Livermore City Council
May 22, 2023

”‘Œ‡
–‹–Ž‡ǣͳͺǦͲͲͳǢͳͺǦͲͲͳǢ
ͳͺǦͲͲͳǢ
ͳͺǦͲͲͳǢͳͺǦͲͲͳǢ
ͳͺǦͲͲͳǢͳͺǦͲͲͳǢͳͺǦͲͲ͸ǢͳͺǦͲͲ͹Ǣƒ†ͳͺǦͲͲͻ
”‘Œ‡
–ƒ‡ǣ
•ƒ„‡Ž‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†’‡
‹ˆ‹
Žƒ

•ƒ„‡Ž‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†’‡
‹ˆ‹
Žƒ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‘‹–‘”‹‰”‘‰”ƒ

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
”ƒˆˆ‹
ƒ†”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘͵Ǥ͵Ǧʹ
’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†
Žƒ™‘—Ž†˜‹‘Žƒ–‡ƒƒ‹”“—ƒŽ‹–›•–ƒ†ƒ”†ƒ†
‘–”‹„—–‡•—„•–ƒ–‹ƒŽŽ›–‘ƒ‡š‹•–‹‰‘”’”‘Œ‡
–‡†ƒ‹”“—ƒŽ‹–›˜‹‘Žƒ–‹‘†—”‹‰
‘•–”—
–‹‘Ǥ
ǦǦͳǣ‡“—‹”‡‘•–”—
–‹‘ Ž‡‡––‘•‡‡‡™ƒ„Ž‡‹‡•‡ŽǤŽŽƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–•
’”‘’‘•‹‰†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‘ˆ’”‘Œ‡
–•™‹–Š‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒ•ŠƒŽŽ”‡“—‹”‡ –Š‡‹”
‘–”ƒ
–‘”•ǡ ƒ• ƒ
‘†‹–‹‘ ‘ˆ
‘–”ƒ
–ǡ –‘ ”‡†—
‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘Ǧ”‡Žƒ–‡† ‡šŠƒ—•– ‡‹••‹‘• „› ‡•—”‹‰ –Šƒ– ƒŽŽ ‘ˆˆǦ”‘ƒ†‡“—‹’‡–‘’‡”ƒ–‹‰ ˆ‘”‘”‡–ŠƒʹͲ–‘–ƒŽŠ‘—”•‘˜‡”–Š‡‡–‹”‡ †—”ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ‘•–”—
–‹‘ ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡• •ŠƒŽŽ ‘’‡”ƒ–‡ ‘”‡‡™ƒ„Ž‡ †‹‡•‡Ž ሺ•—
Š ƒ• ‹‡•‡Ž Š‹‰Š ’‡”ˆ‘”ƒ
‡ ”‡‡™ƒ„Ž‡ሻǤ‡‡™ƒ„Ž‡ †‹‡•‡Ž ‹•
—””‡–Ž›
‘‡”
‹ƒŽŽ› ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡ ‹ ƒ ”ƒ
‹•
‘ƒ›”‡ƒǤ
ǦǦʹǣ ‡“—‹”‡ •‡ ‘ˆ ‹‡•‡Ž ”—
• ™‹–Š ʹͲͳͲǦ‘’Ž‹ƒ– ‘†‡Ž
‡ƒ”
‰‹‡•ǤŽŽƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–•’”‘’‘•‹‰†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‘ˆ’”‘Œ‡
–•™‹–Š‹
–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒ•ŠƒŽŽ”‡“—‹”‡–Š‡‹”
‘–”ƒ
–‘”•ǡƒ•ƒ
‘†‹–‹‘‘ˆ
‘–”ƒ
–ǡ–‘—•‡†‹‡•‡Ž–”—
•–Šƒ–Šƒ˜‡ʹͲͳͲ‘†‡Ž›‡ƒ”‘”‡™‡”‡‰‹‡•Ǥ
–Š‡‡˜‡––Šƒ–ʹͲͳͲ‘†‡Ž›‡ƒ”‘”‡™‡”†‹‡•‡Ž–”—
•
ƒ‘–„‡‘„–ƒ‹‡†ǡ–Š‡
‘–”ƒ
–‘”—•–’”‘˜‹†‡†‘
—‡–ƒ–‹‘–‘–Š‡‹–›•Š‘™‹‰–Šƒ–ƒ‰‘‘†ˆƒ‹–Š‡ˆˆ‘”––‘Ž‘ ƒ–‡•—
Š‡‰‹‡•™ƒ•
‘†—
–‡†Ǥ
ǦǦ͵ǣ‡“—‹”‡ƒ›‡–‘ˆ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ‡‡•–‘ˆˆ•‡–‹••‹‘•š ‡‡†‹‰
ǯ• ƒ‹Ž› ‘ŽŽ—–ƒ– Š”‡•Š‘Ž†•Ǥ Š‡ ‹–› •ŠƒŽŽ ™‘” ™‹–Š ǯ• ˆˆ‹
‡ ‘ˆ ‘—‹–›
˜‡•–‡– ƒ†
ˆ”ƒ•–”—
–—”‡ሺ

ሻ –‘ ‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š ‹–›Ǧ•’‡
‹ˆ‹

‘•–”—
–‹‘ ‡‹••‹‘• ‘ˆˆ•‡–‰—‹†ƒ
‡–Šƒ–
ƒ„‡‹’Ž‡‡–‡†–‘ƒ••‡••ǡ†‡–‡”‹‡ǡƒ†‹••—‡‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‡‡• –Šƒ–’”‘Œ‡ –ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–•™‘—Ž†„‡”‡“—‹”‡† –‘’ƒ› ‘ ƒ ’”‘ ”ƒ–ƒ „ƒ•‹• ˆ‘” ƒŽŽ ‘
—””‡–Ž› ‘‰‘‹‰
ǡ
ǡǡǡ


EXHIBIT B
ATTACHMENT 6
620
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION

‘•–”—
–‹‘ ’”‘Œ‡
–•‹ –Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒ –‘ ‘ˆˆ•‡–ƒŽŽ ’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ–‡‹••‹‘• ‡š ‡‡†‹‰ ǯ• †ƒ‹Ž› ’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ– –Š”‡•Š‘Ž†•Ǥ Š‡‘ˆˆ•‡– ˆ‡‡• ƒ› „‡ ’ƒ‹† ‹–‘ ǯ• ƒ› ”‡ƒ Ž‡ƒ ‹” ‘—†ƒ–‹‘ ሺ ‘—†ƒ–‹‘ሻ‹ ƒ ƒ‘—– –‘ „‡ †‡–‡”‹‡† ƒ– –Š‡–‹‡ ‘ˆ ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘Ǥ Š‹• ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ሺǦ͵ሻ †‘‡• ‘– ƒ’’Ž› ‹ˆ „—‹Ž†‡”Ȁ
‘–”ƒ
–‘” †‘
—‡–• –Š‡› ™‹ŽŽ ‘– ‡š
‡‡† ǯ•†ƒ‹Ž‡›’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ– –Š”‡•Š‘Ž†ǡŠ‹•‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‹ Ž—†‡• –Š‡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰
•’‡
‹ˆ‹
”‡“—‹”‡‡–•ǣx ‘”ƒŽŽ
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ’”‘Œ‡
–• ‘

—””‹‰‹ –Š‡ Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒǡ
–Š‡ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–•ˆ‘”‡ƒ
Š’”‘Œ‡
–•ŠƒŽŽ”‡“—‹”‡–Š‡‹”
‘•–”—
–‹‘
‘–”ƒ
–‘”• –‘ ‡•–‹ƒ–‡ ƒ—ƒŽ
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ƒ
–‹˜‹–›‘‹–‘”‹‰ †ƒ–ƒ ˆ‘” –Š‡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ ›‡ƒ”Ǥ ŽŽ ƒ’’Ž‹ ƒ–• •ŠƒŽŽ•—„‹– –Š‡‹”‡•–‹ƒ–‡†
‘•–”—
–‹‘Ǧ”‡Žƒ–‡†‡‹••‹‘• –‘ –Š‡‹–›ˆ‘””‡˜‹‡™„›‘˜‡„‡”ͳ‘ˆ‡ƒ Š›‡ƒ”ˆ‘”–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰
‘•–”—
–‹‘›‡ƒ”Ǥ
x Š‡ ‹–› •ŠƒŽŽ ”‡˜‹‡™ ƒŽŽ ”‡
‡‹˜‡†
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ‡•–‹ƒ–‡• –‘
‡•—”‡–Š‡›ƒ”‡”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡ǡ–‘–ƒŽ–Š‡‡‹••‹‘•‡•–‹ƒ–‡•ˆ‘”ƒŽŽ ‘•–”—
–‹‘’”‘Œ‡
–•–Šƒ–Šƒ†ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•–Šƒ–™‘—Ž†„‡‘‰‘‹‰†—”‹‰–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰
‘•–”—
–‹‘›‡ƒ”ǡƒ††‡–‡”‹‡–Š‡ –‘–ƒŽ ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‡‡ –Šƒ– ™‘—Ž† ‡‡† –‘ „‡ •—„‹––‡† –‘ –‘ ˆ—† ‘ˆˆ•‡–• ˆ‘” –Š‡’‘”–‹‘ ‘ˆƒ—ƒŽ‡‹••‹‘•–Šƒ– ‡š ‡‡† ǯ• ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ †ƒ‹Ž› –Š”‡•Š‘Ž†• ˆ‘”
”‹–‡”‹ƒ’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ–•Ǥ
x
Ž‹‰Š– ‘ˆ –Š‡ –‘–ƒŽ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‡‡ –Šƒ–™ƒ• †‡–‡”‹‡†ǡ ƒ† „ƒ•‡† ‘ –Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ‡‹••‹‘ ƒ‘—–• •—„‹––‡† „›‡ƒ
Š ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–ǡ –Š‡ ‹–› •ŠƒŽŽ ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ –Š‡ ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‡‡ƒ‘—– –Šƒ– ™‘—Ž† ‡‡† –‘ „‡ •—„‹––‡† „› ‡ƒ Š ’”‘Œ‡
–ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–‘ƒ’”‘”ƒ–ƒ„ƒ•‹•ǤŠ‡‹–›•ŠƒŽŽ‹••—‡–Š‡”‡“—‹”‡†‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ˆ‡‡ƒ‘—–•–‘‡ƒ Šƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡’”‘Œ‡
–ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–Ǥ
342

EXHIBIT B
621
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
x ’‘”‡
‡‹˜‹‰–Š‡‹–›ǯ•ƒ••‹‰‡†‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ˆ‡‡ƒ‘—–ǡ–Š‡
ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–••ŠƒŽŽ‡–‡”‹–‘ƒ
‘•–”—
–‹‘‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘
‘–”ƒ
–™‹–Š–‘•—„‹––Š‡‹”ƒ’’‘”–‹‘‡†‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ˆ‡‡•Ǥ ͵Ǥ͵ǦͶ
’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†
Žƒ™‘—Ž†”‡•—Ž–‹ƒ
——Žƒ–‹˜‡Ž›
‘•‹†‡”ƒ„Ž‡‡–‹
”‡ƒ•‡‘ˆƒ
”‹–‡”‹ƒ’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ–ˆ‘”™Š‹
Š–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–”‡‰‹‘‹•ƒ‘ƒ––ƒ‹‡–ƒ”‡ƒˆ‘”ƒƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽ‘”•–ƒ–‡ƒ„‹‡–ƒ‹”“—ƒŽ‹–›•–ƒ†ƒ”†ሺ‹
Ž—†‹‰”‡Ž‡ƒ•‹‰‡‹••‹‘•–Šƒ–‡š
‡‡†“—ƒ–‹–ƒ–‹˜‡–Š”‡•Š‘Ž†•ˆ‘”‘œ‘‡’”‡
—”•‘”•ሻǤ
ǦǦͳǣ‡“—‹”‡‘•–”—
–‹‘ Ž‡‡––‘•‡‡‡™ƒ„Ž‡‹‡•‡ŽǤŽŽƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–•
’”‘’‘•‹‰†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‘ˆ’”‘Œ‡
–•™‹–Š‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒ•ŠƒŽŽ”‡“—‹”‡ –Š‡‹”
‘–”ƒ
–‘”•ǡ ƒ• ƒ
‘†‹–‹‘ ‘ˆ
‘–”ƒ
–ǡ –‘ ”‡†—
‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘Ǧ”‡Žƒ–‡† ‡šŠƒ—•– ‡‹••‹‘• „› ‡•—”‹‰ –Šƒ– ƒŽŽ ‘ˆˆǦ”‘ƒ†‡“—‹’‡–‘’‡”ƒ–‹‰ ˆ‘”‘”‡–ŠƒʹͲ–‘–ƒŽŠ‘—”•‘˜‡”–Š‡‡–‹”‡ †—”ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ‘•–”—
–‹‘ ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡• •ŠƒŽŽ ‘’‡”ƒ–‡ ‘”‡‡™ƒ„Ž‡ †‹‡•‡Ž ሺ•—
Š ƒ• ‹‡•‡Ž Š‹‰Š ’‡”ˆ‘”ƒ
‡ ”‡‡™ƒ„Ž‡ሻǤ‡‡™ƒ„Ž‡ †‹‡•‡Ž ‹•
—””‡–Ž›
‘‡”
‹ƒŽŽ› ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡ ‹ ƒ ”ƒ
‹•
‘ƒ›”‡ƒǤ
ǦǦʹǣ ‡“—‹”‡ •‡ ‘ˆ ‹‡•‡Ž ”—
• ™‹–Š ʹͲͳͲǦ‘’Ž‹ƒ– ‘†‡Ž
‡ƒ”
‰‹‡•ǤŽŽƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–•’”‘’‘•‹‰†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‘ˆ’”‘Œ‡
–•™‹–Š‹
–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒ•ŠƒŽŽ”‡“—‹”‡–Š‡‹”
‘–”ƒ
–‘”•ǡƒ•ƒ
‘†‹–‹‘‘ˆ
‘–”ƒ
–ǡ–‘—•‡†‹‡•‡Ž–”—
•–Šƒ–Šƒ˜‡ʹͲͳͲ‘†‡Ž›‡ƒ”‘”‡™‡”‡‰‹‡•Ǥ
–Š‡‡˜‡––Šƒ–ʹͲͳͲ‘†‡Ž›‡ƒ”‘”‡™‡”†‹‡•‡Ž–”—
•
ƒ‘–„‡‘„–ƒ‹‡†ǡ–Š‡
‘–”ƒ
–‘”—•–’”‘˜‹†‡†‘
—‡–ƒ–‹‘–‘–Š‡‹–›•Š‘™‹‰–Šƒ–ƒ‰‘‘†ˆƒ‹–Š‡ˆˆ‘”––‘Ž‘ ƒ–‡•—
Š‡‰‹‡•™ƒ•
‘†—
–‡†Ǥ
ǦǦ͵ǣ‡“—‹”‡ƒ›‡–‘ˆ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ‡‡•–‘ˆˆ•‡–‹••‹‘•š ‡‡†‹‰
ǯ• ƒ‹Ž› ‘ŽŽ—–ƒ– Š”‡•Š‘Ž†•Ǥ Š‡ ‹–› •ŠƒŽŽ ™‘” ™‹–Š ǯ• ˆˆ‹
‡ ‘ˆ ‘—‹–›
˜‡•–‡– ƒ†
ˆ”ƒ•–”—
–—”‡ሺ

ሻ –‘ ‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š ‹–›Ǧ•’‡
‹ˆ‹

‘•–”—
–‹‘ ‡‹••‹‘• ‘ˆˆ•‡–‰—‹†ƒ
‡–Šƒ–
ƒ„‡‹’Ž‡‡–‡†–‘ƒ••‡••ǡ†‡–‡”‹‡ǡƒ†‹••—‡‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‡‡• –Šƒ–’”‘Œ‡ –ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–•™‘—Ž†„‡”‡“—‹”‡† –‘’ƒ› ‘ ƒ ’”‘ ”ƒ–ƒ „ƒ•‹• ˆ‘” ƒŽŽ ‘
—””‡–Ž› ‘‰‘‹‰
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ’”‘Œ‡
–•‹ –Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒ –‘ ‘ˆˆ•‡–ƒŽŽ ’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ–‡‹••‹‘• ‡š ‡‡†‹‰ ǯ• †ƒ‹Ž› ’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ– –Š”‡•Š‘Ž†•Ǥ Š‡
Ǥ
ǡǡǡ
343

EXHIBIT B
622
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
‘ˆˆ•‡– ˆ‡‡• ƒ› „‡ ’ƒ‹† ‹–‘ ǯ• ƒ› ”‡ƒ Ž‡ƒ ‹” ‘—†ƒ–‹‘ ሺ ‘—†ƒ–‹‘ሻ‹ ƒ ƒ‘—– –‘ „‡ †‡–‡”‹‡† ƒ– –Š‡–‹‡ ‘ˆ ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘Ǥ Š‹• ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ሺǦ͵ሻ †‘‡• ‘– ƒ’’Ž› ‹ˆ „—‹Ž†‡”Ȁ
‘–”ƒ
–‘” †‘
—‡–• –Š‡› ™‹ŽŽ ‘– ‡š
‡‡† ǯ•†ƒ‹Ž‡›’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ– –Š”‡•Š‘Ž†ǡŠ‹•‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‹ Ž—†‡• –Š‡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰
•’‡
‹ˆ‹
”‡“—‹”‡‡–•ǣx ‘”ƒŽŽ
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ’”‘Œ‡
–• ‘

—””‹‰‹ –Š‡ Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒǡ
–Š‡ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–•ˆ‘”‡ƒ
Š’”‘Œ‡
–•ŠƒŽŽ”‡“—‹”‡–Š‡‹”
‘•–”—
–‹‘
‘–”ƒ
–‘”• –‘ ‡•–‹ƒ–‡ ƒ—ƒŽ
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ƒ
–‹˜‹–›‘‹–‘”‹‰ †ƒ–ƒ ˆ‘” –Š‡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ ›‡ƒ”Ǥ ŽŽ ƒ’’Ž‹ ƒ–• •ŠƒŽŽ•—„‹– –Š‡‹”‡•–‹ƒ–‡†
‘•–”—
–‹‘Ǧ”‡Žƒ–‡†‡‹••‹‘• –‘ –Š‡‹–›ˆ‘””‡˜‹‡™„›‘˜‡„‡”ͳ‘ˆ‡ƒ Š›‡ƒ”ˆ‘”–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰
‘•–”—
–‹‘›‡ƒ”Ǥ
x Š‡ ‹–› •ŠƒŽŽ ”‡˜‹‡™ ƒŽŽ ”‡
‡‹˜‡†
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ‡•–‹ƒ–‡• –‘
‡•—”‡–Š‡›ƒ”‡”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡ǡ–‘–ƒŽ–Š‡‡‹••‹‘•‡•–‹ƒ–‡•ˆ‘”ƒŽŽ ‘•–”—
–‹‘’”‘Œ‡
–•–Šƒ–Šƒ†ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•–Šƒ–™‘—Ž†„‡‘‰‘‹‰†—”‹‰–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰
‘•–”—
–‹‘›‡ƒ”ǡƒ††‡–‡”‹‡–Š‡ –‘–ƒŽ ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‡‡ –Šƒ– ™‘—Ž† ‡‡† –‘ „‡ •—„‹––‡† –‘ –‘ ˆ—† ‘ˆˆ•‡–• ˆ‘” –Š‡’‘”–‹‘ ‘ˆƒ—ƒŽ‡‹••‹‘•–Šƒ– ‡š ‡‡† ǯ• ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ †ƒ‹Ž› –Š”‡•Š‘Ž†• ˆ‘”
”‹–‡”‹ƒ’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ–•Ǥ
x
Ž‹‰Š– ‘ˆ –Š‡ –‘–ƒŽ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‡‡ –Šƒ–™ƒ• †‡–‡”‹‡†ǡ ƒ† „ƒ•‡† ‘ –Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ‡‹••‹‘ ƒ‘—–• •—„‹––‡† „›‡ƒ
Š ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–ǡ –Š‡ ‹–› •ŠƒŽŽ ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ –Š‡ ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‡‡ƒ‘—– –Šƒ– ™‘—Ž† ‡‡† –‘ „‡ •—„‹––‡† „› ‡ƒ Š ’”‘Œ‡
–ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–‘ƒ’”‘”ƒ–ƒ„ƒ•‹•ǤŠ‡‹–›•ŠƒŽŽ‹••—‡–Š‡”‡“—‹”‡†‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ˆ‡‡ƒ‘—–•–‘‡ƒ Šƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡’”‘Œ‡
–ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–Ǥ
344

EXHIBIT B
623
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
x ’‘”‡
‡‹˜‹‰–Š‡‹–›ǯ•ƒ••‹‰‡†‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ˆ‡‡ƒ‘—–ǡ–Š‡
ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–••ŠƒŽŽ‡–‡”‹–‘ƒ
‘•–”—
–‹‘‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘
‘–”ƒ
–
™‹–Š–‘•—„‹––Š‡‹”ƒ’’‘”–‹‘‡†‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ˆ‡‡•Ǥ

3.3-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan
would expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations from
new sources of toxic air containments.
‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡ǦͶǣ‡“—‹”‡ —–—”‡”‘Œ‡
–•‘
ƒ–‡†™‹–Š‹ͳǡͲͲͲ ‡‡–
‘ˆ‡
‡’–‘”•‡”ˆ‘”ƒ‘•–”—
–‹‘
‡ƒŽ–Š‹•••‡••‡–ǤŽŽ
ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–•’”‘’‘•‹‰†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‘ˆ’”‘Œ‡
–•™‹–Š‹ͳǡͲͲͲˆ‡‡–‘ˆ‡š‹•–‹‰•‡•‹–‹˜‡”‡
‡’–‘”•ǡƒ•†‡ˆ‹‡†„›–Š‡ƒ›”‡ƒ‹”—ƒŽ‹–›ƒƒ‰‡‡–‹•–”‹ –ሺሻǡ•ŠƒŽŽ’”‡’ƒ”‡ƒ•‹–‡Ǧ•’‡
‹ˆ‹

‘•–”—
–‹‘Š‡ƒŽ–Š”‹•ƒ••‡••‡–ሺ
ሻ–ƒ‹‰‹–‘ƒ

‘—–„‘–Š’”‘Œ‡
–ǦŽ‡˜‡Žƒ†
——Žƒ–‹˜‡Š‡ƒŽ–Š”‹••ሺ‹
Ž—†‹‰‡š‹•–‹‰•‘—”
‡•ሻǤ
ˆ–Š‡
†‡‘•–”ƒ–‡•ǡ–‘–Š‡
•ƒ–‹•ˆƒ
–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡‹–›ǡ–Šƒ––Š‡Š‡ƒŽ–Š”‹•‡š’‘•—”‡•ˆ‘”ƒ†Œƒ ‡–”‡
‡’–‘”•ƒ›„‡Ž‡••–Šƒ’”‘Œ‡
–ǦŽ‡˜‡Žƒ†
——Žƒ–‹˜‡–Š”‡•Š‘Ž†•ሺƒ•ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ሻǡ–Š‡ƒ††‹–‹‘ƒŽ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘™‘—Ž†„‡—‡ ‡••ƒ”›Ǥ
‘™‡˜‡”ǡ‹ˆ–Š‡
†‡‘•–”ƒ–‡•–Šƒ–Š‡ƒŽ–Š”‹••™‘—Ž†‡š
‡‡†’”‘Œ‡
–ǦŽ‡˜‡Žƒ†Ȁ‘”
——Žƒ–‹˜‡–Š”‡•Š‘Ž†•ሺƒ•ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ሻǡƒ††‹–‹‘ƒŽˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡‘Ǧƒ†‘ˆˆ•‹–‡‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘•ŠƒŽŽ„‡ƒƒŽ›œ‡†„›–Š‡ƒ’’Ž‹ ƒ––‘Š‡Ž’”‡†—
‡”‹••–‘–Š‡‰”‡ƒ–‡•–‡š–‡–’”ƒ
–‹
ƒ„Ž‡Ǥ
ǡ
ǡǡ
345

EXHIBIT B
624
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
‡”‰›ǡ
”‡‡Š‘—•‡
ƒ•‡•ǡƒ†Ž‹ƒ–‡Šƒ‰‡͵ǤͶǦʹ
’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†
Žƒ™‘—Ž†‰‡‡”ƒ–‡

‡‹••‹‘•ǡ‡‹–Š‡”†‹”‡
–Ž›‘”‹†‹”‡
–Ž›ǡ–Šƒ–ƒ›Šƒ˜‡ƒ•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹’ƒ
–‘–Š‡‡˜‹”‘‡–.
Ǧ

Ǧͳǣ’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ

‹••‹‘•‡†—
–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•Ǥ
’Ž‡‡––Š‡
ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰

 ‡‹••‹‘• ”‡†—
–‹‘ •–”ƒ–‡‰‹‡• –‘ ‰—‹†‡ ˆ—–—”‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–™‹–Š‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒǣ ͳǤ ‡“—‹”‡ –Šƒ– ƒ ‹‹— ‘ˆ ʹͲ ’‡”
‡– ‘ˆ Š‘—•‹‰ ƒŽŽ‘™‡†
—†‡” –Š‡ ’”‘’‘•‡† Žƒ „‡ ƒˆˆ‘”†ƒ„Ž‡ ሺ„‡Ž‘™ ƒ”‡–Ǧ”ƒ–‡ሻŠ‘—•‹‰Ǥ ʹǤ

‘”’‘”ƒ–‡•–”‡‡–ƒ†‹–‡”•‡
–‹‘–”ƒˆˆ‹

ƒŽ‹‰‡ƒ•—”‡•–‘
ƒ‹‹— ‘ˆ ʹͷ ’‡”
‡– ‘ˆ •–”‡‡–•ƒ†‹–‡”•‡
–‹‘•‹ –Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒǤ–”‡‡––”ƒˆˆ‹

ƒŽ‹‰ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡•ƒ›‹
Ž—†‡ǡ„—–ƒ”‡‘–Ž‹‹–‡†–‘ǡ‘Ǧ•–”‡‡–’ƒ”‹‰ǡ’Žƒ–‡”•–”‹’•™‹–Š•–”‡‡––”‡‡•ǡ Š‹
ƒ‡•ǡŠ‘”‹œ‘–ƒŽ•Š‹ˆ–•ሺŽƒ‡
‡–‡”Ž‹‡–Šƒ–
—”˜‡•‘”•Š‹ˆ–•ሻǡ „‘ŽŽƒ”†•ǡ ”—„Ž‡ •–”‹’•ǡ ƒ† ™‘‘‡”ˆ•ǡ –‡”•‡
–‹‘–”ƒˆˆ‹

ƒŽ‹‰‡ƒ•—”‡•ƒ›‹
Ž—†‡ǡ„—–ƒ”‡‘–Ž‹‹–‡† –‘ǡƒ”‡†
”‘••™ƒŽ•ǡ
‘—–Ǧ†‘™ •‹‰ƒŽ –‹‡”•ǡ
—”„‡š–‡•‹‘•ǡ
Šƒ‡Ž‹œƒ–‹‘ ‹•Žƒ†•ǡ •’‡‡† –ƒ„Ž‡•ǡ ”ƒ‹•‡†
”‘••™ƒŽ•ǡ”ƒ‹•‡†‹–‡”•‡
–‹‘•ǡ‡†‹ƒ‹•Žƒ†•ǡ–‹‰Š–
‘”‡””ƒ†‹‹ǡƒ†–”ƒˆˆ‹

‹”
Ž‡•‘”‹‹Ǧ
‹”
Ž‡•Ǥ
͵Ǥ š’ƒ†–Š‡‡š‹•–‹‰Ž‘
ƒŽ„—•‡–™‘”‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒ„›
ƒ‹‹—‘ˆʹͷ’‡”
‡–„›ƒ††‹‰‘”‘†‹ˆ›‹‰„—•”‘—–‡•–‘‹
”‡ƒ•‡ƒ

‡••‹„‹Ž‹–›–‘–Š‡•–ƒ–‹‘ƒ–
•ƒ„‡Ž˜‡—‡Ǥ
ͶǤ ‡“—‹”‡ƒŽŽ‡™†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡––‘‹•–ƒŽŽ‹†‘‘”™ƒ–‡”‡ˆˆ‹ ‹‡–
ƒ’’Ž‹ƒ
‡•ƒ† ˆ‹š–—”‡• –‘ƒ
Š‹‡˜‡ƒ‹‹— ‘ˆͳͷ’‡”
‡–”‡†—
–‹‘ ‹ ™ƒ–‡” —•ƒ‰‡ ƒ† ”‡“—‹”‡ ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–• ˆ‘” ‡™†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡––‘•—„‹–Žƒ†•
ƒ’‡ƒ†‹””‹‰ƒ–‹‘’Žƒ•
ƒ’ƒ„Ž‡‘ˆ ƒ
Š‹‡˜‹‰ ƒ‹‹— ‘ˆ ͳͲ ’‡”
‡– ”‡†—
–‹‘‹ ‘—–†‘‘”™ƒ–‡”—•ƒ‰‡ǤŠ‡’‡”
‡–”‡†—
–‹‘••Š‘—Ž†„‡ƒ
Š‹‡˜‡†‘˜‡”„ƒ•‡Ž‹‡ ™ƒ–‡” —•‡
‘†‹–‹‘• ‹ –Š‡ ‹–› ƒ– –Š‡ –‹‡ ‘ˆ
 ǡ ǡ
ǡ
346

EXHIBIT B
625
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–Ǥ
ͷǤ ‡“—‹”‡ƒ‹‹—•‘Ž‹†™ƒ•–‡†‹˜‡”•‹‘”ƒ–‡‘ˆͺͷ’‡” ‡––‘
„‡ƒ
Š‹‡˜‡†„›ʹͲͶͲǤ
͸Ǥ ‡“—‹”‡‡Ž‡
–”‹
Ǧ‘Ž›ƒ’’Ž‹ƒ
‡•ƒ†
ሺ‡Ǥ‰Ǥ‘ƒ–—”ƒŽ‰ƒ•
Š‡ƒ–‹‰ǡ
‘‘Ž‹‰ǡ‘”
‘‘‹‰ሻǤ
͹Ǥ ‡“—‹”‡‡’Ž‘›‡”•™‹–Š‘”‡–ŠƒͷͲ‡’Ž‘›‡‡•–‘’”‘˜‹†‡ƒ •—‹–‡‘ˆ–”ƒ˜‡Ž†‡ƒ†”‡†—
–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•ሺሻ
ƒ’ƒ„Ž‡‘ˆ”‡†—
‹‰•‹‰Ž‡Ǧ˜‡Š‹
Ž‡–”‹’•„›ƒ–Ž‡ƒ•–ʹͲ’‡”
‡–
‘’ƒ”‡†–‘‘”ƒŽ–”‹’‰‡‡”ƒ–‹‘”ƒ–‡•Ǥ

3.4-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan
would conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
GHGs.
Ǧ

Ǧͳǣ ’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ

‹••‹‘•‡†—
–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•Ǥ
’Ž‡‡––Š‡
ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰

 ‡‹••‹‘• ”‡†—
–‹‘ •–”ƒ–‡‰‹‡• –‘ ‰—‹†‡ ˆ—–—”‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–™‹–Š‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒǣ ͳǤ ‡“—‹”‡ –Šƒ– ƒ ‹‹— ‘ˆ ʹͲ ’‡”
‡– ‘ˆ Š‘—•‹‰ ƒŽŽ‘™‡†
—†‡” –Š‡ ’”‘’‘•‡† Žƒ „‡ ƒˆˆ‘”†ƒ„Ž‡ ሺ„‡Ž‘™ ƒ”‡–Ǧ”ƒ–‡ሻŠ‘—•‹‰Ǥ ʹǤ

‘”’‘”ƒ–‡•–”‡‡–ƒ†‹–‡”•‡
–‹‘–”ƒˆˆ‹

ƒŽ‹‰‡ƒ•—”‡•–‘
ƒ‹‹— ‘ˆ ʹͷ ’‡”
‡– ‘ˆ •–”‡‡–•ƒ†‹–‡”•‡
–‹‘•‹ –Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒǤ–”‡‡––”ƒˆˆ‹

ƒŽ‹‰ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡•ƒ›‹
Ž—†‡ǡ„—–ƒ”‡‘–Ž‹‹–‡†–‘ǡ‘Ǧ•–”‡‡–’ƒ”‹‰ǡ’Žƒ–‡”•–”‹’•™‹–Š•–”‡‡––”‡‡•ǡ Š‹
ƒ‡•ǡŠ‘”‹œ‘–ƒŽ•Š‹ˆ–•ሺŽƒ‡
‡–‡”Ž‹‡–Šƒ–
—”˜‡•‘”•Š‹ˆ–•ሻǡ „‘ŽŽƒ”†•ǡ ”—„Ž‡ •–”‹’•ǡ ƒ† ™‘‘‡”ˆ•ǡ –‡”•‡
–‹‘–”ƒˆˆ‹

ƒŽ‹‰‡ƒ•—”‡•ƒ›‹
Ž—†‡ǡ„—–ƒ”‡‘–Ž‹‹–‡† –‘ǡƒ”‡†
”‘••™ƒŽ•ǡ
‘—–Ǧ†‘™ •‹‰ƒŽ –‹‡”•ǡ
—”„‡š–‡•‹‘•ǡ
Šƒ‡Ž‹œƒ–‹‘ ‹•Žƒ†•ǡ •’‡‡† –ƒ„Ž‡•ǡ ”ƒ‹•‡†
”‘••™ƒŽ•ǡ”ƒ‹•‡†‹–‡”•‡
–‹‘•ǡ‡†‹ƒ‹•Žƒ†•ǡ–‹‰Š–
‘”‡””ƒ†‹‹ǡƒ†–”ƒˆˆ‹

‹”
Ž‡•‘”‹‹Ǧ
‹”
Ž‡•Ǥ
͵Ǥ š’ƒ†–Š‡‡š‹•–‹‰Ž‘
ƒŽ„—•‡–™‘”‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒ„›

COL TM, FM, BP,
PC
347

EXHIBIT B
626
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
ƒ‹‹—‘ˆ ʹͷ’‡”
‡–„›ƒ††‹‰‘”‘†‹ˆ›‹‰„—•”‘—–‡•–‘
‹
”‡ƒ•‡ƒ

‡••‹„‹Ž‹–›–‘–Š‡•–ƒ–‹‘ƒ–
•ƒ„‡Ž˜‡—‡Ǥ
ͶǤ ‡“—‹”‡ƒŽŽ‡™†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡––‘‹•–ƒŽŽ‹†‘‘”™ƒ–‡”‡ˆˆ‹ ‹‡–
ƒ’’Ž‹ƒ
‡•ƒ† ˆ‹š–—”‡• –‘ƒ
Š‹‡˜‡ƒ‹‹— ‘ˆͳͷ’‡”
‡–”‡†—
–‹‘ ‹ ™ƒ–‡” —•ƒ‰‡ ƒ† ”‡“—‹”‡ ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–• ˆ‘” ‡™†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡––‘•—„‹–Žƒ†•
ƒ’‡ƒ†‹””‹‰ƒ–‹‘’Žƒ•
ƒ’ƒ„Ž‡‘ˆ ƒ
Š‹‡˜‹‰ ƒ‹‹— ‘ˆ ͳͲ ’‡”
‡– ”‡†—
–‹‘‹ ‘—–†‘‘”™ƒ–‡”—•ƒ‰‡ǤŠ‡’‡”
‡–”‡†—
–‹‘••Š‘—Ž†„‡ƒ
Š‹‡˜‡†‘˜‡”„ƒ•‡Ž‹‡ ™ƒ–‡” —•‡
‘†‹–‹‘• ‹ –Š‡ ‹–› ƒ– –Š‡ –‹‡ ‘ˆ†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–Ǥ ͷǤ ‡“—‹”‡ƒ‹‹—•‘Ž‹†™ƒ•–‡†‹˜‡”•‹‘”ƒ–‡‘ˆͺͷ’‡” ‡––‘
„‡ƒ
Š‹‡˜‡†„›ʹͲͶͲǤ
͸Ǥ ‡“—‹”‡‡Ž‡
–”‹
Ǧ‘Ž›ƒ’’Ž‹ƒ
‡•ƒ†
ሺ‡Ǥ‰Ǥ‘ƒ–—”ƒŽ‰ƒ•
Š‡ƒ–‹‰ǡ
‘‘Ž‹‰ǡ‘”
‘‘‹‰ሻǤ
͹Ǥ ‡“—‹”‡‡’Ž‘›‡”•™‹–Š‘”‡–ŠƒͷͲ‡’Ž‘›‡‡•–‘’”‘˜‹†‡ƒ •—‹–‡‘ˆ–”ƒ˜‡Ž†‡ƒ†”‡†—
–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•ሺሻ
ƒ’ƒ„Ž‡‘ˆ”‡†—
‹‰•‹‰Ž‡Ǧ˜‡Š‹
Ž‡–”‹’•„›ƒ–Ž‡ƒ•–ʹͲ’‡”
‡–
‘’ƒ”‡†–‘‘”ƒŽ–”‹’‰‡‡”ƒ–‹‘”ƒ–‡•Ǥ
‘‹•‡͵Ǥ͸Ǧͳ
’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†
Žƒ
‘—Ž†‡š’‘•‡’‡”•‘•–‘‘”‰‡‡”ƒ–‡‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•‹‡š
‡••‘ˆ•–ƒ†ƒ”†•‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡†‹ƒŽ‘
ƒŽ‰‡‡”ƒŽ’Žƒ‘”‘‹•‡‘”†‹ƒ
‡‘”ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡•–ƒ†ƒ”†•‘ˆ‘–Š‡”ƒ‰‡
‹‡•Ǥ

