I would expect the disturbed, ruderal composition of the plant species on the site will also not yield any rare, listed plant species when they bloom during the upcoming botanical blooming season - typically February through June, annually.
This conclusion is not surprising, given upland, ruderal habitat and non-native grassland habitat like the Site's are common in the Livermore area and throughout the region. It is only within non-disturbed, more "wild" habitat where native, uncommon to rare species may potentially exist.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. As mentioned above, I do not believe Biological Constraint issues related to plant, wildlife and wetland resources/wetland easements exist at the Site. As a result, I do not forsee the need for the City of Livermore's Planning Department to ensure enforcement occurs for any current regulatory compliance measures related to local, state, and federal regulatory measure related to wetland resources and biological resources - nor do I believe future, related wetland and biological resource regulatory measures will arise if and when the Site is developed beyond its current habitat status.
2. As for if and when any soil grading, earth displacement/transfer, or removal of vegetation occurs on the site, note that if these activities occur on any date from February 1 -August 31, 2019, then a nesting bird survey should be conducted by a qualified Avian Biologist.
These activties may collectively be titled "pre-construction" activities at the Site or Michelle Boss Report 4 danieledelste [email protected] 0
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1316
"construction activities" when soil grading, earth displacement/transfer, removal of vegetation ( or all three of these activities) occur at the Site.
In turn, the required nesting bird survey that initiates as the result of pre-construction activities happening on the Site during the February 1 -August 30th date window will ensure compliance with two state of California nesting bird regulations (governed by the CDFW) and one federal law (the Migratory Bird Treaty Act) governed by the USFWS - both of which serve as regulatory measures to protect common and rare nesting bird species during the breeding season (February 1 -August 31, 2019).
Note the aforementioned nesting bird survey is required even after an upcoming Initial Study is completed and submitted to the City of Livermore's Planning Department.
In the event an Avian Biologist's pre-construction nesting bird survey results in the discovery of an active songbird species nest within 50 feet of the construction area on the Site or within 250 feet of an active raptor species nest on the Site, then the Avian Biologist should employ measures to prevent people and construction equipment from encroaching no more than 50 feet from an active songbird species' nest and no more than 250 feet from an active raptor species' nest.
To accomplish this protection, temporary plastic fencing or colored plastic tape should be used to prevent people/machinery from encroaching within the metric limits noted immediately above.
3. Note that the above recommendation in #3 of this section is based on regulations contained within CDFW codes 1
, which state that any activity that would cause take of a bird, nest, or reduction or failure of reproductive success (i.e. direct loss of nest, disturbance resulting in nest abandonment, disturbance resulting in increased mortality of chicks) would be a violation of the CDFW's codes, such as:
3503: Unlawful Destruction of nest or eggs. It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulations made pursuant hereto.
3503.S: Birds-of-prey or their eggs. It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any bird in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulations made pursuant hereto.
3511: Identifies fully protected bird species.
In addition, most bird species are afforded protection under the previously mentioned federal MBTA { Section 3 513 of CDFW code, via nexus with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)}.
1 See: https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/regcode.html Michelle Boss Report 5 [email protected] 0
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1317
The MBIA is a federal law applicable to protecting native songbird and raptor species potentially nesting during the annual breeding season (February 1 -August 31) on the Site2.
It states that all migratory birds and their parts (including eggs, nests, and feathers) are fully protected. The Act maintains that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not.
In order to avoid violation of these codes, the aforementioned qualified Avian Biologist (with appropriate education and background) should confirm that no active nest is within or adjacent to the project site before the area is disturbed (during breeding season).
CDFG Code 3513 upholds the MBT A by prohibiting any take or possession of birds that are designated by the MBTA as migratory nongame birds except as allowed by federal rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the MBIA. In addition, there are CDFG Codes (3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3800) that further protect nesting birds and their parts, including passerine birds, raptors, and state "fully protected" birds.
In summary, given the above information, I trust this Report has provided you guidance to ensure you are aware of the Site's Biological Constraints (i.e., the aforementioned discussion noted above in relation to absence of wetland resources/wetland easement) and listed plant and wildlife species. As a result, as noted above, I believe any initial development will require minimal actions to ensure compliance with local, State of California and federal regulatory measures.
Sincerely, Daniel Edelstein
Consulting Environmental Scientist & Certified Wildlife Biologist Ase. [email protected]
warblerwatch.com
2 See: http://www.fws.gov/laws/la wsd i gest/migtrea.htm I Michelle Boss Report 6 [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1318
APPENDIX A
PHOTOS OF THE SITE
Michelle Boss Report 7 [email protected] 0
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1319
Photo 1 - Looking southwest, the sign identifies the Site at 19952 Hansen Rd., Livermore, CA 94550, APN: 099-0460-008
Daniel Edelstein· Environmental Scientist/Wildlife Biologist· 12 Kingfisher Court· Novato, CA 94949 · [email protected] · 415-3 82-1827 · W arblerWatch.com Michelle Boss Report 8 [email protected] 0
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1320
Photo 2 - Looking south, the primary vegetational habitat on the Site - non-native grassland (along with ruderal/non-native wildflowers/forbs) appears in the foreground/center with vineyard in the background at 19952 Hansen Rd., Livermore, CA 94550, APN: 099-0460-008.
Daniel Edelstein· Environmental Scientist/Wildlife Biologist· 12 Kingfisher Court· Novato, CA 94949 · [email protected] · 415-382-1827 · WarblerWatch.com Michelle Boss Report 9 [email protected] 0
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1321
Photo 3 - Looking east from the eastern edge of the Site, the dry watercourse noted in the above narrative is shown. Cobble and rocks line areas where temporary water flow could potentially occur during high rain events. The excellent drainage of water is evident with the presence of the pipe (center) with another one in the foreground partially hidden the perspective orientation of this view. In total, based on the successful design of the cobble and rocks, any standing water creating a temporary to permanent wetland is not present on the south side of the Site. No wetland exists on the Site or adjacent to it at 19952 Hansen Rd., Livermore, CA 94550, APN: 099-0460-008.
Daniel Edelstein · Environmental Scientist/Wildlife Biologist· 12 Kingfisher Court· Novato, CA 94949 · [email protected] · 415-382-1827 · WarblerWatch.com Michelle Boss Report 10 [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1322
Photo 4 - Looking west from the eastern edge of the Site, the dry watercourse noted in the above narrative is shown. It is dry in this photo and the composition of the non-native plant species (foreground and back.ground adjacent to the site) are all common, non-wetland plant species. Based on the narrative, above, these plant species are evidence (along with the absence of soil indicators and the absence of water in this area) that no wetland presence exists on the Site or adjacent to it at 19952 Hansen Rd., Livermore, CA 94550, APN: 099-0460-008.
Daniel Edelstein · Environmental Scientist/Wildlife Biologist · 12 Kingfisher Court· Novato, CA 94949 · [email protected] · 415-382-1827 · WarblerWatch.com Michelle Boss Report I I [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1323
Photo 5 - Looking west from Hansen Road ( center of photo) on the Site's north side, developed parcels adjacent to the Site are shown.
One point of this photo is to note the developed scenario that already exists at the Site ( at 19952 Hansen Rd., Livermore, CA 94550, APN: 099-0460-008) and in all directions from the Site's four boundaries.
Daniel Edelstein· Environmental Scientist/Wildlife Biologist· 12 Kingfisher Court· Novato, CA 94949 · [email protected] · 415-382-1827 · WarblerWatch.com Michelle Boss Report 1 2 [email protected] 0
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1324
Michelle Boss Report
APPENDIXB
List of Wildlife Species
Detected On The Site
During My Survey
1 3 [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1325
APPENDIX B-List of Wildlife Species Detected On A January 2, 2019 Survey Conducted By Environmental Scientist/Wildlife Biologist Daniel Edelstein3 4 At 19952 Hansen Rd., Livermore, CA 94550, APN: 099-0460-008 Bird Species
Common Name Scientific Name
· Mourning Dove# Zenaida macroura
Anna's Hummingbird (FO) Calypte anna
American Crow# Corvus brachyrhynchos
Common Raven (FO) Corvus corax
Turkey Vulture (FO) Cathartes aura
Mammal Species
Raccoon Procyon lotor
Key:
# = Foraging on the site only; not breeding
FO = Flyover (i.e., a brief, transient sighting of a bird species that was seen moving through the Site, but the species did not land upon the ground or upon shrub tree limbs within the Site) 3 Avian Biologist and, in addition, a Certified Wildlife Biologist Associate, via accreditation from The Wildlife Society (Go to: http://wildlife.org/leam/professional-development-certification/cwbawb-directory/) 4 To see his resume, go to: https://warblerwatch.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/edelstein-ceqa-nepa-consultingwildlife-biologist-resume.pdf Michelle Boss Report 1 4 [email protected] 0
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1326
APPENDIXC
List of Uncommon To Rare
Plant and Wildlife Species
In The Region Within Which
The Site Occurs*
(*=per 1/6/19 query of the California Natural Diversity Database,
7.5' US Geological Survey (USGS) "Altamont" quadrangle map) Michelle Boss Report 15 danie lede ls [email protected] 0
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1327
APPENDIX C - California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Query For The Altamont 7 .5' USGS Quadrangle Within Which The Site Occurs 19952 Hansen Rd., Livermore, CA 94550 (Site), APN: 099-0460-008. Result of query appears below as uncommon to rare plant and wildlife species in the region near the Site
(CNNDB query conducted on January 6, 2019 with the result appearing on the next page.) Michelle Boss Report 1 6 [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1328
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Query Criteria: Quad<span style�'color:Red'> IS <lspan>[Altamon1 (3712166)) Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
Species Element Code federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP alkali milk-vetch PDFABOFBR1 None None G2T1 S1 18.2
Astragalus tener var. tener
American badger AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Taxidea taxus
big tarplant PDAST1C011 None None G1G2 S1S2 18.1
8/epharizonia plumosa
big-scale balsamroot PDAST11061 None None G2 S2 18.2
Balsamorhiza macrolepis
brlttlescale PDCHE042LO None None G2 S2 18.2
Atripfex depressa
burrowing owl ABNSB10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Athene cunicularia
California alkali grass PMPOA53110 None None G3 S2 1B.2 Puccinellia simplex
Callfornla red-legged frog AAABH01022 Threatened None G2G3 S2S3 SSC Rana draytonii
California tiger salamander AAAAA01180 Threatened Threatened G2G3 S2S3 WL Ambystoma californiense
caper-fruited tropldocarpum PDBRA2R010 None None G1 S1 1 B.1 Tropidocarpum capparideum
Congdon"s tarp/ant PDAST4ROP1 None None G3T2 S2 18.1
Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii
Cooper's hawk ABNKC1204D None None GS S4 WL
Accipiter cooperii
curved-loot hygrotus diving beetle I/COL38030 None None G1 S1 Hygrotus curvipes
!erruginous hawk A8NKC19120 None None G4 S3S4 WL
Buteo regalis
foothill yellow-I egged frog AAABH01050 None Candidate G3 S3 SSC Rana boy/ii Threatened
grasshopper sparrow ABPBXA0020 None None GS S3 SSC
Ammodramus savannarum
hairless popcornflower PDBOROVOBO None None GH SH 1A
Plagiobothrys glaber
heartscale PDCHE04080 None None G3T2 S2 18.2
A/rip/ex cordu/ata var. cordu(ata
hlspld salty bird's-beak PDSCROJOD1 None None G2T1 S1 18.1 Chloropyron mo/le ssp. hispidum
hoary bat AMACC05030 None None G5 S4
Lasiurus cinereus
Commercial Version -- Dated December, 30 2018 ,. Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 2 Report Printed on Sunday, January 06, 2019 Information Expires 6/30/2019 Michelle Boss Report 1 7 [email protected] 0
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1329
Michelle Boss Report
APPENDIXD
Definition and Explanation of
Public Resources Code Section 21166
1 8 danieledelste [email protected] 0
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1330
APPENDIX D - California Definition and Explanation of
Public Resources Code Section 21166:
An action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the following acts or decisions of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with this division shall be commenced as follows:
(a) An action or proceeding alleging that a public agency is carrying out or has approved a project that may have a significant effect on the environment without having determined whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment shall be commenced within 180 days from the date of the public agency's decision to carry out or approve the project, or, if a project is undertaken without a formal decision by the public agency, within 180 days from the date of commencement of the project.
(b) An action or proceeding alleging that a public agency has improperly determined whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment shall be commenced within 30 days from the date of the filing of the notice required by subdivision (a) of Section 21108 or subdivision (a) of Section 21152.
( c) An action or proceeding alleging that an environmental impact report does not comply with this division shall be commenced within 30 days from the date of the filing of the notice required by subdivision (a) of Section 21108 or subdivision (a) of Section 21152 by the lead agency.
Michelle Boss Report 1 9 [email protected] 0
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1331
APPENDIX D
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1332
Copyright© 2019 by ENGEO Incorporated. This document
may not be reproduced in whole or in pa1t by any means
whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without the express written consent of ENGEO Incorporated.
WINE COUNTRY INN
LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
SUBMITTED TO
Ms. Michelle Boss
LWCI, LLC
2231 Hampton Road
Livermore, CA 94550
PREPARED BY
ENGEO Incorporated
March 29, 2019
Revised April 15, 2019
PROJECT NO.
15909.000.000
EO
- Expect ExcellenceATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1333
E
GEOTECHNICAL
ENVIRON MENTAL
WATER RESOURCES
-Expect CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Excellence----------------------- March 29, 2019
Revised April 15, 2019
Ms. Michelle Boss
LWCI, LLC
2231 Hampton Road
Livermore, CA 94550
Subject: Wine Country Inn
Livermore, California
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Dear Ms. Boss:
Project No.
15909.000.000
We are pleased to present this geotechnical report for the Wine Country Inn project as outlined in our proposal dated February 22, 2019, and authorized on March 1, 2019. We characterized the subsurface conditions at the subject site to provide the enclosed geotechnical recommendations for design.
Our experience and that of our profession clearly indicate that the risk of costly design, construction, and maintenance problems can be significantly lowered by retaining the design geotechnical engineering firm to review the project plans and specifications and provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. Please let us know when working drawings are nearing completion, and we will be glad to discuss these additional services with you.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please call and we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
ENGEO Incorporated
ts/jf/cjn
17278 Golden Valley Parkway, Lathrop CA 95330 • (209) 835-0610 • Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1334
' .
LWCI, LLC
15909.000.000
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploration
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... 1
2.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 2
2.1 SITE BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 2
2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................................................................................... 2
2.3 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY ............................................................................................ 3
2.3.1 Geology .................................................................................................................. 3
2.3.2 Seismicity ............................................................................................................... 3
2.4 SURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 3
2.5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 3
2.6 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 4
2.7 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................... 4
3.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 4
3.1 UNDOCUMENTED FILL ..................................................................................................... 4
3.2 EXPANSIVE SOIL ............................................................................................................... 4
3.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS ........................................................................................................... 5
3.3.1 Ground Rupture ..................................................................................................... 5
3.3.2 Ground Shaking ..................................................................................................... 5
3.3.3 Liquefaction ............................................................................................................ 5
3.3.4 Ground Lurching .................................................................................................... 6
3.3.5 Flooding ................................................................................................................. 6
3.4 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ................................................................... 6
4.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ........................................................................ 6
5.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 7
5.1 UNDOCUMENTED FILL ..................................................................................................... 7
5.2 EXPANSIVE SOIL MITIGATION (FOR CONVENTIOANL FOUNDATIONS) .................... 7
5.3 GENERAL SITE CLEARING .............................................................................................. 7
5.4 OVER-OPTIMUM SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS ........................................................... 8
5.5 ACCEPTABLE FILL ............................................................................................................ 8
5.6 FILL COMPACTION ............................................................................................................ 8
5.6.1 Grading in Structural Areas .................................................................................... 8
5.6.2 Underground Utility Backfill .................................................................................... 9
5.6.3 Lime-Treated Subgrade Soil .................................................................................. 9
5.7 SITE DRAINAGE .............................................................................................................. 10
5.8 LANDSCAPING CONSIDERATION ................................................................................. 10
6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 12
6.1 POST-TENSIONED MAT FOUNDATIONS ...................................................................... 12
6.2 CONVENTIONAL FOOTINGS WITH SLAB-ON-GRADE ................................................. 13
6.2.1 Settlement ............................................................................................................ 13
6.2.2 Waterstop ............................................................................................................. 13
6.2.3 Reinforcement ...................................................................................................... 14
6.2.4 Foundation Lateral Resistance ............................................................................ 14 EO -Expect Excel/encel of ii March 29, 2019
Revised April 15, 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1335
L.WCI, L.LC
15909.000.000
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Wine Country Inn
Geotechn1cal Exploration
7.0 SLABS-ON-GRADE ........................................................................................... 14
7.1 INTERIOR CONCRETE FLOOR SLABS .......................................................................... 14
7.1.1 Minimum Design Section ..................................................................................... 14
7.1.2 Slab Moisture Vapor Reduction ........................................................................... 14
7.2 EXTERIOR FLATWORK ................................................................................................... 15
8.0 SOUNDWALLS AND RETAINING WALLS ....................................................... 15
8.1 LATERAL SOIL PRESSURES .......................................................................................... 15
8.2 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE ........................................................................................ 16
8.3 BACKFILL ......................................................................................................................... 16
8.4 FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 16
9.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN ......................................................................................... 17
9.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS .................................................................................................. 17
9.2 SUBGRADE AND AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTION ................................................. 18
9.3 CUT-OFF CURBS ............................................................................................................. 18
10.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ....................................... 18
SELECTED REFERENCES
FIGURES
APPENDIX A- Exploration Logs
APPENDIX B - Laboratory Test Data
EO -Expect Excellence---
ii of ii March 29, 2019
Revised April ·15, 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1336
..,
LWCI, LLC
15909.000.000
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploration
We prepared this geotechnical report to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design of the Wine Country Inn project located in Livermore, California.
Our scope of services included the following:
1. Reviewing relevant background information, including available literature and geologic maps.
2. Performing subsurface investigation to observe the current conditions at the site. Our exploration includes advancing five borings up to 25 feet deep.
3. Performing laboratory testing on discrete samples representative of site conditions.
4. Evaluating geotechnical conditions and performing geotechnical engineering analysis of the collected data.
5. Preparing this geotechnical report to present the findings and conclusions of the above, and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the project.
In preparation for our report, we received the following:
1. Aerial Topo prepared by CBG dated October 30, 2018.
2. Architectural site plan prepared by SDG Architects Inc. dated January 12, 2019.
3. Overall Site Plan prepared by CBG dated April 3, 2019.
We prepared this report for the exclusive use of LWCI, LLC and their consultants for design of this project. In the event that any changes are made in the character, design, or layout of the development, we must be contacted to review the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to evaluate whether modifications are recommended. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without our express written consent.
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject project is located southwest of the intersection of Hansen Road and Arroyo Road in Livermore, California. Based on our review of the provided plan, the proposed development will include construction of a 30-unit inn and restaurant. Improvements will also include a courtyard, parking areas and access roadways. Structural loads are yet to be determined; we assume that structural loads will be representative for this type of construction.
EO -Expect ExcellencePage 11 March 29, 2019
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1337
LWCI, LLC
15909.000.000
2.0 FINDINGS
2.1 SITE BACKGROUND
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploration
We reviewed historical imagery dating back to 1958. Based on our review, we believe historical site use consisted of agricultural purposes as shown in Exhibit 2.1-1 below. ln addition, in year 2002, during grading activities of the adjacent roadway, some soil stockpiling can be observed at the subject site as shown on Exhibit 2.1-2 below.
EXHIBIT 2.1-1: Historical Aerials Year 1958 EXHIBIT 2.1-2: Historical Aerials Year 2002 No additional information regarding previous site use was provided at the time of the proposal.
2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION
Our field exploration included drilling five exploratory borings performed on March 13 and March 14, 2019. Approximate boring locations are shown on our Site Plan, Figure 2, which were estimated using site features, and pacing and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.
An ENGEO representative observed the drilling and logged the subsurface conditions at each location. We retained the services of a subcontractor with a truck-mounted drill rig and crew to advance the borings using 4-inch-diameter solid-flight auger methods. We advanced the borings to a maximum depth of approximately 25 feet below existing grade.
We retrieved disturbed soil samples at various intervals in the borings using either a 2½-inch-inside-diameter (1.D.) Modified California Sampler fitted with 6-inch-long liners or a 2-inch-outside-diameter (O.D.) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split-spoon sampler. We drove the samplers with a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches using a rope-and-cathead mechanism. The penetration of the samples into the soil materials was field recorded as the number of blows needed to drive the sampler 18 inches in 6-inch increments. Unless otherwise indicated, the blows per foot recorded on the boring log represent the accumulated number of blows to drive the last 1 foot of penetration; we have not converted the blow counts using any correction factors. When sampler driving was difficult, penetration was recorded only as inches penetrated for 50 hammer blows.
EO
·-- Expect ExcellencePage 12 March 29, 2019
Revised April 15 20'19
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1338
LWCI, LLC
15909.000 .000
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploration
We used the field logs to develop the report logs in Appendix A The logs depict subsurface conditions at the exploration locations for the date of exploration; however, subsurface conditions may vary with time.
2.3 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
2.3.1 Geology
We present the following discussion of geology based on our field reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, and review of the CGS Geologic Map of the San Francisco-San Jose Quadrangle (Wagner, Bortugno, and McJunkin 1991 ).
Based on our review of the referenced geologic map shown on Figure 3, the subject site is mapped within the (Qo) older alluvium generally consisting of interbedded clay, silt, sand, and gravel.
2.3.2 Seismicity
The site is located in an area of moderate seismicity. No known active faults cross the site and the property is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone; however, large (greater than Moment Magnitude 7) earthquakes have historically occurred in the Bay Area to the west and along the margins of the Central Valley and many earthquakes of low magnitude occur every year. We conducted a review of the 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps to evaluate nearby faults and the maximum moment magnitude earthquake produced. The two nearest active faults are the Greenville Fault, located approximately 6 miles northeast, and the Mount Diablo Thrust, located 6½ miles north.
Other active faults capable of producing significant shaking at the site include the Calaveras fault 7 miles southwest, the Hayward fault 12 miles west of site, and the San Andreas Fault 31 miles southwest. Any one of these faults could generate an earthquake capable of causing strong ground shaking at the subject site.
2.4 SURFACE CONDITIONS
We observed site topography to be relatively flat to moderately sloped on the southern and western perimeters of the site. Based on our review of the provided topo, we understand site elevations vary from approximately elevation 520 to 550 feet (2K City BM Datum). We observed surface grasses, existing vineyard to the east, west, and Hansen Road to the north. Please refer to the Site Plan, Figure 2, for more information on site features.
2.5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
We encountered approximately 2 to 5 ½ feet of undocumented fill at the surface of the site. We then encountered hard lean clay with varying amounts of gravel to the total depth explored.
Laboratory results show the lean clay to fat clays within the near surface undocumented fill have a Plasticity Index (Pl) of approximately 10 to 43, indicating low to high expansion potential.
Consult the Site Plan and exploration logs for specific subsurface conditions at each location. We include our exploration logs in Appendix A The logs contain the soil type, color, consistency, and visual classification in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The logs graphically depict the subsurface conditions encountered at the time of the exploration.
EO
--· Expect Excellence -
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1339
L.WCI, LLC
15909.000.000
2.6 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploration
We did not observe static or perched groundwater in any of our subsurface explorations.
Fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation practice, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made.
2.7 LABORATORY TESTING
We performed laboratory tests on selected soil samples to evaluate their engineering properties.
