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

Initial Study 45
PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

City of Livermore General Plan 2003-2025
The City General Plan’s Community Character Element contains goals specific to cultural resources.

Goal CC-3, along with the Objectives, Policies and Actions therein, specifically aims to “preserve and enhance the City's cultural and historic resources not merely as positive reminders of the past, but also as relevant and unique alternatives for the present and the future–a source of community identity, architecture, and social, ecological and economic vitality” (City of Livermore 2004b).

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The two CRHR listed resources,
Wente Brothers Winery and Concannon Winery, are recorded adjacent to the project alignment along Tesla Road. The proposed project would not extend into either of the recorded resource boundaries as the project would be constructed entirely within existing paved rights-of-way. Changes to the project alignment would be underground and would not affect the resources. The project would not involve above-ground modification of the existing setting beyond underground utility placement and minor repaving. The project would return the road to a similar condition as before construction. The project would not involve the demolition of existing buildings or structures near the project alignment, nor would contributing features to Wente Brothers Winery and Concannon Winery be changed or impacted. Therefore, no historical resources would be affected. No changes in significance of a historical resource would occur, and no impacts would occur. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No archaeological resources have been recorded within the project alignment or a 0.5-mile radius of the project alignment. Previous studies within the project vicinity do not identify archaeological resources and indicate that the archaeological sensitivity is low for containing intact archaeological deposits.

The project alignment is paved and has been disturbed by the development of Tesla Road, South Livermore Avenue, Buena Vista Avenue, and Greenville Road; residential development; and the historical agricultural use of the surrounding parcels. Therefore, the project alignment has low sensitivity for containing intact archaeological resources. However, there is always a possibility that previously undiscovered archaeological resources could be encountered during ground disturbance;

EXHIBIT A
431
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

46 therefore, Mitigation Measure CR-1 would be required to address unanticipated discoveries during construction.

Mitigation Measure
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 CRHR 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.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce potential impacts on archeological resources to less than significant. 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
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No known burials or cemeteries are recorded within the project alignment. However, the discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground-disturbing activities. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and provide recommendations for treatment to the landowner within 48 hours of being granted access.

With adherence to existing regulations, impacts to unanticipated human remains would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
432
Environmental Checklist
Energy

Initial Study 47
6 Energy

Setting
As a state, California is one of the lowest per capita energy users in the nation due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climate, followed only by Rhode Island (United States Energy Information Administration 2021). Electricity and natural gas are primarily consumed by the built environment for lighting, appliances, heating and cooling systems, fireplaces, and other uses such as industrial processes in addition to being consumed by alternative fuel vehicles. The project would not use natural gas; therefore, only electricity is described herein. Most of California’s electricity is generated in state with approximately 30 percent of energy imported from out of state in 2020 (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2021a). In addition, approximately 33 percent of California’s electricity supply in 2020 came from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar photovoltaic, geothermal, and biomass (CEC 2021a). In 2018, Senate Bill (SB) 100 accelerated the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standards Program, codified in the Public Utilities Act, by requiring electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. Electricity service would be provided to the project by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Table 4 summarizes the electricity consumption for Alameda County and PG&E, as compared to statewide consumption.

EXHIBIT A
433
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

48 Table 4 2020 Electricity Consumption
Energy Type
Alameda
County PG&E California
County Proportion
of PG&E
Consumption
County Proportion
of Statewide
Consumption1
Electricity (GWh) 10,247 78,519 559,020 13% 2%
GWh = gigawatt-hours
1 For reference, the population of Alameda County (1,663,114 persons) is approximately 4.2 percent of the population of California (39,648,938 persons) (Department of Finance 2021).

Source: CEC 2021b
Petroleum fuels are primarily consumed by on-road and off-road equipment in addition to some industrial processes, with California being one of the top petroleum-producing states in the nation (CEC 2021c). Gasoline, which is used by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles, is the most used transportation fuel in California with 12.6 billion gallons sold in 2020 (CEC 2021d).

Diesel, which is used primarily by heavy duty-trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm equipment, and heavy-duty construction and military vehicles, is the second most used fuel in California with 1.7 billion gallons sold in 2021 (CEC 2021d). Table 5 summarizes the petroleum fuel consumption for Alameda County as compared to statewide consumption.

Table 5 2020 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Consumption
Fuel Type
Alameda County
(Millions of Gallons)
California
(Millions of Gallons)
Proportion of Statewide
Consumption1
Gasoline 442 12,572 4%
Diesel 52 1,744 3%
1 For reference, the population of Alameda County (1,663,114 persons) is approximately 4.2 percent of the population of Califor nia (39,648,938 persons) (Department of Finance 2021).

Source: CEC 2021d
Energy consumption is directly related to environmental quality in that the consumption of nonrenewable energy resources releases criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions into the atmosphere. The environmental impacts of air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the project’s energy consumption are discussed in detail in Environmental Checklist Section 3, Air Quality, and Environmental Checklist Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, respectively.

Regulatory Setting
2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan
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. The goals and visions outlined in the 2017 Plan provide a focus on creating energy efficiency and adopting a low-carbon lifestyle through increased use of renewable energy.

EXHIBIT A
434
Environmental Checklist
Energy

Initial Study 49
City of Livermore General Plan 2003-2025
The City’s General Plan Climate Change Element contains goals, policies, and objectives that prioritize energy efficiency. For example, Objective CLI-1.5 aims to expand and adopt new policies and programs that will help to provide energy efficiency alternatives to fossil fuel use and reduce consumption. This Objective is directly supported by policies and actions within the City’s General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, such as Action OSC-7.1 A1 that supports alternative energy sources (City of Livermore 2015).

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Project-related energy consumption would include energy consumed during project construction, such as fuel consumed by vehicles and equipment, and operational energy use related to increased wastewater disposal at the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant. No change to existing operations is expected to result from the project, no buildings would be constructed, and the project would not create result in the potential for unanticipated growth in the vicinity. The proposed project would require the use of gasoline and diesel fuel for project construction. The anticipated use of these resources is detailed in the following subsections. Construction details and the SMAQMD Road Construction Emissions Model outputs for the air pollutant and GHG emissions modeling were used to estimate energy consumption associated with the proposed project (Appendix AQ).

Construction Impacts
During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum-based fuels used to power and operate heavy-duty equipment and machinery, off-road construction vehicles on the project alignment, construction worker travel to and from the project alignment, and vehicles used to deliver materials. The proposed project would require site preparation, excavation, installation of piping, backfill, patch paving, final paving, and slurry sealing. As shown in Table 6 below, project construction would require approximately 3,076 gallons of gasoline and 74,352 gallons of diesel fuel. These construction energy estimates are conservative because they assume that the construction equipment used in each phase of construction is operating every day of construction.

Table 6 Proposed Project Construction Energy Usage
Source
Fuel Consumption (Gallons)
Gasoline Diesel
Construction Equipment & Hauling Trips − 74,352
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips 3,076 −
See Appendix AQ for SMAQMD Road Construction Emissions Model values and Appendix EN for energy calculation sheets.

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 CCR 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

EXHIBIT A
435
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

50 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. Project construction would not result in significant impacts due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

Operational Impacts
The proposed pipeline would convey wastewater to the existing Livermore Water Reclamation Plant, where it would be treated and discharged in accordance with the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant’s permit to operate, which includes a maximum treatment capacity and requirements for the quality of treated discharge. An incremental increase in energy usage associated with wastewater treatment would be consistent with the permitted treatment capacity of the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant, and would not be wasteful or inefficient. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Several plans and policies have been adopted to ensure energy efficiency in the Bay Area, including the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, the City of Livermore CAP, and the City of Livermore General Plan.

As discussed under criterion a, the project would be limited to energy consumption during construction, such as fuel consumed by vehicles and equipment. Overall, project implementation would not alter energy efficiency or affect existing renewable energy resources. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the visions defined within the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, the strategies outlined in the 2012 CAP or its 2021 Update, or the goals, objectives, and policies discussed within the City’s General Plan. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
436
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Initial Study 51
7 Geology and Soils

1. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
EIR Page

4.2-32
through

4.2-35
No No No N/A

2. Strong seismic ground shaking?
EIR Page

4.2-32
through

4.2-35
No No No N/A

3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
EIR Page

4.2-35
No No No N/A

4. Landslides?
EIR Page

4.2-28
through

4.2-31
No No No N/A
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
EIR Page

4.2-30
through

4.2-31
No No No N/A
c. 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?
EIR Page

4.2-28
through

4.2-31
No No No N/A
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
EIR page

4.2-31
through

4.2-32
No No No N/A
e. 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?
N/A No No No N/A

EXHIBIT A
437
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

52 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?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
N/A No No No N/A
1997 EIR Summary
Chapter 4.2 (Geology and Soils) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the existing SLVSP’s impacts on geology and soils. The 1997 EIR does not address the issues of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems and paleontological resources. The 1997 EIR determined that geology and soil impacts related to landslides, slope stability, expansive soils, faulting and surface rupture, liquefaction, and mineral resources would be less than significant in Subareas 1 and 2. However, impacts related to seismicity were determined to be potentially significant. As a result, geology and soils mitigation measures that were incorporated in the 1997 EIR to reduce potentially significant impacts are summarized below:

Mitigation Measure 4.2-5
In addition to implementing Policies 6-34 and 6-35 and satisfying the routine requirements expected of any development in the City, individual landowners/developers owners should:
 Take the recommendations of the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California into account when designing and implementing site development  Secure breakable objects or focus work stations away from such potential hazards Setting
The project alignment is located in one of the most seismically active areas in the country. There are three active faults within the project vicinity: the Greenville Fault, located approximately 2.4 miles to the east of the project alignment; the Las Positas Fault, which intersects a portion of the project alignment along Tesla Road; and the Calaveras Fault, located approximately 9.3 miles to the west of the project alignment. A portion of the project alignment is located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.

Landslide risk is low throughout most of Livermore, including the project alignment (City of Livermore 2015). Areas prone to landslide hazards include areas along the hills in southern Livermore, in addition to the northwestern and northeastern portions of the city (City of Livermore 2015). The nearest landslide area is located approximately 1 mile south of the project alignment.

The project alignment is located within Zone X (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 2021). Zone X is described as areas with a 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard, areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depth less than 1 foot or with drainage areas of less than 1 square mile. Most of the project alignment along South Livermore Avenue is also located adjacent to a regulatory floodway (FEMA 2009).

EXHIBIT A
438
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Initial Study 53
The project alignment is located in an area of the city with low liquefaction susceptibility (City of Livermore 2015). Portions of the project alignment along Tesla Road and South Livermore Avenue are located within a liquefaction zone (DOC 2018). Lateral spreading is typically associated with liquefaction. Lateral spreading itself refers to horizontal ground movement of relatively flat-lying soil deposits towards a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water. Since the project alignment has been identified as being within a zone identified for very low liquefaction risk, the potential for lateral spreading to affect the alignment was determined to be low as no open spaces within a distance considered susceptible to lateral spreading exist.

The project alignment overlays soils that are not expansive (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2019).

Paleontological Setting
The project alignment is located in Livermore Valley which lies in the central part of the Coast Ranges Province, one of the eleven major geomorphic provinces of California (California Geological Survey 2002) (Figure 1). The project alignment is located in the Altamont and Livermore United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles and was mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 by Dibblee and Minch (2006a, b). According to those authors, the area is underlain by two geologic units: Quaternary alluvium (Qa) and the Livermore Gravel (QTlg) (Figure 6). Qa is Holocene in age and consists of gravel, sand, and clay (Dibblee and Minch 2006a, b). QTlg is Plio-Pleistocene in age and consists of poorly sorted cobbles, pebbles, gravel, and sand (Dibblee and Minch 2006b).

Regulatory Setting
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 provides a mechanism for reducing losses from surface fault rupture on a statewide basis. The intent of the Act is to ensure public safety by prohibiting the siting of most structures for human occupancy across traces of active faults that constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. Generally, siting of structures for human occupancy must be set back from the fault by approximately 50 feet. This Act groups faults into categories of active, potentially active, and inactive. Historic and Holocene age faults are considered active, Late Quaternary and Quaternary age faults are considered potentially active, and pre-Quaternary age faults are considered inactive.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 was enacted, in part, to address seismic hazards not included in the Alquist-Priolo Act, including strong ground shaking, landslides, and liquefaction.

Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, the State Geologist is responsible for identifying and mapping seismic hazards. California Geological Survey (CGS) Special Publication 117, adopted in 1997 by the State Mining and Geology Board, constitutes guidelines for evaluating seismic hazards other than surface faulting and for recommending mitigation measures as required by PRC Section 2695(a). In accordance with the mapping criteria, the CGS seismic hazard zone maps identify areas with the potential for a ground shaking event that corresponds to 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years.

EXHIBIT A
439
C
ity of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

54 Fig
ure 6 Geologic Units and Paleontological Sensitivity of the Project Alignment

Imagery provided by Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A. 2006a. Geologic map of the Livermore guadrangle, Contra Costa & Alameda Counties, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-196, scale1:24,000; Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A. 2006b. Geologic map of the Altamont quadrangle, Alameda County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-197, scale 1:24,000.

Fig X Geologic Units and PaleoSens

EXHIBIT A
440
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Initial Study 55
The purpose of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is to reduce the threat to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. Cities, counties, and state agencies are directed to use seismic hazard zone maps developed by CGS in their land use planning and permitting processes. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires site-specific geotechnical investigations prior to permitting most urban development projects in seismic hazard zones.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction projects which disturb one or more acres of soil or are part of a larger common plan of development that disturbs one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, a project-specific SWPPP must be prepared. The SWPPP outlines BMPs to reduce stormwater and non-stormwater pollutant discharges, including erosion control, minimizing contact between construction materials and precipitation, and strategies to prevent equipment leakage or spills.

LMC
LMC Chapter 15.02, Grading, Excavations, and Fills, includes a grading ordinance that seeks to mitigate hazards associated with erosion and land stability. The ordinance establishes requirements for grading permits, including submittal and construction requirements. An erosion and sedimentation control plan must be submitted with a grading permit application, along with a drainage plan and pollution control plan. Implementation of these plans will also help to ensure that the stormwater runoff from a construction site will meet applicable water quality standards. The LMC discusses soils and foundations in accordance with the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) to ensure that professionals have been retained to review the plans and specifications recommended in the soil investigation and provide soil site observation and provide field and final reports to ensure that all of the work associated with the project substantially conforms with the approved plans, specifications, and investigation. Furthermore, LMC Section 15.20 includes specifications regarding seismic resistance and structural observations of the lateral system to reflect changes in the CBC.

Impact Analysis
a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly 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? a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? The project alignment, like much of California, may experience moderate to potentially severe ground shaking from earthquakes generated on known faults within 60 miles of the project alignment, such as the Greenville Fault. There is 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 or new land uses are proposed as a part of the project. Additionally, the project would be designed consistent with Objective INF-2.1 Policy 7 of the City General Plan, which

EXHIBIT A
441
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

56 requires sewer collection and transmission systems to cross seismic faults at right angles and include safety features to prevent wastewater leakage and facilitate rapid repair. Therefore, the project would not cause direct or indirect adverse effects resulting from fault ruptures or seismic activities (DOC 2018). 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. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The project alignment is located within a low liquefication hazard zone (DOC 2018). Furthermore, as stated above in the discussion provided under criterion a.1 and criterion a.2, no structures or new land uses are proposed under the project. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact. 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.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
The risk of landslides throughout the city is low (City of Livermore 2015). The nearest area with a landslide risk is located approximately 1 mile south of the project alignment (City of Livermore 2015). The project alignment is included in the very low landslide risk area. Furthermore, because the alignment is located in a flat area, project construction and operation would not result in landslides. Impacts related to 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. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Construction activities would disturb soil along the project alignment, resulting in potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil. As noted in Environmental Checklist Section 3, Air Quality, the project would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 6 regarding incorporation of measures to reduce fugitive dust, which would reduce the potential for construction-related wind erosion.

BAAQMD Regulation 6 includes requirements for the application of water or stabilizing agents to prevent generation of dust plumes, pre-watering materials prior to the use of tarps to enclose haul trucks, stabilizing sloping surfaces using soil binders until vegetation or ground cover efficiently stabilize slopes, hydroseeding prior to rain, and washing mud and soils from equipment at the conclusion of trenching activities. Implementation of these measures pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 6 would reduce the potential for project construction to result in substantial wind erosion or loss of topsoil.

Because the project would disturb more than 1 acre of land, it would be subject to the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) (“Construction General Permit”) adopted by the State Water

EXHIBIT A
442
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Initial Study 57
Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Compliance with the permit requires filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB. Permit conditions require preparation of a project-specific SWPPP, which must describe the site, the facility, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls.

Inspection of construction sites before and after storms is also required to identify stormwater discharge from the construction activity and to identify and implement erosion controls, where necessary. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements, including implementation of applicable BMPs related to wind and water erosion control, would reduce potential soil loss and erosion from the alignment. In addition, the project would be constructed within existing paved rights-of-way, with limited soil exposure during construction.

Impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project 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?
The project alignment is located within a liquefication hazard zone (DOC 2018). However, the project does not propose habitable structures or new land uses and would be constructed within existing paved rights-of-way. Given the nature of the proposed project and existing conditions along the alignment, the potential for lateral spreading would be low.

Pursuant to LMC Chapter 15.02, the project would comply with CBC requirements and project construction would not cause the ground to become unstable or result in landslide, lateral spreading, or liquefaction because the roadway would be maintained and applicable regulations would be followed. The project would result in a less than significant impact, 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.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Soils within the project alignment have a low linear extensibility, which corresponds to a low shrink- swell potential and low expansiveness (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2022). No expansive soils, which would require modifications to project design, are known to be present within the proposed alignment. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact, 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.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
443
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

58 e. Would the project 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 septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed and no related impacts would occur. In addition, the project would provide an opportunity to take existing development off septic systems. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Rincon evaluated the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units that underlie the project area using the results of the paleontological locality search and review of existing information in the scientific literature concerning known fossils within those geologic units. Rincon reviewed fossil collections records from the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online database and Paleobiology Database (PBDB), which contain known fossil localities in Alameda County.

Following the literature review and museum record search a paleontological sensitivity classification was assigned to the geologic units within the project area. The potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources is based on the potential for ground disturbance to directly impact paleontologically sensitive geologic units. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) has developed a system for assessing paleontological sensitivity and describes sedimentary rock units as having high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. This criterion is based on rock units within which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present.

The project alignment is underlain by two geologic units: Quaternary alluvium (Qa) and Livermore Gravel (QTlg). Quaternary alluvium (Qa) is Holocene in age and generally considered too young to preserve scientifically significant paleontological resources at the surface where sediments are less than 5,000 years old. However, young Holocene units may be shallowly underlain by older units at unknown depths in the subsurface near the project alignment. These older units have the potential to contain scientifically significant paleontological resources, and records of fossil occurrences from quaternary alluvium are documented from within Alameda County (PBDB 2022; UCMP 2022). Older units, such as Livermore Gravel (QTlg) and Pleistocene-aged alluvium (Qoa) are exposed at the surface in proximity (i.e., less than 2000 feet) to the project alignment (Figure 6), indicating a potential to be encountered at relatively shallow depths (i.e., less than five feet) within the project area. Qa is assigned a low paleontological sensitivity.

The Livermore Gravel is a Pliocene to Pleistocene age unit with a history of producing scientifically significant vertebrate fossils in Alameda County. These fossils include mammoth (Mammuthus), horse (Equus), ground sloth (Pilosa), and turtle (Clemmys) (PBDB 2022; UCMP 2022). Livermore Gravel (QTlg) is assigned a high paleontological sensitivity. Therefore, impacts could be significant and mitigation measures would be required.

EXHIBIT A
444
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Initial Study 59
Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Prior to the commencement of project construction, a qualified paleontological monitor (i.e., a paleontologist who meets the SVP [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 SVP [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 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 UCMP).