ǦͳǤ
’Ž‡‡–”ƒˆˆ‹
‘‹•‡‡†—
–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•ƒ–š‹•–‹‰‡•‹–‹˜‡
‡
‡’–‘”•Ǥ
–ƒ–‹‘ƒ”›“—‹’‡–‘‹•‡‘‹•‡ˆ”‘‡
Šƒ‹
ƒŽ‡“—‹’‡–‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒ
‘—Ž†‹
Ž—†‡
ƒ†‘–Š‡”‡
Šƒ‹
ƒŽ‡“—‹’‡–ሺ‡Ǥ‰ǤǡŽƒ”‰‡”‡
Šƒ‹
ƒŽ‡“—‹’‡–ǡ
‡‡”‰‡
›‰‡‡”ƒ–‘”•ǡ‡–
ǤሻǤ•†‹•
—••‡†—†‡”
’ƒ
–͵Ǥ͸Ǧͳƒ„‘˜‡ǡ‘Ž‹
›
ͳ—†‡”„Œ‡
–‹˜‡ǦͳǤͷ‹–Š‡‹–›
‡‡”ƒŽŽƒ•–ƒ–‡•–Šƒ––Š‡‹–›•ŠƒŽŽ”‡“—‹”‡–Šƒ–‹†—•–”‹ƒŽƒ† ‘‡”
‹ƒŽ—•‡•„‡†‡•‹‰‡†ƒ†‘’‡”ƒ–‡†•‘ƒ•–‘ƒ˜‘‹†–Š‡‰‡‡”ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ‘‹•‡‡ˆˆ‡ –•‘•—””‘—†‹‰•‡•‹–‹˜‡Žƒ†—•‡•
 ǡǡǡ

348

EXHIBIT B
627
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
ሺ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽǡ
Š—”
Š‡•ǡ•
Š‘‘Ž•ǡŠ‘•’‹–ƒŽ•ሻˆ”‘‡š
‡‡†‹‰–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•ˆ‘”‡š–‡”‹‘”‡˜‹”‘‡–•ǣሺƒሻͷͷ†ͷͲሺ͹ǣͲͲƒǤǤ–‘ͳͲǣͲͲ’ǤǤሻሺ„ሻͶͷ†ͷͲሺͳͲǣͲͲ’ǤǤ–‘͹ǣͲͲƒǤǤሻǤ ƒ††‹–‹‘ǡ‘Ž‹
›ǦǦͺ—†‡”–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†Žƒǡ†‡•
”‹„‡†’”‡˜‹‘—•Ž›ǡ™‘—Ž†‡•—”‡–Šƒ–‘‹•‡ˆ”‘‘‹•‡Ǧ‰‡‡”ƒ–‹‰Žƒ†—•‡•ǡƒ•‡ƒ•—”‡†ˆ”‘–Š‡’”‘’‡”–›Ž‹‡ǡ™‘—Ž†„‡Ž‹‹–‡†ƒ•ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™•ǣ x
”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽƒ”‡ƒ•‘ˆ–Š‡
•ƒ„‡Ž‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†ǡ‡š–‡”‹‘”‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•
ƒ›‘–‡š
‡‡†͸ͷ†ˆ”‘͹ǣͲͲƒǤǤ–‘ͳʹǣͲͲƒǤ‘”͸Ͳ†ˆ”‘ͳʹǣͲͲƒǤǤ–‘͹ǣͲͲƒǤǤ x Ž‘‰ƒ‹–”‡‡–ƒ†‹–Š‡‘ˆˆ‹
‡ǡ
‘‡”
‹ƒŽǡ‘”„—•‹‡••’ƒ”ƒ”‡ƒ•
‘ˆ –Š‡
•ƒ„‡Ž‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†ǡ‡š–‡”‹‘”‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•ƒ›‘–‡š
‡‡†͹ͷ†ˆ”‘ ͹ǣͲͲƒǤǤ–‘ͳʹǣͲͲƒǤ‘”͸ͷ†ˆ”‘ͳʹǣͲͲƒǤǤ–‘͹ǣͲͲƒǤǤ 3Ǥ͸Ǧ͵
’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†
Žƒ
‘—Ž†”‡•—Ž–‹ƒ•—„•–ƒ–‹ƒŽ’‡”ƒ‡–‹
”‡ƒ•‡‹ƒ„‹‡–‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•‹–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–˜‹
‹‹–›ƒ„‘˜‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•‡š‹•–‹‰™‹–Š‘—––Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–Ǥ

ǦͳǤ
’Ž‡‡–”ƒˆˆ‹
‘‹•‡‡†—
–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•ƒ–š‹•–‹‰‡•‹–‹˜‡
‡
‡’–‘”•Ǥ
^ƚĂƚŝŽŶĂƌLJ
ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚEŽŝƐĞ‘‹•‡ˆ”‘‡
Šƒ‹
ƒŽ‡“—‹’‡–‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒ
‘—Ž†‹
Ž—†‡
ƒ†‘–Š‡”‡
Šƒ‹
ƒŽ‡“—‹’‡–ሺ‡Ǥ‰ǤǡŽƒ”‰‡”‡
Šƒ‹
ƒŽ‡“—‹’‡–ǡ
‡‡”‰‡
›‰‡‡”ƒ–‘”•ǡ‡–
ǤሻǤ•†‹•
—••‡†—†‡”
’ƒ
–͵Ǥ͸Ǧͳƒ„‘˜‡ǡ‘Ž‹
›
ͳ—†‡”„Œ‡
–‹˜‡ǦͳǤͷ‹–Š‡‹–›
‡‡”ƒŽŽƒ•–ƒ–‡•–Šƒ––Š‡‹–›•ŠƒŽŽ”‡“—‹”‡–Šƒ–‹†—•–”‹ƒŽƒ† ‘‡”
‹ƒŽ—•‡•„‡†‡•‹‰‡†ƒ†‘’‡”ƒ–‡†•‘ƒ•–‘ƒ˜‘‹†–Š‡‰‡‡”ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ‘‹•‡‡ˆˆ‡ –•‘•—””‘—†‹‰•‡•‹–‹˜‡Žƒ†—•‡•ሺ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽǡ Š—”
Š‡•ǡ•
Š‘‘Ž•ǡŠ‘•’‹–ƒŽ•ሻˆ”‘‡š
‡‡†‹‰–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•ˆ‘”‡š–‡”‹‘”‡˜‹”‘‡–•ǣሺƒሻͷͷ†ͷͲሺ͹ǣͲͲƒǤǤ–‘ͳͲǣͲͲ’ǤǤሻሺ„ሻͶͷ†ͷͲሺͳͲǣͲͲ’ǤǤ–‘͹ǣͲͲƒǤǤሻǤ ƒ††‹–‹‘ǡ‘Ž‹
›ǦǦͺ—†‡”–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†Žƒǡ†‡•
”‹„‡†’”‡˜‹‘—•Ž›ǡ™‘—Ž†‡•—”‡–Šƒ–‘‹•‡ˆ”‘‘‹•‡Ǧ‰‡‡”ƒ–‹‰Žƒ†—•‡•ǡƒ•‡ƒ•—”‡†ˆ”‘–Š‡’”‘’‡”–›Ž‹‡ǡ™‘—Ž†„‡Ž‹‹–‡†ƒ•ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™•ǣ  ǡǡ
ǡ
349

EXHIBIT B
628
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
x
”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽƒ”‡ƒ•‘ˆ–Š‡
•ƒ„‡Ž‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†ǡ‡š–‡”‹‘”‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•
ƒ›‘–‡š
‡‡†͸ͷ†ˆ”‘͹ǣͲͲƒǤǤ–‘ͳʹǣͲͲƒǤ‘”͸Ͳ†ˆ”‘ͳʹǣͲͲƒǤǤ–‘͹ǣͲͲƒǤǤ x Ž‘‰ƒ‹–”‡‡–ƒ†‹–Š‡‘ˆˆ‹
‡ǡ
‘‡”
‹ƒŽǡ‘”„—•‹‡••’ƒ”ƒ”‡ƒ•
‘ˆ –Š‡
•ƒ„‡Ž‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†ǡ‡š–‡”‹‘”‘‹•‡Ž‡˜‡Ž•ƒ›‘–‡š
‡‡†͹ͷ†ˆ”‘ ͹ǣͲͲƒǤǤ–‘ͳʹǣͲͲƒǤ‘”͸ͷ†ˆ”‘ͳʹǣͲͲƒǤǤ–‘͹ǣͲͲƒǤǤ ‹‘Ž‘‰‹
ƒŽ‡•‘—”
‡•͵Ǥ͹Ǧͳ
’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†
Žƒ™‘—Ž†Šƒ˜‡ƒ•—„•–ƒ–‹ƒŽƒ†˜‡”•‡‡ˆˆ‡
–ǡ‡‹–Š‡”†‹”‡
–Ž›‘”–Š”‘—‰ŠŠƒ„‹–ƒ–‘†‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹‘•ǡ‘•’‡
‹ƒŽǦ•–ƒ–—••’‡
‹‡•.
Ǧ
Ǧͳǣ
ˆ‹’ƒ
–•–‘•’‡
‹ƒŽǦ•–ƒ–—•’Žƒ•’‡
‹‡•ƒ”‡—ƒ˜‘‹†ƒ„Ž‡ǡ”‡’ƒ”‡
ƒ†‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ•ƒŽ˜ƒ‰‡ǡ”‡Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘ǡ‘”’”‘’ƒ‰ƒ–‹‘ƒ†‘‹–‘”‹‰’Žƒˆ‘”•’‡
‹ƒŽǦ•–ƒ–—•’Žƒ–•’‡
‹‡•Ǥ

ˆƒ’”‘–‘
‘ŽǦŽ‡˜‡Ž„‘–ƒ‹
ƒŽ•—”˜‡›”‡˜‡ƒŽ•–Š‡’”‡•‡
‡‘ˆ•’‡
‹ƒŽǦ•–ƒ–—•’Žƒ–•’‡
‹‡•‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒǡƒŽŽ†‹”‡
–Ž›ƒˆˆ‡
–‡†ƒ”‡ƒ•‘ˆ•’‡
‹ƒŽǦ•–ƒ–—•’Žƒ–•™‹ŽŽ„‡†‘
—‡–‡†„›ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‘–ƒ‹•–‘”‡
‘Ž‘‰‹•–”‡–ƒ‹‡†„›’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–•’”‹‘”–‘‹••—ƒ
‡‘ˆ‰”ƒ†‹‰’‡”‹–•ǡ
‘•‹•–‡–™‹–Š”‘–‘
‘Ž•ˆ‘”—”˜‡›‹‰ƒ†˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰
’ƒ
–•–‘’‡
‹ƒŽ–ƒ–—•ƒ–‹˜‡Žƒ–‘’—Žƒ–‹‘•ƒ†ƒ–—”ƒŽ‘—‹–‹‡•–ƒ–‡‘ˆƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒሺ ǡʹͲͲͻሻǤ ‘
—‡–ƒ–‹‘™‹ŽŽ‹
Ž—†‡†‡•‹–›ƒ†’‡”
‡–
‘˜‡”Ǣ‡›Šƒ„‹–ƒ–

Šƒ”ƒ
–‡”‹•–‹
•ǡ‹
Ž—†‹‰•‘‹Ž–›’‡ǡƒ••‘
‹ƒ–‡†•’‡
‹‡•ǡŠ›†”‘Ž‘‰›ǡƒ†–‘’‘‰”ƒ’Š›Ǣƒ†’Š‘–‘‰”ƒ’Š•‘ˆ’”‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘
‘†‹–‹‘•Ǥ
’ƒ
–•–‘”ƒ”‡
ሺƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒƒ”‡Žƒ–ƒͳƒ†ʹሻƒ–‹˜‡’Žƒ–•’‡
‹‡•™‹ŽŽ„‡ƒ˜‘‹†‡†™Š‡”‡ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡Ǥ
ˆ‹’ƒ
–•–‘•—
Š•’‡
‹‡•ƒ”‡—ƒ˜‘‹†ƒ„Ž‡ǡ–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–™‹ŽŽ‘–‹ˆ› ƒ†Ȁ‘” ƒ†ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‘–ƒ‹•–‘” ”‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘‡
‘Ž‘‰‹•–™‹ŽŽ’”‡’ƒ”‡ƒ•ƒŽ˜ƒ‰‡ǡ”‡Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘ǡ‘”’”‘’ƒ‰ƒ–‹‘ƒ†‘‹–‘”‹‰’Žƒ‹
‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘™‹–Š ƒ†Ȁ‘” ’”‹‘”–‘
‘•–”—
–‹‘–‘ƒ††”‡••ƒˆˆ‡
–‡†•’‡
‹ƒŽǦ•–ƒ–—•’Žƒ–•’‡
‹‡•ǤŠ‡’Žƒ™‹ŽŽ
‹
Ž—†‡’”‘˜‹•‹‘•–Šƒ–ƒ††”‡••–Š‡–‡
Š‹“—‡•ǡŽ‘
ƒ–‹‘ǡƒ†’”‘
‡†—”‡•”‡“—‹”‡†ˆ‘”–Š‡•—

‡••ˆ—Ž‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡–‘ˆ–Š‡’Žƒ–’‘’—Žƒ–‹‘•ǤŠ‡’Žƒ™‹ŽŽ‹ Ž—†‡’”‘˜‹•‹‘•ˆ‘”’‡”ˆ‘”ƒ
‡–Šƒ–ƒ††”‡•••—”˜‹˜ƒ„‹Ž‹–›
Ǥ
‘‡͹ǡ ǡ 
ǡǡ
350

EXHIBIT B
629
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
”‡“—‹”‡‡–•ǡƒ‹–‡ƒ
‡ǡ‘‹–‘”‹‰ǡ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ǡƒ†–Š‡ƒ—ƒŽ”‡’‘”–‹‰”‡“—‹”‡‡–•Ǥ‘‹–‘”‹‰ƒ†•—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡–‘•’‡
‹ƒŽǦ•–ƒ–—•’Žƒ–•ƒŽ˜ƒ‰‡ǡ”‡Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘ǡ‘”’”‘’ƒ‰ƒ–‹‘™‹ŽŽ”‡“—‹”‡–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰Ǥ
x –Ž‡ƒ•––™‘•—”˜‡›•„›ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‘–ƒ‹•–‘”‡
‘Ž‘‰‹•–’‡”
‘‹–‘”‹‰›‡ƒ”Ǥ
x –Ž‡ƒ•–ͺͲ’‡”
‡–‘ˆ–Š‡’Žƒ–‡†ƒ”‡ƒ—•–•—’’‘”–˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘

‘’‘•‹–‹‘ƒ††‡•‹–›
‘•‹•–‡–™‹–Š”‡ˆ‡”‡
‡’‘’—Žƒ–‹‘
‘†‹–‹‘•Ǥ
x –Ž‡ƒ•–ͺͲ’‡”
‡–‘ˆ–Š‡’Žƒ–‡†ƒ”‡ƒ—•–•—’’‘”––ƒ”‰‡–•’‡
‹‡•
ƒ‘—–••‹‹Žƒ”–‘”‡ˆ‡”‡
‡ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡
‘†‹–‹‘•Ǥ
x ‹‹—‘ˆˆ‹˜‡
‘•‡
—–‹˜‡›‡ƒ”•‘ˆ‘‹–‘”‹‰–‘‡•—”‡•—

॥

”‹–‡”‹ƒƒ”‡‡–Ǥ
x ‡‡†‹ƒŽƒ
–‹‘•–‘”‡•–‘”‡‹–‡†‡†‡
‘Ž‘‰‹
ƒŽˆ—
–‹‘‘ˆ’Žƒ–‡†
ƒ”‡ƒ•–Šƒ–ˆƒ‹Ž–‘‡‡––Š‡•—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒˆ‘”–Š”‡‡
‘•‡
—–‹˜‡›‡ƒ”•Ǥ
Ǧ
Ǧʹǣ˜‘‹†‡•–‹‰„‹”†•™Š‡”‡ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡Ǥ
”‘’‘‡–•ሺ‘”–Š‡‹”
‘–”ƒ
–‘”•ሻ‘ˆ•’‡
‹ˆ‹
’”‘Œ‡
–•—†‡”–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†Žƒ•ŠƒŽŽ
‘†—
–
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•‘—–•‹†‡–Š‡„‹”†‡•–‹‰•‡ƒ•‘ሺ ‡„”—ƒ”›ͳ–‘—‰—•–͵ͳሻ–‘–Š‡‡š–‡–ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡Ǥ ˆ
‘•–”—
–‹‘‹‹–‹ƒ–‹‘‹•
—ƒ˜‘‹†ƒ„Ž‡†—”‹‰–Š‹•–‹‡ǡ–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–‘”‹–•
‘–”ƒ
–‘”™‹ŽŽ”‡–ƒ‹ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†™‹Ž†Ž‹ˆ‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–™‹–Š†‡‘•–”ƒ–‡†‡•–Ǧ•‡ƒ” Š‹‰‡š’‡”‹‡
‡–‘
‘†—
–’”‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘•—”˜‡›•ˆ‘”‡•–‹‰„‹”†•ሺ‹
Ž—†‹‰”ƒ’–‘”•ǡ„—–‡š
Ž—†‹‰„—””‘™‹‰‘™Žሻ™‹–Š‹͵ͲͲˆ‡‡–ƒ†‹
Ž—†‹‰–Š‡‡ƒ”Ǧ–‡”‘”Ž‘‰‡”Ǧ–‡”‹’”‘˜‡‡–•‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽˆ‘‘–’”‹–•Ǥ†Œƒ ‡–Žƒ†•‘—–•‹†‡–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ˆ‘‘–’”‹–•™‹ŽŽ„‡•
ƒ‡†™‹–Š„‹‘
—Žƒ”•ˆ”‘–Š‡Ž‹‹–‘ˆ‰”‘—†Ǧ†‹•–—”„ƒ
‡ƒ†’—„Ž‹
Ž›ƒ

‡••‹„Ž‡ƒ”‡ƒ•Ǥ”‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘•—”˜‡›•™‹ŽŽ‘

—”‘‘”‡–Šƒ–Š”‡‡†ƒ›•’”‹‘”–‘–Š‡‘•‡–‘ˆ‰”‘—†Ǧ†‹•–—”„‹‰ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•ሺ‹
Ž—†‹‰
Ž‡ƒ”‹‰ǡ‰”—„„‹‰ǡƒ†
351

EXHIBIT B
630
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
•–ƒ‰‹‰ሻƒ–‡ƒ
Š†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ”‡ƒǤ
ˆƒ
–‹˜‡‡•–•ƒ”‡ˆ‘—†‹–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ˆ‘‘–’”‹–•ǡ–Š‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–™‹ŽŽ‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Šƒ‘Ǧ†‹•–—”„ƒ ‡„—ˆˆ‡”ƒ”‘—†–Š‡‡•–ƒ†ƒ”–Š‡„—ˆˆ‡”’‡”‹‡–‡”™‹–ŠŠ‹‰ŠǦ˜‹•‹„‹Ž‹–›ˆ‡ ‹‰ǡˆŽƒ‰‰‹‰ǡ‘”’‹ˆŽƒ‰•ǤŠ‡•‹œ‡‘ˆ–Š‡„—ˆˆ‡”™‹ŽŽ„‡„ƒ•‡†‘–Š‡•’‡ ‹‡•̵•‡•‹–‹˜‹–›–‘†‹•–—”„ƒ
‡ƒ†’Žƒ‡†™‘”ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•‹–Š‡˜‹
‹‹–›Ǣ–›’‹
ƒŽ„—ˆˆ‡”•‹œ‡•ƒ”‡ʹͷͲˆ‡‡–ˆ‘””ƒ’–‘”•ƒ†ͷͲˆ‡‡–ˆ‘”‘–Š‡”„‹”†•ǤŠ‡„—ˆˆ‡”™‹ŽŽ”‡ƒ‹‹’Žƒ ‡—–‹Ž–Š‡‡•–‹•‘Ž‘‰‡”ƒ
–‹˜‡ǡƒ•†‡–‡”‹‡†„›–Š‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–Ǥ—ˆˆ‡”•ˆ‘”ƒ›‡•–•ˆ‘—†‘—–•‹†‡„—–™‹–Š‹͵ͲͲˆ‡‡–‘ˆ–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–•‹–‡•™‹ŽŽ„‡‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡†„ƒ•‡†‘–Š‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–ǯ•„‡•–’”‘ˆ‡••‹‘ƒŽŒ—†‰‡–™Š‡–Š‡”–Š‡™‘”™‘—Ž†”‡•—Ž–‹‡•–ƒ„ƒ†‘‡–Ǥ ˆƒŽƒ’•‡‹
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•‘ˆͳͷ†ƒ›•‘”Ž‘‰‡”ƒ–ƒ’”‡˜‹‘—•Ž›
•—”˜‡›‡†‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽˆ‘‘–’”‹–‘

—”•ǡƒ‘–Š‡”’”‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘•—”˜‡›
™‹ŽŽ„‡
‘†—
–‡†Ǥ
ˆ•–”—
–—”‡†‡‘Ž‹–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•
ƒ‘–‘

—”‘—–•‹†‡‘ˆ–Š‡‡•–‹‰•‡ƒ•‘ǡ–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–‘”‹–•
‘–”ƒ
–‘”™‹ŽŽ”‡‘˜‡‹ƒ
–‹˜‡‡•–•ˆ”‘–Š‡•–”—
–—”‡–‘„‡†‡‘Ž‹•Š‡†ƒ†‹•–ƒŽŽ‡•–‡š
Ž—•‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•ሺ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡˆ‹‡‡•Š‡––‹‰ǡ’ƒ‡Ž•ǡ‘”‡–ƒŽ’”‘Œ‡ –‘”•ሻ‘—–•‹†‡‘ˆ–Š‡‡•–‹‰•‡ƒ•‘ǤŽŽ
‡š
Ž—•‹‘ƒ”›†‡˜‹
‡•™‹ŽŽ„‡‘‹–‘”‡†ƒ†ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†–Š”‘—‰Š‘—––Š‡„”‡‡†‹‰•‡ƒ•‘–‘‡•—”‡–Šƒ––Š‡›ƒ”‡•—

‡••ˆ—Ž‹’”‡˜‡–‹‰–Š‡„‹”†•ˆ”‘ƒ

‡••‹‰–Š‡
ƒ˜‹–‹‡•‘”‡•–•‹–‡•Ǥ‘‘”‡–Šƒ–Š”‡‡†ƒ›•’”‹‘”–‘•–”— –—”‡†‡‘Ž‹–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•ǡƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–™‹ŽŽ
‘†—
–ƒ’”‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘•—”˜‡›‘ˆƒŽŽ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ‡•–‹‰Šƒ„‹–ƒ–‘–Š‡•–”— –—”‡•–‘„‡†‡‘Ž‹•Š‡†Ȁ‘†‹ˆ‹‡†ƒ†–Š‡•—””‘—†‹‰ƒ”‡ƒ•ˆ‘”–Š‡’”‡•‡ ‡‘ˆƒ
–‹˜‡
‡•–•Ǥ
ˆƒ
–‹˜‡‡•–•ƒ”‡ˆ‘—†‘–Š‡•–”—
–—”‡•‘”‹–Š‡ƒˆˆ‡
–‡†ƒ”‡ƒǡ–Š‡†‡‘Ž‹–‹‘Ȁ‘†‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•™‹ŽŽ‘–’”‘
‡‡†—–‹Ž–Š‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–˜‡”‹ˆ‹‡•–Šƒ–ƒŽŽ‡•–•‘–Š‡•–”— –—”‡•ƒ”‡‹ƒ
–‹˜‡Ǥˆ–‡”ƒŽŽ•—”˜‡›•ƒ†Ȁ‘”‡•–†‡–‡””‡
‡ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•ƒ”‡
‘’Ž‡–‡†ƒ–‡ƒ
Š†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ˆ‘‘–’”‹–ǡ–Š‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–™‹ŽŽ
‘’Ž‡–‡ƒ‡‘”ƒ†—†‡–ƒ‹Ž‹‰
352

EXHIBIT B
631
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
–Š‡•—”˜‡›‡ˆˆ‘”–ƒ†”‡•—Ž–•ƒ†•—„‹––Š‡‡‘”ƒ†—–‘–Š‡’”‘Œ‡ –’”‘’‘‡–™‹–Š‹•‡˜‡†ƒ›•‘ˆ•—”˜‡›
‘’Ž‡–‹‘ǤǦ
Ǧ͵ǣ˜‘‹†„—””‘™‹‰‘™Ž‡•–‹‰™Š‡”‡ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡Ǥ
”‹‘”–‘ƒ›
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–›’Žƒ‡††—”‹‰–Š‡ˆƒŽŽƒ†™‹–‡”‘Ǧ‡•–‹‰•‡ƒ•‘ሺ‡’–‡„‡”ͳ–Š”‘—‰Š ƒ—ƒ”›͵ͳሻ‘”ƒ–ƒ›–‹‡†—”‹‰–Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘’”‘
‡••ǡ’”‘’‘‡–•‘ˆ’”‘Œ‡
–•’”‘’‘•‡†™‹–Š‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒ™‹ŽŽ”‡–ƒ‹ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†™‹Ž†Ž‹ˆ‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•––‘ ‘†—
–ƒ’”‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘•—”˜‡›ˆ‘”„—””‘™‹‰‘™Ž•Ǥ—”˜‡›•™‹ŽŽ„‡
‘†—
–‡†ƒ–‡ƒ
Šƒ”‡ƒ‘ˆ•—‹–ƒ„Ž‡Šƒ„‹–ƒ––Šƒ–™‹ŽŽ„‡†‹•–—”„‡†‘‘”‡–Šƒ•‡˜‡†ƒ›•’”‹‘”–‘‰”‘—†Ǧ†‹•–—”„‹‰ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•ƒ†™‹ŽŽ
‘˜‡”ƒŽŽ•—‹–ƒ„Ž‡„—””‘™‹‰‘™ŽŠƒ„‹–ƒ–•—„Œ‡
––‘†‹•–—”„ƒ
‡’—”•—ƒ––‘ ǯ•–ƒˆˆ‡’‘”–‘—””‘™‹‰™Ž‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ሺƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ ‹•Šƒ†
ƒ‡ǡʹͲͳʹሻǤ
ˆƒ›„—””‘™‹‰‘™Ž•ƒ”‡ˆ‘—†™‹–Š‹–Š‡†‹•–—”„ƒ
‡ƒ”‡ƒǡ–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–™‹ŽŽ‘–‹ˆ› ƒ†™‹ŽŽ’”‘
‡‡†—†‡” †‹”‡
–‹‘Ǥ
ˆ
‘•–”—
–‹‘‹•’Žƒ‡†–‘‘

—”†—”‹‰–Š‡‡•–‹‰•‡ƒ•‘ሺ ‡„”—ƒ”›ͳ–Š”‘—‰Š—‰—•–͵ͳሻǡ–Š‡’”‘Œ‡ –’”‘’‘‡–™‹ŽŽ”‡–ƒ‹ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†™‹Ž†Ž‹ˆ‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•––‘ ‘†—
–ƒ„”‡‡†‹‰•‡ƒ•‘„—””‘™‹‰‘™Ž•—”˜‡›‹–Š‡›‡ƒ”’”‹‘”–‘ ‘•–”—
–‹‘ǤŠ‡•—”˜‡›™‹ŽŽ„‡
‘†—
–‡†–‘†‡–‡”‹‡‹ˆ–Š‡”‡‹•ƒ„”‡‡†‹‰’ƒ‹”™‹–Š‹ƒ’’”‘š‹ƒ–‡Ž›ͷͲͲˆ‡‡–‘ˆ‡ƒ Š†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ˆ‘‘–’”‹–ǡ—Ž‡••–Š‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–†‡–‡”‹‡•–Šƒ–ƒ•ƒŽŽ‡”•—”˜‡›„—ˆˆ‡”ƒ”‘—†–Š‡ ‘•–”—
–‹‘ˆ‘‘–’”‹–‹•™ƒ””ƒ–‡†„ƒ•‡†‘’”‡‡š‹•–‹‰„ƒ
‰”‘—††‹•–—”„ƒ
‡ƒ†
‘†‹–‹‘•Ǥ—”˜‡›˜‹•‹–•™‹ŽŽ„‡–‹‡†‹ƒ

‘”†ƒ
‡™‹–Š ‰—‹†‡Ž‹‡•ሺƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ ‹•Šƒ† ƒ‡ǡʹͲͳʹሻǤŠ‹•™‹ŽŽ
’”‘˜‹†‡–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
––‡ƒƒ†˜ƒ
‡‘–‹
‡‘ˆ‡•–‹‰‘™Ž•‹–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ”‡ƒƒ†ƒŽŽ‘™ƒ’Ž‡–‹‡–‘†‹• —••ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ƒ˜‘‹†ƒ
‡‡ƒ•—”‡•™‹–Š Ǥ
ƒ††‹–‹‘ǡ’”‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘•—”˜‡›•™‹ŽŽ„‡
‘†—
–‡†‘‘”‡–Šƒ•‡˜‡†ƒ›•’”‹‘”–‘‰”‘—††‹•–—”„ƒ
‡‹ƒŽŽƒ”‡ƒ•‘ˆ–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ˆ‘‘–’”‹–•—’’‘”–‹‰„—””‘™‹‰‘™ŽŠƒ„‹–ƒ–Ǥ ˆ–Š‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡•–Š‡
353

EXHIBIT B
632
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
’”‡•‡
‡‘ˆƒ„—””‘™‹‰‘™Ž‡•–‹ƒƒ”‡ƒ•
Š‡†—Ž‡†–‘„‡†‹•–—”„‡†„›

‘•–”—
–‹‘ǡƒ͸͸ͲǦˆ‘‘–‘Ǧƒ
–‹˜‹–›„—ˆˆ‡”™‹ŽŽ„‡‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡†ƒ†ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†ƒ”‘—†–Š‡‡•–™Š‹Ž‡‹–‹•ƒ –‹˜‡Ǥ—”˜‡›•ƒ†„—ˆˆ‡”‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡–™‹ŽŽ„‡’‡”ˆ‘”‡†„›“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†™‹Ž†Ž‹ˆ‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–•ǡƒ†„—ˆˆ‡”•™‹ŽŽ„‡ ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‡†™‹–Š „›
‘–ƒ
–‹‰–Š‡ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ ’‡”•‘‡Žǡƒ†™‹ŽŽ„‡•—„Œ‡
––‘ ”‡˜‹‡™ƒ†‘˜‡”•‹‰Š–Ǥ
Ǧ
ǦͶǣ˜‘‹†–”‹
‘Ž‘”‡†„Žƒ
„‹”†„”‡‡†‹‰Šƒ„‹–ƒ–™Š‡”‡ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡Ǥ

ˆ
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•‹‘”™‹–Š‹͵ͲͲˆ‡‡–‘ˆˆ”‡•Š™ƒ–‡”‡‡”‰‡–
™‡–Žƒ†Šƒ„‹–ƒ–‘

—”†—”‹‰–Š‡„”‡‡†‹‰•‡ƒ•‘ሺ ‡„”—ƒ”›ͳ–Š”‘—‰Š—‰—•–͵ͳሻǡ–Š‡’”‘Œ‡ –’”‘’‘‡–™‹ŽŽ”‡–ƒ‹ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•––‘
‘†—
–•—”˜‡›•ˆ‘”–Š‡’”‡•‡
‡‘ˆƒ–”‹
‘Ž‘”‡†„Žƒ
„‹”†‡•–‹‰
‘Ž‘›‘”‡•–•Ǥ
ˆƒƒ
–‹˜‡‡•–
‘Ž‘›‘”‡•–‹•‘„•‡”˜‡†„›–Š‡“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–ǡ–Š‡ƒ‘Ǧ†‹•–—”„ƒ ‡„—ˆˆ‡”‘ˆʹͷͲˆ‡‡–™‹ŽŽ„‡‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡†—–‹Ž–Š‡‡†‘ˆ–Š‡„”‡‡†‹‰•‡ƒ•‘‘”—–‹Ž–Š‡‡•–‹‰ ‘Ž‘›‘”‡•–‹•†‡–‡”‹‡†‹ƒ
–‹˜‡„›–Š‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–Ǥ‡•–„—ˆˆ‡”•ƒ›„‡”‡†—
‡†‹ˆ•‹–‡Ǧ•’‡
‹ˆ‹

‘†‹–‹‘•”‡†—
‡–Š‡’‘••‹„‹Ž‹–›‘ˆ‡ƒ”Ǧ–‡”‘”Ž‘‰‡”Ǧ–‡”‹’”‘˜‡‡–•†‹•–—”„ƒ ‡ǡƒ•†‡–‡”‹‡†„›–Š‡“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–‹
‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘™‹–Š Ǥ
Ǧ
Ǧͷǣ˜‘‹†™‡•–‡”’‘†–—”–Ž‡™Š‡”‡ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡Ǥ
”‹‘”–‘–Š‡•–ƒ”–‘ˆ
‘•–”—
–‹‘™‹–Š‹™‡•–‡”’‘†–—”–Ž‡Šƒ„‹–ƒ–ሺ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡƒ›—†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡†ƒ”‡ƒ•™‹–Š‹ͶͲͲˆ‡‡–‘ˆ”‹˜‡”‹‡ƒ“—ƒ–‹ Šƒ„‹–ƒ–ǡˆ”‡•Š™ƒ–‡”‡‡”‰‡–™‡–Žƒ†•ǡ˜‡”ƒŽ’‘‘Ž•ǡ‘”•‡ƒ•‘ƒŽ™‡–Žƒ†•ሻǡ’”‘’‘‡–•‘ˆ’”‘’‘•‡†’”‘Œ‡ –•™‹–Š‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒ•ŠƒŽŽ”‡–ƒ‹ƒ„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–ƒ’’”‘˜‡†„›–Š‡ –‘•—”˜‡›ˆ‘”™‡•–‡”’‘†–—”–Ž‡•Ǥ—”˜‡›•™‹ŽŽ„‡ ‘†—
–‡†ƒ–‡ƒ
ŠŠƒ„‹–ƒ–ƒ”‡ƒ‘‘”‡–Šƒ•‡˜‡†ƒ›•’”‹‘”–‘–Š‡‹‹–‹ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ‰”‘—††‹•–—”„ƒ ‡ƒ––Šƒ–Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘Ǥ
ˆ’”‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘•—”˜‡›•‹†‡–‹ˆ›ƒ
–‹˜‡‡•–•ǡ–Š‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–™‹ŽŽ‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•ŠͷͲǦˆ‘‘–‘Ǧ†‹•–—”„ƒ ‡„—ˆˆ‡”œ‘‡•ƒ”‘—†‡ƒ
Š‡•–—•‹‰–‡’‘”ƒ”›‘”ƒ‰‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ˆ‡
‹‰™‹–Šƒˆ‘—”Ǧ‹
ŠǦ–ƒŽŽ‰ƒ’
354

EXHIBIT B
633
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
„‡Ž‘™–Š‡ˆ‡
‡ǤŠ‡ˆ‡
‹‰™‹ŽŽ„‡’‡”‡ƒ„Ž‡–‘›‘—‰–—”–Ž‡•ƒ†ƒŽŽ‘™–Š‡–‘‘˜‡ƒ™ƒ›ˆ”‘–Š‡‡•–ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰Šƒ– Š‹‰ǤŠ‡„—ˆˆ‡”œ‘‡•ƒ†ˆ‡
‹‰™‹ŽŽ”‡ƒ‹‹’Žƒ
‡—–‹Ž–Š‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–Šƒ•
‘ˆ‹”‡†–Šƒ––Š‡›‘—‰Šƒ˜‡Ž‡ˆ––Š‡‡•–Ǥ
ˆ‘Ǧ‡•–‹‰’‘†–—”–Ž‡•ƒ”‡ˆ‘—†‹–Š‡ˆ‘‘–’”‹–ǡ–Š‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–™‹ŽŽ”‡‘˜‡ƒ†”‡Ž‘ ƒ–‡–Š‡–‘•—‹–ƒ„Ž‡Šƒ„‹–ƒ–‘—–•‹†‡–Š‡‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽˆ‘‘–’”‹–Ǥ‡Ž‘ ƒ–‹‘•‹–‡•™‹ŽŽ„‡•—„Œ‡
––‘ ƒ’’”‘˜ƒŽǤǦ
Ǧ͸ǣ˜‘‹†ƒ
‘ƒ“—‹‹–ˆ‘šƒ†‡”‹
ƒ„ƒ†‰‡”™Š‡”‡ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡Ǥ
‹–Š‹‘‡›‡ƒ”„—–‘Ž‡••–Šƒ–Š”‡‡‘–Š•’”‹‘”‹‹–‹ƒ–‹‰ ‘•–”—
–‹‘ǡ’”‘’‘‡–•‘ˆ•’‡
‹ˆ‹
’”‘Œ‡
–•™‹–Š‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒ™‹ŽŽ”‡–ƒ‹“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–•–‘‹†‡–‹ˆ›’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ‹–ˆ‘šƒ†„ƒ†‰‡”†‡•‹–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ˆ‘‘–’”‹–ƒ†•—””‘—†‹‰ʹͲͲˆ‡‡–ǤŠ‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–™‹ŽŽ’”‡’ƒ”‡ƒ”‡’‘”–•—ƒ”‹œ‹‰–Š‡•—”˜‡›‘„•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘•ƒ†”‡•—Ž–•ǡ‹ Ž—†‹‰ƒ’•†‡’‹
–‹‰–Š‡Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘•‘ˆ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ„ƒ†‰‡”†‡•ƒ†ǡ‹ˆ’‘••‹„Ž‡ǡ‘