For this project, we performed moisture content, dry density, unconfined compression, sieve analysis, and Atterberg Limits Testing. Moisture contents and dry densities are recorded on the boring logs in Appendix A; other laboratory data is included in Appendix B.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
From a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the geotechnical recommendations in this report are properly incorporated into the design plans and specifications. The primary geotechnical concerns that could affect development on the site are undocumented fills and expansive soil. We summarize our conclusions below.
3.1 UNDOCUMENTED FILL
As discussed in Section 2.0, we encountered 2 to 5½ feet of undocumented fill in our geotechnical explorations. In general, undocumented fill generally consisted of medium stiff to very stiff lean clay to fat clay with varying amounts of gravel. Non-engineered fill can undergo excessive settlement, especially under new fill or building loads. We provide undocumented fill recommendations in Section 5.0.
3.2 EXPANSIVE SOIL
We observed potentially expansive lean clay near the surface of the site. Our laboratory testing indicates that this soil exhibits low to high shrink/swell potential with variations in moisture content.
Expansive soil changes in volume with changes in moisture. It can shrink or swell and cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soil can be reduced by: (1) using a rigid mat foundation that is designed to resist the settlement and heave of expansive soil, (2) deepening the foundations to below the zone of moisture fluctuation, i.e. by using deep footings or drilled piers, and/or (3) using footings at normal shallow depths but bottomed on a layer of select fill having a low expansion potential.
Successful performance of structures on expansive soil requires special attention during construction. It is imperative that exposed soils be kept moist prior to placement of concrete for foundation construction. It can be difficult to re-moisturize clayey soil without excavation, moisture conditioning, and re-compaction.
For conventional foundations (slab-on grade and deepened footings) to reduce the potential for damage to the planned building, we recommend that the upper 18 inches of the building pad extend at least 10 feet laterally beyond building areas (except for landscape areas) be underlain by non-expansive fill. Due to the nature of the site, selective grading to mitigate expansive soil may not be a practical alternative and imported fill may be recommended. In lieu of importing
- Expect Excellence-·
March 29, 2019
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1340
LWCI, LLC
15909.000.000
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploration
non-expansive fill, it may be cost effective to lime treat the upper 18 inches of the building pad to reduce the expansion potential of the onsite soil. We recommend that other structural elements, such as pavements and flatwork be designed for high expansive soil conditions.
We provide specific grading recommendations for compaction of clay soil at the site. The purpose of these recommendations is to reduce the swell potential of the clay by compacting the soil at a high moisture content and controlling the amount of compaction. Expansive soil mitigation recommendations are presented in Section 5.0 of this report.
3.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS
Potential seismic hazards resulting from a nearby moderate to major earthquake can generally be classified as primary and secondary. The primary effect is ground rupture, also called surface faulting. The common secondary seismic hazards include ground shaking and ground lurching.
The following sections present a discussion of these hazards as they apply to the site. Based on topographic and lithologic data, the risk of regional subsidence or uplift, lateral spreading, landslides, tsunamis, flooding or seiches is low to negligible at the site.
3.3.1 Ground Rupture
Since there are no known active faults crossing the property and the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Special Study Zone, ground rupture is unlikely at the subject property.
3.3.2 Ground Shaking
An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region could cause considerable ground shaking at the site, similar to that which has occurred in the past. To mitigate the shaking effects, structures should be designed using sound engineering judgment and the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) requirements, as a minimum. Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead-and-live loads. The code-prescribed lateral forces are generally considered to be substantially smaller than the comparable forces that would be associated with a major earthquake. Therefore, structures should be able to: ( 1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and {3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. Conformance to the current building code recommendations does not constitute any kind of guarantee that significant structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake; however, it is reasonable to expect that a well-designed and well-constructed structure will not collapse or cause loss of life in a major earthquake (SEAOC, 1996).
3.3.3 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as imposed by earthquakes. The soil typically considered most susceptible to liquefaction is clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded fine sand below the groundwater table. Empirical evidence indicates that loose silty sand is also potentially liquefiable. We did not encountered groundwater and or loose sands in our boring explorations. As such, we believe the potential for liquefaction at the subject site is negligible.
EO
····· ·-·· Expect Excellence··-······
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1341
L.WCI, L.L.C
'15909.000.000
3,3.4 Ground Lurching
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploration
Ground lurching is a result of the rolling motion imparted to the ground surface during energy released by an earthquake. Such rolling motion can cause ground cracks to form in weaker soils.
The potential for the formation of these cracks is considered greater at contacts between deep alluvium and bedrock. Such an occurrence is possible at the site as in other locations in the Bay Area region, but based on the site location, the offset is likely minor,
3.3.5 Flooding
The Civil Engineer should review pertinent maps and information relating to possible flood levels for the subject site based on final pad elevations and provide appropriate design measures for development of the project, if recommended.
3.4 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
The 2016 CBC utilizes design criteria set forth in the 2010 ASCE 7 Standard. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, we characterized the site as Site Class D in accordance with the 2016 CBC. We provide the 2016 CBC seismic design parameters in Table 3.4-1 below, which include design spectral response acceleration parameters based on the mapped Risk Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral response acceleration parameters.
TABLE 3.4-1: 2016 CBC Seismic Design Parameters, Latitude: 37.646880 Longitude: -121.769025 Site Class
Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, Ss (g) Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, S1 (g) Site Coefficient, FA
Site Coefficient, Fv
MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SMs (g) MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, SM1 (g) Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, Sos (g) Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, So1 (g) MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM (g) Long period transition-period, TL
4.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
D
1,50
0.60 1.0
1.50 1.50
0.90 1.00
0.60 0.50
8 sec
Our experience and that of our profession clearly indicate that the risk of costly design, construction, and maintenance problems can be significantly lowered by retaining the design geotechnical engineering firm to:
1. Review the final grading and foundation plans and specifications prior to construction to evaluate whether our recommendations have been implemented, and to provide additional or modified recommendations, as needed. This also allows us to check if any changes have occurred in the nature, design, or location of the proposed improvements and provides the opportunity to prepare a written response with updated recommendations. 0 -Expect Excellence ---
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1342
LWCI, LLC
i 5909.000.000
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploratlon
2. Perform construction monitoring to check the validity of the assumptions we made to prepare this report. Earthwork operations should be performed under the observation of our representative to check that the site is properly prepared, the selected fill materials are satisfactory, and that placement and compaction of the fills has been performed in accordance with our recommendations and the project specifications. Sufficient notification to us prlor to earthwork is important.
If we are not retained to perform the services described above, then we are not responsible for any party's interpretation of our report (and subsequent addenda, letters, and verbal discussions).
5.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
The relative compaction and optimum moisture content of soil and aggregate base referred to in this report are based on the most recent ASTM 01557 test method. Compacted soil is not acceptable if it is unstable. It should exhibit only minimal flexing or pumping, as observed by our field representative.
As used in this report, the term "moisture condition" refers to adjusting the moisture content of the soil by either drying if too wet or adding water if too dry.
We define "structural areas" as any area sensitive to settlement of compacted soil. These areas include, but are not limited to building pads, sidewalks, pavement areas, and retaining walls.
5.1 UNDOCUMENTED FILL
As discussed in Section 2.0 and 3.0, undocumented fill was encountered across the site. We recommend undocumented fills be removed and placed back as an engineered fill.
5.2 EXPANSIVE SOIL MITIGATION (FOR CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS) To reduce the risk of structural damage associated with the variably expansive soil conditions for conventional foundations (slab-on grade and footings), we recommend constructing the upper 18 inches of the building pad with non-expansive fill. As an alternative to importing non-expansive fill for grading the bullding pad, it may be cost effective to lime treat the upper 18 inches of the finished building pad and extending 1 0 feet laterally beyond.
5.3 GENERAL SITE CLEARING
Areas to be developed should be cleared of surface and subsurface deleterious materials, including buried utility and associated roots. Clean and backfill excavations extending below the planned finished site grades with suitable material compacted to the recommendations presented in Section 5.3. We should be retained to observe and test backfilling.
The surface vegetation should be cut as close to the surface as possible and removed from the site. The remaining vegetation should be thoroughly disked or mulched in to the upper 12 inches of the site soils until our field representative determines that the soil is adequately mixed.
EO
·---Expect ExcellencePage 17 March 29, 2019
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1343
LWCI, LLC
15909.000.000
5.4 OVER-OPTIMUM SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS
Wine Country Inn
Geotecl1nical Exploration
The contractor should anticipate encountering excessively over-optimum (wet) soil moisture conditions during winter or spring grading, or during or following periods of rain. Wet soil can make proper compaction difficult or impossible. Wet soil conditions can be mitigated by:
1. Frequent spreading and mixing during warm dry weather.
2. Mixing with drier materials.
3. Mixing with a lime or cement product; or
4. Stabilizing with aggregate, geotextile stabilization fabric, or both.
Options 3 and 4 should be evaluated by our field representative prior to implementation.
5.5 ACCEPTABLE FILL
With the exception of any organically contaminated materials, the site soils are suitable for use as engineered fill. The Geotechnical Engineer should be informed when import materials are planned for the site.
All import materials should be submitted and approved by us prior to delivery at the site, and should be free of organic material, debris, and fragments larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension. Import materials should have a Plasticity Index equal to or less than the native material.
5.6 FILL COMPACTION
5.6.1 Grading in Structural Areas
The contractor should perform subgrade compaction prior to fill placement, following cutting operations, and in areas left at grade as follows.
1. Scarify to a depth of at least 8 inches;
2. Moisture condition soil to at least 3 percentage points over the optimum moisture content; and
3. Compact the soil to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Compact the upper 12 inches of finish pavement subgrade to at least 95 percent relative compaction prior to aggregate base placement.
After the subgrade has been compacted, the contractor should place and compact acceptable fill as follows:
1. Spread fill in loose lifts that do not exceed 12 inches;
2. Moisture condition lifts to at least 3 percentage points over the optimum moisture content; and
3. Compact fill to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction; compact the upper 12 inches of fill in pavement areas to at least 95 percent relative compaction prior to aggregate base placement.
EO -Expect ExcellencePage I 8 March 29, 20'19
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1344
LWC!, LLC
15909.000.000
5.6.2 Underground Utility Backfill
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploration
Recommendations for fill compaction of underground utility backfill within structural areas are provided in this section. Jetting of backfill is not an acceptable means of compaction. Where utility trenches cross perimeter building foundations, backfill with native clay soil for pipe bedding and backfill for a distance of 3 feet on each side of the foundation. This will help prevent the normally granular bedding materials from acting as a conduit for water to enter beneath the building. As an alternative, a sand cement slurry (minimum 28-day compressive strength of 500 psi) may be used in place of native clay soil.
The contractor is responsible for conducting all trenching and shoring in accordance with CALOSHA requirements. Project consultants involved in utility design should specify pipe-bedding materials.
The contractor should place and compact trench backfill in accordance with Section 5.6.1.
5.6.3 Lime-Treated Subgrade Soil
We provide options for lime treating the parking areas and building pads later in this report If those options are selected for the project, the following recommendations should be adhered to.
1. The lime mix should consist of a minimum of 4 percent lime. The lime mix should be approved by our representative. Prior to lime treating the subgrade soils, testing may be needed to determine the actual percentage of lime required.
2. The soil should be moisture conditioned to at least 3 percentage points above the optimum moisture content before mixing. The mixing should be performed in accordance with the current version of Caltrans Standard Specifications with the following exceptions:
a. Following mixing, the treated soils should be allowed to hydrate fully at least 24 hours prior to compaction.
b. Following hydration, the treated soil should be compacted to not less than 90 percent relative compaction at a moisture content at least 3 percentage points above the optimum to a non-yielding surface.
5.7 5.7.1
SLOPES
Gradients
Construct final slope gradients to 3: 1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. If steeper slopes are desired, we should be allowed to review the proposed grading plan and provide reinforcement recommendations as necessary. The contractor is responsible to construct temporary construction slopes in accordance with CALOSHA requirements.
In addition, we understand structural loads may be imposed approximately 15 feet away from the slope hinge. Typical structural loads for single story structures approximately 15 feet from the top of the proposed 3: 1 slopes will not affect the performance of the proposed slopes.
Page I 9
··········· Expect Excellence --
March 29, 2019
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1345
LWCI, LLC
15909.000.000
5.7.2 Fill Placed on Existing Slopes
Wine Country !nn
Geotechnical Exploration
We recommend keying and benching where fills are placed on original grade with a gradient of 6:1 or steeper.
Construct a minimum 20-foot-wide key inward from the toe of the new fill slope. Extend the key at least 2 feet below original grade into firm competent soil/rock, as evaluated by ENGEO. Slope the key bottom at least 2 percent downward toward the heel of the key. Deeper keys may be recommended by ENGEO based on actual conditions observed during construction.
Cut benches into original grade after the key has been nearly filled and compacted in accordance with Section 5.0. Construct benches into original slope grade as filling proceeds every 2 feet vertically, to remove loose native material. Deeper bench depths may be recommended by ENGEO depending on actual conditions observed during construction. Bench widths may vary depending on the original slope grade and actual bench depth. Keyway and bench subdrain alternatives are presented on Figure 5.
5.8 SITE DRAINAGE
The project Civil Engineer is responsible for designing surface drainage improvements. With regard to geotechnical engineering issues, we recommend that finish grades be sloped away from buildings and pavements to the maximum extent practical to reduce the potentially damaging effects of expansive soil. The latest California Building Code Section 1804.4 specifies minimum slopes of 5 percent away from foundations for pervious surfaces.
As a minimum, we recommend the following:
1. Discharge roof downspouts into closed conduits and direct away from foundations and pavements to appropriate drainage devices.
2. Do not allow water to pond near foundations, pavements, or exterior flatwork. 5,9 LANDSCAPING CONSIDERATION
As the near-surface soil is moderately expansive, we recommend greatly restricting the amount of surface water infiltration near structures, pavements, flatwork, and slabs on grade. This may be accomplished by:
• Selecting landscaping that requires little or no watering, especially within 3 feet of structures, slabs-on-grade, or pavements.
"' Using low precipitation sprinkler heads.
• Regulating the amount of water distributed to lawn or planter areas by installing timers on the sprinkler system.
• Providing surface grades to drain rainfall or landscape watering to appropriate collection systems and away from structures, slabs-on-grade, or pavements.
EO -Expect Excellence----
Pagef10 March 29, 2019
Revised April ·15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1346
LWCI, LLC
15909.000.000
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploration
• Preventing water from draining toward or ponding near building foundations, slabs-on-grade, or pavements.
• Avoiding open planting areas within 3 feet of the building perimeter.
We recommend that these items be incorporated into the landscaping plans.
5.10 STORMWATER BIORETENTION AREAS
If bioretention areas are implemented, we recommend that, when practical, they be planned a minimum of 5 feet away from structural site improvements, such as buildings, streets, retaining walls, and sidewalks/driveways. When this is not practical, bioretention areas located within 5 feet of structural site improvements can either:
1. Be constructed with structural side walls capable of withstanding the loads from the adjacent improvements, or
2. Incorporate filter material compacted to between 85 and 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557, latest edition) and a waterproofing system designed to reduce the potential for moisture transmission into the subgrade soil beneath the adjacent improvement.
In addition, one of the following options should be followed.
1. We recommend that bioretention design incorporate a waterproofing system lining the bioswale excavation and a subdrain, or other storm drain system, to collect and convey water to an approved outlet. The waterproofing system should cover the bioretention area excavation in such a manner as to reduce the potential for moisture transmission beneath the adjacent improvements.
2. Alternatively, and with some risk of movement of adjacent improvements, if infiltration ls desired, we recommend the perimeter of the bioretention areas be lined with an HOPE tree root barrier that extends at least 1 foot below the bottom of the bioretention areas/infiltration trenches.
Site improvements located adjacent to bioretention areas that are underlain by base rock, sand, or other imported granular materials, should be designed with a deepened edge that extends to the bottom of the imported material underlying the improvement.
Where adjacent site improvements include buildings greater than three stories, streets steeper than 3 percent, or design elements subject to lateral loads (such as from impact or traffic patterns), additional design considerations may be recommended. If the surface of the bioretention area is depressed, the slope gradient should follow the slope guidelines described in earlier section(s) of this document. In addition, although not recommended, if trees are to be planted within bioretention areas, HOPE Tree Boxes that extend below the bottom of the bioretention system should be installed to reduce potential impact to subdrain systems that may be part of the bioretention area design. For this condition, the waterproofing system should be connected to the HPDE Tree Box with a waterproof seal.
Given the nature of bioretention systems and possible proximity to improvements, we recommend ENGEO be retained to review design plans and provide testing and observation services during the installation of linings, compaction of the filter material, and connection of designed drains.
Page I 11
--- Expect Excellence---·-·
March 29, 2019
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1347
LWCI, LLC
15909.000.000
Wine Country Inn
Geotecllnical Exploration
It should be noted that the contractor is responsible for conducting all excavation and shoring in a manner that does not cause damage to adjacent improvements during construction and future maintenance of the bioretention areas. As with any excavation adjacent to improvements, the contractor should reduce the exposure time such that the improvements are not detrimentally impacted.
6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed improvements can be supported on conventional foundations with continuous exterior footings with interior footings with a slab on grade underlain by 18 inches of nonexpansive material or Post Tensioned Mat Foundations.
Conventional foundations should be founded in competent native soil or compacted fill and slab on grades supported by at least 18 inches of non-expensive fill. To construct a non-expansive fill cap, the upper 18 inches of the building pad, extending 10 feet laterally beyond ( excluding landscaping areas), should consist of imported low-expansive fill with a Plasticity Index less than 12. Alternatively, the upper 18 inches of the finished building pads and to 10 feet laterally beyond can be chemically treated with lime to reduce the expansive potential of site soils.
If chemical treatment is selected as an alternative to importing non-expansive fill for building pad construction, the type of chemical admixture (lime, quicklime, or cement) and percentage of chemical additive should be based on testing of actual foundation soil after mass grading is substantially completed. Based on our experience, on a preliminary basis, we estimate that chemical treatment with approximately 4 percent lime (by dry unit weight) may be appropriate to reduce the plasticity of the on-site soils. Chemical treatment should be performed by a specialty contractor experienced in this type of work. In addition, excavations performed in chemically treated soils, such as for utility trenches, should be stockpiled and protected for reuse in the upper backfill area to match the treated section.
6.1 POST-TENSIONED MAT FOUNDATIONS
The proposed structures can be supported on post-tensioned (PT) mat foundations bearing on prepared native soil or engineered fill.
The Structural Engineer should determine the actual PT mat thickness using the geotechnical recommendations in this report; we defer to the professional judgment of the Structural Engineer on the necessary mat thickness. ENGEO should be retained to review the PT mat foundation design.
PT mats may be designed for an average allowable bearing pressure of up to 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead-plus-live loads with maximum localized bearing pressures of 1,500 psf at column or wall loads.
TABLE 6.1-1: Post-Tensioned Mat Design Recommendations
Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em (feet) 7.8
Differential Soil Movement, ym (inches) 0.5
EO �
"'age I 12
···-·· Expect Excellence--
4.0 1.3
March 29, 2019
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1348
LWCI, LLC
15909.000.000
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnrcal Exploration
The above values are based on the procedure presented by the Post-Tensioning Institute "Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-on-Ground" Third Edition, including appropriate addenda (2004).
Underlay PT mats with a moisture reduction system as recommended in Section 7.1.2 below. In addition, moisture conditioning of the building foundation subgrade should be to a moisture content at least 4 percentage points above optimum immediately prior to foundation construction.
The subgrade should not be allowed to dry prior to concrete placement. We also recommend that ENGEO be retained to observe the pre-pour moisture conditions to check that our report recommendations have been followed.
In addition, foundation design should incorporate the potential settlement recommendations provided in Section 6.2.1.
6.2 CONVENTIONAL FOOTINGS WITH SLAB-ON-GRADE
The proposed structures can also be founded on conventional footings with an interior slab-on-grade underlain by 18 inches of nonexpansive material. Footings should have the minimum dimensions as follows in the Table 6.2-1 below.
TABLE 6.2-1: Minimum Footing Dimensions
Continuous / Isolated 24 18
The minimum footing depths shown above are taken from lowest adjacent pad grade. The cold joint between the exterior footing and slab-on-grade should be located at least 4 inches above adjacent exterior grade.
Foundations that meet the minimums listed above can be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead-plus-live loads.
The maximum allowable bearing pressure is a net value; the weight of the footing may be neglected for design purposes. Footings located adjacent to utility trenches should have their bearing surfaces below an imaginary 1: 1 (horizontal:vertical) plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the trench to the footing.
6.2.1 Settlement
Structural loads were not provided at the time of this report. Based on typical loading we anticipate static total settlements to be less than approximately ½ inch with approximately ¼ inch of differential settlement across the structure. We should be allowed to review structural loads and plans and update settlements above as necessary.
6.2.2 Waterstop
If a two-pour system is used for footings and slab, the cold joint between the exterior footing and slab-on-grade should be located at least 4 inches above adjacent finish exterior grade. If this is not done, then we recommend the addition of a waterstop between the two pours to reduce moisture penetration through the cold joint and migration under the slab. Use of a monolithic pour would eliminate the need for the waterstop.
0 ----Expect Excellence -
Page I 13 March 29, 2019
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1349
LWCI, LLC
15909.000.000
6.2.3 Reinforcement
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnica! Exploration
The Structural Engineer should design footing reinforcement to support the intended structural loads without excessive settlement. Reinforce continuous footings with top and bottom steel to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. At a minimum, design continuous footings to structurally span a clear distance of 5 feet.
6.2.4 Foundation Lateral Resistance
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction along the base and by passive pressure along the sides of foundations. The passive pressure is based on an equivalent fluid pressure in pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend the following values for design; these values are not factored, so we recommend applying appropriate load or resistance factors based on the method of analysis and load combination:
• Passive Lateral Pressure: 300 pcf
• Coefficient of Friction: 0.30
We recommend half of the passive resistance be used if both passive pressure and friction are used in combination. The upper 1 foot of soil should be excluded from passive pressure computations unless it is confined by pavement or a concrete slab.
7.0 SLABS�ON-GRADE
7.1 INTERIOR CONCRETE FLOOR SLABS
7.1.1 Minimum Design Section
Provided the acceptable fill and building pad treatment recommendations are implemented, we recommend the following minimum design:
1. Provide a minimum concrete thickness of 5 inches.
2. Place minimum steel reinforcing of No. 3 rebar on 18-inch centers each way within the middle third of the slab to help control the width of shrinkage cracking that inherently occurs as concrete cures.
The structural Engineer should provide final design thickness and additional reinforcement, as necessary, for the intended structural loads.
7.1.2 Slab Moisture Vapor Reduction
When buildings are constructed with concrete slab-on-grade floors, water vapor from beneath the slab will migrate through the slab and into the building. This water vapor can be reduced but not stopped. Vapor transmission can negatively affect floor coverings and lead to increased moisture within a building. When water vapor migrating through the slab would be undesirable, we recommend the following to reduce, but not stop, water vapor transmission upward through the slab-on-grade.
EO
-----Expect Excellence ---
Page I 14 March 29, 20·19
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1350
LWCI, LLC
15909.000.000
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploration
1. Construct a moisture retarder system directly beneath the slab on-grade that consists of the following:
a. Vapor retarder membrane sealed at all seams and pipe penetrations and connected to all footings. Vapor retarders shall conform to Class A vapor retarder in accordance with ASTM E 1745, latest edition, "Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs." The vapor retarder should be underlain by
b. 4 inches of clean crushed rock. Crushed rock should have 100 percent passing the ¾-inch sieve and less than 5 percent passing the No. 4 Sieve. The 4 inches of clean crushed rock can be included as part of the 18 inches of non-expansive material beneath the interior slab-on-grade.