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.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would help ensure that paleontological resources would not be damaged or destroyed during ground-disturbing activities. This measure would apply to all phases of project construction and would ensure that any significant fossils present on-site are preserved.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant level through the recovery, identification, and curation of previously unrecovered fossils. This mitigation measure will be listed in the Supplemental EIR’s

EXHIBIT A
445
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

60 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
446
Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Initial Study 61
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Overview of Climate Change and GHGs
GHG emissions occur both naturally and as a result of human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, decomposition of landfill wastes, raising livestock, deforestation, and some agricultural practices.

GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO
2) is used to relate the amount of heat
absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. CO2 has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2021).2 The United Nations IPCC expressed that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is unequivocally due to human activities in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (2021). Human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, which has led the climate to warm at an unprecedented rate in the last 2,000 years. It is estimated that between the period of 1850 through 2019, that a total of 2,390 gigatonnes of anthropogenic CO2 was emitted. It is likely that anthropogenic activities have increased the global surface temperature by approximately 1.07 degrees Celsius between the years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021). Furthermore, since the late 1700s, estimated concentrations of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased by over 43 percent, 156 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, primarily due to human

2 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2021) Sixth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 30. However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWP of 25.

EXHIBIT A
447
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

62 activity (USEPA 2021b). Emissions resulting from human activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth’s temperature. Potential climate change impacts in California may include loss of snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (State of California 2018).

Regulatory Framework
In response to climate change, California implemented Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 required the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 emissions levels (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels) by 2020 and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost- effective GHG emissions reductions. On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed SB 32 into law, extending AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383 (aimed at reducing short-lived climate pollutants including methane, hydrofluorocarbon gases, and anthropogenic black carbon) and SB 100 (discussed further below). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with a statewide per capita goal of 6 metric tons of CO 2e by 2030
and two MT of CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017).

The City of Livermore adopted its current CAP in November 2012. The 2012 CAP outlined Livermore’s comprehensive strategy to reduce GHG emissions and quantify the reductions in order to meet its GHG emission targets by the year 2020. The City drafted a CAP Update in May 2021 as a direct update to its previous CAP, outlining new mitigation and adaptation measures aimed to further reduce the City’s GHG emissions, including energy-related emissions, and to increase resilience throughout the community.

BAAQMD Significance Thresholds
Individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to influence climate change directly.

However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to significant cumulative effects, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]).

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), projects can tier from a qualified GHG reduction plan, which allows for project-level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the project’s consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction plan.

This approach is considered by the Association of Environmental Professionals (2016) in its white paper, Beyond Newhall and 2020, to be the most defensible approach presently available under CEQA to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions. The 2012 CAP is a qualified CAP and complies with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1). However, the 2012

EXHIBIT A
448
Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Initial Study 63
CAP only address GHG emissions pursuant with the AB 32 2020 goal and does not include strategies to comply with SB 32. Furthermore, the CAP is designed to address new building developments not temporary construction activities. Therefore, the CAP is not used for tiering purposes.

Instead, the construction emissions were quantified and presented in the analysis. BAAQMD does not have a significance threshold for construction GHG emissions due to the interim nature of the activities. Construction-related GHG emissions would be considered less than significant.

Methodology
GHG emissions associated with project construction were estimated using SMAQMD Road Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.0 for informational purposes and are included in Appendix AQ. The SMAQMD model calculates emissions of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide associated with construction activities and vehicle trips. Emissions were modeled in accordance with the assumptions outlined in the Methodology section in Environmental Checklist Section 3, Air Quality.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Project construction would generate temporary GHG emissions, primarily as a result of construction equipment as well as from construction worker vehicles and heavy trucks transporting materials and soil export. Project construction would generate an estimated total of 734 MT of CO2e (Appendix AQ). Furthermore, the project would follow BAAQMD construction BMPs and implement the most current BAAQMD recommendations for construction activities. Therefore, construction-related GHG emissions would not be a permanent source of GHG emissions and impacts would be less than significant.

While the conveyance of wastewater and additional wastewater treatment demand would result in an incremental increase in energy demand at the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant, the GHG emissions associated with the additional energy demand would be within the permitted thresholds for the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant, and the project would be consistent with applicable GHG policies such as the 2017 Scoping plan or the City’s General Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The 2017 Scoping Plan’s strategies that are applicable to the proposed project include increasing water conservation. The project would support the 2017 Scoping Plan’s water quality goals because it would allow existing wineries and residential development in the project vicinity to connect to the City’s wastewater system and remove or abandon their on-site septic systems. The wastewater generated by parcels that would connect to the extended sewer line would be treated at the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant, which recycles wastewater for irrigation and fire protection; in contrast, the currently generated wastewater is disposed of via septic systems and is not reused. As a result, the transition from septic to sewer would conserve water. Additionally, the project would upsize four segments of 12-inch sewer line on East Avenue. The existing sewer pipes in these areas

EXHIBIT A
449
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

64 are currently undersized to efficiently convey wastewater and would not be able to handle the additional wastewater load without creating clogs in the system. 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. Table 7 provides energy efficiency goals and policies provided in the City’s General Plan (City of Livermore 2015) and describes the project’s consistency with these policies. As discussed in the table, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan related to GHGs and would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan, and no impact would occur. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

Table 7 Project Compliance with Energy Efficiency Goals and Policies Energy Efficiency Goal or Policy Is the Project Consistent? City of Livermore General Plan
Goal CLI- 1 Policy 2. Climate Action Plan. Include
mechanisms to ensure regular review of progress toward
the GHG emission reduction targets established by the
CAP, report progress to the public and responsible
officials, and revise the plan as appropriate, using
principles of adaptive management.

Consistent. The project would be required to comply with current CALGreen requirements, which encourage
implementation of water use efficiency during
construction, such as water use for dust control.

Goal CLI-1 Policy 3 Climate Action Plan. Work with other local and regional governments to assess federal and state programs and their impact on GHG emissions and
mitigation efforts.

Consistent. The project would be required to comply with current Energy Code and CALGreen requirements, which
encourage energy use efficiency during construction.

Goal CLI-1 Policy 4. Development Project Framework.

Evaluate the GHG emissions impacts of proposed
developments through the CEQA process. Require
preparation of project level GHG emissions inventories.

Establish requirements for tiered significance thresholds for the evaluation of projects and identification and
application of mitigation.

Consistent. GHG impacts are quantified in criterion a,
above. Impacts of the project would be less than
significant.

Source: City of Livermore 2015

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
450
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Initial Study 65
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school?
N/A No No No N/A
d. 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?
N/A No No No N/A
e. For a project located in 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,
would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
N/A No No No N/A
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
N/A No No No N/A
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires?
N/A No No No N/A
1997 EIR Summary
The 1997 EIR does not address the issue area of hazards and hazardous materials.

EXHIBIT A
451
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

66 Setting
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop an updated list of hazardous material sites (Cortese List). The California DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List (DTSC 2021a). The analysis for this section included a review of the following resources on January 14, 2022, to provide hazardous material release information:
 USEPA
 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System/Superfund Enterprise Management System (USEPA 2021)  SWRCB
 GeoTracker search for leaking underground storage tanks and other cleanup sites (SWRCB 2020)
 DTSC
 Cortese List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (DTSC 2021a)  EnviroStor search for hazardous facilities or known contamination sites (DTSC 2021b) Based on review of these databases, it was determined that the project alignment is not included on existing lists of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

However, the SWRCB has listed the following nearby facilities as a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup sites:
 Wente Winery, located at 5565 Tesla Road immediately south of the project alignment, was listed for gasoline contamination to an aquifer and a well used for drinking water supply. The case was closed in November 2009.
 Robert and Edna Carpenter, located at 524 Livermore South Avenue immediately east of the project alignment, was listed for heating and fuel oil contamination to soil. The case was closed in January 1994.
 A private residence, located on the corner of South Livermore Avenue and 5 th Street
immediately west of the project alignment, was listed for heating and fuel oil contamination to an aquifer used for drinking water supply. The case was closed in January 2016.  Arco, located at 286 South Livermore Avenue approximately 600 feet north of the project alignment, was listed for gasoline contamination to an aquifer used for drinking water supply.

The case was closed in November 2015.
 Del Valle Continuation High School, located at 2253 5 th Street approximately 500 feet southwest
of the project alignment, was listed for heating and fuel oil contamination to soil. The case was closed in June 2008.
 Pacific Bell, located at 2388 2nd Street approximately 1,000 feet north of the project alignment, was listed for diesel contamination to soil. The case was closed in February 1996.  Chevron, located at 2259 1st Street approximately 1,100 feet north of the project alignment, was listed for benzene, diesel, gasoline, and total petroleum hydrocarbon contamination to soil vapor and to an aquifer used for drinking water supply. The case remains open with verification monitoring continued as of January 2022.

EXHIBIT A
452
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Initial Study 67
 North K Associates, located at 2322-38 1st Street approximately 0.25 mile north of the project alignment, was listed for gasoline contamination to soil. The case was closed in October 1994.  City of Livermore Fire Station #1, located at 4550 East Avenue approximately 0.25 mile north of the project alignment, was listed for waste oil, motor oil, hydraulic oil, and lubricating oil contamination to an aquifer used for drinking water supply. The case was closed in June 1996.

No additional listed sites were identified within 0.25 mile of the project site.

Regulatory Setting
NPDES
As the proposed project would disturb over 1 acre of land, the City would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, a project-specific SWPPP is required, which would specify BMPs to quickly contain and clean up accidental spills or leaks.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Part of the DTSC involves implementing the CCR Title 22 regarding hazardous waste management, transfer, treatment, storage, identification, disposal, and site remediation. CCR Section 1532.1 requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead-based materials, such that exposure levels do not exceed Division of Occupational Safety and Health standards.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is the public agency that regulates the stationary sources of air pollution in the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area. BAAQMD’s Regulation 11, Rule 2 governs the proper handling and disposal of asbestos-containing materials for demolition, renovation, and manufacturing activities in the Bay Area.

Tri-V alley Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Disaster Mitigation Act was passed in 2000, shifting the emphasis on hazard mitigation from the federal level toward planning for disasters before they occur. The Disaster Mitigation Act requires state and local governments to develop hazard mitigation plans and to provide updates to such plans every five years, as a condition for federal disaster grant assistance. The Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan fulfils the five-year plan update requirement and identifies resources, information, and strategies for reducing risk from natural hazards in the Tri-Valley planning area.

City of Livermore General Plan 2003-2025
The Public Safety Element of the City’s General Plan contains goals and policies related to hazardous material and waste management. Goal PS-4 specifically discusses the City’s objectives and policies for protecting the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials. The City maintains a formally designated hazardous material carrier route to direct hazardous materials away from populated and other sensitive areas, prohibits the parking of vehicles transporting hazardous materials on City streets, and generally encourage the reduction of solid and hazardous wastes generated within the City, in accordance with Countywide plans (City of Livermore 2015).

EXHIBIT A
453
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

68 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Project construction would temporarily increase the use and transport of hazardous materials in the project area through the operation of vehicles and equipment. Such substances include diesel fuel, oil, solvents, and other similar construction-related hazardous materials and could introduce the potential for an accidental spill or release to occur. These materials would be contained within receptacles specifically engineered for safe storage and would not be transported, stored, or used in quantities which would pose a significant hazard to the public or construction workers themselves.

Hazardous materials used during project construction must be disposed of offsite in accordance with all applicable state and local laws and regulations, such as CCR Title 22 and the City’s General Plan.

Project construction would require the excavation and transport of paving materials (e.g., asphalt, concrete, roadbed fill materials) and soils which could possibly be contaminated by vehicle-related pollution (e.g., oil, gasoline, diesel, and other automotive chemicals). Additionally, roadways constructed before the 1970s were known to use asbestos containing materials in asphalt and lead- based paint for roadway markings. The existing asphalt pavement may contain asbestos and/or lead-based paint due to its age. All such paving, roadbed materials, and soils removed during construction would be transported and disposed of in accordance with applicable codes and regulations, including CCR Title 22, to ensure no significant hazard to construction workers or the surrounding community would occur. With required adherence to regulations, impacts would be less than significant.

Project operation would involve the conveyance of wastewater and would not require transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Similarly, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant and will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? Schools located within 0.25 mile of the project alignment include Livermore High School, located adjacent to the Bottleneck Project on East Avenue near 7th Street; Our Savior Lutheran School, located adjacent to the project alignment along South Livermore Avenue; De Valle Continuation High School, located 500 feet southwest of the alignment on Livermore Avenue; and Vineyard High School, located approximately 0.25 mile southwest of the Bottleneck Project on East Avenue. As described under criterion a and criterion b, above, an accidental spill or release of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials such as vehicle and equipment fuels could occur during project construction. Hazardous materials used during project construction would be disposed of offsite in

EXHIBIT A
454
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Initial Study 69
accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to the California Building and Fire Codes, as well regulations of the federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Administrations. Therefore, potential impacts associated with an accidental emission or release of hazardous materials in proximity to a school would be less than significant. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project 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?
As described above in the Setting, the proposed project would not occur on a site, or directly adjacent to a site, listed as currently containing hazardous materials pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. This impact would be less than significant and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT
e. For a project 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, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The closest airport is the Livermore Municipal Airport, which is approximately 3.75 miles west of the project alignment. The project alignment is not located within a Safety Compatibility Zone as designated by the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (County of Alameda 2012). Therefore, the proposed project would not subject people working along the alignment to safety hazards or excessive noise, and there would be no impact. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project would require temporary lane closures along the alignment throughout construction, but traffic would be managed by a county-approved traffic control plan. Lane closures would occur along limited segments of the alignment, as approximately 150 linear feet of pipeline would be constructed each day. Emergency routes would remain open with minimal delay resulting from project construction, and the project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Project operation would not change or disrupt the existing roadway and traffic patterns, and no streets would be closed or reconfigured once construction is complete. As such, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, including the Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan. The project would have a less than significant impact and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
455
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

70 g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The project alignment is adjacent to existing agricultural, 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 (CAL FIRE 2007, 2008). However, the eastern portion of the project alignment, including Greenville Road and a portion of Tesla Road, is located in an area designated as a Moderate FHSZ (CAL FIRE 2007, 2008). The project would be constructed within paved rights-of-way and would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. There would be no impact. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
456
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality

Initial Study 71
10 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.3-27
through

4.3-28
No No No N/A
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
EIR Page

4.9-14
No No No N/A
c. 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
which would:

(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
EIR Pages

4.3-24
through

4.3-27
No No No N/A
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
EIR Pages

4.3-23
through

4.3-24
No No No N/A
(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
EIR Pages

4.3-21
through

4.3-23
No No No N/A
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
EIR Pages

4.3-21
through

4.3-24
No No No N/A
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
EIR Pages

4.3-28
through

4.3-29
No No No N/A
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
N/A No No No N/A

EXHIBIT A
457
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

72 1997 EIR Summary
Chapter 4.3 (Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the existing SLVSP’s impacts related to hydrology and water quality. The 1997 EIR does not address the issues of conflicts with or obstructs implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The 1997 EIR determined that hydrology and water quality impacts related to site peak flow rates/localized flooding, erosion, and water quality would be less that significant.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b. 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?
c.(i) 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 which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
c.(ii) 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 which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? c.(iii) 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 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?
c.(iv) 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 which would impede or redirect flood flows? d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The project would result in construction activities that could affect the water quality of nearby waterways during the implementation of dust control measures, which could result in sediments carried by runoff into nearby waterways. The project alignment is located within Flood Zone X (FEMA 2021). The project would also result in a construction-related increase in water demand for dust control. Impacts are potentially significant. Additionally, development on adjacent parcels within the SLVSP area would continue to be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 1997 EIR. This issue will be studied in the Supplemental EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
458
Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning

Initial Study 73
11 Land Use and Planning

4.1-29
through

4.1-35
No No No Yes
b. 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?
EIR Pages

4.1-16
through

4.1-23
and 4.1-
45 through

4.1-77
No No No N/A
1997 EIR Summary
Chapter 4.1 (Land Use and Public Plans) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the existing SLVSP’s impacts related to land use. The 1997 EIR determined that land use impacts related to conflicts with land use plans would be less that significant. Furthermore, impacts related to physical divisions of established communities were determined to be potentially significant or significant and unavoidable in Subareas 1 and 2. As a result, land use mitigation measures that were incorporated in the 1997 EIR to reduce potentially significant impacts are summarized below:

Mitigation Measures 4.1-4
Off-site uses where increased incidents of trespass, vandalism, or theft are expected as a result of the new residential population introduced by SLVSPA buildout already are fenced for security.

Existing fences afford as much protection as would be reasonable in consideration of the expected significance of impact. The following measures (already included in Draft Plan site plans and described in Land Use Element development concepts) would further reduce impacts if incorporated as a condition of project approval:
 Fifty foot or wider landscaped and cultivated setbacks would separate residential lots from subarea boundaries and from difference adjacent uses or densities. Fifty-foot setbacks would be located in Subareas 1 and, adjacent to SNL and the Shaheen Industrial Park, respectively.

Cultivated setbacks of varying widths would provide both visual and functional buffering from existing on- and off-site land uses in all subareas (see Impact 4.1-5, below)  Within the 50-foot-wide landscaped buffer in Subarea 1 adjacent to the SNL property line, planting trees 30 feet away from the boundary and allowing only low-growing shrubbery or ground cover in the intervening buffer to permit visibility for security purposes and avoid

EXHIBIT A
459
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

74 creating places for intruders to hide or obtain access to SNL while shielding and privacy for residential uses in Subarea 1.

Mitigation Measures 4.1-7(a)
The City can choose among the following approaches to achieving conformance between the Draft Plan and already adopted City of Livermore policies:
 Modify the Plan before finally adopting and implementing it  Amend South Livermore Policies of the City of Livermore Community General Plan or the General Plan itself to better reflect more current thinking and more detailed site-specific planning the Draft Plan represents
Mitigation Measures 4.1-7(b)
The County will review and comment on both the Draft Plan and this EIR in response to which the City may review or modify aspects of the Plan before adopting it formally. In recognition of the mutual interests of the City and County in the South Livermore Valley, preceded by the joint planning process which led to formulation of both the Area Plan and Draft Plan, the following measure is recommended:
 The City should work with the County to resolve County concerns and policy conflicts (if any) before adopting and implementing the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan. This could include reaffirming continued cooperative programs and/or establishing a framework to coordinate further on specific concerns as the City implements specific aspects of the Plan.

Setting
As stated in Environmental Checklist Section 1, Aesthetics, land use along much of the project alignment is designated in the City’s General Plan Map as AGVT, with some parcels alongside the project alignment designated as Rural Residential (RR), Urban High Residential (UH), Parks, Trailways, Recreation Areas (OSP), Agricultural Preserve (SV-AP), and Vineyard Commercial (SV-VC) (City of Livermore 2015). A portion of the parcels in the project vicinity are zoned by the City of Livermore, while others are zoned by Alameda County. Parcels zoned by the City primarily include PD-SLVSP, along with one adjacent parcel zoned each as Education and Institutions (E), Open Space Agricultural (OS-A), and South Livermore Valley Agricultural (SLV-AG). Parcels zoned by Alameda County include Agriculture, Single Family Residential, and Planned Development (County of Alameda 2021). Generally, surrounding and adjacent parcels in the project vicinity consist of residential development, commercial development, vineyards and wineries, and open space uses compliant with City’s General Plan, SLVSP, and the County’s Zoning Ordinance.

Regulatory Setting
City of Livermore General Plan 2003-2025
According to the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, the AGVT land use category is intended to preserve and promote agriculture and viticulture as primary uses in locations that are deemed suitable for cultivated agriculture. The areas are also intended to protect sensitive or unique environmental and land characteristics, including an area’s rural character (City of Livermore 2015).