—’ƒ
›ǤŠ‡”‡’‘”–™‹ŽŽ„‡•—„‹––‡†–‘–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–ƒ† Ǥ”‹‘”–‘
‘•–”—
–‹‘ǡ–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–™‹ŽŽ”‡–ƒ‹“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–•–‘
‹’Ž‡‡–’”‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘•—”˜‡›•‘ˆ’”‡˜‹‘—•Ž›‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ‹–ˆ‘šƒ†„ƒ†‰‡”†‡•–‘†‡–‡”‹‡‹ˆ–Š‡›ƒ”‡ƒ–ƒŽ‹–ˆ‘š‘”‡”‹ ƒ„ƒ†‰‡”†‡•‘Ž‡••–ŠƒͳͶ†ƒ›•ƒ†‘‘”‡–Šƒ͵Ͳ†ƒ›•„‡ˆ‘”‡–Š‡‹‹–‹ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ ‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ–‡ƒ
Š†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ˆ‘‘–’”‹–ሺ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ‘‡™‡‡ƒŠ‡ƒ†‘ˆ–Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘
”‡™ˆ‘”Ž‹‡ƒ”
‘’‘‡–•ሻǤ‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•™‹ŽŽ‘–‘

—”™‹–Š‹ͳͲͲˆ‡‡–‘ˆƒ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ†‡†—”‹‰–Š‡ƒ–ƒŽ’‡”‹‘†ሺ ‡„”—ƒ”›ͳ–‘‡’–‡„‡”͵ͲሻǤ ˆƒ‘™†‡‘”ƒ–ƒŽ†‡‹•’”‡•‡–™‹–Š‹–Š‡’‡”ƒ‡– ‘•–”—
–‹‘ˆ‘‘–’”‹–‘”™‹–Š‹ʹͲͲˆ‡‡–‘ˆ–Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ˆ‘‘–’”‹–†—”‹‰–Š‡ƒ–ƒŽ’‡”‹‘†ሺͳͲͲǦˆ‘‘–„—ˆˆ‡”†—”‹‰–Š‡‘ƒ–ƒŽ’‡”‹‘†ሻǡ–Š‡‹–ˆ‘š‘”„ƒ†‰‡”™‹ŽŽ„‡‡š Ž—†‡†‘—–•‹†‡‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ–ƒŽ’‡”‹‘†ሺˆ”‘‘˜‡„‡”ͳ–‘
ƒ—ƒ”›͵ͳሻǤ•—ƒ”›”‡’‘”–™‹ŽŽ„‡’”‡’ƒ”‡†„›–Š‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–•ƒ†•—„‹––‘–Š‡’”‘Œ‡ –’”‘’‘‡–ƒ† ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰
‘’Ž‡–‹‘‘ˆƒŽŽ‹–ˆ‘š‘”„ƒ†‰‡”ƒ˜‘‹†ƒ
‡ƒ†‡š
Ž—•‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•Ǥ
355

EXHIBIT B
634
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
Ǧ
Ǧ͹ǣ˜‘‹†ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ–‹‰‡”•ƒŽƒƒ†‡”ƒ†ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ”‡†ǦŽ‡‰‰‡†ˆ”‘‰ ™Š‡”‡ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡Ǥ
”‘’‘‡–•‘ˆ•’‡
‹ˆ‹
’”‘Œ‡
–•™‹–Š‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒ•ŠƒŽŽ”‡–ƒ‹ƒ
 ƒ†Ȁ‘” Ǧƒ’’”‘˜‡†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–ሺƒ•ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ሻ–‘‹†‡–‹ˆ›ƒ†ˆŽƒ‰ሺ’‹ˆŽƒ‰•‘”ͶǦˆ‘‘–Žƒ–ŠሻƒŽŽ•—‹–ƒ„Ž‡ƒ“—ƒ–‹ Šƒ„‹–ƒ–ˆ‘”ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ–‹‰‡”•ƒŽƒƒ†‡”ƒ†ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ”‡†ǦŽ‡‰‰‡†ˆ”‘‰‘—–•‹†‡‘ˆ„—–ƒ†Œƒ ‡––‘†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ˆ‘‘–’”‹–•ƒ†‰”‘—†Ǧ†‹•–—”„ƒ
‡ƒ”‡ƒ•’”‹‘”–‘•–ƒ‰‹‰ǡ˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘
Ž‡ƒ”‹‰ǡ‰”ƒ†‹‰ǡ‘”‘–Š‡”
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•ǤŠ‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–‘”‹–•
‘–”ƒ
–‘”™‹ŽŽ’”‘–‡
–Šƒ„‹–ƒ–ƒ”‡ƒ•„›‹•–ƒŽŽ‹‰‘”ƒ‰‡‡š
Ž—•‹‘ƒ†‡”‘•‹‘
‘–”‘Žˆ‡
‹‰ƒ––Š‡ƒš‹—’”ƒ
–‹
ƒ„Ž‡†‹•–ƒ
‡ˆ”‘–Š‡™‘”•‹–‡‘”ǡ‹ˆˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡ǡƒ–Ž‡ƒ•–ͷͲͲˆ‡‡–ˆ”‘–Š‡ƒ“—ƒ–‹ Šƒ„‹–ƒ–‡†‰‡ǡ™‡–‘”†”›ǡ–‘ƒ‡‹–‡ƒ•‹Ž›˜‹•‹„Ž‡„› ‘•–”—
–‹‘
”‡™•Ǥ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–™‹ŽŽ
‘†—
–ƒ’”‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘•—”˜‡›‡ƒ
Š‘”‹‰„‡ˆ‘”‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•„‡‰‹ƒ†
‘–‹—‡–‘‘‹–‘”‰”‘—†Ǧ†‹•–—”„‹‰
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•™Š‡”‡•—‹–ƒ„Ž‡Šƒ„‹–ƒ–‘

—”•†—”‹‰ƒŽŽ’Šƒ•‡•‘ˆ
‘•–”—
–‹‘–‘”‡‘˜‡ƒ›ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ–‹‰‡”•ƒŽƒƒ†‡”ƒ†ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ”‡†ǦŽ‡‰‰‡†ˆ”‘‰•ˆ‘—†‹–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ˆ‘‘–’”‹–Ǥ †‹˜‹†—ƒŽ•ƒŽƒƒ†‡”•ƒ†ˆ”‘‰•™‹ŽŽ„‡‘˜‡†‹‡†‹ƒ–‡Ž›–‘ƒ”‡Ž‘ ƒ–‹‘•‹–‡–Šƒ–‹•ƒ‹‹—‘ˆ͵͵Ͳˆ‡‡–ˆ”‘–Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘„‘—†ƒ”›ǤŠ‡”‡Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘•‹–‡
™‹ŽŽ„‡†‡–‡”‹‡†‹
‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘™‹–Š ƒ†Ȁ‘” ’”‹‘”–‘–Š‡
‘‡
‡‡–‘ˆ
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•Ǥ‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•‡ƒ”†”ƒ‹ƒ‰‡•ƒ†™‡–Žƒ†
‘’Ž‡š‡•‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†ƒ•
’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ‘˜‡‡–
‘””‹†‘”••ŠƒŽŽ–ƒ‡’Žƒ
‡„‡–™‡‡
—Ž›ͳƒ†
–‘„‡”ͳǡ
™Š‡–Š‡ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ–‹‰‡”•ƒŽƒƒ†‡”ƒ†ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ”‡†ǦŽ‡‰‰‡†ˆ”‘‰ƒ”‡Ž‡ƒ•–Ž‹‡Ž›–‘„‡’”‡•‡–‹–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ”‡ƒǤ‘†‹• ‘—”ƒ‰‡ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ–‹‰‡”•ƒŽƒƒ†‡”ƒ†ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ”‡†ǦŽ‡‰‰‡†ˆ”‘‰•ˆ”‘‡–‡”‹‰–Š‡‹’”‘˜‡‡–•ƒ”‡ƒ•˜‹ƒ†‹– Š‡•ǡ –Š‡†‹–
Š‡•™‹ŽŽ„‡
356

EXHIBIT B
635
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
‡“—‹’’‡†™‹–ŠŽ‹‰Š–™‡‹‰Š–ǡ‘‡Ǧ™ƒ›ˆŽ‘™‰ƒ–‡•ǤŠ‡•‡™‹ŽŽ„‡†‡•‹‰‡†•‘–Šƒ–™ƒ–‡” ƒ‡ƒ•‹Ž›’ƒ••ˆ”‘–Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘•‹–‡–‘–Š‡†‹–
Š‡•ǡ„—–•ƒŽŽ˜‡”–‡„”ƒ–‡••—
Šƒ•–Š‡•ƒŽƒƒ†‡”‘”ˆ”‘‰
ƒ‘–‘˜‡—’•–”‡ƒˆ”‘
†‹–
Š‡•–‘–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ”‡ƒǤ
Ǧ
Ǧͺǣ˜‘‹†ƒŽŽ‹’’‡•‹Ž˜‡”•’‘–„—––‡”ˆŽ›™Š‡”‡ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡Ǥ ”‹‘”–‘
‘•–”—
–‹‘ǡ’”‘’‘‡–•‘ˆ•’‡
‹ˆ‹
’”‘Œ‡
–•™‹–Š‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒ™‹ŽŽ”‡–ƒ‹ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‘–ƒ‹•–‘”„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–™‹–Š‡š’‡”‹‡ ‡‹‹†‡–‹ˆ›‹‰‹‘Žƒ’‡†—
—Žƒ–ƒǡ–Š‡Š‘•–’Žƒ–ˆ‘”ƒŽŽ‹’’‡•‹Ž˜‡”•’‘–„—––‡”ˆŽ›ǡ–‘‹†‡–‹ˆ›ƒ†ˆŽƒ‰ሺ™‹–Š’‹ˆŽƒ‰•‘”ͶǦˆ‘‘–Žƒ–Šሻƒ›‹‘Žƒ’‡†— —Žƒ–ƒ‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ•†—”‹‰‹–•„Ž‘‘‹‰•‡ƒ•‘ሺ ‡„”—ƒ”›–‘’”‹Žሻ™Š‡–Š‡•’‡ ‹‡•‹•”‡ƒ†‹Ž›‹†‡–‹ˆ‹ƒ„Ž‡‹ƒ†™‹–Š‹ͷͲˆ‡‡–‘ˆ–Š‡‡ƒ”Ǧ–‡”ƒ†Ž‘‰‡”Ǧ–‡”‹’”‘˜‡‡–•–Šƒ–™‹ŽŽƒˆˆ‡ –ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒƒ—ƒŽ‰”ƒ••Žƒ†ǤŠ‡Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘•‘ˆ‹‘Žƒ’‡†—
—Žƒ–ƒ‘—–•‹†‡‘ˆ–Š‡‰”‘—††‹•–—”„ƒ
‡ƒ”‡ƒ‘ˆ–Š‡‡ƒ”Ǧ–‡”‘”
Ž‘‰‡”Ǧ–‡”‹’”‘˜‡‡–•™‹ŽŽ„‡‹
Ž—†‡†‘‰”ƒ†‹‰’Žƒ•ƒ†ƒ˜‘‹†‡†„›
‘•–”—
–‹‘’‡”•‘‡ŽǤŠ‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–™‹ŽŽ†‘
—‡––Š‡—„‡”ƒ††‡•‹–›‘ˆŠ‘•–’Žƒ–•–Šƒ–ƒ”‡—ƒ˜‘‹†ƒ„Ž‡‹†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ˆ‘‘–’”‹–•ǤŠ‹•‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘•ŠƒŽŽ„‡ ‘’‹Ž‡†‹ƒ”‡’‘”–ƒ†•—„‹––‘ ’”‹‘”–‘‹‹–‹ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ‰”‘—††‹•–—”„ƒ ‡ǤŠ‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–‘”‹–•
‘–”ƒ
–‘”™‹ŽŽƒ†Š‡”‡–‘–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰Š‘•–’Žƒ–ƒ˜‘‹†ƒ
‡‡ƒ•—”‡•Ǥ
x ‘Š‡”„‹
‹†‡ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–‹‘™‹ŽŽ‘

—”™‹–Š‹ͳͲͲˆ‡‡–‘ˆŠ‘•–’Žƒ–
’‘’—Žƒ–‹‘•Ǥ’‘–ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–‹‘–‘
—–•–—’•ǡˆ”‹ŽŽ‡†•–‡•ǡ‘”‹Œ‡
–‹‘‹–‘•–‡•‹•ƒ

‡’–ƒ„Ž‡Ǥ‘„”‘ƒ†
ƒ•–Š‡”„‹
‹†‡ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ–‹‘•™‹ŽŽ„‡—•‡†Ǥ
x —––”‡‡•–Šƒ–ƒ”‡”‡‘˜‡†‹–Š‡˜‹
‹‹–›‘ˆŠ‘•–’Žƒ–•™‹ŽŽ„‡Šƒ†

ƒ””‹‡†”ƒ–Š‡”–Šƒ†”ƒ‰‰‡†–‘†‹•’‘•ƒŽƒ”‡ƒ•Ǥ
x ˜‘‹†‘”‹‹‹œ‡–Š‡”‡‘˜ƒŽ‘ˆŠ‘•–’Žƒ–ǡ‹‘Žƒ’‡†— —Žƒ–ƒǤ
357

EXHIBIT B
636
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
x ˜‘‹†™‘”‹•—‹–ƒ„Ž‡Šƒ„‹–ƒ–†—”‹‰–Š‡ˆŽ‹‰Š–ƒ†ƒ–‹‰•‡ƒ•‘ ሺ‹†Ǧƒ›–‘‹†Ǧ
—Ž›ሻ–‘–Š‡‡š–‡–ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡Ǥ
Ǧ
Ǧͻǣ˜‘‹†”‘‘•–‹‰„ƒ–•™Š‡”‡ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡Ǥ

ˆ–”‡‡”‡‘˜ƒŽƒ†–”‹‹‰
ƒ‘–„‡
‘†—
–‡†„‡–™‡‡‡’–‡„‡”ͳͷƒ†
–‘„‡”͵Ͳǡ’”‘’‘‡–•‘ˆ’”‘Œ‡
–•‹’Ž‡‡–‡†—†‡”–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†Žƒ™‹ŽŽ”‡–ƒ‹ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•––‘‡šƒ‹‡–”‡‡•–‘„‡”‡‘˜‡†‘”–”‹‡†ˆ‘”•—‹–ƒ„Ž‡„ƒ–”‘‘•–‹‰Šƒ„‹–ƒ–‘‘”‡–Šƒʹ™‡‡•„‡ˆ‘”‡”‡‘˜ƒŽƒ†–”‹‹‰Ǥ ‹‰ŠǦ“—ƒŽ‹–›Šƒ„‹–ƒ–ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡•ሺŽƒ”‰‡–”‡‡
ƒ˜‹–‹‡•ǡ„ƒ•ƒŽŠ‘ŽŽ‘™•ǡŽ‘‘•‡‘”’‡‡Ž‹‰„ƒ”ǡŽƒ”‰‡”•ƒ‰•ǡ’ƒŽ–”‡‡•™‹–Š‹–ƒ ––Šƒ–
Šǡ‡–
Ǥሻ™‹ŽŽ„‡‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†ƒ†–Š‡ƒ”‡ƒƒ”‘—†–Š‡•‡ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡••‡ƒ” Š‡†
ˆ‘”„ƒ–•ƒ†„ƒ–•‹‰•ሺ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ‰—ƒ‘ǡ
—ŽŽ‡†‹•‡
–’ƒ”–•ǡ—”‹‡•–ƒ‹‹‰ǡ‡–
ǤሻǤ‹š‡†™‹ŽŽ‘™”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ•
”—„ƒ†•–ƒ†•‘ˆƒ–—”‡„”‘ƒ†Ž‡ƒˆ–”‡‡••Š‘—Ž†„‡

‘•‹†‡”‡†’‘–‡–‹ƒŽŠƒ„‹–ƒ–ˆ‘”•‘Ž‹–ƒ”›ˆ‘Ž‹ƒ‰‡Ǧ”‘‘•–‹‰„ƒ–•’‡ ‹‡•Ǥƒ••‹˜‡
‘‹–‘”‹‰—•‹‰ˆ—ŽŽ•’‡
–”—„ƒ–†‡–‡
–‘”•ƒ›„‡‡‡†‡†‹ˆ‹†‡–‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ„ƒ–•’‡
‹‡•‹•”‡“—‹”‡†Ǥ—”˜‡›‡–Š‘†•™‹ŽŽ„‡†‹•
—••‡†™‹–Š ’”‹‘”–‘–Š‡•–ƒ”–‘ˆ•—”˜‡›•Ǥ‡ƒ•—”‡•–‘ƒ˜‘‹†ƒ†‹‹‹œ‡‹’ƒ –•‘•‡•‹–‹˜‡„ƒ–••’‡
‹‡•™‹ŽŽ„‡
†‡–‡”‹‡†‹
‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘™‹–Š ƒ†ƒ›‹
Ž—†‡–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰Ǥ
x ”‡‡”‡‘˜ƒŽ™‹ŽŽ„‡ƒ˜‘‹†‡†„‡–™‡‡’”‹Žͳƒ†‡’–‡„‡”ͳͷሺ–Š‡ ƒ–‡”‹–›’‡”‹‘†ሻ–‘ƒ˜‘‹†‡ˆˆ‡
–•‘’”‡‰ƒ–ˆ‡ƒŽ‡•ƒ†ƒ
–‹˜‡
ƒ–‡”‹–›”‘‘•–•ሺ™Š‡–Š‡”
‘Ž‘‹ƒŽ‘”•‘Ž‹–ƒ”›ሻǤ
x ŽŽ–”‡‡”‡‘˜ƒŽ™‹ŽŽ„‡
‘†—
–‡†„‡–™‡‡‡’–‡„‡”ͳͷƒ†

–‘„‡”͵Ͳǡ™Š‹
Š
‘””‡•’‘†•–‘ƒ–‹‡’‡”‹‘†™Š‡„ƒ–•Šƒ˜‡‘–
›‡–‡–‡”‡†–‘”’‘”‘”™‘—Ž†„‡
ƒ”‹‰ˆ‘”‘˜‘Žƒ–ሺ‘ǦˆŽ›‹‰ሻ
›‘—‰Ǥ
x ƒ
Š–”‡‡™‹ŽŽ„‡”‡‘˜‡†‹’‹‡
‡•”ƒ–Š‡”–Šƒˆ‡ŽŽ‹‰–Š‡‡–‹”‡–”‡‡Ǥ
x
ˆƒƒ–‡”‹–›”‘‘•–‹•Ž‘
ƒ–‡†ǡ™Š‡–Š‡”•‘Ž‹–ƒ”›‘”
‘Ž‘‹ƒŽǡ–Šƒ–”‘‘•–
™‹ŽŽ”‡ƒ‹—†‹•–—”„‡†—–‹Ž‡’–‡„‡”ͳͷ‘”ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•– 358

EXHIBIT B
637
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
Šƒ•†‡–‡”‹‡†–Š‡”‘‘•–‹•‘Ž‘‰‡”ƒ
–‹˜‡Ǥ
x
ˆƒ˜‘‹†ƒ
‡‘ˆ‘ƒ–‡”‹–›”‘‘•––”‡‡•‹•‘–’‘••‹„Ž‡ǡƒ†–”‡‡ ”‡‘˜ƒŽ‘”–”‹‹‰—•–‘

—”„‡–™‡‡
–‘„‡”͵Ͳƒ†‡’–‡„‡”ͳͷǡ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–•™‹ŽŽ‘‹–‘”–”‡‡–”‹‹‰ƒ†”‡‘˜ƒŽǤ ˆ’‘••‹„Ž‡ǡ–”‡‡–”‹‹‰ƒ†”‡‘˜ƒŽ•Š‘—Ž†‘

—”‹–Š‡Žƒ–‡ƒˆ–‡”‘‘‘”‡˜‡‹‰™Š‡‹–‹•
Ž‘•‡”–‘–Š‡–‹‡–Šƒ–„ƒ–•™‘—Ž†‘”ƒŽŽ›ƒ”‘—•‡Ǥ”‹‘”–‘”‡‘˜ƒŽƒ†–”‹‹‰ǡ‡ƒ Š–”‡‡™‹ŽŽ„‡•Šƒ‡‰‡–Ž›ƒ†•‡˜‡”ƒŽ‹—–‡••Š‘—Ž†’ƒ••„‡ˆ‘”‡ˆ‡ŽŽ‹‰–”‡‡•‘”Ž‹„•–‘ƒŽŽ‘™„ƒ–•–‹‡–‘ƒ”‘—•‡ƒ†Ž‡ƒ˜‡–Š‡–”‡‡ǤŠ‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–•™‹ŽŽ•‡ƒ” Š†‘™‡†˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘ˆ‘”†‡ƒ†ƒ†‹Œ—”‡†„ƒ–•ǤŠ‡’”‡•‡ ‡‘ˆ†‡ƒ†‘”‹Œ—”‡†„ƒ–•–Šƒ–ƒ”‡•’‡
‹‡•‘ˆ•’‡
‹ƒŽ
‘
‡”™‹ŽŽ„‡”‡’‘”–‡†–‘ ǤŠ‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–™‹ŽŽ’”‡’ƒ”‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹ ƒŽ‘‹–‘”‹‰”‡’‘”–ǡ™Š‹
Š™‹ŽŽ„‡’”‘˜‹†‡†–‘–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–ƒ† Ǥ
͵Ǥ͹Ǧʹ
’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†
Žƒ™‘—Ž†‘–ƒ†˜‡”•‡Ž›ƒˆˆ‡
–”‹’ƒ”‹ƒŠƒ„‹–ƒ–ƒ†Ȁ‘”‘–Š‡”•‡•‹–‹˜‡ƒ–—”ƒŽ
‘—‹–‹‡•‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒǤ
Ǧ
ǦͳͲǣ ˜‘‹†ƒ†’”‘–‡
–”‹’ƒ”‹ƒŠƒ„‹–ƒ–†—”‹‰
‘•–”—
–‹‘Ǥ
”‘’‘‡–• ‘ˆ •’‡
‹ˆ‹
 ’”‘Œ‡
–• —†‡” –Š‡ ’”‘’‘•‡† Žƒ ™‹ŽŽ ‡•—”‡ –Šƒ– ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†”‡•‘—” ‡•’‡
‹ƒŽ‹•–ሺ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–ǡ„‘–ƒ‹•–ǡ‘”‡
‘Ž‘‰‹•–ሻ™‹ŽŽ
Ž‡ƒ”Ž›‹†‡–‹ˆ›”‹’ƒ”‹ƒŠƒ„‹–ƒ––‘„‡’”‡•‡”˜‡†ƒ„—––‹‰–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ”‡ƒƒ†‘—–•‹†‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ †‹”‡ –
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ƒ”‡ƒ ™‹–Š Š‹‰ŠǦ˜‹•‹„‹Ž‹–›
‘•–”—
–‹‘ˆ‡
‹‰ ‘” ƒ”‡”• ሺ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ Žƒ–Š‡ ‘” ’‹ ˆŽƒ‰•ሻ „‡ˆ‘”‡ •‹–‡ ’”‡’ƒ”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ‘•–”— –‹‘™‹ŽŽ‘–‡
”‘ƒ
Š—’‘•‡•‹–‹˜‡ƒ–—”ƒŽ
‘—‹–‹‡•‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†„› –Š‡ ”‡•‘—”
‡ •’‡
‹ƒŽ‹•–Ǥ Š‡ ”‡•‘—”
‡ •’‡
‹ƒŽ‹•– ™‹ŽŽ —•‡ –Š‡ ’”‘Œ‡
–ǯ•˜‡”‹ˆ‹‡†™‡–Žƒ† †‡Ž‹‡ƒ–‹‘ǡ •‘‹Ž• †ƒ–ƒǡ ƒ†Žƒ† ‘˜‡” †ƒ–ƒ –‘
‘ˆ‹” –Š‡Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ Šƒ„‹–ƒ– „‘—†ƒ”‹‡• „ƒ•‡† ‘ ‡š‹•–‹‰ ‘†‹–‹‘• ƒ– –Š‡–‹‡‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ˜‘‹†ƒ
‡ƒ”‹‰Ǥš
Ž—•‹‘ˆ‡
‹‰‘”ƒ”‡”•™‹ŽŽ„‡‹•–ƒŽŽ‡†„‡ˆ‘”‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•ƒ”‡‹‹–‹ƒ–‡†ǡƒ†–Š‡ˆ‡
‹‰™‹ŽŽ„‡ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†–Š”‘—‰Š‘—– –Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ’‡”‹‘†Ǥ ‘
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ƒ
–‹˜‹–›ǡ –”ƒˆˆ‹
ǡ‡“—‹’‡–ǡ ‘” ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ• ™‹ŽŽ „‡ ’‡”‹––‡† ‹ ˆ‡ ‡† •‡•‹–‹˜‡ ƒ–—”ƒŽ
Ǥ
͹ǡ ǡ 
ǡ
359

EXHIBIT B
638
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION

‘—‹–›ƒ”‡ƒ•Ǥš
Ž—•‹‘ ˆ‡
‹‰ƒ†ƒ”‡”•™‹ŽŽ„‡”‡‘˜‡†ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰
‘’Ž‡–‹‘‘ˆ
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•Ǥ
ŽŽ
‘†‹–‹‘• ‹’‘•‡† „› –ƒ–‡ ƒ† ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽ ’‡”‹–• ˆ‘” ‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ™‹ŽŽ „‡ Ž‡ƒ”Ž› ‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡† ‹ –Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ’Žƒ• ƒ†•’‡
‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹‘• ƒ† ‘‹–‘”‡† †—”‹‰ ƒ† ƒˆ–‡”
‘•–”—
–‹‘ –‘ ‡•—”‡
‘’Ž‹ƒ
‡Ǥ
Ǧ
Ǧͳͳǣ‘’‡•ƒ–‡ˆ‘”Ž‘••‘ˆ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒŠƒ„‹–ƒ–Ǥ
x ‘” †‹”‡
– ‡ˆˆ‡
–• ‘ ™‘‘†› ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ –”‡‡• –Šƒ–
ƒ‘– „‡ ƒ˜‘‹†‡†ǡ
’”‘’‘‡–• ‘ˆ •’‡
‹ˆ‹
 ’”‘Œ‡
–• —†‡” –Š‡ ’”‘’‘•‡† Žƒ ™‹ŽŽ
‘’‡•ƒ–‡ ˆ‘” –Š‡Ž‘•• ‘ˆ ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ Šƒ„‹–ƒ– –‘ ‡•—”‡ ‘ ‡–Ž‘•• ‘ˆŠƒ„‹–ƒ– ˆ— –‹‘• ƒ† ˜ƒŽ—‡•Ǥ ‘’‡•ƒ–‹‘ ”ƒ–‹‘• ™‹ŽŽ „‡ „ƒ•‡† ‘•‹–‡Ǧ•’‡ ‹ˆ‹
‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† †‡–‡”‹‡† –Š”‘—‰Š
‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘™‹–Š–Š‡ ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ –ƒ–‡ ƒ† ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽ ƒ‰‡ ‹‡• †—”‹‰ –Š‡ ’‡”‹––‹‰’”‘
‡••Ǥ–ƒ‹‹—ǡ–Š‡
‘’‡•ƒ–‹‘”ƒ–‹‘™‹ŽŽ„‡ʹǣͳሺ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ–™‘ƒ
”‡• ”‡•–‘”‡†Ȁ
”‡ƒ–‡†Ȁ‡Šƒ
‡† ‘”
”‡†‹–• ’—”
Šƒ•‡† ˆ‘” ‡˜‡”› ͳƒ
”‡”‡‘˜‡†ሻˆ‘”’‡”ƒ‡–‹’ƒ
–•ƒ†ͳǣͳˆ‘”–‡’‘”ƒ”›‹’ƒ
–•ሺ™Š‡”‡ ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ Šƒ„‹–ƒ– ™‹ŽŽ ”‡‰‡‡”ƒ–‡ –‘ ’”‡Ǧƒ –‹˜‹–›
Šƒ”ƒ
–‡”™‹–Š‹ ‘‡ ›‡ƒ”ሻǤ ‘’‡•ƒ–‹‘ ƒ› „‡ ƒ
‘„‹ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ‘ˆˆ•‹–‡”‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ ‘” ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘
”‡†‹–•Ǥ Š‡ ’”‘Œ‡
– ’”‘’‘‡– ‘” ‹–•
‘–”ƒ
–‘” ™‹ŽŽ †‡˜‡Ž‘’ ƒ ”‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† ‘‹–‘”‹‰ ’Žƒ –Šƒ–†‡• ”‹„‡• Š‘™ ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ Šƒ„‹–ƒ– ™‹ŽŽ „‡ ‡Šƒ
‡† ‘” ”‡
”‡ƒ–‡† ƒ†‘‹–‘”‡†‘˜‡”ƒ–Ž‡ƒ•–ͷ›‡ƒ”•ǡ‘”ƒ•†‡–‡”‹‡†„›–Š‡ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡–ƒ–‡ƒ†ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽƒ‰‡ ‹‡•Ǥ
x
ˆ –Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡••—‹–ƒ„Ž‡ ‘•‹–‡ƒ”‡ƒ•ሺƒ†Œƒ
‡– –‘
–Š‡ ’‡”ƒ‡–
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ˆ‘‘–’”‹–ሻ –Šƒ– ƒ”‡ ‘—–•‹†‡ –Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ˆ‘‘–’”‹– ƒ† Š‘‘•‡• –‘
‘’‡•ƒ–‡ ‘•‹–‡ ‘” ‹ –Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–ǯ• ˜‹
‹‹–›ǡ ƒ ”‡˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘ ’Žƒ ™‹ŽŽ „‡ ’”‡’ƒ”‡†Ǥ Š‡”‡˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘’Žƒ™‹ŽŽ„‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡†’”‹‘” –‘ –Š‡”‡‘˜ƒŽ‘ˆ‡š‹•–‹‰”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘ƒ†™‹ŽŽ„‡ ‘†—
–‡†‘•‹–‡‘”‹–Š‡‡ƒ”Ǧ–‡”
360

EXHIBIT B
639
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
‘”Ž‘‰‡”Ǧ–‡”‹’”‘˜‡‡–•˜‹
‹‹–›–‘–Š‡‡š–‡–ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡ǢŠ‘™‡˜‡”ǡ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘•‹–‡•‡Ž‡ –‹‘™‹ŽŽƒ˜‘‹†ƒ”‡ƒ•™Š‡”‡ˆ—–—”‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ‘”
ƒ‹–‡ƒ
‡ƒ”‡Ž‹‡Ž›ǤŠ‡”‡˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘’Žƒ™‹ŽŽ„‡’”‡’ƒ”‡†„›ƒ “—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‘–ƒ‹•–‘””‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘•’‡
‹ƒŽ‹•–™‹–Š‡š’‡”‹‡
‡‹”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ
”‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† ”‡˜‹‡™‡† „› –Š‡ ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ ƒ‰‡
‹‡•Ǥ Š‡”‡˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘’Žƒ™‹ŽŽ•’‡
‹ˆ›–Š‡’Žƒ–‹‰•–‘
ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ˆ‘”‡ƒ
Š”‹’ƒ”‹ƒŽƒ†
‘˜‡”–›’‡ƒ†‡ƒ
Š‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘•‹–‡ǡ‡•—”‹‰–Š‡—•‡‘ˆ‰‡‡–‹
 •–‘
 ˆ”‘ –Š‡
‘””‡•’‘†‹‰ †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ƒ”‡ƒ „› ’”‘Œ‡
–ǤŠ‡’Žƒ™‹ŽŽ‡’Ž‘›–Š‡‘•–•—

‡••ˆ—Ž–‡
Š‹“—‡•ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡ƒ––Š‡–‹‡‘ˆ’Žƒ–‹‰Ǥ—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒ™‹ŽŽ„‡‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡†ƒ•’ƒ”–‘ˆ–Š‡’Žƒƒ†™‹ŽŽ‹ Ž—†‡ƒ‹‹—‘ˆ͹Ͳ’‡”
‡–”‡˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘•—

‡••ƒˆ–‡”–Š”‡‡›‡ƒ”•ǡͺͲ’‡”
‡–”‡˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘•—

‡••ƒ––Š‡‡†‘ˆˆ‹˜‡›‡ƒ”•ǡƒ†͹ͷ’‡”
‡–˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹˜‡
‘˜‡”ƒ‰‡ƒˆ–‡”ˆ‹˜‡›‡ƒ”•Ǥ
x Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–‘”‹–•
‘–”ƒ
–‘”™‹ŽŽ”‡–ƒ‹ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‘–ƒ‹•–ǡ
”‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ ‡
‘Ž‘‰‹•–ǡ ‘” „‹‘Ž‘‰‹•– ™‹–Š ‡š’‡”‹‡
‡ ‹ ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ”‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ –‘‘‹–‘” –Š‡’Žƒ–‹‰•ƒ•‡ ‡••ƒ”› ˆ‘” ˆ‹˜‡›‡ƒ”•ǤŠ‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–‘”‹–•
‘–”ƒ
–‘”™‹ŽŽ„‡”‡•’‘•‹„Ž‡ˆ‘”ƒ‹–ƒ‹‹‰–Š‡’Žƒ–‹‰•ǡ‹ Ž—†‹‰ƒƒ‰‹‰‹˜ƒ•‹˜‡’Žƒ–•ሺƒ•†‡ˆ‹‡†„› –Š‡ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ˜ƒ•‹˜‡Žƒ–‘—
‹Žሻƒ†‘–Š‡”™‡‡†•ǡƒ†‹’Ž‡‡–‹‰‹””‹‰ƒ–‹‘ƒ†’Žƒ–’”‘–‡ –‹‘‹ˆ‡
‡••ƒ”›ǤŠ‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–‘”‹–•
‘–”ƒ
–‘”™‹ŽŽ•—„‹–ƒ—ƒŽ‘‹–‘”‹‰”‡’‘”–•–‘–Š‡”‡‰—Žƒ–‘”›ƒ‰‡ ‹‡•‹••—‹‰ ’‡”‹–• ”‡Žƒ–‡† –‘ Šƒ„‹–ƒ– ‡ˆˆ‡
–•ǡ‹
Ž—†‹‰  ǡ
ǡƒ† Ǥ‡’Žƒ–‹‰™‹ŽŽ„‡‡
‡••ƒ”›‹ˆ•—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒƒ”‡‘–‡–ǡƒ†”‡’Žƒ
‡‡–’Žƒ–••—„•‡“—‡–Ž›™‹ŽŽ„‡‘‹–‘”‡†ƒ†ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡† –‘ ‡‡– –Š‡ •—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒǤ Š‡ ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ Šƒ„‹–ƒ–‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ™‹ŽŽ „‡
‘•‹†‡”‡† •—

‡••ˆ—Ž ™Š‡ –Š‡ •ƒ’Ž‹‰ –”‡‡•‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡†‡‡– –Š‡•—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒǡ –Š‡Šƒ„‹–ƒ–‘Ž‘‰‡””‡“—‹”‡••—„•–ƒ–‹ƒŽƒ
–‹˜‡ƒƒ‰‡‡–ǡƒ†˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘‹•ƒ””ƒ‰‡†‹‰”‘—’•–Šƒ–ǡ™Š‡ƒ–—”‡ǡ”‡’Ž‹ ƒ–‡–Š‡ƒ”‡ƒǡƒ–—”ƒŽ•–”—
–—”‡ǡ•–”ƒ–‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹‘ǡƒ†•’‡
‹‡•
‘’‘•‹–‹‘‘ˆ•‹‹Žƒ””‹’ƒ”‹ƒŠƒ„‹–ƒ–•‹–Š‡”‡‰‹‘Ǥ
361

