Regionally, the City continues to work with the Zone 7 Water Agency and surrounding cities to develop a Flood Management Plan and perform annual flood conveyance system condition assessments.
Annually, the City completes creek bank repairs and improves flood conveyance. Our Stream Maintenance Program allows streamlined environmental permitting so work can be completed annually. The City is developing a Habitat Conservation Plan which will further streamline this process and facilitate permits in sensitive areas citywide. This year debris and sediment was cleared from the Arroyo Las Positas to improve flood conveyance at Airway Boulevard and repair banks along the Arroyo Mocho. The City just completed the design for two projects with FEMA Flood Mitigation Grant funds that will be constructed in the next two years to mitigate flooding along the Arroyo Las Positas downstream of Airway Blvd and on Collier Canyon Creek.
With respect to flooding in Altamont Creek, the City is implementing multiple bridge repair and replacement projects that help raise bridge elevations to reduce the creek flow restriction. Bridges on Heather Lane crossing the Arroyo Las Positas and Bluebell Blvd. crossing Altamont Creek were included in the City 5-year Capital Improvement Program Budget. Additionally, the City has identified additional flood mitigation sites on the Arroyo Las Positas near Airway Blvd and near Altamont Creek and is submitting applications for FEMA grant funding to complete those projects.
Until this important work can be completed, City of Livermore residents qualify for a 20% discount on flood insurance that is above the preferred risk rate.
The City continues to enforce our Storm Water Regulations requiring all new development and redevelopment to incorporate hydromodification into their site improvements so that stormwater flows do not exceed the pre-project conditions. The Garaventa Hills Project includes storm water retention design features that will result in no net increase of runoff after development of the project. Design features include bio-retention units at each lot and a detention basin designed for a 100-year storm.
With implementation of these features, development of the project will not result in increased on- or off-site flooding in Altamont Creek, nearby wetlands, or Laughlin Road. City and regional plans are implementing annual flood system condition assessments and annual maintenance to address the risk of flooding citywide.
Information in the comments regarding on- or off- site flooding events within Altamont Creek or the surrounding wetlands does not indicate the potential for new or more severe impacts of the Project because the flooding near the confluence of Altamont Creek and Arroyo Las Positas results from downstream constrictions and flood flows.
The flows from the developed project site with the detention basins in place will be Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-7
EXHIBIT B
460
November 5, 2024
the same or less than that of the undeveloped site for all storms from small to large storms including the 100-year storm.
Hydrocarbons
The area has a known history of the presence of hydrocarbons and the Project includes Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval in the event hydrocarbons are encountered during construction and in the future.
• The City required additional soil borings for the Project and no evidence of near-surface oil or seepage was found at the Project site. • Design features have been included in the event hydrocarbons are present to include an oil separator at the storm drain maintenance hole just before water enters the proposed detention basin and material specification for the Storm Drain pipe that form a sealed system designed to minimize the chance of runoff intrusion and/or naturally occurring oil intrusion into the system.
Comments discussed the possibility of oil seepage from the Beer Creek development. The possibility of oil seepage from the Bear Creek Development is not new information as the possibility of seepage from the development, as well as naturally occurring oil, was analyzed in the DEIR and FEIR. Mitigation Haz-2 requires the project to confirm the absence of nearby surface oil or implement over excavation during grading of the site.
More information regarding the City's flood prevention services may be found at the following link: Creeks and Floods I Livermore, CA
Page RP6-8 Garaventa Hills Project
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
EXHIBIT B
461
Swaim Biological Incorporated
4435 First Street PMB #312
Livermore, CA 94551
To: Steve Sewart, City of Livermore
From: Leslie Koenig
Date: October 31, 2024
Re: Garaventa Hills Project
As a consulting biologist for the City of Livermore (City), Swaim Biological Incorporated (SBI) has developed the following recommendations regarding the changes in listing status for special status species evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Garaventa Hills Project.
SBI conducted an updated records search for the Property evaluating any new records after 2018 in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) after the issuance of the previous EIR documents. There are no new special status species occurrences within the boundaries of the Property. SBI biologists documented an adult male western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) with a GPS monitor on it moving through the portion of Altamont Creek that the pedestrian bridge will go over the Property, however, this record is not yet in the CNDDB.
The following special status species analyzed in the EIR has undergone a change in the state protected status:
Western burrowing owl received candidate listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) on October 10, 2024. Until the Fish and Game Commission completes a listing determination, the species is afforded the same protections under CESA as a listed species.
The following special status species analyzed in the EIR have currently proposed changes in their federal protected status. However, these proposed status changes have not been finalized. Candidate and proposed threatened or endangered species are not afforded the same protections as a listed species, therefore, conference on the species does not occur until a listing decision is published in the federal register.
Western spadefoot is currently listed as proposed threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). The Service is working on the final listing determination. Western pond turtle is currently listed as proposed threatened by FESA. A final listing determination is expected in 2025.
The EIR includes biological mitigation measures for western burrowing owl and western spadefoot. The current mitigation measures for western burrowing owl and western spadefoot toad remain sufficient for addressing CEQA compliance as analyzed in the EIR.
The analysis in the EIR (Appendix C of the draft EIR) determined there were 37 occurrences of western pond turtle within the nine-quad area surrounding the Property and that roughly half of those had occurred in the last 10 years. The EIR determined that despite these occurrences and the potential to occur on the Property, the western pond turtle was considered unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat.
However, to the extent the proposed federal listing of western spadefoot toad and western pond turtle under the FESA may change the applicable regulatory requirements, the following revision to Mitigation Measure Bio-9 is recommended to address the potential future change in listing status of western
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-9
EXHIBIT B
462
spadefoot toad and western pond turtle and the potential future requirement for consultation with the USFWS. With implementation of this revised measure there would not be a new or worsened environmental impact.
Bio-9: Conduct a pre-construction surveys for western spadefoot toad and western pond turtle. A sSurveys for western spadefoot toad and western pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist a maximum of one week prior to construction. The surveys should include the potential breeding habitat of both species and an area within 50 feet of that habitat. If a western spadefoot toad or a western pond turtle is found, the biologist shall move it to suitable habitat in a safe location outside of the construction zone. In the event that a western spadefoot toad or western pond turtle is observed within an active construction zone, the contractor shall temporarily halt construction activities until a biologist has moved the toad or turtle to a safe location outside the construction zone, within similar habitat. In the event the western spadefoot toad and/or western pond turtle are officially listed by the USFWS the Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS for potential take of these species and implement all measures specified in the authorizations obtained from USFWS. Such measures are expected to be similar to those described for Mitigation Measure 4c.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these recommendations.
Sincerely,
Leslie Koenig, Principal Biologist
Swaim Biological, Incorporated
Page RP6-10 Garaventa Hills Project
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
EXHIBIT B
463
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-11
Master Response 3: “Available” Funds
A number of commenters indicate that they believe funds are available for purchase and preservation of the Project site. Although funds do generally exist for that purpose, the potential availability of such funds for use in acquisition of the Project site was the focus of the RP Draft EIR and the issue was analyzed in detail. As summarized on pages RP3-15 and RP3-16 of the RP Draft EIR:
“The property owner is not a willing seller. Without a willing seller, the Project site has been determined not to be eligible for funding through the Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund or the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement funds.
“Use of eminent domain to acquire the property from an unwilling seller, if it could be defended legally, would be costly (over $17-25 million) and contrary to the City’s past practice. There are other funding sources available for an eminent domain approach, including the Open Space Acquisition and Management Fund, Transferable Development Credits Fund, and/or General Fund allocation (if authorized by voters through ballot initiatives/bond measures); however, these funds are either not eligible to be used for the Project site or are prioritized elsewhere. “Additionally, the Project site has a long-established residential designation, and is identified in the current Livermore General Plan Housing Element site inventory as a site for residential development. Under the No Net Loss provisions of state housing laws, additional process would be required to remove the Project site from the Housing Element’s residential development site inventory, which could add additional cost to the acquisition of the site for open space preservation. “Alternative A: No Project, No Development represents the possibility that the Project site would be preserved as open space. As discussed above, the potential funding sources for such open space acquisition and preservation have been explored and it has been concluded that the site is either ineligible for use of those funds due to an unwilling seller or would require legally-complicated and cost prohibitive fair market value eminent domain proceedings and use of funds prioritized elsewhere.
“The analysis and evidence cited above can support a conclusion by the lead agency that Alternative A: No Project, No Development involving site acquisition and preservation as open space is not a ‘feasible’ alternative the lead agency is compelled to adopt. The lead agency will take this evidence and analysis into account when making the findings required by CEQA regarding the feasibility of Alternative A: No Project, No Development.”
An alternative that does not meet the basic project objectives is not a legally feasible alternative that the City is required to adopt (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(c)).
Master Response 4: Willing Seller and Purchase Price
A number of commenters questioned whether there was a willing seller and what the purchase price would be.
Grant funding usually includes criteria that the owner is willing to sell the property for the funding purpose at an agreed upon price because without a willing seller, purchase of the property would require eminent domain proceedings (discussed on pages RP3-13 to RP3-14). The determination that there was not a willing seller was addressed on pages RP3-4 to RP3-5 of the RP Draft EIR. The series of
EXHIBIT B
464
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-12 Garaventa Hills Project
letters between the City and the owner’s representative referenced below were included in full in Appendix RP-A of the RP Draft EIR.
The “selling price” of $3.5 million referenced in several comments was not presented as a price at which the owners would sell the property to the City. Commenters seem to have calculated the price by multiplying the City’s offer amount and the seller’s indication in a letter from the owners’ representative (dated February 5, 2024) that they are in contract to sell the property for “400%” of that amount. The February 5 letter clearly states that the seller has “zero interest” in accepting the City’s offer and that they believe doing so would be a breach of their existing contract to sell the property to Lafferty.
As explained in the RP Draft EIR pages RP3-8 to RP3-9, an offer of approximately $1.7 million was made upon direction from the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee to match a higher price per acre consistent with a recollected previous grant request for another property within the Livermore Urban Growth Boundary. In response to this offer, the owners’ representative further clarifies the owners’ position: “The owners are not interested in selling this property to the City of Livermore for reasons largely explained in response to your prior February 8, 2024 inquiry. The owners are in a contract to sell the property to Lafferty Communities. They don’t want to break that contract. They like the Lafferty development plan for their property. The owners would like to see the Lafferty project approved by the City. The owners do not want to receive any more purchase offers from the City as they are not in a position to sell their property to the City. Moreover as was previously pointed out, even if the owners wanted to sell to the City (they do not), this could not be legally done.” The circumstance under which the City would be legally required to offer a fair market value for the property would be if the sale were forced through eminent domain proceedings. As discussed on pages RP3-13 to RP3-14 of the RP Draft EIR, fair market value would be established through appraisal of the site, which has an existing residential zoning, and would be expected to be valued at between $17-35 million.
RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC COMMENTS
The following pages contain comments on the RP Draft EIR. Each comment is numbered and responses to these comments are provided following each comment letter or set.
Letter A – Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Plan Review Team Comment A-1 Thank you for submitting the Garaventa Hills Project plans. The PG&E Plan Review Team is currently reviewing the information provided. Should this project have the potential to interfere with PG&E’s facilities, we intend to respond to you with project specific comments. Attached is some general information when working near PG&E facilities that must be adhered to when working near PG&E’s facilities and land rights.
This email and attachment does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of PG&E’s land rights for any purpose not previously conveyed. If there are subsequent modifications made to your design, we ask that you resubmit the plans to the email address listed below.
If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact the PG&E Plan Review Team at [email protected].
EXHIBIT B
465
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-13
[Content of the attachment follows]
Thank you for submitting the Garaventa Hills Project plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area. If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities.
Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights.
Below is additional information for your review:
1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning: https://www.pge.com/en/account/servicerequests/building-and-renovation.html.
2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services.
3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities.
Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required.
This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required.
Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities
There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws:
https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf
EXHIBIT B
466
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-14 Garaventa Hills Project
1. Standby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concrete demolition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated through the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of your work.
2. Access: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice. Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E’s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice.
Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1:4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.
3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe.
Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E’s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few areas.
Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments).
No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded.
4. Grading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1:4.
5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 24 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.)
Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away.
EXHIBIT B
467
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-15
Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.
6. Boring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline.
There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations.
For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 24 inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions.
Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment.
7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 24 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement.
If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in conflict.
8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement.
This includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG&E’s ability to access its facilities.
9. Fencing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access.
Gates will be secured with PG&E corporation locks.
10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No trees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area. Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area.
11. Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as
EXHIBIT B
468
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-16 Garaventa Hills Project
metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering.
12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines. With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is complete.
13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities.
Attachment 2 – Electric Facilities
It is PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows:
1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E’s transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/parcel maps as “RESTRICTED USE AREA – NO BUILDING.”
2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers. Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E’s review.
PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-to-conductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to base of tower or structure.
3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&’s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall, fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment.
4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 10 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged.
EXHIBIT B
469
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-17
5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E’s fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines.
6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed.
7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed.
8. Streets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement.
9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction.
10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E.
11. Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans.
Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications.
12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E’s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor’s responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety
(https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations.
Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/GO95/go_95_startup_page.html) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E’s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed.
EXHIBIT B
470
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-18 Garaventa Hills Project
Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E’s towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to construction.
13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities.
Response A-1 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment does not state a specific concern related to the adequacy of the RP EIR and does not require a detailed response. This comment summarizes general information regarding PG&E’s process related to development and utility installation.
Letter B – Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Vince Fazzi
Comment B-1 Attached is our response to the request to review the Garaventa Hills project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
[Content of the attachment follows]
Thank you for providing PG&E the opportunity to review the subject plans. The proposed Garaventa Hills Project do not appear to directly interfere with existing PG&E facilities or impact our easement rights.
PG&E has no comment on the adequacy of the Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report.
If the project requires PG&E gas or electrical service in the future, please continue to work with PG&E’s Service Planning department: https://www.pge.com/cco/.
As a reminder, before any digging or excavation occurs, please contact Underground Service Alert (USA) by dialing 811 a minimum of 2 working days prior to commencing any work. This free and independent service will ensure that all existing underground utilities are identified and marked on-site.
PG&E recommends the following language be expressly stated for any offer to dedicate Public Utility Easements (PUE):
I/We the undersigned, as Owner(s) of the land shown hereon, do hereby state that I/we am/are the only person(s) whose consent is necessary to pass clear title to said land and do hereby consent to the preparation and recordation of this map and offer for dedication and do hereby dedicate for public uses the Public Utility Easements (PUE’s) shown on this map for public utility purposes including electric, gas, communication facilities and all other public utility purposes; together with any and all appurtenances thereto, including the right from time to time to trim and to cut down and clear away or otherwise control any trees or brush. The PUE’s hereby
EXHIBIT B
471
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-19
offered for dedication are to be kept open and free of buildings, structures and wells of any kind.
If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact the PG&E Plan Review Team at [email protected].
Response B-1 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment does not state a specific concern related to the adequacy of the RP EIR and does not require a detailed response. This letter provides information regarding utility procedures and confirms that PG&E has no comments on the RP Draft EIR.
Letter C – Gil Colgate
Comment C-1 As a property owner in the area I have been concerned about the classification of much of Livermore as a high fire risk zone.
My question is, will the Garaventa Hills Project alleviate fire risk, increase fire risk, or have a no effect on fire risk?
Thank you I hope you can find the time to answer my question.
Response C-1 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment mentions topics outside the scope of the RP Draft EIR. Please see Master Response 2.
The Court of Appeal upheld the adequacy of the EIR on all issues other than the discussion of the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under the No Project, No Development Alternative. A full discussion of the Project’s impacts related to wildfire was included in the EIR and the RP EIR was not required to re-open the EIR’s analyses. The following information is provided to indicate where and how this topic was addressed in the EIR.
Wildfire was addressed on pages 11-7 to 11-8 of the Draft EIR with minor revisions on pages 26-39 to 26-40 of the Re-Issued Final EIR. The EIR concludes that the project is not in a high-risk wildfire area (what would be called a Very High Fire Hazard Safety Zone or VHFHSZ by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection or “Cal Fire”), and would comply with the City’s Wildland-Urban Interface Code requiring the defensible space and fire-retardant materials. Therefore, the impact related to wildfire would be less than significant.
Letter D – Tina Simms
Comment D-1 My family and I have lived in Livermore for over 14 years, and we recently moved from Rose Gate Common to the Altamont Creek neighborhood, closer to our favorite park, Brushy Peak. Part of what attracts us to this area is the abundance of open space. We are avid hikers, conservationists, and outdoor enthusiasts. During nature walks around Garaventa Hills, we admire the diversity of vegetation, birds,
EXHIBIT B
472
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-20 Garaventa Hills Project
insects, and other wildlife that inhabit the area. The landscape is heavenly, and we hope to preserve the site as open space. Please kindly accept our vote in support of Alternative A: No Project, No Development.
Response D-1 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment does not state a specific concern related to the adequacy of the RP EIR and does not require a detailed response. The comment presents general support for preserving the site as open space. Please see Master Response 1 regarding non-environmental comments.
Letter E – Julia M
Comment E-1 I live near the area of the garaventa hills project and I know how important it is for many residents to maintain the areas wildlife. It would be very upsetting for the wildlife to be disturbed by construction. This area is an integral part of our community and it holds many fond memories and everyday activities for local residents. It will also disturb our view of brushy peak, which is important to my family and many other residents. Many residents (including my family) were promised that this area would remain open land when sold their houses, we would like the city to uphold these promises. It would be a shame for this area to be disturbed by residential construction. I and many other residents do not want any of the construction mentioned in the project done in our neighborhood.
Response E-1 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment does not state a specific concern related to the adequacy of the RP EIR and does not require a detailed response. This comment mentions topics outside the scope of the RP Draft EIR. Please see Master Response
2. The Court of Appeal upheld the adequacy of the EIR on all issues other than the discussion of the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under the No Project, No Development Alternative. A full discussion of the Project’s impacts related to biological resources and aesthetics was included in the EIR and the RP EIR was not required to re-open the EIR’s analyses. The following information is provided to indicate where and how these topic were addressed in the EIR.
Biological resources were addressed in the Draft EIR in Chapter 7, with minor updates in the Re-Issued Final EIR Chapter 26 (pp. 26-13 to 26-28). The EIR states that the currently undeveloped site consists primarily of non-native annual grasslands, which while common throughout the region, can be used by various special-status species. The Project would also include construction of a pedestrian and emergency access bridge across a creek channel. The EIR concludes that the potentially significant impacts from development of the project on biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impacts from potential construction-period disturbance and the permanent change of the site to residential development would be reduced through required pre-construction surveys to assess for sensitive species closer to construction activities, protections to avoid direct or indirect construction impacts as feasible depending on habitat or species, coordination with
EXHIBIT B
473
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-21
regulatory agencies as appropriate (US Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife), and offsite compensatory habitat.
Views were addressed in the Draft EIR (4-3 to 4-11), with minor updates in the Re-Issued Final EIR Chapter 26 (p. 26-7). The EIR concludes that the Project would not substantially alter views of identified scenic resources from identified scenic vistas or nearby public areas. Therefore, the Project’s impact on scenic vistas and scenic corridors would be less than significant.
Any promise made by an unspecified entity that the Project site would remain open space is outside the scope of the RP EIR. Please see Master Response 2.
The Final EIR responded to a similar comment by explaining that “the Project site has had residential land use designations for over 25 years… The site is currently within the City limits and North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary and remains identified as a site for residential development in the City’s General Plan.” Please see response to Comment I-1 on p. 24-46 of the Final EIR. The RP Draft EIR further specified on page RP3-14 that, “The Project site has been designated for residential uses since at least the 1976 Livermore General Plan, including in the Maralisa plan.”
This comment also presents opposition to the project. Please see Master Response 1 regarding non-environmental comments.
Letter F – Janelle Plaskett
Comment F-1 My name is Janelle Plaskett. I’m a homeowner of a property that borders the Garaventa Hills, and a parent of a student at Altamont Creek Elementary.
I’m writing to voice my support for a no build option as I feel it’s best for the wildlife, traffic, school overcrowding, and recreation of our community.
It’s my understanding that the city has conservation funds available to purchase the land. I believe keeping Garaventa Hills as open space is the best option for our community and our kids.
Thank you for your consideration.
Response F-1 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment does not state a specific concern related to the adequacy of the RP EIR and does not require a detailed response. This comment mentions topics outside the scope of the RP Draft EIR. Please see Master Response
2. The Court of Appeal upheld the adequacy of the EIR on all issues other than the discussion of the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under the No Project, No Development Alternative. A full discussion of the Project’s impacts related to biological resources, transportation, and public services and recreation was included in the EIR and the RP EIR was not required to re-open the EIR’s analyses. The following information is provided to indicate where and how these topics were addressed in the EIR.
EXHIBIT B
474
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-22 Garaventa Hills Project
Biological resources were addressed in Chapter 7 of the Draft EIR with minor revisions on pages 26-13 to 26-28 of the Re-Issued Final EIR. The EIR states that the currently undeveloped site consists primarily of non-native annual grasslands, which while common throughout the region, can be used by various special-status species. The Project would also include construction of a pedestrian and emergency access bridge across a creek channel. The EIR concludes that the potentially significant impacts from development of the project on biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impacts from potential construction-period disturbance and the permanent change of the site to residential development would be reduced through required pre-construction surveys to assess for sensitive species closer to construction activities, protections to avoid direct or indirect construction impacts as feasible depending on habitat or species, coordination with regulatory agencies as appropriate (US Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife), and offsite compensatory habitat.
Traffic was discussed in Chapter 16 and associated Appendix H of the Draft EIR with minor revisions on pages 26-49 to 26-59 of the Re-Issued Final EIR. The EIR concluded that with appropriate traffic safety measures, emergency access, and intersection improvements, and with implementation of a construction as identified in the EIR, the impact of the Project would be less than significant.
Schools and recreation were addressed in Chapter 15 of the Draft EIR with minor revisions on pages 26-48 of the Re-Issued Final EIR. With respect to schools, the EIR utilized student yield rates of the local school district (LVJUSD) and concluded that new facilities would not be required for this Project alone and that payment of required school mitigation fees would mitigate the Project’s contributions to cumulative facility needs consistent with State law.
With respect to recreation, the EIR indicted that the Project site is located in an area with existing neighborhood parks and would develop less than half of the site, with the knolls proposed to remain undeveloped and include public-access trails for hiking and vista views. With any additional payment of park in-lieu fees per Chapter 12.60 of the Livermore Municipal Code, the Project’s impact with respect to parks and recreation was determined to be less than significant.
This comment also mentions funds for the purchase of the site and expresses support for open space at the site. Please see Master Response 3 regarding available funds and Master Response 1 regarding non-environmental comments and opinions.
Letter G – Doug Mann, Citizens for Balanced Growth
Comment G-1 In advance of the stated September 13th deadline, please incorporate the attached comments appropriately into the Garaventa Hill environmental review process. See you at the next event.
[Content of the attachment follows]
In accordance with California Regulation Title 14 § 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations), Citizens for Balanced Growth ("Citizens”) have determined
EXHIBIT B
475
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-23
that the availability of certain new information meets the requirements to trigger further CEQA review for the proposed Garaventa Hill housing development project.
With this communiqué, we will mention the most relevant reasons for why the additional review must take place.
1. Flood Risk new information
The applicable statute is CA Title 14 § 15162, 3 A and B (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR
On January 16 2023, a rain storm caused Altamont Creek to flood. At least four homes downstream from Garaventa Hill experienced substantial flood damage (https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/livermore-homeowner-managesthroughflood-damage). Some residents used paddle boards for transportation.
EXHIBIT B
476
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-24 Garaventa Hills Project
City Policy states, as referenced in the DEIR; “POLICY PS-2.1.P3. The City shall require new development and significant redevelopment projects to prepare drainage studies to assess storm runoff impacts on the local and regional storm drain and flood control system, and to develop recommended detention and drainage facilities to ensure that increased risks of flooding do not result from development. The drainage study shall include an analysis and recommended mitigations for projects that would increase peak runoff flows and increase runoff volume and for all projects where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts to beneficial uses.”
We are unaware of any substantial follow-up by the City to the newly existing floodplain in Springtown, which contains houses. We do know that improper functioning of the local hydrologic systems was not a factor, such as clogged storm drains. The topologic and geologic conditions were simply overwhelmed, and there is ample evidence to suggest that the event will repeat with regularity. On its own merit, downstream residents are entitled to understand what the City intends to do about future flood threats, if indeed anything can be done. Combining the Garaventa Hill impact on those plans needs to be considered in combination.
WRECO’s 2012 analysis states "The downstream limit of the hydraulic model is approximately 150 ft downstream of the existing North Vasco Road bridge over Altamont Creek.” The downstream flooded area extended at least 7,100 feet beyond that point. The DEIR erroneously expresses that there would be no impact in other areas of flood risk.
This project poses a flooding risk much further downstream than might have been possible to reasonably consider in the 2012 WRECO report. Nearly 12 acres of upstream land described as pervious in the DEIR will transformed to become impervious, creating unavoidable and unmitigable increases in runoff into Altamont Creek. We now know that downstream properties experience flooding events which
EXHIBIT B
477
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-25
never flooded in the past, even without the additional water flows caused by a Garaventa Hill upstream development. Any additional water will exacerbate the inevitable flood threats, which themselves will likely increase due to global warming’s effect on the intensity of storms. Put another way, there is no “less than significant” rise in a flooding event. During a property damaging flood, any additional water flow is significant. It will not be possible to technologically retain all of the excess water created by the stated land coverage, thus additional water flow will contribute to higher water levels downstream from Garaventa Hill.
The final EIR MUST determine without any doubt that the project will not contribute any degree of additional floodwater during extreme weather events. The final project approval could do so by specifying extraordinarily impractical mitigation measures, such as requiring the developer to preemptively buy up every downstream property that could experience future flooding, prior to developing the Hill. In other words, the flooding risk alone should be enough to render this project impossible to responsibly construct.
The City must order that a new hydrologic report be produced, paid for by the City, properly noticed for three bids, with the winning consultant chosen through the open public process.
2. Hydrocarbon impacts new information
The applicable statute is CA Title 14 § 15162, 3 A and B (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR
The original reports say that no hydorcarbon events were observed. They also correctly point out that there were no identified hydrocarbons and no seepage in the Bear Creek development until several years after the property had houses on it.
At the time of that planning, there was no alarm about oil risk. Garaventa Hill may face a similar threat scenario and needs to be studied more completely to eliminate all risk of oil seepage into surrounding areas.
Not mentioned in the DEIR was that the Bear Creek oil leaks happened twice, and we don’t know which agencies were involved in the necessary repairs. The final report should most thoroughly address the costs associated with those repairs to help inform on the monetary impact of similar events under Garaventa.
The EIR relies on reports from ENGEO, which were commissioned and funded directly by RL Communities. Such an arrangement is not only improper, it may have
EXHIBIT B
478
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-26 Garaventa Hills Project
rendered the completeness of the reports to be deficient. For example, a consultant employed by the City through Lamphier-Gregory might have been able to more seamlessly leverage the information channels involving the details of the Bear Creek repairs, number of barrels spilled, costs, etc., to provide more adequate insight and more thoroughly address a wider variety of threats from hydrocarbons.
The geologic expert should be working for and on behalf of the residents of Livermore, in service to environmental protection, not the developer with a profit motive. The existing reports and Lamphier-Gregory’s summary of them cannot be the final word for this component of the EIR. With such a devastating environmental risk at stake, the City should not simply rely on Lamphier-Gregory to hire a consultant to create the report, but must instead engage a geotechnical firm which demonstrates at the outset, a healthy skepticism and attention to the task of examining all possible environmental hazards as a high priority. The City must order that a new geologic report be produced, paid for by the City, properly noticed for three bids, with the winning consultant chosen through the open public process.
3. Endangered Species new information
The applicable statute is CA Title 14 § 15162, 3 A and B (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR
The data you have is old, and incomplete. Since 2019, we have had several exchanges with experts in biological impacts that convince us that protected species in protected areas at lower elevations are dependent in part on the natural runoff and habitat support that are in force due to the property’s existence in its current state. Producing the scientific reports that can fully articulate these impacts is the job of experts. The City must not expect the public to take the steps necessary to hire the appropriate consultants at their private expense.
Response G-1 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment mentions topics outside the scope of the RP Draft EIR. Please see Master Response 2. The Court of Appeal upheld the adequacy of the EIR on all issues other than the discussion of the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under the No Project, No Development Alternative. A full discussion of the Project’s impacts related to hydrology, hazards, and biological resources were included in the EIR and the RP EIR was not required to re-open the EIR’s analyses. The following information is provided to indicate where and how this topic was addressed in the EIR.
EXHIBIT B
479
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-27
Flooding was addressed in Chapter 12 and associated Appendix G of the Draft EIR with minor revisions on pages 26-41 to 26-42 of the Re-Issued Final EIR. The EIR indicated that existing site soils are relatively impervious and precipitation falling on the site currently drains quickly in the form of surface flows, largely to the adjacent Altamont Creek. Hydrological analysis and design acknowledges and is intended to address even uncommon flooding conditions (“100 year” events), as detailed on pages 12-9 and 12-10 of the Draft EIR and page 9 of Appendix G. Proposed on-site stormwater treatment and collection elements include bio-retention on each lot and a detention basin at the southeast corner of the site. As indicated on page 12-9 of the Draft EIR, plan-level stormwater calculations demonstrated that the Project with proposed stormwater elements would not increase runoff from the site, and that detailed design-level hydraulic computations are required to confirm this as a standard construction permit requirement. The full hydrological assessment in the EIR (Appendix G) determined that the Project would not have a significant impact on the ability of the creek to contain flood waters and Project revisions further reduced the proposed development footprint (page 26-42 of the Re-Issued Final EIR). With the Project as proposed including stormwater treatment and collection elements, the impact with respect to flooding was determined to be less than significant. To the extent the comment raises issues related to flooding after the Re-Issued Final EIR, the City Engineer has reviewed the comment and determined that the comment is not substantial new information. Please see the memorandum from the City Engineer included in Master Response 2 addressing the Project’s flood risk.
Hydrocarbon (oil) seepage was discussed on pages 11-2, 11-3, 11-6, 11-7 and 12-8 and associated Appendix F of the Draft EIR with minor revisions on pages 26-38, 26-39 and 26-41 of the Re-Issued Final EIR. The history of near-surface hydrocarbons and oil seeps in the vicinity was identified as a known concern in the Draft EIR (pages 11-1 to 11-3) believed to be related to the interaction between the movement of the naturally-occurring oil deposits in the geologic strata (oil-bearing Greenville Sands) and the seasonally-fluctuating groundwater table beneath the Bear Creek site where an oil seep is located. As indicated in the Draft EIR (page 11-3), “the geologic structure is not continuous from the Bear Creek site oil seep to the Project site and that therefore, it is unlikely that there are oil bearing Greenville Sands near-surface at the Project site.
Supporting this conclusion, no evidence of near-surface oil or seepage was found at the Project site through site reconnaissance, surface borings, or deeper borings (down to 62 feet) performed at the Project site by ENGEO. However, oil seeps did not become apparent until five years after construction of the Bear Creek Development. Therefore, oil seeps may be expected to move laterally within one mile of the identified location or to rise to the surface within the next 5-10 years.” While not found or considered likely at the Project site, the possibility of future oil seepage was acknowledged as a potential impact and the EIR concluded that the impact could be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the identified mitigation requiring additional field confirmation during grading with measures requiring design of underground utility and stormwater elements to prevent oil intrusion, additional measures to reduce potential seepage events if any oil is encountered (overexcavation,
EXHIBIT B
480
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-28 Garaventa Hills Project
visqueen lining, and an oil/water separator), and funding for additional remedies should oil seepage occur in the future (Draft EIR pages 11-6 to 11-7).
To the extent the comment raises hydrocarbon related incidents after the ReIssued Final EIR, the City Engineer reviewed the comment and determined that the comment is not substantial new information because the area has a known history of the presence of hydrocarbons and the Project includes mitigation measures and conditions of approval in the event hydrocarbons are encountered during construction and in the future. Please the memorandum from the City Engineer included in Master Response 2.
Biological resources were addressed in Chapter 7 of the Draft EIR with minor revisions on pages 26-13 to 26-28 of the Re-Issued Final EIR. The EIR states that the currently undeveloped site consists primarily of non-native annual grasslands, which while common throughout the region, can be used by various special-status species. The Project would also include construction of a pedestrian and emergency access bridge across a creek channel. The EIR concludes that the potentially significant impacts from development of the Project on biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impacts from potential construction-period disturbance and the permanent change of the site to residential development would be reduced through required pre-construction surveys to assess for sensitive species closer to construction activities, protections to avoid direct or indirect construction impacts as feasible depending on habitat or species, coordination with regulatory agencies as appropriate (US Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife), and offsite compensatory habitat.
The comment does not identify or otherwise provide evidence of specific species of concern though the comment indicates a connection between habitat and runoff as a concern. Evaluation of potential hydrological impacts to off-site wetlands and associated species was included in the EIR (Appendix G, Appendix J) and as summarized on page 24-12, “the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve receives flows from nearly 645 acres of tributary watershed and that “…the minor changes to onsite drainage patterns proposed with the project will not result in significant impacts to the hydrology of the Garaventa Wetlands [Preserve].” To the extent the comment raises issues related to flooding after the Re-Issued Final EIR, the City Engineer has reviewed the comment and determined that the comment is not substantial new information. Please see the memorandum from the City Engineer included in Master Response 2 addressing the Project’s flooding risk and impacts from runoff. To the extent the comment raises issues related to biological resources after the Re-Issued Final EIR, the City’s commissioned expert biologist has independently confirmed in a memorandum included in Master Response 2 that there are no new listings in the CNDDB regarding endangered species and that changed or pending changes to listing status since the Re-Issued Final EIR are either already adequately addressed or can be addressed by a modest revision to Mitigation Measure Bio9, which would not be considered substantial new information because it would not result in a new or worsened significant impact. Please see the memorandum from the biologist included in Master Response 2 and revised Mitigation Measure Bio-9 described in Master Response 2.
EXHIBIT B
481
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-29
Comment G-2 4. Inadequacy of NPA in the "RP Draft EIR"
Livermore continues, in defiance of the Court, to prove it is unserious about pursuing the identified environmentally superior alternative of the NPA. Nothing demonstrates this better than certain actions earlier this year.
February 2nd, Livermore presented an offer to Lisa Quisito for $868 thousand.
Quisito identifies herself as the trustee for the actual owners, the validity of which we have not been able to verify but will tentatively accept for now, for the purpose of discussion. Quisito's February 5th reply refused the offer, but also clearly defines their selling price as $3.5 million.
Their selling price is $3,500,000.
It is negligent for the RP Draft EIR to fail to call attention to this new fact - one that is pivotal and has been the subject of intense speculation, research, and the inability to break through the stonewalling by the seller’s real estate representative (Mary Ann Rozsa) for more than a decade. Staff paradoxically followed up February 29th with an offer for 1.74 million. There is no plausible conclusion, other than this offer was designed to fail. Other than to mock, aggravate, and waste the owner’s time, what possible purpose did it serve? We don’t know how many other insults Quisito may have endured over the years, but one might wonder if this sort of thing explains the accelerating tone of resentment in Quisito's letters. Rather than exhausting the possibilities for acquisition, the City continues to find ways to make the NPA most difficult to attain.
As if this weren't enough, Ms. Quisito, the developer Mark Lafferty, and David Ragland attended the August 20 planning commission meeting, seated prominently in the room. It is customary in public meetings to call attention to such attendees, especially when high profile matters are at hand. Rather than take this opportunity to invite these most senior stakeholders to the discussion, they were completely ignored. It would be impossible to believe Staff and Rebecca Auld (a long term vendor of Lafferty and also the EIR consultant employed by the City) was unaware of their presence. Commissioners themselves may not have recognized them, which provides yet another example Staff’s complacency or overt obstruction of the NPA for failing to alert the members of the appointed body of them attending. To have this group in attendance at a public meeting on the NPA and not take advantage of the opportunity to engage directly is further evidence that Staff continues to softpedal the NPA.
A genuine proposal to purchase the Hill for the asking price must be explored for viability and if so, presented in a cooperative manner.
Response G-2 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment mentions funds and the price for the purchase of the site. Please see Master Response 3 regarding the available funds and Master Response 4 regarding a willing seller and purchase price.
This comment also mentions applicant team attendance at the hearing. This comment does not state a specific concern related to the adequacy of the RP EIR
EXHIBIT B
482
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-30 Garaventa Hills Project
and does not require a detailed response. Please see Master Response 1 regarding non-environmental comments.
The CEQA Guidelines expressly permit the common practice of an applicant or applicant-commissioned consultants preparing material used in CEQA documents. See, e.g., CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063(a)(4), 15063(e), 15063(g), 15084(d), 15070(b). CEQA is satisfied as long as the ultimate conclusions reflect “the agency’s own review and analysis” and “reflect the independent judgment of the Lead Agency.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15084(e). Here, public officials have independently and objectively reviewed all material in the administrative record prepared for inclusion in the EIR, and the EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment.
Comment G-3 5. City is Responsible Party
Over the past several years, Citizens have considered engaging the appropriate experts to draft opinions and deliver the substantial details necessary to lay out the scientific reasons why Garaventa Hill cannot be urbanized. On reflection, we don't believe this would have been the best course of action. The California environmental quality act was drafted in order to guide agencies for the purpose of the public well being, in preserving the environment to the greatest extent possible and practical in a society that must balance the needs of development with appropriate environmental protection. It is not the responsibility of residents or NPOs to do this work for the lead agency.
As the Lead Agency of this project, it is also the responsibility of Livermore to not simply confine the new EIR to the issues we have proposed here, or that others may have proposed, but to engage all necessary proactive due diligence to discover any other shortcomings and omissions which may exist or become known in order that a thorough examination of any new impacts be laid bare and included in the EIR for consideration of the administrative body responsible for certification.
As we have observed many times before, an unfortunate standard practice in California exists for agencies in dealing with the expenses associated with project EIRs.
CEQA requires the lead agency to fully explore the environmental impacts of projects. The accepted normal course of action to accomplish this due diligence by way of hiring a private professional consultant to produce an EIR/EIS. The Agency is the customer of the consultant. This is because the Agency should be looking out for the best interests of the residents, and the primary allegiance of the EIR company should be to the Agency and residents. However, producing the report costs money and agencies typically try to avoid dipping into their general funds to pay the consultant if there is another alternative.
It is nearly universal that the agency will demand a side deal with the developer where the Agency will not be liable for the costs of the report – the developer pays the agency in advance of the Agency passing through that payment to the consultant.
EXHIBIT B
483
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-31
Everybody can recognize the reality on the ground. The REAL customer of the consultant is the developer.
In this case, Lamphier-Gregory had a preexisting vendor relationship with Lafferty.
Livermore, at Lafferty’s request, hired Lamphier-Gregory. We consider this a prickly decision, questionably ethical at least or more likely a pure conflict of interest. One could easily argue that it is far too cozy comfort and not undertaken with the primary concern of environmental protection at the forefront. It may even bump up against aspects of self dealing. If one were to seek out a particularly ideal example in order to mount a court challenge to what has unfortunately become standard practice with these way-too-convenient insider based relationships, this may be it.
The safest decision in relation to exposure regarding the consultant at this juncture would be to utilize a different firm for any new environmental work (not LamphierGregory) in an open bidding process.
The Court has ordered that the Council City “to set aside the certification of the RFEIR and approval of the Project”, thus there are no elements of the DEIR, Final DEIR or Reissued Final DEIR in force. That Livermore chooses to limit the current application process to the portion of the report involving the NPA is curious at minimum. There can be no valid EIR that doesn’t include opening up the entire report to scrutiny and comment in the normal manner with full public review. This partial recirculation of the NPA is by no means the majority of the work left to be done.
Response G-3 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment mentions topics outside the scope of the RP Draft EIR. Please see Master Response 2. With respect to comments related to the Lead Agency’s responsibility to conduct the environmental analysis of a proposed project, the court upheld the EIR on all challenged technical environmental analysis, finding the only inadequacy to be related to potential availability of funding for open space acquisition and preservation of the Project site in the no project alternative analysis.
For a Lead Agency to utilize an environmental consultant for preparation of an EIR is common practice explicitly allowed by CEQA Guidelines section 15084, and not a sign of impropriety. The CEQA Guidelines expressly permit the common practice of an applicant or applicant-commissioned consultants preparing material used in CEQA documents. See, e.g., CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063(a)(4), 15063(e), 15063(g), 15084(d), 15070(b). CEQA is satisfied as long as the ultimate conclusions reflects “the agency’s own review and analysis” and “reflect[s] the independent judgment of the Lead Agency.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15084(e). Here, public officials have independently and objectively reviewed all material in the administrative record prepared for inclusion in the EIR, and the EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment.
As an environmental consultant, Lamphier-Gregory has over 40 years of experience in the Bay Area and in that time has of course contracted with numerous cities, counties, agencies, and developers. The fact of a discrete past contract with a given entity would not in itself be considered a conflict of interest on future contracts that may involve that entity so long as there are no ongoing financial, business, or
EXHIBIT B
484
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-32 Garaventa Hills Project
personal interests reasonably linked to the current contract. As an environmental consultant, Lamphier-Gregory does not contract with clients in such a way that payment is dependent on the outcome, and neither had nor currently has a conflict of interest for environmental consultation on this Project.
Lamphier-Gregory has performed all work on the EIR under contract with, under the direction of, and with payment from the City of Livermore. As a standard practice, Developmental and Planning Fees are charged by the City to a project applicant to recoup the costs of processing of applications for development, including costs for preparation of an EIR. These fees are included on the City’s adopted Master Fee Schedule.5
That the City collects the costs of EIR preparation from the applicant is standard practice for project applications and is not an indication of impropriety.
Letter H – Donna Cabanne
Comment H-1 Further CEQA evaluation is warranted because of new information of substantial importance that was not known at the time the previous EIR was certified.
The Tri-Valley is a non-attainment air basin. Grading and construction periods for the proposed project have the potential to produce significant and unavoidable impacts relating to fine particulate matter PM 2.5 and other TACs. Following best practices for grading and construction activities is not sufficient mitigation for TACs in a non-attainment air basin.
Additionally, the adjacent neighborhoods and the community could be at risk from hydrocarbons and flooding. Impacts in these areas were not sufficiently known before; therefore, mitigations could be inadequate. In light of new information, biological resources must also be reanalyzed as the proposed project would curtail natural run-off necessary for endangered species and special status species, their habitat and habitat corridors within and in close proximity to the development site.
Because of new information and new regulations, the City should reopen the Final DEIR or the Reissued Final DEIR in the areas of air quality, hydrology, flooding, and biological resources to comply with CEQA regulations. To limit the CEQA process to the No Project Alternative is disallowing adequate public review and participation; and does not comply with CEQA and State Statues.
Please re-open the Final DEIR or the Reissued Final DEIR with full public review as mandated by CEQA. Please confirm receipt of this email.
Response H-1 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment mentions topics outside the scope of the RP Draft EIR. Please see Master Response 2. The Court of Appeal upheld the adequacy of the EIR on all issues other than the discussion of the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under the No Project, No Development Alternative. A full discussion of the Project’s impacts 5 The City’s Fee Schedule can be found at this link: https://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/administrativeservices/finance/fee-schedule.
EXHIBIT B
485
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-33
related to air quality, hazards, and biological resources were included in the EIR and the RP EIR was not required to re-open the EIR’s analyses. The following information is provided to indicate where and how these topics were addressed in the EIR.
Project-specific analysis of air quality was included in Chapter 6 and Appendix B of the Draft EIR, including construction-period TACs on page 6-13 with minor revisions on pages 26-10 through 26-13 of the Re-Issued Final EIR. The nonattainment status of the air district was reported on pages 6-6 to 6-8 of the Draft EIR. Detailed project-specific modeling of the construction emissions and health risk (related to particulate matter and TACs or Toxic Air Contaminants) demonstrated these to be below significance thresholds established by the nonattainment air district, as summarized on Table 6.4 (page 6-10) and page 6-13 of the Draft EIR.
Hydrocarbon (oil) seepage was discussed on pages 11-2, 11-3, 11-6, 11-7 and 12-8 and associated Appendix F of the Draft EIR with minor revisions on pages 26-38, 26-39 and 26-41 of the Re-Issued Final EIR. The history of near-surface hydrocarbons and oil seeps in the vicinity was identified as a known concern in the Draft EIR (pages 11-1 to 11-3) believed to be related to the interaction between the movement of the naturally-occurring oil deposits in the geologic strata (oil-bearing Greenville Sands) and the seasonally-fluctuating groundwater table beneath the Bear Creek site where an oil seep is located. As indicated in the Draft EIR (page 11-3), “the geologic structure is not continuous from the Bear Creek site oil seep to the Project site and that therefore, it is unlikely that there are oil bearing Greenville Sands near-surface at the Project site.
Supporting this conclusion, no evidence of near-surface oil or seepage was found at the Project site through site reconnaissance, surface borings, or deeper borings (down to 62 feet) performed at the Project site by ENGEO. However, oil seeps did not become apparent until five years after construction of the Bear Creek Development. Therefore, oil seeps may be expected to move laterally within one mile of the identified location or to rise to the surface within the next 5-10 years.” While not found or considered likely at the Project site, the possibility of future oil seepage was acknowledged as a potential impact and the EIR concluded that the impact could be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the identified mitigation requiring additional field confirmation during grading with measures requiring design of underground utility and stormwater elements to prevent oil intrusion, additional measures to reduce potential seepage events if any oil is encountered (overexcavation, visqueen lining, and an oil/water separator), and funding for additional remedies should oil seepage occur in the future (Draft EIR pages 11-6 to 11-7).
To the extent the comment raises hydrocarbon related incidents after the ReIssued Final EIR, the City Engineer reviewed the comment and determined that the comment is not new information because the area has a known history of the presence of hydrocarbons and the Project includes mitigation measures and conditions of approval in the event hydrocarbons are encountered during construction and in the future. Please see the memorandum from the City Engineer included in Master Response 2 .
EXHIBIT B
486
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-34 Garaventa Hills Project
Flooding was addressed in Chapter 12 and associated Appendix G of the Draft EIR with minor revisions on pages 26-41 to 26-42 of the Re-Issued Final EIR. The EIR indicated that existing site soils are relatively impervious and precipitation falling on the site currently drains quickly in the form of surface flows, largely to the adjacent Altamont Creek. Hydrological analysis and design acknowledges and is intended to address even uncommon flooding conditions (“100 year” events), as detailed on pages 12-9 and 12-10 of the Draft EIR and page 9 of Appendix G. Proposed on-site stormwater treatment and collection elements include bio-retention on each lot and a detention basin at the southeast corner of the site. As indicated on page 12-9 of the Draft EIR, plan-level stormwater calculations demonstrated that the Project with proposed stormwater elements would not increase runoff from the site, and that detailed design-level hydraulic computations are required to confirm this as a standard construction permit requirement. The full hydrological assessment in the EIR (Appendix G) determined that the Project would not have a significant impact on the ability of the creek to contain flood waters and Project revisions further reduced the proposed development footprint (page 26-42 of the Re-Issued Final EIR). With the Project as proposed including stormwater treatment and collection elements, the impact with respect to flooding was determined to be less than significant. To the extent the comment raises issues related to flooding after the Re-Issued Final EIR, the City Engineer has reviewed the comment and determined that the comment is not new information. Please see the memorandum from the City Engineer included in Master Response 2 addressing the Project’s flood risk.
Biological resources were addressed in Chapter 7 of the Draft EIR with minor revisions on pages 23-2 to 23-5 of the Final EIR, and pages 26-13 to 26-28 of the Re-Issued Final EIR. Related discussion of site hydrology was addressed in Chapter 12 and Appendix G of the Draft EIR, pages 23-5 to 23-6 and Appendix J of the Final EIR, and pages 26-40 to 26-42 of the Re-Issued Final EIR. The EIR states that the currently undeveloped site consists primarily of non-native annual grasslands, which while common throughout the region, can be used by various special-status species. The Project would also include construction of a pedestrian and emergency access bridge across a creek channel. The EIR concludes that the potentially significant impacts from development of the Project on biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impacts from potential construction-period disturbance and the permanent change of the site to residential development would be reduced through required pre-construction surveys to assess for sensitive species closer to construction activities, protections to avoid direct or indirect construction impacts as feasible depending on habitat or species, coordination with regulatory agencies as appropriate (US Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife), and offsite compensatory habitat.
The comment does not identify or otherwise provide evidence of specific species of concern though the comment indicates a connection between habitat and runoff as a concern. Evaluation of potential hydrological impacts to off-site wetlands and associated species was included in the EIR (Appendix G, Appendix J) and as summarized on page 24-12, “the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve
EXHIBIT B
487
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-35
receives flows from nearly 645 acres of tributary watershed and that “…the minor changes to onsite drainage patterns proposed with the project will not result in significant impacts to the hydrology of the Garaventa Wetlands [Preserve].”. To the extent the comment raises issues related to flooding after the Re-Issued Final EIR, the City Engineer has reviewed the comment and determined that the comment is not substantial new information. Please see the memorandum from the City Engineer included in Master Response 2 addressing the Project’s flooding risk and impacts from runoff. To the extent the comment raises issues related to biological resources after the Re-Issued Final EIR, the City’s commissioned expert biologist has independently confirmed in a memorandum included in Master Response 2 that there are no new listings in the CNDDB regarding endangered species and that changed or pending changes to listing status since the Re-Issued Final EIR are either already adequately addressed or can be addressed by a modest revision to Mitigation Measure Bio9, which would not be considered substantial new information because it would not result in a new or worsened significant impact. Please see the memorandum from the biologist included in Master Response 2 and revised Mitigation Measure Bio-9 described in Master Response 2.
