality emissions associated with the additional energy demand would be within the BAAQMD permitted thresholds for the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant, and the project would not generate more emissions than existing conditions. No buildings would be constructed, as the project would only serve existing development potential consistent with the vision of the General Plan and SLVSP.

Similarly, the project would not result in unanticipated growth beyond the current vision of the General Plan and SLVSP in the vicinity. As a result, no change to existing operations would result from the project, and a quantitative analysis of operational emissions is not included.

EXHIBIT A
416
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Initial Study 31
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The California Clean Air Act requires that air districts create a Clean Air Plan that describes how the jurisdiction will meet air quality standards. The most recently adopted applicable air quality plan is the BAAQMD’s 2017 Plan. As described in the Air Quality Management Section, the 2017 Plan updates the most recent Bay Area ozone plan, the 2010 Clean Air Plan. Pursuant to air quality planning requirements, the 2017 control strategy includes feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone
precursors – ROG and NOx. The 2017 Plan does not include control measures that apply directly to individual development projects. Instead, the control strategy includes measures related to specific emissions sectors.

Under BAAQMD’s methodology, a determination of consistency with the 2017 Plan should demonstrate that a project:
 Supports the primary goals of the air quality plan
 Includes applicable control measures from the air quality plan  Does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any air quality plan control measures A project that would not support the 2017 Plan’s goals would not be considered consistent with the 2017 Plan. On an individual project basis, consistency with BAAQMD quantitative thresholds is interpreted as demonstrating support for the 2017 Plan’s goals. In addition, applicable control measures such as green building construction, waste diversion, and water conservation would indicate support for the clean air plan goals on an individual project basis.

The project would not generate new operational emissions and construction activities would create temporary emissions that would cease upon completion of the project. Furthermore, as described under criterion b, construction activities would adhere to 2017 Plan control measures and construction-related emissions would not exceed the applicable BAAQMD significance thresholds.

Therefore, the proposed project, consistent with the BAAQMD’s CEQA thresholds, would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the 2017 Plan. This impact would be less than significant and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Construction activities such as the use of construction vehicles and equipment, trenching, and disturbance of stockpiled soils have the potential to generate fugitive dust (PM 10) through the
exposure of soil to wind erosion. Exhaust emissions associated with heavy construction equipment could contribute to the degradation of regional air quality. Air pollutant emissions associated with project construction and operation are discussed in the following subsections.

EXHIBIT A
417
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

32 Construction Emissions

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Table 3 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of pollutants during project construction. As shown therein, construction-related emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Therefore, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. This impact would be less than significant and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

Table 3 Estimated Average Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOX Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5
2024 2 24 1 1
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; lbs/day = pounds per day; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using the SMAQMD Road Construction Emissions Model. See Appendix AQ for model output results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding.

FUGITIVE DUST
Site preparation and grading/excavation may cause wind-blown dust that could contribute particulate matter into the local atmosphere. BAAQMD has not established a quantitative threshold for fugitive dust emissions but rather states that projects that incorporate BMPs for fugitive dust control during construction, such as watering exposed surfaces and limiting vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour, would have a less than significant impact related to fugitive dust emissions. The project would be required to include implementation of these BMPs consistent with Objective OSC-

6.1 Policy 1 in City’s General Plan (2015); therefore, construction-related fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

Operational Emissions
Project operation would not increase energy use in the form of electricity, natural gas, or gasoline and diesel fuel consumption. No buildings would be constructed, no vehicle traffic would be generated, and the project would not result in unanticipated growth in the vicinity. As such, no change to existing operations is expected to result from the project. Project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions, and impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
418
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Initial Study 33
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, are particularly sensitive to air pollution. Sensitive receptors are defined as schools, hospitals, and residences. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include single family residences located approximately 50 feet from the project alignment on Tesla Road, South Livermore Avenue, and Buena Vista Avenue. The following subsections evaluate the potential for these sensitive receptors to be exposed to substantial concentrations of CO and TACs.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard.

Localized CO hotspots can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local CO concentration exceeds the national one-hour standard of 35.0 parts per million (ppm) or the federal and state eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm (CARB 2021a).