EXHIBIT A
460
Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning

Initial Study 75
SLVSP
The intent of the PD-SLVSP zone is to implement the SLVSP, adopted in 1997 and amended in 2004.

The SLVSP provides the framework for growth and development within the unincorporated area along the City of Livermore’s southern boundary, where portions of the project are proposed. The project alignment would extend along SLVSP Subareas 1 and 2. Permitted land uses in Subarea 1 are limited to residential development while permitted land uses in Subarea 2 include residential development and commercial development limited to a small winery or bed and breakfast with a small tasting room or small restaurant and a medium winery or bed and breakfast with a tasting room or small restaurant on 8 acres (City of Livermore 1997).

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? Project implementation would not alter the existing pattern of land use in the project vicinity or introduce new land uses and would not divide connected neighborhoods or land uses from one another. Project construction would not physically or socially divide an established community or limit movement, travel, or other interaction between established land uses. Therefore, no impacts would occur 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.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project 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?
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. The City General Plan requires new development in the City to connect to the municipal system, following confirmation of the availability of adequate treatment and disposal capacity (Objective INF-2.1). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating and environmental effect.

Therefore, no impacts would occur and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
461
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

76 This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
462
Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources

Initial Study 77
12 Mineral Resources

4.2-35
through

4.2-36
No No No N/A
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
EIR page

4.2-35
through

4.2-36
No No No N/A
1997 EIR Summary
EIR Chapter 4.2 (Geology, Soils, and Seismicity) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the existing SLVSP’s mineral resources impacts. The 1997 EIR determined that impacts related to mineral resources would be less that significant. As a result, mineral resources mitigation measures were not required.

Setting
The project alignment is not located in an identified mineral resource area or mineral resource zone (DOC 2015b).

Regulatory Setting
Pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, the State Mining and Geology Board requires all cities to incorporate into their general plans mapped mineral resources designations approved by the State Mining and Geology Board. Some mineral resources can be found within Alameda County. The City of Livermore General Plan indicates that there are areas in the vicinity that are underlain by alluvial deposits containing significant reserves of high-value sand and gravel deposits. Much of the valley floor located south of I-580 was also classified by the CGS as an area of significant mineral resources, including portions of the South Livermore Avenue and Tesla Road (City of Livermore 2015).

EXHIBIT A
463
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

78 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project 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?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No existing mineral resource mining operations occur along the alignment. The project would not require the use of mineral resources valuable to the region and residents of the state, and no mining activity is planned to occur on the project alignment. The project would not result in the loss of availability of mineral resources. Therefore, no impacts would occur and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
464
Environmental Checklist
Noise

Initial Study 79
13 Noise

4.7-10
through

4.7-14
and 4.7-
16 through
18 No No No N/A
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
EIR
Pages

4.7-16
through

4.7-18
No No No N/A
c. For a project 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, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
N/A No No No N/A
1997 EIR Summary
Chapter 4.7 (Noise) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the existing SLVSP’s impacts related to on-site operational noise, traffic noise, and construction noise. The 1997 EIR does not address the issues of being 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. The 1997 EIR determined that impacts related to noise would be less that significant. As a result, noise mitigation measures were not required.

Noise
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (Caltrans 2020).

EXHIBIT A
465
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

80 Human Perception of Sound
Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 dB decrease (Caltrans 2013).

Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible (8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud (10.5 times the sound energy) (Caltrans 2013).

Sound Propagation and Shielding
Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver.

The most obvious change is the decrease in the noise level as the distance from the source increases. The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line), the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions.

Sound levels are described as either a “sound power level” or a “sound pressure level,” which are two distinct characteristics of sound. Both share the same unit of measurement, the dB. However, sound power (expressed as L
pw) is the energy converted into sound by the source. As sound energy travels through the air, it creates a sound wave that exerts pressure on receivers, such as an eardrum or microphone, which is the sound pressure level. Sound measurement instruments only measure sound pressure, and noise level limits are typically expressed as sound pressure levels.

Noise levels from a point source (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, air conditioning units) typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features, such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features, such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (FHWA 2011). Structures can substantially reduce exposure to noise as well. The FHWA’s guidance indicates that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 10 dBA with open windows and an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows (FHWA 2011).

Descriptors
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed. The noise descriptors used for this analysis are the equivalent noise level

EXHIBIT A
466
Environmental Checklist
Noise

Initial Study 81
(Leq), Day-Night Average Level (DNL; may also be symbolized as Ldn), and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL, may also be symbolized as Lden).

Leq is one of the most frequently used noise metrics; it considers both duration and sound power level. The Leq is defined as the single steady-state A-weighted sound level equal to the average sound energy over a time period. When no time period is specified, a 1-hour period is assumed. The Lmax is the highest noise level within the sampling period, and the Lmin is the lowest noise level within the measuring period. Normal conversational levels are in the 60 to 65-dBA Leq range; ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leq can interrupt conversations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018).

Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day.

Community noise is usually measured using DNL, which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Community noise can also be measured using CNEL, which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013).3 The relationship between the peak-hour Leq value and the DNL/CNEL depends on the distribution of noise during the day, evening, and night; however noise levels described by DNL and CNEL usually differ by 1 dBA or less. Quiet suburban areas typically have CNEL noise levels in the range of 40 to 50 CNEL, while areas near arterial streets are in the 50 to 60+ CNEL range (FTA 2018).

Groundborne Vibration
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent buildings or structures and vibration energy may propagate through the buildings or structures. Vibration may be felt, may manifest as an audible low-frequency rumbling noise (referred to as groundborne noise), and may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants at vibration-sensitive land uses and may cause structural damage.

Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root mean squared (RMS) vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used as it corresponds to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 2020).

High levels of groundborne vibration may cause damage to nearby building or structures; at lower levels, groundborne vibration may cause minor cosmetic (i.e., non-structural damage) such as cracks. These vibration levels are nearly exclusively associated with high impact activities such as blasting, pile-driving, vibratory compaction, demolition, drilling, or excavation. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has determined vibration levels with potential to damage nearby buildings and structures; these levels are identified in Table 8.

3 Because DNL and CNEL are typically used to assess human exposure to noise, the use of dBA is implicit. Therefore, when expressing noise levels in terms of DNL or CNEL, the dBA unit is not included.

EXHIBIT A
467
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

82 Table 8 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage Type of Situation Limiting Velocity (in/sec)
Historic sites or other critical locations 0. 1
Residential buildings, plastered walls 0.2–0.3
Residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls 0.4–0.5 Engineered structures, without plaster 1.0–1.5
Source: Caltrans 2020
Numerous studies have been conducted to characterize the human response to vibration. The vibration annoyance potential criteria recommended for use by Caltrans, which are based on the general human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels, are described in Table 9.

Table 9 Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria
Human Response
Vibration Level (in/sec PPV)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources1 Severe 2. 0 0.4
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity Source: Caltrans 2020
1 Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Regulatory Setting
CCR
CCR, Title 24, Section 1207.4 requires interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources to be at or below 45 dBA in any habitable room of a development based on the noise metric used in the noise element of the local general plan. All residential windows, exterior doors, and exterior wall assemblies would be required to have sound transmission class ratings that would ensure adequate attenuation of noise at a range of frequencies.

City of Livermore General Plan 2003-2025
The City’s General Plan Noise Element generally defines a sensitive receiver as residential areas, hospitals, nursing homes, health care facilities, libraries, schools, and wildlife preserves. Sensitive receivers nearest the project alignment include residential development located adjacent to the project alignment along Buena Vista Avenue, South Livermore Avenue, and East Avenue; the Civic Center Library, located adjacent to the project alignment on South Livermore Avenue; and schools, including Livermore High School, located adjacent to one location of the Bottleneck Project on East Avenue near 7th Street, and Our Savior Lutheran School, located adjacent to the project alignment along South Livermore Avenue. Existing noise sources within the City primarily come from vehicular traffic, aircraft, industrial plant equipment, and activities associated with neighborhoods and schools (i.e., lawn mowing, leaf blowing, and children playing) (City of Livermore 2015).

EXHIBIT A
468
Environmental Checklist
Noise

Initial Study 83
Policy N-1.2 P5 requires the City to minimize exposure of neighboring properties to excessive construction noise. Policy N-1.5 P1 and P2 set the following limits for exterior noise during temporary construction activities: 55 dBA L50 (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 45 dBA L50 (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), with allowable exceedances of these levels of 5 dBA for a cumulative period of no more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour, 10 dBA for a cumulative period of no more than five (5) minutes in any hour, and 15 dBA for a cumulative period of no more than one (1) minute in any hour. Furthermore, Policy N-1.5 P3 restricts temporary construction from exceeding these noise standards by more than 15 dBA for any period of time. Policy N-1.5 P4 exempts the following noise sources from the above restrictions: motor vehicles on public streets; and temporary construction, maintenance, or demolition activities conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

LMC
LMC Chapter 9.36 provides restrictions and regulations for noise within the City. LMC Section

9.36.080 prohibits the use of any pile driver, pneumatic tool, derrick, electric hoist, sandblaster or other equipment used in construction, demolition, or other repair work, the use of which is attended by loud or unusual noise, between the hours of 6:00 p.m. Saturday to 7:00 a.m. Monday; 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday; 8:00 p.m. Friday to 9:00 a.m. on Saturday; and at all on City-observed holidays. LMC does include exceptions that provide a city engineer and/or builder with the authority to authorize construction activities during prohibited hours for the following reasons:

1. A public agency, other than the City, requires as a condition of a permit that the construction be done during the restricted hours.

2. Public health, safety or welfare requires the work to be done during the restricted hours.

3. Specific construction activities (such as large concrete foundation pours) can be identified and approved to occur as an exemption to this ordinance in the conditions of approval for a project at the time of the public hearing.

Noise Level Increases over Ambient Noise Levels
The operational and construction noise limits used in this analysis are set at reasonable levels at which a substantial noise level increase as compared to ambient noise levels would occur.

Operational noise limits are lower than construction noise limits to account for the fact that permanent noise level increases associated with continuous operational noise sources typically result in adverse community reaction at lower magnitudes of increase than temporary noise level increases associated with construction activities that occur during daytime hours and do not affect sleep. Furthermore, these noise limits are tailored to specific land uses; for example, the noise limits for residential land uses are lower than those for commercial land uses. The difference in noise limits for each land use indicates that the noise limits inherently account for typical ambient noise levels associated with each land use. Therefore, an increase in ambient noise levels that exceeds these absolute limits would also be considered a substantial increase above ambient noise levels. As such, a separate evaluation of the magnitude of noise level increases over ambient noise levels would not provide additional analytical information regarding noise impacts and therefore is not included in this analysis.

EXHIBIT A
469
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

84 Impact Analysis
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? Construction activity would generate temporary noise in the project vicinity, exposing surrounding 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. Each phase of construction has a specific equipment mix and associated noise characteristics, depending on the equipment used during that phase. Construction noise would typically be higher in the morning during the more equipment-intensive phases (i.e., site preparation work) and would be lower later in each day during the construction and paving phases. No buildings would be constructed, and the project would not result in unanticipated growth in the vicinity. As such, no change to existing ambient noise would result from the project.

The LMC does not establish noise level limits for construction occurring between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. In the absence of applicable local noise level limits, this analysis references guidance from the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual to establish a quantified threshold against which to assess the impact of construction noise; FTA recommends that reasonable noise criteria may include those shown in Table 10. Construction would be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.; therefore, daytime noise criteria would be appropriate.

Table 10 Construction Noise Criteria
Land Use Daytime Leq (8-hour) Nighttime Leq (8-hour)
Residential 80 70
Commercial 85 85
Industrial 90 90
Source: FTA 2018
To determine impacts, noise is estimated at the nearest sensitive receiver. Table 11 demonstrates the typical noise levels associated with heavy construction equipment during phases of construction at distances of 25, 50, and 100 feet from the noise source. While the property boundaries of the nearest sensitive receivers are located within 25 feet from the construction boundary, most structures are located approximately 50 feet from the project alignment, and Table 11 provides construction noise levels up to 100 feet from the noise source to demonstrate how noise from construction equipment attenuates over distance. Noise levels at a distance of 50 feet are provided by the FTA, while the other distances under evaluation are calculated using an attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance.

EXHIBIT A
470
Environmental Checklist
Noise

Initial Study 85
Table 11 Construction Noise Levels
Equipment
Approximate Noise Level at
25 feet (dBA, Leq)
Approximate Noise Level at
50 Feet (dBA, Leq)
Approximate Noise Level at
100 feet (dBA, Leq)
Backhoe 86 80 74
Loader 86 80 74
Paver 91 85 79
Roller 91 85 79
Truck 90 84 78
An attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance was used to calculate noise levels at 25 feet and 100 feet.

Source: FTA 2018
As shown in Table 11, noise from construction equipment has the potential to exceed the standard noise criteria of 80 dBA at the receivers located within 50 feet of the project alignment. These impacts would be temporary and would only last during the construction phase. Noise from construction equipment is not anticipated to exceed the standard noise criteria of 80 dBA at receivers located 100 feet or more from the noise source. Although the project would be constructed at approximately 150 LF each day, individual receivers would be exposed to construction equipment noise for a few days over the entire 12-month construction timeline.

However, because the project would exceed the FTA construction noise standards at sensitive receivers located within 50 feet of the project alignment, this would be a significant impact and mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation Measure
NOI-1 Construction Noise Reduction
The following requirements are required 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.  These measures shall be listed on all grading plans and monitored by the City of Livermore during construction.

EXHIBIT A
471
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

86 For noise sensitive uses, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. 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
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Project construction would intermittently generate vibration on and adjacent to the alignment, which has the potential to create human annoyance and damage buildings at high levels. Unlike construction noise, vibration levels are not averaged over time to determine their impact. The most important factors are the maximum vibration level and the frequency of vibratory activity.

Therefore, it is appropriate to estimate vibration levels at the nearest distance to sensitive structures that equipment could be used, even though this equipment would typically be located farther from receivers. Vibration-generating equipment may include bulldozers and loaded trucks to move materials and debris, and vibratory rollers for paving. It is assumed that pile drivers, which generate strong ground borne vibration, would not be used during construction because no structures would be built. Table 12 outlines expected vibration levels for vibration-generating equipment that may be used during project construction. Such equipment would be operated on a transient basis.

While the property boundaries of the nearest sensitive receivers are located within 25 feet from the construction boundary, it is anticipated that most structures are located at least 50 feet from the project alignment.

Table 12 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment at Noise-Sensitive Receivers Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet Lv (VdB) at 25 feet
Vibratory Roller 0. 210 94
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Source: FTA 2018
As shown in Table 12, construction equipment would generate peak vibration levels ranging from

0.076 in/sec PPV to 0.210 in/sec PPV at the property boundaries of the nearest sensitive receivers, which would be barely perceptible to humans based on the information provided in Table 9, Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria. These vibration levels would exceed the maximum vibration levels for preventing damage to historic sites and to residential buildings with plastered walls, but would not exceed the maximum vibration levels for preventing damage to residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls (refer to Table 8, AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage). As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 5, Cultural Resources, there are no historic structures within 25 feet of the project alignment. Similarly, it is anticipated that most residential and commercial structures are located at least 50 feet from the project alignment, which would reduce vibration to less than significant levels.

As required by LMC Chapter 9.36, 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.

EXHIBIT A
472
Environmental Checklist
Noise

Initial Study 87
There would be no groundborne vibration generated by project operation.

This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. For a project 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
According to Figure 3-2 of the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project would not be located within the 55 CNEL, 60 CNEL, or 65 CNEL Noise Contour (County of Alameda 2012). There are no private airstrips in the project vicinity and the project would not introduce a new noise sensitive land use. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports or a private airstrip. No impact would occur and this topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
473
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

88 This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
474
Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing

Initial Study 89
14 Population and Housing

Setting
Livermore has an estimated population of 91,216 with 33,004 housing units (Department of Finance [DOF] 2021). The average number of persons per household is estimated at 2.85 (DOF 2021). The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) provides projections for households in Livermore through the year 2040 and in Alameda County through the year 2050. ABAG projects there to be 112,905 households in Livermore by 2040 and 847,000 households in Alameda County by 2050 (ABAG 2021).

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth 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.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
475
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

90 b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
There are residences alongside the project alignment; however, the project alignment is entirely within paved rights-of-way. The project would not involve the demolition of existing residences and would not displace existing housing units or people. No impact would occur. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
476
Environmental Checklist
Public Services

Initial Study 91
15 Public Services

1 Fire protection? EIR Pages

4.9-23
through
25 and

4.9-28
No No No N/A
2 Police protection? EIR Pages

4.9-29
through

4.9-30
No No No N/A
3 Schools? EIR Pages

4.9-40
through

4.9-41
No No No N/A
4 Parks? EIR Page

4.9-36
through

4.9-38
No No No N/A
5 Other public facilities? EIR Page

4.9-42
through

4.9-43
No No No N/A
1997 EIR Summary
Chapter 4.9 (Public Services) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the existing SLVSP’s impacts related to public services. The 1997 EIR determined that impacts related to all public services would be less that significant. As a result, public services mitigation measures were not required.

EXHIBIT A
477
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

92 Setting
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is responsible for fire prevention and suppression in the project vicinity (CAL FIRE 2007). The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) acts as first responders to hazardous materials incidents, rescue emergencies, and medical emergencies (including injury accidents) within the City and project vicinity (LPFD 2021). The LPFD operates five fire stations in the City and operates five additional fire stations along with one fire headquarters and one training facility in the City of Pleasanton, located west of Livermore. In addition to fire and emergency response, LPFD also participates in development activities in the City by reviewing Planning Division projects and inspecting new construction and tenant improvements through the Fire Prevention Division (LPFD 2021). The LPFD’s goal is an overall response time of 5 minutes, 90 percent of the time.

The Livermore Police Department (LPD) provides police protection services in the City. The City has four area commands for LPD. The project alignment along most of the western portion of South Livermore Avenue is located between the District 1 and District 3 boundaries, East Avenue is within the District 3 boundaries, and the eastern portion of South Livermore Avenue in addition to all of Buena Vista Road, Greenville Road, and Tesla Road fall just outside of the District 3 boundaries (City of Livermore 2021b). As such, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office shares jurisdiction over the project alignment, specifically providing police protection services to a portion of South Livermore Avenue and all of Buena Vista Avenue, Tesla Road, and Greenville Avenue. The LPD Headquarters is located approximately 0.47-mile northwest of the portion of the proposed project on South Livermore Avenue (Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 2022).

Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District serves more than 13,900 students in transitional kindergarten through 12th grade at nine elementary campuses, two K-8 schools, three middle schools, two comprehensive high schools, and two alternative schools throughout Livermore Valley (Livermore School District 2022).

The Livermore Public Library currently operates one main facility, the Civic Center Library, and three branch facilities in the City of Livermore: Rincon Library, Springtown Library, and Springtown Easy Access. The nearest library facility to the project alignment is the Civic Center Library, located at 1188 South Livermore Avenue, adjacent to the westernmost portion of the project alignment.

Impact Analysis
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?

EXHIBIT A
478
Environmental Checklist
Public Services

Initial Study 93
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for other new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives?
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.

Project implementation would not increase the demand for fire or police services beyond what is anticipated in the City’s General Plan and SLVSP. Therefore, the project would not cause substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Similarly, the project would not increase the number of students attending schools operated by the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District and would not require the construction of new school facilities. 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. No impacts to would occur. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT
a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? Please refer to Environmental Checklist Section 16, Recreation, for an analysis of impacts related to parks and recreation resources. No impacts to parks or recreational facilities would occur. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
479
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

94 This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
480
Environmental Checklist
Recreation

Initial Study 95
16 Recreation

4.9-36
through

4.9-38
No No No N/A
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
EIR Page

4.9-36
through

4.9-38
No No No N/A
1997 EIR Summary
Chapter 4.9 (Public Services) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the existing SLVSP’s impacts on existing recreational facilities. The 1997 EIR determined that impacts related to recreational facilities would be less that significant. As a result, recreation mitigation measures were not required.

