I concur that all of the measures described above should be implemented if the project goes forward. However, these measure alone would be inadequate. Also needed is monitoring of wildlife that is integrated with thresholds of success and failure. If thresholds of failure are exceeded, then the City should be required to take additional steps to achieve success. To this end, an adequate performance bond should be provided by the applicant to the City.
RECOMMENDED MEASURES
Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by bird-window collisions and the project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).
Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with automobiles traveling to and from the project’s buildings.
Landscaping: If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., chaparral, grassland, and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as importance sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threated insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.
EXHIBIT E
2432
39 Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.
Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089 Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of Avian Mortality Attributed to Vehicle Collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.
Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219-224.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.go
Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.
Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.
Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.
Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.
EXHIBIT E
2433
40 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.
Monk & Associates. 2021. Biological Resources Analysis SMP-39 Alameda County, California. Report to Overton Moore Properties, Gardena, California.
Monk & Associates. 2023. Biological Resources Analysis Oaks Business Park City Of Livermore, California. Report to Overton Moore Properties, Gardena, California.
Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.
Runge, C. A., T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R. A. Fuller. 2014.
Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395–402, doi:10.1890/130237.
Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.
PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.
Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216 Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding density and collision mortality of loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.
Smallwood, N. L., and E. M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native-plant landscaping in residential yards to birds during the nonbreeding period. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.
EXHIBIT E
2434
41 Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.
Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054.
Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump.
Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626.
Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175.
Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.
EXHIBIT E
2435
December 12, 2023
Stephanie Papayanis, Esq.
Mitchel M. Tsai, Attorney at Law
139 South Hudson Avenue, Suite 200
Pasadena CA 91101
[email protected]
Subject: City of Livermore SMP 38/SMP 39/SMP 40 Project Review of DEIR Noise Section & Appendices
Dear Stephanie:
We have completed a review of Section 4.6 (Noise), as well as Appendices J and K (Environmental Noise Assessments) of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Livermore SMP 38/SMP 39/SMP 40 Project, focusing on the adequacy of the noise impact analyses. Here are our findings:
OVERVIEW
Section 4.6 of the DEIR is based on environmental noise assessments prepared by Salter. • Significance Standards
The DEIR significance standards for noise and vibration impacts are based directly on Section XIII of the Environmental Checklist in Appendix G of the current CEQA Guidelines, which reads as follows:
XIII. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels? Salter has proposed a 3 dBA increase in ambient noise levels as the threshold for a “substantial increase”. We concur that this is a reasonable value for CEQA evaluation of this project. • Operational Noise & Construction Vibration
The analysis in Section 4.6 shows that noise impacts from operational noise (loading dock activity, HVAC, on-site vehicle movements) as well as vibration during on-site construction are less-thansignificant. Generally, the analysis supporting this finding appears to be methodical and well done, consistent with current CEQA Guidelines, and we take no exception to it. • Construction Noise Impacts
Section 4.6 also includes an analysis of construction noise impacts on the nearest sensitive uses – i.e.: the single-family residential neighborhood to the east of the project sites. This analysis covers on-site construction activity for SMP 40 as well as the construction of off-site trail connections at three potential locations (each within 200-feet of the nearest residential use).
EXHIBIT E
2436
The impact of construction noise on the SMP 39 site is not covered in the DEIR.
For the off-site trail connection construction, the DEIR states that noise impacts are significant without mitigation and provides a list of mitigation measures (4.6-1) to reduce this impact to lessthan-significant level. Generally, we agree with this finding and the proposed mitigation measures.
For on-site construction, the DEIR states that noise impacts will be less-than-significant. However, the analysis presented in the DEIR does not – in our opinion – adequately support this conclusion, for the reasons outlined below.
PROBLEMS WITH THE ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS • SMP 39 is Excluded
Construction noise from the SMP 39 site is not included in the analysis in Section 4.6 of the DEIR. An explanation for this omission is provided in the final paragraph on page 4.6-21, which reads in part:
“Due to the substantial distance between SMP 39 and the sensitive noise receptors, it was anticipated that construction noise associated SMP 39 would be below the City of Livermore’s exterior noise level threshold of 60 dBA DNL at the nearest sensitive receptor locations. Thus, construction noise levels for SMP 39 were not evaluated as part of the Environmental Noise Study for SMP 39.”
There are two problems with this explanation:
First, CEQA requires an actual analysis to show whether a project impact is significant or less-thansignificant. Simply “anticipating” that there will be no significant impact falls short of the standard required for a CEQA study.
Second, the 60 dBA DNL exterior noise standard (which comes from the land-use compatibility table in the Noise Element of the City of Livermore General Plan) is only one of the applicable local regulations. The DEIR analysis should address all applicable regulations in both the General Plan and Municipal Code.
• Analysis for SMP 40 is Incomplete
The noise impact analysis for construction on the SMP 40 site compares Salter’s noise level predictions with instantaneous maximum noise level (Lmax) limits of 70 dBA during the day and 60 dBA at night, which are taken from Policy N-1.5.P3 of the City of Livermore General Plan.
However, these Lmax noise limits are not the only local regulations that would apply to construction noise on the SMP 40 site.
For example, the DEIR does not show how construction noise from SMP 40 would compare to Policy N-1.5.P2 of the General Plan, which prescribes the following noise limits, depending on the cumulative duration of the noise:
Daytime Noise Limit
(7AM – 10PM)
Nighttime Noise Limit
(10PM – 7AM) Cumulative Duration
60 dBA 50 dBA No more than 15-minutes in any hour.
65 dBA 55 dBA No more than 5-minutes in any hour.
70 dBA 60 dBA No more than 1-minute in any hour.
EXHIBIT E
2437
Similarly, the DEIR does not include an DNL analysis for construction noise from SMP 40 to show that it will be below the 60 dBA exterior noise standard taken from land-use compatibility table (Table 9-7) in the General Plan. This will be particularly important if any construction work is to occur at night.
• There is an Error in the Calculations for SMP 40
Table 4.6-6 of the DEIR lists estimated Lmax noise levels for various pieces of construction equipment at a distance of 50-feet (these are standard reference values, taken from the FHWA Construction Noise Handbook) and extrapolates them to a distance of 884 feet.
According to Table 4.6-6, the equipment noise levels received at a distance of 884 are 57 dBA lower than lower than those received at a distance of 50-feet. This is incorrect. According to the radiation equation for point sources (such as individual pieces of construction equipment) the reduction in noise level from 50-feet to 884 feet is:
10 x LOG10 (884/50) = 25 dBA
So, the estimated Lmax noise levels provided in Table 4.6-6 are 32 dBA lower than they should be.
Which means that noise from several of the pieces of equipment listed should be expected to produce a maximum level of noise at the nearest residences that is either right at the 60 dBA nighttime limit or, in the case of paving equipment, 4 dBA above it. • Construction on the East Side of the SMP 40 Site is Overlooked The construction noise analysis in the DEIR for SMP 40 considers assumes receivers 884-feet away from the equipment – which is the distance between the location proposed for Building 2 and the nearest residences. However, there will be certain phases of construction – such as site preparation and paving/landscaping/site concrete – when noisy equipment could be operating closer than 884- feet from nearby residential uses.
For example, the eastern corner of the SMP 40 site is within 600-feet of the nearest residential use.
Received noise levels at a distance of 600-feet from the equipment would be 3 dBA higher than those received at 884-feet, which means that the expected noise level at the nearest residences when paving equipment is in use in the eastern corner of the site would be 67 dBA, Lmax and not 32 dBA, Lmax as reported in Table 4.6-6.
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS
We find that, while much of the noise analysis in the DEIR has been done to the standard expected of a CEQA study, the evaluation of noise impacts during the construction phases is incomplete and contains a significant calculation error. We therefore recommend that the preparers be requested to revise/correct the Noise Section (4.6) of the DEIR as follows:
• Include SMP 39 in the on-site construction noise impact analysis. The analysis should take account of the anticipated number of pieces of equipment in use at any one time during each phase as well as estimated usage factors, so that construction noise impacts can be evaluated in the in the context of the City of Livermore General Plan DNL 60 dBA exterior noise standard (from Table 9-7) and the time-dependent noise limits in Policy N-1.5.P2, as well as the Lmax noise limits in Policy N-1.5.P3. • For on-site construction on the SMP 40 site, the noise impact analysis should be expanded to take account of the anticipated number of pieces of equipment in use at any one time during each phase as well as estimated usage factors, so that construction noise impacts can be evaluated in the in the
EXHIBIT E
2438
context of the City of Livermore General Plan DNL 60 dBA exterior noise standard (from Table 9-7) and the time-dependent noise limits in Policy N-1.5.P2, as well as the Lmax noise limits in Policy N1.5.P3. • Table 4.6-6 should be revised to show the correct (25 dBA) reduction in point-source noise levels from 50-feet to 884-feet.
• Provide additional analysis for any construction activity on the SMP 40 site (such as site preparation, paving/landscaping) that could occur closer than 884-feet from the nearest residential use.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Rogers Acoustics, LLC
Steve Rogers
Principal
d:\Tsai\Ccity of Livermore SMP 38 39 40 DEIR\report 1
EXHIBIT E
2439
VIA E-MAIL
March 5, 2024
City of Livermore Planning Commission
City Council Chambers
1016 S. Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Livermore’s SMP 39 and 40 Planning Commission Meeting
Dear Ashley Vera,
On behalf of “Carpenters Local 713”, my Office is submitting these supplemental comments for the City of Livermore’s (“City”) Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR” or “DEIR”) and Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR” or “FEIR”) for the March 5, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting for the SMP 39 and 40 Project (“Project”).
According to the Project’s Notice of Availability (“NOA”) of a Draft EIR Project Description:
“On SMP 38, the proposed project includes a Sphere of Influence (SOI) Amendment to include SMP 38 within the City of Livermore SOI and remove it from the City of Pleasanton’s SOI. The City of Livermore General Plan land use designation for SMP 38 would remain Limited Agriculture and Open Space/Sand and Gravel and the Alameda County zoning designation would remain Agriculture. Development of SMP 38 is not proposed.
For SMP 39, the proposed project would include development of a total of up to six light industrial buildings, consisting of up to approximately 755,500 square feet (sf) of new building space, and associated internal roadways and other improvements. For SMP 40, the proposed project would include development of two industrial buildings containing up to 759,275 sf of new building space with
EXHIBIT E
2440
related internal roadways and other improvements. A number of approvals would be required for development of SMP 39 and SMP 40, including a SOI Amendment for SMP 39, General Plan Amendment, Pre-zoning and Annexation, Zoning Map Amendment/Planned Development, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps, a Pre-Annexation Agreement, and Development Agreement. A Site Plan Design Review entitlement is required for SMP 39 and SMP 40, which would include a review of the site plan, building, and landscape design; however, the entitlement is only proposed for SMP 40 at this time. A Site Plan Design Review entitlement will be required at a later date for the future development of SMP 39. In addition, the proposed project would include annexation of four additional parcels (APNs 904-10-2-3, -5, -7, and - 8) located east of SMP 40. Development is not proposed on the additional parcels as part of the proposed project.
The project would include a paved at-grade, on-site trail along the boundaries of the SMP 40 site, consistent with the City’s Active Transportation Plan. Specifically, the on-site trail would extend from the northeastern corner of the site, along the project site’s eastern, southern, and western boundaries, before connecting to an existing off-site paved shared-use path at the northwestern corner of site, which extends along the west side of the Oaks Business Park to the north and connects to West Jack London Boulevard.
In addition, the project would include a new off-site connection to the existing Arroyo Mocho Trail, located on the east side of Isabel Avenue/SR 84. For the purposes of the Draft EIR analysis, three alternatives for the proposed off-site Isabel Avenue/SR 84 crossing to the existing Arroyo Mocho Trail are considered and evaluated in the Draft EIR, including the following, and described in more detail in the Draft EIR:
• Trail Connection Option 1 – At-Grade Crossing at Discovery Drive;
• Trail Connection Option 2 – Undercrossing at Isabel Bridge; and • Trail Connection Option 3 – Overcrossing of Isabel Avenue/SR
84.”
EXHIBIT E
2441
NOA of Draft EIR, pp. 1-2, emph. added.
The concurrently circulated Draft EIR contains the same project description.
DEIR, pp. 1-2—1-4.
Carpenters Local 713 is a labor union representing union carpenters in Alameda County , and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.
Local 713 members live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.
Carpenters Local 713 expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project. Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199- 1203; see also Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.
Carpenters Local 713 incorporates by reference all comments related to the Project or its CEQA review, including the Environmental Impact Report. See Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).
Moreover, Carpenters Local 713 requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”) (Gov. Code, §§ 65000–65010).
California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and California Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
I. CEQA REQUIRES SUBSEQUENT OR SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW WHEN SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES
OR NEW INFORMATION COMES TO LIGHT
EXHIBIT E
2442
Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code requires that “[w]hen significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 … but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report” in order to give the public a chance to review and comment upon the information. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.)
Significant new information includes “changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information” that “deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative).” (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a).) Examples of significant new information requiring recirculation include “new significant environmental impacts from the project or from a new mitigation measure,” “substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact,” “feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed” as well as when “the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” (Id.)
An agency has an obligation to recirculate an environmental impact report for public notice and comment due to “significant new information” regardless of whether the agency opts to include it in a project’s environmental impact report. (Cadiz Land Co. v.
Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 95 [finding that in light of a new expert report disclosing potentially significant impacts to groundwater supply “the EIR should have been revised and recirculated for purposes of informing the public and governmental agencies of the volume of groundwater at risk and to allow the public and governmental agencies to respond to such information.”].) If significant new information was brought to the attention of an agency prior to certification, an agency is required to revise and recirculate that information as part of the environmental impact report.
The City’s Supplemental Memorandum (“Exhibit A”) identifies numerous substantial changes to the EIR. Most notably Noise Impacts section was dramatically changed based on updated Noise Studies for SMP 39 and 40 and newly determined significance thresholds were applied. These updated studies were only finalized one day ago and given to the public less than four hours before the Planning Commission hearing.
Moreover, the updated studies and significance thresholds resulted in an entirely new
EXHIBIT E
2443
mitigation measure in the MMRP. (See Exhibit A at 695). Indeed, the most recent revision now predicts SMP 40 construction-related noise will exceed the thresholds established by the City. As such, the dramatic change in the findings of the EIR requires recirculation so that the public may provide its input.
II. THE FEIR IS IMPROPER AS IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL
CHANGES TO THE DEIR
The FEIR cannot be certified by the Planning Commission as it does not include the numerous changes created by the Supplemental Memorandum released mere hours before the Planning Commission Hearing. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, a FEIR shall include:
“(a) The draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim or in summary.
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR.
(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.”
As the FEIR has received two rounds of revisions since it was originally prepared in January 2024, the document proposed for certification is an inaccurate reflection of the FEIR. As such, the Planning Commission must not certify the FEIR until, at a minimum, the document reflects the most up-to-date version.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission should deny the FEIR’s certification, and the Environmental Impact Report should be revised and recirculated pursuant to CEQA, consistent with the comments and issues identified in this and previous comment letters.
Sincerely,
____________________________
Grace Holbrook
Attorneys for Carpenters Local 713
EXHIBIT E
2444
Attached:
Supplemental Memorandum (Exhibit A).
EXHIBIT E
2445
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 10.1
DATE: March 5, 2024
TO: Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Steve Riley, Acting Planning 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 Planning Commission.
5.1 - Hearing to consider a request for an Annexation/Prezoning, Pre-Annexation and Development Agreements, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Development Code Amendment, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development, and Site Plan Design Review for the SMP 39 and 40 Project to zone for and develop light industrial uses near the northwest part of the City.
Materials: Response to comments memorandum and errata, Conceptual site plan for SMP 39, Revised engineering consideration, Letters received in advance of the meeting, and Development agreements signed by the applicant.
DISCUSSION
ATTACHMENTS
1. Supplemental Materials
Prepared by: Michele Donley
Division Clerk
682
EXHIBIT E
2446
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Supplemental Responses to Comments Received After the Close of the Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Review Period and Erratum
As mentioned in the memorandum entitled, “Responses to Comments Received After the Close of the Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Review Period and Erratum”, the City would be following up with a supplemental memorandum to provide responses to the “Attorneys for Carpenters Local 713” letter, dated February 14, 2024, which was received after the release of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the SMP 39/SMP 40 Project (proposed project).
This supplemental memorandum provides the responses to the above-referenced letter.
While CEQA does not require that written responses be provided for letters received after the close of the public review period, the comments are acknowledged by the City, and the City has chosen to prepare written responses to the comments for the decision-makers consideration in making an informed decision. Responses to the “Attorneys for Carpenters Local 713” comment letter, which is included as Attachment 1, are provided below. Where revisions to the EIR text are required in response to a comment, new text is double underlined and deleted text is struck through.
The comments received did not identify any new significant impact, substantial increase in severity of a significant impact identified in the EIR, or any significant new information. Therefore, recirculation of the EIR is not required.
Response to Stephanie Papayanis, Attorneys for Carpenters Local 713 The majority of the comment letter, including the entirety of Comment I and Comment II(A) of the comment letter, is identical to the comment letter submitted by Attorneys for Carpenters Local 713 during the Draft EIR comment period. As such, with regard to Comment I and Comment II(A) included in the comment letter, please see Responses to Comments 5-3 and 5-5 included in the Final EIR.
The new concerns brought forth in the comment letter are limited to Comment II(B) and Comment II(C) related to biological resources and construction noise. Thus, responses to Comment II(B) and Comment II(C) are provided below.
Comment II(B) Related to Biological Resources
Responses to the commenter’s concerns regarding biological resources are provided below, as informed by Monk & Associates (M&A), who prepared the project-specific Biological Resources Assessments (BRAs) used within the Draft EIR analysis. It should be noted that Comment II(B) is a summary of the comments provided in Exhibit D to the Attorneys for Carpenters Local 713 comment letter, which is a letter authored by Shawn Smallwood, PhD. As such, the following responses are organized based on the comments presented in Exhibit D of the Attorneys for Carpenters Local 713 comment letter.
Environmental Setting Informed by Field Surveys
2023) surveys have been misinterpreted in the reports, resulting in inaccurate characterizations of the existing environmental settings of SMP 39 and SMP 40.” The commenter is referring to the fact that M&A biologists recorded fewer bird species on-site and flying overhead than the commenter did during a reconnaissance visit. The environmental setting or environmental 683
EXHIBIT E
2447
baseline of a project site is informed by much more than the number of birds and mammals one sees in a certain amount of time.
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a) requires that the CEQA document prepared for a project discuss the “baseline” environmental conditions at and in the vicinity of the project sites. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 (see also Section 15126.6(e)(2)) states the following regarding the environmental setting as it relates to baseline:
(a) [the CEQA review document] must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. The description of the environmental setting shall be no longer than is necessary to understanding the significant effects of the proposed project.
M&A conducted several surveys on each of the project sites. As explained in the SMP 39 BRA included as Appendix D to the Draft EIR, M&A survey work in the project area dates to the year 2000. However, because CEQA requires current baseline conditions, none of the plants or wildlife observed in the early 2000s were reported in the BRAs. The 2021 surveys are the baseline surveys that were conducted to record existing biological resources and to assess the likelihood of resource agency regulated areas on the project sites. The surveys involved searching all habitats on the sites and recording all plant and wildlife species observed. M&A cross-referenced the habitats found on the project sites against the habitat requirements of local or regionally known special-status species to determine if the proposed project could directly or indirectly impact such species and if additional protocol level surveys would be necessary to assess potential impacts to special status species.
CEQA does not require an exhaustive list of all bird species that could occur on a project site, nor does CEQA require a discussion of what each species is doing at the time the species is observed. Rather, CEQA requires an analysis of potential impacts to special-status birds and/or nesting habitat for common birds that rise to the level of significance pursuant to CEQA as determined by an expert, based on database searches, field surveys, etc. M&A’s BRAs provide that analysis and recommend pre-construction surveys to address potentially significant impacts.
Overall, the BRAs meet the standards of care warranted under CEQA.
Habitat Loss
The commenter’s estimate on the number of birds “denied to California” is primarily based on two studies. The commenter states that the two study sites have grassland/wetland/woodland complexes within agricultural matrices, and found total bird nesting densities of 32.8 and 35.8 nests per acre. The commenter uses one-third of such estimates for the project sites’ calculation due to the annual discing that occurs on the project sites. However, the estimation is likely still an overestimate, as one study was conducted in a five-acre, undisturbed, unfragmented and preserved area within the over-500-acre University of Wisconsin Arboretum dedicated in 1934, adjacent to a 321-acre lake (Lake Wingra). The SMP 39 and SMP 40 project sites are not surrounded by hundreds of acres of preserved natural lands but rather the relatively small project sites are fragmented from natural areas by surrounding, existing development (busy roads, an airport, and active industrial uses).
The other study mentioned by the commenter was conducted within farmstead shelterbelts, or “man-made habitats consisting of parallel rows of trees and shrubs designed to protect farmsteads from damaging winds, drifting snow and blowing soil…” referred to as “wooded 684
EXHIBIT E
2448
islands.” The study determined that the wooded islands are important for avifauna in regions of intensive agriculture and found many nests within the wooded region. The SMP 40 project site has a similar “wooded island,” in that the wooded area that is a riparian corridor along Arroyo Mocho is being preserved within a riparian set back and will provide high-quality habitat for many nesting birds post-development. The preservation of Arroyo Mocho’s riparian habitat was not considered in the commenter’s calculations.
Further, the commenter’s comparison of development of the proposed project to the high avian mortality rate by wind turbine collision in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area is not an appropriate comparison. The commenter is comparing 50-foot-tall buildings on the project sites to 430-foot-tall wind turbines with active, moving blades in a known avian migration zone; an area that supports the highest number of nesting Golden Eagles in the world.1
Regardless of the commenter’s inappropriate comparison and overestimate of the number of birds “denied to California” due the loss of nesting habitat by the proposed projects, CEQA requires an analysis of potential impacts to special-status birds and/or nesting habitat for common birds that raise to the level of significance. Therefore, impacts to nesting birds were regarded as significant pursuant to CEQA in the Draft EIR. However, mitigation measures to protect special-status birds and all nesting birds have been prescribed in the Draft EIR (see Mitigation Measures 4.3-2[a] through 4.3-2[d] in the Draft EIR). The mitigation measures included therein reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level pursuant to the CEQA. Thus, the commenter’s concerns about the projects’ impacts to nesting birds have been sufficiently addressed.
Interference with Wildlife Movement
The commenter is correct that the Essential Habitat Connectivity Area mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is focused on connecting very large blocks of mostly protected natural lands. While the Draft EIR does state that the project sites are not located in this mapped area, that is only one sentence of the three-paragraph description under the Wildlife Movement Corridor section of the Draft EIR (see pages 4.3-14 to 4.3-15 of the Draft EIR). The comment implies that sufficient research and in-person assessments were not conducted accordingly, and that the determination that the project sites will not impact significant wildlife corridors was solely based on using the CDFW’s Essential Habitat Connectivity Area map, which simply is not true.
For example, M&A conducted online research and project-specific field surveys to become informed about the project sites’ habitats and the potential for any impacts to regional wildlife corridors based on development of the proposed projects. M&A recorded wildlife observed during site visits, in addition to extensively noting the habitat types and surrounding land uses during their visits and how the surrounding land uses would affect wildlife movement. As such, the commenter’s statement that the conclusions of the Draft EIR regarding wildlife movement on the project site are speculative and conclusory is untrue.
Wildlife corridors are linear and/or regional habitats that provide connectivity to other natural vegetation communities within a landscape fractured by urbanization and other development.
Wildlife corridors are extremely important habitats to preserve and are valuable for wildlife. While local wildlife may use the undeveloped sites in their current state, neither of the project sites currently provide a significant regional wildlife corridor that may be impacted by the proposed project. The project sites are regularly disced or disturbed for agriculture. For SMP 40, an 1 National Audubon Society. National Audubon Society Sues California County to Improve Bird Protections in Controversial Wind Energy Project. Available at: https://www.audubon.org/news/national-audubon-society-suescalifornia-county-improve-bird-protections#:~:text=17%2C%202021)%2D%2DThe%20National,turbine%20facility %20at%20Altamont%20Pass%2C. Accessed February 2024.
685
EXHIBIT E
2449
industrial development, Oaks Business Park, is located to the north of the project site, east of the project site is Isabel Avenue, a heavily-trafficked road, south is an active railroad track and Stanley Boulevard, another heavily-trafficked road, and west of the project site are quarry ponds. SMP 39 is bordered by West Jack London Boulevard, a well-trafficked road, the Livermore Municipal Airport, the Oaks Business Park, and quarry ponds. The quarry ponds were excavated in uplands and, thus, are not associated with a creek or drainage, and have nearly vertical slopes, preventing wildlife from traversing the ponds easily or using the quarry area as a corridor. As mentioned in M&A’s BRAs, both SMP 39 and SMP 40 are isolated from regional open spaces, and, as such, do not have regional wildlife corridor value for terrestrial mammals and contain minimal habitat that could be used by some migrating avian species.
The commenter states: “On the other hand, the coyote I saw on site got there somehow, and so did the ground squirrels and pocket gophers, and so did all of the birds I saw on and over SMP
39.” One might infer from this statement that M&A’s reports and the Draft EIR implied that wildlife do not use, or could not be found on the project sites, which is incorrect. Each of M&A’s BRAs included a table of wildlife species observed on the project sites during site visits, which, as described in the BRAs, is not intended to be exhaustive or to describe the only species that could be found on the project sites. Rather, the focus was, as required by CEQA and as appropriate, on the assessment of biological resources with regard to suitable habitat and potential for the occurrence of any special-status species, as determined by a qualified biologist for the purposes of an impact analysis. Movement of a species through an area or an area’s incidental use does not necessarily imply importance to the species, the characteristics of the habitat are more relevant.
For example, Figure 3 of the commenter’s report shows the fly over and resting locations of Golden Eagles, which provides an example of how local wildlife may use the project sites as well as all surrounding areas, including properties completely developed with warehouses and surrounded by busy roads. However, while species such as the Golden Eagle may use the project site for foraging or resting on occasion, or may flyover, it is clear that the project sites are not the main sites that are relied upon by these large raptors for any of the above functions, or for nesting, as the existing trees are too small and in close proximity to disturbance.
The SMP 40 riparian area may provide significantly more suitable rest, foraging and nesting habitat for many bird species than the open and disturbed grassland does. However, as previously described, the riparian area on SMP 40 will be completely preserved within a riparian setback and will continue to connect local wildlife within the riparian corridor along the Arroyo Mocho.
The commenter also mentions that 19 special-status species so far have been documented on the project site, as further detailed in Table 1 of the commenter’s report. However, the commenter’s list includes species that do not meet the definition of “rare” pursuant to the CEQA.
For example, Table 1 includes Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), California Gull (Laus californicus), Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), Nuttall’s Woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), and Oak Titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), which are designated as Birds of Prey (BOP), Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Taxa to Watch List. However, the aforementioned listings are not considered special-status under the California or Federal Endangered Species Acts (CESA and FESA), by other regulations, or by the scientific community pursuant to the CEQA. Nonetheless, it should be noted that these species, their nests, eggs and/or young are provided protection pursuant to other resource agency regulations such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MTBA) and the California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513C, which are both fully accounted for and discussed in M&A’s BRAs and the Draft EIR.
686
EXHIBIT E
2450
In addition, the commenter does not specify which of the 19 species were observed during his site visit, or which were taken as observations from eBird. While many experienced birders may use eBird, anyone can report incidental bird sightings to eBird without any way to confirm the qualifications of the observer. As such, relying only on eBird data to say confidently that a specialstatus species is present on a property is not sufficient and would need to be confirmed by a qualified biologist. As mentioned by the commenter, several of the species sightings are birds flying over the project sites. As discussed in sections above, observing sensitive birds flying over a property, foraging over the site, or using the habitat on the sites during the non-nesting season does not warrant reporting to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), as such sightings are not of permanent breeding/nesting/larval development habitat (dependent on what type of animal it is) that warrant protection. The types of “incidental” sightings of common bird species do not necessarily translate into a “potentially significant biological impact” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and regulations.
Further, while the project sites in their current state may be used by local wildlife, they provide very low value for foraging, resting or nesting, as the project sites are mainly comprised of nonnative ruderal herbaceous habitats and are highly disturbed due to agricultural practices. The project sites are not one of the last remaining stopover and staging opportunities in the region, as stated by the commenter, as acres of undeveloped land similar to the project sites is located within the very immediate area, as well as dozens of local parks. The 80-acre Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area is less than two miles from the project sites and the 160-acre Doolan Canyon Regional Preserve beyond provides more undeveloped land to the north. All of the aforementioned habitats in the region provide habitat for the species listed in the table of wildlife observed included in Exhibit D of the comment letter, and have far greater wildlife corridor habitat value than the project sites. The commenter’s concerns about the loss of the ruderal habitats onsite should be assuaged by the fact that more trees and shrubs will be planted on the project sites post-development than are currently on site, which will provide additional stopover opportunities for birds.
Finally, as previously mentioned, the Arroyo Mocho runs along the southern project site boundary of SMP 40. Arroyo Mocho may serve as a local movement corridor for mammals, amphibians, and reptiles to move unobtrusively through the general geographic area. Animals moving along Arroyo Mocho could leave the Arroyo and enter the project site to move across the landscape.
Such animals expected to migrate along the Arroyo and possibly enter the upland areas of the project site are common species such as coyote, raccoons, skunks, deer, and rodents, and would be able to navigate their way around SMP 40 even after the site was developed. The Arroyo Mocho would remain unchanged by the proposed project and as such, the wildlife corridor values of the channel would remain intact. Under all circumstances, any disruption to the very localized use of the project sites by common wildlife species would not be regarded as a potentially significant impact pursuant to CEQA.