As mentioned in the BAAQMD Significance Thresholds subsection above, BAAQMD has a set of screening criteria to use as the first step to evaluate whether a project would result in the generation of CO concentrations that would substantially contribute to an exceedance of BAAQMD thresholds.

The proposed project would not result unanticipated growth beyond the current vision of the General Plan and SLVSP in the vicinity. Average daily traffic on roadways in the project vicinity would not change. The project would not result in a CO hotspot and impacts would be less than significant.

TACs
Project construction and operation would generate emissions of TACs, which are defined by California law as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998 (CARB 2021b).

The potential
cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM outweighs the potential non-cancer health impacts (CARB 2021b) and is therefore the focus of this analysis. The following subsections discuss the potential for the project to generate TAC emissions during construction and operation.

ONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Construction-related activities would result in temporary emissions of DPM exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy duty diesel equipment, including excavators, backhoes, front loaders, dump trucks, and shoring and paving equipment. Generation of DPM from construction typically occurs in a single area for a short period. Project construction would occur over approximately 12 months. The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2015); however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities

EXHIBIT A
419
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

34 associated with the project. Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (i.e., 12 months) is approximately 1.4 percent of the total exposure period used for health risk calculation. Current models and methodologies for conducting health-risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities, resulting in difficulties in producing accurate estimates of health risk (BAAQMD 2018).

PM
10 exhaust emissions are often used as a surrogate for DPM. The maximum PM10 exhaust emissions would occur during grading/excavation activities. Site preparation would occur for a short amount of time each day, as the linear project requires each phase of construction activity to occur for each segment of the project undertaken at a time. PM 10 emissions would decrease for the
remaining construction phases because other construction activities would require less construction equipment. While the maximum DPM emissions associated with site preparation activities would only occur for a portion of each day, these activities represent the maximum exposure condition for the total construction period. The duration of site preparation activities would represent less than 1 percent of the total exposure period for a 30-year health risk calculation. Therefore, DPM generated by project construction would not create conditions where the probability is greater than 10 in 1 million of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual or to generate ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs that exceed a Hazard Index greater than one for the Maximally Exposed Individual. This impact would be less than significant and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

PERATIONAL IMPACTS
The Bay Area contains urban or industrialized communities where the exposure to TACs is relatively high. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and the Community Air Risk Evaluation Program, the project alignment is located in an impacted community, which is defined as an area with elevated pollution levels based on detailed emissions inventories and air dispersion modeling that the BAAQMD has identified as impacted (BAAQMD 2017b; BAAQMD 2018). Sources of TACs include, but are not limited to, land uses such as freeways and high-volume roadways, truck distribution centers, ports, rail yards, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and gasoline dispensing facilities.

The project would not result in unanticipated growth beyond the current vision of the General Plan and SLVSP in the vicinity. As such, no change to existing operations is expected to result from the project. Therefore, project operation would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC emissions. Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
During construction activities, heavy equipment and vehicles would emit odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and during idling. However, these odors would be intermittent and temporary and would cease upon completion, and odors disperse with distance. Overall, project construction-related impacts of other emissions would be less than significant. Additionally,

EXHIBIT A
420
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Initial Study 35
development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR.

Table 3-3 in the BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Guidelines provides odor screening distances for land uses that have the potential to generate substantial odor complaints. Typical odor-generating land uses include wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, refineries, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, smelting plants, and chemical plants (BAAQMD 2017b). The proposed project does not include any of the uses identified by the BAAQMD as odor- generating uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than significant and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
421
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

36 This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
422
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Initial Study 37
4 Biological Resources

Where was
Impact
Analyzed
in the EIR?
Does the
Proposed
Project
Require
Major
Revisions
to the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
EIR Pages

4.4-36
through

4.4-39
No No No N/A
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
EIR Pages

4.4-34
through

4.4-39
No No No N/A
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
State or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
EIR Pages

4.4-34
through

4.4-36
No No No N/A
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
EIR Pages

4.4-31
through

4.4-34
No No No N/A
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
EIR Pages

4.4-27
through

4.4-31
No No No N/A
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat
conservation plan?
N/A No No No N/A

EXHIBIT A
423
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

38 1997 EIR Summary
Chapter 4.4 (Biological Resources) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the existing SLVSP’s biological resources impacts. The 1997 EIR does not address the issues of conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The 1997 EIR determined that biological resources impacts related to loss of non-native grassland and agricultural cover, disturbance to wetlands and other waters, and modification and elimination of habitat for special-status species would be less that significant. Furthermore, all other impacts were determined to be less than significant. As a result, biological resources mitigation measures were not required.