2. Moist cure slabs for a minimum of 3 days or use other equivalent curing specified by the structural engineer.
The structural engineer should be consulted as to the use of a layer of clean sand or pea gravel (less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve) placed on top of the vapor retarder membrane to assist in concrete curing.
7.2 EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Exterior flatwork includes items such as concrete sidewalks, steps, and outdoor courtyards exposed to foot traffic only. Provide a minimum section of 4 inches of concrete over 4 inches of aggregate base. The aggregate base should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction Control and construction joints should be included in accordance with current Portland Cement Association Guidelines.
8.0 SOUNDWALLS AND RETAINING WALLS
8.1 LATERAL SOIL PRESSURES
For drained and restrained retaining walls, at-rest lateral earth pressures should be considered.
Table 8.1-1 provides lateral earth pressures for retaining wall design with level backfill conditions.
TABLE 8.1-1: Lateral Earth Pressures for Drained Retaining Walls with Level Backfill 3iutJlmJ!M4Ub!Wi1i
50 Appropriate surcharge loads from buildings, hardscape, and vehicles should be incorporated when the surcharge loading is situated above a 1: 1 (horizontal:vertical) line of projection extending up the rear base edge of the bottom of the footing. A uniform horizontal surcharge load of 50 percent of the vertical surcharge load should be assumed to act over the height of the wall.
The above lateral earth pressures assume level backfill conditions and sufficient drainage behind the walls to prevent any build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface water infiltration and/or a rise in the groundwater level. If adequate drainage is not provided, we recommend that an additional equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pct be added to the values recommended above for both restrained and unrestrained walls. Damp proofing of the walls should be included in areas where EO
--- Expect Excellence --
Page I 15 March 29, 2019
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1351
LWCI, LLC
15909.000.000
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploration
wall moisture would be problematic. A drainage system should be constructed behind the wall, as recommended in Section 8.2 below, to reduce hydrostatic forces.
Passive pressures acting on foundations and keyways may be assumed as 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) provided that the area in front of the retaining wall is level for a distance of at least 10 feet or three times the depth of foundation and keyway, whichever is greater. The friction factor for sliding resistance may be assumed as 0.30. The upper 1 foot of soil should be excluded from passive pressure computations unless it is confined by pavement or a concrete slab.
8.2 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE
Either graded rock drains or geo-synthetic drainage composites should be constructed behind the retaining walls to reduce hydrostatic lateral forces. For rock drain construction, we recommend two types of rock drain alternatives:
1. A minimum 12-inch-thick layer of Class 2 Permeable Filter Material (Caltrans Specification 68-2.02F} placed directly behind the wall, or
2. A minimum 12-inch-thick layer of washed, crushed rock with 100 percent passing the ¾-inch sieve and less than 5 percent passing the No. 4 sieve. Envelop rock in a minimum 6-ounce, nonwoven geotextile filter fabric.
For both types of rock drains:
1. Place the rock drain directly behind the walls of the structure.
2. Extend rock drains from the wall base to within 12 inches of the top of the wall.
3. Place a minimum of 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe (glued joints and end caps) at the base of the wall, inside the rock drain and fabric, with perforations placed down.
4. Place pipe at a gradient at least 1 percent to direct water away from the wall by gravity to a drainage facility.
We should review and approve gee-synthetic composite drainage systems prior to use. Retaining wall drainage for walls less than or equal to two feet are not required. 8,3 BACKFILL
Backfill behind retaining walls should be placed and compacted in accordance with Section 5.
The contractor should use light compaction equipment within 5 feet of the wall face. If heavy compaction equipment is used, the walls should be temporarily braced to avoid excessivf? wall movement.
8.4 FOUNDATIONS
Retaining walls may be supported on continuous footings designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf embedded to a minimum depth of 24 inches.
EO
----Expect Excellence-----
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1352
LWCI, LLC
15909. 000. 000
9.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN
9.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploration
Based on the predominance of highly plastic surficial clay soil across the site, it is our opinion that a Resistance Value (R-value) of 5 is applicable for design. We developed the following recommended pavement sections using Topic 633 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (including the asphalt factor of safety), presented in Table 9.1-1 below.
TABLE 9.1-1: Recommended Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
4.0 3.0 8.0
5.0 3.0 10.0
5.5 3.5 11.0
6.0 3.5 13.0
6.5 4.0 14.0
7.0 4.0 15.5
8.0 5.0 17.5
9.0 5.5 20.5
Note: AB is aggregate base Class 2 material with minimum R = 78.
The civil engineer should determine the appropriate traffic indices based on the estimated traffic loads and frequencies.
9.2 RIGID PAVEMENTS
We developed the rigid Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP) section in accordance with the methods contained in the Thickness Design for Highway and Street Pavements Manual by the Portland Cement Association.
Table 9.2-1 below presents recommended PCCP and aggregate base (AB) thicknesses for allowable Average Daily Truck Traffic (ADTT) indices that correspond to R-values of 5 and the use of concrete with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3,500 psi (which equates to a Modulus of Rupture equal to approximately 550 psi).
TABLE 9.2-1: Recommended Concrete Pavement Sections
13 6½ 6.0
Note: Sections are not based on the presence of a concrete shoulder or curb as well as the use of dowels.
Provide minimum control joint spacing in accordance with Portland Cement Association guidelines. The civil engineer should determine the appropriate traffic indices based on the estimated traffic loads and frequencies.
EO
-Expect ExcellencePagel17 March 29, 2019
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1353
LWCI, LLC
15909.000.000
9.3 AGGREGATE ROADS
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploration
We developed aggregate road sections based on the California Department of Transportation methodology. As discussed above, we judged an R-value o 5 to be appropriate for aggregate pavement design.
TABLE 9.3-1: Recommended Aggregate Sections
- TRAFFIC INDEX AGGREGATE BASE THICKNESS -
_ (INCHES)_ _
2 7
3 10
4 13
Pavement subgrade should be prepared in accordance with Section 5.0
9.4 CUT-OFF CURBS
Saturated pavement subgrade or aggregate base can cause premature failure or increased maintenance of asphalt concrete pavements. This condition often occurs where landscape areas directly abut and drain toward pavements. If desired to install pavement cutoff barriers, they should be considered where pavement areas lie downslope of any landscape areas that are to be sprinklered or irrigated, and should extend to a depth of at least 4 inches below the base rock layer. Cutoff barriers may consist of deepened concrete curbs or deep-root moisture barriers.
If reduced pavement life and greater than normal pavement maintenance are acceptable to the owner, then the cutoff barrier may be eliminated.
9.5 SUBGRADE AND AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTION
Finished subgrade and aggregate base should be compacted in accordance with Section 5.4.
Aggregate Base should meet the requirements for ¾-inch maximum Class 2 AB in accordance with Section 26-1.028 of the latest Caltrans Standard Specifications.
9.6 CUT-OFF CURBS
Saturated pavement subgrade or aggregate base can cause premature failure or increased maintenance of asphalt concrete pavements. This condition often occurs where landscape areas directly abut and drain toward pavements. If desired to install pavement cutoff barriers, they should be considered where pavement areas lie downslope of any landscape areas that are to be sprinklered or irrigated, and should extend to a depth of at least 4 inches below the base rock layer. Cutoff barriers may consist of deepened concrete curbs or deep-root moisture barriers.
If reduced pavement life and greater than normal pavement maintenance are acceptable to the owner, then the cutoff barrier may be eliminated.
10.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
This report presents geotechnical recommendations for design of the improvements discussed in Section 1.0 for the Wine Country Inn project. If changes occur in the nature or design of the project, we should be allowed to review this report and provide additional recommendations, if EO -Expect Excellence·
Page I 18 March 29, 2019
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1354
LWCI, LLC
15909.000.000
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploration
any. It is the responsibility of the owner to transmit the information and recommendations of this report to the appropriate organizations or people involved in design of the project, including but not limited to developers, owners, buyers, architects, engineers, and designers. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are solely professional opinions and are valid for a period of no more than 2 years from the date of report issuance.
We strived to perform our professional services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices currently employed in the area; no warranty is expressed or implied. There are risks of earth movement and property damages inherent in building on or with earth materials. We are unable to eliminate all risks or provide insurance; therefore, we are unable to guarantee or warrant the results of our services.
This report is based upon field and other conditions discovered at the time of report preparation.
We developed this report with limited subsurface exploration data. We assumed that our subsurface exploration data is representative of the actual subsurface conditions across the site.
Considering possible underground variability of soil, rock, stockpiled material, and groundwater, additional costs may be required to complete the project. We recommend that the owner establish a contingency fund to cover such costs. If unexpected conditions are encountered, notify ENGEO immediately to review these conditions and provide additional and/or modified recommendations, as necessary.
Our services did not include excavation sloping or shoring, soil volume change factors, flood potential, or a geohazard exploration. In addition, our geotechnical exploration did not include work to determine the existence of possible hazardous materials. If any hazardous materials are encountered during construction, notify the proper regulatory officials immediately.
This document must not be subject to unauthorized reuse, that is, reusing without written authorization of ENGEO. Such authorization is essential because it requires ENGEO to evaluate the document's applicability given new drcumstances, not the least of which is passage of time.
Actual field or other conditions will necessitate clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes to ENGEO's documents. Therefore, ENGEO must be engaged to prepare the necessary clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes before construction activities commence or further activity proceeds. If ENGEO's scope of services does not include on-site construction observation, or if other persons or entities are retained to provide such services, ENGEO cannot be held responsible for any or all claims arising from or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities, and from any or all claims arising from or resulting from clarifications, adjustments, modifications, discrepancies or other changes necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions.
We determined the lines designating the interface between layers on the exploration logs using visual observations. The transition between the materials may be abrupt or gradual. The exploration logs contain information concerning samples recovered, indications of the presence of various materials such as clay, sand, silt, rock, existing fill, etc., and observations of groundwater encountered. The field logs also contain our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between sample locations. Therefore, the logs contain both factual and interpretative information. Our recommendations are based on the contents of the final logs, which represent our interpretation of the field logs.
EO -Expect ExcellencePage 119 March 29, 2019
Revised April 15 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1355
LWCI, LLC
15909.000.000
SELECTED REFERENCES
Wine Country Inn
Geotechnical Exploration
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard, ASCE/SEI 7-10.
California Building Standards Commission, 2016. California Building Code 2016, Volumes 1 and 2, Sacramento, California, July 2016.
California Geologic Survey, 2008, Special Publication 117 A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California.
California Department of Transportation, 2012, Highway Design Manual.
Robertson, P.K., 2009, Performance based earthquake design using the CPT.
Robertson, P. K. and R. G. Campanella, 1988, Guidelines for Geotechnical Design Using CPT and CPTU Data.
United States Geologic Survey (USGS); 2008, National Seismic Hazard Maps Fault Parameters, accessed August 10, 2018.
Wagner, D.L., Bortgno, E.J., and McJunkin, R.D. (1990). Geologic Map of the San Francisco-San Jose quadrangle, California.
Youd, T. L. and I. M. Idriss, 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils.
EO
--.... Expect Excellence----
March 29, 2019
Revised April ·15, 2019
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1356
FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map
FIGURE 2: Site Plan
FIGURE 3: Regional Geologic Map
FIGURE 4: Regional Faulting and Seismicity Map
FIGURE 5: Typical Keyway Section
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1357
{ij
Expect Exce/leoce
0 1,000 2,000
FEET
VICINITY MAP
WINE COUNTRY INN
LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
PATH, G:\DRt,rTltlG\ORl>.nlflG2 \ .DWG\ . I 3000 PLUS\I 5909\WII-IE COUfHF.Y 1111-1.APRi:
USER: OLIAt-lG
PROJECT NO. : 15909.000.000 F\GU�E MO.
SC/\LE: AS SHO\NN 1
DRAWN BY: QRL CHECKED BY:SDH
ORIGINAL FIGURE PRll-llf.D IH COLOR
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1358
8 A
EXPLANATION
i;;: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
c::I PROJECT SITE
l)
N 0
1-B5,(ip- BORING (ENGEO, 2019)
0 50 100 ,3
iii � UNDOCUMENTED FILL THICKNESS IN FEET
::' FEET
; BASEMAP SOURCE: ESRI MAPPING SERVICE
VIGUR:E NO.
Expect Excellence
SITE PLAN
WINE COUNTRY INN
LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
PATH: G: \DRAFTlelG \DRtSTIMG2\_0Wl1\_13000 PLUS\ 1 S�M \WINE COUl-lTRY INN.AP�:< USEll: OLIAMG
PROJECT 1,0. : 15909.000.000
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DRAWN BY:ORL CHECKED BY:SDH
2 ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IH COLUR
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1359
;"
8 ·�
:::
iii
o,
�
EXPLANATION
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
[§] ALLUVIUM � SAN PABLO GROUP A
N [§!] ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS � PANOCHE FORMATION
0 2,500 5,000
FEET
Expect Excellence
� TERRACE DEPOSITS
� LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS
� OLDER ALLUVIUM
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
WINE COUNTRY INN
LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
PATH: G:\ftOAFTING \0RAFTlflG2\ .DWG \ 13000 PLIJS \ I 5�09\Wlt·IE COUNTRY INN.APR:< USEP.: OUAHG
PROJECT NO. : 15909.000.000 FIGURE HO.
SC/\l[: AS SHOWN 3
DRAWN flY: ORL CIIE:CKED BY:SDH
OP.iGlNAI. FIGURL PP.!MH:tJ IN COLUR
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1360
,z.Y.��"-'" ,;�01:.,,,,., _____ ,·;'-------··
'-•····' ·,., .... ,,..._0:;,�,•! ... · .:..=------<---'""-"·'-· n •,},,'-"-"---'·--··· :::..•:· · -... •""'":....:...,:_v�...:.,,,.,.,.,,., _. ·-�·'"··c;:-•..:,_•,:;�•�=' -•�- -•�• ·,.
•�---r,,;;,�.,--··,.v··,/,:;,j -'.i!i:l!="""'-'=:c:!:>:!.ci-; _, ,;_IJ V >'\�f----��--"!.'.!::.!'li:::>''· U�'- · ·-'-'---�:"-----"""-'i=•··,,,.,,,,.,_,_,.,.,_,,__.�•·,,,, •= •·�-�-��
BASE MAP SOURCE
?, "\_
ESRI, GARMIN, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC. AND OTHER CONTRIBUTORS
COLOR HILLSHADE IMAGE BASED ON THE NATIONAL ELEVATION DATA SET (NED) AT 30 METER RESOLUTION U.S.G.S. QUATERNARY FAULT DATABASE, 2018
U.S.G.S. HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE DATABASE (1800-PRESENT)
tiirn: gt_;f;�5FT1:..;r:.\D��f"THJC.-". \=._Q,•i,;\_ 1 :!Cl:m �:_�:; -..lt':',:.S,',1,111� ,::J:J�ifp• ll'"·"Pf'\ ENGEO
Et.peer £:cceJle-nce
REGIONAL FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
WINE COUNTRY INN
LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A
],5 15
Miles
EXPLANATION
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
EARTHQUAKE
♦ MAGNITUDE 7+
• MAGNITUDE 6-7
MAGNITUDE 5-6
USGS QUATERNARY FAULTS
-- HISTORICAL
IJ\TEST QUATERNARY
IJ\TE QUATERNARY
-- UNDIFFERENTIATED QUATERNARY
W. HISTORIC BUND THRUST FAULT ZONE
f'!<'.:J..:t::7 :-. □. : 15iil9.000.0{l(l
SCALE: ASSHO""1N
DfiAWN :IY: QRL jt:,"t.CKL.:, e>f:SOH
4 C·P1i;11•;.L FC.J?� ?R:�l':FJ'.1 :t1 t;'.)L�F
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1361
0..---------------------------------------------------. 0 0
u
!5
i
l!i
�
l
h
ENGINEERED FILL PLACED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
DEPTH AT TOE TO BE
DETERMINED IN THE FIELD
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
BENCH INTO FIRM MATERIAL
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
DURING GRADING
FOR SLOPt Ht/GHT AND MAXIMUM SLOPt GRAD/tNT RtFtR TO GRAD£D SLOP£S S£CT/ON OF TH£ TtXT NO SCALE 01-----------.------------------------'"""T----------'"""T------I IENGEO
u INCORPORATED
EXCELLENT SERVICE SINCE 1971
ORIGINAL flGURE PRINTED IN COLOR
TYPICAL KEYWAY SECTION
WINE COUNTRY INN
LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
PROJECTNO.: 15909.000.000
DATE: APRIL 2019
DRAWNBY: QRL
FIGURENO.
5 ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1362
I
I
APPENDIX A
BORING LOG KEY
EXPLORATION LOGS
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1363
� 8 GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS WITH • GW - Well graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures 1- � MORE THAN HALF LESS THAN 5% FINES
� � COARSE FRACTION GP - Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures O I IS LARGER THAN � 1- NO. 4 SIEVE SIZE GM - Silty gravels, gravel-sand and silt mixtures Cl)Cl:'. GRAVELS WITH OVER ....JW
� � � 12 % FINES GC - Clayey gravels, gravel-sand and clay mixtures 0��!----S-A_N_D_S----+---------1�;:<1------------------------------l � ,-J (/) MORE THAN HALF CLEAN SANDS WITH SW - Well graded sands, or gravelly sand mixtures �(!) � COARSE FRACTION LESS THAN 5% FINES SP - Poorly graded sands or gravelly sand mixtures , LL IS SMALLER THAN
� o NO. 4 SIEVE SIZE � � SANDS WITH OVER SM - Silty sand, sand-silt mixtures 8 I 12 % FINES SC - Clayey sand, sand-clay mixtures
w ffi ML - Inorganic silt with low to medium plasticity Cl:'.-'o;;t
� � w
SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT 50 % OR LEss CL - Inorganic clay with low to medium plasticity (fJ(/)> --' ....JW
o F::: u5 OL - Low plasticity organic silts and clays (/)�01--------------------------=---='--=----------'-----------+ o�o w LL� MH - Elastic silt with high plasticity �Oz ij i� SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 % CH - Fat clay with high plasticity Wz � � OH - Highly plastic organic silts and clays
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT - Peat and other highly organic soils For fine-grained soils with 15 to 29% retained on the #200 sieve, the words "with sand" or "with gravel" {whichever is predominant) are added to the group name.
For fine-grained soil with >30% retained on the #200 sieve, the words "sandy" or "gravelly" (whichever Is predominant) are added to the group name.
RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY
SANDS AND GRAVELS
VERY LOOSE
BLOWS/FOOT
LOOSE
MEDIUM DENSE
DENSE
VERY DENSE
SAMPLER SYMBOLS
(S.P.T.)
0-4
4-10
10-30
30-50
OVER 50
Modified California (3" O.D.) sampler
California (2.5" O.D.) sampler
S.P.T. - Split spoon sampler
Shelby Tube
Dames and Moore Piston
Continuous Core
Bag Samples
Grab Samples
N R No Recovery
SILTS AND CLAYS
VERY SOFT
SOFT
MEDIUM STIFF
STIFF
VERY STIFF
HARD
MOISTURE CONDITION
DRY
MOIST
WET
LINE TYPES
Dusty, dry to touch
Damp but no visible water
Visible freewater
Solid - Layer Break
STRENGTH*
0-1/4
1/4-1/2
1 /2-1
1-2
2-4
OVER4
Dashed - Gradational or approximate layer break
GROUND-WATER SYMBOLS
5l Groundwater level during drilling
.!. Stabilized groundwater level
(S.P.T.) Number of blows of 140 lb. hammer falling 30" to drive a 2-inch 0.0. (1-3/8 inch I.D.) sampler E • Unconfined compressive strength in tons/sq. ft., asterisk on log means determined by pocket penelrometer Expect Excellence ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1364
--,
a..
(!)
"'
O'.l
0 fai
ENGEO LOG OF
Expect Excellence LATITUDE:
Geotechnical Exploration DATE DRILLED: 3/14/2019
Wine Country Inn HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 5½ ft.
Livermore, CA HOLE DIAMETER: 4.0 in.
15909.000.000 SURF ELEV (WGS84): Approx. 539 fl.
Q)
ai LL Q) a. DESCRIPTION Q) 0 .s LL � .0 C E .S 0 (I) � ci. >, t (f)
> E 0) Q) Q) (I] [j] 0 0 (f) ...J
LEAN CLAY {CL), brown to dark brown, very stiff to hard, moist -
to wet, contains <5% fine-grained sand, contains fine gravels, contains rootlets in upper 6 inches [UNDOCUMENTED FILL] --
-
� LEAN CLAY (CL), dark reddish brown, hard, moist, contains I � 535
<5% fine-grained sand, contains fine gravels,(NATIVE]
5 -- � Grades to brown
Bottom of boring at approximately 5.5 feet. No groundwater encountered.
BORING 1-B1
LONGITUDE:
LOGGED/ REVIEWED BY: J. Sedore/ T. Strack
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: West Coast Exploration
DRILLING METHOD: Solid Flight Auger
HAMMER TYPE: 140 lb. Rope and Cathead
Atterberg Limits
v 0,
0 ·.; ...,C: c: X
0 X D .m� .E te LL Q) D C: ..c:: Ol (f) a. '"C -"I ID � '<ii E C'!t, 0 Ol a.
C E .f: 2m (.)·<ii 5 '"C (ll 6i :, Cll -c ::J .G' Cc e! 3 ..., ...J 0 ::J O ,§ ID ·- ,._ (.) t.) ·1:: ·u t)� .22:' c:;,.::::
(I) 3 '"C � � en"' ::J c;::- o•
(0 ·5 Cl) C. 0 0- (ll (I]
.!!!'"C u�
�c �� 2:-u 5 a5 :.J a: a: oE> :§�
27 3*
50/6"
50/3" >4.5*
50/3"
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1365
ai
Q) u.
.!::
.r::
a.
Q)
0 5
10 15
0,
a;
�
t
20 'I'
�
..J
25 ..J
LOG OF BORING 1-B2
Expect Excellence LATITUDE:
Geotechnical Exploration
Wine Country Inn
Livermore, CA
15909.000.000
DATE DRILLED: 3/13/2019
HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 25½ ft.
ai
Q) u. Q) 0. .5
C i=:'
� Q)
ro c5..
> E Q) ro [ij Cf)
535
530
525
520
515
HOLE DIAMETER: 4.0 in.
SURF ELEV (WGS84): Approx. 540 ft.
DESCRIPTION
LEAN CLAY (CL), strong brown to reddish brown, stiff, moist, contains <5% fine-grained sand, contains fine gravels, contains rootlets in upper 6 inches (UNDOCUMENTED FILL]
--------------------------
LEAN CLAY (CL), reddish brown, hard, moist, contains <5% fine-grained sand, contains fine to coarse gravels, [NATIVE] Grades to dry to moist, no gravels
Grades to brown, <10% fine- to medium-grained sand, fine gravels, contains manganese oxide
Grades to <5% fine-grained sand, contains manganese oxide Grades to <10% fine- to coarse-grained sand, contains fine gravels
0 .0
E >,
Cf)
CJ)
0 ...J
a3
>
Q) ...J
<ii 1u
$
LONGITUDE:
LOGGED/ REVIEWED BY: J. Sedore/ T. Strack
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: West Coast Exploration
DRILLING METHOD: Solid Flight Auger
HAMMER TYPE: 140 lb. Rope and Cathead
0 0 u.