Traffic Impacts to Wildlife
Common wildlife associated with humans and urban development such as Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) and raccoon (Procyon lotor) are often involved in vehicle collisions. However, the aforementioned species and other common wildlife species, including Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) and northern pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus), are not considered special-status or rare. In addition, while roadkill is present in the vicinity of the project sites, as is the case at any area with road traffic, the approximation included in Exhibit D of the comment letter is likely an overestimate, as the numbers are based on another study that is not directly comparable to the project area. Vasco Road is the principal north-south route between eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, traveled by approximately 22,000 vehicles per day. Increased traffic to the project sites on local roadways, Isabel Avenue and West 687
EXHIBIT E
2451
Jack London Boulevard, is not comparable to the heavily trafficked Vasco Road, which is a corridor in the middle of hundreds of acres of protected open space lands and significant wildlife habitat. By contrast, Stanley Boulevard and I-580, near the project sites, are already heavily trafficked roads in a developed region and the increase in vehicles associated with the project sites would not contribute significantly to the existing traffic volumes on these roads daily.
Moreover, regulations that protect common wildlife species that could be killed by vehicular traffic do not exist. As such, vehicle collisions that result in the mortality of wildlife do not constitute a significant impact pursuant to CEQA.
Western Burrowing Owl Mitigation
The CDFW has not released an official statement that the avian breeding season has changed.
In M&A’s experience, when permits are acquired from the CDFW, the nesting season window can vary slightly. Some permits say February 1 through August 31, while others say February 15 through September 1. The variation in start and end dates could be based on geography, as different geographic regions have slightly different nesting windows. In fact, the CDFW acknowledges a certain amount of variation in the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, which states, “In California, the burrowing owl breeding season extends from 1 February to 31 August (Haug et al. 1993, Thompsen 1971) with some variances by geographic location and climatic conditions.” Nonetheless, in response to the comment, Mitigation Measure
4.3-2(a) included in the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows:
Western Burrowing Owl
4.3-2(a) If project construction begins during the western burrowing owl nesting season (February 15 to August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct targeted burrowing owl nest surveys within 14 days prior to construction activities using seven- to 20-foot transects. A separate preconstruction survey shall be conducted for SMP 39 and SMP 40 (including the off-site trail connection area) if the components of the project are not constructed concurrently. The survey shall include the project site and all accessible areas within 500 feet of the project impact zone, and shall follow CDFW guidelines outlined in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. The results of the survey shall be submitted to the City of Livermore Community Development Department within 30 days of the completed survey. The survey report shall be valid for one construction season.
If western burrowing owls are not detected on-site during the survey, further mitigation shall not be required. If any western burrowing owls are detected on-site, pursuant to the CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, the following restricted activity dates and setback distances shall be implemented:
• From April 1 through October 15, low disturbance activities shall have a 200-meter buffer while high disturbance activities shall have a 500-meter buffer from occupied nests.
• From April 1 through August 15, medium disturbance
activities shall have a 500-meter buffer from occupied nests.
Medium disturbance activities can have a reduced buffer of 200 meters starting August 16 through October 15.
• From October 16 through March 31, low disturbance activities shall have a 50-meter buffer, medium disturbance activities shall have a 100-meter buffer, and high disturbance activities shall have a 500-meter buffer from occupied nests.
• Earth-moving activities or other disturbance shall not occur within the aforementioned buffer zones of occupied burrows 688
EXHIBIT E
2452
unless monitoring of the nest site by a qualified biologist determines that the owls are acclimated to the disturbance and would not be disturbed by a smaller buffer. The buffer zones shall be fenced.
• A qualified biologist shall delineate the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site.
• Owls may be passively relocated from the project site between October 1 and February 1. Passive removal shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with demonstrated
experience with passive relocation.
• Credits shall be purchased from a mitigation bank in
coordination with CDFW and the City of Livermore to offset the project’s habitat loss on the burrowing owl.
A report detailing compliance with the provisions set forth herein shall be prepared by the qualified biologist and submitted for review and approval to the City of Livermore Community Development Department.
Further, M&A biologists have conducted several surveys, some of which are dated October 2000; March 11, 2002; May 11 and 20, 2002; June 14 and 25, 2002; September 2003, November 2013, June 10, 2019, November 2019, September 10, 2021, November 13, 2021, and June 15, 2022.
The aforementioned surveys conducted in May and June were focused Burrowing Owl breeding season surveys conducted in accordance with the CDFW 1995 Staff Report protocol. Burrowing owl, or signs of burrowing owl, were not observed during any of the M&A surveys. Thus, based upon M&A’s multiple surveys of the project site spanning multiple years, evidence suggests that burrowing owls have not nested on-site for the following reasons: (1) the grass grows very tall on SMP 40 in between discing activities, which does not allow ground nesting birds, such as the burrowing owl, an opportunity to detect aerial predators, which likely discourages them from nesting; (2) discing activities may disrupt nesting attempts.
Based on habitat assessments and past negative survey results, M&A believes that burrowing owls are unlikely to nest on-site. However, given that the burrowing owl is a mobile species, a mitigation measure for preconstruction surveys was provided in the Draft EIR to ensure that “take” of burrowing owls does not occur. The prescribed preconstruction surveys, consistent with “take avoidance surveys” outlined in the CDFW’s Staff Report 2012, are sufficient and appropriate to detect nesting owls should the species be present on-site in light of the prior surveys’ negative results, including a year of protocol-level breeding season surveys. Burrowing owls residing in topographically flat areas are typically easy to detect if surveys consist of walking transects using high-powered binoculars. As such, the mitigation measure included in the Draft EIR is sufficient to reduce any potential project impacts on burrowing owl to a less-than-significant level.
Tricolored Blackbird Mitigation
As stated above, M&A biologists have been on both project sites multiple times over the last 20 years. Tricolored blackbirds have not been observed on-site and on-site habitat for the species is marginal, as the sites are routinely disturbed, water is not present on SMP 39, and Arroyo Mocho at SMP 40 is typically dry during the middle to end of the nesting season. The tricolored blackbird prefers nesting near water. The preconstruction surveys proposed in the Draft EIR to determine if tricolored blackbird is nesting on-site are sufficient to detect the species’ presence. The species can also be looked for during the burrowing owl surveys, which will take place at the same time as tricolored blackbird nesting season.
689
EXHIBIT E
2453
Nesting Bird and Raptor Mitigation
As discussed above, the CDFW has not released an official statement that the avian breeding season has changed. In M&A’s experience when permits are acquired from the CDFW, the nesting season window can vary slightly, as different geographic regions have slightly different nesting windows.
In addition, with regard to nest detection, while grassland nesting birds are difficult to detect, M&A biologists are experienced in surveying for ground-nesting and short grass nesting birds and have had success finding nests in the past. Typically, if pedestrian walking transect surveys are conducted by two or more people walking closely together, nests will be found. Further, if experienced consulting biologists are hired to conduct the nesting bird surveys, the biologists will know the appropriate methods to survey for nesting passerine birds, including the Loggerhead Shrike, and raptors. The most suitable habitat for Loggerhead Shrike on the project sites is along SMP 40’s riparian corridor, which will be preserved by the project. Many trees along the riparian corridor and south of the project site could serve as a blind for the observer to hide behind and watch bird behavior to determine if birds are nesting. Finally, the qualified biologist making the nesting buffer determination would provide a report to the City of Livermore and communication between the City of Livermore, the applicant’s biologist, and the construction team would be ongoing throughout the construction period. The biologist will ensure that the buffer is maintained throughout construction to ensure that the nesting attempt is protected.
While development does remove potential bird nesting habitat, the project applicant is avoiding the riparian corridor on the SMP 40 project site, which is the most valuable nesting habitat onsite. Additionally, in accordance with City of Livermore General Plan Policy OSC-1.3 P1, as presented on page 4.3-21 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is required to landscape with native vegetation.
Based on the above, changes to the Draft EIR mitigation for nesting birds and raptors are not warranted.
Comment II(C) Related to Construction Noise
As discussed on page 4.6-21 of the Draft EIR, due to the substantial distance between SMP 39 and the sensitive noise receptors, it was anticipated, based on the professional judgment of the project noise consultant, that construction noise associated with SMP 39 would be below the City of Livermore’s exterior noise level threshold at the nearest sensitive receptor locations. In response to the comments regarding construction noise impacts associated with SMP 39, Salter, the project noise consultant who prepared the project-specific Environmental Noise Studies used in the Draft EIR analysis, estimated the construction noise levels associated with SMP 39 at the nearest noise sensitive receptor to the site (see Attachment 2). In addition, in response to the comments regarding construction noise impacts associated with SMP 40, Salter provided an updated analysis of construction noise associated with SMP 40 (see Attachment 3). Because construction is not permitted during nighttime hours (pursuant to Section 9.36.080 of the Livermore Municipal Code), the applicable noise level threshold for construction noise levels associated with SMP 39 and SMP 40 would be 70 dBA Lmax, as established by the City of Livermore (see Draft EIR page 4.6-14 and General Plan Policy N-1.5 P3).
The commenter alleges that Table 9-7, Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Exterior Noise, of the General Plan applies to construction noise; this is not correct. As stated in General Plan Policy N-1.1 P4, presented on page 4.6-8 of the Draft EIR, the City shall use the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Exterior Noise (measured in dBA CNEL or Ldn) contained in Table 9-7 (i.e., the DNL 60 dBA exterior noise level standard referenced in the comment letter) to direct the siting, design, and insulation of new development to reduce exposure to excessive noise. Construction 690
EXHIBIT E
2454
noise standards are established in General Plan Policies N-1.5 P2, P3, and P4, as presented on page 4.6-12 of the Draft EIR, which do not include a DNL standard. In particular, General Plan Policy N-1.5 P3 states that in order to allow for temporary construction, demolition or maintenance noise and other necessary short-term noise events, the stationary noise standards in Policy N1.5.P1 shall not be exceeded within the receiving land use by more than 15 dBA for any period of time. General Plan Policy N-1.5.P1 requires that industrial and commercial uses be designed and operated so as to avoid the generation of noise effects on surrounding sensitive land uses from exceeding 55 dBA L50 during the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and 45 dBA L50 during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Thus, for analysis purposes of project construction noise within the Draft EIR, the threshold of significance for the maximum allowable construction noise level at a sensitive receptor is 70 dB Lmax during daytime hours and 60 dB Lmax during nighttime hours (i.e., 15 dB above the numerical criteria listed in P1). Consequently, the DNL 60 dBA exterior noise level standard included in the comment letter would not apply to the temporary, intermittent construction noise associated with either SMP 39 or SMP 40.
Based on the comments regarding construction noise impacts associated with SMP 39 and SMP 40, pages 4.6-21 through 4.6-24 of the Draft EIR are hereby revised as follows. Such revisions are also reflected in the Revised Environmental Noise Studies for SMP 39 and SMP 40, included as Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 to this memo. It should be noted that all revisions to pages
4.6-22 through 4.6-24 of the Draft EIR previously included in the Final EIR are also shown in strikethrough and double underlined text below.
Due to the substantial distance between SMP 39 and the sensitive noise receptors, it was anticipated that The noise levels generated by construction equipment would vary greatly depending upon factors such as the type and specific model of the equipment, the operation being performed, the condition of the equipment and the prevailing wind direction. Table 4.6-6 shows maximum noise levels associated with each piece of construction equipment anticipated to be used during construction of SMP 39 at a reference level of 50 feet, as well as at 2,640 feet, which is the distance from Building 1 on the SMP 39 site to the nearest sensitive receptors (the residences located across Isabel Avenue to the east). Based on the project-specific construction schedule assumed in the air quality analysis conducted for SMP 39, Table 4.6-7 summarizes the anticipated construction equipment associated with each phase of project construction, and the relative sound levels at the nearest residential property (approximately 2,640 feet away), assuming that equipment is running simultaneously during each phase of construction. As shown in Table 4.6-7, construction noise associated with SMP 39 would range between 59 and 61 dBA Lmax, be which would be below the City of Livermore’s exterior noise level threshold of 60 70 dBA DNL Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptor locations. Thus, construction noise levels for SMP 39 were not evaluated as part of the Environmental Noise Study prepared for SMP 39. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on SMP 40 and the off-site trail connections. 691
EXHIBIT E
2455
Table 4.6-6
Typical Construction Equipment Noise at SMP 39
Equipment
Estimated
Maximum
Instantaneous Lmax
Noise Level
(dBA at 50 feet)
Estimated Maximum
Instantaneous Lmax
Noise Level
(dBA at 2,640 feet)
Aerial Lift 83 49
Air Compressors 81 47
Cement and Mortar Mixers 85 51
Concrete/Industrial Saws 76 42
Cranes 83 49
Drill Rig of Shoring Beams
(Caisson Drilling) 85 51
Excavators 85 51
Forklifts 83 49
Generator Sets 81 47
Graders 85 51
Paving Equipment 89 55
Rollers 74 40
Rubber-Tired Dozers 85 51
Tractors/Welders/Backhoes 84 50
Welders 73 39
Source: Salter, 2024.
Table 4.6-7
Construction Equipment Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor – SMP 39
Offroad Equipment
Type Amount Usage Hours Resulting Lmax
Grading
Excavators 2 8 54
Graders 1 8 51
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 51
Scrapers 2 8 54
Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes 2 8 53
All Grading Equipment Running Simultaneously 60
Paving
Pavers 2 8 58
Paving Equipment 2 8 58
Rollers 2 8 43
All Paving Equipment Running Simultaneously 61
Building Construction
Cranes 1 7 49
Forklifts 3 8 54
Generator Sets 1 8 47
Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes 3 7 56
Welders 1 8 39
All Building Construction Equipment Running Simultaneously 59 Architectural Coating
Air Compressors 1 8 47
Source: Salter, 2024.
The noise levels generated by construction equipment would vary greatly depending upon factors such as the type and specific model of the equipment, the operation being performed, the condition of the equipment and the prevailing wind direction. Table 4.6- 6 8 shows maximum noise levels associated with typical each piece of construction equipment anticipated to be used during construction of SMP 40 at a reference level of 50 feet, as well as at 884 600 feet, which is the distance from the proposed Building 692
EXHIBIT E
2456
2 on northeast corner of the SMP 40 site to the nearest residences across Isabel Avenue/SR 84. Based on the project-specific construction schedule assumed in the air quality analysis conducted for SMP 40, Table 4.6-9 summarizes the anticipated construction equipment associated with each phase of project construction, and the relative sound levels at the nearest residential property (approximately 600 feet away), assuming that equipment is running simultaneously during each phase of construction.
Table 4.6-6 8
Typical Construction Equipment Noise at SMP 40
Equipment
Estimated
Maximum
Instantaneous Lmax
Noise Level
(dBA at 50 feet)
Estimated Maximum
Instantaneous Lmax
Noise Level
(dBA at 884 600
feet)
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saw 76 19 54
Excavators 85 28 63
Rubber-Tired Dozer 85 28 63
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 84 2762
Site Preparation
Grader 85 28 63
Rubber-Tired Dozer 85 28
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 84 27
Grading/Excavation
Drill Rig for Shoring Beams
(Caisson Drilling) 85 28 63
Excavators 85 28
Rubber-Tired Dozer 85 28
Tractor/Loader/
Backhoe 84 27
Trenching
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 84 27
Excavators 85 28
Building Exterior Construction
Crane 83 26 61
Fork Lift 83 26 61
Generator Sets 81 24 59
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 84 27
Welders 73 16 51
Building Interior Construction/Architectural Coating
Aerial Lift 83 26 61
Air Compressors 81 24 59
Paving/Landscaping/Site Concrete
Cement and Mortar Mixers 85 28 63
Paving Equipment 89 32 67
Rollers 74 17 52
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 84 27
Source: Salter, 2023 2024.
693
EXHIBIT E
2457
Table 4.6-9
Construction Equipment Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor – SMP 40
Offroad Equipment
Type Amount Usage Hours Resulting Lmax
Grading
Excavators 2 8 66
Graders 1 8 63
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 63
Scrapers 2 8 66
Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes 2 8 65
All Grading Equipment Running Simultaneously 72
Paving
Pavers 2 8 70
Paving Equipment 2 8 70
Rollers 2 8 55
All Paving Equipment Running Simultaneously 73
Building Construction
Cranes 1 7 61
Forklifts 3 8 66
Generator Sets 1 8 59
Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes 3 7 67
Welders 1 8 51
All Building Construction Equipment Running Simultaneously 70 Architectural Coating
Air Compressors 1 8 59
Source: Salter, 2024.
As shown in the table Table 4.6-7, construction of SMP 40 is predicted to generate noise levels ranging between 16 70 to 32 73 dBA Lmax at the nearest noise‐sensitive receptors. As discussed in detail above, for analysis purposes of project construction noise within this EIR, a threshold of significance for the maximum allowable construction noise level at a sensitive receptor has been assumed to be 70 dB Lmax during daytime hours and 60 dB Lmax during nighttime hours. Because construction is not permitted during nighttime hours (pursuant to Section 9.36.080 of the Livermore Municipal Code), the 60 dB Lmax noise level standard for nighttime hours would not apply to the proposed project. Accordingly Nonetheless, the maximum predicted construction noise level of 32 73 dBA Lmax associated with SMP 40 would be below above the thresholds of significance being applied.
The three potential off-site trail connection options would be located approximately 160 feet, 150 feet, and 200 feet, respectively, west of the nearest single-family residences.
The anticipated construction activities required for the trail connection options would use construction equipment anticipated to generate maximum noise levels of up to 85 dB at a distance of 50 feet. As previously noted, stationary noise sources lessen at a rate of approximately six dB per doubling of distance from the source. Therefore, at a distance of 160 feet, construction equipment associated with Trail Connection Option 1 would generate maximum noise levels of up to 75 dB Lmax; at a distance of 150 feet, construction equipment associated with Trail Connection Option 2 would generate maximum noise levels of up to 76 dB Lmax; and at a distance of 200 feet, construction equipment associated with Trail Connection Option 3 would generate maximum noise levels of up to 73 dB Lmax. Thus, construction activities associated with development of the off-site trail connection options would exceed the thresholds of significance being applied of 70 dB Lmax during daytime hours and 60 dB Lmax during nighttime hours.
Based on the above, construction‐related noise associated with SMP 39 and SMP 40 would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local 694
EXHIBIT E
2458
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. However, while construction activities are temporary in nature and would be exempt during the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, construction‐related noise associated with SMP 40 and the off-site trail connection could result in disturbance to existing noise‐sensitive land uses in the project vicinity.
Therefore, construction‐related noise associated with the proposed project could be considered to result in generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, and impacts would be considered significant.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
4.6-1(a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit for SMP 40, the project applicant shall prepare a construction noise management plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding sensitive land uses and include specific noise management measures to be included within the plans and specifications for SMP 40, subject to review and approval by the City of Livermore Community Development Department. The project applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City that the project complies with the following:
• Consistent with the Livermore Municipal Code, construction shall be limited to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM and Saturdays through Sunday between the
hours of 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
• Either a temporary noise barrier shall be built prior to development of the planned berm on the east side of the project site, or the berm shall be built prior to construction activities. The barrier/berm shall be a minimum of 10 feet tall.
The barrier can be field-built provided it meets the following criteria:
o The barrier shall be constructed to have a minimum
surface density of four pounds per square foot (psf). For example, a stud wall with exterior-grade plywood
sheathing and a stucco finish (or two layers of 5/8-inch thick plywood).
o The barrier shall be free of cracks, and drainage
holes/slots along the bottom of the barrier shall be kept to a minimum. Where needed, drainage holes/slots
shall be covered by one psf mass-loaded vinyl flaps
(e.g., Kinetics KNM-100) so water can flow around the
vinyl and still drain.
o Joints between sheathing layers shall be offset by 16 inches minimum.
• Contractors shall use “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources, where technology exists. • Internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be
equipped with mufflers which are in good condition and
appropriate for the equipment.
• Stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air
compressors and portable power generators, shall be located as far away as possible from adjacent property lines.
695
EXHIBIT E
2459
• Staging areas and construction material areas shall be located as far away as feasible from adjacent residences. • All unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines should be prohibited.
• The contractor shall designate a "noise disturbance
construction superintendent" who will be responsible for tracking and responding to any complaints about construction noise. The noise disturbance construction superintendent shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures are implemented to correct the problem. The
telephone number for the noise disturbance construction superintendent shall be posted at the construction site and included in any construction notices sent to neighbors.
4.6-1(b) Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the chosen off-site trail connection option, the project applicant shall prepare a construction noise management plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding sensitive land uses and include specific noise management measures to be included within the plans and specifications for the trail connection option, subject to review and approval by the City of Livermore Community
Development Department. The project applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City that the project complies with the following:
• All heavy construction equipment used on the proposed project shall be maintained in good operating condition, with all internal combustion, engine‐driven equipment fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition.
• All mobile or fixed noise producing equipment used on the proposed project that is regulated for noise output by a local, state, or federal agency shall comply with such regulations while in the source of involved with a project activity.
• Where feasible, electrically‐powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered
equipment.
• All stationary noise‐generating equipment shall be located as far away as possible from the nearest residential uses.
• Signs prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be posted at entrances to construction sites and at construction equipment staging areas.
• The use of noise‐producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms and bells shall be for safety warning purposes only. • The use of temporary sound barriers shall be incorporated along the outer work area of the construction site, east of Isabel Avenue/SR 84. Barrier height and location(s) shall be
determined by a qualified acoustical engineer to ensure that the resultant construction noise levels at the nearest residence would meet the applicable standard. The sound barrier fencing shall consist of 0.5-inch plywood or minimum STC 27 sound curtains placed to shield nearby sensitive receptors. The plywood barrier shall be free from gaps, openings, or
penetrations to ensure maximum performance.
Due to the addition of Table 4.6-7, all subsequent tables included in Chapter 4.6, Noise, of the Draft EIR are hereby renumbered accordingly.
696
EXHIBIT E
2460
While a new mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 4.6-1[a]) has been added as part of the text revisions above, under Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 C4th 1112 (Laurel Heights II) and Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines,2 a lead agency is only required to recirculate a draft EIR when “significant new information” is added to the document after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not considered “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the City has decided not to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes any of the following:
1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or for a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from other previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
4. The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
In the case of the proposed project, the Draft EIR already determined that the proposed project would result in a significant temporary construction noise impact (see page 4.6-23 of the Draft EIR). Thus, a new noise impact has not been identified in response to public comments. Rather, in response to public comments, a new construction noise mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 4.6-1[a]) has been added that would clearly lessen the potential environmental impact to a less-than-significant level, and the applicant has agreed to adopt Mitigation Measure 4.6- 1(a). In addition, the requirements of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(a) are similar to the requirements already included in Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 of the Draft EIR. Thus, according to Section 15188.5(a)(3), recirculation is not required.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as well as the Findings, Facts in Support Of Findings, and Statement Of Overriding Considerations, will be updated in accordance with the changes shown above and included in the staff report packet for the City Council hearing on the proposed project.
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Attorneys for Carpenters Local 713 Comment Letter Attachment 2 – SMP 39 Revised Environmental Noise Study Attachment 3 – SMP 40 Revised Environmental Noise Study 2 Stephen L. Kostka and Michael H. Zischke. Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, Second Edition, March 2022 Update, Volume 2. March 2022, pg. 16-21. 697
EXHIBIT E
2461
To: City of Livermore Planning Commission
From: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Subject: SMP 38/39/40 Project EIR
This letter is to serve as further comment in addition to all previously submitted comments and documents by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance.
CalEnviroScreen Information
CalEnviroScreen is a mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. CalEnviroScreen uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores for every census tract in the state. The scores are mapped so that different communities can be compared. An area with a high score is one that experiences a much higher pollution burden than areas with low scores. CalEnviroScreen ranks communities based on data that are available from state and federal government sources. CalEnviroScreen is updated and maintained by The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, on behalf ofthe California Environmental Protection Agency.
CalEnviroScreen Data on : SMP 38/39/40 EIR Project Location/Area The above listed project is in census tract (6001451300). Overall, when compared to other census tracts, the project site census tract is in the 83rd percentile regarding pollution. As far as pollution burden is concerned, this census tract is in the 85th percentile. In terms of Ozone, this census tract is in the 85th percentile, Particulate Matter 2.5 98th percentile, Diesel Particulate Matter 41st percentile, Toxic Releases 43rd percentile and Traffic 8 th percentile to name a few.
EXHIBIT E
2462
Conclusion
Consider the above referenced information when making this important decision. Realize that you and the citizens of this area face some of the WORST POLLUTION in the entire state of California.
It is the responsibility of the City’s elected and appointed officials to make environmentally responsible development decisions. Based on the CalEnviroScreen data, this is more than sufficient evidence of the further air quality impacts that the citizenry of Livermore will continue to encounter with further development of another warehouse. We are not against development, as we believe it is necessary for further economic growth in our current society. Development needs to be conducted with the highest of expectations to ensure the local population does not suffer further air quality burdens.
We stand by our comments and believe the EIR is flawed and should be redrafted and recirculated for public review.
Respectfully Submitted,
Pete Sheehan
Pete Sheehan
GSEJA
EXHIBIT E
2463
Source -
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/4af93cf9888a424481d2868391af2d82/p age/home/?data_id=dataSource_2-1754d6afdb4-layer-9%3A7306 Glossary of Terms
Ozone - Amount of daily maximum 8-hour Ozone concentration Particulate Matter 2.5 - Annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations Diesel Particulate Matter - Diesel PM emissions from on‐road and non‐road sources Toxic Releases - Toxicity‐weighted concentrations of modeled chemical releases to air from
facility emissions and off‐site incineration.
Traffic -Traffic density, in vehicle‐kilometers per hour per road length, within 150 meters of the census tract boundary.
EXHIBIT E
2464
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 | Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: 213.622.5555 | Facsimile: 213.620.8816
www.allenmatkins.com
Margaret R. Akerblom
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 213.955.5623 File Number: 394720.00001/4876-3208-5931.3 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
March 5, 2024
Planning Commission
City of Livermore
1016 S. Livermore Ave.
Livermore, CA 94550
Re: Public Comment on SMP-39 and SMP-40 Project
Planning Commission Meeting March 5, 2024
Planning Commission of the City of Livermore:
We represent El Charro Spur LLC, which owns the approximately 69-acre parcel (“ECS Property”) directly south of and abutting the SMP-40 property, which is the subject of the proposed SMP-39 and SMP-40 project before the Planning Commission on March 5, 2024. On behalf of El Charro Spur LLC, we submit this public comment regarding the SMP-39/SMP-40 project. As explained in more detail below, the SMP-39/SMP-40 project proposes in part to construct a public trail along the Arroyo Mocho that will create a significant health and safety hazard that was not acknowledged or studied in the project’s Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2023010091) (“EIR”) nor addressed in the project’s conditions of approval.
Enclosed with this letter is a copy of Exhibit C to the proposed Development Agreement for SMP-40, which we have annotated for illustrative purposes. Exhibit C depicts that the SMP39/SMP-40 project will include construction of a public trail running along the southern and western property lines of the SMP-40 property. This proposed public trail on the SMP-40 property proposes to continue at the southeast corner of the SMP-40 property onto the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) property abutting the SMP-40 property’s eastern property line, proceeding northeasterly, along the course of Zone 7’s present maintenance road, which is not currently accessible to the public. Evidently, the proposal entails opening the Zone 7 maintenance road for the public’s use as a trail. The proposed public trail would follow the course of the Arroyo Mocho, which passes through the Zone 7 property and along the northern edge of the ECS Property.
Exhibit C indicates that a chain link fence will be constructed along the northern and southern edges of the trail segment on the SMP-40 property. When the trail reaches the Zone 7 property, the northerly fence will connect to an existing Zone 7 fence that lies north of the
EXHIBIT E
2465
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Planning Commission
March 5, 2024
maintenance road. However, Exhibit C shows that the southerly fence will simply end at the Zone 7 property. This means that, if the path is constructed as shown in Exhibit C, members of the public using the trail would be able to simply leave the Zone 7 portion of the proposed path and enter the Arroyo Mocho which is immediately adjacent south of the path, without restriction. This in turn would permit members of the public to head west through the Arroyo Mocho onto El Charro Spur’s private property without restriction, and further west, access the active mining operations of Vulcan Materials on the properties north and west of the ECS Property. The public cannot currently access these areas because the Zone 7 property, and maintenance road, are fenced off. The annotations on Exhibit C that we have added are intended to show the locations of the ECS Property, Zone 7 property, and mining properties.
Providing the public unfettered direct access to the Arroyo Mocho, private property and an active mining operation, both in the dry months and in the rainy season when it regularly carries high water volumes, are health and safety hazards that must be considered as part of the SMP39/SMP-40 project. However, the EIR does not address the fact that the proposed trail may be creating this dangerous public safety hazard. The EIR discusses the potential routes for the trail (see, e.g., EIR p. 3-22), but it does not analyze the risk posed by providing public access to the Arroyo Mocho and mining properties to the west nor what safety features the trail would have, such as fencing, to protect members of the public using it. The SMP-40 Development Agreement and the SMP-39/SMP-40 project conditions of approval also do not address how this safety issue will be mitigated. At minimum, the conditions of approval should require the project applicant to work with Zone 7 to ensure that a fence is constructed on the Zone 7 property south of the trail so that the fence south of the path on the SMP-40 property can connect to it. The ECS Property owner and the owner of the mining properties cannot themselves block access to their properties from the proposed public path because they cannot construct obstructions within the Arroyo Mocho. That is why public access must be contained continuously along the path on the Zone 7 property.
We ask that the Planning Commission consider the safety issues raised by this letter when evaluating the SMP-39/SMP-40 project and recommend appropriate conditions and mitigation measures to address them.
Regards,
Margaret R. Akerblom
MRA
Enclosure
EXHIBIT E
2466
A1.0
EXHIBIT E
2467
RESOLUTION NO. ________
IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 21-001, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (SUB) 21-008, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (SUB) 21-009, SITE PLAN DESIGN REVIEW (SPDR) 21-008, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, FOR THE SMP 39/SMP 40 PROJECT The City of Livermore (“City”) received applications General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-001, Annexation/Prezoning (APZ) 21-003, Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) 21- 002, Planned Development-Industrial (PD-I) 22-001, Development Code Amendment (DCA) 21-005, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (SUB) 21-008, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (SUB) 21-009, Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 21-008, Pre-annexation and Development Agreement (DA) 21-001, and Pre-annexation and Development Agreement (DA) 23-002 for the SMP 39/SMP 40 Project (“Project”) to develop approximately 1.51 million square feet of industrial development and associated parking, lighting, landscaping, and other improvements.
At a duly noticed public hearing on March 5, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the Project and staff recommendation, heard public testimony, made the necessary findings and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 03-34, attached hereto as Exhibit A, containing the Planning Commission’s actions and/or recommendations thereon.