Letter I – Wes Eacret ad Emma Olenberger
Comment I-1 My partner bought our house on Knoll Ct. 9 years ago. The sale and development of Garaventa Hills was disclosed at that time. However, as you know, the plans have changed. One significant change was the removal of the vehicle bridge and the ingress/egress point onto Hawk Street along Altamont Creek Elementary School.
This is the one item we would like to petition to have re-instated into the plans. The bridge was contested by immediate neighbors as being a traffic problem and removed from the plans. For the reasons outlined below, we would like to have it added back into the plans.
The landscape of the entire neighborhood has changed. In just the past two winters, we have seen firsthand how close flood waters (less than 1 foot) have come to cresting over the bridge at Laughlin and Altamont Creek thereby isolating everyone to the north. Climate change is getting worse and storms are getting stronger. An operational vehicle bridge (not one with bollards) at Hawk Street will serve as an additional exit route during times of disaster, whether flooding or fire.
Commute traffic has increased exponentially through the neighborhood. Altamont Creek Drive (which is a narrow and winding road) has taken on the extra burden of commuters using it as a cut-through and racing to and from Vasco Road and Laughlin Road. The traffic will continue to increase as more homes are built out in Tracy and to the North of us. We already feel like we are an island neighborhood and experience difficulty getting home. Do you really want to force the residents of Garaventa Hills to use those same roads instead of providing a bridge and more direct route to their homes? What about the future development of the bull pen at Northfront, Herman and Scenic Drive? Once that plot of land is developed, Northfront and Laughlin Roads will be highly impacted. Please help out our neighborhood by providing two points of access to Garaventa Hills.
EXHIBIT B
488
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-36 Garaventa Hills Project
Another pressure point I would like to point out for Altamont Creek Drive is during sporting season. As already mentioned, the road is curvy and narrow. During sports practice and games, the road becomes even more narrow with parked vehicles along the edges and children darting in and out between the vehicles. It is a serious safety issue.
Then there is the neighborhood of Bear Creek Drive. As residents on Knoll Court, we are concerned for not only the increased traffic on the road but also the speed at which vehicles will be traveling at coming from out of Garaventa Hills. Will there be any consideration for traffic calming efforts such as speed bumps or an added stop sign? We regularly observe children playing in the street on Bear Creek Drive and the surrounding courts. What consideration has been given to their safety? We appreciate the opportunity to provide these insights and requests. Please strongly consider adding the vehicle bridge at Hawk Street back into the plan. While we understand this is private property and they have a right to develop, we would like to have our concerns voiced and taken seriously.
Response I-1 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment expresses support for a vehicle bridge at Hawk Street. This comment does not state a specific concern related to the adequacy of the RP EIR and does not require a detailed response.. Please see Master Response 1 regarding non-environmental comments and Master Response 2.
The project does not propose changes to the previously analyzed project.
Environmental analysis of a vehicle bridge as part of the Project was included in the Draft EIR. Consideration of impacts without a vehicle bridge was included in Alternative B in the Draft EIR (Chapter 19), Chapter 22 of the Final EIR (no bridge at all), and Chapter 26 of the Re-Issued Final EIR (a pedestrian and emergency vehicle access bridge).
Letter J – Alicia Guerra, Lafferty Communities
Comment J-1 Please see attached comment letter.
Sent on behalf of Alicia Guerra.
[Content of the attachment follows]
Buchalter, a Professional Corporation, represents Lafferty Communities (“Lafferty”) with respect to its plans to develop the Garaventa Hills project in the City of Livermore (the “City”). The Garaventa Hills development project consists of 44 single-family homes on an internal looped circulation system with a pedestrian-only bridge across Altamont Creek (the “Project”). The Project today is the same Project the City previously evaluated and approved in 2019 and that has been the subject of litigation since then.
By way of background, Lafferty submitted its existing, deemed complete development project application dated September 8, 2017 for the Project, and the City determined that it was complete by June 27, 2018. After various rounds of
EXHIBIT B
489
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-37
environmental review, the Livermore City Council certified the Garaventa Hills Project Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and approved the Project on April 22, 2019. For the next three years, the EIR was challenged in court. In its July 2022 decision in Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore (2022) (76 Cal.App.5th 1092) concerning the adequacy of the Project EIR, the First District Court of Appeal (“Court”) upheld the adequacy of the Project EIR in all but one respect. The Court directed the City to revise the Project EIR to include information regarding the potential availability of funding for possible open space acquisition and preservation of the Project site in the EIR’s No Project alternative analysis.
We appreciate the City’s thorough analysis of this alternative in the recirculated Partial Draft EIR for the same Project (the “RPDEIR”) so that the EIR includes information for the public’s understanding about potential funding available for possibly acquiring the Project site as open space under Alternative A: the No Project/No Development Alternative. On behalf of our client we are submitting this comment letter regarding the RPDEIR analysis for the City’s consideration to reiterate our client’s position that Alternative A: No Project, No Development Alternative remains infeasible from the developer/applicant’s perspective because, just as before, our client’s residential Project would never be developed on the Project site under this alternative.
The RPDEIR satisfies the Court’s direction to explain why the No Project, No Development Alternative was infeasible based on funding considerations.
When preparing an EIR, CEQA “‘requires the public agency to consider feasible alternatives to the project which would lessen any significant adverse environmental impact. (§§ 21002, 21081; [citation].) One alternative is “no project.” (See Guidelines, § 15126, subd. (d)(2) [“no project” alternative to be considered along with proposed project’s environmental impact]; [citation].)’ [Citation.]” (Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892, 911 (Planning & Conservation League).) The responsibility to formulate alternatives lies with the lead agency, not with project critics. (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 406-07.) The City’s range of project alternatives are subject to the “rule of reason.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (f).) An EIR need not consider an alternative…whose implementation is remote and speculative.” (14 CCR 15126.6(f)(3).)
We reviewed the RPDEIR’s additional information addressing Alternative A: No Project, No Development Alternative, and concur with the RPDEIR’s analysis and conclusions that this alternative is infeasible due to an unwilling seller, the unavailability of funds to purchase the Project site even if there was a willing seller, the additional costs associated with an eminent domain process in the absence of a willing seller and the costs of addressing the State Housing Law “no net loss” policy requirements if the Project is rejected.
CEQA requires a “no project alternative” analysis to discuss what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved.
EXHIBIT B
490
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-38 Garaventa Hills Project
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that the lead agency evaluate a “no project alternative.” The City did that in the Project EIR. In its decision, the Court explained that the information provided in an EIR must “reflect the analytic route the agency traveled from evidence to action.” (Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1108.) The Court found the EIR should have included a discussion of the potential for funding a City acquisition of the Project site. (Id. at p. 1112-13.)
Consistent with the Court order, the RPDEIR Alternative A: No Project, No Development alternative analysis provides more detail about why funding is not available for the City to acquire and preserve the Project site as open space. We agree with the RPDEIR’s exhaustive discussion of the possible sources of funding to acquire the Project site under the No Project Alternative just as the Court requested. This includes: use of the Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund, the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement, and other open space funding sources, including a Transferable Development Credits Fund, Open Space Acquisition and Management Fund, and General Funds using a ballot initiative. (RPDEIR, pp. RP3-5—
13.) None of these sources, if they could be applied to the Project site (which they can’t), are sufficient to fund the very sizable cost of acquisition of the Project site as open space. The RPDEIR’s analysis here reflects the analytic route that the City took in rejecting the No Project Alternative, including why the eminent domain and rezoning process rendered conservation of the Project site infeasible.
The RPDEIR’s analysis of the information further explains to the public why funding is not available to acquire the Project site as open space, and why this No Project, No Development Alternative would not be considered potentially feasible based on economic considerations. The RPDEIR demonstrates in a manner consistent with CEQA’s requirements and the Court’s decision the reasons why acquisition of the Project site as open space remains infeasible.
Alternative A: No Project, No Development Alternative is Still Infeasible based on a balancing of CEQA’s feasibility factors.
An EIR alternatives analysis must be “guided by the doctrine of feasibility.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565.) CEQA requires alternatives evaluated in an EIR to “feasibly” attain the basic project objectives. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).) “Feasible” is defined as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors,” as well as legal factors. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) Factors to take into account when evaluating feasibility include “site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries . . ., and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(f)(1).) Alternatives must be evaluated based on their feasibility and should be rejected if determined to be infeasible based on any of the aforementioned factors. (See Marin Mun. Water Dist. v. KG Land Cal. Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652, 1665-66 (demonstrating the analysis sufficient for rejecting infeasible alternatives1).)
EXHIBIT B
491
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-39
We note that the City’s task under CEQA was to identify a range of alternatives that will satisfy basic project objectives while reducing significant impacts. Alternatives that are not at least “potentially feasible” typically are excluded at this initial stage because there is no point in studying alternatives that cannot be implemented or that will not succeed. (See §15126.6(a); see also South County Citizens for Smart Growth v County of Nevada (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 316, 327; Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Ctr. v County of Siskiyou (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 184; Sierra Club v County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1504 n5; Mira Mar Mobile Community v City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal. App.4th 477, 489.) From Lafferty’s perspective, even if funding were available for this alternative, the No Project, No Development Alternative is infeasible based on a balancing of the very factors CEQA requires be considered when determining the feasibility of an alternative in an EIR (see e.g,. CEQA Guidelines §15364; California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App. 4th 957, 1001). First, even before considering environmental, social, technological and legal considerations, acquiring the Project site to preserve it as open space does not meet our client’s most basic project objective to develop housing on the Project site.
Secondly, with respect to the social and legal considerations regarding the determination of feasibility, the City is required legally to fulfill its obligations to develop 44 homes on the Project site in accordance with the Livermore General Plan and Zoning Ordinance long since in effect in order to comply with its obligation under State Housing Laws. Simply put, preserving the Project site as open space does not comply with the State Housing Accountability Act and the 2019 Housing Crisis Act. This is not a cost issue; it is a legal issue.
Finally, even if the Project site were acquired and preserved for open space purposes, the RPDEIR explains on page 3-7 and 3-8 that the City’s review and analysis concluded in the RPDEIR that the Project site was not within the top 100 parcels for land conservation prioritization. Using funds for this site would deprive the City of the ability to use those monies for properties the City has deemed much more worthy of preservation. Thus from an environmental perspective, preserving this site as open space may not accomplish City goals such as the preservation of open space habitat of significance. And if the City were to proceed with acquisition of the Project site, the available open space funds would be exhausted, such that funds would need to be raised or the City would need to rely on the City’s General Fund in order to maintain and manage the Project site after acquisition (See RP p. 3- 12).
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City confirm in its CEQA findings and Project approval findings that Alternative A: No Project, No Development Alternative was infeasible before and it remains an infeasible option with respect to the future of the Project site. As the RPDEIR demonstrates, even if Alternative A: No Project, No Development Alternative were viable because the City had enough money to acquire the Project site as open space (which there is not according to the available information in the RPDEIR and the administrative record), this alternative is infeasible. The purpose of the Project is not to preserve the Project site as open
EXHIBIT B
492
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-40 Garaventa Hills Project
space, but to build much needed housing consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning and State Housing Laws.
We look forward to the Planning Commission and City Council’s deliberations concerning the RPDEIR and the Project approvals for the development of the Garaventa Hills Project site in the very near future. Thank you for considering our comments.
Response J-1 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment presents the applicant team’s opinions on the Project and EIR. This comment does not state a specific concern related to the adequacy of the RP EIR and does not require a detailed response. Please see Master Response 1 regarding non-environmental comments.
Letter K – Michelle Mitchell and Paul Maciolek
Comment K-1 This email is to serve as our comments on the RP Draft EIR for the Garaventa Hills project.
For over thirteen years, the community surrounding the Garaventa Hills project has been outspoken in the opposition to this project and continue to contest the project's approval. Below are our specific issues.
• The City has not made any serious attempts to the no-project alternative • We were told when we bought our house, the Hill would not be developed • The EIR for the project is 10 years old. This must legally be addressed with updated reports and on-site analysis.
Thank you for your time, and for keeping us informed on the progress. We look forward to working with you and the City regarding this project.
Response K-1 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment expresses opposition to the Project. This comment does not state a specific concern related to the adequacy of the RP EIR and does not require a detailed response. Please see Master Response 1 regarding nonenvironmental comments.
The comment also addresses topics outside the scope of the RP Draft EIR. The Court of Appeal upheld the adequacy of the EIR on all issues other than the discussion of the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under the No Project, No Development Alternative.
Please see Master Response 2.
Any promise made by an unspecified entity that the Project site would remain open space is outside the scope of the RP EIR. Please see Master Response 2. The Final EIR responded to a similar comment by explaining that “the Project site has had residential land use designations for over 25 years… The site is currently within the City limits and North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary and remains identified as a
EXHIBIT B
493
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-41
site for residential development in the City’s General Plan.” Please see response to Comment I-1 on p. 24-46 of the Final EIR. The RP Draft EIR further specified on page RP3-14 that, “The Project site has been designated for residential uses since at least the 1976 Livermore General Plan, including in the Maralisa plan.” Letter L – Bianca Covarelli
Comment L-1 The Court ordered the City Council set aside the RFEIR and the approval of the project therefore there are no elements of the DEIR or the FEIR or Reissued Final DEIR in force. They were tossed out and a new EIR is required. There is new information since the 2014 EIR. The approved 2019 RFEIR is now outdated and new information is required to be analyzed. There is no valid EIR and the report and updated surveys and updated comments in the matter with full public review is in order based on new information.
New Information:
1. Recent Flooding Within the Last two Years caused heavy, high flow of the Altamont Creek resulting in flooded homes downstream and Springtown causing significant environmental impacts that require new hydrological studies. (I have video of these events.)
2. Should any alteration of the Hill cause non-pervious surfaces, additional flow risk into Altamont Creek and surrounding Garaventa Wetland areas causing serious flood and environmental impacts.
3. WRECOs 2012 analysis states hydro model approximately 150 feet downstream of the existing N. Vasco Road bridge over Altamont Creek. The downstream flooded area extended 7100 feet beyond that point. The previous DEIR is inaccurate that there would be no impacts in other areas of flood risk.
4. The final EIR must determine without a doubt no flood risk during extreme weather events
5. Climate change is causing significant weather events and we’ve seen flooding on Laughlin Road from Altamont Creek rise onto the bike path and over Laughlin Road heavy water flow and flooding.
6. Significant Oil Seepage within and on Bear Creek that was not included in the previous EIR. Those oil leak events happened twice at the base of the Garaventa Hill. That information should be included in the EIR for this project; current analysis and past events should be included. These events indicate severe environmental impacts. I have met with an expert hydrogeologist who has pertinent new information regarding the geohydrology in the area. Said current, updated onsite surveys and reports should be conducted by reputable, non-biased environmental consultants.
7. New information regarding Endangered Species. The information on the old EIR is dated 2014. There is significant information about the loss of Burrowing Owls, for example, in the area and if the only Burrowing Owls exist on the Garaventa Hill,
EXHIBIT B
494
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-42 Garaventa Hills Project
then permits would not be issued to take. There’s no onsite surveys and they are required by law. I have had several communications with an environmental wildlife biologist and ecologist who have PhDs in their field of expertise and know the Garaventa Hill and surrounding area extremely well. I request these experts be allowed to provide current surveys and reports to accurately report the presence of the Burrowing Owls, the San Joaquin Kit Fox, the CTS, the red-legged frogs, the VPFS, the Livermore Tarplant, and a project’s environmental impacts on the hydrology and its effects on the alkali sink, vernal pools and the Altamont Creek.
8. The No Project Alternative requirements by CEQA indicate that communications with the Landowners offering a market value rate for conservation is required prior to communication with a developer. The City is required to make a fair market value offer. The Representative for the landowners, Lisa Quisito, stated their selling price was $3.5 million. There are conservation trust funds available to cover that purchase price. May I add, the City has representatives who vote on the access and use of those funds. It may be a conflict of interest when the City reps prefer to build rather than conserve. The landowners are willing sellers with a respectable offer.
9. New Information on California Wildfires. Since 2019 when the City approved the project and finalized the previous EIR, the State of California has undergone extreme wildfires. All of California is under extreme fire danger. CEQA requirements require thorough analysis of these conditions and locations.
10. I spoke with an environmental botanist from the area. The onsite surveys for protected flora and special status flora is very specific per CEQA. Five onsite surveys are required and that was not done in the previous EIR. The Livermore Tarplant and several other very critical species live on and around the base of the hill and their presence and onsite surveys are required by CEQA
There’s a plethora of items on the list that would lead a reasonable Civic Body to reject this project. In addition, the lengthy list previously mentioned per CEQA requires a retrigger of an EIR.
I would request the environmental wildlife biologist, ecologist, Botanist and hydrogeologist I have previously mentioned be contracted with the City to provide accurate and current surveys to be included in the Lamphier-Gregory EIR.
Response L-1 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment mentions topics outside the scope of the RP Draft EIR. Please see Master Response 2. The Court of Appeal upheld the adequacy of the EIR on all issues other than the discussion of the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under the No Project, No Development Alternative. A full discussion of the Project’s impacts related to hydrology, hazards, biological resources, and wildfire were included in the EIR and the RP EIR was not required to re-open the EIR’s analyses. The following information is provided to indicate where and how these topics were addressed in the EIR.
Flooding was addressed in Chapter 12 and associated Appendix G of the Draft EIR with minor revisions on pages 26-41 to 26-42 of the Re-Issued Final EIR. The
EXHIBIT B
495
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-43
EIR indicated that existing site soils are relatively impervious and precipitation falling on the site currently drains quickly in the form of surface flows, largely to the adjacent Altamont Creek. Hydrological analysis and design acknowledges and is intended to address even uncommon flooding conditions (“100 year” events), as detailed on pages 12-9 and 12-10 of the Draft EIR and page 9 of Appendix G. Proposed on-site stormwater treatment and collection elements include bio-retention on each lot and a detention basin at the southeast corner of the site. As indicated on page 12-9 of the Draft EIR, plan-level stormwater calculations demonstrated that the Project with proposed stormwater elements would not increase runoff from the site, and that detailed design-level hydraulic computations are required to confirm this as a standard construction permit requirement. The full hydrological assessment in the EIR (Appendix G) determined that the Project would not have a significant impact on the ability of the creek to contain flood waters and Project revisions further reduced the proposed development footprint (page 26-42 of the Re-Issued Final EIR). With the Project as proposed including stormwater treatment and collection elements, the impact with respect to flooding was determined to be less than significant. To the extent the comment raises issues related to flooding after the Re-Issued Final EIR, the City Engineer has reviewed the comment and determined that the comment is not new information. Please see the memorandum from the City Engineer included in Master Response 2 addressing the Project’s flood risk.
Hydrocarbon (oil) seepage was discussed on pages 11-2, 11-3, 11-6, 11-7 and 12-8 and associated Appendix F of the Draft EIR with minor revisions on pages 26-38, 26-39 and 26-41 of the Re-Issued Final EIR. The history of near-surface hydrocarbons and oil seeps in the vicinity was identified as a known concern in the Draft EIR (pages 11-1 to 11-3) believed to be related to the interaction between the movement of the naturally-occurring oil deposits in the geologic strata (oil-bearing Greenville Sands) and the seasonally-fluctuating groundwater table beneath the Bear Creek site where an oil seep is located. As indicated in the Draft EIR (page 11-3), “the geologic structure is not continuous from the Bear Creek site oil seep to the Project site and that therefore, it is unlikely that there are oil bearing Greenville Sands near-surface at the Project site.
Supporting this conclusion, no evidence of near-surface oil or seepage was found at the Project site through site reconnaissance, surface borings, or deeper borings (down to 62 feet) performed at the Project site by ENGEO. However, oil seeps did not become apparent until five years after construction of the Bear Creek Development. Therefore, oil seeps may be expected to move laterally within one mile of the identified location or to rise to the surface within the next 5-10 years.” While not found or considered likely at the Project site, the possibility of future oil seepage was acknowledged as a potential impact and the EIR concluded that the impact could be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the identified mitigation requiring additional field confirmation during grading with measures requiring design of underground utility and stormwater elements to prevent oil intrusion, additional measures to reduce potential seepage events if any oil is encountered (overexcavation, visqueen lining, and an oil/water separator), and funding for additional remedies should oil seepage occur in the future (Draft EIR pages 11-6 to 11-7).
EXHIBIT B
496
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-44 Garaventa Hills Project
To the extent the comment raises hydrocarbon related incidents after the ReIssued Final EIR, the City Engineer reviewed the comment and determined that the comment is not substantial new information because the area has a known history of the presence of hydrocarbons and the Project includes mitigation measures and conditions of approval in the event hydrocarbons are encountered during construction and in the future. Please see the memorandum from the City Engineer included in Master Response 2.
Biological resources were addressed in Chapter 7 of the Draft EIR with minor revisions on pages 23-2 to 23-5 of the Final EIR, and pages 26-13 to 26-28 of the Re-Issued Final EIR The EIR states that the currently undeveloped site consists primarily of non-native annual grasslands, which while common throughout the region, can be used by various special-status species. The Project would also include construction of a pedestrian and emergency access bridge across a creek channel. The EIR concludes that the potentially significant impacts from development of the Project on biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation. Impacts from potential construction-period disturbance and the permanent change of the site to residential development would be reduced through required pre-construction surveys to assess for sensitive species closer to construction activities, protections to avoid direct or indirect construction impacts as feasible depending on habitat or species, coordination with regulatory agencies as appropriate (US Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife), and offsite compensatory habitat.
The comment does not identify or otherwise provide evidence of specific species of concern. Evaluation of potential hydrological impacts to off-site wetlands and associated species was included in the EIR (Appendix G, Appendix J) and as summarized on page 24-12, “the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve receives flows from nearly 645 acres of tributary watershed and that “…the minor changes to onsite drainage patterns proposed with the project will not result in significant impacts to the hydrology of the Garaventa Wetlands [Preserve].” To the extent the comment raises issues related to flooding after the Re-Issued Final EIR, the City Engineer has reviewed the comment and determined that the comment is not substantial new information. Please see the memorandum from the City Engineer included in Master Response 2 addressing the Project’s flooding risk and impacts from runoff. To the extent the comment raises issues related to biological resources after the Re-Issued Final EIR, the City’s commissioned expert biologist has independently confirmed in a memorandum included in Master Response 2 that there are no new listings in the CNDDB regarding endangered species and that changed or pending changes to listing status since the Re-Issued Final EIR are either already adequately addressed or can be addressed by a modest revision to Mitigation Measure Bio-9, which would not be considered substantial new information because it would not result in a new or worsened significant impact. Please see the memorandum from the biologist included in Master Response 2 and revised Mitigation Measure Bio-9 described in Master Response 2.
EXHIBIT B
497
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-45
Wildfire was addressed on pages 11-7 to 11-8 of the Draft EIR with minor revisions on pages 26-39 to 26-40 of the Re-Issued Final EIR. The EIR concludes that the project is not in a high-risk wildfire area (what would be called a Very High Fire Hazard Safety Zone or VHFHSZ by Cal Fire) and would comply with the City’s Wildland-Urban Interface Code requiring the defensible space and fireretardant materials. Therefore, the impact related to wildfire would be less than significant. Under current CEQA Standards (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Section XX), a project is considered to have a potentially significant impact under CEQA requiring more detailed analysis if the project site is classified as a VHFHSZ. According to current mapping,6 it remains the case that the Project is not located in or near VHFHSZ areas, the closest of which are over 4 miles away to the northwest or southwest. .
This comment also addresses purchasing the site. Please see Master Response 3 regarding available funds and Master Response 4 regarding a willing seller and purchase price.
Planning Commission Hearing Verbal Comments
Comment PC-1 [Doug Mann] I am Secretary for Citizens for Balanced Growth. CEQA has provisions to retrigger an EIR when certain new information is obtained about an environmentally damaging project. So, we’ll be starting all over again, and continuing for as many years as it takes, extending far beyond the NDA. Although the result of tonight’s meeting will just contribute to a reverse loop on the CEQA flow chart, receiving comments might still do some good.
Let’s concentrate on the weirdest part of this whole thing, which is the interaction with the trustee, Lisa Quisito. The staff report claims that Quisito is not a willing seller. We put this expression into the DBSA when we settled the lawsuit to prohibit eminent domain purchases. Quisito is a willing seller and actively engaged in the process of selling this asset under self-imposed restrictive terms. Her preferred buyer, Lafferty, has refused to buy for 13 years. Quisito claims they are restricted by contract to sell only to Lafferty. What she doesn’t say is it’s an option contract.
Lafferty paid them to not sell to anyone else. But it’s also not perpetual, but one that renews on a regular basis. In the renewal periods, she can sell to anyone.
February 2nd, Livermore offered $868,000. Quisito’s February 5 reply defines their selling price as $3.5 million. Staff paradoxically followed up February 29th with an offer for $1.74 million. This offer was designed to fail. Other than to mock, aggravate and waste the owner’s time, what possible purpose did that serve? They could’ve responded if the City offered $3.5 million, if you were not under another contract, would you consider it, for example. We don’t know how many other insults Quisito may have endured over the years but one might wonder if this sort of thing explains the accelerated tone of resentment in her letters.
Here’s where you can help. Although you’re not required to take any action, you do have the option to help cut through the fog. Ask your staff to engage a professional 6 Cal Fire, Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, displaying adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zones effective April 1, 2024. Available at https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/
EXHIBIT B
498
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-46 Garaventa Hills Project
mediator, a neutral party who may be able to find solutions to the fractured relationship between the City and the seller. As an EIR expense, the developer will even pay for it. You could also request your staff talk to an actual real estate agent to represent the City. It costs nothing and there’s no better way to consummate a real estate deal than to give marching orders to a motivated professional. Both of these activities can occur in parallel. Again, you are not required, but if you do nothing tonight except passively receive comments, (buzzer), I’m done. One has to wonder, what you as public servants are actually doing to help.
The RP Draft EIR remains inadequate.
Response PC-1 Thank you for your comment. This commenter also submitted written comments identified as Letter G. These comments are noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. Please see Response G-1.
This comment mentions “starting over” with the environmental analysis. The Court of Appeal upheld the adequacy of the EIR on all issues other than the discussion of the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under the No Project, No Development Alternative.
Please see Master Response 2.
This comment also addresses the purchase of the site. Please see Master Response 4 regarding a willing seller and purchase price.
Comment PC-2 [Bianca Covarelli] Good evening. I’m sorry I can’t stand. I literally had knee surgery four days ago, but this is a very important topic to me. My name is Bianca Covarelli and I say (inaudible). I appreciate your time this evening and very much for your dedication and hard work for all of your planning for our beautiful town of Livermore. It’s very special to me.
Initially, I’d like to state for the record and remind City staff that we do have a right to make comments tonight on the Draft EIR and to direct it to limit comments to strictly funding is misinformation and this is why, I argue that significant new conditions and new information have come up over the last few years that will retrigger the requirements that amend the EIR and recirculate. The City’s project page has 2014 Final EIR and 2018 reissued Final EIR. Most of the reports are from 2014. The only difference between the two projects was density of the development, no new studies. The reports in the Final EIR are quite old. The City lost a prejudicial legal judgement that required the City to set aside certification of the RFEIR and the approval of the project.
What they didn’t mention is that they hand wrote a letter to the California Supreme Court in association with other building communities. And the California Supreme Court came back and said after the City of Livermore requested that the ruling be tossed out from the Appellate Court ruling, and the California Supreme Court said this, ‘Not only are we upholding this precedential ruling, but you are no longer allowed to appeal this ruling’. So, that says a lot. And maybe there are issues about this that didn’t come out in the courts because this other issue is so important. So, I’d just like you to consider that.
EXHIBIT B
499
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-47
Over the last few years I have been diligent in research and committed to consulting with experts on the pertinent issues, new information and conditions regarding this special hearing. There are many, many studies by those experts being prepared now. The process isn’t quite complete as to what will be in the record yet but comment submissions will be made prior to the September 13 deadline. The environmental consultant may be overwhelmed with the plethora of new information and additional work that may be required to be performed.
Regarding the funding issue, we can all agree the second courts precedential ruling wherein they vacated EIR and the project, we can agree that the valuation of the land declined significantly. The comment made about the current valuation of the hill being $18 to $20 million is beyond erroneous. Misinformation and a possible attempt at hindering informed decision making and public perception.
The question is the City in good faith honoring the Court’s decision that on a piece of land is so environmentally sensitive and rare, it’s a very new diversity and there’s nothing like it anywhere else in our state. Conservation should be considered and that’s what the Court said. I was at the hearing when they said it.
The property was listed at various times since 2017. The listing price in 2017 was $4.9 million. The City’s recent offer of over $800,000 and then $1.7, it wasn’t a fair market value offer. No wonder the land owners rejected it. That’s why they’re being considered an unwilling seller. They’re clearly a willing seller. The City contends the landowners are not willing to sell. I feel that if a bonifide fair market value offer was offered, they’re a reasonable seller, they would consider it.
This gloss by the City and the courts was an exit to that option that Lafferty’s holdings on this property. Do the land owners know that? Do they know that there’s funding available to purchase? I request tonight that you, the Planning Commission, take to heart the magnitude and the time spent on this proposed project. It’s been over 12 years and I can personally attest to that, I’ve been involved. I could recommend that you send this back to staff and demand preparation of an accurate, proper, updated and current EIR. Thank you so much for your attention.
Response PC-2 Thank you for your comment. This commenter also submitted written comments identified as Letter L. These comments are noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. Please see Response L-1.
This comment mentions analysis outside the scope of the RP Draft EIR. The Court of Appeal upheld the adequacy of the EIR on all issues other than the No Project Alternative. Please see Master Response 2.
This comment mentions funds and price for the purchase of the site. Please see Master Response 3 regarding the available funds and Master Response 4 regarding a willing seller and purchase price.
Comment PC-3 [Vladimir] I’m going to sit too since you guys are all comfortable. For one, I think you should have let her speak all the way through because she underwent surgery as she said four days ago and she is Save the Hill and I think what she has to say is
EXHIBIT B
500
Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report
Page RP6-48 Garaventa Hills Project
pretty important. I don’t think there is any reason to be concerned over the one minute that she takes. I just had to say, you know I drove her here myself and she is clearly committed. The other thing I’d like to say is hello to my old friend Steve Stewart. I remember when we were at the Garaventa meeting together a few months ago. My impression was that you were dreading that meeting and I don’t blame you because it was very long and drawn out and I’m surprised to see you’re back. I think what that says is that everybody’s got a price. Right? And in this case it was worth it for you to come back talking.
On the topic of that, the main, your whole argument seems to rest on the idea that the land owner is not a willing seller and as Doug and Bianca pointed out earlier, it’s bogus because they’re trying to build as many homes as possible on this land for ten years now and working with the developer. These people are trying to make money.
The reason they are not a willing seller to the City is because you ridiculed them with $800,000.
The other thing that I found interesting actually in the reports, since we’re discussing a no project alternative, I thought you should mention how much the land is worth. Do you know how much it’s worth? I know they said it earlier but do you know? At this point, as the City because a few months ago you told me it was $15-20 million. As Bianca said, there’s some text in CEQA that I was reading earlier but something about informed decision making and public participation. And I think that what you lie about how much the land is worth even though you have letters from the landowner, I mean this data is easy to find. And you get this $15-20 million number and people believe you because you have the power of authority, I think you’re misusing it. So anyway, this no willing seller argument is false because hypothetically speaking if you throw $100 million at them I bet they would change their tune, right. So it’s just a matter of money. If you make a fair offer, then they will sell it. They’re probably as tired of this as anybody else, of this masquerade that’s been going on. I guess that’s it. I’m trying to practice not writing any notes so that I get better at public speaking but I might have forgotten a few things. That’s okay.
Response PC-3 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment presents support for another commenter and opinions related to City staff. These comments do not state a specific concern related to the adequacy of the RP EIR and do not require a detailed response. Please see Master Response 1 regarding non-environmental comments.
This comment mentions analysis outside the scope of the RP Draft EIR. The Court of Appeal upheld the adequacy of the EIR on all issues other than the discussion of the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under the No Project, No Development Alternative.
Please see Master Response 2.
This comment addresses the purchase of the site. Please see Master Response 4 regarding a willing seller and purchase price.
EXHIBIT B
501
Chapter RP6: Response to Comments
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP6-49
Comment PC-4 [Connie Kopps] Hi. I’m here about 5.1 and it’s not clear in the beginning but it will be clear as I read on. On public hearing Item 5.1, 13-005. Our City is unclear with its general planning for all of Livermore and lands it’s preserving. There is an opportunity __ to all living in this area as the boundaries of who is responsible for what with land owners and shell companies, makes getting clear maps and any questions answered with honesty impossible. It is my firm belief that a General Plan with Zoning should be clear and concise so that all districts together can view it in its entirety as all are affected by what you do and what you approve. It’s impossible to get honest input without that, without that, without the big picture.
I do think also that this land, because it’s got a B after it, the parcel number is like 99B, that it is entitled to something. When I called the County about, I think it was that parcel, they couldn’t tell me for some reason who owned it prior to them. They said that wasn’t public record. So, I don’t know why and I might have messed up something too. But I really do think it’s important to go over with your whole community the past history and why things were preserved and again update your planning to include modern day thoughts. Even when like Public Works is coming to my HOA in the other part of Spring Town when Darrell Greenwood was telling everybody in my HOA that the City owned our property and the golf course was still going, so the dynamics around it have also changed and there’s an opportunity cost for those other people who also might want to propose some kind of building to you. So try to be fair. I say, take your districts, divide your housing allocation by the number of districts and at least try to balance it out. I don’t think that Midtown, we’ve gotten onto another subject here so I’ll stop. Thank you for taking what I said into consideration. I really appreciate it. Thank you.
Response PC-4 Thank you for your comment. This comment is noted and will be considered by City decisionmakers. This comment addresses a desire for clarity with General Plan and Zoning of a site. This comment does not state a specific concern related to the adequacy of the RP EIR and does not require a detailed response. Please see Master Response 1 regarding non-environmental comments.
EXHIBIT B
502
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2011112045
City of Livermore
Planning Division
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
L A M P H I E R - G R E G O R Y
U R B A N P L A N N I N G , E N V I R O N M E N T A L A N A L Y S I S & P R O JE C T M A N A G E M E N T | 5 1 0 . 5 3 5 . 6 6 9 0 July 2024
EXHIBIT B
503
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP-i
Contents
Page
Chapter RP1: RP Draft EIR Introduction
Purpose of the EIR and Recirculated Partial Draft .......................................................................... RP1-1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... RP1-2 Environmental Review Process ....................................................................................................... RP1-3 Summary of Revisions to the Draft EIR ........................................................................................... RP1-3 Chapter RP2: RP Draft EIR Executive Summary
Summary of the Project History ...................................................................................................... RP2-1 Summary of Purpose and Revisions to the Draft EIR ...................................................................... RP2-2 Summary of the Proposed Project .................................................................................................. RP2-3 Chapter RP3: RP Alternative A: No Project, No Development Alternative – Potential Funding Sources Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... RP3-1 Project Objectives from the Prior EIR Documents .......................................................................... RP3-1 Summary of Project Impacts from the Prior EIR Documents .......................................................... RP3-2 Discussion of Alternative A: No Project, No Development from the Prior EIR Documents ............ RP3-3 Additional Discussion of Funding Sources for Alternative A: No Project, No Development ........... RP3-4 Summary of Acquisition Offers ................................................................................................. RP3-4 Altamont Open Space Fund ...................................................................................................... RP3-5 Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement ................................................................................. RP3-9 Other Open Space Funding Sources ....................................................................................... RP3-11 Eminent Domain for Acquiring the Property from Unwilling Sellers ...................................... RP3-13 Considerations for Rezoning a Housing Element Residential Site .......................................... RP3-14 Feasibility of Alternative A: No Project, No Development Related to Potential Funding Sources for Open Space Acquisition and Preservation ................................................................. RP3-15 Chapter RP4: RP Draft EIR Report Preparers and References RP Draft EIR Report Preparers ......................................................................................................... RP4-1 References ....................................................................................................................................... RP4-1 Appendices
Appendix RP-A: Project Site Offer Letters and Owner Responses Appendix RP-B: Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee Meeting Summaries Appendix RP-C: Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee February 16, 2024 Meeting - Agenda, Minutes, and Garaventa Presentation
Appendix RP-D: Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee March 15, 2024 Meeting - Agenda, Minutes, and Garaventa Presentation
EXHIBIT B
504
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page RP-ii Garaventa Hills Project
Figures
Page
3.1: Site Location [from Draft EIR] ................................................................................................... RP2-5
26.1: Project Development Plan [from Re-Issued Final EIR] .............................................................. RP2-6
EXHIBIT B
505
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP1-1
RP1
RP Draft EIR Introduction
Purpose of the EIR and Recirculated Partial Draft
The California Environmental Quality Act and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder (together “CEQA”) require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for any project which may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is an informational document, the purposes of which, according to CEQA are “to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.” As discussed in more detail under the Background heading below, prior EIR documents evaluated the potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the Garaventa Hills Project (“Project”) in Livermore, California. The Project proposes a 44-unit single-family residential subdivision on a vacant, approximately 32-acre site. A westerly extension of Bear Creek Drive would provide access to the internal residential street circumscribing the site’s two prominent knolls. Proposed single-family detached lot sizes range from 8,740 to 13,160 square feet, with homes between 2,390 to 3,150 square feet in size, excluding garages. Lots and roadways would comprise approximately 40 percent of the site, with the remaining land reserved for open space buffers on the site’s edges, undeveloped knolls with pedestrian trails, and a storm water detention basin with outfall pipe to Altamont Creek. A homeowner’s association would be responsible for the maintenance of the private street, detention basin, project landscaping, and all open space areas (including trails). The informal trails currently found on the privately owned knolls would be formally designated for public access. A community facilities district would fund maintenance of the emergency vehicle access (EVA), pedestrian, and bicycle bridge.
As a development project within city limits, the “lead agency” for environmental review of the proposed Project under CEQA is the City of Livermore.
This document is a Recirculated Partial (RP) Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (relevant subsections excerpted below):
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification…
(c) If the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency need only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified. (f)(2) When the EIR is revised only in part and the lead agency is recirculating only the revised chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency may request that reviewers limit their comments to the revised chapters or portions…
(g) When recirculating a revised EIR, either in whole or in part, the lead agency shall, in the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR, summarize the revisions made to the previously circulated draft EIR.
EXHIBIT B
506
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page RP1-2 Garaventa Hills Project
“Recirculation” means that the public is provided an opportunity to comment on the new or revised sections of the Draft EIR.1
As authorized under Section 15088.5(c), this document is only a “partial” recirculation of the previously circulated Draft EIR; its content is limited to the portions of the original Draft EIR that have been modified, consistent with State law (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[c]). In accordance with the Court of Appeal holding in Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore,2 the
recirculated portion of this document solely focuses on discussion of the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under Alternative A: No Project, No Development. There are no other changes to the information or conclusions in the prior EIR documents. Recirculation of an EIR to address a specific issue is not grounds to revisit other issues addressed in the prior analysis. As discussed under the Environmental Review Process header below, the reader should refer to the previously circulated Draft EIR, Final EIR, and Re-Issued Final EIR (as described below) for the parts that are not included in this RP Draft EIR.
Background
Prior EIR Documents
The City of Livermore circulated a Draft EIR for the Project in November 2012 (SCH#2011112045) for public review and comment and public comment was received between November 18, 2012, and December 26, 2012. The City received public comments on the Draft EIR and prepared a Final EIR that was released to the public in June 2014. The applicant then revised the Project to be consistent with the Reduced Density Alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR. To document the changes in the Project that reflected the Reduced Density Alternative and to evaluate the impacts of those changes, the City prepared a Re-Issued Final EIR that was released to the public for review in August 2018. Together, the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and Re-Issued Final EIR are referred to in this document as the “prior EIR documents”. The Re-Issued Final EIR was certified by the Livermore City Council on April 22, 2019, and the City Council approved the Project as a 44-unit single family subdivision.
Copies of the prior EIR documents listed above are incorporated by reference and are available for review during normal business hours at the Livermore Planning Division, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore Public Library Main Branch, 1000 South Livermore Avenue, and on the City’s website at https://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/garaventa-hills-project.
Legal Challenge and Decision
On May 23, 2019, Save the Hill Group, a group of residents, filed a lawsuit challenging the City's certification of the EIR and approval of the Project. The Superior Court of the County of Alameda denied Save the Hill Group's challenge. Save the Hill Group appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court's decision. The appellate court ruled that the EIR was inadequate because the EIR failed to include information regarding the potential availability of funding for open space acquisition and preservation of the Project site in the no project alternative analysis.3
1 CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088.5(c)-(d).
2 Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1092, review denied (July 13, 2022). Available at:
https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10739/638297013821830000 3 Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1092, review denied (July 13, 2022). Available at:
https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10739/638297013821830000
EXHIBIT B
507
Chapter RP1: RP Draft EIR Introduction
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP1-3
In accordance with the appellate court's order in November 28, 2022, the Livermore City Council rescinded certification of the EIR and approval of the Project.
The applicant has exercised their right to bring the Project back for review by the City, which requires revising the EIR to address the inadequacy identified by the Court of Appeal.
Environmental Review Process
The RP Draft EIR will be available for a 45-day public review period, from July 30, 2024 through September 13 2024. During the review period for this RP Draft EIR, interested individuals, organizations, and agencies may offer their comments on the document. The comments received during this public review period will be compiled and presented together with responses to these comments in the RP Final EIR. This RP Draft EIR, together with the RP Final EIR and the prior EIR documents will constitute the complete EIR for the proposed Project.
Comments should be submitted in writing during the public review period to:
Steve Stewart, Special Projects Coordinator
City of Livermore
Planning Division
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
925-960-4468
[email protected]
This RP Draft EIR focuses only on additional discussion of the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under Alternative A: No Project, No Development. Only comments received on this RP Draft EIR that address the topic included in this RP Draft EIR will be responded to in the RP Final EIR, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f)(2).
Summary of Revisions to the Draft EIR
In the discussion of the No Project, No Development Alternative, the Draft EIR indicated that it was not necessarily feasible to assume the site would remain undeveloped in the long term because the Project site is zoned for residential development and there was no proposal by the City or other party to purchase or otherwise preserve it. The court ruled that the analysis of the No Project, No Development Alternative was inadequate because it failed to include information about existing funding sources that could possibly be used to purchase the Project site and conserve it as open space. Open space funds from Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement and Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement are two funding sources specifically mentioned in the decision.4
Consistent with the court’s decision, this RP Draft EIR is limited to recirculation of the discussion of the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under the No Project, No Development Alternative, such as the Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement Fund, Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement Fund, as well as other potential sources. 4 Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1092, review denied (July 13, 2022). Available at:
https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10739/638297013821830000
EXHIBIT B
508
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page RP1-4 Garaventa Hills Project
This RP Draft EIR adds or revises the following chapters from the Draft EIR:
DRAFT EIR RECIRCULATED PARTIAL DRAFT EIR
Not applicable addition of Chapter RP1: RP Draft EIR Introduction Chapter 2: Executive Summary partial update Chapter RP2: RP Draft EIR Executive Summary Chapter 19: Alternatives partial update Chapter RP3: RP No Project Alternative – Potential Funding Sources
Not applicable addition of Chapter RP4: RP Draft EIR Report Preparers and References There are no other revisions being made to the prior EIR documents. An Executive Summary has been included in this RP Draft EIR (Chapter RP2) to provide an easy reference to the Project description and summarize the recirculated elements of the Draft EIR. Again, while the Executive Summary provides a brief reference to information from the prior EIR documents, the only revisions in this RP Draft EIR are to the discussion of the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under Alternative A: No Project, No Development.
EXHIBIT B
509
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP2-1
RP2
RP Draft EIR Executive Summary
Summary of the Project History
The applicant submitted a development application to the City in 2011 and the Project was evaluated in the 2012 Draft EIR. The applicant made subsequent revisions to the application that were evaluated in 2014 and 2018 EIR documents summarized below:
2012 Draft EIR – included environmental analysis of a project that proposed 76 residential units and a vehicular bridge connecting to Hawk Street. The Draft EIR considered all environmental topic areas, evaluated the Project impacts, and identified two alternatives to the project. 2014 Final EIR – responded to comments on the Draft EIR and presented information to conclude that a revised project proposing 47 residential units and no bridge over Hawk Street was covered by the prior 2012 EIR analysis.
2018 Re-Issued Final EIR - presented information and analysis to conclude that a revised project proposing 44 residential units and a pedestrian bridge connection to Hawk Street was within the prior analysis and updated responses to comments as necessary to reflect the revised 44-unit project.
In December 2018, the Planning Commission considered the Project and voted unanimously to recommend the City Council certify the EIR and approve the Project.
In April 2019, the Livermore City Council certified the EIR and approved the Project.
In May 2019, a lawsuit was brought by Save the Hill Group, a group of residents, challenging the City's certification of the EIR and approval of the Project.
In September 2020, the Superior Court for the County of Alameda denied the Save the Hill Group’s lawsuit, finding 1) they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies regarding their claims that the no-project alternative analyzed in the EIR was inadequate, and 2) denying the remainder of their claims that the EIR was inadequate. The Superior Court rejected all challenges to the EIR’s impact analysis.
In March 2022, the Court of Appeal of the State of California ruled that the EIR was inadequate because it failed to include sufficient information regarding the potential availability of funding for open space acquisition and preservation of the Project site in the no project alternative analysis. The Court of Appeal denied all other challenges, including to the EIR’s biological resources impact analysis and mitigation measures and hydrological impacts on the Springtown Alkali Sink. In accordance with the appellate court's direction, the City Council rescinded the certification of the EIR and approval of the Project in November 2022.
EXHIBIT B
510
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page RP2-2 Garaventa Hills Project
The applicant has exercised their right to bring the Project back for review by the City, which requires revising the EIR to address the inadequacies identified by the Court of Appeals.
Summary of Purpose and Revisions to the Draft EIR
Recirculation of an EIR to address a limited issue is not grounds to revisit issues laid to rest in prior analysis upheld by the Court. Therefore, consistent with the Court of Appeal’s decision, this RP Draft EIR is limited to recirculation of the discussion of the potential for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under the No Project, No Development Alternative. The analysis in Chapter RP3 of this RP Draft EIR concludes on the basis of substantial evidence that:
The property owner is not a willing seller. Without a willing seller, the Project site has been determined not to be eligible for funding through the Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund or the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement funds.
Use of eminent domain to acquire the property from an unwilling seller, if it could be defended legally, would be costly (over $17-25 million) and contrary to the City’s past practice. There are other funding sources available for an eminent domain approach, including the Open Space Acquisition and Management Fund, Transferable Development Credits Fund, and/or General Fund allocation (if authorized by voters through ballot initiatives/bond measures); however, these funds are either not eligible to be used for the Project site or are prioritized elsewhere.
Additionally, the Project site has a long-established residential designation, and is identified in the current Livermore General Plan Housing Element site inventory as a site for residential development. Under the No Net Loss provisions of state housing laws, additional process would be required to remove the Project site from the Housing Element’s residential development site inventory, which could add additional cost to the acquisition of the site for open space preservation.
Alternative A: No Project, No Development represents the possibility that the Project site would be preserved as open space. As discussed above, the potential funding sources for such open space acquisition and preservation have been explored and it has been concluded that the site is either ineligible for use of those funds due to an unwilling seller or would require legally-complicated and cost-prohibitive fair market value eminent domain proceedings and use of funds prioritized elsewhere.
The analysis and evidence cited above can support a conclusion by the lead agency that Alternative A: No Project, No Development involving site acquisition and preservation as open space is not a “feasible” alternative the lead agency is compelled to adopt.1, 2 The lead agency will take this evidence and analysis into account when making the findings required by CEQA regarding the feasibility of Alternative A: No Project, No Development. 1 CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.6(f)(i); 15091(a)(3).
2 See California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 (assessing alternatives feasibility, "involves a balancing of various 'economic, environmental, social, and technological factors”; “'feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” [internal citations omitted]).
EXHIBIT B
511
Chapter RP2: RP Draft EIR Executive Summary
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP2-3
There are no other changes to the information or conclusions in the prior EIR documents. Introductory text, summary information from the prior EIR documents, and information regarding the preparation of this document are provided for reference and context and do not constitute “significant new information” pursuant to 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines addressing Recirculation of an EIR.
This RP Draft EIR will be circulated for public review and comments received during this public review period will be compiled and presented together with responses to these comments in the RP Final EIR.
Because this RP Draft EIR focuses only on additional discussion of funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under Alternative A: No Project, No Development, only comments received on this RP Draft EIR that address this topic will be responded to in the RP Final EIR, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f)(2).
Summary of the Proposed Project
The following project summary information has not been modified from prior EIR documents because the Project is the same Project and requires the same Project approvals. It is provided for reference and context. A more detailed project description is included in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR, with revisions listed in Chapter 21 of the Final EIR and further revisions listed in Chapter 26 of the Re-Issued Final EIR.