Setting
The project alignment is developed and there are no trees or other notable vegetation within it. The City may lease space from adjacent property owners for construction staging and worker parking.

Regulatory Setting
Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by federal, state, and local authorities under a variety of statutes and guidelines. Primary authority for general biological resources lies with the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a trustee agency for biological resources throughout the state under CEQA and has direct jurisdiction under the Fish and Game Code of California. Under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, the CDFW and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) also have direct regulatory authority over species formally listed as Threatened or Endangered. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has regulatory authority over specific biological resources, namely wetlands and waters of the U.S., under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA).

Plants or animals may be considered “special-status” due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Special-status species are classified in a variety of ways, both formally (e.g., federal and state Threatened and Endangered Species) and informally (“Special Animals”). Species may be formally listed and protected as Threatened or Endangered by the CDFW or USFWS or as California Fully Protected. Informal listings by agencies include California Species of Special Concern (SSC) a broad database category applied to species, roost sites, or nests, or as USFWS Candidate taxa. CDFW and local governmental agencies may also recognize special listings developed by focal groups (i.e., Audubon Society Blue List, California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plants, U.S. Forest Service regional lists). California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 specifically protects birds of prey, and their nests and eggs, against take, possession, or destruction, and Section 3503 incorporates restrictions imposed by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act with respect to migratory birds.

City of Livermore General Plan 2003 – 2025
The City of Livermore’s General Plan includes goals and policies within its Open Space and Conservation Element which are relevant to biological resources. General Plan Goal OSC-1 aims to maintain biodiversity within the city with special emphasis on species that are sensitive, rare, declining, unique or represent valuable biological resources. In addition, Goal OSC-2 aims to conserve Livermore’s waterways, tributaries and associated riparian habitats. General Plan Objective OSC-1.3 contains language that discourages tree removal and encourages tree preservation.

EXHIBIT A
424
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Initial Study 39
City of Livermore Municipal Code
LMC Chapter 12.20 outlines the City’s tree ordinance with regards to street trees. LMC Section

12.20.030 states that it is unlawful for a person to plant, remove, prune, injure, or destroy any street tree. In order to remove or replace a tree, a person must put in an application to the Superintendent as stated in LMC Sections 12.20.050 and 12.20.080.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Special-Status Plants
Using the BIOS viewer (CDFW 2022), it was determined that one special status plant species is present in the Livermore quad. This includes palmate-bracted bird's-beak (Chloropyron palmatum) (CDFW 2022). However, the highly disturbed conditions and the lack of soil due to paved surfaces and native vegetation communities preclude the potential for rare plants to occur within the alignment. The project alignment is entirely within previously disturbed and paved rights-of-way.

The project would not require ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas. Given these factors, no special status species have the potential to occur within the project alignment.

Therefore, the project would not result in impacts to special-status plant species.

Special-Status Wildlife
Using the BIOS viewer (CDFW 2022), it was determined that five special status animal species are present in the Livermore quad. This includes the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) (CDFW 2022). However, the alignment is highly disturbed, fully paved roadway. Vegetation along the project alignment is limited to ornamental plantings and isolated patches of ruderal vegetation that occur on the sides of the roadway that are regularly disturbed by human activity, including through pedestrian and vehicle use. The alignment has no natural or native vegetation communities that would support special-status wildlife. For those select few special-status species that occur in disturbed or ruderal areas (such as burrowing owl), the alignment is sufficiently isolated from existing natural areas, and surrounded with agricultural, residential, and commercial development, that wildlife access to the alignment is substantially restricted. The nearest natural area is Robertson Park, located approximately 0.3 mile southwest from the project alignment. Due to its disturbed nature, the alignment is not considered viable to support federal or state listed species or other special-status wildlife.