On March 25, 2024, 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 certifying a Final 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. 03-24, 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 General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21- 2468
RESOLUTION NO. ________
001, attached hereto as Exhibit B, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (SUB) 21-008, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (SUB) 21-009, and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 21-008, subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto as Exhibit C, for the SMP 39/SMP 40 Project.
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 March 25, 2024, 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
Deborah L. Elam Kimberly D. Cilley
Acting City Clerk Senior Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – Planning Commission Resolution No. 03-24
Exhibit B – General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-001
Exhibit C – Conditions of Approval
2469
EXHIBIT A
2470
EXHIBIT A
2471
EXHIBIT A
2472
EXHIBIT A
2473
EXHIBIT A
2474
EXHIBIT A
2475
EXHIBIT A
2476
EXHIBIT A
2477
EXHIBIT A
2478
'
NAO 1983 2011 StatePtane California Ill FIPS 0403 Ft US lnfo�ation-Techn�logies, GIS Division, City �f Liv;rmore- - 1,422.39
'
2,844.8 Feet
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-001
OSP
c.El[ft1
---
OSPjS,G
HLCN
Airport CF-AIR
LIi
OSP/S&G
--=----::;::
Ii poR'\ov-11
� IN�ATEWAY
� o: AV g;
-<> \'! i'.:iac <a,.� j :rw
r � 8 Ul\z
� CONSTITUTION OR fi'
INSP
l�St ,._
,RVI"� S\.
Date Printed: 2fl/2024
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference onty. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. The City of Livermore is not responsible for misuse or errors or omissions on this map. All information should be confirmed.
EXHIBIT B
City Limits
Major Streets(> 62,500)
Collector Street Names (2500-
Creeks
Public Facilities (450()..100000
Park Names (4500-100,000)
School Names(4500-24,000)
Streets
Interstate
Olherfre,,waforEJq)ressway
Artenlll
Collector
'"'"
""""
Private Streets
Railroad
Lakes
Creeks
Public Facilities
F,reStallon
PclceFac1hty
OlherGovlF8Cl!ty
Schools
Parks
Parcels
TDCSIte
Plan Lines 580 Corridor
Land Use Designations
Rt.falRes.dertJal(RR)
utianLowRe.-dentJlll(UL)
utian LOW Medium Residrial (l.U
■ lkban�1umRes1denllal(UM)
■ utionMadlumHlgl1Re51der()al(Ulv
■ lXbanHii;t,ReSid&nbal(UH)
Neirt,oomoodCorrmerc1al(NCJ
■ Service Commerc181 (SC)
■ HlghwayCorrmerc,al(t<:J
■ Office C()(l'fl)(lrc1al (OC)
■ L¥ge Office Corrmen:1111 (LOC)
■ Comm.nty Ser•1m9 General Corrvno
■ Isabel Neighbofhood SP (INSP)
17,069 0
�
2479
1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Surface Mining Permit (SMP) 39/SMP 40 Project
Annexation/Prezoning (APZ) 21-003, Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (DA) 21-001, Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (DA) 23- 002, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-001, Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) 21- 002, Planned Development-Industrial (PD-I) 22-001, Development Code Amendment (DCA) 21-005, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (SUB) 21-008, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (SUB) 21-009, and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 21-008 To develop +/- 1.51 million square feet of industrial development and associated parking, lighting, landscaping, and other improvements.
Approved by City Council: March 25, 2024
PROJECT AUTHORIZATION
1. This 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. The Developer agrees that mining operations shall not occur on the SMP 39 or SMP 40 properties following project approval. Upon annexation of SMP 39 and SMP 40, Developer agrees that all mining permits previously granted by Alameda County on the SMP 39 and SMP 40 properties shall be null and void. No later than 60 days from the date LAFCo approves annexation of the SMP 39 and SMP 40 properties, subject to any extension granted by the City, Developer shall coordinate with Alameda County to complete any final actions required to remove the mining permits and all associated permissions related to mining operations from the SMP 39 and SMP 40 properties.
3. Approval is limited to the conformance of the land use and the Development Code requirements. Use of the property shall be limited to those permitted by the Planned Development-Industrial (PD-I) 22-001 zoning and the approved PreAnnexation and Development Agreements, as stated in Development Agreement (DA) 21-001 and DA 23-002. Use of the property shall be limited to those permitted by the Planned Development zoning and the Development Code as it exists now or may be amended in the future.
4. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11219 (SUB 21-009) and associated Site Plan Design Review (SPDR 21-008) for SMP 40 shall expire unless a Final Map is filed by March 25, 2026, or as long as specified in DA 21-001, unless a request for extension is received and approved by the City.
5. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8656 (SUB 1-008) for SMP 39 shall expire unless a Final Map is filed by March 25, 2026, or as long as specified in DA 23-002, unless a request for extension is received and approved by the City.
EXHIBIT C
2480
2 6. Future development on SMP 39 must be reviewed and approved in compliance with a Site Plan Design Review entitlement and other entitlements deemed necessary per Livermore Development Code Chapter 9.
PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
Prior to approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall demonstrate conformance to the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Planning Division:
1. The applicant shall respond in writing to all conditions contained in this document and its attachments. Responses shall describe how the condition has been met and shall, where applicable, direct the plan checker to the page and/or drawing detail that demonstrates compliance with the condition. A copy of these responses shall be provided with each set of improvement and revised plans.
2. The development of this project shall conform to the standards of the PD-I 22-001 zone and all applicable sections of the Livermore Development Code, unless otherwise specified in Development Agreement (DA) 21-001 and DA 23-002.
3. Applicant shall comply with terms outlined in DA 21-001 and DA 23-002, as it exists now or may be amended in the future.
4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable Mitigation Measures required by the SMP 39/40 Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Attachment 1.
5. Avigation Easements shall be required on SMP 39 and SMP 40. a. The avigation easement shall:
i. Identify the potential hazard associated with the proposed project and its location within protected airspace;
ii. Identify the airport owner’s right to clear or maintain the airspace from potential hazards;
iii. Identify the right to mark potential obstructions and notify aviators of such hazards; and
iv. Provide the right to pass within the identified airspace. b. Neither a separate overflight easement nor a separate real estate disclosure is required for properties for which an avigation easement is required. c. An example of an avigation easement is provided in Attachment 2, Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan – Appendix E, Sample Implementation Documents.
6. The applicant shall record the deed notification provided in the Livermore Executive Airport - Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Chapter 3.3.4.6, on the property for which this discretionary development permit is issued, as follows:
NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY
This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what
EXHIBIT C
2481
3 is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors).
Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person.
You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you.
7. Project applicant shall file a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 7460-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration) at least 90 days before construction of SMP 39. Filing 120 days ahead of construction is recommended.
8. Given the proximity to the airport, interior building noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB Ldn or CNEL, consistent with Title 24 requirements.
9. Consistent with the PD-I 22-001 zoning, no use shall be permitted which creates an ambient noise level greater than 75 decibels (dBA) beyond the boundaries of the site, nor greater than 60 decibels at the boundary of a Residential District.
10.Consistent with the PD-I 22-001 zoning, on SMP 39, semi-truck access to the site (arrivals and departures) shall be limited to 96 trips between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
11.Consistent with the PD-I 22-001 zoning, on SMP 40, semi-truck access to the site (arrivals and departures) shall be limited to 40 trips between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
12.Consistent with the PD-I 22-001 zoning, between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM single-event noise levels (e.g., backup alarm, truck brakes, etc.) shall not exceed 55 dBA, measured at the property line of the nearest residential use.
Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall demonstrate conformance to the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Planning Division:
13.All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be designed to be fully screened from public view by roof parapet or architecturally integrated roof screen. Construction drawings shall include section drawings and roof plans demonstrating conformance with this requirement. To the extent practical, all ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be located on roof areas. Ground mounted equipment to remain shall be fully screened from public view, as approved by the Community Development Department Director.
14.Project construction shall implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, whether or not construction-related emissions exceed applicable Thresholds of Significance.
15.Project construction shall include implementation of BAAQMD’s enhanced best management practices to control fugitive dust emissions.
16.Require that construction and structure demolition/modification activities be conducted outside of bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31) to the extent feasible. Construction activities may be permitted to occur within bird nesting season
EXHIBIT C
2482
4 if a qualified biologist conducts a pre-construction survey, as described in the SMP 39/40 Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Attachment 1.
17.All trees adjacent to public infrastructure shall use control features like root barriers and engineered soils to prevent infrastructure damage, as approved by the Community Development Department Director.
18. The plans shall show how exterior backflow preventers are screened from public view with landscape or by other appropriate means, as approved by the Community Development Department Director.
19. The applicant shall satisfy the Public Art requirement pursuant to the Livermore Municipal Code (LMC Chapter 12.51) by paying the in-lieu fee.
20.The project applicant and/or contractor shall treat any human remains encountered during ground-disturbing activities in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.
21.Prior to excavation, grading, or construction on the development site, the applicant shall contact the Alameda County Vector Control Services District to determine if any pre-baiting requirements are necessary to control migration of vermin to adjacent property.
22.All newly constructed buildings shall be all-electric buildings consistent with Chapter
15.26.280 of the Livermore Municipal Code.
23.The plans shall include a photometric plan to verify adequate site lighting and shielding without adverse impact on surrounding streets, properties, the Airport (SMP 39) and the Arroyo Mocho (SMP 40). The plan shall include a height detail of the proposed pole lights. The pole lights shall not exceed 18 feet in height.
24.Gate access from the parking lots/landscaped areas of buildings 1 and 2 to the trail will be provided on the site plans prior to issuance of building permits. Paved ramps shall be provided from each building to their respective parking lots at the access gates to the on-site trail.
25. The project applicant shall be required to develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for SMP 39 and SMP 40 as noted in more detail by the SMP 39/40 Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Attachment 1. The applicant is encouraged to coordinate the TDM Program for SMP 39 and SMP 40 with the existing Oaks Business Park TDM program.
26.The Crape Myrtle trees near the Employee Amenity Area on SMP 40 shall be replaced with Chinese Pistache trees.
27.The project applicant shall provide a revised landscape plan for the western parcel on SMP 40. The revised landscape plan shall meet the Chapter 4.05, Landscape Standards per the Livermore Development Code including but not limited to the landscaping requirements in Table 4.13, Required Shade Trees.
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT C
2483
5 1. Development shall conform to the plans designated by the City as Exhibit B-1.
Exhibit B-1 plans shall include but are not limited to subdivision, landscape, and architectural plans (for SMP 39 and 40) reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and 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 Community Development Department within 90 days of project approval.
2. The Developer shall pay the processing and development impact fees applicable City-wide that are in effect at the time the fees are paid. Payment for said fees shall be made prior to issuance of any building permits.
3. The Community Development Department may approve minor amendments to the permit, provided that the permit is still in substantial conformance with the original approval.
4. Approval of the Site Plan Design Review for SMP 40, Tentative Tract Map, and Tentative Parcel Map entitlements 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.
5. To the extent permitted by law, the project applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, boards, commissions, employees and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void the approval of the project or any permit authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice.
ENGINEERING DIVISION – DEVELOPMENT
1. Development shall conform to the attached Engineering Considerations for SMP 39 and SMP 40, dated March 5, 2024, respectively (refer to Attachment 3).
BUILDING DIVISION
1. Future development shall conform to California codes adopted at time of Building permit submittal.
2. Building permit issuance is contingent on parcels having been annexed into the City of Livermore and recording of final maps.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. On preliminary utility plans, relocate post indicators immediately upstream of single check valves in vaults which feed ASR manifolds and single ASR’s
2. FIRE HAZARDS: The project developer shall keep the site free of fire hazards from the start of lumber construction until the final inspection.
EXHIBIT C
2484
6 3. FIRE CODE: All construction shall conform to the requirements of the 2022 Livermore Fire Code and local ordinances. All required permits shall be obtained prior to work commencement.
4. SITE SAFETY: Site safety during construction shall be in accordance with Fire Code chapter 33.
5. FIRE SPRINKLERS: Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed in all occupancies in accordance with the 2022 Pleasanton Building, Fire and Residential Codes with local amendments and ordinances.
6. EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO: Emergency responder radio coverage shall be provided in accordance with section 510 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 DECLARATION: A Hazardous Materials Declaration shall be provided for this tenant and/or use. The form shall be signed by the owner/manager of company occupying the suite/space/building. No building permit shall be issued until the Hazardous Materials Declaration is provided. The form is available from the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau.
12.HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Should any operation or business activity involve the use, storage or handling of hazardous materials, the firm shall be responsible for contacting the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department prior to commencing operations. Please contact the Hazardous Materials Coordinator at 925/454-2361.
13.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.
14.FIRE LANE MARKING: On-site access ways, turn arounds, and internal drives shall be designated as fire lanes and identified as such by red curb striping and
EXHIBIT C
2485
7 posted with signs at locations approve by the Fire Department. Signs shall be according to State standards and read “No Parking – Fire Lane” and must be shown on the plans. The red curb striping, sign location(s), and sign language shall be included in the building permit submittal for review and approval by the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department prior to building permit issuance. a. The following schedule for NO PARKING signs shall apply:
Width Requirements
36 feet or greater No requirements
Between 28 and 36 feet Post one side
Between 20 and 28 feet Post both sides
Less than 20 feet Not permitted
Cul-de-Sac Not permitted
15.EMERGENCY 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 31 feet and outside turning radius of 51 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. All exterior portions of buildings must be within 200 feet of an access road. Yard and parking area may be able to be located farther than 200 feet from access roads, depending on the specific use.
16.EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS ROADS – ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR COMMERCIAL: Buildings or facilities exceeding 62,000 square feet (nonsprinklered) and 124,000 square feet (sprinklered) of gross building area shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. The roads shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one-half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses.
17.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 hammer-head (tee). Standards and options are available through the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau.
18.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 LivermorePleasanton Fire Department Premises Identification Standards. This may warrant field verification and adjustments based upon topography, landscaping or other obstructions.
EXHIBIT C
2486
8 19.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 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.
20. FINAL INSPECTION: Prior to request for final inspection, all access roads, onsite access and fire hydrants shall be provided. All fire hydrants shall be accepted, inspected and tested to applicable City Standards.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
1. The project shall be required to conform to the provisions of the security section of the Livermore Municipal Code.
ZONE 7
1. Zone 7 records indicate that there are 11 wells in or immediately adjacent to the project area. All of these wells must be protected during construction. Additionally, one destroyed well exists at the site. Please be advised that Zone 7 program wells must remain operational during and following construction as they are essential to Zone 7’s regional groundwater monitoring program. Contact Zone 7 to coordinate any necessary upgrades or adjustments in the well and/or well box elevation to match the final grade. The Applicant shall coordinate with Zone 7 Water Agency concerning the decommissioning of any wells onsite.
2. Please immediately notify Zone 7 if any other wells exist in the project area. All well locations should be field verified and noted on the plans. A Zone 7 drilling permit is needed for any well or soil boring work that may be planned for this project. The drilling permit application and permit fee schedule can be downloaded from our website: https://www.zone7water.com/post/well-drilling-and-soil-boringpermits. For additional information please email [email protected].
EXHIBIT C
2487
9 3. It should be noted that the subject property (or project) is located within the basin area under sustainable groundwater management by Zone 7 as per the Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (https://www.zone7water.com/sites/main/files/fileattachments/ alt_gw_sustainability_plan-4.pdf?1656015908) and is subject to all relevant sustainable groundwater management actions.
4. Developments creating new impervious areas within the Livermore-Amador Valley are subject to the assessment of the Development Impact Fee for Flood Protection and Storm Water Drainage. These fees are collected for Zone 7 by the local governing agency: 1) upon approval of final map for public improvements creating new impervious areas; and/or 2) upon issuance of a building or use permit required for site improvements creating new impervious areas. Fees are dependent on whether post-project impervious area conditions are greater than pre-project conditions and/or whether fees have previously been paid.
Attachments:
1. SMP 39/SMP 40 Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2. Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan – Appendix E, Sample Implementation Documents
3. Engineering Considerations dated March 5, 2024
EXHIBIT C
2488
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
4.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.2-1 Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan
during project
construction.
4.2-1(a) Prior to approval of any Improvement Plans,
the project applicant shall provide proof of
compliance with the following to the
satisfaction of the City of Livermore
Community Development Department:
The project applicant shall show on
the plans via notation that the
contractor shall ensure that the heavyduty off-road vehicles (50 horsepower or more) to be used in the construction
of all project components (i.e.,
construction of SMP 39, SMP 40, and
the chosen off-site trail connection
option), including owned, leased, and
subcontractor vehicles, shall be a
combination of engine Tier 3 or Tier 4
off-road construction equipment, or
hybrid, electric, or alternatively fueled
equipment (or any combination of the
above), sufficient to achieve a fleetwide average reduction in construction-related ROG and NOX
emissions to below the applicable
BAAQMD thresholds of significance
(54 lbs/day). For instance, the
emissions presented in Table 4.2-8
were achieved by requiring all
equipment used during construction to
be engine Tier 4 final.
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Prior to approval of
any Improvement
Plans
EXHIBIT C
2489
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
In addition, all off-road equipment
operating at the construction site must
be maintained in proper working
condition according to manufacturer’s
specifications. Idling shall be limited to
five minutes or less in accordance with
the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle
Regulation as required by CARB.
Clear signage regarding idling
restrictions shall be placed at the
entrances to the construction site.
Portable equipment over 50
horsepower must have either a valid
BAAQMD Permit to Operate (PTO) or
a valid statewide Portable Equipment
Registration Program (PERP) placard
and sticker issued by CARB.
Conformance with the foregoing
requirements shall be included as
notes and be confirmed through
review and approval of grading plans
by the City of Livermore Community
Development Department.
4.2-1(b) The project applicant shall show on
Improvement Plans via notation that the
project contractor shall restrict the building
construction and architectural coating
phases of construction for SMP 39 from
occurring simultaneously with the building
construction and architectural coating
phases of construction for SMP 40.
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Prior to approval of
any Improvement
Plans
EXHIBIT C
2490
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Conformance with this requirement shall be
confirmed through review and approval of
plans by the City of Livermore Community
Development Department.
4.2-2 Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan
during project operation.
4.2-2 Prior to approval of any Improvement Plans,
the project applicant shall provide proof of
compliance with the following to the
satisfaction of the City of Livermore
Community Development Department:
• The project applicant shall show on
the Improvement Plans via notation
that all off-road equipment (i.e.,
forklifts) to be used during operations
of the proposed project shall be a
combination of propane and electric,
sufficient to achieve a fleet-wide
average reduction in operationalrelated NOX emissions to below the applicable BAAQMD threshold of
significance (54 lbs/day). For instance,
the emissions presented in Table 4.2-
10 were achieved by requiring that 27
percent of the forklifts used during
operations on both SMP 39 and SMP
40 are electric.
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Prior to approval of
any Improvement
Plans
4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-2 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on specialstatus wildlife species.
Western Burrowing Owl
4.3-2(a) If project construction begins during the
western burrowing owl nesting season
(February 1 to August 31), a qualified
biologist shall conduct targeted burrowing
owl nest surveys within 14 days prior to
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Within 14 days prior
to construction
activities if project
construction begins
during the western
EXHIBIT C
2491
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
construction activities using seven- to 20-
foot transects. A separate preconstruction
survey shall be conducted for SMP 39 and
SMP 40 (including the off-site trail
connection area) if the components of the
project are not constructed concurrently. The
survey shall include the project site and all
accessible areas within 500 feet of the
project impact zone, and shall follow CDFW
guidelines outlined in the 2012 Staff Report
on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. The results of
the survey shall be submitted to the City of
Livermore Community Development
Department within 30 days of the completed
survey. The survey report shall be valid for
one construction season.
If western burrowing owls are not detected
on-site during the survey, further mitigation
shall not be required. If any western
burrowing owls are detected on-site,
pursuant to the CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report
on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, the following
restricted activity dates and setback
distances shall be implemented:
• From April 1 through October 15, low
disturbance activities shall have a
200-meter buffer while high
disturbance activities shall have a
500-meter buffer from occupied nests.
• From April 1 through August 15,
medium disturbance activities shall
have a 500-meter buffer from
burrowing owl
nesting season
(February 15 to
August 31)
EXHIBIT C
2492
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
occupied nests. Medium disturbance
activities can have a reduced buffer of
200 meters starting August 16
through October 15.
• From October 16 through March 31,
low disturbance activities shall have a
50-meter buffer, medium disturbance
activities shall have a 100-meter
buffer, and high disturbance activities
shall have a 500-meter buffer from
occupied nests.
• Earth-moving activities or other
disturbance shall not occur within the
aforementioned buffer zones of
occupied burrows unless monitoring of
the nest site by a qualified biologist
determines that the owls are
acclimated to the disturbance and
would not be disturbed by a smaller
buffer. The buffer zones shall be
fenced.
• A qualified biologist shall delineate the
extent of burrowing owl habitat on the
site.
• Owls may be passively relocated from
the project site between October 1 and
February 1. Passive removal shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist with
demonstrated experience with passive
relocation.
• Credits shall be purchased from a
mitigation bank in coordination with
CDFW and the City of Livermore to
EXHIBIT C
2493
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
offset the project’s habitat loss on the
burrowing owl.
A report detailing compliance with the
provisions set forth herein shall be prepared
by the qualified biologist and submitted for
review and approval to the City of Livermore
Community Development Department.
Western Burrowing Owl (Trail Connection Options
2 and 3)
4.3-2(b) In the event that Trail Connection Option 2 –
Undercrossing at Isabel Bridge or Trail
Connection Option 3 – Overcrossing of
Isabel Avenue/SR 84 is the selected trail
connection option for the proposed project,
the requirements of Mitigation Measure 4.3-
2(a) shall be implemented for the
disturbance area associated with the trail
connection option.
Tricolored Blackbird
4.3-2(c) Prior to any ground disturbance on SMP 40,
a qualified biologist shall conduct a
preconstruction survey in all accessible
areas identified as supporting potential
tricolored blackbird nesting habitat. The
survey shall document the current, and to
the extent possible, historical presence or
absence of nesting colonies of tricolored
blackbird. Surveys shall conclude no more
than two calendar days prior to construction.
If a tricolored blackbird nesting colony is
present, a 250-foot buffer shall be applied
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Within 14 days prior
to construction
activities if project
construction begins
during the western
burrowing owl
nesting season
(February 15 to
August 31)
Prior to any ground
disturbance on SMP
40 EXHIBIT C
2494
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
from the outer edge of all hydrophytic
vegetation associated with the site and the
site plus buffer shall be avoided. The Wildlife
Agencies shall be notified immediately of
nest locations. All survey results shall be
submitted to the City of Livermore
Community Development Department prior
to the start of construction. If current or
recent tricolored blackbird nesting colonies
are not identified, further action is not
required.
If construction takes place during the
breeding season when an active colony is
present, a qualified biologist shall monitor
construction to ensure that the 250-foot
buffer zone is enforced. If monitoring
indicates that construction outside of the
buffer is affecting a breeding colony, the
buffer shall be increased if space allows
(e.g., move staging areas farther away). If
space does not allow, construction shall
cease until the colony abandons the site or
until the end of the breeding season,
whichever occurs first. The biological
monitor shall also conduct training of
construction personnel on the avoidance
procedures, buffer zones, and protocols in
the event that tricolored blackbirds fly into an
active construction zone (i.e., outside the
buffer zone).
Nesting Birds and Raptors (Including Loggerhead
Shrike)
EXHIBIT C
2495
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
4.3-2(d) If project construction begins during the
nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a
qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting
bird survey within 7 days prior to
construction activities. A separate
preconstruction survey shall be conducted
for SMP 39 and SMP 40 (including the offsite trail connection area) if the components of the project are not constructed
concurrently. The nesting bird survey shall
include walking transects to search for
ground nesting birds, and an examination of
all trees on-site and within all accessible
areas within 200 feet of the entire project site
and off-site improvement areas (i.e., within a
zone of influence of nesting birds). If nesting
birds are not found within the project site or
off-site improvement areas, further
mitigation shall not be required.
If migratory birds are identified nesting on or
within the zone of influence, the Wildlife
Agencies shall be notified immediately of
nest locations. A qualified biologist shall
establish a temporary protective nest buffer
around the nest(s). The nest buffer shall be
staked with orange construction fencing.
The buffer must be of sufficient size to
protect the nesting site from constructionrelated disturbance and shall be established by a qualified ornithologist or biologist with
extensive experience working with nesting
birds near and on construction sites.
Typically, adequate nesting buffers are 75
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Within seven days
prior to construction
activities, if project
construction begins
during the nesting
season (February 1
to August 31)
EXHIBIT C
2496
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
feet from the nest site or nest tree dripline for
small birds and up to 300 feet for sensitive
nesting birds that include several raptor
species known in the region of the project
site but that are not expected to occur on the
project site. Upon completion of nesting
surveys, if nesting birds are identified on or
within a zone of influence of the project site,
a qualified ornithologist/biologist that
frequently works with nesting birds shall
prescribe adequate nesting buffers to
protect the nesting birds from harm while the
project is constructed.
Construction or earth-moving activity shall
not occur within any established nest
protection buffer prior to September 1 unless
a qualified ornithologist/biologist determines
that the young have fledged and have
attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project
construction zones, or that the nesting cycle
is otherwise completed. In the region of the
project site, most species complete nesting
by mid-July; however, the date may be
significantly earlier or later, and would have
to be determined by the qualified biologist.
At the end of the nesting cycle, and fledging
from the nest by its occupants, as
determined by a qualified biologist,
temporary nesting buffers may be removed
and construction may commence in
established nesting buffers without further
regard for the nest site. If active nesting
buffers are established and a biologist does
EXHIBIT C
2497
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
not confirm that the nesting cycle is
completed, then the nesting buffers must be
maintained until the end of the CDFW
recognized nesting season (September 1).
Should construction activities cause a
nesting bird to do any of the following in a
way that would be considered a result of
construction activities, then the exclusionary
buffer shall be increased such that activities
are far enough from the nest to stop the
following agitated behavior: vocalize, make
defensive flights at intruders, get up from a
brooding position, or fly off the nest. The
revised non-disturbance buffer shall remain
in place until the chicks have fledged or as
otherwise determined by a qualified biologist
in consultation with the City of Livermore.
A report detailing compliance with the
provisions set forth herein shall be prepared
by the qualified biologist and submitted for
review and approval to the City of Livermore
Community Development Department.
4.3-3 Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural
community identified in
local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by
the CDFW or USFWS, or
State or Federally
protected wetlands
Trail Connection Option 2 – Undercrossing at
Isabel Bridge
4.3-3(a) Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing
activities, the project applicant shall submit a
formal wetland delineation to the USACE for
Trail Connection Option 2 for verification to
determine the extent of all hydrological
features, their jurisdictional status, and the
extent of any impacts resulting from the
proposed project. A copy of the wetland
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
USACE
Prior to initiation of
ground-disturbing
activities
EXHIBIT C
2498
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
(including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption,
or other means.
delineation and USACE verification letter
shall be submitted to the City of Livermore
Community Development Department. If
Trail Connection Option 2 will result in
impacts to features under the USACE’s
jurisdiction, Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(e)
shall be required.
Trail Connection Option 2 – Undercrossing at
Isabel Bridge
4.3-3(b) In the event that Trail Connection Option 2 –
Undercrossing at Isabel Bridge is the
selected Trail Connection Option for the
proposed project, implement Mitigation
Measures 4.5-1 and 4.5-2 related to the
preparation of a SWPPP and final
Stormwater Control Plan and Maintenance
Plan during project construction and
operations, respectively.
SMP 40 and Trail Connection Option 2
4.3-3(c) Prior to the commencement of grounddisturbing activities for SMP 40 or Trail Connection Option 2, if selected, the project
contractor shall notify CDFW pursuant to
Section 1600 of the CFGC. The notification
shall include a description of all of the
activities associated with the proposed
project, not just those associated with the
drainages and/or riparian vegetation.
Impacts shall be outlined in the notification
and are expected to be in substantial
conformance with the impacts to biological
resources outlined in the Biological
City’s Public
Works Director
City Engineer
City of
Livermore
Public Works
Department
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of any
grading permits
Prior to
commencement of
ground-disturbing
activities for SMP
40 or Trail
Connection Option
2 (if selected)
EXHIBIT C
2499
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Resources Assessments prepared for SMP
40 by Monk & Associates. Impacts for each
activity shall be broken down by temporary
and permanent impacts. A description of the
proposed mitigation for biological resource
impacts shall be outlined per activity and
then by temporary and permanent impact.
Information regarding project-specific
drainage and hydrology changes resulting
from project implementation shall be
provided, as well as a description of
stormwater treatment methods. Minimization
and avoidance measures shall be proposed,
as appropriate, and may include the
following:
• To avoid fuels, lubricants, soils and
other pollutants from entering Arroyo
Mocho, wildlife friendly hay wattles
(that is, no mono-filament netting)
and silt fencing shall be installed at
the top of bank. The use of mulch or
any other substitute that may enter
into the creek shall be prohibited.
• Staging, operation and maintenance
of heavy duty construction equipment
shall be located away from Arroyo
Mocho at all times and well outside of
the riparian corridor unless the
equipment is needed to specifically
work on the realignment of Arroyo
Mocho or the outfalls for the project.
• To mitigate for any impacts to the
riparian corridor of Arroyo Mocho,
EXHIBIT C
2500
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
disturbed areas shall be revegetated
with native riparian plant species.
Replacement of riparian trees to be
removed shall be planted near the
creek as feasible and/or adjacent to
the existing limits of the riparian
corridor to contribute to the existing
riparian canopy. Riparian plantings
shall be maintained for a minimum of
5 years to ensure that the canopy is
enhanced and the understory
restored.
• Non-native and invasive ornamental
landscaping shall be precluded from
use proximate to Arroyo Mocho.
• To avoid debris from entering Arroyo
Mocho, the final project design shall
provide for enclosed and accessible
trash receptacles (located outside of
the riparian corridor).
• New lighting introduced by the project
shall be downcast and precluded
from spilling over to the riparian
corridor as direct lighting along creek
corridors has a negative impact on
nocturnal wildlife.