The 31.7-acre Project site is located north of Interstate-580 and east of Vasco Road and west of Laughlin Road in the City of Livermore and is an undeveloped parcel consisting predominantly of non-native grassland habitat. The topography of the site is moderately steeply sloping, having a predominantly 15% to 20% slope. Altamont Creek, an intermittent stream channel, forms the southern boundary of the site.
There are two prominent knolls in roughly the center of the site. See Figure 3.1 [from the Draft EIR] on page RP2-4 showing the project location.
The previous Maralisa development is located to the south, across Altamont Creek. This is a largely residential development with Altamont Creek Elementary and the connected Altamont Creek Park also adjacent to the other side of the creek. Existing residential uses border the Project site to the east.
The 24-acre Garaventa Wetlands Preserve, owned and managed by the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, borders the Project site to the west. Along with undeveloped land to the north of the Project, the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve contains sensitive alkali wetlands and vernal pools which support special status species.
The Project proposes 44 residential units on an internal looped circulation plan that circumscribes the prominent knolls and connects to the planned extension of Bear Creek Drive. A pedestrian-only bridge would connect over Altamont Creek to Hawk Street that would also serve as a secondary emergency vehicle access. The average lot size would be 9,337 square feet with a minimum of 8,712 square feet. Six units would be attached as pairs, and the remaining 38 would be detached single family homes. See Figure 26.1 [from the Re-Issued Final EIR] on page RP2-5 showing the development plan.
Less than half of the site would be developed with roadways and lots. The knolls would remain undeveloped with informal public-access trails for hiking and vista views. The remaining area would include a stormwater detention basin at the southeast corner and natural areas surrounding development to buffer the nearby creek, wetlands, and other sensitive habitat.
EXHIBIT B
512
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page RP2-4 Garaventa Hills Project
The following approvals would be required to develop the Project: a Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Development, Site Plan Design Review (including architecture and landscaping), Grading and Dirt Haul Permit, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Permits from both the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) relating to potential impacts to Corps jurisdictional wetlands/waters associated with the wetland swale, and approval of Mitigation Plans from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
EXHIBIT B
513
Chapter RP2: RP Draft EIR Executive Summary
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP2-5 Figure 3.1: Site Location [from Draft EIR]
EXHIBIT
B
514
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page RP2-6 Garaventa Hills Project Figure 26.1: Project Development Plan [from Re-Issued Final EIR]
EXHIBIT B
515
Garaventa Hills Project PAGE RP3-1
RP3
RP Alternative A: No Project, No
Development Alternative – Potential Funding
Sources
Introduction
Chapter 19 of the Draft EIR included an analysis of Alternative A: No Project, No Development on pages 19-4, and 19-6 through 19-12. This chapter of the RP Draft EIR is limited to discussion of the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under Alternative A: No Project, No Development.
For ease of reference and context, this chapter includes the Project objectives and summarizes the Project impacts as described in Chapter 19 of the Draft EIR. This information has not been changed since the prior EIR documents because the Project objectives and Project impacts have not changed. In addition, the original analysis and feasibility discussion for Alternative A: No Project, No Development is provided as presented in the Draft EIR. New text added to the feasibility discussion is shown in italics.
Project Objectives from the Prior EIR Documents
Project Objectives were presented in Chapters 3 and 19 of the Draft EIR. Because they are considered in a discussion of Alternatives, they have been included below. There have been no changes made to the Project Objectives since the City prepared and circulated the prior EIR documents because the applicant is proposing the same Project with the same Project Objectives as detailed in the Draft EIR.
The following objectives have been identified for the Project.
1. Complete implementation of current Planned Development zoning designation that reflects the Project site’s inclusion in the Planned Unit Development Permit (PUD 115-A) for the Maralisa development, which indicated development with a maximum of 76 single-family homes.
2. Contribute to housing availability to accommodate Livermore’s growing population and to help satisfy Livermore’s share of regional housing needs.
3. Provide housing near Livermore and Tri-Valley employment centers within the existing City Boundary and North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary.
4. Provide a high-quality residential neighborhood that is compatible and integrated with existing nearby residential, park, school and open space uses.
EXHIBIT B
516
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page RP3-2 Garaventa Hills Project
5. Provide adequate access to the site for safety purposes while minimizing environmental impacts and satisfying natural resource and flood control regulatory agencies.
6. Provide buffers as a separation and natural transition from adjacent open space and habitat to urban development.
7. Conserve the two prominent knolls as visual resources for the community.
8. Retain public access to trails around the knolls as a public amenity for hiking and vista views.
Summary of Project Impacts from the Prior EIR Documents Project impacts were detailed in Chapters 4 through 18 and summarized in Chapters 2 and 19 of the Draft EIR, as revised by Chapters 22 and 23 of the Final EIR and Chapter 26 of the Re-Issued Final EIR.
Because they are considered in a discussion of Alternatives, the summary of Project impacts has been included below. There have been no changes made to the Project impacts since the prior EIR documents because the applicant is proceeding with the same Project that the prior EIR documents evaluated and nothing in the following analysis constitutes new information requiring recirculation or a supplemental EIR (See, e.g. Public Resources Code section 21166, CEQA Guidelines sections 15088.5., 15166, etc.) Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The prior EIR documents concluded that there were no impacts due to the Project that were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Potentially Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially significant Project impacts include construction-period disturbance, including impacts and mitigation related to construction period dust and emissions (Mitigation Measure Air-1); potential disturbance of unknown archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources (Culture-1a, 1b, 1c); appropriate construction given site characteristics in a seismically-active region (Geo-2), potential erosion and siltation (Geo-5); potential existing oil contamination (Haz-2); and potential impacts to traffic from construction vehicles (Traf-7).
Potentially significant impacts to habitats and special status species would be mitigated through mitigation measures Bio-2, Bio-3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b, and 5c, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 9, 10, 11a, 11c and Geo-5.
Potentially significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be mitigated through energy efficient design (GHG-1) and compliance with the City’s Climate Change Element (GHG-2).
Potentially significant impacts of internal roadway designs would be mitigated through design review by the City (Traf-5 and Traf-6). Additionally, the Project would contribute its fair share amount to improvements at the intersection of Laughlin Road & Northfront Road (Traf-10).
The impacts listed in this subsection would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the prior EIR documents. All other impacts would be less than significant without the need for mitigation.
EXHIBIT B
517
Chapter RP3: RP No Project Alternative – Potential Funding Sources Garaventa Hills Project Page RP3-3
Discussion of Alternative A: No Project, No Development from the Prior EIR Documents
The No Project, No Development Alternative was discussed in Chapter 19 of the Draft EIR as excerpted below. No changes have been made to these excerpts because the applicant is proposing the same Project as that covered in the prior EIR documents and the court found the EIR analysis adequate in that regard.1
Per the court’s decision, an updated discussion of the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under Alternative A: No Project, No Development is included in the section after this.
Alternative Description
Alternative A is a “no project” alternative. It assumes the proposed Project is not approved and the site would remain in an undeveloped state, with no development of roadways or residences.
Impact Summary
Under a “no development” alternative, the Project site would remain in an undeveloped state. There would be no impacts on the environment associated with development, because no new development would occur.
Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives and Feasibility A No Project/No Development alternative would not meet any of the project objectives, except for separating adjacent habitats from development activity (objective 6) and preserving the knolls (objective 7). With no development, this alternative would not complete implementation of the Maralisa development, would not contribute to housing availability, and would not provide housing near employment centers. It is assumed the existing informal trails would remain on site.
This alternative represents the possibility that no project is approved on this site. However, there is no current proposal for the City or other agency to purchase this site or otherwise preserve it in an undeveloped state. This site is zoned for and previously indicated under the Maralisa plan for residential development. Therefore, while this alternative analyzes a no development scenario, it is not necessarily feasible to assume the site would remain undeveloped in the long term.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed Project and the alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the least amount of significant impacts.
Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of the City. Table
19.1, [on pages 19-8 through 19-12 of the Draft EIR], provides a summary comparison of the environmental impacts of the alternatives compared to the proposed Project for each of the topic areas in which a potentially significant impact was identified under the Project. 1 Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1092, review denied (July 13, 2022). Available at:
https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10739/638297013821830000.
EXHIBIT B
518
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page RP3-4 Garaventa Hills Project
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified under the proposed Project. All Project impacts are either less than significant or can be reduced to those levels through implementation of the mitigation contained in this Draft EIR. Because of the low impact of the proposed Project, differences between it and the Alternatives are marginal and confined to reductions in already less than significant impacts. Alternative A, the No Project, No Development Alternative, has no impacts as it does not propose any change to the site. Alternative A would be the environmentally superior alternative.
Additional Discussion of Funding Sources for Alternative A: No Project, No Development
As excerpted above, under the “Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives and Feasibility” section of the Alternative A: No Project, No Development discussion, the Draft EIR had indicated (on page 19-4), “However, there is no current proposal for the City or other agency to purchase this site or otherwise preserve it in an undeveloped state.” Pursuant to the court’s decision,2 the discussion of the potential
for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under Alternative A: No Project, No Development has been updated below in italics. These are the only substantive changes to prior EIR documents.
To reiterate, there are no changes to the description of the Project, Project objectives, or Project impacts since the prior EIR documents. With respect to Alternative A: No Project, No Development, there are no changes to the Alternative Description, Impact Summary, Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives, or Environmentally Superior Alternative discussions since the prior EIR document. ____________________________________
The likelihood of the site remaining undeveloped under Alternative A: No Project, No Development rests on the potential funding sources available for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space.
The following sections provide the information and analysis that supports the RP Draft EIR discussion of available funding sources for potential use in acquiring the Project site as open space, including: 1) communications between the City of Livermore and the Project site owners to acquire the Project Site; 2) consideration of the funding sources potentially available to acquire the Project site for the purposes of preservation as open space; 3) a consideration of eminent domain to acquire property from an unwilling seller; 4) considerations for rezoning a residential site; and 5) an updated discussion of the feasibility of Alternative A: No Project, No Development related to funding sources for acquisition of the site as open space.
Summary of Acquisition Offers
The City of Livermore sent an offer letter to the Project site property owners on February 2, 2024, offering to purchase the land at an open space value of $868,480. The City received a reply letter from the property owners on February 5, 2024, declining the offer. 2 Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1092, review denied (July 13, 2022). Available at:
https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10739/638297013821830000.
EXHIBIT B
519
Chapter RP3: RP No Project Alternative – Potential Funding Sources Garaventa Hills Project Page RP3-5
The City of Livermore then sent a follow up letter to the Project site property owners on February 8, 2024, inquiring whether the owner would consider selling the property if a fair market value for the Project site property could be negotiated. The City received a reply letter on February 13, 2024, stating that the owners were not willing to discuss selling the property to any entity other than Lafferty Communities because of their existing contract and legal obligation.
The City of Livermore sent a second offer letter to the Project site property owners on February 29, 2024, offering to purchase the land for $1,736,960. This increased offer was in response to direction from the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee that the previous offer was too low, as discussed further in the Altamont Open Space Committee subsection below. The City received a reply letter on March 1, 2024, declining the offer and asking that the City not send any more offers to buy the property.
Offer letters and responses are included in Appendix RP-A.
Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund
The Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund is made up of funding from two sources including the Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement (ALSA) and the Vasco Road Landfill open space fees as detailed in the paragraphs below.
In 1999, the lawsuit parties (Alameda County, Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, Sierra Club, Northern California Recycling Association, Altamont Landowners Against Rural Mismanagement, and Waste Management of Alameda County) entered into a Settlement Agreement relating to the proposed expansion of the Altamont Landfill.3
Results of the Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement (ALSA) include substantial reductions in the landfill expansion and waste imports and a requirement for the operator to collect a $0.75 per ton fee for open space acquisition.
Eighty percent of the ALSA Open Space Fee is for open space expenditures in the eastern area of East Alameda County and 20 percent is for expenditures in the western area of East Alameda County. The Project site is within the eastern area.
Vasco Road Landfill Open Space Fees
On May 4, 2006, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors upheld the County Planning Commission’s approval amending the Conditional Use Permit for the Vasco Road Landfill to continue landfill and recycling activities. Consistent with the language in the ALSA, the approval requires the Vasco Road Landfill operator (Republic Services, Inc.) to collect the same per-ton fees for open space, recycling/diversion education, and host community impact, as the Altamont Landfill operator (Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc.).
Vasco Road Landfill Conditions of Approval require the collection and expenditures from the fee accounts to be identical to that under the ALSA.
Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund Status
The funds from the ALSA and Vasco Road Landfill open space fees are combined and managed by Alameda County as the Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund. 3 Full Settlement Agreement available at:
https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/AltamontOpenSpace/documents/ALOSF_SettlementAgree.pdf.
EXHIBIT B
520
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page RP3-6 Garaventa Hills Project
As reported to the Livermore City Council on July 8, 2024, there was about $21.6 million in the Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund as of July 8, 2024 and $6.5 million had been distributed for nine acquisitions in the eastern acquisition priority area totaling 1258 acres.4
Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund Grant Criteria
Funding allocations are recommended by the voting members of the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee. The current voting members on the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee for east county acquisitions in which the Project is located include the City of Livermore (Vice Mayor Carling), Alameda County (Shawn Wilson for David Haubert), and the Sierra Club (David Furst).
The Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund includes two priorities for acquiring open space in East Alameda County:
1. Preservation of Native Biological Diversity and/or Wildlife Habitat
2. Land with Significant Value for Visual Character and/or Non-Motorized Recreation Additional adopted criteria to evaluating acquisition applications include:
3. Strategic Value in Land Protection
4. Additional Funding Sources
5. Willing Sellers
Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee Meetings
This section summarizes the meetings of the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee at which the Project site was discussed. A more complete summary of these Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee meetings is included as Appendix RP-B.
On September 16, 2016, the “Save the Hill Group” made a presentation to the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee on their efforts to preserve the Project site.5
On September 15, 2023, the Project site (Garaventa Hills property) was first presented to the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee by Steve Stewart, Planning Manager, City of Livermore as an Informational Item at this meeting.6,7 No action is taken on informational items. 4 City Council Staff Report for the July 8, 2024 City Council meeting, item no. 5.5 is available on page 116 of the City Council Agenda Packet at: https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/livermore/f7de6095-bee5-11ee-8fe8-0050569183fa-56f8d3ad798a-46fd-809a-185221d02021-1720640519.pdf. 5 Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Agenda for September 16, 2016 meeting, available at: https://www.acgov.org/cda/meetings/documents/09-16-16.pdf. 6 Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Agenda for September 15, 2023 meeting, available at:
https://alamedacounty.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=alamedacounty_378b59d88116fc47141794581e2beffc.pdf&v iew=1.
7 Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Minutes for September 15, 2023 meeting, available at:
https://alamedacounty.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=alamedacounty_d2bffb9fdbf2efe5535b906b93878aac.pdf&vi ew=1.
EXHIBIT B
521
Chapter RP3: RP No Project Alternative – Potential Funding Sources Garaventa Hills Project Page RP3-7
On February 16, 2024, the City of Livermore Acting Planning Manager Steve Riley made a presentation to the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee for a grant to acquire the 32-acre Project site.8,9,10 The presentation detailed that the grant application was in response to the appellate court ruling in March 2022. The lawsuit history and court’s ruling were reviewed.
Acquisition of the Project site was considered by the Committee using the five Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund grant criteria, as follows. The Land Conservation Prioritization Mapping Tool (“Mapping Tool”) mentioned in the analysis below was funded in part by the Committee in contract with University of California, Berkeley. The Mapping Tool scores sites on grant criteria metrics on a scale of 0.00 (worst) to 1.00 (best).11 The Mapping Tool continues to be refined and is one reference metric the Committee utilizes to inform grant decision making. The following summarizes the Project site’s consistency with the grant criteria.
1. Preservation of Native Biological Diversity and/or Wildlife Habitat Based upon the environmental analysis completed for the Project site over the years (especially Chapter 7 and Appendix G of the Draft EIR and Appendix J of the Final EIR), there are documented occurrences of California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog nearby, and the Project site consists of non-native grasslands that have the potential to serve as dispersal and/or aestivation (animal dormancy during hot and dry conditions) habitat for both species. Burrowing owls were observed on or near the Project site in the past and they are expected to forage and nest on the Project site.
The seasonal wetland (0.004 acre) in the western portion of the Project site is potentially suitable habitat for Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (VPFS) because VPFS occur in alkaline pools of varying depths, there are recorded occurrences of the species nearby, and the Project site lies within designated critical habitat for VPFS. The wetland is likely the result of a hole dug to create a dirt bike jump.
Acquiring the property would be consistent with this criterion.
2. Land with Significant Value for Visual Character and/or Non-Motorized Recreation This Project site includes a couple of knolls with varying elevations between approximately 537 and 607 feet above mean sea level. It is visible to a smaller, more localized area of the surrounding homes, from Altamont Creek Park, and from Vasco Road. The Project site is private property and does not have formal public trails, but the public does access the site and has worn informal trails across the site.
8 Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Agenda for February 16, 2024 meeting, attached as Appendix RP-C, and available at:
https://alamedacounty.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=alamedacounty_2e395407e90d8ff2ef29d875e8c42a10.pdf&v iew=1.
9 Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Minutes for February 16, 2024 meeting, attached as Appendix RP-C, and available at:
https://alamedacounty.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=alamedacounty_733af3ee222b949fb9ce86c3a17cf0b7.pdf&v iew=1.
10 Riley, Steve, Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee Presentation, February 16, 2024, available as Appendix RP-C. 11 Land Conservation Prioritization Mapping Tool, developed for Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee by University of California, Berkeley, July 2021, available at: https://geoportal.ucanr.edu/alosac/.
EXHIBIT B
522
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page RP3-8 Garaventa Hills Project
Acquiring the property would be consistent with this criterion.
3. Strategic Value in Land Protection
The Project site is within the City’s North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary and City boundary. The City typically seeks to strengthen the Urban Growth Boundary by acquiring properties beyond to control and stabilize the land use. According to the Mapping Tool, the Project site is not within the top 100 parcels for land conservation prioritization (see Appendix RP-B).
The Project site is directly north of Altamont Creek and east of the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve owned and managed by the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) and the Project site is adjacent to the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve and the parcels to the north where drainage flows to the greater Springtown Alkali Preserve. However, the Project site gets a 0 (lowest possible score) in the three connectivity categories from the Mapping Tool because the Project site is disconnected from the highest priority sites identified in the Mapping Tool.
4. Additional Funding Sources
City staff worked in parallel to explore the possibility of utilizing funds from the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement to contribute half of the acquisition and transaction costs, approximately $440,000.00. Use of the Dougherty Valley Open Space Funds is subject to review and approval by the Livermore City Council. (See the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement section below for additional information.)
5. Willing Sellers
The owners are not willing to sell the Project site to the City for open space value or discuss the sale of the site at values based on residential uses. City staff provided copies of a series of recent communications between the Project site owners and the City regarding their intentions with the property.
All open space acquisitions to date from the Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund have met all five of the above criteria.
City staff concluded the presentation stating that the proposal before the Committee was whether to contribute $440,000 in open space funds toward the acquisition of the Project site for preservation as open space.
Following the presentation, the Committee confirmed that offers were made to the property owners of the Project site.12 One voting member of the Committee stated this was not a legitimate grant request because the City knows there is not a willing seller, and the City is only fulfilling the court’s request. Some members of the public also stated this was a farce application. One member recollected a previous grant request for a property within the Livermore Urban Growth Boundary that had a value of $41,000 per acre. If applied to the Garaventa Hills Property, then an appropriate offer would be $1,784,000. 12 Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Minutes for February 16, 2024 meeting, attached as Appendix RP-C, and available at:
https://alamedacounty.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=alamedacounty_733af3ee222b949fb9ce86c3a17cf0b7.pdf&v iew=1.
EXHIBIT B
523
Chapter RP3: RP No Project Alternative – Potential Funding Sources Garaventa Hills Project Page RP3-9
The voting representative for the City of Livermore then made a motion to offer the Garaventa Hills property owner $1.7 million. The Committee Chair said if the Project site property owner accepts the value, then the application would return to the Committee for consideration.
On March 15, 2024, the City of Livermore Acting Planning Manager Steve Riley made a presentation to the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee regarding the Garaventa Hills grant application that was continued from the February 16 meeting.13,14,15
Consistent with Committee direction, the City of Livermore had offered $1,736,000 to the Project site property owners. In response, the property owner declined the offer and requested that the City not send any further offer letters.
Some members of the public were curious why the proposal was before the Committee if the property owner is not a willing seller. City of Livermore staff reminded the Committee that the matter is before them following the decision of the appellate court that said the “No Project” alternative in the EIR should include a discussion of acquisition and preservation of the site as open space utilizing the Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund.
The Committee voted unanimously (3-0) to recognize the owners of the Project site are not willing sellers and therefore the Project site does not meet the funding criteria and the Committee will not approve a grant of the Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund for the purchase of the Project site.
Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement
In 1992, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan for the development of over 5,000 units on approximately 6,000 acres owned in part by Windemere Ranch Partners and Shapell Industries, Inc. Windemere and Shapell then undertook efforts to secure water service to approximately 4,400 acres from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and Zone 7.
Zone 7 and DSRSD amended their water supply agreements to expand DSRSD’s service area to include the Dougherty Valley and utilize water from Zone 7 to serve the development area. The Citizens for Balanced Growth and the City of Livermore filed suit against Zone 7, DSRSD, Windemere, and Shapell, alleging that the water agreement amendment with DSRSD was not authorized under Zone 7’s enabling legislation and not in conformance with CEQA.
In 1999, the lawsuit parties entered into the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement (DVSA), which required Windemere and/or its successors to pay the City of Livermore $1,000 per residential unit as an open space conservation fee. The fee was subject to an annual consumer price index adjustment and averaged approximately $1,056 per residential unit over the 10-year buildout. All 5,170 units have been built and the Dougherty Valley project areas have been annexed into the City of San Ramon. 13 Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Agenda for March 15, 2024 meeting, attached as Appendix RP-D, and available at:
https://alamedacounty.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=alamedacounty_7e7b82a78ca2faa6d1350744a3c38fc6.pdf& view=1.
14 Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Minutes for March 15, 2024 meeting, attached as Appendix RP-D.
15 Riley, Steve, Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee Presentation, March 15, 2024, attached as Appendix RP-D.
EXHIBIT B
524
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page RP3-10 Garaventa Hills Project
As reported to the Livermore City Council on July 8, 2024, there was approximately $5.03 million in the DVSA Fund as of July 8, 2024. 16 In 2011 and 2013, the City Council authorized expenditures of $1 million and $250,000 from this account for the East Bay Regional Park District’s acquisition of the Farber Property on Laughlin Road and Eddies Flat off of North Vasco Road. There have been no other expenditures from this account.
Dougherty Valley Settlement Fund Expenditure Priorities and Process The DVSA Fund is for Livermore or its designee exclusively for purchase from willing sellers of permanent easements or fee title for conservation or agricultural preservation purposes. Priorities for funding are for acquisitions, including permanent trails, open space, or agricultural preservation easements in areas north of I-580 and east of Collier Canyon Road within Alameda County. The Project site is within the acquisition priority area.
The DVSA requires Livermore staff to develop recommendations concerning proposed acquisitions of permanent easements or fee title for conservation or agricultural preservation purposes. It also requires staff to meet and confer with Citizens for Balanced Growth before formulating and presenting acquisition recommendations to the Livermore City Council. Should staff recommendations differ from those preferred by Citizens for Balance Growth, the staff report shall specify and explain the differences.
Following receipt of the staff report, the City Council will place proposed acquisitions on its agenda for public discussion. The City Council may render an expenditure decision after public discussion.
Summary of Interaction between City Staff and Citizens for Balanced Growth Consistent with the DVSA, City staff and representatives from Citizens for Balanced Growth have been meeting for over 20 years to discuss the open space funds generated under the DVSA and their use for acquiring open space. City staff and Citizens for Balanced Growth held 16 meetings from 2003 to the present. The first meeting was on March 26, 2003. The most recent meeting was on May 15, 2020.
City staff are currently negotiating several acquisitions for open space conservation purposes in northern Livermore that are eligible to utilize DVSA funds. Staff have sought to meet and confer with Citizens for Balanced Growth to formulate recommendations for these acquisitions to the Livermore City Council. In response to the March 2022 appellate court decision, City staff also sought to meet and confer with them regarding use of the DVSA funds for acquiring the Project site even though the property owner was not a willing seller.
City staff have made numerous attempts to meet and confer with Citizens for Balanced Growth since late 2023 and the first quarter of 2024. On April 9, 2024, City staff sent a letter to representatives for Citizens for Balanced Growth after over four months of attempting unsuccessfully to meet with them, summarizing the attempts to meet and confer with them and making one last attempt to meet and confer with them prior to formulating recommendations to the City Council. Further, the letter stated that staff would formulate specific recommendations if they did not meet and confer with City staff by April 24, 2024. Regarding the Project site, the stated recommendation would be that “Citizens for Balanced Growth does not support the expenditure of Dougherty Valley settlement funds for the City of 16 City Council Staff Report for the July 8, 2024 City Council meeting, item no. 5.5 is available on page 116 of the City Council Agenda Packet at: https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/livermore/f7de6095-bee5-11ee-8fe8-0050569183fa-56f8d3ad798a-46fd-809a-185221d02021-1720640519.pdf.
EXHIBIT B
525
Chapter RP3: RP No Project Alternative – Potential Funding Sources Garaventa Hills Project Page RP3-11
Livermore to acquire the Garaventa Hills property,” and the other properties. Citizens for Balance Growth did not meet with City staff following the April 9, 2024 letter from City staff.
Therefore, acquisition of the Project site for open space conservation purposes is ineligible for use of the DVSA funds because the property owners are not willing sellers, which is an explicit criterion for funding eligibility. Because neither City staff nor Citizens for Balanced Growth are recommending use of the funds to acquire the property, the matter is considered closed and does not proceed to City Council.
Other Open Space Funding Sources
The City evaluated two other funding sources dedicated to acquiring, conserving and managing open space as a potential source of funding to acquire the Project site as open space. One source is the Open Space Acquisition and Management Fund, and the other is the Transferable Development Credits Fund.
Additionally, ballot initiatives/bond measures can be used for Livermore voters to authorize General Fund allocation (and fund raising) for acquisition of a property for open space preservation.
Transferable Development Credits Fund
In 2002, the City Council adopted the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative (Initiative) to protect agricultural land and other open space in North Livermore from excessive and irremediably harmful development. The Initiative created the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary, required the City to develop a Transferable Development Credits (TDC) Program, and included the basis for granting credits to properties in North Livermore and utilizing credits to build residential units that would otherwise not be permitted by the General Plan. The TDC Program (Livermore Municipal Code Chapter
3.27) includes provisions to pay a fee in lieu of utilizing credits in North Livermore to exceed baseline density.
The TDC Program is designed to be part of a multiple-component approach to open space preservation.
It allows revenue from TDC in-lieu fees to be used in conjunction with other funds for acquisition and/or preservation of open space and/or agricultural lands in North Livermore. The use of TDC in-lieu fees in conjunction with other funds is subject to retiring TDC credits on the acquisition property. Other than TDC acquisition, revenue from TDC in-lieu fees may be used for costs incurred in administering the TDC Program including, but not necessarily limited to, facilitating TDC transactions, preparing/recording TDC easements, monitoring/enforcing easements, and maintaining records. One of the stated aspects of open space preservation through the TDC Program is to avoid government expenditure of taxes for extended facilities and services.
The TDC Program applies solely to lands beyond the Urban Growth Boundary and within North Livermore as defined by the Initiative. The Project site is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and is not within North Livermore as defined by the Initiative. Further, participation in the TDC program is stated as a choice available for willing property owners. The Project site property owners are not willing sellers. For these reasons, acquisition of the Project site is ineligible for the use of revenue from the TDC program.
Open Space Acquisition and Management Fund
Since 2015, the City has entered into sales agreements to sell conservation easements on City-owned property for development projects in the City of Dublin and Discovery Bay. On December 14, 2015, the Livermore City Council adopted Resolution 2015-182, committing revenue from these and subsequent transactions for open space acquisition, maintenance and management activities on City-owned open
EXHIBIT B
526
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page RP3-12 Garaventa Hills Project
space lands.17 As reported to the Livermore City Council on July 8, 2024, there was $2.93 million in the account set aside for open space acquisition and management activities as of July 8, 2024.18 The City is responsible for the maintenance and management of properties it owns. Funds from this account contribute to covering the costs of such open space maintenance and management activities.
For example, funds from the Open Space Acquisition and Management Fund were used for maintenance to a large stand of eucalyptus trees to minimize future damage to roadways and the biologically sensitive stretch of Cottonwood Creek on the City-owned Doolan Canyon property.
On July 8, 2024, the Livermore City Council approved a contribution of $856,000 from the Open Space Acquisition and Management Fund toward the acquisition of approximately 125.5 acres located approximately 1/2 mile east of Greenville Road, south of Interstate-580 in the Altamont Hills. The City would own and manage the property for open space conservation.19 The remaining funds, approximately $2.07 million, could be utilized to contribute toward acquiring the Project site. However, the Project site owners are not willing sellers, and acquisition by the City would require the use of eminent domain. For the reasons discussed below, acquisition would exhaust the fund balance and require maintenance and management activities of the city’s open space properties to rely upon the city’s General Fund.
Ballot Initiatives/Bond Measures
The City could place the question of utilizing city General Funds to acquire the Project site as a ballot measure before Livermore voters. Voters would be asked to approve or deny proposed spending on the acquisition. Such an initiative could include raising funds for the acquisition through increases in sales or property taxes.
The City has used ballot initiatives and bond measures in the past to fund critical infrastructure and community-serving projects. For example, in November 2022, Livermore voters passed Measure P to enable the city to provide sanitary sewer service for wine country uses beyond the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary. The City has also issued bonds in the past to fund public and community serving purposes like funding library construction and renovations to the Civic Center.
On September 16, 2016, the Save the Hill Group made a presentation to the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee to consider granting funds to acquire the Project site.20 The Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee recommended the Save the Hill Group pursue a ballot measure initiative to raise funds for acquiring the property. Such an initiative has not been sponsored to date. 17 Resolution 2015-182 available at: https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=228223&repo=r2ba0e88a&searchid=62df63e7-58d8-4459-bf32-ce29c9361161. 18 City Council Staff Report for the July 8, 2024 City Council meeting, item no. 5.5 is available on page 116 of the City Council Agenda Packet at: https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/livermore/f7de6095-bee5-11ee-8fe8-0050569183fa-56f8d3ad798a-46fd-809a-185221d02021-1720640519.pdf. 19 Ibid
20 Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Agenda for September 16, 2016, available at:
https://www.acgov.org/cda/meetings/documents/09-16-16.pdf.
EXHIBIT B
527
Chapter RP3: RP No Project Alternative – Potential Funding Sources Garaventa Hills Project Page RP3-13
The City’s cost per acre for previous open space acquisitions ranges from below $10,000 per acre to a more recent acquisition at $16,800 per acre.21
The Project site owners are not willing sellers, and acquisition by the City would require the use of eminent domain at a cost upwards of one half to one million dollars per acre. See below for additional discussion of eminent domain. Utilizing eminent domain would require paying the property owners fairmarket value. The General Plan designates the Project site UL-1 (Urban Low Residential 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre). The Project site’s current zoning is “PD” (Planned Development). The current zoning designation reflects the Project site’s inclusion in the “PUD” (Planned Unit Development) for the “Maralisa” project, which has otherwise been developed to the south of Altamont Creek (see Chapter 13 of the Draft EIR). Consequently, the fair market value is for residentially zoned property, which is at a higher price than the previously discussed open space offers. Paying residential values to preserve the property as open space would require the City to use General Funds that are allocated to other priorities like public health and safety to cover the acquisition. It would also adversely increase comparable sales for other organizations seeking to acquire open space on the open market. While utilizing General Funds and/or proceeds from bond issuance are technically possible, the use of these funds to acquire the property via eminent domain would be contrary to the City’s past practice and would likely face rejection by Livermore voters.
Eminent Domain for Acquiring the Property from Unwilling Sellers The City typically acquires open space land in fee simple interest from willing sellers. The market-based transactions follow good-faith negotiations and are based upon an appraisal to establish the fair market value. However, as detailed under “Offer Letters and Responses” above, the property owner is not a willing seller. A property can be acquired from an unwilling seller through the use of eminent domain.
The government’s power to condemn private property for a public use is known as eminent domain, as defined in the United States Constitution (Fifth Amendment), the California Constitution (Article 1, Section 19), and the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1230.010, et seq. for California Eminent Domain. There are two constitutional limitations on the power of eminent domain: 1) just compensation must be paid for the property condemned and 2) the property must be necessary for a public use.
Historically, the City’s use of eminent domain has been to acquire portions of private property for public right-of-way purposes (roadways, sidewalks, trails, etc.). The City utilizes eminent domain as a last resort when acquisition of a property is necessary for a public use and all other attempts to acquire a property through negotiation have failed. Utilizing eminent domain to acquire the Project site would be contrary to the City’s past practice and may not withstand legal scrutiny. Additionally, such an eminent domain acquisition, if successful, would set a precedent and establish unrealistic expectations for the City to acquire property in order to prevent a development project opposed by some members of the public even though the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning.
Acquiring the Project site through eminent domain would require the City to pay fair-market value reflecting its current residential General Plan and zoning designations, estimated to be between $17-35 million ($536,277 to $1,104,100 per acre) based upon an estimated market value between $385,000 to $795,000 per residential lot.22 Given costs associated with the legal proceedings and duration of the 21 This range is based on City staff review of Grant Agreements and/or escrow documents from recent open space acquisitions by the City.
22 Estimated market value per residential lot was based upon City staff conversations with local land/real estate brokers/developers in the spring/summer of 2023.
EXHIBIT B
528
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page RP3-14 Garaventa Hills Project
eminent domain process, the actual cost to acquire the property through eminent domain would be higher than the fair-market value paid to the property owner. The City could also face legal challenges from the Project site developer and property owner that would increase total costs to the City.
Considerations for Rezoning a Housing Element Residential Site The Project site has been designated for residential uses since at least the 1976 Livermore General Plan, including in the Maralisa plan. Consistent with this long-established residential designation, the Project site is identified in the current Livermore General Plan Housing Element site inventory as a site for residential development (44 units) that would help to meet the city’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).23
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. This is commonly referred to as the Housing Element Law.24 California’s Housing Element Law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain) housing development. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting Housing Elements as part of their General Plan (also required by the state). As a result, housing policy in California rests largely on the effective implementation of local General Plans and, in particular, local Housing Elements.
To expand the supply of housing, including affordable housing, and to ensure jurisdictions do not take actions to reduce the potential capacity for new residential development, the No Net Loss Law was adopted in 2002 and amended in 2017.25 The No Net Loss Law requires that a jurisdiction maintains a sufficient supply of adequate sites in the Housing Element sites inventory to meet a jurisdiction’s remaining unmet housing needs for each income category at all times throughout the RHNA planning period. To comply with the No Net Loss Law, as jurisdictions make decisions regarding zoning and land use or development occurs, jurisdictions must assess their ability to accommodate new housing on the remaining sites in their Housing Element site inventories. A jurisdiction must add adequate sites if land use decisions or development results in a shortfall of sufficient sites to accommodate its remaining housing need for each income category.
If the Project site were to be preserved as open space as discussed in Alternative A: No Project, No Development, it would represent the loss of a residential development site identified in the Housing Element’s sites inventory. As explained by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, to take such an action, the City of Livermore would need to make findings under the Housing Element Law and the No Net Loss Law, supported by substantial evidence, that:26 23 City of Livermore, 2023-2031 Housing Element, adopted March 13, 2023, Figure ES-2: Sites Inventory Map and Appendix A, Table A: Housing Element Sites Inventory, Assessor’s Parcel Number displayed as 099B530001000, available at https://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/housing-element. 24 California Government Code, § 65584, available at
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=65584. 25 California Government Code, § 65863, available at
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=65863. 26 California Division of Housing Policy Development, Memorandum for Planning Directors and Interested Parties: No Net Loss Law, October 2, 2019, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-elementmemos/docs/sb-166-final.pdf.
EXHIBIT B
529
Chapter RP3: RP No Project Alternative – Potential Funding Sources Garaventa Hills Project Page RP3-15
• The reduction is consistent with the jurisdiction’s adopted general plan, including the Housing Element. For example, this finding could be made if the downzone does not change the land use and zoning designation.
• The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s remaining share of the RHNA for the planning period. The finding must include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s RHNA at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the Housing Element to accommodate that need by income level.
If a jurisdiction cannot make these findings, it may take action to reduce the residential density of a parcel only if it identifies or rezones additional sufficient adequate sites with an equal or greater residential density in the jurisdiction so that there is sufficient residential unit capacity appropriate to accommodate the RHNA by income level. Actions to identify additional sites or rezone must occur before or concurrently with any action or approval to reduce a parcel’s density. Sites identified or rezoned must meet the following criteria:
• Must be considered an adequate site pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2.
• If the capacity to be replaced was on a site that was zoned by-right pursuant to Government Code section 65863.2 (h) and (i), then the replacement site must also satisfy those requirements.
As these actions taken by the jurisdiction represent a fundamental alteration to the Housing Element, the Housing Element sites inventory must then be amended and, pursuant to Government Code section 65585(b), be submitted to the Department for review to ensure the compliance with state Housing Element Law, prior to, or concurrently with, any action or approval to reduce a parcel’s density.
Alternative A: No Project, No Development would represent the loss of an identified residential development site from the Housing Element’s sites inventory. Additional process as outlined above would be required under the No Net Loss Law to approve such a change, which could further increase the costs of property acquisition and preservation.
Feasibility of Alternative A: No Project, No Development Related to Potential Funding Sources for Open Space Acquisition and Preservation
This section summarizes conclusions from the information included above and presents an updated discussion of the feasibility of the Alternative A: No Project, No Development given the conclusions related to potential funding sources for open space acquisition and preservation of the Project site and related considerations.
The property owner is not a willing seller. Without a willing seller, the Project site has been determined not to be eligible for funding through the Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund or the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement funds.
Use of eminent domain to acquire the property from an unwilling seller, if it could be defended legally, would be costly (over $17-25 million) and contrary to the City’s past practice. There are other funding sources available for an eminent domain approach, including the Open Space Acquisition and Management Fund, Transferable Development Credits Fund, and/or General Fund allocation (if
EXHIBIT B
530
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page RP3-16 Garaventa Hills Project
authorized by voters through ballot initiatives/bond measures); however, these funds are either not eligible to be used for the Project site or are prioritized elsewhere.
Additionally, the Project site has a long-established residential designation, and is identified in the current Livermore General Plan Housing Element site inventory as a site for residential development.
Under the No Net Loss provisions of state housing laws, additional process would be required to remove the Project site from the Housing Element’s residential development site inventory, which could add additional cost to the acquisition of the site for open space preservation.
Alternative A: No Project, No Development represents the possibility that the Project site would be preserved as open space. As discussed above, the potential funding sources for such open space acquisition and preservation have been explored and it has been concluded that the site is either ineligible for use of those funds due to an unwilling seller or would require legally-complicated and costprohibitive fair market value eminent domain proceedings and use of funds prioritized elsewhere.
The analysis and evidence cited above can support a conclusion by the lead agency that Alternative A: No Project, No Development involving site acquisition and preservation as open space is not a “feasible” alternative the lead agency is compelled to adopt.27, 28 The lead agency will take this evidence and analysis into account when making the findings required by CEQA regarding the feasibility of Alternative A: No Project, No Development.
27 CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.6(f)(i); 15091(a)(3). 28 See California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 (assessing alternatives feasibility, "involves a balancing of various 'economic, environmental, social, and technological factors”; “'feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” [internal citations omitted]).
EXHIBIT B
531
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP4-1
RP4
RP Draft EIR Report Preparers and
References
RP Draft EIR Report Preparers
Lamphier -Gregory, Inc.
Rebecca Auld (formerly Gorton), Vice President
Jenna Sunderlin, Environmental Planner
4100 Redwood Road, STE 20A - #601
Oakland, CA 94619
510-535-6690
City of Livermore
This document was prepared in consultation with City of Livermore staff, including Shannon Pagan, Assistant Planner, Steve Stewart, Special Projects Coordinator, and Steve Riley, Acting Planning Manager.
References
1. Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1092, review denied (July 13, 2022). Available at:
https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10739/638297013821830000.
2. California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001. Summary available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/summaries/1646/California%20Native%20Plant%20Society%20v.%20City %20of%20Santa%20Cruz%20(2009)%20177%20Cal.App.%204th%20957.pdf.
3. Settlement Agreement Between and Among the County of Alameda, the City of Livermore, the City of Pleasanton, Sierra Club, Northern California Recycling Association, Altamont Landowners Against Rural Mismanagement, And Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc., referred to as the “Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement”, November 1999, available at:
https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/AltamontOpenSpace/documents/ALOSF_SettlementAgre e.pdf.
4. City of Livermore City Council, City Council Staff Report, July 8, 2024, available at:
https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/livermore/f7de6095-bee5-11ee-8fe8-0050569183fa56f8d3ad-798a-46fd-809a-185221d02021-1720640519.pdf.
EXHIBIT B
532
Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report
Page RP4-2 Garaventa Hills Project
5. Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Agenda for September 16, 2016 Meeting, September 16, 2016, available at:
https://www.acgov.org/cda/meetings/documents/09-16-16.pdf.
6. Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Agenda for September 15, 2023 Meeting, September 15, 2023, available at:
https://alamedacounty.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=alamedacounty_378b59d8811 6fc47141794581e2beffc.pdf&view=1.
7. Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Minutes for September 15, 2023 Meeting, September 15, 2023, available at:
https://alamedacounty.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=alamedacounty_d2bffb9fdbf2e fe5535b906b93878aac.pdf&view=1.
8. Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Agenda for February 16, 2024 Meeting, February 16, 2024, available at:
https://alamedacounty.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=alamedacounty_2e395407e90 d8ff2ef29d875e8c42a10.pdf&view=1.
9. Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Minutes for February 16, 2024 Meeting, February 16, 2024, available at:
https://alamedacounty.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=alamedacounty_733af3ee222b 949fb9ce86c3a17cf0b7.pdf&view=1.
10. Riley, Steve, Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee Garaventa Property presentation, February 16, 2024.
11. Land Conservation Prioritization Mapping Tool, developed for Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee by University of California, Berkeley, July 2021, available at:
https://geoportal.ucanr.edu/alosac/.
12. Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Agenda for March 15, 2024 Meeting, March 15, 2024, available at:
https://alamedacounty.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=alamedacounty_7e7b82a78ca 2faa6d1350744a3c38fc6.pdf&view=1.
13. Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee, Minutes for March 15, 2024 Meeting, March 15, 2024.
14. Riley, Steve, Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee Garaventa Property presentation, March 15, 2024.
15. City of Livermore, Resolution 2015-182, December 14, 2015, available at:
https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=228223&repo=r2ba0e88a&searchid=62df63e7-58d8-4459-bf32-ce29c9361161.
16. City of Livermore, 2023-2031 Housing Element, adopted March 13, 2023, available at https://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/housingelement.
EXHIBIT B
533
Chapter 8: EIR Preparers and References
Garaventa Hills Project Page RP4-3
17. State of California, California Government Code, § 65584, available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNu m=65584.
18. State of California, California Government Code, § 65863, available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNu m=65863.
19. California Division of Housing Policy Development, Memorandum for Planning Directors and Interested Parties: No Net Loss Law, October 2, 2019, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-elementmemos/docs/sb-166-final.pdf.
EXHIBIT B
534
PROJECT SITE OFFER LETTERS AND OWNER RESPONSES
APPENDIX RP-A
to the
Garaventa Hills Project Recirculated Partial Draft EIR
EXHIBIT B
535
February 2, 2024
Sharon Albright & Karen Elk Trust
c/o Lisa Quisito, Executor of the Estate 740
Richmond Street
El Cerrito, CA 94530
(Transmitted via email)
Re: Letter of Offer
APNs: 099B-53-0-1 (the "Garaventa Hills Property")
Dear Ms. Albright and Ms. Elk,
I am writing to make an offer on behalf of the City of Livermore for the Garvaventa Hills Property, comprising of one parcel of 31.67 acres, Assessor's Parcel Number: 099B-53- 0-1. Below are the City's principal terms for inclusion in a Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between you ("Seller'') and the City of Livermore ("Buyer''):
1. Single lump sum payment of $868,480, contingent on receipt of clear title;
2. All closing costs to be paid by the buyer;
3. Close of escrow no later than thirty (30) days following execution of a Purchase and Sale Agreement.
Please note that this offer is contingent upon final approval and funding allocation by the Livermore City Council and the allocation of funding from at least one outside source such as the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee.
To accept the City's contingent offer, please sign this offer letter and send back to me. If you do not accept the offer, please provide in writing your reason(s) for not accepting the offer. We need your response by 5 p.m. Wednesday. February 7. 2024.
If we receive your signature to accept this offer, we will initiate our formal purchase and sale process, which includes sending you the City's standard Purchase and Sale Agreement, to be signed digitally via DocuSign.
EXHIBIT B
536
If you would like to further discuss terms, conditions, and considerations for the sale of the property or have any questions, please contact me at (925) 960-4461 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Steve Riley
Acting Planning Manager
City of Livermore
Sharon Albright & Karen Elk Trust
c/o Lisa Quisito, Executor of the Estate
Property Owner
cc: Paul Spence, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim Cilley, Senior Assistant City Attorney
EXHIBIT B
537
Mr. Riley,
Responding to your February 2, 2024 letter, the owners of the Garaventa Hills Property hereby reject the City of Livermore's low-ball, highly contingent $868,480 "offer" for the purchase of this property. Although the owners have no duty to comply with the City's demand that the owners provide reasons for rejecting the City's offer, the reason is pretty simple. The owners have a pending contract with Lafferty to sell the property for 400% of the City's offer price.
Moreover, even if the owners tried to accept the City's offer (and there is zero interest in doing so), the owners are pretty sure that Lafferty would sue both the owners and the City for breach of contract and interference with contract. Lafferty has a wonderful plan for preserving the unique features of the Garaventa Hills Property while providing badly needed homes for Livermore residents.
The City should fulfill its legal duty and approve the Lafferty plan without any further delay.
Lisa Quisito
EXHIBIT B
538
February 8, 2024
Sharon Albright & Karen Elk Trust
c/o Lisa Quisito, Executor of the Estate 740
Richmond Street
El Cerrito, CA 94530
(Transmitted via email)
Re: Follow up to Letter of Offer
APN: 099B-53-0-1 (the "Garaventa Hills Property")
Dear Ms. Quisito,
Thank you for your prompt response to the City's February 2, 2024, contingent offer letter to acquire the Garvaventa Hills Property, which includes one parcel of 31.67 acres identified by APN: 099B-53-0-1. Based upon your response, the City understands the Trust rejects the City's contingent offer to acquire the property for $868,480.00, which represents the City's highest value for open space.
In response to your email dated February 5, 2024, please let me know if the owners are interested in discussing a potential acquisition by the City that considers the fair market value of the property based on its residential use, in accordance with the City's General Plan and zoning designations. If you could provide a written response no later than February 14, 2024, that would be appreciated.
If you would like to discuss the terms and timing for an acquisition based on the property's residential value, please contact me at (925) 960-4461 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Steve Riley
Acting Planning Manager
City of Livermore
cc: Paul Spence, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim Cilley, Senior Assistant City Attorney
EXHIBIT B
539
Dear Mr. Riley,
Thank you for your February 8, 2024 letter acknowledging the Garaventa Hills Property owners' response to the City of Livermore's prior contingent offer to acquire their property.
In response to your February 8th letter, the owners of the Garaventa Hills Property are not interested in discussing the potential acquisition by the City of their Property at a fair market value of the property based on its designation and zoning for residential uses. As we previously indicated, the owners of the Garaventa Hills Property are in contract with Lafferty Communities, and are committed to honoring their legal obligations under that contract.
We appreciate the City's further interest but the Garaventa Hills Property owners decline to negotiate the terms of an acquisition in light of their existing legal obligations.
We look forward to the City's release of the environmental impact report for the residential project in the near future.
We think Lafferty Communities has a beautiful plan to preserve the best elements of the property and provide much needed housing in Livermore. We'd like to see the City approve this project at the earliest possible date.
Sincerely;
Lisa Quisito
Executor of the Sharon Albright and Karen Elk Trust
EXHIBIT B
540
February 29, 2024
Sharon Albright & Karen Elk Trust
c/o Lisa Quisito, Executor of the Estate 740
Richmond Street
El Cerrito, CA 94530
(Transmitted via email)
Re: Letter of Offer
APNs: 099B-53-0-1 (the "Garaventa Hills Property")
Dear Ms. Albright and Ms. Elk,
I am writing to make an offer on behalf of the City of Livermore for the Garvaventa Hills Property, comprising of one parcel of 31.67 acres, Assessor's Parcel Number: 099B-53- 0-1. Below are the City's principal terms for inclusion in a Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between you ("Seller'') and the City of Livermore ("Buyer"):
1. Single lump sum payment of $1,736,960, contingent on receipt of clear title;
2. All closing costs to be paid by the buyer;
3. Close of escrow no later than thirty (30) days following execution of a Purchase and Sale Agreement.
Please note that this offer is based on a recommendation made by the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee at its February 16, 2024, meeting. This offer is also contingent upon final approval and funding allocation by the Livermore City Council and the allocation of funding from at least one outside source such as the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee.