+>
C
:::l
0 0
3:
0 in
24 50/6"
50/3"
50/3"
50/6"
50 50/4"
Atterberg Limits
�
- -0
'E .E .5
:.J :.J �
0 '[i "Cl :;::, ·s "' �
CT ro ro
:.J a: a:
23 13 10
., :S CJ)
·;;; ...,
C C X
0 El� :E � e 0 at CJ) - 0. c� 'cii Cf) 0.
$ --c ro .$ C) c:: c:: 0 'cii Q) "Cl
O � 3: ·-
� .§ a3 (.) :2 ..=le:- Ct;::
'1J Cll ::J� o• OJ Q. .!:Q "O c:-'o 0�
LI� �� C o, oS ::J�
7 >4.5·
12 >4.5*
13 ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1366
a,
iii
t:;
(!)
u
�
@
(!)
z
w
a:
(!)
.,,
m
'
<( u
z
I
0 0
w
(!)
(!)
0 ...J
Q)
Q) LL
.5
E 0..
Q)
0 EN E LOG OF
Expect Excellence LATITUDE:
Geotechnical Exploration DATE DRILLED: 3/13/2019
Wine Country Inn HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 25½ ft.
Livermore, CA HOLE DIAMETER: 4.0 in.
15909.000.000 SURF ELEV (WGS84): Approx. 540 ft.
QJ
Q)
LL Q) a. DESCRIPTION .5 0 � ..0 c::
0 Q) E >, � i5. Cl)
6i E Cl m 0 [iJ Cl) ...J
• Grades to dark brown, <15% fine- grained sand �
Bottom of boring at approximately 25.5 feet. No groundwater encountered.
\
BORING 1-82
LONGITUDE:
LOGGED/ REVIEWED BY: J. Sedore/ T. Strack
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: West Coast Exploration
DRILLING METHOD: Solid Flight Auger
HAMMER lYPE: 140 lb. Rope and Cathead
Atterberg Limits
© E Cl
0 'rii ...,
c:: c:: ><
0 :c � e iil 0 2� LL 0 §t Cl Cl) 8: <ii '.:, "" 'O -C\I "iil � .s C'lt, -o m 6i c::
:, E .& 0) U·ijj s: Q) 'O :.:J � Cc � � - C::- ...J 0 :.:J O·- q:: Q) (.) ·o (.) :3 'i:: '- (j 2� c::r;;:
Q) �
'O :i:, ti V) "' :::i .;::- o•
ro ·5 (J) QJ 0. -� 'O
.9 rr m m (j .;::- �c �� � (j c:: rn $ OJ :.:J ii: ii: o-3: :::i� 50/6" 10
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1367
Q)
Ql
u..
.£;
.c::
5 10
15 0,
C)
ti
;;;.
(!)
z
w
C)
.,; 20 �
�
�
z
I
0 (!)
(!)
EO LOG OF BORING 1-B3
Expect Excellence LATITUDE:
Geotechnical Exploration
Wine Country Inn
Livermore, CA
15909.000.000
DATE DRILLED: 3/14/2019
HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 21 ft.
u.. Ql
.!:: Q. >,
C
0 Ql �
>
Ql
[iJ (./)
540
535
530
525
HOLE DIAMETER: 4.0 in.
SURF ELEV (WGS84): Approx. 542 ft.
DESCRIPTION
LEAN CLAY (CL), strong brown to reddish brown, medium stiff, moist, contains <10% fine-grained sand, contains fine gravels, contains rootlets in upper 12 inches [UNDOCUMENTED FILL] GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY (CL), reddish brown, very stiff, moist, contains <5% fine-grained sand, contains 30-35% fine gravels, [UNDOCUMENTED FILL]
LEAN CLAY (CL), reddish brown, hard, moist, contains <5% fine-grained sand, contains gravels [NATIVE]
0 ..0
E >,
(./)
OJ
...J
----------------------------- GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, hard, moist, contains <5% fine-grained sand, contains 30-35% fine to coarse gravels LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, hard, moist, contains 5-10% fine- to coarse-grained sand, contains fine gravels, contains manganese oxide
Grades to yellowish brown
Bottom of boring at approximately 21 feet. No groundwater encountered.
al
>
QJ ...J
ffi
1ii
5 LONGITUDE:
LOGGED/ REVIEWED BY: J. Sedore/ T. Strack
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: West Coast Exploration
DRILLING METHOD: Solid Flight Auger
HAMMER TYPE: 140 lb. Rope and Cathead
Atterberg Limits
a,
"'
0 ·;;;
0 ii) 0
u.. 0
.:, -
'E
-0 c� E
::, E ./!! 0)
::J E C: C: 0 :.J O•-
0 0 u (.)�
;: -0 � .:, "'ro ·5 "' Q) C. 0 er ro ro
ai ::J i:[ i:[ ��
14 5013"
50/2"
42 50/6"
50/6"
...
C
2� §t(.)·<il
��
�c:'
.!!l -0
�c
13 m
C X
.:E �e CJ) en 8: ·a3
5 -o rn
Ql -0 ,Eal -� c.:: ::;) ,;::- o•
�() o,;::-C rn oE: ::;);!;;'.,
3.o·
4.0'
119 2.85
>4,5'
>4.5*
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1368
0,
�
�
ti
(.')
(.)
�
0 w
(.')
z
w
-,
0..
(.'J
ID
(D
...J
<(
0 z
I
(.)
�
lil
(.'J
(.')
al
LL
.s
.c
Q}
Cl
ENGEO LOG OF BORING 1-B4
Expect Excellence LATITUDE:
Geotechnical Exploration
Wine Country Inn
Livermore, CA
15909.000.000
DATE DRILLED: 3/14/2019
HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 5¾ ft.
-
-
!
.s
C:
0 >
Q}
[u
-C-- 540
(!)
C.
E
Cl]
Cl)
HOLE DIAMETER: 4.0 in.
SURF ELEV {WGS84): Approx. 544 ft.
DESCRIPTION
LEAN CLAY (CL), strong brown to reddish brown, very stiff, moist, contains <5% fine-grained sand, contains fine gravels, contains rootlets In upper 12 inches [UNDOCUMENTED FILL] iiiiJ-LEANCLAY strong brown-:-h-;.cr ckyto moist, corrtainss::io%- - I
fine- to coarse-grained sand, contains fine gravels, [NATIVE) Bottom of boring at approximately 5.8 feet. No groundwater encountered.
LONGITUDE:
LOGGED/ REVIEWED BY: J. Sedore/ T. Strack
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: West Coast Exploration
DRILLING METHOD: Solid Flight Auger
HAMMER TYPE: 140 lb. Rope and Cathead
0 0
LL .:,
C:
::i
0 0
�
0 en
12 50/6"
50/4"
50/6"
Atterberg Limits
�
- "C -
.E .E .f:
:.:J ::J �
(.) Tl "C
'3 � t5
CT Cl] Cl]
::J 0:: 0::
Q)
> <I)
'iii
0 0
c�
� g> O·-
Ui:l
"'"' Q) a.
�c
.s=
0,
c C:
(!) (!)� e
"E:E 0) � a.
0 0) 'iil a.
0 'iii s "C (ll
(!) � 32 :a: - <;:: (!) :a � ·c c� :::, c;=- o• .!a "O u� �c c:,u C: ..... oE; ::,�
1.s•
>4.5·
g,_ _ __, __ __,___,_ _______________________ .__ _ __,__..1....._.....1. __ ..1....._.....1. __ ..1....._.....L __ ....... _ _.. _ __, ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1369
'lo
Ql LL
-�
£
Q)
Cl
5 10
15 cr,
a;
20 �
z
LOG OF BORING 1-B5
Expect Excellence LATITUDE:
Geotechnical Exploration
Wine Country Inn
Livermore, CA
15909.000.000
DATE DRILLED: 3/13/2019
HOLE DEPTH: Approx. 20½ ft.
'lo
Q) LL Q) a. -�
C: �
0 Q) i i5.
> E Q) (1l [ij (f)
540
535
530
525
HOLE DIAMETER: 4.0 in.
SURF ELEV (WGS84): Approx. 541 ft.
DESCRIPTION
LEAN CLAY (CL), strong brown, stiff to hard, moist, medium plasticity, contains <5% fine-grained sand, contains gravels, contains rootlets in upper 6 inches [UNDOCUMENTED FILL] SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), brown with reddish brown, very stiff to hard, 30 to 40% fine- to coarse-grained sand,
[UNDOCUMENTED FILL]
LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, hard, moist, medium plasticity,
contains <5% fine- to medium-grained sand [NATIVE]
Contains manganese oxide
Grades to brown mottled with reddish brown, 10-15% fine- to coarse-grained sand, contains fine to coarse gravels
Bottom of boring at approximately 20.5 feet. No groundwater encountered.
0 .Q
E >.
Cf)
0)0 _J
Q}
>
(]) _J
....
Q)
ro
$
LONGITUDE:
LOGGED/ REVIEWED BY: J. Sedore/ T. Strack
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: West Coast Exploration
DRILLING METHOD: Solid Flight Auger
HAMMER TYPE: 140 lb. Rope and Cathead
15 0
LL :.:,
c:;
:::,
0 0
!
ai
24 29
5016"
5016"
58 50/6"
50/6"
Atterberg Limits
�
- - "O
.E .E: .E
::J ::J £
0 0 �
:::, � �
3 (1l ro
a: a:
58 15 43
Q) :E 0)
'cii "E c:; ><
0 2 z;-- E � e 0 c:; .t::. 0)
c� u5 8:: 0 Ol "ijj
3: -o ro 2
C C:
C) 0 'al Ql "O
0 � s: -- - ,§ "iii (.) :z .ac ·c c:ci=
f/1"' => c- o• <lJ 0.. -� -0 oc �� �� co c:; <JJ ciS => st::, >4.5*
>4.5*
>4.5*
>4.5*
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1370
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST DATA
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1371
Particle Size Distribution Report
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
I- 50%
a.. 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
GRA!N SIZE - mm.
% Gravel %Sand % Fines %+7Smm Coarse fine Coarse Medium I Fine Silt SIEVE
SIZE
¾in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
0.0300 mm.
0.0194 mm.
0.0114 mm.
0.0082 mm.
0.0059 mm.
0.0029 mm.
0.0012 mm.
PERCENT
FINER
100.0
99.1 95.9
91.2 87.4
82.2 76.6
72.5 68.0
47.4 42.7
37.9 34.7
31.6 28.3
24.8 Sample Number: 1-B5 @ 3.5
0.9 3.2
SPEC.* PASS?
PERCENT (X=NO)
• (no specification provided)
8.5 I 19.4 41.3
Soil Descrietion
See exploration logs
Atterberg Limits
PL= 15 LL= 58 Pl= 43
Coefficients
090 = 0.6876 mm Oss = 0.3340 mm 050 = 0.0526 mm
Dso = 0,0337 mm D30 = 0.0042 mm D15 =
010 = Cu Cc =
Classification
uses= CH
Remarks
GS: ASTM D422 ASTM D422
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
Pl: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
uses: ASTM D2487
Client: LWCI, LLC
Project: Livermore Wine Country Inn
Project Number: 15909.000.000
Date: 3/28/2019 ENGEO
Project location: Livermore, CA Exper.:t Exc<'llence
Tested By: --------------- D. Bryant Checked By: ------------------- M. Quasem Test Location: 3420 Fostoria Way Ste. E, Danville, CA 94526 0,001
Clay
26.7 ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1372
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60 / Dashed line indicates the approximate / V
/
/ upper limit boundary for natural soils / /
/ �
�o / / 50
40 i';5
Cl
-
I I /
/
/
/
---
L,/
/
c,
X-1/ /
I
/
/. / /
/ V
f:: 30 I
to
0. /
/
/
/ � // �o /
/'
20 -
/<// -0 v"V
10 �
/ ....
/ /
�-/////c'}i-�i!//// ML Ir OL MH I
r OH oV I I
I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
LIQUID LIMIT
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
.... See exploration logs
♦ See exploration logs
Project No.: 15909.000.000
Project Name: Livermore Wine Country
Project location: Livermore, California
Client: LWCI, LLC
.... Sample Number: 1-B5@ 3.5
♦ Sample Number: 1-B2 @ 1.5
ENGEO
Expect Excel/er1ce
Tested By: W.Miller
LL
58 23
Date: 3/28/2019
Depth: 3.5 ft
Depth: 1.5 ft
PL Pl %<#40 %<#200
15 43
13 10
Remarks:
.... Pl: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
♦ Pl: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
Checked By: D. Seibold
100 110
uses
-----------------
Test Location: 3420 Fostoria Way Ste. E, Danville, CA 94526 ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1373
ATTACHMENT 19
EXHIBIT B
1374
ATTACHMENT 20
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. ________
IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPPA) 23-001, SITE PLAN DESIGN REVIEW (SPDR) 23-001, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 23-002 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE LIVERMORE
WINE COUNTRY INN
The City of Livermore (“City”) initiated application for Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 23-001 and the Developer submitted an application for Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 23-001 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 23-002 for the Livermore Wine Country Inn (“Project”).
At a duly noticed public hearing on May 2, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the Project and staff recommendation, heard public testimony, made the necessary findings and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-23, attached hereto as Exhibit A, containing the Planning Commission’s actions and/or recommendations thereon.
On May 22, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, Planning Commission and staff recommendations, all public comments and testimony, and findings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that prior to taking action on the Project, and at a properly noticed public hearing, the City Council reviewed written and oral staff reports, conducted a public hearing on the Project and took testimony, and received into the record all pertinent documents related to the Project (collectively, the “Record Evidence”). The City Council’s determination is based on the Record Evidence, which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore has considered the Record Evidence and adopted a resolution adopting an Addendum to the 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 1996052025) Environmental Impact Report.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore has considered the findings made in Planning Commission Resolution No.18-23, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the City Council hereby adopts the same findings by this reference and incorporates them as their own findings as part of this resolution. Based upon the City Council’s own independent review of the Record Evidence and considerations, the City Council hereby approves Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 23- 001, attached hereto as Exhibit B, Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 23-001 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 23-002, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, attached hereto as Exhibit C for the Livermore Wine Country Inn. 1375
ATTACHMENT 20
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. ________
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore directs the Planning Manager to file a Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk.
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 – Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-23
Exhibit B – Specific Plan Text Amendments
Exhibit C – Conditions of Approval
1376
ATTACHMENT 21
EXHIBIT A
1377
ATTACHMENT 21
EXHIBIT A
1378
ATTACHMENT 21
EXHIBIT A
1379
ATTACHMENT 21
EXHIBIT A
1380
ATTACHMENT 21
EXHIBIT A
1381
ATTACHMENT 21
EXHIBIT A
1382
ATTACHMENT 21
EXHIBIT A
1383
ATTACHMENT 21
EXHIBIT A
1384
City of Livermore
South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Amended February 2004
4.0 Land Use
Amended September 2020
a single commercial use has been identified, but for others, alternative uses are designated. The following new commercial uses will be permitted subject to conditional use permits or other projectspecific review:
• Subarea #1: None
• Subarea #2: Site 2A1(2,2 ac.) Commercial Uses: A small winery or a bed and breakfast; and a small
tasting room or small restaurant; and
Site 2A2 (8 ac.) a medium winery or bed and
breakfast, and a tasting room or small
restaurant on eight acres. Existing farm
support operations are allowed to continue
on 6.4 acres adjacent to site 2A2.
• Subarea #3: A small winery or a bed-and-breakfast; and, A tasting room or small restaurant.
• Subarea #4: An olive mill and a wine tasting room;
Two small wineries; and,
A small restaurant or a small winery.
• Subarea #5: A Wine Country retail center;
Three small wineries;
A Wine Country inn;
A large restaurant; and
A bed-and-breakfast or two residential units.
• Subarea #6: A medium-size winery on 12 acres.
• Subarea #7: A medium sized winery; or
A wine country inn;
A large restaurant;
A winery; and
A boutique winery on each 20-acre parcel.
Policy 4-5:
Policy 4-6:
Policy 4-7:
Policy 4-8:
Policy 4-9:
Only those commercial uses identified in this Plan will be permitted. All commercial development applications will be subject to a site plan approval and/or a Planned Unit Development Permit. Additional accessory activities that support the listed uses (such as one caretaker’s unit) may be permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit.
Commercial uses will maintain a small, pedestrian scale, and will not exceed an FAR of
0.25. Building setbacks for commercial uses shall be 100 feet from road frontages 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 design of commercial facilities shall be consistent with the rural, wine country character of the area.
Chapter 12 of the Specific Plan includes design standards and guidelines to guide the City's evaluation of applications for commercial uses within the South Livermore Valley.
Commercial development within the Specific Plan area shall be consistent with the Specific Plan standards and guidelines adopted by the City. 4-4 ATTACHMENT 22
EXHIBIT B
1385
City of Livermore
South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Amended February 2004
5.0 Circulation
Amended September 2020
5.4.4 SUBAREA ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Each of the seven subareas will take access from existing or planned roads. This section describes the key access and internal circulation associated with each subarea. Preceding the subarea by subarea discussion are a number of general policies that relate to the circulation systems in all of the subareas.
Policy 5-9:
Policy 5-10:
Policy 5-11:
Policy 5-12:
Policy 5-13:
Developers in all subareas shall coordinate and cooperate in the design and implementation of the subarea street systems since some properties will be dependent upon circulation improvements on other properties to obtain access to their own parcels.
A model development agreement shall be prepared prior to annexation which commits all participating landowners to dedicate road rights-of-way as needed to accommodate Specific Plan development.
Access to commercial areas generally shall be kept separate from access roads to residential areas. Access to commercial sites shall take access directly from roadways external to the subareas, except in subarea #5 where sites 5D1 and 5D2 still take access from Hansen Road.
All road rights-of-way and street improvements within the subareas will be dedicated to the City of Livermore as public streets.
In order to accommodate the difference in street standards, and to emphasize the connection of the Specific Plan development to the rural countryside, subarea streets generally connect to existing rural County roads, rather than connecting into existing suburban street systems.
Each residential development shall ensure that there is safe pedestrian and bicycle route between the development and the schools that serve the area.
Subarea #1
As shown in Figure 5.9, Subarea #1 will take access from South Vasco Road at three locations. The northernmost roadway will be located opposite and just south of Shaheen Industrial Park. The roadway will be a divided entry drive. The middle roadway will be located opposite the primary Subarea #2 collector, forming a four-way intersection with South Vasco Road. It will also be designed as a divided entry road. The southernmost entry will be located at the location of the existing driveway to Parcel 1E. It will be designed as an undivided entry road. An emergency vehicular access (EVA) route will connect the northern and middle residential development areas of Subarea #1 to provide adequate fire department access. No EVA is proposed for the southern development area.
Policy 5-14: Developers for Subareas #1 and #2 (particularly of Parcel 1C and 2C) shall coordinate the design of their entry roads to ensure a safe and consistent alignment with each other and with South Vasco Road. South Vasco Road will be widened at the four-way intersection with the entries to Subareas #1 and #2 to provide for left-turn lanes and rightturn/deceleration lanes into the subareas.
Policy 5-15: To ensure safe traffic movements, a minimum off-set of 300 feet shall be maintained between the northernmost entrances into Subareas #1 and #2.
Policy 5-16: An emergency vehicle access (EVA) route shall be constructed between the northern and middle development areas in Subarea #1. Subarea developers shall coordinate with the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department to ensure that EVA design is in conformance with Department standards.
5-17
ATTACHMENT 22
EXHIBIT B
1386
12.2.7 SITE 4C - SMALL WINERY
SITE 5C1 — SMALL WINERY
SITE 5D1 - COMMERCIAL CENTER
SITE 5D2 - WINE COUNTRY INN AND RESTAURANT
Analysis - All Sites
1. Required setback
(agricultural buffer): 100
feet from Arroyo Road. 50
feet setback from Hansen
Road for sites 5D1 and
5D2.
Site 4C
• Preferred entry is from
Arroyo Road.
• Residential uses are set
back 600 feet from
Arroyo Road.
• Emphasize riparian zone
by using riparian
planting.
• Maximize panoramic
views to south and views
over the swale to the
north.
• Take advantage of
elevated location for
visual presence from
Wetmore / Hansen
intersection.
• Reinforce historic
intersection by using
entry signage which
relates to Olivina Gate.
1. A 4-foot paved shoulder
and a 5-foot packed,
walkable apron isrequired
along the Arroyo Road
frontage.
2. Keep service and
production uses at eastern
edge.
Site 5C1
• Use strong architectural elements to create visual presence. 50' -->
setback
Hansen Road
ATTACHMENT 22
EXHIBIT B
1387
• Preserve views to the south.
1. Required setback (agricultural buffer): 350 feet from Wetmore Road.
Site 5D1
• Vineyard planting along frontage will maintain visibility.
1. A 25 foot right-of-way for the Regional Trail Corridor will extend south from the existing trail along the frontage of the Ravenswood site, containing a 10-foot pedestrian/bicycle trail, a 3-foot planted area, and an 8-foot equestrian trail, as shown in South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Figure 5.18.
2. Rears of buildings shall be screened from residences to the west.
3. Entrance on Hansen Road.
Site 5D2
• Emphasize drainage pattern by riparian planting in southeast corner. • Preserve views to south.
• Use strong architectural element to create visual presence. • Vineyard or orchard planting along frontage will maintain visibility.
1. A 25 foot right-of-way for the Regional Trail Corridor will extend south from the existing trail along the frontage of the Ravenswood site, containing a 10-foot pedestrian/bicycle trail, a 3-foot planted area, and an 8-foot equestrian trail, as shown in South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Figure 5.18. Screen service areas from residences to north and west.
2. Entrance on Hansen Road
3. Protect the Regional Trail Corridor on Arroyo Road
ATTACHMENT 22
EXHIBIT B
1388
50'
setback ------- >
City of Livermore
South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Amended February 2004
12.0 Commercial Design Guidelines & Standards
Amended September 2020
12-13
Hansen Road
ATTACHMENT 22
EXHIBIT B
1389
City of Livermore
South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Amended February 2004
12.0 Commercial Design Guidelines & Standards
Amended September 2020
12.3.2 SITE LAYOUT
The site layout determines the way in which one experiences the site. It creates sequences and relationships, defines spaces and uses, and preserves or screens views. It requires thoughtful consideration.
Setbacks
1. A 100 foot planted building setback is required from all public roadways for every commercial site except site 3A2 (small restaurant or tasting room at the proposed Concannon-Wente intersection) and commercial sites #5D1 and #5D2 which shall be 50 feet from Hansen Road and may include parking, landscaping, and a trash enclosure.
2. Side and rear setbacks are stated in Section 12.2, Site Analysis and Site Specific Guidelines. Where no reference is made in that section, side and rear setbacks are 0 feet.
Entries
• The scale and character of each entry should reflect the business it represents.
• Continuation or repetition of entry elements into the site and at the structures is encouraged.
• The design plan for the entry should creatively blend planting, walls, signage, lighting and landmark elements into an understated composition that expresses a sense of welcome, entry, and identity.
Landmark elements might include: low decorative walls, portals, or other memorable elements that draw the eye.
• Entries should to harmonize with the adjacent streetscape. • Entries from the street should relate to automobile scale - entry elements should be large enough to create a sense of pass though for the automobile.
1. Entries shall be well defined and clearly visible from the street.
2. Materials used at entries shall be compatible and consistent with the architecture of the buildings on site. 12-20
ATTACHMENT 22
EXHIBIT B
1390
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 23-001, Site Plan Design Review 23-001 & Conditional Use Permit 23-002
3459 Arroyo Road
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, 65 paved parking spaces, and associated on and off site improvements. The caretaker's unit is a conditionally permitted use.
A. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION
1. The project shall be in conformance with all City ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies. The conditions listed below are particularly pertinent to this permit and shall not be construed to permit violation of other laws and policies not so listed.