Mitigation shall not result in a net loss of a
Sensitive Natural Community. Written
verification of Section 1600 of the LSAA shall
be submitted to the City of Livermore
Community Development Department.
EXHIBIT C
2501
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Trail Connection Option 2 – Undercrossing at
Isabel Bridge
4.3-3(d) Prior to the initiation of groundbreaking
activity associated with Trail Connection
Option 2, if selected, the project applicant
shall ensure that authorization pursuant to
the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401
from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control board (RWQCB) is obtained.
If Trail Connection Option 2 will result in
impacts to features under the RWQCB’s
jurisdiction, the construction contractor shall
adhere to all conditions outlined in the
permit. The project applicant shall ensure
that the proposed project replaces, restores,
or enhances on a “no net loss” basis (in
accordance with the RWQCB) the acreage
of all riparian habitat and waters of the State
that would be removed, lost, and/or
degraded due to project implementation by
methods agreeable to the RWQCB and the
City, as appropriate, depending on agency
jurisdiction, and as determined during the
Section 401 permitting processes. Methods
include, but are not limited to implementation
of a riparian enhancement planting plan
and/or tree planting mitigation at a 1:1 ratio,
or as otherwise prescribed by the RWQCB.
Trail Connection Option 2 – Undercrossing at
Isabel Bridge
4.3-3(e) If it is determined that work below the OHWM
cannot be avoided for Trail Connection
The San
Francisco Bay
Regional
Water Quality
Control board
(RWQCB)
City of
Livermore
Prior to the initiation
of ground-breaking
activity associated
with Trail
Connection Option
2 (if selected)
Prior to issuance of
grading permits, if it
EXHIBIT C
2502
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Option 2, prior to the issuance of grading
permits, the project applicant shall apply for
a CWA Section 404 permit from the USACE.
Waters that would be lost or disturbed shall
be restored, replaced, or rehabilitated on a
“no-net-loss” basis. Habitat restoration,
rehabilitation, and/or replacement, including
the purchase of credits from a USACE
approved mitigation bank at a 1:1 ratio, shall
be at a location and by methods acceptable
to the USACE. Documentation of
compliance with the provisions set forth
herein shall be submitted to the City of
Livermore Community Development
Department for verification.
Community
Development
Department
USACE
is determined that
work below the
Ordinary High
Water Mark
(OHWM) cannot be
avoided for Trail
Connection Option
2 (if selected)
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
4.4-2 Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a unique
archeological resource
pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines, Section
15064.5.
4.4-2 In the event a potentially significant cultural
resource is encountered during subsurface
earthwork activities, all construction
activities within a 100-foot radius of the find
shall cease and workers shall avoid altering
the materials until an archaeologist who
meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards for
archaeology has evaluated the find. The
project applicant shall include a standard
inadvertent discovery clause in every
construction contract to inform contractors of
this requirement. The qualified archeologist
shall make recommendations to the City of
Livermore on the measures that shall be
implemented to protect the discovered
resources, including, but not limited to,
culturally appropriate temporary and
The
Confederated
Villages of
Lisjan
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
The Northwest
Information
Center (NWIC)
The State
Historic
In the event a
potentially
significant cultural
resource is
encountered during
subsurface
earthwork activities
EXHIBIT C
2503
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
permanent treatment, which may include
avoidance of cultural resources, in-place
preservation, and/or reburial on the project
site so the resource(s) are not subject to
further disturbance in perpetuity. In addition,
The Confederated Villages of Lisjan shall be
notified of the discovery. If avoidance is
determined to be infeasible, pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C),
a data recovery plan, which makes
provisions for adequately recovering the
scientifically consequential information from
and about the historical resource, shall be
prepared and adopted prior to any
excavation being undertaken. If necessary,
excavation and evaluation of the finds shall
comply with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
Potentially significant archaeological site
indicators include obsidian and chert flakes
and chipped stone tools; grinding and
mashing implements (e.g., slabs and
handstones and mortars and pestles);
bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar
cups; and locally darkened midden soils.
Midden soils may contain a combination of
any of the previously listed items with the
possible addition of bone and shell remains,
and fire-affected stones. Any previously
undiscovered resources found during
construction within the project site shall be
recorded on appropriate Department of
Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and
Preservation
Office (SHPO)
EXHIBIT C
2504
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
will be submitted to the City of Livermore, the
Northwest Information Center (NWIC), and
the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), as required.
4.4-3 Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries.
4.4-3 In the event of the accidental discovery or
recognition of any human remains, further
excavation or disturbance of the find or any
nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent human remains shall not occur until
compliance with the provisions of CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1) and (2)
has occurred. The Guidelines specify that in
the event of the discovery of human remains
other than in a dedicated cemetery, no
further excavation at the site or any nearby
area suspected to contain human remains
shall occur until the Alameda County
Coroner has been notified to determine if an
investigation into the cause of death is
required. If the County Coroner determines
that the remains are Native American, then,
within 24 hours, the Coroner must notify the
Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC), which in turn will notify the most
likely descendants who may recommend
treatment of the remains and any grave
goods. The potential exists that the NAHC
may be unable to identify a most likely
descendant, the most likely descendant fails
to make a recommendation within 48 hours
after notification by the NAHC, or the
landowner or his authorized agent rejects
the recommendation by the most likely
descendant and mediation by the NAHC fails
Alameda
County
Coroner
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
(NAHC)
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
In the event of the
accidental discovery
or recognition of any
human remains
EXHIBIT C
2505
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
to provide a measure acceptable to the
landowner. In such case, the landowner or
his authorized representative shall rebury
the human remains and grave goods with
appropriate dignity at a location on the
property not subject to further disturbances.
Should human remains be encountered, a
copy of the resulting County Coroner report
noting any written consultation with the
NAHC shall be submitted as proof of
compliance to the City of Livermore
Community Development Department.
4.4-4 Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined
in PRC Section 21074.
4.4-4 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.4-2 and
4.4-3.
See Mitigation
Measures 4.4-
2 and 4.4-3
See Mitigation
Measures 4.4-2 and
4.4-3
Hydrology and Water Quality
4.5-1 Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially
degrade water quality
during construction.
4.5-1 Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the
contractor shall prepare a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for
review and approval by the San Francisco
Bay RWQCB. The contractor shall file the
Notice of Intent (NOI) and associated fee to
the SWRCB. A separate SWPPP shall be
prepared for SMP 39 and SMP 40 (including
the off-site trail connection area) if the
components of the project are not
constructed concurrently. The SWPPP shall
serve as the framework for identification,
assignment, and implementation of BMPs.
The contractor shall implement BMPs to
reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges
to the maximum extent practicable.
City of
Livermore
Public Works
Director
City Engineer
Prior to issuance of
any grading permits
EXHIBIT C
2506
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Construction (temporary) BMPs for the
project may include, but are not limited to:
fiber rolls, straw bale barrier, straw wattles,
storm drain inlet protection, velocity
dissipation devices, silt fences, wind erosion
control, stabilized construction entrance,
hydroseeding, revegetation techniques, and
dust control measures. The SWPPP shall be
submitted to the City’s Director of Public
Works and the City Engineer for review and
approval and shall remain on the project site
during all phases of construction. Following
implementation of the SWPPP, the
contractor shall subsequently demonstrate
the SWPPP’s effectiveness and provide for
necessary and appropriate revisions,
modifications, and improvements to reduce
pollutants in stormwater discharges to the
maximum extent practicable.
4.5-2 Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially
degrade water quality
during operations.
4.5-2(a) Prior to approval of final project improvement plans for SMP 39, SMP 40, and the selected
off-site trail connection option, a final
Stormwater Control Plan and Maintenance
Plan shall be submitted to the City Director
of Public Works, and the City Engineer for
review and approval. A separate Stormwater
Control Plan and Maintenance Plan shall be
prepared for SMP 39, SMP 40, and the
selected off-site trail connection option, if the
components of the project are not
constructed concurrently. The final
Stormwater Control Plan and Maintenance
Plan shall be in compliance with all
applicable provisions of the C.3 Standards,
City of
Livermore
Public Works
Director
City Engineer
City of
Livermore
Public Works
Department
Prior to approval of
final project
improvement plans
for SMP 39, SMP
40, and the selected
off-site trail
connection option
EXHIBIT C
2507
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
and shall meet the standards of the
California Stormwater Quality Association
(CASQA) Stormwater BMP Handbook for
New Development and Redevelopment. Site
design measures, source control measures,
hydromodification management, and Low
Impact Development (LID) standards, as
necessary, shall be incorporated into the
design and shown on the improvement
plans. The final plans shall include
calculations demonstrating that the water
quality BMPs are appropriately sized, using
methodology in the CASQA Stormwater
BMP Handbook for New Development and
Redevelopment. The final plans shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department
for review and approval.
4.5-2(b) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-3(b)
through 4.3-3(e).
See Mitigation
Measures 4.3-
3(b) through
4.3-3(e)
See Mitigation
Measures 4.3-3(b)
through 4.3-3(e)
4.5-4 Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern
of the site or area,
including through the
alteration of the course of
a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
4.5-4 Prior to approval of final project improvement
plans for SMP 39, SMP 40, and the selected
off-site trail connection option, a final
drainage plan shall be submitted to the City
Director of Public Works, and the City
Engineer for review and approval
demonstrating the project’s compliance
with all State stormwater standards and
requirements. A separate drainage plan
shall be prepared for SMP 39, SMP 40, and
the selected off-site trail connection option, if
the components of the project are not
City of
Livermore
Public Works
Director
City Engineer
Prior to approval of
final project
improvement plans
for SMP 39, SMP
40, and the selected
off-site trail
connection option
EXHIBIT C
2508
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
would result in flooding
on- or off-site; create or
contribute runoff water
which would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or result
in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site.
constructed concurrently. The final drainage
plan shall identify the water quality treatment
and source control measures needed to
ensure that stormwater runoff from the
proposed project is adequately treated and
peak flows do not exceed the capacity of the
receiving storm drainage system.
4.5-5 Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern
of the site or area,
including through the
alteration of the course of
a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would
impede or redirect flood
flows, or in flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche zone,
risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation.
4.5-5 Prior to Building Permit issuance for SMP 39
(if buildings are determined to be within a
SFHA) and SMP 40, the City or applicant
shall obtain from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), a Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR).
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
Chief Building
Official
Prior to Building
Permit issuance for
SMP 39 (if buildings
are determined to
be within a Special
Flood Hazard Zone
[SFHA]) and SMP
40 Noise
4.6-1 Generation of a
substantial temporary
increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of
standards established in
the local general plan or
4.6-1(a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit for
SMP 40, the project applicant shall prepare
a construction noise management plan that
identifies measures to be taken to minimize
construction noise on surrounding sensitive
land uses and include specific noise
management measures to be included
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of
a grading permit for
SMP 40
EXHIBIT C
2509
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of
other agencies.
within the plans and specifications for SMP
40, subject to review and approval by the
City of Livermore Community Development
Department. The project applicant shall
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City
that the project complies with the following:
• Consistent with the Livermore
Municipal Code, construction shall be
limited to weekdays between the
hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM and
Saturdays through Sunday between
the hours of 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
• Either a temporary noise barrier shall
be built prior to development of the
planned berm on the east side of the
project site, or the berm shall be built
prior to construction activities. The
barrier/berm shall be a minimum of
10 feet tall. The barrier can be fieldbuilt provided it meets the following criteria:
o The barrier shall be constructed
to have a minimum surface
density of four pounds per square
foot (psf). For example, a stud
wall with exterior-grade plywood
sheathing and a stucco finish (or
two layers of 5/8-inch thick
plywood).
o The barrier shall be free of
cracks, and drainage holes/slots
along the bottom of the barrier
shall be kept to a minimum.
EXHIBIT C
2510
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Where needed, drainage
holes/slots shall be covered by
one psf mass-loaded vinyl flaps
(e.g., Kinetics KNM-100) so
water can flow around the vinyl
and still drain.
o Joints between sheathing layers
shall be offset by 16 inches
minimum.
• Contractors shall use “quiet” models
of air compressors and other
stationary noise sources, where
technology exists.
• Internal combustion engine-driven
equipment shall be equipped with
mufflers which are in good condition
and appropriate for the equipment.
• Stationary noise-generating
equipment, such as air compressors
and portable power generators, shall
be located as far away as possible
from adjacent property lines.
• Staging areas and construction
material areas shall be located as far
away as feasible from adjacent
residences.
• All unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines should be
prohibited.
• The contractor shall designate a
"noise disturbance construction
superintendent" who will be
responsible for tracking and
responding to any complaints about
EXHIBIT C
2511
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
construction noise. The noise
disturbance construction
superintendent shall determine the
cause of the noise complaint (e.g.,
starting too early, bad muffler, etc.)
and shall require that reasonable
measures are implemented to correct
the problem. The telephone number
for the noise disturbance construction
superintendent shall be posted at the
construction site and included in any
construction notices sent to
neighbors.
4.6-1(b) Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the
chosen off-site trail connection option, the
project applicant shall prepare a
construction noise management plan that
identifies measures to be taken to minimize
construction noise on surrounding sensitive
land uses and include specific noise
management measures to be included
within the plans and specifications for the
trail connection option, subject to review and
approval by the City of Livermore
Community Development Department. The
project applicant shall demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the City, that the project
complies with the following:
• All heavy construction equipment
used on the proposed project shall be
maintained in good operating
condition, with all internal
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of
a grading permit for
the chosen off-site
trail connection
option
EXHIBIT C
2512
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
combustion, engine‐driven
equipment fitted with intake and
exhaust mufflers that are in good
condition.
• All mobile or fixed noise producing
equipment used on the proposed
project that is regulated for noise
output by a local, state, or federal
agency shall comply with such
regulations while involved with a
project activity.
• Where feasible, electrically‐powered
equipment shall be used instead of
pneumatic or internal combustion
powered equipment.
• All stationary noise‐generating
equipment shall be located as far
away as possible from the nearest
residential uses.
• Signs prohibiting unnecessary idling
of internal combustion engines shall
be posted at entrances to
construction sites and at construction
equipment staging areas.
• The use of noise‐producing signals,
including horns, whistles, alarms and
bells shall be for safety warning
purposes only.
• The use of temporary sound barriers
shall be incorporated along the outer
work area of the construction site,
east of Isabel Avenue/SR 84. Barrier
height and location(s) shall be
determined by a qualified acoustical
EXHIBIT C
2513
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
engineer to ensure that the resultant
construction noise levels at the
nearest residence would meet the
applicable standard. The sound
barrier fencing shall consist of 0.5-
inch plywood or minimum STC 27
sound curtains placed to shield
nearby sensitive receptors. The
plywood barrier shall be free from
gaps, openings, or penetrations to
ensure maximum performance.
Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems
4.7-8 Increase in demand for
utilities and service
systems associated with
the proposed project, in
combination with future
buildout of the Livermore
General Plan.
4.7-8(a) Prior to approval of improvement plans, the
project applicant shall pay the applicable
sewer fair share fees to the City of Livermore
Community Development Department.
Payment of such fees shall be made in
compliance with Livermore Municipal Code
Chapter 13.28.
4.7-8(b) In conjunction with submittal of improvement
plans for SMP 39 or SMP 40, whichever is
developed second as part of the proposed
project, the project applicant shall submit an
analysis of the pumping capacity available at
the Airport Lift Station to convey additional
flows generated by SMP 39 and SMP 40.
The lift station capacity analysis shall be
prepared by a registered civil engineer.
According to the 2022 Airport Lift Station
Analysis prepared by West Yost Associates,
the City of Livermore has indicated that the
pumping capacity necessary to
accommodate SMP 39 and SMP 40 would
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Prior to approval of
improvement plans
In conjunction with
submittal of
improvement plans
for SMP 39 or SMP
40, whichever is
developed second
as part of the
proposed project
EXHIBIT C
2514
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
be 2,088 gallons per minute (gpm). The
subsequent evaluation shall confirm the
aforementioned estimate and be submitted
for review and approval to the City of
Livermore Community Development
Department.
If the Airport Lift Station pumping capacity is
determined to be inadequate, the project
applicant shall ensure the pumping capacity
is increased to the necessary gpm
determined by the subsequent analysis, with
all design recommendations contained
therein incorporated into the improvement
plans for SMP 39 or SMP 40, whichever is
developed second as part of the proposed
project. Incorporation of the design
recommendations to increase the Airport Lift
Station pumping capacity shall be submitted
for review and approval to the City Engineer.
Transportation
4.8-1 Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation
system during
construction activities.
4.8-1 Prior to grading permit issuance for the SMP
39 and SMP 40 sites, as well as the chosen
off-site trail connection option, the project
applicant shall prepare a Construction
Traffic Management Plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall
include the following:
• A project staging plan to maximize
on-site storage of materials and
equipment;
• A set of comprehensive traffic control
measures, including scheduling of
City Engineer Prior to grading
permit issuance for
the SMP 39 and
SMP 40 sites, as
well as the chosen
off-site trail
connection option
EXHIBIT C
2515
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
major truck trips and deliveries to
avoid peak hours; lane closure
proceedings; signs, cones and other
warning devices for drivers; and
designation of construction access
routes;
• Provisions for maintaining adequate
emergency access to the project site;
• Permitted construction hours, per
City of Livermore standards;
• Designated locations for construction
staging areas;
• Identification of parking areas for
construction employees, site visitors,
and inspectors, including on-site
locations;
• Signs posted at the entrances to the
construction sites noting who to
contact if there are questions or
concerns, along with a contact phone
number; and
• Provisions for street sweeping to
remove construction-related debris
on public streets.
4.8-3 Conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b).
4.8-3 Prior to the issuance of the first building
permit, the project applicant shall be
required to develop a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program for
SMP 39 and SMP 40. The TDM Program
shall be monitored by the project
applicant/operator on an annual basis to
determine the efficacy of the selected TDM
strategies in achieving the reduction below
the regional average VMT per employee of
City of
Livermore
Engineering
Division
Chief Building
Official
Prior to the
issuance of the first
building permit
EXHIBIT C
2516
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
three percent (i.e., the performance target).
An Annual Status Report on the TDM
Program shall be submitted to the City of
Livermore Engineering Division beginning a
year after the issuance of any certificate of
occupancy and shall include details on the
TDM strategies, including an Employer
Carpool Program which has a goal to reduce
VMT per employee by approximately four
percent and, thus, would meet and exceed
the performance target. The Employer
Carpool Program shall implement a
ridesharing program and establish a
permanent transportation management
association with funding requirements for
employers. Data shall be collected in
October of each year and the Annual Status
Report shall be submitted by December 31st
of each year. The report shall be prepared in
the form and format designated by the City.
The data shall include project-generated
VMT estimates compatible with the
methodology used to estimate the
benchmark VMT so that performance
comparisons can be made. If the Annual
Status Report demonstrates that the project
is not in compliance with the performance
target set forth in this mitigation measure,
the project must incorporate additional TDM
strategies to meet the performance target in
coordination with City staff. The project
applicant/operator may propose new TDM
strategies that develop over time to further
reduce project-generated VMT if substantial
EXHIBIT C
2517
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
evidence is provided to support the efficacy
of the strategy. If the Annual Status Reports
demonstrate that the performance target has
been achieved for five consecutive years
once SMP 39 and SMP 40 are both fully
occupied and operational, the project shall
no longer need to provide annual reporting.
The five-year reporting requirement shall
reset when a new use occupies any portion
of the SMP 39 or SMP 40 property.
Initial Study
I-a,b. Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
Would the project
substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not limited
to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a
State scenic highway?
I-1. In the event that Trail Connection Option 3 –
Overcrossing of Isabel Avenue/SR 84 is the
selected Trail Connection Option for the
proposed project, improvement plans
associated with the proposed above-grade
crossing shall be submitted to the City’s
Community Development Department for
review and approval to ensure that the
proposed above-grade crossing is
constructed using soft earth tone colors that
help the bridge blend in with the surrounding
landscape.
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
In the event that
Trail Connection
Option 3 is the
selected trail
connection option
for the proposed
project
VII-a.iii,
a.iv,c,d.
Would the project directly
or indirectly cause
potential substantial
adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving: seismicrelated ground failure,
including liquefaction or
landslides?
VII-1. All grading and foundation plans for the
development shall be designed by a Civil
and Structural Engineer and reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer, Chief
Building Official, and a qualified
Geotechnical Engineer prior to the issuance
of building permits or grading permits,
whichever comes first, to ensure that all
geotechnical recommendations specified in
the geotechnical recommendations
City Engineer
Chief Building
Official
Qualified
Geotechnical
Engineer
Prior to issuance of
building permits or
grading permits,
whichever comes
first
EXHIBIT C
2518
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Would the project be
located on a geologic
unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would
become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Would the project be
located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table
18-1B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or
property?
specified in the Geotechnical Investigation
prepared for the proposed project by
Cornerstone Earth Group are properly
incorporated and utilized in the project
design.
VII-2. In the event that Trail Connection Option 2 –
Undercrossing at Isabel Bridge or Trail
Connection Option 3 – Overcrossing of
Isabel Avenue/SR 84 is the selected Trail
Connection Option for the proposed project,
in conjunction with the submittal of
improvement plans associated with the
proposed above-grade crossing, a final
design-level geotechnical report shall be
prepared and submitted to the City for review
and approval. The site-specific geotechnical
report shall be prepared by a Stateregistered civil engineer with the purpose of observing and sampling the subsurface
conditions encountered at the proposed
undercrossing or above-grade crossing sites
and providing conclusions and
recommendations relative to each crossing,
as proposed. The recommendations
presented therein shall be based on analysis
of the data obtained during the geotechnical
investigation and the local experience of the
civil engineer regarding similar soil and
geologic conditions. All recommendations
set forth in the final design-level
geotechnical report shall be appropriately
incorporated into the design of the project
City Engineer In the event that
Trail Connection
Option 2 or Trail
Connection Option
3 is the selected
trail connection
option for the
proposed project in
conjunction with the
submittal of
improvement plans
associated with the
proposed abovegrade crossing
EXHIBIT C
2519
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
and shall be subject to review and approval
by the City Engineer.
VII-f. Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature?
VII-3. 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, as
well as the off-site trail improvement areas.
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.
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Prior to any grounddisturbing activities
EXHIBIT C
2520
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
IX-b. Create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment through
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident
conditions involving the
likely release of
hazardous materials into
the environment?
IX-1. Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, the
groundwater well observed along the
western boundary of SMP 39 shall be
assessed to determine whether it is located
on-site. If the well is determined to be
located on-site, the project applicant shall
hire a licensed contractor to obtain the
applicable abandonment permit from
Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health (ACDEH), and
properly abandon the on-site well for review
and approval by the ACDEH.
In addition, the licensed contractor shall
contact Zone 7 regarding its well located
towards the middle of the SMP 39 site, and
if feasible, obtain the applicable
abandonment permit from ACDEH to
properly abandon the well. Alternatively, if
required by Zone 7, the applicant shall
implement other measures identified by
Zone 7, such as providing any necessary
upgrades or adjustments to the well and/or
well box elevation to match the final grade.
IX-2. In the event that Trail Connection Option 2 –
Undercrossing at Isabel Bridge or Trail
Connection Option 3 – Overcrossing of
Isabel Avenue/SR 84 is the selected Trail
Connection Option for the proposed project,
in conjunction with the submittal of
improvement plans associated with the
proposed above-grade crossing, a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall
Alameda
County
Department of
Environmental
Health
(ACDEH)
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
City of
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Prior to any grounddisturbing activities
In the event that
Trail Connection
Option 2 or Trail
Connection Option
3 is the selected
trail connection
option for the
proposed project in
conjunction with the
EXHIBIT C
2521
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
March 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
be prepared and submitted to the City for
review and approval. The Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall
be prepared by a licensed contractor with the
purpose of observing and assessing the
conditions encountered at the proposed
undercrossing or above-grade crossing sites
and providing conclusions and
recommendations relative to any hazardous
conditions or materials identified on-site. All
recommendations set forth in the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall
be appropriately incorporated into the project
and shall be subject to review and approval
by the City of Livermore Community
Development Department.
submittal of
improvement plans
associated with the
proposed abovegrade crossing
EXHIBIT C
2522
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
4.3-3 Have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS, or State or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Trail Connection Option 2 – Undercrossing at Isabel Bridge 4.3-3(a) Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall submit a formal wetland delineation to the USACE for Trail Connection Option 2 for verification to determine the extent of all hydrological features, their jurisdictional status, and the extent of any impacts resulting from the proposed project. A copy of the wetland delineation and USACE verification letter shall be submitted to the City of Livermore Community Development Department. If Trail Connection Option 2 will result in impacts to features under the USACE’s jurisdiction, Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(e) shall be required.
Trail Connection Option 2 – Undercrossing at Isabel Bridge 4.3-3(b) In the event that Trail Connection Option 2 – Undercrossing at Isabel Bridge is the selected Trail Connection Option for the proposed project, implement Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 and 4.5-2 related to the preparation of a SWPPP and final Stormwater Control Plan and Maintenance Plan during project construction and operations, respectively.
SMP 40 and Trail Connection Option 2 4.3-3(c) Prior to the commencement of groundCity of Livermore Community Development Department USACE City’s Public Works Director City Engineer City of Livermore Public Works Department City of Livermore
Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities Prior to the issuance of any grading permits Prior to commencement of
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2523
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
disturbing activities for SMP 40 or Trail Connection Option 2, if selected, the project contractor shall notify CDFW pursuant to Section 1600 of the CFGC. The notification shall include a description of all of the activities associated with the proposed project, not just those associated with the drainages and/or riparian vegetation. Impacts shall be outlined in the notification and are expected to be in substantial conformance with the impacts to biological resources outlined in the Biological Resources Assessments prepared for SMP 40 by Monk & Associates. Impacts for each activity shall be broken down by temporary and permanent impacts. A description of the proposed mitigation for biological resource impacts shall be outlined per activity and then by temporary and permanent impact. Information regarding project-specific drainage and hydrology changes resulting from project implementation shall be provided, as well as a description of stormwater treatment methods. Minimization and avoidance measures shall be proposed, as appropriate, and may include the following:
To avoid fuels, lubricants, soils and
other pollutants from entering Arroyo Mocho, wildlife friendly hay wattles (that is, no mono-filament netting) and silt fencing shall be installed at Community Development Department
ground-disturbing activities for SMP 40 or Trail Connection Option 2 (if selected)
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2524
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
the top of bank. The use of mulch or any other substitute that may enter into the creek shall be prohibited. Staging, operation and maintenance
of heavy duty construction equipmentshall be located away from ArroyoMocho at all times and well outside ofthe riparian corridor unless theequipment is needed to specificallywork on the realignment of ArroyoMocho or the outfalls for the project. To mitigate for any impacts to the
riparian corridor of Arroyo Mocho,disturbed areas shall be revegetatedwith native riparian plant species.Replacement of riparian trees to beremoved shall be planted near thecreek as feasible and/or adjacent tothe existing limits of the ripariancorridor to contribute to the existingriparian canopy. Riparian plantingsshall be maintained for a minimum of5 years to ensure that the canopy isenhanced and the understoryrestored. Non-native and invasive ornamental
landscaping shall be precluded fromuse proximate to Arroyo Mocho. To avoid debris from entering Arroyo
Mocho, the final project design shallprovide for enclosed and accessibletrash receptacles (located outside ofthe riparian corridor).
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2525
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
New lighting introduced by the project
shall be downcast and precluded from spilling over to the riparian corridor as direct lighting along creek corridors has a negative impact on nocturnal wildlife.
Mitigation shall not result in a net loss of a Sensitive Natural Community. Written verification of Section 1600 of the LSAA shall be submitted to the City of Livermore Community Development Department.
Trail Connection Option 2 – Undercrossing at Isabel Bridge 4.3-3(d) Prior to the initiation of groundbreaking activity associated with Trail Connection Option 2, if selected, the project applicant shall ensure that authorization pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control board (RWQCB) is obtained. If Trail Connection Option 2 will result in impacts to features under the RWQCB’s jurisdiction, the construction contractor shall adhere to all conditions outlined in the permit. The project applicant shall ensure that the proposed project replaces, restores, or enhances on a “no net loss” basis (in accordance with the RWQCB) the acreage of all riparian habitat and waters of the State that would be removed, lost, and/or The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control board (RWQCB) Prior to the initiation of ground-breaking activity associated with Trail Connection Option 2 (if selected)
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2526
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
degraded due to project implementation by methods agreeable to the RWQCB and the City, as appropriate, depending on agency jurisdiction, and as determined during the Section 401 permitting processes. Methods include, but are not limited to implementation of a riparian enhancement planting plan and/or tree planting mitigation at a 1:1 ratio, or as otherwise prescribed by the RWQCB.
Trail Connection Option 2 – Undercrossing at Isabel Bridge
4.3-3(e) If it is determined that work below the OHWM
cannot be avoided for Trail Connection Option 2, prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall apply for a CWA Section 404 permit from the USACE. Waters that would be lost or disturbed shall be restored, replaced, or rehabilitated on a “no-net-loss” basis. Habitat restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement, including the purchase of credits from a USACE approved mitigation bank at a 1:1 ratio, shall be at a location and by methods acceptable to the USACE. Documentation of compliance with the provisions set forth herein shall be submitted to the City of Livermore Community Development Department for verification.
City of Livermore Community Development Department USACE Prior to issuance of grading permits, if it is determined that work below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) cannot be avoided for Trail Connection Option 2 (if selected) Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
4.4-2 Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
4.4-2 In the event a potentially significant cultural
resource is encountered during subsurface
The Confederated
In the event a potentially
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2527
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
significance of a unique archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5. earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease and workers shall avoid altering the materials until an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology has evaluated the find. The project applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The qualified archeologist shall make recommendations to the City of Livermore on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including, but not limited to, culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment, which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation, and/or reburial on the project site so the resource(s) are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity. In addition, The Confederated Villages of Lisjan shall be notified of the discovery. If avoidance is determined to be infeasible, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. If necessary, excavation and evaluation of the finds shall Villages of Lisjan City of Livermore Community Development Department The Northwest Information Center (NWIC) The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2528
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
comply with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Potentially significant archaeological site
indicators include obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils. Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and fire-affected stones. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project site shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and will be submitted to the City of Livermore, the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as required.