EXHIBIT B
640
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
͵Ǥ͹Ǧ͵
’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†
Žƒ™‘—Ž†‘–ƒ†˜‡”•‡Ž›ƒˆˆ‡
–ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽŽ›’”‘–‡
–‡†™‡–Žƒ†•ƒ†‘–Š‡”™ƒ–‡”•”‡‰—Žƒ–‡†—†‡”‡
–‹‘ͶͲͶ‘ˆ–Š‡Ž‡ƒƒ–‡”
–Ǥ
Ǧ
Ǧͳʹǣ˜‘‹†ƒ†’”‘–‡
–™‡–Žƒ†•†—”‹‰
‘•–”—
–‹‘Ǥ
”‘’‘‡–•‘ˆ•’‡
‹ˆ‹
’”‘Œ‡
–•—†‡”–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡† Žƒ™‹ŽŽ‡•—”‡–Šƒ–ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†”‡•‘—” ‡•’‡
‹ƒŽ‹•–ሺ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ™‡–Žƒ†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–ǡ‡
‘Ž‘‰‹•–ǡ‘”•‘‹Ž•
‹‡–‹•–ሻ™‹ŽŽ
Ž‡ƒ”Ž›‹†‡–‹ˆ›™‡–Žƒ†ƒ”‡ƒ•–‘„‡’”‡•‡”˜‡†ƒ„—––‹‰–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ”‡ƒƒ†™‡–Žƒ†ƒ”‡ƒ•‘—–•‹†‡‘ˆ–Š‡†‹”‡ –
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ”‡ƒ™‹–ŠŠ‹‰ŠǦ˜‹•‹„‹Ž‹–›
‘•–”—
–‹‘ˆ‡
‹‰‘”ƒ”‡”•ሺ‡Ǥ‰ǤǡŽƒ–Š‡‘”’‹ˆŽƒ‰•ሻ„‡ˆ‘”‡•‹–‡’”‡’ƒ”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ‘•–”— –‹‘™‹ŽŽ‘–‡
”‘ƒ
Š—’‘Œ—”‹•†‹
–‹‘ƒŽ
™‡–Žƒ†•‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†„›–Š‡”‡•‘—”
‡•’‡
‹ƒŽ‹•–ǤŠ‡”‡•‘—”
‡•’‡
‹ƒŽ‹•–™‹ŽŽ—•‡–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ˆ‘‘–’”‹–ƒ†˜‡”‹ˆ‹‡†™‡–Žƒ††‡Ž‹‡ƒ–‹‘–‘ ‘ˆ‹”–Š‡Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ™‡–Žƒ†„‘—†ƒ”‹‡•„ƒ•‡†‘‡š‹•–‹‰
‘†‹–‹‘•ƒ––Š‡–‹‡‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ˜‘‹†ƒ
‡ƒ”‹‰Ǥš
Ž—•‹‘ˆ‡
‹‰‘”ƒ”‡”•™‹ŽŽ„‡‹•–ƒŽŽ‡†
„‡ˆ‘”‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•ƒ”‡‹‹–‹ƒ–‡†ǡƒ†–Š‡ˆ‡
‹‰™‹ŽŽ„‡ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†–Š”‘—‰Š‘—––Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘’‡”‹‘†Ǥ‘
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–›ǡ–”ƒˆˆ‹
ǡ‡“—‹’‡–ǡ‘”ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ•™‹ŽŽ„‡’‡”‹––‡†‹ˆ‡
‡†™‡–Žƒ†ƒ”‡ƒ•Ǥš
Ž—•‹‘ˆ‡
‹‰ƒ†ƒ”‡”•™‹ŽŽ„‡”‡‘˜‡†ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰–Š‡
‘’Ž‡–‹‘‘ˆ
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•ǤŽŽ
‘†‹–‹‘• ‹’‘•‡† „› –Š‡ ’”‘Œ‡
–•ǯ –ƒ–‡ ƒ† ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽ ’‡”‹–• ™‹ŽŽ „‡‹’Ž‡‡–‡†ƒ•’ƒ”–‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘•–”—
–‹‘ǡ™‹–Š—Ž–‹ƒ–‡‡ˆ‘”
‡‡–‘˜‡”•‹‰Š–„› ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡ –ƒ–‡ ƒ† ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽ ƒ‰‡
‹‡•Ǥ Š‡
‘†‹–‹‘• ™‹ŽŽ „‡
Ž‡ƒ”Ž›‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†‹–Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘’Žƒ•ƒ†•’‡
‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹‘•ƒ†‘‹–‘”‡††—”‹‰ƒ†ƒˆ–‡”
‘•–”—
–‹‘–‘‡•—”‡
‘’Ž‹ƒ
‡Ǥ
Ǧ
Ǧͳ͵ǣ ‘’‡•ƒ–‡ ˆ‘” ‹’ƒ
–• ‘ Œ—”‹•†‹
–‹‘ƒŽ ™‡–Žƒ†• ƒ† ‘Ǧ
™‡–Žƒ†™ƒ–‡”•‘ˆ –Š‡‹–‡†–ƒ–‡•ሺƒ“—ƒ–‹
”‡•‘—”
‡•ሻ’”‹‘” –‘‡ƒ”Ǧ–‡” ƒ† Ž‘‰‡”Ǧ–‡” ‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ‹’ƒ –• †—”‹‰
‘•–”—
–‹‘Ǥ

ˆ’”‘Œ‡
–•‹’ƒ
–Œ—”‹•†‹
–‹‘ƒŽ™‡–Žƒ†•ƒ†‘Ǧ™‡–Žƒ†™ƒ–‡”•ǡ’”‘’‘‡–•‘ˆ–Š‡•‡•’‡ ‹ˆ‹
’”‘Œ‡
–•—†‡”–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†Žƒ™‹ŽŽ†‡˜‡Ž‘’ƒƒ“—ƒ–‹
”‡•‘—”
‡ሺ™‡–Žƒ†•ƒ†‘Ǧ™‡–Žƒ†™ƒ–‡”•‘ˆ–Š‡‹–‡†–ƒ–‡•ሻ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘’Žƒǡ•—„Œ‡ ––‘ƒ’’”‘˜ƒŽ„›–Š‡ǡ™Š‹
Š™‹ŽŽ‡•—”‡‘‡–
Ǥ
͹ǡ ǡ 
ǡ
362

EXHIBIT B
641
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
Ž‘••‘ˆ™‡–Žƒ†•ˆ”‘†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‹’ƒ
–•ǤŠ‡’Žƒ™‹ŽŽ†‡–ƒ‹Ž–Š‡ƒ‘—–
ƒ†–›’‡‘ˆ™‡–Žƒ†•ሺ„ƒ•‡†‘–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–•ǯ˜‡”‹ˆ‹‡†™‡–Žƒ††‡Ž‹‡ƒ–‹‘ሻ–Šƒ–™‹ŽŽ„‡
‘’‡•ƒ–‡†ˆ‘”ሺ–Š”‘—‰Š’”‡•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ǡ
”‡ƒ–‹‘ǡ‘””‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ሻˆ‘”‹’ƒ
–•‘‡š‹•–‹‰™‡–Žƒ†•ƒ†‘Ǧ™‡–Žƒ†™ƒ–‡”•‘ˆ–Š‡‹–‡† –ƒ–‡•ሺƒ“—ƒ–‹
”‡•‘—”
‡•ሻǡƒ†‘—–Ž‹‡–Š‡‘‹–‘”‹‰ƒ†•—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒˆ‘”–Š‡
‘’‡•ƒ–‹‘™‡–Žƒ†•ƒ†‘Ǧ™‡–Žƒ†™ƒ–‡”•‘ˆ–Š‡‹–‡†–ƒ–‡•Ǥ††‹–‹‘ƒŽ‡Šƒ ‡‡–‘’–‹‘•‹
Ž—†‡ˆ‹•Š„ƒ””‹‡””‡‘˜ƒŽǡ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ”‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ǡˆŽ‘‘†’Žƒ‹”‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ǡƒ†•–”‡ƒ„ƒŽƒ›„ƒ –‘‹’”‘˜‡‘˜‡”ƒŽŽ‡
‘Ž‘‰‹
ˆ—
–‹‘ƒ†
‘‡
–‹˜‹–›‘ˆ™‡–Žƒ†ƒ†‘Ǧ™‡–Žƒ†™ƒ–‡”•ǤŠƒ
‡‡–•‹–‡•™‹ŽŽ„‡Ž‘
ƒ–‡†ƒ•‡ƒ”–Š‡‹’ƒ
–Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘ƒ•’‘••‹„Ž‡„—–ǡ‹–Š‡‡˜‡––Šƒ–Ž‘
ƒŽ‡Šƒ
‡‡–‘’’‘”–—‹–‹‡•ƒ”‡‘–
ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡ǡ•—
Šƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•™‹ŽŽ‘

—”™‹–Š‹–Š‡•ƒ‡•–”‡ƒ•›•–‡‘”™ƒ–‡”•Š‡†–‘’”‘˜‹†‡‹’”‘˜‡†‡ ‘Ž‘‰‹
ˆ—
–‹‘ƒ†
‘‡
–‹˜‹–›‘ˆ™‡–Žƒ†•ƒ†‘Ǧ™‡–Žƒ†™ƒ–‡”•ƒˆˆ‡
–‡†„›†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•Ǥ‘‹–‘”‹‰ƒ†•—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡–‘
”‡ƒ–‡†‘””‡•–‘”‡†™‡–Žƒ†•™‹ŽŽ”‡“—‹”‡–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰Ǥ x – Ž‡ƒ•– –™‘ •—”˜‡›• „› ƒ “—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡† ™‡–Žƒ† „‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–ǡ „‘–ƒ‹•–ǡ ‘” ‡
‘Ž‘‰‹•–’‡”‘‹–‘”‹‰›‡ƒ”Ǥ
x – Ž‡ƒ•– ͺͲ ’‡”
‡– ‘ˆ –Š‡
”‡ƒ–‡† ‘” ”‡•–‘”‡† ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡• •—’’‘”–
˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘
‘•‹•–‡–™‹–Š”‡ˆ‡”‡
‡ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡
‘†‹–‹‘•Ǥ
x – Ž‡ƒ•– ͺͲ ’‡”
‡– ‘ˆ –Š‡
”‡ƒ–‡† ‘” ”‡•–‘”‡† ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡• •—’’‘”–
Š›†”‘Ž‘‰‹
”‡‰‹‡••‹‹Žƒ”–‘”‡ˆ‡”‡
‡ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡
‘†‹–‹‘•Ǥ
x ‹‹—‘ˆˆ‹˜‡
‘•‡
—–‹˜‡›‡ƒ”•‘ˆ‘‹–‘”‹‰–‘‡•—”‡•—

॥

”‹–‡”‹ƒƒ”‡‡–Ǥ
x ‡‡†‹ƒŽƒ
–‹‘•–‘”‡•–‘”‡‹–‡†‡†‡
‘Ž‘‰‹
ƒŽˆ—
–‹‘‘ˆ
”‡ƒ–‡†‘”
”‡•–‘”‡† ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡• –Šƒ– ˆƒ‹Ž –‘ ‡‡– –Š‡ •—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒ ˆ‘” –Š”‡‡

‘•‡
—–‹˜‡›‡ƒ”•Ǥ
363

EXHIBIT B
642
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION

‡–Š‡’Žƒ‹•ƒ’’”‘˜‡†ǡ–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–™‹ŽŽ‹’Ž‡‡––Š‡ƒ“—ƒ–‹
”‡•‘—”
‡
‘’‡•ƒ–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•’”‹‘”–‘–Š‡‹‹–‹ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ‘•–”—
–‹‘ǤŠ‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–™‹ŽŽ„‡”‡•’‘•‹„Ž‡ˆ‘”ˆ—†‹‰

‘’‡•ƒ–‘”›‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ǡ‘‹–‘”‹‰‘ˆ–Š‡
”‡ƒ–‡†‘””‡•–‘”‡†ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡•’‡”–Š‡‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘’Žƒǡƒ†ƒ›”‡‡†‹ƒŽƒ –‹‘•‡
‡••ƒ”›ǤŽŽ
‘†‹–‹‘•–Šƒ–
ƒ”‡ƒ––ƒ
Š‡†–‘–Š‡–ƒ–‡ƒ†ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽ’‡”‹–•™‹ŽŽ„‡‹’Ž‡‡–‡†ƒ•’ƒ”–‘ˆ –Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–’”‘Œ‡
–ǡ™‹–Š—Ž–‹ƒ–‡‡ˆ‘”
‡‡–‘˜‡”•‹‰Š–„›ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡–ƒ–‡ƒ†ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽƒ‰‡
‹‡•ǤŠ‡
‘†‹–‹‘•™‹ŽŽ„‡
Ž‡ƒ”Ž›‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†‹–Š‡

‘•–”—
–‹‘’Žƒ•ƒ†•’‡
‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹‘•ƒ†‘‹–‘”‡††—”‹‰ƒ†ƒˆ–‡”

‘•–”—
–‹‘–‘‡•—”‡
‘’Ž‹ƒ
‡Ǥ
364

EXHIBIT
B
643

CITY OF LIVERMORE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

AND CONNECTION FEES
Effective July 1, 2021

TYPE OF FEE CITY CODE AND

RESOLUTION WHEN PAYABLE
City Storm Drainage Title 13.44.020,050,100 With Building Permit Ord. 1923
Reso. 2010-177
County Storm Drainage ACFC & WCD With Building Permit
Building Zone 7 Co. Ord. 0-2010-001
Reso. R-2001-4
County Storm Drainage ACFC & WCD With filing of Final Map Public Improvements e.g. Co. Ord. 0-2010-001 or approval of streets, sidewalks, Reso. R-2001-4 Improvement Plans
trails, etc.

County Storm ACFC & WCD With award of
Drainage - Capital Co. Ord. 0-2010-001 contract
Improvements Reso. R-2001-4
Sanitary Sewer Title 13.28.050 With Building Permit
Connection Ord. 1740
Reso. 2010-177
Park Land Dedication Title18.32.020
Ord. 1744
Reso. 2004-259
Concurrently with, or
before the filing of the first
parcel or final map
Park Facilities Fee Title 12.60
Ord. 1743
Reso. 2005-152
With Building Permit
City Water Title 13.20.020 With Building Permit 5/8" $4,839 Connection (1) Ord. 1507 3/4" $7,259
Reso. 2010-177 1" $12,098
1-1/2" $24,196
2" $38,714
Alameda County Ord. FC 72-1 as With Building Permit 5/8" $29,440 Water Connection amended by 3/4" $44,160
Zone 7 FC-96-1792 and See Zone 7 Attachment 1" $73,600
updated 10-20-10
In-Lieu Low Income Title 3.26 With Building Permit
Housing Fee Reso. 2020-186
(Residential)
For Sale & Neighborhood
Plan Areas
Ord. 1988 and 1989
Low Income Housing Title 3.26 With Building Permit Commercial Unit KSF Fee per Unit Impact Fee Reso. 99-18 Retail Commercial KSF $1,935
(Commercial and Ord. 1549 Discount/Service Retail KSF $1,457 Industrial) Office Commercial KSF $1,243
Hotels/Motels Room $949
Industrial
Manufacturing KSF $597
Warehouse/Storage KSF $173
Business/Commercial KSF $1,234
Industrial, High Intensity KSF $612
Industrial, Low Intensity KSF $387
NOTE: Subject to adjustment each year per Construction Cost Index (1) Areas within the California Water Service Area do not pay a City water connection fee. Areas within the Greenville/Vasco Assessment District or within Triad Park do not pay a City water connection fee. The fee for a single family residential unit is the 5/8 inch meter fee. (2) All projects within the Downtown Specific Plan are subject to both City Wide General Plan & Downtown Specific Plan cost recovery. Any project that paid planning entitlement fees prior to July 27, 2008 is not subject to this fee, regardless of when they pull building permits.

NOTE: No impact fees can be charged for ADUs less than 750 square feet. Impact fees allowed for ADUs 750 square feet or larger but shall be charged proportionately in relation to square footage of the primary dwelling.

AMOUNT OF FEE
$0.49/SF
Impervious Surface
$1.00/SF
Impervious Surface
$1.00/SF
Impervious Surface
$1.00/SF
Impervious Surface
Price per User for Meter Size, FOR LARGER METERS, INQUIRE See Attached
Exhibit "B"
The City may approve a credit against the Park Facilities Fee for park land dedication made under LMC 18.32.020. The credit may not exceed the value of the dedication requirement. See LMC 12.60.070 for credit details N/A for Non-Residential
See Attached
Exhibit "A"
Price per User for Meter Size, FOR LARGER METERS, INQUIRE $29.23/SF for all residential housing developments 10 units or less. Projects more than 10 units are subject to must-build requirement of ordinance.

Rental projects 10 units or less are exempt from In-Lieu. Effective 7/28/21, on-site requirement applies for 11+unit projects.

Exhibit C

EXHIBIT B
644

CITY OF LIVERMORE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

AND CONNECTION FEES
Effective July 1, 2021

TYPE OF FEE CITY CODE AND

RESOLUTION WHEN PAYABLE AMOUNT OF FEE
Traffic Impact Fee
NOTE: If special
Assessment District
exists, special
calculations are required
For info regarding the
appropriate
development categories
see Section 12.30 of
the City of Livermore
Municipal Code
With Building Permit
Reso 2005-151
Ord. 1742
Tri-Valley Title 12.24.050 With Building Permit Residential Transportation Ord. 2012 Single family
Development (TVTD) Reso. 2014-184 Multi-family
Fee Affordable Housing*
ADU/SDU** $0.00
*Reso 2015-01 Non Residential
**Reso 2019-03 Retail
Office
Industrial
See Attached Annual
Adjustment to TVTD Fee
Other
Social/Human Services
Facility Fee
Title 12.70
Ord. 1851
With Building Permit
Ord. 1836 Title 12.51 0.33% of total project
valuation
Residential Fee Per Unit
Dwelling Unit $6,334
Non Residential (6) Per SF
Retail/Office $19.52
(1) Areas within the California Water Service Area do not pay a City water connection fee. Areas within the Greenville/Vasco Assessment District or within Triad Park do not pay a City water connection fee. The fee for a single family residential unit is the 5/8 inch meter fee.

See Attached
Exhibit "E"

DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT FEES

TYPE OF FEE
In-Lieu Payment for Public Open Space Resolution 2005-041 Resolution 2017-006
Major attraction fee Resolution 2003-114
In-Lieu Parking Fee
Downtown Revitalization Fee Title 12.32
NOTE: No impact fees can be charged for ADUs less than 750 square feet. Impact fees allowed for ADUs 750 square feet or larger but shall be charged proportionately in relation to square footage of the primary dwelling.

NOTE: Subject to adjustment each year per Construction Cost Index $1,428
South Livermore Road Improvement fee Resolution 2003-114 $11,990 City Wide - Transferrable Development Credits (TDC) Program In-Lieu Fee Ordinance 1979, Development Code Section 4.02.06D

1.5 Credits per single-family detached dwelling, in excess of baseline density within a density range of 1-7 du/acre, 1.25 credits per single family detached dwelling in excess of baseline density within a density range of 8-14 du/acre and 1/2 credit per multi-family attached dwelling - Current InLieu credit is $16,352.31. TDC Ordinance does not apply to residential projects in Downtown Specific Plan, affordable units covered by an agreement and residential projects that have received housing units through the City's Housing Implementation Program (HIP). $3,484.00

CITY RESOLUTION AMOUNT OF FEE
$50 per square foot of required open space
(2) All projects within the Downtown Specific Plan are subject to both City Wide General Plan & Downtown Specific Plan cost recovery. Any project that paid planning entitlement fees prior to July 27, 2008 is not subject to this fee, regardless of when they pull building permits. $1,559
Recycled water fee Resolution 98-175 20% of the current Alameda County Water Connection Fee
SOUTH LIVERMORE VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT FEES (1)

TYPE OF FEE CITY CODE AND RESOLUTION FEE PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT Plan preparation fee Resolution 2003-114
$20,745.40
Art in Public Places Fee
$5,000.00
$0.00
Average Peak Hour Trip
$5,620.00
Per KSF
$3,740.00
$8,590.00

ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
The City of Livermore collects School Mitigation Development Fees (school fees) on behalf of the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. The fees must be paid for by cash or a check made out to the City of Livermore. Fees are due upon issuance of a qualifying building permit.

See Attached Exhibit "D"
See Attached Exhibit "C"
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES:

SOCIAL / HUMAN SERVICES FACILITY
Fee Per Unit
$5,057.00

EXHIBIT B
645

CITY OF LIVERMORE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
EFFECTIVE 07/01/2021
Avg Daily Wastewater
Flow Factor Cost Per Cost Per
User Classification Gallons Per Day/Unit Unit1 GPD Unit Residential (BOD & SS = 285 mg/L)
Single-family residential 180 House $40.11 $7,219.83
Multi-family residential
Studio 95 Residential Unit $40.11 $3,810.47
One Bedroom 107 Residential Unit $40.11 $4,291.79
Two Bedroom 138 Residential Unit $40.11 $5,535.21
Three Bedroom 157 Residential Unit $40.11 $6,297.30
Four Bedroom 180 Residential Unit $40.11 $7,219.83
Commercial (BOD & SS = 285 mg/L unless otherwise shown) Auto repair shops/Auto dealers 0.11 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $4.41 Assembly Facilities2 0.15 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $6.02 Eating drinking facilities w/o cooking 0.35 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $14.04 Gas Stations 0.47 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $18.85
General Use 0.04 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $1.60
Gyms, Health Clubs 0.30 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $12.03 Hotels, Motels (excluding dining facilities) 0.15 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $6.02 Markets 0.19 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $7.62
Mixed Use3 0.10 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $4.01
Medical/Dental Office/ Clinic 0.22 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $8.82 Restaurants (1,000 mg/L BOD, 600 mg/L SS) 0.55 Square Foot of Bldg $59.10 $32.51 Warehouse/Distribution 0.01 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $0.40 Industrial/Other (Other Wastewater Customers Not Listed Above) Calculate Case-by-Case Based on Actual Flows/Strengths and Following Rates Connection Fee = (F x "Flow") + (B x "BOD") + (S x "SS") F = Flow cost $/gpd $31.06
B = BOD cost $/lb-day $2,702.16
S = SS cost $/lb-day $1,099.96
discharge
flow, in
"BOD" = The
"SS" = The
Governing Municipal Code Section: 13.28.050
Index Used: ENR 20- City Construction Cost Index
Previous % Change
Base Fee Current Previous Update
Year Update Fee Update to Current Update
Indices: (A) (B) (C) (D) =(C/B)-1
Index Date May-10 May-20 May-21
Index Value 8,761.47 11,418.16 11,989.91 5.01%
Discussion:

Notes:

4. This value is based by formula on BOD

6. Adjustments. The city council may, by resolution, adjust the fee schedule, including the flow factors, from time to time.

Once the fee is established, it shall automatically be increased annually based upon the Engineering News Record (ENR) 20- City construction Cost Index. In calculating the adjustment, the rate (in each use category, including the flow, BOD and SS costs) for the base year is multiplied by the index for the then-current year, divided by the base year index.

EXHIBIT A

1. Building square footage means the square footage sum of the floor area at each floor level included with the surrounding principal outside faces of exterior walls of a building or portions thereof, including mezzanines and lobbies. It does not include floor area devoted to vehicle parking, necessary interior driveways and ramps. The gross floor area of a building or portions thereof that doesn't have surrounding exterior walls shall include the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above.

3. Mixed Use applies to parcels with Mixed Use zoning and in the Downtown Core District only.

2. Theaters can alternately estimate daily flow based on 2 gallons per seat ($80.22 per seat) The base year unit fees for Flow, BOD, and SS were determined in the March 2010 Wastewater, Water, Storm Drain Connection Fee Study for Expansion of Sanitary Sewer, Water Reclamation Plant, and Wastewater Disposal Facilities prepared for the City of Livermore by Craig R. Lawson Utility Management Consultant.

Wastewater Connection Fee Schedule
(fees Calculated from base year)

EXHIBIT B
646

CITY OF LIVERMORE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
EFFECTIVE 07/01/2021
Non-Residential (per 1,000 sq ft)
Source - Park Facilities Fee Study (2004) Table 8; MuniFinancial $12,552
$3,599
Multi-Family Studio
Residential (per dwelling unit)

EXHIBIT B
Park Facilities Fee Schedule
Single Family (& 4 bedroom multi-family) $21,155

LAND USE TOTAL FEE
Warehouse $1,339
Commercial $2,682
Multi-Family 3 bedrooms $18,406
Multi-Family 2 bedrooms $16,221
Senior Housing
$11,215
$1,783
Office $3,835
Industrial
Multi-Family 1 bedroom

EXHIBIT B
647

CITY OF LIVERMORE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
EFFECTIVE 07/01/2021
Units of Use Fee Rates
d.u. $10,546
d.u. $4,915
d.u. $5,502
d.u. $7,110
d.u. $8,314
d.u. $3,236
K s.f. $28,641
K s.f. $18,335
K s.f. $11,384
K s.f. $5,751
per/room $8,268
d.u. $3,017
d.u. $3,378
d.u. $4,365
d.u. $5,104
K s.f. $12,968
Average Peak Hour Trip $13,179
Land Uses
Citywide Except Downtown
Residential
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Studio
Hotel/Motel
Downtown Specific Plan
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 or more Bedroom
Senior Housing
Commercial
Office
Other

EXHIBIT C
Traffic Impact Fees Schedule
Multi-Family
Studio
1 Bedroom
Industrial
Warehouse
Commercial
3 or more Bedroom
2 Bedroom

EXHIBIT B
648

CITY OF LIVERMORE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
EFFECTIVE 07/01/2021
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District Resolution: 044 - 19/20 Fee Effective May 18, 2020 (see attached Reso)
INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE/MANUFACTURING $0.66/sq.ft.

OFFICE $0.66/sq.ft.

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT $0.66/sq.ft.

HOSPITALS $0.66/sq.ft.

RETAIL & SERVICES $0.624/sq.ft.

HOTEL/MOTEL: $0.316/sq.ft.

SELF STORAGE $0.18/sq.ft.

RESIDENTIAL: $4.08/sq.ft.
(Includes single family home, multi-family home, manufactured home, and mobile home) SENIOR HOUSING $0.66/sq.ft.
(Includes manufactured home or mobile home located in a mobile home park, subdivision, cooperative or condiminium for mobile homes limited to 55 and older residents.)
RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS $4.08/sq.st. (501 sq.ft. or more) (Residential additions 500 sq.ft. or less and senior housing projects are exempt) * Additions are cumulative over time to a limit of 500 sf before fees square footage.
** The fee owed is based upon the fee amount in effect at the time the fee is paid.

LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
685 East Jack London Blvd, Livermore, Ca 94551

FACILITIES PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION
Jan Shipley, Construction Supervisor (925) 606-3390
Facilities Fax Number (925) 606-3327
Exhibit "D"

LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

SUMMARY OF SCHOOL MITIGATION PROGRAM
are assesed. Once assessed, fees are paid on the entire added

EXHIBIT B
649

CITY OF LIVERMORE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
EFFECTIVE 07/01/2021
Units of Use Fee Rates
d.u. $1,677
d.u. $1,415
d.u. $1,298
d.u. $996
d.u. $996
K s.f. $7
K s.f. $5
K s.f. $5
K s.f. $3
K s.f. $2
K s.f. $6
K s.f. $3
K s.f. $5
Retail
Office
Other Non-Residential
Service
Industrial
Manufacturing/R&D
Warehousing
Construction/Repair/Wholesale

EXHIBIT E
Social and Human Service Facility Fee Schedule
Land Uses
Residential Uses
Mobile Home
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Attached
Multi-Family
Office
Secondary Unit
Non-Residential Uses
Commercial

EXHIBIT B
650
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ZONE 7 100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY, LIVERMORE, CA 94551  PHONE (925) 454-5000  FAX (925) 454-5727 (FC) December 28, 2020
Subject: 2021 Update for Development Impact Fee for Flood Protection and Storm Water Drainage
This letter is to inform Zone 7’s development community that the Flood Protection and Storm Water Drainage Development Impact Fee (DIF) for 2020 will remain to be $1.00 per square foot of new impervious area, for the time being. Please continue to utilize the existing Development Impact Fee Impervious Surface Calculations worksheet (enclosed), which is also available in Adobe PDF format on Zone 7’s website www.zone7water.com, located under the Quick Links column under Permits & Fees.

Developers (or property owners) need to submit to the collecting City/County agencies, prior to approval of any final map and/or issuance of any building (or use) permit, a current Development Impact Fee Impervious Surface Calculations worksheet and associated plot plan for each individual building lot (or Parcel) requiring a building (or use) permit and any Parcel/Tract proposing streets, sidewalks, or other non-building impervious areas in its development. All impervious square-footage of the parcel should be reported whether there is an impact or not. The worksheet is to be filled out in its entirety, for Zone 7 and the Cities’/County’s use and record. Zone 7’s collecting agents are to fill out the staff section of the worksheet, acknowledging collection of the fees, and are to return the completed worksheets to Zone 7 for their use and record of the fee collection.

Should you have any questions concerning the Development Impact Fee update or collection process please contact me at (925) 454-5075 or email at [email protected], and I will be glad to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,
Jeff Tang, P.E.

Associate Civil Engineer
Flood Control Engineering
Enclosure
cc: Jarnail Chahal, Zone 7
Joe Seto, Zone 7
Digitally signed by Jeff Tang
DN: cn=Jeff Tang, o=Zone 7 Water Agency,
ou, [email protected], c=US
Date: 2020.12.28 13:38:22 -08'00'

EXHIBIT B
651
Zone 7 M&I Connection Fee
Rate Schedule
Effective Janaury 1, 2021
Meter Size
Recommended
Maximum Rate for
Continuous Use
(gpm)
Connection Fee
Amount
5/8" & 1" FS* 10 $29,440
3/4" 15 $44,160
1" 25 $73,600
(DISPLACEMENT TYPE) 50 $147,200
Omni C2 160 $471,040
Omni T2 160 $471,040

OMNI WITH
50GPM RESTRICTION 50 $147,200
(DISPLACEMENT TYPE) 80 $235,520

OMNI WITH
80GPM RESTRICTION 80 $235,520
Mueller MVR
Pleasanton Only 115 $338,560

OMNI WITH
120GPM RESTRICTION 120 $353,280
Omni C2 160 $471,040
Omni T2 200 $588,800
3" to 10" **
* When the Fire Department requires fire sprinklers, a 1-inch meter may be obtained at the same rate as a 5/8-inch meter.
** Connection fees for meter sizes 3-inches and above will be determined by using the fee factor for maximum continuous flow rate.

Fees for meters other than those listed above will be determined based upon the maximum continuous flow rating for the brand and type of meter.

These fees are based on the Maximum Continuous Flow Rate through a 5/8" meter as defined by AWWA C700 for Cold-Water Meter -- Displacement Type, Bronze Case.

Any changes to meter capacities will affect the above connection fees.

REV 01/07/2020
Currently, the 2-inch Mueller MVR is only available in Pleasanton. 1 1/2"
2"
e:\steven\connfee\admin\connfee2002\connection fee rate schedule 01-01-21 Zone7M&I w-gpm

EXHIBIT B
652
REV 01/04/2021
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ZONE 7 100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY, LIVERMORE, CA 94551  PHONE (925) 454-5000  FAX (925) 454-5727

WATER CONNECTION FEE INFORMATION SHEET
Effective January 1, 2021
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND
A. The Water Connection Charge Ordinance No. FC 72-1 as amended for Zone 7 was established January 18, 1972. The ordinance is applicable over the Zone 7 area that includes Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, Sunol, and surrounding communities.

The Ordinance requires a one-time water connection fee for all new water services from a water system that is directly connected to the Zone 7 water supply system.

This fee is used for funding the costs of expanding the Zone 7 water treatment and distribution system to serve new development.

B. The amount charged for a water connection is determined by the size of the meter to be installed. The meter sizes and corresponding water connection fees are listed below.

II. PROCEDURES FOR PAYMENT OF WATER CONNECTION FEES IN LIVERMORE,

PLEASANTON, & DUBLIN
The water connection fees are collected by the Building Departments of the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, and by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, which are agents for Zone 7. For that area within the Cal Water service area which is located outside of the Livermore city limits, connection fees will be paid at the Zone 7 office in Livermore.

III. WATER CONNECTION FEE SCHEDULE - FEES ARE REVIEWED AND SUBJECT TO

PERIODIC MODIFICATION
Meter Size Fee Factor Connection Fee
5/8" & 1" FS* 1.0 $29,440
3/4" 1.5 $44,160
1" 2.5 $73,600
1 1/2"
(DISPLACEMENT TYPE) 5.0 $147,200
Omni C2 16.0 $471,040
Omni T2 16.0 $471,040
2"
OMNI WITH 50GPM RESTRICTION 5.0 $147,200
(DISPLACEMENT TYPE) 8.0 $235,520
OMNI WITH 80GPM RESTRICTION 8.0 $235,520
Mueller MVR - Pleasanton Only 8.0 $235,520
OMNI WITH 120GPM RESTRICTION 12.0 $353,280
Omni C2 16.0 $471,040
Omni T2 20.0 $588,800

EXHIBIT B
653
REV 01/04/2021
* Connection fees for meters 3-inch and larger and for meters with fee factors other than those listed above, will be determined by Zone 7, using the fee factor for Maximum Rate for Continuous Operation, as defined by AWWA. These fees are based on the Maximum Continuous Flow Rate through a 5/8" meter and are proportional based on flow ratings for the various sized meters. Flow ratings for displacement type meters are defined by AWWA C700 for Cold-Water Meter -- Displacement Type, Bronze Case. Flow ratings for turbine type meters are defined by AWWA C701 for Cold Water Meters -- Turbine Type, For Customer Service. Any changes to meter capacities will affect the above connection fees.

NOTE: This new fee schedule is effective January 1, 2021 IV. EXEMPTIONS
No fee will be collected for SEPARATE private fire service connections. See Section VI of the Ordinance (copy available upon request).

V. PARTIAL EXEMPTIONS
A partial exemption sometimes applies for domestic fire sprinkling systems up to 1" meter size. See Section VI of the Ordinance (copy available upon request).

VI. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Call Steven Ellis at (925) 454-5037 or e-mail at [email protected].

EXHIBIT B
654
RESOLUTION NO. 044-19/20

TO UPDATE STATUTORY DEVELOPER FEES IMPOSED ON NEW RESIDENTIAL

AND COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS PURSUANT TO EDUCATION CODE SECTION 17620
WHEREAS, the School Board ("Board") of the Livermore Valley Joint Unified District ("District") provides for the educational needs for TK-12 students within the City of Livermore and a portion of the unincorporated counties of Alameda and Contra Costa (collectively, "Counties"); and WHEREAS, The State Allocation Board has taken action pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(b)(3), which authorizes Districts to increase Statutory Developer Fees to $4.08 per square foot for assessable space of residential development and $0.66 per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space for all categories of commercial/industrial development, as long as such Statutory Developer Fees are properly justified by the District pursuant to law; and WHEREAS, new residential and commercial/industrial development continues to generate additional students for the District's schools and the District is required to provide school facilities ("School Facilities") to accommodate those students; and
WHEREAS, overcrowded schools within the District would have an impact on the District's ability to provide an adequate quality education and negatively impacts the educational opportunities for the District's students; and
WHEREAS, the District does not have sufficient funds available for the construction or reconstruction of the School Facilities, including acquisition of sites, construction of permanent School Facilities, and acquisition of interim School Facilities, to accommodate students from new residential and commercial/industrial development; and
WHEREAS, the Board of the District has received and considered two studies entitled "Residential Development School Fee Justification Study for Livermore Valley Joint Unified District" and "Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study for Livermore Valley Joint Unified District" ("Studies"), which Studies include information, documentation, and analysis of the School Facilities needs of the District, including (a) the purpose of the Statutory Developer Fees; (b) the use to which the Statutory Developer Fees are to be put; (c) the nexus (roughly proportional and reasonable relationship) between the residential and commercial/industrial development; and (1) the use for Statutory Developer Fees; (2) the need for School Facilities; (3) the cost of School Facilities; and the amount of Statutory Developer Fees from new residential and commercial/industrial development; (d) a determination of the impact of the increased number of employees anticipated to result from the commercial/industrial development (by category) upon the cost of providing School Facilities within the District; (e) an evaluation and projection of the number of students that will be generated by new residential development; (n the new School Facilities that will be required to serve such students; and (g) the cost of such School Facilities; and WHEREAS, said Studies pertaining to the Statutory Developer Fees and to the capital facilities needs of the District were made available to the public as required by law before the Board considered at a regularly scheduled public meeting the Statutory Developer Fees; and -1-

EXHIBIT B
655
(
WHEREAS, all required notices of the proposed Statutory Developer Fees have been given; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of the District relating to the proposed Statutory Developer Fees; and
WHEREAS, Education Code Section 17621 provides that the adoption, increase or imposition of any fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement, pursuant to Education Code Section 17620 shall not be subject to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That the Board accepts and adopts the Studies.

Section 2. That the Board finds that the purpose of the Statutory Developer Fees imposed upon new residential development is to fund the additional School Facilities required to serve the students generated by the new residential development upon which the Statutory Developer Fees are imposed.

Section 3. That the Board finds that the Statutory Developer Fees imposed on new residential development will be used only to finance those School Facilities described in the Study and related documents and that these School Facilities are required to serve the students generated by the new residential development within the District; and that the use of the Statutory Developer Fees will include construction or acquisition of additional School Facilities, remodeling existing School Facilities to add additional classrooms, and technology, and acquiring and installing additional portable classrooms and related School Facilities, with the specific location of new schools, remodeling of existing School Facilities, and additional portables to be determined based on the residence of the students being generated by such new residential development, as well as any required central administrative and support facilities, within the District.

Section 4. That the Board finds that there is a roughly proportional, reasonable relationship between the use of the Statutory Developer Fees and the new residential development within the District because the Statutory Developer Fees imposed on new residential development by this Resolution, will be used to fund School Facilities which will be used to serve the students generated by such new residential development.

Section 5. That the Board finds that there is a roughly proportional, reasonable relationship between the new residential development upon which the Statutory Developer Fees are imposed, and the need for additional School Facilities in the District because new students will be generated from new residential development within the District and there is not sufficient capacity in the existing School Facilities to accommodate all additional students.

Section 6. That the Board finds that the amount of the Statutory Developer Fees levied on new residential development as set forth in this Resolution is roughly proportional and reasonably related to, and does not exceed the cost of, providing the School Facilities required to serve the students generated by such new residential development within the District. ·
-2-

EXHIBIT B
656
Section 7. That the Board finds that the purpose of the Statutory Developer Fees imposed on new commercial/industrial development is to fund the additional School Facilities required to serve the students generated by the new commercial/industrial development upon which the Statutory Developer Fees are imposed.

Section 8. That the Board finds that the Statutory Developer Fees imposed on new commercial/industrial development (by category) will be used only to finance those School Facilities described in the Studies and related documents and that these School Facilities are required to serve the students generated by such new commercial/industrial development; and that the use of the Statutory Developer Fees will include construction or acquisition of additional School Facilities, remodeling existing School Facilities to add additional classrooms and technology, and acquiring and installing additional portable classrooms and related facilities, with the specific location of new schools, remodeling of existing School Facilities, and additional portables to be determined based on the residence of the students being generated by such new commercial/industrial development, as well as any required central administrative and support facilities within the District.

Section 9. That the Board finds that there is a roughly proportional, reasonable relationship between the use of the Statutory Developer Fees and new commercial/industrial development by category within the District because the Statutory Developer Fees imposed on commercial/industrial development by this Resolution will be used to fund School Facilities which will be used to serve the students generated by such new commercial/industrial development.