2. Approval is limited to the conformance of the land use and the Livermore Development Code (LDC) and South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP) requirements. Use of the property shall be limited to those permitted by the SLVSP, PD-SLVSP (PUDA 01-001), and LDC as it exists now or may be amended in the future.
3. This approval is not an authorization to commence construction.
Building construction, alterations, repairs, or occupancy shall not be permitted without prior approval of the Building Division through issuance of any required permits.
B. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall demonstrate conformance to the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. The applicant shall respond in writing to all conditions contained herein and in attachments to this document. Responses shall clearly describe how each condition will be met. When the response references construction drawings, the page number and detail reference, if applicable, shall be noted.
1. This Conditional Use Permit allows the use of the property for a caretaker’s residence.
ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1391
a. Two parking spaces shall be provided for the caretaker’s residence, apart from the required parking for the Inn.
b. The caretaker’s residence shall not be rented by guests staying at the Inn or utilized as a short-term rental.
2. Outdoor events at the Inn (such as weddings, parties, or receptions) are prohibited.
3. Parking shall be contained on site. No-use related parking shall occur within the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
4. Indoor and outdoor dining shall be limited to 77 seats combined.
5. Add a no-left turn island on the driveway to discourage left-hand turns onto Hansen Road. Provide signage stating either no left turn or right-turn only.
6. Noise generated by the project shall be in conformance with the Noise Element of the General Plan.
7. No construction allowed between the following time periods:
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; and
d. All City-observed holidays.
8. 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.
9. The area to the east and west of the access driveway is required to conform to the City Engineering standard for clear visibility at the driveway.
10. The development must include a minimum of 12 bicycle-parking stalls on site.
11. 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-to-two 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 ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1392
being removed.
13.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 pallet listed in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan.
14.Provide detailed planting and irrigation drawings for all modifications to existing City landscapes and irrigation systems.
15.Provide plans for installing sleeve(s) under the proposed driveway for irrigation mainline and wires.
16.Ensure all new landscape on-site is privately owned and maintained.
17.The proposed light poles and luminaires shall not exceed a height of 16 feet and the color and design of the light pole and luminaries shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department.
18.The lighting plan shall provide sufficient illumination on the east side of the property to meet the City’s lighting ordinance.
19.Prior to the issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy, and upon installation of all light fixtures, staff shall inspect site lighting levels. If necessary, adjustments to lighting levels shall be made to ensure that there is no off-site glare that impacts the surrounding vineyard area and the residences to the northwest of the project site, consistent with City standards.
20.Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit a Landscape Documentation Package to ensure consistency with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
21.Any signs associated with the project will require a separate application and approval.
22.Per Livermore Municipal Code section 12.51, if public art will be installed a site plan shall be submitted showing the location of the artwork, complete with landscaping, lighting and other appropriate accessories to complement and protect the artwork, along with the artist’s concept and representation, such as a drawing, photograph, or maquette of the artwork. Indicate what medium or materials will be used and include maintenance plans for the artwork. As outlined in the Muni Code, Building permits shall not be issued until the Commission has approved the request to install public art, and the certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until the approved work of art has been installed and an agreement ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1393
has been recorded against the property to maintain the art for a minimum of thirty years. If an in-lieu contribution will be provided in place of artwork, the public art in-lieu contribution shall be paid at the time of issuance of each building permit.
23. During construction applicant is required to implement the following basic construction dust control measures:
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; b. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites;
c. Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites daily with water sweepers; and
d. Sweep streets daily with water sweepers, if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
24. Prior to approval of any grading plans, the project applicant shall show on the plans via notation that the contractor shall ensure that all heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment (e.g., rubber-tired dozers, scrapers, cranes, etc.) to be used in the construction of the project (including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent. The plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval.
25. The applicant shall retain the services of a professional paleontologist to educate the construction crew that will be conducting grading and excavation at the project site. The education shall consist of an introduction to the geology of the project site and the kinds of fossils that may be encountered, as well as what to do in case of a discovery. Should any vertebrate fossils (e.g., teeth, bones), an unusually large or dense accumulation of intact invertebrates, or well-preserved plant material (e.g., leaves) be unearthed by the construction crew, then ground-disturbing activity shall be diverted to another part of the project site and the paleontologist shall be called on-site to assess the find and, if significant, recover the find in a timely matter. Finds determined significant by the paleontologist shall then be conserved and deposited with a recognized repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.
The alternative mitigation would be to leave the significant finds in place, determine the extent of significant deposit, and avoid further disturbance of the significant deposit. Proof of the construction crew awareness training shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Department in the form of a copy of training materials and the completed training attendance roster.
ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1394
26.Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall complete an analysis of on-site soils to determine whether substantial concentrations of organochloride pesticides or other soil contaminants are present above the applicable direct exposure Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. If contaminants are not detected above applicable ESLs, then further mitigation is not required. If contaminants are detected above the applicable ESLs, then the soils shall be remediated by off-hauling to a licensed landfill facility. Such remediation activities shall be performed by a licensed hazardous waste contractor (Class A) and contractor personnel that have completed 40-hour OSHA hazardous training. The results of soil sampling and analysis, as well as verification of proper remediation and disposal, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval.
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The location and planted screening of backflow preventers, fire service connections, and other ground utilities shall be shown on the landscape plan during Building Permit review.
2. All roof-mounted equipment, including HVAC units, production equipment, vents, microwave dishes, antennas, or similar devices shall be screened from public view by restricting the maximum height of such devices to that of the surrounding building parapet.
3. This Conditional Use Permit is not an authorization to commence construction. Building construction, alterations, repairs, sign erection, or occupancy shall not be permitted without prior approval of the Building Division through issuance of any required permits.
4. Development shall conform to the plans designated by the City as Exhibit B-1. Exhibit B-1 shall consist of the submitted plan amended by the applicant to reflect any changes indicated above in the Project Specific Conditions or required by the City in the approval process.
The applicant shall submit any required amended plans to the Planning Division within 90 days of project approval.
5. The development impact fees and project processing fees due in connection with the permit shall be based upon the fees in effect at the time the fee is paid.
6. Minor amendments to the permit may be approved by the Planning Division, provided the permit is still in substantial conformance with the original approval.
ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1395
1 CITY OF LIVERMORE
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
Date: April 21, 2023
LOCATION: Hansen Rd – Livermore Valley Wine Country Inn DEVELOPER: Michelle Boss – LWCI, LLC
PLANNING REFERRAL #: SPDR23-001 (CUP23-002)
Note: Specific conditions are shown in large type. Standard conditions that apply to this project are shown in italic type.
1. DEFINITIONS:
For the purpose of this agreement, the following words shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
Developer: Person(s) or Corporation(s) that will obtain permits for construction Improvement Plans: Construction drawings for required public and private improvements Services: Utility lateral, or any portions of a conduit cable or duct, between a utility distribution line and the site it serves
Project: The work to be performed by Developer
2. SITE PLAN APPROVAL
A. The project shall be in conformance with all City Ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies. The conditions listed below are particularly pertinent to this permit and shall not be construed to permit violation of other laws and policies not so listed.
B. Approval or conditional approval of this SPDR shall not supersede these Engineering Considerations and any applicable City Standards nor limit the City’s Engineer’s ability to require workable designs on future grading and improvement plans based upon these Engineering considerations and the City’s Standard engineering specifications and details.
3. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
The Developer shall comply with the following conditions:
A. The fire service and fire sprinklers shall be connected to the potable water system.
B. There are private easements on this site and it is the Developer’s responsibility to not interfere with the use of these easements.
ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1396
2 4. STORM WATER SITE DRAINAGE AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS:
A. General
1. This site is subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Prior to the issuance of the initial grading or building permit, the Developer shall provide evidence that the site is covered by the statewide General Permit to Discharge Storm Water associated with construction activity. This requires confirmation that a Notice of Intent (NOI) and the applicable fee was sent to the State Water Resources Control Board. In addition, the grading plans need to state: "All grading shall be in accordance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by the Developer per the Notice of Intent on file with the State Water Resources Control Board".
2. Necessary interceptor ditches shall be concrete. Field inlets and storm drainage pipe may be necessary in conjunction with concrete interceptor ditches as secondary drainage releases. All interceptor ditches shall be privately maintained.
B. Storm Drainage Requirements
Per the City’s Facilities Planning Guidelines (dated June 2005), the flows must have the following characteristics:
For a 10-year design discharge: a hydraulic grade line (HGL) is no higher than 1.25 feet below the top of curb elevation at any manhole or inlet.
For a 100-year design discharge: a HGL does not exceed the top of curb elevation. (This is required for item 3 above.)
For additional detail on these guidelines, the applicant should refer to the following resources: City of Livermore Storm Drain Master Plan & City of Livermore Facilities Planning Guidelines (both available at the Engineering counter at City Hall).
C. Stormwater Drainage Maintenance Funding
The cost to maintain all private storm drainage infrastructure installed with this project shall be funded by the Developer.
D. Stormwater Treatment, Detention and Trash Capture Requirements
1. The Developer shall treat the storm water runoff from this site prior to having the storm water enter the City’s storm water distribution system. Stormwater Treatment, Low Impact Development, and Trash Capture, is required by the Regional Water Quality ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1397
3 Control Board. The Developer shall complete and or update the required Stormwater Quality Checklist. The Developer shall provide a storm water treatment plan with calculations indicating treatment that meets the latest requirements indicated in Section C.3 of the City’s NPDES Permit with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Approval of this plan and calculations by the City is required prior to the approval of the building permit.
2. If this project is greater than one acre, the Developer shall provide a Hydrograph Modification Plan (HMP) with calculations in accordance with the Alameda Countywide Cleanwater Program (ACCWP) Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) guidelines. The software for the design of control measures to meet the Flow Duration Control is available to download from www.bayareamodel.org. For additional information you may contact Pamela Lung in the City’s Engineering Department at (925-960-4538)
3. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City of Livermore for all storm water treatment devices deemed necessary on this site. If the stormwater treatment devices will be maintained by more than one property owner a cleanout will be necessary at the property lines to allow the property owners to maintain their portion of the private stormwater treatment system. If the stormwater treatment device will be maintained by a Business Association then the cleanouts or manholes at each of the property lines may not be needed. The stormdrain treatment devices shall be shown on an exhibit and included in the Operations and Maintenance Agreement. The Operations and Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded prior to occupancy.
E. Stormwater Treatment Infrastructure Maintenance Funding The cost to maintain all storm water treatment, detention and low impact development infrastructure installed with this project shall be funded by the Developer.
5. REQUIRED ON-SITE SOURCE CONTROL STORMWATER MEASURES:
The Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Order R2-2022-0018 issuing the Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal storm water permit for the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. The 17 member agencies, including Livermore, are subject to this permit and all its requirements including the following:
“The Permittees shall, as part of their continuous improvement process, submit enhanced new development and significant redevelopment Performance Standards that summarize source control requirements for such projects to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff, to the maximum extent practicable…” In accordance with this requirement, the following source control measures are included as part of these Conditions of Approval shall be implemented as a part of this project.
ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1398
4 A. Structural Control Measures
1. Illegal Dumping to Storm Drain Inlets and Waterways
On-site storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words “No Dumping! Flows to Bay” on a stainless steel marker. The stainless steel markers are available for purchase from the Water Resources Division. For ordering information, please call 925-960-8100. For projects with newly-developed, privately-maintained streets, agency staff will verify that storm drain inlets have been marked before the final signoff on the project’s building permit or encroachment permit.
2. Interior Floor Drains
Approved interior floor drains shall be plumbed to the sanitary sewer system and shall not be connected to storm drain system. The applicant shall contact the Water Resources Division for specific connection and discharge requirements.
3. Parking Garages (Not Used)
4. Pesticide/Fertilizer Application and Irrigation
a. Landscaping shall be designed to minimize irrigation and runoff, promote surface infiltration where possible, minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to storm water pollution, and incorporate appropriate Bay-Friendly Landscaping principles.
b. If a landscaping plan is required as part of a development project application, the plan shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project site:
I. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified.
II. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment.
III. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable.
ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1399
5 IV. Unless otherwise specified, proper maintenance of landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owner.
V. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as part of the landscaping design. Some examples of IPM principles and techniques include the following:
i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site. ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site.
Consider future conditions when plants reach maturity. Consider seasonal changes and time of day.
iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants.
iv. Select pest and disease resistant plants.
v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting the entire landscaping plan.
vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects.
VI. Landscaping shall also comply with City of Livermore’s “Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance”. However, areas of a site used for bio-swales or other landscaped areas that function as a storm water treatment measure shall be exempt from the Water Efficient Landscaping requirements.
VII. An efficient irrigation system shall be installed in areas requiring irrigation.
An example of an efficient irrigation system is one that includes a weatherbased (automatic, self-adjusting) irrigation controller with a moisture and/or rain sensor shutoff, and in which sprinkler and spray heads are not permitted in areas less than 8 feet wide.
5. Pool, Spa, and Fountain Discharges
a. New or rebuilt swimming pools, hot tubs, spas and fountains must have a connection to the sanitary sewer to facilitate draining. This connection could be a drain in the pool to the sanitary sewer or a cleanout located close enough to the pool so that a hose can readily direct the pool discharge into the sanitary sewer cleanout. b. When draining is necessary, a hose or other temporary system shall be directed into a sanitary sewer cleanout, or vegetated areas that are large enough to accommodate the volume without allowing the discharged water to flow to the storm drain system or receiving water body.
6. Food Service Equipment Cleaning
ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1400
6 a. Food service facilities (including grocery stores) shall have a sink or other container for cleaning floor mats, equipment, and hood filters, which is connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area shall be large enough to allow for the largest type of equipment that must be cleaned at the facility. The cleaning area shall be indoors or in a roofed area outdoors and must be plumbed to the sanitary sewer. The discharge of wastewater from these washing activities to the storm drain system is prohibited. Outdoor cleaning areas shall be designed to prevent storm water run-on from entering the sanitary sewer and to prevent wastewater runoff to the storm drain from washing activities. Signs shall be posted indicating that all food service equipment washing activities shall be conducted in this area.
b. An oil and grease interceptor with a minimum size of 750 gallons is required for all food service facilities (including restaurants and grocery stores). Facilities that do not have any cooking or any other grease generating processes may request an exemption from this requirement.
7. Refuse Areas
a. New or redevelopment projects shall provide a roofed and enclosed area for dumpsters, recycling containers, compactors, and food waste containers. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area, to prevent runoff from the refuse area and to properly contain litter and trash. Dumpster leakage from covered food/trash compactor enclosures shall drain to the sanitary sewer via connection to an approved oil and grease interceptor device.
b. Runoff from trash enclosures, recycling areas, and/or food compactor enclosures or similar facilities shall not discharge directly to the storm drain system. Trash enclosure areas shall be designed to avoid run-on to the trash enclosure area. In most cases, drains are not permitted within trash enclosure areas. A drain, however, must be provided for compactors. If a drain is required in or beneath dumpsters, compactors, and tallow bin areas, it shall be connected to a grease removal device prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer.
8. Outdoor Process Activities/Equipment Not Used
a. Process activities shall be performed either indoors or in roofed outdoor areas. If performed outdoors, the area shall be designed to prevent the “run-on” of storm water drainage, as well, as the runoff from the area with process activities. b. Process equipment areas shall drain to the sanitary sewer system. The applicant shall contact the Water Resources Division for specific connection and discharge requirements.
9. Outdoor Equipment/Materials Storage
ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1401
7 a. All outdoor equipment and materials storage areas shall be covered and/or bermed, or shall be designed with Best Management Practices (BMP) that effectively minimize the potential runoff and contact of storm water to pollutants. b. Storage areas containing non-hazardous liquids shall be covered by a roof and be contained by berms, dikes, liners, vaults or similar spill containment devices. c. All on-site hazardous materials and wastes, as defined and/or regulated by the California Public Health Code must be used, managed, and stored in compliance with the applicable Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department’s requirements and regulations.
10. Vehicle/Equipment and Commercial/Industrial Cleaning a. Wastewater from vehicle and equipment washing operations shall not be discharged to the storm drain system. Auto dealerships, however, may rinse off vehicle exterior surfaces for appearance purposes, provided only a minimum volume of water is used without soap or other cleaning agents. b. All facilities, which discharge wastewater generated from vehicle or equipment washing, must obtain a wastewater discharge permit from the City of Livermore’s Water Resources Division prior to the commencement of the discharge.
11. Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
a. Vehicle/equipment repair and maintenance shall be performed in a designated area indoors, or if such services must be performed outdoors, in an area designed to prevent the run-on and runoff of storm water. Oil and other automotive fluid change service must always be performed indoors.
b. Secondary containment shall be provided for exterior work areas where hazardous materials or hazardous wastes are used or stored. Drains shall not be installed within the secondary containment areas.
12. Fuel Dispensing Areas (Not used)
13. Loading Docks
a. Loading docks shall be graded to minimize run-on to and runoff from the loading area. Roof downspouts shall be positioned to direct storm water away from the loading area. Storm water runoff from loading dock areas shall be connected to a post-construction storm water treatment measure(s) prior to discharge to the storm drain system.
b. Door skirts between the trailers and the building shall be installed to prevent exposure of loading activities to rain, unless one of the following conditions applies:
ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1402
8 the loading dock is covered, or the applicant demonstrates that rainfall will not result in an exposure of storm water to pollutants.
14. Fire Sprinkler Test Water
Provisions shall be made in the project design and construction to allow for the discharge of fire sprinkler test water to an onsite vegetated area. If this is not feasible, provide for discharge to the sanitary sewer in accordance with current plumbing codes.
15. Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water
a. Boiler drain lines shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system and may not discharge to the storm drain system.
b. For small air conditioning units, air conditioning condensate shall be directed to landscaped areas as a minimum BMP. For large air conditioning units, in new developments or significant redevelopments, condensation lines shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system, wherever feasible.
c. Roof drains shall discharge and drain away from the building foundation to landscaped areas wherever feasible.
d. Washing and/or steam cleaning activities must be performed at an appropriately equipped facility that drains to the sanitary sewer as specified in Section J. Any outdoor washing or pressure washing must be in compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Program requirements and managed in such a way that there is no discharge of soaps or other pollutants to the storm drain system. The applicant shall contact the Water Resources Division for specific discharge requirements.
16. Architectural Copper Installation
Projects with architectural copper should, if possible, purchase copper materials that have been pre-patinated at the factor. Whether patination is done offsite or onsite, applicant should consider coating the copper materials with an impervious coating that prevents further corrosion and runoff. If patination is done on-site, implement one or both of the following:
a. Collect rinse water in a tank and pump to the sanitary sewer. Contact the City of Livermore Water Resources before discharging to the sanitary sewer. b. Collect the rinse water in a tank and haul off-site for proper disposal.
B. OPERATIONAL BMPS
ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1403
9 This section details Best Management Practices (BMP) that private property owners and/or the occupants of private property must implement following the construction of projects.
Ultimately, the responsibility for implementation of these BMPs rests with the property owners. The City of Livermore’s Source Control Program routinely performs inspections of industrial and commercial sites to verify BMP implementation and effectiveness.
1. Paved Sidewalks and Parking Lots
Sidewalks and parking lots shall be swept regularly to minimize the accumulation of litter and debris. Wash water resulting from the pressure washing of parking lots must be captured, pretreated (if necessary) to meet local discharge limits, and discharged to the sanitary sewer. Wash water resulting from the pressure washing of sidewalks may be allowed to drain to the storm drain system provided that (a) no soap or other cleaning agents are used, and (b) all debris are trapped and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Under no circumstances shall wash water containing any soap or other cleaning agents be discharged to the storm drain system.
2. Private Streets, Utilities and Common Areas (Not Used)
3. Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
a. No person shall dispose of; or permit the disposal, directly or indirectly, of vehicle fluids, hazardous materials, or rinse water from parts cleaning operations into storm drains.
b. No vehicle fluid removal shall be performed outside a building, or on asphalt or ground surfaces, whether inside or outside a building, except in such a manner as to ensure that any spilled fluid will be in an area of secondary containment. Leaking vehicle fluids shall be contained or drained from the vehicle immediately. c. No person shall leave unattended drip parts or other open containers containing vehicle fluid, unless such containers are in use or in an area that cannot discharge to the storm drain.
4. Fueling Areas (Not used)
5. Loading Docks
The property owner shall ensure that BMPs are implemented to prevent potential storm water pollution. These BMPs shall include, but are not limited to, a regular program of sweeping, litter control, and spill clean-up.
6. On-site Storm Drains
ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1404
10 All on-site storm drains must be inspected and, if necessary, cleaned at least once a year immediately prior to the rainy season.
7. Architectural Copper Cleaning, Treating or Washing
When cleaning, treating or washing architectural copper features, implement one or both of the following:
a. Collect rinse water in a tank and pump to the sanitary sewer. Contact the City of Livermore Water Resources before discharging to the sanitary sewer. b. Collect the rinse water in a tank and haul off-site for proper disposal.
6. STREETS:
Hansen Road is a rural collector street in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan. In order to accommodate the transportation needs for this project the applicant shall provide the following modifications on Hansen Road:
1. The Developer shall modify the existing median to provide a left-turn pocket for vehicles traveling westbound on Hansen Road to enter the site. Developer shall replace median improvements affected by construction to match exiting. This includes median curb, landscaping, and irrigation. The modified median shall incorporate a 60’ taper and 50’ of storage.
2. The driveway on existing onto Hansen Road shall be redesigned as a right-turn only driveway to prevent patrons from turning left onto Hansen Road when exiting the property.
7. STANDARD CONDITIONS:
A. The Developer shall field verify the locations of all existing utility systems (water, sewer, drainage, electric, gas, etc.) that are necessary for this project.
B. The Developer shall extend necessary utilities to this site so that this project can be connected to them.
C. Submit plans of all existing and proposed public improvements, sanitary sewer and water services, and on-site storm drainage, for review and approval prior to building permit issuance.
D. Construct underground utility services (electric, phone, etc.) to the site. These services are typically from the utility mains that are located along a site’s street frontage(s). The Developer shall note this work on the approved site plans.
ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1405
11 E. Construct functional systems for on-site and off-site storm drainage, sanitary sewerage, and water.
F. Intercept and dispose of existing drainage upgrade from the site by an approved storm drainage system to avoid off-site ponding or the concentration of the natural run-off along the periphery of the site. Complete sufficient off-site investigation to insure that the plans clearly delineate existing conditions.
G. Avoid conflict with flood hazard areas per the City Code.
H. Install a two-way cleanout behind the curb on all 4-inch sewer laterals. Install a oneway cleanout on all 6-inch laterals to provide for cleaning the laterals from the cleanout to the sewer main.
I. Install fire hydrants per Fire Marshal’s recommendation.
J. through M Not Used
N. A separate water meter(s) shall be provided for the irrigation of the landscaping.
O. Contact the California Water Service Company (the provider of water to this part of the City) at (925) 447-4900 regarding water service requirements, requests, or questions. Water service installations and removals shall be coordinated with both the California Water Service Company and the City’s public works inspector. All water system designs, including water service laterals, shall be approved by Cal Water prior to building permit approval.
P. The fire service backflow preventer(s) shall be effectively screened from the public rightof-way while at the same time preserving ease of maintenance access to the backflow preventer(s). Screening shall be as specified on City Standard Detail W-10A, B and C. The fire service backflow preventer(s) shall meet the performance standards of the backflow preventer shown in City Standard Detail W-10A, B and C. The fire service(s) shall be located so that the fire service backflow preventer(s) can be screened without blocking sight distance at driveways and intersections.
Q. Provide adequate sight distance at all driveways and intersections. Monument signs and landscaping at driveways shall be located so that they don’t restrict the sight distance of exiting drivers. Landscaping and mounding in the sight distance area along the street shall be kept to a maximum height of 2.5 feet above the top of street curb. Tree branches in the area shall be trimmed to be a minimum of 8 feet above the top of the street curb.