4.4-3 Disturb any human
remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
4.4-3 In the event of the accidental discovery or
recognition of any human remains, further excavation or disturbance of the find or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall not occur until compliance with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1) and (2) has occurred. The Guidelines specify that in the event of the discovery of human remains other than in a dedicated cemetery, no further excavation at the site or any nearby Alameda County Coroner Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2529
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
area suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the Alameda County Coroner has been notified to determine if an investigation into the cause of death is required. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, then, within 24 hours, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which in turn will notify the most likely descendants who may recommend treatment of the remains and any grave goods. The potential exists that the NAHC may be unable to identify a most likely descendant, the most likely descendant fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after notification by the NAHC, or the landowner or his authorized agent rejects the recommendation by the most likely descendant and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide a measure acceptable to the landowner. In such case, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the human remains and grave goods with appropriate dignity at a location on the property not subject to further disturbances. Should human remains be encountered, a copy of the resulting County Coroner report noting any written consultation with the NAHC shall be submitted as proof of compliance to the City of Livermore Community Development Department.
City of Livermore Community Development Department
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2530
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
4.4-4 Cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074.
4.4-4 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.4-2 and
4.4-3.
See Mitigation
Measures 4.4-2 and 4.4-3
See Mitigation Measures 4.4-2 and 4.4-3
Hydrology and Water Quality
4.5-1 Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality during construction.
4.5-1 Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the
contractor shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The contractor shall file the Notice of Intent (NOI) and associated fee to the SWRCB. A separate SWPPP shall be prepared for SMP 39 and SMP 40 (including the off-site trail connection area) if the components of the project are not constructed concurrently. The SWPPP shall serve as the framework for identification, assignment, and implementation of BMPs. The contractor shall implement BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. Construction (temporary) BMPs for the project may include, but are not limited to: fiber rolls, straw bale barrier, straw wattles, storm drain inlet protection, velocity dissipation devices, silt fences, wind erosion control, stabilized construction entrance, hydroseeding, revegetation techniques, and dust control measures. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City’s Director of Public Works and the City Engineer for review and City of Livermore Public Works Director City Engineer
Prior to issuance of any grading permits
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2531
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
approval and shall remain on the project site during all phases of construction. Following implementation of the SWPPP, the contractor shall subsequently demonstrate the SWPPP’s effectiveness and provide for necessary and appropriate revisions, modifications, and improvements to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable.
4.5-2 Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality during operations.
4.5-2(a) Prior to approval of final project improvement plans for SMP 39, SMP 40, and the selected off-site trail connection option, a final Stormwater Control Plan and Maintenance Plan shall be submitted to the City Director of Public Works, and the City Engineer for review and approval. A separate Stormwater Control Plan and Maintenance Plan shall be prepared for SMP 39, SMP 40, and the selected off-site trail connection option, if the components of the project are not constructed concurrently. The final Stormwater Control Plan and Maintenance Plan shall be in compliance with all applicable provisions of the C.3 Standards, and shall meet the standards of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater BMP Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment. Site design measures, source control measures, hydromodification management, and Low Impact Development (LID) standards, as necessary, shall be incorporated into the design and shown on the improvement City of Livermore Public Works Director City Engineer City of Livermore Public Works Department Prior to approval of final project improvement plans for SMP 39, SMP 40, and the selected off-site trail connection option
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2532
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
plans. The final plans shall include calculations demonstrating that the water quality BMPs are appropriately sized, using methodology in the CASQA Stormwater BMP Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment. The final plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval.
4.5-2(b) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-3(b)
through 4.3-3(e).
See Mitigation Measures 4.3-3(b) through 4.3-3(e)
See Mitigation Measures 4.3-3(b) through 4.3-3(e)
4.5-4 Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
4.5-4 Prior to approval of final project improvement
plans for SMP 39, SMP 40, and the selected off-site trail connection option, a final drainage plan shall be submitted to the City Director of Public Works, and the City Engineer for review and approval demonstrating the project’s compliance with all State stormwater standards and requirements. A separate drainage plan shall be prepared for SMP 39, SMP 40, and the selected off-site trail connection option, if the components of the project are not constructed concurrently. The final drainage plan shall identify the water quality treatment and source control measures needed to ensure that stormwater runoff from the proposed project is adequately treated and peak flows do not exceed the capacity of the receiving storm drainage system.
City of Livermore Public Works Director City Engineer
Prior to approval of final project improvement plans for SMP 39, SMP 40, and the selected off-site trail connection option
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2533
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
additional sources of polluted runoff; or result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
4.5-5 Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows, or in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
4.5-5 Prior to Building Permit issuance for SMP 39
(if buildings are determined to be within a SFHA) and SMP 40, the City or applicant shall obtain from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Federal Emergency Management Agency Chief Building Official Prior to Building Permit issuance for SMP 39 (if buildings are determined to be within a Special Flood Hazard Zone [SFHA]) and SMP 40 Noise
4.6-1 Generation of a
substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
4.6-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the
chosen off-site trail connection option, the project applicant shall prepare a construction noise management plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding sensitive land uses and include specific noise management measures to be included within the plans and specifications for the trail connection option, subject to review and approval by the City of Livermore Community Development Department. The project applicant shall demonstrate, to the
City of Livermore Community Development Department
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the chosen off-site trail connection option
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2534
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
satisfaction of the City, that the project complies with the following:
All heavy construction equipment
used on the proposed project shall be maintained in good operating condition, with all internal combustion, engine-driven equipment fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. All mobile or fixed noise producing
equipment used on the proposed project that is regulated for noise output by a local, state, or federal agency shall comply with such regulations while involved with a project activity. Where feasible, electrically-powered
equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment. All stationary noise-generating
equipment shall be located as far away as possible from the nearest residential uses. Signs prohibiting unnecessary idling
of internal combustion engines shall be posted at entrances to construction sites and at construction equipment staging areas. The use of noise-producing signals,
including horns, whistles, alarms and
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2535
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
bells shall be for safety warning purposes only.
The use of temporary sound barriers
shall be incorporated along the outer work area of the construction site, east of Isabel Avenue/SR 84. Barrier height and location(s) shall be determined by a qualified acoustical engineer to ensure that the resultant construction noise levels at the nearest residence would meet the applicable standard. The sound barrier fencing shall consist of 0.5-inch plywood or minimum STC 27 sound curtains placed to shield nearby sensitive receptors. The plywood barrier shall be free from gaps, openings, or penetrations to ensure maximum performance.
Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems
4.7-8 Increase in demand for
utilities and service systems associated with the proposed project, in combination with future buildout of the Livermore General Plan.
4.7-8(a) Prior to approval of improvement plans, the
project applicant shall pay the applicable sewer fair share fees to the City of Livermore Community Development Department. Payment of such fees shall be made in compliance with Livermore Municipal Code Chapter 13.28.
4.7-8(b) In conjunction with submittal of improvement
plans for SMP 39 or SMP 40, whichever is developed second as part of the proposed project, the project applicant shall submit an City of Livermore Community Development Department City of Livermore Community Prior to approval of improvement plans In conjunction with submittal of improvement plans for SMP 39 or SMP
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2536
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
analysis of the pumping capacity available at the Airport Lift Station to convey additional flows generated by SMP 39 and SMP 40. The lift station capacity analysis shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. According to the 2022 Airport Lift Station Analysis prepared by West Yost Associates, the City of Livermore has indicated that the pumping capacity necessary to accommodate SMP 39 and SMP 40 would be 2,088 gallons per minute (gpm). The subsequent evaluation shall confirm the aforementioned estimate and be submitted for review and approval to the City of Livermore Community Development Department.
If the Airport Lift Station pumping capacity is
determined to be inadequate, the project applicant shall ensure the pumping capacity is increased to the necessary gpm determined by the subsequent analysis, with all design recommendations contained therein incorporated into the improvement plans for SMP 39 or SMP 40, whichever is developed second as part of the proposed project. Incorporation of the design recommendations to increase the Airport Lift Station pumping capacity shall be submitted for review and approval to the City Engineer.
Development Department
40, whichever is developed second as part of the proposed project
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2537
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Transportation
4.8-1 Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system during construction activities.
4.8-1 Prior to grading permit issuance for the SMP
39 and SMP 40 sites, as well as the chosen off-site trail connection option, the project applicant shall prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall include the following:
A project staging plan to maximize
on-site storage of materials and equipment;
A set of comprehensive traffic control
measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak hours; lane closure proceedings; signs, cones and other warning devices for drivers; and designation of construction access routes; Provisions for maintaining adequate
emergency access to the project site;
Permitted construction hours, per
City of Livermore standards;
Designated locations for construction
staging areas;
Identification of parking areas for
construction employees, site visitors, and inspectors, including on-site locations; Signs posted at the entrances to the
construction sites noting who to
City Engineer Prior to grading
permit issuance for the SMP 39 and SMP 40 sites, as well as the chosen off-site trail connection option
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2538
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
contact if there are questions or concerns, along with a contact phone number; and Provisions for street sweeping to
remove construction-related debris on public streets.
4.8-3 Conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
4.8-3 Prior to the issuance of the first building
permit, the project applicant shall be
required to develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for SMP 39 and SMP 40. The TDM Program shall be monitored by the project applicant/operator on an annual basis to determine the efficacy of the selected TDM strategies in achieving the reduction below the regional average VMT per employee of three percent (i.e., the performance target). An Annual Status Report on the TDM Program shall be submitted to the City of Livermore Engineering Division beginning a year after the issuance of any certificate of occupancy and shall include details on the TDM strategies, including an Employer Carpool Program which has a goal to reduce VMT per employee by approximately four percent and, thus, would meet and exceed the performance target. The Employer Carpool Program shall implement a ridesharing program and establish a permanent transportation management association with funding requirements for employers. Data shall be collected in October of each year and the Annual Status City of Livermore Engineering Division Chief Building Official Prior to the issuance of the first building permit
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2539
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Report shall be submitted by December 31st of each year. The report shall be prepared in the form and format designated by the City. The data shall include project-generated VMT estimates compatible with the methodology used to estimate the benchmark VMT so that performance comparisons can be made. If the Annual Status Report demonstrates that the project is not in compliance with the performance target set forth in this mitigation measure, the project must incorporate additional TDM strategies to meet the performance target in coordination with City staff. The project applicant/operator may propose new TDM strategies that develop over time to further reduce project-generated VMT if substantial evidence is provided to support the efficacy of the strategy. If the Annual Status Reports demonstrate that the performance target has been achieved for three consecutive years once SMP 39 and SMP 40 are both fully occupied and operational, the project shall no longer need to provide annual reporting.
Initial Study
I-a,b. Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, I-1. In the event that Trail Connection Option 3 –
Overcrossing of Isabel Avenue/SR 84 is the selected Trail Connection Option for the proposed project, improvement plans associated with the proposed above-grade crossing shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Department for City of Livermore Community Development Department
In the event that Trail Connection Option 3 is the selected trail connection option for the proposed project
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2540
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? review and approval to ensure that the proposed above-grade crossing is constructed using soft earth tone colors that help the bridge blend in with the surrounding landscape.
VII-a.iii, a.iv,c,d.
Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction or landslides? Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct VII-1. All grading and foundation plans for the
development shall be designed by a Civil and Structural Engineer and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, Chief Building Official, and a qualified Geotechnical Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits or grading permits, whichever comes first, to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the geotechnical recommendations specified in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the proposed project by Cornerstone Earth Group are properly incorporated and utilized in the project design.
VII-2. In the event that Trail Connection Option 2 –
Undercrossing at Isabel Bridge or Trail Connection Option 3 – Overcrossing of Isabel Avenue/SR 84 is the selected Trail Connection Option for the proposed project, in conjunction with the submittal of improvement plans associated with the proposed above-grade crossing, a final design-level geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. The site-specific geotechnical report shall be prepared by a StateCity Engineer Chief Building Official Qualified Geotechnical Engineer City Engineer Prior to issuance of building permits or grading permits, whichever comes first In the event that Trail Connection Option 2 or Trail Connection Option 3 is the selected trail connection option for the proposed project in conjunction with the submittal of improvement plans associated with the
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2541
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
or indirect risks to life or property?
registered civil engineer with the purpose of observing and sampling the subsurface conditions encountered at the proposed undercrossing or above-grade crossing sites and providing conclusions and recommendations relative to each crossing, as proposed. The recommendations presented therein shall be based on analysis of the data obtained during the geotechnical investigation and the local experience of the civil engineer regarding similar soil and geologic conditions. All recommendations set forth in the final design-level geotechnical report shall be appropriately incorporated into the design of the project and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. proposed abovegrade crossing
VII-f. Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? VII-3. 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, as well as the off-site trail improvement areas. 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 City of Livermore Community Development Department
Prior to any grounddisturbing activities
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2542
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
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.
IX-b. Create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? IX-1. Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, the
groundwater well observed along the western boundary of SMP 39 shall be assessed to determine whether it is located on-site. If the well is determined to be located on-site, the project applicant shall hire a licensed contractor to obtain the applicable abandonment permit from Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH), and properly abandon the on-site well for review and approval by the ACDEH. In addition, the licensed contractor shall contact Zone 7 regarding its well located towards the middle of the SMP 39 site, and if feasible, obtain the applicable Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) City of Livermore Community Development Department Prior to any grounddisturbing activities
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2543
Final EIR
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
January 2024
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
SMP 39/SMP 40 Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
abandonment permit from ACDEH to properly abandon the well. Alternatively, if required by Zone 7, the applicant shall implement other measures identified by Zone 7, such as providing any necessary upgrades or adjustments to the well and/or well box elevation to match the final grade.
IX-2. In the event that Trail Connection Option 2 –
Undercrossing at Isabel Bridge or Trail Connection Option 3 – Overcrossing of Isabel Avenue/SR 84 is the selected Trail Connection Option for the proposed project, in conjunction with the submittal of improvement plans associated with the proposed above-grade crossing, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be prepared by a licensed contractor with the purpose of observing and assessing the conditions encountered at the proposed undercrossing or above-grade crossing sites and providing conclusions and recommendations relative to any hazardous conditions or materials identified on-site. All recommendations set forth in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be appropriately incorporated into the project and shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Livermore Community Development Department.
City of Livermore Community Development Department
In the event that Trail Connection Option 2 or Trail Connection Option 3 is the selected trail connection option for the proposed project in conjunction with the submittal of improvement plans associated with the proposed abovegrade crossing
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2544
APPENDIX E
Sample Implementation Documents
The responsibility for implementation of the policies set forth in the compatibility plans adopted by airport land use commissions rests largely with the affected local jurisdictions. Implementation tools fall into the categories of notification and regulation. The state requires certain notification requirements effective January 1, 2004 (as a result of Assembly Bill 2776). Additional notification, in the form of a recorded deed notice, may also be appropriate. Regulation may take the form of individual property restrictions (avigation easements) or additional development controls in areas within the vicinity of an airport (an airport combining zone ordinance).
Required Notification—State law requires any person who intends to offer subdivided lands within California for sale or lease to file with the Department of Real Estate an application for a public report consisting of a notice of intention and a completed questionnaire. The notice shall include, for property within an AIA to include the following notice:
NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY
This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you.
Recorded Deed Notice—Deed notices are a form of buyer awareness measure whose objective is to ensure that prospective buyers of airport area property, particularly residential property, are informed about the airport’s impact on the property. Unlike easements, deed notices do not convey property rights from the property owner to the airport and do not restrict the height of objects. They only document the existence of certain conditions which affect the property— such as the proximity of the airport and common occurrence of aircraft overflights at or below the airport traffic pattern altitude. ALUCs may make recording of deed notices a requirement for project approval within portions of the airport influence area where avigation easements are not essential. Included in this Appendix is sample of a deed notice (from the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, 2002).
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2545
Avigation Easement—Avigation easements transfer certain property rights from the owner of the underlying property to the owner of an airport. ALUCs may require avigation easement dedication as a condition for approval of development on property subject to high noise levels or a need to restrict heights of structures and trees to less than what might ordinarily occur on the property. Also, airports may require avigation easements in conjunction with programs for noise insulation of existing structures in the airport vicinity. Included in this Appendix is a sample avigation easement (from the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, 2002).
Airport Combining Zone Ordinance—An additional type of implementation document available to local jurisdictions is an airport combining zone ordinance. Possible components for such an ordinance are described in Table E-1.
TABLE E-1
POSSIBLE AIRPORT COMBINING ZONE COMPONENTS
An airport compatibility combining zoning ordinance might include some or all of the following components:
• Airspace Protection—A combining district can
establish restrictions on the height of buildings,
antennas, trees, and other objects as necessary to
protect the airspace needed for operation of the airport.
These restrictions should be based upon the current
version of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77,
Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, Subpart C.
Additions or adjustment to take into account instrument approach (TERPS) surfaces should be made as
necessary. Provisions prohibiting smoke, glare, bird
attractions, and other hazards to flight should also be included.
• FAA Notification Requirements—Combining districts
also can be used to ensure that project developers are
informed about the need for compliance with the
notification requirements of FAR Part 77. Subpart B of
the regulations requires that the proponent of any project which exceeds a specified set of height criteria submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form
7460-1) to the Federal Aviation Administration prior to commencement of construction. The height criteria
associated with this notification requirement are lower than those spelled out in Part 77, Subpart C, which
define airspace obstructions. The purpose of the
notification is to determine if the proposed construction would constitute a potential hazard or obstruction to
flight. Notification is not required for proposed structures that would be shielded by existing structures or by
natural terrain of equal or greater height, where it is obvious that the proposal would not adversely affect air safety.
• Maximum Densities/Intensities—Airport noise and
safety compatibility criteria are frequently expressed in terms of dwelling units per acre for residential uses and people per acre for other land uses. These standards
can either be directly included in a combining zone or
used to modify the underlying land use designations.
For residential land uses, the correlation between the
compatibility criteria and land use designations is
direct. For other land uses, the method of calculating
the intensity limitations needs to be defined.
Alternatively, a matrix can be established indicating
whether each specific type of land use is compatible
with each compatibility zone. To be useful, the land use categories need to be more detailed than typically
provided by general plan or zoning ordinance land use
designations.
• Open Areas for Emergency Landing of Aircraft—In
most circumstances in which an accident involving a
small aircraft occurs near an airport, the aircraft is
under control as it descends. When forced to make an
off-airport emergency landing, pilots will usually attempt to do so in the most open area readily available. To
enhance safety both for people on the ground and the
occupants of aircraft, airport compatibility plans often contain criteria requiring a certain amount of open land near airports. These criteria are most effectively carried out by planning at the general or specific plan level, but may also need to be included in a combining district so that they will be applied to development of large
parcels. Adequate open areas can often be provided by
clustering of development on adjacent land.
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2546
TABLE E-1
POSSIBLE AIRPORT COMBINING ZONE COMPONENTS
An airport compatibility combining zoning ordinance might include some or all of the following components:
• State Regulation of Obstructions—State law prohibits
anyone from constructing or altering a structure or
permitting an object of natural growth to exceed the
heights established by FAR Part 77, Subpart C, unless
the FAA has determined the object would not or does not constitute a hazard to air navigation (Public Utilities Code, Section 21659). Additionally, a permit from the
Department of Transportation is required for any
structure taller than 500 feet above the ground unless
the height is reviewed and approved by the Federal
Communications Commission or the FAA
(Section 21656).
• Designation of High Noise-Impact Areas—California
state statutes require that multi-family residential
structures in high-noise exposure areas be constructed
so as to limit the interior noise to a Community Noise
Equivalent Level of no more than 45 dB. A combining
district could be used to indicate the locations where
special construction techniques may be necessary in
order to ensure compliance with this requirement. The
combining district also could extend this criterion to
single-family dwellings.
• Areas of Special Compatibility Concern—A
significant drawback of standard general plan and
zoning ordinance land use designations is that they can be changed. Uses that are currently compatible are not
assured of staying that way in the future. Designation
of areas of special compatibility concern would serve
as a reminder that airport impacts should be carefully
considered in any decision to change the existing land
use designation. [A legal consideration which supports
the value of this concept is that down-zoning of a
property to a less intensive use is becoming more
difficult. It is much better not to have inappropriately up-zoned the property in the first place.]
• Real Estate Disclosure Policies—The geographic
extent and specific language of recommended real
estate disclosure statements can be described in an
airport combining zone ordinance.
Sample Avigation Easement
This indenture made this _____ day of _____________, 20___, between____________________ herein after referred to as Grantor, and the [Insert County or City name], a political subdivision in the State of California, hereinafter referred to as Grantee. The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual and assignable easement over the following described parcel of land in which the Grantor holds a fee simple estate. The property which is subject to this easement is depicted as ___________________ on “Exhibit A” attached and is more particularly described as follows:
[Insert legal description of real property] The easement applies to the Airspace above an imaginary plane over the real property. The plane is described as follows:
The imaginary plane above the hereinbefore described real property, as such plane is defined by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and consists of a plane [describe approach, transition, or horizontal surface]; the elevation of said plane being based upon the ______________ Airport official runway end elevation of ________ feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), as determined by [Insert name and Date of Survey or Airport Layout Plan that determines the elevation] the approximate dimensions of which said plane are described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2547
The aforesaid easement and right-of-way includes, but is not limited to:
1) For the use and benefit of the public, the easement and continuing right to fly, or cause or permit the flight by any and all persons, or any aircraft, of any and all kinds now or hereafter known, in, through, across, or about any portion of the Airspace hereinabove described; and
2) The easement and right to cause or create, or permit or allow to be caused or created within all space above the existing surface of the hereinabove described real property and any and all Airspace laterally adjacent to said real property, such noise, vibration, currents and other effects of air, illumination, and fuel consumption as may be inherent in, or may arise or occur from or during the operation of aircraft of any and all kinds, now or hereafter known or used, for navigation of or flight in air; and 3) A continuing right to clear and keep clear from the Airspace any portions of buildings, structures, or improvements of any kinds, and of trees or other objects, including the right to remove or demolish those portions of such buildings, structures, improvements, trees, or other things which extend into or above said Airspace, and the right to cut to the ground level and remove, any trees which extend into or above the Airspace; and 4) The right to mark and light, or cause or require to be marked or lighted, as obstructions to air navigation, any and all buildings, structures, or other improvements, and trees or other objects, which extend into or above the Airspace; and
5) The right of ingress to, passage within, and egress from the hereinabove described real property, for the purposes described in subparagraphs (3) and (4) above at reasonable times and after reasonable notice.
For and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, the Grantor hereby covenants with the [Insert County or City name], for the direct benefit of the real property constituting the ________________ Airport hereinafter described, that neither the Grantor, nor its successors in interest or assigns will construct, install, erect, place or grow in or upon the hereinabove described real property, nor will they permit to allow, any building structure, improvement, tree or other object which extends into or above the Airspace, or which constitutes an obstruction to air navigation, or which obstructs or interferes with the use of the easement and rights-of-way herein granted.
The easements and rights-of-way herein granted shall be deemed both appurtenant to and for the direct benefit of that real property which constitutes the __________________ Airport, in the [Insert County or City name], State of California; and shall further be deemed in gross, being conveyed to the Grantee for the benefit of the Grantee and any and all members of the general public who may use said easement or right-of-way, in landing at, taking off from or operating such aircraft in or about the __________________ Airport, or in otherwise flying through said Airspace.
Grantor, together with its successors in interest and assigns, hereby waives its right to legal action against Grantee, its successors, or assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts, as described in Paragraph (2) of the granted rights of easement, associated with aircraft operations in
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2548
the air or on the ground at the airport, including future increases in the volume or changes in location of said operations. Furthermore, Grantor, its successors, and assigns shall have no duty to avoid or mitigate such damages through physical modification of airport facilities or establishment or modification of aircraft operational procedures or restrictions. However, this waiver shall not apply if the airport role or character of its usage (as identified in an adopted airport master plan, for example) changes in a fundamental manner which could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time of the granting of this easement and which results in a substantial increase in the impacts associated with aircraft operations. Also, this grant of easement shall not operate to deprive the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any rights which may from time to time have against any air carrier or private operator for negligent or unlawful operation of aircraft.
These covenants and agreements run with the land and are binding upon the heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns of the Grantor, and, for the purpose of this instrument, the real property firstly hereinabove described is the servient tenement and said __________________ Airport is the dominant tenement.
DATED: ________________
STATE OF:
COUNTY OF:
On _____________, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared _____________, and ____________ known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
_______________________________________________________________ Notary Public
Sample Deed Notice
A statement similar to the following should be included on the deed for any real property subject to the deed notice requirements set forth in the [Insert ALUC name] Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Such notice should be recorded by the county of [Insert County name]. Also, this deed notice should be included on any parcel map, tentative map, or final map for subdivision approval.
The Alameda County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and [Insert County/City name] Ordinance (Ordinance No. ___________ ) identify a [Insert Airport name] Airport Influence Area. Properties within this area are routinely subject to overflights by aircraft using this publicuse airport and, as a result, residents may experience inconvenience, annoyance, or discomfort arising from the noise of such operations. State law (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) establishes the importance of public-use airports to protection of the public interest of the people
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2549
of the state of California. Residents of property near such airports should therefore be prepared to accept the inconvenience, annoyance, or discomfort from normal aircraft operations. Residents also should be aware that the current volume of aircraft activity may increase in the future in response to Alameda County population and economic growth. Any subsequent deed conveying this parcel or subdivisions thereof shall contain a statement in substantially this form.
Sample Overflight Notification
This Overflight Notificaiton concerns the real property situated in the City of __________, County of Alameda, State of California, described as _______ [APN]________.
This Overflight Notification provides notification of the condition of the above described property in recognition of, and in compliance with, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE Section 11010 and CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353, effective January 1, 2004, and related state and local regulations and consistent with policies of the Airport Land Use Commission for Alameda County for overflight notification provided in the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over the operation of aircraft in flight and on the runway and taxiway surfaces at Livermore Municipal Airport. The FAA is, therefore, exclusively responsible for airspace and air traffic management, including ensuring the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace, developing air traffic rules, assigning the use of airspace and controlling air traffic. Please contact the FAA for more detailed information regarding overflight and airspace protection issues associated with the operation of aircraft.
The Airport Operator, The City of Livermore, maintains information regarding hours of operation and other relevant information regarding airport operations. Please contact your local airport operator for more detailed information regarding airport-specific operational issues including hours of operation.
This Overflight Notification shall run with the Property and shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title, or interest in the Property.
Effective Date: ________, 20__
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2550
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2551
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2552
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2553
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2554
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2555
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2556
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2557
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2558
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2559
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2560
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2561
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2562
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2563
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2564
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2565
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2566
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2567
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2568
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2569
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2570
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2571
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2572
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2573
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2574
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2575
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2576
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2577
EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C
2578
ORDINANCE NO. ___
IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING ANNEXATION/PREZONING (APZ) 21-003, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – INDUSTRIAL (PD-I) 22-001, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 21-005, AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (ZMA) 21-002 OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE FOR THE SMP 39/SMP 40 PROJECT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recommendation. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 5, 2024, to consider Planned Development – Industrial 22-001 and recommended that the City Council approve the Planned Development in Planning Commission Resolution No.03-24, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2. Environmental. The City Council considered the environmental review and certified the SMP 39/SMP 40 Final Environmental Impact Report by Resolution No. ____.
Section 3. Consistency. The ordinance is consistent with the Livermore General Plan, any applicable specific plan, and the Livermore Development Code.
Section 4. Adoption. The City Council of the City of Livermore has considered the findings made in Planning Commission Resolution No.03-24, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and hereby adopts the same findings by this reference and incorporates them as part of this resolution, and based upon the City Council’s own independent review and considerations, the City Council hereby approves Annexation/Prezoning (APZ) 21-003 to pre-zone the Subject Property to Planned Development – Industrial 22-001 and Open Space-Floodplain, Planned Development - Industrial (PD-I) 22-001, Development Code Amendment (DCA) 21-005, and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) 21-002, amending the Zoning Map of the City of Livermore as shown in the attached Exhibit B.
Section 5. Zoning Standards. The zoning standards for this district shall be those set forth in the Planned Development - Industrial (PD-I) 22-001 Standards, attached hereto as Exhibit C.
Section 6. Publication and Effective Date. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Livermore within 15 days after its adoption and shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its adoption.
Section 7. Filing. The Planning Manager is directed to file a Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk.
2579
ORDINANCE NO. ___
Section 8. Documents. The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based on can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore, California.
Section 9. Severability. If any part of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid by a court, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any remaining parts.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Livermore held on March 25, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
The ordinance was adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council held on ______________________, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
________________________________
Mayor, City of Livermore
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ /s/ Kimberly D. Cilley
Deborah L. Elam Kimberly D. Cilley
Acting City Clerk Senior Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – Planning Commission Resolution No. 03-24
Exhibit B – Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) 21-002
Exhibit C – Planned Development – Industrial 22-001 Zoning Standards 2580
EXHIBIT A
2581
EXHIBIT A
2582
EXHIBIT A
2583
EXHIBIT A
2584
EXHIBIT A
2585
EXHIBIT A
2586
EXHIBIT A
2587
EXHIBIT A
2588
EXHIBIT A
2589
£-
•••••••••••••• =-cfPD 18-0QS
----
0 Q'.
2,844.8 9 1,422.39
NAD _ 1983_2011_StatePlane_ Califomia_lll_FIPS_0403_Ft_US Information Technologies, GIS Division, City of Livermore 2,844.8 Feet
E
AIR-OP
AIR-SE
1-2
Water
Rcr ;;�tion ��!').I I
Date Printed: 2fl /'2024
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. The City of Livermore is not responsible for misuse or errors or omissions on this map. All information should be confirmed City limits
Major Streets(> 62.500)
Collector Street Names (2500-
Creeks
Public Facilities (4500-100000
Park Names (4500-100,000)
School Names (4500-24,000)
Streets
lrterslale
Oller Freeway or �ressway
M�•
Col'alctor
Loc•
Ramp
Private Streets
Railroad
Lakes
Creeks
Public Facilities
Fire Sta�-;,r,
PollceFoc11ty
Other Gov1 Foc,�ty
Schools
Parks
Parcels
TDC Site
1-580 Adopted Planlines
Zoning Districts
Ru-al Reo1denllal (RR)
LowDens1tyReside11Jal(RL1 &.Jburt>lr,Res.deflbal(RS) Soourbar Mullple Famly Resider11< ■ M..GJ�e Farrr!y Res,denllal (MFR)
■ Oowlto,,nSpec,ficPlal(DSP)
■ Commercial Sefvlce (CSJ
■ ProlessionalOfl1ce(CP)
■ Commercial Office (CO)
■ H� Corrroerciel S@r,,ce {CHf
Ne1ghborhoodBus1nessCommerc1f
l8a N,;,lghoorhood M1,ad Use (NMU)
■ ISdbel N; ,ghbomood SP {INSP)
17,069 0
EXHIBIT B
2590
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
SMP 39 & SMP 40
Planned Development – Industrial (PD-I) 22-001
Reviewed by Planning Commission: March 5, 2024
Approved by City Council: March 25, 2024
Purpose: The purpose of establishing this Planned Development-Industrial (PD-I 22-001) District (District) is to regulate the development of ± 51.9 acres of land located on Jack London Boulevard, west of Oaks Business Park and south of Livermore Municipal Airport (commonly referred to as “SMP 39”) and ± 41 acres of land located south of Oaks Business Park, at the south end of Atlantis Street and Challenger Street (commonly referred to as “SMP 40”), as shown in the attached figure (Figure 1). The intent of this District is to accomplish the following:
1. PD-I 22-001 is intended to provide an environment exclusively for and conducive to the development and protection of modern professional and administrative facilities, research institutions, manufacturing operations, experimental and testing laboratory and related uses, any similar employment generating high-end industrial users, all of a non-nuisance type.