To accept the City's contingent offer, please sign this offer letter and send back to me. If you do not accept the offer, please provide in writing your reason(s) for not accepting the offer. We would like your response by 5 p.m. Wednesday. March 6, 2024.
If we receive your signature to accept this offer, we will initiate our formal purchase and sale process, which includes sending you the City's standard Purchase and Sale Agreement, to be signed digitally via DocuSign.
EXHIBIT B
541
If you would like to further discuss terms, conditions, and considerations for the sale of the property or have any questions, please contact me at (925) 960-4461 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Steve Riley
Acting Planning Manager
City of Livermore
Sharon Albright & Karen Elk Trust
c/o Lisa Quisito, Executor of the Estate
Property Owner
cc: Paul Spence, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim Cilley, Senior Assistant City Attorney
EXHIBIT B
542
Dear Mr. Riley,
I am responding your inquiry of February 29, 2024 as to whether the Garaventa Hills Property owners are interested in a very contingent offer from the City of Livermore to buy their property for $1,736,960. They are definitely not interested. The owners are not interested in selling this property to the City of Livermore for reasons largely explained in response toyour prior February 8, 2024 inquiry.
The owners are in a contract to sell the property to Lafferty Communities. They don’t want to break that contract. They like the Lafferty development plan for their property.
The owners would like to see the Lafferty project approved by the City. The owners do not want to receive any more purchase offers from the City as they are not in a position to sell their property to the City.
Moreover as was previously pointed out, even if the owners wanted to sell to the City (they do not), this could not be legally done. Both the owners and the Citywould probably get sued by Lafferty Communities if the current contract was broken.
We respectfully request that the City not send us any more offers to buy the property. We look forward to City's approval ofthe Lafferty project. Thank you.
Lisa Quisito
Sent from AT&T YahooMail on Android
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 8:35 AM, Stephen Riley
wrote:
EXHIBIT B
543
Hi Ms. Quisito,
Please see attached offer letter from the City of Livermore as recommended by the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee. Please contact me with any questions or concerns you may have. Thanks for your consideration.
Steve
Stephen Riley
Acting Planning Manager
Community Development
City of Livermore
(925) 960-4461
EXHIBIT B
544
ALTAMONT LANDFILL OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE
MEETING SUMMARIES
APPENDIX RP-B
to the
Garaventa Hills Project Recirculated Partial Draft EIR
EXHIBIT B
545
Open Space Funds: Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement Open Space Fund Background
Established by 1999 Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement includes two priorities for acquiring open space in East Alameda County (east of the Dublin SOI):
1. First priority is for the preservation of native biological diversity and/or wildlife habitat.
2. The second priority is for land with significant value for visual character and/or nonmotorized recreation.
Additional criteria developed and utilized by the Open Space Committee since 2004 include Strategic Value in Land Protection, Additional Funding Sources, and Willing Sellers.
The voting members on the Open Space Committee for east county acquisitions are the City of Livermore (Vice Mayor Carling), Alameda County (Shawn Wilson for David Haubert), and the Sierra Club (David Furst).
Currently there is about $20.6 million in the Altamont Landfill open space account.
Summary of September 15, 2023, Altamont Open Space Committee Meeting Agenda, PowerPoint Presentation and Minutes are Attached.
Zoom Recording: 1:50 minute mark to 20:15 minute mark.
Agenda Item IV. Review Committee’s Criteria for Acquiring Open Space - Steve Stewart, Planning Manager, City of Livermore – Informational Item On September 15, 2023, the City of Livermore Planning Manager made a presentation to the Open Space Committee to review the Settlement Agreement Criteria for acquiring open space, and the criteria adopted by the Committee in 2004. Below is a summary of the presentation:
The following two criteria are written in the Settlement Agreement:
Settlement Agreement Criteria
1. First priority is for the preservation of significant native biodiversity value.
2. The second priority is for land with significant visual and/or non-motorized recreation value.
The following criteria developed and adopted by the Open Space Committee in 2004 are included on the Open Space Fund’s grant application and utilized by the Open Space Committee for evaluating acquisition applications:
3. Strategic Value in Land Protection
4. Additional Funding Sources
5. Willing Sellers
The Committee developed and discussed the specific aspects below that would help clarify how properties would meet Settlement Agreement Criteria and Committee’s Criteria:
Settlement Agreement Criteria
1. Significant Native Biodiversity Value
a) Are native flora or fauna present on the property?
EXHIBIT B
546
b) Are flora or fauna of special concern present? (e.g., biota listed on federal, or state endangered species lists or other comparable lists; species at the end of their natural range; unusual assemblages of species; rare plant communities; etc.) c) Does the property contain important wildlife habitat or is it valuable for protecting nearby wildlife habitat, especially for species of special concern? (e.g., Is the property designated as critical habitat or does it serve to protect critical habitat; is it valuable for protecting hydrologic flows or watersheds on which native species depend?)
d) Is the property a corridor that links wildlife habitats? e) Is the quality of the habitat good for native species? (e.g., Is it relatively intact; should it be acquired for restoration purposes?)
f) Is the habitat at risk from inappropriate (but permissible) uses if not protected?
2. Significant Visual and/or Non-motorized Recreational Value a) Is the property identified as a scenic resource in city or county general plans? b) Is the property identified as important for non-motorized recreation in city, county or park district plans?
c) Is the property identified as an important acquisition target by trail users? Additional Criteria Adopted by the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee
3. Strategic Value in Land Protection
a) Is the property at risk of development if not acquired or protected? b) Can acquisition of the property protect a larger area from development (e.g., by securing an urban growth boundary or an existing greenbelt)? c) Is the property contiguous to existing protected lands or does it link protected lands? d) Does the property fit into a long-term strategic plan for land protection in Alameda County?
e) Does the property fit into a city’s land protection goals?
4. Additional Funding Sources
a) Are other agencies, conservancies, conservation organizations or jurisdictions interested in helping protect the property?
b) Are there other sources of funds to tap?
c) Will collaboration on acquisition of a particular property forge relationships that will be valuable for future acquisitions?
5. Willing Sellers
a) Is the property currently on the market?
EXHIBIT B
547
b) Are the property owners willing to sell the land or willing to sell conservation easements?
c) Have the owners expressed an interest in conservation values? d) Are the owners aware of the concept of conservation easements and the availability of funds for their purchase?
e) What is the cost of the property compared to the benefit received? On September 16, 2016, the Committee adopted acquisition priority areas that are illustrated on the map below:
Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement Open Space Acquisition Priority Areas
EXHIBIT B
548
The Committee then reviewed the following figure and table as part of the September 15, 2023, presentation showing acquisitions over time:
Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement – East County Acquisitions City Council Date Grant Amount Acres Acquisition Entity Location February 25, 2008 $200,000 80 East Bay Regional
Park District
Adjacent to Del Valle
Regional Park (Newbury
Property).
July 13, 2009 $1,040,465 107 City of Livermore Doolan Road adjacent to UGB and City Boundary
September 27, 2010 $300,000 74 Tri-Valley
Conservancy
Bobba Property off Arroyo
Road near the Veterans’
Hospital
October 25, 2010 $2,000,000 633 East Bay Regional
Park District Doolan Ranch
June 27, 2011 $1,000,000 65 East Bay Regional
Park District Farber Property
October 28, 2013 $420,000 81 City of Livermore Doolan Road north of Cityowned properties December 9, 2013 $500,000 79 East Bay Regional
Park District
Eddie’s Flat between
Vasco and Laughlin Road
October 27, 2017 $132,200 2 East Bay Regional
Park District
Gosselin Property (staging
area and trail easement for
access to Doolan Ranch)
December 10, 2018 $1,000,000 137 City of Livermore
Doolan Road adjacent to
Dublin and in proximity to
Doolan Ranch
January 29, 2019 $500,000 0 Tri-Valley
Conservancy
Shadow Cliffs to Del Valle
Trail Bridge
Total $7,092,665 1,258
EXHIBIT B
549
In conclusion, the Committee was reminded that all of these acquisitions were made utilizing the criteria in the Settlement Agreement and criteria adopted by the Open Space Committee. The Committee did not have any questions or further discussion.
Agenda Item V. Update on open space/habitat acquisition activities - Steve Stewart, Planning Manager, City of Livermore – Informational Item
The Planning Manager displayed the following image and discussed the City of Livermore’s open space and habitat acquisition activities:
The Committee was reminded that over the last 20 years since the Open Space Committee has been meeting, there have been occasional updates regarding acquisition activities of various organizations. The Planning Manager informed the Committee that city staff is engaging with a real estate broker for a property in the area north of Las Positas College and east of the existing vineyards along Collier Canyon Road. The City will continue engaging with the property owner, get authorization from the City Council to negotiate, and hopefully return with a grant application for the Open Space Committee to consider.
EXHIBIT B
550
The following image was shown to continue the update:
The Livermore City Council recently authorized staff to conduct negotiations for a couple of properties north and south of I-580 and east of Greenville Road. These properties have the potential for wildlife corridors. Livermore hopes to return with grant requests for those properties.
The Garaventa Hills property was then referred to and stated that the Committee may have heard there is a push by some groups and neighbors for the city to buy the property. However, the property owner is not a willing seller. Therefore, based upon inconsistency with the Committee’s acquisition criteria the property is not eligible for Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement Open Space funds.
Generally, the Committee appreciated the update and looked forward to reviewing grant applications if they moved forward. See minutes recorded by Alameda County staff for additional information regarding these items.
EXHIBIT B
551
Summary of February 16, 2024, Altamont Open Space Special Committee Meeting Agenda, PowerPoint Presentation and Minutes are Attached.
Zoom Recording: 1:19:50 minute mark to 01:56:00 minute mark.
Agenda Item VII. Presentation and consideration of $440,000 Grant Proposal for a vacant, approximately 32-Acre parcel commonly referred to as the Garaventa Hills Parcel (west of Laughlin Road at terminus of Bear Creek Drive) (APN: 99B-5300-10). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire the parcel in-fee title for open space preservation. – Steve Riley, Acting Planning Manager- City of Livermore – Action Item.
On February 16, 2024, the City of Livermore Acting Planning Manager made a presentation to the Open Space Committee for a grant to acquire the 32-acre Garaventa Hills property. Below is a summary of the presentation:
The grant proposal was in response to the appellate court ruling in March 2022. The Court ruled that the Garaventa Hills Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report (RFEIR) no-project alternative analysis was inadequate because the RFEIR “failed to disclose and analyze information regarding the availability of funding sources that could have been used to purchase and permanently conserve the Project Site.” (Court of Appeal, Published 3/30/2022).
The 32-acre site was shown outlined in blue. It lies north of I-580 and between North Vasco Road and Laughlin Road. The images showed the Garaventa Hills property context including the city boundary, and the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary, the city’s General Plan designation which is UL-1 that stands for Urban Low Residential – 1-1.5 units per acre, and the proximity to the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve owned and managed by the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District. Informal trails worn into and over the site visible on the aerial photograph are from people accessing the site.
Three images from different vantage points were shown, including the end of Bear Creek Drive looking west, looking north from Altamont Creek Park, and looking directly west from North Vasco Road.
As mentioned during the September 2023 presentation, the site has an extensive history, including the Livermore City Council approving a 44-unit single family subdivision on the site in 2019.
Later in 2019 Save the Hill Group filed a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Impact Report certification and approval of the project. The Superior Court denied the group's challenge.
Save The Hill Group appealed, and in 2022 the Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court's decision because the no project alternative in the EIR should have considered preserving the project site as open space, instead of developing it, using potential funding from the Altamont Landfill Open Space Account and open space funds from the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement.
The project applicant, Lafferty Communities, and the property owners for the Garaventa property have exercised their right to modify the EIR and bring the project back for review by the City. Consistent with the Court findings, the no- project alternative analysis in the EIR will be modified to evaluate the potential to preserve the site as open space with funds from the Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement Fund and Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement Fund. Thus, the city is presenting this application to follow a process identified by the Appellate Court to address deficiencies in the EIR for a residential development on the property.
EXHIBIT B
552
Based upon the environmental analysis done on the property over the years, and included in the application, acquiring the property would be consistent with the following Settlement Agreement criteria:
1. The first priority is for the preservation of native biological diversity and/or wildlife habitat.
2. The second priority is for land with significant value for visual character and/or nonmotorized recreation.
There are documented occurrences of California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog nearby, and the site consists of non-native grasslands that have the potential to serve as dispersal and/or aestivation habitat for both species. Burrowing owls were observed on or near the site in the past and they are expected to forage and nest on the site.
The seasonal wetland (0.004 acre) in the western portion of the Project is potentially suitable habitat for Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (VPFS) because VPFS occur in alkaline pools of varying depths, there are recorded occurrences of the species nearby, and the property lies within designated critical habitat for VPFS. The wetland is likely the result of a hole dug to create a dirt bike jump.
This site includes a couple of knolls with varying elevations between approximately 537 and 607 feet above mean sea level. It is visible to a smaller, more localized area of the surrounding homes, from Altamont Creek Park, and from Vasco Road. It has a 0.24 rating for viewshed on the Mapping Tool. The private property does not have formal public trails, but the public does access the site and has worn informal trails across the site which is likely the result in a 1.0 Recreation rating on the Mapping Tool.
The other criteria adopted by the Committee for evaluating open space grant request includes the following:
3. Strategic Value in Land Protection
4. Additional Funding Sources
5. Willing Sellers
Strategic Value in Land Protection,
The property is within the City North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary and City boundary. The City typically seeks to strengthen the Urban Growth Boundary by acquiring properties beyond to control and stabilize the land use. According to the mapping tool, this property is not within the top 100 parcels for land conservation prioritization.
However, the property is directly north of Altamont Creek and east of the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve owned and managed by the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) so the property would be strategic in terms of its adjacency to the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve and the parcels to the north where drainage flows to the greater Springtown Alkali Preserve.
The subject property gets a 0 in the three connectivity categories from the mapping tool.
Additional Funding Sources
City staff would meet and confer with Citizens for Balanced Growth to utilize open space funds from the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement to contribute half of the acquisition and transaction costs, approximately $440,000.00. Use of the Dougherty Valley Open Space Funds is subject to review and approval by the Livermore City Council.
EXHIBIT B
553
Willing Sellers
The owners are not willing to sell the property to the City for open space value or discuss the sale of the property for residential value.
City staff provided copies of a series of recent communications between the property owners and the city regarding their intentions with the property. These copies include:
• February 2 offer letter at open space value sent to Garaventa family • February 5 response from the property owners declining the offer • February 8 follow-up letter from the city asking if they would be interested in negotiating acquisition at fair market value
• February 13 response from the property owners stating they are not willing to discuss selling the property to any entity other than Lafferty Communities.
All of the open space acquisitions to date utilizing this funding have met all five of these criteria and all 5 criteria are included in the Committee’s standard grant application to illustrate the point that if it is included in the application, it should be considered by the Committee.
City staff concluded the presentation stating that the proposal before the Committee today is whether to contribute $440,000 in Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement open space funds toward the acquisition.
Following the presentation, the Committee confirmed that offers were made to the property owners. One voting member of the Open Space Committee stated this was not a legitimate grant request because the city knows there is not a willing seller, and the city is only fulfilling the court’s request. Some members of the public also stated this was a farce application. One member recollected a previous grant request for a property within the Livermore Urban Growth Boundary that had a value of $41,000 per acre. If applied to the Garaventa Hills Property, then an appropriate offer would be $1,784,000.
The voting representative for the City of Livermore then made a motion to offer the Garaventa Hills property owner $1.7 million. The Committee Chair said if the property owner accepts the value, then the application would return to the Committee for consideration.
See minutes recorded by Alameda County staff for additional information regarding this item.
Summary of March 15, 2024, Altamont Open Space Committee Meeting Agenda, PowerPoint Presentation and Minutes are Attached.
Zoom Recording: 37:47 Minute Mark to 1:06:28
VI. Presentation and consideration of $850,000 Revised Grant Proposal for a vacant, approximately 32-Acre parcel commonly referred to as the Garaventa Hills Parcel (west of Laughlin Road at terminus of Bear Creek Drive) (APN: 99B-5300-10). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire the parcel in fee title for open space preservation. – Action Item Steve Riley, Acting Planning Manager- City of Livermore – Action Item On March 15, 2024, the City of Livermore Acting Planning Manager made a presentation to the Open Space Committee regarding the Garaventa Hills grant application that was continued from the February 16 meeting.
EXHIBIT B
554
Consistent with Committee direction, the City of Livermore offered $1,736,000 to the Garaventa Hills property owners. In response, the property owner declined the offer and requested that the City not send any further offer letters.
Some members of the public were curious why the proposal was before the Committee if the property owner is not a willing seller. City of Livermore staff reminded the Committee that the matter is before them following the decision of the appellate court that said the “No Project” alternative in the Environmental Impact Report should include preserving the property as open space utilizing the Settlement Agreement funds.
The Committee voted unanimously (3-0) to recognize the owners of the property are not willing sellers and therefore do not meet the funding criteria and therefore the Committee will not approve funding for the purchase.
See minutes recorded by Alameda County staff for additional information regarding this item.
EXHIBIT B
555
APN Acres Score rank
99A-2160-1-4 860.60 0.539038618 1
99A-2150-1-1 810.85 0.533927951 2
99A-2540-7-1 2.97 0.523412432 3
99A-2180-3 942.72 0.499667979 4
99A-2220-2 597.36 0.498235339 5
99A-2150-2-2 645.17 0.497594515 6
96-110-12 41.77 0.495096807 7
99A-2570-1 1025.51 0.493635935 8
99A-2580-1 552.69 0.493140924 9
96-100-15 9.11 0.492738038 10
99A-2180-2-6 470.20 0.491040865 11
99A-2220-1-19 473.67 0.490304939 12
99A-2540-3 1190.51 0.48862193 13
99A-2581-3-1 63.83 0.487832305 14
99A-2150-2-1 601.89 0.486035591 15
99A-2900-2 306.11 0.485114057 16
99A-2580-10 1323.05 0.485014013 17
99A-1800-4 669.94 0.484540946 18
99A-2900-1 121.12 0.48251878 19
99A-2580-9 282.71 0.482221443 20
99A-2150-1-2 383.08 0.482114453 21
96-460-12 1132.91 0.482112496 22
99A-2520-1-2 90.81 0.481999061 23
99A-1840-2 153.36 0.481823475 24
99A-2730-2 795.20 0.479709033 25
96-420-18-2 319.81 0.479640055 26
99A-2110-10-4 138.33 0.479004301 27
99A-2540-1 740.45 0.478574626 28
99A-1840-1-8 500.53 0.478231714 29
99A-2600-1-1 1153.14 0.477560621 30
99A-2800-2 683.84 0.477376911 31
96-100-8 737.23 0.477328439 32
99A-2130-2-5 280.57 0.477162926 33
96-100-7 807.65 0.476783604 34
96-420-15 169.12 0.47559782 35
96-420-16 305.24 0.475251504 36
99A-2110-7-4 97.77 0.475182976 37
99A-2540-4 323.89 0.475137325 38
96-100-4 685.22 0.474396012 39
99B-5610-1 319.18 0.474221538 40
Top 100 Parcels for Land Conservation Prioritization as Ranked by the Land Conservation Prioritization Mapping Tool
EXHIBIT B
556
99B-5680-1 335.73 0.474193994 41
99A-2485-2 642.52 0.473901797 42
99A-2200-1-33 520.94 0.473305983 43
99B-5650-2-1 70.52 0.472692428 44
99A-2630-2 655.42 0.472070125 45
99B-5650-2-4 83.35 0.472039048 46
96-420-19-2 316.42 0.471989995 47
96-460-8-3 199.63 0.471863214 48
99A-2630-1 1924.70 0.471654097 49
99A-2630-3 611.58 0.471214254 50
85A-6401-1-19 219.47 0.471000314 51
85A-3250-3-6 48.75 0.470834071 52
99A-2540-7-2 1304.39 0.470622999 53
99A-2180-1-3 311.36 0.470578577 54
99A-2470-5 193.62 0.470251429 55
96-100-3-2 474.30 0.469630703 56
99A-2570-2 211.35 0.468925445 57
99A-2110-10-7 100.23 0.468871884 58
96-110-11 41.01 0.468583722 59
99B-5680-15 208.61 0.468517049 60
99A-2190-1 1382.61 0.468272436 61
99A-2180-4-5 309.15 0.467611082 62
99A-2630-8 728.95 0.467126936 63
99A-2160-1-3 30.66 0.466006581 64
99A-2200-1-25 338.01 0.464030293 65
99A-2210-1-2 598.47 0.462035437 66
99B-6100-3-11 57.31 0.461657633 67
99A-2110-5 100.00 0.461507315 68
99A-2170-1-6 256.97 0.461494762 69
96-460-8-2 186.82 0.461416867 70
99A-1830-3-2 99.46 0.461142257 71
99A-2800-3 162.61 0.460440808 72
99A-2581-7 26.62 0.460239488 73
99A-1760-1-4 112.79 0.460143325 74
99A-1760-1-5 112.85 0.458976105 75
99A-2110-8 100.07 0.458701494 76
99A-2630-7 1250.85 0.458600177 77
99A-1830-3-4 99.97 0.457947629 78
99A-2100-8-1 100.09 0.457400512 79
99A-1840-3 100.01 0.457155009 80
941-2600-1-3 304.09 0.457023326 81
99A-2170-1-5 648.34 0.456924508 82
99A-2720-3 266.59 0.456786174 83
99A-1830-1-13 102.28 0.456771087 84
EXHIBIT B
557
99A-2200-5 92.07 0.456704475 85
99B-5600-2-3 62.63 0.456219497 86
96-460-14 147.13 0.455951269 87
99A-2530-1-2 637.65 0.455801971 88
99A-2200-1-12 19.66 0.455723541 89
99A-2200-3 25.44 0.455524276 90
99A-2800-13 639.11 0.454433157 91
96-110-6-1 19.47 0.454365062 92
96-460-13 35.74 0.454220109 93
99A-2800-4 163.49 0.454073676 94
99A-2480-1-3 299.03 0.45404435 95
99B-5600-2-5 105.79 0.453506764 96
99A-2730-1-1 210.81 0.452818836 97
99A-1760-2 80.14 0.452624166 98
99B-5685-4 147.19 0.452333436 99
99B-5680-14 74.11 0.452269724 100
Data from the Land Conservation Prioritization Mapping Tool, developed for Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee by University of California, Berkeley, July 2021, available at: https://geoportal.ucanr.edu/alosac/.
Parcels are scored in the areas of habitat for special status species, wildlife connectivity, recreation and scenic views.
EXHIBIT B
558
ALTAMONT LANDFILL OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 16, 2024 MEETING AGENDA, MINUTES, AND
GARAVENTA PRESENTATION
APPENDIX RP-C
to the
Garaventa Hills Project Recirculated Partial Draft EIR
EXHIBIT B
559
ALTAMONT LANDFILL & RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY
OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Shawn Wilson, Chair – Alameda County
Councilmember Robert Carling – City of Livermore
Councilmember Jeff Nibert – City of Pleasanton
David Furst – Sierra Club
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Regional Meeting Room, Dublin City Hall – 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA February 16th, 2024 12:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.
IN-PERSON PARTICIPATION: The meeting site is open to the public. All in-person participants must adhere to posted health and safety protocols while in the building. If attending in-person and you wish to speak on a matter, please fill out a speaker card and submit to the Secretary as soon as possible.
Before speaking, please state your name.
REMOTE/TELECONFERENCE PARTICIPATION: Members of the public may observe and participate in meetings by following the instructions in the teleconferencing guidelines posted on-line with the agenda at:
http://acgov.org/cda/planning/documents/TeleconferencingGuidelinesforPublicHearings.pdf
AT THE NOTICED DATE AND TIME LISTED ABOVE THE ZOOM WEBINAR IS ACCESSIBLE AT THIS WEB ADDRESS: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87632096647 BY PHONE ONLY: (669) 900-9128 or (346) 248-7799 Webinar ID: 876 3209 6647 I. Call to order/Roll Call
II. Approval of Minutes – January 19, 2024 – Continued to March 15th, 2024 Meeting III. Public Comment – Any member of the public may address the committee on a matter not on the regular agenda. No discussion or action may be taken on these items.
IV. Presentation and consideration of $980,000 Grant Proposal for 82-Acres at the “Hartford Hills Property” (APNs: 902-9-3-1 and 902-9-3-2). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire in fee title for open space preservation –Jake Potter, Senior Planner - City of Livermore – Action Item
V. Presentation and consideration of $1,740,000 Grant Proposal for 125-Acres at 18 Greenville Road (APN: 099B-5685-01200). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire the parcel in fee title for open space preservation – Kam Purewal, Associate Planner - City of Livermore – Action Item
VI. Presentation and consideration of $520,000 Grant Proposal for 32-Acres, commonly referred to as the “Cross Property” (APN: 099B-5680-00400). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire the parcel in fee title for open space preservation – Kam Purewal, Associate Planner - City of Livermore – Action Item
VII. Presentation and consideration of $440,000 Grant Proposal for a vacant, approximately 32-Acre parcel commonly referred to as the Garaventa Hills Parcel (west of Laughlin Road at terminus of Bear Creek Drive) (APN: 99B-5300-10). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire the parcel in-fee title for open space preservation. – Action Item Steve Riley, Acting Planning Manager- City of Livermore – Action Item VIII. Update on available funding – County CDA Staff
IX. Future Agenda Items/Speakers
EXHIBIT B
560
This meeting is open to the public. Please contact Maria Palmeri, Alameda County Planning Department at (510) 670-5400 if you have any questions regarding this meeting.
Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee, February 16, 2024 Page 2 X. Next Meeting – March 15th, 2024, at a different location:
Alameda County’s Public Works Building in Dublin
Address: 4825 Gleason Drive, Dublin, CA 94568
XI. Committee Questions / Comments / Adjournment
EXHIBIT B
561
1 ALTAMONT LANDFILL OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
February 16, 2024
12:30p.m. to 2:30p.m.
APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
I. Call to order – The meeting was called to order by Shawn Wilson at 12:32 p.m.
Present: Chair Wilson, City of Livermore Robert Carling, City of Pleasanton Councilmember Jeffrey Nibert, David Furst representing the Sierra Club.
II. Approval of the minutes of January 19, 2024 – Continued to March 15th.
III. Public Comment – Any member of the public may address the committee on a matter not on the regular agenda. No discussion or action may be taken on these items.
Doug Mann, representing Citizens for Balance Growth, gave an overview of the organization. He said the funds from this organization are used the same way as the Altamont Open Space funds.
He said this committee in the past has had only one request per agenda. about one per year. Today an unprecedented four applications representing 25% increase of all proposals over the last 25 years. He said City of Livermore hastily put together 4 grant applications last Thursday, putting these on the agenda as a special meeting so soon is a big mistake. He asked that the meeting be cancelled and continue the items to a future agenda. These projects should not be mishandled or compromised.
Karen Gouveia said she runs a non-profit for animals and said there is always a hidden agenda when items are put on an agenda so fast. She has learned that people who are in these positions constantly have people in their ears that want funds. There is an agenda tonight. She spoke on battery storage, toxicity of battery storage, and energy crisis. She told the commission that they have the right to say no.
Chair Wilson asked county counsel if items 4, 5 and 6 could be presented at the same time.
County Counsel said yes. Member Furst asked about procedure and the timeline for when the meeting was called, the City informed the committee in January that they planned to submit grant applications. He asked why a special meeting and is there some politics involved in this. Liz said it is not the committee’s role to consider political issues when considering grant proposals. The criteria in the settlement agreement for habitat value, scenic value, and value for non-motorized recreation are very specific.
The Chair said in the past the applicant has been a special district or land trust, and not sure if this committee has considered an application from the City. He asked County Counsel if he is allowed to vote for grants that are located in the community he serves. County Counsel said there have been grant applications from the City of Livermore in the past. These items are on the agenda for discussion and action. The committee has discretion on actions on the items.
IV. Presentation and consideration of $980,000 Grant Proposal for 82-Acres at the “Hartford Hills Property” (APNs: 902-9-3-1 and 902-9-3-2). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire in fee title for open space preservation –Jake Potter, Senior Planner - City of Livermore – Action Item
Jack Porter, City of Livermore, spoke on the general plan policy, open space policy programs and preservation and conservation purposes. The city intends to acquire the approximately 82-acre
EXHIBIT B
562
2 property in fee title for conservation and open space purposes. It is west of Spring Town. He shared photos of the property. The City of Livermore was contacted by the property owner. The city has worked with the property owner and the total cost will be close to $2 million and the grant application is for $980,000. He spoke on how the property meets the criteria of the settlement agreement. The property would be purchased for open space in perpetuity.
Member Furst asked about the T-6 trail and how committed the city is to building the trail. He said the city checked the box for recreational value but he has not seen any historic commitment from the city. The city has had this trail on their plans for twenty years. Steve Riley said the purchase will help facilitate the building of the trail. Member Furst asked about the price increase in the cost per acre of $23,000. The normal range would have been $9,000 to $10,000. He asked why the city is buying land outside the city limit. Steve Riley spoke on the appraisal and that the goal is to preserve the land for open space and that the city has bought land outside of city limits before. Member Nibert said this grant is only asking for 50% of the purchase price. Steve Riley spoke about city funding and that just like the committee, they want to get the most bang for the buck. It all depends on funds the city has available. Member Nibert asked County staff if there are any guidelines about the percentage of purchase price the committee will fund. Liz said historically the committee has favored applications where applicants have other funds available, matching funds for the purchase, but there is no set percentage required. Member Nibert said regarding this property, it looks like there are quite a few species identified. Jack Porter said staff used a number of resources to determine species at this location.
Member Carling said the grant proposal is for half of the purchase price. Dick Schneider said in the past this committee has given 50% of the funds in most cases. Chair Wilson said there are costs for maintenance, costs affiliated with the purchase and how will the costs for maintenance be addressed in perpetuity. Steve Riley said they did not include maintenance costs in the purchase price, the city does have funds for maintenance and operations for the property. Chair Wilson said the reason he wanted to hear the items together was to have them all side by side to compare them.
He asked city staff if there is another buyer interested in the property. Steve Riley said he has not heard of another potential buyer and the city has negotiated with the owner of the property.
Member Furst said the Tri-Valley Conservancy places easements on properties to keep them for open space in perpetuity. He asked if the city contacted them. Steve said no. Member Furst said the city is buying it for open space preservation, but what if a future mayor decides to develop it, what is the guarantee in writing to keep it as open space? County Counsel said any grant given by this committee is subject to a grant agreement which requires that the property stay as open space and if not the funds are to be returned to the committee. The Chair asked if the property is in Measure D. Steve said yes, and in the city’s general plan is designated as open space.
Liz asked about the City’s open space funds that are being applied to this purchase. Steve said the city has two types of funds, one comes from transferable development credit program and other additional funds from easements. Liz asked if the property will be used for mitigation. Steve said the city could sell conservation easements. Liz said there was a transaction in the past where the city did sell conservation easements and in that case the city returned some of the funds to the committee. County Counsel said the requirement in the settlement agreement is that the funds not be used to acquire property where it is used for mitigation and in that case, this may not be suitable use for the funds. Jack Porter said the city at this time has no projects associated with this property.
Member Furst said his understanding is that the city is saying that this meets the recreation criterion because of the T-6 trail. He spoke on the original plans not including this parcel and there is no recreational value to this property without the trail. The trail is included in the scoring on how it meets the criteria. Steve said it is the city’s plan to build the T-6 trail.
Public comment was open.
EXHIBIT B
563
3 Doug Mann said there are Native American groups interested in buying the property and they sent letters to the city. His group asked the city if they had taken into consideration the letter from the Native American groups. Livermore’s role is to manage the city and what they should not do is abuse the grant process to land grab and urged the committee to deny the grant and informed the committee that there will be another grant proposal soon for this property.
Kelly Abreu said this committee is doing what they are supposed to do and asking important questions. If applicants are required to give the funds back, is that with interest? This committee has the ability to say no and make a wise decision. There is no proof that it will be used for conservation.
Dick Schneider spoke on the inflated per acre price and how this will set a precedent for future grant proposals. He pointed out that the application says recreational is the second use and that and the primary use is habitat, and recreation and protection of biodiversity sometimes are in conflict. He said sometimes people go off a trail. How is this land going to be policed to prevent the recreational value from damaging biological value.
Jean King asked about the condition of refunding the money if the property is not kept as open space. County Counsel explained the process. Jean King said if the city decides to use the property for something else then the only thing they have to do is to return the funds. She said it might be a good idea to have a guarantee that it will be kept for open space. She spoke on another piece of property the City owns that is not being managed well. It is important that the city take care of the habitat.
Brian Sheehan, resident of Livermore, representing multiple properties as well as religious institutions, said he is concerned with the process regarding the applications. He is here specifically for the cross on the hill. There are other buyers interested and it could stay in private ownership. This will set a precedent and it takes away the opportunity for someone else to buy it.
Would like to have a month to review the application. He asked about the Brown Act and the noticing requirement for this meeting. County Counsel said the noticing requirement is 24 hours.
He asked the committee to give people time to review, there are thousands of people interested and they all vote. He said he does not like government taking over property that one of the residents could buy.
Carol Silva lives on Ponderosa Drive, and ever since the beginning of COVID, a lot of people use this path. This process is going too fast. She spoke on her ranch conservation easement and there were several meetings for the easement. This special meeting had very little notice. She is concerned with the habitat. She said the indigenous community should have a voice in this, the Europeans colonized this land and took ownership when there were tribes here.
Andy Ross, staff for the City of Livermore, addressed Jean King’s comments about a property the city owns. He said the city is working with Tri-Valley Conservancy to address those issues. Funds from this committee were used to purchase Doolan Canyon properties, there were two properties, about 100 acres and adjacent to the city limits. It was fully funded including funding for maintenance and preservation.
Member Nibert asked if this is a conservation easement purchase and will it be in perpetuity. Steve said the city holds the conservation easements in perpetuity. Sometimes they have to partner with a land trust, and it takes time and funding for the easement maintenance. In order to ensure proper stewardship, it takes funding. Member Nibert noted that he is sensing a lot of distrust towards the city, and asked what is the alternative? Have someone else buy the property? Chair Wilson said the concern is the process and if there is another alternative, it should be vetted. Do not want to lose the opportunity, but there is a question regarding the process and waiting is a reasonable approach. If there is another buyer, it should be fully vetted.
Member Carling said it has been six years since the last grant was approved. The committee has
EXHIBIT B
564
4 been talking about how to spend the money and preserve open space and this is exactly what the city has brought to the committee today. Not sure that waiting another month, the committee will have more information than it has today. City staff said it takes a vote of the people to change the urban boundary. He heard that the owner of this property had looked for a developer. The property owner approached the city to annex the property. The property owner is looking for ways to sell.
The open space committee has funds to purchase the property and this is the right time. Waiting is not going to add more information.
Member Furst said the city does not need this property to build T-6 trail. There is some suspicion.
Someone mentioned that there is someone else interested in buying the property to preserve it in perpetuity. The city potentially could buy the property with help from the Open Space fund and then sell to a developer and build housing. There is a worry that the city has other ideas and the city could sell the land, give back the money and T-6 is not dependent on this purchase.
The Chair said he would feel more comfortable if there are other options out there and that they are fully vetted before making a decision. As of now, he is not ready to vote. Member Nibert asked if he would be voting on these applications since he represents the City of Pleasanton. Liz said only the County, City of Livermore, and Sierra Club would vote since the grants are for properties in the eastern area.
Member Carling moved to approve the grant proposal. Motion failed for lack of a second. The Chair moved to table the item for thirty days and asked staff to look for other options and bring it back to this committee. Member Furst seconded the motion. Motion carried 3/0.
V. Presentation and consideration of $1,740,000 Grant Proposal for 125-Acres at 18 Greenville Road (APN: 099B-5685-01200). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire the parcel in fee title for open space preservation – Kam Purewal, Associate Planner - City of Livermore – Action Item
Item continued to March 15, 2024 meeting.
VI. Presentation and consideration of $520,000 Grant Proposal for 32-Acres, commonly referred to as the “Cross Property” (APN: 099B-5680-00400). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire the parcel in fee title for open space preservation – Kam Purewal, Associate Planner - City of Livermore – Action Item
Item continued to March 15, 2024 meeting.
VII. Presentation and consideration of $440,000 Grant Proposal for a vacant, approximately 32- Acre parcel commonly referred to as the Garaventa Hills Parcel (west of Laughlin Road at terminus of Bear Creek Drive) (APN: 99B-5300-10). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire the parcel in fee title for open space preservation. – Action Item Steve Riley, Acting Planning Manager- City of Livermore – Action Item
Steve Riley presented the staff report. He said in 2019 the City approved a 44 unit single family subdivision. The Save the Hill Group filed a lawsuit challenging the approval of the project. In 2022 the trial court directed the City to vacate and set aside its certification of the RFEIR and approval of the project. The city is seeking funding from this committee to preserve this property as open space. He expanded on how this project meets the funding criteria. The property owners are not willing to sell the property to the city for open space value.
Member Furst said on the grant application it says that the property is to be kept as open space.
He asked if the city is going to rezone. Is the city willing to raise the funds to buy it at market value? If the value is $16 to $20 million and then it is rezoned to open space the value will be
EXHIBIT B
565
5 lower. Steve Riley said it is up to City Council. The city is following the direction of the court to preserve it as open space. From staff’s perspective, the funds could go much further for other acquisitions because the cost of this land is at suburban value, even though property owner is not interested in selling to the city.
Member Furst said this is not a legit grant request, because the city knows there is not a willing seller and the city is only fulfilling the court’s request. Member Nibert asked about the zoning in the housing element. Steve said it is housing. He said the property owner has the right to move the project forward. The applicant would like to revise the EIR and move forward with the project. It is his right and he may go before City Council.
Public comment was open.
Doug Mann said this is a farce application. The site will not be urbanized. The city has to do some things per the court’s direction. This is going to be another process for years as long as the developer is as delusional as they are. If this committee grants this, then this committee will have a liability. If denied the city still got what they needed.
Dick Schneider said he does not think this is a serious proposal. This property is inside the urban growth boundary and could be developed and it should have a higher value. This committee funded the purchase of the Farber property in 2011, it is inside the urban growth boundary, the value per acre was $41,000. If applied to this property would get a bid of $1,784,000. If this was the proposal, this would be a serious proposal. This would be fair.
Karen Gouveia said should not be in a hurry to spend the funds. Need to use discretion and get things clarified.
Carol Silva said she supports preserving the Garaventa property. She agrees with the previous speaker that this is not enough to incentivize the sale. The city just wants to say they made an offer.
Kelly Abreu said he agrees regarding the value. He said this property is just like the Cayetano hills next to Las Positas. This idea of WA contracts is a scam. He spoke on other properties under WA contract in Fairview and Sunol with uses that are not allowed. He said WA contracts are supposed to protect ag land, structures are not allowed, or industrial sites or storage yards or airports, but it is okay because the County does not enforce the contracts.
Jean King said she supports easements for Tri-Valley Conservancy. This is a great property and if important should pay the money.
Public comment was closed.
Steve Riley noted that the property owner wants to move forward with the development even if this committee doubles the property value. Member Carling moved to offer $1.7 million. County Counsel asked clarification on the motion. The Chair said if the property owner accepts the value, then the application will come back to this committee for consideration.
Member Carling asked that the remaining two grant applications be continued.
VIII. Update on available funding – County CDA staff – None
EXHIBIT B
566
6 IX. Future Agenda Items/Speakers – None
X. Next meeting – The Chair said the next meeting will take place on March 15th.
XI. Committee Questions/Comments
EXHIBIT B
567
Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee
Garaventa Property
February 16, 2024
Steve Riley, Planning Manager
EXHIBIT B
568
Context N
EXHIBIT B
569
Site
EXHIBIT B
570
Site and Context
Looking west from Bear Creek Drive
Looking north from Altamont Creek Park
Looking east from Vasco Road
EXHIBIT B
571
ALOSC Funding Criteria
Settlement Agreement Priorities for Open Space Acquisitions:
1. The first priority is for the preservation of native biological diversity and/or wildlife habitat.
2. The second priority is for land with significant value for visual character and/or non-motorized recreation.
EXHIBIT B
572
SW
N
-
ALOSC Funding Criteria
Project Site
EXHIBIT B
573
SW
N
-
ALOSC Funding Criteria
0.004 acres
of wetlands
EXHIBIT B
574
ALOSC Funding Criteria
EXHIBIT B
575
ALOSC Funding Criteria
Settlement Agreement Priorities for Open Space Acquisitions:
1. The first priority is for the preservation of native biological diversity and/or wildlife habitat.
2. The second priority is for land with significant value for visual character and/or nonmotorized recreation.
Additional Criteria Adopted by the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee:
3. Strategic Value in Land Protection
4. Additional Funding Sources
5. Willing Sellers
EXHIBIT B
576
Project Costs
Itemized Expenses (Estimated)
Proposed Purchase Price $868,480 ($27,140/acre)
Transaction Costs $11,520
Total Project Cost $880,000
Funding from ALOSC $440,000
Funding from Dougherty Valley Settlement
Agreement Fund
$440,000
EXHIBIT B
577
ALTAMONT LANDFILL OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE
MARCH 15, 2024 MEETING AGENDA, MINUTES, AND
GARAVENTA PRESENTATION
APPENDIX RP-D
to the
Garaventa Hills Project Recirculated Partial Draft EIR
EXHIBIT B
578
ALTAMONT LANDFILL & RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY
OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Shawn Wilson, Chair – Alameda County
Councilmember Robert Carling – City of Livermore
Councilmember Jeff Nibert – City of Pleasanton
David Furst – Sierra Club
This meeting is open to the public. Please contact Maria Palmeri, Alameda County Planning Department at (510) 670-5400 if you have any questions regarding this meeting.
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Please note different location
Alameda County Public Works Building, 4825 Gleason Drive, Dublin March 15, 2024
12:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.
IN-PERSON PARTICIPATION: The meeting site is open to the public. All in-person participants must adhere to posted health and safety protocols while in the building. If attending in-person and you wish to speak on a matter, please fill out a speaker card and submit to the Secretary as soon as possible.
Before speaking, please state your name.
REMOTE/TELECONFERENCE PARTICIPATION: Members of the public may observe and participate in meetings by following the instructions in the teleconferencing guidelines posted on-line with the agenda at:
http://acgov.org/cda/planning/documents/TeleconferencingGuidelinesforPublicHearings.pdf
AT THE NOTICED DATE AND TIME LISTED ABOVE THE ZOOM WEBINAR IS ACCESSIBLE AT THIS WEB ADDRESS: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87632096647 BY PHONE ONLY: (669) 900-9128 or (346) 248-7799 Webinar ID: 876 3209 6647 I. Call to order/Roll Call
II. Approval of Minutes – January 19 and February 16, 2024 Attachment Attachment
III. Public Comment – Any member of the public may address the committee on a matter not on the regular agenda. No discussion or action may be taken on these items.
IV. Presentation and consideration of $980,000 Grant Proposal for 82 Acres at the “Hartford Hills Property” (APNs: 902-9-3-1 and 902-9-3-2). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire the parcels in fee title for open space preservation – Jake Potter, Senior Planner, City of Livermore – Action Item (continued from February 16, 2024) Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment
V. Presentation and consideration of $1,740,000 Grant Proposal for 125 Acres at 18 Greenville Road (APN: 099B-5685-01200). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire the parcel in fee title for open space preservation – Kam Purewal, Associate Planner, City of Livermore – Action Item (continued from February 16, 2024) Attachment Attachment VI. Presentation and consideration of $850,000 Revised Grant Proposal for a vacant, approximately 32-Acre parcel commonly referred to as the Garaventa Hills Parcel (west of Laughlin Road at terminus of Bear Creek Drive) (APN: 99B-5300-10). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire the parcel in fee title for open space preservation -Steve Riley, Acting Planning Manager, City of Livermore – Action Item (continued from February 16, 2024)
EXHIBIT B
579
This meeting is open to the public. Please contact Maria Palmeri, Alameda County Planning Department at (510) 670-5400 if you have any questions regarding this meeting.
Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee, March 15, 2024 – Page 2 Attachment Attachment
VII. Presentation and consideration of two grant proposals for a 32-acre parcel commonly referred to as the “Cross Property” (APN: 099B-5680-00400).
A. $510,000 Grant Proposal from Capstone Christian Ministries to acquire the parcel in fee title for open space preservation – Bill Turnquist, Capstone Christian Ministries – Action Item Attachment
B. $520,000 Grant Proposal from City of Livermore to acquire the parcel in fee title for open space preservation – Kam Purewal, Associate Planner, City of Livermore – Action Item (continued from February 16, 2024) Attachment
VIII. Update on available funding – County CDA Staff
IX. Future Agenda Items/Speakers
X. Next Meeting – May 17, 2024
XI. Committee Questions / Comments / Adjournment
EXHIBIT B
580
1 ALTAMONT LANDFILL OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
March 15, 2024
12:30p.m. to 2:30p.m.
APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
I. Call to order – The meeting was called to order by Shawn Wilson at 12:33 p.m.
Present: Chair Wilson, City of Livermore Robert Carling, City of Pleasanton Councilmember Jeffrey Nibert, David Furst representing the Sierra Club.
II. Approval of the minutes of January 19 and February 16, 2024 – Dick Schneider asked for corrections. On January 19th , first page, there is a typo on paragraph 4, third line down, starting with Member Carling, it says “…If a structure is not built…” the word “not” should be removed.
Member Carling moved to approve the minutes of January 19th as amended and the minutes of February 16th as submitted. Member Nibert seconded the motion. Motion carried 4/0 III. Public Comment – Any member of the public may address the committee on a matter not on the regular agenda. No discussion or action may be taken on these items.
Doug Mann thanked staff for supplying him with a list of all grant proposals submitted to this committee. He noted when City of Livermore applies, it says that the funds are from the City of Livermore and the funds are usually from the Dougherty Valley Settlement funds and not the City. The City is not the best entity to purchase the land. The parcels are not within City limits and the City can’t afford to take on these extracurricular activities. This is County land. Normally the Parks Department would steward these kinds of things. These parcels are not in danger. He said he is not sure that a lot of people know about these parcels being available and if they knew, they purchase them and protect it for open space. The City is trying to expand the urban growth boundary even though the City has said they are not. This committee should look at other buyers.
IV. Presentation and consideration of $980,000 Grant Proposal for 82-Acres at the “Hartford Hills Property” (APNs: 902-9-3-1 and 902-9-3-2). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire in fee title for open space preservation –Jake Potter, Senior Planner - City of Livermore – Action Item
Jack Potter, City of Livermore, spoke on the general plan policy, open space policy programs and preservation and conservation purposes. He said this parcel will be preserved in perpetuity for biological and recreational purposes. He said the City will work with other entities in preserving the parcels on the agenda today. He spoke on other parcels that the City has purchased for preservation of open space. The City intends to acquire the approximately 82-acre property in fee title for conservation and open space purposes. He shared photos of the property. This parcel is not being considered for housing development and none of the parcels today are included in the Housing Element sites for the City. This parcel has been identified as a priority area and close to the Spring Town area. This property meets all the criteria for the Altamont Open Space Settlement agreement. This parcel scored high for recreational value. The City of Livermore was contacted by the property owner. The City has worked with the property owner and the total cost will be close to $1.96 million and the grant application is for 50% of the purchase price which is $980,000.
The City has the support of other entities for the purchase of this parcel. The City has multiple funds from various sources that can be used for the purchase of open space.
Public comment was opened.
EXHIBIT B
581
2 Dick Schneider said his concern at the last meeting was about the protection of biological values and recreational values and the City’s is ability to protect and handle it. He called it a balancing act. The City is spread too thin. What about the LARPD as a landowner and giving it to them since that is their mission.
Chad Wall said he is a resident of Livermore and is in full support of the City of Livermore.
Member Carling said he appreciates Mr. Mann’s concern related to the City’s responsibility. The City Council has to deal with these issues and the funds do not come from general funds. He said the City balances different issues all the time.
Member Carling moved to approve the grant to purchase of Hartford Hills property in the amount of $980,000. The Chair asked that City staff take seriously the cultural opportunity related to tribes. It would be a great opportunity for the County and the City. Jack Porter said they contacted the Confederation of the Ohlone People but they did not have interest on this property but staff will contact them again and look at opportunities for cultural resources.
Member Furst said if the property is open to the public, how will the City preserve it as open space and what plans does the City have to protect this property. Staff said open space does not mean it would be accessible to the public, the trails will be available but they will have elements to keep the public away from sensitive areas. Member Furst spoke about trail T-6 and commitment to build it. He asked about access point. Jake spoke about multiple points of access. Member Furst said at the last meeting some people spoke about the City buying this property and selling it to a developer. What assurance does this committee have that this property will stay as open space.
The Chair said this property is under Measure D and that would have to be changed in order for development to occur. He said if the City sells it than the funds will have to be refunded. Kathy Lee said the agreement requires that funds be returned if there is a breach of the agreement. It is a contractual agreement that any grant funds has to be used for open space. Member Carling said the City is required to build a certain number of housing units. The City has plenty of vacant land.
He said there is no reason for the City to sell this property for development.