Setting
The City of Livermore owns and operates several small parks within the city limits. However, parks and recreational facilities in the City are primarily managed by the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD), formed as an independent special district in 1947 by vote of the public. LARPD is responsible for providing public park operation and maintenance for local and regional parks and recreation services to the City of Livermore and surrounding unincorporated areas of South Livermore Valley and north Livermore (County of Alameda 2013). LARPD is responsible for the management of approximately 1,949 acres of parks, trails, and open space; 153.3 acres are dedicated to Neighborhood Parks, 152.4 acres are dedicated to Community Parks, and 199 acres are dedicated to Special Use Facilities/Parks (LARPD 2016).

Parks and recreation facilities operated and maintained by LARPD nearest the proposed project include Ernie Rodrigues Softball Fields, located adjacent to the project alignment on South Livermore Avenue, and Robertson Park, located on Robertson Park Road approximately 600 feet west of the project alignment along South Livermore Avenue. Additional parks and recreation facilities located in the project vicinity include Civic Center Park, located adjacent to the project alignment on South Livermore Avenue next to the Public Library, Bothwell Park and Playground, located on 7th Street approximately 150 feet west of the project alignment along South Livermore Avenue, Robert Livermore Park, located on East Avenue approximately 0.2 mile west of the easternmost location of the Bottleneck Project on East Avenue near Buena Vista Avenue, Almond Avenue Neighborhood Park, located approximately 0.3 mile west of the project alignment along Buena Vista Avenue, Livermore Skatepark, located on Pacific Avenue approximately 0.4 mile east of the project alignment along South Livermore Avenue, and, Bruno Canziani Neighborhood Park,

EXHIBIT A
481
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

96 located on Charlotte Way approximately 0.5 mile east of the project alignment along Buena Vista Avenue. An existing shared-use path, the Arroyo Mocho Bike Trail, also runs along the project alignment on the southern side of the eastern portion of South Livermore Avenue. The Arroyo Mocho Bike Trail continues along the southern side of Tesla Avenue before turning north on Buena Vista Avenue and connecting to Bruno Canziani Neighborhood Park.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project 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?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The shared use Arroyo Mocho Bike Trail on South Livermore Avenue and Tesla Road would remain open and usable during project construction because they are not located within the project alignment, and project implementation would not permanently alter the Arroyo Mocho Bike Trail.

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. Furthermore, the project would not include the construction or expansion of additional public recreation facilities. As such, the project would not result in impacts related to recreation.

This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
482
Environmental Checklist
Transportation

Initial Study 97
17 Transportation

4.5-59
through

4.5-67
No No No Yes
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
N/A No No No N/A
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm
equipment)?
EIR page

4.5-62
through

4.5-63
No No No N/A
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? N/A No No No N/A 1997 EIR Summary
Chapter 4.5 (Transportation and Circulation) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the existing SLVSP’s impacts on traffic, pedestrian conditions, and parking availability. The 1997 EIR does not address the issue areas of consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) or the adequacy of emergency access. The 1997 EIR determined that transportation impacts related to intersections and transit would be less that significant. Furthermore, all other impacts were determined to be potentially significant or significant and unavoidable in Subareas 1 and 2. Mitigation measures that were incorporated in the 1997 EIR to reduce potentially significant transportation impacts are summarized below:

Mitigation Measure 4.5-4
Implementation of Draft Plan Policy 5-28, regarding the City’s encouragement of the County’s traffic calming program for Buena Vista Avenue, supports the neighborhood’s efforts to reduce volumes and slow speeds on Buena Vista Avenue. The following mitigation measure would be required to supplement Policy 5-38:
 The City shall work with the County to continue monitoring traffic patterns on Buena Vista Avenue. Traffic shall be monitored at least once a year until cumulative traffic conditions have stabilized for a period of three years. Stabilized shall be defined as vehicle speed and vehicle volume counts not increasing by more than ten percent for a given three-year period. If trips on Buena Vista Avenue increase to more than 2,000 trips per day (the conservative environmental capacity of the roadway) or if the 85th percentile speed of traffic on the roadway exceeds 30 miles per hour, the City will work cooperatively with the County to implement traffic calming

EXHIBIT A
483
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

98 measures to reduce the volume and speed of vehicles to those levels. Traffic calming measures which will be considered include those outlined in the County's adopted traffic calming program, such as the particular following examples:
 Planting street trees close to the roadway / Residential Neighborhood Gateways  Speed enforcement (Neighborhood Speed Watch Program)
 Road and speed humps
 Turn lane restrictions
 The City will advocate increasingly stringent traffic calming measures until the above-stated standards are met.

Mitigation Measures 4.5-6(a)
Where trails cross roadways, trail crossings shall be designated to the standard set forth in the Livermore Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Update and Equestrian Trails Study. Subarea developers should work with LARPD and the City and County Publics Works Departments on crossing design.

Trail/roadway crossings are planned at the following locations:
 Subarea 2 midway along the central collector
 Subarea 2 all farm compound access drives
 Tesla Road at southwest edge of Subarea 2
Mitigation Measures 4.5-6(b)
Subarea developers should work with the City Public Works Department and LARPD to plan, design, and construct the segments of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan facilities, which run adjacent to subarea frontage but are not included in the Draft Plan. Subarea developers should pay for the improvements along the subarea frontage. The facilities include:
 Bicycle lanes on South Vasco Road along Subarea 1 and 2 frontages  Multi-use trial on South Vasco Road between southern entrance to Subarea 2 and Tesla Road  Bicycle lanes and multi-use trail on Tesla Road between Subarea 1 southeast corner and north- south trail connection at southwest corner of Subarea 2 Setting
Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the project alignment is provided by I-580 via North Livermore Avenue and South Vasco Road to the north and by State Route 84/Isabel Avenue via East Stanley Boulevard and Concannon Boulevard to the west. The following descriptions are provided for roadways along the project alignment (City of Livermore 2015).
 South Livermore Avenue is a two-lane rural roadway with no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks, identified as a Special Rural Route.4

4 Special rural routes are designated through City-identified vineyard lands and incorporate special road design standards that serve to protect and complement the “wine county” character of the City (City of Livermore 2015). Special Rural Routes follow specific standards regarding width restrictions, landscaping features, and special signs, and typically include combined bike, pedestrian, and equestrian trails that are separated from the roadway.

EXHIBIT A
484
Environmental Checklist
Transportation

Initial Study 99
 Tesla Road is a two-lane road that starts at a connection with South Livermore Avenue within the City and stretches approximately 12 miles east, ending at a connection with Corral Hollow Road outside of the City. The roadway is identified as both a Major Street and a Special Rural Route west of Greenville Road and is identified as both a Major Street and an Intercounty Route east of Greenville Road. Tesla Road currently experiences cut-through traffic as a result of freeway congestion.
 Buena Vista Avenue is a low-speed, low-capacity residential roadway classified as a Local Street.5
 Greenville Road begins at a connection with Northfront Road, adjacent to I-580. Portions of the roadway north of Tesla Road are identified as a Major Street and a Special Rural Route, and often experience cut-through traffic as a result of freeway congestion. Portions of the roadway south of Tesla Road are identified as a low-speed, low-capacity Local Street that provides access to existing vineyards and wineries.
 East Avenue is located adjacent to the beginning of the proposed project on Buena Vista Avenue and is identified as a Major Street.

Existing Bicycle Facilities
Caltrans classifies bicycle facilities in four ways. The Alameda County Transportation Commission has adopted a sub-set of classifications for each of the four classifications designated by Caltrans to harmonize the previously existing local classification system within Alameda County. The following descriptions are provided for bicycle facilities located within the City with classifications identified by both Caltrans and Alameda County (City of Livermore 2018).  Class I Shared Use Paths are separated with exclusive rights-of-way for two-way bicycling, walking, and other non-motorized uses.
 Class IA are paved paths.
 Class IB are unpaved paths.
 Class II Bicycle Lanes are striped, preferential lanes on roadways for one-way bicycle travel.  Class IIA are conventional bicycle lanes consisting of a single stripe to delineate the lane, stenciled pavement markings, and signs to identify it as a bicycle lane.

Although there are additional subclassifications of Class II Bicycle Lanes within Alameda County, all existing bicycle lanes within the City are classified as Class IIA. The City of Livermore currently maintains 40 miles of Class I Shared Use Paths and 66 miles of Class II Bicycle Lanes (City of Livermore 2018). Existing bicycle facilities located along the project alignment include a Class IA shared use path, the Arroyo Mocho Bike Trail, which runs along the southern side of the eastern portion of South Livermore Avenue. The Arroyo Mocho Bike Trail continues along the southern side of Tesla Avenue before turning north on Buena Vista Avenue and connecting to Bruno Canziani Neighborhood Park. Additional existing bicycle facilities located along the project alignment include a Class II bicycle lane in both directions beginning at the intersection of South Livermore Avenue and 7 th Street. This Class II bicycle lane runs southeast down South Livermore Avenue, continuing east onto Tesla Road. The Class II bicycle lane on Tesla Road stops at the intersection with Greenville Avenue but continues north onto Greenville Avenue outside of the project alignment. An additional

5 Local Streets provide multimodal circulation with direct access to abutting land uses. Street design standards and layouts are typically used to discourage cut-through traffic, avoid high travel speeds and amounts of traffic, and minimize neighborhood noise and safety impacts

EXHIBIT A
485
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

100
Class II bicycle lane exists in both directions on East Avenue between Madison Avenue and Vasco Road, adjacent to the Bottleneck Project.

Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Existing pedestrian facilities in the City consist of sidewalks, pathways, crosswalks, curb ramps, crossing enhancements, and amenities like benches and lighting. The following descriptions are provided for pedestrian facilities located within the City (City of Livermore 2018).  Sidewalks are smooth, even surfaces separated from vehicle travel lanes. Some sidewalks are buffered from the roadway by landscaped areas or other features. Sidewalks vary in width from five to ten feet wide, depending on the adjacent land use.  Marked Crosswalks are guide pedestrians to a preferred path of travel across a street and alert motorists that pedestrians are likely to be crossing at that location.  Curb Ramps assist pedestrians with mobility impairments, pedestrians using assistive devices, and children transitioning from the sidewalk to a crosswalk. They are also intended to support pedestrians with strollers and children riding scooters or skateboards on the sidewalk.  Median refuges, also known as pedestrian refuge islands, provide a safe waiting area for pedestrians in the median of wide, busy streets.
 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons are user-actuated amber LEDs that supplement warning signs at uncontrolled intersections and mid-block crosswalks.

The City maintains approximately 566 miles of sidewalks, covering 93 percent of the street network.

Approximately 44 miles of roadways have sidewalk on only one side, and approximately 32 miles of roadway lack sidewalks entirely. The City maintains approximately 8,000 curb ramps, with approximately 28 percent of ramps complying with current Americans with Disabilities Act standards.

Existing Public Transit
There are several transit services available in the City, with the Livermore Transit Center serving as the major transfer point for local buses, Altamont Corridor Express trains, Amtrak motor coaches, and Greyhound buses. The Transit Center is located approximately 0.35-mile east of South Livermore Avenue on Railroad Avenue. The following transit services currently available within the City with routes and stops in the project vicinity are described below (City of Livermore 2015).  Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority operates the WHEELS Service, providing local public transit to the cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and to the adjacent unincorporated areas of Alameda County.
 Altamont Commuter Express provides passenger rail service from Stockton to San Jose through the Altamont Pass.

The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority offers fixed route services that operate seven days per week between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 12:30 a.m. Route 14 (Pleasanton-Livermore) maintains one stop on the corner of East Avenue and 7
th Street, adjacent to the Bottleneck Project.

Additionally, Route 30R (Dublin-Livermore via College) maintains one stop on the corner of East Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue, adjacent to the project alignment. Finally, Route 30X (Vasco) runs along East Avenue, adjacent to the Bottleneck Project, with one stop at the intersection of East

EXHIBIT A
486
Environmental Checklist
Transportation

Initial Study 101
Avenue and Vasco Road, outside of the project alignment. The Altamont Commuter Express provides three morning and three evening trips to the connector stations in Livermore and Pleasanton. The City has two ACE stations: one located on Vasco Road and the other on Railroad Avenue, adjacent to the Transit Center and 0.35-mile east of the project alignment.

Regulatory Setting
SB 743 and Vehicle Miles Traveled
SB 743 was signed into law by Governor Brown in 2013 and tasked the State Office of Planning and Research with establishing new criteria and metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts under CEQA. In January 2018, the Office of Planning and Research transmitted its proposed CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 743 to the California Natural Resources Agency for adoption, and in January 2019 the Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines, which incorporated SB 743 modifications, and are now in effect (Caltrans 2020). SB 743 changed the way that public agencies evaluate the transportation impacts of project, recognizing that roadway congestion, while an inconvenience to drivers, is not itself an environmental impact. In addition to new exemptions for projects consistent with specific plans, the CEQA Guidelines replaced congestion-based metrics, such as auto delay and level of service, with vehicle miles traveled as the basis for determining significant impacts, unless the Guidelines provide specific exceptions.

Alameda County Countywide Transportation Plan
A Countywide Transportation Plan was adopted by the Alameda County Transportation Commission in November 2020, which details a 30-year transportation vision and guides the decision-making of the Alameda County Transportation Commission. The Countywide Transportation Plan serves to improve the transportation system within Alameda County to promote connectivity, sustainability, transit operations, public health, and economic opportunities (County of Alameda 2020).

City of Livermore General Plan 2003 – 2025
The City’s Circulation Element contains goals, objectives, and policies focused on regulating and developing transportation systems in the City, such as Goal CIR-1 that ensures all users are provided safe, efficient, comfortable, and convenient mobility and Objective CIR-2.1 that promotes viable alternatives to single-occupant vehicle travel.

City of Livermore Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails Active Transportation Plan The 2018 City of Livermore Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Active Transportation Plan acts as a comprehensive framework to implement network improvements in order to provide quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities that improve mobility, connectivity, public health, physical activity, and recreational opportunities. Overall, the City uses the Plan to increase transportation options, reduce environmental impacts of the transportation system, and enhance the overall quality of life for the Livermore community. The Plan is consistent with, or provides further guidance for, regional plans and policies including the LARPD Master Plan, the East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan, Alameda Countywide Bike Plan and Pedestrian Plan, and Unincorporated Alameda County’s Bike Plan and Pedestrian Plan. The Plan also further implements the City’s Complete Street Policies set forth in the Livermore General Plan. The Plan provides a vision, goals, and policies that guide decision-making to prioritize and implement the recommended active transportation network improvement projects and programs (City of Livermore 2018).

EXHIBIT A
487
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

102
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Project 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 alignment before and during construction to give advance warning of road closures and detours. Access to the transit stops located along East Avenue would be maintained during project construction. Project implementation would not alter the roadways or transit stops, increase commercial or residential development, generate growth, or cause an increase in traffic in the vicinity. Therefore, the project would not impact the overall use of the roadways along the project alignment and would not conflict with the goals, objectives, or policies addressing the circulation system in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element.

The Arroyo Mocho Bike Trail would not be impacted during project construction, and project operation would not permanently alter the Arroyo Mocho Bike Trail. An existing Class II bicycle lane runs in both directions along the project alignment on South Livermore Avenue and Tesla Road.

Project construction would require closure of one side of the Class II bicycle lane on South Livermore Avenue and Tesla Road at a time. Detour signs would be placed at intersections to facilitate the safe crossing of bicycle lane users when portions of the lane are closed. Additionally, bicycle lane users could be redirected to use the unaffected Arroyo Mocho Bike Trail as needed during project construction. Project operation would not result in permanent closures or long-term impacts to the Class II bicycle lane. Therefore, the 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.

Overall, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

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. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) describes criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. 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. As such, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) and no impacts would occur. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
488
Environmental Checklist
Transportation

Initial Study 103
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? The project would be constructed within existing roadways and would not alter or affect the existing street and intersection networks in the 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 impacts. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? 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. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
489
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

104

This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
490
Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources

Initial Study 105
18 Tribal Cultural Resources

N/A No No No N/A
1997 EIR Summary
The 1997 EIR does not address the issue area of tribal cultural resources.

Regulatory Setting
AB 52 was enacted in 2015 and expanded CEQA by defining a new resource category: “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 states that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” It further states the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts altering the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible.

PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is:
 Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC section 5020.1(k), or
 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 PRC Section 5024.1.

In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

EXHIBIT A
491
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

106
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.

The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified or adopted.

Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those having requested notice of projects proposed in the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project 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)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 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? The City of Livermore notified culturally affiliated Tribes regarding the project on January 31, 2022.

As of the date of this report, no Tribes have requested governmental consultation regarding this project consistent with AB 52. The project would not involve the demolition of existing buildings or structures in the project vicinity. Based on the above, it is assumed no tribal cultural resources are present on the project alignment. However, because the project involves ground disturbance, there is the possibility of encountering undisturbed subsurface tribal cultural resources during construction. Therefore, the project could result in potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources and mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation Measure
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.

Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 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
492
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

Initial Study 107
19 Utilities and Service Systems

4.9-6
through

4.9-14
and 4.9-
19 through

4.9-21
No No No N/A
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
EIR Pages

4.9-6
through

4.9-14
No No No N/A
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
EIR Pages

4.9-19
through

4.9-21
No No No N/A
d. 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?
N/A No No No N/A
e. Comply with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
N/A No No No N/A
1997 EIR Summary
Chapter 4.9 (Public Services) of the 1997 EIR analyzes the existing SLVSP’s impacts related to water and wastewater. 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 1997 EIR determined that impacts related to water supply would be significant and unavoidable.

Furthermore, all other impacts were determined to be less than significant in Subareas 1 and 2. As a result, utility services mitigation measures were not required for development in Subareas 1 and 2.

EXHIBIT A
493
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

108
Impact Analysis
a. 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?
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d. 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?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The project would expand wastewater service to parcels adjacent to the proposed alignment. The project could result in a construction-related increase in water demand for dust control, electricity and natural gas demand from equipment use, and solid waste generation from pavement and soil removal. Impacts may be potentially significant. Additionally, the impacts of organics in sewage from wineries on the treatment processes at the Water Reclamation Plant would need to be studied further to determine what level of pre-treatment, if any, is required. This issue will be studied in the Supplemental EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
494
Environmental Checklist
Wildfire

Initial Study 109
20 Wildfire

4.9-25
through

4.9-27
No No No N/S
c. 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?
N/A No No No N/A
d. 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?
EIR Pages

4.9-25
through

4.9-27
No No No N/A
1997 EIR Summary
Chapter 4.9 (Public Services) of the 1997 EIR analyzes impacts related to wildfire. The 1997 EIR determined that impacts related to wildfire would be less that significant in Subareas 1 and 2. As a result, wildfire mitigation measures were not required for development in Subareas 1 and 2.

Setting
The City of Livermore is not located within a CAL FIRE designated Very High FHSZ (CAL FIRE 2008).

The northern and western portions of the project alignment and the Bottleneck Project are within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). The central and southern portions of the project alignment are within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The eastern portion of the project alignment, including Greenville Road and a portion of Tesla Road, is located within an area designated as a Moderate FHSZ in an SRA, while a small portion of Tesla Road beginning at Greenville Road is located within an area designated as High FHSZ in an SRA (CAL FIRE 2007). The nearest Very High FHSZ area is located approximately 8.5 miles west of the project alignment within an LRA (CAL FIRE 2008).