2. The District is intended to provide for an aesthetically attractive working environment with park- and/or campus-like grounds, attractive buildings, employee parking, and other amenities appropriate to a mix of office and industrial uses.
3. The District is intended to establish development standards and regulations consistent with the intent of the Low Intensity Industrial General Plan designation.
4. Any land use that utilizes hazardous materials shall be subject to the regulations of Section 6.02.040, Hazardous Materials, of the Livermore Development Code, as it exists now or is amended in the future.
5. Development shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Livermore Development Code as it exists now or is amended in the future, except as modified by the following regulations.
6. Development is subject to the Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines as they exist now or may be amended in the future unless otherwise modified by the following regulations.
A. Principal Permitted Uses:
EXHIBIT C
2591
The following are the principal permitted uses for SMP 391 and SMP 40:
1. Research and development facilities
2. Professional and administrative offices
3. Experimental and testing laboratories
4. Manufacture of electric and electronic circuits, instruments, and devices
5. Manufacture of pharmaceutical products or life science facility, not exceeding Biosafety Level 22
6. Medical diagnostic and manufacturing facilities
7. Manufacturing and assembly of motor vehicle parts, including but not limited to dashboards, parts, component systems, electrical connectors, sensors, panels, airbags, seats, tires, windows etc. for all vehicles and similar equipment (e.g. automobiles, motorcycle, construction equipment, farm equipment, buses).
8. Similar uses as determined by the Community Development Director to be of the same general character as the listed uses.
Additional Permitted Uses for SMP 39 only:
1. Restaurants, except fast food
Additional Permitted Uses for SMP 40 only:
1. Warehousing and distribution facilities, dry or refrigerated
2. Warehousing and distribution facility – E-commerce/Third Party Logistics (3PL)
3. Manufacturing, assembly, processing, storage, or packaging of products from previously prepared materials such as, but not limited to, cloth, plastic, paper, leather, and precious or semi-precious metals or stones, but not including the following:
A. Operations such as saw and planing mills, any manufacturing uses involving primary production of wood, metal, or chemical products from raw materials, and similar uses
B. Vehicle dismantling yards, scrap and waste yards
C. Manufacturing, processing, storing, or packaging chemicals, petroleum, heavy agricultural products or other hazardous materials. 1 SMP 39 and SMP 40 are located with the Airport Influence Area and the Livermore Airport Protection Area. Per the Alameda County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the majority of SMP 39 is located in Safety Zone 6, with a portion of the site located in Safey Zone 3. The principal permitted land uses are intended to be located in buildings that are only within the portion of SMP 39 that is located in Safety Zone 6. 2 Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Biosafety Level 2 laboratories involve work that poses moderate hazards to laboratory workers and the environment. Biosafety Level 2 laboratories require safety protocols to contain microbes and biological agents.
EXHIBIT C
2592
4. Sale of heavy equipment and construction related vehicles and equipment, including associated repair, service, and parts distribution facilities. Showrooms related to this use may be a conditionally permitted ancillary use.
5. Similar uses as determined by the Community Development Director to be of the same general character as the listed uses.
B. Conditional Uses for SMP 39 and 40:
1. Public and quasi-public uses.
2. Manufacture of pharmaceutical products or life science facility, not exceeding Biosafety Level 33
3. Similar uses as determined by the Planning Commission to be of the same general character as the listed uses.
Conditional Uses for SMP 39 only:
1. Fast-food businesses, banks, personal services, or goods required for the convenience and support of occupants of uses in the surrounding district(s).
2. Warehouse and distribution facilities, including E-commerce/Third Party Logistics (3PL) uses, with the condition that these uses may only occupy up to 20 percent of the total buildable site area.
3. Sale of heavy equipment and construction related vehicles and equipment, including associated repair, service, and parts distribution facilities, provided they are manufactured and/or sold on-site. Showrooms related to this use may be a conditionally permitted ancillary use.
4. Similar uses as determined by the Planning Commission to be of the same general character as the listed uses.
C. Accessory Uses Permitted on SMP 39 and 40:
1. Signs subject to the requirements established by the Livermore Development Code, as well as the Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines, as it exists now or is amended in the future.
2. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use.
3. Living quarters determined by the Community Development Director to be necessary for surveillance purposes.
4. Fuel stations subject to the requirements of Section 6.03.160, Vehicle Services, of the Livermore Development Code, as it exists now or is amended in the future. 3 Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, laboratories designated Biosafety Level 3 involve work that poses a safety hazard greater than Biosafety Level 2 laboratories, defined above. Biosafety Level 3 laboratories require additional safety protocols beyond those required for Biosafety Level 2 laboratories to contain microbes and biological agents.
EXHIBIT C
2593
D. Special Development Requirements for SMP 39 and 40:
1. Uses shall be designed and integrated into the site in a manner that maintains and is complementary to the corporate and professional character of the nearby Oaks Business Park.
2. Outdoor service and storage yards shall be screened from public view consistent with Livermore Development Code Section 6.03.100, Outdoor Storage, as it exists today or is amended in the future.
3. For SMP 40 only: Commercial/Industrial buildings shall be located a distance of at least 500 feet from Isabel Avenue.
E. Site Development Regulations for SMP 39 and 40:
The following minimum requirements shall be observed, except where increased for conditional uses:
1. Lot Area: Twenty thousand square feet
2. Lot Width: One hundred feet
3. Setbacks: Setback requirements are established below. Buildings shall not be permitted within required setbacks.
A. SMP 39
1) Front or Street Side: 40-feet on West Jack London Boulevard, and 30-feet on frontage roads and interior streets, except as required by subsection E.4. All required setbacks adjacent to streets shall be landscaped, except for driveways, sidewalks, and trails that are found to be necessary for the efficient use of the property. Where a building front is visible from the street, a minimum five-foot wide landscaped strip abutting the foundation shall be included, allowing for necessary entrances.
2) Rear and Side: None.
B. SMP 40
1) Front or Street Side: 500-feet from Isabel Avenue, and 30-feet on frontage roads and interior streets, except as required by subsection E.4. All required setbacks adjacent to streets shall be landscaped, except for driveways and sidewalks that are found to be necessary for the efficient use of the property.
Where a building front is visible from the street, a minimum fivefoot wide landscaped strip abutting the foundation shall be included, allowing for necessary entrances
2) Rear and Side: None, except for a 20-foot setback from the top of the Arroyo Mocho bank on SMP 40 which should be
determined from a 2.5:1 slope projection from the toe of
EXHIBIT C
2594
channel/mining pit to the top, as required in the Environmental Impact Report for the project.
4. Height Regulations: The height of all on-site structures, including roof-top mechanical equipment, is limited to 50 feet or the height permitted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) review under FAA regulations – Part 77, whichever is more restrictive. Upon providing a minimum 40-foot setback from street rightsof-way, a Conditional Use Permit may be requested to increase height to a maximum of 55 feet, or the height permitted under FAA regulations – Part 77, whichever is more restrictive. The height of pole-and building-mounted lights may be approved up to 28 feet by an administrative site plan and design review, if found necessary for the health and safety of a site designed for truck or other large vehicle maneuvering and documented by a light study to not cause glare offsite.
5. Lot Coverage: The building coverage maximum shall be 45 percent.
F. Signs
1. Industrial Uses. Signs for industrial uses shall be subject to the sign regulations contained in Livermore Development Code section 4.06.230 (sign standards for I1, I-2 and I-3) and the Citywide Design Standards Guidelines as it exists now or is amended in the future.
2. Commercial Uses. Signs for commercial uses shall be subject to the sign regulations contained in Livermore Development Code section 4.06.170 (sign standards for CNB) and the Citywide Design Standards Guidelines as it exists now or is amended in the future.
G. Other Required Standards for SMP 39 and 40:
1. Noise. No use shall be permitted which creates an ambient noise level greater than 75 decibels (dBA) beyond the boundaries of the site, nor greater than 60 decibels at the boundary of a Residential District.
A. On SMP 39, semi-truck access to the site (arrivals and departures) shall be limited to 96 trips between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
B. On SMP 40, semi-truck access to the site (arrivals and departures) shall be limited to 40 trips between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM C. Between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM single-event noise levels (e.g., backup alarm, truck brakes, etc.) shall not exceed 55 dBA, measured at the property line of the nearest residential use.
2. Air Pollution. All uses shall comply with regulations of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Pollution Control District.
3. Vibration, Heat, Glare, Electrical Disturbance. No use shall be permitted which creates noise, odors, vibrations, heat, glare, or electrical disturbances beyond the
EXHIBIT C
2595
boundaries of the site. Lighting used to illuminate buildings, structures, uses, or parking and loading areas shall not be directed toward any public right-of-way.
4. Fire, Explosion. All uses shall provide adequate safety devices and adequate firefighting and fire suppression equipment to protect against fire, explosion, and other hazards.
5. Solid and Liquid Wastes. No solid or liquid waste discharges, other than permitted discharges into a public sewage disposal system, shall be permitted. The chemical composition and volume of industrial effluent discharged shall be subject to the wastewater permit requirements established by LMC Title 13, Division II. (Ord. 442 § 14.80).
EXHIBIT C
2596
Las Positas
Golf Course
San Francisco
Premium Outlets
Undeveloped
Land
Gravel Quarries/
Industrial Ponds
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Oaks
Business
Park
Gravel Quarries/
Industrial Ponds
SingleFamily
Residences
Additional
Annexation
Only Parcels
Figure 1
EXHIBIT C
2597
ORDINANCE NO. ___
IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH LIVERMORE INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS 39, LLC AND SMP-39, LLC FOR THE SMP 39/SMP 40
PROJECT
(Development Agreement 21-001)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Authority. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq., the City Council considers that certain document under City Application No. Development Agreement 21-001 and entitled “Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (DA 21- 001) [Surface Mining Permit (SMP) 39/40 Project – SMP 39 Property] (“Development Agreement”). The Development Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 5, 2024, to consider adoption of an ordinance approving the Development Agreement and by its Resolution No. 03-24, attached hereto as Exhibit B, recommended that the City Council adopt the ordinance and approve the Development Agreement.
Section 3. Environmental Review. The City Council considered the environmental review and certified the SMP 39/SMP 40 Final Environmental Impact Report by Resolution No. ____.
Section 4. Consistency. Development Agreement 21-001 is consistent with the General Plan and the Livermore Development Code Chapter 9.04.
Section 5. Approval. The City Council has considered the findings made by the Planning Commission for adoption of the Development Agreement in Planning Commission Resolution No. 03-24, and hereby adopts the same findings by this reference and incorporates them as part of this resolution, and based on the City Council’s own independent review and considerations, hereby adopts this ordinance approving Development Agreement 21-001.
Section 6. Signing Authority. The City Manager is hereby authorized to sign the Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, on behalf of the City of Livermore.
Section 7. Publication and Effective Date. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Livermore within 15 days after its adoption and shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its adoption.
2598
ORDINANCE NO. ___
Section 8. Filing. Planning Manager is directed to file a Notice of Determination for the SMP 39/SMP 40 Project Environmental Impact Report with the Alameda County Clerk.
Section 9. Recording. The City Clerk is directed to record the Development Agreement within 10 days after the effective date of the Development Agreement.
Section 10. Documents. The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based on can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore, California.
Section 11. Severability. If any part of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid by a court, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any remaining parts.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Livermore held on March 25, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
The ordinance was adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council held on ______________________, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
________________________________
Mayor, City of Livermore
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ /s/ Kimberly D. Cilley
Deborah L. Elam Kimberly D. Cilley
Acting City Clerk Senior Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – Development Agreement 21-001
Exhibit B – Planning Commission Resolution 03-24
2599
EXHIBIT A
2600
EXHIBIT A
2601
EXHIBIT A
2602
EXHIBIT A
2603
EXHIBIT A
2604
EXHIBIT A
2605
EXHIBIT A
2606
EXHIBIT A
2607
EXHIBIT A
2608
EXHIBIT A
2609
EXHIBIT A
2610
EXHIBIT A
2611
EXHIBIT A
2612
EXHIBIT A
2613
EXHIBIT A
2614
EXHIBIT A
2615
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have signed this Pre-annexation and Development Agreement on the dates indicated below.
DEVELOPER
LIVERMORE INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS 39, LLC
By:
Title:
SELLER
SMP-39, LĻA
By:
Title: CED
CITY OF LIVERMORE
Date:
Date:
By:
Date: Title:
Attest: Approved to as Fom:
City Clerk Assistant/City Attormey
15 EXHIBIT A
2616
EXHIBIT A
2617
EXHIBIT A
2618
EXHIBIT A
2619
EXHIBIT A
2620
EXHIBIT A
2621
EXHIBIT A
2622
EXHIBIT A
2623
EXHIBIT A
2624
EXHIBIT A
2625
EXHIBIT A
2626
EXHIBIT A
2627
EXHIBIT B
2628
EXHIBIT B
2629
EXHIBIT B
2630
EXHIBIT B
2631
EXHIBIT B
2632
EXHIBIT B
2633
EXHIBIT B
2634
EXHIBIT B
2635
EXHIBIT B
2636
ORDINANCE NO. ___
IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH LIVERMORE INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS 40, LLC AND SMP-40, LLC FOR THE SMP 39/SMP 40
PROJECT
(Development Agreement 23-002)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Authority. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq., the City Council considers that certain document under City Application No. Development Agreement 23-002 and entitled “Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (DA 23- 002) [Surface Mining Permit (SMP) 39/40 Project – SMP 40 Property] (“Development Agreement”). The Development Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 5, 2024, to consider an ordinance approving the Development Agreement and by its Resolution No. 03-24, attached hereto as Exhibit B, recommended that the City Council adopt the ordinance and approve the Development Agreement.
Section 3. Environmental Review. The City Council considered the environmental review and certified the SMP 39/SMP 40 Final Environmental Impact Report by Resolution No. ____.
Section 4. Consistency. Development Agreement 23-002 is consistent with the General Plan and the Livermore Development Code Chapter 9.04.
Section 5. Approval. The City Council has considered the findings made by the Planning Commission for adoption of the Development Agreement in Planning Commission Resolution No. 03-24, and hereby adopts the same findings by this reference and incorporates them as part of this resolution, and based on the City Council’s own independent review and considerations, hereby adopts this ordinance and approves Development Agreement 23-002.
Section 6. Signing Authority. The City Manager is hereby authorized to sign the Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, on behalf of the City of Livermore.
Section 7. Publication and Effective Date. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Livermore within 15 days after its adoption and shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its adoption.
Section 8. Filing. Planning Manager is directed to file a Notice of Determination for the SMP 39/SMP 40 Project Environmental Impact Report with the Alameda County Clerk.
2637
ORDINANCE NO. ___
Section 9. Recording. The City Clerk is directed to record the Development Agreement within 10 days after the effective date of the Development Agreement.
Section 10. Documents. The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based on can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore, California.
Section 11. Severability. If any part of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid by a court, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any remaining parts.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Livermore held on March 25, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
The ordinance was adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council held on ______________________, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
________________________________
Mayor, City of Livermore
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ /s/ Kimberly D. Cilley
Deborah L. Elam Kimberly D. Cilley
Acting City Clerk Senior Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – Development Agreement 23-002
Exhibit B – Planning Commission Resolution 03-24
2638
EXHIBIT A
2639
EXHIBIT A
2640
EXHIBIT A
2641
EXHIBIT A
2642
EXHIBIT A
2643
EXHIBIT A
2644
EXHIBIT A
2645
EXHIBIT A
2646
EXHIBIT A
2647
EXHIBIT A
2648
EXHIBIT A
2649
EXHIBIT A
2650
EXHIBIT A
2651
EXHIBIT A
2652
EXHIBIT A
2653
EXHIBIT A
2654
EXHIBIT A
2655
EXHIBIT A
2656
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have signed this Pre-annexation and Development Agreement on the dates indicated below.
DEVELOPER
LIVERMORE INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS 40,
By:
Title:
SELLER
SMP40,LL
B
Title:
LLC
Date:
Date:
CITY OF LIVERMORE
By:
Date: Title:
Attest: Approved to as Fom:
City Clerk Assistant/City Attorney
17 EXHIBIT A
2657
EXHIBIT A
2658
EXHIBIT A
2659
EXHIBIT A
2660
EXHIBIT A
2661
EXHIBIT A
2662
EXHIBIT A
2663
EXHIBIT A
2664
EXHIBIT A
2665
EXHIBIT A
2666
EXHIBIT A
2667
EXHIBIT A
2668
EXHIBIT A
2669
EXHIBIT A
2670
EXHIBIT A
2671
EXHIBIT A
2672
EXHIBIT B
2673
EXHIBIT B
2674
EXHIBIT B
2675
EXHIBIT B
2676
EXHIBIT B
2677
EXHIBIT B
2678
EXHIBIT B
2679
EXHIBIT B
2680
EXHIBIT B
2681
RESOLUTION NO. ________
IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE ALAMEDA
COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO REQUEST INITIATION OF
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT AND ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND EXECUTION OF
THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES AGREEMENT FOR THE SMP 39/SMP 40 PROJECT
The City of Livermore (“City”) received applications for Annexation/Prezoning (APZ) 21-003 concurrently with General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21-001, Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) 21-002, Planned Development-Industrial (PD-I) 22-001, Development Code Amendment (DCA) 21-005, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (SUB) 21-008, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (SUB) 21-009, Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 21-008, Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (DA) 21-001, and Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (DA) 23-002 for the SMP 39/SMP 40 Project (“Project”) to develop approximately 1.51 million square feet of industrial development and associated parking, lighting, landscaping, and other improvements.
The Project site is comprised of six parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers 904-3-1-4 known as SMP 39, APN 904-10-2-2 known as SMP 40, and 904-10-2-3, -5, -7, and -8 known as Additional Annexation Only Parcels) (hereinafter referred to as “the Subject Properties”), is in unincorporated Alameda County. Maps depicting the Subject Properties are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B.
The City has an interest and authority in protecting the public’s general health, safety, and welfare, as well as facilitating orderly development within its City limits and sphere of influence.
Pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act, beginning with section 56000 of the California Government Code, an affected city, as therein defined, may make a proposal for an annexation and request initiation of proceedings by resolution adopted by its legislative body. The City of Livermore is an “affected city” for an annexation proposal because its sphere of influence contains territory for which a change of organization is proposed.
Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 provides, among other requirements, that no local agency jurisdictional change can be completed without the agencies affected first having agreed upon an exchange of property tax revenue. On August 15, 1995, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors adopted a policy on annexation and tax sharing agreements that provided, in part, “that it is the policy of this Board that the County will negotiate all tax sharing agreements in good faith and consider compensation to the County for the full range of costs associated with providing Countywide facilities and services”. Each specific annexation requires a resolution from the annexing city and the County agreeing to the exchange of property tax revenues as a requisite before the annexation can be completed and filed with the State.
2682
RESOLUTION NO. ________
The City of Livermore now desires to enter into a tax exchange agreement specific to the Subject Property for the proposed annexation.
At a duly noticed public hearing on March 5, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the staff recommendation for approval and heard public testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that on March 25, 2024, the City Council considered in public hearings the proposals, staff recommendations, recommendations of the Planning Commission, public testimony, and findings, and certified by resolution the Final Environmental Impact Report for the SMP 39/SMP 40 Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and introduced an ordinance to pre-zone the Subject Property to Planned Development – Industrial 22-001 and Open Space-Floodplain.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes submission of an application to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission to initiate sphere of influence amendment and annexation proceedings for the Subject Property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore requests the Auditor-Controller of the County of Alameda to cause an exchange of property tax revenues pursuant to the provisions of, and in substantial conformance with, the draft Property Tax Sharing Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit C, between the County of Alameda and the City of Livermore, pursuant to the foregoing policies. The City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute the Property Tax Sharing Agreement on behalf of the City of Livermore, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.
On motion of Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council Member ______________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on March 25, 2024, 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
Deborah L. Elam Kimberly D. Cilley
Acting City Clerk Senior Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – Annexation Boundary Map – SMP 39
Exhibit B – Annexation Boundary Map – SMP 40 and Additional Annexation Only Parcels Exhibit C – Draft Property Tax Sharing Agreement
2683
EXHIBIT A
2684
EXHIBIT B
2685
EXHIBIT C
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA AND THE
CITY OF LIVERMORE REGARDING TRANSFER OF PROPERTY
TAX REVENUES IN CONNECTION WITH THE SMP 39 & SMP 40
PROJECT
This Agreement is made pursuant to the provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 and shall constitute the agreement for exchange of property tax revenues required by the Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b)(6). Furthermore, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b)(5) provides that if a jurisdictional change will alter the service area or service responsibility of a special district, the Board of Supervisors of the county in which the special district is located shall negotiate any exchange of property tax revenues on behalf of the special district.
The parties agree that the lands to be annexed is described as follows:
The subject property consists of six parcels: i) Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 904-3-1-4 known as SMP 39, generally located north of Stanley Boulevard, east of SMP 38, south of West Jack London Boulevard, and west of Discovery Drive; ii) APN 904-10-2-2 known as SMP 40 and 904-10-2-3, -5, -7, and -8 known as Additional Annexation Only Parcels are generally located north of Stanley Boulevard, east of El Charro Road, south of West Jack London Boulevard and west of Isabel Avenue/State Route 84. SMP 39 is approximately 52 acres, SMP 40 is approximately 41 acres, and the Additional Annexation Only Parcels are collectively approximately 13 acres. The subject properties are currently vacant and SMP 39 and 40 propose development under City regulations. Development is not proposed on the Additional Annexation Only Parcels.
Attachment 1 lists all applicable parcel numbers to this agreement and is incorporated herein. The parties agree that for the annexation of these parcels, the AuditorController of the County of Alameda is directed to cause an exchange of property tax revenue as follows:
A. The City is entitled to receive an allocation of computed property tax revenue equivalent to the share of property tax revenue it receives on a weighted average citywide. The weighted citywide average shall be computed annually as follows: multiply the city's current ABB factor in each tax rate area within the city by the current secured assessed valuation in each tax rate area to arrive at a product for each tax rate area. The sum of those products is divided by the total secured assessed valuation within the city to arrive at a 2686
EXHIBIT C
weighted citywide average. The secured tax roll is used here to establish the weighted citywide average. However, the factors resulting from application of the formula will apply to all tax rolls.
B. In the event that the City currently provides a service within its incorporated City limits such as Fire or Library, and if that service is currently being provided by a County taxing agency or special district in the territory proposed for annexation, the County shall receive an allocation of computed property tax revenue equivalent to the share of property tax revenue received by the County taxing agency or special district in the territory proposed for annexation.
The County's receipt of that allocation shall not diminish the City's receipt of its allocation calculated under A above.
C. In the event that the City assumes full responsibility for a service not currently being provided by the City within its incorporated city limits, but being provided by a separate County taxing agency or special district within the territory proposed for annexation, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code 99(b), the City shall receive, in addition to the allocation determined in A above, an allocation of computed property tax revenue equivalent to the share of property tax revenue received by the County taxing agency or special district in the territory proposed forannexation.
D. The County shall receive an allocation of computed property tax revenue equivalent to its current share of property tax revenue in the territory proposed for annexation plus the share or shares of property tax revenue allocated to it in section B above, less the share of computed property tax revenue allocated to the City in section A above, and in section C above as applicable.
E. In the event that this annexation includes or results in the detachment of one or more parcels or portions thereof from the City and those parcels or portions thereof are transferred to the County or to another jurisdiction, the City hereby waives any right, interest, or claim to property tax on such parcels or portions thereof as identified in Exhibit A. The parcels or portions thereof shall be transferred to the County or jurisdiction subject to the conditions of paragraphs A through Das specified in this agreement.
This exchange of property tax revenues will be effective as to each property annexed within the subject annexation area for the fiscal year following the filing with the State Board of Equalization of the Certificate of Completion for such property providing the filing occurs prior to December 31 of the preceding year. 2687
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF LIVERMORE
DATED:
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DATED:
City Attorney
2688
EXHIBIT C
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
DATED:
President, Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DATED:
County Counsel
Exhibit 1 - Parcels Subject to This Property Tax Sharing Agreement Upon Annexation 2689
EXHIBIT C
Parcels Subject to This Property Tax Sharing
Agreement Upon Annexation
SMP 39: 904-3-1-4
SMP 40: 904-10-2-2
Additional Annexation Only Parcels: 904-10-2-3, 904-10-2-5, 904-10-2-7, and 904-10- 2-8
2690
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 10.1
DATE: March 25, 2024
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.
3.1 Confirm Advisory Body appointments to the Airport Commission, the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Board of Trustees, Beautification Committee, Commission for the Arts, Historic Preservation Commission, Library Board of Trustees, and City Historian, and direct the City Clerk to administer the oath of office.
Material: PowerPoint Presentation
4.0 Public Comment - Open Forum
Material: Public Comment
5.6 Resolution approving the 2024 City of Livermore State and Federal Legislative Platform.
Material: Supplemental Memo
6.1 Hearing to consider the Housing Element Annual Progress Report, which tracks the City’s progress towards implementing the Housing Element of the General Plan and meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), pursuant to Government Code Section 65400.
Material: PowerPoint Presentation
2691
6.2 Hearing to consider a request for an Annexation/Prezoning, Pre-Annexation and Development Agreements, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Development Code Amendment, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development, and Site Plan Design Review for the SMP 39 and 40 Project to zone for and develop light industrial uses near the northwest part of the City.
Material: PowerPoint Presentation
6.3 Hearing to consider a request for an Annexation/Prezoning, Pre-Annexation and Development Agreements, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Development Code Amendment, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development, and Site Plan Design Review for the SMP 39 and 40 Project to zone for and develop light industrial uses near the northwest part of the City.
Material: PowerPoint Presentations
8.0 Council Committee Reports and Matters Initiated by City Manager, City Attorney, Staff, and Council Members
Material: Council Reports
DISCUSSION
ATTACHMENTS
1. Supplemental Materials
Prepared by: Helena Graves
Deputy City Clerk
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
2692
Item 3.1
PowerPoint Presentation
2693
Item 3.1
PowerPoint Presentation
2694
1 Helena Graves
From: Joyce Moulden
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 10:04 AM
To: AirportDevelopment; Brandon Cardwell; Shin Oh; City Clerk; [email protected]; Angela Hescher; [email protected]; [email protected]; Livermore City Council
Subject: NO AMAZON Cargo, or Air Taxi Service, or Large Jet planes at Livermore Airport Exercise CauƟon: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or aƩachments from untrusted sources.
Please DO NOT increase Livermore Airport Land Use to include large jet planes for Amazon Cargo, Air Taxi Service or any other use.
There is already enough airplane noise and polluƟon as is.
DO NOT ALLOW AMAZON Cargo, or Air Taxi Service, or Large Jet planes at Livermore Airport.
Joyce Moulden
Livermore Resident since 1968
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2695
1 Helena Graves
From: Paul & Lori Sanborn
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 10:34 AM
To: AirportDevelopment; Brandon Cardwell; Benedict (Benny) Stuth; Livermore City Council; City Clerk; [email protected]; Pleasanton Weekly Editor; The Independent; Livemore Airport Citizens Group (LACG); Angela Hescher; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Airport Development
Exercise CauƟon: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or aƩachments from untrusted sources.
The City of Livermore has asked for input from the community regarding the potenƟal development opƟons for the Livermore Airport as they complete the Airport Land Development Framework. The ciƟzens of Livermore should have the predominant voice in the future development of the airport as Livermore is their home. The city menƟons having focus groups with current and prospecƟve airport users, why not a focus group of the ciƟzens and community who will be most impacted by development of the airport?
We would like and hope that the city will maintain a small regional airport that will enhance the quality of life here in Livermore. A small regional airport is an asset to the community whereas increasing fixed-base operators (FBOs) with larger aircraŌ has detrimental impacts to air quality, water polluƟon, biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise polluƟon. If the airport is expanded and larger aircraŌ are allowed to operate it will diminish the health, comfort and happiness of the ciƟzens not to menƟon lower property values. Noise levels from the airport need to decrease not increase. We do not need any more jet traffic. Reduce the size and height of hangers to keep the aircraŌ that inhabit the airport small and noise levels reduced along with protecƟng the view of the surrounding hills.
The Livermore city government conƟnues to push the boundaries with the airport and development. The airport should not be viewed as a revenue stream but an amenity that benefits the community, not something that constantly has its ciƟzens fighƟng city government to maintain the character and value of their way of life.
Paul & Lori Sanborn
Livermore
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2696
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2697
1 Helena Graves
From: Neil
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 11:38 AM
To: The Independent; AirportDevelopment; Benedict (Benny) Stuth; City Clerk; [email protected]; Brandon Cardwell; Livermore City Council; Angela Hescher; John Marchand; Robert Carling; Barrientos, Ben; Evan Branning; Brittni Kiick Subject: demand that the citizens have a majority say in the future development of the airport I Christopher Lysons demand that the citizens have a majority say in the future development of the airport!
Livermore CA 94550
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2698
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2699
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2700
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2701
1 Helena Graves
From:
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 11:54 AM
To: AirportDevelopment; Benedict (Benny) Stuth; City Clerk Subject: FW: Airport Expansion
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
From:
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 11:48 AM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Subject: Airport Expansion
To All in involved,
Please, please, please do not expand the airport!!!!! Those of us living on this side of town close to the airport knowingly bought homes here with the size of the airport as it exists now. But no one who bought a house by the airport wanted any kind of jet flying in there. How much does Livermore want to grow. Enough is enough. I’m not anti growth but this directly hurts many of the Livermore citizens as it will lower the value of our homes, create too much noise, and more pollution. Once and for all will you stop thinking of all the outside business Livermore could get and consider the people you are representing.
No more expansion with jet service
No More noise than we already have
No air taxi service
No air cargo service
No FBO’s to attract more aviation service (the students in the helicopters are ridiculously loud and pose danger to those of us living here, especially the schools under their path) No more pollution
Karen Allen
Livermore
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2702
1 Helena Graves
From: Mike Vickers
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 5:49 PM
To: Helena Graves
Subject: Re: No Airport Expansion 3/21/24
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Yes, please include my comment. I made one correction- the word “citizens” was changed to “citizen”. Please see below.
Thank you,
Mike Vickers
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 22, 2024, at 1:24 PM, Helena Graves <[email protected]> wrote:
Mike Vickers,
Your comments have been received. Are these comments intended to be included with the March 25, 2024 City Council Meeting Agenda under Item 4.0, Public Forum?
Please confirm by 12:00 noon on Monday, March 25, 2024, if you would like them included.
Sincerely,
Helena Graves
Deputy City Clerk | City Clerk’s Office
925-960-4212
City of Livermore | www.LivermoreCA.gov
<image001.png>
From: Mike Vickers
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 5:24 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: No Airport Expansion 3/21/24
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2703
2 Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Good afternoon,
My name is Mike Vickers. My family
and I have been residents of
Pleasanton for more than 27 years.
I’m writing to you as a private citizen,
not in my official capacity as a
Pleasanton Parks and Recreation
Commissioner.
I’m speaking on behalf of hundreds of
people in our community that urge
you to resist the temptation to
expand Livermore Municipal Airport
or allow cargo planes to land at the
airport.
This is a quality of life issue. Air
pollution, noise pollution and reduced
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2704
3 home property values are very real
front and center issues.
Traffic impact and road safety are
also important considerations if the
Tri-Valley becomes a distribution
hub.
No Amazon and other cargo planes.
No Air Taxi Service.
No Large Jet planes.
Yes to citizen focus groups.
///
One additional issue is leaded fuel
being used for private aircrafts.
Please transition to an unleaded fuel
airport as soon a possible- the health
of all life forms, and especially our
youngest children, is at stake.
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2705
4 Sincerely your,
Mike Vickers
Pleasanton 94566
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2706
1 Helena Graves
From: Resa Arnold
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:13 PM
To: AirportDevelopment; Brandon Cardwell; Benedict (Benny) Stuth; Livermore City Council; City Clerk; [email protected]; Pleasanton Weekly Editor; The Independent; [email protected]; Angela Hescher; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Livermore Airport Expansion
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
March 21, 2024
To: Whom It May Concern
Re: Community Input for Livermore Airport Expansion and Land Use Dear Gentlemen/Ladies:
I am putting faith in the process of public comment input, both for its efficacy and value.
I am a 36 year citizen and private home owner here in Livermore. My wife and I live south of Jack London Blvd., bordered by Isabel to the West and Murrieta in the North South direction. We are in proximity to Rancho Elementary in the bird names streets, on Egret Road specifically.
Of course, 36 years ago, this location was so much open space. Isabel as a semi freeway did not exist. The business park off Discovery on the back side of the airport did not exist…including the Gillig plant and all those large warehouses added in recent years.
Growth is to be expected to a degree. Those folks in that business park had to amend some of their practices including sound abatement for delivery and back up alerts all hours of the night. And, they respectively did.
We have certainly seen many changes in the local airport, enjoyed the many airshows, i.e. Wings of Charity, antique aircraft displays, and enjoyment of the new dining facilities (Elevation) during these many years.
However, as we live in the flight path on many days of the year, we have grown increasingly disturbed by both the flight noise, constant touch and goes, low flight patterns, bombardment of particulates in the airspace over our home of unspecified non-environmentally friendly leaded fuel, etc. Sitting in our backyard, we can no longer expect quiet enjoyment or even reasonable quiet enjoyment.
Conversation is halted and irritation is increased as we are exposed to one loud assault after the next. Now, larger jets of mixed use add to the early morning wake up calls we are enduring. The rumbling is not pleasant, so we are forced to use sound machines to drown out the thunderous noise.
You folks want to add to this by allowing larger commercial hangers, carriers, air taxi service and possibly drone deliveries based from the airport?
Sincerely, I ask…how many of you are living in the nearby area to REALLY experience what this means as it is played out in everyday lives?.
This is or was an outlying rural atmosphere town. What are you wanting to turn it into…a San Jose? We vehemently object to that agenda and so consider this a no vote from this family for your expansion proposals…except the addition of reconfiguring to accommodate unleaded fuels that should be mandatory.
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2707
2 I’ll thank you in advance for your serious consideration of these comments. I speak for many who feel the same but did not write. Hard to fight City Hall!
Please keep us updated as to any meetings or further focus groups so that we be given the voice to help keep this beautiful area liveable.
James and Resa Arnold ++Livermore
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2708
1 Helena Graves
From: teresa basalyga
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 9:56 AM
To: AirportDevelopment; Brandon Cardwell; Benedict (Benny) Stuth; Livermore City Council; City Clerk; [email protected]; Pleasanton Weekly Editor; The Independent; [email protected]; Angela Hescher; Valerie Arkin; [email protected]
Subject: HALT Livermore Airport expansion!
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Hello Good People,
HALT Livermore Airport expansion! END Livermore's bad-faith secret, non-public behind-the scenes maneuvering! Any future airport plans are more than Livermore's sole decision, this would greatly impact Pleasanton, Dublin and the whole of the Tri-Valley area.
Our communities do not need or want an increase in noise or air pollution. The airport greatly impacts our quality of life in Pleasanton. It is difficult to have our windows open because the noise of the airplanes is so very loud. Please think of the children and elderly with breathing issues. Please do not do this to the Tri-Valley.
Please STOP this effort NOW!
Thank you,
Teresa Basalyga
Pleasanton
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2709
1 Helena Graves
From: Pam Deaton Fiala
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2024 2:54 PM
To: AirportDevelopment; Livermore City Council
Cc: City Clerk; LA CG; Valerie Arkin
Subject: Livermore Airport Land Use Analysis & Development Study Input Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
As 31-year residents of the Tri-Valley, we are especially interested in the future development of the Livermore Municipal Airport. In recent years, we have actively voiced our concerns over the continued desire to expand the use of this small regional airport. The discussions about this expansion continue to be quietly organized disregarding any input from the Tri-Valley community residents who are directly impacted by changes to the airport. The safety and financial future of the Tri-Valley requires all of the valley (Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin) to work together for a healthy and successful future.
The recent focus groups which were quietly held by the Airport Management consultants with local aviation companies and developers failed to include any local residents’ comments. We are very fortunate that the community is closely watching the airport management’s actions and demanded an opportunity for the public to comment on the future development of the airport.
This lack of transparency adds to our concerns about the on-going changes secretly planned at the airport.
We were not able to participate at the March 21, 2024 public focus group due to illness but understand from those who participated that the consultants were not present and the City staff had limited information on airport concerns and issues. There were no newspaper articles in the local papers promoting participation in this community focus group which adds to the lack of transparency and a lack of interest in including the residents. The Tri-Valley impact of expanding the airport with more air traffic including larger jets has a direct long-term impact on all Tri-Valley residents.
In the Independent Newspaper dated March 21, 2024, which arrived to our house before the focus group, Pete Sandhu, owner of Five Rivers Aviation, is quoted as saying in the article about Livermore’s acquisition of more land near the airport “I’m working with aviation companies that need more R&D space, and some of their projects need direct access to the runway and some of them don’t. I think ZeroAvia, Verne, and Apricus might consider building something on that property.” Clearly, discussions and decisions are already being made on who is going to be part of Item 4.0
Public Comment
2710
2 the airport expansion and how the land will be developed. Providing a community focus group when decisions have already been made is really a joke and insulting to the community at large.
Our input for future use of the Livermore Municipal Airport is the following:
The first priorities should be to focus on the on-going current issues such as low flying jets, airport noise, and use of unleaded fuel which are concerning to many residents.
Keep the original vision of the airport as a small regional airport for small recreational planes.
Do not expand the use of private jets which regularly fly over our homes in Pleasanton at low attitude as they take off or land. Why is luxury jet traffic by a small exclusive group permitted at the Livermore airport given that common wind conditions force jets to fly very low for extended distances over residential neighborhoods and schools?
Focus on safety issues around the current jet traffic which has continued to increase and caused noise and air pollution concerns for our community as well as others living in the Tri-Valley.
Re-examine with the FAA the current flight patterns to reduce the need to fly over homes, schools, and community areas at such low altitudes. The Vasco area which has few homes should be discussed as a possible flight pattern.
Continued focus on strategies such using unleaded fuel to improve the air quality for tri-valley residents.
We appreciate that this is slowly moving forward but do not understand as also noted in The Independent Editorial, why it can’t be a priority achieved sooner.
Develop an active Tri-Valley airport commission (Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin reps) that provides input and action steps to the municipal airport and the Livermore City Council so that planning is done together and successfully instead of in unannounced meetings which lack transparency and create mistrust. This type of Tri-Valley planning is done on other important valley issues such has transportation and is very successful. Consensus building is the key!
We understand that life does change and we must plan carefully as a valley to make good decisions so that there are positive outcomes for all. So far with the planning of changes for the Livermore Municipal Airport we have not seen this done. We urge that a Tri-Valley approach with safety and consensus building be considered as you move forward.
David and Pam Fiala
Pleasanton
Item 4.0
Public Comment
2711
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Date: March 25, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Marie Weber, Deputy City Manager
Subject: Item 5.6 – 2024 City of Livermore State and Federal Legislative Platform The redlined draft of the 2024 City of Livermore Legislative Platform (Attachment 1) and Exhibit A to the Resolution have been updated to include additional language related to the City’s bonus density stance to include “that density bonus incentives, concessions, and waivers cannot be used to reduce the quantity of required affordable units.” Item 5.6
Supplemental Memo
2712
City of Livermore
20243 State and Federal Legislative Platform
(DRAFT)
ATTACHMENT 1
2713
The City of Livermore (“City”) 20243 State and Federal Legislative Platform (“Platform”) highlights the position of the City Council on important issues that align with community goals and policy documents such as the General Plan. City staff monitor bills introduced into the California Legislature and United States Congress. The Platform provides staff direction and allows the City, on the City Council’s behalf, to respond quickly in support of or opposition to bills and other legislative or administrative actions in time-sensitive situations. The City Council delegates its authority to the mayor to sign support or opposition letters, consistent with the Platform. Additionally, the Platform enables staff to communicate on behalf of the City to state legislators and federal elected officials.
The Platform is developed through review of City needs and issues, staff input, and review of League of California Cities priorities and strategies. City Council adopted the first Platform in 2013. At its April 13, 2015, meeting, City Council directed staff to use the Platform as a guide for federal bill tracking and action, too. Typically, the City Council reviews and updates the Platform annually.
The 20243 City of Livermore Platform categories are:
• Community-Focused Governance
• Fiscal Stability
• Affordable Housing and Homelessness
• Planning and Sustainability
• Building Safety
• Infrastructure
• Job Creation and Economic Development
• Libraries
• Public Safety and Emergency Management
• Science, Technology, and Innovation
• Transportation and Parking
• Water
The State and Federal Legislative Platform evolves as City needs adjust, new issues arise, and conditions at the regional, state, and federal level change. Platform adjustments, whether due to federal policy changes or state policy reactions, may be considered at a future City Council meeting or at the next annual review in 20254.
Once approved by the City Council, the 20243 State and Federal Legislative Platform will be posted on the City’s website at www.LivermoreCA.gov/Legislation. Staff also provides the City Council with periodic updates on letters sent, bill progress, and legislative developments.
When appropriate, the City of Livermore joins its Tri-Valley neighbors to advocate for issues and funding at the regional, state, and federal levels. The cities of Livermore, Dublin, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the town of Danville develop a Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework. The Tri-Valley Framework overlaps many of the items in the City’s Platform and provides another opportunity for advocacy progress and success.
ATTACHMENT 1
2714
The Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework is available to view at www.LivermoreCA.gov/Legislation.
Community-Focused Governance
The City values its ability to create policies that best fit the needs of the Livermore community. It is important to advocate for state legislation the provides framework guidance and allows local implementation.
1. Support legislation that enhances or streamlines local governance and allows cities to address the needs of local constituents within a framework of regional cooperation.
2. Monitor legislation that affects the ability of City Council to effectively govern.
3. Monitor cannabis-related legislation.
4. Oppose legislation that would prohibit or limit local governments’ ability to contract out for services.
5. Support legislation that updates both the Brown Act and Public Records Act regarding electronic records and activities that support local decision-making without significant fiscal impact and new regulations that require staff resources.
6. Oppose legislation that requires or expands state involvement in City financial audits, fiscal monitoring, general oversight, or assistance by the State Treasurer, State Controller, or other state agencies.
7. Support a wording change in the Communications Act of 1934 that removes the distinction between “capital” and “operating” funds in order to provide more local control for community television stations in the use of their public, educational and government (PEG) channel fees with no rise in taxes or a reduction in revenue to the cable industry.
Fiscal Stability
Fiscal stability and financial independence are necessary to provide desired services and programs for residents and local businesses. City Council policy decisions direct staff to ensure the City’s long-term financial stability. Unexpected diversion of local funds by the state or federal government erodes the ability of a city to plan and budget for short-and-long term service needs.
1. Oppose legislation that imposes unfunded or inadequate state or federal mandates.
2. Support legislation that updates the tax structure to enhance local government revenues that have declined due to the expansion of e-commerce, increased ATTACHMENT 1
2715
consumption of services rather than durable goods, and innovations in technology.
3. Oppose legislation that reduces local government’s ability to levy fees
4. Monitor legislation regarding new fees or other revenue-enhancements.
5. Oppose legislation that reduces or eliminates payments to cities for use of property and rights-of-way for telecommunications.
6. Support legislation that provides sustainable and secure public pensions and other post-retirement benefits to ensure responsive and affordable public services.
7. Support legislation that streamlines the Workers’ Compensation system.
8. Oppose legislation that would remove the federal tax exemption for municipal bonds.
Affordable Housing and Homelessness
The availability of a suitable living environment is essential to quality-of-life. It is important to support adequate and affordable housing opportunities and housingrelated service needs.
1. Support regional solutions that balance housing, transportation/transit, and jobs together. Building housing without adequate transportation infrastructure may exacerbate, not alleviate, the affordable housing crisis.
2. Support legislation that protects existing affordable housing stock, including rental apartments, deed-restricted units, and mobile homes, and promotes affordable housing that includes long-term affordability agreements.
3. Support legislation that ensures: 1) incentives and density bonus provisions are directly linked to the level and percentage of affordable units provided for each project; and 2) that density bonus incentives, concessions, and waivers cannot be used to reduce the quantity of required affordable units.
4. Support legislation that enables cities to develop locally appropriate plans that meet state objectives in a manner that is compatible with existing community character.
5. Support legislation that facilitates accessory dwelling units and encourages development of “missing-middle” housing that is compatible with suburban community character.
ATTACHMENT 1
2716
6. Oppose housing legislation that is not accompanied by funding that can support expanded transportation, transit, and infrastructure, including planning, and capital improvement programs and funding to support new school facilities.
7. Oppose housing legislation that results in a net loss of local funding.
8. Support housing legislation that promotes the development and enhancement of a diverse workforce, as long as the legislation does not create an unfunded mandate or conflict with local land use authority and financial stability.
9. Oppose housing legislation that unduly impacts local taxation capacity or diverts financial resources from essential local public services and infrastructure programs.
10.Support legislation that increases financial assistance to cities, non-profit organizations, and local partnerships to provide affordable, transitional, special needs, and emergency housing to the homeless, seniors, veterans, and people with special needs.
11.Support legislation that increases financial assistance to cities, non-profit organizations, and local partnerships to provide and promote selfempowerment for homeless individuals or families through counseling, job training, and other related services.
12.Support legislation that provides financial assistance, improved access to, and expansion of health care, mental health, and drug addiction services for low income and homeless individuals.
13.Support legislation that removes fair housing barriers and prevents displacement.
Planning and Sustainability
The City prioritizes comprehensive land use planning that creates complete neighborhoods, promotes a jobs/housing match, strengthens Livermore’s economic and fiscal base, provides housing choice, promotes local control with public input, streamlines the permitting process, conserves wildlands, promotes environmental stewardship while reducing the City’s environmental footprint, and generally improves the community’s quality of life. Comprehensive land use planning coupled with environmental stewardship, such as mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases, emissions, solid waste generation, and energy consumption are vital to a community’s quality of life.
1. Oppose legislation that diminishes cities’ decision-making authority over land use decisions, or zoning, or permit process and timelines.
2. Support legislation preserving or enhancing the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.
3. Support land use patterns that maintain safe residential neighborhoods, bolster ATTACHMENT 1
2717
economic prosperity, provide local jobs, preserve open space, protect the environment, and enhance overall quality of life.
4. Oppose state or federal efforts to further erode local government authority regarding the location or permit review of small cell wireless equipment, cellular towers, transmission sites, or other devices on public infrastructure or in the public right of way.
5. Support funding and incentives for smart growth and sustainable development.
6. Support CEQA-reform legislation that improves the cost-effective and timely delivery of projects and decreases the ability for spurious lawsuits.
7. Support RHNA- and APR-reform legislation that adequately provides necessary housing while reducing municipal administrative burden.
8. Support tax rebate programs, like the Williamson Act or Mills Act, to promote agriculture, open space preservation, historic preservation, and good design.
9. Support legislation or grant opportunities for cities that provide funding for developing or enhancing alternative vehicle fueling stations.
10.Support rebate programs, tax credits, and other financial incentives that encourage property owners to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy systems, greenhouse gas-reducing technology, and alternative vehicle fueling stations in parking areas.
11.Monitor state and federal legislation related to climate adaptation.
12.Support measures that increase funding to local governments for landfill diversion programs such as food recovery, composting, and recycling.
13.Support Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation to encourage manufacturers to design environmentally friendly products by holding producers responsible for the costs of managing their products at end of life.
Building Safety
The City prioritizes protection of public health, safety and welfare by proper building design and construction practices.
1. Support legislation that increases the safety of buildings, reduces potential hazards and protects against fire and structure collapse.
2. Support legislation for seismic earthquake retrofits to protect individuals and structures.
3. Support legislation that contributes to the quality and durability of construction methods and materials
4. Monitor Oppose legislation to restrict number of inspections needed to verify safety of the built environment and other components.
ATTACHMENT 1
2718
5. Support measures to streamline photovoltaic and electrical vehicle charging permitting and installation.
6. Support legislation that contributes to the wellbeing of a community, preservation of life safety, and property maintenance.
7. Support legislation that promotes barrier removal and sustainable practices in the built environment.
8. Oppose legislation that establishes unrealistic timeliness for building project review that will potentially create an unsafe built environment.
Infrastructure
The condition of a city’s infrastructure affects the community’s quality-of-life. Sewer and water systems, sidewalks, and roads are subject to a wide number of regulations and must be maintained or replaced to ensure the health of the community.
1. Support state and federal legislation that would expand connectivity and access to digital resources.
2. Oppose legislation regarding infrastructure such as sidewalk repair that increases a city’s unfunded infrastructure liability.
3. Support state and federal legislation that provides additional funding and/or preferred financing for local critical unmet infrastructure needs.
4. Support legislation that reduces or streamlines state and federal permitting requirements.
5. Support legislation that enhances the reliability of water transmission and storage through the Delta to the Tri-Valley.
6. Support legislation that provides new funding methods for flood control and stormwater management.
7. Support legislation that would acknowledge an adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document can be substituted for a federal National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) document for infrastructure projects.
8. Monitor legislation that alters the state’s agency permitting requirements and how they impact the timeliness and viability of natural resource projects planned by government agencies and special districts at the local and regional level including Fish and Game endowments.
Job Creation and Economic Development
The City encourages and supports business through strategic economic development initiatives. Fostering a strong business environment requires job creation, educational opportunities, and workforce development programs.
ATTACHMENT 1
2719
1. Support legislation that enhances or expands community and economic development tools and funding to address development and revitalization needs.
2. Support legislation or grants that focus on downtown development.
3. Support legislation that promotes and funds workforce development and retraining efforts focused on high-skilled jobs required by emerging industries.
4. Support legislation that encourages entrepreneurship, facilitates resourcesharing models, or otherwise reduces barriers to entry for small business.
5. Support legislation that provides insurance or loan guarantees for small business loans during recessionary periods.
6. Support legislation or grants that focus on walkable, transit oriented, and complete districts with access to jobs and services.
Libraries
The Livermore Public Library connects people with information and education, and inspires experiences that support lifelong learning, personal growth, and enhanced quality of life. With strong community support, the Library offers programs, materials, materials, and services most valued by residents.
1. Support legislation that increases financial assistance to cities to provide fund and promote local library programs and literacy services.
2. Support legislation that seeks to close the digital divide through funding local libraryies efforts to such a way they provide broadband internet and devices technology through devices such as hotspots, computers, and tablets, for community members to access.
3. Support legislation and funding efforts relating to early literacy, school readiness, adult literacy, career development, vocational support, and assistance to vulnerable and under-served populations.
4. Oppose censorship and efforts to limit the public’s intellectual freedom and access to information and resources.
5. Support the enhancement of inclusivity, efforts to offer open and unfettered access to information, and the exchange of ideas, and the welcoming of all people to express themselves regardless of their politics or beliefs.
6. Support legislation that fosters growth during the transformation of libraries and library services in a dynamic and increasingly global digital information environment.
7. Support legislation that protects the privacy of patrons and their associated library records and data.
ATTACHMENT 1
2720
8. Support legislation that enhances equitable, diverse, and inclusive initiatives and opportunities.
Public Safety and Emergency Management
Effective public safety significantly enhances a community’s quality-of-life. Maintaining a strong safety presence requires ongoing local, regional, state, and federal support.
1. Support legislation and grants that fund police and fire equipment upgrades, training, and capital improvements.
2. Support legislation that promotes and funds emergency management and recovery efforts.
3. Support legislation that maintains and increases grant funding for the Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) hiring program.
4. Monitor legislation pertaining to unmanned aircrafts (drones) and Federal Aviation Administration regulations.
5. Support legislation to increase penalty for prohibited persons in possession of firearms and use of firearms in the commission of a crime.
6. Support legislation that penalizes individuals who engage in drug and/or distracted driving activities.
7. Support legislative efforts to address the negative impacts of Proposition 47 (Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes, 2014) and Proposition 57 (Parole for NonViolent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Initiative, 2016) and provide local law enforcement with tools to reduce criminal activity.
8. Support legislation that would provide funding and increase access to mental health care, response to mental health related calls for service, and drug/ alcohol treatment programs.
Science, Technology, and Innovation
As the only City in the United States with two national laboratories, science, technology, and innovation play an important role in the Livermore economy, workforce, and community values. Additionally, the City partnership with the labs and i-GATE fosters innovation, job creation, and economic development opportunities.
1. Support legislation that advances or encourages innovation, entrepreneurship, start-ups, small business opportunities, and/or workforce development.
2. Support legislation that encourages the expansion of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) programs in K-12, higher education, libraries, and community-based organizations.
3. Support legislation that encourages and supports the transfer of technology from the national laboratories.
ATTACHMENT 1
2721
4. Support legislation that provides competitive grants, state partnerships, or other resources to encourage innovation and the science, technology, and innovation economies.
5. Support legislation that improves the abilities of the federal laboratories to update or expand their infrastructure.
Transportation and Parking
Regional and local transportation play a key role in a community’s economic vitality and quality-of-life.
1. Support legislation that reduces congestion along Tri-Valley area freeways or reduces truck traffic along I-580 through roadway or rail improvements.
2. Support legislation that enhances the ability of local agencies to finance local transportation programs and facilities.
3. Support legislation that facilitates connectivity between major regional rail/transit systems.
4. Support legislation that provides incentives for rail and multimodal transit stations and transit-oriented development projects.
5. Oppose legislation mandating “one-size-fits-all” parking space requirements for future housing, entertainment, or retail developments or impinging on how parking spaces can be used.
6. Support legislation that provides incentives for shared public/private partnerships.
7. Monitor legislation that defines "high quality transit" for purposes of transitoriented development as anything with service headways above hourly. Review on case-by-case basis to determine any impacts and/or benefits.
8. Support legislation to encourage the sale of unleaded fuel and assistance to pilots for Supplemental Type Certificate acquisition for non- American Society for Testing and Materials unleaded fuels at airports nationwide.
Water
Water, both quantity and quality, is essential to residential quality-of-life as well as agricultural and economic vitality and growth.
1. Oppose legislation that imposes a state tax or fee on customers of a public water system for drinking water.
2. Monitor legislation developing new water conveyance systems such as peripheral canals or tunnels (as mentioned in the proposed Bay Delta ATTACHMENT 1
2722
Conservation Plan) to deliver adequate water to the Tri-Valley and the Silicon Valley.
3. Support legislation that expands the production and use of recycled water or increases local control of water supplies.
4. Oppose legislation that expands statewide mandatory water conservation and/or rationing unless the conservation measures are triggered in response to specific local water supply conditions.
5. Support legislation that allows direct and indirect potable water reuse.
6. Oppose legislation that allows the State Water Resources Control Board or Regional Water Quality Control Board to establish more stringent, clean water objectives unless the legislation provides a demonstrated water quality benefit as well as the means for jurisdictions to achieve the objectives.
7. Support regulations to protect drinking water from the impacts of hydrological fracturing (hydro-fracking) related to oil and gas exploration and extraction.
8. Support legislation and programs that make water, sewer, and/or storm services more affordable for customers.
ATTACHMENT 1
2723
City of Livermore
2024 State and Federal Legislative Platform
(DRAFT)
Item 5.6
Exhibit A to the Resolution
2724
The City of Livermore (“City”) 2024 State and Federal Legislative Platform (“Platform”) highlights the position of the City Council on important issues that align with community goals and policy documents such as the General Plan. City staff monitor bills introduced into the California Legislature and United States Congress. The Platform provides staff direction and allows the City, on the City Council’s behalf, to respond quickly in support of or opposition to bills and other legislative or administrative actions in time-sensitive situations. The City Council delegates its authority to the mayor to sign support or opposition letters, consistent with the Platform. Additionally, the Platform enables staff to communicate on behalf of the City to state legislators and federal elected officials.
The Platform is developed through review of City needs and issues, staff input, and review of League of California Cities priorities and strategies. City Council adopted the first Platform in 2013. At its April 13, 2015, meeting, City Council directed staff to use the Platform as a guide for federal bill tracking and action, too. Typically, the City Council reviews and updates the Platform annually.
The 2024 City of Livermore Platform categories are:
Community-Focused Governance
Fiscal Stability
Affordable Housing and Homelessness
Planning and Sustainability
Building Safety
Infrastructure
Job Creation and Economic Development
Libraries
Public Safety and Emergency Management
Science, Technology, and Innovation
Transportation and Parking
Water
The State and Federal Legislative Platform evolves as City needs adjust, new issues arise, and conditions at the regional, state, and federal level change. Platform adjustments, whether due to federal policy changes or state policy reactions, may be considered at a future City Council meeting or at the next annual review in 2025.
Once approved by the City Council, the 2024. State and Federal Legislative Platform will be posted on the City’s website at www.LivermoreCA.gov/Legislation. Staff also provides the City Council with periodic updates on letters sent, bill progress, and legislative developments.
When appropriate, the City of Livermore joins its Tri-Valley neighbors to advocate for issues and funding at the regional, state, and federal levels. The cities of Livermore, Dublin, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the town of Danville develop a Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework. The Tri-Valley Framework overlaps many of the items in the City’s Platform and provides another opportunity for advocacy progress and success.
Item 5.6
Exhibit A to the Resolution
2725
The Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework is available to view at www.LivermoreCA.gov/Legislation.
Community-Focused Governance
The City values its ability to create policies that best fit the needs of the Livermore community. It is important to advocate for state legislation the provides framework guidance and allows local implementation.
1. Support legislation that enhances or streamlines local governance and allows cities to address the needs of local constituents within a framework of regional cooperation.
2. Monitor legislation that affects the ability of City Council to effectively govern.
3. Monitor cannabis-related legislation.
4. Oppose legislation that would prohibit or limit local governments’ ability to contract out for services.
5. Support legislation that updates both the Brown Act and Public Records Act regarding electronic records and activities that support local decision-making without significant fiscal impact and new regulations that require staff resources.
6. Oppose legislation that requires or expands state involvement in City financial audits, fiscal monitoring, general oversight, or assistance by the State Treasurer, State Controller, or other state agencies.
7. Support a wording change in the Communications Act of 1934 that removes the distinction between “capital” and “operating” funds in order to provide more local control for community television stations in the use of their public, educational and government (PEG) channel fees with no rise in taxes or a reduction in revenue to the cable industry.
Fiscal Stability
Fiscal stability and financial independence are necessary to provide desired services and programs for residents and local businesses. City Council policy decisions direct staff to ensure the City’s long-term financial stability. Unexpected diversion of local funds by the state or federal government erodes the ability of a city to plan and budget for short-and-long term service needs.
1. Oppose legislation that imposes unfunded or inadequate state or federal mandates.
2. Support legislation that updates the tax structure to enhance local government revenues that have declined due to the expansion of e-commerce, increased Item 5.6
Exhibit A to the Resolution
2726
consumption of services rather than durable goods, and innovations in technology.
3. Oppose legislation that reduces local government’s ability to levy fees.
4. Monitor legislation regarding new fees or other revenue-enhancements.
5. Oppose legislation that reduces or eliminates payments to cities for use of property and rights-of-way for telecommunications.
6. Support legislation that provides sustainable and secure public pensions and other post-retirement benefits to ensure responsive and affordable public services.
7. Support legislation that streamlines the Workers’ Compensation system.
8. Oppose legislation that would remove the federal tax exemption for municipal bonds.
Affordable Housing and Homelessness
The availability of a suitable living environment is essential to quality-of-life. It is important to support adequate and affordable housing opportunities and housingrelated service needs.
1. Support regional solutions that balance housing, transportation/transit, and jobs together. Building housing without adequate transportation infrastructure may exacerbate, not alleviate, the affordable housing crisis.
2. Support legislation that protects existing affordable housing stock, including rental apartments, deed-restricted units, and mobile homes, and promotes affordable housing that includes long-term affordability agreements.
3. Support legislation that ensures: 1) incentives and density bonus provisions are directly linked to the level and percentage of affordable units provided for each project; and 2) that density bonus incentives, concessions, and waivers cannot be used to reduce the quantity of required affordable units.
4. Support legislation that enables cities to develop locally appropriate plans that meet state objectives in a manner that is compatible with existing community character.
5. Support legislation that facilitates accessory dwelling units and encourages development of “missing-middle” housing that is compatible with suburban community character.
Item 5.6
Exhibit A to the Resolution
2727
6. Oppose housing legislation that is not accompanied by funding that can support expanded transportation, transit, and infrastructure, including planning, and capital improvement programs and funding to support new school facilities.
7. Oppose housing legislation that results in a net loss of local funding.
8. Support housing legislation that promotes the development and enhancement of a diverse workforce, as long as the legislation does not create an unfunded mandate or conflict with local land use authority and financial stability.
9. Oppose housing legislation that unduly impacts local taxation capacity or diverts financial resources from essential local public services and infrastructure programs.
10. Support legislation that increases financial assistance to cities, non-profit organizations, and local partnerships to provide affordable, transitional, special needs, and emergency housing to the homeless, seniors, veterans, and people with special needs.
11. Support legislation that increases financial assistance to cities, non-profit organizations, and local partnerships to provide and promote selfempowerment for homeless individuals or families through counseling, job training, and other related services.
12. Support legislation that provides financial assistance, improved access to, and expansion of health care, mental health, and drug addiction services for low income and homeless individuals.
13. Support legislation that removes fair housing barriers and prevents displacement.
Planning and Sustainability
The City prioritizes comprehensive land use planning that creates complete neighborhoods, promotes a jobs/housing match, strengthens Livermore’s economic and fiscal base, provides housing choice, promotes local control with public input, streamlines the permitting process, conserves wildlands, promotes environmental stewardship while reducing the City’s environmental footprint, and generally improves the community’s quality of life.
1. Oppose legislation that diminishes cities’ decision-making authority over land use decisions, zoning, or permit process and timelines.
2. Support legislation preserving or enhancing the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.
3. Support land use patterns that maintain safe neighborhoods, bolster economic prosperity, provide local jobs, preserve open space, protect the environment, and enhance overall quality of life.
Item 5.6
Exhibit A to the Resolution
2728
4. Oppose state or federal efforts to further erode local government authority regarding the location or permit review of small cell wireless equipment, cellular towers, transmission sites, or other devices on public infrastructure or in the public right of way.
5. Support funding and incentives for smart growth and sustainable development.
6. Support CEQA-reform legislation that improves the cost-effective and timely delivery of projects and decreases the ability for spurious lawsuits.
7. Support RHNA- and APR-reform legislation that adequately provides necessary housing while reducing municipal administrative burden.
8. Support tax rebate programs, like the Williamson Act or Mills Act, to promote agriculture, open space preservation, historic preservation, and good design.
9. Support legislation or grant opportunities for cities that provide funding for developing or enhancing alternative vehicle fueling stations.
10. Support rebate programs, tax credits, and other financial incentives that encourage property owners to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy systems, greenhouse gas-reducing technology, and alternative vehicle fueling stations in parking areas.
11. Monitor state and federal legislation related to climate adaptation.
12. Support measures that increase funding to local governments for landfill diversion programs such as food recovery, composting, and recycling.
13. Support Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation to encourage manufacturers to design environmentally friendly products by holding producers responsible for the costs of managing their products at end of life.
Building Safety
The City prioritizes protection of public health, safety and welfare by proper building design and construction practices.
1. Support legislation that increases the safety of buildings, reduces potential hazards and protects against fire and structure collapse.
2. Support legislation for seismic earthquake retrofits to protect individuals and structures.
3. Support legislation that contributes to the quality and durability of construction methods and materials
4. Oppose legislation to restrict number of inspections needed to verify safety of the built environment and other components.
Item 5.6
Exhibit A to the Resolution
2729
5. Support measures to streamline photovoltaic and electrical vehicle charging permitting and installation.
6. Support legislation that contributes to the wellbeing of a community, preservation of life safety, and property maintenance.
7. Support legislation that promotes barrier removal and sustainable practices in the built environment.
8. Oppose legislation that establishes unrealistic timeliness for building project review that will potentially create an unsafe built environment.
Infrastructure
The condition of a city’s infrastructure affects the community’s quality-of-life. Sewer and water systems, sidewalks, and roads are subject to a wide number of regulations and must be maintained or replaced to ensure the health of the community.
1. Support state and federal legislation that would expand connectivity and access to digital resources.
2. Oppose legislation regarding infrastructure such as sidewalk repair that increases a city’s unfunded infrastructure liability.
3. Support state and federal legislation that provides additional funding and/or preferred financing for local critical unmet infrastructure needs.
4. Support legislation that reduces or streamlines state and federal permitting requirements.
5. Support legislation that enhances the reliability of water transmission and storage through the Delta to the Tri-Valley.
6. Support legislation that provides new funding methods for flood control and stormwater management.
7. Support legislation that would acknowledge an adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document can be substituted for a federal National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) document for infrastructure projects.
8. Monitor legislation that alters the state’s agency permitting requirements and how they impact the timeliness and viability of natural resource projects planned by government agencies and special districts at the local and regional level including Fish and Game endowments.
Job Creation and Economic Development
The City encourages and supports business through strategic economic development initiatives. Fostering a strong business environment requires job creation, educational opportunities, and workforce development programs.
Item 5.6
Exhibit A to the Resolution
2730
1. Support legislation that enhances or expands community and economic development tools and funding to address development and revitalization needs.
2. Support legislation or grants that focus on downtown development.
3. Support legislation that promotes and funds workforce development and retraining efforts focused on high-skilled jobs required by emerging industries.
4. Support legislation that encourages entrepreneurship, facilitates resourcesharing models, or otherwise reduces barriers to entry for small business.
5. Support legislation that provides insurance or loan guarantees for small business loans during recessionary periods.
6. Support legislation or grants that focus on walkable, transit oriented, and complete districts with access to jobs and services.
Libraries
The Livermore Public Library connects people with information and education, and inspires experiences that support lifelong learning, personal growth, and enhanced quality of life. With strong community support, the Library offers programs, materials, materials, and services most valued by residents.
1. Support legislation that increases financial assistance to cities to fund and promote local library programs and literacy services.
2. Support legislation that seeks to close the digital divide through funding local library efforts to provide broadband internet and technology through devices such as hotspots, computers, and tablets, for community members to access.
3. Support legislation and funding efforts relating to early literacy, school readiness, adult literacy, career development, vocational support, and assistance to vulnerable and under-served populations.
4. Oppose censorship and efforts to limit the public’s intellectual freedom and access to information and resources.
5. Support the enhancement of inclusivity, efforts to offer open and unfettered access to information, the exchange of ideas, and the welcoming of all people to express themselves regardless of their politics or beliefs.
6. Support legislation that fosters growth during the transformation of libraries and library services in a dynamic and increasingly global digital information environment.
7. Support legislation that protects the privacy of patrons and their associated library records and data.
8. Support legislation that enhances equitable, diverse, and inclusive initiatives and opportunities.
Item 5.6
Exhibit A to the Resolution
2731
Public Safety and Emergency Management
Effective public safety significantly enhances a community’s quality-of-life. Maintaining a strong safety presence requires ongoing local, regional, state, and federal support.
1. Support legislation and grants that fund police and fire equipment upgrades, training, and capital improvements.
2. Support legislation that promotes and funds emergency management and recovery efforts.
3. Support legislation that maintains and increases grant funding for the Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) hiring program.
4. Monitor legislation pertaining to unmanned aircrafts (drones) and Federal Aviation Administration regulations.
5. Support legislation to increase penalty for prohibited persons in possession of firearms and use of firearms in the commission of a crime.
6. Support legislation that penalizes individuals who engage in drug and/or distracted driving activities.
7. Support legislative efforts to address the negative impacts of Proposition 47 (Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes, 2014) and Proposition 57 (Parole for NonViolent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Initiative, 2016) and provide local law enforcement with tools to reduce criminal activity.
8. Support legislation that would provide funding and increase access to mental health care, response to mental health related calls for service, and drug/ alcohol treatment programs.
Science, Technology, and Innovation
As the only City in the United States with two national laboratories, science, technology, and innovation play an important role in the Livermore economy, workforce, and community values. Additionally, the City partnership with the labs and i-GATE fosters innovation, job creation, and economic development opportunities.
1. Support legislation that advances or encourages innovation, entrepreneurship, start-ups, small business opportunities, and/or workforce development.
2. Support legislation that encourages the expansion of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) programs in K-12, higher education, libraries, and community-based organizations.
3. Support legislation that encourages and supports the transfer of technology from the national laboratories.
Item 5.6
Exhibit A to the Resolution
2732
4. Support legislation that provides competitive grants, state partnerships, or other resources to encourage innovation and the science, technology, and innovation economies.
5. Support legislation that improves the abilities of the federal laboratories to update or expand their infrastructure.
Transportation and Parking
Regional and local transportation play a key role in a community’s economic vitality and quality-of-life.
1. Support legislation that reduces congestion along Tri-Valley area freeways or reduces truck traffic along I-580 through roadway or rail improvements.
2. Support legislation that enhances the ability of local agencies to finance local transportation programs and facilities.
3. Support legislation that facilitates connectivity between major regional rail/transit systems.
4. Support legislation that provides incentives for rail and multimodal transit stations and transit-oriented development projects.
5. Oppose legislation mandating “one-size-fits-all” parking space requirements for future housing, entertainment, or retail developments or impinging on how parking spaces can be used.
6. Support legislation that provides incentives for shared public/private partnerships.
7. Monitor legislation that defines "high quality transit" for purposes of transitoriented development as anything with service headways above hourly. Review on case-by-case basis to determine any impacts and/or benefits.
8. Support legislation to encourage the sale of unleaded fuel and assistance to pilots for Supplemental Type Certificate acquisition for non- American Society for Testing and Materials unleaded fuels at airports nationwide.
Water
Water, both quantity and quality, is essential to residential quality-of-life as well as agricultural and economic vitality and growth.
1. Oppose legislation that imposes a state tax or fee on customers of a public water system for drinking water.
2. Monitor legislation developing new water conveyance systems such as peripheral canals or tunnels (as mentioned in the proposed Bay Delta Item 5.6
Exhibit A to the Resolution
2733
Conservation Plan) to deliver adequate water to the Tri-Valley and the Silicon Valley.
3. Support legislation that expands the production and use of recycled water or increases local control of water supplies.
4. Oppose legislation that expands statewide mandatory water conservation and/or rationing unless the conservation measures are triggered in response to specific local water supply conditions.
5. Support legislation that allows direct and indirect potable water reuse.
6. Oppose legislation that allows the State Water Resources Control Board or Regional Water Quality Control Board to establish more stringent, clean water objectives unless the legislation provides a demonstrated water quality benefit as well as the means for jurisdictions to achieve the objectives.
7. Support regulations to protect drinking water from the impacts of hydrological fracturing (hydro-fracking) related to oil and gas exploration and extraction.
8. Support legislation and programs that make water, sewer, and/or storm services more affordable for customers.
Item 5.6
Exhibit A to the Resolution
2734
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
2735
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
2736
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
2737
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
2738
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
2739
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
2740
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
2741
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
2742
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
2743
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
2744
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
2745
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2746
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2747
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2748
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2749
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2750
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2751
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2752
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2753
1 OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION
March 25th, 2024
OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
SITE HISTORY
• SMP-39 AND SMP-40 owned by Pleasanton Gravel
Company in excess of 50 years
• Vacant grassland with Surface Mining Permits
• PCG Acquired these properties with the intention of
mining these properties
• PGC-OMP Introduction and agreement since 2019
• OMP working on this project with City of Livermore
over 3 years
1 2
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2754
2 OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
AERIAL OVERVIEW
OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
PROJECT DESCRIPTION- SMP 39
• Six proposed building/ 755,000 SF
• Designed to meet user flexibility- for sale or lease; smaller buildings for local entrepreneurs
• Site planning submittal in 4Q 2024/PC 2Q 2025
• Working with Livermore IEDD on potential users
• Dedicating land and cost of improvements for
widening of Jack London Blvd and bike trail
3 4
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2755
3 OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SMP 39
OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SMP 39
5 6
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2756
4 OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
PROJECT DESCRIPTION- SMP 40
• Two buildings- 477,000 and 280,000 sf • Building 1 Pre-leased to Lam ResearchExpanding in Livermore • Building 2 Design: Sensitive to Neighbors to
the east • North/South loading
• Screened loading areas
• 884-1,000’ from neighbors to the East • Limited night time truck trips
OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
PROJECT DESCRIPTION- SMP 40
• Roofs designed to accommodate PV
• TDM to reduce VMT’s
• Abundant EV Charging Stations – 75 at CofO
• Electrical conduit in the Truck Court for
future truck use
• NO Natural Gas connections
• Commence grading 7/15/24
7 8
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2757
5 OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
SITE PLAN SMP 40
OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
9 10
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2758
6 OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
PROJECT BENEFITS
• Hundreds of new high quality jobs and tens of millions of dollars in annual salaries and wages
• Annex property into the City of Livermore. Long term tax revenue • Combination of warehouse/Dist. and Advance Mfg. jobs
• Hundreds of new construction jobs- Sheet Metals Workers Local 104, IBEW, Sprinkler Fitters, Ironworkers, UA P&S
OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
PROJECT BENEFITS
• Additional Revenue for the City of Livermore, MUSD, and other agencies • Improved Jobs – Housing Balance- reduce commute times • Expansion Opportunities for a new or existing companies in Livermore- Building 1 • Support for Livermore retail and restaurants
• Arroyo Mucho Trail Connection- get bikes off Isabel/Jack London 11 12
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2759
7 ECONOMIC BENEFITS SMP 40 ONLY
(Source Kosmont & Assoc)
$180,000/yr. or $3.6 million over
20 years in direct property tax revenue. One time $ 792,000 in LVJUSD Fees + $242,000/yr. or $4.8 M
over 20 years
Over $14 million in one-time
development fees
Development Impact and City Fees
Funding Local Schools
General Fund and Police and Fire
Services
Parks and Recreation
$70,000/yr. or $1.4M over 20
years towards LPRD Funding for Parks and Recreation
OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
ECONOMIC BENEFITS SMP 40 ONLY
(Source Kosmont & Assoc Oct 2023)
SMP-39 nearly identical one time
development fees, LVJUSD Fees
and fiscal revenue from Property
taxes
$750,000 in hard costs and $500-
$750,000 in soft costs for trail
overcrossing
$100,000 contribution for
Marketing and City Branding
Funding to Livermore IEDD to
Promote City of Livermore
Connection of Bike trails
OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
Addition Revenue to General
Fund and LVJUSD
SMP-39 Dedication of Jack
London Widening and Street
Improvements of $8-10 m
Long-Term Master plan
infrastructure upgrades to streets
and utilities
13 14
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2760
8 PROJECT BENEFITS
OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
TRAIL OVERVIEW
15 16
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2761
9 OMP OAKS BUSINESS PARK
BUILDING DISTANCES
17 Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
2762
1 Helena Graves
From: Pete Sheehan
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 10:29 AM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Pete Sheehan
Attachments: 2024 GSEJA _ SWAPE Response to Comments City of Livermore - SMP 39, SMP 40.pdf; GSEJA Comment Letter SMP 39:40 EIR .pdf
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Subject: GSEJA Public Comment Livermore City Council Meeting 3-25-24 SMP 39/40 Project EIR Public Hearing Item 6.3
To Whom It May Concern,
Attached are public comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. These comments are submitted to the City Council to be included in the record for the City Council's consideration regarding GSEJA Public Comment Livermore City Council Meeting 3-25-24 SMP 39/40 Project EIR Public Hearing Item 6.3 For clarification purposes, only the highlighted yellow portion of the body of this email is the public comment to be added into the record along with the two attachments.
Please confirm receipt of this email.
Public Comment
Good evening, my name is Pete Sheehan and I’m with the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. We submitted a comment letter to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Our letter identified several deficiencies with the EIR. In addition to the comment letter and subsequent public comments, we have also submitted a rebuttal letter by SWAPE(Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise). This rebuttal is in regard to the City’s response to our original comment letter.
During these turbulent times, we as citizens expect and deserve our local government’s elected and appointed officials to protect us from environmental and social injustice, to aid in the preservation and rehabilitation of the environment in which we all share, and to ensure accountability and responsibility regarding the environmental decisions they may make.
We stand by our comment letter and believe the EIR is flawed, and must be redrafted and recirculated for public review. In closing we call on this commission to be a leader on the aforementioned issues and be the first line of defense for our citizenry and environment. Only by working together can we continue to be excellent stewards of our environment, outstanding stewards to our citizens and each other. Thank You.
Please confirm receipt of this email.
Thank You,
Pete Sheehan
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2763
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
March 20, 2024
Gary Ho
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 4880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Comments on the SMP 39/SMP 40 Project (SCH No. 2017091054) Dear Mr. Ho,
We have reviewed the January 2024 Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and the August 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the SMP 39/SMP 40 Project (“Project”) located in the City of Livermore (“City”). Upon review, we find that the FEIR is insufficient in addressing our concerns regarding the Project’s health risk impacts. As asserted in our October 11th, 2023 comment letter, a revised EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential impacts on the environment.
Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions In our October 11th comment letter, we identified several issues with the DEIR’s air model (California Emissions Estimator Model, “CalEEMod”)1 that reduced the Project’s construction and operational emissions. After review of the FEIR’s response to our comments, we found that the FEIR fails to address all our concerns and maintain that the DEIR’s CalEEMod models are flawed and fail to accurately estimate the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions. Specifically, the FEIR fails to adequately address our comments regarding the changes to individual construction phase lengths. Consequently, we find the DEIR and FEIR to be inadequate and maintain that a revised EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s local and regional air quality impacts. Until a proper air quality analysis is conducted, the Project should not be approved.
1 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2764
2 Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths As stated in our October 11th comment letter, the “SMPs Project (SMP 39)” and “SMPs Project - SMP 40” CalEEMod models include several changes to the default individual construction phase lengths (Appendix C, pp. 1272, 1306, 1335, 1375, 1409, 1438, 1478, 1512, 1541, 1672, 1702, 1727, 1763, 1793, 1818). Review of the FEIR’s response to comments demonstrates that while the Project justifies the total construction duration, the FEIR again fails to justify that the individual construction phase lengths were provided by the Project applicant.
Regarding our comment on construction phase lengths, the FEIR responds:
“Because project-specific information was provided by the applicant, the default construction phase lengths were adjusted to match the actual anticipated construction schedule for the project” (p. 2.109).
The FEIR continues, stating:
“Nevertheless, in response to the comment, page 4.2-42 of the Draft EIR hereby revised as show below to provide greater specificity regarding the overall length of construction that was assumed within the emissions modeling prepared for the proposed project and included as Appendix A t the Draft EIR:
The following inherent design features and project-specific information were included in the modeling conducted for SMP 39:
• Construction would begin in September of 2024;
• Construction would occur over approximately two years 22 months; • 24,000 cubic yards (CY) of soil import would be required; and • Tier 3 engines would be used for all off-road heavy-duty equipment over 150 • horsepower.
Similarly, the following inherent design features and project-specific information were included in the modeling conducted for SMP 40:
• Construction would begin in September of 2023;
• Construction would occur over approximately two years 15 months; • 7,000 CY of soil import would be required; and
• Tier 3 engines would be used for all off-road heavy-duty equipment over 150 • horsepower.
The foregoing minor text revisions clarify the inputs used in the emissions modeling and reproduces information that was available in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. The foregoing changes do not affect the conclusions presented within the Draft EIR” (p. 2-109).
As discussed, the FEIR substantiates the overall length of construction of 22 months, among other Project details. However, the FEIR again fails to substantiate the individual construction phase lengths.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2765
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2766
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2767
5 • Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity that is equal to or greater than the building’s projected energy needs, including all electrical chargers.
• Designing all project building roofs to accommodate the maximum future coverage of solar panels and installing the maximum solar power generation capacity feasible. • Constructing zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
• Running conduit to designated locations for future electric truck charging stations. • Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks.
• Oversizing electrical rooms by 25 percent or providing a secondary electrical room to accommodate future expansion of electric vehicle charging capability. • Constructing and maintaining electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of employee parking spaces (for example, requiring at least 10% of all employee parking spaces to be equipped with electric vehicle charging stations of at least Level 2 charging performance)
• Running conduit to an additional proportion of employee parking spaces for a future increase in the number of electric light-duty charging stations.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the project.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
• Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel. • Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. • Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages singleoccupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking.
• Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking. • Designing to LEED green building certification standards. • Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations. • Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2768
6 • Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area.
• Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB-approved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. • Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and requiring tenants who own, operate, or hire trucking carriers with more than 100 trucks to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers.
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. A revised EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The revised EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Attachment A: Updated Construction Calculations Attachment B: SWAPE's Updated CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment C: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment D: Paul Rosenfeld CV
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2769
Phase
Default Phase
Length
Construction
Duration %
Construction
Duration
Revised Phase
Length
Grading 110 1915 0.0574 304 17
Construction 1110 1915 0.5796 304 176
Paving 75 1915 0.0392 304 12
Architectural Coating 75 1915 0.0392 304 12
Total Default
Construction
Duration
Revised
Construction
Duration
Start Date 9/2/2024 9/2/2024
End Date 11/30/2029 7/3/2025
Total Days 1915 304
Construction Schedule Calculations
Attachment A
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2770
Phase
Default Phase
Length
Construction
Duration %
Construction
Duration
Revised Phase
Length
Grading 75 1294 0.0580 475 28
Construction 740 1294 0.5719 475 272
Paving 55 1294 0.0425 475 20
Architectural Coating 55 1294 0.0425 475 20
Total Default
Construction
Duration
Revised
Construction
Duration
Start Date 9/1/2023 9/1/2023
End Date 3/18/2027 12/19/2024
Total Days 1294 475
Construction Schedule Calculations
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2771
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2772
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2773
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2774
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2775
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2776
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2777
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2778
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2779
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2780
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2781
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2782
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2783
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2784
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2785
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2786
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2787
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2788
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2789
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2790
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2791
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2792
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2793
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2794
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2795
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2796
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2797
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2798
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2799
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2800
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2801
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2802
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2803
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2804
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2805
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2806
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2807
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2808
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2809
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2810
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2811
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2812
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2813
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2814
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2815
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2816
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2817
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2818
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2819
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2820
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2821
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2822
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2823
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2824
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2825
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2826
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2827
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2828
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2829
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2830
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2831
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2832
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2833
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2834
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2835
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2836
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2837
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2838
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2839
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2840
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2841
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2842
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2843
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2844
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2845
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2846
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2847
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2848
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2849
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2850
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2851
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2852
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2853
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2854
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2855
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2856
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2857
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2858
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2859
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2860
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2861
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2862
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2863
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2864
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2865
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2866
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2867
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2868
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2869
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2870
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2871
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2872
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2873
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2874
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2875
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2876
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2877
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2878
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2879
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2880
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2881
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2882
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2883
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2884
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2885
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2886
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2887
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2888
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2889
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2890
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2891
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2892
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2893
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2894
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2895
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2896
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2897
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2898
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2899
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2900
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2901
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2902
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2903
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2904
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2905
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2906
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2907
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2908
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2909
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2910
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2911
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2912
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2913
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2914
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2915
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2916
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2917
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2918
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2919
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2920
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2921
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2922
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2923
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2924
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2925
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial StormwaterCompliance
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Item
Attachment
6.3 C
Public Comment
2926
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2927
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted Item 6.3
Public Comment
2928
4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific Item 6.3
Public Comment
2929
5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2930
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2931
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te ri z a ti o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2932
8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2933
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.
Item 6.3
Attachment D
Public Comment
2934
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:
Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2935
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2936
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2937
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2938
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2939
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2940
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.
Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.
Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2941
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.
Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2942
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.
Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a
AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.
Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.
Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.
Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.
Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2943
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.
Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2944
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case No. cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2945
To: City of Livermore City Council
From: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Subject: SMP 39/40 Project EIR
This letter is to serve as further comment in addition to all previously submitted comments and documents by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance.
CalEnviroScreen Information
CalEnviroScreen is a mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. CalEnviroScreen uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores for every census tract in the state. The scores are mapped so that different communities can be compared. An area with a high score is one that experiences a much higher pollution burden than areas with low scores. CalEnviroScreen ranks communities based on data that are available from state and federal government sources. CalEnviroScreen is updated and maintained by The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, on behalf ofthe California Environmental Protection Agency.
CalEnviroScreen Data on : SMP 39/40 EIR Project Location/Area The above listed project is in census tract (6001451300). Overall, when compared to other census tracts, the project site census tract is in the 83rd percentile regarding pollution. As far as pollution burden is concerned, this census tract is in the 85th percentile. In terms of Ozone, this census tract is in the 85th percentile, Particulate Matter 2.5 98th percentile, Diesel Particulate Matter 41st percentile, Toxic Releases 43rd percentile and Traffic 8 th percentile to name a few.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2946
Conclusion
Consider the above referenced information when making this important decision. Realize that you and the citizens of this area face some of the WORST POLLUTION in the entire state of California.
It is the responsibility of the City’s elected and appointed officials to make environmentally responsible development decisions. Based on the CalEnviroScreen data, this is more than sufficient evidence of the further air quality impacts that the citizenry of Livermore will continue to encounter with further development of another warehouse. We are not against development, as we believe it is necessary for further economic growth in our current society. Development needs to be conducted with the highest of expectations to ensure the local population does not suffer further air quality burdens.
We stand by our comments and believe the EIR is flawed and should be redrafted and recirculated for public review.
Respectfully Submitted,
Pete Sheehan
Pete Sheehan
GSEJA
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2947
Source -
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/4af93cf9888a424481d2868391af2d82/p age/home/?data_id=dataSource_2-1754d6afdb4-layer-9%3A7306 Glossary of Terms
Ozone - Amount of daily maximum 8-hour Ozone concentration Particulate Matter 2.5 - Annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations Diesel Particulate Matter - Diesel PM emissions from on‐road and non‐road sources Toxic Releases - Toxicity‐weighted concentrations of modeled chemical releases to air from
facility emissions and off‐site incineration.
Traffic -Traffic density, in vehicle‐kilometers per hour per road length, within 150 meters of the census tract boundary.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2948
1 Helena Graves
From: Akerblom, Marty
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 6:47 AM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Wallace, Marshall
Subject: City Council Meeting 3/25/2024 - Public Comment on Agenda Item 6.3 (SMP-39/SMP-40 Project)
Attachments: 2024.03.25 Letter to City Council re Public Trail at SMP-40 4883-1561-8224 v.2 (4885-0086-1361.1).pdf
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
On behalf of El Charro Spur LLC, I am submiƫng the aƩached public comment on Agenda Item 6.3 (SMP-39/SMP-40 Project) for the City Council’s March 25, 2024 meeƟng. Please provide this comment leƩer to the City Council for their consideraƟon.
Margaret R. Akerblom
Partner
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Direct (213) 955-5623 | Main (213) 622-5555 | Mobile (626) 372-5588 [email protected] | Bio
Allen Matkins
_____________________________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.
Item 6.3
Public Comment
2949
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 | Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: 213.622.5555 | Facsimile: 213.620.8816
www.allenmatkins.com
Margaret R. Akerblom
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 213.955.5623 File Number: 372256.00005/4883-1561-8224.2 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
March 25, 2024
City Council
City of Livermore
1016 S. Livermore Ave.
Livermore, CA 94550
Re: Public Comment on SMP-39 and SMP-40 Project
City Council Meeting March 25, 2024
City Council of the City of Livermore:
We represent El Charro Spur LLC, which owns the approximately 69-acre parcel (“ECS Property”) directly south of and abutting the SMP-40 property, which is the subject of the proposed SMP-39 and SMP-40 project before the City Council on March 25, 2024. On behalf of El Charro Spur LLC, we submitted a public comment to the Planning Commission for its March 5, 2024 meeting at which the Commission considered the SMP-39/SMP-40 project.
Specifically, we raised the issue that the SMP-39/SMP-40 project proposes to construct a public trail for biking, walking and other public access along the southern property line of the SMP40 property, and the adjoining land owned by the Zone 7 Water Agency (“Zone 7”) that will create a significant health and safety hazard given the proposed trail’s immediate proximity to the Arroyo Mocho, the ECS Property, and active mining areas, which we explain in more detail in our March 5, 2024 letter to the Commission. While the plan calls for fencing along the southern side of the proposed public trail for the length of the SMP-40 property, which will prevent public access to the Arroyo from that location, it provides for no similar southerly fencing along the Zone 7 portion of the trail. Left unchanged, the design of the trail would allow direct, unimpeded access to the Arroyo Mocho via the Zone 7 property by anyone using the trail – including during flood events.
This public access would invite trespassing across ECS property to the west of the Zone 7 property, and into the active mining operation of Vulcan Materials Company. This heightened public safety risk was not acknowledged or studied in the project’s Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2023010091) (“EIR”) nor addressed in the project’s conditions of approval.
The Commission did not address our comments at its March 5, 2024 meeting, so we are requesting the City Council to carefully consider the impacts that the proposed public trail may cause. Instead of repeating the points in our March 5, 2024 letter, we attach a copy of it and Item 6.3
Public Comment
2950
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
SMP-40 Project
March 25, 2024