The Chair seconded the motion. Motion carried 2/1. Member Furst voted no.
V. Presentation and consideration of $1,740,000 Grant Proposal for 125-Acres at 18 Greenville Road (APN: 099B-5685-01200). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire the parcel in fee title for open space preservation – Kam Purewal, Associate Planner - City of Livermore – Action Item
Kam Purewal, City of Livermore staff, presented the staff report. The presentation was for both properties, Cross property and this property located at 18 Greenville Road. He shared an exhibit showing the location of the properties. The properties are located on opposite sides of I-580 and adjacent to the freeway. Both properties are strategically located as a wildlife movement area.
This opportunity to purchase these properties will offer a safe place for wildlife crossing. The City’s goal is for open space conservation and preserving the greenbelt in the Altamont corridor.
The City partners and other interest groups are supportive of the purchase and vision for these properties. Both properties meet the criteria of the Altamont Open Space Agreement.
Dr. Fraser Shilling spoke on the study that was done about the wildlife in the area.
Kam Purewal said the City is asking for $1,740,00 for the purchase of the Greenville Road and $520,000 for the Cross property. The Chair asked if this includes the recreational dirt bike track.
Staff said no.
Member Nibert asked if the easements for both properties will facilitate the wildlife corridor. Staff said there is unofficial trail for the wildlife between the two areas. Andy said the acquisition of these properties will protect the corridor.
EXHIBIT B
582
3 Member Furst said he is uncomfortable with the City’s request to fund more than 50% of the funds. He asked that the City rearrange the request to lower the percentage.
Public comment was opened.
Lori Souza, Tri-Valley Conservancy, spoke as a Livermore resident and said she supports the City’s application of the grants. These purchases are important to protect the wildlife and provide a vital wildlife corridor. The City has a good track record in identifying parcels and taking the necessary steps to protect open space for current and future residents. The residents of the City have given high marks for the City’s efforts in preservation of natural areas, open space and recycling services. The environment plays a vital role in the health and well being of residents.
She urged the committee to approve the grant applications.
Steve Stewart, a retired city employee and Livermore resident, said he is interested in regional conservation. In the past as City staff he worked with this committee in preserving 1000 acres as open space. Livermore has a good track record in preserving properties for open space.
Livermore’s general plan helps promote and implement a regional trail system and preserve open space. These applications check all of the boxes. Once the property is acquired, the City works with a number of partners on a management plan to keep these properties as open spaces in perpetuity. He expanded on the work in getting these properties ready for the public. He is in support of the grant applications from the City.
Dick Schneider said he has not heard the City’s long-term intent for recreational value, use and how it will be managed. The land is pretty much intact and animals are not disturbed. Andy said the City will address these issues by inviting other partners to see how they will be managed.
Juan Martinez, Save Mt. Diablo, said he supports the City’s purchase of these properties and supports the grant applications.
Doug Mann said everyone wants the wildlife corridor. He does not think that the City of Livermore is the best to do this. Save Mount Diablo sent a letter to the City following a contract of an Environmental firm in the amount of $308,000 to expand the urban growth boundary and urbanize other areas that right now are largely private properties and open space. Right after the letter was received, there was a land grab and all these applications came into place and the intent is crystal clear. The Save Mount Diablo letter said they do not want expand the urban boundary, but if they did the City needs to expand this corridor. And this is what the City is doing, they will have the corridor but just destroy another area. They are not going to tell anyone that, and their goal is to expand the urban growth boundary. Why should Livermore be so concerned with this land outside of the City when someone else can buy it and do better and it will not cost the City any money. Not talking about the cost of the land, but operation costs. They do these projects and end up with expenses every year and have a 20 to 30 million deficit. Let’s have somebody else maintain the corridor.
Farley Connelly, a biologist for RCD, said this is important for the wildlife crossing and a perfect spot. Preserving it for open space is great and it could do wonders for the wildlife. This is a great opportunity.
Chad Wall said he supports the applications, listened to the pros and cons. He strongly supports the City in saving these properties. This is a no-brainer. Need to do the right thing.
Member Furst said he is concerned by the percentage split. The usual break down is 50 and 50 and the City is asking for 80/20. The recreational value is very, very high and how could it be high if the property on one side is canal, on the north side is 580 and the east and south side is bound by private property. There is no public access. Andy Ross said the Altamont tool looks for opportunity for recreational value. The City will have to work with partners on what is the best way to get people access to this property. Steve said it is a good opportunity to get animals and
EXHIBIT B
583
4 people across the freeway, this would be a key connection and could work with partners to look for ways to connect people to regional parks and the trail system. Member Furst said the crossing is not part of this property and there is a property that is Caltrans property. Andy said there is an existing access road that is owned by Caltrans. Member Furst asked if Caltrans is the owner and are they creating a pass under the freeway. Andy said most likely RCD is already working with Caltrans. Andy said could reduce the percentage for this funding.
County Counsel Kathy Lee said this would typically come in as a proposal from the applicant then the committee would have more concrete information to approve. Andy said if could present a number right now. County Counsel said it would be okay to present a revised number. The committee went into a recess so the City could work on a revised number.
After recess, Andy Ross asked that the committee provide 60% of the funds totaling, $1,284,000 and the City would provide 40% which is equal to $856,000.
Member Carling moved to approve this breakdown and the Chair seconded the motion. The motion carried 3/0.
VI. Presentation and consideration of $850,000 Revised Grant Proposal for a vacant, approximately 32-Acre parcel commonly referred to as the Garaventa Hills Parcel (west of Laughlin Road at terminus of Bear Creek Drive) (APN: 99B-5300-10). The City of Livermore is seeking to acquire the parcel in fee title for open space preservation. – Action Item Steve Riley, Acting Planning Manager- City of Livermore – Action Item The Chair said the City decided to make a larger offer to the property owner. Steve Riley said this property is within the City of Livermore’s boundary and it is zoned residential. The property owner is under contract with Lafferty Homes. The project for 44 homes was approved by City Council. Staff shared photos of the property. The property did meet the criteria of the settlement agreement. There is a seasonal wetland on the western portion of the property. There is not a willing seller for this property. Staff has sent a formal request to the property owner to buy the property as open space value. Staff has offered $1,736,000 and the City also made an offer at the suburban residential values and the property owner declined. The property owner has requested that City staff not send anymore offer letters.
Member Nibert asked if the committee approved the grant, where would the funds be held until such time there is a willing seller. County Counsel Kathy Lee said there are some specific terms in the settlement agreement. The condition that if the sale is not finalized the funds need to be refunded to the County. Member Nibert said this project started back in 2014 and at that point it was proposed for 70 to 80 homes and the city council asked that the property owner reconsider and they came back with a project of 40 homes. There was also concern for egress in case of a fire.
Public comment was opened.
Doug Mann said he does not know how the County manages its money, but the wisdom of allocating these funds and waiting around and then getting it back if the property not bought.
Shelly agreed with the previous speaker. She said met during the last meeting. These planners are just doing what they are told to do. She spoke on a hidden agenda and misappropriation of funds and that when everyone knows what is going, everyone is liable.
Dick Schneider said the property owner made clear that they do not want to sell to the City, so why is Livermore here. Steve said once the housing project was approved there was a lawsuit against the City from Save the Hill group challenging the EIR certification and approval of the project, then the superior court denied the group’s challenge. The group appealed then the court of appeals reversed the superior court’s decision and the appellate court said the no project alternative should have been considered to save the property as open space. Staff is coming here
EXHIBIT B
584
5 to full fill the direction of the court and to allow the applicant to move forward. The court said the City had to come to this committee and ask for funds for the open space alternative.
Chad wall said he is familiar with the area. Just listening to the discussion, and it sounds that the City has done its due diligence. The committee needs to cut bait and focus on the other properties.
Brian Daniel spoke on the Cross property. He said should use the funds from the Cross property on the Garaventa property. He said he is not against open space and not against what this committee is doing. Livermore has done a great job with trails and open space and urban growth boundary. The Cross property has been there for thirty years and unless there is a contingency that the cross stay, it will not stay. He said there is a proposal for a animals pathway, it will cost hundreds of millions to come across 580. He proposed not to move on the Cross property and double the offer on the Garaventa property. He asked the committee to vote no on the Cross property.
Member Carling said there is no hidden agenda. The City approved it for housing for forty plus houses. This would not be a saving of funds and the only saving of funds is that the open space will not have to spend the funds on this property. The owners are not willing to sell to the City.
There is not a willing seller.
Member Carling moved that this committee recognize that the owners of the property are not a willing seller and therefore do not meet the criteria and therefore this committee will not approve funding for the purchase. There is not a willing seller so it does not meet the criteria. Member Furst seconded the motion. Motion carried 3/0.
VII. Presentation and consideration of two grant proposals for a 32-acre parcel commonly referred to as the “Cross Property” (APN: 099B-5680-00400).
A. $510,000 Grant Proposal from Capstone Christian Ministries to acquire the parcel in fee title for open space preservation – Bill Turnquist, Capstone Christian Ministries – Action Item B. $520,000 Grant Proposal from City of Livermore to acquire the parcel in fee title for open space preservation – Kam Purewal, Associate Planner, City of Livermore – Action Item (continued from February 16, 2024)
NOTE: Kam Purewal presented the staff report for item VII.B under item V.
Bill Turnquist spoke on their proposal to buy the property. He gave a background of the Capstone Christian Ministries. The cross was started by the daughter of the property owner.
They would rather have Capstone Christian Ministries buy the property. It is a well known landmark. He said there is no cost to maintain it, the lights are powered by solar. They are not part of any organized church and the maintenance is done by volunteers. He said there is a website if anyone wants to check it. The City of Livermore and the County will have no maintenance or insurance cost if the Capstone purchases it. They will maintain it. They are able to access the property thru a Zone 7 road. They keep the property clean and protect the wildlife. This property is landlocked. The property owner wants to sell it. If they bought the property they would agree on the placement of easements and have a contract to keep it open space in perpetuity. The long-term goal is preservation, keep it as open space as it is, and environmentally clean. He spoke on cleaning up a junk yard close to this property. He also spoke on some people living in a trailer close to the creek and he thinks that the sewage is being thrown in the creek. He said the thing that concerned him at the last meeting is that the property could be sold to a developer. The Chair said the long-term use is to have the cross.
He said he is not sure if this gets this committee in a place that they should not be. Need to
EXHIBIT B
585
6 keep the separation of church and state. He asked if the funds may be used for this and would this create a precedent. County Counsel said there is no barrier, but whoever owns the property is responsible for maintenance and the committee will have to look at who would be better to manage the property. It is the property owner to manage the property. The committee funds is only for the purchase of open space. The Chair asked if they have the additional funds to purchase the property. Mr. Turnquist said they currently do not have it but if the committee chooses they could come back with some options.
The Chair asked if the City is willing to negotiate with Mr. Turnquist. Andy said if the City owns the property they are willing to work with this group, but the City could also work with other entities. County Counsel said the conservation easement must be funded and it would include consideration of the cost of the easement such as operation plans, and it would have to be some assurance that the funds would cover the operation costs in perpetuity. The settlement agreement allows a variety of entities to maintain and management of the land and make sure that the open space committee requirements are realized. The committee may deny the application based on the concerns expressed about any of the issues mentioned or request additional information.
Public comment was opened.
Juan Pablo said he wants the land acquired for preservation. He is opposed to the expansion of the urban growth expansion. He spoke on stability of the proposals. The City has shown that they have the capacity and expertise to maintain this property.
Dick Schneider said he is not sure that this proposal fulfills the criteria based on the cross and it does not meet the visual criteria. If this is a subsidy for a religious symbol on a hill, this will set a precedent for future applications. This raises a lot of questions regarding separation of church and state.
Diana Roberts, Tri-Valley Conservancy, supports the City’s application. The City has been a very responsible and have partnered with the City on prior projects.
Lori Souza it is important for this committee to consider the financial viability of both applications.
Steve Stewart said he supports preservation in perpetuity of the property.
Doug Mann asked if the committee wants to consider a 60/40 split for this application.
Livermore needs to save funds. In general an endowment is a normal part of preservation, and the reason if because there are no volunteers and they have to be maintained by paid staff. This is an opportunity for this committee to have volunteers and it helps everyone and save costs.
Kelly said she hopes God is in the room, not meant to have separation of church and state.
Chad Wall said he disagrees with previous speaker. He supports City’s ownership, not comfortable having two parties owning two separate properties, it should be under own ownership and recommends the City to own both properties.
Brian Daniel said Capstone has taken care of this property for the last 30 years. Everyone is worried about funding but have done this for the last 30 years with no problems. Do not
EXHIBIT B
586
7 count this group out. This property can be maintained without the City’s money. There is no hidden agenda.
Member Furst said he feels uncomfortable giving fund to a religious entity that provides a religious symbol. He suggested Capstone and the City work together and have this committee step out of this deal. Andy said if this committee will not fund this, the City will have to look for funds somewhere else.
Member Carling moved to approve the grant application from the City of Livermore. The Chair seconded the motion. Motion carried 2/1. Member Furst voted no.
VIII. Update on available funding – County CDA staff – Liz said the funds for the East County is $21,616,272 and for the West County is $2,821,690
IX. Future Agenda Items/Speakers – The Chair said he is still trying to get a hold of the N3 property owner. Dick Schneider gave an update on the Tesla Park.
X. Next meeting – Meeting adjourned at 3:01p.m. The Chair May 17th.
XI. Committee Questions/Comments
EXHIBIT B
587
Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee
Garaventa Property
March 15, 2024
Steve Riley, Acting Planning Manager
EXHIBIT B
588
Context N
EXHIBIT B
589
Site
EXHIBIT B
590
Site and Context
Looking west from Bear Creek Drive
Looking north from Altamont Creek Park
Looking east from Vasco Road
EXHIBIT B
591
ALOSC Funding Criteria
Settlement Agreement Priorities for Open Space Acquisitions:
1. The first priority is for the preservation of native biological diversity and/or wildlife habitat.
2. The second priority is for land with significant value for visual character and/or non-motorized recreation.
EXHIBIT B
592
SW
N
-
ALOSC Funding Criteria
Project Site
EXHIBIT B
593
SW
N
-
ALOSC Funding Criteria
0.004 acres
of wetlands
EXHIBIT B
594
ALOSC Funding Criteria
EXHIBIT B
595
ALOSC Funding Criteria
Settlement Agreement Priorities for Open Space Acquisitions:
1. The first priority is for the preservation of native biological diversity and/or wildlife habitat.
2. The second priority is for land with significant value for visual character and/or nonmotorized recreation.
Additional Criteria Adopted by the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee:
3. Strategic Value in Land Protection
4. Additional Funding Sources
5. Willing Sellers
EXHIBIT B
596
Not A Willing Seller
Summary of the recent City correspondence to owner
• February 2, 2024: City offer letter at open space value ($868,480) sent to owners. • February 5: Owners reply declining the offer.
• February 8: City letter asking owner if interested in negotiating acquisition at fair market value.
• February 13: Owners reply they are not willing to discuss selling the property to any entity other than Lafferty Communities because of their existing contract and legal obligation.
• February 29: Second City offer letter at open space value ($1,736,960) sent to owners. Offer was doubled consistent with direction from ALOSC at the Feb. 16 meeting.
• March 1: Owners reply declining the offer and asking City to not send them any more offers to buy the property.
EXHIBIT B
597
Project Costs
Itemized Expenses (Estimated)
Proposed Purchase Price $1,736,960 ($54,280/acre)
Transaction Costs $35,000
Total Project Cost $1,771,960
Funding from ALOSC $850,000
Funding from Dougherty Valley Settlement
Agreement Fund
$921,960
EXHIBIT B
598
Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee
18 Greenville Road & Cross Property Acquisitions
March 15, 2024
Kam Purewal – Associate Planner
EXHIBIT B
599
Proposed Acquisition Properties
EXHIBIT B
600
Site and Context
N
-
EXHIBIT B
601
Site and Context
32-acres
*not exact property lines
EXHIBIT B
602
Stock Photo
Stock Photo
Stock Photo
CA Red-Legged Frog CA Tiger Salamander
ALOSC Funding Criteria
Biodiversity
EXHIBIT B
603
ALOSC - Prioritization Mapping Tool
Subject Property -“Cross Property”
ALOSC Funding Criteria
Recreation
EXHIBIT B
604
ACRCD & UC Davis Road Ecology Center -
Wildlife Presence Final Research Report
• Presented to ALOSC 1/19/2024
ALOSC Funding Criteria
Critical Linkage
EXHIBIT B
605
Project Costs
Cross Property
18 Greenville Road
EXHIBIT B
606
ALOSC Request
Stock Photo
EXHIBIT B
607
Funding Request
ALOSC Funding Criteria:
• Willing Seller
• Additional Funding
• Native Biodiversity Value
• Visual/ Non-motorized Recreation Value
• Strategic Land Protection Value
√
√
√ √
√
EXHIBIT B
608
Funding Request
ALOSC Request:
• Correspond with potential land stewards
ALOSC Funding Criteria:
• Willing Seller
• Additional Funding
• Native Biodiversity Value
• Visual/ Non-motorized Recreation Value
• Strategic Land Protection Value
√
√
√ √
√
√
EXHIBIT B
609
Funding Request
ALOSC Request:
• Correspond with potential land stewards
The City of Livermore requests the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee expend a total of $2,260,000 to assist the City with the following acquisitions for conservation and open space purposes:
• $520,000 for the “Cross Property”
• $1,740,000 for 18 Greenville Road
ALOSC Funding Criteria:
• Willing Seller
• Additional Funding
• Native Biodiversity Value
• Visual/ Non-motorized Recreation Value
• Strategic Land Protection Value
√
√
√ √
√
√
EXHIBIT B
610
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS REGARDING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT
(SCH NO. 2011112045)
The following Findings, the mitigation measures specified herein, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached hereto are hereby adopted by the Livermore City Council in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), including but not limited to Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Sections 21081, 21081.5, 21081.6, PRC, and 21166, and the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, including but not limited to Sections 15091 through 15093, 15088.5 and Section 15162 for the Garaventa Hills Project (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB13-001) and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 13- 005).
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Subdivision). The Vesting Tentative Tract Map will subdivide the site into 47 individual parcels, including 38 detached single-family residential lots, 6 attached single-family residential lots, and 3 homeowners association (HOA) parcels that include an open space buffer around the perimeter of the site, a storm water detention basin, the two knolls, public trails, and a private road.
Site Plan Design Review. Site Plan Design Review provides for review of the site plan, streetscape, architecture, and landscaping details.
Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2011112045). The Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report, together with the Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report published in August 2024, as well as the prior EIR documents that include the original Draft EIR (November 2012), Final EIR (June 2014), and Re-Issued Final EIR (August 2018) shall constitute the EIR for the proposed Garaventa Hills Project (“Project”).
B. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Per the analysis of environmental impacts in the EIR, the proposed Project would not result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.
C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR THAT ARE REDUCED TO A LEVEL OF “LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT” BY THE MITIGATION
MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT
The following significant impacts have been identified that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated into the Project. The significant impacts identified below are presented in summary form. For a detailed description of the significant impacts and mitigation measures, see the appropriate text in the EIR.
1. Air Quality
Impact Air-1: Construction Period Dust, Emissions and Odors. Construction of the Project would result in temporary emissions of dust, diesel exhaust and odors that may result in both nuisance and health impacts. Without appropriate measures to control these
EXHIBIT C
611
emissions, these impacts would be considered significant.
Mitigation Measure Air-1: Basic Construction Management Practices. The Project shall demonstrate proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits, including implementation of the following BAAQMD “Basic Construction Mitigation Measures”. • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
2. Biological Resources
Impact Bio-1: Loss of Annual Grasslands. The Project will result in the permanent removal of up to 31.78 acres of non-native annual grassland habitat. An additional up to 1.18 acres will be temporarily disturbed for construction of the pedestrian bridge and EVA access road over Altamont Creek. Non-native annual grasslands are common throughout the region and removal of this plant community is not considered a significant impact unless special status species are known to use the habitat. Because the site has the potential to support several special status species, this impact would be considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures Bio-3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b, and 5c would reduce this impact to less than significant levels through mitigation specific to the special status species that the site could support.
Impact Bio-2: Loss of Designated Critical Habitat for Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp. The Project will result in the permanent loss of up to 31.78 acres of grassland that is included within designated VPFS critical habitat. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-2: Construction-Period Protection of Offsite Wetlands and Vernal Pools. The applicant shall implement the following measures to minimize the potential impact to off-site wetlands and vernal pools resulting from construction activities on the Project site.
EXHIBIT C
612
a) Stormwater Best Management Practices shall be implemented during construction activities to avoid the potential for sediments and other pollutants to enter the offsite wetland areas.
b) Install fencing and signage identifying the limits of the wetlands and providing a physical barrier to keep construction equipment and personnel out of the sensitive habitat areas.
c) Schedule grading in close proximity to offsite vernal pools during the non-rainy season in order to minimize potential for sedimentation of the pools. d) Stabilize the natural vegetated buffer between the grading area and the offsite wetlands during the early phases of construction so that it serves as a protective barrier for the wetlands. Stabilization can be accomplished through establishment of vegetation and/or temporary Best Management Practices to prevent erosion and sedimentation from occurring, such as erosion control mats, silt fences, fiber rolls, and/or soil binders.
Mitigation Measure Geo-5, which requires implementation of a construction-period stormwater pollution prevention plan including Best Management Practices for preventing construction-period stormwater pollution through soil stabilization, sediment control, wind erosion control, soil tracking control, non-storm water management, and waste management and materials pollution control, would also help to mitigate Impact Bio-2.
Impact Bio-3: Potential Take of Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp. The Project will result in the permanent loss of approximately 0.004 acre of seasonal wetland that could be occupied by VPFS. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-3a: Conduct surveys to determine presence/absence of VPFS.
Complete surveys following protocol deemed acceptable by the USFWS to determine presence/absence of VPFS in the seasonal wetland on the Project site prior to initiation of construction. The presence of VPFS can be assumed instead of implementing the surveys required by this measure. If no VPFS are found, no further mitigation is required. If VPFS are found or assumed to be present, implement Mitigation Measures 3b and 3c.
Mitigation Measure Bio-3b: Obtain Authorization from USFWS for take of VPFS. If VPFS are found as a result of directed surveys or are assumed to be present, the Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS for take of VPFS prior to filling or disturbance of the seasonal wetland. USFWS authorization may be obtained through Section 7 of the ESA as a component of the USACE permitting process (see wetland impacts below).
Mitigation Measure Bio-3c: Obtain offsite compensatory habitat for loss of VPFS habitat if determined to be present. If VPFS are found as a result of directed surveys or are assumed to be present, compensatory habitat shall be provided for loss of this habitat at a 9:1, 10:1 or 11:1 mitigation ratio depending on the location of the mitigation site, as recommended in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS).
Final replacement ratios shall be based on the assessed functions and values of an agency approved mitigation site.
Impact Bio-4: The Project will result in the permanent loss of up to 31.78 acres and temporary disturbance of up to 0.08 acre of potential upland aestivation habitat for CTS. In addition, loss of the 0.004-acre seasonal wetland could result in loss of onsite breeding habitat for CTS. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-4a: Obtain Authorization from USFWS and CDFG for potential take of CTS. The Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS and CDFW for
EXHIBIT C
613
potential take of CTS prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities.
Mitigation Measure Bio-4b: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of Potential Upland Aestivation Habitat for CTS. The compensatory habitat shall be provided at a 2.5:1 to 3:1 ratio for acres permanently lost and at a 1.5:1 ratio for areas temporarily disturbed, as recommended in the EACCS. Final replacement ratios shall be based on the assessed functions and values of an agency approved mitigation site. The mitigation site should be of sufficient quality and quantity to fully offset the permanent loss of habitat and should be permanently protected and managed in perpetuity with sufficient funding to maintain and enhance the quality of the site for CTS.
Mitigation Measure Bio-4c: Implement Appropriate Measures during Construction to Minimize Potential Take of CTS. Minimization measures specified in the authorizations obtained from USFWS and CDFW shall be implemented prior to and during construction: Such measures could include the following:
• Project applicant shall contract with a Designated Biologist approved by USFWS and CDFW to monitor construction activities.
• All earthwork in the construction area shall be confined to the period of June 15 to October 31, or as approved by USFWS and CDFW.
• A barrier with one-way ramps shall be constructed around the limits of grading in the fall prior to the initiation of construction. This barrier will allow CTS to move out of the construction area during the fall/winter and keep them from returning in the spring.
• Before any construction activities begin, the Designated Biologist will conduct a training session with construction personnel to describe the CTS and its habitat, the specific measures being implemented to minimize effect to the species, and boundaries of the construction area.
• The Designated Biologist shall complete walking surveys of the construction area prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities each day during the construction period. If any CTS are discovered, the Designated Biologist shall move the animal to a safe, nearby location as predetermined through consultation with USFWS and CDFW.
Impact Bio-5: Loss of Habitat for and Potential Take of Individual California Red-Legged Frogs. The Project will result in the permanent loss of up to 31.78 acres and temporary disturbance of up to 0.08 acre of potential upland habitat for CRLF. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-5a: Obtain Authorization from USFWS for Potential Take of CRLF. The Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS for potential take of CRLF prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities.
Mitigation Measure Bio-5b: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of Potential Upland Habitat for CRLF. The compensatory habitat shall be provided at a
2.5:1 to 3:1 ratio for the acres permanently lost and at a 1.5:1 ratio for areas temporarily disturbed, consistent with the EACCS recommendations for the species. Final replacement ratios shall be based on the assessed functions and values of an agency approved mitigation site. The mitigation site can be the same as that obtained for Mitigation Measure Bio 4b, as long as there is sufficient area to provide habitat for both CRLF and CTS.
Mitigation Measure Bio-5c: Implement Appropriate Measures during Construction to Minimize Potential Take of CRLF. Minimization measures specified in the authorizations
EXHIBIT C
614
obtained from USFWS shall be implemented prior to and during construction. Such measures are expected to be similar to those described for Mitigation Measure 4c.
Impact Bio-6: Loss of burrowing owl habitat and potential harm to individual burrowing owls. The Project will result in the permanent loss of up to 31.78 acres of grasslands that provide habitat for the burrowing owl. Additionally, individual owls could be harmed during construction activities if they are occupying burrows on the site. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-6a: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of potential burrowing owl habitat. The compensatory habitat to be obtained as described for Mitigation Measures Bio-4b and 5b should also be determined as occupied or suitable for burrowing owls in order to compensate for potential habitat loss resulting from the Project.
Mitigation Measure Bio-6b: Conduct a Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to initiation of any ground-disturbing activities to ensure individual owls are not harmed. If the survey occurs during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31) and owls are observed on or within 250 feet of the area of disturbance, a 250-foot buffer should be established around the occupied burrow with construction fencing. The fenced area should remain in place for the duration of the breeding season while construction activities are occurring. If the survey is conducted outside of the breeding season and owls are observed, owl eviction may be allowed if authorized by CDFG.
Impact Bio-7: Loss of Potential Habitat and Potential Harm to Individual American Badgers. The Project will result in the permanent loss of up to 31.78 acres of grassland that could provide suitable habitat for American badger. American badgers are a State Species of Special Concern and are typically found in grasslands where there is sufficient food (burrowing rodents), friable soils, and relatively open, uncultivated ground.
Badgers have large home ranges, typically from about 395 to 2,100 acres, and are generally solitary aside from temporary family groups, transient mating bonds, and overlapping home ranges. No badgers or signs of badger use have been observed on the Project site. Although not observed on the Project site, there is potential for American badgers to use burrows on the property. Project construction activities could also harm individual badgers if they occupy the site when grading begins. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-7a: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of Potential American Badger Habitat. The compensatory habitat to be obtained as described for Mitigation Measures Bio-4b and 5b will also be determined as occupied or suitable for American badger to compensate for potential habitat loss resulting from the Project.
Mitigation Measure Bio-7b: Conduct a Pre-Construction American Badger Survey. A pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any Project activity likely to impact potential burrows. If occupied burrows are found, one of the following actions shall be implemented by the applicant:
1. Initiate an on-site passive relocation program, through which badgers are excluded from occupied burrows by installation of a one-way door in burrow entrances, monitoring of the burrow for one week to confirm badger usage has
EXHIBIT C
615
been discontinued, and hand excavation and collapse of the burrow to prevent reoccupation; or
2. Have a qualified biologist actively trap and relocate badgers to suitable off-site habitat in coordination with the CDFW.
Impact Bio-8: Loss of potential foraging habitat and potential harm to individual San Joaquin Kit Fox: The Project will result in the permanent loss of up to 31.78 acres of grassland within the historical range of SJKF. Additionally, there is a slight potential for kit fox to forage or den on the site. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-8a: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of potential SJKF habitat. The compensatory habitat to be obtained as described for Mitigation Measures Bio-4b and 5b should also be determined as occupied or suitable for SJKF in order to compensate for potential habitat loss resulting from the Project.
Mitigation Measure Bio-8b: Conduct pre-construction surveys for San Joaquin kit fox:
The pre-construction survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any Project activity likely to impact the San Joaquin kit fox. • If potential dens are present, their disturbance and destruction will be avoided. • If potential dens are located within the proposed work area and cannot be avoided during construction, qualified biologist will determine if the dens are occupied or were recently occupied using methodology coordinated with the USFWS and CDFW.
• If unoccupied, the qualified biologist will collapse these dens by hand in accordance with USFWS procedures (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). • Exclusion zones will be implemented following USFWS procedures (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999) or the latest USFWS procedures available at the time. The radius of these zones will follow current standards or will be as follows: Potential Den—50 feet; Known Den—100 feet; Natal or Pupping Den—to be determined on a case‐by‐case basis in coordination with USFWS and CDFGW. • Pipes will be capped, and trenches will contain exit ramps to avoid direct mortality while construction area is active.
Impact Bio-9: Loss of Potential Habitat for and Potential Harm to Proposed Threatened Species Western Spadefoot Toad and Western Pond Turtle.
The Project will result in the permanent loss of 0.004 acre of potential breeding habitat for western spadefoot toad. Additionally, there is a slight potential for individual western spadefoot toads or western pond turtles to be harmed during construction activities. The City’s commissioned expert biologist has independently confirmed in a memorandum included on pages RP6-9 and RP6-10 of the Recirculated Partial Final EIR that there are no new listings in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) regarding endangered species. The biologist’s memorandum confirms that a modest revision to Mitigation Measure Bio-9 can address any impacts on these now “proposed threatened” species whose listing status has changed since the Re-Issued Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure Bio-9: Conduct pre-construction surveys for western spadefoot toad and western pond turtle. Surveys for western spadefoot toad and western pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist a maximum of one week prior to construction. The survey should include the potential breeding habitat of both species and an area within 50 feet of that habitat. If a western spadefoot toad or a western pond turtle is found, the biologist shall move it to suitable habitat in a safe location outside of
EXHIBIT C
616
the construction zone. In the event that a western spadefoot toad or western pond turtle is observed within an active construction zone, the contractor shall temporarily halt construction activities until a biologist has moved the toad or turtle to a safe location outside the construction zone, within similar habitat. In the event the western spadefoot toad and/or western pond turtle are officially listed by the USFWS the Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS for potential take of these species and implement all measures specified in the authorizations obtained from USFWS. Such measures are expected to be similar to those described for Mitigation Measure Bio-4c.
Impact Bio-10: Disturbance of Nesting Birds. Construction activities could adversely affect nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or Fish and Game Code of California. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-10: Conduct a Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Preconstruction surveys for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game Code of California shall be conducted within 30 days of initiation of construction activities. The survey area shall include the Project site and areas within 100 feet of the site. If active nests are found, the Project shall follow recommendations of a qualified biologist regarding the appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity. The buffer shall be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. If there is a complete stoppage in construction activities for 30 days or more, a new nesting-survey shall be completed prior to re-initiation of construction activities.
Impact Bio-11:Fill of Jurisdictional Wetlands: The proposed activity will permanently impact approximately 0.004 acre of seasonal wetland habitat. This area is jurisdictional waters/wetlands. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio11a: Obtain authorization from USACE, CDFG and RWQCB for fill of wetlands and alteration of Altamont Creek. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the USACE, CDFG and RWQCB pursuant to §404 of the Clean Water Act, §1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, and §401 of the Clean Water Act, respectively.
Mitigation Measure Bio-11c: Re-creation of 0.004 Acre of Seasonal Wetland. The applicant shall create a minimum of 0.004 acre of seasonal wetland habitat either onsite or offsite to replace the area lost through Project construction. Creation of this habitat shall be done in consultation with USFWS if the existing seasonal wetland is found to support VPFS (see Mitigation Measure Bio-4c).
3. Cultural Resources
Impact Culture-1: Disturbance of Unidentified Archaeological Resources, Paleontological Resources, Tribal Resources, or Human Remains. During earth-moving activities at the Project site, it is possible that unidentified archaeological resources, paleontological resources, tribal resources, or human remains could be uncovered and disturbed. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Culture-1a: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In the event that previously unidentified archaeological or tribal resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and/or Native American specialist, and specific mitigation measures can be implemented to protect these resources in accordance with
EXHIBIT C
617
sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code.
Mitigation Measure Culture-1b: Prepare Mitigation Plan, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. Because of the high potential for unique paleontological resources within the Project area, a qualified professional Paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Mitigation Plan outlining a paleontological monitoring plan and a salvage plan to be implemented during construction excavation and other ground-disturbing activities for the Project. The Paleontological Mitigation Plan should include the following: in the event that previously unidentified paleontological resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified Paleontologist, and specific mitigation measures can be implemented to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code.
Mitigation Measure Culture-1c: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, and appropriate action taken in coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with section of the California Health and Safety Code or, if the remains are Native American, section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code.
4. Geology and Soils
Impact Geo-2: Seismic Hazards. The Project is located in a seismically active region and likely to be subject to strong seismic shaking during the life of the improvements.
The potential for liquefaction is considered to be low, though densification and lateral spreading is possible. The impact related to seismic hazards would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure Geo-2: Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper slope and foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer. The structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code.
Impact Geo-3: Unstable Soils and Slope Stability. The topography and soils at the Project site represent a concern for unstable soils and landslides if not properly mitigated. The impact related to unstable soils and landslides would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure Geo-2 would also serve to mitigate Impact Geo-3 through requiring compliance with a design-level geotechnical investigation and recommendations.
Impact Geo-4: Expansive Soils. The Project proposes deep fill in some locations that could result in swell/settlement if not properly mitigated. The impact related to expansive soils would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure Geo-2 would also serve to mitigate Impact Geo-4 through requiring compliance with a design-level geotechnical investigation and recommendations.
EXHIBIT C
618
Impact Geo-5: Construction-Period Soil Erosion. Grading and construction activities will expose soil to the elements, which would be subject to erosion during storm events. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Geo-5: Construction-Period Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The Project applicant shall prepare and implement a SWPPP for the proposed construction period. The SWPPP and Notice of Intent (NOI) must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board to receive a Construction General Permit.
The plan shall address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, include applicable monitoring, sampling and reporting, and be designed to protect water quality during construction. The Project SWPPP shall include “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) as required by the State and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for preventing stormwater pollution through soil stabilization, sediment control, wind erosion control, soil tracking control, non-storm water management, and waste management and materials pollution control.
The SWPPP shall take into account the following considerations recommended by the preliminary geotechnical report:
• Ponding of stormwater, other than within engineered detention basins, should not be permitted at the site, particularly during work stoppage for rainy weather.
Before the grading is halted by rain, positive slopes should be provided to carry surface runoff to storm drainage structures in a controlled manner to prevent erosion damage.
• The tops of fill or cut slopes should be graded in such a way as to prevent water from flowing freely down the slopes. Due to the nature of the site soil and bedrock, graded slopes may experience severe erosion when grading is halted by heavy rain. Therefore, before work is stopped, a positive gradient away from the tops of slopes should be provided to carry the surface runoff away from the slopes to areas where erosion can be controlled. It is vital that no completed slope be left standing through a winter season without erosion control measures having been provided.
• Because the existing bedrock is relatively nutrient poor, it may be difficult for vegetation to become properly established, resulting in a potential for slope erosion. Revegetation of graded slopes can be aided by retaining the organicrich strippings and spreading these materials in a thin layer (approximately 6 inches thick) on the graded slopes prior to the winter rains and following rough grading. When utilizing this method, it is sometimes possible to minimize hydroseeding.
5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1: Increased GHG Emissions. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would be additional sources of GHG emissions, primarily through consumption of fuel for transportation and energy usage on an ongoing basis. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Increased Energy Efficiency. The Project shall demonstrate proposed energy efficiency at least 16% greater than Title 24 requirements prior to issuance of building permits.
Impact GHG-2: Compliance with Livermore Climate Change Element. The Project plans are not detailed enough at this stage to determine consistency with best management practices included in the Climate Change Element of the Livermore General Plan. This is a potentially significant impact.
EXHIBIT C
619
Mitigation Measure GHG-2: GHG Emissions Reduction Best Management Practices (BMPs). The Project shall demonstrate proposed compliance with City of Livermore General Plan Climate Change Element BMPs prior to issuance of building permits, including the following. If the City’s Climate Action Plan is approved prior to issuance of permits, requirements of the Climate Action Plan can be substituted for the BMPs below. • Climate BMP No. 1 – Energy-efficient buildings in compliance with the Livermore Green Building Ordinance.
• Climate BMP No. 2 – Use of energy-efficient appliances that meet Energy Star standards.
• Climate BMP No. 3 – Incorporate solar roofs into commercial development.
Residential development to be “solar-ready” including proper solar orientation (south facing roof area sloped at 20° to 55° from the horizontal), clear access on the south sloped roof (no chimneys, heating vents, plumbing vents, etc.), electrical conduit installed for solar electric system wiring, plumbing installed for solar hot water system, and space provided for a solar hot water storage tank. • Climate BMP No. 4 – Incorporate transit and bicycle/pedestrian connections into development.
• Climate BMP No. 5 – has been omitted as it applies only to Commercial/Industrial projects.
• Climate BMP No. 6 – has been omitted as it applies to parking lots and structures.
• Climate BMP No. 7 – In compliance with the Construction and Demolition Ordinance, recycle construction materials and divert construction waste from disposal as feasible.
• Climate BMP No. 8 – Include recycling facilities to provide for commercial and/or community recycling of plastic, paper, green waste, and food waste. • Climate BMP No. 9 –Incorporate “heat island” treatments including cool roofs, cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees.
• Climate BMP No. 10 –Use landscaping that meets the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact Haz-2: Oil Seepage Possibility. Because there are oil seepage issues on a nearby site, it is possible, though unlikely, that near-surface oil could exist on the Project site. The possibility of future oil seepage from near-surface oil is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Haz-2: Confirm Absence of Near Surface Oil or Implement Over excavation. The absence of naturally occurring oil should be confirmed during grading of the site. If oil is encountered during grading, the following over excavation shall be implemented:
• The area where naturally occurring near surface oil is encountered shall be over excavated a minimum of 10 feet below proposed finish grade and replaced with engineered fill. This will provide a low permeable fill cap to prevent the upward migration of oil.
• Where proposed storm drains lines cross areas where naturally occurring near surface oil is encountered, the area shall be over excavated a minimum of 5 feet beyond the outside diameter of the proposed storm drain line. The excavation should be backfilled with engineered fill and the storm drain line trenched through the fill. The storm drain trench within the previously over excavated and backfilled area should be lined with 20 mil visqueen prior to placement of shading and the storm drain line
EXHIBIT C
620
7. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact Hydro-1: Construction-Period Erosion and Siltation. Construction of the proposed Project would involve grading activities that would disturb soils at the site. Such disturbance would present a threat of soil erosion by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to runoff during construction, which could result in siltation to receiving waters.
This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Geo-5, which requires implementation of a construction-period stormwater pollution prevention plan including Best Management Practices for preventing construction-period stormwater pollution through soil stabilization, sediment control, wind erosion control, soil tracking control, non-storm water management, and waste management and materials pollution control, would also mitigate Impact Hydro-1.
8. Traffic/Transportation
Impact Traf-5: Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses. The proposed Project includes installation of new internal roadways, trail access to open space areas, provision of a pedestrian and EVA bridge and a new vehicle access points from an existing street, and a roadway crossing of the Altamont Creek Trail that could result in hazards if the details are not properly designed. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Traf-5: Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses. The Project’s on-site transportation elements, such as sight distances, driveway locations, and marked crosswalk locations, have been reviewed by the Livermore staff with design-level project approvals and meet applicable local regulations. The following design details are recommended, though final details will be determined through consultation with Livermore staff, taking into consideration constraints of the site:
a) The stem of each intersection should be stop-controlled or contain other intersection controls.
b) Livermore thoroughfare standards should be followed, which could involve narrowed vehicle lanes, widened sidewalks, reduced corner radii, and installation of corner bulb-outs. Narrower vehicle travel lanes and tighter corner radii with bulb-outs are associated with lower vehicle travel speeds, increased visibility between pedestrians and motorists, and reduce pedestrian roadway exposure. c) All mid-block trail crossings should be marked with warning signs and a highvisibility crosswalk and include bulb-outs and lighting to enhance pedestrian visibility.
d) According to Livermore’s Municipal Code 3-15-050, driveways should be located more than 20 feet from the corners.
Impact Traf-6: Emergency Access. The proposed Project includes a new internal roadway system that connects with existing roadways that could result in inadequate emergency access if the details are not properly designed. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Traf-6: Emergency Access. The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department has reviewed the 2018 Revised Project. Conditions of approval for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map include additional design features and measures necessary for emergency response.
Impact Traf-7: Construction. Construction-related impacts generally would not be considered significant due to their temporary and limited duration. However, depending on the construction phasing and truck activity, this is a potentially significant impact.
EXHIBIT C
621
Mitigation Measure Traf-7: City Review of Construction Plan. It is expected that the construction plan will be reviewed by the City of Livermore and designed to meet applicable regulations.
Impact Traf-10: Laughlin Road & Northfront Road Intersection. The addition of Project trips would have a cumulatively considerable impact on the delay at an intersection already projected to operate below acceptable levels (an increase of 8.9 seconds of average delay during the PM peak hour under Cumulative Plus Project conditions). This is a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Traf-10: Laughlin Road & Northfront Road Intersection Improvements. The Project shall contribute a fair share amount to improvements at this intersection, as determined by the City of Livermore Community Development Department. The improvements shall consist of either A) or B) below, again as determined in coordination with the City of Livermore Community Development Department:
a) Roundabout. Install a roundabout with yield-control at all three intersection legs.
The current vehicle lane configuration would remain, but right-of-way may need to be expanded to accommodate traffic movements through the intersection.
Or
b) Signal Control. Signalize the intersection. The current vehicle lane configuration would need to be altered from the existing one lane in each direction to include a left-turn pocket in the eastbound direction and a right-turn pocket in the westbound direction. Right-of-way may need to be expanded to accommodate the turn-pocket lanes at the intersection.
D. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR
The Final EIR identifies the following less than significant impacts. The less than significant impacts identified below are presented in summary form. For a detailed description of the less than significant impacts, see the appropriate text in the EIR.
The analysis in this EIR identifies the following environmental effects to be less than significant.
1. Aesthetics
2. Agricultural, Forest and Mineral Resources
3. Cultural Resources
4. Land Use and Planning
5. Noise
6. Population, Public Services and Recreation
7. Utilities/Service Systems
E. OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENTS
1. Growth-Inducing Impacts
There are two types of growth-inducing impacts that a project may have: direct and indirect. To assess the potential for growth-inducing impacts, the project’s characteristics that may encourage and facilitate activities that individually or cumulatively may affect the environment must be evaluated (CEQA Guidelines Section
EXHIBIT C
622
15126.2(d)).
Direct growth-inducing impacts occur when the development of a project imposes new burdens on a community by directly inducing population growth, or by leading to the construction of additional developments in the same area. Also included in this category are projects that remove physical obstacles to population growth (such as a new road into an undeveloped area or a wastewater treatment plant with excess capacity that could allow additional development in the service area). Construction of these types of infrastructure projects cannot be considered isolated from the development they facilitate and serve. Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth, or projects that indirectly induce growth may provide a catalyst for future unrelated development in an area such as a new residential community that requires additional commercial uses to support residents.
The Garaventa Hills Project would develop 44 dwelling units. Using the City of Livermore’s 2013 persons per housing rate of 2.81 (as reported by the California Department of Finance), the Garaventa Hills project would add 123 persons. The City of Livermore’s 2013 population was reported to be 83,325 by the California Department of Finance; thus, the addition of 123 persons would represent an increase of 0.15 percent.
This amount of population growth is considered negligible; therefore, direct population growth would be less than significant. Additionally, the project sites are currently served by urban infrastructure and utilities; thus, development of the proposed projects would not remove a physical barrier to growth. No impacts would occur.
2. Cumulative Impacts
CEQA defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects, which, when considered together, are considerable, or which can compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential environmental impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively significant. These impacts can result from the proposed project alone, or together with other projects. The CEQA Guidelines state: “The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.” Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
The proposed projects’ cumulative impacts were considered in conjunction with other proposed and approved projects in the Livermore area. Based on the analyses in the Draft EIR, the proposed project will not result in cumulatively significant impacts, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, in the following areas: air quality/greenhouse gas emissions; biological resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; noise; and utility systems.
F. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
When making findings, the lead agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the mitigation measures it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Report program for the Project included as Exhibit A to these findings. The mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to reduce significant impacts and adopted and incorporated into the Project will be monitored pursuant to this monitoring program.
EXHIBIT C
623
G. ALTERNATIVES
The EIR includes two alternatives to the original proposal: Alternative A: No Project, No Development Alternative; and Alternative B: Reduced Density, Current General Plan Allowance Alternative. Alternative A assumes no development of the site.
Alternative B assumes development of the site consistent with the current General Plan designation of Urban Low Density (UL-1) at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre. After considering public comments on the Draft EIR and the statements given by neighboring homeowners at a number of Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the applicant chose to proceed with developing the site generally consistent with the Alternative B.
In March 2022, the Court of Appeal of the State of California ruled that the EIR was inadequate because it failed to include sufficient information regarding the potential availability of funding for open space acquisition and preservation of the Project site in the no project alternative analysis. Consistent with the Court of Appeal’s decision, the No Project, No Development Alternative includes discussion of the potential for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space.
Project Objectives. The objectives for the proposed project include:
1. Complete implementation of current Planned Development zoning designation that reflects the Project site’s inclusion in the Planned Unit Development Permit (PUD 115-A) for the Maralisa development, which indicated development with a maximum of 76 single-family homes.
2. Contribute to housing availability to accommodate Livermore’s growing population and to help satisfy Livermore’s share of regional housing needs.
3. Provide housing near Livermore and Tri-Valley employment centers within the existing City Boundary and North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary.
4. Provide a high-quality residential neighborhood that is compatible and integrated with existing nearby residential, park, school and open space uses.
5. Provide adequate access to the site for safety purposes while minimizing environmental impacts and satisfying natural resource and flood control regulatory agencies.
6. Provide buffers as a separation and natural transition from adjacent open space and habitat to urban development.
7. Conserve the two prominent knolls as visual resources for the community.
8. Retain public access to trails around the knolls as a public amenity for hiking and vista views.
Alternatives. The following alternatives to the proposed project are considered in the EIR:
Alternative A: No Project, No Development Alternative. Alternative A is a “no project” alternative. It assumes the proposed Project is not approved and the site would remain in an undeveloped state, with no development of roadways or residences. This alternative includes discussion of the potential for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space.
Alternative B: Reduced Density, Current General Plan Allowance Alternative.
Alternative B assumes the Project site is developed consistent with the current “UL-1” (Urban Low Residential 1-1.5 dwelling units per acres) General Plan designation. Given this current General Plan designation, the Project site could be developed with another residential project, which could result in the same or greater impacts than the proposed
EXHIBIT C
624
project. Specifically, this alternative assumes 47 residential units would be constructed on the 31.7-acre site (at approximately 1.5 units per acre). This is 62% of the units proposed under the Project. A residential development at these lower densities would likely be comprised of larger lots covering a similar area as under the Project.
Conclusion on Alternatives
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified under the proposed Project. All Project impacts are either less than significant or can be reduced to those levels through implementation of the mitigation contained in the EIR. Because of the low impact of the proposed Project, differences between it and the Alternatives are marginal and limited to reductions in already less than significant impacts.
The EIR identifies the No Project, No Development Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative since it proposes no changes to the site. The EIR further provides, however, on the basis of substantial evidence that the No Project, No Development Alternative is not a feasible alternative, as follows:
The property owner is not a willing seller. Without a willing seller, the Project site has been determined not to be eligible for funding through the Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund or the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement funds.
Use of eminent domain to acquire the property from an unwilling seller, if it could be defended legally, would be costly (over $17-25 million) and contrary to the City’s past practice. There are other funding sources available for an eminent domain approach, including the Open Space Acquisition and Management Fund, Transferable Development Credits Fund, and/or General Fund allocation (if authorized by voters through ballot initiatives/bond measures); however, these funds are either not eligible to be used for the Project site or are prioritized elsewhere.
Additionally, the Project site has a long-established residential designation and is identified in the current Livermore General Plan Housing Element site inventory as a site for residential development. Under the No Net Loss provisions of state housing laws, additional process would be required to remove the Project site from the Housing Element’s residential development site inventory, which could add additional cost to the acquisition of the site for open space preservation.