A desktop review of the project alignment determined that vegetation observed along the project alignment and vicinity are primarily non-native, ornamental, and/or disturbed; however, the alignment could be used by numerous species of migratory birds that utilize sparse ground cover or ornamental shrubs and landscaping as nesting habitat. Migratory or other nesting birds, while not designated as special-status species, are protected by the California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Ornamental trees and shrubs and human-made structures alongside the project alignment could provide habitat for nesting birds. If nests are present and

EXHIBIT A
425
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

40 project construction activities occur during the nesting season (typically February 1 through August 31), impacts to nesting birds, including raptors, would be potentially significant. Potential impacts to nesting birds, including raptors, would be reduced to less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, described below.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 Nesting Bird Avoidance and Minimization Efforts
If project construction activities occur during the nesting season (between February 1 and August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds no more than 14 days prior to construction. The survey shall include the entire project alignment and a 300-foot buffer to account for nesting raptors. If nests are found, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate species-specific avoidance buffer of sufficient size to prevent disturbance by project activity to the nest (up to 300 feet for raptors, up to 150 feet for other birds). The qualified biologist shall perform at least two hours of pre-construction monitoring of the nest to characterize “typical” bird behavior.

The qualified biologist shall have authority to order the cessation of construction activities if the nesting birds exhibit atypical behavior that may cause nest failure (nest abandonment and loss of eggs and/or young) until a refined appropriate buffer is established. To prevent encroachment, the established buffer(s) shall be clearly marked by high visibility material. The established buffer(s) shall remain in effect until the young have fledged or the nest has been abandoned as confirmed by the qualified biologist. The monitoring biologist shall determine the appropriate protection for active nests on a case-by-case basis using the criteria described above. The qualified biologist shall prepare a nest monitoring report at the time monitoring has been completed. The report will document the methods and results of the monitoring, and the final status of the nest (i.e., successful fledging of the nest, nest depredation, nest failure due to construction activity). The report shall be submitted to the City for approval.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds, including raptors, to less than significant levels. This mitigation measure will be listed in the Supplemental EIR’s executive summary and included in the project’s mitigation monitoring and reporting program. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED

EXHIBIT A
426
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Initial Study 41
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The project alignment is not located within riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or wetland areas. The nearest wetland is located approximately 0.2 miles south of the project alignment. Furthermore, Arroyo Mocho is classified as riverine habitat and is located approximately 260 feet from the project alignment (USFWS 2021). Project construction would not occur within riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or protected wetlands. The General Plan includes several goals, objectives and policies that protect such habitats. For example, Policies 1 through 13 under Objective OSC-1.2 require setbacks from sensitive habitats, require protection of riparian woodlands and freshwater marshes, and require project proponents to map sensitive biological and wetland resources (City of Livermore 2015). Because the project would disturb more than 1 acre of land, it would be subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires implementation of a site-specific SWPPP and BMPs. These BMPs would include erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, and means of waste disposal, all of which would ensure no pollutants or sediments are carried via stormwater runoff from the active project construction area to nearby riparian or wetland features. Thus, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, or state or federally protected wetlands. No impact would occur and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The project alignment is not located directly adjacent to intact wildlife habitat or corridors. The project would not redirect or cause the cessation of steam flows that could interfere with migratory fish species. Land use in the project vicinity is agricultural, residential, and commercial with little connectivity to natural habitats. It is therefore not expected to support wildlife movement. The alignment itself does not contain suitable connected natural areas that would contribute to a migratory wildlife corridor. Furthermore, Policies 9 and 10 under Objective OSC-1.2 in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan protect corridors from being impacted from development, such as development on adjacent existing wineries and residences that would be served by the project (City of Livermore 2015). No native wildlife nursery sites were identified in the area due to the lack of natural areas. Since the project alignment is not a significant site for wildlife to move or migrate through, no impacts would occur and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
427
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

42 e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The proposed project would not result in the removal of existing trees along the project alignment.