EXHIBIT A
495
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

110
Impact Analysis
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, 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?
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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? d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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?
Although the project alignment is located in an SRA, 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. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

NO IMPACT

EXHIBIT A
496
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Initial Study 111
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

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?
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
N/A No No No N/A
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
N/A No No No N/A
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
N/A No No No N/A
Impact Analysis
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The project alignment does not contain suitable habitat for fish and wildlife species. Therefore, the project would not substantially reduce the habitat of fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. In addition, as discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 4, Biological Resources, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts to bird and tree species to a less than significant level. This mitigation measure will be listed

EXHIBIT A
497
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

112
in the Supplemental EIR’s executive summary and included in the project’s mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

The project alignment does not contain important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, the project would not eliminate these resources. In addition, as discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Environmental Checklist Section 7, Geology and Soils, no historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources were identified along the alignment. Nevertheless, the potential for the recovery of buried cultural materials during construction remains. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce impacts to previously undiscovered cultural resources to a less than significant level by providing a process for evaluating and, as necessary, avoiding impacts to any resources found during construction. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources. These mitigation measures will be listed in the Supplemental EIR’s executive summary and included in the project’s mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

These topics will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As described in the discussion of Environmental Checklist Sections 1 through 20, with respect to all environmental issues, with the exception of water quality for dust control, water supply from facilitated development, and wastewater generation from facilitated development (refer to Environmental Checklist Sections 10 and 19), the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts to the environment; anticipated impacts associated with project construction and operation would be either less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. This is because project construction would be temporary, and project operation would not significantly alter the environmental baseline condition.

Cumulatively considerable impacts could occur if the construction of other projects occurs at the same time as the proposed project and in the same vicinity, such that the effects of similar impacts of multiple projects combine to expose adjacent sensitive receptors to greater levels of impact than would occur under the proposed project. For example, if the construction of other projects in the area occurs at the same time as construction of the proposed project, potential impacts associated with noise and traffic to residents in the project area may be more substantial. There are no major construction projects currently planned in the project vicinity and most of the parcels in the project vicinity are developed. Therefore, construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors are not anticipated.

In addition, cumulative impacts could occur due to indirect growth-inducing impacts, which includes consideration of whether the project would remove an obstacle to additional growth and development. 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.

Most project impacts are temporary, localized effects that would occur during construction. Once operational, the project would not have significant adverse environmental impacts or induce development in the area that could combine with other projects’ effects to create cumulatively

EXHIBIT A
498
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Initial Study 113
significant impacts. Therefore, with the exception of water quality and wastewater service, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. Potential cumulative water quality and wastewater service impacts will be addressed in greater detail in the Supplemental EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts. As detailed in the Environmental Checklist Section 3, Air Quality, the project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in substantial adverse effects related to air quality through construction or operation. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, project operation would not involve the routine use of extremely hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable regulations during project construction would reduce potential impacts on human beings related to hazards and hazardous materials to a less than significant level. During project construction, noise impacts would be limited to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce construction noise below applicable thresholds; therefore, construction noise impacts would be temporary and less than significant. Project operation would not increase noise levels. Consequently, operational noise would not significantly impact nearby sensitive receivers. Therefore, the project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. This topic will not be discussed in the Supplemental EIR.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED

EXHIBIT A
499
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

114

This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
500
References

Initial Study 115
References
Bibliography
Alameda, County of. 2012. Livermore Executive Airport – Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/LVK_ALUCP_082012_FULL.p df (accessed October 2021).
______. 2013. Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Municipal Service Review. http://www.acgov.org/lafco/documents/supporting_docs_2013_01_10/Item_7_Attach_2_L ARPD.pdf (accessed October 2021).
______. 2017. Alameda County Clean Water Program. https://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/about- us.html (accessed November 2021).
______. 2020. Countywide Transportation Plan. https://www.alamedactc.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/02/2020_CTP_Final.pdf (accessed October 2021). ______. 2021. Unincorporated Alameda County Public Access Map. https://acpwa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=4a648cb409d744b8a4f645e6 e35fe773 (accessed October 2021).

Alameda Sheriff’s Office, County of. 2022. About Us. https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/about- us (accessed October 2021).

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2021. Plan Bay Area. http://projections.planbayarea.org/ (accessed November 2021).

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. Spare the Air Cool Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. Adopted April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017- clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed November 2021).
______. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. San Francisco, CA. May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed November 2021). ______. 2018. Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program 2013 CARE Communities [map]. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/care-program/revised- 2013-care-communities-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed September 2021).

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed October 2021). ______. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed November 2021).
______. 2021a. Carbon Monoxide & Health. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/carbon-monoxide- and-health (accessed October 2021).

EXHIBIT A
501
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

116
______. 2021b. Diesel Exhaust & Health. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel- exhaust-and-health (accessed October 2021).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2015a. Alameda County Williamson Act FY 2014/2015. https://s3-us-west-

1.amazonaws.com/waterfrontballparkdistrict.com/25_ReferencesintheDraftEIR-Section4- 17NS/2015-00-00-DOC-AlamedaIndex.pdf (accessed January 2021). ______. 2015b. CGS Information Warehouse: Mineral Land Classification. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc (accessed October 2021).
______. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ (accessed October 2021).
______. 2018. DOC Maps: Geologic Hazards.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/#webmaps (accessed September 2021).

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark.” May 2021. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ (accessed November 2021).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021. Timberland Conservation Program. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Timber (accessed October 2021). ______. 2022. California Natural Diversity Database: BIOS v5.96.99. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/?tool=cnddbQuick (accessed January 2022).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/7271/fhszs_map1.pdf (accessed January 2022). ______. 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6638/fhszl_map1.pdf (accessed January 2022).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2021a. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese).
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?CMD=search&city=&zip=94550&county= &case_number=&business_name=&FEDERAL_SUPERFUND=True&STATE_RESPONSE=True& VOLUNTARY_CLEANUP=True&SCHOOL_CLEANUP=True&CORRECTIVE_ACTION=True&tiered _permit=True&evaluation=True&operating=True&post_closure=True&non_operating=True &inspections=True&inspectionsother=True (accessed November 2021). ______. 2021b. EnviroStor Database. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public (accessed January 2022).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (CT-HWANP-RT-20-365.01.01). April. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (accessed October 2021).
______. 2021. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa (accessed October 2021).

EXHIBIT A
502
References

Initial Study 117
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. California Groundwater Bulletin 18. 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. 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).

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021a. Total System Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019- total-system-electric-generation (accessed December 2021). ______. 2021b. “California Energy Consumption Database.” https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/ (accessed December 2021).
______. 2021c. “California’s Petroleum Market.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy- almanac/californias-petroleum-market (accessed December 2021). ______. 2021d. “California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california- retail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting (accessed December 2021).

California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) San Francisco Bay Region. 2017. San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-12/documents/ca2-sanfrancisco-basin.pdf (accessed November 2021).

California Water Service. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Livermore District. https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/LIV_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf (accessed November 2021).

Concannon Vineyards. 2022. 138 YEARS OF HISTORY IN EVERY BOTTLE, The Concannon family turned a pioneering venture into an enduring landmark. Explore the milestones they celebrated along the way. Concannon Vineyards. Electronic document at https://www.concannonvineyard.com/our-story/timeline/, accessed February 2022.

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).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. December 2011.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_ab atement_guidance/revguidance.pdf (accessed December 2021).

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf (accessed October 2021).

EXHIBIT A
503
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

118
GPA Consulting. 2021. City of Livermore Historic Resources Survey Update. https://www.cityoflivermore.net/home/showpublisheddocument/7622/637635147928700 000 (accessed October 2021).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA (accessed November 2021).
______. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson- Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L.

Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T.

Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press (accessed November 2021).

Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD). 2016. Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan.
https://www.larpd.org/media/Policies/LARPD_PRTMP_Final_Document_Adopted_June_29 _2016%20(1).pdf (accessed October 2021).

Livermore, City of. 1997. South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP). Amended 2004. https://www.cityoflivermore.net/home/showpublisheddocument/5551/637230313456300 000 (accessed October 2021).
______. 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).
______. 2018. Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails Active Transportation Plan. https://www.cityoflivermore.net/home/showpublisheddocument/4529/637229929948370 000 (accessed January 2022).
______. 2021a. Climate Action Plan Update. Measure List – Draft. https://www.cityoflivermore.net/home/showpublisheddocument/6725/637583350007770 000 (accessed October 2021).
______. 2021b. Livermore Police Department (LPD) Guide. https://www.cityoflivermore.net/government/police/area-command/area-command-map (accessed October 2021).
______. 2021c. Livermore Water Reclamation Plant.
https://www.cityoflivermore.net/government/public-works/water-resources/wastewater- service/livermore-water-reclamation-plant (accessed November 2021). ______. 2022. Environmental Services. https://www.cityoflivermore.net/government/public- works/environmental-services (accessed January 2022).

EXHIBIT A
504
References

Initial Study 119
Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD). 2021. Emergency Operations. https://www.lpfire.org/about-us/emergency-operations (accessed October 2021).

Livermore School District. 2022. Our Mission. https://www.livermoreschools.org/Page/31 (accessed January 2022).

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (accessed February 2022).

NETR Online. 2022. “Historic Aerials,” [online historical aerial photograph viewer]. www.historicaerials.com, accessed February 2022.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program: Risk Assessment Guidelines. February 2015.
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf (accessed January 2022).

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). 2021. Delivering low-emission energy. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy- solutions/clean-energy-solutions.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_cleanenergy (accessed October 2021).

Paleobiology Database (PBDB). 2021. Online fossil locality database. https://www.paleobiodb.org/#/ (accessed November 2021).

Pleasanton, City of. 2015. East Pleasanton Specific Plan. Appendix G - Public Service Letters and Responses.
http://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=25397 (accessed October 2021).

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2020. Memorandum Detailing GHG Emissions Inventory, Forecast, and Provisional Targets for Livermore Climate Action Plan Update. https://livermoreclimateaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Livermore-GHG- Emissions-Inventory-and-Forecast-Final-2020.pdf (accessed January 2022).

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee (accessed November 2021).

State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. August 27, 2018. http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/ (accessed January 2022).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed November 2021).

University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Online Database. 2021. UCMP specimen search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed November 2021).

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed January 2022).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Version

2. Updated October 2020. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html (accessed November 2021).

EXHIBIT A
505
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

120
United States Geological Survey. 2022. Historical Topographic Map Explorer. [online map database]. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/ (accessed February 2022).

United States Energy Information Administration. 2021. California State Profile and Energy Estimates. February 12, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA (accessed December 2021).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021a. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019. USEPA #430-R-20-002. April 2020. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks (accessed November 2021).
______. 2021b. “Climate Change Indicators: Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases.” Last modified: July 21, 2021. http://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change- indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases (accessed December 2021). ______. 2022. SEMS Search. https://www.epa.gov/enviro/sems-search (accessed January 2022).

Wente Vineyards. 2022. Our Story, Wente Vineyards. https://wentevineyards.com/our-story (accessed February 2022).

Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Initial Study under contract to the City of Livermore. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Darcy Kremin, AICP, Director
Aileen Mahoney, Project Manager
Destiny Timms, Environmental Planner
Taylor Freeman, Environmental Planner
Mimi McNamara, Environmental Planner
Chris Shields, Environmental Planner
Heather Blind, Senior Archaeologist
Courtney Montgomery, Archaeologist
Elaine Foster, Archaeologist
Audrey Brown, GIS Specialist
Luis Apolinar, Publishing Specialist

EXHIBIT A
506
Appe
ndix AQ
Road Construction Emissions Model Inputs and Outputs

EXHIBIT A
507
R
oad Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 1/13/2022 R
oad Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.0
D
ata Entry Worksheet
O
ptional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background.

The user is required to enter information in cells D10 through D24, E28 through G35, and D38 through D41 for all project types.

Please use "Clear Data Input & User Overrides" button first before changing the Project Type or begin a new project.

Input Type
Project Name South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project
Construction Start Year 2024 Enter a Year between 2014
and 2040 (inclusive)
Project Type 1) New Road Construction : Project to build a roadway from bare ground, which generally requires more site preparation than widening an existing roadway 2) Road Widening : Project to add a new lane to an existing roadway 3 ) Bridge/Overpass Construction : Project to build an elevated roadway, which generally requires some different equipment than a new roadway, such as a crane 4 ) Other Linear Project Type: Non-roadway project such as a pipeline, transmission line, or levee construction Project Construction Time 12.00 months
Working Days per Month 22.00 days (assume 22 if unknown) Predominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1
) Sand Gravel : Use for quaternary deposits (Delta/West County) 2 ) Weathered Rock-Earth : Use for Laguna formation (Jackson Highway area) or the Ione formation (Scott Road, Rancho Murieta) 3 ) Blasted Rock : Use for Salt Springs Slate or Copper Hill Volcanics (Folsom South of Highway 50, Rancho Murieta) P
roject Length 5.00 miles
Total Project Area 12.13 acres
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day 0.05 acres
Water Trucks Used? 1 1. Yes
2 . No
M
aterial Hauling Quantity Input
Material Type Phase Haul Truck Capacity (yd3) (assume 20 if u
nknown) I
mport Volume (yd3/day) Export Volume (yd 3/day)
G
rubbing/Land Clearing 2

0.00 G
rading/Excavation 2

0.00 0
.00 2
.28
D
rainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 2

0.00 P
aving 2

0.00 G
rubbing/Land Clearing 2

0.00 G
rading/Excavation 2

0.00 D
rainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 2

0.00 P
aving 2

0.00 8
.00 8
.00
M
itigation Options
O
n-road Fleet Emissions Mitigation S
elect "2010 and Newer On-road Vehicles Fleet" option when the on-road heavy-duty truck fleet for the project will be limited to vehicles of model year 2010 or newer O
ff-road Equipment Emissions Mitigation
Select "Tier 4 Equipment" option if some or all off-road equipment used for the project meets CARB Tier 4 Standard Will all off-road equipment be tier 4?
The remaining sections of this sheet contain areas that require modification when 'Other Project Type' is selected. (for project within "Sacramento County", follow soil type selection instructions in cells E18 to E20 otherwise see instructions provided in cells J18 to J22)
1 Soil
Asphalt
No Mitigation
All Tier 4 Equipment
For 4: Other Linear Project Type, please provide project specific off- road equipment population and vehicle trip data
Please note that the soil type instructions provided in cells E18 to E20 are specific to Sacramento County. Maps available from the California Geologic Survey (see weblink below) can be used to determine soil type outside Sacramento County.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/geologic_mapping/Pa g
es/googlemaps.aspx#regionalseries
4 N
ote: Required data input sections have a yellow background.

No Mitigation
Select "20% NOx and 45% Exhaust PM reduction" option if the project will be required to use a lower emitting off-road construction fleet. The SMAQMD Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure (http://www.airquality.org/Businesses/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/Mitigation).

T
o begin a new project, click this button to
clear data previously entered. This button
will only work if you opted not to disable
macros when loading this spreadsheet.

D
ata Entry Worksheet 1
S

ACRAMENTO M

ETROPOLITAN
A
I R Q

U A L I T Y
M

ANAGEMENT D

ISTRICT

EXHIBIT A
508
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 1/13/2022 Note: The program's estimates of construction period phase length can be overridden in cells D50 through D53, and F50 through F53.

Program Program
User Override of Calculated User Override of Default
Construction Periods Construction Months Months Phase Starting Date Phase Starting Date Grubbing/Land Clearing 12.00 1.20 1/1/2024 1/1/2024
Grading/Excavation 12.00 4.80 1/1/2024 12/31/2024
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 12.00 4.20 1/1/2024 12/31/2025 Paving 12.00 1.80 1/1/2024 12/31/2026
Totals (Months)
Please note: You have entered a different number of months than the project length shown in cell D16.

Note: Soil Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D61 through D64, and F61 through F64.

Soil Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 40.00 0.00 1 40.00 Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0 0.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 0.00 0 0.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Paving (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.04 0.32 0.01 0.00 0.00 150.28 0.00 0.02 157.32 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.84 0.00 0.00 20.77 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.84 0.00 0.00 20.77 Note: Asphalt Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D91 through D94, and F91 through F94.

Asphalt Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 0.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0 0.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 40.00 0.00 1 40.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Paving (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.04 0.32 0.01 0.00 0.00 150.28 0.00 0.02 157.32 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.84 0.00 0.00 20.77 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.84 0.00 0.00 20.77 48 Data Entry Worksheet 2

EXHIBIT A
509
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 1/13/2022 Note: Worker commute default values can be overridden in cells D121 through D126.

Worker Commute Emissions User Override of Worker
User Input Commute Default Values Default Values
Miles/ one-way trip 11 0 Calculated Calculated
One-way trips/day 2 0 Daily Trips Daily VMT
No. of employees: Grubbing/Land Clearing 4 0 8 88.00
No. of employees: Grading/Excavation 4 0 8 88.00
No. of employees: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 1 0 2 22.00 No. of employees: Paving 4 0 8 88.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.01 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 306.70 0.00 0.01 308.54 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.01 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 306.70 0.00 0.01 308.54 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.01 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 306.70 0.00 0.01 308.54 Paving (grams/mile) 0.01 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 306.70 0.00 0.01 308.54 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.98 2.66 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.99 0.07 0.03 76.61 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.98 2.66 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.99 0.07 0.03 76.61 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.98 2.66 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.99 0.07 0.03 76.61 Paving (grams/trip) 0.98 2.66 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.99 0.07 0.03 76.61 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.02 0.21 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 60.67 0.00 0.00 61.21 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.01 0.00 0.00 8.08 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.02 0.21 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 60.67 0.00 0.00 61.21 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.01 0.00 0.00 8.08 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.17 0.00 0.00 15.30 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.02 Pounds per day - Paving 0.02 0.21 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 60.67 0.00 0.00 61.21 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.01 0.00 0.00 8.08 Total tons per construction project 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.03 0.00 0.00 26.26 Note: Water Truck default values can be overridden in cells D153 through D156, I153 through I156, and F153 through F156.

Water Truck Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Override of Default Values Calculated User Input Default # Water Trucks Number of Water Trucks Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Trips/day Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Daily VMT Grubbing/Land Clearing - Exhaust 1 0 1.00 0 1 15.00 0.00 15.00 Grading/Excavation - Exhaust 1 0 1.00 0 1 15.00 0.00 15.00 Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 1 0 1.00 0 1 15.00 0.00 15.00 Paving 1 0 1.00 0 1 15.00 0.00 15.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Paving (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.35 0.00 0.01 59.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.44 0.00 0.00 7.79 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.35 0.00 0.01 59.00 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.44 0.00 0.00 7.79 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.35 0.00 0.01 59.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.44 0.00 0.00 7.79 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.35 0.00 0.01 59.00 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.44 0.00 0.00 7.79 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.76 0.00 0.00 31.15 Note: Fugitive dust default values can be overridden in cells D183 through D185.

User Override of Max Default PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5
Acreage Disturbed/Day Maximum Acreage/Day pounds/day tons/per period pounds/day tons/per period Fugitive Dust - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.05 0.46 0.06 0.10 0.01 Fugitive Dust - Grading/Excavation 0.05 0.46 0.06 0.10 0.01 Fugitive Dust - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 0.05 0.46 0.06 0.10 0.01 Fugitive Dust
Data Entry Worksheet 3

EXHIBIT A
510
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 1/13/2022 Values in cells D195 through D228, D246 through D279, D297 through D330, and D348 through D381 are required when 'Other Project Type' is selected.

Off-Road Equipment Emissions
Default
Grubbing/Land Clearing Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.18 3.27 1.40 0.07 0.06 0.01 500.27 0.16 0.00 505.66 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.35 1.66 4.16 0.13 0.12 0.01 640.51 0.21 0.01 647.41 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.14 2.24 1.45 0.07 0.06 0.00 301.77 0.10 0.00 305.01 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grubbing/Land Clearing pounds per day 0.68 7.16 7.01 0.27 0.25 0.01 1,442.54 0.47 0.01 1,458.08 Grubbing/Land Clearing tons per phase 0.09 0.94 0.92 0.04 0.03 0.00 190.42 0.06 0.00 192.47 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier

0.00 Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00 N/A
Mitigation Option

0.00 0.00
N/A

0.00 0.00
N/A
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 4

EXHIBIT A
511
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 1/13/2022 Default
Grading/Excavation Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.35 1.66 4.16 0.13 0.12 0.01 640.51 0.21 0.01 647.41 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.14 2.24 1.45 0.07 0.06 0.00 301.77 0.10 0.00 305.01 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grading/Excavation pounds per day 0.68 7.16 7.01 0.27 0.25 0.01 1,442.54 0.47 0.01 1,458.08 Grading/Excavation tons per phase 0.09 0.94 0.92 0.04 0.03 0.00 190.42 0.06 0.00 192.47 N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00

0.00 Mitigation Option
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 5

EXHIBIT A
512
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 1/13/2022 Default
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.50 3.25 3.33 0.12 0.11 0.01 1,280.35 0.41 0.01 1,294.14 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade pounds per day 0.50 3.25 3.33 0.12 0.11 0.01 1,280.35 0.41 0.01 1,294.14 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade tons per phase 0.07 0.43 0.44 0.02 0.01 0.00 169.01 0.05 0.00 170.83 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Number of Vehicles
Mitigation Option

0.00 Data Entry Worksheet 6

EXHIBIT A
513
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 1/13/2022 Default
Paving Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.06 0.31 0.37 0.01 0.01 0.00 50.52 0.01 0.00 50.77 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.18 2.89 1.74 0.08 0.07 0.00 455.16 0.15 0.00 460.07

1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.16 2.57 1.50 0.07 0.07 0.00 394.47 0.13 0.00 398.72 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.15 1.85 1.52 0.08 0.07 0.00 254.15 0.08 0.00 256.88 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving pounds per day 0.55 7.62 5.13 0.25 0.23 0.01 1,154.29 0.36 0.01 1,166.45 Paving tons per phase 0.07 1.01 0.68 0.03 0.03 0.00 152.37 0.05 0.00 153.97 Total Emissions all Phases (tons per construction period) => 0.32 3.32 2.97 0.12 0.11 0.01 702.20 0.23 0.01 709.73 N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.00 Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Mitigation Option
Data Entry Worksheet 7

EXHIBIT A
514
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 1/13/2022 Equipment default values for horsepower and hours/day can be overridden in cells D403 through D436 and F403 through F436.

User Override of Default Values User Override of Default Values Equipment Horsepower Horsepower Hours/day Hours/day
Aerial Lifts 63 8
Air Compressors 78 8
Bore/Drill Rigs 221 8
Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 8
Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 8
Cranes 231 8
Crawler Tractors 212 8
Crushing/Proc. Equipment 85 8
Excavators 158 8
Forklifts 89 8
Generator Sets 84 8
Graders 187 8
Off-Highway Tractors 124 8
Off-Highway Trucks 402 8
Other Construction Equipment 172 8
Other General Industrial Equipment 88 8
Other Material Handling Equipment 168 8
Pavers 130 8
Paving Equipment 132 8
Plate Compactors 8 8
Pressure Washers 13 8
Pumps 84 8
Rollers 80 8
Rough Terrain Forklifts 100 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 247 8
Rubber Tired Loaders 203 8
Scrapers 367 8
Signal Boards 6 8
Skid Steer Loaders 65 8
Surfacing Equipment 263 8
Sweepers/Scrubbers 64 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 8
Trenchers 78 8
Welders 46 8

END OF DATA ENTRY SHEET
Data Entry Worksheet 8

EXHIBIT A
515
The maximum pounds per day in row 11 is summed over overlapping phases, but the maximum tons per phase in row 34 is not summed over overlapping phases.

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0
Daily Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) CH4 (lbs/day) N2O (lbs/day) CO2e (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.70 7.38 7.15 0.74 0.28 0.46 0.35 0.25 0.10 0.02 1,559.56 0.47 0.02 1,578.29 Grading/Excavation 0.70 7.42 7.47 0.75 0.29 0.46 0.35 0.26 0.10 0.02 1,709.84 0.47 0.05 1,735.61 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.50 3.32 3.46 0.58 0.13 0.46 0.21 0.11 0.10 0.01 1,351.87 0.41 0.02 1,368.43 Paving 0.58 7.88 5.59 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.01 1,421.59 0.36 0.04 1,443.98 Maximum (pounds/day) 2.49 26.00 23.66 2.35 0.97 1.38 1.15 0.87 0.29 0.06 6,042.86 1.72 0.14 6,126.31 Total (tons/construction project) 0.33 3.43 3.12 0.31 0.13 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.04 0.01 797.66 0.23 0.02 808.67 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2024
Project Length (months) -> 12
Total Project Area (acres) -> 12
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0
Water Truck Used? -> Yes
Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 0 0 0 0 88 15
Grading/Excavation 2 0 40 0 88 15
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0 0 0 0 22 15
Paving 0 16 0 40 88 15
CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

Total Emission Estimates by Phase for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases
(Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e) ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N2O (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.09 0.97 0.94 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 205.86 0.06 0.00 189.00 Grading/Excavation 0.09 0.98 0.99 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 225.70 0.06 0.01 207.84 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.07 0.44 0.46 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 178.45 0.05 0.00 163.87 Paving 0.08 1.04 0.74 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 187.65 0.05 0.01 172.92 Maximum (tons/phase) 0.09 1.04 0.99 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 225.70 0.06 0.01 207.84 Total (tons/construction project) 0.33 3.43 3.12 0.31 0.13 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.04 0.01 797.66 0.23 0.02 733.62 CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase.

Daily VMT (miles/day)
Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

Total Material Imported/Exported
Volume (yd3/day)

EXHIBIT A
516
Appe
ndix EN
Energy Fuel Consumption Calculations

EXHIBIT A
517
HP: 0 to 100 0.0588 0.0529
Construction Equipment #
Hours per
Day Horsepower
Load
Factor Construction Phase
Fuel Used
(gallons)
Excavators 1 8 158 0.38 Grubbing/Land Clearing 6,703
Graders 1 8 187 0.41 Grubbing/Land Clearing 8,559
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 97 0.37 Grubbing/Land Clearing 4,454 Graders 1 8 187 0.41 Grading/Excavation 8,559
Excavators 1 8 158 0.38 Grading/Excavation 6,703
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 97 0.37 Grading/Excavation 4,454 Off-Highway Trucks 1 8 402 0.38 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 17,054 Pavers 1 8 130 0.42 Paving 6,095
Paving Equipment 1 8 132 0.36 Paving 5,305
Rollers 1 8 80 0.38 Paving 3,773
Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8 9 0.56 Paving 626
Total Fuel Used 72,286
(Gallons)
Grubbing/Land Clearing
Grading/Excavation
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
Paving
MPG [2] Trips
Fuel Used
(gallons)

24.1 8 946.46

24.1 2 236.61

24.1 8 946.46
Total 3,075.98
MPG [2] Trips
Fuel Used
(gallons)

7.5 0 0.00

7.5 2 5.33

7.5 0 0.00

7.5 2 5.33
Total 10.67

7.5 2 513.92

7.5 2 513.927.3
Grubbing/Land Clearing 7.3

20.0 Grading/Excavation
264

WORKER TRIPS
Constuction Phase
Grubbing/Land Clearing
Grading/Excavation
Trip Length (miles)

10.8 10.8

HAULING TRIPS

VENDOR TRIPS
Grading/Excavation 7.3
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
264
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project
Last Updated: 12/17/2021
Compression-Ignition Engine Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) Factors [1]:

HP: Greater than 100
Values above are expressed in gallons per horsepower-hour/BSFC.

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction Phase Days of Operation
264
264
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade
Paving
Trip Class Trip Length (miles)

HAULING AND VENDOR TRIPS
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.0
Paving 20.0
Grubbing/Land Clearing

10.8 10.8

20.0 1 1/13/2022 1:42 PM
EXHIBIT A 518

7.5 2 513.92
Total 2,055.68
3,076
74,352
Paving 7.3
Sources:
[1] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines in MOVES3.0.2 . September. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-08/420r21021.pdf. [2] United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2021. National Transportation Statistics . Available at:
https://www.bts.gov/topics/national-transportation-statistics.

Total Gasoline Consumption (gallons)
Total Diesel Consumption (gallons)
2 1/13/2022 1:42 PM
EXHIBIT A 519

Appendix NOP
Notice of Preparation and Comments Received

EXHIBIT A
520
1 City of Livermore
Community Development Department
1052 S. Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental EIR
Date: December 16, 2021
To: Public Agencies and Interested Parties
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Project Title: South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project
The City of Livermore, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the South Livermore Sewer Expansion project (the “project”). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City has issued this Notice of Preparation (NOP) to provide responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other interested parties with information describing the proposed project and its potential environmental effects.

The purpose of this notice is to:
1) serve as the Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), Responsible Agencies, public agencies involved in funding or approving the project, and Trustee Agencies responsible for natural resources affected by the project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; and
2) advise and solicit comments and suggestions regarding the preparation of the EIR, environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR, and any other related issues, from interested parties, including interested or affected members of the public.

Project Location
The project alignment is located in the southeast area of the City of Livermore within Alameda County, California.

Figure 1 shows the regional context of the project alignment, and Figure 2 shows the project site in its vicinity context. Regional access to the project alignment is available via Interstate 580 (I-580), which is located 2.58 miles north. Direct access to the project alignment is provided by East Avenue, which bisects the project area to the west and South Vasco Road, which bisects the project area to the east.

Project Description
The project proposes to extend existing sanitary sewer lines approximately 5 miles ( 27,000 linear feet) in unincorporated Alameda County, California. The expanded sewer facilities would allow existing and future wine country uses permitted under the South Livermore Valley Area Plan and South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, south and east of the project to connect to the City’s wastewater system. The expansion would also allow existing residences on Buena Vista Avenue to connect to the City’s wastewater system and remove their on-site septic systems. The sewer expansion would not induce unanticipated growth in the City or within its Sphere of Influence. By allowing existing residences to connect to the wastewater system, the City would reduce groundwater quality issues in the project vicinity. Construction is anticipated to begin in January 2024 and would continue for a duration of approximately 18 months , ending in June 2025 . Construction would occur Monday through Friday, with limited weekend construction.

EXHIBIT A
521
City of Livermore

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
2 The project would require City Council approval to place a Council-sponsored initiative on the City’s ballot that would amend language in the City’s voter-approved South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Initiative.

The UGB forms a southern border within City, beyond which urban development (including extended sewer and water service) is permitted under limited exceptions . In March 2000, Livermore voters passed Measure K, establishing the South Livermore UGB. The UGB is intended to protect and enhance agriculture and open space by regulating where development is permitted within South Livermore. The initiative is also intended to reduce urban sprawl by preventing uncontrolled urban development that could potentially impact agricultural land and open space areas. The proposed project would amend language in the UGB Initiative to allow the City to extend sanitary sewer services beyond the UGB; however, the boundary itself would not change. Figure 3 and Figure 4 display the UGB in addition to the east and west segments of the project alignment.

The 2017 Sewer Master Plan identifies a Bottleneck Project (BO-CIP-P06) located west of the project site (refer to Figure 3.1). The proposed project may require the Bottleneck Project to be undertaken sooner to better accommodate the sewer system and its expansion. The Bottleneck Project, if required, and its potential impacts would be included in the environmental analysis to describe the “whole of the project” under CEQA.

EIR Scope
The City’s South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP), adopted in November 1997, incorporates several goals, development standards , and policies to guide future development and conserve agricultural and natural resources. An EIR was prepared for the SLVSP (SCH #1996052025) that was certified in 199 7. The City of Livermore, in its capacity as Lead Agency for the project, has determined that the project has the potential to result in significant environmental effects and that a Supplemental EIR should be prepared. The City is preparing an Initial Study to evaluate the potentially significant impacts of the project , and it will be included as an appendix to the Supplemental EIR . Based on the preliminary results of the Initial Study, the following topics warrant additional consideration in an EIR:
• Hydrology and Water Quality • Utilities and Service Systems The Supplemental EIR will assess the effects of the project on the environment, identify potentially significant impacts, identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant environmental impacts, and discuss potentially feasible alternatives to the project that may accomplish basic objectives while lessening or eliminating any potentially significant project-related impacts.

Opportunity for Public Review and Comment
This Notice is available for review on the City’s website at:
https://www.cityoflivermore.net/government/community-development/planning/environmental-documents The City of Livermore would like to receive your input on the scope of the information and analysis to be included in the EIR. Due to time limits, as established by CEQA, your response should be sent at the earliest possible date, but no later than 31 days after publication of this notice. Please submit your comments by 5:00 p.m. on January 17, 2022 by mail or e-mail to:

Steve Stewart, AICP, Planning Manager Phone: (925) 960-4468 City of Livermore Email: [email protected]
1052 S. Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550

EXHIBIT A
522
City of Livermore

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
3 Please include the name, phone number, and address of a contact person in your response.

Attachments
Figure 1 Regional Location
Figure 2 Project Location
Figure 3 Sewer Extension and Urban Growth Boundary - West Figure 4 Sewer Extension and Urban Growth Boundary - East

EXHIBIT A
523
City of Livermore

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
4 Figure 1 Regional Location
Imagery provided by Esri and its licensors © 2021.

Eldorado
National
ForestRoseville
Sacramento
N
Project Location
A Santa Rosa Stanislaus
National
Forest
Elk GroveVacaville
Fairfield
Vallejo
StocktonAntioch
San Francisco
Tracy Modesto
San Mateo 99Fremont
Merced
San Jose
Los Banos152Santa Cruz
SB
Salinas
Monterey
Soledad

EXHIBIT A
524
City of Livermore

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
5 Figure 2 Project Location
[///I Existing Urban Development
Livermore City Boundary
[ \^| Livermore Sphere of Influence
2,600 N0 1,300
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2021.

EXHIBIT A
525
City of Livermore

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
6 Figure 3 Sewer Extension and Urban Growth Boundary - West

EXHIBIT A
526
City of Livermore

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
7 Figure 4 Sewer Extension and Urban Growth Boundary - East

Bottleneck Project
JProject Alignment
]Urban Growth Boundary
\//X Existing Urban Development
j
~
]Livermore City Boundary
[ \^
Livermore Sphere of Influence
1,800 N0 900
A
L
Feet
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2021.

EXHIBIT A
527

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE A MERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 5 ends

December 20, 2021

Steve Stewart, AICP, Planning Manager
City of Livermore
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550

Re: 2021120386, South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project, Alameda County

Dear Mr. Stewart:

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code §21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, §15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code §21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 5064 subd.(a)(1) (CEQA Guidelines §15064 (a)(1)).

In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE).

CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, “tribal cultural resources” (Pub. Resources Code §21074) and provides that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.2). Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)). AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1, 2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).

Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. If your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.

The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC’s recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.

Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

EXHIBIT A
528

Page 2 of 5 ends

AB 52

AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:

1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project:

Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
a. A brief description of the project.
b. The lead agency contact information.
c. Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.

Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d)).
d. A “California Native American tribe” is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21073).

2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe’s Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1(b)). a. For purposes of AB 52, “consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).

3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).

4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
c. Significance of the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources. d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).

5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code §6254 (r) and §6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (c)(1)).

6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document shall discuss both of the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (b)).

EXHIBIT A
529

Page 3 of 5 ends

7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)).

8. Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (a)).

9. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b). (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (e)).

10. Examples of Mitigation Measures That, If Feasible, May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources:
a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:
i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.
ii. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
b. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. ii. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
iii. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. d. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code §21084.3 (b)). e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Civ. Code §815.3 (c)). f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code §5097.991).

11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An Environmental Impact Report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (d)).

The NAHC’s PowerPoint presentation titled, “Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices” may be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsultation_CalEPAPDF.pdf

EXHIBIT A
530

Page 4 of 5 ends

SB 18

SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. (Gov. Code §65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s “Tribal Consultation Guidelines,” which can be found online at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09_14_05_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf.

Some of SB 18’s provisions include:

1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a “Tribal Consultation List.” If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (a)(2)).

2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.

3. Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Gov. Code §65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (b)).

4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or
b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).

Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and “Sacred Lands File” searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/.

NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments

To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions:

1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1068) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine:
a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure.
b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center.

EXHIBIT A
531

Page 5 of 5 ends

3. Contact the NAHC for:
a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project’s APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.

4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:

[email protected].

Sincerely,

Katy Sanchez
Associate Environmental Planner

cc: State Clearinghouse

EXHIBIT A
532

EXHIBIT B
1 FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE

SOUTH LIVERMORE SEWER EXPANSION PROJECT
(SCH NO. 2021120386)

The following Findings, the mitigation measures specified herein, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto are hereby adopted by the Livermore City Council in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code Section 21081, 21081.5 and 21081.6, and the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15091 and 15092 for the South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project (“Project”).

A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The Project would amend the South Livermore 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 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. In total, approximately 950 Linear Feet (LF) would need to be upsized to accommodate the proposed project. The Bottleneck Project is also included in this environmental analysis.

On December 16, 2021, the City issued a Notice of Preparation pursuant to CEQA to obtain comments on the proposed scope of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Project. The City released the Draft SEIR on May 6, 2022, for a 47-day public comment period. The City made available the Draft SEIR to the Planning Commission; the City Council; State Clearinghouse; state, regional, and local agencies; special districts; and interested groups and individuals. On June 21, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. Members of the public and other interested parties were invited by formal public notice to testify on the adequacy of the Draft SEIR at the public hearing. On June 22, 2022, at 5:00 p.m., the public comment period on the Draft SEIR closed. The City of Livermore received a total of 10 written comment letters during the public comment period as well as oral comments during the public hearing.

The City released the Final SEIR for public review on July 1, 2022. The Final SEIR consists of copies of all written or oral comments received on the Draft SEIR, a list of commenters, all responses to written and oral comments, and proposed amendments to the Draft SEIR. The Final SEIR, Draft SEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) together comprise the SEIR for the Project. The analysis and conclusions contained in the SEIR reflect the independent judgment of the City.

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Section 2 of the Draft SEIR includes a detailed description of the Project. Other than minor clarifications in other sections of the Draft SEIR, no revisions to the project description were required.
533

EXHIBIT B
2 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 proposed sewer extension would be installed in phases. 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 proposed project would amend the City of Livermore South Livermore 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 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. 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 phase out 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 SLVAP, in conformance with Alameda County Measure D.

The Project alignment is located within existing public roadway 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. Furthermore, 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.

The proposed Project would require City Council certification of the SEIR; City Council approval of language to modify the UGB and place on the ballot; approval of the modified UGB language by a majority of voters; Encroachment Permit from the County of Alameda; and County of Alameda approval of a Traffic Control Plan.

C. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND DISPOSITION OF

RELATED MITIGATION MEASURES
534

EXHIBIT B
3 The Final SEIR did not identify any new significant and unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the approval of the Project. For a detailed description of impacts and mitigation measures, see the appropriate text in the Final SEIR.

D. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE IS OR SEIR THAT ARE REDUCED TO A LEVEL OF “LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT” BY THE MITIGATION

MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT
The Final SEIR did not identify any significant impacts associated with the Project that are reduced to a level of less than significant by mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR.

However, the Initial Study (IS) identified the following significant impacts associated with the Project that are reduced to a level of less than significant by mitigation measures:

1. Biological Resources 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. Potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1.

2. Cultural Resources Impact 5b: The project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of MM CR-1.

3. Geology and Soils Impact 7f: The project has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of MM GEO-1.

4. Noise 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. Potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of MM NOI-1.

5. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 18a and 18b: 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. Potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of MM TCR-1.

E. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE IS OR SEIR The Final SEIR and IS identified impacts associated with the Project that would be less than significant with mitigation measures required:

535

EXHIBIT B
4 1. Air Quality Impacts 3a through 3d: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 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. The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The project would not result in other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

2. Cultural Resources Impact 5c: The project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

3. Energy 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.

4. Geology and Soils Impacts 7a.1 through 7d: The project would not directly or indirectly 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. 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. The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 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. The project would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 8a: The project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts 9a through 9d.: 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. 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. 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.

7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 9f: The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

536

EXHIBIT B
5 8. Noise Impact 13b: The project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

9. Population and Housing Impact 14a: The project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.

10. Transportation Impact 17a: The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

11. Hydrology and 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.

12. Hydrology and Water Quality 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.

13. Hydrology and Water Quality 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

14. Hydrology and Water Quality 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.

15. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-5: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

16. Utilities and Service Systems 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.

17. Utilities and Service Systems Impact UTIL-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 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 537

EXHIBIT B
6 anticipated water demand of reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

18. Utilities and Service Systems Impact UTIL-3: Implementation of the proposed 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.

F. AREAS OF NO IMPACT IDENTIFIED IN THE IS OR SEIR
The Final SEIR did not identify any areas that result in no impacts associated with the Project. However, the IS identified the following areas that result in no impacts associated with the Project:

1. Aesthetics Impacts 1a through 1d: The project would have no substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The project would not substantially damage scenic resources. The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.

2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impacts 2a through 2e: The project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non- agricultural use. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. 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. 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.

3. Biological Resources Impacts 4b through 4f: 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. 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. The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. 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.

19. Cultural Resources Impact 5a: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5.

4. Energy Impact 6b: The project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for 538

EXHIBIT B
7 renewable energy or energy efficiency.

5. Geology and Soils 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.

6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 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.

7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 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.

8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 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.

9. Land Use and Planning Impacts 11a and 11b: The project would not physically divide an established community. 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.

10. Mineral Resources Impacts 12a and 12b: 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.

11. Noise 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.

12. Population and Housing Impact 14b: The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

13. Public Services Impacts 15a.1 through 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. 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 parks.
539

EXHIBIT B
8 14. Recreation Impacts 16a and 16b: 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.

15. Transportation Impacts 17b through 17d: 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). The project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

16. Wildfire Impacts 20a through 20d: 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.

G. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
When making findings, the lead agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the mitigation measures it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City hereby adopts the MMRP for the Project, included as Exhibit C to the Resolution Certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project (SCH NO. 2021120386). The mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR to reduce significant impacts and adopted and incorporated into the Project will be monitored pursuant to this program.

H. ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the SEIR examined 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. The City Council has reviewed the impacts associated with each alternative as compared with the proposed Project, and has also considered each alternative’s feasibility, considering a range of economic, environmental, social, and legal factors. Overall, the City Council concludes that 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, transportation, 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 six environmental issue areas and increase impacts to seven environmental issue areas, and would result in a similar level of impact to 540

EXHIBIT B
9 the remaining seven environmental issue areas. The City Council’s analysis and conclusions are described below.

1. Alternative 1: No Project/No Construction Alternative: This 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 any of 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. This alternative is considered undesirable.

2. Alternative 2: No Project/On-Site Wastewater Treatment Alternative: This alternative 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 541

EXHIBIT B
10 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. This alternative is considered infeasible and undesirable.

3. Alternative 3: Alternative Alignment Alternative: This alternative 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 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. This alternative is considered undesirable.

I. RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
No new or substantial changes to the SEIR were proposed as a result of the public comment process. The Final SEIR responds to comments and makes only minor technical changes, clarifications or additions to the SEIR. The minor changes, clarifications, and additions to the SEIR do not identify any new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts. Therefore, recirculation of the SEIR is not required.

J. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council base their findings and decisions contained herein. Documents related to this proposed Project are located in the Livermore Community Development Department, Planning Division, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, CA.

K. SUMMARY
542

EXHIBIT B
11 1. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City has made one or more other following findings with respect to each of the significant effects of the Project:

a. Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. b. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that agency. c. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, economic or other considerations made infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final SEIR.

2. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, it is determined that:

a. All significant effects on the environmental due to the approval of the Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.

543
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 C
544
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 C
545
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 C
546
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 C
547
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.

EXHIBIT C
548
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 C
549
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 C
550
City of Livermore
South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project

8 This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT C
551
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BALLOT QUESTION AND LANGUAGE FOR

THE SOUTH LIVERMORE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PLACE IT ON THE BALLOT FOR THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022,

ELECTION TO ENABLE THE SOUTH LIVERMORE SEWER EXTENSION PROJECT The City Council received requests to extend municipal sewer service to address groundwater quality issues in South Livermore that are threatening the local wine industry.

On November 22, 2021, the City Council directed staff to prepare amendments to the South Livermore Valley Urban Growth Boundary Initiative and study a preliminary alignment of the South Livermore Valley Sewer Extension Project (“Project”).

On May 23, 2022, the City Council reviewed draft initiative language and directed staff to modify the language in response to public comments.

On June 21, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.

On July 11, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, staff recommendations, all public comments and testimony, and findings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that prior to taking action on the Project, and at a properly noticed public hearing, the City Council reviewed written and oral staff reports, conducted a public hearing on the Project and took testimony, and received into the record all pertinent documents related to the Project (collectively, the “Record Evidence”). The City Council’s determination is based on the Record Evidence, which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore has considered the Record Evidence and adopted a resolution certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDthat the City Council of the City of Livermore, based upon the City Council’s own independent review of the Record Evidence and considerations, hereby approves the ballot question and language for the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative language, attached hereto as Exhibit A, for placement on the ballot for the November 8th 2022, election.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore directs city staff to conduct all necessary actions to prepare materials and place the initiative on the ballot for the November 8, 2022, election.
552
RESOLUTION NO. ________
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore finds that service fees currently collected from Livermore rate payers shall not be used to fund the construction of the sewer extension project.

The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, in Livermore California.

On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council
Member , the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on July 11, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Jason R. Alcala____________
Marie Weber Jason R. Alcala
City Clerk City Attorney
Exhibit A – Ballot Question and South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative 553
Question on the ballot:

M
easure __: Shall the ordinance amending the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary policies in the City of Livermore’s General Plan to allow the City to extend sewer service to permitted uses within the South Livermore Valley Area Plan Planning Area be adopted? Yes__ No __.

EXHIBIT A
554
Measure
Full Text of Measure
M
easure _____
A

N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY AMENDING THE SOUTH LIVERMORE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY POLICIES IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE’S GENERAL PLAN TO ALLOW THE

CITY TO EXTEND SEWER SERVICE TO PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE SOUTH LIVERMORE VALLEY AREA PLAN PLANNING AREA.

T
he people of the City of Livermore, California do ordain as follows:

Section 1. Purpose and Findings.

The pur
pose of this initiative is to protect water quality and agriculture by updating the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (South Livermore UGB) policies to allow full implementation of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan. If this initiative measure is adopted by the Livermore voters, the South Livermore UGB policies would be amended to allow the City to extend sewer service beyond the South Livermore UGB to a limited portion of the South Livermore Valley, including properties fronting portions of South Livermore Avenue, Buena Vista Avenue, Tesla Road and Greenville Road in order to protect water quality, support agriculture, and enable connection of compatible uses, consistent with the provisions of Measure D.

This initiative would not change the boundaries for the South Livermore UGB or make any changes to the South Livermore Valley Area Plan or the Alameda County Measure D approved by county voters in 2000.

A. Fi ndings:

The people of the City of Livermore find that this initiative promotes and protects the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of City residents, based upon the following:

1. The South Livermore Valley Area Plan (Area Plan) was adopted by Alameda County Board of Supervisors in 1993 to ensure the survival and enhanc
ement of the century-old Livermore wine region. The Area Plan pr
otects and expands agriculture and restricts commercial and residential development adjacent to Livermore while promoting uses that enhance the recognition and image of the area as an important premium wine and agr
icultural region.

2. To build upon and advance the goals of the Area Plan, Livermore voters approved the South Livermore UGB in 2000. The boundaries for the South Livermore UGB as adopted by the voters is in the City of Livermore G
eneral Plan as Figure 3-6, a copy of that figure is attached as Attachment 1.

3. The South Livermore UGB was intended to protect and enhance agr
iculture and open space in the South Livermore Valley. It has created a thriving agricultural economy in the region by supporting the goals of

EXHIBIT A
555
the Area Plan, providing regulatory stability, and removing speculative acquisition of farmland by urban developers.

4. When the South Livermore UGB was adopted and later reaffirmed by the v
oters, it was anticipated that the unincorporated area outside the South Livermore UGB would be developed to its full potential without the use of a sewer system operated by a governmental agency such as the City of Livermore.

5. In the last two decades the groundwater basins throughout the State of California have experienced a steady decline in water quality. Regulatory agencies are working toward protecting our groundwater in an effort to safeguard this important resource. Many of these actions place undu e
har
dships on property owners located outside the South Livermore UGB; and some properties are unable to operate effectively or realize dev
elopment potential as contemplated by the Area Plan, Alameda County Measure D, and the South Livermore UGB.

6. Measures taken today to improve our groundwater quality in the future will help improve public health, agriculture, and quality of life in Livermore and t
he surrounding region.

7. This initiative promotes the Area Plan’s purpose of expanding and enhanc
ing cultivated agriculture by facilitating the types of development envisioned in the Area Plan and ensures that conservation easements will be held by land trusts accredited by national organizations (such as the Tri-Valley Conservancy accredited by the Land Trust Alliance). This initiative limits sewer service extensions to land uses that are consistent with the Area Plan, as it exists now or is amended in the future, and i n
c
onformance with Alameda County Measure D.

8. Thi
s initiative retains the South Livermore UGB location shown in Attachment 1 while amending the South Livermore UGB policies in the General Plan concerning extension of sewer services to allow the City to provide sewer services to uses contemplated by the Area Plan, as it exists now or is amended in the future, and in conformance with Alameda County Measure D.

9. The amendments will ensure that South Livermore UGB policies remain relevant and appropriate in light of a changing environment. This will improve the region’s capacity to improve water quality and provi de
ongoi
ng support for agricultural protection.

Section 2. G eneral Plan Amendments.

This initiative hereby amends the City of Livermore General Plan (“General Plan”) Goal LU-18 and the associated Objective (LU-18-1) and Policies (P1-P7). Text to be inserted in the General Plan is indicated in bold double underlined type (example). Deletions are shown in strikeout font (example). Text in standard type appears in the General Plan as of the submittal date and is not changed by this Initiative. The amendments are as follows:

EXHIBIT A
556
Goal LU-18 It is the goal of the City to establish a coherent and logical pattern of urban uses that protects and enhances open space and agricultural uses by providing a clear and permanent boundary for urban uses within the City's planning area. The provisions of GOAL LU-18, as readopted by the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative and amended by this initiative, shall be amended only by a vote of the people.

Objective LU-18.1 Maintain a permanent Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) on the City’s southern edge (as indicated Figure LU 3-6 and the City’s Land Use Map) beyond which urban development shall not be permitted. Non-urban uses, such as agriculture, parks, and open space may be permitted within and beyond the South Livermore UGB. (Relevant provisions of that the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative are found in Appendix 3 of Appendix A B of the General Plan.)
Policies
P1 For
the purposes of this section, “urban uses” and “urban development” include any use that is not permitted on lands with a general plan land use designation of Limited Agriculture; General Agriculture; Viticulture; Agriculture/Viticulture; Parks, Trailway and Recreation, Corridor, and Protected Areas; or Range and Grassland as those uses existed on December 6, 1999. (South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative, 3-7- 2000).

P2 For
the purposes of this section, “urban services” refer to sewer and water service.

P3 For the purposes of this section, “South Livermore Valley Area Plan” refers to the South Livermore Valley Area Plan adopted on February 23, 1993 by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, as it exists now or may be amended in the future.

P34 For the purposes of this section, “South Livermore Valley Specific Plan” refers to the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan adopted on November 17, 1997 by the Livermore City Council, as it exists now or may be amended in the future.

P5 Permit only non-urban uses beyond the South Livermore UGB within the City's municipal boundary. Beyond the City’s municipal boundary discourage and oppose any urban uses that do not directly contribute to the conservation of agriculture and the goals of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan and South Livermore Valley Specific Plan.

P46 Extend urban services only to areas within the UGB, except that the City may provide:
(
i) sewage treatment and disposal services to the Veterans Administration Hospital for hospital uses;
(
ii) urban services for residences on parcels outside of the South Livermore UGB wh
ich parcels were existing as of October 27, 1997, provided the property receiving such services shall record a binding agreement between the property owner and the City disallowing further division of the property and any provisi on
of
urban services to non-residential uses upon the property;

EXHIBIT A
557
(iii) sewage treatment and disposal services for residences on parcels outside of the South Livermore UGB provided the property receiving such services shall record a binding agreement between the property owner and the City disallowing further division of the property and any provision of urban services to non-residential uses upon the property, and subject to the following:
(a) The property receiving the services is designated under the Livermore General Plan, South Livermore Valley Area Plan, or South Livermore Valley Specific Plan for residential uses, and in conformance with Alameda County Measure D; or
(b) The property receiving the services was also a residential use on the date of this initiative.
(iii iv) urban services for commercial uses on parcels outside of the South Livermore UGB, which parcels were existing as of October 27, 1997, subject to the following:
(a) the subject property is designated under the South Livermore Valley Area Plan or South Livermore Valley Specific Plan for agricultural uses, with associated allowable commercial uses;
(b) the service(s) will be utilized for allowable commercial uses consistent with the provisions of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, or South Livermore Valley Area Plan as they exist now or are amended in the future, in conformance with Alameda County Measure D; (
c) the subject property is located adjacent to the Livermore municipal boundaries as of the date of the adoption of the SLVSP and, is locat ed
adj
acent to the Urban Growth Boundary;
(
d) if required by City or LAFCO policy, the property will annex to the City; (e) the service(s) can be provided to the subject property without any potential growth inducing impacts associated with potential provision of urban services to areas not otherwise allowed to receive such services under the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan or South Livermore Valley Area Plan; and
(f) before receiving such service(s), the property owner will record a c
onservation easement over the subject property with a land trust accredited by a national land trust accreditation organization in a form acceptable to the City and subject to an endowment requirement or other financial assurance in an amount that is reasonable and customary for the type of easement used to satisfy this requirement.

The conservation easement restricts use of the subject property to agricultural and open space uses, except as to within a delineated commercial use area, not to exceed 10% of the property within which

EXHIBIT A
558
allowable commercial uses and intensity of such uses shall be delineated permitted and described in the conservation easement. The conservation easement shall require all visitor-serving commercial buildings to be located within the delineated commercial use area on a contiguous development envelope not to exceed 2 acres, unless subject to a clustering plan under Measure D Program 34 (Clustering), as written when this initiative goes into effect. The City may only extend such services to permitted commercial uses described in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, or the permitted commercial uses described in the South Livermore Valley Area Plan and in conformance with Alameda County Measure D as applicable;
(v) sewage treatment and disposal services for commercial uses on parcels outside of the South Livermore UGB, subject to the following:
(a) the subject property is designated under the South Livermore Valley Area Plan or South Livermore Valley Specific Plan for agricultural uses, with associated allowable commercial uses;
(b) the service(s) will be utilized for allowable commercial uses consistent with the provisions of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, or South Livermore Valley Area Plan as they exist now or are amended in the future, in conformance with Alameda County Measure D;
(c) if required by City or LAFCO policy, the property will annex to the City;
(d) the service(s) can be provided to the subject property without any potential growth inducing impacts associated with potential provision of urban services to areas not otherwise allowed to receive such services under the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan or South Livermore Valley Area Plan;
(e) Alameda County has not permitted more than 180,000 square feet of commercial use within the area covered by the South Livermore Valley Area Plan, including commercial use existing as of the submittal date. If Alameda County permits 180,000 square feet or more of commercial use, then existing sewage treatment and disposal service may continue, but no new sewage treatment and disposal service shall be permitted pursuant to this subsection (v); and
(f) before receiving such service(s), the property owner will record a conservation easement over the subject property with a land trust accredited by a national land trust accreditation organization in a form acceptable to the City and subject to an endowment requirement or other financial assurance in an amount that is reasonable and customary for the type of easement used to satisfy

EXHIBIT A
559
this requirement. The conservation easement restricts use of the subject property to agricultural and open space uses, except as to within a delineated commercial use area, not to exceed 10% of the property within which allowable commercial uses and intensity of such uses shall be delineated permitted and described in the conservation easement. The conservation easement shall require all visitor-serving commercial buildings to be located within the delineated commercial use area on a contiguous development envelope not to exceed 2 acres, unless subject to a clustering plan under Measure D Program 34 (Clustering), as written when this initiative goes into effect. The City may only extend such services to permitted commercial uses described in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, or the permitted commercial uses described in the South Livermore Valley Area Plan and in conformance with Alameda County Measure D as applicable;
(ivi) for sewer service in unincorporated areas, the connections (residential and commercial) pursuant to any of the subsections above shall allow no more wastewater flow than the equivalent of ten residential units as required by the LA
VWMA Joint Powers Agreement. This requirement shall apply cumulatively to al
l contiguous uses within the unincorporated geographic area. Larger scale s
ewer service to unincorporated areas requires the unanimous approval of the LA
VWMA Board of Directors. If areas are annexed, this restriction will not apply.

P57 Encourage compatible uses immediately inside the South Livermore UGB, as necessary to prevent potential land use conflicts with outlying non-urban uses.

P68 The South Livermore UGB is indicated by a solid line in Figure 3-6 and the City's land use map.

P79 The fo regoing provisions of Objective LU 18.1 and Figure 3-6, as readopted by the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative and amended by this initiative , shall be amended only by a vote of the people or otherwise in accordance with Section

3.D. of the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative.

Section 3. Adopt ion, Effective Date, and Implementation.

B. Adoption and Effective Date. This ordinance shall be adopted by the City Council for the City of Livermore if approved by a majority of qualified electors at the city’s general municipal election held on November 8, 2022, and pursuant to C
alifornia Elections Code section 9217 shall be effective ten (10) days following t
he date upon which the Livermore City Council declares by resolution the results from that election. Upon the effective date of this initiative, (1) the provisions of Section 2 of the initiative are hereby inserted into the City of Livermore General Plan, as an amendment thereof; except that if the four amendments of the mandat
ory elements of the General Plan permitted by State law for any given c
alendar year have already been utilized in the year in which the initiative becomes effective, this General Plan amendment shall be the first amendment inserted into the City of Livermore General Plan on January 1 of the next year.

Upon the effective date of this initiative, any provisions of the City Code or of any

EXHIBIT A
560
other City of Livermore ordinance or resolution that are inconsistent with the General Plan amendments adopted by this Initiative shall not be enforced in a manner inconsistent with this Initiative.

C. Amendments. This initiative may be amended or repealed only by the qualified v
oters of the City of Livermore at a City election.

D. Interim Amendments. The date that the notice of intention to circulate this initiative was submitted to the elections official of the City of Livermore is referred t
o in this initiative as the “submittal date.” The City of Livermore General Plan in ef
fect on the submittal date as amended by this initiative comprises an i
ntegrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies for the City of Livermore. In order to ensure that nothing in this initiative would prevent the General Plan from being an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible s
tatement of the policies of the City of Livermore, as required by State law, and t
o ensure that the actions of the voters in enacting this Initiative are given effect, any amendment or update to the General Plan that is adopted between the submittal date and the date that the General Plan is amended by this initiative measure shall, to the extent that such interim-enacted provision is inconsistent with the General Plan provisions adopted by this initiative, be amended as soon as
possible to ensure consistency between the provisions adopted by this initiative and other provisions of the General Plan. Likewise, any amendment to t
he City Code that is adopted between the submittal date and the date that the City Code is amended by this initiative shall, to the extent that such interim- enacted provision is inconsistent with the City Code provisions adopted by this initiative, be amended as soon as possible to ensure consistency between the provisions adopted by this Initiative and other provisions of the City Code.

E. C onforming Amendments: The text of the City of Livermore General Plan that refers to the “South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative, passed by local voters in March 2000,” on pages 3-8, 3-52, 3-53, and 3-69, is hereby updated t o
add af
ter each occurrence of those words, “and amended by this initiative, passed by the local voters in November 2022,” with the name for this initiative in the ballot for the November 8, 2022 election inserted in place of this initiative in that sentence, as well as the areas of the Livermore General Plan amended by this initiative where the words “this initiative” are used.

F. O ther City Ordinances and Policies : The City of Livermore is hereby authorized and directed to amend the City of Livermore General Plan, all specific plans, the City Code, including the Zoning Code and other ordinances and polices affected by this initiative as soon as possible as necessary to ensure c
onsistency between the provisions adopted in this Initiative and other sections of the General Plan, all specific plans, and other City ordinances and policies.

G. Reorganization: The General Plan may be reorganized or readopted in different format, and individual provisions may be renumbered or reordered, in the course of
ongoing updates of the General Plan, provided that the provisions adopted by section II of this initiative shall remain in the General Plan unless earlier repealed or
amended by vote of the people of the City of Livermore.

EXHIBIT A
561
H. Implementing Ordinances: The City Council is authorized to adopt implementing ordinances, guidelines, rules, and regulations, as necessary, to f
urther the purposes of this initiative.

I. Enforcement and Defense of Initiative: The City Council shall take all steps reasonably necessary to enforce this initiative and to defend it against any challenge to its validity.

J. Project Approvals: Upon the effective date of this initiative, the City of Li
vermore and its departments, boards, commissions, officers and employees, shall not grant, or by inaction allow to be approved by operation of law, any general plan amendment, rezoning, specific plan, subdivision map, use permit, amended use permit, building permit, or any other entitlement, that is inconsistent with this Initiative.

Section 4. S
everability and Interpretation.

This initiative shall be interpreted so as to be consistent with all applicable Federal, State, and City laws, rules, and regulations. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion of this Initiative is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this initiative. The voters hereby declare that this initiative, and each section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof would have been adopted or passed even if one or more sections, subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts, or portions are declared invalid or unconstitutional. If any provision of this initiative is held invalid as applied to any person or circumstance, such invalidity shall not affect any application of this initiative that can be given effect without the invalid application. This initiative shall be broadly construed in order to achieve its purpose. Any singular term shall include the plural and any plural term shall include the singular. The title and captions of the various sections in this Initiative are for convenience and organization only, and are not intended to be referred to in construing the provisions of this initiative.

Section 4. E
xemptions for Certain Projects.

K. This initiative shall not apply to (1) any project that has obtained as of the effective date of the Initiative a vested right pursuant to state or local law or (2) any land that, under state or federal law, is beyond the power of the local voters to affect by the initiative power reserved to the people via the California C
onstitution.

L. In the event a property owner contends that application of this initiative effects an unc
onstitutional taking of property, the property owner may request, and the City Council may grant, an exception to application of any provision of this initiative if t
he City Council finds, based on substantial evidence, that both (1) the application of any aspect of this initiative would constitute an unconstitutional taking of property, and (2) the exception will allow additional or continued land us
es only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid such a taking.

Attachments

EXHIBIT A
562
Attachment 1 – Diagram showing the location of the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as approved by the voters. The UGB boundaries are not changed by this initiative. This diagram is provided for informational purposes only.

EXHIBIT A
563
11 Attachment 1
This diagram shows the location of the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as approved by the voters on [date] and depicted in the City of Livermore General Plan as Figure 3-6. The UGB location is not changed by this initiative. This diagram is provided for informational purposes only .

EXHIBIT A
564

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 7.1

DATE:

July 11, 2022
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Tina Olson, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT:

Approval of the City Council 2023 Meeting Calendar.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council approve the 2023 Meeting Calendar.

SUMMARY
Each year the City Council approves a calendar of regular meetings and workshops for the coming year.

The 2023 Meeting Calendar is presented here for approval.

DISCUSSION
In accordance with the City Council Rules of Procedures, each July the City Council approves an annual calendar for regular meetings and workshops in the coming year. Regular meetings are generally scheduled on the second and fourth Monday of each month. Workshop meetings are scheduled on the third Monday of each month and are only used when needed. Meetings are not scheduled on legal holidays. In keeping with past practice, only one meeting is scheduled during the months of August and December. The August meeting is traditionally cancelled due to lack of pressing business.

Special meetings and workshops may be called by the Mayor or by a majority of Council Members as needed. The City Council may also amend the regular meeting schedule throughout the year when necessary.

Livermore City Council 2023 Meeting Calendar

Date
Type
Date
Type
01/9/2023
Regular Meeting
06/26/2023
Regular Meeting
01/23/2023
Regular Meeting
07/10/2023
Regular Meeting
02/13/2023
Regular Meeting
07/17/2023
Special Meeting
02/27/2023
Regular Meeting
07/24/2023
Regular Meeting
03/13/2023
Regular Meeting
08/14/2023
Regular Meeting
565
03/20/2023
Special Meeting
09/11/2023
Regular Meeting
03/27/2023
Regular Meeting
09/18/2023
Special Meeting
04/10/2023
Regular Meeting
09/25/2023
Regular Meeting
04/17/2023
Special Meeting
10/9/2023
Regular Meeting
04/24/2023
Regular Meeting
10/16/2023
Special Meeting
05/08/2023
Regular Meeting
10/23/2023
Regular Meeting
05/15/2023
Special Meeting
11/13/2023
Regular Meeting
05/22/2023
Regular Meeting
11/20/2023
Special Meeting
06/12/2023
Regular Meeting
11/27/2023
Regular Meeting
06/19/2023
Special Meeting
12/11/2023
Regular Meeting

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

While City Council meetings require considerable staff resources to prepare for and facilitate, administrative impacts from adopting the proposed meeting calendar are incorporated into each department’s work plan.

Other fiscal impacts associated with City Council meetings include broadcast and recording services, technical support, and incidental costs such as renting special meeting locations and providing translation services upon request. Approximately $850,000 is budgeted for staff time to attend Council meetings and these other costs in FY 2022-23.

ATTACHMENTS

1. 2023 City Council Meeting Calendar

Prepared by: Marie Weber
City Clerk

Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
566
2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR
Date Type Date Type
01/9/2023 Regular Meeting 06/26/2023 Regular Meeting
01/23/2023 Regular Meeting 07/10/2023 Regular Meeting
02/13/2023 Regular Meeting 07/17/2023 Special Meeting
02/27/2023 Regular Meeting 07/24/2023 Regular Meeting
03/13/2023 Regular Meeting 08/14/2023 Regular Meeting
03/20/2023 Special Meeting 09/11/2023 Regular Meeting
03/27/2023 Regular Meeting 09/18/2023 Special Meeting
04/10/2023 Regular Meeting 09/25/2023 Regular Meeting
04/17/2023 Special Meeting 10/9/2023 Regular Meeting
04/24/2023 Regular Meeting 10/16/2023 Special Meeting
05/08/2023 Regular Meeting 10/23/2023 Regular Meeting
05/15/2023 Special Meeting 11/13/2023 Regular Meeting
05/22/2023 Regular Meeting 11/20/2023 Special Meeting
06/12/2023 Regular Meeting 11/27/2023 Regular Meeting
06/19/2023 Special Meeting 12/11/2023 Regular Meeting
ATTACHMENT 1
567

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 7.2

DATE:

July 11, 2022
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Tina Olson, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT:

Designation of voting delegate and alternates for the 2022 League of California Cities Annual Business Meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council appoint one voting delegate and up to two alternates to represent the City of Livermore at the 2022 League of California Cities Annual Business Meeting.

SUMMARY
Each year the League of California Cities (“League”) holds an Annual Business Meeting where League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy. In order to vote during the business meeting, the City Council must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates.

DISCUSSION
The League of California Cities is an association of California city officials who work together to shape policies affecting local government. The League’s Annual Conference is scheduled for September 7-9, 2022, at the Long Beach Convention Center, including an Annual Business Meeting on September 9, 2022. At the business meeting, cities will vote on resolutions that establish League policy. In order to vote on behalf of the City of Livermore during the business meeting, the City Council must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates, one of whom may vote in the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. This action must be taken by the City Council and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager.

The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the League’s Annual Conference (either the entire conference or September 9th only). To cast the City’s vote, the delegate or alternate must have in their possession the City’s voting card and be registered with the League’s Credentials Committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates.

After the delegate and alternates have been designated by the City Council, staff will return the Voting Delegate Form to the League by the deadline of September 2, 2022. 568

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

There are no fiscal and administrative impacts associated with the designation of a voting delegate and alternates.

ATTACHMENTS

1. LOCC Letter and Voting Delegate Form

Prepared by: Marie Weber
City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 10.1

DATE:

July 11, 2022
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Tina Olson, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT:

Supplemental materials received prior to the meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

SUMMARY
These materials were posted online and made available to the public at the same time that they were distributed to the City Council.

3.1 Update on Drought, Water Conservation and New State Restrictions

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

6.1 Hearing to receive and consider protests related to delinquent service fees to Livermore Sanitation for solid waste, recycling, and organics handling services and adopting a resolution confirming assessments for collection on the County assessor tax roll.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

6.2 Hearing to receive and consider protests related to the non-payment of sewer service provided by the City of Livermore as of June 30, 2022 and adopting a resolution confirming assessments for collection on the County assessor tax roll.

Materials: Supplemental Memo and PowerPoint Presentation

6.3 Hearing to certify Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan and authorizing the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary initiative to be placed on the November 8, 2022, ballot enabling the South Livermore Sewer Extension Project.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

7.1 Approval of the City Council 2023 Meeting Calendar.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation
574

7.2 Designation of voting delegate and alternates for the 2022 League of California Cities Annual Business Meeting.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

8.0 Council Committee Reports and Matters Initiated by City Manager, City Attorney, Staff, Council Members.

Material: Council Reports

DISCUSSION

ATTACHMENTS

1. Supplemental Materials

Prepared by: Debbie Elam
Deputy City Clerk

Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
575
1 Drought Update
July 11, 2022
Presented by Anthony Smith, Water Resources Division Manager Drought Update
History
• Zone 7 declared a water shortage and required a 15%
reduction in September 2021.
• City Council declared a st age 2 water shortage in
September 2021 with a 15% overall reduction target.
• City Council also enacted stage 1 conservation rates to help protect revenue and encourage conservation.
1 2
Item 3.1
PowerPoint Presentation
576
2 Drought Update
Current City Restrictions
• Maximum 3 days per week irrigation (even/odd)
• Sprinkler irrigation only allowed between 6pm and 9am • Washing vehicles by hand requi res the use of a positive shut off nozzle.

Drought Update
Current State Restrictions
• No runoff from irrigation (Stage 4)
• No washing sidewalks, driv eways, hardscapes (Stage 4) • No use of water in street cl eaning or construction site prep (Stages 3 & 4)
• No use of water in non-reci rculating fountains (Stage 5) • No irrigation within 48 hours of measurable rainfall
• No irrigation of turf in public street medians (Stage 5) • No irrigation of non-functional turf in non-residential areas (Stage 5)
3 4
Item 3.1
PowerPoint Presentation
577
3 Drought Update
City Use Reductions
• Staff in the Maintenance Div ision have reduced irrigation run times to meet 15% reduction
• Staff continue to evaluate opportunities to minimize
irrigation water
• Staff are currently planning a response to the non-
functional turf irrigation ban
Drought Update
City Outreach Efforts & Resources
• Staff in the Water Resources Division have undertaken a robust public outreach and education campaign to raise
awareness of water use restrictions and water saving
rebates through:
– Bill Inserts
– Direct Mailers
– Email Newsletters
– Social Media
•Since Water Shortage Declaration: staff have provided 263 conservation kits, 41 rebates, and are partnering with the City of Pleasanton and DSRSD to open a joint
residential recycled water fill station.
5 6
Item 3.1
PowerPoint Presentation
578
4 Drought Update
Customer Use Reductions
• Municipal customers have conserved 16% in total from Oct 2021 – May 2022
• Most conservation occurs in summer
7 Item 3.1
PowerPoint Presentation
579
1 Lien Assessments for FY 2021
July 11, 2022
Presented by Marisa Gan, Recycling Specialist
Assessment for Non-Payment of
LSI Collection Services
• Of 26,000 accounts served by LSI, 38 accounts are overdue • The net value is approximately $14,000 to be recovered • All properties must subscribe to service; LSI cannot stop service for delinquent accounts
1 2
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
580
2 Assessment for Non-Payment of
LSI Collection Services
• LSI and City have sent repeated notifications:
– LSI sends first notice 30 days afte r non-payment to account holder and and owner
– LSI sends second notice to account holder and owner
• Service is reduced to one 32-gal garbage cart until payment is made – First notice from City of intent to assess was sent March 14, 2022 – Second notice from City was sent June 8, 2022
• This year has the lowest number of delinquent accounts – The Covid-19 pandemic has not affected delinquencies
• Almost 2/3 of this year’s accounts have been assessed in a previous year
Questions
3 4
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
581
INTER
Date:

To:

Via:

From:

Subject:

For item
the Prop
states th
was crea
In the D
 N
 L
Exhibit A
informat

ROFFICE
July 11,
Mayor W
and Mem
Mariann
Tina Ols
City Co u
m 6.2, Heari
perty Tax R
hat 24 acco
ated, there
iscussion s
Number of n
argest cust
A, Sewer A
tion.

MEMOR
2022
Woerner
mbers of th
na Maryshe
son, Admin
uncil Item 6
ng Regardi
Roll, there is
ounts are de
are now 12
section, the
non-comme
tomer balan
ssessment
RANDUM
he City Cou
eva, City Ma
istrative Se

6.2 Update
ing the Coll
s an update
elinquent. D
2 delinquen
following in
ercial accou
nce as a pe
List, reflec
M
ncil
anager
ervices Dire
lection of D
e to the staf
Due to pay
nt accounts
nformation
unts decrea
ercentage o
cts the most
ector
Delinquent S
ff report. In
ments rece
s.
has change
ased from tw
of total incre
t current ba
Sewer Serv
n the Summ
eived since
ed:
wo to one
eased from
alances and
vice Charge
mary paragr
the initial li
30% to 52
d the above
es on
raph, it
st
2%
e
Item 6.2
Supplemental Memo
582
1 Collection of Delinquent Sewer Service
Charges on the Property Tax Roll
• City of Livermore has approximately 1200 sewer accounts • 12 accounts are severely delinquent
• Finance & WRD staff applied for $16,000 of ARPA funding on customers’
behalf
• Per LMC 13.36.210, delinquent sewer charges may be placed on the property
tax roll
Recommendation:

City Council to consider protests, adopt resolution overruling protests, and direct staff to forward the delinquent list to County Tax Assessor. 1 Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
583
1 South Livermore Valley Sewer Expansion
July 11, 2022
Presented by
Andy Ross, Senior Planner
South Livermore Valley
Source: https://www.lvwine.org
1 2
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
584
2 South Livermore Valley - Planning
South Livermore Valley – Wastewater
Treatment
• County development currently
relies on septic systems
• Nitrate concentrations have
created concerns over ground
water quality
• Regulation limit on site septic
treatment
• Requests increasing for
Municipal Sewer Service
Source: https://www.lvwine.org
3 4
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
585
3 Initiative Framework
 Would not change the location of the Urban
Growth Boundary
 Amends Livermore General Plan Land Use
policies
 Allows the City to provide sewer service to
parcels in the South Livermore Valley to serve
wine country uses
 Enables but does not require connection
 Facilitates the goals of the Livermore General
Plan, County’s Area Plan, and Livermore
Specific Plan to create and protect South
Livermore as a premier wine region destination.

Proposed Future Sewer Project / Alignment
5 6
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
586
4 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to make the following amendments to the language:
• Page 560 of Agenda Packet
• Section P6(v)(f) : regarding cons ervation easement requirements • Strike through the “as to” in “except as to within”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council:
• Adopt a resolution certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report • Adopt a resolution approving the ballot question and language for the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative
•D i r e c t staff to conduct all necessary actions to prepare materials for the November 8, 2022, ballot
7 8
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
587
1 City Council 2023 Meeting Calendar
July 11, 2022
Presented by
Marie Weber, City Clerk
Calendar Guidelines
•R e g u l a r meetings ‐ second and fourth Monday of each month.
•W o r k s h o p meetings ‐ third Monday of each month. • Meetings are not scheduled on legal holidays.
•O n l y one meeting is scheduled during the months of August and December. The August meeting is traditionally
cancelled due to lack of pressing business.
1 2
Item 7.1
PowerPoint Presentation
588
2 Proposed Calendar
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council:
• Approve the 2023 City Council Meeting Calendar
3 4
Item 7.1
PowerPoint Presentation
589
1 Designation of voting delegate and alternates for
the 2022 League of California Cities Annual
Business Meeting
July 11, 2022
Presented by
Marie Weber, City Clerk
Calendar Guidelines
•T h e League of California Cities Annual Conference is scheduled for September 7‐9, 2022
•E a c h year the League holds an Annual Business Meeting where League membership considers and takes action on
resolutions that establish League policy.
•I n order to vote during the business meeting, the entire City Council must:
– designate a voting delegate; and
–u p to two alternates.
1 2
Item 7.2
PowerPoint Presentation
590
2 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council:
• appoint one voting delegate and up to two alternates to represent the City of Livermore at the 2022 League of California Cities Annual Business Meeting. 3 Item 7.2
PowerPoint Presentation
591
Council Member
Committee
Meeting
Date Committee Agenda Link Meeting Type
Mayor Woerner 7/1/2022 EBRCSA
https://www.ebrcsa.org/library/pdf/Board%20of%2
0Directors%20Meetings/2021/07012022%20Ag%20
Pkt.pdf
Board Meeting
Mayor Woerner 7/6/2022 Livermore Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting Mayor Woerner 7/6/2022 Alameda County Monthly Elected COVID Briefings Mayor Woerner 7/7/2022 I Street Garage Ribbon Cutting
Item 8.0
Council Reports
592
Council Member
Committee
Meeting Date Committee Agenda Link Meeting Type
Vice Mayor Bonanno 6/29/2022
Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency
Joint Powers Authority
https://lavwma.com/wp‐
content/uploads/2022/06/2022‐06‐
29_LAWVMA_Agenda_Full.pdf Board
Vice Mayor Bonanno 7/6/2022 Climate Action Planning City Council Subcommittee Vice Mayor Bonanno 7/6/2022
Livermore Shiva‐Vishnu Hindu Temple Maha
Kumbhabhishekam 2022 Community event
Vice Mayor Bonanno 7/7/2022 I Street Garage Ribbon Cutting Community event Vice Mayor Bonanno 7/11/2022 Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/alamedactc
/5f0c439e‐cb50‐11ec‐bbb4‐0050569183fa‐0b4bc3c1‐
6cee‐4654‐a07c‐60b095e64fd2‐1657060479.pdf
Alameda CTC‐ Programs and
Projects Committee (PPC)
Item 8.0
Council Reports
593
Council Member
Committee
Meeting Date Committee Agenda Link Meeting Type Committee Report: Summary Council Member Munro 7/4/2022 Community Celebration 4th of July observance Congratulations to Livermore Downtown,
Inc. for putting together the first
fireworks show in two years.

Council Member Munro 7/6/2022
East Bay Community Choice Energy Joint Powers
Authority
https://ebce.org/meetings/board‐of‐directors‐
special‐board‐retreat‐power‐procurement‐7‐6‐22/
Board Retreat on Power
Procurement
Council Member Munro 7/7/2022 I‐Street Garage Opening Ribbon cutting Council Member Munro 7/8/2022 Innovation Tri‐Valley Meet and Greet Item 8.0
Council Reports
594

Livermore City CouncilJuly 11, 2022

Livermore City Council
July 11, 2022