Alternative A: No Project, No Development represents the possibility that the Project site would be preserved as open space. As discussed above, the potential funding sources for such open space acquisition and preservation have been explored and it has been concluded that the site is either ineligible for use of those funds due to an unwilling seller or would require legally-complicated and costprohibitive fair market value eminent domain proceedings and use of funds prioritized elsewhere.
The analysis and evidence cited above can support a conclusion by the lead agency that Alternative A: No Project, No Development involving site acquisition and preservation as open space is not a “feasible” alternative the lead agency is compelled to adopt. The lead agency will take this evidence and analysis into account when making the findings required by CEQA regarding the feasibility of Alternative A: No Project, No Development.
Further, this alternative would not advance any project objectives, including the
EXHIBIT C
625
contribution of homes to accommodate Livermore’s growing population and regional housing needs, and to provide housing near Tri-Valley employment centers within the existing City Boundary and North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary.
The CEQA Guidelines also require that “if the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives.
The Reduced Density, Current General Plan Density Alternative is the next most environmentally superior alternative with the lower density contributing to reduced impacts related to both the construction period and operational period. Alternative B would result in marginal reductions in already less than significant impacts, requiring mostly the same mitigation. The Reduced Density, Current General Plan Allowance Alternative meets all of the Project Objectives.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the City Council sees no reason to turn down the project as proposed, as it is consistent with the General Plan and consistent with stated project objectives. The No Project Alternative does not meet the objectives of the proposed project.
H. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth above, there are no significant adverse environmental impacts which are identified in the EIR. Therefore, a statement of overriding considerations is not required for approval of the proposed project.
I. RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
No new significant information was added and no substantial changes to the EIR were proposed as a result of the public comment process. The Re-Issued Final EIR addresses the Court of Appeal’s decision to include the discussion of the potential for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space under the No Project, No Development Alternative. Recirculation of an EIR to address a limited issue is not grounds to revisit issues laid to rest in prior analysis upheld by the Court. The minor changes, clarifications, and additions to the EIR do not identify any new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts.
On September 26, 2022, the Superior Court ordered the certification of the EIR and the Project’s approval be set aside. The order directed the City, should it choose to consider the project again, to “first prepare an EIR with ‘relevant’ information in the ‘no-project alternative evaluation regarding the feasibility of acquiring Garaventa Hills to conserve it as open space.’”1 The Superior Court upheld the EIR against all other claims, and issued a writ providing for ongoing jurisdiction subject to Public Resources Code section 21168.9(c).2
When a court issues a writ of mandate directing that an EIR be supplemented or corrected, this “does not mean the Agency is required to start the EIR process anew.” Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1 Id. 2 Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Case No. RG19020186, Judgment, (Sept. 26, 2022), at 1; Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Case No. RG19020186, Peremptory Writ of Mandate, (Sept. 26, 2022), at 2.
EXHIBIT C
626
1099, 1112; see also Lotus v. Dept. of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 658. “Rather, the Agency need only correct the deficiency in the EIR . . . before considering recertification of the EIR.” Protect the Historic Amador Waterways, 116 Cal.App.4th at 1112. CEQA is designed specifically to avoid “endless rounds of revision and recirculation of EIR[s].” Silverado Modjeska Recreation and Park District v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282, 303 (“Silverado Modjeska”). A writ in a CEQA action directs “the public agency take specific action as may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with [CEQA].” CEQA § 21168.9(a)(3) (emphasis added). The fact that additional environmental assessment is conducted for a limited issue “is not an occasion to revisit environmental concerns laid to rest in the original analysis.” Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 949. This principle applies with full force when an EIR has been de-certified and additional environmental assessment has been required for a specific reason. See, e.g., Silverado Modjeska, 197 Cal.App.4th at 297; see also Ione Valley Land, Air, & Water Def. All., LLC v. County of Amador (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 165, 170 (citing Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 324-27). Further, the CEQA Guidelines expressly authorizes a lead agency to recirculate only selected portions of an EIR rather than open all topical areas for further recirculation. CEQA Guidelines, §§15088.5(c), (f).
The standard for recirculation is whether “significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification.” CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a). “[R]ecirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR ‘merely clarifies or amplifies . . . or makes insignificant modifications in . . . an adequate EIR.” Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (“Laurel Heights”) (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1129–30, as modified on denial of reh'g (Feb. 24, 1994) (citations omitted). “[R]ecirculation is only required when the information added to the EIR changes the EIR 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 project alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly reduce such an effect and that the project's proponents have declined to implement.”3
Consistent with the Court of Appeal’s order, and with the CEQA Guidelines, the RP Draft EIR recirculated for public comment a version of the alternatives analysis which analyzes the issue of the potential for the acquisition and preservation of the Project site as open space. Adding this analysis was the only thing the court held would be necessary to bring the EIR into compliance with CEQA.
No information added shows any new or substantially increased environmental impact.
CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088.5(a)(1), (a)(2). The EIR’s impact conclusions remain unchanged, and the new analysis does not identify mitigation measures that the Project applicant has declined to implement or that result in a new significant environmental impact.
CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088.5(a)(1), (a)(3). Further, the Court of Appeal did not conclude that the previously circulated “draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” CEQA Guidelines, §15088.5(a)(4). To the contrary, the court found only a limited error. No commenter has pointed to any reason that the information that has been added to the EIR trigger the standards in CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 that would require further recirculation.
As such, the lead agency’s determination not to further recirculate other portions of the EIR is supported by substantial evidence and consistent with CEQA. 3 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 6 Cal.4th at 1120.
EXHIBIT C
627
All comments have been shared with the City’s expert staff, including the City’s Planning Director and City Engineer. Staff have reviewed all comments raised and considered whether any issues raised demonstrate the existence of “significant new information” and concluded that none of the comments show such “significant new information.” Specifically, the City Engineer has reviewed all comments related to flooding and hydrocarbons and confirmed that no comments demonstrate any new or increased significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the previously circulated EIR. In addition, going beyond the requirements of CEQA, the City’s commissioned expert biologist has independently confirmed that there are no new listings in the CNDBB regarding endangered species. The biologist’s memorandum confirms that a modest revision to Mitigation Measure Bio-9 can address any impacts on any species whose listing status has changed since the RFEIR. The Council’s determination not to further re-circulate or supplement the EIR is based on this and all other evidence in the record establishing that there is no significant new information.
Comments raising issues or questions with respect to the originally prepared EIR cannot require revisitation of that analysis. See, e.g., Ione Valley, 33 Cal.App.5th at 170. To the extent any of the comments raise issues based on facts arising after the RFEIR, these comments also do not present significant new information that warrants revisiting the prior analyses, either under the “recirculation” standard or, to the extent applicable, the standard for preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21092.1, 21166; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088.5, 15162, 15163. Specifically, there have been no changes to the project. CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(1). The proposed project is the same project previously analyzed. There have been no changes to the environmental setting or circumstances that require “major revisions” to the EIR, because there is no evidence of any “new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(2). Finally, there is no new information “which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified” showing new or more severe project impacts nor newly feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that the applicant has declined to adopt. CEQA Guidelines, §15162(a)(3). Therefore, the lead agency’s decision not to further recirculate, and not to prepare any further supplemental or subsequent EIR review, is supported by substantial evidence and consistent with CEQA.
J. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council base their findings and decisions contained herein.
Documents related to this Project are located in the Livermore Community Development Department, Planning Division, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, CA.
K. SUMMARY
1. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City has made one or more other following findings with respect to each of the significant effects a. C ofhanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, the Project:
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. b. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that agency. c. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, economic or other considerations
EXHIBIT C
628
made infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
2. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, it is determined that all significant effects on the environmental due to the approval of the proposed project have been eliminated or substantially lessened.
EXHIBIT C
629
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 1
LIVERMORE GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures Timing Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility Date/Initials
Air-1: Basic Construction Management Practices. The Project shall demonstrate proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits, including implementation of the following BAAQMD “Basic Construction Mitigation Measures.”
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Prior to issuance of
demolition, building
or grading permits
Applicant /
Developer
Verify requirements
are included in
construction
contracts and are
met during
construction
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Bio-2: Construction-Period Protection of Offsite Wetlands and Vernal Pools. The applicant shall implement the following measures to minimize the potential impact to off-site wetlands and vernal pools resulting from construction activities on the Project site.
a) Stormwater Best Management Practices shall be implemented during construction activities to avoid the potential for sediments and other Prior to issuance of
demolition, building
or grading permits
Applicant /
Developer
Verify requirements
are included in
construction
contracts and are
met during
construction
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
EXHIBIT D
630
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 2
Mitigation Measures Timing Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility Date/Initials
pollutants to enter the offsite wetland areas.
b) Install fencing and signage identifying the limits of the wetlands and providing a physical barrier to keep construction equipment and personnel out of the sensitive habitat areas.
c) Schedule grading in close proximity to offsite vernal pools during the non-rainy season in order to minimize potential for sedimentation of the pools.
d) Stabilize the natural vegetated buffer between the grading area and the offsite wetlands during the early phases of construction so that it serves as a protective barrier for the wetlands. Stabilization can be accomplished through establishment of vegetation and/or temporary Best Management Practices to prevent erosion and sedimentation from occurring, such as erosion control mats, silt fences, fiber rolls, and/or soil binders.
Bio-3a: Conduct surveys to determine presence/absence of VPFS.
Complete surveys following protocol deemed acceptable by the USFWS to determine presence/absence of VPFS in the seasonal wetland on the Project site prior to initiation of construction. The presence of VPFS can be assumed instead of implementing the surveys required by this measure. If no VPFS are found, no further mitigation is required. If VPFS are found or assumed to be present, implement Mitigation Measures 3b and 3c.
Bio-3b: Obtain Authorization from USFWS for take of VPFS. If VPFS are found as a result of directed surveys or are assumed to be present, the Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS for take of VPFS prior to filling or disturbance of the seasonal wetland. USFWS authorization may be obtained through Section 7 of the ESA as a component of the USACE permitting process (see wetland impacts below).
Bio-3c: Obtain offsite compensatory habitat for loss of VPFS habitat if determined to be present. If VPFS are found as a result of directed surveys or are assumed to be present, compensatory habitat shall be provided for loss of this habitat at a 9:1, 10:1 or 11:1 mitigation ratio depending on the location of the mitigation site, as recommended in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS). Final replacement ratios shall be based on the assessed functions and values of an agency approved mitigation site.
Prior to initiation of
site disturbance
Applicant /
Developer
Verify survey was
performed and, if
VPFS present, verify
USFWS
authorization and
compensatory
habitat decided.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
EXHIBIT D
631
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 3
Mitigation Measures Timing Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility Date/Initials
Bio-4a: Obtain Authorization from USFWS and CDFG for potential take of CTS. The Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS and CDFW for potential take of CTS prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities.
Bio-4b: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of Potential Upland Aestivation Habitat for CTS. The compensatory habitat shall be provided at a 2.5:1 to 3:1 ratio for acres permanently lost and at a
1.5:1 ratio for areas temporarily disturbed, as recommended in the EACCS.
Final replacement ratios shall be based on the assessed functions and values of an agency approved mitigation site. The mitigation site should be of sufficient quality and quantity to fully offset the permanent loss of habitat and should be permanently protected and managed in perpetuity with sufficient funding to maintain and enhance the quality of the site for CTS.
Bio-4c: Implement Appropriate Measures during Construction to Minimize Potential Take of CTS. Minimization measures specified in the authorizations obtained from USFWS and CDFW shall be implemented prior to and during construction: Such measures could include the following:
• Project applicant shall contract with a Designated Biologist approved by USFWS and CDFW to monitor construction activities.
• All earthwork in the construction area shall be confined to the period of June 15 to October 31, or as approved by USFWS and CDFW. • A barrier with one-way ramps shall be constructed around the limits of grading in the fall prior to the initiation of construction. This barrier will allow CTS to move out of the construction area during the fall/winter and keep them from returning in the spring.
• Before any construction activities begin, the Designated Biologist will conduct a training session with construction personnel to describe the CTS and its habitat, the specific measures being implemented to minimize effect to the species, and boundaries of the construction area. • The Designated Biologist shall complete walking surveys of the construction area prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities each day during the construction period. If any CTS are discovered, the Designated Biologist shall move the animal to a safe, nearby location as predetermined through consultation with USFWS and CDFW.
Prior to initiation of
site disturbance
Applicant /
Developer
Verify USFWS and
CDFG authorization
and compensatory
habitat decided and
construction
minimization
measures included
in construction
contracts.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
EXHIBIT D
632
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 4
Mitigation Measures Timing Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility Date/Initials
Bio-5a: Obtain Authorization from USFWS for Potential Take of CRLF. The Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS for potential take of CRLF prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities.
Bio-5b: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of Potential Upland Habitat for CRLF. The compensatory habitat shall be provided at a 2.5:1 to 3:1 ratio for the acres permanently lost and at a 1:1 ratio for areas temporarily disturbed, consistent with the EACCS recommendations for the species. Final replacement ratios shall be based on the assessed functions and values of an agency approved mitigation site. The mitigation site can be the same as that obtained for Mitigation Measure Bio 4b, as long as there is sufficient area to provide habitat for both CRLF and CTS.
Bio-5c: Implement Appropriate Measures during Construction to Minimize Potential Take of CRLF. Minimization measures specified in the authorizations obtained from USFWS shall be implemented prior to and during construction. Such measures are expected to be similar to those described for Mitigation Measure 4c.
Prior to initiation of
site disturbance
Applicant /
Developer
Verify USFWS
authorization and
compensatory
habitat decided and
construction
minimization
measures included
in construction
contracts.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Bio-6a: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of potential burrowing owl habitat. The compensatory habitat to be obtained as described for Mitigation Measures Bio-4b and 5b should also be determined as occupied or suitable for burrowing owls in order to compensate for potential habitat loss resulting from the Project.
Bio-6b: Conduct a Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to initiation of any ground-disturbing activities to ensure individual owls are not harmed. If the survey occurs during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31) and owls are observed on or within 250 feet of the area of disturbance, a 250-foot buffer should be established around the occupied burrow with construction fencing. The fenced area should remain in place for the duration of the breeding season while construction activities are occurring. If the survey is conducted outside of the breeding season and owls are observed, owl eviction may be allowed if authorized by CDFW.
Within 30 days prior
to initiation of site
disturbance
Applicant /
Developer
Verify survey was
performed and
verify compensatory
habitat decided and,
if required,
appropriate buffers
are included in
construction
contracts.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
EXHIBIT D
633
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 5
Mitigation Measures Timing Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility Date/Initials
Bio-7a: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of Potential American Badger Habitat. The compensatory habitat to be obtained as described for Mitigation Measures Bio-4b and -5b will also be determined as occupied or suitable for American badger to compensate for potential habitat loss resulting from the Project.
Bio-7b: Conduct a Pre-Construction American Badger Survey. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any Project activity likely to impact potential burrows. If occupied burrows are found, one of the following actions shall be implemented by the applicant:
1. Initiate an on-site passive relocation program, through which badgers are excluded from occupied burrows by installation of a one-way door in burrow entrances, monitoring of the burrow for one week to confirm badger usage has been discontinued, and hand excavation and collapse of the burrow to prevent reoccupation; or
2. Have a qualified biologist actively trap and relocate badgers to suitable off-site habitat in coordination with the CDFW.
14 to 30 days prior
to initiation of site
disturbance
Applicant /
Developer
Verify survey was
performed and
verify compensatory
habitat decided and,
if required,
relocation has
occurred.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Bio-8a: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of potential SJKF habitat. The compensatory habitat to be obtained as described for Mitigation Measures Bio-4b and 5b should also be determined as occupied or suitable for SJKF in order to compensate for potential habitat loss resulting from the Project.
Bio-8b: Conduct pre-construction surveys for San Joaquin kit fox: The preconstruction survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any Project activity likely to impact the San Joaquin kit fox.
• If potential dens are present, their disturbance and destruction will be avoided.
• If potential dens are located within the proposed work area and cannot be avoided during construction, qualified biologist will determine if the dens are occupied or were recently occupied using methodology coordinated with the USFWS and CDFW.
• If unoccupied, the qualified biologist will collapse these dens by hand in accordance with USFWS procedures (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).
14 to 30 days prior
to initiation of site
disturbance
Applicant /
Developer
Verify survey was
performed and
verify compensatory
habitat decided and,
if required, that
avoidance or
exclusion zones are
included in
construction
contracts.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
EXHIBIT D
634
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 6
Mitigation Measures Timing Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility Date/Initials
• Exclusion zones will be implemented following USFWS procedures (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1999) or the latest USFWS procedures available at the time. The radius of these zones will follow current standards or will be as follows: Potential Den—50 feet; Known Den— 100 feet; Natal or Pupping Den—to be determined on a case-by-case basis in coordination with USFWS and CDFW.
• Pipes will be capped and trenches will contain exit ramps to avoid direct mortality while construction area is active.
Bio-9: Conduct pre-construction surveys for western spadefoot toad and western pond turtle. Surveys for western spadefoot toad and western pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist a maximum of one week prior to construction. The survey should include the potential breeding habitat of both species and an area within 50 feet of that habitat.
If a western spadefoot toad or a western pond turtle is found, the biologist shall move it to suitable habitat in a safe location outside of the construction zone. In the event that a western spadefoot toad or western pond turtle is observed within an active construction zone, the contractor shall temporarily halt construction activities until a biologist has moved the toad or turtle to a safe location outside the construction zone, within similar habitat. In the event the western spadefoot toad and/or western pond turtle are officially listed by the USFWS the Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS for potential take of these species and implement all measures specified in the authorizations obtained from USFWS. Such measures are expected to be similar to those described for Mitigation Measure Bio-4c.
Within one week
prior to initiation of
site disturbance
Applicant /
Developer
Verify survey was
performed and, if
required, relocation
has occurred. Verify
current listing status
and USFWS
authorization if
required.
Verify training of
construction
workers and halt
requirement is
included in
construction
contracts.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Bio-10: Conduct a Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Pre-construction surveys for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game Code of California shall be conducted within 30 days of initiation of construction activities. The survey area shall include the Project site and areas within 100 feet of the site. If active nests are found, the Project shall follow recommendations of a qualified biologist regarding the appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity. The buffer shall be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest.
If there is a complete stoppage in construction activities for 30 days or more, a new nesting-survey shall be completed prior to re-initiation of construction activities.
Within 30 days prior
to initiation or
resumption of
construction
activities
Applicant /
Developer
Verify survey was
performed and, if
required, buffer
zones are included
in construction
contracts.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
EXHIBIT D
635
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 7
Mitigation Measures Timing Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility Date/Initials
Bio11a: Obtain authorization from USACE, CDFW and RWQCB for fill of wetlands and alteration of Altamont Creek. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the USACE, CDFW and RWQCB pursuant to §404 of the Clean Water Act, §1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, and §401 of the Clean Water Act, respectively.
Bio-11c: Re-creation of 0.004 Acre of Seasonal Wetland. The applicant shall create a minimum of 0.004 acre of seasonal wetland habitat either onsite or offsite to replace the area lost through Project construction. Creation of this habitat shall be done in consultation with USFWS if the existing seasonal wetland is found to support VPFS (see Mitigation Measure Bio4c).
Prior to initiation of
site disturbance
Applicant /
Developer
Verify USFWS/
CDFG/ RWQCB
authorization and
wetland re-creation.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Culture-1a: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In the event that previously unidentified archaeological or tribal resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and/or Native American specialist, and specific mitigation measures can be implemented to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code.
Culture-1b: Prepare Mitigation Plan, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. Because of the high potential for unique paleontological resources within the Project area, a qualified professional Paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Mitigation Plan outlining a paleontological monitoring plan and a salvage plan to be implemented during construction excavation and other ground-disturbing activities for the Project. The Paleontological Mitigation Plan should include the following: in the event that previously unidentified paleontological resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified Paleontologist, and specific mitigation measures can be implemented to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code.
Culture-1c: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all such activity Prior to issuance of
demolition, building
or grading permits
then during
construction if
triggered
Applicant /
Developer
Verify requirements
are included in
construction
contracts and track
outcome if triggered
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
EXHIBIT D
636
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 8
Mitigation Measures Timing Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility Date/Initials
within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, and appropriate action taken in coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or, if the remains are Native American, section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code.
Geo-2: Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper slope and foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer. The structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code.
Prior to issuance of
building or grading
permits
Applicant /
Developer
Verify completion of
report and
adherence of
structural design
plans to the report
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Geo-5: Construction-Period Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The Project applicant shall prepare and implement a SWPPP for the proposed construction period. The SWPPP and Notice of Intent (NOI) must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board to receive a Construction General Permit. The plan shall address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, include applicable monitoring, sampling and reporting, and be designed to protect water quality during construction. The Project SWPPP shall include “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) as required by the State and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for preventing stormwater pollution through soil stabilization, sediment control, wind erosion control, soil tracking control, non-storm water management, and waste management and materials pollution control.
The SWPPP shall take into account the following considerations recommended by the preliminary geotechnical report:
• Ponding of stormwater, other than within engineered detention basins, should not be permitted at the site, particularly during work stoppage for rainy weather. Before the grading is halted by rain, positive slopes should be provided to carry surface runoff to storm drainage structures in a controlled manner to prevent erosion damage.
• The tops of fill or cut slopes should be graded in such a way as to prevent water from flowing freely down the slopes. Due to the nature of the site soil and bedrock, graded slopes may experience severe erosion when grading is halted by heavy rain. Therefore, before work is Prior to issuance of
building or grading
permits and ongoing
during construction
Applicant /
Developer
Verification of
Construction
General Permit
from the State
Water Resources
Control Board and
inclusion of BMPs in
construction
contracts.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
EXHIBIT D
637
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 9
Mitigation Measures Timing Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility Date/Initials
stopped, a positive gradient away from the tops of slopes should be provided to carry the surface runoff away from the slopes to areas where erosion can be controlled. It is vital that no completed slope be left standing through a winter season without erosion control measures having been provided.
• Because the existing bedrock is relatively nutrient-poor, it may be difficult for vegetation to become properly established, resulting in a potential for slope erosion. Revegetation of graded slopes can be aided by retaining the organic-rich strippings and spreading these materials in a thin layer (approximately 6 inches thick) on the graded slopes prior to the winter rains and following rough grading. When utilizing this method, it is sometimes possible to minimize hydroseeding.
GHG-1: Increased Energy Efficiency. The Project shall demonstrate proposed energy efficiency at least 16% greater than Title 24 requirements prior to issuance of building permits.
Prior to issuance of
construction permits
Applicant /
Developer
Verify energy
efficiency
calculations for
construction plans.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
GHG-2: GHG Emissions Reduction Best Management Practices (BMPs). The Project shall demonstrate proposed compliance with City of Livermore General Plan Climate Change Element BMPs prior to issuance of building permits, including the following. If the City’s Climate Action Plan is approved prior to issuance of permits, requirements of the Climate Action Plan can be substituted for the BMPs below.
• Climate BMP No. 1 – Energy-efficient buildings in compliance with the Livermore Green Building Ordinance.
• Climate BMP No. 2 – Use of energy-efficient appliances that meet Energy Star standards.
• Climate BMP No. 3 – Incorporate solar roofs into commercial development. Residential development to be “solar-ready” including proper solar orientation (south facing roof area sloped at 20° to 55° from the horizontal),clear access on the south sloped roof (no chimneys, heating vents, plumbing vents, etc.), electrical conduit installed for solar electric system wiring, plumbing installed for solar hot water system, and space provided for a solar hot water storage tank. • Climate BMP No. 4 – Incorporate transit and bicycle/pedestrian connections into development.
• Climate BMP No. 5 – has been omitted as it applies only to Commercial/Industrial projects.
Prior to issuance of
construction permits
Applicant /
Developer
Verify inclusion of
BMPs in
construction plans.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
EXHIBIT D
638
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 10
Mitigation Measures Timing Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility Date/Initials
• Climate BMP No. 6 – has been omitted as it applies to parking lots and structures.
• Climate BMP No. 7 – In compliance with the Construction and Demolition Ordinance, recycle construction materials and divert construction waste from disposal as feasible.
• Climate BMP No. 8 – Include recycling facilities to provide for commercial and/or community recycling of plastic, paper, green waste, and food waste.
• Climate BMP No. 9 –Incorporate “heat island” treatments including cool roofs, cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees. • Climate BMP No. 10 –Use landscaping that meets the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
Haz-2: Confirm Absence of Near Surface Oil or Implement Overexcavation.
The absence of naturally occurring oil should be confirmed during grading of the site. If oil is encountered during grading, the following overexcavation shall be implemented:
• The area where naturally occurring near surface oil is encountered shall be overexcavated a minimum of 10 feet below proposed finish grade and replaced with engineered fill. This will provide a low permeable fill cap to prevent the upward migration of oil.
• Where proposed storm drain lines cross areas where naturally occurring near surface oil is encountered, the area shall be overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet beyond the outside diameter of the proposed storm drain line. The excavation should be backfilled with engineered fill and the storm drain line trenched through the fill. The storm drain trench within the previously overexcavated and backfilled area should be lined with 20 mil visqueen prior to placement of shading and the storm drain line.
• In every case the utility lines shall be designed to be airtight to prevent potential oil from entering the utility lines.
• Any stormwater underdrains shall be shallow or eliminated in areas of potential oil seepage.
• If oil is encountered then an oil/water separator shall be installed to treat stormwater prior to entering the creek.
• A Community Facilities District, or other funding mechanism approved by the City, shall be formed in order to fund remedies to public infrastructure and utilities in the event oil seepage occurs after construction of the Project.
Prior to issuance of
grading permits and
during grading
Applicant /
Developer
Verify measures to
be implemented in
the event of near
surface oil
encounters are
included in
construction
contracts.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
EXHIBIT D
639
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 11
Mitigation Measures Timing Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility Date/Initials
Traf-5: Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses. The Project’s on-site transportation elements, such as sight distances, driveway locations, and marked crosswalk locations, have been reviewed by the Livermore staff with design-level project approvals and meet applicable local regulations. The following design details are recommended, though final details will be determined through consultation with Livermore staff, taking into consideration constraints of the site:
a) The stem of each intersection should be stop-controlled or contain other intersection controls.
b) Livermore thoroughfare standards should be followed, which could involve narrowed vehicle lanes, widened sidewalks, reduced corner radii, and installation of corner bulb-outs. Narrower vehicle travel lanes and tighter corner radii with bulb-outs are associated with lower vehicle travel speeds, increased visibility between pedestrians and motorists, and reduce pedestrian roadway exposure.
c) All mid-block trail crossings should be marked with warning signs and a high-visibility crosswalk and include bulb-outs and lighting to enhance pedestrian visibility.
d) According to Livermore’s Municipal Code 3-15-050, driveways should be located more than 20 feet from the corners.
Prior to issuance of
construction
permits.
Applicant/
Developer in
Coordination with
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Verify
recommended
design features are
included in final
designs.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Traf-6: Emergency Access. The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department has reviewed the 2018 Revised Project. Conditions of approval for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map include additional design features and measures necessary for emergency response.
Prior to issuance of
construction permits
Applicant /
Developer
Verify inclusion of
conditions of
approval in plans.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Traf-7: City Review of Construction Plan. It is expected that the construction plan will be reviewed by the City of Livermore and designed to meet applicable regulations.
Prior to issuance of
construction
permits.
Applicant/
Developer in
Coordination with
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Review
construction-period
traffic plan.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
EXHIBIT D
640
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 12
Mitigation Measures Timing Implementation
Responsibility
Verification
Monitoring Action Monitoring
Responsibility Date/Initials
Traf-10: Laughlin Road & Northfront Road Intersection Improvements. The Project shall contribute a fair share amount to improvements at this intersection, as determined by the City of Livermore Community Development Department. The improvements shall consist of either A) or B) below, again as determined in coordination with the City of Livermore Community Development Department:
A) Roundabout. Install a roundabout with yield-control at all three intersection legs. The current vehicle lane configuration would remain, but right-of-way may need to be expanded to accommodate traffic movements through the intersection.
OR
B) Signal Control. Signalize the intersection. The current vehicle lane configuration would need to be altered from the existing one lane in each direction to include a left-turn pocket in the eastbound direction and a right-turn pocket in the westbound direction. Right-of-way may need to be expanded to accommodate the turn-pocket lanes at the intersection.
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy permits
for residences.
Applicant /
Developer in
Coordination with
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
Verify
improvements have
been implemented.
Livermore
Community
Development
Department
EXHIBIT D
641
RESOLUTION NO. ________
IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (VTTM) 8094 (SUBDIVISION 13-001) AND SITE PLAN DESIGN REVIEW 13-005 AND AUTHORIZING
THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE SIX AFFORDABLE DUET UNITS AS PROPOSED AND TO MAKE A CASH PAYMENT EQUIVALENT TO 3.15 AFFORDABLE UNITS TO
SATISFY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATION FOR THE
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT
On July 27, 2011, the City received an application to develop a single-family residential subdivision on the site located east of North Vasco Road, North of Garaventa Ranch Road/Altamont Creek Drive, and West of Laughlin Road. The application included a General Plan Amendment to change the designation to Urban Low Medium Residential (2-3 dwelling units per acre) in order to enable the continued density transfer envisioned under the Maralisa development, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the site, and Site Plan Design Review for the landscaping, architecture, and improvements.
The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be prepared for the aforementioned applications for the Garaventa Hills project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
On November 18, 2011, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) pursuant to CEQA to obtain comments on the proposed scope of the EIR for the Garaventa Hills project.
On December 7, 2011, the City held a public scoping meeting for public agencies, organizations, and members of the public to review the proposed project and provide comments on the scope of the environmental review process.
On November 8, 2012, a Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was issued, including notices to interested groups and individuals for a 45-day public comment period. A Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR, public comment period, and hearing date was published in a newspaper of general circulation pursuant to CEQA.
On December 4, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIR for the initial proposal. The initial proposal was for 76 homes with a second access via an extension of Hawk Street and new bridge across Altamont Creek.
The proposal included a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Urban Low Residential, at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre, to Urban Low Medium Residential, at 2-3 dwelling units per acre.
On December 26, 2012, the public comment period on the Draft EIR was closed. The applicant made the changes listed below to the Garaventa Hills project before review and consideration by the Planning Commission:
Reduction in the number of units from 76 to 47;
Elimination of the Hawk Street connection and bridge over Altamont Creek; Preservation of the rock outcrop in the northwest corner of the site; and 642
RESOLUTION NO. ________
Provision of an additional 1-story floor plan and a 1½-story floor plan.
The Draft EIR includes two alternatives to the original proposal: Alternative A: No Project, No Development Alternative; and Alternative B: Reduced Density, Current General Plan Allowance Alternative. Alternative A assumes no development of the site. Alternative B assumes development of the site consistent with the current General Plan designation of Urban Low Density (UL-1) at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre. After considering public comments on the Draft EIR and the statements given by neighboring homeowners during the Citizens Forums at a number of Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the applicant chose to proceed with developing the site generally consistent with the Alternative B.
On June 11, 2014, a Final EIR was distributed consisting of copies of all written and oral comments, a list of commenters, all responses to oral and written comments, and an appendix containing minor corrections of the Draft EIR. A notice of the Final EIR availability and certification recommendation hearing date was published in a newspaper of general circulation.
On July 1, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council deny the proposed project. Generally, the Commission’s recommendation was due to the project’s extensive grading, unknown aesthetic context, and concern from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District regarding compatibility with the adjacent Garaventa Preserve.
On June 3, 2015, the City received revised plans for the Garaventa Hills Project. Replacing a portion of roadway with an Emergency Vehicle Access in order to reduce grading;
Eliminating new landscaping between the Project site and the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve to preserve the natural grassland condition;
Providing a drain system to collect all runoff from the residential lots and convey it to the treatment basin to protect the soil chemistry in the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve;
Constructing a pedestrian/bicycle path that connects to the existing trail south of Bear Creek Drive to link the Project to Altamont Creek Park; and Providing visual simulations of the Project in context with the surrounding developed and natural environments.
On August 18, 2015, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council to certify the Final EIR. The Livermore Planning Commission found that the Final EIR had been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of the CEQA statute, CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s local CEQA requirements and that the Final EIR reflected the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission of the City of Livermore. Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission recommended certification of the Garaventa Hills Final EIR, subject to final review and consideration to the City Council for approval.
On September 14, 2015, the City Council directed the project be returned to the Planning Commission and staff with direction for the project to be more subordinate to the 643
RESOLUTION NO. ________
natural landforms and provide alternatives for emergency vehicle and pedestrian circulation.
The City Council took no action concerning the Final EIR.
On August 25, 2018, a Re-Issued Final Environmental Impact Report was made available for public review at City Hall and on the City’s website, along with the Final EIR and Draft EIR. Two (2) public notices concerning the documents’ availability were provided via mail for properties located within 1,320 feet of the project site, and published in a local distribution newspaper, on August 25, 2018, and on November 24, 2018. The 2018 Re-Issued Final EIR contains an assessment of the 2018 Revised Project, which proposed 44 residential units and a pedestrian bridge connection to Hawk Street. The responses to comments were reassessed in light of the 2018 Revised Project and revisions to the responses are provided as appropriate. None of the revisions or other information contained in the Re-Issued Final EIR were “significant new information” under section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and therefore no recirculation of the Draft EIR was required.
On December 4, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council to certify the Re-Issued Final EIR and approve the 2018 Revised Project. The Livermore Planning Commission found that the Re-Issued Final EIR had been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of the CEQA statute, CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s local CEQA requirements and that the Final EIR reflected the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission of the City of Livermore. Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the 2018 Revised Project and certification of the Garaventa Hills Re-Issued Final EIR, subject to final review and consideration to the City Council for approval.
On April 22, 2019, the City Council of the City of Livermore, California, adopted Resolution No. 2019-050, certifying the Re-Issued Final Environmental Impact Report (RFEIR) and adopting Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Garaventa Hills Project.
Also on April 22, 2019, the City Council of the City of Livermore, California, adopted Resolution No. 2019-051, approving a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (8094) and Site Plan Design Review (13-005) for the Garaventa Hills 2018 Revised Project.
On May 23, 2019, an unincorporated association called Save The Hill Group filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Alameda County Superior Court.
On September 23, 2020, the Alameda County Superior Court entered a judgment denying Save The Hill Group’s petition.
On November 23, 2020, Save the Hill Group appealed the superior court’s judgment to the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District.
On March 30, 2022, the First Appellate District Court of Appeal issued a decision reversing the superior court’s judgment in part, finding Save the Hill Group adequately 644
RESOLUTION NO. ________
exhausted its claims regarding the inadequacy of the “no project” alternative analyzed in the RFEIR and that the City violated CEQA by failing to sufficiently consider and analyze in the no project alternative the feasibility of permanently preserving the Garaventa Hills Project site as open space using funds from either the Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement or the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement. The Court of Appeal otherwise affirmed the RFEIR’s compliance with CEQA in all other respects.
On September 26, 2022, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a writ of mandate ordering the City to (1) vacate and set aside its certification of the RFEIR and approval of the project within 60 days of the service of the writ and (2) to make an initial return to the writ demonstrating compliance with this first command of the writ within 75 days of service of the writ.
Also on September 26, 2022, the Alameda County Superior Court entered an amended order and judgment as to the need to analyze potential preservation of the Project site as open space in the revised EIR’s no project alternative analysis before considering whether to reapprove the Garaventa Hills Project.
On November 28, 2022, the City Council of the City of Livermore, California, adopted Resolution No.2022-193 rescinding the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Site Plan Design Review, Re-Issued Final Environmental Impact Report, Facts in Support of Findings Regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report, and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Garaventa Hills Project.
On March 13, 2023, the City Council adopted the 2023 to 2031 Livermore Housing Element, providing adequate sites to support CA’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements.
On April 10, 2023, the applicant exercised their right to bring the Garaventa Hills project back for review by the City. The proposed project is the same project reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on December 4, 2018, and approved by the City Council on April 22, 2019.
On July 30, 2024, the City issued a Notice of Availability of a Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report (RP Draft EIR) and Notice of a Public Hearing inviting public comment on the RP Draft EIR for a 45-day period extending from July 30, 2024, to September 13, 2024.
On August 20, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time oral and written comments were presented to the Planning Commission. Members of the public and other interested parties were invited by formal public notice to testify at the public hearing.
On September 13, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. the public comment period on the Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report (RP Final EIR) was closed. The City received 12 written comment letters from various agencies, organizations, and members of the public, and four verbal comments from members of the public.
645
RESOLUTION NO. ________
On November 8, 2024, the RP Final EIR was distributed consisting of copies of all written and oral comments, a list of commenters, and all responses to oral and written comments, and minor corrections and a minor modification to Mitigation Measure Bio-9 to the Draft EIR.
On November 12, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting to consider the Project and staff recommendations, all public comments and testimony, and findings. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the City Council certify the Project’s EIR and approve the Project.
The Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report, together with the Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report published in August 2024, as well as the prior EIR documents that include the original Draft EIR (November 2012, SCH#2011112045), Final EIR (June 2014), and Re-Issued Final EIR (August 2018) shall constitute the EIR for the proposed Garaventa Hills Project (“Project”) in Livermore, California.
On November 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.
Together with this resolution, the City Council considered a resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Garaventa Hills Project.
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 by the City Council of the City of Livermore that it has considered the Record Evidence and adopted a resolution certifying an Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2011112045) consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that it has considered the findings made in Planning Commission Resolution No. 37-24 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, and as described below:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 – Subdivision 13-001:
1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, any policy or guideline implementing the General Plan (including the City’s 646
RESOLUTION NO. ________
Design Standards and Guidelines), or other applicable provisions of this Development Code;
Findings: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Urban Low Residential (UL-1) and density (1 to 1.5 units per acre) for the subject site. The Project consists of 44 single family residential lots at a proposed density of 1.38 units per acre. The proposed subdivision is also consistent with all applicable General Plan policies as described in the Planning Commission staff report dated December 4, 2018. The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable provisions of the City of Livermore Development Code and Design Standards and Guidelines, as described in the Planning Commission staff report dated December 4, 2018.
2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development;
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; Findings for 2 and 3: Findings: The site is physically suitable for the proposed development. The site is within the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary and consists of undeveloped land with suburban development and roadways adjacent to the east. Clustering the homes along the roadway and lower lying portions of the site and constructing the roadway along the topographic contours enables the provision of greater open space. The proposed development conforms to the applicable provisions of the Livermore Development Code, including the Subdivision Ordinance. An Environmental Impact Report concludes the Project will not have significant environmental impacts, subject to implementing the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission or Council may approve a tentative map if an Environmental Impact Report was prepared with respect to the Project and a statement of overriding considerations was made to the effect that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR; Findings: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project. All potential project impacts were found to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. The subdivision involves the development of residential units, roads, public utilities, trails through open space, and an emergency vehicle access/pedestrian/bicycle bridge. The Project is also conditioned to conform with the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) in the EIR, ensuring all environmental impacts remain less than significant.
5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems;
647
RESOLUTION NO. ________
Findings: The Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, and will not cause serious health problems. The Project provides adequate emergency vehicle access throughout the site. Water and sewer service will be provided to all units and stormwater will be appropriately managed on site. The site layout is suitable for trash truck pickup and adequate space will be provided in each unit’s garage for all waste streams.
6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. (The Commission or Council may approve a tentative map if it finds that alternative easements for access will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This Subparagraph shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and no authority is hereby granted to the Commission to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.); and
Findings: The proposed subdivision does not conflict with any existing easements through the property. The subdivision will provide public access to the on-site knolls, trails, and a rock outcrop in the northwest corner of the property.
7. Any proposed phases and their proposed sequence of construction are identified on the submitted tentative map. The City may impose reasonable conditions relating to the filing of multiple final maps in conjunction with the approval of the tentative map (Section 66456.1).
Findings: The Vesting Tentative Tract Map does not include phasing.
Site Plan Design Review 13-005:
1. The proposed development will be permitted within the subject zone.
Findings: The subject site is zoned Planned Development (PUD 115), which permits the proposed single family residential use.
2. The proposed development will be designed such that:
a. The project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, and not detrimental to adjacent property;
b. Architectural design and functional plan of the structure(s) and related improvements are of reasonable aesthetic quality and compatible with adjacent developments;
c. Structure(s) and related improvements are suitable for the proposed use of the property and provide adequate consideration of the existing and contemplated uses of land and orderly development in the general area of the subject site; and d. The project’s site plan and design are consistent with the City’s Design Standards and Guidelines.
648
RESOLUTION NO. ________
Findings: The design of the project, including the site plan and lot layout, architecture, and landscaping are of reasonable aesthetic quality, compatible with adjacent developments, and consistent with the City’s Design Standards and Guidelines and the Livermore Development Code, as described in the Planning Commission staff report dated December 4, 2018. Staff analysis of the project did not identify any aspects of the project that will be detrimental to public safety, engineering and transportation standards.
3. The proposed development is designed to include the following criteria, as applicable:
a. Compliance with Chapter 9.07 of the Development Code (Site Plan and Design Review), Municipal Code Title 15 (Buildings and Construction), and any other applicable City regulations and policies;
b. Efficient site layout and design;
c. Compatible and appropriate in scale to neighboring properties and developments. d. Efficient and safe public access (both pedestrian and vehicular) and parking; e. Appropriate and harmonious arrangement and relationship of proposed structures and signs to one another and to other development in the vicinity, based on good standards of design;
f. Appropriate relationship to land use and development of adjacent properties, including topographic and other physical characteristics of the land; g. Proper site utilization and the establishment of a physical and architectural relationship to existing and proposed structures on the site; h. Compatible architectural style with the character of the surrounding area, both to avoid repetition of identical design where not desired, and to ensure compatibility in design where desired;
i. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed developments and the avoidance of both excessive variety and monotonous repetition; j. Compatible in color, material, and composition of the exterior elevations to neighboring visible structures;
k. Appropriate exterior lighting which provides for public safety and is not of a nature that will constitute a hazard or nuisance to adjacent properties; l. Compatible in scale and aesthetic treatment of proposed structures with public areas;
m. Appropriate open space and use of water efficient landscaping; and n. Consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.
Findings: The Planning Commission staff report for the project, dated December 4, 2018, includes review of the project in compliance with Chapter 9.07 of the Development Code. The project is designed to comply with all applicable Building and Fire codes. The site design and landscaping are consistent with the City of Livermore’s Design Standards and Guidelines, the Livermore Development Code, and public safety, engineering and transportation standards. The architecture is consistent with the City of Livermore’s Design Standards and Guidelines that include the following design components: Massing and Scale, Views, Architectural Style, Façade, Windows and Doors, Porches and Balconies, Materials, Colors, and Roof Designs. The project will comply with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The project is consistent 649
RESOLUTION NO. ________
with the General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that based upon the City Council’s own independent review of the Record Evidence and considerations, and based on the above findings which are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare, hereby approves Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8094 – Subdivision (SUB) 13- 001 and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 13-005 as shown in the Development Plans (Exhibit B) and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit C).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that it hereby authorizes the Applicant to provide six affordable duet units as proposed and to make a cash payment equivalent to 3.15 affordable units to satisfy the affordable housing requirement, subject to City Council approval of a Housing Agreement before adoption of the final map.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that it hereby directs the Planning Manager to file a Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk for Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8094 – Subdivision (SUB) 13-001 and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 13-005 with the Alameda County Clerk if the Project is approved.
The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be found in the Community Development Department 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, in Livermore, California.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on November 25, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Katherine Mirassou
Deborah L. Elam Katherine Mirassou
City Clerk Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit A – Planning Commission Resolution No. 37-24
Exhibit B – Development Plans
Exhibit C – Conditions of Approval
650
EXHIBIT A
651
EXHIBIT A
652
EXHIBIT A
653
EXHIBIT A
654
EXHIBIT A
655
EXHIBIT A
656
EXHIBIT A
657
EXHIBIT A
658
EXHIBIT A
659
GARAVENTA HILLS
SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION
SHEET INDEX
DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
DEVELOPMENT PLANSVESTING TENTATIVE MAP
LANDSCAPE PLANS
ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
LOCATION MAP
PROJECT TEAM LIST:
1. DEVELOPER
LAFFERTY COMMUNITIES
5000 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY, SUITE 350SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 355-1305
MR. PAT TOOHEY
2. CIVIL ENGINEER
RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR
4690 CAHBOT DRIVE, SUITE 200
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 227-9100
MR. STEVE LICHLITER
3. ARCHITECT
WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC.
6111 BOLLINGER CANYON ROAD, SUITE 495SAN RAMON, CA 94583 (925) 627-1171
MR. MARK RETHERFORD
4. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
GATES & ASSOCIATES
2671 CROW CANYON ROAD
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 736-8176
MR. DAVID GATES
5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
OLBERDING ENVIRONMENTAL3170 CROW CANYON PLACE, SUITE 260SAN RAMON, CA 94583 (925) 866-2111
MR. JEFF OLBERDING
6. SOILS ENGINEER
ENGEO, INC
2010 CROW CANYON PLACE, SUITE 250
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 866-9000
MR. BOB BOECHE
P-0 TITLE SHEETP-1 PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANP-2 HOUSE AND SETBACK PLANP-3 SLOPE COLOR DENSITY PLAN C-1 TITLE SHEETC-2 EXISTING CONDITION PLANC-3 PROPOSED LOTTING AND EASEMENT PLANC-4 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC-5 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANC-6 PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLANC-7 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER TREATMENT PLANC-8 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER TREATMENT DETAILSC-9 PRELIMINARY EVA BRIDGE PLANC-10 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN SOUTH ABUTMENT OF EVA BRIDGES-1 PRELIMINARY EVA BRIDGE GENERAL PLAN PD-1 CONTEXT PLANPD-2 TRAIL DIAGRAMPD-3 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLANPD-4 FENCING PLANPD-5 FENCESPD-6 ROCK OUTCROPPD-7 BEAR CREEK COMMON ENTRYPD-8 HAWK STREET ENTRYPD-9.1 TYPICAL FRONT YARDSPD-9.2 TYPICAL FRONTYARDS (DUET)PD-10 PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLANPD-11 PRELIMINARY IRRIGATION PLANPD-12 PHOTOSIMULATION VIEW 1 - FROM KNOLL COURT LOOKING WESTPD-13 PHOTOSIMULATION VIEW 2 - FROM BEAR CREEK COMMON LOOKING NORTH-WESTPD-14 PHOTOSIMULATION VIEW 3 - FROM ALTAMONT PARK LOOKING NORTHPD-15 PHOTOSIMULATION VIEW 4 - FROM HAWK STREET LOOKING NORTH-EASTPD-16 PHOTOSIMULATION VIEW 5 - FROM VASCO ROAD LOOKING EASTPD-17 PROJECT SIGNAGE AND SITE ELEMENTS
SS CONCEPTUAL STREET SCENE
1.1 PLAN 1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN1.2 PLAN 1 FRONT ELEVATIONS1.3 PLAN 1 ELEVATION "A" AND ROOF PLAN1.3.1 PLAN 1 ELEVATION "A"1.4 PLAN 1 ELEVATION "B" AND ROOF PLAN1.4.1 PLAN 1 ELEVATION "B"1.5 PLAN 1 ELEVATION "C" AND ROOF PLAN1.5.1 PLAN 1 ELEVATION "C"
2.1 PLAN 2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN2.2 PLAN 2 FRONT ELEVATIONS2.3 PLAN 2 ELEVATION "A" AND ROOF PLAN2.3.1 PLAN 2 ELEVATION "A"2.3.2 PLAN 2 ELEVATION "A" CALIFORNIA ROOMS2.4 PLAN 2 ELEVATION "B" AND ROOF PLAN2.4.1 PLAN 2 ELEVATION "B"2.4.2 PLAN 2 ELEVATION "B" CALIFORNIA ROOMS
5.1 PLAN 5 FIRST FLOOR PLAN5.1.1 PLAN 5 SECOND FLOOR PLAN5.2 PLAN 5 FRONT ELEVATIONS5.2.1 PLAN 5 FRONT ELEVATIONS5.3 PLAN 5 ELEVATION "A" AND ROOF PLAN5.3.1 PLAN 5 ELEVATION "A"5.3.2 PLAN 5 ELEVATION "A" CALIFORNIA ROOMS5.4 PLAN 5 ELEVATION "B" AND ROOF PLAN5.4.1 PLAN 5 ELEVATION 'B'5.4.2 PLAN 5 ELEVATION 'B' CALIFORNIA ROOMS5.5 PLAN 5 ELEVATION "C" AND ROOF PLAN5.5.1 PLAN 5 ELEVATION "C"5.5.2 PLAN 5 ELEVATION "C" CALIFORNIA ROOMS
4.1 PLAN 4 FIRST FLOOR PLAN4.1.1 PLAN 4 SECOND FLOOR PLAN4.2 PLAN 4 FRONT ELEVATIONS4.2.1 PLAN 4 FRONT ELEVATIONS4.3 PLAN 4 ELEVATION "A" AND ROOF PLAN4.3.1 PLAN 4 ELEVATION "A"4.4 PLAN 4 ELEVATION "B" AND ROOF PLAN4.4.1 PLAN 4 ELEVATION 'B'4.5 PLAN 4 ELEVATION "C" AND ROOF PLAN4.5.1 PLAN 4 ELEVATION "C"
3.1 PLAN 3 FIRST FLOOR PLAN3.1.1 PLAN 3 SECOND FLOOR PLAN3.2 PLAN 3 FRONT ELEVATIONS3.3 PLAN 3 ELEVATION "A" AND ROOF PLAN3.3.1 PLAN 3 ELEVATION "A"3.3.2 PLAN 3 ELEVATION "A" CALIFORNIA ROOMS3.4 PLAN 3 ELEVATION "B" AND ROOF PLAN3.4.1 PLAN 3 ELEVATION "B"3.4.2 PLAN 3 ELEVATION "B" CALIFORNIA ROOMS
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR: LAFFERTY COMMUNITIES
P-0
EXHIBIT
B
660
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR: LAFFERTY COMMUNITIES
PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
GARAVENTA HILLS
P-1
EXHIBIT B
661
1 1 26%
2 3 34%
3 2 33%4 3 34%5 1 28%
6 3 32%
7 2 29%
8 3 33%
9 2 33%
10 1 28%
11 1 28%12 3 34%
13 2 33%
14 3 34%
15 2 34%16 1 28%
17 3 34%
18 2 34%19 3 33%20 1 22%
21 4 30%
22 3 34%23 4 32%
24 4 31%
25 3 33%
26A 25%
26B 22%
27 4 34%
28A 23%
28B 26%
29 3 29%30 4 26%
31 4 25%32 3 25%33 4 30%
34 3 28%
35A 27%
35B 27%
36 4 32%
37 1 22%
38 4 29%
39 3 29%40 3 29%41 1 22%
P- 2
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR: LAFFERTY COMMUNITIES
HOUSE AND SETBACK PLAN
GARAVENTA HILLS
EXHIBIT B
662
P- 3
EXHIBIT B
663
C-1
EXHIBIT B
664
C-2
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR: LAFFERTY COMMUNITIES
EXISTING CONDITION PLAN
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
GARAVENTA HILLS
EXHIBIT B
665
C-3
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR: LAFFERTY COMMUNITIES
PROPOSED LOTTING AND EASEMENT PLAN
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
GARAVENTA HILLS
EXHIBIT B
666
SECTION A-A (LOTS 11-19)
SECTION B-B (LOTS 20-24) SECTION C-C (LOTS 36-41)
SECTION G-G (LOTS 29-34)
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
LEGEND
SECTION F-F (NEAR PROJECT ENTRY)
SECTION D-D (LOTS 5-10)
SECTION E-E (LOTS 3 & 4)
C- 4
SECTION H-H (DETENTION BASIN)
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR: LAFFERTY COMMUNITIES
PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
TRACT 8094 - GARAVENTA HILLS
EXHIBIT B
667
C- 5
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR: LAFFERTY COMMUNITIES
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
GARAVENTA HILLS
EXHIBIT B
668
C- 6
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR: LAFFERTY COMMUNITIES
PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
GARAVENTA HILLS
EXHIBIT B
669
C- 7
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR: LAFFERTY COMMUNITIES
PRELIMINARY STORMWATER TREATMENT PLAN
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
GARAVENTA HILLS
EXHIBIT B
670
C- 8
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR: LAFFERTY COMMUNITIES
PRELIMINARY STORMWATER TREATMENT DETAIL
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
GARAVENTA HILLS
EXHIBIT B
671
C- 9
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR: LAFFERTY COMMUNITIES
PRELIMINARY EVA BRIDGE PLAN
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
GARAVENTA HILLS
EXHIBIT B
672
DEPRESSED DRIVEWAY DETAIL
C-10
CITY OF LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR: LAFFERTY COMMUNITIES
SOUTH ABUTMENT OF EVA BRIDGE
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
GARAVENTA HILLS
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
EXHIBIT B
673
NOTE: THIS IS A PRELIMINARY
DRAWING. SANITARY SEWER TO BEREMOVED. WATER LINE TO MOVED TOUNDER THE 4' SIDEWALK. BRIDGEWIDTH TO BE REDUCED BY 2'-6".