As long as the construction contractor submits a request for the removal and replacement of the street trees in accordance with the LMC, the project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No impacts would occur and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Currently, there are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other habitat conservation plans in the city and county; however, the East Alameda Conservation Strategy does include lands within and adjacent to the City, including the project site. The Conservation Strategy identifies the project alignment as adjacent to Open Space Land Type 3 and 4, which are agricultural and public lands that may have some ecological value. The project would not directly convert adjacent parcels to a different land use and would serve development on adjacent parcels consistent with the City’s General Plan and SLVSP. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
428
Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources

Initial Study 43
5 Cultural Resources

4.10-9
through

4.10-11
No No No N/A
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
EIR Pages

4.10-7
through

4.10-8
No No No N/A
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
EIR Pages

4.10-7
through

4.10-8
No No No N/A
1997 EIR Summary
Chapter 4.10 (Cultural Resources) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the existing SLVSP’s impacts on cultural resources. The 1997 EIR determined that cultural resources impacts related to historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains would be less that significant. No mitigation measures were required.

Setting
GPA Consulting (GPA) conducted a Historic Resources Survey Update for the City of Livermore in March 2021. The study consisted of an intensive-level survey and a citywide reconnaissance level survey. The study identified 30 previously unidentified properties that appear eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and that also meet the definition of a City of Livermore historic resource. The study also identified five properties previously listed in the NRHP and CRHR within the GPA survey area. None of the identified properties identified by GPA are within the project alignment.

The study also identified two designated wineries, Wente Brothers Winery and Concannon Winery, within the GPA study area. Both wineries are listed on the CRHR and are located adjacent to the project alignment along Tesla Road. The Wente Brothers Winery, founded in 1883 by C.H. Wente (Wente Vineyards 2022), is located at 5565 Tesla Road and was listed as California Historical Landmark No. 957 in May 1983. Concannon Winery, established in 1883 by James Concannon (Concannon Vineyards 2022), is located at 4590 Tesla Road and was listed as California Historic Landmark No. 641 in April 1958. Both wineries are located approximately 40 feet from Tesla Road.

Rincon Consultants conducted a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) for the project alignment on January 6, 2022. The records search identified 29 previously conducted cultural resources studies within a 0.5-

EXHIBIT A
429
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

44 mile radius of the project site, of which seven include portions of the project alignment. The records search also identified one historic-period built environment resource within the 0.5-mile radius of the project site, and no resources within the current project site. The NWIC records search indicated that the project alignment had not been surveyed for cultural resources prior to 2000. Rincon conducted a Phase I archaeological windshield survey of the project alignment and its components due to safety concerns from traffic conditions. The archaeologist drove the alignment three times to ensure that the project was documented for analysis. The archaeologist noted high vehicle and bicycle traffic throughout the project alignment. No archaeological resources were identified during this effort.

Rincon also submitted a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on January 17, 2022. The NAHC responded to Rincon’s SLF request on February 3, 2022, stating that the results of the SLF search were negative.

Rincon completed a review of historical topographic maps and aerial imagery to ascertain the development history of the project alignment. Historical topographic maps from 1907 to 1941 depict Tesla Road (trending east-west) and South Livermore Avenue (trending northwest-southeast) as paved roadways surrounded by minimal development, likely ranch houses (NETR Online 2022; United States Geological Survey 2022). From 1943 to 1964, historical topographic maps identify residential and road development within the project alignment and the identification of agricultural plots (NETR Online 2022; United States Geological Survey 2022). From 1969 to 1985, further residential and commercial development is depicted surrounding the project alignment, with the project alignment depicted in its current condition from 1985 through 2018 (NETR Online 2022; United States Geological Survey 2022). In addition, aerial imagery, from 1949 through 2018, details the level of disturbance surrounding the project alignment from agricultural use, specifically vineyard growth and expansion, as well as additional residential development (NETR Online 2022).

Regulatory Setting
CEQA requires that a lead agency determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical resources (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21084.1). A historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the CRHR, a resource included in a local register of historical resources, or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a] [1-3]).

A resource is considered historically significant if it:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

If it can be demonstrated that a project would cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a], [b]).

EXHIBIT A
430
Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources

Livermore City CouncilJuly 11, 2022

Livermore City Council
July 11, 2022