R. All new driveways shall be street level driveways per City Detail ST-6. Driveway widths shall comply with Note 4 on City Detail ST-8.
ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1406
12 S. Either avoid conflicts between proposed driveways and existing utility facilities, such as storm inlets, fire hydrants, streetlights and utility vaults, or relocate the existing utility facilities.
T. Not Used
U. The Hansen Road driveway appears to conflict with an existing storm water inlet. With the driveway in this location the inlet shall be modified by the Developer to only have a grate (The curb opening will be eliminated by the reduction in curb height for the driveway.).
Because grates can easily become plugged with debris, the Developer shall install a second “overflow” inlet adjacent to the proposed driveway.
V. Utility cuts in the frontage street along Hansen Road for this project will require a (1-1/2" A.C. overlay) across the entire length of the affected street frontage to water seal the street surface, to restore the ride quality of the street surface, and to restore the appearance of the street surface.
W. Modify signing and striping as necessary.
X. and Y Not Used
Z. If the project is on a corner lot and the sidewalk does not already have a standard access ramp then the applicant shall construct a City standard access ramp.
AA. through CC. Not Used
DD. Show all necessary erosion control measures on the improvement plans. In addition, the following notes shall be included on the improvement plans:
1. Construction Operations - Dust shall be controlled. Wastewater generated during construction shall not be discharged to the storm drain system. This includes waste from painting, sawcutting, concrete work, etc. The contractor shall make arrangements to eliminate discharges to the storm drain system and, if necessary, provide an area for on-site washing activities during construction. Materials that could contaminate storm runoff shall be stored in areas that are designed to prevent exposure to rainfall and to not allow storm water to run onto the area.
2. Pavement Cleaning - Flushing of streets/parking lots to remove dirt and construction debris is prohibited unless proper sediment controls are used. Preferably, areas requiring cleaning should be swept.
EE. Prepare all public improvement plans in conformance with the latest edition of the following City of Livermore documents:
ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1407
13 1. Standard Specifications and Details
2. Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual
FF. Submit for approval a cost estimate for the public improvements.
GG. Submit for approval a cost estimate for the public improvements. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site, the Developer shall provide cash or a check in the amount of the City approved cost estimate and a letter stating that the City of Livermore may put this money in a non-interest bearing trust account and may use this money at its discretion to correct safety problems if the Developer’s contractor leaves unsafe conditions while performing the work, and that the City could also use this money at its discretion to restore off site or public areas to a satisfactory condition if the Developer were to abandon the project when it was partially completed. If unused this money will be returned to the Developer when the City has accepted the public improvements.
HH. Submit a certificate of insurance in the form and with the coverages required by the City.
II. Obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City’s Permit Center at (925) 960-4440, prior to starting any public improvements. Construct all public improvements per City standard details and specifications.
JJ. The sewer connection fee will be based on the actual sewer use as determined by the Water Resources Division.
KK. Replace any broken or displaced curbs, gutters, sidewalks and driveways. The Engineering Division at (925) 960-4500 will mark the location of these defective facilities upon request by the Developer.
LL. Complete all public improvements prior to occupancy, except that the Developer may formally request to defer items that are not related to public safety. Any request to receive occupancy prior to the completion of all public improvements shall be submitted in writing to the City Engineer and shall include the reasons that justify the request, and the number of weeks after occupancy that are needed to complete the improvements. If the request is approved by the City Engineer, the Developer may submit a cash bond in the amount of 200% of the cost of the deferred improvements with a letter that states that if the Developer has not completed the improvements by the date established by the City Engineer, the Developer will forfeit the entire cash bond to the City. The Developer's letter shall also state that the Developer understands that the City will use the forfeited funds to complete the improvements, and that the Developer also understands that the City will retain any unspent portion of the funds for administrative expenses.
MM. Submit descriptions, plats and deed documents for all necessary right-of-way and easement dedications for review and approval. The City will only accept right-of-way and ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1408
14 easement dedications after the improvements required over said dedications have been completed by the Developer and approved by the City. The Developer shall not receive approval for occupancy until required dedications have been accepted.
8. DEVELOPMENT FEES:
A. Pay current development fee rates as adopted by the City Council. (They may be adjusted from time to time to reflect the cost of providing a facility.) The fees shall be those that are in effect on the date the City receives a complete application for a building permit.
The City’s “Development Fees” information sheet has the following fees that apply to this project:
City Storm Drainage
County Storm Drainage – Building
County Storm Drainage - Public Improvements
Sanitary Sewer Connection
Encroachment Permit
Inspection for Public Improvements
Building Permit
Park Facilities Fee
City Water Connection
Alameda County Water Connection, Zone 7
Tax on Construction
Low Income Housing Impact (Commercial and Industrial)
Traffic Impact Fee
Improvement Plan Check Fee
Tri-Valley Transportation
Art in Public Places
General Plan Cost Recovery
Social and Human Services
School Impact Fees (contact the Livermore School District at (925) 606-3200.) B. Not Used
9. INFORMATION FOR THE DEVELOPER:
There are City Municipal Code requirements regarding the quality of water that is discharged to the sanitary sewer and the storm drainage systems. The Developer should contact the City's Water Resources Division at (925) 960-8100.
JW:DES
S:\Development Projects\Planning Eng Conditions of Approval\SPDR\SPDR23 and SPDRM23\SPDR23-001 Wine Country Inn Engineering Considerations 2023.docx ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1409
LIVERMORE PLEASANTON FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. Emergency responder radio coverage is required in accordance with section 510 of the fire code.
2. An exterior hose valve is required at the south/east corridor exit.
3. Sprinklers are required for the proposed trash enclosure.
4. A sprinkler system is required in accordance with section 903 of the fire code with local ordinances.
5. Fire flow shall be in accordance with appendix B of the fire code with a 50 percent reduction for sprinklers.
6. FIRE HAZARDS: The project developer shall keep the site free of fire hazards from the start of lumber construction until the final inspection in accordance with chapter 33 of the fire code.
7. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES: Prior to any construction framing, the applicant shall provide adequate fire protection facilities, including, but not limited to a water supply and water flow in conformance to the City's Fire Department Standards able to suppress a major fire.
8. WATER FLOW AND CONTROL VALVES: All fire sprinkler system water flow and control valves shall be complete and serviceable prior to final inspection. Prior to the occupancy of a building having a fire alarm system, the Fire Department shall test and witness the operation of the fire alarm system.
9. ELECTRICAL CONDUIT: Electrical conduit shall be provided to each fire protection system control valve including all valve(s) at the water connections. The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department requires electronic supervision of all valves for automatic sprinkler systems and fire protection systems.
10. LISTED: All commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential occupancies shall have valve tamper and water flow connected to a listed Central Station Service in accordance with NFPA 72. Fire Department plan check includes specifications, monitoring, installation, and alarm company certificates. Fire alarm control panel and remote annunciation shall be at location(s) approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. All systems shall be point identified by individual device and annunciated by device type and point.
11. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Should any operation or business activity involve the use, storage or handling of hazardous materials, the firm shall ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1410
be responsible for contacting the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department prior to commencing operations. Please contact the Hazardous Materials Coordinator at 925/454-2361.
12. FIRE HYDRANTS: Fire hydrants shall be installed at spacing not greater than 300 feet in industrial and commercial developments. Fire hydrants shall be installed at spacing not greater than 400 feet in residential developments.
13. FIRE LANE MARKING: On-site access ways and internal drives shall be designated as fire lanes and identified as such by red curb striping and posted with signs. Signs shall be according to State standards and read “No Parking – Fire Lane.” The red curb striping, sign location(s), and sign language shall be included in the building permit submittal for review and approval by the Fire Department prior to building permit issuance.
14. FIRE VEHICLE ACCESS ROADS: Access roads shall have 13 feet, 6 inches unobstructed vertical clearance, 20 feet of unobstructed width (26 feet where occupied building floors exceed 30 feet height), and inside turning radius of 45 feet and outside turning radius of 55 feet. Unobstructed shall mean a clear travel way, excluding parking width, and designed for an emergency vehicle weight of 70,000 pounds under all weather conditions.
Unobstructed width shall not include the width of rolled curbs, sidewalks, or non-drivable surfaces.
15. FIRE VEHICLE TURNAROUNDS: Where Fire Department vehicle access through or around a site involves changes in direction or curves, inside radius of 45 feet and outside radius of 55 feet shall be provided to facilitate fire truck turning radius for entry and exit from the site. Dead-end access ways and internal drives shall not exceed 300 feet in length and shall terminate in cul-de-sacs no less than 96 feet in diameter or hammerhead (tee). Standards and options are available through the LivermorePleasanton Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau.
16. PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: Address numbers shall be installed on the front or primary entrance for all buildings. Minimum building address character size shall be 12-inch high by 1-inch stroke. In all cases address numerals shall be of contrasting background and clearly visible in accordance with the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department Premises Identification Standards. This may warrant field verification and adjustments based upon topography, landscaping or other obstructions.
17. COMMERCIAL – NEW CONSTRUCTION: The following items shall be provided prior to any construction above the foundation or slab. a. Emergency vehicle access shall be provided to the site, including areas where construction is occurring. If Public Works Improvements are ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1411
part of the project to access the site, an emergency vehicle access plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Fire Department. b. If permanent access or site paving is not provided, the carrying capacity of the emergency vehicle access shall be 70,000 pounds under all weather conditions.
c. Site staging area(s) shall be provided for materials and equipment. All staging areas shall be outside of the emergency vehicle access route shown on the approved plans.
d. Where on-site fire hydrant(s) are required, they shall be installed, flushed and all valves open prior to any construction above the foundation or slab. This includes concrete tilt-up and masonry buildings. e. On-site fire hydrant(s) shall not be obstructed and shall be sufficiently above grade to have all hydrant valves and outlets accessible for emergency use.
f. Where a project is phased as part of the development, specific access, water supply and fire hydrant installations will be required as part of each phase. As needed a phasing plan with these improvements will be required.
g. Where on-site grading/utility plans are submitted for review and approval prior to building construction drawings, emergency vehicle access routes, fire hydrant locations, material staging areas, etc. shall be provided.
18. FINAL INSPECTION: Prior to request for final inspection, all access roads, on-site access and fire hydrants shall be provided. All fire hydrants shall be accepted, inspected and tested to applicable City Standards.
ATTACHMENT 23
EXHIBIT C
1412
Link to South Livermore Valley Specific (SLVSP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) htps://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/environmentaldocuments ATTACHMENT 24
1413
South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
htps://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/specific-plans/southlivermore-valley-specific-plan-slvsp ATTACHMENT 25
1414
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 10.1
DATE: May 22, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marianna Marysheva, City Manager
SUBJECT: Supplemental materials received prior to the meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
SUMMARY
These materials were posted online and made available to the public at the same time that they were distributed to the City Council.
6.1 Hearing to consider a request for Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8657 – Subdivision (SUB) 22-005 and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 22-003 for 172 for-sale condominium units at the northeast corner of North Canyons Parkway and Triad Place.
Material: PowerPoint Presentation
6.2 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.
Material: Public Comment Received and PowerPoint Presentation
8.0 Council Committee Reports and Matters Initiated by City Manager, City Attorney, Staff, and Council Members
Material: Council Reports
DISCUSSION
ATTACHMENTS
1415
1. Supplemental Materials
Prepared by: Debbie Elam
Acting Assistant City Clerk
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
1416
1 Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan - Triad East Condominiums Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8657 – Subdivision (SUB) 22-005 and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 22-003
City Council
May 22, 2023
Jake Potter, Associate Planner
Background
1 2
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
1417
2 Site Context and Existing Conditions
A
B
A
B
Site Plan, Compatibility, and Landscape
3 4
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
1418
3 Architectural Design
Housing and Affordability
5 6
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
1419
4 Sustainability
Recommendation
The Planning Commission and staff recommend the City Council:
1. Adopt a Resolution finding that the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65457 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 (c), Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan, and California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and as a separate and independent basis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning; and
2. Adopt a Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8657 – Subdivision (SUB) 22- 005 and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 22-003, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
7 8
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
1420
From: Adele O"Brien
To: City Clerk; John Marchand; Brittni Kiick; Barrientos, Ben; Evan Branning; Robert Carling Subject: Comments Related to the Proposed Amendment to The South Livermore Valley Plan Date: Sunday, May 21, 2023 8:35:22 PM
Attachments: Comments Related to the Proposed Amendment to The South Livermore Valley Plan.pdf Please see the attached comments related to the amendment of the South Livermore Valley Plan.
Thank you,
Adele O'Brien
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1421
Comments Related to the Proposed Amendment to The South Livermore Valley Plan I feel betrayed by our Mayor, our City Council and our Planning Commission. They just don’t care what the tax-paying citizens of the South Livermore Valley think. We have been berated and virtually told to “suck it up” because we knew in advance that a Wine country Inn was part of the Plan.
I get that the wine industry and the business community are anxious for the Wine Country Inn to happen, but the city planners and the City Council members were so anxious to have that site built out that they just allowed Michelle Boss to do whatever she wanted. The plans that Michelle has submitted today are virtually the same plans that she walked in with. She has not compromised at all. Had the city required her to adhere to the South Livermore Valley Plan at the outset, we would not be in this situation now.
The South Livermore Valley Plan does not include a 2400 square foot residence with private swimming pool. The Plan does not include a 50-foot setback on Hansen Drive. Parking has been planned for the 30 rooms and the restaurants. What about parking for the events to be held in the conference room? What about parking for the restaurant cooks and wait staff, for the cleaning and grounds maintenance staff? Overflow parking will flow to our neighborhood streets where parking is already inadequate. Are you next going to approve unlimited parking on Hansen Drive and the neighboring residential streets? A Wine Country Inn is a lovely idea. Can’t we do it right? Do Not approve the 50-foot setback. Make Michelle Boss conform to the South Livermore Valley Plan if she wants to move forward.
Adele O’Brien
Livermore resident for 46 years
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1422
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Cathy Brabec
City Clerk
NO on South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP) Amendment Friday, May 19, 2023 12:27:09 PM
Please vote no on the proposed amendment to the SLVSP on May 22nd. I do live near this area and have always known that a hotel was planned for this proposed site.
I personally am not opposed to a hotel and restaurant on the site, but have to question why the original plans for the hotel/restaurant/caretaker's cottage weren't designed to fit the requirements that have been known for many years in the SLVSP.
Further, once the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the previously set requirements were not open to the discretionary interpretation of the City Council, I think the developer should of made changes to her plans to fit the requirements instead of trying to get an amendment. Efforts by the developer to make her proposal fit the requirements may be better accepted by those that oppose it.
I have lived in Livermore for over 50 years. I love the growth and development we've had in our town, and believe facilities like this are needed to support the wine industry. Livermore's South Valley area's SLVSP was meant to protect the beauty of the area with set standards for development. Making this amendment to the plan will degrade the original intention of the SLVSP.
Please vote NO on amending the SLVSP on May 22nd.
Thank you,
Cathy Brabec
Livermore, CA
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1423
From: dennis_elchesen
To: John Marchand; Brittni Kiick; Barrientos, Ben; Evan Branning; Robert Carling; City Clerk Subject: Wine Country Inn design review 5/22/2023
Date: Sunday, May 21, 2023 6:39:02 PM
TO: Honorable Livermore City Council Members and Livermore City Clerk FROM: Dennis Elchesen
Livermore, CA 94550
SUBJ: My comments re Wine Country Inn Design Review on 5/22/2023 DATE: May 21, 2023
I agree with those who oppose the amendment to the SLVSP and I ask that you reject it and invite the applicant to submit a design that fully conforms to the Specific Plan. I’m not going to repeat all the objections to the amendment that others have raised.
Instead, during your discussions after the public comments at the City Council Meeting on 5/22/23, I would like you to answer the following questions related to parking.
On and approaching Hansen Rd. there are three identical street signs that say:
“Parking Limited to Designated Turn-Outs” (please see the attached photo that I took on Hansen Rd.)
Question 1. Do those signs mean that parking is prohibited both on the shoulders of Hansen Rd. and on parts of the road that don’t include a turn-out? Question 2. Are motorists who do not park in the turn-outs on Hansen Rd. subject to parking citations or even towing?
In the agenda packet for this meeting there is Attachment 23, Exhibit C, entitled “Conditions of Approval”. Then, in Section B, there are “Project Specific Conditions” listed.
The third condition on that list says:
“Parking shall be contained on site. No use-related parking shall occur within the surrounding residential neighborhoods.”
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1424
Question 3. Does this parking condition cover all activities, customers, and employees of the Inn and restaurant?
Question 4. May the owner of the Inn direct her employees to park off-site? Question 5. May the Inn’s customers or employees park on Site 5D1, across the street from the Inn?
Question 6. If the owner of the Inn violates these conditions, what are the consequences? Please discuss and answer these questions at the meeting.Thank you! Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1425
From: Diane
To: City Clerk
Cc: John Marchand; Brittni Kiick; Barrientos, Ben; Evan Branning; [email protected] Subject: SLVSP Meeting RE: Wine Country Inn
Date: Monday, May 22, 2023 10:48:43 AM
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed amendment to the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP) and the reapproval of the Livermore Wine Country Inn (Agenda Item 5.1 of the Planning Commission meeting on May 2, 2023).
Now, the City of Livermore is proposing to amend the SLVSP to replace 100 feet of vineyard with a parking lot and a large trash dumpster. It is totally against the intent of the SLVSP to introduce new development within the agricultural setting, thereby reducing the visual impacts on the rural character of the Valley. The amendment change would reduce the 100 ft required vine plantings to 50 ft to allow for paved parking, a commercial-sized dumpster, and 20ft of the Inn as currently designed. The SLVSP was the product of many years of effort, yet the city proposes to make significant changes in a single meeting. The changes are being made because the developer has proposed a building that is too large given the restrictions of the SLVSP.
When we purchased our home in Los Olivos 19 years ago, we understood the two lots on Arroyo Road and Hansen were zoned for potential “Wine Country Inns” and were perfectly happy and excited about the prospect of having such a “Napa” wine country environment so close to home. We were never in any opposition as originally set forth in the SLVSP. However, the proposed plan Ms. Boss has presented to the Planning Commission and City Council is her only option to amend SLVSP 5D-2 for lack of finances. Ms. Boss should propose a new design review application.
Because this is in direct opposition to the SLVSP and only serves to benefit Ms. Boss to either liquidate the property once her plans are approved, or, if she can find investors to complete her project which we all doubt very seriously can happen especially under the current financial condition of our economy today, is enough to deny this amendment to the SLVSP. We do not need another unfinished wine country project like LVC Winery on Hansen Road.
In addition, we never thought in any way that an entrance into any proposed Wine Country Inn would be on “Hansen Road”. This is a residential district with many families with young children and narrow roads once you turn left from Wetmore Road. We assumed the entrance to the Wine Country Inn would be from Arroyo Road like the entrance to Ravenswood. Our home is located on the corner of Hansen Road and Verdala and we have had 2 vehicle accidents occur, one prior to us moving in while the home was being built a car came down Hansen off Arroyo too fast and hit Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1426
the front lawn area of our home, the second when a car came down Hansen and hit our mailbox and knocked it down. We had our grandchildren in front of our house with a lemonade stand and were always concerned with traffic driving down too fast on Hansen and possibly losing control. Cars do tend to drive too fast coming off Arroyo onto Hansen. There are times when residents have their garbage cans out on the street on Hansen, you can barely get past them without hitting them, let alone avoid hitting a car approaching from the other side. This is a real safety concern for all of us with increased traffic on Hansen Road and the design and plans Ms. Boss has for the usage of the property contrary to its original intention of a small quaint Wine Country Inn.
Again, we are in NO WAY in opposition to Ms. Boss building her Wine Country Inn per the zoning requirements, but we do OBJECT to what appears to be a Wine Country “Hotel” with her 2,500 Sq. Ft. private residence which includes her private swimming pool. What it should be is a 1,100 Sq. Ft. caretaker’s unit with no swimming pool. In addition, Ms. Boss has indicated she would also include a 30- room Inn with large restaurant, full bar, hair salon with day spa and gift shop. This design is totally overdeveloped for 5D-2. Ms. Boss is asking the City of Livermore to amend the long-standing SLVSP restrictions just to meet HER needs. Ms. Boss should amend her proposed plans to adapt to the long-standing SLVSP zoning requirements, not the other way around! Once a precedent is set where one individual can cause a long-standing zoning rule to be amended solely for their benefit, what will stop any future developer/individual for pursuing the same avenue and causing the deterioration and elimination of our beautiful and admired vineyards to be a thing of the past!
Please Vote NO on the amendment and the approval of the hotel based on the critical changes in the frontage and size of the development she is requesting in a well-developed residential community that will be forever harmed by this amendment if it goes forward.
Thank you.
Mark and Diane Rinetti
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1427
From: Betsy Johnston
To: City Clerk; John Marchand; Brittni Kiick; Barrientos, Ben; Evan Branning; Robert Carling Subject: Written Comments For May 22nd Livermore City Council Meeting Re: Southwest corner of Hansen and Arroyo Roads (APN 099 046000800)
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 4:50:35 PM
[You 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 Mayor Marchand, City Clerk and Livermore City Council Members, We are not opposed to a Wine Country Inn that fits nicely within the SLVSP but this one is way too large for 5D2 and we have major concerns around the Applicant’s true intentions. What are they?
1. The Applicant has had 5D2 (APN 099 046000800) and the Wine Country Inn plans for sale on Loopnet for a multi-million dollar sum but was unable to sell and pulled the listing during the Covid Pandemic. This tells us the Applicant was not serious about keeping the investment, nor committed and did not want to continue with the Project.
2. The Applicant has not kept 5D2 in good condition in its current state. How will the Applicant be able to maintain the 30 Room Inn, Restaurant, Caretaker Home, pool landscaping, parking, trash, water, PGE, property taxes, pay employees….etc?
3. The Applicant has not had the funds to build the Hotel and has been continually looking for investors. If approved the Applicant may still not have enough investors to build and maintain the Wine Country Inn. If approved, construction could start and we may end up having another cement slab of concrete to look at like we see down the street on Lagiss Drive or a partially built structure like the monstrosity at the North East corner of HWY 680 and Automall in Fremont where funds ran out, contractors quit and investors bailed. There should be a confirmation of funds that will be used to build and operate this investment so we will not be looking at a partially built “eyesore” or a completed Wine Country Inn that goes under due to lack of operating dollars.
5. The Applicant has been soliciting additional tenants for the Wine Country Inn not named and approved in her Application. Example: Hair Salon. This is not being above board with The City of Livermore nor those in the surrounding neighborhoods.
4. The applicant was to have started building within 3 years of buying 5D2. This has not happened and Alameda County Surplus Property has the right, but not obligation to buy it back for the $750,000 and sell it to someone else.
5. The Applicant was to have 100’ setbacks from Hansen per the SLVSP and now the City is being asked to approve a 50% cut in the set back to 50’ for both 5D1 and 5D2. If the Applicant had followed the rules and incorporated a 100’ setback we would not be even meeting on this subject.
6. Why would the City approve the 50’ setback as well as the Wine Country Inn Plans and CUP based on the above five points of uncertainty listed above? This is a no brainer.
Please vote against:
1) the Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 23-001
2) Site Plan Design Review (SPDR 23-01 and
3) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 23-002
4) Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) 01-001.