Section 10. That the Board finds that there is a roughly proportional, reasonable relationship between the new commercial/industrial development by category, upon which the Statutory Developer Fees are imposed, and the need for additional School Facilities in the District because new students will be generated from new commercial/industrial development within the District and the District does not have sufficient student capacity in the existing School Facilities to accommodate these anticipated students.

Section 11. That the Board finds that the amount of the Statutory Developer Fees levied on new commercial/industrial development by category as set forth in this Resolution is roughly proportional and reasonably related to and does not exceed the cost of providing the School Facilities required to serve the students generated by such new commercial/industrial development within the District.

Section 12. That the Board finds that a separate account has been established for the deposit of Statutory Developer Fees imposed on residential and commercial/industrial development and that said account has at all times since been separately maintained, except for temporary investments, from other funds of the District.

Section 13. That the Board finds that the funds of the account, described in Section 12, consisting of the proceeds of Statutory Developer Fees have been imposed for the purposes of constructing and reconstructing those School Facilities necessitated by new residential and commercial/industrial development, and thus, these funds may be expended for those purposes. The Statutory Developer Fees may also be expended by the District for the costs of performing any study or otherwise making the findings and determinations required under subdivisions (a), (b), and (d) of Section 66001 of the Government Code.

In addition, the District may also retain, as appropriate, an amount not to exceed in any fiscal year, three percent (3%) of the fees collected in that fiscal year pursuant to Education Code Section 17620 for reimbursement of the administrative costs incurred by the District in collecting the Statutory Developer Fees. -3-

EXHIBIT B
657
Section 14. That the Board hereby increases the Statutory Developer Fees as a condition of approval of new residential development projects and imposes the Statutory Developer Fees on such development projects in the following amounts:

A. $4.08 per square foot of assessable space for new single family detached residential development and new multifamily attached residential development, including new residential projects, manufactured homes and mobile homes as authorized under Education Code Section 17625, and including residential construction other than new construction where such construction results in an increase of assessable space, as defined in Government Code Section 65995, in excess of 500 square feet. However, these amounts shall not be imposed on any development project used exclusively for housing senior citizens, as described in Civil Code Section 51 .3, or as described in Subdivision J of Section 1569.2 of the Health and Safety Code or paragraph 9 of subdivision (d) of Section 15432 of the Government Code or any mobile home or manufactured home that is located within a mobile home park, subdivision, cooperative or condominium for mobile homes limited to older persons as defined by the Federal Fair Housing Amendments of 1988.

B. $0.66 per square foot of assessable space for new residential development used exclusively for the housing of senior citizens, as described in Section 51 .3 of the Civil Code or as described in subdivision J of Section 1569 of the Health and Safety Code or paragraph 9 of subdivision (d) of Section 15432 of the Government Code or any mobile home or manufactured home that is located within a mobile home park, subdivision, cooperative or condominium for mobile homes limited to older persons as defined by the Federal Fair Housing Amendments of 1988.

Section 15. That this Board hereby increases the Statutory Developer Fees as a condition of approval of new commercial/industrial development projects and levies the Statutory Developer Fees on such development projects in the following amounts per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space for the following categories of commercial/industrial development:

Retail and Services
Office
Research and Development
Industrial/Warehouse/Manufacturing
Hospitals
Hotel/Motel
Self-Storage
$0.624
$0.66
$0.66
$0.66
$0.66
$0.316
$0.018
Section 16. That the proceeds of the Statutory Developer Fees established pursuant to this Resolution shall continue to be deposited into that account identified in Section 12 of this Resolution, the proceeds of which shall be used exclusively for the purpose for which the Statutory Developer Fees are to be collected, including accomplishing any study, findings or determinations required by subdivisions (a), (b) and (d) of Section 66001 of the Government Code or retaining an amount not to exceed in any fiscal year, three percent (3%) of the fees collected in that fiscal year pursuant to Education Code Section 17620 for -4-

EXHIBIT B
658
reimbursement of the administrative costs incurred by the District in collecting the Statutory Developer Fees or in financing the described Study or in defending the imposition of Statutory Developer Fees.

Section 17. That the Superintendent, or her designee, is directed to cause a copy of this Resolution to be delivered to the building official of the Cities and Counties within the District's boundaries and the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development ("OSHPD") along with a copy of all the supporting documentation referenced herein and a map of the District clearly indicating the boundaries thereof, advising the Cities, Counties, and OSHPD that new residential and commercial/industrial development is subject to the Statutory Developer Fees readopted pursuant to this Resolution and requesting that no building permit or approval for occupancy be issued by any of these entities for any new residential development project, mobile home, or manufactured home subject to the Statutory Developer Fees absent a certification from this District of compliance of such project with the requirements of the Statutory Developer Fees, nor that any building permit be issued for any non-residential development absent a certification from this District of compliance with the requirements of the applicable Statutory Developer Fees.

Section 18. That the Board hereby establishes a process that permits the party against whom the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees are imposed, the opportunity for a hearing to appeal that imposition of Statutory Developer Fees for commercial/industrial development as required by Education Code Section 17621(e)(2). The appeal process is as follows:

A. Within ten (10) calendar days of being notified, in writing, (by personal delivery or deposit in the U.S. Mail) of the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees to be imposed or paying the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees, pursuant to Education Code Section 17620, a party shall file a written request for a hearing regarding the imposition of commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees. The party shall state in the written request the grounds for opposing the imposition of commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees and said written request shall be served by personal delivery or certified or registered mail to the Superintendent of the District.

B. The possible grounds for that appeal include, but are not limited to, the inaccuracy of including the project within the category pursuant to which the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees are to be imposed, or that the employee generation or pupil generation factors utilized under the applicable category are inaccurate as applied to the project.

C. Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the written request for a hearing regarding the imposition of commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees, the Superintendent of the District, or her designee, shall give notice in writing of the date, place and time of the hearing to the party appealing the imposition of commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees. The Superintendent, or her designee, shall schedule and conduct said hearing within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the written request. The Superintendent, or her designee, shall render a written decision within ten (10) days following the hearing on the party's appeal and serve it by certified or registered mail to the last known address of the party.
-5-

EXHIBIT B
659
D. The party against whom the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees are imposed may appeal the Superintendent's, or her designee's, decision to the Board of the District.

E. The party appealing the Superintendent's, or her designee's decision, shall state in the written appeal the grounds for opposing the imposition of the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees and said written appeal shall be served by personal delivery or certified or registered mail to the Superintendent of the District.

F. The possible grounds for that appeal to the Board of the District include, but are not limited to, the inaccuracy of including the project within the category pursuant to which the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees are to be imposed, or that the employee generation or pupil generation factors utilized under the applicable category are inaccurate as applied to the project.

G. Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the written request for a hearing regarding the imposition of commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees, the Superintendent of the District, or her designee, shall give notice in writing of the date, place and time of the hearing to the party appealing the imposition of commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees. The Board of the District shall schedule and conduct said hearing at the next regular meeting of the Board, provided that the party is given notice at least five (5) working days prior to the regular meeting of the Board. The Board shall render a written decision within ten (10) days following the hearing on the party's appeal and serve the decision by certified or registered mail to the last known address of the party.

H. The party appealing the imposition of the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees shall bear the burden of establishing that the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees are improper.

Section 19. That the Superintendent is authorized to cause a certificate of compliance to be issued for each development project, mobile home and manufactured home for which there is compliance with the requirement for payment of the Statutory Developer Fees in the amount specified by this Resolution.

In the event a certificate of compliance is issued for the payment of Statutory Developer Fees for a development project, mobile home or manufactured home and it is later determined that the statement or other representation made by an authorized party concerning the development project as to square footage is untrue, then such certificate shall automatically terminate, and the appropriate City shall be so notified.

Section 20. That no statement or provision set forth in this Resolution, or referred to therein shall be construed to repeal any preexisting fee previously imposed by the District on any residential or nonresidential development.

Section 21. That the District's Statutory Developer Fees will become effective sixty (60) days from the date of this Resolution unless a separate resolution increasing the fees immediately on an urgency basis is adopted by the Board.
-6-

EXHIBIT B
660
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by roll call vote this 17• day of March 2020. / / AYES: Bueno / Prusso / RoggeL Wenzel_L_White __ _
NOES: Bueno ___ Prusso ___ Rogge ___ Wenzel __ White __ _ ABSTENTIONS: Bueno ___ Prusso __ Rogge ___ Wenzel __ White __ _ ABSENT: Bueno ___ Prusso __ Rogge ___ Wenzel __ White. __ _ BY ~
Clerk of the Board of Educ tion v ore
Valley Joint Unified School Dist ct of Alameda
County and Contra Costa County, State of California
-7-

EXHIBIT B
661
To: Tri-Valley Transportation Council
From: TVTC Finance Committee
By: Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Date: April 19, 2021
Subject: ADOPT the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Construction Cost Index Annual Adjustment

BACKGROUND
The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF) specifies that the TVTDF amounts are to be adjusted automatically as of July 1 of each year to reflect changes in regional construction costs. JEPA Section 3(D)(I) requires the TVTC adopt the adjustment by a simple majority.

DISCUSSION
The amount of the adjustment is based on the change in the “Construction Cost Index” (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area, as reported annually in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The December 2020 ENR CCI for the San Francisco Bay Area is +3.2%.

RECOMMENDATION
The TVTC Finance Committee recommends the TVTC adopt the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Construction Cost Index Annual Adjustment and notify each TVTC member agency to collect the TVTDF rates as listed below starting July 1, 2021:

Single Family Residential $5,057.00/Dwelling Unit (DU)
Multi-Family Residential $3,484.00/DU
Office $8.59/sq. ft. Gross Floor Area
Retail $3.74/sq. ft. Gross Floor Area
Industrial $5.00/sq. ft. Gross Floor Area
Other $5,620.00/average am/pm peak hour trip
ADU/SDU $0
Affordable Housing $0
Scott Perkins
TVTC Chair
Vice Mayor
San Ramon
(925) 973-2544
Jean Josey
TVTC Vice-Chair
Councilmember
Dublin
(925) 833-2530
Renee Morgan
Mayor
Town of Danville
(925) 918-3999
David Haubert
Supervisor District 1
Alameda County
(925) 551-6995
Candace Andersen
Supervisor District 2
Contra Costa
(925) 957-8860
Brittni Kiick
Councilmember
City of Livermore
(925) 960-4019
Karla Brown
Mayor
City of Pleasanton
(925) 931-5001

EXHIBIT B
662
TVTDF Historical Fee Rates
2019 2020 2021
Single Family Residential (per DU) $4,650.56 $4,901.00 $5,057.00 Multi-Family Residential (per DU) $3,203.48 $3,376.00 $3,484.00 Office (per SF Gross Floor Area) $7.90 $8.33 $8.59
Retail (per SF Gross Floor Area) $3.41 $3.63 $3.74
Industrial (per SF Gross Floor Area) $4.60 $4.85 $5.00
Other (average am/pm peak hour trip) $5,167.00 $5,446.00 $5,620.00 Affordable Housing * $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ADU/SDU** $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
*Pursuant to Resolution 2015-01 Adjusting the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Schedule **Pursuant to Resolution 2019-03 – Resetting the Accessory Dwelling Unit/Secondary Dwelling Unit Fee in the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Program

EXHIBIT B
663
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 6.2
DATE: May 22, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Hearing to consider rescission of Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 19-004 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP)19-006 for the Wine Country Inn; an Addendum to the 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1996052025); Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 23-001 to amend the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (Specific Plan) to clarify a 50-foot setback area from Hansen Road; Site Plan Design Review 23-001 and Conditional Use Permit 23-002 for the development of commercial site 5D2 (Wine Country Inn) at the southwest corner of Arroyo Road and Hansen Road.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council take two actions:

1. Adopt a resolution rescinding Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 19-004 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19-006 for the Livermore Wine Country Inn;

2. Adopt Resolutions:
a. Adopting an Addendum to the 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1996052025); and b. Approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 23-001, Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 23- 001 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 23-002 for the Livermore Wine Country Inn.

SUMMARY
The South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (Specific Plan) guides development in the South Livermore Valley that is within the city boundary. Commercial development under the Specific Plan is intended as an amenity that will enhance the experience of visitors to the South Livermore Valley wine country, and only those commercial uses that support wine-related tourism are permitted. Consistent with the Specific Plan, the proposal is to develop a wine country inn on commercial site 5D2 at the southwest corner of Arroyo Road and Hansen Road. The proposed wine country inn is consistent with the 2003 General Plan, Specific Plan, and Planned Unit Development zoning designation. It will contribute to the viability of the South Livermore wine country and will promote South Livermore as a premium wine producing region.
664
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the City Council approve the project and there are no significant fiscal or administrative impacts associated with the project.

DISCUSSION

RESCISSION OF PREVIOUS PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
In response to the Court of Appeal's decision in the case of Friends of So. Livermore v. City of Livermore discussed below, staff recommends that the City Council rescind Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 19- 004 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19-006 which were previously approved for the Livermore Wine Country Inn.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject proposal is to adopt an addendum to the 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1996052025), amend the Specific Plan to clarify a 50-foot setback area from Hansen Road for Specific Plan commercial sites 5D1 and 5D2, approve Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 23-001 for the development of the Livermore Wine Country Inn on commercial site 5D2 and approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 23-002 for an on-site caretaker's unit.

Specifically, the wine country inn will be developed on the vacant, approximately three-acre site, at the southwest corner of Arroyo Road and Hansen Road, with a 30-room, approximately 29,345-square foot two-story inn that includes a 77-seat restaurant, a conditionally permitted caretaker’s unit, 65 paved vehicle parking spaces, 12 bicycle parking spaces, and associated site improvements.

The proposed project requires approval of the following land use entitlements:

1. Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 23-001) to clarify a 50-foot setback area from Hansen Road for Specific Plan commercial sites 5D1 and 5D2 that may include parking, landscaping, and a trash enclosure; and

2. A Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 23-001 for the Livermore Wine Country Inn which is for review of the proposed site design, architecture, and landscape, and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 23- 002 for the caretaker’s unit.

BACKGROUND
A neighborhood meeting was held on September 10, 2019. This was an opportunity for the public to learn about the project’s land use regulations, proposed development, and allow the public to provide comments. Approximately 100 residents attended the neighborhood meeting. Generally, the concerns were focused on traffic safety, aesthetics, noise, and use. Conversely, supporters of the project considered it a critical addition to Livermore’s Wine Country because it would support the viability of the wine region. Additionally, supporters acknowledged the lack of lodging in South Livermore deters visitors from staying in the wine country. Supporters were excited to have the project within walking distance of their homes and pointed out that the Specific Plan has been in place for over 20 years and the need for commercial development in South Livermore.

On November 5, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution certifying the environmental document and approved Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 19-004 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19- 665
006 for the Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn. The project involves the development of a vacant, approximately three-acre site with an approximately 29,345-square foot two-story building for a 30-room Inn with a 77-seat restaurant, a caretaker’s unit, 61 paved vehicle parking spaces, 12 bicycle parking spaces, and associated site improvements.

On November 19, 2019, the City received an application appealing the Planning Commission’s approval of the project. On January 13, 2020, the City Council adopted a resolution denying the appeal and affirmed the Planning Commission acted in accordance with the General Plan, South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, Livermore Municipal Code, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in approving the Wine Country Inn project.

On February 13, 2020, a lawsuit was filed by an unincorporated association of residents, Friends of South Livermore (FOSL), in the Alameda County Superior Court alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State Planning and Zoning Law. On January 5, 2021, the Superior Court held a hearing during which the project's administrative record was reviewed. On February 2, 2021, the Superior Court denied the mandamus petition filed by FOSL.

On April 15, 2021, an appeal was filed with the Court of Appeal. On December 6, 2022, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court determined that the 50-foot setback from Hansen Road established for the project under the zoning, Planned Unit Development (PUDA) 01-001, conflicts with Policy 4-7 of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (Specific Plan).

The City adopted Planned Unit Development (PUDA) 01-001 over 20 years ago and identified the 50 foot commercial setback as a development standard for commercial sites 5D1 and 5D2. However, in response to the appellate court's ruling, staff is proposing a Specific Plan Amendment to revise Policy 4- 7 to be consistent with the zoning standards listed under PUDA 01-001. Staff is proposing to revise Policy 4-7 as follows (new language is underlined):

Building setbacks for commercial uses shall be 100 feet from the property line, except for commercial site #3A which shall be 25 feet, and commercial sites #5D1 and #5D2 which shall be 50 feet from Hansen Road. All setback areas shall be planted with vineyards or orchards, except the 50-foot setback area from Hansen Road for commercial sites #5D1 and #5D2 may include parking, landscaping, and a trash enclosure.

Staff has also proposed additional amendments to the Specific Plan to be consistent with the modifications made to Policy 4-7 which are set forth in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment (see attachment 22).

Due to the appellate court's decision, the previously approved project entitlements for physical development on commercial site 5D2 need to be rescinded. New project entitlements are required for the physical development of the site.

The proposed project will implement the General Plan and Specific Plan goals that promote the South Livermore Valley as a premier wine-growing region and support wine-related tourism. The Wine Country Inn project is a critical commercial component for the success of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan and long-term viability of the Livermore Wine Country.

DESCRIPTION, CONTEXT, AND ANALYSIS
666
For a complete project description, site context, and analysis of applicable standards, please review the attached Staff Analysis memo (Attachment 1).

PLANNING COMMISSION AND PUBLIC COMMENT
On May 2, the Planning Commission considered the project at a public hearing and unanimously voted to recommend the City Council approve the project. The Planning Commission meeting minutes summarize the discussion (Attachment 3), which included questions and comments about the project's development standards, primary entrance, the need for wine country supporting infrastructure, and the preservation of Livermore's vineyards and wine-making heritage. Prior to the meeting, staff received fifteen written letters in support and five opposing the project (Attachment 6). Staff received additional letters in opposition to the project after the agenda had been published. The letters were included as supplemental material for the Planning Commission. As discussed at the meeting and described in the staff analysis, the project wholly conforms with the General Plan, South Livermore Valley Specific Plan and Development Code. Public Comment received prior to the City Council agenda publication is also included as part of Attachment 6.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified by the City Council for the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 96052025) in 1997. The environmental analysis contained in the EIR included the development of a Wine Country Inn on three acres, with up to 30 rooms, a large restaurant with up to 100 seats, and a caretaker unit as a conditionally permitted use. The proposed project is within the scope of the EIR. The City has prepared an Addendum to the previously certified 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1996052025). The Addendum demonstrates that no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required, under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), given that no substantial changes to the project or the circumstances have occurred and no new information of substantial importance exists.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
There are no significant fiscal or administrative impacts associated with the project. Staff time allocated to land use entitlement review is offset by required entitlement application fees. The incremental increase in demand for water, sewer, and stormwater services will be offset by required impact fees and utility connection fees. More importantly, development of the proposed project is critical to the long-term viability of the Livermore Valley Wine Country and provides needed infrastructure to attract agritourism and larger wineries to the region. The Inn will generate sales tax and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT).

COMMUNITY PILLAR

2. Economy that Prospers
GOAL

1. Lead efforts, in collaboration with internal and external partners to provide effective communication and engagement with businesses.
667
GUIDING DOCUMENTS - General Plan, South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP), Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) 01-001, and Development Code.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Staff Analysis

2. Location Map

3. PC - Minutes

4. Resolution - Rescinding Previous Entitlements

5. Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 2010-010 and Planning Commission Resolution 26-19

6. Public Comment

7. Zoning Standards (PUDA) 01-001

8. Specific Plan Subareas

9. Development Plans

10. Elevation Rendering

11. Conference Room Purpose Letter

12. Applicant's Statement

13. Electric Kitchen Equipment Exemption

14. Traffic Impact Study

15. Entrance Feasibility Study

16. Staff Memo - Arroyo Road Entry

17. Resolution - CEQA

18. Exhibit A - PC Resolution

19. Exhibit B - Addendum

20. Resolution - Project Approval

21. Exhibit A - PC Resolution

22. Exhibit B - Specific Plan Text Amendments

23. Exhibit C - Conditions of Approval

24. Specific Plan EIR

25. South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Prepared by: Kam Purewal
Associate Planner
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
668
1 STAFF ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY: Kam Purewal, Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: Steve Stewart, Planning Manager
Steve Riley, Principal Planner
DATE: May 22, 2023
SUBJECT: Livermore Wine Country Inn – Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 23- 001, Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 23-001 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 23-002

PROJECT SITE CONTEXT
The approximately 3.2-acre project site is vacant with an approximately 100-foot buffer adjacent to Arroyo Road currently planted as vineyard. The South Livermore Valley Specific Plan identifies the site as Commercial 5D2. The site is surrounded by viticulture use, with the nearest residential use approximately 230 feet to the west, measured from property line to property line. The project site slopes down approximately 25 feet to the nearest residences, measured from the western property line. The site has two public street frontages, Arroyo Road to the east and Hansen Road to the north. A multi-use recreation trail exists along the frontage on Arroyo Road. Access to the site is from Hansen Road.

ATTACHMENT 1
669
2 The following table summarizes the General Plan land use designation, zoning classification, and existing land use on the subject site and surrounding land:

Table 1: Project Site Context
General Plan
Designation
Current Zoning
Classification
Existing
Land Use
North
South Livermore Valley
Specific Plan, Subarea
5 – Wine Country
Commercial
Planned Development-South
Livermore Valley Specific Plan
(Planned Unit Development
Amendment 01-001)
Agricultural – Vacant
Commercial Site 5D1
South
South Livermore Valley
Specific Plan, Subarea
5 – Small Winery
Planned Development-South
Livermore Valley Specific Plan
(Planned Unit Development
Amendment 01-001)
Winery – Las Positas
Vineyards
East
South Livermore Valley
Specific Plan, Subarea
4 – Agriculture and
Residential
Planned Development-South
Livermore Valley Specific Plan
(Planned Unit Development
Amendments 02-001 and 07-
003)
Agricultural and
single-family
residential
West
South Livermore Valley
Specific Plan, Subarea
5 – Agriculture and
Residential
Planned Development-South
Livermore Valley Specific Plan
(Planned Unit Development
Amendment 01-001)
Agricultural and
single-family
residential
Subject
Site
South Livermore Valley
Specific Plan, Subarea
5 – Wine Country
Commercial
Planned Development-South
Livermore Valley Specific Plan
(Planned Unit Development
Amendment 01-001)
Vacant Commercial
Site 5D2
South Livermore Valley History and Regulatory Context
The South Livermore Valley has been an active grape-growing and wine-producing area since the 1880s. The combination of the soil and temperate climate makes it an ideal area for viticulture and producing premium wines. By the turn of the century, Livermore Valley had over 50 wineries and 5,000 acres of planted vineyards.

However, the strength of the Livermore Valley’s wine industry ebbed during the early part of the 20th century due to the depression, prohibition, and periods of phylloxera infestation. Since WWII, the wine industry’s greatest threat has come from encroaching development. The number of South Livermore wineries and planted vineyards dropped significantly during this period.

In response to threats of suburban sprawl, continuing to move east from what is now Ruby Hill, the City and Alameda County adopted policies to restore the wine country to its early-century prominence. The County adopted the South Livermore Valley Area Plan in 1993, the city adopted the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (hereafter referred to as the Specific Plan) in 1997, and the Livermore voters adopted the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 2000. The South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) ATTACHMENT 1
670
3 has reduced the immediate and long-term threat to South Livermore posed by suburban sprawl. Together, the South Livermore UGB and the Specific Plan established a framework for balancing development and protecting open space and agriculture.

The Specific Plan provides the land use regulations for the project site and surrounding areas. The Specific Plan includes development and design standards and facilitates the planting and preservation of vineyards, orchards, and open space to enhance the South Livermore Valley Wine Country as a premier visitor destination. The Specific Plan designates areas for single-family residential development, 16 sites for wine-country supporting commercial development (including the project site 5D2 for an Inn) and permanent preservation of vineyards, orchards and biologically sensitive open space areas. The Specific Plan area is divided into seven Subareas – the project site is in Subarea 5 – and encompasses 1,891 acres total (see Attachment 8).

Additionally, the vineyards around the site are covered by permanent conservation easements held by Tri-Valley Conservancy. These easements ensure the vineyards will permanently remain as agricultural use or open space.

The Specific Plan’s vision for urban development was to complement, support, and enhance the wine country. While residential development is nearly complete because of strong market demand, build-out of the 16 wine-country commercial sites has lagged because of a weaker market demand, land costs and inherent financial and legal risks of building small-scale commercial that is limited to specific wine-county supporting uses (e.g., Inn, bed and breakfast, winery, tasting rooms, restaurant). Development of commercial uses is critical to the long-term viability of the Livermore Valley Wine Country.

Review Process
On May 2, 2023, the Planning Commission unanimously voted 5-0 and recommends that the City Council rescind the previously approved entitlements to comply with the Court of Appeal’s ruling. The Planning Commission also recommends that the City Council adopt the addendum to the 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #1996052025) and approve the project entitlements. There are three project entitlements: Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 23- 001, Site Plan and Design Review (SPDR) 23-001 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 23- 002.

The role of the Planning Commission for the Specific Plan Amendment is to provide a recommendation, and reasons for the recommendation, to the City Council whether to approve, approve in modified form, or deny the proposed amendment, based on the findings identified in the Development Code. The Planning Commission reviewed the Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) application for the design, location, site plan configuration, and land use compatibility by comparing the project plans to the General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning Standards, development standards, and applicable design guidelines/ policies1.
1 LDC, Sec. 9.07.040 (C2)
ATTACHMENT 1
671
4 The caretaker’s residence is a conditionally permitted use and requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP only applies to the caretaker’s residence and not the Inn and restaurant since those are permitted uses under the specific plan. A CUP provides a process for reviewing uses that may be appropriate in the applicable zone.

The City Council may recommend conditions on operational matters to ensure land use compatibility of the use.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Specific Plan Amendment
The Specific Plan was adopted in 1997. At that time, Hansen Road was a private road that ended at Arroyo Road and did not proceed west across Arroyo Road. A potential “future entry road” is depicted on prototypical diagrams in the Specific Plan. In 2001, the City Council approved the Planned Unit Development-165 (PUD-165) to establish the zoning and regulations in Subarea 5. The PUD was modified to accommodate the residential development (and is now referenced as PUDA01-001 due to those changes). PUDA 01- 001 was adopted in 2001 and established the residential and commercial development standards for the Hansen Road extension to the west side of Arroyo Road which includes commercial sites 5D1 and 5D2. Commercial sites 5D1 and 5D2 are located on the corner of Arroyo Road and Hansen Road. Site 5D1 is located to the north of Hansen Road and 5D2 is to the south (see figure 1 below).

Figure 1
Staff is proposing a Specific Plan Amendment to clarify Policy 4-7 to be consistent with the zoning standards listed under (PUDA) 01-001 for commercial sites 5D1 and 5D2.

Existing Policy 4-7 of the Specific Plan states:

ATTACHMENT 1
672
5 Building setbacks for commercial uses shall be 100 feet from road frontages, except for commercial site #3A, which shall be 25 feet. All setback areas shall be planted with vineyards or orchards.

Staff is proposing to revise Policy 4-7 as follows shown in underline:

Building setbacks for commercial uses shall be 100 feet from the property line, except for commercial site #3A which shall be 25 feet, and commercial sites #5D1 and #5D2 which shall be 50 feet from Hansen Road. All setback areas shall be planted with vineyards or orchards, except the 50-foot setback area from Hansen Road for commercial sites #5D1 and #5D2 may include parking, landscaping, and a trash enclosure.

The proposed language in Policy 4-7 is consistent with the commercial zoning standards under (PUDA) 01-001, for sites 5D1 and 5D2, which require a 50-foot setback from Hansen Road. A 100-foot setback from Hansen Road would significantly restrict the development of sites 5D1 and 5D2. However, both sites will continue to provide a 100-foot planted setback from Arroyo Road. The text amendments would allow:

1. 50-foot setback from Hansen Road for commercial sites 5D1 and 5D2;

2. Landscaping and parking within the 50-foot setback area; and

3. Trash enclosure to be located within the setback area for efficient access by Livermore Sanitation. The trash enclosure is at a lower grade and will be screened by landscaping.

In addition to amending Policy 4-7, staff has proposed minor amendments to other sections of the Specific Plan to be consistent with the revisions made to Policy 4-7. All of the amendments to the Specific Plan as set forth in attachment 22 shall collectively be referred to as the “text amendment”. The text amendment would allow for feasible development of a Wine Country Inn on site 5D2 and provide consistency between the Specific Plan and underlying zoning standards. The text amendment is consistent with the General Plan’s Goals and Objectives of enhancing the South Livermore Valley as a unique wineproducing region serving wine country visitors.

Site Development
The project involves the physical development of commercial site 5D2. The proposal is to develop the vacant, approximately three-acre site with an approximately 29,345-square foot two-story building for a 30-room Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn. Development of the project would include a 77-seat restaurant, a conditionally permitted caretaker’s unit, 65 paved vehicle parking spaces, 12 bicycle parking spaces, and associated site improvements. The proposed Inn will be independently operated and is a custom design for this location.

ATTACHMENT 1
673
6 The Inn would include eighteen standard rooms with one bed, two suite-style rooms with one bed, seven standard rooms with two beds, and three American Disability Act (ADA) compliant suites with one bed. Additionally, both the first and second floors together include 6,722-square feet of outdoor balconies, hallways, and deck space.

The main floor of the Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn would include a lobby, wine bar/ lounge, a manager’s office, fifteen guest rooms, a kitchen and restaurant, and a caretaker’s unit. An outdoor private pool would be located along the south end of the building for the caretaker’s unit. A spa to the west of the private pool would be available for Inn guests. The project will include an on-site garden to grow produce and support the farm-to-table concept for the restaurant. The second floor of the Inn would include storage rooms, fifteen guest rooms, and a conference room.

The tallest tower elements measures 35 feet from grade, while the height for the remainder of the building ranges from 28-30 feet. The restaurant would provide light breakfast, lunch, and dinner service with indoor seating as well as dining options on the terrace. The courtyard lounge would provide seating areas for guests as well. The Inn will include approximately 1,800 square feet of conference space available for registered Inn guests or other occasional visitors, as allowed by the Inn manager, that can be divided into two smaller rooms. Parking is located on the north and east side of the site between the Inn and Arroyo Road and Hansen Road.

Existing and Future Land Uses
Existing single-family residences are located further to the west (Los Olivos) and on the east side of Arroyo Road (Ponderosa Legacy). The subject site is separated from the Los Olivos residences by approximately 230 feet of vineyards. The Ravenswood historic site is located further to the north. Ravenswood is a public facility and is open to public tours twice monthly. It can also be rented for special events such as weddings.

In addition to the existing Las Positas Winery, three of the undeveloped commercial sites, including the project site (5D2) are near the intersection of Wetmore Road and Arroyo Road (see figures 2 & 3).

Figure 2
Site Permitted
Use
Developed
5D1 Wine
Country
Commercial
Center
Vacant
5D2 30-room
Wine
Country Inn
&
Project
Site
ATTACHMENT 1
674
7 Restaurant
w/100-seat
max.
5D3 Small
Winery
Las
Positas
Vineyards
Winery
4C Small
Winery
Vacant
Figure 3

STAFF ANALYSIS
The Analysis section below details how the Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) entitlements are consistent with policy documents based on staff’s analysis and recommendations.

ATTACHMENT 1
675
8 General Plan
The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes Geographical Subareas and Corresponding Land Uses for the South Livermore Valley2. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, Subarea 5— Vineyard Commercial. The General Plan designates 16 acres for Vineyard Commercial in Subarea 5 of the Specific Plan area and allows a 30-room inn and large restaurant on site 5D2. It provides lodging and dining options for visitors in the South Livermore Valley. The proposed project is consistent with this General Plan policy to promote viticulture, attract visitors to the South Livermore Valley, and increase recognition of the South Livermore Valley as a premium wine-producing region.

South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
A Specific Plan is a regulatory document that enables the systematic implementation of the General Plan for specific geographic areas. The South Livermore Valley Specific Plan systematically implements the Livermore General Plan for the South Livermore Valley.

The Specific Plan identifies 16 sites designated for wine country commercial uses under the Vineyard Commercial designation:

This designation provides for development of small-scale commercial uses that promote the area's image as a wine region, and directly serve wine-country visitors. The intent is not to accommodate commercial uses whose primary purpose is to provide local services, or that would compete with businesses in Downtown Livermore. The designation is intended to accommodate a very limited range of commercial uses including wineries, inns, restaurants, and smallscale wine country-related retail and services.

The subject parcel, identified as site 5D2 in the Specific Plan, is designated for a “30- room inn and restaurant”. The Specific Plan describes the Wine Country Inn and Restaurant to: . . .” have up to 30 guest rooms and the restaurant would have up to 100 seats. Access to the two commercial sites will be from the main subarea entry road, rather than from Arroyo Road3.”
The project objective is to serve visitors to Livermore’s wine country. The Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn is consistent with the purpose of commercial development by “supporting the concept of the South Livermore Valley as a wine-country destination”. In addition, access to the site will be provided from Hansen Road, the main subarea entry road, consistent with the Specific Plan.

The caretaker’s unit is a conditionally permitted use in the Specific Plan4. The project proposes an architecturally integrated two-story, approximately 2,300 square foot, three2 General Plan, p. 3-87 3 SLVSP, p. 4-35
4 SLVSP, Policy 4-5, p. 4-4
ATTACHMENT 1
676
9 bedroom, and two-bathroom caretaker’s residence. The caretaker’s unit is excluded from the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements for the site. The FAR applies to the permitted commercial components of the project, while the caretaker’s unit is a conditionally permitted accessory use. The Specific Plan limits the maximum building area for the combined inn and restaurant to 32,500 square feet. Having the caretaker’s unit on-site would allow visitors to communicate directly with management and would provide neighbors with an on-site point of contact, if the need arises. Considering the Inn and restaurant as the primary commercial uses, staff supports the conditional use permit for the caretaker’s unit as an accessory use as allowed by the Specific Plan.

The City Council has the authority to approve the caretaker’s unit as a conditional use and to impose any conditions deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure land use compatibility. To ensure the caretaker’s unit will be compatible with the existing residential uses in the vicinity, staff recommends the following operational conditions:

1. Recommended Condition: Two parking spaces shall be provided for the caretaker’s unit apart from the required parking for the Inn.

2. Recommended Condition: The caretaker’s unit shall not be rented by guests staying at the Inn or utilized as a short-term rental.

Zoning/ Specific Plan Development Standards
The Zoning implements the Specific Plan and permits the allowed uses. The zoning for project site 5D2, which reinforces and implements the Specific Plan regulations, is Planned Development-South Livermore Valley Specific Plan/ Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) 01-001. The PUD was modified to accommodate the residential development (and is now referenced as PUDA01-001 due to those changes). Like the Specific Plan, PUDA 01-001 permits a Wine Country Inn with no more than 30 guestrooms and a sit-down restaurant with up to 100 seats for the project site (5D2). It also permits one caretaker’s unit with approval of a conditional use permit (see attachment 7).

PUDA 01-001 limits access to the project site to one entrance on Hansen Road and requires a 100-foot building setback from Arroyo Road. The 100-foot zoning setback requirement from Arroyo Road parallels the 100-foot agricultural buffer required by the Specific Plan. PUDA 01-001 requires a 50-foot setback from Hansen Road.

The proposed project is consistent with the Commercial Site Requirements listed in PUDA 01-001 by providing an approximately 80-foot building setback from Hansen Road where a 50-foot setback is required and a 100-foot setback from Arroyo Road. PUDA 01- 001 does not have any setback requirements for the side or rear yard, provided the project is consistent with the Specific Plan. The Inn is approximately 20-feet from the western property line and approximately 40-feet from the southern property line. The proposed two-story building conforms to the 35-feet maximum height allowed by the Specific Plan for the project site. The proposed building has a floor area ratio of 22%, ATTACHMENT 1
677
10 which is compliant with the 25% maximum floor area ratio listed in PUDA01-001.

Therefore, the 30-room Wine Country Inn, 77-seat restaurant, and the conditionally permitted caretaker’s unit are consistent with the underlying zoning.

Traffic and Parking
An Environmental Impact Report, including a traffic study for the entire Specific Plan area was completed concurrent with the Specific Plan adoption in 1997. Because the Inn was an integral part of the original Specific Plan, the project’s overall traffic impacts were previously analyzed in the original Specific Plan. In addition, in 2019 a traffic consultant completed a Traffic Impact Study update for the proposed project to analyze potential transportation impacts related to implementation of the proposed project (see attachment 14). Since the Traffic Impact Study was prepared before the COVID-19 pandemic, it is likely that the traffic impacts analyzed were higher than current traffic impacts at the site and therefore it is reasonable for the city to rely on the study for evaluation purposes as traffic levels return to pre-pandemic levels. The consultant studied five intersections for analysis based on the project location and local travel patterns (see figure 4).

Study Intersections

1. Arroyo Road and Hansen Road

2. Arroyo Road and Wetmore Road

3. Talinga Drive and Wetmore Road

4. Vallecitos Road-Holmes Street and Wetmore Road; and

5. Hansen Road and Project Driveway
ATTACHMENT 1
678
11 Figure 4
The proposed project is expected to generate a net increase of 14 vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hours (6 inbound trips and 8 outbound trips), 37 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour (24 inbound trips and 13 outbound trips), and a total of 344 daily trips (see figure 5).

For traffic study purposes, the peak hours for the Arroyo Road and Hansen Road intersection were between 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. The project proposes a 77-seat restaurant. However, the traffic study conservatively analyzed the number of daily restaurant trips based on a restaurant with 90 seats.