EXHIBIT B
674
Livermore, California
AUGUST 2018
EXHIBIT B
675
Context Plan PD-1
Trail Diagram PD-2
Illustrative Site Plan PD-3Fencing Plan PD-4Fences PD-5Rock Outcrop PD-6 Bear Creek Common Entry PD-7Hawk Street Entry PD-8
Typical Frontyards PD-9.1Typical Frontyards (Duet) PD-9.2Preliminary Planting Plan PD-10Preliminary Irrigation PD-11Photosimulation View 1 PD-12Photosimulation View 2 PD-13Photosimulation View 3 PD-14Photosimulation View 4 PD-15Photosimulation View 5 PD-16Site Elements PD-17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXHIBIT B
676
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018
Bear Creek Drive
Altamont Creek Park
GARAVENTA
HILLS
Laughlin Road
Hawk Street Altamont Creek Elementary School
N. Vasco Road
580
580
580
CONTEXT DIAGRAM PD-1
Bear Creek Common
EXHIBIT B
677
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018
0 80 160 320ft
Bear Creek Drive
Bear Creek Common
Knoll Court
Altamont Creek Park
Altamont Creek Drive
Garaventa Ranch Road
GARAVENTA
HILLS
Laughlin RoadHawk Street Altamont Creek
Elementary School
TRAIL
TRAIL
TRAIL DIAGRAM PD-2
Bear Creek Common
EXHIBIT B
678
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018
ALAMEDACOUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
LIVERMORE AREA RECREATION & PARKS DISTRICT
0 70 140 280ft
Street Tree, Typ.
Bioswale Between Sidewalk and Curb
Frontyard Tree, Typ.
TYPICAL FRONT YARDS: SEE ENLARGEMENT
Evergreen Buffer for Residential Privacy
Rock Outcrop
Trail
Evergreen Shrubs
Open Space Trees
Trail
Oak Grove Orchard Grid
Primary Entry Monoliths, Accent Planting, andOpen Space Views Oak Grove
BEAR CREEK COMMON
ENTRY:
Trail Marker
Bear Creek Common
Small tree massings to preserve view corridors
Rock Outcrop
ROCK OUTCROP:SEE ENLARGEMENT
6’H View Fence (Wire Mesh with Wood Post)
HAWK STREET ENTRY:SEE ENLARGEMENT
1 41
2 3
40 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
39 38
37 36
35A
11 12 13
34 1433
15 32 31
16 17
30 18
29 19
28A
27 26A
20 21
2223
24 25
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
35B 28B
26B
PD-3
Bear Creek Common
EXHIBIT B
679
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018
MAN GATE, TYP.
0 70 140 280ft
6’H GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE6’H VIEW FENCE (TUBULAR STEEL)6’H VIEW FENCE (WIRE MESH)6’H, 4’W MAIN GATE LEGEND:
FENCING PLAN PD-4
EXHIBIT B
680
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018
2"X4" GALVANIZED WELDED WIRE MESHSTRETCH AND STAPLE TO FRAME W/ 34" GALVANIZED STAPLES 8" O.C.
10 X10 POSTS
CONCRETE FOOTING
FINISH GRADE
2X4 CONTINUOUS CAP2X4 RAIL, TOP2X12 BOTTOM RAIL/KICKBOARD NOTE:
1. ALL FASTENERS TO BE GALVANIZED.
2. ALL WOOD TO BE CON. HEART REDWOOD;
BROWN TONED STAIN.
3. PROVIDE CLEAR SEALANT ON ALL WOOD SURFACES.
4. ALL POSTS SHALL BE EQUALLY SPACED.
5. ALL WOOD TO BE FIRE RETARDANT TREATED PER
CHAPTER 7A. AVAILABLE FROM CALIFORNIA REDWOODCOMPANY OR EQUAL
SLOPE TO DRAIN
6’H GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE
8’ MAX.
NOTE:1. GRIND ALL WELDS SMOOTH. APPLY TWO COATS PRIMER, 1 COAT FINISH COLOR.2. POWDER COATED CHARCOAL.3. CONTRACTOR TO SPACE POSTS EQUALLY.
NOTE: FINAL FENCE TYPE SUBJECT TO RESOURCE AGENCY.
6’
CC LL
6’H VIEW FENCE @ PROPERTY LINE (WIRE MESH)
6’H VIEW FENCE (TUBULAR STEEL)
FENCES PD-5
EXHIBIT B
681
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018
KEY MAP
Existing Rock Outcrop
Man Gate
Crape Myrtle
Trail Marker
0 20 40 80ft
Benches
Man Gate
Man Gate
Trail
6’H View Fence(Metal Wire Mesh with Wood Posts)
ROCK OUTCROP PD-6
EXHIBIT B
682
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018
KEY MAP
Open View
Evergreen buffer for residential privacy
Tree massings to preserve views, typ.
Open View
Open View
BEAR CREEK COMMON Entry with monoliths
and accent planting.See Site Element sheet.
Trail
0 20 40 80ft
Zone 7 Gate at Maintenance Trail
8’ AC Trail Connects to Zone 7 Maintenance Trail
NOTE:All mulch within bioswale areas shall have 3” of washed 3/8” lava rocks.
BEAR CREEK COMMON ENTRY PD-7
COMMON
EXHIBIT B
683
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018
0 32 64 128ft
Bridge with Monolith and Recessed Light
Evergreen Buffer for residential privacyAccent PlantingSpecial Paving
BRIDGE WITH MONOLITH AND RECESSED LIGHT
MONOLITH AND WALL AT HAWK STREET
PLANT LIST
Monolith and WallOaks
Connection to Existing Trail
Accent planting
Oaks
Small Flowering Trees
Evergreen Buffer for residential privacy
MONOLITH AND RECESSED LIGHT
SEE BELOW FOR MONOLITH DETAIL
KEY MAP
HAWK STREET ENTRY
EVA BRIDGE
8’W Groundcover for EVA
O
Cast Logo
with Metal Letterstext by City staff
Option: Sign Foam Relief
(Digital Sculpting)
Recessed into Stone
Stone and Cap to Match
Livermore Sign Walls
7 1/2” Light in
Resesssed Area
MONOLITH AT MAIN ENTRY
Scale: 1/2”=1’-0”
5"
6'-0"
3'-0"
3'-10"
PD-8
BEAR CREEK COMMON
EXHIBIT B
684
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018
0 12 24 48ft
13 14 15 16
KEY MAP
NOTE:All mulch within bioswale areas shall have 3” of washed 3/8” lava rocks.
TYPICAL FRONT YARDS PD-9.1
EXHIBIT B
685
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018
0 12 24 48ft
KEY MAP
NOTE:All mulch within bioswale areas shall have 3” of washed 3/8” lava rocks.
NOTE:All mulch within bioswale areas shall have 3” of washed 3/8” lava rocks.
TYPICAL FRONT YARDS (DUETS) PD-9.2
EXHIBIT B
686
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018
SHRUBS & PERENNIALSBOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE QTY$QLJR]DQWKRVÀDYLGXVµ%XVK5DQJHU¶ .DQJDURR3DZ JDO /2: $UEXWXVXQHGR 6WUDZEHUU\7UHH JDO /2: $UFWRVWDSK\ORVGµ+RZDUG0F0LQQ¶ 0DQ]DQLWD JDO /2: $UFWRVWDSK\ORVPDQ]DQLWDµ'U+XUG¶ 0DQ]DQLWD JDO /2: &LVWXVLQFDQXV 3LQN5RFNURVH JDO /2: &ROHROHPDµ6XQVHW*ROG¶ %UHDWKRI+HDYHQ JDO 02' 'LHWHVELFRORU )RUWQLJKW/LO\ JDO /2: 'LHWHVYHJHWD )RUWQLJKW/LO\ JDO /2: (SLORELXPFDQXPµ&DWDOLQD¶ &DOLIRUQLD)XFKVLD JDO /2: (ULRJRQXPJUDQGHYDUUXEHVFHQV 5HG)ORZHU%XFNZKHDW JDO /2: +HPHURFDOOLVK\EULGV (YHUJUHHQ 'D\OLO\ JDO 02' +HXFKHUDPLFUDQWKD &RUDO%HOOV JDO 02' ,ULVGRXJODVLDQD 3DFL¿F&RDVW,ULV JDO /2: /DYHQGXODDQJXVWLIROLD (QJOLVK/DYHQGHU JDO /2: /DYDWHUDPDULWLPD 7UHH0DOORZ JDO /2: 0LPXOXVDXUDQWLDFXV 6WLFN\0RQNH\)ORZHU JDO 02' 0\ULFDFDOLIRUQLFD 3DFL¿F:D[0\UWOH JDO 02' 3KORPLVIUXLWLFRVD -HUXVDOXP6DJH JDO /2: 3KRUPLXPµ$PD]LQJ5HG¶ 1HZ=HDODQG)OD[ JDO /2: 3KRUPLXPµ0DRUL0DLGHQ¶ 1HZ=HDODQG)OD[ JDO /2: 3KRUPLXPµ3LQN6WULSH¶ 1HZ=HDODQG)OD[ JDO /2: 3KRUPLXPµ7ULFRORU¶ 1HZ=HDODQG)OD[ JDO /2: 3RO\VWLFKXPPXQLWXP :HVWHUQ6ZRUG)HUQ JDO 02' 5KDPQXVFµ(YH&DVH¶ &R൵HHEHUU\ JDO /2: 5KDPQXVFµ0RXQG6DQ%UXQR¶ &R൵HHEHUU\ JDO /2: 5LEHVVDQJXLQHXP )ORZHULQJ&XUUDQW JDO 02' 5RVDPHLGLODQG &DUSHW5RVH JDO 02' 5RVPDULQXVRµ*ROG'XVW¶ 5RVHPDU\ JDO /2: 6LV\ULQFKLXPEµ*UH\KRXQG5RFN¶ %OXHH\HG*UDVV JDO /2: 6DOYLDFOHYHODQGLL &OHYHODQG6DJH JDO /2: 6DOYLDOHXFDQWKDµ6DQWD%DUEDUD¶ 0H[LFDQ6DJH JDO /2: 6DOYLDµ+RW/LS¶ +RW/LS6DJH JDO /2: 7HXFULXPIUXWLFDQVµ&RPSDFWXP¶ %XVK*HUPDQGHU JDO /2: 7LERXFKLQDFKLQHQVLV 3ULQFHVV)ORZHU JDO 02' GRASSESBOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE QTY&DUH[WXPXOLFROD %HUNHOH\6DJH JDO /2: 0XKOHQEHUJLDULJHQV 'HHU*UDVV JDO /2: -XQFXVSDWHQV &DOLIRUQLD*UH\5XVK JDO /2: TREES (1RWH
$OOWUHHVDUH´ER[VL]H
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER USE QTY&KLWDOSDWDVKNHQWHQVLV &KLWDOSD /2: (ODHRFDUSXVGHFLSLHQV -DSDQHVH%OXHEHUU\7UHH 02' /DJHUVWURHPLDLµ0XVNRJHH¶ &UDSH0\UWOH /2: 2OHDHXURSDHDµ6ZDQ+LOO¶ 6ZDQ+LOO2OLYH /2: 3ODWDQXVDFHULIROLDµ&ROXPELD¶ /RQGRQ3ODQH7UHH 02' 3\UXVFDOOHU\DQDµ+ROPIRUG¶ )ORZHULQJ3HDU 02' 4XHUFXVOREDWD 9DOOH\2DN /2: 4XHUFXVYLUJLQLDQD 6RXWKHUQ/LYH2DN /2: 7ULVWDQLDODXUHQV :DWHU*XP /2: 'HWHQWLRQ%DVLQ7UHHV $HVFXOXVFDUQHDµ%ULRWLL¶ 5HG+RUVHFKHVWQXW 02' $OGHUUKRPELIROLD :KLWH$OGHU 02' 6DOL[ODVLROHSLV $UUR\R:LOORZ 02' 6PDOO)URQW\DUG7UHHV$UEXWXVµ0DULQD¶ 1&1 /2: /DJHUVWURHPLDLµ0XVNRJHH¶ &UDSH0\UWOH /2: 3\UXV\HGRHQVLVµ$NHERQR¶ )ORZHULQJ&KHUU\ 02' 3UXQXVFHUDVLIHUD 3XUSOH/HDI3OXP 02' 0 70 140 280ft
Quantity Percentage
Total Plants 22,725 100%Low Water-use Plants 20,606 90.6% Bear Creek Common
Bear Creek Common
PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN PD-10
EXHIBIT B
687
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018 PRELIMINARY IRRIGATION PLAN 0 70 140 280ft
PD-11
EXHIBIT B
688
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018
BEFORE
AFTER
PHOTOSIMULATION 1 - FROM KNOLL COURT LOOKING WEST PD-12
EXHIBIT B
689
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018 PHOTOSIMULATION 2 - FROM BEAR CREEK DR. LOOKING NORTH-WEST BEFOREAFTER: 7 YEARS AFTER INSTALLATIONAFTER: AT INSTALLATION PD-13
EXHIBIT B
690
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018 PHOTOSIMULATION 3 - FROM ALTAMONT PARK LOOKING NORTH BEFORE
AFTER
PD-14
EXHIBIT B
691
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018 PHOTOSIMULATION 4 - FROM HAWK STREET LOOKING NORTH-EAST
BEFOREAFTER
PD-15
EXHIBIT B
692
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018
Existing Knoll Existing Knoll
BEFORE
AFTER
Existing Knoll Existing Knoll See below for enlargement AFTER: ENLARGEMENT
from N. Vasco Rd.
PHOTOSIMULATION 5 - FROM VASCO ROAD LOOKING EAST PD-16
EXHIBIT B
693
GARAVENTA HILLS LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 2018
POST STREET LIGHT
PROJECT SIGNAGE AND SITE ELEMENTS
Cast Logo
with Metal Letterstext by City staff
Option: Sign Foam Relief
(Digital Sculpting)
Recessed into Stone
Stone and Cap to Match
Livermore Sign Walls
7 1/2” Light in
Resesssed Area
MONOLITH AT MAIN ENTRY
Scale: 1/2”=1’-0”
5"
8'-0"
3'-0"
3'-10"
MONOLITH AT TRAIL
1'-4"
5'-6"
TRAILS
5"
Trail Map
1'-9 3/4"
GRANITE SEAT PAD
at ROCK OUTCROPS
16”-18”
30” - 36” DIA.
PD-17
EXHIBIT B
694
Plan 1A
Spanish
Plan 2B
Farmhouse
Plan 3C
Villa
Plan 4B
Farmhouse
Plan 5B
Farmhouse
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017
Plan 1
Roof Plans Conceptual Streetscene
July 23, 2018
SS
EXHIBIT B
695
3080
2480
24 2880
80 2480
2480
5080 BI-PASS
2680
2680
5080 BI-PASS
2480 28 SC 80
30 SC 80
1060 FX 1060 FX
16'-0" x 8'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
3060 SH 3060 SH
3060 SH 3060 SH
2060 SH 4016 SL 2030 SH 5050 SL 2056 SH 2056 SH
3056 SH 3056 SH 3056 SH
2060 SH
3056 SH 4056 FX 3056 SH
3056 SH 6056 FX 3056 SH
3056 SH 3056 SH
TEMP. GL. SLIDER 80 50
2880SC
DEN / OPT. BDRM. 410'-0" CLG.CARPET
10'-0" x 17'-7"
BDRM. 310'-0" CLG.CARPET
10'-9" x 11'-10"
BDRM. 210'-0" CLG.CARPET
10'-4" x 12'-2"
ENTRYVOL. CLG.H.S.
BA. 210'-0" CLG.H.S.
OWNER BA.10'-0" CLG.H.S.
OWNER BDRM.12'-0" CLG.CARPET
15'-9" x 16'-0"
W.I.C.10'-0" CLG.CARPET
19'-8" L.P.
KITCHEN10'-0" CLG.H.S.
DINING12'-0" CLG.H.S.
17'-5" x 11'-0"
GREAT RM.12'-0" CLG.H.S.
19'-9" x 18'-11"
2-CAR GARAGE
20'-1" x 20'-2"
SERV.10'-0" CLG.H.S.
PWDR /OPT. BA. 310'-0" CLG.H.S.
35' AVERAGE SETBACK LINE FOR 100' DEEP LOTS
PORCH
2480
10'-0" CLG.
2480
PANTRY10'-0" CLG.H.S.
2680
FR. DOOR
PR.T.G.
3020 FX ABV. 4020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV. 6020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV.
3020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV.
5020 FX ABV.
2020 FX ABV. 2020 FX ABV.
2480
2680
5080 BI-PASS
2480
60 FX
3060 SH
BDRM. 4 OPT.10'-0" CLG.CARPET
10'-0" x 12'-2"
BA. 310'-0" CLG.H.S.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA May 24, 2018 Plan 1
2,391 SF Total
4 Bdrm / 2.5 Bath
2-Car Garage
Bedroom & Bath 3 Opt.
July 23, 2018
A1.1
EXHIBIT B
696
4:12
4:12
5:125:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
RIDGE
RR
RIDGE
RIDGE
R
4:12
4:12
RIDGE
5:125:12
RIDGE
VALLEY VALLEY
4:12
VALLEY
VALLEY
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
PITCH BREAK
VALLEY V
VALLEY VALLEY
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
V
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
3.5:12
6:12
8:12
6:12 6:12
8:12
6:12
V
8:12
RIDGE
R
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP HIP
HIP VALLEY VALLEY
HIP
VALLEY
HIP
VALLEY VALLEY
VALLE VA Y LLEY HIP HIP
HIP
HIP
4:12
4:12
HIP HIP 4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 1
Roof Plans
Elevation C
Villa
Elevation B
Farmhouse
Elevation A
Spanish
July 23, 2018
A1.2
EXHIBIT B
697
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 1 Front Elevations Farmhouse
Plan 1
Front Elevations
July 23, 2018
A1.3
EXHIBIT B
698
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 1 Front Elevations Plan 1
Front Elevations
July 23, 2018
A1.4
EXHIBIT B
699
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 1
Elevation A - Spanish
Plan 1
Elevation A - Spanish
July 23, 2018
A1.5
EXHIBIT B
700
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 1
Elevation A - Spanish
Plan 1
Elevation A - Spanish
July 23, 2018
A1.6
EXHIBIT B
701
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
23'-3"
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Plan 1
Elevation B - Farmhouse
July 23, 2018
A1.7
EXHIBIT B
702
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.G. T.G.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Left Elevation
Right Elevation
Plan 1
Elevation B - Farmhouse
July 23, 2018
A1.8
EXHIBIT B
703
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
19'-5
34 "
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Plan 1
Elevation C - Villa
July 23, 2018
A1.9
EXHIBIT B
704
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.G. T.G.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Left Elevation
Right Elevation
Plan 1
Elevation C - Villa
July 23, 2018
A1.10
EXHIBIT B
705
3060 SH
16'-0" x 8'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
3060 SH 3060 SH
3056 SH
3060 SH
5080 BI-PASS
3060 SH
4056 SH 6056 FX 4056 SH
3056 SH 2060 SH 2040 SH 3056 SH
TEMP. GL. SLIDER 80 60
3056 SH 3056 SH
1060 FX 1060 FX
2880 OPTIONAL
11'-8" X 11'-8"
BDRM. 412'-0" CLG.CARPET
BATH 310'-0" CLG.H.S.
GREAT ROOM12'-0" CLG.H.S.
23'-0" X 16'-8"
KITCHEN10'-0" CLG.H.S.
NOOK10'-0" CLG.H.S.
15'-5" X 8'-11"
DINING10'-0" CLG.H.S.
13'-10" X 12'-1"
UP
PWDR.10'-0" CLG.H.S.
PANTRY10'-0" CLG.H.S.
ENTRYVOL. CLG.H.S.
2-CAR GARAGE
20'-2" X 22'-5"
SHOP
12'-2" X 10'-0"
BACK PORCH(TANDEM GAR. @LARGER F.A.R. LOTS)
12'-6" X 7'-3"
PORCH
35' AVERAGE SETBACK LINE FOR 100' DEEP LOTS
2480
2680
2480
30 SC 80
2480
2480
2880SC
2880SC
28 SC 80
3020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV.
3020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV.
4020 FX ABV. 6020 FX ABV. 4020 FX ABV.
2020 FX ABV.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 2
2,830 SF Total
4 Bdrm / 3.5 Bath
2-Car Garage
First Floor
1,670 SF
July 23, 2018
A2.1
EXHIBIT B
706
3050 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH
3050 SH 3050 SH
2040 FX 2040 FX
5080 BI-PASS
3050 SH 3050 SH
2040 SH 2040 SH 2650 SH
2650 SH
2040 SH
5080 BI-PASS
FX 2040
DN
SERV.9'-0" CLG.H.S.
BDRM. 29'-0" CLG.CARPET
13'-7" X 10'-2"
BDRM. 39'-0" CLG.CARPET
14'-2" X 10'-0"
BATH 29'-0" CLG.H.S.
OWNER BATH9'-0" CLG.H.S.
W.I.C.9'-0" CLG.CARPET
28'-2" L.P.
OWNER BDRM.9'-0" CLG.CARPET
13'-11" X 16'-11"
2650 SH
2650 SH
2880
2680
2680
2480 2480
2480
2480
3080
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 2
Second Floor
1,160 SF
July 23, 2018
A2.2
EXHIBIT B
707
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
R
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
RIDGE
RIDGE
4:12
4:12
8:12
RIDGE
8:12
RIDGE
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
8:12
RIDGE
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
R
RIDGE
RIDGE
R
HIP HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 2
Roof Plans
Elevation C
Villa
Elevation B
Farmhouse
Elevation A
Spanish
July 23, 2018
A2.3
EXHIBIT B
708
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 2 Front Elevations Farmhouse
Plan 2
Front Elevations
July 23, 2018
A2.4
EXHIBIT B
709
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 2 Front Elevations Plan 2
Front Elevations
July 23, 2018
A2.5
EXHIBIT B
710
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
26'-3
78 "
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Plan 2
Elevation A - Spanish
July 23, 2018
A2.6
EXHIBIT B
711
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.G. T.G.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Left Elevation
Right Elevation
Plan 2
Elevation A - Spanish
July 23, 2018
A2.7
EXHIBIT B
712
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Front Elevation
Plan 2
Elevation B - Farmhouse
July 23, 2018
A2.8
EXHIBIT B
713
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.G. T.G.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Left Elevation
Right Elevation
Plan 2
Elevation B - Farmhouse
July 23, 2018
A2.9
EXHIBIT B
714
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
26'-10
78 "
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Plan 2
Elevation C - Villa
July 23, 2018
A2.10
EXHIBIT B
715
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.G. T.G.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Left Elevation
Right Elevation
Plan 2
Elevation C - Villa
July 23, 2018
A2.11
EXHIBIT B
716
1060 FX 1060 FX 3060 SH 3060 SH
5050 SL
8'-0" x 8'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR 16'-0" x 8'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR 5080 BI-PASS
2680
FR. DOOR
PR.T.G.
2040 SH
3060 SH 3060 SH 3056 SH 6056 FX 3056 SH
2050 SH
UP
LIBRARY / BDRM. 510'-0" CLG.H.S.
13'-11" x 13'-8"
GREAT ROOM12'-0" CLG.H.S.
29'-11" x 18'-3" 3056 SH 3056 SH
2040 SH
PWDR.10'-0" CLG.H.S.
ENTRYVOL. CLG.H.S.
KITCHEN10'-0" CLG.H.S.
BEDROOM 410'-0" CLG.CARPET
12'-5" x 11'-11"
BATH 310'-0" CLG.H.S.
LAUNCH10'-0" CLG.H.S.
PANTRY10'-0" CLG.H.S.
3-CAR GARAGE
29'-2" x 20'-2"
PORCH
9080 SL. GLS. DR.
35' AVERAGE SETBACK LINE FOR 100' DEEP LOTS
2480
2480
2480
2880SC
28 SC 80
2480
2680
30 SC 80
3020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV.
3056 SH
3020 FX ABV.
3020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV.
3020 FX ABV. 6020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV.
SH
UP
RELAX9'-0" CLG.CARPET
14'-6" x 16'-3"
3050 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH
3050 SH
3050 SH 3050 SH
SLEEP7'-9" CLG.CARPET
10'-10" x 18'-5"
UP
3080
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 First Floor
1,761 SF
Plan 3
2,940 SF Total
4 Bdrm / 3.5 Bath / Library
2-Car Garage
Owner Bdrm. Opt.
+214 SF
July 23, 2018
A3.1
EXHIBIT B
717
3050 SH
3050 SH 3050 SH
2040 SH
UP
2040 SH
OWNER BDRM.9'-0" CLG.CARPET
14'-6" x 16'-3"
3050 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH
5080 BI-PASS
5080 BI-PASS
2040 SH
3050 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH
2040 FX 2040 FX
3050 SH
2040 SH OWNER BATH
9'-0" CLG.H.S.
W.I.C.9'-0" CLG.CARPET
30'-10" L.P.
SERV.9'-0" CLG.H.S.
BDRM. 29'-0" CLG.CARPET
10'-11" x 11'-9"
BDRM. 39'-0" CLG.CARPET
10'-11" x 14'-1"
BATH 29'-0" CLG.H.S.
1630 SH
2480
2480
3080
2880
2680
2480
2480
2480
2680
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 3
Second Floor
1,179 SF
50 SH
UP
RELAX9'-0" CLG.CARPET
14'-6" x 16'-3"
3050 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH
3050 SH
ATH
3050 SH 3050 SH
SLEEP7'-9" CLG.CARPET
10'-10" x 18'-5"
UP
3080
Owner Bdrm. Opt.
+214 SF
July 23, 2018
A3.2
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT
B
718
4:12
4:12
4:12
RIDGE
R
RIDGE
RIDGE
R
RR
H VALLEY IP
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
V
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
RIDGE
R
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
7:12
7:12
7:12
7:12
7:12
7:12 5:12
5:12
7:12
7:12
7:12
7:12
RIDGE
RR
RIDGE
VALLEY
HIP HIP
HIP VALLEY
HIP VALLEY
HIP HIP
VALLEY
HIP HIP
H HI IP P
4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4 :
1 2
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:124:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
RIDGE
HIP
HIP VALLEY HIP
R VALLEY
HIP
HIP
H
V
HIP
HIP HIP
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 3
Roof Plans
Elevation C
Villa
Elevation B
Farmhouse
Elevation A
Spanish
July 23, 2018
A3.3
EXHIBIT B
719
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 3 Front Elevations Elevation B
Farmhouse
Plan 3
Front Elevations
July 23, 2018
A3.4
EXHIBIT B
720
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 3 Front Elevations Plan 3
Front Elevations
July 23, 2018
A3.5
EXHIBIT B
721
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
26'-6
18 "
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Plan 3
Elevation A - Spanish
July 23, 2018
A3.6
EXHIBIT B
722
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Left Elevation
Right Elevation
Plan 3
Elevation A - Spanish
July 23, 2018
A3.7
EXHIBIT B
723
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
30'-7
14 "
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Plan 3
Elevation B - Farmhouse
July 23, 2018
A3.8
EXHIBIT B
724
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Left Elevation
Right Elevation
Plan 3
Elevation B - Farmhouse
July 23, 2018
A3.9
EXHIBIT B
725
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA
July 18, 2017
Front Elevation
Plan 3
Elevation C - Villa
July 23, 2018
A3.10
EXHIBIT B
726
F.F./T.O.C. F.F./T.O.C.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA
July 18, 2017
Left Elevation
Plan 3
Elevation C - Villa
July 23, 2018
A3.11
EXHIBIT B
727
2060 SH 3060 SH 2060 SH
30 SC 80
1060 FX 1060 FX
OFFICE10'-0" CLG.CARPET
14'-3" x 10'-9"
2480
8'-0" x 8'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
16'-0" x 8'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
2880SC
2880
SERV.10'-0" CLG.H.S.
2480
1-CAR GARAGE
16'-7" x 10'-9"
2-CAR GARAGE
20'-2" x 20'-0"
PWDR.10'-0" CLG.H.S.
LINEN
PORCH
3080
2480
W.I.C.10'-0" CLG.CARPET
30'-11" L.P.
2480
2040 SH 2650 SH 2650 SH 2650 SH
OWNER BDRM.12'-0" CLG.CARPET
14'-1" x 16'-0"
2040 SH 2040 SH
3056 SH 3056 SH 3056 SH
2040 SH
2060 SH
4056 SH 6056 FX 4056 SH
TEMP. GL. SLIDER 80 60
DINING12'-0" CLG.H.S.
11'-5" x 20'-0"
3046 SH 3056 SH 3056 SH 3056 SH
PANTRY10'-0" CLG.H.S.
2480
GREAT RM.SLOPED CLG.H.S.
20'-0" x 18'-6"
KITCHEN12'-0" CLG.H.S.
OWNER BA.10'-0" CLG.H.S.
2040 FX 2040 FX 2040 FX
UP
35' AVERAGE
SETBACK LINE
FOR 100' DEEPLOTS
2880SC
3020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV.
4020 FX ABV. 6020 FX ABV. 4020 FX ABV.
3020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV. 3020 FX ABV.
2020 FX ABV.
2020 FX ABV. 2020 FX ABV.
3020 FX ABV.
3020 FX ABV. (2)
3050 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH
680
S
2480
3050 SH
BDRM. 5 10'-0" CLG.CARPET
15'-4" x 10'-3"
TECH10'-0" CLG.CARPET
7'-3" x 10'-9" 2680
5080 BI-PASS
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 4
First Floor
2,053 SF
Bdrm. 5 Opt.
3,150 SF Total
4 Bdrm / 3.5 Bath / Office
2-Car Garage / 1-Car Compact Garage
July 23, 2018
A4.1
EXHIBIT B
728
2050 SH 3050 SH 2050 SH
BDRM. 310'-0" CLG.CARPET
12'-1" x 10'-6"
3050 SH
DN
OPEN TO BELOWSLOPED CLG.
2480
2480
2480
2680 2680
BDRM. 210'-0" CLG.CARPET
12'-1" x 11'-10"
6080 BI-PASS 6080 BI-PASS BA. 2 10'-0" CLG. H.S.
3050 SH
3050 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH
2680
3050 SH 3050 SH
BI-PASS
2480
BDRM. 410'-0" CLG.CARPET
11'-0" x 12'-0"
3050 SH
BONUS RM.10'-0" CLG.CARPET
17'-7" x 14'-5"
TECH10'-0" CLG.CARPET
7'-3" x 10'-9"
LINEN
BA. 310'-0" CLG.H.S.
6080
2040 SH
2040 SH
3050 SH
2040 SH
2040 SH
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 4
Second Floor
1,097 SF
July 23, 2018
A4.2
EXHIBIT B
729
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
HIP
VALLEY VALLEY
HIP
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
7:12
RIDGE
7:12
6:12
7:12
7:12
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLE V Y ALLEY
VALLEY
H
VALLEY
7:12
7:12
7:12
7:12
7:12
7:12
7:12
7:12
7:12
7:12
7:12
7:12
VALLEY
V
6:12
RIDGE
VALLEY
R
RIDGE
HIP
RIDGE
RIDGE
H
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
VALLE H Y IP HIP
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
H
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
RIDGE
RIDGE
4:12
4:12
4:12
HIP 4:12
VALLEY
HIP
V
4:12
4:12 4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
4:12
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 4
Roof Plans
Elevation C
Villa
Elevation B
Farmhouse
Elevation A
Spanish
July 23, 2018
A4.3
EXHIBIT B
730
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 4 Front Elevations Elevation A
Spanish
Elevation B
Farmhouse
Plan 4
Front Elevations
July 23, 2018
A4.4
EXHIBIT B
731
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Plan 4 Front Elevations Plan 4
Front Elevations
July 23, 2018
A4.5
EXHIBIT B
732
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
25'-2
58 "
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Plan 4
Elevation A - Spanish
July 23, 2018
A4.6
EXHIBIT B
733
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Left Elevation
Right Elevation
Plan 4
Elevation A - Spanish
July 23, 2018
A4.7
EXHIBIT B
734
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Left Elevation Plan 4
Elevation B - Farmhouse
July 23, 2018
A4.8
EXHIBIT B
735
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Front Elevation
Plan 4
Elevation B - Farmhouse
July 23, 2018
A4.9
EXHIBIT B
736
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
25'-5
58 "
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Plan 4
Elevation C - Villa
July 23, 2018
A4.10
EXHIBIT B
737
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P.
F.F./T.O.C.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
F.F. F.F.T.O.P.F.F./T.O.C.
2017133
Garaventa
Livermore, CA
Lafferty Communities, Inc.
2017133 - Garaventa - Livermore, CA July 18, 2017 Left Elevation
Right Elevation
Plan 4
Elevation C - Villa
July 23, 2018
A4.11
EXHIBIT B
738
July 23, 2018
A5.1
EXHIBIT B
739
July 23, 2018
A5.2
EXHIBIT B
740
July 23, 2018
A5.3
EXHIBIT B
741
July 23, 2018
A5.4
EXHIBIT B
742
July 23, 2018
A5.5
EXHIBIT B
743
July 23, 2018
A5.6
EXHIBIT B
744
1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (Subdivision 13-001)
Site Plan Design Review 13-005 (SPDR 13-005)
Garaventa Hills
Hearing to consider a proposed residential subdivision for 44 units, consisting of 38 single-family detached units and 6 duet/couplet units on an approximately 31.7 acre vacant site, and Recirculated Partial Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document, together with the Recirculated Partial Draft EIR published in July 2024, the Draft EIR published in November 2012, the Final EIR published in June 2014, and the Re-Issued Final EIR published in August 2019. A proposed westerly extension of Bear Creek Drive would provide access to the internal residential street, and an emergency vehicle access (EVA), pedestrian, and bicycle bridge is proposed at Hawk Street.
Location: East of North Vasco Road, North of Garaventa Ranch Road/ Altamont Creek Drive, and West of Laughlin Road
Approved by Planning Commission: November 12, 2024
Approved by City Council: November 25, 2024
A. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION
1. The project shall be in conformance with all City Ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies. The conditions listed below are particularly pertinent to this permit and shall not be construed to permit violation of other laws and policies not so listed.
2. Approval is limited to the conformance of the land use and the Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 115 requirements. Use of the property shall be limited to those permitted by the Livermore Development Code, as it exists now and pursuant to the Project Approvals, as the same may be amended in the future.
3. Tentative Tract Map 8094 shall expire unless a final map is filed within two (2) years of City approval date, or an extension is submitted and approved by the City prior to the expiration of the map.
4. The Site Plan Design Review permit shall expire unless all necessary building and grading permits are acquired within two (2) years of City approval date, or an extension is submitted and approved prior to expiration of the permit.
EXHIBIT C
745
2 B. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
Prior to issuance of a Final Map, the applicant shall demonstrate conformance to the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department:
1. The applicant shall respond in writing to all applicable 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 plans.
2. Provide a Grasslands Management Plan for the project’s buffer areas and knolls.
Coordinate development of the management plan with the City of Livermore and Livermore Area Recreation and Park District in order to synchronize management with the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve under the Park District’s Grassland Management Plan.
3. Subdivision improvement plans shall include irrigation and utility plans that indicate locations of above ground utilities, including street, pedestrian pathways, lights, backflow prevention devices, and irrigation control cabinets. Plans shall include screening measures such as landscaping, berms, and low walls.
4. The project shall comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and the details of the affordable housing provision will be subject to City Council approval of a Housing Agreement before adoption of the final map.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall demonstrate conformance to the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department:
1. The applicant shall respond in writing to all conditions contained herein and in attachments to this document. Responses shall clearly describe how each condition has been met. When the response references construction drawings, the page number and detail reference, if applicable, shall be noted.
2. Art in Public Places Program in-lieu contribution (0.33% of total project valuation) will be provided in place of artwork and shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Perimeter fencing and all fencing along rear property lines shall be open view fencing with dark colored materials, to minimize visual prominence. Chain link fencing shall be prohibited. Final design is subject to coordination between the applicant, City, Park District and appropriate Resource Agencies.
4. Perimeter fencing shall be designed to control access and reduce trespass onto the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve, Zone 7 flood protection areas, and sensitive wetlands to the north, while maintaining existing wildlife movement. Perimeter
EXHIBIT C
746
3 fencing shall extend from the side property lines of Lots 1, 10 and 11. Undercrossings for wildlife shall be considered. Final design is subject to coordination between the applicant, City, Park District and appropriate Resource Agencies.
5. Exclusion fencing along the rear lot lines of Lots 1 – 25 shall include design features to exclude small amphibians (California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog) from the residential development. The base of the fence shall be placed on a minimum 12” tall concrete wall, to serve as a barrier, and the bottom of the fence should include a 12” solid board to further act as a barrier. Final design is subject to coordination between the applicant, City, Park District and appropriate Resource Agencies.
6. Interior residential fences shall match the redwood “good neighbor fence” shown on Sheet PD-5.
7. Shorten the length of the fences along the common area boundaries of Lots 1, 10, 11, 25, 26 (A & B), 34, 35 (A & B) and 41 so that they do not exceed more than 50 percent of the lot depth in order to enhance the streetscape and deemphasize the fence in these prominent locations.
8. Set all fences between the house and side property lines at least 10 feet back from the front wall of the house, not counting porches, in order to enhance the streetscape by revealing more of the homes and deemphasizing the presence of fencing.
9. The landscape plans shall not propose trees or plants within the fenced buffer zone between the back fences of the residential properties and the boundary of the preserve, to eliminate all perching and nesting opportunities along the project edges for Burrowing owl predators.
10. Applicant shall install retaining walls that are clad in stone that matches the texture and color of the stones found at the rock outcrop and throughout the site for review and approval by the Community Development Department.
11. Provide native shrubs in the northeast portion of the buffer along the rear property lines of Lots 20, 21 and 22 in order to soften the visual prominence of the retaining walls.
12. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance prior to any building permit issuance.
13. A minimum of one 24-inch box and one 15-gallon tree shall be planted in the front yard of each lot.
14. Design of the pedestrian/bicycle connection from the southeast corner of the site to the improved trail west of Black Oak Court is subject to review by the
EXHIBIT C
747
4 Community Development Department, in coordination with the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District and Zone 7, upon submittal for building permits from the Livermore Building Division.
15. Design and location of signs to raise public awareness of sensitive resources within the Preserve and lands to the north is subject to review by the City of Livermore, Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, and applicable Resource Agencies, upon submittal for building permits from the Livermore Building Division.
16. Delivery of the Below-Market-Rate (BMR) Units will be phased and provided along with the unrestricted market rate units, and the Developer will offer no less than one BMR Unit for sale in the project after every six (6) unrestricted market-priced units that are offered for sale in the project, until such time as all 6 attached BMR units are sold. The value of the 3.15 inclusionary promissory notes and resulting cash payment is to be calculated and paid no later than the time of the 30th building permit application.
17. The retaining wall bench depicted in Section F-F of the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan shall be planted with appropriate vegetation, subject to review by the Community Development Department upon submittal for building permits.
18. An appropriate barrier shall be provided along the full length of the top of the retaining wall depicted in Section F-F of the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, subject to review by the Community Development Department upon submittal for building permits.
19. All graded areas shall be replanted with appropriate vegetation, subject to review by the Community Development Department upon submittal for building permits.
C. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Development shall conform to the plans designated by the City as Exhibit B-1.
Exhibit B-1 shall consist of the submitted plans 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. This Site Plan Design Review and Tentative Map Approval Permits are 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.
EXHIBIT C
748
5 3. The Community Development Department may approve minor amendment to the permit, provided the permit is still in substantial conformance with the original approval.
4. 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 attorneys 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.
5. The project shall be subject to the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Environmental Impact Report.
6. All construction activities shall be subject to the City’s Municipal Code requirements related to construction noise (9.36.080). The applicant shall provide notice of these requirements on all construction plan sets.
D. ENGINEERING DIVISION
1. Development shall conform to the attached Engineering Considerations dated October 22, 2024
E. BUILDING DIVISION
1. Approval of the Site Plan Design Review 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.
2. Each project shall conform to CA codes adopted at time of project Building permit submittal.
F. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. Development shall conform to the attached Fire Department Memorandum dated July 12, 2017.
G. POLICE DEPARTMENT
1. The project shall be required to conform to the provisions of the security section of the Livermore Municipal Code.
EXHIBIT C
749
6 Attachments:
- Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Environmental Impact Report - Engineering Considerations dated October 22, 2024
- Fire Department Memorandum dated July 12, 2017
EXHIBIT C
750
1 DATE: October 22, 2024
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS - EXHIBIT "A"
(Subject to revision prior to final approval by Planning Commission and City Council) TENTATIVE TRACT: 8094 (SUB13-001) Garaventa Hills
LOCATION: West of Bear Creek Drive (APN 099-0024-001-25) APPLICANT: Lafferty Communities
Note: Special conditions are shown in standard type. Standard conditions that apply to this project are shown in italics. In addition, standard conditions of approval for this project are listed in Section II of the Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual.
1. DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this agreement, the following words shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
Developer : Person(s) or Corporation(s) signing final map(s) and subdivision agreement(s)
Improvement Plans: Construction drawings for required public and private improvements Services: Utility lateral, or any portions of a conduit cable or duct, between a utility distribution line and the site it serves
Project: The work to be performed by Developer
2. VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
Approval or conditional approval of this vesting tentative map shall not limit the City Engineer's ability to require workable designs on future grading and improvement plans based upon these Engineering Considerations and the City's standard engineering specifications and details.
The following Special conditions shall apply to this development:
1. Lot A shall be an Open Space parcel that is retained by a Homeowners Association with a public access easement (over portions of Lot A) dedicated to the City. Public access on Lot A shall be delineated on the Final Map, as approved by the City Engineer. Delineation may include the creation of additional parcels to circumscribe the public access areas within the open space.
2. Lot B shall be an Open Space parcel that is retained by a Homeowners Association with a drainage and landscape easement dedicated to the City. Provide public access to the trail along Alameda County’s Flood Control Channel within the easterly portion of Lot B. Delineate such access on the Final Map, as approved by the City Engineer. Delineation may include the creation of additional parcel(s) to circumscribe the public access area within Lot B.
In reference to conditions 1 and 2 above, Attachment “A” provides a general depiction of the public access areas on Lots A & B
EXHIBIT C
751
2 3. The existing reserved 1 foot wide access strip on final Tract Map 6880, at the end of Bear Creek Drive, shall revert to public right of way upon the recording of this map.
4. The developer shall apply deed restrictions to all of the lots of this vesting tentative tract map notifying homeowners of the required provisions for preservation of the existing open space habitat adjacent to the boundaries of this vesting tentative tract map. The deed restrictions shall be subject to Planning Approval.
5. The developer shall construct a perimeter fence along the entire boundary of this Vesting Tentative Map that is adjacent to the existing open space habitat with signage restricting access to this habitat. The fence design and alignment as well as the signage shall be subject to Planning Division approval.
6. Provisions shall be made for trash capture at the outfall to the bioretention basin. The Stormwater maintenance agreement shall include provisions for ongoing maintenance and trash collection at the bioretention basin.
7. Dedicate Public Utility and Emergency Vehicle Access easements over Bear Creek Common.
8. Dedicate a public access easement over the sidewalk along Bear Creek Common to provide access to the open space paths and over the paths, as approved by the City Engineer. a. Construct the paved path connections to a design slope of 1:20 to the extent feasible, as approved by the City Engineer.
9. The Sanitary Sewer system shall outfall to Bear Creek Drive – to the extent that gravity flow is technically feasible.
10. The Storm Drain system and the Sanitary Sewer system pipes shall form sealed systems designed with gasketed connections and/or double walls that minimize the chance of runoff intrusion and/or naturally occurring oil intrusion into the system. Developer shall submit with the improvement plans pipe material and installation specifications for approval by the City Engineer.
11. Utilities crossing Altamont Creek shall have sleeves or steel casings embedded in concrete – as approved by the City engineer.
12. Provide scour analysis to evaluate local scour potential for the 100-year and 500-year storm events to validate the adequacy of the design for the EVA bridge abutment.
13. Design all roadway curves accessing the Zone 7 maintenance road along Altamont creek to a standard that provides for 35’ inside and 50’ outside radius and as approved by Zone 7.
14. Erosion control within the Altamont Creek area shall provide for jute matting and hydroseeding on all disturbed slopes.
3. GENERAL
The project shall be in conformance with all City Ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies. The conditions listed below are particularly pertinent to this permit and shall not be construed to permit violation of other laws and policies not so listed.
All required improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the new residential units on this site.
A. IMPROVEMENT PLANS - Exhibit A-1
EXHIBIT C
752
3 An engineered improvement plan shall be prepared by the Developer for approval by the City's Departments (including the Community Development, Public Services, Fire, and Police Department), which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, existing site conditions, dedications, grading plans, street design and grades, curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveway grades, and type, size and location of all public works improvements as herein required. Approval of this tentative map does not constitute approval of the details shown thereon. If there is any conflict between the tentative map and these Engineering Considerations, the Engineering Considerations shall govern.
No specific phased development plan has been submitted with this tentative tract application. Therefore, all required improvements for this tentative map shall be constructed as one phase. A phased map could only be considered if a specific phasing plan is submitted for consideration as a tentative map amendment.
B. STANDARDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND MAPS
All improvement plans and maps shall conform to the following City of Livermore documents except as modified by these engineering considerations:
1. City of Livermore Standard Specifications and Details
2. Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual
Completed final map and improvement plan checklists from the manual entitled "City of Livermore, Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual" shall be submitted with the first plan check submittal for each phase.
C. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHECK AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
All of the standard conditions of approval for subdivisions and major projects as listed in Part II of the City of Livermore Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual apply.
D. WORK IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
The Developer is responsible for obtaining permits and approvals for construction work and property acquisition that are required by agencies other than the City of Livermore.