Thank you for your review of our comments.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth and Ross Johnston
Livermore, CA 94550
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1428
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Paul Mansfield
City Clerk; John Marchand; Brittni Kiick; Barrientos, Ben; [email protected]; Robert Carling Please deny the amendment to the South Livermore Plan
Monday, May 22, 2023 11:58:10 AM
To the honorable Mayor and honorable City Council Members for the City of Livermore:
I’m writing to oppose the amendment to Policy 4-7 of the South Livermore Plan.
The underlying absurdity of this entire discussion is the pretense that the hotel, as proposed, will be able to provide rooms for a price that people will be willing to pay, and still make a profit. It won’t.
I predict that the developer of the property will get started, but never finish, or finish but never be profitable. The land will be scarred, and the area will be saddled with the visual remnants of someone’s grandiose idea that never really took off. My hope is that the city uses every tool at its disposal to avoid needlessly tearing up the side of the hill.
One of those tools is already in place. It is called the South Livermore Plan, and it provides sound, legitimate written support for a denial of the proposed amendment.
The original policy has been in place for over 25 years, was authored by experts, and ensures that the beauty of South Livermore is preserved. You are now considering an exception, so that requirements of the South Livermore plan comply with a developer's architectural drawings.
With all due respect, this seems entirely backwards to me. And I think it's clear that passage of this amendment will weaken the City’s position as it seeks to enact and enforce this and other policies in the future.
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1429
What continues to baffle me is this: Why is this developer’s plan being offered special treatment?
The project is clearly overbuilt for the size of the lot— a fact that is underscored by the parking and setback exceptions that are being requested. The monolithic architectural presence of this project is completely out of step with the natural character of Sycamore Grove and contrary to the intent of the South Livermore Plan.
If the project is built as drawn, the South Livermore Plan will be undermined. A new tone will be set for future development decisions. The beauty of the area, and its appeal as a refuge for ALL Livermore residents will be greatly diminished.
From an economic perspective, even if the hotel project is a success, it will not be the savior of Livermore’s wine businesses as some try to argue.
Even in the unlikely event that every room at the hotel buys a case of wine every day, the increase in Direct to Consumer (DtC) sales will be 11,000 cases (30 x 365), or 3.85 percent of Livermore’s total DtC of 284,217. I’ve included my data from page 29 of the UC Davis study “Realizing the Heritage” below.
Winery Annual Cases Avg bottle price Percent direct to
consumer
percent Direct to
consumer as a
decimal
Cases Direct to
Consumer
Wente 700000 $27.00 20% 0.2 140000
Longevity 2000 $24.00 80% 0.8 1600
Concannon 100000 $10.00 10% 0.1 10000
Aguirre 2000 $24.00 1 2000
RubyHill 25000 $25.00 85% 0.85 21250
ElSol 1800 $20.00 95% 0.95 1710
StevenKent 25000 $50.00 75% 0.75 18750
TeslaVntrs 1500 $19.00 100% 1 1500
DarcieKent 20000 $30.00 60% 0.6 12000
RMolyneau 1500 $34.00 99% 0.99 1485
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1430
TenutaVrds 14000 $25.00 5% 0.05 700
Occasio 1500 $30.00 80% 0.8 1200
Murietta 10000 $45.00 50% 0.5 5000
CharlesR. 1200 $30.00 100% 1 1200
Nottingham 6000 $49.00 70% 0.7 4200
WoodFmly 1200 $39.00 95% 0.95 1140
McGrail 5500 $45.00 80% 0.8 4400
LeisureSt. 1100 $28.00 90% 0.9 990
3Steves 5300 $35.00 99% 0.99 5247
Entropy 1000 $27.00 75% 0.75 750
Fenestra 5000 $20.00 75% 0.75 3750
CedarMtn. 1000 $28.00 20% 0.2 200
MitchellKatz 4000 $40.00 90% 0.9 3600
BishopsVyd 1000 $12.00 1 1000
Rios-Lovell 4000 $22.00 80% 0.8 3200
EagleRidge 850 $25.00 95% 0.95 807.5
CrookedVine 4000 $35.00 75% 0.75 3000
OmegaRd. 800 $30.00 95% 0.95 760
PageMill 3500 $27.00 80% 0.8 2800
Caddis 500 $39.00 1 500
BentCreek 3400 $29.00 97% 0.97 3298
Ehrenberg 500 $39.00 1 500
DanteRobere 3000 $30.00 100% 1 3000
IronPalm 500 $40.00 1 500
LasPositas 3000 $40.00 80% 0.8 2400
Enoteca 5400 $42.00 1 5400
WhiteCrane 3000 $45.00 80% 0.8 2400
Favalora 400 $28.00 1 400
CudaRidge 2500 $40.00 90% 0.9 2250
Arroyo 200 $28.00 1 200
Retzlaff 2500 $40.00 90% 0.9 2250
HLWVyd 200 $28.00 1 200
Garre 2500 $28.00 1 2500
Harris 200 $34.00 1 200
WhiteHouse 2000 $33.00 99% 0.99 1980
Beck 100 $28.00 1 100
BoaVentura 2000 $50.00 90% 0.9 1800
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1431
Embodied 100 $28.00 1 100
TOTAL
CASES
981,750 TOTAL
DIRECT TO
CONSUMER
CASES
284,217.5
The reality is likely to be 5500 cases or less, …and even that meager windfall will be distributed unevenly; heavily skewed toward the single winery that is nearest, largest, and arguably, needs it the least.
Assuming there is any hope of economic viability for the hotel project in the first place, the City of Livermore should invite the developer to re-envision it. By paring back the large courtyard and caretaker’s unit, the project could still feature 30 rooms and a restaurant, -- All while complying with the existing requirements of the South Livermore Plan.
Thank you for your time and for listening to my concerns. Please use the tool you already have.
Please deny the amendment to policy 4-7.
Sincerely,
Paul Mansfield
Livermore
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1432
From: PAUL SPERONI
To: City Clerk
Subject: The Wine Country Inn. Agenda Item 6.2
Date: Monday, May 22, 2023 11:26:29 AM
Hello Council Members,
Our house is located at the conner of Hansen Lane and Churchill Downs Lane.
We have a business in Livermore for over 25 years.
We own properties in Livermore.
We were aware of the of the plan to build the Inn when we purchased our house.
The planers had it right with the original plan.
The setbacks kept the rural nature of the housing separate from the Inn.
Why not put the caretaker's unit on Hansen Road?
It is hard to understand the concessions being given to the developer. Seems unfair.
Paul & Michelle Speroni
Livermore, Calif. 94550
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1433
Dear Mayor Marchand and Council Members:
The proposed wine country inn violates Policy 4-7 of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan that states: "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." Although the applicant is asking to amend Policy 4-7 to allow for a 50-foot nonplanted setback from Hansen Road, the Policy regardless will remain in full force with respect to Arroyo Road.
There is a conflict between the 100-foot setback from Arroyo Road and the proposed hotel.
The Staff Report does not mention that the hotel proposed in 2018 had overflow parking located in the 100-foot agricultural setback from Arroyo Road. The overflow parking was one of the issues cited by the Friends of South Livermore that was in conflict with the SLVSP in its appeal to the City Council. 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.” (Attachment 1) In the current proposal, there is no request for overflow parking. However, clearly the intent is to retain part of the 100-foot setback for overflow parking, with or without a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Livermore. The landscaping plan shown on p. 842 of the agenda packet (see Attachment 2) is essentially the same as in the original proposal:
a large, flat area within the 100-foot setback with "Timber Wheel-stops", "Removable 5' metal fence" and "Removable Manufactured Benches" along with a water fountain. At any time, the applicant will be able to open the area to overflow parking, with or without approval from the City.
More important is the location of the grape vines in the agricultural buffer for Arroyo Road.
In the Conditions for Approval (p. 685, p. 17 of the Staff Report), it is stated (item #6): “Any vines in the 100-foot agricultural buffer along Arroyo Road that are removed during construction, must be replaced prior to an issuance of a certificate of occupancy.” (Attachment 3). The problem is the location of the vines is not specified. The landscaping plan shown on page 842 of the packet does not show six rows of vines but open space where the vines should be. The vines currently in place begin 30 feet from the trail and end 100 feet from the edge of Arroyo Road, in accordance with the SLVSP (Attachment 4). The vines in the drawing begin less than 5 feet from the trail and only 4 rows are shown, with an approximately 35-foot band with no plantings of any kind.
This also brings up the issue of the large (33-feet long X 29 feet wide) EVA turnout that extends into the agricultural buffer, also in violation of the SLVSP. This is another example where this project has been allowed to expand beyond the constraints imposed by the SLVSP.
In this case, there is no ambiguity about where the SLVSP intended the grape vines to be:
the vines are in place where they were meant to be.
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1434
The current proposed plan violates the SLVSP policy for a 100-foot agricultural setback planted in vines or orchards. Please do not approve the amendment to the SLVSP and do not approve the proposed hotel.
Peter Young
Friends of South Livermore
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1435
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1436
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1437
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1438
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1439
From: Scooter
To: City Clerk; John Marchand; Brittni Kiick; Barrientos, Ben; Evan Branning; Robert Carling Subject: Wine Country Inn
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 6:34:11 PM
Hi,
Some of us in the Los Olivos neighborhood, adjacent to the proposed Wine Coutry Inn, support this project getting completed. It is consistent with the intent for the use of this parcel. The proposal seems to be built with the best of intentions. Looking forward to the City of Livermore doing what is necessary to allow this project to move forward.
Thanks,
Scott Hargraves
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1440
1 Livermore Wine Country Inn
Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 23-001
Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 23-001
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 23-002
May 22, 2023
Kam Purewal, Associate Planner
Wetmore Road
1 2
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
1441
2 Corner of Hansen Road and Arroyo Road
General Plan: South
Livermore Valley
Specific Plan –
Subarea 5 - Wine
Country Commercial
Zoning: Planned
Development – South
Livermore Valley
Specific Plan (Planned
Unit Development
Amendment 01-001)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Vacant/
Commercial Site 5D1
South: Commercial
Winery
East & West: Agri. &
SFR
5D1
5D2
5D3
Timeline
• September 2019 – City held a neighborhood meeting to review the project. • November 2019 – Planning Commission approves the project. • November 2019 – City receives an application appealing Planning Commission approval.
• January 2020 – Council denies appeal and affirms approval of project. • February 2020 – Friends of So. Livermore (“FOSL”) file lawsuit in Superior Court. • January 2021 – Alameda County Superior Court rules in favor of the City. • April 2021 – FOSL files an appeal with the Court of Appeal. • December 2022 – Court of Appeal reverses lower court’s decision. 3 4
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
1442
3 Specific Plan Amendment
• Existing Policy 4-7: 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.
• Proposed Policy 4-7: Building setbacks for commercial uses shall be 100 feet from road frontages 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.
Specific Plan Information
• 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. • Hansen Road - west of Arroyo Road - is depicted as a future entry road and did not exist when the Specific Plan was adopted.
• The City Council approved the PUD Zoning Standards in 2001 requiring a 50-foot setback for commercial sites 5D1 and 5D2.
• The City has always interpreted a 50-foot setback from Hansen Road and a 100-foot setback from Arroyo Road.
• Vineyards on Arroyo Road are required to remain within the 100-foot agricultural setback. • Specific Plan Amendment is required to clarify that a 50-foot setback applies to Hansen Road.
5 6
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
1443
4 Project Description
7 8
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
1444
5 Architecture
Landscaping
9 10
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
1445
6 Site Access
1. Pedestrian and traffic safety conflicts due to the higher speed limit on Arroyo Road as compared to Hansen Road.
2. A new left turn lane would have to be near the existing left turn lane from Arroyo Road onto Hansen Road, likely causing additional traffic conflicts.
3. 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 due to limited visibility for pedestrians using the existing trail system.
4. LARPD concluded that the entrance to the property should remain on Hansen Road to avoid impacting the regional trail.
Recommended Action
Planning Commission and staff recommend the City Council take two actions:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution and:
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 and:
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
11 12
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
1446
Council Member
Date ofMeeting orEvent Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex. board
meeting or ribbon cutting) Summary of Meeting or Event
Mayor Marchand 5/10/2023 Alameda County Mayors Conference Meeting and tour Toured the Tesla Factory and heard a report on
the Fremont education/industry pipeline
Mayor Marchand 5/12/2023 City of Livermore Ribbon‐cutting Grand opening and tour of Avance community
for developmentally disabled adults.
Mayor Marchand 5/13/2023 Living Arroyos Community service Creek clean‐up at Robertson Park Mayor Marchand 5/14/2023 Boy Scouts of America Eagle Scout Court of Honor Spoke and presented certificates to 6 EagleScouts
Mayor Marchand 5/15/2023 Tri‐Valley Democratic Club Community Forum Spoke at a forum of Tri‐Valley elected officials.Mayor Marchand 5/17/2023 Innovation Tri‐Valley Seminar Received an update on Valley Link Mayor Marchand 5/17/2023 LAVWMA Board meeting
Budget, operations update and took action to
repair flood damage.
Mayor Marchand 5/18/2023
Livermore Police Citizens Police Academy
Alumni Association Volunteer Recognition event Thanked LPD volunteers for their service.
Mayor Marchand 5/19/2023 Las Positas College Graduation Presented certificates to the Veterans FirstGraduates at LPC Mayor Marchand 5/22/2023 Heritage Estates Community outreach Held a town Hall with the residents.
Item 8.0
Council Reports
1447
Council Member
Date ofMeeting orEvent Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex. board
meeting or ribbon cutting) Summary of Meeting or Event
Council Member Barrientos 5/17/2023 Valley Link Update Lunch provided An update on the Valley Link project Council Member Barrientos 5/17/2023 EBCE EBCE
Review of the 2023‐2024 EBCE budget
Up date on State legislation
Council Member Barrientos 5/22/2023
Assigned to a subcommittee marketing and
Accounting for EBCE An update from staff
Item 8.0
Council Reports
1448
Council Member
Date ofMeeting orEvent Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex. board
meeting or ribbon cutting) Summary of Meeting or Event
Council Member Branning 5/11/2023 League of California Cities Virtual Meeting Updates from Congress.
Council Member Branning 5/18/2023 Livermore Police Department Volunteer Appreciation Council Member Branning 5/20/2023 LDI Downtown Street Fest Council Member Branning 5/22/2023 LAVTA Projects and Services Committee Approval of public safety plan Council Member Branning 5/16/2023 Livermore Valley Wine Community Member Dinner Item 8.0
Council Reports
1449
Council Member
Date ofMeeting or
Event Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex. board
meeting or ribbon cutting)
Council Member Carling 5/11/2023 StopWaste board meetingCouncil Member Carling 5/12/2023 City of Livermore Avance grand opening Council Member Carling 5/15/2023 City Council City council special meetingCouncil Member Carling 5/17/2023 LAVWMA board meetingCouncil Member Carling 5/18/2023 Livermore Police Department LPD volunteer appreciation dinner Council Member Carling 5/19/2023 Alameda Landfill Open Space Committee board meeting Item 8.0
Council Reports
1450
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 10.2
DATE: May 22, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marianna Marysheva, City Manager
SUBJECT: Supplemental materials received at the meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
SUMMARY
DISCUSSION
ATTACHMENTS
1. Items Received at the Meeting
Prepared by: Debbie Elam
Acting Assistant City Clerk
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
1451
May 22, 2023 Open Forum Livermore City Council Meeting
RE: Proposed Cell Phone Tower in Mocha Park Livermore CUP 22-004 Mayor Marchand and Members of the City Council,
I use the Arroyo Macho trail which runs from Concannon Blvd. to Isabel Ave. in Livermore several times per week. I often stop at Robertson Park and Macho Park which are located along the way.
I attended the April 18, 2023 Planning Commission meeting.
I am appalled that the Planning Commission has approved allowing AT&T to install a seventy (70) foot tall cell phone tower in the tiny Macho Park which is bounded by the Arroyo Mocha, Mocha Street and Holmes Ave. The approved tower is one of those ugly plastic wrapped "mono trees" with 20 foot diameter plastic branches (starting at 15 feet above ground) that is so obviously fake and obnoxious~ 2.5 tons of plastic.
This park is somewhere around 3 acres in surface area. The proposed tower is supposed to be disguised as a tree- but I estimate that this fake tree will be at least twice as tall as any other tree in the Park and would ruin the character of this lovely park. The proposed cell tower is an eyesore in my opinion and this tiny City Park is no place for a project like this.
According to City staff documents the maximum height for a cell tower structure in this part of the City, which is primarily comprised of single level structures, is not allowed to exceed 35 feet according to the City code. The Planning Commission is also allowing this project to be installed 145 feet from a residence where the Code requires 200 feet.
During the meeting Commissioner Fintschenko repeatedly asked City staff why the Code has the 200 foot from a residence requirement. Staff finally admitted that they do not know why this requirement is in place and additionally that they had already allowed this variance to the Code for other installations of cell towers.
Commissioner Dunbar asked the City staff if they were setting precedent by approving the variances from the Code for this project. City staff replied that no, this was not setting precedent- which seems to me to be contradictory to the facts. It appears that one bad decision justifies the next.
When asked by the Commissioners about any available master plan for cell tower installations, City staff stated that they have a list of preferred sites but it is unclear to me how these sites have been selected and it seems that there has not been any public input on any part of this selection process.
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
1452
Is our City going to be filled with 70 foot or higher cell phone towers located too close to residences, with the Telecom industry sneaking them through one at a time?
Please reject this project. Please send a clear message that we need to maintain the character of our City and not allow projects like this that violate our codes and create visual blight.
Sincerely,
Keith Rothenberg
23 Diamond Drive
Livermore, CA. 94550
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
1453
Dear Mayor Marchand and Council Members:
The proposed wine country inn violates Policy 4-'7 of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan that states: "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." Although the applicant is asking to amend Policy 4-7 to allow for a SO-foot nonplanted setback from Hansen Road, the Policy regardless will remain in full force with respect to Arroyo Road.
There is a conflict between the 100-foot setback from Arroyo Road and the proposed hotel.
The Staff Report does not mention that the hotel proposed in 2018 had overflow parking located in the 100-foot agricultural setback from Arroyo Road. The overflow parking was one of the issues cited by the Friends of South Livermore that was in conflict with the SLVSP in its appeal to the City Council. 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." (Attachment 1) In the current proposal, there is no request for overflow parking. However, clearly the intent is to retain part of the 100-foot setback for overflow parking, with or without a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Livermore. The landscaping plan shown on p. 842 of the agenda packet ( see Attachment 2) is essentially the same as in the original proposal:
a large, flat area within the 100-foot setback with "Timber Wheel-stops", "Removable S' metal fence" and "Removable Manufactured Benches" along with a water fountain. At any time, the applicant will be able to open the area to overflow parking, with or without approval from the City.
More important is the location of the grape vines in the agricultural buffer for Arroyo Road.
In the Conditions for Approval (p. 685, p. 17 of the Staff Report), it is stated (item #6): "Any vines in the 100-foot agricultural buffer along Arroyo Road that are removed during construction, must be replaced prior to an issuance of a certificate of occupancy." (Attachment 3). The problem is the location of the vines is not specified. The landscaping plan shown on page 842 of the packet does not show six rows of vines but open space where the vines should be. The vines currently in place begin 30 feet from the trail and end 100 feet from the edge of Arroyo Road, in accordance with the SLVSP (Attachment 4). The vines in the drawing begin less than 5 feet from the trail and only 4 rows are shown, with an approximately 35-foot band with no plantings of any kind.
This also brings up the issue of the large (33-feet long X 29 feet wide) EVA turnout that extends into the agricultural buffer, also in violation of the SLVSP. This is another example where this project has been allowed to expand beyond the constraints imposed by the SLVSP.
In this case, there is no ambiguity about where the SLVSP intended the grape vines to be:
the vines are in place where they were meant to be.
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1454
The current proposed plan violates the SLVSP policy for a 100-foot agricultural setback planted in vines or orchards. Please do not approve the amendment to the SLVSP and do not approve the proposed hotel.
Peter Young
Friends of South Livermore
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1455
--Friends of South Livermore
And I am here to say I am against the building of this hotel on Hansen Rd. unless modifications are made. We all want a hotel on this site u IS' pro1ect isn't it! We need to O back to the drawin board as the editorial in the Independent SO aptly summed It up- Thank you Janet Arman trout!
-A. he Planning Commission has rushed to check all the boxes and move this � project through, but there are many issues that need to be resolved. 1) ....,IIWl.....,.llri,,,M,Jl:!l!::.!i��l!!;S51.W,�!!w Ian to accommodate builder 2) . to accommodate the builder-.
This is a real disaster as it affects the open space and rural atmosphere of the hills.
3) mrn,cs otel' nTr:.i,nra Rd. which
could be done with lane-changing lines as shown on busy roads in Dublin, San Ramon and Pleasanton and San Ramon on busy thoroughfares near 4 way stops
_a. We have brought these issues to the city multiple times and been given the same pat answer that "the Livermore Wine Growers canno� survive unless this hotel is built as is".
_c. This Is an over ross over slm I ficatt "Downtown" Livermore is the real draw or tourists. Downtown has everything I!- great food and wine, entertainment, music, and lots of parking. + It is all walkable with outdoor seating! {Huge crowds of tourists last weekend Street Fest Who wants to drive out to Hansen on the edge of town when our Downtown is the place where everything is happening
Where Is our downtown hotel?
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1456
BERNARD CABANNE 5/22/2023 4:50 PM
Fwd: Livermore City Council Meeting May 22, 2023---item 6.2 Wine Country Hotel
May 22,2023
City Council Members
Re: Item 6.2 Wine Country Hotel
Dear City Council Members:
We are not opposed to the project-we are opposed to the project as currently designed.
We urge you to deny the proposed amendment to the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP). The SLVSP exists so there is consistency and uniformity in decision making. The SLVSP provides just and equitable standards for land use. In contrast, this amendment is contrary to the letter, spirit and intent of the SLVSP. The amendment is completely at odds with the aesthetic goals and the SLVSP' stated purpose " to provide a comprehensive land use program to guide future public and private actions".
Visual and scenic resources are critical to promoting South Livermore as a premier wine growing region. When driving through South Livermore, people expect to see vineyards and orchards. With this amendment, people will see a parking lot and a commercial sized dumpster. In addition, the new application removes 17 mature street trees at the entrance. Is this the desired image needed to promote South Livermore as a wine-producing area? (All quotations are from Court of Appeals ruling December 22,2023) lnconsistences between the amendment and the SLVSP
1 )By placing a parking lot and commercial sized dumpster in the 50 ft. setback on Hansen Road, the amendment is inconsistent with the broad policy statements and the vision of the SLVSP.
2))The required planted setback policy is the "means by which the SLVSP achieves its goals of preserving and enhancing the rural wine-country character and image of the area* , this amendment would seriously impede those goals.
3) "A 100 foot PLANTED setback is required from ALL PUBLIC ROADWAYS for every commercial site" bordering on public roads throughout the entire area governed by the SLVSP; "planted setbacks are fixed, universal, and apply to existing and future roads." ( 3A2 was exempted because its smaller setback existed before the adoption of the plan) 4) The SLVSP was designed to "preserve the area's unique rural, and scenic qualities", the amendment is in direct conflict with those goals.
5)"The location of setbacks, their minimum depths and the requirement that they be planted with an agricultural crop are fixed plan elements".
6)This is not a commercial area; it is a buffer zone between urban and open space in the South Livermore Plan.
?)"The SLVSP thoughtfully introduces limited commercial development within the agricultural setting, reducing the visual impacts on the rural character of the area"; the proposed amendment is in direct conflict with stated visual resources.
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1457
8 )Further," The plan is designed to preserve and expand viticultural acreage", this amendment will reduce the very viticultural acreage the plan is suppose to protect. 9) Planting vines somewhere else in the county is not an acceptable solution. 10) Commercial uses not related to wine production and agriculture should be located downtown and in other commercial areas of the city; not at the hotel.