ATTACHMENT 1
679
12 Figure 5
Under existing conditions, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. With the addition of project‐generated traffic to future traffic growth in the vicinity, all study intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with minor changes in average delay. In addition, the project would not cause left‐turn queues onto Hansen Road from Arroyo Road to exceed storage capacity. The traffic consultant concluded that traffic impacts are less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required.

The local streets, including Arroyo Road and Hansen Road, have been designed to safely accommodate the vehicle trips generated by full build-out of the Specific Plan. Arroyo Road and Hansen Road are classified as collector streets. According to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, collector streets are medium capacity streets with volumes ranging from 5,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day, which is sufficient to carry the anticipated cumulative traffic volume for the project and existing and planned developments in the vicinity.

The project is required to provide parking as shown in figure 6. The project is required to provide 61 spaces total. Sixty-five spaces are provided. A total of seven EV capable spaces, 15 EV ready spaces, and two EV chargers would be provided on-site. A total of 12 bicycle spaces are required. The project provides four bicycle lockers and eight bicycle racks. Therefore, the project meets the City’s parking requirement (see figure 6).

ATTACHMENT 1
680
13 Figure 6
Site Access
Access to the site is from Hansen Road via a new left-turn pocket that would not exceed one car’s length. The existing median on Hansen Road would need to be modified to accommodate a left-turn pocket into the site. The proposed access from Hansen Road is consistent with the Specific Plan and the zoning. The Specific Plan states, “Access to the two commercial sites along Arroyo Road will be from the main subarea entry road, rather than Arroyo Road.” The underlying zoning (PUDA 01-001) states that access to commercial sites 5D1 and 5D2 shall be limited to one access point on Hansen Road (the east-west collector road) for each site (see attachment 7).

Furthermore, there is an existing pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian regional trail corridor along Arroyo Road extending south from the Ravenswood Historic Site, crossing over Hansen Road, and connecting to Wetmore Road. The trail corridor accommodates separate pedestrian/ bicycle and equestrian amenities. The trail consists of a ten-footwide paved path for bicycle and pedestrian use and an eight-foot-wide compacted gravel or earth trail for equestrian use, along with landscaping. The project provides an on-site connection to the trail (see attachment 9).

ATTACHMENT 1
681
14 An entrance to the Wine Country Inn from Arroyo Road was requested by some project opponents during the previous administrative process for the Inn but is not recommended by staff for several reasons. First, an entrance from Arroyo Road would create pedestrian and traffic safety concerns due to the higher speed limit on Arroyo Road as compared to Hansen Road. Second, a new left turn lane would have to be created on Arroyo Road which would be in close proximity to the existing left turn lane from Arroyo Road onto Hansen Road, likely causing additional traffic concerns. Third, there is a slope easement along Arroyo Road with a substantial difference in grade between Arroyo Road and the project site. Sight distance would be a concern for vehicles entering and leaving the site and there would be limited visibility for pedestrians using the existing trail system. These concerns are more particularly described by staff in the Arroyo Road Entry Analysis (see attachment 16) and by the project’s engineering team in the Entrance Feasibility Analysis (see attachment 15). Additionally, the Livermore Area Recreation Park District (LARPD) Board of Directors previously reviewed the proposed project. The Board of Directors concluded that the entrance to the property should remain on Hansen Road to avoid impacting the regional trail.

Importantly, the Specific Plan also requires orchards and vineyards to be planted within the 100-foot setback on Arroyo Road. An entry road from Arroyo Road would require further amendments to the Specific Plan and zoning and additional environmental analysis. For all of the foregoing reasons, Staff does not support an entrance from Arroyo Road. The entrance on Hansen Road is consistent with the Specific Plan and zoning and there is no substantial evidence of any significant traffic hazard that would be created by allowing entrance to the Inn from Hansen Road as planned. The following condition related to the commercial site requirements and community design for sites 5D1 and 5D2 has remained unchanged in the Specific Plan and Zoning.

The Access to commercial sites 5D1 and 5D2 shall be limited to one access point on Hansen Road (the east-west collector road) for each site.

Noise Impact
The environmental impact report that was completed for the Specific Plan analyzed potential noise impacts on existing and future residents from development of five commercial sites in Subarea 5 of the Specific Plan. The EIR concluded no significant noise impacts on existing or future residents would result from commercial development of Subarea 5.

According to the City's land use-noise, compatibility standards identified in the Livermore General Plan Noise Element, residential uses are considered "normally acceptable" where the noise level does not exceed 60 dBA Ldn, "conditionally acceptable" (i.e., requiring noise analysis and mitigation) between 60 and 70 dBA, and "normally unacceptable" between 70 and 75 dBA6. As points of reference, an average office has a noise level of 60 dBA; areas near freeway auto traffic have a noise level of 70 dBA. To ensure the project complies with the current noise element of the General Plan, staff recommends the following condition of project approval:

ATTACHMENT 1
682
15 3. Recommended Condition: Noise generated by the project shall be in conformance with the Noise Element of the General Plan.

During construction, heavy-duty equipment would be used for various activities. Noise level would vary depending on the equipment. General Plan Policy N-1.5.P47 exempts noise related to construction activity between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. additionally; the City’s Municipal Code8 limits construction activities associated with development. Staff recommends the following condition of approval for the project that is consistent with General Plan Noise Policy:

4. Recommended Condition: No construction allowed between the following times:
a. 6:00 p.m. Saturday to 7:00 a.m. Monday;
b. 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday; c. 8:00 p.m. Friday to 9:00 a.m. Saturday;
d. All City-observed holidays.

Outdoor events would not be held at the Inn and an event center is not a permitted use.

Further, the Inn has strict quiet hours from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. Staff recommends the following conditions of approval for the project in order to provide additional measures to minimize potential noise:

5. Recommended Condition: Outdoor events at the Inn (such as weddings, parties, or receptions) are prohibited.

Site Plan
As noted in the Specific Plan9, “The site layout determines the way in which one experiences the site. It creates sequences and relationships, defines spaces and uses, and preserves and screens view.” The site plan is efficient in terms of layout and circulation, and the building orientation optimizes its relationship with the surrounding landscape. The site plan and building design signal arrival to Livermore’s Wine Country by taking advantage of its permanent location on Arroyo Road without disrupting the heavier traffic flows on this main entry into the Wine Country.

The Specific Plan includes a “site analysis” diagram and a “prototypical site plan” of the subject site10. These illustrations provide general and specific criteria and recommendations for the development of the site (see figure 7). The Specific Plan states, “Where a prototypical site plan is shown, it is intended as one interpretation of appropriate design”11. They are not intended to be prescriptive regulations on developing the site.
7 General Plan: Noise Element, p. 9-43
8 LMC, Section 9.36.080
9 SLVSP, p, 12-20
10 SLVSP, p, 12-11; p,12-13
11 SLVSP, p.12-3
ATTACHMENT 1
683
16 Figure 7
The segment of Arroyo Road on which the project site is located is identified as a scenic route in the General Plan12. The Specific Plan includes development standards to maintain the scenic character of Arroyo Road, including a 100-foot agricultural buffer and strong architectural design. The 100-foot agricultural buffer serves as a staging area for farm equipment to maintain the vines. The vines may be temporarily removed as necessary for grading the site in preparation of construction. New vines will be planted in the northeast and southeast corners of the site. Staff recommends the vines in the remaining rows be replanted after the grading is complete. 12 General Plan: Community Character Element, p. 4-24
ATTACHMENT 1
684
17 6. Recommended Condition: Any vines in the 100-foot agricultural buffer along Arroyo Road that are removed during construction shall be replaced prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

A U-shaped internal drive aisle would provide access to drop-off areas, parking spaces, and provide internal circulation. The U-shaped drive aisle also provides for emergency vehicle access. A pedestrian path of travel adjacent to the driveway would connect with an internal pedestrian path to/from the building.

The caretaker’s unit is located at the south end of the building. Usable outdoor porches are located on the east and west sides of the building. The building is designed and oriented in this manner to provide visitors with views of the hills along with the sunrise to the east and sunset toward the west. Existing vineyards between the subject site and the residences minimize visual prominence.

The trash enclosure is located to west of the project entrance along Hansen Road and will be architecturally compatible with the Inn. The enclosure will be surrounded and screened from public view with eleven trees and landscaping improvements. The proposed enclosure meets City standards and allows efficient access for Livermore Sanitation. While noise at the proposed trash enclosure may be generated due to garbage trucks during pickup times, the closest residence is approximately 230 feet from the enclosure. As a result, the landscaping and distance to the nearest receptor would help reduce noise during occasional garbage pick-up. Staff recommends the following condition for the trash enclosure to ensure appropriate screening:

7. Recommended Condition: The trash enclosure shall be screened from public view along Hansen Road, with a minimum of three, 24” box Platanus acerifolia (London plane) trees and five small scale, 24” box trees that are consistent with the plant palette listed in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan.

Architecture and Landscape Design
The project is consistent with the Specific Plan architectural standards and guidelines for commercial buildings. The project provides a Spanish/ Mediterranean architectural style.

The Specific Plan states:
“Diversity and innovation is encouraged within the framework of high quality design and construction standards…appropriate scale, simplicity in form, and integrity of details and materials are the characteristics that define the desired building styles for this area”13.

The scale of the two-story building is appropriate for the site and conforms to the 35-feet maximum height allowed by the Specific Plan for the project site. The architectural style of the building features a boral-boosted tile roof, decorative precast stone at the courtyard 13 SLVSP, p, 12-17
ATTACHMENT 1
685
18 entrance, and a beige stucco finish. Dark brown shutters surround the windows and black decorative metal railings run along the second floor of the building. The roof has small decorative tower elements that add visual articulation to the main building form. Details such as wood doors, a decorative chimney cap, and wood porch columns contribute to the character of the building.

Signs are shown for illustrative purposes in the development plans and are not being approved as part of this entitlement. Signs will require a separate application and approval.

Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:

8. Recommended Condition: Any signs associated with the project will require a separate application and approval.

The landscape plan shows the planting of 109 new trees on site. The tree and shrub species on the landscape plan are consistent with the plant palette encouraged in the Specific Plan. The project also meets the intent of the Tree Preservation Ordinance14 by enhancing the aesthetic values of South Livermore and providing tree cover on approximately 57,000 square feet of vacant land along with a diverse plant palette. The project will also comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

Landscape features are used for the project to establish an appealing entry sequence for visitors. Interlocking stone pavers and a three-tier fountain provides a forecourt in front of the courtyard entrance to the Inn. An entry courtyard provides a transition space into the development.

The project complies with the lighting standards established in the Specific Plan15, which prohibit glare beyond the boundaries of the site and require project lighting to be directed and shielded to prevent illumination of any adjacent residential districts. The development plans for the project include a site lighting photometric plan that shows lighting levels at the property boundaries to be near zero. The project would be expected to result in a slight increase in light intensity adjacent to the site, although the impact on surrounding properties would be expected to be less than significant.

The lighting plan contained in the development plan must specify that the pole lights shall not exceed 16 feet in height. In addition, the color of the pole lights must be provided. Staff recommends the following condition of approval:

9. Recommended Condition: The proposed light poles and luminaires shall not exceed a height of 16 feet and the color and design of the light pole and luminaire shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department.
14 LMC, 12.20.150
15 SLVSP, p. 12-30
ATTACHMENT 1
686
19 10.Recommended Condition: The lighting plan shall provide sufficient illumination in the proposed parking area on the east side of the property to meet the City’s lighting ordinance.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Policy 4-6 of the Specific Plan requires commercial uses to maintain a small, pedestrian scale, and not exceed an FAR of 25%. The caretaker’s unit is a conditionally permitted accessory use. The caretaker’s unit is not a commercial use but rather a residential living unit. Therefore, the caretaker’s unit is excluded from the FAR calculations. The Inn’s total area is approximately 29,345 square feet. The maximum allowed FAR for the site is 32,500 square feet. Even if the 2,300 squarefoot caretaker’s unit is included in the FAR calculation the total square footage of 31,645 square-feet is below maximum allowed FAR.

Additionally, the project includes open balconies and hallways that total 6,730 square-feet on the first and second floors of the Inn. The open balconies and hallways are excluded from the FAR calculations. The definition of floor area per the development code includes any building that has a roof and is enclosed so as to provide shelter from the elements on three or more sides. The enclosed balconies in the project are included in the 29,345-square-foot calculation. The open balconies and hallways are not enclosed and do not fall under the definition of floor area and therefore are excluded from the calculations.

Sustainability
The city recently adopted the Green Building Standards Code which requires newly constructed buildings to be all electric. In support of the latest Building Code and Climate Action Plan, the proposed project will incorporate sustainability measures into its construction and operations. For example, the project will be required to provide rooftop photovoltaic arrays that would provide electricity for the Inn. The project will provide EV Capable and EV equipped parking stalls. The Building Code does allow for a limited number of exceptions for new nonresidential buildings containing kitchens to install commercial food heat-processing equipment served by fuel gas. One of the few exceptions allows a business to cook with combustion equipment based on evidence provided by the applicant. The applicant has indicated the need to cook with combustion equipment for the restaurant and has provided evidence for the need to cook with combustion equipment (see attachment 13).

Planning Commission Review – 2019
On November 5, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, heard public testimony, and unanimously voted to adopt Resolution 26-19 certifying the environmental document and approving the Entitlements. The Commission’s approval included the following additional modifications that are included in the proposed project as conditions of approval:

ATTACHMENT 1
687
20 1. Add an island in the driveway to discourage left-hand turns from the property onto Hansen Road and provide signage stating either no left turn or right-turn only.

2. Locate the property address on Arroyo Road, subject to clearance by fire/emergency services.

3. Eliminate the required standard sidewalk between Arroyo Road and the driveway.

City Council Review – 2019
As mentioned in the background section, on November 19, 2019, the City received an application appealing the Planning Commission’s approval of the project. The role of the City Council was to determine if the action taken by the Planning Commission complied with the rules. On January 13, 2020, the City Council adopted a resolution denying the appeal and affirmed the Planning Commission’s approval of the Wine Country Inn. The Council added the following two conditions that are included in the proposed project:

1. The project shall provide additional trees planted along Arroyo Road; a one-to-two ratio for all removed trees; and provide on-site planting for any removed trees; and

2. The maximum number of seats in the restaurant is 77-seats; any increase would require review and approval from the Planning Commission.

Applicant’s Statement Letter
The applicant has provided a brief letter for the City Council that describes their vision for the project (see attachment 12).

Public Comments
Public comments, letters, and emails in support and opposition to the project provided are included as attachment 6. These items will be provided in the Council’s review packet. Materials submitted after the packet deadline will be given to the City Council the night of the meeting, provided the materials are received to the City Clerk's Office by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.

ATTACHMENT 1
688
21 SUMMARY
The proposed Inn, restaurant, and caretaker’s residence are consistent with the goal of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, to “provide for limited small-scale commercial development that supports and enhances the South Livermore Valley’s image as a premium wine producing region”16. Wine-related commercial uses are critical to the longterm viability of the South Livermore Wine Region. The Inn and restaurant are appropriate uses on the proposed site, subject to the operational conditions recommended herein. The caretaker’s residence is compatible with the Inn and neighboring uses, providing consistent security and oversight. 16 SLVSP, p.4-3
ATTACHMENT 1
689
City of Livermore
This map is based on City of Livermore GIS
Information and reflects the most current information
at the time of this printing. The map is intended for
reference purposes only and the City and its staff is
not responsible for errors. 4,000 Livermore IT, GIS Services 666.7
1: NAD_1983_2011_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Ft_US 333.33 Feet 0 666.7
4/19/2023 9:23:43
AM
Prepared:

Notes:

Scale:

ATTACHMENT 2
690

PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
May 2, 2023

1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daniel Leary at 7:00 p.m., via Zoom teleconferencing and inperson.

ROLL CALL – Present were Chairperson Daniel Leary; Vice Chairperson Jacob Anderson, CM Steven Dunbar, CM Yolanda Fintschenko, CM Tracy Kronzak.

Also present were: Planning Manager Steve Stewart, Senior Assistant City Attorney Kim Cilley, Assistant Planner Jennifer Ackerman, Associate Planner Kam Purewal, Senior Civil Engineer Debbie Salgado, Principal Planner, Ben Murray, Division Clerk Michele Donley.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Chairperson Leary.

Chairperson Leary suggested re-arranging the meeting agenda to move Item 5.1 up to be heard before Item 4.1, or after the Consent Calendar. Commissioners did not support moving up Item 5.1.

2. OPEN FORUM
There were no speakers.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR – None.

4. PROJECT REVIEW

4.1 Project review for Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 22-005 to demolish the existing buildings comprising the Sens Extended-Stay Residence hotel and develop the site with a new, approximately 84,600 square foot Hyatt House hotel consisting of 130 rooms, 158 surface parking spaces, and associated landscaping and lighting.

Location: 1000 Airway Boulevard.

Recommendation:

Staff Recommends the Planning Commission:

1. Adopt a resolution finding that the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15332, Class 32, Infill Development.

ATTACHMENT 3
691

2. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 22-005, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.

Jennifer Ackerman, Assistant Planner, gave the staff report and overview of consideration to demolish the existing buildings comprising the Sens Extended-Stay Residence hotel and develop the site with a new, approximately 84,600 square foot Hyatt House hotel consisting of 130 rooms, 158 surface parking spaces, and associated landscaping and lighting at 1000 Airway Boulevard.

Marco Chu, developer/owner of the current building at 1000 Airway Boulevard, said they look forward to being approved, have gone through in detail all technical and architectural elements with staff, and are working closely with the Livermore Commission for the Arts to be sure their program will be implemented. They will be attending the 4th meeting with the Commission on May 8th, and thanked the Commission.

Dominic Vamosi, Intertech Design Services, introduced Zsalt Vamosi and said they are part of the design management team for the project. They also have Samir Khanna and Robert O’Dell with O’Dell Engineering for the civil aspects of the project. He thanked staff for her presentation and said they would be happy to answer any questions.

Chairperson Leary opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.

CM Kronzak referred to the scenic easement corridor line of sight measurements, and said it looked like the building was going to have a 42-foot peak that was just right at the edge of the 40-foot line of sight as measured from the scenic corridor. The way the first diagram on page 51 is drawn it looks very close to the 30-foot line and not the 40-foot line, but on the subsequent diagrams she asked and confirmed with Ms. Ackerman that this complies.

CM Kronzak said in some proposals there are noise abatement requirements for windows, and asked if any would apply to this project.

Planning Manager Steve Stewart said the applicant can talk about noise attenuation but based upon the analysis, there were no extra requirements called for other than the usual commercial construction.

CM Kronzak asked if the City requires solar panels for these types of developments. Ms.

Ackerman stated the City requires they reserve 15% of the roof area for future solar.

CM Kronzak asked if the non-potable water irrigation lines are out in this area, or purple lines. Mr. Stewart confirmed the City does, and generally the area north of I-580 is plumbed for purple pipe but he was unsure and deferred to Ms. Salgado.

Senior Civil Engineer Debbie Salgado said she believes the purple pipes are on North Canyons and not on the adjacent streets so they would not be connected at this time.

ATTACHMENT 3
692
CM Kronzak thanked the applicant for working with the Commission for the Arts in getting some nice statues there and thinks the hotel design will be a lovely improvement.

CM Fintschenko thanked Ms. Ackerman and applicants for this project. She asked and confirmed that signs will be reviewed separately from this application.

CM Fintschenko referred to the number of projects that had been proposed for the site and asked why there have been 3 separate projects. Ms. Ackerman explained the project has changed a couple of times due to shifting market and branding conditions in the hospitality industry.

Mr. Stewart added that likely another consideration was that the previous design also had a significant subterranean parking aspect to it. Along with construction materials and extensive grading, it almost tripled the cost of that type of parking. This design is for a single hotel with an efficient site layout.

CM Fintschenko lastly said she also had the same solar question and when visiting the site, and thinks the proposed structure will be a fantastic use of space and in keeping with the aesthetic of the region.

CM Dunbar referred to the number of trees that will be lost and paid out via in-lieu fees.

He also noticed the site is overparked relative to the minimum requirements. It is 1 space per room, plus 1 per 10 for the staff members and then some. He asked what are the standards for the tree removal permits that allow the applicant to do that in this case.

Mr. Vamosi stated staff posed this question as well and the way they arrived at the site design was based off a request from their client to get as many rooms as possible within the hotel. This has a direct relationship to the parking requirement of 1.1 rooms and 1 per 10 for staff. They maximized the site for parking they can have now and in the future if they needed to add more rooms to the overall hotel layout, and wanted to have that flexibility as well to ensure they could meet the request of their client.

CM Dunbar asked if they could re-arrange the hotel rooms to be higher but still meet the parking requirements of the City, and Mr. Vamosi confirmed. Regarding tree removal permits, he asked and confirmed with Ms. Ackerman that the arborist recommended removal of all trees to accommodate the project. Many were in poor condition and per the City’s ordinance, a ratio is in place to replace them. The project is going to retain as many as they can and then replace those they cannot on site. Anything left over will be paid inlieu.

Mr. Stewart noted that staff refers these out to different City departments including Public Works and an arborist on staff, and he might have different recommendations but staff received no comments for this project.

ATTACHMENT 3
693
CM Dunbar voiced support of the plan going to the Commission for the Arts. On one of the renderings shows a trash enclosure which was partially screened. He asked and confirmed with Mr. Vamosi that it is the intent to carry that level of screening around the rest of the enclosure.

CM Dunbar asked and confirmed the project has 157 parking spaces which meets the standard.

CM Dunbar voiced support of the bike racks proposed to be used, and asked if the Cal Green code for long-term bike parking was covered in the requirements for approval.

Mr. Stewart said it is covered by the Cal Green Code, but staff spoke with the Building Official and it was his interpretation that a hotel is more of a residential use and would not be subject to the condition. Staff can look at this more closely and the applicant has expressed an openness to adding them, if required.

CM Dunbar commented that he thinks this nicely bookends across from the Sage development in terms of its design, thinks this provides consistency but does not exactly match all other hotels in the area, and he can make all findings for the project.

Vice Chairperson Anderson asked if this development will be all-electric.

Zsalt Vamosi said all electric appliances are within the units. They will have a commercial kitchen that will have natural gas as well as VRF systems.

Vice Chairperson Anderson said bike lockers will be important in this project, given the transit-oriented area and echoed other questions and responses by Commissioners. He was not thrilled with the exterior design, but enjoyed the interior layout, thought the rooms were nicely laid out, said hotels are very much needed in the City, and he can make all findings.

Chairperson Leary thanked the applicant for his investment in Livermore, asked staff to display the site plan, and said the LMC states that, “In any case a row of parking is parallel to the side of a building which is used for public entry, a pedestrian walkway shall be provided at intervals not greater than 75 feet.” It repeats this again in Chapter 5, Guideline

4.5.2; “Large commercial development shall include at least 1 separated pedestrian pathway through the parking area to the main entrance.” He also referred to the storm drainage. There is a basin showing as a light green area.

The storm drain comes on both sides and is a bubble up in the basin, which he was surprised about. In the details, it shows a 12” dry well and the grate is up 3 or 4 feet above the bio-retention so it would be standing water in the pipes. However, he could not find a standard that says bubble ups are not allowed.

ATTACHMENT 3
694
He also referred to the view corridor, and hopes staff to ensure the elevation is accurate from the freeway as the scenic corridor is important. He would also like a condition regarding the walkway unless he was not correct on the standards.

CM Dunbar asked if the design standard was from the General Plan or Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. Chairperson Leary said it was not in the Specific Plan, which is silent. He asked if this supersedes everything in the LMC. There is one part regarding parking that refers to the design guidelines, but he asked if this can be enforced or not.

Mr. Stewart said if the design standards and guidelines are objective, staff can enforce those. He asked if he was referring to Section 4.5.2 in the design standards and guidelines. Chairperson Leary said the LMC talks about it if it is parallel there must be a pathway all the way through on 4.04.07 of the LMC. Chapter 5 guidelines 4.5.2 includes this, and it states it again on guideline 3.2.8 on page 71 which says it twice and has a picture.

Mr. Stewart said those are guidelines on internal circulation for commercial development so those are not required but recommended. He said he will look in the LMC to find it.

CM Dunbar said he also noted the lack of walkway to the west as well, but did not have a code reference for it. It is access to a freeway overpass to the west, but it is a TOD as well. He would prefer adding it if possible. Chairperson Leary and Vice Chairperson Anderson also agreed.

CM Dunbar asked if the Commission can enforce guidelines, as this is not an HAA project.

Mr. Stewart confirmed.

Vice Chairperson Anderson motioned, and CM Dunbar seconded. CM Dunbar commented that in moving forward on future proposals he said the lack of trees on site was disappointing and he would hope that applicants could do better than that in the future.

MOTION BY ANDERSON, SECONDED BY DUNBAR, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION

FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), SECTION 15303, CLASS 32 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES, FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT; AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN DESIGN REVIEW (SPDR) 22-005, SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

AYES: ANDERSON, DUNBAR, FINTSCHENKO, KRONZAK, LEARY.

NOES: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

ATTACHMENT 3
695

4.2 Site Plan Design Review Modification (SPDRM) 22-017 to construct an administration building and maintenance facility at an existing Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority site at the southeast corner of Discovery Drive and Atlantis Street
Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission:

1. Adopt a resolution finding that the project is within the scope of the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Oaks Business Park, State Clearinghouse #2001032069.

2. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Design Review Modification (SPDRM) 22-017, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.

Jennifer Ackerman, Assistant Planner, gave the staff report and overview of the request for Site Plan Design Review Modification to construct an administration building and maintenance building on their existing site at 875 Atlantis Drive.

Nate Brewers, Capital Projects Manager, Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority, introduced his team from Kinley Horn, Heller Manis, and said LAVTA has a primary transit source for this entire area and over 36 years of operation, has established a track record for a successful operation and fiscal accountability in the provision of public transportation services to the communities it serves, and the LAVTA Board includes representatives from east of the Tri-Valley cities and Alameda County, including 2 Livermore Councilmembers.

He spoke about their operations and maintenance facility built in 1991 which was designed for 43 buses, 8 vans, 75 parking spaces for administrative operations and employees, and today LAVTA operates 65 buses, dispatches 8 paratransit vehicles and employs over 125 people, with more growth forecasted over the long-term. The present site cannot be expanded due to other occupied properties surrounding the area, and he spoke of leased site for additional vehicles, and began developing the Atlantis Drive facility mainly with federal earmarks than available for this purpose.

LAVTA has had conceptualized plans for the facility for almost a decade and the transition to zero emissions bus fleet creates the right time to implement, and started moving from concepts into more detailed planning 3 years ago. He then spoke about application processes and improving the design to meet the local context of the Oaks Business Park.

The project has received some grant funding with the transition to a zero emission bus fleet. Applications for additional grant funding have been submitted and he was available for questions as well as his consulting team.

Chairperson Leary opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.

ATTACHMENT 3
696
CM Fintschenko thanked staff and applicant for their presentation, thinks it is a worthy project, and she questioned how the noise standard was established.

Mr. Stewart stated when the Oaks EIR was developed there was analysis on noise attenuation like other master assessments on traffic demand. Given the General Industrial zoning in a business commercial park, those standards are contained in the EIR. Certain uses are consistent with those noise standards so additional studies are not required.

These zones are appropriate with these types of noise generators.

CM Dunbar said he works for Gillig Bus but does not have any financial interest in this project or in Gillig Bus. Beyond that, he is glad this is being done, hopes it is a nice place to work, and hopes this allows added transportation to the community. The project matches the style and design guidelines of the neighborhood, it is below the trip generation standards for this facility, he can make all of the findings, and hopes the nearby trail system completes and connects to the rest of town in the future.

CM Kronzak said she did not see solar in the proposal and confirmed if it was also subject to the 15% roof reservation. Regarding the irrigation water, she confirmed the purple pipes do not go out to the site. She also commended the applicant for what they are attempting to do.

Regarding the water features, this is not something in the General Plan and referred to the Climate Action Plan, one of which principle is to improve resilience to extreme heat events and to improve water conservation. There will be days when it will be 116 and 120 and water evaporating from a decorative feature. She asked if the applicant would consider using another aesthetic feature aside from another water feature. Beyond that, she thanked representatives.

Michael Mowery, Kimley-Horn and Associates, said in the planning phase that part of the building and outdoor area is an amenity area for the operators and this is what has led to the fountain design for a relaxing feature. They understand water conservation and if removing it is more consistent with the City’s requirements, they can do so.

CM Kronzak thanked Mr. Mowery and knows LAVTA is an integral part of the Tri-Valley.

Vice Chairperson Anderson questioned why hydrogen over electric battery.

Mr. Mowery said LAVTA did a zero emissions bus study starting the same time they did the site planning for this project and looking at whether an electric fleet or hydrogen fuel cell fleet or a mix of the 2 would best serve their specific fleet. The ultimate finding from the study was 100% hydrogen fuel cell bus fleet was the right solution for LAVTA given there are longer routes serving multiple agencies and cities.

Vice Chairperson Anderson asked if in the future if it is more economical to be electric, the site could be modified to handle that.

ATTACHMENT 3
697
Mr. Mowery said there are not just the charging of the fuel but the vehicles themselves.

LAVTA’s plan is to start purchasing a fuel cell fleet and not an EV based fleet, so this would require them to change-over some of their fleet in the future if EV were to predominantly come forward as a better technology and it would also take some site infrastructure as well as the bus fleet itself.

Vice Chairperson Anderson said he likes the nice design for an industrial building and public transit is vital. He believes electric will be the future, but he voiced support of the project and can make the findings.

Chairperson Leary voiced support of the site and its amenities, said the area is filling out at Atlantis and Challenger and Discovery, and he thinks 1700 yards of fill was going to be moved in and out. He thinks it would be good to take extra care for any erosion control for the project, given many basins serve the site and roadway. He questioned the purple pipe question.

Mr. Mowery said there is purple pipe routing on Atlantis and they are planning to use it as fire water. They were working with City staff on supply if it would be available for landscape irrigation, but what is shown on the plan is domestic connection for irrigation which is right next to the recycled water connection, so they can make that change in design to use that facility if the supply is available.

Chairperson Leary asked if recycled water has the same flow for fire protection. Mr.

Mowery said most recycled water lines have a slightly lower pressure rating, but it still will flow. They will do a pressure test before making the design for fireproofing, and if deficient, they will change over to domestic supply. They do not yet have a fire protection consultant on board yet, and this will be in the next phase of design.

Chairperson Leary said on Atlantis Court he wondered if this is a truck stop area with trucks there overnight in front of the site. He knows this occurs in Silicon Valley where no vehicles a certain length can park. Ms. Ackerman stated these trucks are waiting for deliveries.

Mr. Stewart said anecdotally there is some overnight parking there so this occurs in the Airway Business Park between Airway and I-580 in the 24 Hour Fitness neighborhood. If it becomes a problem, staff can post signage. He does think there is also the delivery aspect of it.

CM Fintschenko said she visited the site Sunday and there were no trucks there at 4:00 p.m.

ATTACHMENT 3
698
CM Kronzak referred to purple piping and putting the irrigation and fire on the system, she asked if there needs to be a recommendation or amendment. Ms. Ackerman stated there is a condition of approval that states they will connect to the reclaimed water system, as available.

CM Dunbar recommended having a water feature indoors versus outdoors, but he did not want to provide any amendment for the motion.

MOTION BY FINTSCHENKO, SECONDED BY KRONZAK, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION

FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CERTIFIED

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE OAKS BUSINESS PARK, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2001032069; AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION (SPDRM) 22-017, SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

AYES: ANDERSON, DUNBAR, FINTSCHENKO, KRONZAK, LEARY.

NOES: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.1 Hearing to consider rescission of Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 19-004 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP)19-006 for the Wine Country Inn; an Addendum to the 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1996052025); Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 23-001 to amend the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (Specific Plan) to clarify a 50- foot setback area from Hansen Road; Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 23-001 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 23-002 for the development of commercial site 5D2 (Wine Country Inn) at the southwest corner of Arroyo Road and Hansen Road.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take two actions:

1. Adopt the attached Resolution, recommending the City Council:
a. Rescind Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 19-004 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19-006 for the Livermore Wine Country Inn;

2. Adopt the attached Resolutions, recommending the City Council:
a. Adopt an Addendum to the 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1996052025); and b. Approve Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 23-001, Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 23-001 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 23-002 for the Livermore Wine Country Inn.

ATTACHMENT 3
699
Kam Purewal, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and overview of the hearing to consider rescission of Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 19-004 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP)19-006 for the Wine Country Inn; an Addendum to the 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1996052025); Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 23-001 to amend the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (Specific Plan) to clarify a 50-foot setback area from Hansen Road; Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 23-001 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 23-002 for the development of commercial site 5D2 (Wine Country Inn) at the southwest corner of Arroyo Road and Hansen Road.

Senior Assistant City Attorney Kim Cilley gave a brief summary of the litigation involving the prior approval of the Wine Country Inn project. She described Friends of South Livermore’s filing of a petition in Superior Court alleging violations of CEQA and planning and land use law, denial of the mandamus petition and ruled in favor of the City, Friends of South Livermore’s filing of an appeal which in December 2022, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision on one issue. It found that the City Council’s approval of the project must be reversed because the 50 foot setback in the PUD conflicted with the 100 foot setback in Policy 4.7 of the Specific Plan. The Court found that the 100-foot setback was fundamental and mandatory.

In late 2019/early 2020, the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council approved the project with a 50 foot setback from Hansen Road. The 50 foot setback in the PUD was adopted in 2001. Since that time, the City has interpreted the Specific Plan and the PUD when read together to require a 50-foot setback from Hansen Road for commercial sites 5.D.1 and 5.D.2. Second, there are diagrams in the existing Specific Plan showing that a 100-foot setback was required on Arroyo Road; however, a smaller, narrower setback is shown for the future entry road onto Site 5.D.2.

Finally, in 1997 when the Specific Plan was adopted, Hansen Road was a private road.

The 100-foot setback applied to public roadways. Therefore, it was a reasonable interpretation that the 100-foot setback did not apply to Hansen Road.

Having said all of that, the City is now in the position of having to respond to the decision of the Court of Appeal. Although the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the PUD permit required a 50-foot setback from Hansen Road, the court ruled that the PUD permit, a lower level planning document than the Specific Plan, could not amend a Specific Plan.

Rather, only a Specific Plan Amendment can amend a Specific Plan.

Today, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is to clarify that the 50-foot setback from Hansen Road, approved by the City Council in 2001 should apply to commercial sites

5.D.1 and 5.D.2. A 100-foot setback continues to apply to Arroyo Road. The 50-foot setback from Hansen Road has not changed. It is the same setback adopted by the City Council 22 years ago. Rather, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is to clarify that it is the City’s intent to have a 50-foot setback from Hansen Road for commercial sites 5.D.1 and 5.D.2.

ATTACHMENT 3
700
It should be noted that the Planning Commission is not the decision-making body for the item. Rather, the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council.

Based on the court’s ruling from a procedural standpoint, staff is requesting the Commission take two separate actions. The first is to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council rescind the prior entitlements which were approved in 2020. Second, is to adopt resolutions based on the project presented this evening.

Mr. Purewal stated the policy in question is the existing policy 4-7 which requires building setbacks for commercial uses shall be 100 feet from road frontages except for commercial site 3.A which shall be 25 feet, and all setback areas shall be planted in the vineyards.

Staff is proposing to revise this policy to follow the zoning standards. Staff is proposing that the building setbacks for commercial uses shall be 100 feet from the property line except for commercial sites 3.A which will be 25 feet, and commercial sites 5.D.1 and

5.D.2; the project site, which shall be 50 feet from Hansen Road and this follows the zoning standards.

All setback areas shall be planted with vineyards or orchards except for the 50-foot setback area from Hansen Road. Commercial sites 5.D.1 and 5.D.2 may include parking, landscaping, and a trash enclosure.

He then presented information to clear confusion and misinformation about the project, which mirrored the Senior Assistant City Attorney’s statements. He presented images showing Hansen Road existed to the east of Arroyo and is shown as a future entry road to the west of Arroyo. The image to the right shows a prototypical site plan and as shown, the 100 foot buffer remains along Arroyo which he pointed to.

The cottages are shown with a reduced setback and there is no reference to a 100-foot setback for the future entry road. The existing language for Policy 4-7 does not clearly state that there must be a 100-foot agriculture setback from public roadways that are not yet in existence at the time the Specific Plan was adopted. Furthermore, the PUD permit was approved in 2001 and sets out the commercial development standards for sites 5.D.1 and 5.D.2 and requires a 50-foot setback from Hansen Road. The 2001 PUD zoning standards cast out on the claim that a 100-foot setback from Hansen Road is required.

The PUD standards have stood for 20 years without challenge. The Specific Plan amendment is proposed to remove any confusion and clarify the setback issue from Hansen Road.

The project involves the physical development of a commercial site 5.D.2. The proposal is to develop the vacant approximately 3 acre site with an approximately 29,345 s.f., 2- story building for a 30-room Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn. The proposed site plan shows the 100-foot setback along Arroyo Road which is required, a 50-foot setback from Hansen Road highlighted. The actual building is located approximately 80 feet away from Hansen Road. The project includes a 77-seat restaurant and a conditionally permitted caretaker’s unit. The site is allowed to have a 100-seat restaurant.

ATTACHMENT 3
701
In 2019, the Planning Commission added conditions of approval requiring the project to provide right-turn only heading out of the site, and he pointed to a median there which would force visitors leave from the right-turn only and head down to Arroyo Road.

Additionally, the Planning Commission requested that the address to the site should be on Arroyo Road for GPS routing and the address is off Arroyo Road, and remove the sidewalk along Hansen Road and provide an on-site path to the trail, which he displayed.