Altamont Creek improvements may be subject to requirements of any or all of the following agencies:
(1) California Department of Fish and Game, (2) the Army Corps of Engineers, (3) the Regional Water Quality Control Board, (4) State Department of Water Resources (5) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and (6) Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7).
The Project proposes a connection to an existing trail and a new storm drain outfall located within the Altamont Creek parcel which is owned by Alameda County Water Agency Zone 7 (Zone 7). An encroachment permit from Zone 7 is required for this work.
4. STREETS
A. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS:
A traffic Signing and Striping Plan shall be included with the project improvement plans. The following street requirements shall be reflected on the plan - as approved by the City Engineer.
The Developer shall remove the existing barricades at the end of existing Bear Creek Drive and provide for a smooth transition to Bear Creek Common, a private street, as indicated on the vesting
EXHIBIT C
753
4 tentative map. A sign shall be erected at the end of Bear Creek Drive marking the beginning of the private road “Bear Creek Common,” – as approved by the City Engineer.
The following street sections shall apply for Bear Creek Common – in substantial conformance with the tentative map exhibit, Sheet P1.
Bear Creek Common (Entrance to the development to Lot 1) Bear Creek Common shall consist of a 36.5-foot-wide right of way with 6’ public utility easements on both sides of the street and a 2’ sidewalk easement adjacent to the right of way on the south side of the street. The street width shall be 26-feet wide from face of curb to face of curb with a 7-foot wide bioretention area, landscape strip and 5-foot-wide sidewalk on the south side of the street. Install “No Parking” signage on both sides of the street.
Bear Creek Common (Lot 1 to Lot 10)
Bear Creek Common shall consist of a 42.5-foot-wide right of way with 6’ public utility easements on both sides of the street and a 2’ sidewalk easement adjacent to the right of way on the south/west side of the street. The street width shall be 32-feet wide from face of curb to face of curb with a 7-foot wide bioretention areas, landscape strips and 5-foot-wide sidewalk on the south/west side of the street.
Install “No Parking” signage on the south side of this road section.
Bear Creek Common (Lot 11 to Lot 19)
Bear Creek Common shall consist of a 50.5-foot-wide right of way with 6’ public utility easements on both sides of the street and a 2’ sidewalk easement adjacent to the right of way on the south/west side of the street. The street width shall be 40-feet wide from face of curb to face of curb with a 7-foot wide bioretention areas, landscape strips and 5-foot-wide sidewalk on the south/west side of the street.
Parking along both side of the street frontages will be allowed.
Bear Creek Common (Lot 19 to End)
Bear Creek Common shall consist of a 60-foot wide right of way with a 6’ public utility easement and 2’ wide sidewalk easement adjacent to the right of way on each side of the street. The street width shall be 40 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb with a 7-foot wide bioretention areas, landscape strip and 5-foot wide sidewalk on each side of the street.
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) to Hawk Street
An EVA shall be constructed from Hawk Street across Altamont Creek and connecting to Bear Creek Common. The EVA shall have a minimum 20-foot wide drive isle. Install rolled curb at Bear Creek Common with removable bollards, or other devices acceptable to the Fire Marshall installed at each end. The developer shall be required to re-configure the end of Hawk Street as it ties into the EVA and bridge structure to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Other:
The tentative map shows two proposed street elbows on Bear Creek Common with a cul-de-sac at the end. These elbows and cul-de-sac are to be designed to meet the City of Livermore Standard Detail ST-1A or have a geometric layout that accommodates a ladder truck turning movement.
Where the streets are adjacent to the open space lots, the street treatment shall include relinquishment of abutter's rights and the construction of a fence behind the sidewalk. The fence design and alignment shall be subject to Planning Division approval. The area between the fence and the back of the fiveEXHIBIT C 754
5 foot sidewalk shall be landscaped and provided with an automatic irrigation system.
7. SANITARY SEWERS
Enhanced specialty paving is not included in this project. Sanitary sewer lines will be publicly-owned and maintained and shall be extended across all frontages of each phase.
Sewer laterals with two way cleanouts behind the curb shall be installed to each lot or site before the streets are surfaced.
8. STORM WATER DRAINAGE AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
Provide a sub-drain system to collect all runoff from the residential lots and convey it to the treatment basin to protect the soil chemistry in the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve. (This condition is to address the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District concern regarding the impact of suburban stormwater runoff on nearby sensitive habitat)
A. General
1. This site is subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Prior to the issuance of the initial grading or building permit, the Developer shall provide evidence that the site is covered by the statewide General Permit to Discharge Storm Water associated with construction activity. This requires confirmation that a Notice of Intent (NOI) and the applicable fee was sent to the State Water Resources Control Board. In addition, the grading plans need to state: "All grading shall be in accordance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by the Developer per the Notice of Intent on file with the State Water Resources Control Board".
2. Necessary interceptor ditches shall be concrete. Field inlets and storm drainage pipe may be necessary in conjunction with concrete interceptor ditches as secondary drainage releases. All interceptor ditches shall be privately maintained.
B. Storm Drainage Requirements
1. Drainage from this site currently outfalls to the Arroyo Las Positas which is identified in the Zone 7 Stream Management Master plan and Stream WISE Program, Project R5-2, dated August 2006 as impacted for sediment. The necessary improvements needed to alleviate this deficiency include removing the sediment from Airway Blvd. to Kitty Hawk Road. To avoid worsening downstream creek impacts the Developer shall evaluate the impacts to the creek as a result of this development and demonstrate that they are equal to or less than the existing impacts to the creek prior to development. If the impacts of the proposed development are found to exceed the pre-project impacts to the creek the Developer may: 1) choose to complete the improvements as part of their project; 2) wait until the improvements are completed by the City or Zone 7 with a future CIP project prior to proceeding with their project; or 3) provide with their project, on-site facilities that create post-development storm flows that are less than or equal to pre-development flows and meet the City’s discharge guidelines. If detention is needed the Developer shall regulate storm water flows up to and including the 100 year storm with the discharge rate the same as that required by the Hydro-modification Management Plan “HMP”.
Developer shall submit calculations demonstrating that the added detention and flow regulation results in post project flows that are equal or less than the existing impacts to the creek prior to development.
2. This project is located within an impacted storm drainage basin as identified in the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan (dated July 2004). The necessary improvements needed to increase downstream capacity are not currently identified as a project within the City’s current Capital Improvement
EXHIBIT C
755
6 Program (CIP). The applicant may: 1) choose to install the storm drain improvements as part of their project; 2) wait until the improvements are installed by the City with a future CIP project prior to proceeding with their project; or 3) provide with their project, on-site facilities that create postdevelopment storm flows that are less than or equal to pre-development flows.
Additionally, per the City’s Facilities Planning Guidelines (dated June 2005), the flows must have the following characteristics:
For a 10-year design discharge: a hydraulic grade line (HGL) is no higher than 1.25 feet below the top of curb elevation at any manhole or inlet.
For a 100-year design discharge: a HGL does not exceed the top of curb elevation. (This is required for item 3 above.)
For additional detail on these guidelines, the applicant should refer to the following resources: City of Livermore Storm Drain Master Plan & City of Livermore Facilities Planning Guidelines (both available at the Engineering counter at City Hall).
4. This site is adjacent to land with naturally occurring oil which has entered the City’s storm drain system requiring oil remediation. The Developer shall design the storm drain system to prevent oil from entering the City’s storm drain system and Altamont Creek from this development, including modification of materials used to include a fully sealed system such as HDPE welded pipe so as to reduce oil leakage into the City’s stormwater systems. As a preventative measure the Developer shall install an oil interceptor on at the storm drain maintenance hole just before water enters the proposed detention basin. The maintenance of the oil interceptor shall be funded by the community facilities district.
5. All storm water runoff accepted from the open space area of Lot A shall be infiltrated into the ground within Lot A, and/or conveyed to the proposed HMP detention basin located in Lot B.
C. Stormwater Infrastructure Maintenance Funding
The cost to maintain all private storm water infrastructure installed with this project shall be funded by the Developer.
D. Channels
This Site currently drains to the Altamont Creek. This creek is currently impacted for sedimentation. The Developer shall provide a Hydro-modification Management Plan “HMP” with calculations demonstrating the impacts to the creek as a result of this development are equal to or less than the existing impacts to the creek prior to development.
The new outfall into Altamont Creek shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7, to provide adequate capacity for the 100 year flood flows as designated by Zone 7. The outfall shall be designed consistent with Zone 7 standard detail for Lateral Pipe Entry to Earth Channel Type II (SF-605).
A permit or other form of approval shall be obtained from Zone 7 prior to beginning the outfall improvements. Additionally, developer is responsible for obtaining any regulatory permits that may be required from State and Federal agencies.
EXHIBIT C
756
7 E. Storm Water Treatment, Detention and Low Impact Development Requirements
1. The Developer shall treat the storm water runoff from this site prior to having the storm water enter the City’s storm water distribution system. Stormwater Treatment, Low Impact Development, and Trash Capture is required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Developer shall complete and or update the Stormwater Requirements Checklist. The Developer shall provide a storm water treatment plan with calculations indicating treatment that meets the latest requirements described in Section C.3 of the City’s NPDES Permit with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. City approval of this plan and calculations is required prior to the approval of the improvement plans.
2. If this project is greater than one acre, the Developer shall provide a Hydrograph Modification Plan (HMP) with calculations in accordance with the Alameda Countywide Cleanwater Program (ACCWP) Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) guidelines. The software for the design of control measures to meet the Flow Duration Control is available
to download from www.bayareamodel.org. For additional information you may contact Pamela Lung in the City’s Engineering Department at (925-960-4538) Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City of Livermore for all storm water treatment devices deemed necessary on this site. If the stormwater treatment devices will be maintained by the individual homeowners a cleanout will be necessary at the property lines to allow the residents to maintain their portion of the private stormdrain underdrain. If the stormwater treatment device will be maintained by a Homeowners Association then the cleanouts at each of the property lines may not be needed. The stormdrain treatment devices shall be shown on the plat plans and included in the Operations and Maintenance Agreement. The Operations and Maintenance Agreement(s) shall be recorded prior to recordation of the Final Map.
F. Stormwater Treatment Infrastructure Maintenance Funding The cost to maintain all storm water treatment, detention and low impact development infrastructure installed with this project shall be funded by the Developer.
9. REQUIRED SOURCE CONTROL STORMWATER MEASURES
The Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Order R2-2022-0018 issuing the Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal storm water permit for the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. The 17 member agencies, including Livermore, are subject to this permit and all its requirements including the following:
“The Permittees shall, as part of their continuous improvement process, submit enhanced new development and significant redevelopment Performance Standards that summarize source control requirements for such projects to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff, to the maximum extent practicable…” In accordance with this requirement, the following source control measures, included as part of these Conditions of Approval, shall be implemented as a part of this project.
A. Structural Control Measures
1. Illegal Dumping to Storm Drain Inlets and Waterways
On-site storm drain inlets, except inlets located in landscaped areas, shall be clearly marked with the words “No Dumping! Flows to Bay” on a plastic marker. The plastic markers are available for
EXHIBIT C
757
8 purchase from the Water Resources Division. For ordering information, please call 925-960-8100.
For projects with newly-developed, privately-maintained streets, agency staff will verify that storm drain inlets have been marked before the final sign-off on the project’s building permit or encroachment permit.
2. Interior Floor Drains
Approved interior floor drains shall be plumbed to the sanitary sewer system and shall not be connected to the storm drain system. The applicant shall contact the Water Resources Division for specific connection and discharge requirements.
3. Parking Garages
Interior level parking garage floor drains shall be connected to a sand/oil interceptor or equivalent water treatment device approved by the Water Resources Division prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system.
4. Pesticide/Fertilizer Application and Irrigation
a. Landscaping shall be designed to minimize irrigation and runoff, promote surface infiltration where possible, minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to storm water pollution, and incorporate appropriate Bay-Friendly Landscaping principles.
b. If a landscaping plan is required as part of a development project application, the plan shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project site:
I. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified.
II. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment.
III. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable.
IV. Unless otherwise specified, proper maintenance of landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owner.
V. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as part of the landscaping design. Some examples of IPM principles and techniques include the following:
i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site. ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. Consider future conditions when plants reach maturity. Consider seasonal changes and time of day.
iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants. iv. Select pest and disease resistant plants.
EXHIBIT C
758
9 v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting the entire landscaping plan.
vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects. vii. Landscaping shall also comply with City of Livermore’s “Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance”. However, areas of a site used for bio-swales or other landscaped areas that function as a storm water treatment measure shall be exempt from the Water Efficient Landscaping requirements.
viii. An efficient irrigation system shall be installed in areas requiring irrigation. An example of an efficient irrigation system is one that includes a weather-based (automatic, self-adjusting) irrigation controller with a moisture and/or rain sensor shutoff, and in which sprinkler and spray heads are not permitted in areas less than 8 feet wide.
5. Pool, Spa, and Fountain Discharges
a. New or rebuilt swimming pools, hot tubs, spas and fountains must have a connection to the sanitary sewer to facilitate draining. This connection could be a drain in the pool to the sanitary sewer or a cleanout located close enough to the pool so that a hose can readily direct the pool discharge into the sanitary sewer cleanout.
b.When draining is necessary, a hose or other temporary system shall be directed into a sanitary sewer cleanout, or vegetated areas that are large enough to accommodate the volume without allowing the discharged water to flow to the storm drain system or receiving water body.
6. Food Service Equipment Cleaning
a. Food service facilities (including grocery stores) shall have a sink or other container for cleaning floor mats, equipment, and hood filters, which is connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area shall be large enough to allow for the largest type of equipment that must be cleaned at the facility. The cleaning area shall be indoors or in a roofed area outdoors and must be plumbed to the sanitary sewer. The discharge of wastewater from these washing activities to the storm drain system is prohibited.
Outdoor cleaning areas shall be designed to prevent storm water run-on from entering the sanitary sewer and to prevent wastewater runoff to the storm drain from washing activities.
Signs shall be posted indicating that all food service equipment washing activities shall be conducted in this area.
b. An oil and grease interceptor with a minimum size of 750 gallons is required for all food service facilities (including restaurants and grocery stores). Facilities that do not have any cooking or any other grease generating processes may request an exemption from this requirement.
7. Refuse Areas
a. New or redevelopment projects shall provide a roofed and enclosed area for dumpsters, recycling containers, compactors, and food waste containers. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area, to prevent runoff from the refuse area and to properly contain
EXHIBIT C
759
10 litter and trash. Dumpster leakage from covered trash and food compactor enclosures shall drain to the sanitary sewer via connection to an approved oil and grease interceptor device. b. Runoff from trash enclosures, recycling areas, and/or food compactor enclosures or similar facilities shall not discharge to the storm drain system. Trash enclosure areas shall be designed to avoid run-on to the trash enclosure area. In most cases, drains are not permitted within trash enclosure areas. A drain, however, must be provided for compactors. If a drain is required in or beneath dumpsters, compactors, and tallow bin areas, it shall be connected to a grease removal device prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer.
8. Outdoor Process Activities/Equipment1
a. Process activities shall be performed either indoors or in roofed outdoor areas. If performed outdoors, the area shall be designed to prevent the “run-on” of storm water drainage, as well, as the runoff from the area with process activities.
b. Process equipment areas shall drain to the sanitary sewer system. The applicant shall contact the Water Resources Division for specific connection and discharge requirements.
9. Outdoor Equipment/Materials Storage
a. All outdoor equipment and materials storage areas shall be covered and/or bermed, or shall be designed with Best Management Practices (BMP) that effectively minimize the potential runoff and contact of storm water to pollutants.
b. Storage areas containing non-hazardous liquids shall be covered by a roof and be contained by berms, dikes, liners, vaults or similar spill containment devices. c. All on-site hazardous materials and wastes, as defined and/or regulated by the California Public Health Code must be used, managed, and stored in compliance with the applicable Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department’s requirements and regulations.
10. Vehicle/Equipment and Commercial/Industrial Cleaning a. Wastewater from vehicle and equipment washing operations shall not be discharged to the storm drain system. Auto dealerships, however, may rinse off vehicle exterior surfaces for appearance purposes, provided only a minimum volume of water is used without soap or other cleaning agents.
b. Commercial/industrial facilities having vehicle/equipment cleaning needs shall either provide a roofed, bermed area for washing activities or discourage vehicle/equipment washing by removing hose bibs (faucets) and installing signs prohibiting such uses. Vehicle/equipment washing areas shall be paved, designed to prevent run-on to or runoff from the area, and plumbed to drain to the sanitary sewer via an oil water separator with a minimum size of 750- gallons or an approved equivalent pretreatment device.
c. Commercial car wash facilities shall be designed and operated such that no runoff from the facility is discharged to the storm drain system. Wastewater from the facility shall discharge to 1 Examples of businesses that may have outdoor process activities and equipment include machine shops and auto repair shops, and industries that have pretreatment facilities.
EXHIBIT C
760
11 the sanitary sewer via an oil water separator with a minimum size of 750-gallons or an approved equivalent pretreatment device.
d. All facilities, which discharge wastewater generated from vehicle or equipment washing, must obtain a wastewater discharge permit from the City of Livermore’s Water Resources Division prior to the commencement of the discharge.
11. Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
a. Vehicle/equipment repair and maintenance shall be performed in a designated area indoors, or if such services must be performed outdoors, in an area designed to prevent the run-on and runoff of storm water. Oil and other automotive fluid change service must always be performed indoors.
b. Secondary containment shall be provided for exterior work areas where hazardous materials or hazardous wastes are used or stored. Drains shall not be installed within the secondary containment areas.
c. Vehicle service facilities shall not contain floor drains. d. Tanks, containers, or sinks used for parts cleaning or rinsing shall not be connected to the storm drain system. Tanks, containers, or sinks used for such purposes shall not be directly connected to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer from such operations require prior approval from the Water Resources Division. The applicant shall contact the Water Resources Division for specific connection and discharge requirements.
12. Fuel Dispensing Areas
a. Fueling areas2 shall have impermeable surfaces (i.e., portland cement concrete or equivalent smooth impervious surface) that are: a) graded at the minimum slope necessary to prevent ponding; and b) separated from the rest of the site by a grade break that prevents run-on of storm water to the maximum extent practicable.
b. Fueling areas shall be covered by a canopy or roof that extends a minimum of ten feet in each direction from each pump. Roof downspouts from the canopy or roof shall not drain onto the fueling area.
13. Loading Docks
a. Loading docks shall be graded to minimize run-on to and runoff from the loading area.
Roof downspouts shall be positioned to direct storm water away from the loading area. Storm water runoff from loading dock areas shall be connected to a post-construction storm water treatment measure(s) prior to discharge to the storm drain system. b. Door skirts between the trailers and the building shall be installed to prevent exposure of loading activities to rain, unless one of the following conditions applies: the loading dock is covered, or the applicant demonstrates that rainfall will not result in an exposure of storm water to pollutants.
2 The fueling area shall be defined as the area extending a minimum of 6.5 feet from the corner of each fuel dispenser or the length at which the hose and nozzle assembly may be operated plus a minimum of one foot, whichever is greater.
EXHIBIT C
761
12 14. Fire Sprinkler Test Water
Provisions shall be made in the project design and construction to allow for the discharge of fire sprinkler test water to an onsite vegetated area. If this is not feasible, provide for discharge to the sanitary sewer in accordance with current plumbing codes.
15. Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water
a. Boiler drain lines shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system and may not discharge to the storm drain system.
b. For small air conditioning units, air conditioning condensate shall be directed to landscaped areas as a minimum BMP. For large air conditioning units, in new developments or significant redevelopments, condensation lines shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system, wherever feasible.
c. Roof drains shall discharge and drain away from the building foundation to landscaped areas wherever feasible.
d.Washing and/or steam cleaning activities must be performed at an appropriately equipped facility that drains to the sanitary sewer as specified in Section J. Any outdoor washing or pressure washing must be in compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Program requirements and managed in such a way that there is no discharge of soaps or other pollutants to the storm drain system. The applicant shall contact the Water Resources Division for specific discharge requirements.
16. Architectural Copper Installation
Projects with architectural copper should, if possible, purchase copper materials that have been pre-patinated at the factor. Whether patination is done offsite or onsite, applicant should consider coating the copper materials with an impervious coating that prevents further corrosion and runoff.
If patination is done on-site, implement one or both of the following:
a. Collect rinse water in a tank and pump to the sanitary sewer. Contact the City of Livermore Water Resources before discharging to the sanitary sewer. b. Collect the rinse water in a tank and haul off-site for proper disposal.
B. II. OPERATIONAL BMPS
This section details Best Management Practices (BMP) that private property owners and/or the occupants of private property must implement following the construction of projects. Ultimately, the responsibility for implementation of these BMPs rests with the property owners. The City of Livermore’s Source Control Program routinely performs inspections of industrial and commercial sites to verify BMP implementation and effectiveness.
1. Paved Sidewalks and Parking Lots
Sidewalks and parking lots shall be swept regularly to minimize the accumulation of litter and debris. Wash water resulting from the pressure washing of parking lots must be captured, pretreated (if necessary) to meet local discharge limits, and discharged to the sanitary sewer. Wash water resulting from the pressure washing of sidewalks may be allowed to drain to the storm drain system provided that (a) no soap or other cleaning agents are used, and (b) all debris are trapped
EXHIBIT C
762
13 and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Under no circumstances shall washwater containing any soap or other cleaning agents be discharged to the storm drain system.
2. Private Streets, Utilities and Common Areas
a. The owner of private streets and storm drains shall prepare and implement a plan for street sweeping of paved private roads and cleaning of all storm drain inlets. b. For residential developments, where other maintenance mechanisms are not applicable or otherwise in place, a Property Owners Association, Landscape& Lighting District, or an equivalent mechanism shall be created and shall be responsible for maintaining all private streets and private utilities and other privately owned common areas and facilities on the site including landscaping. These maintenance responsibilities shall include implementing and maintaining storm water BMPs associated with improvements and landscaping. CC&R’s creating the association shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the recordation of the Final Map and recorded prior to the sale of the first residential unit. The CC&R’s or Landscape & Lighting District shall describe how the storm water BMPs associated with privately owned improvements and landscaping shall be maintained and detail contact information for the entity responsible for such maintenance activities.
3. Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
a. No person shall dispose of, or permit the disposal, directly or indirectly, of vehicle fluids, hazardous materials, or rinse water from parts cleaning operations into storm drains. b. No vehicle fluid removal shall be performed outside a building, or on asphalt or ground surfaces, whether inside or outside a building, except in such a manner as to ensure that any spilled fluid will be in an area of secondary containment. Leaking vehicle fluids shall be contained or drained from the vehicle immediately.
c. No person shall leave unattended drip parts or other open containers containing vehicle fluid, unless such containers are in use or in an area that cannot discharge to the storm drain.
4. Fueling Areas
The property owner shall dry sweep the fueling area and spot clean leaks and drips on a routine basis. Fueling areas shall not be washed down with water unless the wash water is collected and prevented from discharging to the storm drain system. Wash water resulting from the pressure washing of fueling areas must be captured, pretreated (if necessary) to meet local discharge limits, and discharged to the sanitary sewer or hauled offsite for proper disposal through a licensed waste hauler.
5. Loading Docks
The property owner shall ensure that BMPs are implemented to prevent potential storm water pollution. These BMPs shall include, but are not limited to, a regular program of sweeping, litter control, and spill clean-up.
6. On-site Storm Drains
All on-site storm drains must be inspected and, if necessary, cleaned at least once a year immediately prior to the rainy season.
EXHIBIT C
763
14 7. Architectural Copper Cleaning, Treating or Washing When cleaning, treating or washing architectural copper features, implement one or both of the following:
a. Collect rinse water in a tank and pump to the sanitary sewer. Contact the City of Livermore Water Resources before discharging to the sanitary sewer. b. Collect the rinse water in a tank and haul off-site for proper disposal.
10. WATER SUPPLY (CITY)
Water mains shall be extended across all frontages of each phase and all waterline valves must notate “EPDM” on the valve body.
This development is in City Water Zone 3. The developer shall install pressure reduction valves (PRVs), backflow prevention devices and appurtenances on the potable water services as directed by the City Engineer
The fire service backflow preventer(s) shall be effectively screened from the public right-of-way while at the same time preserving ease of maintenance access to the backflow preventer(s). Screening shall be as specified on City Standard Detail W-10A, B and C. The fire service backflow preventer(s) shall meet the performance standards of the backflow preventer shown in City Standard Detail W-10A, B and C.
11. UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES:
All existing and new electric (with the exception of any 60 KV and higher voltage wires) and communication lines along the project frontage and within the project shall be placed underground.
Electric, gas, Comcast and SBC utilities are required and shall be placed in a common trench. All electric transformers shall be placed underground. (Commercial and industrial developments may have above ground transformers).
12. TRAILWAY/BIKEWAY REQUIREMENTS
Construct a bicycle/pedestrian connection from the Project to the existing trail crossing of Altamont Creek near the end of Bear Creek Drive. Install bollards at the entrance to the trail, as approved by the City Engineer.
14. HORTICULTURIST'S REPORT
A Horticulturist’s report will be required because this site has soil conditions that may detrimental to landscaping.
15. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. Community Facilities District
The Developer shall form a new Community Facilities District (CFD) prior to final map approval for funding the maintenance and future replacement costs of the following improvements:
- The Hawk Street Bridge EVA;
- The storm drain outfall to Altamont Creek
EXHIBIT C
764
EXHIBIT C
765
ATTACHMENT A
EXHIBIT C
766
Date: July 12, 2017
To: Planning Division
From: Ryan Rucker, Deputy Chief / Fire Marshal
Subject: Vesting Tentative Tract Map Garaventa Hills
SUB 13-001
dated June 11, 2018
SITE SPECIFIC PLAN CHECK COMMENTS
1. Provide documentation on the deferred installation plans that the emergency vehicle access (EVA) bridge will support a gross vehicle weight of 69,000 lbs.
2. On the installation plans, show gross vehicle weight signs on both side of the bridge
3. Provide and maintain a 20 foot fire break at all property lines which abut the wild-land interface.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the 2013 California Fire Code; City of Livermore Ordinance No. 1985. All required permits shall be obtained prior to work commencement.
2. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed in all occupancies in accordance with the 2013 California Building, Fire and Residential Codes; City of Livermore Ordinance No. 1985.
Installations shall conform to NFPA 13D with local amendments for one and two-family occupancies.
EXHIBIT C
767
3. The Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building/civil drawings for conceptual on-site fire mains and fire hydrant locations only. Plan check comments and approvals DO NOT INCLUDE:
• Installation of the on-site fire mains and fire hydrants.
Specific installation drawings submitted by the licensed underground fire protection contractor shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. • Backflow prevention or connections to the public water mains.
4. Fire flow for residential construction shall follow the 2013 California Fire Code Appendix B. A fire flow reduction may be applied for this project as the single family residential homes are provided with automatic sprinklers and fire access and circulation is provided. In no case shall the fire flow be less than 1500 gallons per minute.
5. The following items will be provided prior to any construction above the foundation or slab:
• Emergency vehicle access shall be provided to the site or tract, as specified in the approved Site Plan, including the area 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. • If permanent access or site paving is not provided, the carrying capacity of the emergency vehicle access shall be 69,000 pounds under all weather conditions. • Designated construction material storage and construction worker parking shall not obstruct the emergency vehicle access route(s).
• 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.
• 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 • Where a project is phased as part of the development approved by the City, 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.
NOTE: Periodic inspections will be made for compliance.
EXHIBIT C
768
6. Underground fire mains, fire hydrants and control valves shall be installed in conformance with the most recently adopted edition of NFPA Pamphlet 24, "Outside Protection".
• The underground pipeline contractor shall submit a minimum of three (3) sets of installation drawings to the Building Department, to be reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The plans shall have the contractor's wet stamp indicating the California contractor license type, license number and must be signed. No underground pipeline inspections will be conducted prior to issuance of approved plans.
• All underground fire protection work shall require a California contractor's license type as follows: C-16, C-34, and C-36 or A.
• All field-testing and inspection of piping joints shall be conducted prior to covering of any pipeline.
7. Address numbers shall be installed on the front or primary entrance for all buildings.
Minimum building address character size shall be minimum 4" high. by 1/2" stroke. If building is setback from primary access 50 feet or greater address size shall be increased for visibility and in accordance with Livermore-Pleasanton Standard Operating Procedures – Premises Identification Standards. Where multiple access is provided, address or tenant space number shall be provided on each access and/or warehouse door and character size shall be no less than 4” high by 1/2” ” stroke. This may warrant field verification and adjustments based upon topography, landscaping or other obstructions.
EXHIBIT C
769
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 7.1
DATE: November 25, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marianna Marysheva, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution sunsetting the Livermore-Dublin Liaison Committee, the LivermorePleasanton Liaison Committee, and the Intergovernmental Committee.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution sunsetting the Livermore-Dublin Liaison Committee, the Livermore-Pleasanton Liaison Committee, and the Intergovernmental Committee.
SUMMARY
At the September 9, 2024 City Council meeting, City Council directed staff to review the following bodies for relevance: the Livermore-Dublin Liaison Committee, the Livermore-Pleasanton Liaison Committee, and the Intergovernmental Committee which consists of the City of Livermore, the Livermore Area Parks and Recreation District (LARPD), and the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD).
The three bodies are working groups that do not have decision or policy making authority. They were created by City Council direction, not by resolution. Staff recommends sunsetting the bodies and having staff meet with the various agencies as needed.
DISCUSSION
The City of Livermore City Council Members participate in three local liaison bodies, the LivermoreDublin Liaison Committee, the Livermore-Pleasanton Liaison Committee, and the Intergovernmental Committee which consists of the City of Livermore, the Livermore Area Parks and Recreation District (LARPD), and the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD). None of the three bodies have policy or decision-making authority. They were created for City Council Members to share information with partner agencies.
At the September 9, 2024, City Council meeting, City Council directed staff to review the bodies for relevance. Staff has determined that it would be more effective if staff met with the other agencies as needed instead of the City Council Member led Brown Act bodies. 770
Background
Intergovernmental Committee
The Intergovernmental Committee was created at the request of then Livermore Council Member Wieskamp in April 1981 to discuss at the time “problems in the mini-parks and other items of interest.” The Committee consists of two Livermore City Council Members, two LARPD Board Members, and two LVJUSD Board Members. The staff liaisons are the City Manager, City Attorney, LAPRD General Manager, and the LVJUSD Superintendent. The Committee meets bi-monthly on the third Thursday of the month. The hosting agency rotates among the three agencies.
Per the Intergovernmental agenda, “The purpose of this meeting is to provide information on topics of shared interests. The meeting is a work session between two city, board and district elected officials and staff. Action items may be identified to assist with further discussion. The meeting is not recorded nor are any minutes taken as this is a work session and the Committee has no decision-making authority.” Livermore-Pleasanton Liaison Committee
The Livermore-Pleasanton Liaison Committee was created at the request of then, City of Pleasanton Mayor Pico in March 2001 to discuss issues of concern to both cities. Former Mayor Pico stated his city wanted a formal committee, which included a formal agenda and notification of meetings per the Brown Act. Then City of Livermore Mayor Brown appointed two City Council Members to participate in the meetings. At some point between March 2001 and September 2010, the Committee stopped meeting.
In 2010, Airport staff were working to implement a new noise monitoring system, and the city had requested the City of Pleasanton pay for a portion of the new system. At the September 13, 2010, Livermore City Council meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution titled A Resolution for Joint Cooperative Efforts by the City of Livermore and the City of Pleasanton Regarding the Livermore Municipal Airport. An action item listed as bullet 6 of the resolution states “Resuming quarterly meetings of the Livermore/Pleasanton Liaison Committee to improve communications and promote mutual understanding of the airport operations.”
At the May 23, 2011, City Council meeting, item 6.02 on the agenda was titled Discussion and direction regarding the Livermore-Pleasanton Liaison Committee and the Airport Noise Monitoring Reduction Program. The May 23, 2011, minutes have a section that reads “The City Council directed that the Liaison Committee will focus on discussion of extraordinary noise issues; all other Airport matters including operations, planning, and routine questions and complaints will be referred to the Airport Commission. Special stakeholder meetings will not be scheduled; discussion of noise issues will occur in the normal course of regularly scheduled Airport Commission Meetings.” Per the Livermore-Pleasanton Liaison Committee agenda “The purpose of this meeting is to provide information on topics of shared interest between the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton. The meeting is a work session between two elected officials from each City and City staff. The Committee has no decision-making authority. Action minutes are taken to identify and assist with further discussions. All final decisions related to items discussed will be made by each City Manager as appropriate.” Livermore-Dublin Liaison Committee
771
The Livermore-Dublin Liaison Committee was created in 2001. In the City of Livermore minutes of the December 11, 2001, City Council meeting, two members of City Council were appointed to the Committee. In February 2002, then Vice Mayor Reitter noted his attendance at the first meeting of the Committee.
The Committee does not meet regularly, and the hosting agency rotates.
Per the Livermore-Dublin Liaison Committee agenda: “The meeting is a work session between two elected officials from each City and City staff to provide information on topics of shared interest. The meeting is not recorded nor are any minutes taken as and the Committee has no decision-making authority. Informal minutes documenting the meeting logistics, Committee Member attendance and discussion items will be prepared. Action items may be identified to assist with further discussion, however, all final decisions related to items discussed will be made by each City’s Council or City Manager as appropriate.”
Staff recommends that all three bodies be sunset and have city staff continue to meet with the other agencies as necessary. Examples of recent staff collaboration includes working with City of Dublin staff regarding the Dublin Boulevard Extension, working with LARPD staff on the Springtown Open Space Master Plan, working with LVJUSD staff on school safety, and working with the City of Pleasanton staff on the recent SMP projects.
Having Livermore staff meet with partner agencies instead of City Council members, will enable more efficient discussion and collaboration. Action can be expedited on items that do not require City Council approval. City Council will be updated on the outcome of the meetings through the Critical Projects Weekly Update and other update opportunities. For items that do require City Council action, staff will agendize those items as needed. For items related to the Livermore Airport, the City currently has a robust stakeholder engagement program in place and holds regular meetings of the Airport Commission who welcome attendance by all, not just Livermore residents.
If City Council adopts the resolution, staff will reach out to the Committees and let them know the City will no longer be participating in the meetings and will continue to have city staff work with agency staff on items of concern as needed.
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
There are no fiscal impacts to this item.
COMMUNITY PILLAR
5: A City That Works
GOAL
1: Engage effectively with the Mayor and City Council
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
772
Prepared by: Debbie Elam
City Clerk
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
773
RESOLUTION NO. ________
IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION SUNSETTING THE LIVERMORE-DUBLIN LIAISON
COMMITTEE, THE LIVERMORE-PLEASANTON LIAISON COMMITTEE,
AND THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE
The City of Livermore City Council Members participate in three local liaison bodies, the Livermore-Dublin Liaison Committee, the Livermore-Pleasanton Liaison Committee, and the Intergovernmental Committee which consists of the City of Livermore, the Livermore Area Parks and Recreation District (LARPD), and the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD). None of the three bodies have decision making authority. They were created for City Council Members to share information with partner agencies.
At the September 9, 2024, City Council meeting, City Council directed staff to review the bodies for relevance. Staff has determined that staff working groups as needed are more effective than City Council Member led Brown Act bodies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore, that the Livermore-Dublin Liaison Committee, the Livermore-Pleasanton Liaison Committee, and the Intergovernmental Committee are hereby sunset.
On motion of Council Member ______________________, seconded by Council Member ______________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on November 25, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ /s/ Jason R. Alcala_________________ Deborah L. Elam Jason R. Alcala
City Clerk City Attorney
774
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 10.1
3.1 Beautification Committee annual update presented by Chair Karen Jefferson.
Material: PowerPoint Presentation
3.2 Presentation of the 2024 Beautification Awards.
Material: PowerPoint Presentation
6.2 Hearing to consider a proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Site Plan Design Review for a 44-unit single-family residential subdivision (Garaventa Hills), consisting of 38 single-family detached units and 6 duet/couplet units and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Material: PowerPoint Presentation and Public Comment
7.1 Resolution sunsetting the Livermore-Dublin Liaison Committee, the LivermorePleasanton Liaison Committee, and the Intergovernmental Committee.
Material: PowerPoint Presentation and Public Comment
8.0 Council Committee Reports and Matters Initiated by City Manager, City Attorney, Staff, and Council Members.
Material: Council Reports
DATE: November 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.
DISCUSSION
775
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
776
1 Beautification Committee 2024 Update
November 25, 2024
Presented by Karen Jefferson, Beautification Committee Chair Arbor Day – Trees donated to 9 public and 3
private schools
1 2
Item 3.1 and Item 3.2
PowerPoint Presentations
777
2 2024 Beautification Awards
November 25, 2024
Presented by Karen Jefferson, Beautification Committee Chair Beautification Awards Criteria
•Improve curb-side appeal
•Recognize drought tolerant landscape
renovations
•Promote creativity and community pride
•Encourage citizen participation in beautifying
Livermore
3 4
Item 3.1 and Item 3.2
PowerPoint Presentations
778
3 3 Properties Nominated
144 Diamond Drive
5 6
Item 3.1 and Item 3.2
PowerPoint Presentations
779
4 455 Olivina Avenue - Before
455 Olivina Avenue - After
7 8
Item 3.1 and Item 3.2
PowerPoint Presentations
780
5 524 Hazel Street
Congratulations to the winners of
the 2024 Beautification Awards!
9 10
Item 3.1 and Item 3.2
PowerPoint Presentations
781
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
782
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
783
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
784
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
785
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
786
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
787
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
788
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
789
1 Helena Graves
From: BERNARD CABANNE
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 11:18 AM
To: City Clerk; John Marchand; Robert Carling; Barrientos, Ben; BERNARD CABANNE Subject: Fwd: Livermore City Council meeting 11/25/2024---Public Hearing 6.2 Proposed Garaventa Hill Housing Project
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
11/25/2024
Dear City Council Members:
Please postpone the recommendations/resolutions and the certification of the Court ordered Recirculated Environmental Impact Report for the Garaventa Hills Project for the following reasons:
1. The Final DEIR and/or the Reissued Final DEIR still do not adequately address the areas of air quality, hydrology( flooding), and biological resources. There is substantial new information in these areas that the decision-makers -- the Planning Commission, the City Council--- and the public did not have access to prior to the meeting tonight. Therefore; we cannot participate in the process and/or make an informed decision in a meaningful manner as required by CEQA and state statues.
2. The minor revisions to biological resources mitigation suggested by Swaim Biological Inc, (SBI) --- are not sufficient to offer adequate protection for the Western Burrowing Owl, the Western spadefoot and the Western pond turtle. The Western Burrowing Owl is a candidate for the Endangered Species List and is afforded the same protection as a listed species. In view of this recent finding, the Court ordered No Project Alternative needs to be further analyzed. Deciding in advance, that minor revisions to biological resources mitigation are sufficient--- is not advisable. Furthermore, the suggested offsite compensatory habitat does nothing for the endangered species and special status species at the site.
Was the USFWS and CDFW given an opportunity to comment on the minor biological resources revisions offered by SBI ? If not, why not?
3. I urge you to modify the recommendation to the City Council allowing the applicant to make a cash payment equivalent to 3.15 affordable units to comply with the affordable housing obligation for the Garaventa Hills Project. Instead of the payment, the developer should provide more affordable units within the proposed 44 units.
Please address the above issues and other comments by residents and environmental groups before approving any recommendations/resolutions and certifying the Recirculated EIR. Please include comments in the official record.
Sincerely,
Donna Cabanne
Livermore resident, member of the Center for Biological Diversity, member of the Sierra Club.
Item 6.2
Public Comment
790
1 Sunsetting the Livermore-Dublin Liaison Committee, the Livermore-Pleasanton Liaison Committee, and the
Intergovernmental Committee.
November 25, 2024
Presented by Debbie Elam, City Clerk
KEY POINTS
• Committees were created for City Council Members to
share information with elected members of partner
agencies.
• Committees do not have decision or policy making
authority.
• City staff currently meet with the other agencies on
items of concern.
• Items that require City Council authority
are agendized for City Council Meetings.
• City Council is updated on projects through the Critical Projects report.
1 2
Item 7.1
PowerPoint Presentation
791
2 Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a
resolution sunsetting the Livermore-Dublin Liaison
Committee, the Livermore-Pleasanton Liaison
Committee, and the Intergovernmental Committee.
3 Item 7.1
PowerPoint Presentation
792
1 Helena Graves
From: BERNARD CABANNE
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 11:52 AM
To: City Clerk; Barrientos, Ben; John Marchand; Robert Carling; Evan Branning; BERNARD
CABANNE
Subject: Livermore City Council meeting 11/25/2024 ---Matters for consideration ----Item 7.1 Sunsetting Proposal
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
11/25/2024
Dear City Council Members :
Please postpone making a decision about sunsetting the Livermore-Dublin Liaison Committee, the Livermore-Pleasanton Liaison Committee, and the Intergovernmental Committee. Although these committee meetings are working meetings with no policy making authority, these meetings are open to the public and do offer the public an opportunity for residents to remain updated and involved on critical issues and provide comments. In an effort to maintain public access and to increase transparency and participation for all residents of the Tri-Valley, it is in the best interests of all parties to keep these committees.
At the very least, the Council should postpone a decision on this item until the newly elected Council members in Dublin. Livermore and Pleasanton have a chance to consider this sunsetting proposal. It would reflect poorly on the current City Council if Livermore abruptly decides to end these meetings without consulting the newly elected Council members of neighboring cities and agencies.
Sincerely,
Donna Cabanne
Livermore resident
Item 7.1
Public Comment
793
1 Helena Graves
From: Pleasanton City Clerk <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 11:58 AM
To: Debbie Elam
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Letter regarding City Council meeting agenda item 7.1 Attachments: November 25, 2024 Letter to Livermore CC from Gerry Beaudin re Livermore CC Meeting Item 7.1.pdf
Importance: High
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Good afternoon,
Attached please find a letter from the City of Pleasanton regarding the November 25, 2024, Livermore City Council meeting agenda item 7.1.
Office of the City Clerk
T: 925-931-5027
[email protected]
City of Pleasanton | P.O. Box 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566 Item 7.1
Public Comment
794
Item 7.1
Public Comment
795
Council Member
Date of
Meeting or
Event Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex.
Board Meeting or ribbon
cutting) Summary of Meeting or Event
Mayor Marchand 11/11/2024 City of Livermore Veterans Day Observance Spoke at the event and participated in
the presentation of the Quilts of Valor.
Mayor Marchand 11/13/2024 Las Positas College Veterans Day Observance Spoke at the event and participated in
the presentation of the Quilts of Valor.
Mayor Marchand 11/13/2024 Alameda County Mayor Conference Business meeting.
Approved contract for the Executive
Director. Heard a presentation on the
Northern California College Promise
Coalition program.
Mayor Marchand 11/14/2024 City of Livermore TV30 Mayor's Report Provided an update of City activities.
Mayor Marchand 11/18/2024
Alameda County Transportation
Commission (ACTC) Planning, Policy
and Legislation Committee (PPLC)
Committee Committee meeting
Received an update on the Legislative
program and reviewed suggested
changes to the by-laws of the Watchdog
Committee.
Mayor Marchand 11/19/2024 Chamber of Commerce Leadership Livermore Program Presented a talk on the history of
Livermore.
Mayor Marchand 11/19/2024 Las Positas College
Ribbon-cutting of the new
viticulture technology facility. Spoke and presented a certificate.
Mayor Marchand 11/20/2024 City of Livermore Police Department Citizens Police Academy
Graduation
Spoke at the graduation and
encouraged graduates to continue with
the Alumni group.
Mayor Marchand 11/20/2024 City of Livermore Interviews
Interviewed candidates for the advisory
bodies.
Mayor Marchand 11/21/2024
Livermore Valley Chamber of
Commerce
Chamber Board Strategic
Planning Session Strategic planning session
Mayor Marchand 11/24/2024 City of Livermore Celebration of Life Recognizing Joyce Shapiro, a tireless
advocate for Stanford Healthcare in the
Tri-Valley.
Item 8.0
Council Reports
796
Council Member
Date of
Meeting or
Event Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex.
Board Meeting or ribbon
cutting)
Vice Mayor Carling 10/29/2024 Alameda County Resource Conservation District East Bay Wildlife Connectivity
meeting
Vice Mayor Carling 10/29/2024
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Autority
(LAVTA)
Hydrogen Fueling Facility
ribbon cutting
Vice Mayor Carling 10/30/2024 Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department Welcome for new LPFD deputy
fire chief Bryan Carr
Vice Mayor Carling 10/30/2024 City of Livermore NASA Moon tree planting Vice Mayor Carling 11/11/2024 City of Livermore Veterans Day remembrance Vice Mayor Carling 11/13/2024 Tri-Valley NonProfit Alliance (TVNPA) Power of Giving Celebration Vice Mayor Carling 11/15/2024
Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee
(ALOSC) Board Meeting
Vice Mayor Carling 11/20/2024 StopWaste Board Meeting
Vice Mayor Carling 11/20/2024
Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management
Agency (LAVWMA) Board Meeting
Vice Mayor Carling 11/21/2024
Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs
(APAPA) Holiday celebration
Item 8.0
Council Reports
797
Council Member
Date of
Meeting or
Event Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex.
Board Meeting or ribbon
cutting)
Council Member Branning 10/28/2024
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Autority
(LAVTA)
Award Ceremony for
Hydrogen Fueling Facility
Council Member Branning 10/30/2024 Cty of Livermore NASA Moon Tree Planting Council Member Branning 11/2/2024 Ale House
Beard Growing
Contest/Fundraiser
Council Member Branning 11/4/2024
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Autority
(LAVTA) Board Meeting
Council Member Branning 11/13/2024 Tri-Valley NonProfit Alliance (TVNPA) Power of Giving Celebration Council Member Branning 11/19/2024 Las Positas College
Viticulture and Wine
Technology Building Ribbon
Cutting
Council Member Branning 11/19/2024 Livermore Downtown Inc. (LDI) Board Meeting Council Member Branning 11/20/2024
Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management
Agency (LAVWMA) Regular Board Meeting
Council Member Branning 11/21/2024
Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs
(APAPA) Social Mixer
Council Member Branning 11/25/2024 CityServe Thanksgiving Prayer Breakfast Item 8.0
Council Reports
798
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 10.2
DATE: November 25, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marianna Marysheva, City Manager
SUBJECT: Supplemental materials received at the meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
SUMMARY
DISCUSSION
ATTACHMENTS
1. Items Received at the Meeting
Prepared by: Helena Graves
Deputy City Clerk
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
799
Woodsy Owl Can Help You Find These
Trees in South Livermore
Tree Treasure Map
Hobbit Tree
One of the largest stands of CA
native Western Sycamore is found
in Sycamore Grove Park. Sycamore
trees have white trunks with
shades of grey and tan pieces of
bark looking like puzzle pieces. The
oldest Sycamore tree in the park
is about 250 years old, with an
average tree age of 110 years.
Be sure to check out the
hobbit tree. You can walk
inside the tree and look
out its naturally formed
window. It is located on
the Arroyo Del Valle trail
(asphalt path) a half mile
from the Wetmore
entrance
Western Sycamore
The Valley Oak can live for 600
years, making it one of the longest
lived and largest oak trees in
North America. It is unique to
California.
Alden Lane Nursery has some of
the oldest Valley Oaks in our area
with some trees about 300 to 400
years old. These trees are lovingly
cared for by staff and tree
experts. Visit the Nursery and
marvel at these beautiful trees.
Valley Oak
Sycamore Grove Park
Item 3.1
Beautification Committee annual update
800
Woodsy Owl Can Help You Find These
Trees in North Livermore
Tree Treasure Map
Fremont Cottonwood
Cork Oak
Cork oaks have thick cracked brown black
bark. Tap the bark – it sounds hollow. The
bark of the tree, cork, is used in bulletin
boards. The tree can regrow its outer bark.
After a tree reaches 25 years of age, it can
be stripped of bark every 9 to 12 years
without causing damage to the tree. A Cork
Oak lives for 200 years. Cork oak trees can
be found along the asphalt trail next to the
Arroyo Los Positas.
Cottonwoods have heart-shaped
leaves that shimmer in the wind
and gray bark. There are a few
places in Livermore to find this
tree and one place is the Altamont
Creek Park adjacent to Altamont
Creek School. The east side of
park contains native plants,
including Fremont Cottonwood
trees, the native cottonwood in
CA.
Cork Oak Bark
Item 3.1
Beautification Committee annual update
801
Happy
Arbor Day
Guess the Trees
from their Leaves
FOR PROOFING ONLY - DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE
= Trim = Bleed = Safe Area
Item 3.1
802
at the
Livermore Public Library
Redwoods by Jason Chin
Tell Me, Tree: All about Trees
for Kids by Gail Gibbons
The Tree Lady by H. Joseph
Hopkins
Let’s Save Our Planet by Jess
French
One Small Place in a Tree by
Barbara Brenner
All About Trees by Polly
Cheeseman
The Sequoia Lives On by
Joanne Cooke
Anne Frank’s Chestnut Tree by
Jane Kohuth
How Long Does a Redwood
Tree Live? By Emily Hudd
Seeds of Change by Jeri
Cullerton Johnson
Additional books and
activities can be found
on the City’s website
FOR PROOFING ONLY DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE
= Trim = Bleed = Safe Area
Item 3.1
803
804
805