We are indeed committed to this plan. We helped fund this plan; the original homeowners in the neighboring developments paid an extra fee ranging from 10,000 to 25,000 dollars when we purchased our homes. In addition, home builders bought one acre of land dedicated for vineyard conservation for each home sold. The money generated from these fees was used as a-financial incentive for landowners to secure part of their acreage in vineyards and orchards. This is a considerable neighborhood investment which indicates how much we value preserving and expanding the vineyards.
Major Safety Concerns with the current design: The safety of the neighborhood is our number one priority.
Hansen Road is a narrow, substandard sized residential street ( measuring 25 ft wide for two lanes of traffic at some spots), It was narrowly designed to enhance the rural character of the Plan. Some portions are too narrow to include sidewalks on both sides and bike lanes. The proposed entrance/exit for the hotel is located at a particularly narrow portion of Hansen Road beca1:1se of a planted median divide.
As a result, the safety of pedestrians, families with strollers, young children on bikes, and cyclists cannot be assured with an entrance/exit on Hansen Road. 11 ). The safer, more appropriate solution would be to move the entrance to Arroyo Road.
12). The reasons the staff listed against moving the entrance are not verifiable with current drawings or proven with facts; staff lists unsubstantiated traffic assumptions (Staff report ) 13). Safety should take priority over not wanting to slow traffic on Arroyo Road. (Staff report ) 14) Breaks in the trail systems have been allowed at neighboring wineries and could work in front of the hotel as well.
15). The staff has never presented drawings showing how circulation would flow with entrances/exits for BOTH 5D2 and 5D1 on Hansen Road.
16). Why were the plans for a required sidewalk next to the hotel omitted in the new application?
Project does not meet City Climate Action Goals: Project is inconsistent with Livermore 2022 CAP and Livermore Green Building Codes 2022
17). Applicant is asking for an exception to the Electric Appliance Requirement. Why? This is yet another example of the applicant believing standards that apply to others do not apply to her. ( See other inconsistencies in Energy section below) Please think very carefully about the long term consequences of changing an entire plan to appease one developer. This amounts to favoritism and preferential treatment. Why should an arbitrary exception be made for the applicant ?
18) Plans such as the SLVSP are created so there is consistency and uniformity in decision making. The Plan provides just and equitable standards for land use. 19) Once a plan is enacted and long-standing---in this case, 20 years,-exceptions should NOT be made for an individual.
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1458
20) An amendment to the entire plan should only occur if there is a circumstance that benefits the entire plan area such as extending sewer lines to South Livermore when septic tanks were no longer adequate. These changes were not specific changes made for the benefit of one applicant.
21) This is a slippery slope, if an exception is made for Ms. Boss, others will ask for equal treatment.
22.) This amendment will set a precedent and the City will not have the moral authority to tum down other applicants.
23) There are many ways the applicant can modify her design including removing her private pool, her private family residence, the large courtyard, etc. 24) Don't change the plan---ask the applicant to change the configuration of the hotel.
In addition to the amendment , you are also being asked to consider a new application and a EIR Addendum to the 1997 EIR.
Please see below a list of concerns which need to be addressed before moving forward with the approval of the new application and the EIR addendum:
The EIR addendum is insufficient because new information of substantial importance, was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous 1997 EIR/negative declaration was adopted and/or substantially more severe significant impacts exist than those that were previously analyzed.
I Aesthetics
A) In lieu of a 100 ft vines planted setback on Hansen Road, the amendment reduces the setback to 50 ft with a parking lot, commercial sized dumpster and the removal of 17 mature street trees on Hansen Road at hotel exit/entrance. ( Keeping street trees was a condition of the 2019 project approval.)
B) The addendum EIR states that the visual impacts will be less than significant with a fence and possible shrubs. These landscape elements will not be sufficient to mitigate loss of significant visual resources to pedestrians, nearby residents, cyclists, drivers traveling along Hansen.
C) The SLVSP lzlR discusses how a project might appear with a photo simulation. However, we now have a precise design of how the hotel will look and its prominence will dominate the entire area. As currently configured, it will significantly and adversely impact the stated visual resources and visual goals of the SLVSP "to preserve and enhance the rural wine-country character and image of the area*."
D) Moreover, the SLVSP was designed to "preserve the area's unique rural, and scenic qualities", the amendment is in direct conflict with those goals.
E) The matrix of dominant, co-dominant, etc. does not address that this hotel will be the only commercial building rn an agricultural buffer zone; and without the required 100 ft. vines or orchard planted setbacks; the visual impacts will be significant and unavoidable.
F) Color and texture will not be sufficient to blend the two story hotel into the surrounding agricultural parcels and will degrade the scenic views without the required 100 ft vine planted setbacks.
G) New information about the significance of lighting of the night time sky has not been addressed in the Addendum EIR. Night time lighting could significantly impact the wildlife corridors as the site is adjacent to Sycamore Park Grove ( 4 70 acres of open space for wildlife) and near Holdener's Park. Hotel lighting especially in parking lot and hotel signage could significantly impact the flight path of many raptors -- hawks, falcons, kites, eagles ( Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1459
Golden and Bald), vultures, and four species of owls--documented to nest and hunt in the area.
II Air Quality
A) The BAAQMD has adopted more rigid standards since the SLVSP EIR was adopted. ( Attachment 19 exhibit B) Further, the project site is located in a nonattainment area for federal PM2.5 and ambient air quality standards (AAQS).
B)Changes to the vicinity/new information Livermore has the worst air quality in the Bay Area both in summer ( smog) and winter. Livermore exceeded federal and state respirable particulate matter (PM 2.5) with a record number of 14.8 days in 2018. ( BAAQMD/Tri-Valley Air Quality Climate Alliance) Livermore experienced 46 Spare the Air Days in 2018, and 58 Spare the Air Days in 2020. (BAAQMD/TVAQCA) A record number of Spare the Air days were also recorded in 2021 and 2022.
New information shows particulate 'matter, especially PM2.5, coming from diesel trucks, gets deep in the lungs and even enters the bloodstream and organs. ( TVAQCA December 2021/ American Lung Association)
C) The consultant used an outdated software model California Emissions Estimator Model ( CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2 to analyze air quality data. An updated air quality computer program is necessary to adequately analyze recent air quality data.
D) Unsupported conclusions: Consultant fails to explain how a left tum pocket, low flow toilets and shower heads will reduce air emissions during construction. Yet these unrelated hotel design features were added into modeling. (Attachment 19 exhibit B) This further casts significant doubt on the validity of conclusions without newer modeling software.
E) The NOx emissions generated by the project during construction will exceed the applicable BAAQMD threshold of significance; this impact is significant and unavoidable. Proposed mitigation measures in the SLVSP EIR are insufficient to render impacts less than significant.
F) Mitigations listed are merely best practices for construction sites in attainment air basins but would not be sufficient for the nonattainment air basin in Livermore.
G) Fugitive dust issues are not addressed sufficiently; a disclosure notice given to some homeowners twenty years ago about dust from vineyard operations does not apply to fugitive dust that will be generated from the project's extensive grading ( excavating part of the site by ten feet for a flat pad),removing several feet of undocumented soil and adding replacement soil.
H) Changes to the Vicinity/New Information. The SLVSP EIR did not analyze the project's potential to expose sensitive receptors to TAC emissions.( Attachment 19 exhibit B) In this case, there are many children and the elderly living on Verdala and Hansen; some residents living as close as 25 ft. from project property line.
I) TAC exposure is underestimated due to DMP exposure from diesel generators and other diesel equipment that will be used on-site through out the two year construction period and due to idling trucks waiting to access and leave the property. New information shows particulate matter, especially PM2.5, coming from diesel trucks, gets deep in the lungs and even enters the bloodstream and organs) ( TVAQCA December 2021) J) Changes to the vicinity/ New information not included in 1997 EIR: Hospitalizations directly related to air pollutants in the Tri-Valley rose substantially in the last decade.
Premature deaths due to air pollution rose from 2,600 in 1990 to 8300 in 2015; asthma emergency room visits rose from 1000 in 1990 to 3400 in 2015 (TVAQCA) (Even before covid, one can see the trend of serious health impacts due to air pollutants is significantly higher. It is well known that air pollutants also increase lung and heart disease , increase asthma especially in children, and interfere with oxygen transport to the brain and other sensitive organs. Air pollutants specifically affect pregnant women, infants, children, the Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1460
;
elderly, and individuals with compromised immune systems. Protecting the health and safety of the most vulnerable residents who live next to the project must be the number one priority during construction. Some residents live 25 fl from property line.
K)Construction is projected to last 18-24 months, new air quality data clearly identifies the health risks of exposure to DMP is far greater than the addendum's limited discussion of cancer.
L) New information not included or analyzed in the SLVSP EIR:1}According to the TVAQCA, the biggest contributors to air pollution are diesel powered machinery that emit pollution even when not in use. (TVAQCA packet and website)
M) The SLVSP EIR states localized CO emissions on neighboring streets during construction would increase CO emissions (incomplete combustion of carbon containing fuels) but after project generated traffic would result in lower CO emissions. Reduced CO levels are estimated using outdated 2010 traffic projections.
N) Addendum EIR does not address the potential for significant odors from bioretention swales and storm retention ponds. (5D2 and 5D1 ).
0) Mitigation Measure 111-1 is not sufficient to render new air quality impacts to a less than significant level, especially exceedances in NOx, PM2.5,PM10 and Green House Gas emissions.
P) New Information - Significant Air pollutants could be reduced with the use of electric construction equipment and electric generators during the construction phase of the project. (TVAQCA)
Ill. Biological Resources
A) Changes to the vicinity/ changed circumstances : Since the 1997 EIR, the Crotch bumblebee and Western Bumblebee now have the same legal protection afforded to an endangered or threatened species.(California Fish and Game Code sections 207 4.2 and 2085, December 2022). The site is home to many wifdflowers and the presence of the Western Bumblebee has been seen through out 5D2 and 5D1. New on-site biological surveys to detect their presence and new mitigations should be added to protect Crotch bumblebee and Western bumblebee.
B) Were surveys done in 2022 and 2023 to see if the site is a habitat corridor for the endangered San Joaquin kit fox which has been spotted in Livermore open space and agricultural areas?
C The discussion of the left turn pocket lane not disturbing special status plants or special status wildlife ignores the potential for significant, adverse impacts to special status plants and wildlife where the hotel and caretakers unit will be constructed.
D) Only one on-site biological survey was conducted in January 2019, outside of the botanical blooming season, so it be difficult to spot special species plants.
E) A dry watercourse was confirmed by the biologist. Did the Addendum consultants check to see if the watercourse is now wet and running in 2023 winter? Also have the two large seasonal wetlands in subarea 5 been surveyed recently? Were these areas surveyed this spring 2023 for potential water habitat and upland/movement habitat for California red-legged frog and the California tiger salamander?
F) The Addendum EIR incorrectly states that the project site is surrounded by an existing fence that limits wildlife migration through the site. The site has a short open wooden fence which enables wildlife to cross the site located between Holdener's Park and Sycamore Grove Park, both large open space parks with migratory wildlife corridors. The hotel and parking lot could impede wildlife corridors to habitat. Impacts to wildlife corridors established in Holdener's Park (hundreds of acres of open space) were not mentioned or analyzed in the 1997 EIR as the park did not exist at that time.
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1461
IV. Energy
A) The hotel application is in direct conflict of Livermore 2022 CAP goals and Livermore Green Building Codes 2022 for the following reasons: 1) hotel will not be required to use recycled water for landscaping, hardscape surfaces are not permeable, applicant plans on installing gas range in kitchen instead of required electric range.( See Green House Emissions below)
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
A) Significant New information since the SLVSP EIR. New earthquake fault lines have been documented near Greenville and Patterson Pass Road, a fault line independent and sepacate from the Hayward fault or Los Positas Fault.
8) How many earthquakes have been recorded by USGS along this newly documented fault line near the project?
C) Following California Building Code minimum standards is not sufficient mitigation; conclusion that ground rupture is unlikely needs further analysis given the intensity of numerous major and new fault lines in close proximity to the site.
D) The findings of the geotechnical firm EN GEO in the previous EIR did not adequately address the existence of several feet of undocumented soils at the site which could lead to liquefaction and ground lurching. Even replacing the undocumented soils with engineered fill on top of clay soils may not prevent uplifting, lateral spreading and landslides.
E) The topography is not flat and slopes considerably toward parcels below. Extensive grading will remove ten feet of soil from one corner of the site to construct a flat pad for the hotel; this will occur in addition to removal of several feet of undocumented soil.
F) Significant new information/changes to the vicinity; Twelve atmospheric rivers occurred in Livermore between December 2022 and March 2023 which lead to flooding and excessive run-off in arroyos, creeks and city streets. Ponding at the site and standing water in parcels below the site was visible. The SLVSP EIR did not analyze the increased potential for open faces, unstable soils and landslides before and after construction based on heavy rainfall patterns of 2019, 2022-2023.
G) Did any Addendum consultant walk the property during the 3 month period of December 26th thru March 31st, 2023 to see the extent of flooding? VI Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A). Significant new information/ changes to the vicinity :The Altamont Landfill is the third highest Green House Gas (GHG) emitting landfill in the state; the landfill generates high methane emissions even with the operation of the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plant. (Newly required State reporting) The landfill was granted an extension to 2075. 8). The Vasco landfill, which also generates significant GHG emissions, was given an extension until 2051.
C). The recently approved Jesse Ranch Road Biosolids (dried fecal matter) facility will produce significant amounts of methane and GHG emissions.
D). The GHG emissions of these existing facilities cannot be reduced for decades.
E) The BAAQMD new thresholds of significance of Climate Change impacts require that a new project be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy-in this case the City of Livermore 2022 CAP.
F) The project is inconsistent with Strategy D-1 Improve water conservation and REUSE ( City of Livermore 2022 CAP)
The city is only requiring a water irrigation system for landscaping, not recycled water ( purple piping being required for the project 6.1 North Canyons Parkwayff riad Condominiums to be approved the same date) Why? The whole purpose of the recycled water plant on Jack Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1462
...
. .
London was to ensure new commercial buildings would be required to use recycled water for landscaping. Why is· an exemption being made? The proposed project is not consistent with the major components of City of Livermore 2022 CAP.
G) The project is not consistent with Action F-1.5 that requires new hardscape to be permeable.
H) Further, the project is not consistent with Strategy B-1 and Livermore's adopted 2022 Green Building Code Standards which require all electric appliances in new commercial buildings. Written statements by Chef Rodney Worth included in the EIR Addendum do NOT show a need that cannot be achieved equivalently with an electric heating appliance.
I) Significant new information since 1997 EIR: The Independent Consumers Union 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. Here are quotes from Consumers Reports:
"By not having to heat that glass, induction elements are about 5 to 10 percent more energyefficient than traditional electric heating elements. They're also able to heat pots more precisely because of their digital controls and to bring liquids to a boil faster. In fact, highpower induction burners can boil a pot of water roughly 20 to 40 percent faster than the best gas and radiant electric ranges and cooktops we've tested. And because the glass top stays relatively cool, induction appliances are generally considered safer than other types.
Another safety bonus: Induction, like other electric appliances, won't produce toxic emissions like gas stovetops do. Induction ranges and cooktops are some of the best performers we test when compared with gas and electric models. This cool new technology comes at a slightly higher price than traditional ranges and cooktops. But because induction heats food faster, you're likely to use less energy and may save on your electric bill.
You may find induction options for as little as 5 percent more than a comparable electric appliance .. Keep in mind that the new Inflation Reduction Act allocates funding credits of up to $840 for new electric ranges and cooktops, including induction models. In our testing, electric ranges are far better than gas models at broiling, and induction models are no exception-all but one of the induction models in our ratings earn a rating of Good or better for broiling. The best models heat evenly and get roaring hot, which should mean nicely seared meats or beautifully baked ziti. Almost all your existing pots and pans are compatible with induction, with the exception of a few nonstick aluminum pieces. Magnetic stainless steel, cast iron, and pretty much all cookware made from multiple layers of metal is magnetic. All the cast-iron Dutch ovens, cast-iron and carbon steel frying pans, and stainless· steel cookware sets and frying pans we test can be used with induction cooktops. The oven works exactly like one on any electric range, so you can use all the cookware and bakeware you have in your cabinets now." (Quotes from Consumer Union Reports)
J)Statement from the American Lung Association, September 2022 "After a comprehensive literature review, our research found that the household use of methane gas, wood, propane and heating oil impacts indoor air quality, health, and drives climate change through the emission of compounds such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, formaldehyde and others."A recent study published in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, found that at least 21 different types of VOCs classified as hazardous air pollutants can be emitted into your home via a gas stove .Jan 11, 2023
Natural gas cooking appliances, which are used by a third of U.S. households, can contribute to poor indoor air quality, especially when used without an exhaust hood.1 )Gas stoves emit Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1463
nitrogen dioxide (NO) 2), carbon monoxide (CO), and 3)formaldehyde (HCHO), each of which can exacerbate various respiratory and other health ailments K) The project as configured is not consistent with Livermore 2022 Cap and thereby will impede the City from reaching its adopted reduction target goals for 2030 and 2045.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A) An analysis of onsite soils would be required to ensure that any existing soil contaminants are below screening levels.
B) An additional analysis should be required to check for containments including voes and PFAs before the undocumented fill on the site is removed and replaced.
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
A)Changes to the vicinity. The heavy rains of Winter 2022-23, including 12 back-to-back atmospheric rivers in a three month period, produced ponding on the project site, flooding of parcels lower than the site, and flooding on neighboring streets. The potential impacts of such intense atmospheric rivers on drainage systems and water quality was not adequately analyzed in the 1997 EIR. The predicted reoccurrence of such wet seasons could create or contribute to runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage system. The use of bioswales and storm retention ponds for the project needs to be further analyzed than water impacts considered in 1997 EIR.
IX. Noise
A. The Addendum incorrectly identifies the closest residences as 240 ft. from the project. The closest residence yard is 25 ft from the property line (Staff report)
8. Construction activities generate noise levels between 75 to 85 decibels at 50 ft.; these are significantly above the allowable City General Plan Noise Standards. Therefore, noise impacts are significant and unavoidable; noise impacts during construction will be more severe than noise impacts evaluated in 1997 EIR.
Noise impacts must be further analyzed due to the close proximity of many current residents.
C. Vibration impacts were calculated using 240 ft distance to homes and yards instead of 25ft.
The currently proposed project could result in vibration impacts that are significantly higher than those that were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR.
X. Transportation
A)Traffic impacts need to analyzed more completely using Vehicle Miles Traveled models. The Addendum states that the hotel could actually reduce trips into the region by reducing VMT on Isabel or 580 because visitors would stay overnight at the hotel.
B)However, the Addendum does not discuss the number of extra car trips hotel guests would likely make to Del Valle Lake, Tesla Park, shopping, etc.
C)Traffic impacts to the immediate residential area need to be further analyzed using VMT models to see if further traffic mitigations in the adjacent neighborhood are necessary.
XI. Wildfires
A) Changes in the vicinity. During August 2020, a wildfire caused by thousands of dry lightening strikes erupted less than 1/4 mile from the hotel site. Livermore Pleasanton and Alameda County Firefighters were unable to extinguish it. The fire burned for weeks, killing numerous residents who were trapped on small roads and animals in nearby ranches. A one point, residents on Hansen Road were forced to evacuate and some residents were placed on voluntary evacuations. Later named the Santa Clara County Fire, it became one of the worst wildfires in California's history in terms of total burnt acreage and duration.
B) Wildfires in the adjacent areas are predicted to increase due to Climate Changes; and will significantly increase higher risks of wildfires in dry grasses in areas near the project. Given the recent history of wildfires in Livermore 2020 thru 2022, the impacts of increased fire risks, Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1464
in intensity and duration needs to be more thoroughry analyzed than what was considered in 1997 EIR.
XII. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a}The project could reduce or restrict the number and/or range of burrowing owls, habitat for California red-legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, Crotch and Western bumblebees, and special status plants. Changes to classifications of endangered species, special status plants and their habitat were not adequately addressed in SLVSP EIR due to changed circumstances and require further CEQA review.
b) The reduction of the planted setback on Hansen Road and the inclusion of a parking lot and commercial-sized dumpster will significantly and severely impact visual resources, scenic views and the aesthetics of the SLSLP. These new additions and reductions were not adequately addressed in the SLVSP EIR and require further CEQA review. c) The proposed project would cause substantial effects to human beings, including effects related to exposure to air pollutants, geologic hazards, hazardous materials, excessive noise and vibrations, flooding or ponding (hydrology), transportation impacts, and wildfires, beyond those previously analyzed in the 1997 �JR/negative declaration. Therefore, further CEQA review is required.
Inconsistencies between the SLVSP and the new hotel application A) The EVA turnaround and wooden benches extend into the required 100 ft vines planted setback on Arroyo Road.
B Other Parking Concerns and Issues
1.Traffic island to direct guests' right-turns on to Arroyo mentioned p. 247& 667; the island does not prevent left hand turns by vehicles exiting through the entrance lane or prevent vehicles from making a u-turn at the Hansen/Arroyo intersection. Require signage stating either no left turn or right-turn only.
Conditions that need to be added
2. Conditions prohibiting hotel parking and/or hotel employee parking on Hansen Road, Verdala, Talinga and on all adjacent neighborhood streets.
3. Signs in parking cutouts in front of homes stating parking reserved for residents only; violators will be towed.
4. Restrict wine bar hours to conform to tasting room hours of 11 am to 5pm including weekends.
5 Seating for guests (p. 233) implies additional bar &restaurant seating= additional parking. No way to distinguish between hotel guests & diners who are not hotel guests.
At this juncture, we urge you to deny the proposed amendment, deny the new application and deny the addendum to the 1997 EIR until the hotel can be reconfigured to comply with the current SLVSP, and deficiencies and inconsistencies in the new application and addendum EIR can be rectified.
Sincerely,
Donna Cabanne
Friends of South Livermore
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1465
Mayor and Councilmembers: May 22, 2023
I would like to provide some background on setback requirements in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP). I personally participated in the creation and adoption of that plan.
It started in 1992 when Signature Properties planned to expand Ruby Hills to the east threatening vineyards. For many, Livermore is a special place. One of the things that make it special is the wineries and vineyards that have been part of its history for the past 150 years.
To temporarily protect the vineyards the City Council adopted the South Livermore Area Plan.
Over the next four years Livermore's leader and staff together with environmental groups, landowners, wineries and other local communities developed the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan. Mayor Cathy Brown and councilmembers Ayn Wieskamp, Tom Reitter, Tom Vargas and I signed the ordinance adopting the SLVSP around Thanksgiving 1997.
As part of the plan, a requirement was put in place for a 100 foot setback and planted vines along major streets connecting the wineries. This was to preserve the attractive rural appearance of the area for future visitors. The side streets had their own requirements: two narrow lanes, limited on street parking, swales in place of gutters and sewers, special lighting and street signage. There was no intent to apply 100 foot setback or vine planting requirement to these side streets that would be built to serve the residential parts of the plan.
Uses such as the proposed Inn were part of the original SLVP plan. Expansion of tourist serving infrastructure is vital to the future financial viability of the vineyards and wine industry in the area.
The Planning Commission unanimous recommendation to clarify and uphold the intent of the original South Livermore Valley Specific Plan was correct. The City Council should now adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation to meet the goals of the plan. This will help ensure that SLVSP goals are met and vineyards, wineries and other agricultural uses will continue to succeed for the next 150 years.
Thank you, I am available to answer questions.
John Stein , Livermore, CA
Former Livermore Councilmember
Item 6.2
Public Comment Received
1466