Additionally, the Inn is required to provide 61 parking spaces and it provides 65 parking spaces. There is a total of 7 EV-capable spaces, 15 EV-ready spaces, and 2 EV chargers provided on site. There are 12 bike spaces provided which include 4 bike lockers and 8 bike racks.

A traffic consultant completed a traffic impact study for the project in 2019. The study was prepared before the COVID-19 pandemic. It is likely that the traffic impacts analyzed were higher than current traffic impacts. The study concluded that traffic impacts are less than significant and no additional mitigation is required. The 2019 traffic impact study references overflow parking and a sidewalk along Hansen Road, but the proposed project does not include any overflow parking or the sidewalk along Hansen Road.

The project is consistent with the Specific Plan and architectural standards and guidelines for commercial buildings and provides a Spanish Mediterranean architectural style. The scale of the 2-story building is appropriate for the site and conforms to the 35-foot maximum height limit. The landscape plan shows the planting of 109 new trees on site.

Trees and shrub species on the landscape plan are consistent with the plant palette encouraged in the Specific Plan. Landscape features are used for the project site to establish an appealing entry sequence for visitors. Staff has added a condition of approval for any vines along Arroyo Road within the 100-foot agricultural buffer that are removed during construction and they must be replaced prior to occupancy.

An entrance to the Wine Country Inn from Arroyo Road was requested by some opponents during the previous administrative process. An Arroyo Road entrance is not recommended by staff for several reasons. An entrance from Arroyo Road would create pedestrian and traffic safety concerns due to higher speed limits on Arroyo Road as compared to Hansen Road. A new left-turn lane would have to be created on Arroyo Road which would be near the existing left turn lane from Arroyo onto Hansen Road likely causing additional traffic concerns and an increase of rear-end collisions.

Third, there is a slope easement along Arroyo Road with substantial difference in grade between Arroyo Road and the project site. Sight distance would be a concern for vehicles entering and leaving the site and there would be limited visibility for pedestrians using the existing trail system. LARPD concluded that the entrance to the property should remain on Hansen Road to avoid impacting the regional trail. For these reasons, this entrance is the safest access point for the project.

ATTACHMENT 3
702
In conclusion, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take 2 actions; adopt the attached resolution recommending the City Council rescind Site Plan Design Review and CUP for the Livermore Wine Country Inn; and adopt the attached resolutions recommending the City Council adopt an addendum to the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan EIR; and approve a Specific Plan Amendment, Site Plan Design Review and CUP for the Livermore Wine Country Inn.

Unfortunately ,the applicant could not make it to the meeting due to illness but staff is available for any questions.

Chairperson Leary asked for clarifying questions from Commissioners.

CM Kronzak said the site plans were very small. With regards to the area within the 50- foot setback that contains the trash enclosure. She asked if this is below the level of the street. Mr. Purewal confirmed.

Chairperson Leary opened the public comment period.

Ann Young, Friend of South Livermore, said since the City is redoing the South Livermore Plan she asked if this sets a precedent for future building sites in Livermore or whether other sites can be amended. If the City is going to amend, she asked for the entrance at Arroyo Road to be amended which was in the South Livermore Plan. They disagree with that because they could have a great entrance off Arroyo and another winery has done a great job on Whitmore Road where the average speed is above 50 mph and no worse than Arroyo.

Regarding the incline, since the hotel will remove 10 feet of soil and completely level off the top of the hill, the incline can be fixed and the cost is more than their construction would be allotted for the entrance, but an Arroyo entrance meets all requirements. She disagrees with the analysis in Attachment 20. The hotel level would only be lowered less than 5” extending all the way down instead of ending at the agricultural setback. This would lower the entrance level 2 feet to match with the street and produce a final slope of 10% which would meet the fire entry’s requirement. Lastly, other parcels marked for development along Arroyo will also have their entrance off Arroyo and it is already in the plans. LARPD trails have similar issues with traffic and crossing, and lanes can be modified to work.

Peter Young, Friend of South Livermore, asked Commissioners to address the defamatory comments made in the letter submitted by Ms. Boss, Attachment 17, that makes accusations that are unfounded and false. They respectfully request the Planning Commission ask Ms. Boss to retract the last 2 paragraphs on the bottom of page 4 and paragraphs 1-5 on page 5 in Attachment 17, and that she be admonished to refrain from any further scurrilous attacks on them individually or on the Friends of South Livermore in the future.

ATTACHMENT 3
703
In returning to the hotel proposal, the staff report does not mention the hotel proposed in 2018 had overflow parking located in the 100-foot agricultural setback from Arroyo Road in conflict with the South Livermore Plan. The City Council subsequently prohibited the overflow parking in Condition B.24 “The overflow parking shall be removed from the 100- foot agricultural buffer along Arroyo Road. In the current proposal, there is no request for overflow parking. The conditions for approval states, “Any vines in the 100 foot agricultural buffer along Arroyo Road that are removed during construction must be replaced prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The problem is that the location of the vines is not specified. The landscaping plan they reviewed a few moments ago shows empty space where the vines would go. It also shows the vines start closer to the trail than in the original satellite version which are further away. Therefore, he asked for a condition that the vines will be replanted in the same location that they are now and that no overflow parking is allowed in the agricultural buffer.

This also brings up the issue of the large, 33’x29’ EVA turnout that extends into the agricultural buffer in violation of the SLP. This project has been allowed to expand beyond the constraints imposed by the plan. He asked why overflow parking was requested.

Clues come from the hotel website that advertises a “hair salon with day spa and gift shop” both of which would require additional permanent parking spaces to accommodate outside customers and not included in the proposal. Also, despite the declaration that the conference room will only be used for incidental meetings, the owner advertises meeting space for up to 100 for activity such as award banquets, and outside visitors, and hotel guests.

Kendall Smith referred to the 100-foot setback and 1997. When the South Livermore Specific Plan was developed it had a 100-foot setback, and in 2001 was the PUD for the City. They really look at the intent of what the 100-foot setback was. This is wine country and they want to have a nice farmhouse feel, relaxing, and the existing wineries which is set back and inviting and appealing. The are now talking about a 2-story hotel that is not a Wine Country Inn. The plan presented before was cottages, so this is a very different type of structure. If you take away 50 feet from 100 feet here and you have a 2-story hotel, parking, garbage bins, etc., it will look very different. He put tape on the wall showing 50 feet and this is what the City will give up. Once you give that up it is gone forever. This also sets a precedent for other developments in the future.

He referred to the entrance and said if it is approved for Hansen Road, the other business across the street will have an entrance, and people will try to go back and forth between those two, and people will violate the right turn only restriction. He referred to the gas station which says no left turn, which is violated all day long. He asked not to recommend to the City Council to reduce the setback. It is intended to have a wine country atmosphere and we will lose that forever.

ATTACHMENT 3
704
Dennis Elchesen, 52 year resident, said he and his wife love Livermore, especially its vineyard and scenic beauty. They support the concept of a Wine Country Inn at the corner of Hansen and Arroyo, but have some issues. When they bought their house in 2003, they were assured by the home builder and City that any development on Sites 5.D.1 and

5.D.2 had to be in full compliance with the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan. If amended, this would be only the 3rd time it happened since 1997. To amend the plan, it would allow for sections of vineyards to be removed and would cut the building setbacks by half. Both actions are prohibited by the Specific Plan. This amendment is contrary to the letter, spirit, and intent of the plan. He asked the Commission to reject the amendment and invite the applicant to submit a design that conforms to the plan. The main problem with the design is shortage of on-site parking. The owner wants to hold classes, spa, salon, meetings, and other special events, which would overflow parking. Traffic has nowhere to go except on Hansen and Arroyo where parking is illegal and unsafe.

The applicant’s design could be modified to be compliant with the plan. The applicant’s residence and swimming pool could be removed, special events prohibited, the building’s large footprint could be reduced by eliminating its central courtyard. This would allow for 100-foot setbacks on both streets, avoid the need to remove any vines, and provide adequate parking space. They cannot see the Inn from where they live and it is not about his backyard but Livermore’s front yard and center to Livermore’s wine country, and he asked the Commission to make the right decision.

Pat McMenamin said he and his wife, Madeline oppose the proposed amendment to the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan and oppose the reapproval of the Livermore Wine Country Inn. They do not object to an inn being built on this site, understood one could be built on the corner of Arroyo and Hansen when they purchased their homes. They believe the illustrations of the inn included in the plan of single-story cottages positioned across open space and a central restaurant building, but the current hotel design is not that. Currently, proposed is to amend the plan to reduce the 100 foot setback of vineyard to 50 feet to accommodate a parking lot and large trash dumpster which would not be required if the hotel design met the restrictions clearly defined in the Specific Plan which was designed to preserve the area’s unique rural and scenic qualities and to expand viticulture acreage.

This proposed amendment would seriously diminish the ability to meet these stated goals.

The Specific Plan was the product of many years of effort, was heralded nationwide in many communities, yet the City now proposes to recommend significant changes in what they believe as a single meeting. The proposed hotel is not what they understood as even possible under the specifics of the Specific Plan and they oppose the amendment and reapproval of the hotel, and asked the Commission to vote “no” on the amendment and reapproval of this hotel.

ATTACHMENT 3
705
Yanira Guzman, resident, said she would happily support a small business, family-owned wine country hotel, and inns are doing very well and are always booked which is a great thing and would like to see that flourish for others here that want to continue to support local businesses.

Dennis O’Brien said his first concern is that the City would consider any change to the Specific Plan without actively engaging with residents of South Livermore Valley which has not occurred. He received no notice of this meeting, lives in the neighborhood that will be impacted, and he only heard from some people who did receive notice. He would like to see active engagement. South Livermore Valley Specific Plan is a contract between the residents of Livermore and the City. The City cannot just change a contract without actively engaging without residents or changing the plan without residents’ concurrence, and they do not concur.

The setback between Hansen and Arroyo are codified in the Specific Plan for a good reason. They support the Country Inn vision. The proposed changes from 100 foot setback is a message to the residents, to the Planning Commission, and to the City Council that this hotel is just too big. It has a huge footprint, will be an eyesore, and a distraction. He objects to the idea of Hansen Road not having a 100-foot setback to the hotel property. It is a public road now and it deserves that 100-foot setback as others do.

This is an exception that is dangerous, especially when the City does not have concurrence from residents in the area. He asked the Commission to reconsider.

Mark Rinetti said he and his wife, Diane live at 1784 Hansen Road. He voiced concerns with this proposed Wine Country Inn. They knew about it when they moved in 20 years ago, experienced the detail and direction of the Specific Plan. It was Deer Ridge originally and now it is Las Positas Winery right across from their house. They had a great experience with the Planning Commission, the City Council, and everyone and they stuck to the Specific Plan as designated and they turned out to be a great asset to the neighborhood and to the wine country industry.

This proposal is an on-going turning of the tide. There was challenge after challenge and while he likes the design and they knew something like this was coming, but the problem is for site 5.D.2 this project is too massive. It is uncomfortable and does not look right, and neighbors are not against the developer trying to get the amendment made, but it is about the enhancement of the whole South Livermore. After 20 years, they have followed the plan which has worked wonderful. One developer wants to come in, but this is just the beginning of the slippery slope. If given to one, then they will go to site 5.D.1. Before you know it, there is over-development and the City misled everyone on the direction for the future of their families in enjoyment of this special area. He asked the Commission to reconsider this. The project cannot go on this site with their design with all the parking, the house, pool, etc. and be conducive to the site plan.

ATTACHMENT 3
706
Donna Cabanne said she respectfully asks for a 30-day continuance. A lot of new materials for this item were only released last Friday. This includes an amendment to the Specific Plan of 400 pages, a new Inn application or a 375 page EIR addendum, new drawings, and attachments. Without a continuance, the public is denied adequate time to read and consider materials. Some neighbors were not even noticed and the City risks making an uninformed decision on an important issue. She urged the Commission to deny the amendment to the Specific Plan. The Court of Appeals ruled the 100-foot setbacks are mandatory, fundamental, and not open to subjective interpretation. She asked why is the 100-foot setback considered the lynch pin of the plan. The setback policy is the means by which the plan achieves its goals of preserving and enhancing the rural wine country character and image of the area. The amendment would impede and erode those goals.

A limited vine planting would seriously degrade the visual resources of the area, and they are trading vines for parking and trash enclosures. She asked if this is the right image.

The plan is designed to preserve the area’s unique rural and scenic qualities, and this amendment would negate efforts that have been in place for 20 years. The plan is designed to expand the viticultural acreage and this amendment would reduce and devalue it with parking spaces and trash enclosures.

The 170 homes helped fund the original plan by paying a fee of approximately $10,000 when they purchased their homes which is a considerable investment, demonstrating they value vineyards. She asked to think carefully about the long-term consequences of changing an entire plan to suit one developer. She asked why should arbitrary exceptions be made. Once the setback is changed, it will seriously weaken the viticultural acreage the plan is supposed to protect. This is a slippery slope and others will ask for equal treatment if this change is made. It will set a precedent and the City will not have the moral authority to turn down other applicants. She asked to change the configuration of the Inn, and she urged the Commission to deny the amendment, the new application, and addendum to the 1997 EIR.

Jean King urged the Planning Commission not to support the proposed changes to the Specific Plan, not approve the Livermore Wine Country Inn as presented, and not approve the requested electric kitchen equipment exemption. She was a community activist when the South Livermore Specific Plan was created and there was much work done meeting with stakeholders and compromises made to come up with the plans. The standards and guidelines of the plan were supported by citizens and adopted by the City. She served on the Board and was Chair of the Tri-Valley Conservancy, and has supported the South Livermore Valley plans and its protection and promotion of open spaces and agriculture.

Item 17; the applicant’s statement letter, has a list of previous supporters of the Inn project. She is number 6 on that list. She thanked Michelle Boss for reaching out to her and others when she was first working on the project, supports a Wine Country Inn on the location as did others, and said an inn in this location is in the Specific Plan but the present inn design does not adhere to the plan as a ruling of the Appellant Court.

ATTACHMENT 3
707
The location is not in a total commercial area. It is in a buffer area between urban and open spaces of the South Livermore Valley. The Specific Plan states, “The design of commercial facilities shall be consistent with the rural wine country character of the area.” She asked the Commission to not approve the proposed amendments in Item 9. The plan should not be changed to change to fit the inn. The inn should conform to the plan. They are trying to fit too much in the space available. The setback requirement on this location should not be changed and the setback on the Hansen access street should remain 100 feet and required to be planted with vineyards and orchards and not include parking and a trash enclosure.

Item 18 asks for electric kitchen equipment exception. The reasons given are not factual.

The Independent Consumer’s Union report highly recommends induction for energy efficiency, speed, and precision cooking, safety, absence of toxic fumes, absence of fossil fuels, and funding from the Inflation Reduction Act. This is another instance when the applicant does not want to conform to the City’s rules but wants the City to conform to their rules.

John Stein said he has lived in Livermore for 53 years and his name is on the South Livermore Specific Plan. He spent 2½ years helping to write that plan. It involved compromises between various groups, the Sierra Club, Zone 7, LARPD, the City, Ruby Hill, Shea Homes, and 80 individual property owners. There were several compromises and it was adopted without any legal proceedings. The intent of the original plan was the 100-foot setback should be along major streets so tourists would get the impression this was a rural versus urban or suburban area. There was no intent that side streets should have a 100-foot setback whether for commercial or residential development. He thinks the Davis Study says if the wineries and vineyards cannot survive economically, there will not be a South Livermore Specific Plan. In the long term, it will be roofs and solar collectors and cemeteries just like North Livermore. It is important to balance the needs between the economics of the people who developed and the desire for no change or for a totally rural area.

As part of the plan, they adopted 700 homes, each of which paid $25,000 and donated an acre per acre of open space. They required the planting of vineyards and maintenance for 25 years which is up. So, if they do not do something to increase tourism and provide for the on-site sale of wines, events, and tasting rooms, in 10 years they will not have a South Livermore Plan, so he urged the Commission to support the recommendations of staff.

Paul Mansfield thanked the Commission for the time spent on the Planning Commission, which is challenging and thankless. He is strongly against changing the setback on Hansen Road. The original 100-foot setback requirement has been in place for over 25 years, was authored by experts, and ensures that the beauty of South Livermore is preserved.

ATTACHMENT 3
708
The Commission is now being asked to make an exception so the requirements of the Specific Plan comply with the developer’s architectural drawings. With all due respect, this seems entirely backwards to him. He thinks as other projects come along, the Commission will find any exception made here tonight will make it that much more difficult to deny other exceptions no matter how far-fetched they might be. A second concern is that when he reviewed the plans, the most stunning thing to him personally was not the location of the parking or visually galling design or the trash pickup point right on Hansen, or even the odd decision to tuck the restaurant away in the least appealing northeast corner of the project. What stood out the most is the amount of earth that needs to be moved to make the land comply to the developer’s will.

The plans show that the east side of the property currently has a maximum elevation of 550 feet. The project as proposed has an elevation of 540 feet. In other words, 10 feet of earth will be scraped off the top of the hill to make it comply with this project. On the south and west side, the project will need a buildup over that goes as high as 14 feet to bring the lower elevations of the property up to grade. The results of all this is going to be the exact opposite of what the Specific Plan intended. Therefore, he asked to think carefully about all aspects of whether this large project is truly appropriate for the small lot at this location. Once the heavy equipment starts scraping off the top of the hill, it cannot be undone, and all of Livermore will be shackled to this invasive, unviable project. Residents are counting on the Commission tonight to uphold the requirements in the South Livermore Specific Plan and he asked to deny the change to the Hansen setback.

John Nunes said he became aware of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan in the late 90’s and it is the specific reason he moved here from Danville. He respectfully requests the Commission deny the General Plan Amendment related to the plan and deny the developer application until such time the project is revised to comply with the vision and intent of the plan which was the product of several years of thoughtful imagination and hard work for many stakeholders, including residents, City officials, wine growers and makers, the business community, and many others. It was to preserve the area in an historic wine-growing region and promote the South Livermore Valley as a premier destination for visitors. Any General Plan Amendment to alter this vision of the original architects of the South Livermore Specific Plan needs to be carefully scrutinized and not tinkered lightly to appease one single developer.

It is called the Specific Plan because its vision is very specific. Policy 4.7 states building setbacks for commercial uses shall be 100 feet from road frontages except for commercial sites 3A which shall be 25 feet. All setback areas shall be planted with vineyards and orchards. There is no exception to that. The PUD which was discussed by Planning staff came about 4 years later with a 50 foot setback. The Specific Plan was already in place for 4 years. The amendment is not merely a clarification as Planning staff claims.

ATTACHMENT 3
709
In the matter before the Commission, the California Appeals Court ruled on behalf of the Friends of South Livermore that the Specific Plan 100-foot setback policy is mandatory, fundamental, and specific land use policy does not permit discretionary enforcement and concluded the City Council’s arbitrary setback of 50 feet on Hansen Road was legally erroneous and an abuse of the City Council’s discretion. Right below Policy 4.7 is 4.8. It states, “The design of commercial facilities shall be consistent with the rural wine country character of the area.” He asked the Commission if replacing a 100-foot setback planted with vineyards or orchards with a 50-foot setback encroached upon by an asphalt parking lot and garbage dumpsters is consistent with this rural wine country character of the areas as depicted in Policy 4A. He asked to be mindful that if the amendment is not pulled, it will set a bad precedent for similarly situated land owners to apply for much the same land use changes to their own benefit.

Lastly, Hansen Road is designed to be a narrow neighborhood collector street, is particularly narrow where the proposed entry and exit to the Wine Country Inn is designated because it is split with a planted medium divide with no bike lanes or pedestrian walkways. He suggested walking that area where the medium divide is where the exit and entrance is to Hansen Road. He asked to deny the amendment and request conditions of the application be changed to comply with the Specific Plan.

CM Dunbar said with regards to access to Arroyo Road, he is the bike specialist here. He does not believe it is appropriate to cross at a railroad. Hansen Road is the appropriate roadway for reasons delineated in the staff report and thinks slowing people down on Hansen Road is appropriate.

There were questions raised tonight and in emails regarding this design plan. They have a condition of approval that the current design does not seem to show exact compliance with, but will be enforced which is 100 feet of vineyards on the east side. He asked if it is correct to say that will be enforced in its entirety and it will not be overflow parking. Mr.

Purewal said this is correct and it is a condition of approval.

CM Dunbar said the applicant does not show this, but it will be that condition. He is supportive of adding a condition that is more specific to say specifically that must be enforced on that side and cannot be moved around. With regards to pedestrian access, Mr. Young raised the trail access into the site. He assumes that would comply with ADA access, and Mr. Purewal confirmed.

With regards to future access to a potential commercial development on the north side of the road, right now it is not there, but at the point it gets developed if a warrant for a pedestrian crossing showed it was necessary along Hansen Road he asked if that could be built in concert with that development. Mr. Purewal said at the time an application gets proposed for site 5.D.1 the Engineering Division will look at the safety of that crosswalk and an existing crosswalk along the trail there. If safe, the project would be conditioned to retain that as is and not add an additional crosswalk along the entrance.

ATTACHMENT 3
710
CM Dunbar noted people will walk to the nearest path to get to the commercial development if built and they will want to access it from here, and they probably will not walk all the way around.

CM Dunbar said regarding the site design, the top down view showed individual buildings but he is most interested in the one in the EIR which was referenced in the Addendum.

He referred to the aesthetic evaluation in the Addendum in the original EIR which shows the commercial development of this site is wine in form versus structure dominance. It was intended for this to be dominant and that was not an environmental impact and analyzed at that time with respect to design of this hotel. There is a photometric picture in the EIR that shows the view from Arroyo Road at the northeast corner of this site, which shows a building clearly visible. He asked if this building meets that intent as a large building or a dominant visual outlined from the rest of the environment. Colors are intended to blend, but the form is not intended to be dominant which he noted.

With regards to the setback, he asked if staff believes the vines and orchard plantings proposed and somewhat shown in the renderings are adequate to comply with all other design guidelines apart from this one. Mr. Stewart said yes, it is consistent with the South Livermore Specific Plan design guidelines and standards for a commercial development.

CM Dunbar said with respect to precedent, he asked if staff believes there is a problem with precedent in this case. There seems to be a basis we are using based on the original intent that would apply here that may not apply to other properties. If someone came and asked the Commission for an amendment in the future at some other property they would not recommend an amendment. He asked if this is broadly correct.

Mr. Stewart said yes, this is correct. Back in 2004, the City Council approved a Specific Plan Amendment to allow a small winery off Lotus Drive to the west of this site, located 44 feet from Lagiss Drive and that was not completed for several private reasons, but the foundation is out there and exists. This is a case where a project was developed in conjunction with looking at development proposal for a new winery. That was approved by the Council in 2004 with a 44 foot setback.

CM Dunbar said, therefore, they have made amendments before.

CM Kronzak noted when she was interviewed by the Council for this appointment, one of the things that she really tried to hammer home is that the Commission is here tonight because they very much love this City and it is an extension of our personalities, hopes, and those with kids, their futures. She is deeply grateful to have heard from as many people on this as she has because she has a running concern that the workings of the Planning Commission are not so well-observed by the City as they could be. She thinks all democracy is local and all participation is required for the Commission to make the best decision they can.

ATTACHMENT 3
711
For clarification, her notes run the gamut from very high level to very detailed and very specific. She would like to reserve time for later and she bucketed her comments into categories. Category 1 are things not germane that she just wants to say for a matter of record she has noticed as part of this. She has some concern about traffic calming on Arroyo Road. As the site plans are executed for this specific site and as the Livermore Valley Specific Plan is executed, the Commission will need to keep an eye on that. Arroyo Road goes very fast and frankly she agrees with some of the public input that this is where all unsanctioned car activities take place.

The second item that CM Dunbar has already raised is the question of pedestrian access between sites 5.D.1 and 5.D.2, and she shares that exact same concern and would want to say in the future additional study is warranted because people do what people do.

Lastly, she reiterated what she said before on a prior application tonight which is she very much understands the aesthetic appeal of open water features. There is nothing in the General Plan or Specific Plan for this area that would enable her to say anything more to please consider those recommendations to the applicant for this regarding water preservation and the future of the State of California which they are coming out of a 3- year drought. Water will become increasingly relevant and how it is used even if aesthetic, she would like to have considered.

With the non-germane items out the way, she zoomed into the one hyper-specific question which is only a clarification from the applicant. She zoomed in way down on page 607 of the packet in the engineering site assessment from NGO. There was a note about undocumented fill on the site and the question she has is, the engineering firm recommended the removal of that fill and replacing it with engineered fill. She asked if this was captured in the intent for project-specific condition number 26 regarding grading and construction. While very specific, that type of soil can be deleterious to sites on the long-term.

Ms. Cilley said at the time of building permit plans the applicant will be required to produce a new, updated geotechnical report that will provide updated recommendations for soils.

CM Kronzak said the Brown Act prevents direct response, but she has several things she wanted to ask as clarifications related to staff. When it comes to the entry point on Hansen Road and the right turn only enforcement, the way that is placed as related to the divide on Hansen Road, it should prevent cars from simply charging across, and asked if this is correct. Mr. Purewal said yes, it will be elevated so vehicles will be unable to cross.

CM Kronzak said with regards to the points being raised about precedent and what has been done in the past to reconcile when these things happen between documents, the question she would ask is that site 5.D.1 and 5.D.3 which is the one recommending a 25 foot setback change on. She asked if those sites are not owned by the same person nor are they owned by the same developer. Mr. Purewal said no, they are not.

ATTACHMENT 3
712
CM Kronzak said she wanted to point out that she specifically supports the staffrecommended conditions related to the caretaker’s unit. Lastly, she attended the GPAC meeting that had the Wine Country presentation, and she asked if staff could validate her memory of that—with regards to planting vineyards explicit in South Livermore, the amount of land that has been planted versus the amount of land that should be available to plant has a very large gap between those two. Mr. Stewart said this is correct and it is literally hundreds of acres.

CM Kronzak said if there is no space for vineyards on the setback on Hansen Road because of the other proposed items, there is acreage available for planting vines all over South Livermore. Mr. Stewart confirmed.

CM Fintschenko echoed the other Commissioners thanks for everyone who provided public comment and those who wrote correspondence which has been very helpful in guiding her review. In echoing what CM Dunbar said, she has been trying to focus on the question of issues like precedence, what kind of precedence this raises, as well as procedure, and making sure they are adhering to a procedure that is, in fact, something that we are allowed to do. Her understanding of this is that the PUD standards were written in 2001. She was not sure it was immediately before or at the same time as the Specific Plan Update in 2001. Her understanding of what they are doing here today is they are trying to reconcile 2 documents where one is very specific and one is open to interpretation. The specific document is the PUD from 2001 and the other is the Specific Plan last updated in 2020. Ms. Cilley stated this is correct.

CM Fintschenko said this is not a question of trying to make a concession to a specific develop but it seems like it is an effort to try and clarify a document that has been open to interpretation on one side and a second document that is very specific on the other.

That has been brought to the City’s attention by this court case, and Ms. Cilley confirmed.

CM Fintschenko said this addresses her concerns about precedence and to some degree, procedure. She thinks one of her questions has been how are we allowed to modify something like the Specific Plan. Her understanding is under the California Code, it is based at the will of the legislative body. Ms. Cilley said the adoption or amendment of a Specific Plan is a legislative act by the legislative body and there is not a limit to the number of amendments that can be made to the Specific Plan.

CM Fintschenko asked and confirmed the legislative body is the City Council. She visited the site on Sunday and forgot to take a picture, but she asked what the current state of vines is on the Hansen side of the property for the Wine Country Inn. Mr. Purewal said there are no vines along Hansen Road.

CM Fintschenko said then the only vines that would be removed and replanted would be along Arroyo Road which is prescribed in conditions for building. Mr. Purewal confirmed and said there are existing trees on Hansen Road which will be replanted as part of the project.

ATTACHMENT 3
713
CM Fintschenko said it seems like in the drawings of the proposed Wine Country Inn, the actual numbers of trees and shrubs would far exceeds what exists there now. Mr. Purewal said this is very accurate.

CM Fintschenko asked to understand what the difference in height will be at the end of the project proposed here because currently there is a big hill and nothing can be seen.

Mr. Stewart said based on the grading plans, the top of the hill in the middle is an elevation of about 545 feet and then the contours after the result of the grading plan look to be around 539/540, so the high point of the site would be level to about 5 or 6 feet to create a level pad for the most part for the hotel. The gardens to the south would follow the contours down the hill and be terraced.

Vice Chairperson Anderson said when the overflow parking was originally proposed, he asked and confirmed this was because of concerns from residents regarding parking.

Then, he confirmed the Council made the decision to make sure they were honoring the 100 foot setbacks and this is why there was a difference between the Planning Commission and Council. He asked if this item will go to the City Council. Ms. Cilley said the prior approval of the Wine Country Inn did not involve the Specific Plan, and this is why it is before the Planning Commission.

Vice Chairperson Anderson asked and confirmed there will be time for the public to review the documents presented prior to it going to the Cit y Council. As far as derogatory comments go between conflicting parties, he confirmed this is between those parties and not the Planning Commission. He said this also does not change the setback on the west side of these subareas, and Mr. Purewal said no, it does not change the setback.

Vice Chairperson Anderson asked what year was the Specific Plan approved for the inn, and Mr. Purewal said it was in 1997. At that time, it was for a 30-room inn and a 100- seat restaurant. What is before the Commission is a 100-room inn and a 77-seat restaurant.

Lastly, Vice Chairperson Anderson thanked Mr. Stein on his work on the South Livermore Plan and his service to Livermore.

Chairperson Leary thanked all speakers for their comments and emails. He referred to the engineering memo which covered some of the site access. It was prepared by the applicant’s engineer and it went through discussion about the pathway or walkway. He feels the plan came up with a pretty good solution to that. Basically, the idea the pathway will come in more from the southeast corner where the contours are more at the building level which was not there before. The nice thing about that pathway alignment is it never crosses the roadway. He knows the applicant gave different alternatives and they made the point it is mutually exclusive where cars come in versus where the pedestrians or bikes come in, which he agrees with.

ATTACHMENT 3
714
He said on the same memo was Arroyo Road and they had a couple of pages with cross sections and showed what the slope was which ends up being 19%. The idea that the Commission could raise the site, there would still be a 10% slope coming in off Arroyo. If you raise the site, it is also a horizontal impact because contours are coming up from the west. It would be in the 100 foot setback in the Arroyo Road side, plus the building would be higher.

What he would add to that study is imagine going northbound on Arroyo Road and you will turn left into the site. There is a pathway, you are paying attention to the southbound traffic, try to turn left and will have a 10% grade in front of you, with someone coming up on a bike behind you. So, he does not think Arroyo Road would be a good approach for the driveway.

He referred to setbacks given the Commission heard many comments about these. The drawing going back to 1997 showed the 100-foot setback on Arroyo Road is called out and showing it graphically has value. To him it shows something less than 100 feet.

Secondly brought up is the PUD. He knows the Specific Plan supersedes the PUD but it shows a 50-foot setback from 2001 that was never challenged and that is what has been on Hansen Road.

He looked at some of the other wine regions around the west coast and California and plan documents for rural communities, and some have a graphic where they show the roads color-coded and there are different categories of setbacks. Often, it is based on whether it is an entry corridor which has a wider setback or if it is has more people using it, but they are not out of bounds having different setbacks for the Specific Plan.

CM Dunbar voiced appreciation of comments and while he is not sure everyone will get everything they want, he hoped to address all comments. He would like more from staff on what is before the Commission legally. This is an Addendum to the Specific Plan EIR.

He asked what are the requirements for an Addendum, why was an Addendum chosen, and why it must be chosen.

Ms. Cilley stated there are criteria in CEQA guidelines that there are specific guidelines when a supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. Those are set forth in CEQA guidelines 15162. The Addendum is authorized under CEQA guidelines 15164 when there are minor changes and the criteria has not been met for a supplemental or subsequent EIR, which in this case was found not to be met. Therefore, the Addendum was appropriate for minor changes, and those changes did not result in significant impacts.

CM Dunbar said the reasons are because noise impacts are low especially to the nearest residents, aesthetic reasons because this was intended as a dominant structure property and was intended to be viewed with similar colors to blend in, but otherwise stand out.

ATTACHMENT 3
715
Ms. Cilley stated many of the criteria were already evaluated and analyzed in the original EIR. The Addendum went a step further and even took a conservative approach for standards the project is not required to comply with, and analysis was also done for those and still found that no significant impacts were found.

CM Dunbar referred to electrification and he did think there were some things less than plausible on the statement, and he asked staff what the level of requirement and review is.

Mr. Stewart said that determination will be made by the Building Official and not the Planning Commission after his review of the request and current codes and Climate Action Plan.

CM Dunbar referred to outreach and the City wants to continuously improve they meet the specific legal requirements of noticing. They also have emails for those of interest, and he asked staff to comment on this.

Mr. Stewart said in addition to publishing the agenda and distributing it to people who have requested, staff has a standing list and they have the option to increase the radius they send notice to, and in this case they went out to 700 versus 300 feet in addition to publishing in the newspaper and posting on the City’s website.

CM Dunbar referred to the caretaker’s unit, he confirmed the restaurant is 23 seats under the maximum number for this facility. With that in mind, it seems the Commission can make all the findings for the caretaker’s unit which is allowed because it is under the maximum for uses. He thinks there is a benefit for having this unit on site, there are conditions that it not be an Airbnb, and he hopes Ms. Boss will live there to take care of this property.

In reviewing other wineries, they have parking within the 50-foot setback from Wetmore Road and he was not sure this was a precedent or not, but it was suggested that was a high quality use. They have parking along roads and cited Sycamore Grove which is visible and not screened at all.

He then asked and confirmed with Mr. Stewart that the facility that did not go through on Lagiss Drive was approved in 2003. CM Dunbar asked if there is anything the City can do with this property, and Mr. Stewart said it is privately held with a complicated background, which he briefly described.

CM Kronzak echoed the sentiment that she has put a lot of time in driving, reading, and researching this. She asked if the height limit in the Specific Plan for buildings is consistent across the entire area. Mr. Stewart said it is written in the Specific Plan and memorialized in the PUDs across the plan areas.

ATTACHMENT 3
716
CM Kronzak said the apex of the roof of the Wine Country Inn would be in similar conformity to residential height limits in the same region. She said CM Dunbar has made the point she has been trying to understand regarding the Wine Country Inn being a dominant structure and intended to be so. That said one other additional piece of information from the presentation given to the GPAC that is specifically important and related to this was the concept of creating gateways to areas of the wine country region.

She emphasized that she finds that with the height limit in conformity and the intent for this to be a dominant structure and the compilation of those gateways philosophy that that region has been pursuing, she cannot agree with the idea that the building is overly large.

She asked staff to display the landscaping plan. With regards to what is visible from Hansen Road, the garbage area that is up in the corner, those trees and by virtue of the fact it is below the height of the road, she is not clear if any of this would be visible from the road as designed.

Mr. Purewal said it would not be visible from the road and would be screened.

CM Kronzak said there are some site specific requirements that staff are imposing on this development with regards to events and large gatherings of people. She has been trying to find them in the plan, and she asked staff to review them in terms of what will be allowed to occur at the hotel site versus what will be disallowed.

Mr. Purewal said Condition 2 prohibits any outdoor events at the Inn such as weddings, parties, and receptions. For indoors, it is a 30-room inn and a restaurant. The conference room is allowed for guests staying at the inn. Any guest related event would occur indoors in the conference room and would comply with guests needing to stay at the hotel.

CM Kronzak said it has been a point of concern that is not germane to tonight’s decision, but she welcomes dialogue with the City Council around how they can better create community notification methodologies. This has come up often for different projects and this is an area of concern. Lastly, she appreciates the fastidiousness with which the applicant, staff, and the community have worked on this over the past few years.

CM Fintschenko echoed CM Kronzak’s gratitude for staff, the applicant, and community members. She said some comments include the issue of the need and support from the wineries in the region for the Specific Plan. Community members have spoken strongly at the impact of not having a facility like this has been to their business to the point that this is a key part of the community in terms of an identity for the City of Livermore. This is something that is also very important and coming from members of the community.

Vice Chairperson Anderson thanked everyone responsible for participating in the process. He knows there are those that do not want this project, but the input lent has made this a better project. It will now have the address of Arroyo Road so it will likely not take drivers through a neighborhood.

ATTACHMENT 3
717
He spoke about the sidewalk that did not lead to anything and the result of having a much better pathway and the right-turn only to ensure people are directed away from the neighborhood. He also noted he was the only Commissioner when this came through in 2019 and he had comments about the design, benefits of the project, but this differs tonight as he looks at the common themes from every side from those supporting and opposing the project. The common theme was this is a special City that has so much to offer for everyone now and into the future. Eliminating the vineyards once they are gone will never come back, which is sad. He knows the vines can be replanted but the sentiment is that once they are developed over, they will not be vineyards any longer.

He thinks about the housing crisis and does not think it is unreasonable to think that over the next 10 to 20 years the City will start to see legislation from the State that says unused agricultural areas will need to be housing. There is massive support from the wine industry for this specific project. They think it is vital to their existence. The City will see less tourism, wineries, and less vineyards, but he does not think Livermore in the Tri-Valley can support wineries by themselves and need outside tourism support. So, the question becomes what people want for Livermore, and he believes in Livermore’s wine country and is in support of staff recommendations tonight.

CM Dunbar stated if the applicant goes beyond what they say they are going to do and do other things, he asked and confirmed with Mr. Purewal that the City has recourse for that. He echoed Vice Chairperson Anderson’s comments about support of Livermore’s wine region, and suggested a motion.

MOTION BY DUNBAR, SECONDED BY ANDERSON, TO ADOPT THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL: RESCIND SITE PLAN DESIGN REVIEW (SPDR) 19-004 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 19-006 FOR THE LIVERMORE WINE COUNTRY INN.

AYES: ANDERSON, DUNBAR, FINTSCHENKO, KRONZAK, LEARY.

NOES: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

CM Kronzak commented that most wineries are small businesses and if the City loses small business and the economic diversity they provide to the town, the entire character of the town will be lost.

MOTION BY ANDERSON, SECONDED BY KRONZAK, TO ADOPT THE ATTACHED RESOLUTIONS, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL: A) ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE 1997 SOUTH LIVERMORE VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 1996052025); AND B) APPROVE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPPA) 23-001, SITE PLAN DESIGN REVIEW (SPDR) 23-001 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 23-002 FOR THE LIVERMORE WINE COUNTRY INN.

ATTACHMENT 3
718
AYES: ANDERSON, DUNBAR, FINTSCHENKO, KRONZAK, LEARY.

NOES: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION – None.

7. MATTERS INITIATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF
Mr. Stewart announced there is an item for the May 16th Planning Commission meeting and staff received an appeal of the telecommunications facility approval in Mocho Park which will move up to the City Council.

He asked Planning Commissioners to reach out if interested in the APA Conference in Fresno.

8. ADJOURNMENT – 10:10 p.m. to a regular Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Meeting Hall, City Council Chambers, 1016 S. Livermore Avenue.

Minutes prepared by:

Lisa Harper Consulting
ATTACHMENT 3
719
ATTACHMENT 4

RESOLUTION

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION RESCINDING APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN DESIGN REVIEW (SPDR) 19-004 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 19-006 FOR THE

LIVERMORE WINE COUNTRY INN
On November 5, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution certifying the environmental document and approved Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 19-004 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19-006 for the Livermore Wine Country Inn.

On November 19, 2019, the City of Livermore (“City”) received an application appealing the Planning Commission’s approval of the project.

On January 13, 2020, the City Council adopted a resolution denying the appeal and affirming the Planning Commission acted in accordance with the General Plan, South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, Livermore Municipal Code, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in approving the Wine Country Inn project.

On February 13, 2020, a petition for writ of mandate was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and State Planning and Zoning Law by an unincorporated association of residents, Friends of South Livermore (FOSL).

On February 2, 2020, the Alameda County Superior Court filed a judgment denying Friends of South Livermore’s petition.

On April 15, 2021, Friends of South Livermore appealed the superior court’s judgment to the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District.

On December 6, 2022, the First Appellate District Court of Appeal issued a decision reversing the superior court’s judgment, finding that the 50-foot setback from Hansen Road established for the project under the zoning standards listed in Planned Unit Development (PUDA) 01-001 conflicts with Policy 4-7 of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and as a result the approved project was inconsistent with the Specific Plan. The First Appellate District Court of Appeal remanded the case to the superior court for further proceedings in accordance with the Appellate Court’s opinion.

On May 2, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Livermore adopted a resolution recommending the City Council rescind approvals for Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 19-004 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19-006.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that it rescinds Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 19-004 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19-006 set forth in City Council Resolution Nos. 2020-010 and Planning Commission Resolution 26-19, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 720
ATTACHMENT 4

RESOLUTION
2 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 May 22, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Kimberly D. Cilley
Marie Weber Kimberly D. Cilley
City Clerk Senior Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – City Council Resolution 2010-010 and Planning Commission Resolution 26- 19 721

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION DENYING APPEAL ( APL) 19- 001 AND UPHOLDING

PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN DESIGN REVIEW SPDR) 19- 004 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ( CUP) 19- 006, SUBJECT TO

CONDITIONS
Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn)
On April 22, 2019, the City received an application for Site.Plan Design Review and Conditional Use Permit (Application No.' s SPDR19- 004 and CUP19- 006) for the development of an approximately 3. 2 acre vacant parcel at the southwest corner of Arroyo and Hansen Road. The proposed development includes an approximately 29, 345 square-foot, two- story building for a 30- room wine country inn, a restaurant with 77 seats, and an approximately 2, 300 square-foot caretaker' s unit with 61 paved parking spaces, 19 overflow parking spaces, and associated on and off site improvements.

On November 5, 2019, the Planning Commission considered SPDR 19- 004 and CUP19- 006, including the staff report, written public testimony, information submitted before the meeting, and public testimony received at the meeting. Based upon the information presented, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 26- 19, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, whereby the Commission made the required findings for approval of the Site Plan Design Review and Conditional Use Permit applications, and approved SPDR 19- 004 and CUP 19- 006 subject to Conditions of Approval, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B (" Conditions of Approval"), which conditions have been modified to include 3 new conditions that were added by the City Council on January 13, 2020.

On November 19, 2019, an unincorporated association, Friends of South Livermore, appealed the Planning Commission' s decision to approve SPDR 19- 004 and CUP 19- 006, and requested a hearing before the City Council. A Public Hearing Notice was duly published in a newspaper of local circulation.

The City Council held a public hearing on January 13, 2020, wherein it considered a staff report for Appeal 19- 001, public testimony and information presented at the hearing, the record of the Planning Commission' s actions on November 5, 2019, including the minutes thereto and Planning Commission Resolution No. 26- 19.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore is satisfied with the decision and record of the Planning Commission, and finds that substantial evidence was presented to the Planning Commission to support its findings and its decision to approve SPDR 19- 004 and CUP 19- 006, and that no 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2020- 010
ATTACHMENT 5

EXHIBIT A
722
new information was presented at the public hearing on January 13, 2020, to justify reversing the Planning Commission' s approval of SPDR 19- 004 and CUP 19- 006.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the decision of the Planning Commission is affirmed and that Appeal 19- 001 is hereby denied for the reasons contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 26- 19, and as set forth in this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council has duly considered and hereby adopts the findings contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 26- 19 as its own findings, and Site Plan Design Review 19- 004 and Conditional Use Permit 19- 006 are approved subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B to this resolution, which includes three additional Project Specific Conditions imposed by the City Council through the exercise of its authority set forth in Livermore Development Code section 9. 15. 030E. 4. b to mitigate impacts from the project to protect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, and general welfare of the City:

Condition 8. 13 - The project shall provide ten, 24" box Plantanus Acerifolia London plane) trees to be planted along Hansen Road, east of the access driveway. Additionally, the project shall provide a mitigation plan at a one-totwo ratio for all trees that are being removed, for a minimum of twenty- two, 24" box trees. The project shall be required to provide on- site planting for any trees that are being removed.

Condition 8.24 - The overflowing parking shall be removed from the 100-foot agricultural buffer along Arroyo Road.

Condition 8.25- The maximum number of seats for the restaurant is 77 seats.

An increase in the number of seats would require review and approval by the Planning Commission.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that an Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) was adopted by the City Council for the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan ( State Clearinghouse No. 96052025). The environmental analysis contained in the EIR was based on the development of a Wine Country Inn, assumed to occupy three acres, provide up to 30 rooms, and include a large restaurant with up to 100 seats on the project site. The project is within the scope of the EIR. There have not been any significant changes in conditions since the adoption of the EIR. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result from the project subject to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and Conditions of Approval. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination of the City Council' s certification of the environmental document with the Alameda County Clerk.
2 RESOLUTION NO. 2020- 010
ATTACHMENT 5

EXHIBIT A
723
On motion of Council Member Woerner, seconded by Council Member Carling, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on January 13, 2020, by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members Coomber, Munro, Woerner, Vice Mayor Carling, Mayor Marchand
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Marie V\ eber = 01644 Jason Alcala
Acting.City Clerk.: City Attorney
Date: January'15;-2020
Exhibit A— Planning Commission Resolution 26- 19
Exhibit B — Conditions of Approval
3 RESOLUTION NO. 2020- 010
ATTACHMENT 5

EXHIBIT A
724

IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
Of Site Plan Design Review 19-004 & Conditional Use Permit 19-006 Development of an approximately 3.2 acre vacant parcel with an approximately 29,345 square-foot, two-story building for a 30-room Wine Country Inn, a restaurant with 77 seats, and an approximately 2,300 square-foot caretaker's unit, 61 paved parking spaces, 19 overflow parking spaces, and associated on and off site improvements. The caretaker's unit is a conditionally permitted use.

Southwest Corner of Arroyo Road and Hansen Road
WHEREAS, the City received an application for Site Plan Design Review 19-004 & Conditional Use Permit 19-006;
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing Notice was duly mailed to neighboring property owners and published in a newspaper of local circulation; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 5, 2019, • considered the staff recommendation for approval subject to conditions, heard public testimony, and adopted the following findings:

Site Plan and Design Review

1. Be allowed within the subject zone.

Response: Only uses permitted by the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan and PUDA 01-001 will be allowed for the project site. The 30-room wine country inn and 77-seat restaurant are permitted in the Planned Development-South Livermore Valley Specific Plan through the approved Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) 01-001, which includes the land use zoning regulations for the subject site. The caretaker's residence is a conditionally permitted use under the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan and (PUDA) 01-001.

2. Be designed such that:
a. The project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, and not detrimental to adjacent property;
b. Architectural design and functional plan of the structure(s) and related improvements are of reasonable aesthetic quality and compatible with adjacent developments;
-1- Resolution No. 26-19
ATTACHMENT 5

EXHIBIT A
725
c. Structure(s) and related improvements are suitable for the proposed use of the property and provide adequate consideration of the existing and contemplated uses of land and orderly development in the general area of the subject site; and d. The project' s site plan and design is consistent with the City' s Design Standards and Guidelines.

Response: A CEQA environmental review ( Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration) was conducted for the project, which found no significant impacts on public health, safety, or general welfare. The project conforms to the development standards of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, which ensures the orderly development of the subject site and the general area. The proposed building, parking lot, and related improvements are suitable for the 30- room wine country inn, 77- seat restaurant, and caretaker' s unit. The architectural design conforms to design standards set forth in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan for commercial buildings and the City' s Design Standards and Guidelines.

3. Be designed to include the following criteria, as applicable:
a. Compliant with Chapter 9. 07 of the Development Code( Site Plan and Design Review), Municipal Code Title 15 ( Buildings and Construction), and any other applicable City regulations and policies;
b. Efficient site layout and design;
c. Compatible and appropriate scale to neighboring properties and developments. d. Efficient and safe public access( both pedestrian and vehicular) and parking; e. Appropriate and harmonious arrangement and relationship of proposed structures and signs to one another and to other development in the vicinity, based on good standards of design;
f. Appropriate relationship to land use and development of adjacent properties, including topographic and other physical characteristics of the land; g. Proper site utilization and the establishment of a physical and architectural relationship to existing and proposed structures on the site; h. Compatible architectural style with the character of the surrounding area, both to avoid repetition of identical design where not desired, and to ensure compatibility in design where desired;
i. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed developments and the avoidance of both excessive variety and monotonous repetition; j. Compatible in color, material, and composition of the exterior elevations to neighboring visible structures;
k. Appropriate exterior lighting which provides for public safety and is not of a nature that will constitute a hazard or nuisance to adjacent properties; I. Compatible in scale and aesthetic treatment of proposed structures with public areas;
m. Appropriate open space and use of water efficient landscaping; and n. Consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. 2- Resolution No. 26- 19
ATTACHMENT 5

EXHIBIT A
726
Response: The application complies with Chapter 9. 07 of the Development Code as well as all applicable regulations and policies. The project will be required to conform to Municipal Code Title 15 when it is reviewed for building permits. The site plan shows the building meets all setback standards. The site plan shows an efficient layout with the building on the west side of the site with the main parking area to the east, north, and northwest. The driveway accessing the site from Hansen Road provides efficient circulation safe access for vehicles as well as emergency vehicles around the site. The amount of parking provided on site conforms to the parking standards listed in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan.

The proposed building is approximately 35-feet tall, two-story structure that is appropriate for the site and conforms to the maximum height allowed by the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan. The diverse and innovative architectural style of the building is appropriate for the agricultural setting of the site. It is compatible with other architectural styles found in South Livermore, yet distinct enough to avoid monotonous repetition. The architectural style of the building features a Boral- boosted tile roof, decorative precast stone at the courtyard entrance, and a Barcelona beige stucco finish. Sable colored enhancing shutters surround the windows and decorative metal railings run along the second floor of the building. The roof has small decorative tower elements that add visual articulation to the main building form. Details such as wood doors, a decorative chimney cap, and wood porch columns contribute to the character of the building.

A photometric lighting plan was provided that shows adequate lighting levels in the parking lot and pedestrian areas and no light spilling beyond the subject site to constitute a hazard or nuisance to adjacent properties. The project will be in conformance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. As explained in the Planning Commission staff report, the application is consistent with the General Plan, the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, and PUDA01- 001.

Conditional Use Permit

1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.

Response: The Land Use Element of the General Plan section F establishes Geographical Subareas and Corresponding Land Uses for the South Livermore Valley General Plan, 3-84). Allowed development in Subarea 5 ( project subarea) of the South Livermore Valley, allows for a 30- room inn and large restaurant on three- acres ( General Plan 3- 88). Additionally, policy LU- 19. 1, P7 states, " Urban development in the South Livermore Valley shall not be approved unless, at a minimum, the project protects and promotes viticulture or other cultivated agriculture through the following means: . . . ( g) Development includes at least one major draw or attraction that would increase recognition of the South Livermore Valley as a premium wine-producing region.

Examples of appropriate attractions include a wine related institute, research center or conference center, wine museum, cultural arts center or a resort hotel ( General Plan, 3- 80). The proposed project is consistent with this General Plan policy to promote 3- Resolution No. 26- 19
ATTACHMENT 5

EXHIBIT A
727
viticulture, attract visitors to the South Livermore Valley by providing a resort hotel attraction, and is an allowed use in Subarea 5 of the South Livermore Valley.

The General Plan land use designation for the project site is South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, Subarea 5— Wine Country Commercial. More detailed land use information regarding this General Plan designation is set forth in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan.

The Specific Plan identifies 16 sites designated for wine country commercial uses in the Vineyard Commercial Area, which is defined as; "This designation provides for development of small-scale commercial uses that promote the area's image as a wine region, and directly serve wine- country visitors. The intent is not to accommodate commercial uses whose primary purpose is to provide local services, or that would compete with businesses in Downtown Livermore. The designation is intended to accommodate a very limited range of commercial uses including wineries, inns, restaurants, and small- scale wine country-related retail and services." SLVSP, p.4- 9).

The subject parcel, identified as Site 5D2 in the Specific Plan, is designated for a Wine Country Inn and Restaurant. The Specific Plan provides a more detailed description as follows: " In the area immediately south of the Arroyo Road entry to the subarea, a 3- acre site is designated for a wine country inn and restaurant. The inn is assumed to have up to 30 guest rooms and the restaurant would have up to 100 seats. Access to the two commercial sites along Arroyo Road will be from the main subarea entry road, rather than from Arroyo Road." ( SLVSP, p. 4-35). The purpose of the project would be to provide lodging and dining options that directly support the viability of the South Livermore Valley and provide necessary services to visitors to the wine country.

The caretaker' s residence of the project is a conditionally permitted ancillary use that requires a conditional use permit( SLVSP, Policy 4- 5, p. 4-4). The project proposes an architecturally integrated two-story, approximately 2, 300 square foot, three-bedroom, and two-bathroom caretaker' s residence. Having the caretaker' s unit on- site would allow visitors to communicate directly with management and would allow immediate resolution to any neighborhood compatibility problems that could occur on site. The primary focus of the site is the inn and restaurant that help support the viability of the wine country. A caretaker' s unit is consistent with the Specific Plan and PUDA 01- 001 as a conditionally permitted ancillary use supporting the commercial uses.

Considering the general definition of an inn and the zoning regulations for the site, having a caretaker's residence as a conditional use on the project site is consistent with the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan and PUDA01- 001.

2. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Municipal Code.

Response: The general zoning classification for the site is Planned DevelopmentSouth Livermore Valley Specific Plan ( PD- SLVSP). The PD- SLVSP district also 4- Resolution No. 26- 19
ATTACHMENT 5

EXHIBIT A
728
allows additional uses through the approval of a Planned Development Permit (LDC, Section 2. 04. 060. B). More specific zoning regulations for the site are established in Planned Unit Development Amendment( PUDA) 01- 001.

The Inn and restaurant components of the project are clearly permitted commercial uses in PUDA 01- 001. PUDA 01- 001 lists one caretaker' s unit as a conditionally permitted ancillary use. Based on the broader zoning regulation of PD-SLVSP and PUDA) 01- 001, which permits one caretaker's unit subject to a conditional use permit, and the supporting language in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, the caretaker' s unit would be allowed as an ancillary use to primary commercial uses on site.

Based on the analysis of the project, it is found to comply with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and Municipal Code.

3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed activity will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.

Response: The project site is bound on two sides by existing vineyards. The vineyard to the east is covered by an agricultural conservation easement. The vineyard to the south and west is part of Las Positas Vineyards and is also part of a conservation easement. The project site is bound by Hansen Road to the north and Arroyo Road to the east. An undeveloped site designated for a wine country commercial center is located on the other side of Hansen Road to the north of the subject site. The nearest residential use is approximately 230 feet from the project site to the west measured from property line to property line. An existing vineyard provides a buffer between the subject development and the residential neighborhood to the west.

The approval of the Conditional Use Permit includes operational and site planning conditions to ensure the proposed caretaker's residence is architecturally compatible with the proposed inn. The Conditional Use Permit prohibits renting of the caretaker' s residence to guests or as a short-term rental and requires two parking spaces. As described in the staff report, these conditions will reduce the impacts of the caretaker' s residence on site.

4. The subject site is:
a. Physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities.
b. Served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate.

Response: The project site is approximately three acres in area, which is an adequate size to accommodate the 29, 345- square foot building and the required amount of parking. The project conforms to all setback standards. The site will be accessed from Hansen Road, which provides adequate emergency vehicle access to 5- Resolution No. 26- 19
ATTACHMENT 5

EXHIBIT A
729
the site. The development has access to existing public utilities located in the adjacent rights-of-way.

The local streets, including Arroyo Road and Hansen Road, have been designed to handle the vehicle trips generated by the full build-out of the Specific Plan, including the development of a 30- room inn and restaurant with up to 100- seats on the project site.

Arroyo Road and Hansen Road are classified as collector streets. According to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, collector streets are medium capacity streets with volumes ranging from 5,000 to 20, 000 vehicles per day, which is sufficient to carry the anticipated cumulative traffic volume for the project and existing and planned developments in the vicinity, as analyzed in the Initial Study for the project and the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report.

5. The site' s suitability ensures that the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or be materially detrimental to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.

Response: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the project will not have significant impacts on the environment because revisions in the project have been made and the conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring and reporting program will be applied.

6. The applicant agrees in writing to comply with any and all of the conditions imposed by the review authority in the approval of the Conditional Use Permit or Zoning Use Permit.

Response: The applicant has reviewed the staff-recommended conditions and generally agrees with them. The applicant will agree in writing to comply with the final conditions imposed by the Planning Commission.
l

7. That any other findings prerequisite to approval of a Conditional Use Permit or Zoning Use Permit states elsewhere in the Development Code can be made.

Response: There are no other findings stated elsewhere in the Development Code prerequisite for the approval of this Conditional Use Permit.

8. An Environmental Impact Report( EIR) was adopted by the City Council for the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 96052025). The environmental analysis contained in the EIR was based on the development of a Wine Country Inn, assumed to occupy three acres, provide up to 30 rooms, and include a large restaurant with up to 50- 100 seats on the project site. The project is within the scope of the EIR. There have not been any significant changes in conditions since the adoption of the EIR. The Initial Study focuses on the project- specific impacts of the proposed project.
6- Resolution No. 26- 19
ATTACHMENT 5

EXHIBIT A
730
An Initial Study uY9and Mitigated Ne ative Declaration were prepared for the proposed p p project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result from the project.

BE IT RESOLVED by the Livermore Planning Commission that, based on the above findings, Site Plan Design Review 19- 004 and Conditional Use Permit 19- 006 is approved.

The project approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval dated November 5, 2019, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare.

On.the motion by Commissioner Fagundes, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, the foregoing Resolution was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of November 5, 2019, by the following vote:

AYES: ANDERSON, BONANNO, FAGUNDES, STEIN.

NOES: NONE.

ABSENT: BJORKLUND.

Gina Bonanno, Chairperson
by Steve Stewart, Planning Manager
Secretary to the Planning Commission
7- Resolution No. 26- 19
ATTACHMENT 5

EXHIBIT A
731
May 15, 2023
Livermore City Council
VIA EMAIL:

C/O Livermore City Clerk
[email protected]
Re: South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Changes/Wine Country Inn Dear Council Members:

Friends of Open Space and Vineyards (“FOV”) was founded in 1981 in an effort to stop uncontrolled residential development from taking over the land in the South Livermore Valley and displacing our local vineyards, wineries, and open space resources. We believe the growth of agritourism is a key element of the long-term success of the wine industry and the protection of the surrounding landscape.

This component has been recognized within the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) with the provision for a wine country inn and commercial area in subareas 5-D1 and 5-D2.

Our organization supports the proposed changes to the open space buffers in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan for these subareas from 100 foot buffers to 50 feet. We believe this an appropriate step to promote the development of the Wine Country Inn and adjacent commercial parcel. We supported the Wine Country Inn project when it was first presented to the City with the 50 foot buffer.

The change to the Specific Plan in the wake of the court decision is an appropriate step to facilitate the development of a project that is within the Urban Growth Boundary and was contemplated as a component of the plan.

It should be noted that FOV would not support a change to the buffers that would effect the entire plan area. Changes to the Specific Plan should not be undertaken lightly and should be consistent with the goals of the plan and designed to protect the urban growth boundary. Given that the proposed change is narrowly drawn and will facilitate the accomplishment of the plan objectives, we support this action by the City Council.

Sincerely,
Tamara Reus
President
P.O. Box 1191, Livermore, CA 94551; www.fov.org
ATTACHMENT 6
732
1 Dear Planning Commission members and our City Council, You are considering a development in our neighborhood at Hansen and Arroyo Roads for a wine country hotel. The developer is requesting to amend the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (Plan) to reduce the required setbacks from 100ft to 50ft. As long time residents of Livermore and having lived in South Livermore for the past 9 years, we respectfully request that you follow the Plan as it was designed. Our South Livermore community is a beautiful place surrounded by vineyards, wineries and housing developments and changing restrictions for one developer will create a precedent for future developers to also disregard the Plan. This Plan protects the essential parts that make this community a place where people want to live and enhance the beauty and environment in our community.

We did not join the recent litigation over this development as we thought the Commission would uphold the Plan and enforce the mandatory elements of it and were encouraged by the court rulings supporting and upholding the Plan and its elements. Now we find that the developer has again asked for special considerations and expects to do whatever they want instead of adhering to this long standing Plan. We expect the Commission to force the developer to alter the plans for the hotel to accommodate the rules and regulations for the area and attempt to be part of the community. While we don’t oppose a hotel in that area we do expect the development to adhere to all of the rules of the Plan and we expect the Commission to enforce that.

Thank you for your consideration
Bill & Jo Taulbee
ATTACHMENT 6
733
April 27, 2023
Dear City of Livermore Planning Department,
On behalf of the Board of Directors for Visit Tri-Valley - the destination marketing organization for the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin and the Town of Danville, representing 40+ hotels and hundreds of hospitality businesses - we wholeheartedly support the Planning Commission approval of the Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn.

As of2022*, the Tri-Valley hospitality industry annually brings $87.5M in local and state taxes,

1.3 million visitors, and supports 7,400 jobs in the Tri-Valley. Our geofencing mobile data** reflects visitors enjoying Downtown Livermore, the Bankhead Theater, Vasco Row and attending events and tastings at wineries and breweries. Livermore's wine region remains a top inspirational driver for both visitation and spending within the Tri-Valley. But it could be better.

The Tri-Valley relies on varying levels of lodging options to entice the budget-conscience, extended stay, and luxury travelers. We are in desperate need of the luxury product to match our award-winning wine region, key to growing and preserving overnight visitation and spending.

Stakeholder and community input on our 2023 five-year Destination Strategic Plan emphasized the absolute necessity in promoting the wine region. By supporting this "lifeline," you are proactively supporting the next generation of high-spending, high occupancy travelers, while also keeping your wineries, farms, restaurants, and shops alive. This proposed hotel property is sustainable agritourism at its core mission. With proper infrastructure at hand, the wine industry can continue to compete with other California regions.

We can't wait to package Livermore's newest high-end lodging and dining destination along with your sought-after award-winning wines, brews and attractions. This hotel will put Livermore in a whole new league of must-see destinations.

As your marketing agency of record, whose mission it is to promote overnight visitation that elevates our resident quality of life, we highly recommend approval of the Wine Country Inn, which will assuredly assist in sustaining your ongoing investment in Livermore's Wine Industry. ------, L Sincere�7
--z --.� .,.,
arhad
nt&CE
Cc: VTV Board of Directors
*Dean Runyan Travel Impacts 2022
** Destination Analysts Apollo Dashboard
5075 Hopyard Road, Suite 240, Pleasanton, CA 94588
ATTACHMENT 6
734
From: Michele Donley
To: Sukhamrit Purewal; Steve Stewart; Kimberly Cilley
Subject: FW: Wine Country Inn
Date: Monday, April 24, 2023 2:59:34 PM
Dear Planning Department Members,
3 Steves Winery wholeheartedly supports the Wine Country Inn as proposed.

Steve Ziganti
Owner/Winemaker
3 Steves Winery
Sent from my iPad
ATTACHMENT 6
735
April 24, 2023
City of Livermore Planning Department,
I am writing to you to please approve and expedite the Livermore Wine Country Inn proposed on Arroyo Road, which has always been a critical component of the SLVP.

The Livermore Valley wine industry is in desperate need of mid/upscale lodging accommodations to bring outside visitors into wine country for overnight visits. It is proven that guests that travel to vacation locations spend money in the destination location. The wine country desperately needs “outside” wine lovers to visit the valley to increase wine dollar spend rates; and to help bring visibility to Livermore Valley Wine Country. This is needed to grow our boutique wineries into sustainable entities; maintain Livermore as a Viticulture area; and to bring new, larger size wineries, into the area. Lack of nice lodging is the #1 inhibitor in sustaining, and growing, our wineries and vineyards.

We have been waiting for luxury hotel accommodations for over 10 years. We went through a laborious process starting 6-7 years ago to get the downtown hotel approved and we still have not seen a shovel in the ground. I urge you to please immediately approve the Wine Country Inn project; and to do whatever is necessary to proceed with the Downtown hotel.

Larry Dino
Cuda Ridge Wines
2400 Arroyo Road
ATTACHMENT 6
736
From: Alexandra Henkelman
To: Sukhamrit Purewal
Subject: Livermore Businesses NEED Overnight Guests
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 11:02:13 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Hello! I wanted to reach out to stress the importance of overnight guests in the viability of all Livermore businesses. In order to build long-term and sustainable businesses that will thrive.

Additionally, supporting overnight guests in the Valley will fulfill the long overdue promise of the SLVSP!
--
Alexandra Henkelman [she/her]
Owner + Winemaker
Omega Road Winery
925-290-8616
www.omegaroadwinery.com
ATTACHMENT 6
737
From: Michele Donley
To: Sukhamrit Purewal; Steve Stewart; Kimberly Cilley
Subject: FW: Comments For May 2nd Public Hearing Re: Specific Plan Amendment SLVSP (SPPA) 23-001 Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 7:11:39 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Betsy Johnston
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 8:54 PM
To: Planning Web email <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments For May 2nd Public Hearing Re: Specific Plan Amendment SLVSP (SPPA) 23-001 [Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Livermore Planning Department and Kam Purewal, Associate Planner, We strongly disagree with any Proposal to amend the SLVSP to allow a 50’ setback area from Hansen Road for commercial sites 5D#1 and 5D#2 that may include parking, landscaping and a trash enclosure. Both 5D#1 and 5D#2 must be maintained at a setback of 100 feet per the original SLVSP.

The SLVSP specifies a 100’ setback planted in vineyards and orchards and this 100-foot setback requirement is clear, unambiguous and fundamental to the Plan and the Vision of South Livermore. We had copies of this Plan when we purchased our home on Hansen in 2004. We are the original owners and in the first block west of 5D#1 and 5D#2.

It is unfortunate that we have an applicant who has neglected to follow the SLVSP for 5D#2 and whose proposed Wine Hotel extends 20 feet into the 100 foot setback requirement. Had the applicant followed the SLVSP guidelines and rules there would be no reason to ask for an amendment to the SLVSP.

A 50 foot setback would encroach on our neighborhood and bring even more traffic and unwanted crime and mischief to this area. Also, no one wants to see a trash enclosure on Hansen on 5D#1 and 5D#2 where we are not viewing vineyards and orchards nor more parking spaces which yield more space for those deciding to perform sideshows, hang out or even camp in the parking lot. The current 100 foot setback is very helpful to the privacy of 5D#1, 5D#2 and our neighborhood as the planted vineyards and orchards will not allow for the additional parking to be seen and thus not be a draw to those wishing to create issues in our neighborhood. In other words, it currently mitigates “attractive nuisances” that the 50 foot setback would create on both 5D#1 and 5D#2.

The proposed applicant wants to build a larger (than originally pictured on the sign on site 5D#2 vacant lot) wine hotel and this may not even be financially possible due to a potential lack of funds and investors. If approvals of the SPDR 19-004 and CUP 19-006 are rescinded and re-approved under SPDR 23-001 and CUP 23-003, it may still never be completed. No one wants another unfinished structure to look at like the one on the north east side of Highway 680 at Automall in Fremont where funds ran out, contractors stopped working and investors bailed.

Both 5D#1 and 5D#2 have not been maintained in the same manner and quality that we maintain our homes and our landscaping. High weeds, broken fences, and unkept vineyards facing Arroyo have been the norm for both 5D#1 and 5D#2 over the past few years. This is another reason not to amend the SLVSP but instead keep it at the 100 foot setbacks which was how it was originally written and approved. If the owners/applicants cannot maintain the current sites, how will the applicant for 5D#2 afford to be able to maintain a wine hotel with additional parking, dumpsters, restaurant, landscaping and a pool? Regarding 5D#1, it is currently for sale and has been for quite a while for $1,165,000. There is no mention on the Tourfactory.com listing of the proposal to amend the SLVSP 100 foot ATTACHMENT 6
738
setback requirement to 50 feet for this commercial property.

Lastly, but very much a safety concern of ours for the Planning Commission who originally approved the street and stop sign at the top of Los Olivos at Arroyo where 5D#1 and 5D#2 are located. Please take time to drive up to the stop sign at Hansen/Arroyo as you exit either 5D#1 or 5D#2, stop at the STOP sign. Look at the crosswalk and make sure there are no pedestrians or bicycles crossing. Then you have to go another 15+feet beyond the stop sign and stop again just to see if it is clear to travel onto Arroyo and into traffic. Whoever approved this design on behalf of the Livermore Planning Commission obviously did not do their due diligence. It is a safety hazard to say the least and will become even more of a hazard during development of any of the commercial sites. It is at this intersection that current side shows take place late at night.

In summary, please do not amend the SLVSP as proposed. Keep the 100 foot setback requirements as originally specified in the SLVSP. If you do not amend then there will be no reason to rescind approvals of the SPDR 19-005 and CUP 19-006 for the wine country inn and approve something that will be very controversial and potentially never be built or never be completed after construction is started.

Thank you for your review of our written comments.

We are looking forward to attending the Public Hearing at 7pm on May 2, 2023.

Please confirm your receipt of this email.

Respectfully Submitted,
Elizabeth and Ross Johnston
ATTACHMENT 6
739
Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce
2157 First St Livermore CA 94550
925.447.1606
www.livermorechamber.org
April 26, 2023
Mayor John Marchand
Livermore City Council
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
Re: Support of Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn development Dear Mayor Marchand & Council Members:

On behalf of the Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce (LVCC), I am writing to express strong support for development of the Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn proposed on Arroyo Road in South Livermore.

LVCC is a membership association comprised of private businesses, non-profit organizations, public agencies, and individuals. Our 400+ members and 20,000 jobs are a diverse and wide-ranging representation of the Livermore Valley economy. LVCC policy priorities includes supporting tourism in our city inclusive of supporting our wine country origins and production.

The merits of this development include support of our fabulous wine country grape growers, wine makers, Livermore tourism, and hotel accommodations that are limited south of 580 freeway. It will also support out restaurants, downtown businesses and contribute positively to the attraction of visitors to our area.

Please expedite this approval for the Livermore Wine Country Inn that is critical to the well being of our wine industry and the South Livermore Valley Plan.

Respectfully,
Sherri Souza
Sherri Souza
Interim CEO & President
ATTACHMENT 6
740
5960 Inglewood Dr., Suite 201, Pleasanton, CA 94588 | Office: 925.577.6319 April 26, 2023
John P. Marchand, Mayor
Brittni Kiick, Vice Mayor
Ben Barrientos, Council Member
Evan Branning, Council Member
Robert W. Carling, Council Member
Dear Mayor Marchand, Vice Mayor Kiick and Members of the City Council:

On behalf of Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group (ITV), I am writing to confirm that our organization supports the Wine Country Inn proposed on Arroyo Road, which has long been a vital component of the South Livermore Valley Plan.

Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group (ITV) is a collection of regional leaders deeply committed to driving a thriving economy powered by innovation and an unparalleled quality of life. Our innovation hub must continue to enhance and strengthen the quality of life in the region for both our residents and our visitors, in order to thrive.

The Livermore Valley wine community has long needed additional lodging and accommodations to attract visitors from all across the Bay Area to our region.

We encourage you to move this project forward and thank you for your continued support of our wine country community and the infrastructure needed to welcome visitors to the Tri-Valley.

Sincerely,
Lynn Wallace Naylor
CEO, Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group
ATTACHMENT 6
741
From: Michele Donley
To: Sukhamrit Purewal
Cc: Steve Stewart; Kimberly Cilley
Subject: FW: Site plan review 5D1 and 5D2.

Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 1:55:51 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: John Messier <
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Planning Web email <[email protected]>
Subject: Site plan review 5D1 and 5D2.
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from j messier1@comcast net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

My wife and I do not support any change to the South Livermore Valley specific plan.

John and Marguerite Messier, .

Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT 6
742
ATTACHMENT 6
743
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important From: Michele Donley
To: Sukhamrit Purewal
Cc: Steve Stewart; Kimberly Cilley
Subject: FW: Public Hearing May 2, 2023
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 12:13:45 PM
From: Diane < >
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 12:10 PM
To: Planning Web email <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Hearing May 2, 2023
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Livermore Planning Commission and Kam
Purewal, Associate Planner,
We totally disagree with the proposal to amend
SLVSP commercial sites 5D#1 and 5D#2 from the
original 100-foot setbacks to a 50-foot set back.

SLVSP was designed and created to balance, control
and protect the SLVSP from over building. To
maintain the proper size and development for the
commercial site specifically 5D#2.

This proposed project is massive for the site #5D2.

That is why you want to amend SLVSP. This was
supposed to be a Wine Country Inn, but is a Wine
Country Hotel, restaurant, 2,450 sq. ft.
residence/swimming pool and conference room.

That is like putting a size 12 foot into a size 11 shoe.

It will look out place.

The Planning Commission and City Council are on a
ATTACHMENT 6
744
slippery slope by trying to amend the SLVSP 5D#2!
And 5D#1. This is a special city that has so much to
offer for everyone now and into the future.

The Planning Commission put the right size
development on all commercial sites in South
Livermore. There is no need to amend the SLVSP.

Eliminating the vineyards once they are gone, they
will never come back. How sad that is.

Mark and Diane Rinetti
ATTACHMENT 6
745
1457 First Street  Livermore, CA 94550  925.449.8706  www.trivalleyconservancy.org Board of Directors
Lori Souza, Chair
Kevin Baskin, Vice-Chair
Sblend Sblendorio, Secretary
Jennifer Yeamans, Treasurer
Scott Akin
Lou Astbury
Jim Folta
John Howard
David Kent
Tamara Reus
Cynthia Ross
Mark Triska
Executive Director
David Epstein
April 26, 2023
Steve Stewart
Planning Manager
City Hall of Livermore
1052 S. Livermore Ave. Livermore, CA 94550
Re: Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn
Dear Steve:

The Tri-Valley Conservancy's (TVC) mission is "to promote economically sustainable vineyards and orchards, and increase permanently protected, biologically diverse open spaces", and the City of Livermore has been one of our highly valued partners in our pursuit of meeting this objective.

One of TVC's top priorities is ensuring the long-term prosperity of the South Livermore Valley Wine Country, and we were chartered to help ensure the success of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan.

The TVC commissioned a research study conducted by the University of California, Davis to examine the economic viability of the South Livermore Wine region. The findings identified several challenges that need to be addressed promptly in order to restore this territory to a premier wine region. The TVC believes that appropriate economic development in South Livermore is important to support this objective. Such economic development includes tourist hospitality accommodations and restaurants.

The need for additional lodging opportunities in the South Livermore Valley Area has been welldocumented as a way to support agri-tourism. As stated in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP) "the South Livermore Valley Area Plan (SLVAP) encourages the development of new wineries and other tourist-related projects that will attract tourists and increase recognition of the South Livermore Valley as a premium wine-producing region." The Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn proposal is located on one of the parcels identified within the SLVSP "to provide for limited small-scale commercial development that supports and enhances the South Livermore Valley's image as a premium wine producing region." It further identifies "a Wine Country Inn with no more than 30 guest rooms and may have a large restaurant associated with it is an allowed commercial project."
ATTACHMENT 6
746
Tri-Valley Conservancy
Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn