Citizens for Balanced Growth Posts

Machine generated transcript of the 2019-04-22 Garaventa Hill environmental certification meeting with video timestamps, synchronized with the video posted on our Youtube page.

0:01
okay thank you mayor Marchand members of the council good evening my name is Steve Stewart I’m your planning manager
0:07
and I’m joined up here at the desk by Tran SES our one of our associate planners the project planner who
0:13
inherited this project or volunteered to inherit it back when we passed that on
0:20
also uh engineering specialist on my right Mike poto and then our um environmental consultant from Lamere
0:27
Gregory Associates is Rebecca Al so before we get started a little bit
0:33
I’ll um I’m going to provide a brief history of the uh
0:40
site and before we do that I did I did want to note that the proposal before
0:45
you this evening is the result uh of and the response to a lot
0:51
of comments and suggestions and recommendations from a lot of folks in this room including the Savar gaven and
0:57
Hill group uh nearby neighbor our federal and state resource agencies
1:03
the Livermore area Recreation Park District city council and and
1:10
staff so the 32 Acres site is located up in our Northeast uh part of our city
1:17
right in between Laughlin Road and Vasco Road the um Altamont Creek Elementary
1:24
and Altamont Creek Park are directly south across Altamont Creek from the project site can you move that
1:33
just and this sites the last undeveloped parcel that’s part of the Marissa uh development out there so the
1:42
the site does have an extensive land use history and was part of the in the early
1:47
90s as part of the marilisa development plan for just under 400 units in the area you can see the the project
1:54
outlined here the time had um sort of a loop ra Road around the nor with some
2:00
larger estate Lots on top in the mid90s the city council
2:07
approved the subdivision that created the uh residential development around
2:13
the project site also the School site and the uh Park site in addition to the
2:19
gabena wetlands preserve parel and at this time the the uh
2:27
property was designated as a remainder during that development uh just be developed in the future but at that time
2:33
it was noted that some of the density uh allocated to this parcel was transferred
2:38
off to the site and uh used in the other development but that 76 units would
2:46
remain available as part of the overall density transfer for that overall
2:54
project in 2000 Western Pacific housing applied under the city’s housing imp
2:59
implementation program uh with this 45 unit development uh proposal had again
3:06
45 units had a loop road coming along entire site was pretty much developed
3:11
except for the northwest corner couple of culde saacs up on top of the nles with the view or estate Lots up on
3:19
top uh due to below average Landscaping contributions to City
3:25
facilities and its location the project was ranked below average and did not receive housing allocations that
3:33
year in 2011 the current applicant lafy communities uh applied for the
3:40
development plan with this uh layout included 76 single family residential lots with a
3:47
loop road couple of culde saacs uh up there the road looped over the saddle
3:53
between the two NES on the property and included a two-lane vehicular access
3:59
Bridge extension from Hawk Street over Altamont Creek and into the
4:07
project staff worked with the applicant to revise uh this proposal to reduce the
4:13
grading and try and preserve more of those NES and the landforms there and this plan you can see um
4:22
eliminated the Lots just off of Bear Creek and the Lots at the base of the
4:27
eastern most null to try and Preserve of that land form and then add some other changes including getting rid of the
4:33
little culde saacs uh that opened up more of the the Northwestern null
4:40
project still had the two-lane vehicular Bridge extending from Hawk Street and over Altamont
4:47
Creek So based on public feedback uh including uh those at a
4:54
public hearing for at the Planning Commission for the draft environmental impact report the applicant made
5:00
revisions to that project and you can see that on the
5:05
screen
5:11
um and this this is in response to um comments heard at that public meeting
5:17
for uh encouraging cut through traffic with the bridge here so the bridge is
5:24
removed and again uh um still had the uh
5:30
lotting pattern to preserve most of the NES the outcrop in the northwest corner
5:35
was to be saved uh also in response to concerns from Li Mario Recreation and Park District uh trees and uh ve
5:43
vegetation were removed from the outer um planter uh natural buffer area to
5:49
eliminate perching opportunities for Raptors that would prey on burrowing owls that are known to habitate uh in
5:57
the gaven Wetlands Preserve
6:03
so the Planning Commission did consider this project shown on the left and uh
6:08
they recommended denial at that time uh primarily due to the extensive grading
6:15
and some of the uh comments from LPD at the time and also
6:22
um uh from comments taken during that environmental impact hearing so uh in
6:28
2015 the applicant went back to the drawing board and revised the project again uh primarily to reduce grading and
6:37
the main change Was the removal of the uh loop roadway that required a lot of
6:42
grading up on those NES so that was changed into an emergency vehicle
6:48
access uh that that essentially follow the Contours of that uh saddle there
6:58
between so rather than proceed um to the city council with a
7:05
recommendation for denial the applicant did make make these changes uh to the site plan again you’ll
7:12
note now that the bridge is no longer uh part of The Proposal again in response
7:17
to some of the comments from the neighborhood and the surrounding um uh developed residential about cut through
7:28
traffic uh just another note in response to some
7:35
of the comments they heard they did add it’s really hard to see on this slide a pedestrian connection to the existing uh
7:41
Trail Network that’s off the site there and then they also provided visual simulations to show what that project
7:47
would look like in its context so at this point the project
7:52
still required a legislative act by the council because they were still seeking to uh change the zoning on the project
7:59
to vary from floor area ratio limitations and also
8:06
setbacks so in 2015 the Planning Commission did vote uh to recommend the
8:13
council approve this plan that you see on the screen and they felt that the 20 their 2014 concerns had been addressed
8:21
uh this is the same plan that the council looked at later in September of 2015 and and uh directed the applicant
8:28
to return to the planning commission with a project that was more subordinate to the Natural landforms reduced some of
8:34
the grading and provide an emergency vehicle access uh to the
8:41
site specifically the these are some of the methods that the council recommended
8:46
the applicant explore to reduce the grading including reducing the number and size of the units the overall height
8:53
narrow some of the street widths reduce some of the retaining wall Heights on the site and again provide that uh
9:00
emergency vehicle access and here in the green are the responses that the development plan has incorporated
9:07
including reducing the number of units from 47 to 44 total the actual number of
9:12
buildings is is 41 and that’s due to their approach to meet the affordable
9:18
housing um inclusion area ordinance Turan will go over that a little more detail they reduce the average size of
9:24
the units to be more comparable with the neighborhood reduce the basically the whole height of development by by moving
9:30
it down the hill narrowed Street widths enabled uh further reduction in some of
9:36
the grading reduced the the largest retaining wall Heights which were on the
9:41
northeastern boundary up around six to 7 feet reduced those to two feet by
9:46
pulling those lots in off of the perimeter and um having a bit of a buffer between the
9:53
development and the open space and uh also provided a split um retaining wall
9:59
at the project entry instead of a single six to seven foot retaining wall it’s
10:04
now split into a four foot retaining wall with a three-foot bench for planting and then a three-foot wall on
10:10
top of that so we I’ll show you some pictures of that in a minute and also the
10:16
Eva uh this is a comparison of the 2015 grading plan where the council provided
10:21
that direction and this is the proposal in front of you this evening you will see that
10:28
the uh retaining wall I was just talking about has been changed to a split level
10:33
retaining wall that steps back and allows planting uh between the steps and
10:38
what that did along with moving the entire road down further south in the site and also narrowing it up was enable
10:46
uh to preserve uh more of this null and its natural condition and move that
10:52
grading that chase that slope back up the hill previously further down the
10:58
hill uh you can see that the there was a a handful of units removed from this
11:04
entry in order to preserve that view as you go onto the site over the bridge as a pedestrian or bicyclist that is of the
11:12
null a couple unit uh units up here in the corner were eliminated and then a
11:17
20ft wide emergency vehicle access only Bridge with pedestrian bicycle access is
11:23
provided uh at the Hawk Street Extension
11:31
and with that I’ll turn it over to Turon I’ll walk you through some more of the project
11:40
details so shown here is the 2018 site plan incorporating council’s 2015
11:46
directives as Steve me mentioned the current proposals for 44 units 38 of
11:51
those would be detached single family homes which are identified here in green please note that the ones uh signify
11:59
where the single level homes are going to be located they’ve been strategically located at the project entry and then up
12:05
in the northwest corner to help preserve views of the nolles and surrounding
12:16
hillsides Steve mentioned the project also proposes Duets uh they’re shown here in yellow these units would
12:23
partially satisfy the city’s inclusionary housing requirement and the remainder of the requirement would be
12:29
satisfied by a cash payment equivalent to the additional 3.15 affordable units
12:36
required uh this method is consistent with what the city’s done before for other projects that include the Orchid
12:42
Ranch and the Grove subdivisions shown here in blue is the
12:48
bike pedestrian and Eva bridge at Hawk
12:54
Street and uh Steve mentioned due in large part to community staff and agency input over the years the NES and rock
13:01
outcroppings will remain undeveloped with Public Access Trails those are shown here in red and the orange
13:08
squiggly sections identify where portions of the trail would be uh Ada
13:22
improved the project architect will discuss the architecture and floor plans in Greater detail as part of the
13:28
applicants presid presentation but shown here are the proposed elevation Styles which are Spanish villa and Farmhouse
13:35
the current proposal has significantly increased architectural diversity since 2015 when the only architectural style
13:41
being proposed was the vill style and the home sizes are comparable
13:47
to Altimont Creek development to the East and comparable to the bluff development to the
13:52
north all told the project proposes five floor plans including the duet floor
13:57
plan the duet units are all TW story and are
14:03
evenly dispersed throughout the development The projects’s Corner Lot locations have been utilized to allow
14:09
the duet units front doors and garage doors to be located on their own separate Frontage the buildings duet buildings
14:15
have achieved design parody with the attached units including having comparable massing and scale to the
14:22
twostory single family detached units again uh other projects with
14:30
similar duet units include the Orchid Ranch project which is east of Isabel
14:35
Avenue and the Grove subdivision off of Mines Road as part of their proposal the
14:42
applicant has prepared several before and after simulations conveying the project this particular simulation is
14:49
viewed from a location East of the site near n Court we have a key down in the
14:54
bottom right hand corner uh The View is due West towards
15:00
the project and as you see the project is only slightly
15:15
visible this photo is viewed from a location a few hundred feet east of the previous slide location and is has a
15:23
different orientation it’s more Northwest facing the Planning Commission uh back in December did
15:29
request additional photo simulations and this Vantage provides a view around the
15:35
Southeastern null this view is from the Western
15:41
Terminus of be Creek Drive where access to the project is proposed Steve mentioned the retaining
15:46
wall on the right hand side that steps back and provides plantings to be less visually
15:53
impactful this slide shows a cross-section of that retaining wall uh
15:58
it would each of the walls would be three and four feet tall and the bench in the middle is three feet
16:07
wide this view is from the sports fields at Altimont Creek School looking north towards the
16:14
project from this perspective you can see the bridge and uh one or two units to the
16:21
left to the west
16:27
side over here after with previous versions of this
16:35
project units were significantly more visible in this
16:41
view shown here is the same view enlarged and showing sevene established
16:49
Landscaping this view is from the northern Terminus of Hawk Street where the bridge is
16:54
proposed a view of one of the NES that lines up with the bridge has been preserved at this
17:06
location this photo simulation is viewed from Vasco Road looking East to the project site the proposed project is
17:13
visible in the foreground with the ridge lines of the preserved NES visible
17:19
behind the proposed units here’s the same view again
17:25
enlarged and with 7-year established Landscaping note here the absence of trees in
17:30
response to the park District’s concerns with providing trees and the natural
17:39
buffers this is a photo Sim that the Planning Commission requested here the project is viewed from a trail location
17:45
Southwest of the site from this Vantage Point Brushy Peak would be
17:57
visible
18:04
this photo Sim is from the same location as the previous slide but the orientation is more east facing to
18:09
provide a slightly different view uh the trail uh where the photo is taken from
18:16
is adjacent to existing homes so in this vantage point you see some
18:21
existing development this is a rear yard fence that you see in the right hand
18:27
side
18:34
in summary significant changes from the 2015 version of the project include the Project’s compliance with the existing
18:39
zoning due to this the site does not require rezoning for project approval the only required entitlements are the
18:45
subdivision map and site plan design review the current proposal also has
18:51
fewer units and smaller units than any previous version of the project and a public amenity in the form
18:57
of the Eva bicycle and pestian Bridge is being proposed by this project and would serve an as an
19:04
expansion to the trail Network at this time I’d like to hand it
19:10
over to Rebecca old of lford Gregory who will go over the environmental
19:21
document thank you and good evening as noted my name is Rebecca Al with lanord Gregory primary report prep for the
19:28
environmental documentation I’m just going to summarize briefly today what we did for
19:33
the analysis and what the conclusions were and then I’ll be available if there’s any technical
19:39
questions so knowing that there were environmental concerns related to this site and project uh we did complete an
19:45
environmental impact report or eir covering all environmental topic areas under the California Environmental
19:51
Quality act or squa through that analysis we found that there were no impacts that would remain significant
19:58
following mitigation so nothing would be unavoidable uh instead the 21 potentially significant impacts that we
20:05
identified were able to be reduced to a level below significance thresholds
20:10
through the imple implementation of mitigation measures uh all other topic areas had
20:16
either no impacts or impacts that were already below significance threshold so let’s go over briefly what those
20:23
are um first some topic areas had impacts below significance thresholds
20:28
this was in uh Aesthetics or Visual Land Use Services utilities and noise uh I’m
20:35
not going to talk about those since there weren’t any significant impacts unless there’s questions later uh a
20:40
couple other topic areas had some impacts that could be mitigated through the implementation of standard
20:47
mitigation that apply to most projects uh this included for emissions uh
20:53
mitigation requiring compliance with the city’s greenhouse gas reduction plan increased Energy Efficiency best
21:00
management practices to reduce construction emissions and then while there are no known cultural resources on
21:07
the site mitigation would require a plan for unexpected Discovery and the appropriate handling in that
21:15
event so other detailed analysis required uh some Project Specific
21:20
mitigation to be implemented I’m going to go over these in more detail so first up Wetlands there are a
21:27
lot of wetlands in the area but almost none on the development area of the project itself uh that tiny little
21:33
orange circle there is in fact the wetlands within the subdivision area it actually looks like a little hole
21:39
somebody dug with a shovel um it’s 0.004 Acres uh however it does qualify based
21:46
on its characteristics as Wetlands so mitigation requires appropriate coordination and replacement through
21:52
Regulatory Agencies so this is the biological slide
21:58
there’s a good amount of natural areas in the vicinity and those areas host some sensitive species and
22:03
habitats we did numerous biological surveys and studies and this is one of
22:09
the many figures from those this is just an example of those figures it shows known occurrences of certain um
22:16
sensitive species in this case it’s California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander and it shows
22:21
those known occurrences throughout the area but not actually on the project site and indeed when we had our
22:27
biologists go out to the site they also did not find any individuals of those sensitive species however they noted
22:34
that the site could be used as supportive habitat for a number of those
22:39
species and therefore mitigation was applied as if those species were found because it could be used that way even
22:45
though they were not the mitigation includes uh preconstruction surveys and
22:50
protection measures to prevent the potential for harm during the construction activities and then also coordination
22:57
with regulatory agencies for offsite habit habitat um protection to
23:03
compensate for the potential habitat loss represented by development of the
23:08
site and that um off-site habitat protection would meet or exceed the
23:15
recommended mitigation ratios of the Regulatory
23:22
Agencies so this slide shows uh the geological exploration that was per
23:28
formed at the site all the blue dots or areas that they dug and the numbers trenches that they performed to
23:34
characterize the soil and subsoil conditions so quite a bit of uh Discovery happened at the site to make
23:40
sure that there would not be issues with development of the area mitigation includes basically
23:47
adherence to the geotechnical standards that are appropriate to the specific characters of the site um it includes
23:55
soil and Foundation preparation slop stability based on those specific
24:06
characteristics sure what
24:11
happened this doesn’t seem to want to go
24:26
back okay so this is the transportation slide
24:33
this is again one of the figures from the Transportation analysis this particular one shows the amount of
24:39
project trips that would be added to vicinity intersections during peak hours it’s not intended for you to be able to
24:45
read all the numbers um just as something to look at while we talk about it so um the conclusions were that the
24:51
trips would be within the residential street capacities that this project connects to and they would not cause
24:58
Project Specific impacts at any of the intersections however when combined with area development so we looked at a
25:04
cumulative scenario uh there would be one impact under a cumulative level that this project would contribute to and it
25:11
was the need for improvements at Laughlin and North Front intersection with mitigation requiring contribution
25:18
to those
25:24
improvements so again to summarize uh dis comprehensive analysis to address
25:30
the the known concerns with development of this project site we didn’t find any impacts that would remain significant
25:36
after mitigation uh all the impacts would be reduced to a level uh below
25:41
significance thresholds through the implementation of mitigation uh and as was kind of
25:47
discussed the project has changed over time the current project is actually similar to the environmentally Superior
25:54
alternative that was originally identified in analy in the
26:03
draft so then just to summarize how the changing project has changed the environmental analysis and
26:10
conclusions over time the number of homes has gone down every time so impacts related to issues like the
26:18
amount of traffic or emissions would all have gone down over time um the bridge
26:23
or no Bridge has changed over time originally it was a vehicular bridge that would have required Creek
26:28
realignment um so some amount of biological impacts and then no bridge
26:34
but now The Pedestrian Eva would not require Creek realignment so only
26:39
temporary impacts to the creek so it’s covered within the original analysis and would have a reduced environmental
26:48
impact uh we were uh required to take a look at the changing projects as they
26:54
occurred and we actually looked at um the first change in the first final eir
27:00
and the second change in what was called a reissued final eir um as I mentioned
27:06
it it’s actually very similar to one of the Alternatives that we already took a look at so mostly we just needed to
27:12
update some responses to comments to make sure that they were appropriate to the current project and to compare the
27:18
impacts um from the original project that was analyzed in the draft irir all of the impacts would be the same or
27:24
reduced fewer homes and vehicles less rating less stream impact uh reduced
27:30
potential for vehicular pedestrian conflict uh and only minor revisions
27:35
were required to reflect the revised project did you want to talk
27:44
about so just to before we finish up Rebecca um mentioned that the offsite
27:50
mitigation for this part uh development would be um required in that is also owned by
27:57
the gaven family it’s an 85 acre piece here in the Springtown Alkali sink up in
28:03
um just north of Springtown uh this is the 300 acres that the city owns uh this
28:08
property um is has a much higher value in terms of biological diversity on it
28:16
it has a stretch of Altamont Creek that you can’t really see but winds through the property has Al alkal soils scalds
28:24
seasonal Wetlands has birds beak on the property Al so a habitat for the tar
28:30
plant I don’t know that we’ve anybody surveyed out there for that just yet and
28:35
then also occurrences of uh California tiger salamander Vernal pool fairy shrimp and I believe red-legged frog so
28:44
um you know recently the council did authorize uh the city to work on a
28:50
couple of projects here to to receive mitigation money from other projects one in Dublin and one out in um Discovery
28:56
Bay to conduct some Wetland restoration by the removal of noxious and evasive weeds
29:03
putting up some fencing to try and eliminate the trespass that’s ongoing out there and causing significant damage
29:10
and then also signage uh to inform the community of the the um valuable
29:17
resources out here and also offer an education opportunity um so those are uh in play
29:25
uh currently that the city’s working on where also uh in discussions about the
29:30
entire sink with these Property Owners uh they’ve built a mitigation project
29:35
down here uh for a pg& transmission line it actually has birds beak all over it now uh city owns some more property down
29:42
here so if we could get all that under one easement and one management plan might be best for the sync in the long
29:48
run that’s still some early discussions we have ongoing with an
29:55
individual so with that back to uh teron for a
30:01
recommendation so in conclusion staff and the Planning Commission recommend the city council adopt a resolution
30:07
certifying the environmental document and after approval of the application instruct staff to file a notice of
30:13
determination with the Alam County Clerk staff and Planning Commission also recommend the city council adopt a
30:18
resolution approving vesting tentative tra map 894 it’s part of subdivision 13001 and
30:25
site plan design review 13 five authorizing the allocation of 44
30:30
housing implementation program units for the project and authorizing the applicant to provide six duet units as
30:36
proposed and to make a cash payment equivalent to 3.15 Affordable units to satisfy the inclusion Area Housing
30:45
obligation that concludes staff’s presentation Building Material samples have been provided by the applicant on
30:50
the table also supplemental materials have been provided by staff these include an April 18 letter from the
30:57
planning division to the savear gaventa hill Group which responds to various inquiries and concerns expressed by the
31:03
group also included in the supplement materials is an a another April 18 letter from the Save Our G Hill group
31:11
themselves which provides comments on the proposed landscaping for council’s consideration this
31:17
evening in addition to staff’s presentation the applicant has also prepared a presentation staff can
31:23
respond to questions from the city council now or hold all questions until after the applicant presents thank you
31:30
and we did uh have a few words from our City attorney as well and now a few words from our attorney good evening
31:36
mayor members of the city council um I just wanted to reiterate it’s in the staff report but I think it’s important
31:42
to reiterate that with respect to this project that you are acting um as a qu as a Judicial body not as a legislative
31:49
body with respect to this particular project so what you would be doing is looking at the rules and regulations
31:55
with respect to Planning and Zoning that that apply to this property as it exists um in determining whether or not the
32:01
project as it’s presented uh meets those requirements not establishing any new rules or regulations that you would be
32:08
doing as a legislative body otherwise okay very good thank you for the clarification uh okay let let me see are
32:14
there any questions uh from the council at this point for staff vice mayor carlen yes thanks uh thanks to all of
32:21
you for the U very thorough presentations I have a question for Miss alt about environmental conclusions the
32:28
current Project’s similar to the environmentally Superior alternative what does that mean help me understand
32:33
what that means so for an environmental analysis
32:39
uh in a draft e the preparers are required along with the city to consider whether there could
32:47
be changes to the project that would actually reduce or avoid the impacts that were identified for the project so
32:54
if you got rid of the bridge or if you reduce the number of units could you
32:59
substantially reduce uh the impacts that you had identified so for this project
33:06
we considered I have to refresh my memory
33:12
here yeah so this was very similar to the reduced density uh project which is
33:19
also the current General plan allowance alternative we called it um and that looked at a 47 unit
33:27
project um on the site with reduced impacts related to the bridge itself
33:33
okay so when you did the original analysis it wasn’t on the originally proposed 76 unit with the road on Hawk
33:43
Street it was not it was not that so it was so um so how was this one not
33:49
environmentally right so one what I’m struggling with right one of the chapters the last chapter of this book
33:55
which is the draft is the chapter that looks at potential Alternatives so this amount of the book looked at their
34:02
proposed 76 unit project with the bridge and then this part at the end said how
34:07
might we reduce impacts of this project through Alternatives SQL requires essentially is part of its standards
34:14
that you develop and analyze certain uh very specific Alternatives sure one
34:19
including a no project alternative and one uh basically called a environmentally sensitive or Superior
34:26
altern ative and that tries to meet most of the objectives of the project but
34:31
with reduced impacts and so it is trying to develop a a project that has fewer
34:37
impacts than the originally designed project okay so what what made the other
34:45
one Superior no bridge at all the reduction in units so
34:52
in other words remember the original project at 76 units dropping it to 47 um the reduction in grading um having to do
34:59
with fewer units um the elimination of the uh vehicle Bridge which in that case
35:05
required realignment of the creek right The Pedestrian uh and Eva does not so it
35:11
it maintains that environmental superiority and so that’s why the summary said many of those things were
35:17
accomplished and in fact even enhanced from that environmentally uh Superior alternative with this particular so you
35:23
don’t mean that there was another one that’s Superior to this one you just mean this actually looks a lot like that
35:28
Alterna I was misreading the sentence sorry thank you it’s all semantics right
35:35
uh councilor Monroe um that was actually similar to
35:41
what I was going to ask ask or say whatever um but I do have a question that was brought up to me which is uh
35:47
could you talk a little bit about the danger from floods or fire or any of the other Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
35:53
that might invade but in in in all seriousness floods or Fire have been raised and I
35:59
think that those are legitimate concerns yeah the the the project itself is out of the flood zone so there’s uh not a
36:06
worry there a lot of the concerns brought up in the past were what happens if the Culver at Laughlin Road gets
36:11
blocked and the road becomes impassable um how how would you get out
36:18
and so that was part of the impetus for uh the council directing the applicant
36:23
to look at an emergency vehicle access there uh the we’re in a seismically active
36:29
region and so um you know there are fault traces out in the area you can see
36:34
as the other development that’s been approved out there avoids those in almost a linear uh fashion it’s very
36:40
apparent when you look at the aerial photos and then uh regarding Wildfire so the project was reviewed by
36:47
the Livermore Pleasanton uh fire department and they have um you know
36:52
reviewed the preliminary hydrant locations the loading on the Street the widths the bridge and all of those
36:59
satisfy their requirements for uh battling a a fire that might occur out
37:05
there their first priority is to protect the structures and uh and then then look at
37:12
the hillsides if those are still left so the concern was raised about the
37:18
uh emergency Bridge itself in the case of a flood could that be uh uh washed out
37:27
yeah the the the bridge designs has to be above a particular um high water mark
37:32
in a particular flood if it’s 1003 above the so it’s 3 feet above the 100-year
37:38
flood level uh so that it would not be washed out in a flood event unlike the bridge
37:46
at Laughlin it is a single span Bridge so there is nothing in the floodway that would actually catch or uh create an
37:53
obstacle for flood waters so if flood waters made it essentially through the Laughlin uh bridge and that actually is
37:59
a segment set of culverts there uh Concrete Culverts um they would actually have no problem getting under the
38:06
Eva okay any other questions okay uh you said the applicant
38:13
had a presentation as well sir down
38:20
please just the first page for me that’s
38:25
all
38:34
how we get up and down okay we should had an educational
38:45
course there we go there we go yeah good evening mayor
38:51
masan and the me other members of the city council my name is Patrick Tui I represent lafy community commities the
38:57
applicant in this uh on this sub metal this this application um we’re here tonight with
39:03
our Consultant Group they’ll come up in each speak briefly after my thoughts are done my my comments um after September
39:12
2015 when we were before this body and received a lot of direction we took a
39:17
pause wanted to clear our mind take be able to take a fresh look at the project
39:22
um after kind of focusing on the direction to to reduce
39:27
units and we went back and and took a look at the existing um the existing
39:34
underline zoning our PD 115 it goes back to the mid 90s I believe it’s been there for a while um
39:41
what that zoning does it it simplifies our application we get rid of a general
39:46
plan Amendment and a rezone it’s a straight tentative map application uh what we have to live with
39:52
there is increased setbacks and a more stren F
39:58
calculation so the setbacks helped us reduce our lot count from 47 to
40:04
41 and um the F drove even with the increased lot sizes drove the fa drove
40:10
the house size down so just implementing the underlying zoning and eliminating the general plan Amendment and the
40:17
rezone kind of helped us with those two issues I can appreciate that 47 to 41
40:23
isn’t perhaps the biggest number you might have been looking for but there’s another way to look at it um I know it’s
40:30
47 to 44 but if you think about it we went from 47 to 41 and then we lost three additional
40:37
units for the uh application of the affordable housing requirements so in
40:43
reality we ended up losing nine units of market rate housing over 20% of our last
40:49
project that was before you we think that is is is is doing very well
40:55
compared to what we’ve uh what we’ve had to do on other other sites um so in
41:02
addition to that we’ve reduced the grading by 46,000 cubic yards staff had a graphic up there that showed you what
41:07
it would do um by reducing the grading we’ve been able to uh lower the Lots
41:14
which then Prov provides a better look at the nles once the homes are built I’m not going to say it’s a significant
41:21
Improvement but it’s a anywhere from a 2 to 5 feet depending on your perspective it also allowed us to reduce the
41:27
retaining lalls primarily in the northeast corner and along Bear Creek Drive the one of the comments we
41:34
received in the prior public hearings is that the big scarp or grading along the
41:40
Bear Creek Drive was wasn’t adequate it was it was it was inadequate so with the privatization of
41:49
the roads meeting and HOA will now care for those and they won’t be public roads I.E city city maintained we were able to
41:55
shrink that roadway up by eliminating parking then by splitting the retaining wall that the staff’s already talked
42:01
about we were able to eliminate a big face a big face of a wall put a three- foot planning area between it and
42:08
thereby reduce the big grading on the south face of the East null so um between the grading and then
42:15
the street privatization we’ve really been able to reduce a lot of the impacts on the grading and and therefore gain
42:21
that 46,000 cubic yard reduction or better yet 25% % reduction in the grading from
42:28
the last plan we we provided to you um we also have the Eva in there as a
42:35
capital cost the project that’s fairly obvious that’s that’s on the Builder developer but the maintenance is also on
42:41
this sole project of Now 44 homes with including six uh
42:47
bmrs affordable units um we’ve taken that on through a cfd um there’ll be HOA in addition to
42:54
that on on the h H maintain properties but we we also taken on the cfd
43:00
requirements you know the city will is planning on hiring the HOA to maintain that bridge where it’s where it’s
43:06
practical um but the entire cost of this bridge this Eva bridge that serves that entire Community North of Altimont Creek
43:13
is on this entire project forever more we’ll build it and we’ll maintain it so
43:19
100 plus units or so north of Altimont Creek are are protected when if and when
43:25
the the Laughlin cross in ever fails so it’s just a a developer perspective
43:30
that’s all I mean to share with you lastly 50% 56% of the open space remains
43:36
privately held but publicly accessible again HOA will maintain that cfds in
43:42
place to cover some of the maintenance of that when necessary so between an HOA
43:47
and the cfd there are no there’s no no exposure for for public funds to be used
43:53
on this project I want to say almost entirely but staff can answer that maybe more specifically we’ve gone to Great
44:00
Lengths to rejigger this project refigure it out and and we think we’ve
44:05
done we’ve addressed your your direction given to us in uh in the September 2015
44:11
meeting so unless there’s any other questions for me I’d like to turn it over to the consultant team let them run
44:17
through their presentation and then we can take questions individually or as a group later okay thank
44:25
you see if I can figure it
44:30
out good evening mayor and Council my name is Steve ler and with rer Jensen AAR we’re the civil engineers for the
44:37
project um my uh goal here is to describe what
44:43
uh changes we’ve made since the council last saw the project in 2015 and where
44:49
we are now so in these uh following slides I’ll run through uh what what was
44:56
the plan in 20155 and how we’ve how we’ve modified it in in red to to show
45:02
the changes um so uh we eliminated six
45:10
Lots we added the Eva Bridge we added we uh created two uh Ada
45:19
connections for um uh connections to existing Trail
45:24
systems um as has been mentioned we’ve we’ve um
45:31
reduced the amount of grading and and tried to improve the views of the Noles from
45:39
afar we’ve increased the setbacks the floor area ratio has been
45:49
reduced home sizes have been reduced and there’s been an 85 acre
45:55
conservation ation parcel that was previously mentioned uh what I’d like to do is just
46:01
run around uh the project and try and identify specific areas of changes so uh
46:08
we’ll start down here and work uh clockwise so in this what we called area
46:15
one um you can see this black line represents where we originally had the
46:23
grading design by um making a a series of U adjustments including um moving the
46:32
street and narrowing it um we’ve been able to bring that grading line down
46:40
down the hill substantially to this red line um we all okay so let me walk
46:48
through uh we removed lot one as I mentioned previously
46:53
um we’ve moved the entry Road South and we’ve narrowed narrowed the road and made it
47:01
private and as was previously mentioned um the retaining wall that that is along
47:08
this entrance has been uh redesigned to be a a stepped wall U with Landscaping
47:15
in between so we can screen it and there’s the Ada path down to the existing Altamont Creek Trail
47:23
system uh and at the edge of the um Eva
47:28
Bridge or in the view corridor we’ve opened it up we’ve taken out these four Lots highlighted in
47:35
Gray um so that the views from from the end
47:40
of Hawk Street and and the school are um better at this point in time
47:49
um the maintenance as Pat mentioned maintenance of the bridge will be by the
47:55
um Association and a
48:00
cfd again the road is narrowed uh through this section of the of the
48:09
project um retaining walls have have been put behind the houses so that we
48:15
could bring the the slope line down the hill so the grading would not be as far
48:22
up the hillside as as it was previously um the the retaining walls are behind
48:28
the houses they really won’t be seen moving on to the next
48:34
area if I can get this to work maybe I need to point in a different direction towards a computer there we
48:42
go um lot 14 was also
48:50
removed road again is narrowed we had a retain paining walls
48:56
um again behind the Lots so that uh or behind the houses again to reduce the
49:04
the uh views or the reduce the grading and minimize uh
49:10
impacts um up towards the northern let’s see this would be the U yeah the
49:16
Northern end of the project um we’ve reduced the uh the height of
49:24
the wall where we could um steepen the slope um to to try and reduce the amount
49:30
of grading that that would be
49:36
involved there we
49:43
go again reduce the width of the road we’ve lowered the pads so we we dro
49:52
the the elevation of these Lots
49:57
and um this thing isn’t click for okay now we’re on the uh
50:06
east side of the project and again this is where uh the height of the walls was of concern
50:13
before we had about a six foot high wall we’ve we’ve adjusted that we we’ve shortened our lot depths and um move the
50:22
wall up to the top and and reduce it substantially um
50:29
so those um all of these pads were were reduced uh or the elevations were
50:36
reduced to lower the view of the um the roof
50:51
lines and we’ve uh We’ve pul again pulled a lot the back lot line in it
50:56
used to match out to the boundary of the property there’s now some open space in between um the boundary and and the back
51:03
of the Lots this shows the uh the changes in
51:10
the in the uh setbacks and how they’ve where where they’ve increased uh um from
51:17
15 to 25 and from 12 to 15 in the in the front with an average uh sidey yard
51:24
going from 7 to 10 this shows uh the relationship of the
51:30
uh conservation land relative to the project
51:38
site this is the Ala for that so I’ll turn it over now to our landscape
51:44
architect David Gates I think you want to hit that one
51:50
and point it that way a point or two yeah you’re welcome to it yeah
51:56
uh thank you Steve good evening Mr mayor council uh I appreciate seeing you at
52:01
the art events you seem to be at all of those that’s great uh I’m just going to talk briefly about the landscape
52:08
character um I think the goal for the landscape is to keep it uh as much a
52:14
grass null as we can and then make it accessible to the existing Trails
52:19
Pathways and sidewalks which this diagram shows this is an enlargement of the
52:25
plant planting plan and you can see um several components there’s the entry
52:32
component here with the walls this is C3 it’s a water quality Zone and that’ll be
52:38
indigenous reparan plants like Willows and buck eyes the null areas themselves
52:44
will be mostly left as grassland we’ve sprinkled a few native Oaks up there
52:49
just to increase the the visual character and then we’ve created some
52:55
screening in these areas here because there are some existing residents and that’ll help a little bit and it’ll
53:01
create a sense of an entry for the people using The Pedestrian pathway and you can see the rest of it basically is
53:08
uh grasses it’s a mixture of three or four species of grasses this is just gets you into the
53:15
genus species you can see the The Oaks you can see the patterns I won’t get into the detail it’s all drought
53:21
tolerant it’s all um typical today for the U management practice for vegetation
53:27
a lot of Natives and adjustable variants this is the character the goal
53:33
is to keep it um you know the pattern of Livermore is nice Natural Stone and
53:39
natural materials so the the entry walls and the bridge of butts and elements are
53:45
are those similar materials and this is just a closeup um you know we’re creating a Gateway and an
53:51
entrance to the existing neighbors you know there’s a separation there there’s the open space and you can see we’ve
53:58
we’ve scattered The Oaks in a way so you have views in and views from across we’ll look through and around the Oaks
54:05
here’s the Wetland area with the repairing character as it abuts the creek this just shows you the nature of
54:13
U what the look will be as you’re coming in from the existing neighborhood so there will be the the retaining walls
54:20
will be on this side the double wall you can see the Oaks and you can see here the reparan character and this is a
54:27
7-year growth projection to give you a sense of what that looks like as you’re coming into the
54:33
community this point I’m going to give you the architect to learn about the
54:54
architecture good evening mayor and council
55:01
members um I’m with Mark ruford with William hmal Architects the architect
55:06
for the project I think staff has covered a lot of the revisions to the architecture
55:13
very well but I’d like to just go back and cover some of the high points as far as the changes from what was proposed
55:19
before and where we are right now so the architecture
55:26
itself um as far as the buildings we have what we had in 47 buildings before
55:32
now we’re down to 41 buildings because three of the buildings for the to get to 44 units are actually the duet units so
55:40
we’ve reduced the number of buildings on site and also um in complying with uh
55:46
increased setbacks both on sides and uh rear and front we have smaller
55:52
Footprints less coverage of the site and also so less square footage of the homes
55:58
themselves and so with that reduction in uh square footage size of the homes it’s
56:03
helped reduce the the massing of the homes
56:10
themselves
56:15
oh and so we have one single story and then we have uh of course four twostory
56:22
plans uh three of the uh um twostory plans are the single family
56:28
detach and then plan five is the duplex uh two-story
56:34
plan and uh two of the plans of the the single
56:40
family detached have two car garages and two have have three car garages again
56:46
and we’ve changed the configurations of the garages so there’s just less uh for a 60ft wide house they have less garage
56:53
forward they have some front porches and just quite a bit of articulation uh again with reducing some of the
57:01
massing on the homes themselves of course a single story reduced massing to
57:06
the sides of these homes and then also as you go through the package you’ll see that the rears have also uh quite a bit
57:14
of reduced massing uh the uh the larger plan um which is the plan for I’ll get
57:22
to that but again if you look through the package the package you have you’ll see the rears have uh you know very U
57:31
aesthetic rear elevations with less masting than you would
57:36
expect and front porches Less Garage these are two car garages on the plans one and two
57:43
um and uh Plan Three has a three-car garage and then plan four also has a
57:51
three-car garage um with one of them turn sideways so you only see two from the street and
57:58
this particular plan also what we’ve done with it it is the larger plan AT 3150 but it does have the master bedroom
58:06
on the first floor to reduce the massing at the second floor and if you look at the rear elevation in your package
58:11
you’ll see it’s for the most part single story across the rear and again that’s just to kind of reduce the massing
58:17
because it is uh the concern of the rears was a great concern as far as the way this sets up it’s a little elevated
58:24
for the rears and and where it’s seen from from long distances and in addition to the
58:30
modifications we’ve made to the architecture I’ll just go over with um we’ve increased the uh as far as the
58:38
Styles it’s has a more eclectic mix of architecture now we’ve introduced the uh
58:45
Spanish and The Farmhouse with uh a different um siding board and bath
58:50
siding onto it and some different roof materials and then also some some some
58:55
uh you know richer colors deeper colors into the mix so there’s a stronger
59:01
contrast in the architecture and there’s also uh uh differences between the roof
59:06
pitches there’s just a variety it’s just a stronger variety than what was proposed before with more of a just kind
59:12
of a Mediterranean style architecture is what we proposed for the total project before so we’ve kind of mixed it up um
59:19
taking um you know instructions and uh guidance from staff to to move in this direction
59:31
we’ll go this
59:39
way and then with these two homes um it’s actually the duplex they are one of
59:44
them is around 1,400 Square F feet the other one’s a little over 16 it’s 100 square feet they’re two stories they’re
59:50
three bedrooms and four bedrooms very uh um family oriented uh homes and uh the
59:57
way they’re oriented as far as they are the uh affordable but they each have their front door and their Garage on
1:00:02
separate streets because they sit on Corner Lots so it’s and they kind of fit the masting of the um the larger single
1:00:10
family homes so I think staff as as I mentioned earlier I think is is kind of
1:00:15
prepped very well as far as the architecture and all the changes we’ve made and um that’s it for me if you have
1:00:22
any questions I’d be happy to okay any questions this point from the
1:00:28
council okay thank you all right thank you very
1:00:37
much okay one two okay I got about 15 cards you guys
1:00:43
want to take about a uh anybody care for about a five 10 minute break anybody okay let’s take a brief
1:00:51
break here and then we’ll go uh go into the public hearing thank you very much for your uh uh for the staff report and
1:00:57
uh so be back here in about 10 minutes thank you good evening and welcome back to
1:01:02
round two of the April 22nd meeting of the Livermore city council uh we just completed the uh staff report for 5.02
1:01:10
the Genta project and now we’re coming up on uh uh the Ci or the public hearing
1:01:17
on that so I’ve got uh currently 16 cards for the public hearing uh we want
1:01:22
to be able to hear from everybody so I’d ask that you keep your comments to three minutes or less and if uh you agree with
1:01:29
somebody uh you can raise your hand and let us know uh so with that I have uh
1:01:35
John Satur Marne steel and uh Michaela
1:01:40
Maro Mr sator good morning or afternoon John sator Tiffany comman um others here will
1:01:48
talk to the native species and natural habitat concerns uh questioning the E
1:01:53
I’ll do that uh I do ask the council provide some transparency tonight and disclose which members if any have
1:01:59
walked the project or the trail to the South to get a better visual than the renderings presented tonight uh the
1:02:05
visuals from the Tiffany area um clearly show that these houses are going to be a blight of the whole Hills um for people
1:02:12
using that trail from even the west side of Vasco um then when they walk that
1:02:17
trail to the parks or to the school um it’s going to be an iore um this is a
1:02:22
bad uh fit for the area to get to this point you’ve seen the different iterations that they’ve brought forth uh
1:02:28
the bridge no Bridge um and the way it’s now designed the tra traffic every day
1:02:34
is going to have an extra mile to connect at Bear Creek Road just to get to Altamont Creek School or any other
1:02:41
service in Livermore um this is not promoting the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as
1:02:47
required in state Bill 743 SB 743 requires cities and counties
1:02:53
to incorporate vehic vle mileage miles traveled in traffic modeling rather than
1:02:58
level of service with the goal of reducing the miles traveled you cannot find a more remote place to locate a
1:03:04
subdivision within livermore’s boundaries vehicle miles in this area cannot be mitigated with a bicycle or
1:03:10
foot travel as the city has no bike Lanes or pedestrian paths Crossing 580 East of First Street accessing the city
1:03:17
or the largest employer of the lab from this area on bike is a death defining Endeavor uh city manager mark Roberts
1:03:24
previously remarked at his previous city council meeting that the double-edged sword that is State Bill 743 is building a subdivision far away
1:03:33
from everything can result in a perfect level of service however the travel time is lengthened going directly against the
1:03:39
miles travel um provision of the bill um building in an urban area there
1:03:46
would be problems with level of service I ask the council to look into level of service of Livermore at this
1:03:52
point I think we are far from perfect at the Northeast section of Livermore and I’d like to know how
1:03:58
that’s comparable to the rest of livermore’s level of service from Fire and Police Department anecdotals are
1:04:04
always fun but I’ll give you two uh just today we had a fire department call out uh after about 30 minutes of a fire
1:04:09
alarm sounding in my neighborhood um I actually went out and checked on the the house I saw them moving around but then
1:04:16
about 30 minutes later I heard the fire department show up uh earlier this week I was walking my neighborhood and a
1:04:21
resident had complained to me about another Resident who had assaulted him
1:04:26
and he was still waiting for about 3 hours for the police to show up to take his report on that assault this was an elder elderly man who had another
1:04:33
person’s dog um chased put to chase on him um so in the end the zoning may be
1:04:39
right the plan may be feasible the environmental impact may be minimal if you have faith in the eir but it’s the
1:04:45
wrong thing to do uh city council marshan what you said is the commission decides whether it’s could be done but
1:04:51
the council decides whether or not it makes sense with the um larger picture in mind thank you thank you Mr sator M
1:04:59
steel uh Michaela Maro uh Ken Brook good evening mayor and council
1:05:05
members my name is Marne steel I reside at 1996 Meadow Glen Drive and I am here
1:05:11
with the save the hill group and tonight I’m speaking on behalf of Cindy Anders she’s a founding member of our group but
1:05:17
she’s unable to attend tonight and I have her written speech here so I’m going to give you Cindy’s comments as
1:05:24
some of you have seen the save the hill group is a very dedicated well-organized and passionate group thank you to you
1:05:31
council members and City staff that have recently met with our group to discuss the impacts of the proposed development
1:05:38
and thank you for reviewing the documents we have submitted some of you provided a bit of feedback on those and
1:05:43
and we really do appreciate it as you can see the access to this proposed development is
1:05:49
problematic access on Hawk Street adds to the already impacted Elementary School traffic and having a solitary
1:05:56
access on Bear Creek creates its own major issues there should be two access
1:06:01
points for this development ideally one at Dalton Vasco intersection but we’re
1:06:07
told that’s not feasible so if we are indeed forced to consider the second
1:06:12
access road at Hawk then it should be a real access point it should be a true
1:06:17
two-lane road and Bridge the scary 2017 and 18 wildfires here in California are
1:06:23
a new and very real threat we have to address this awful issue smarter decisions can hopefully avoid disasters
1:06:30
such as the total Destruction in Paradise California so if and when there is a wildfire on the hill we need to
1:06:37
allow folks to escape from this development or allow them to enter it to
1:06:43
rescue their children their elderly and their pets this unfortunately means a two-lane unbaled unrestricted bridge on
1:06:51
Hawk we hate to even suggest this this idea this will increase traffic at the school create possible vehicular
1:06:59
collisions with the many Creek Trail users and has a huge impact on the sensitive Altamont Creek but if we have
1:07:06
to choose one evil over another this is the lesser of two evils please consider
1:07:11
this in your review this evening of this proposed flawed development thank you very much for your time thank you Miss
1:07:19
steel uh Michaela Maro Ken Brook uh Julia
1:07:24
Ben Gigi sorry hi my name is Michaela and I oppose the development of the garenta
1:07:31
Hills uh project I will be speaking about the city’s already in place guidelines which go against the proposed
1:07:37
project this open space which contains Altimont Hills creeks and nulls or an official historic Scenic resource of
1:07:42
Livermore which the city declared in chapter 26 revised project assessment it plays an important role in the residents
1:07:49
daily lives the residents recognize this area as a cultural importance which makes where we live have this particular
1:07:55
character and identity this proposed plan will destroy that character and identity the city of limore has set
1:08:00
certain guidelines and procedures to protect historical resources please follow your own guidelines and policies
1:08:06
and protect this historical site in Livermore the city has goals to maintain livermore’s character identity according
1:08:12
to your standards one of these goals is to maintain current resident views of the visual benefits according to the
1:08:17
General open space guidelines views and visual access intent it states that the city will ensure that the views which
1:08:24
are unique and specific to Livermore are preserved from residential development this plan will go against your intent to
1:08:29
keep our views we the current residents will not have the views of the hills and NES because of this development you
1:08:35
report that the project will substantially alter the views of identified Scenic resources from nearby
1:08:41
public areas therefore the impact related to Scenic Vistas is less than significant according to the reports
1:08:47
your reports less than significant I call BS you are permanently destroying 32 acres of land which we cannot get
1:08:54
back yes that is significant at any angle from Altamont Creek Drive Bear Creek Drive The Bluffs Tiffany common
1:09:01
garva Ranch Road Altimont Creek Elementary School and many many many other streets the views will be blocked ask the residents who live there not
1:09:07
some report or pictures that you see up here the plan has too many twostory homes which will block our views of the
1:09:14
hills and nulles and on Earth Day let’s talk about the environment your impact bio report states that 32 approximately
1:09:20
32 Acres of grass grassland habitat will be permanently removed an additional 1.1
1:09:25
ACR will be temporarily Disturbed for construction of the bridge and access road over the creek how can you say that
1:09:32
this removal of grasslands is not significant when we have the special status species which are known to use
1:09:37
the habitat the proposed site which will be permanently and temporarily destroyed has potential potential to support these
1:09:45
endangered species and is significant for the breeding of Vernell pool fairy shrimp California tiger salamander
1:09:52
Western Spade foot to Cod and nesting Birds tell me why this project is okay to destroy endangered species and
1:09:58
potential future species your lost disturbance report of habitats clearly states a significant impact why aren’t
1:10:04
we paying more attention to this since the US fish and wildlife surfaces determine most of these species are at
1:10:09
the endangered and threatened level why are we even considering this project they are federally protected the
1:10:15
migratory bird treaty act and Fish game code of California protects the nesting Birds which we have at the hills and
1:10:20
nles why are you even thinking of allowing a development to destroy a protected species and its habitat if
1:10:26
necessary I’m sure the residents of Livermore will take the necessary measurements to make aware the national level why is this not only a bad idea
1:10:34
but a bad bad bad bad bad idea thank you thank you uh Ken
1:10:39
Brooks uh Julia uh and Karen Crossley good evening uh mayor and
1:10:46
council members and I want to thank you for the opportunity to address this uh this issue um the proposed development
1:10:54
plan shows that there’s only one way in and one way out now I’m speaking from
1:11:01
being evacuated from my home down in Southern California and have experienced how fast a grasp wind driven fire can
1:11:10
travel I mean it is scary and right now the proposal this plan proposal wants to
1:11:17
add to have approximately I think it’ll be over 200 homes that would be trapped
1:11:24
if the road uh llin Road were to be blocked at um at Altimont Creek Road you
1:11:33
know that is it’s that’s crazy to me I don’t understand we should have learned
1:11:38
from from the paradise fire and even today they are relooking at their
1:11:44
communities to make sure they have more than one way out the proposed Bridge
1:11:49
quote unquote emergency exit that was being planned or is being planned is not going to be used by First Responders
1:11:55
I’ve asked them about that they say no no seconds minutes are very important to
1:12:01
us we cannot risk trying to blast through uh a school zone area on an
1:12:07
emergency we’ll go around the other thing is is that with this proposal
1:12:12
since there only one way in and one way out all of the commercial uh traffic for
1:12:18
construction the heavy equipment will either have to come past our school
1:12:24
and around to Bear Creek to get into the um into the development and by the way
1:12:30
right now the parks are just full of um kids playing soccer and baseball cars
1:12:37
are parked either side it’s and it’s a mess and you ask any mother here any parent right who picks up their children
1:12:44
from that school they refer to that triangle at the school as the triangle of hell because you got parents of 600
1:12:52
kids trying trying to get in and out to pick up their their children and let’s make this worse let’s make that an
1:12:59
emergency exit are you kidding me an emergency exit that’s going to dump right into the backyard of the
1:13:06
school it just does not make any sense it’s very unsafe and I’ve got 30 seconds
1:13:11
because I need to bring this up again when I moved here which is just about a year now one of the first things I
1:13:17
looked at was Vasco right and at Vasco and um I forget the the name of the road
1:13:25
the traffic light that would take if that road were to continue up into the development thank you yes you would have
1:13:32
a four-way Lane Highway that would be able to deliver all of the equipment all
1:13:37
of the move uh Earth moving equipment and all the construction workers into that development without having to drive
1:13:44
it past through our school past our uh our parks and through residential areas
1:13:51
it makes so much sense to go that way I asked this question at the last meeting and after it was at that the um at the
1:14:00
uh planning meeting and there was a silence because I asked why wasn’t Vasco looked at and then someone went well I
1:14:09
think it was drainage drainage issues that was the reason given I thinking oh my goodness me you know with all the
1:14:16
other issues that we have and especially the safety issues we talk a lot about the planning and the houses and
1:14:22
development and architecture nothing about the roads it’s it’s not a good plan it’s very well very ill conceived
1:14:30
and thank you I’m sorry that I took a little extra time but it’s quite emotional thank you Mr Brooke uh Julia
1:14:36
and if you could pronounce your last name for me please yeah Julia bigi okay thank you Ben um so I’m a mother of a
1:14:44
child who goes to Altimont Creek Elementary um my daughter will also be going in a couple of years I moved to
1:14:50
this area this specific area for the the open space for nature for views of the
1:14:56
hills not no overcrowding I think a new development would tarnish all of this so
1:15:01
I’m against any further development for the above reasons and just as important for the safety of my children as Ken
1:15:09
reference it is so crowded in the morning there’s so much traffic at at
1:15:14
drop off even at pickup we don’t need more people um we don’t need more cars there and I just don’t want more
1:15:20
pollution I don’t want more cars like I said that endanger my kids and I don’t want more congestion around the drop off
1:15:27
and pickup the pollution for the construction for long periods of time dust um that the kids will be breathing
1:15:34
it’s just the way that I picture my kids at school and playing and this project is
1:15:41
just chaos and I just oppose it thank you uh Karen Crossley Ted Crossley uh
1:15:47
Mary perner uh Karen Crossley uh at 1424 Fox
1:15:55
Creek Court uh you know I’ve always wondered why gvan Hills was ever
1:16:02
considered an appropriate place to build houses it’s hard to build on it has a
1:16:07
diverse uh ecology why had it been zoned for
1:16:12
housing in the first place and as I I looked into it it appeared that it happened around the time maril Lisa was
1:16:19
built and while I understand that we all like to make money on our Investments most of us can’t do so because it goes
1:16:26
against the general plan fur looking further into the general plan I found
1:16:32
out that it that as far back as the 70s the general plan has stated that
1:16:37
Livermore should not buil on Hills I’m sorry they’re not noes yes you’re you
1:16:43
know you want to present it as nolles but they call them Hills gent Hills so they must think they’re Hills too uh
1:16:51
anyway uh it appears that the general plan has never been followed so the question becomes is the
1:16:58
general plan just a piece of paper that is followed when it’s convenient or ignored when is in isn’t convenient so
1:17:06
what so what needs to be done for the city to follow its own rules even if a
1:17:11
lawsuit is the outcome we need to follow the rules and if the city doesn’t follow
1:17:16
its own rules why do you expect the citizens to follow the rules and I also would just like to add that it’s that
1:17:23
the thought that these duplexes are affordable is laughable I have children
1:17:28
that have college degrees that cannot afford these houses in
1:17:33
Livermore and I find that they’re all planning on moving so we will be the
1:17:39
only ones left in this town and they have spent their lives here thank you thank you m Crosley uh Ted Crosley
1:17:47
uh Mary perner and MaryAnn Rosa
1:17:58
for the record my legal name is Verlin Crosley and Ted Crosley is is a
1:18:06
nickname uh good evening council members and guests and may mayor maon we have
1:18:15
debated the Gava Hills development for seven years I again want to point out
1:18:21
the development has never complied with the Livermore City’s General plan and
1:18:28
still doesn’t this development should have been rejected when proposed 7 years
1:18:33
ago it should have been rejected when it was repr proposed and reposed and
1:18:40
ropos it has been revised yearly but still proposes building houses on Gava
1:18:46
Hills the hills are an ecologically sensitive area that is home to several
1:18:52
species that that cannot be reloc relocated and whose habitats will be
1:18:57
destroyed by the builders tractors and graders although that may not be endangered yet they are part of our our
1:19:05
EOS system that adds to the uniqueness and Desir desirability of this
1:19:11
area the hills are not suitable for housing in their present form because they’re not level have rock formations
1:19:19
that need to be removed or moved either way the skylining character of The Hills
1:19:25
will be destroyed access roads to the homes will be visible and will increase traffic on
1:19:31
Bear Creek and Hawk Hawk Street is narrow and goes past
1:19:36
allmont Creek School a new two-lane bridge at the end of Hawk is intended to
1:19:42
provide access for the fire department and act as an emergency exit for the hills residents even then access for
1:19:51
firefighting equipment will be very limited and Hawk Street will certainly not accommodate Fire Equipment entering
1:19:58
and residence leaving at the same time the only upside to this development is
1:20:05
that it would generate or increase livermore’s real estate taxes by approximately probably $40 million I
1:20:12
don’t know of course the loss of the hills as an undeveloped area will make the property of existing homeowners less
1:20:20
desirable the skyline of developed Hills is C to be preserved the skyline of a
1:20:26
housing de development is not an AC is not acceptable as an
1:20:32
alternative the shity if wanted to develop these Hills should have changed
1:20:38
the plan years ago to accommodate the development of healing areas but that
1:20:44
would have been challenged by the voters have no doubts the voters like the
1:20:50
general plan as it is and we are upset because you are not following it thank
1:20:58
you thank you Mr Crosley uh Mary perner Maryann Rosia
1:21:05
Graham
1:21:12
tber good evening your honor and council members um my presence here is uh
1:21:19
somewhat impromptu I had a conversation uh prior to Christmas with a good friend
1:21:26
Mary put off who cannot be here this evening now I understand that she has spoken in front of this group in the
1:21:33
past on this topic of the Genta Hills uh proposed development and that she spoke
1:21:39
eloquently I’m sure that uh I have not prepared and that I um don’t have the
1:21:47
facts and figures uh but I am convinced by Mar ‘s passion that this proposed
1:21:57
development may be a violation that the hill that is behind
1:22:02
gaventa school is one of the Stepping Stones going up to Brushy Peak which has
1:22:09
been a site a sacred site for the alone and other tribes historically and is
1:22:16
still honored in that way um I believe that it serves as a beautiful
1:22:23
lovely peaceful background and that it will be destroyed I I honor what these
1:22:29
people are saying um and I I respect their arguments and so basically again
1:22:38
in in honor of Mary and uh her beliefs I
1:22:44
hope that you will not uh will not Grant this development the go-ahead thank you
1:22:51
thank you m per uh Maryann Rosa Graham tber Andrew
1:22:59
Barker good evening uh mayor Maran city council members and staff my name is
1:23:04
marann Roosa and I live at 1787 Sterling Court in Livermore I’m representing the
1:23:11
sellers in the sale of this property to laferty communities their names are
1:23:17
Sharon Albright and Karen Red Elk um they would very much have like to have
1:23:23
been here but they are very elderly and they live in Berkeley and they cannot drive at night this project has been in
1:23:32
the planning since 2010 it’s been through numerous reviews in the city and the plans were revised
1:23:39
based on what the planning department as well as the city council desired going
1:23:44
from the 76 to the 44 with the duet units I’m going to reiterate some of the
1:23:51
things that were were said today the square footage on the homes have been reduced the lot sizes have been
1:23:58
increased the building Heights reduced to to have less impact on the neighbors
1:24:05
the project conforms to the current zoning which is low residential land use
1:24:11
the eir report has said there’s no significant impact to the environment
1:24:17
the lot sizes and styles of homes is consistent with the nearby homes in the Bluffs
1:24:22
in Altamont Creek and the Mary Lisa development Livermore has a very diverse
1:24:29
population and needs diversity in housing in fact we need all kinds of
1:24:34
housing as I’m a realator and I can attest to that many of the newer developments are two and three story
1:24:42
condos Town Homes plus single family homes on very minimal siiz Lots mostly
1:24:49
with no backyards and small Pao are even balconies this development provides that
1:24:57
diversity Gran the Grant Hill does have open space walking paths and concern for
1:25:04
the environment the emergency access which is also a pedestrian bridge will
1:25:10
allow for the families to walk their kids to school and back from school in the
1:25:16
afternoon um oh I’m sorry I’m almost done I want to commend laferty home for
1:25:22
the excellent design of the project and their dedication to making significant changes to satisfy the Planning
1:25:28
Commission and city council recommendations thank you very much for allowing me this
1:25:34
time thank you Miss Roosa uh Graham tber Andrew Barker and Michelle
1:25:40
Mitchell tber hi everyone my name is Graham talber I don’t live at the hill but I
1:25:46
love it first off I just want to say looking for California tiger salamanders
1:25:52
is one one of my favorite hobbies they’re actually really special salamanders known as mole salamanders
1:25:57
because they spend almost the entire year underground in Burrows and Upland Hills like the gaventa hill once a year
1:26:04
in the middle of the night and only on the rainiest nights of the year the California tiger salamanders make a migration to vernal pools at lower
1:26:10
elevations where they breed this is virtually the only time you can see a tiger salamander they don’t leave tracks
1:26:17
and they use ground squirrel Burrows as H so evidence of their existence outside of these rain nights is basically
1:26:24
non-existent the data in the eir that suggests there’s only 0.0004 Acres of CA
1:26:29
tiger salamander habitat on the gaventa hill is extremely dated and would be debated by any qualified biologist this
1:26:37
was mentioned in the Planning Commission meeting and has not been resolved liore started off with a thousand acres of
1:26:44
this awesome habitat called an alkal SN the health and existence of this habitat is entirely dependent upon the hydro
1:26:50
hydrologic cycle and the hydrologic significance of the hills surrounding the habitat this Alkali sink habitat is
1:26:58
the habitat that surrounds the hill it is also the only habitat our City’s flower the livmore tar plant can be
1:27:04
found in unfortunately the original Thousand Acres of alkal sink has been reduced by 50% to 500 Acres the Liv more
1:27:12
tar plant along with a handful of other critically endangered plants and animals that call The Alkali sink home are
1:27:18
clinging to existence any further loss or damage to this habitat is ecological
1:27:24
disaster as it is now the mitigation property proposed cannot ever be developed due to The Endangered Species
1:27:30
Act as large portions of the property are tiger salamander Western spadefoot and red-legged frog habitat this is why
1:27:38
the property currently exists as a public preserve the livmore wetlands preserve go check it out it’s an awesome
1:27:44
Park this property has already been preserved so mitigation using this property has absolutely no added
1:27:50
ecological benefit is and is an entire scam finally I’d like to address that
1:27:55
the eir provided at the Planning Commission meeting was performed before the statuses of several species that are
1:28:01
found in the alkal sink had changed I’d also like to say this is the sneakiest and mo most ecologically inconsiderate
1:28:08
eir I have ever seen given the number of special status species that exist in our
1:28:14
alkal syn and its Upland counterpart the Genta Hill thanks thank
1:28:20
you Andrew Berker Michelle Mitchell uh Brent Syler good evening my name is Andrew
1:28:27
Barker I’m a resident of Livermore I’m here to encourage you to approve this development uh we desperately need more
1:28:33
housing in Livermore U let me briefly address the environmental concerns um our main problem we Face
1:28:41
environmentally is global warming and the main cause of that is vehicle travel
1:28:47
so the 44 families that could be living here don’t disappear if the houses aren’t
1:28:54
built uh if the houses aren’t built those families are commuting from Modesto and causing much more
1:29:01
environmental harm than the building of this um of this development so I
1:29:06
encourage you to approve encourage you to approve the development thank you
1:29:11
thank Mr Berker uh Michelle Mitchell Brent Siler Luan
1:29:20
tongue good evening mayor and Council I’m here tonight to oppose the proposed Genta
1:29:28
Hills project and I support the technical flaws that the save the hill group has presented to the city and to
1:29:34
council and and you the mayor as well I had a whole thing written out of what I wanted to talk about and then
1:29:41
after hearing the comments um I’ve changed my mind a little bit so I poize it’s not going to be as polished as I
1:29:47
had started out but um I’m going to give it a shot anyway um i’ like to start out
1:29:53
with part of my original um plan and that’s to talk a little bit about the possibility of preserving it as open
1:30:00
space in a few years the city will be re-evaluating the general plan the
1:30:05
property in question was rezoned in 2003 to a lower density zone is it possible
1:30:11
that during the uh General plan of re-evaluation the city can take the time to look once again at rezoning this
1:30:17
property so that may um it may remain open space um given the city’s history
1:30:23
of preserving open space and hillsides the city’s current General plan and the city’s work with the elamont landfill
1:30:30
open space committee on recommended list of priority areas for future acquisition
1:30:36
in eastern Alama County I’d like to request that the city consider working with other local agencies the save the
1:30:43
hill group to secure funding from the elamont landfill open space committee and partnering with a local Park
1:30:51
District or District dists to preserve this area as open space um I also forgot
1:30:56
in the beginning I wanted to thank um the council members who took the time to come out and take a look at the
1:31:02
beautiful hill we appreciate that and the city staff um for the time that they’ve spent with us we really
1:31:08
appreciate that as well so the other things that came up while listening to other people I’ll quickly go through um
1:31:15
they’re talking about putting a trail system in this new development uh a specific trail system a maintained trail
1:31:21
system they’re hooking that up to a landscape maintenance District which is behind my
1:31:27
home it is not a maintained Trail um I as my understanding landcap Landscape
1:31:34
Maintenance districts are set amounts of budget so you’re going to hook up trails to something that isn’t even a trail or
1:31:41
part of the current Landscape Maintenance District budget so as a resident I oppose that I oppose the fact
1:31:48
that you’re trying to connect things that shouldn’t be there anyway um the fire danger I I’m befuddled by that um
1:31:57
that the fire department doesn’t think that adding more trees and having Hills of grass in between a um residential
1:32:05
area is a good idea and fire danger and light of what other people have said about the recent fire dangers um having
1:32:13
dry grass in that in in that enclosed area I can tell you as a resident fire um Fireworks get set off out there and
1:32:20
you’re just adding more people and more dangers to a more concentrated area thank you for your time I appreciate it
1:32:26
thank you uh Brent Syler uh Luan Tong
1:32:32
and Bianca cavelli evening council members SE um
1:32:39
I’ll have to give it to the save the hill group they’ve done a fantastic job in trying to identify Alternatives as
1:32:46
well as you know problems that they have um you know for me yeah go back to our
1:32:52
history more recent history the but fire um where the Flames traveled at uh 800
1:32:58
yards a minute um and when you look at that space how defensible is it going to
1:33:04
be um you know we build the stack and pack houses uh where fires can go from
1:33:10
one to the other and it’s not the low running fires that we got to worry about but it’s the Embers that it generates
1:33:16
and it puts up into the air with all the wind that we get from that area coming down uh in through
1:33:22
Livermore um one thing that was brought up even by staff is kind of the layout of the area
1:33:29
I mean the group’s been fighting this for almost 10 years now so it’s pretty obvious residents don’t want
1:33:36
this um the developer wants to make money the people who have the land want to make money it’s a money-making deal
1:33:44
so Lisk them their money uh let them set a price listed what we did um for the uh
1:33:51
the other preservation area let’s get money from other other towns where they need to be able to uh pay into a fund
1:34:00
have them pay any of this let’s make it contingence just like the city planner said we should and that way it’s all
1:34:06
under one umbrella people get paid for for their land for their effort we get
1:34:12
to preserve the area I personally would like to see it preserved uh versus having housing going in there uh based
1:34:18
on what the residents want um that live there I I’ve Got Friends that live there um right now they
1:34:24
have a view of the the hills and the nulles when these houses come in they’re
1:34:31
going to be having people look on uh from their houses down onto them and
1:34:37
that’s not what they bought and that’s what they’re going to get so I oppose having this go forward i’ I’d like to
1:34:43
see a different alternative plan thank Mr Syler uh Luan Tong uh
1:34:49
Bianca cavelli and uh Dennis
1:34:56
Kai mayor marshan and members of the council my name is Luan Tong I live at
1:35:01
2157 te Garden common in Marisa Courtyard um I represent not only myself
1:35:07
as a neighbor to Genta Hills but also Friends of the ayos and Center for biological
1:35:12
diversity um the first time I saw tonight was the um the view from Tiffany
1:35:19
which is my neighborhood um and it’s clearly that that image of the houses
1:35:24
completely covering the top of the hill because we’re close unlike vascal road which gave a very misleading view before
1:35:32
um that is not subordinate to the land forms so the top of the hills obscured
1:35:38
from that area so I suggest that if this project gets approved that it should be
1:35:43
one-story homes on the side facing marilissa Courtyards the almite creek elementary and the Bluffs so that it it
1:35:51
um has less of an impact on The View put all the two-story homes on the backside
1:35:56
um I want to mention a big concern that I just had I learned recently in Mira
1:36:01
Courtyards so we’re like you know packed houses and we’re across Tiffany and across the creek from all that open
1:36:08
space their fire insurance has been cancelled just because we are close to
1:36:14
an open space so now you have these new houses basically it’s a wind tunnel it’s
1:36:20
usually very wind up there a lot and you have this grasslin area which has been
1:36:25
known there’s been fires that have blown through there and now you’re adding trees and houses and as Brett mentioned
1:36:34
earlier when the trees go the ashes blow and now generally people in the Bluffs
1:36:39
are downwind from the direction that the that the wind is blowing so now you have
1:36:45
fuel you have trees before you just had grass it blew through and they could
1:36:51
stand on top of it but now you have houses and trees and all the extra trees that they’re suggesting in the in the
1:36:56
landscape I think it’s a really bad idea to have it in a wind tunnel in a fire prone area so I think those people are
1:37:02
going to have a difficult time buying fire Insurance in that area given the past recent history of our more fire
1:37:10
prone environment in California um I also want to add that uh
1:37:16
the survey mentioned the environmental survey mentioned that they did not find any spe Species of special concern or
1:37:22
native plants and I provided pictures to uh planning staff and as well as uh
1:37:28
Council councilwoman Monroe of pictures that I took of burrowing owls on the
1:37:34
property pictures that I took of quite a few native plants on the property so and I’m not a professional surveyor but I
1:37:41
know what to look for because I’m out there all the time um just wanted to point that out let’s see I’m also
1:37:49
concerned with I think this was mentioned earlier but any change in water flow diverting away from or
1:37:55
allowing it toward um from the development into the direction of the rare plant alkal sink is unprecedented
1:38:02
there’s no example of a a residential area uphill of a rare plant alkal sink
1:38:07
and how that hydrology is affected so that you don’t know and you might be killing off The Alkali sink plants by
1:38:13
allowing that development so I think um the views from there are spectacular it should be preserved for the public it
1:38:20
should be kept as open space and I think it was a mistake in the very beginning to have
1:38:25
allowed that to be developed for houses in the very beginning so I urge you to
1:38:31
vote on Earth Day vote for mother earth and say no to the development thank you
1:38:36
thank you uh Bianca cabelli uh Dennis key uh Greg
1:38:42
Scott hi good evening I’m Bianca Kelli good evening mayor city council and
1:38:48
staff um thank you for this opportunity I want to second everything in opposition that is said previously in
1:38:54
opposition to this development um I’ve been a Livermore resident for 24 years and I care about my community deeply a
1:39:01
few points happy Earth Day first of all um I’m with save the hill group um there
1:39:07
are funds available and we’re working on collaborating with finding a buyer for this unique beautiful space to maintain
1:39:14
open space um a few points the general plan specifically States no building on
1:39:19
slopes Hills or NES Why is the development even being considered the general plan needs to be honored here
1:39:26
per LPD limited tree planting okay but we’re looking at twostory homes perching
1:39:31
for Raptors to pose threats to existing burrowing owes we have current photos and videos
1:39:39
showing their existence right now my question is why were there no
1:39:44
visual views of impacts from the Bluffs which will show specific impacts visually we
1:39:53
haven’t seen that we saw different perspectives with very minimal impacts
1:39:59
and that’s not the case so I’d like to ask for visuals from the Bluffs because
1:40:05
that’s where all of the impact is going to be shown and that are those are Hills and slopes so my other question is have
1:40:14
there been recent testing and core drillings of seismic activity in the area the last report was done over 10
1:40:19
years ago has that been done or even requested because we’ve had recent seismic activity within the last 10
1:40:26
years I would imagine what’s the bridge slope um the last thing that I read was
1:40:31
it was indicated at 5.9% to 6.81% that it’s 13 ft High keep in mind
1:40:37
that elamont grade is 2 to 4% that’s a big significant difference between 5.9
1:40:42
and 6.8% isn’t it that leads a dangerous situation for the bridge that’s not
1:40:51
that’s not even conceivable actually as an emergency exit point and if we’re going to talk about the bridge in
1:40:56
addition a on lane bridge is inadequate in case of emergencies for 44 homes if Laughlin which is the only existing one
1:41:04
way in and one way out one way in one way out if Laughlin for any reason is
1:41:09
blocked you’re not only blocking the 44 homes you’re blocking all the other existing homes in the entire
1:41:16
area um I just think this needs to be re-evaluated this is a wind tunnel I live there I know I experience it on a
1:41:23
daily basis we’re talking wind tunnel I have seen personally fires and they go
1:41:28
through that field like seconds we’re not talking minutes we’re talking seconds now you’re adding again what
1:41:34
Luan just said about the houses trees you’re adding major fuel it’s
1:41:40
going from one point of instant easy dealing with grass where they can break
1:41:45
it off to homes Embers um a recent a recent had a
1:41:51
conversation with a friend who yes her fire insurance was cancelled due to the fact that we’re in a one tunnel which is a risk and a danger especially in light
1:41:58
of all the fires that we’ve had in California it’s a serious concern and an issue um Without fire insurance and
1:42:04
insurance for these homes you don’t get loans sorry this is an environmentally and ecologically sensitive very unique
1:42:10
Hill that should be honored and left untouched and pristine and maintained open space this is not a consciously
1:42:16
buildable site our goal from save the hill group is to maintain this unique open space to maintain safety for our
1:42:21
community thank you for your understanding and thank you for understanding this is such a sensitive
1:42:27
site you know it’s like comparing apples to oranges anywhere else the nature of the Wind Tunnel the fire hazards the
1:42:34
Rolling Hills slopes and NES which are indicated in the general plan to be protected not build on build it on and
1:42:41
I’m asking you to vote consciously tonight and honor Earth Day and oppose this plan thank you so much for your
1:42:46
time I appreciate it thank you Miss Celli uh Dennis key and GRE
1:43:00
Scott thank you for the time the name is Dennis Kai I’m at 1658 no way I live at
1:43:06
the uh almost at the corner of Bear Creek uh in no way and that’s going to
1:43:12
lead into the access point of this uh proposed development which I totally
1:43:19
oppose I’m forward development believe me I’m truly for development but that’s for smart development and again this is
1:43:25
not smart development you’ve heard a lot of comments uh from my neighbors you’ve
1:43:31
heard a lot of comments and in the past we have folks that want to be here that can’t be here and they’re probably five
1:43:38
times the numbers 10 times the numbers that you see here uh from that perspective I just want to kind of go
1:43:44
back a little bit in history in 2015 uh from the mercury news is that
1:43:49
the city council on Monday declined to give the green light to a plan to build
1:43:54
47 homes that’s down from the 76 that you guys really wanted to put up there
1:44:00
uh you talked about it would jeopardize sensitive Wildlife increase traffic and violate the general plan it still does
1:44:07
that what has changed the council unanimously agreed
1:44:13
not to certify the final environmental plan of the gaventa ranch
1:44:18
Hills and so from that perspective you said the council members Express reservations about how the project would
1:44:25
affect visibility of nearby Hills you know the only reason I remembered to come here wasn’t because I wasn’t
1:44:31
concerned about the hills I was going for a walk in between that path between the
1:44:37
school and the hills and when I looked over there I looked at my wife and I said that’s destroyed if they build this
1:44:44
and I said oh my God that meeting is tonight so we had to cut our walk short and get down here un fortunately she
1:44:51
couldn’t make it but what has changed truly what has changed you’re talking
1:44:56
about visibility we’re talking to you about the safety of the residents we’re talking to you about the environmental
1:45:03
impact there was a time you said there was a fire I told you back then I saw
1:45:08
one if not two spotted owls or at least I saw a ground burrowing a on either side and then there was a fire and the
1:45:14
comment came out what happened to those animals well we had another person said they took pictures and found seven
1:45:20
ground bearing owes out there now seven these are endangered species and mitigation is not going to save them
1:45:28
you’re going to destroy their habitat as you will toward the other endangered species in that report on the on the
1:45:35
Mercury News back then they talked to you about it and the letter that came to you from the environmental attorney that
1:45:42
also talked about all the different endangered species what have we done about it so you’ve got
1:45:48
safety you’ve got the views what’s really changed I really don’t think you know the comment that came to
1:45:54
us from laferty as we were the last person that got up to speak if anything
1:46:01
that was to that was said here tonight were to be believed I would say the same thing
1:46:07
about their project my concern is not just the visibility it’s about the safety and it’s also about the
1:46:14
environmental impact thank you for your time thank you Mr Kai Greg Scott
1:46:28
uh Greg Scott so I hear two categories of concern here the environmental concerns and the flood danger concerns
1:46:36
and um I’ve lived in Northern California for a number of decades now and I would
1:46:42
be very concerned with the flood danger um I’ve been to many of these meetings
1:46:49
in the city council and the February 2017 storms where you went on and on
1:46:55
about the $650,000 for the uh a royal mocho repair
1:47:02
um when you look at the hydrologic data I just wonder how you’re planning for it for example what’s called ark storms Arc
1:47:09
is atmospheric River Thousand-Year storms um this comes under the multi-hazards demonstration project the
1:47:16
USGS and there’s a little problem here because they don’t have to be Thousand-Year storms they’re every 200 U
1:47:23
years or less but we haven’t had one in a while the last time we had one was in 1861 to 1862 when the capital of
1:47:32
California was flooded and had to be moved um but from sediment levels and studies it’s found that these storms
1:47:38
occur every 100 to 200 years and they occur 50% of the time with more um there
1:47:46
are stronger storms and what happened to the 1861 1862 storm uh that that was the
1:47:52
time when it rained 66 in in Los Angeles so I’m wondering about the flooding and
1:47:57
how the you plan for the flooding in um in this project when our hydrologic data
1:48:04
it seems to be rather limited uh on the environment it was expressed that um uh
1:48:10
concern for um carbon dioxide pollution uh from commuters and that’s a valid
1:48:17
concern uh we’re looking at 44 houses um and the carbon dioxide emissions from um
1:48:24
the 44 houses now I don’t want to downplay that but in a 44 houses the
1:48:30
carbon dioxide emissions in a state that’s putting out 500 million tons of
1:48:35
carbon dioxide per year that’s a concern um you know our number one environmental
1:48:41
concern is nitrogen that comes from our Agriculture and phosphorus concerns and then our number three problem is
1:48:48
biodiversity and genetic diversity we are losing a lot of our biodiversity and genetic diversity and how we know that
1:48:54
is a little system called leadar um it’s light um um distance and R ranging and
1:49:01
we have the satellites up there in aircraft and we are losing our biodiversity and genetic diversity like mt and we’re just taking it out piece by
1:49:08
piece this is just another piece of it um so we have to weigh certain things
1:49:14
here and um you know $650,000 compared to what could happen
1:49:21
in an atmospheric River storm that’s not in your plan out of the 100-year
1:49:27
parameter could be a lot of money thank you Mr Scott and last com
1:49:34
card Cindy Anders just got in under the
1:49:39
wire sorry I say just got in under the wire minut it I won’t tell you how fast
1:49:46
I sped here um hi my name is Cindy Anders um
1:49:52
I’m at 1499 winding stream drive here in Livermore um I’m here with the save the
1:49:57
hill group forgot my shirt sorry um first off I do want to thank council
1:50:03
members and City staff for working with the save of the Hill group for what seven years now it’s amazing um I think
1:50:11
this this this working together has so far been really beneficial I’m kind of
1:50:18
shocked thank you but anyway there’s still some flaws as you have heard with
1:50:23
the project um one thing that um I don’t think I was told hasn’t been mentioned
1:50:29
yet is uh you know as you as you have heard we would really like to arrange to
1:50:35
buy the hill keep it a open space in perpetuity open space and perpetuity
1:50:40
Forever by the hill that’s our that’s our goal here um we’re not looking at
1:50:46
just a eight or 10 year option and I’m I’m really curious why the developer
1:50:53
hasn’t bought the hill why are they just doing an option are they concerned that
1:50:59
this will never go through because of all the technical flaws I don’t know maybe you can ask them so anyway um I
1:51:06
just wanted to share that thought with you guys and I really truly am kind of impressed to um have Livermore work so
1:51:13
well with his residents I think it’s kind of remarkable so thank you all
1:51:18
thank you okay uh with that that the last of the cards that I have so I’m going to close
1:51:25
the public hearing and bring it back to the council uh questions from the council at this point I had one quick
1:51:32
one yeah I just want know what what we’ve heard a little bit from speakers
1:51:38
about we’re violating the general plan could anybody elaborate on that
1:51:44
please of Staff of course sure the general plans designated this property as residential uh back in the 1976 plan
1:51:54
it was designated for 1 to 5 acre sites it was a uh in 1988 the area a general
1:52:00
plan Amendment occurred and that changed it from the 1 to five acres sites to uh it was 2 to three to the acre and then
1:52:08
in the 2003 General plan it was down zoned a bit because of the unknown environmental constraints in the
1:52:13
property so the property has been residential for a number of years when
1:52:18
you look at the goals objectives and principles that uh we analyze to
1:52:26
determine whether or not it’s consistent or not look at the entire um series of goal objectives and
1:52:33
policies for example uh there’s a goal that says preserve and enhance livermore’s natural
1:52:40
setting uh there’s a policy that says the city shall permit no intensive development of the hills if you stopped
1:52:46
there it’d be pretty clear but then it adds a few sentences under which
1:52:52
conditions that it would be okay to um develop on those tough sites and that
1:53:00
um is where you get the to making it sub uh subordinate to the Natural land forms
1:53:05
trying to Cluster the units you move them down off the Hills Preserve the ridge lines that sort of uh idea so it’s
1:53:12
sort of a clustering principle so it’s that’s one example of
1:53:17
how we as staff look at a general plan goal you take it in its entirety so the
1:53:22
property has a residential General plan designation and it follows the um goals
1:53:30
and strategies to try and minimize the impacts to the Natural land
1:53:39
forms okay uh council member Monroe questions com question point I have a
1:53:45
bunch of questions um should I just run through them sure okay um I wanted to go
1:53:52
so we’ve we’ve heard these These are basically reiterating some of the questions we we we’ve just heard I
1:53:57
wanted to go back to the uh fires the trees the wind tunnel um and how that
1:54:03
would play out and maybe hear a little bit more in detail how that could work out and um you know in the event of an
1:54:11
emergency um should I just keep read all the questions and then get them answered or go one at a time here what’s
1:54:18
easier one of the time a time okay fine um so can I get that one answered
1:54:34
first I’m sorry council member Monro can you please repeat that sure um I wanted
1:54:40
so I I had asked prior to public comment about fires and floods um and those came
1:54:47
up again several times with with with concern that that maybe the answer I
1:54:52
want an answer that was a little bit more in depth than the one prior to public comment sure so our building code
1:54:57
and our fire and safety codes require certain um construction practices to
1:55:03
minimize uh impacts from fire including sprinkling providing fire sprinklers in
1:55:09
all of these buildings which they will do uh it’s been reviewed to um ensure
1:55:16
there are enough fire hydrants that are adequately spaced to fight uh any sort of structure fire
1:55:23
that might occur and also with um distances to pull hoses to places uh
1:55:30
where there aren’t a hydrant so um from that perspective the the infrastructures
1:55:37
in place to to um take on a blaze if it were to occur either in the natural
1:55:44
areas or the developed Lots um and again our departments look
1:55:49
looked at it for uh adequate access loading on the street our U the Environ
1:55:57
the emergency vehicle access Bridge has been reviewed and found to be adequate and
1:56:04
um uh regarding the flood uh issues like I mentioned these homes are actually quite a lot higher
1:56:11
than many of the homes out there uh so they’re well out of the flood plane uh
1:56:16
for Altamont Creek and um so that that’s a concern that um we’ve we’ve touched on
1:56:24
it in the environmental documents and it’s it’s adequately uh cited to avoid
1:56:29
damage from floods um okay
1:56:36
um okay um so I know that there this is the last the marilisa development as I
1:56:44
understand it was um uh had three hills correct is this
1:56:50
hill how does this hill differ from the other two these are a little bit
1:56:57
higher and uh the other there’s a hill that’s just to the east that’s a similar
1:57:05
similar in height that’s been set aside sort of similar to uh this project that
1:57:12
um it’s sort of behind null court and Bear Creek so the the development is basically clustered off of that Hill
1:57:19
side and tucked along be Creek Road then there’s a a a hill that perhaps our city
1:57:26
manager could talk about its exact location uh but that is now covered with homes yeah that that was actually the
1:57:32
fourth hill of the cluster there and that was located south of the Creek area um and that area was graded so you can
1:57:39
actually still see the remnants of that in the the actual height of the street out there but that area was developed as
1:57:44
part of the original development
1:57:50
violation of Native American territory any question question on
1:58:12
that yeah so we’re we’re obligated to consult with our recognized tribes and
1:58:19
spokesman or spokespersons and so um they had an opportunity to look at this and um you
1:58:27
know we recognize that Brushy Peak is a significant resource and um and this generally
1:58:35
basically this project is far enough South so that it’s not part of that that
1:58:41
holding uh it is the uh tribes that have lived here over the years regard the
1:58:46
whole valley as uh uh significant resource and and sacred in many places
1:58:52
especially along creeks and so uh when projects come along we look at that very
1:58:58
carefully and uh try and address their their um concerns and comments as best
1:59:03
we can and as well as avoiding work in The Creeks when we can do that
1:59:11
so this was part of the E and the um
1:59:16
recognizing that there’s not one Community you know there’s not one
1:59:22
person that speaks for everybody is what I’m hearing um those people who are recognize agreed that this was okay to
1:59:29
build on is that a correct interpretation of what you said I’m not sure I don’t think I I would put those
1:59:35
words well I was I was so okay try so they did not have unique objections to
1:59:40
development in this area um based on place um so you did hear that many of
1:59:46
our the tribes believe that development anywhere uh in the valley Valley um disturbs the overall uh ecological and
1:59:53
sacredness of the area there were not unique features of this particular land form that were identified um and if they
2:00:00
had been those would have been incorporated into our analysis thank you sorry I I was
2:00:06
trying um and the sightings the of tiger salamander and burrowing owls that were
2:00:13
not Incorporated in the eir so as I mentioned in the
2:00:19
presentation although we didn’t find species when we were out there we assumed that they could be on the entire
2:00:25
site um so having found them on the site only confirms our assumptions that they could be on the entire site and if if
2:00:32
they do come across one during construction the resource agency approved biologist who has to be on site
2:00:39
will halt work and uh they’ll take corrective measures to avoid harming or taking a species under both state and
2:00:47
federal law the appropriate action to deal with that particular potential habitat is the identification
2:00:54
and acceptance of mitigation property um the staff has done pre-consultation on
2:00:59
the mitigation of property to see whether that’s acceptable um to address those particular species um and the
2:01:04
findings is that that it does in fact it is a higher value habitat as your staff described earlier based on what actually
2:01:11
exists on those habitat uh mitigation areas and and to that point and then I’m going to just I’m going to leave some
2:01:17
for other people um the uh question of this being the the mitigation site never
2:01:23
being developed anyway so it doesn’t really um I’m going to pre rephrase here it doesn’t count as a as a real trade
2:01:30
could you speak to that uh as as well sure and I’ll just uh take that one
2:01:36
that uh it is true that it is privately held and there are no um conservation
2:01:43
easements on it that would protect that in perpetuity but the project is um
2:01:49
also heavily impacted by trespass uh BMX bike jumps motorcycles
2:01:56
RC cars and trucks and things and the the damage that’s that’s um ongoing
2:02:03
there is significant and so part of the mitigation on this would be to put a
2:02:09
permanent conservation easement over that property and also require the
2:02:14
applicant the developer to provide an endowment which is essentially a a bank
2:02:20
account that will earn enough interest to take care of that property in perpetuity uh just based on the interest
2:02:28
and so they’ll have to develop a management plan that will talk about that property and what’s best for it and
2:02:34
then the endowment will be set at an amount um appropriate to carry out that management and perpetuity so it would be
2:02:42
protected so so in other words right now no it won’t get built on but right now
2:02:47
it is being destroyed as an ecological site um in some ways uh um and I’m
2:02:54
seeing some people in the back saying that’s not correct but so
2:03:00
I and typical Pro protective measures include things like fencing to try to
2:03:05
prevent trespass and uh bicycle use and jumps and all the things that that happen uh near existing housing trespass
2:03:13
is actually one of the major contributors to the deterioration of sites in the area um people taking both
2:03:19
animals and themselves onto the site um uh is a is a major problem for those
2:03:24
especially those flat areas um but even areas that have some topography to them um when people bring their animals on um
2:03:32
that can be a significant impact to the site and so one of the things is to fence the site appropriately and then to
2:03:37
manage it in a in a ongoing manner so I I don’t know if this is okay or not just
2:03:42
I’m not sure about protocol but um as I was making my statement I’m seeing some some
2:03:49
people saying in in in the back indicating that that they strongly disagree um is I don’t know what do we
2:03:58
let it go we got you have the floor I well I I I’m curious to know
2:04:08
what the objection is but I I don’t know whether they get well so they they’ve spoken and now we are you’re getting
2:04:15
input from uh from the staff you knowing no so now now is it’s comes back
2:04:23
to the council so the council has the opportunity so your I could ask no you’re asking questions of the staff and
2:04:30
the staff is responding we don’t want to go get to a point where somebody’s going to say well I don’t believe that okay it
2:04:37
so it depends on on who you
2:04:42
believe I’m done I I I I’m finished it’s uh someone
2:04:48
else is okay
2:04:54
U okay vice mayor Carling I’ve been out there too and I’ve
2:04:59
seen uh the hill being destroyed by bicycles and other people trespassing on the land as it is now so I’m not exactly
2:05:07
sure why you think that that’s the wrong statement we’re talking about the mitigation property no I’m talking about what’s going on there today we’re
2:05:13
talking about the no I’m talking about no no no sir I’m talking about what’s going on today which is the point that
2:05:20
my council member was talking about what’s going on today not the mitigation what’s going on today I’m talking about
2:05:25
what’s going on I know what you’re talking about I know what you’re talking about we’re talking about two different
2:05:31
things obious two different properties very far I know that I’m well aware sir it’s my turn to
2:05:39
talk Sir Mr talber Mr talber
2:05:44
please the council no that is not true well I have signs I have pictures of sir the par sir
2:05:51
we are now talking not you you’re asking question you’re asking Mr T I told you
2:05:57
that we’re talking about different you’re right the public has the opportunity to speak during the
2:06:04
public so they get to lie you and we don’t get to rebut we’re talking about two Happening Here you guys have not
2:06:11
been out there you don’t see the signs around I thought I just said i’ been out there there are signs around the prop
2:06:18
not talking about Mr Talib we are not talking about the mitigation property we
2:06:24
are not talking about the mitigation property we’re talking about the site the site is what we are talking
2:06:32
about Mr vice mayor I’d like to talk about the road
2:06:38
um and I spent some time out there and um and Mr
2:06:43
Brooks said that he had never heard an answer to the question about vascu that’s a question I asked city manager
2:06:49
and I can we ask the can we get a reply on that again please putting a road
2:06:56
through the wetlands uh to the immediate west of the site um would be a significant environmental impact The
2:07:02
Preserve that essentially is immediately to the west of the um area where the
2:07:07
project is located is sensitive um and in fact uh as people have identified
2:07:13
that area does have sensitive species in it and um essentially has a significant amount of wet in that area so placing a
2:07:20
road in that area which was one of the things that was uh initially analyzed and rejected because of its significant
2:07:26
environmental impact um while it would improve access um it would be a significant environmental impact um
2:07:32
you’re required we’re feasible to try and minimize or eliminate those environmental impacts so that particular
2:07:38
proposal was not carried forward in any of the development Alternatives thank you and I think
2:07:44
um I think uh council member rro address the issue of safety and
2:07:51
concern about fires and emergency access and can we just review that again Mr
2:07:57
Stewart I mean we’ve gone from we’ve had three several different
2:08:02
plans one with no emergency access out Hawk a
2:08:08
two-lane road that would require some re re-engineering of the of the aoo and
2:08:16
we’ve settled on at this point and any way a is it a one lane or is it just a
2:08:22
narrow two-lane emergency vehicle access it’s a 20 foot wide Bridge with a 5 foot
2:08:31
um pedestrian raised sidewalk on it and it’s you know be open for bicyclists
2:08:37
could use the roadway part or the sidewalk if they wanted to so the the um
2:08:44
initial proposal had a full two lane one lane in each Direction and a sidewalk
2:08:51
bridge that required realignment of the creek during the public hearing for the
2:08:57
environmental impact report there was significant uh testimony that the um
2:09:04
neighbors were concerned with cut through traffic and that it was an environmental impact and based on that
2:09:10
testimony the applicant revised uh the project to remove that bridge so
2:09:17
therefore that alleviated the significant environmental impact uh and
2:09:22
left the sole access into and out of on bar Creek Drive so when it came before
2:09:30
the council in September the um uh neighbor neighborhood and Community
2:09:37
basically said they were concerned about emergency access in the event the Laughlin Road becomes unusable due to a
2:09:44
wash out or some failure of the road or blockage and so they asked
2:09:50
for another way in and out of the development and as uh your city manager
2:09:55
explained the access from Vasco Road is significant from an environmental impact
2:10:01
perspective potentially could cut off flow into lpds gavan and wetlands
2:10:07
preserve and um so the we looked at
2:10:12
pretty much every other location to try and get a vehicular access into that site and the only one that works is
2:10:19
extending a bridge over the creek from Hawk Street and so that’s that’s where we are
2:10:25
today before you with the Eva Mr and the the Eva provides for
2:10:32
emergency access into that site so uh fire will use that in the event of emergency police can use it as well uh
2:10:39
provide it responds to some of the issues uh and uh if fire police want to
2:10:45
open that up for uh vehicular egress in the event of an emergency that’s
2:10:51
available as well uh people can obviously walk or bicycle in and out through think there’s some concern
2:10:57
though still expressed by some that if well I guess two things one is
2:11:03
that there’s a there’s presumption that the fire department is only going to go in through Bear Creek if need be um but
2:11:12
you’re suggesting that they might be able to go in through Hawk and then wouldn’t they be
2:11:20
you know wouldn’t some of the residents be trying to leave in that area down
2:11:26
Hawk and there’d be some traffic um problems with one emergency
2:11:34
vehicles going in One Direction and people trying to exit in the other so the the way it’s set up today it would
2:11:39
be balled and controlled by emergency Personnel they would be able to uh enter
2:11:45
the area and make a decision about whether how they want to utilize that access point uh it could just be an
2:11:51
access point for emergency vehicles to get to uh an emergency more directly
2:11:57
they could also open it up and allow vehicles to leave the area um and that would be controlled by your emergency
2:12:03
Personnel they’d be directing traffic uh and having people uh leave if necessary
2:12:10
so your issue today is you have significant number of folks north of uh the creek um that are served by one
2:12:16
access in and out um this emergency access would provide a second way to deal with that while the proposal is to
2:12:24
in include ballards across the emergency access the city has also prepared emergency accesses that are simply
2:12:30
signed um the modest risk in that case is that somebody will place a vehicle on the bridge in an inappropriate time
2:12:36
however it is built for full vehicle access um so that would be an alternative if that were ultimately a
2:12:42
significant Council concern is rather than to Ballard the emergency access simply sign it um and you have a
2:12:48
examples of that throughout the community where uh in some cases they are not ballers they just simply signed
2:12:54
for emergency vehicle access use in any case there would essentially be one more way in and out with this project than
2:13:00
without the project and while the project adds 44 um homes uh it does
2:13:06
actually provide a second way out for everyone north of the creek including houses that are currently on be Creek
2:13:12
existing and the other piece that it actually is a clear span exit rather than essentially a culverted exit um
2:13:18
with the large concrete covers and it’s actually much higher than the Laughlin road so in the uh in the case of flood
2:13:25
it would actually uh be a much more robust way in and out to the neighborhood north of the
2:13:31
creek yeah I don’t think I’m in a position as to knowing what would be better signs or ballards um I think it’s
2:13:39
up to the professionals that know more about that than I do but uh I do think that this has been looked at um for a
2:13:47
long time and it seems to me that it’s a reasonable um solution I also would like
2:13:52
to thank everybody for um spending the time and the energy particularly the
2:13:57
save the hills group um I think back at least from my understanding seven or
2:14:03
eight years ago this project has gotten a lot better and I think everybody should be uh proud of the work that
2:14:10
they’ve done to make this project um certainly much better than it was with
2:14:17
76 homes and no emergency access and so on and so forth so I think that was
2:14:23
that’s been a great benefit to everybody concerned I also want to I don’t think I
2:14:29
don’t see any planning Commissioners here tonight but I’d like to publicly
2:14:34
thank them for the U questions and answers or the questions that they uh
2:14:41
asked of staff and others in terms of uh in the at the Planning Commission meeting when this came up it was very
2:14:47
very thorough and I uh it certainly helps me um and U as I learn and try and
2:14:55
understand what some of the questions and concerns are um so they and again I
2:15:00
would like to thank Planning Commission for taking the time and the energy to question many many things that
2:15:07
haven’t even been brought up here tonight and lastly the staff have done a fabulous job in terms of working on this
2:15:15
for a number of years and I appreciate all the the energy and effort that you guys have put into
2:15:22
this counc m Warner Yeah couple of questions here and
2:15:29
mostly around our um flexibility and you know the kind of decisions we’re making
2:15:34
but but we we were just talking about ballards or signs and I thought we were the last time we talked about this was
2:15:41
or somewhere was you put up the temporary plastic things that you can just drive over if you have to but it’s
2:15:48
not something that somebody would be on a Saturday night just doing for fun so I thought there were other options here
2:15:54
with respect to that there are at council’s discretion uh the standard approach is essentially
2:16:00
the lockable metal uh Ballers but there are other options um either signing or essentially breakway and those can be
2:16:08
made out of several materials that essentially if they’re nudged with a vehicle um they basically lay down right
2:16:13
so then the as long as we’re on that topic I just want to make sure I understand the fire department has
2:16:19
looked at this yes they have so the professional fire department has says it’s said it’s
2:16:25
okay and the the name of that bridge is Eva right yes that’s correct so I’m so
2:16:33
I’m not but I did hear some comments that said fire wouldn’t use it but that doesn’t make sense to me so um the the
2:16:41
first line of approach would always be the open public Street um so that would be uh an emergency responders um first
2:16:49
approach um if that were compromised um they would use the secondary access um
2:16:55
and that’s the same with every emergency vehicle access we have in the community is um to the extent feasible they always
2:17:01
like to keep um all of the equipment on open public streets um but they can use the emergency vehicle access if they
2:17:07
need a second way in or out um and or if there’s something wrong with the primary access so with respect to the U
2:17:15
emergency access and I mean I’ve heard two things been talking about tonight was floods and fires and I don’t think
2:17:22
they’re likely to happen at the same time so the uh but I did sort of hear
2:17:27
that that kind of get a little bit confused but so we’ve thought about this separately in the two events but we’ve
2:17:33
never thought about a a major flood Thousand-Year rain and a fire
2:17:39
right correct okay and we do plan for the hundred-year flood that’s what we’ve that’s what we take a look at okay so
2:17:46
the um you why I’m looking at this and i’ you know I’ve been around this project for a
2:17:52
lot of years and this strikes me as one of the projects I mean this is Decades
2:17:57
of going through this so I I do want to Second the uh comment that even miss
2:18:02
Andrews made made about working together I’ve been out there and tried to think
2:18:08
about this um pretty carefully and I certainly understand the U community’s
2:18:14
desire not to see this project happen uh but I’m not sure that we got a lot of
2:18:20
options here but I want to just talk about a couple of things so I want to make sure I understood the earlier
2:18:26
conversation about the um spe the endangered species so what I’m hearing I
2:18:32
think I heard was the evidence that they are there is not sufficient to say that
2:18:39
the eir or the the impacts aren’t mitigated is that we can’t find because
2:18:46
they’re have we’ve seen that we you know we have photographs of them being there that’s not sufficient for us to find
2:18:53
that this is not the eir is not satisfied uh no to the contrary we actually found that even though we
2:18:59
didn’t find them we assumed they were there anyways that’s what I’m saying okay so the fact that that they there
2:19:07
evidence that they are there is not sufficient for us to find that this project doesn’t meet the requirements is
2:19:13
that what I mean we’ve already assumed they’re there correct so it’s only confirming the assumptions we’ve already included in the eir and we’ve already
2:19:20
mitigated assuming that those species I’m just trying to make sure I understand how much latitude we’ we’ve
2:19:26
got here so the the other thing that we haven’t spoken about yet was the uh
2:19:33
suggestion well why can’t we just make this all go away by buying it
2:19:39
and that would be you know I could I can see the uh the advantages of doing that
2:19:45
and um but but I’m not sure that we at this stage can require that to happen and I
2:19:53
just wanted to from the city attorney get some kind of opinion on what kind of latitude we have
2:20:02
here that’s correct what you have to evaluate the project that is set before you um not look at the possibility of
2:20:10
what the city could do with the property as we’re currently not under contract to purchase that property laery communities
2:20:17
is under contract to purchase that property so that would be a separate course of action apart from your
2:20:22
determination as to what to do with this proposal before you this evening so and this gets back and I’ll get back to that
2:20:29
in a second but the the other my understanding that I want to make sure I
2:20:34
correct is you know it was suggested well why don’t we just change the general plan in the future but it’s my
2:20:41
understanding that once once you have a general plan and a project is submitted
2:20:47
consistent with that set of rules that we’re now into a different world we can’t do the legislative act of changing
2:20:55
the rules correct we’re not you’re not acting as a legislative body in this particular instance in fact you could H
2:21:03
you know stray into the realm of a takings argument if you have a property that meets the requirements of the
2:21:09
general plan and the underlying zoning and then you attempt to Midway through change what that is so we we can’t we
2:21:16
can’t change the rules in the Midstream correct correct and that gives us significant legal liability correct you
2:21:23
there would there would be compensation that would need to be provided should the city so the even though the council
2:21:30
can’t uh require that the um land be made
2:21:35
available that doesn’t preclude the community if because the suggestion has
2:21:41
been made that they can raise the funds that doesn’t preclude them from
2:21:46
trying to by it right correct if you play out that scenario if the uh save
2:21:51
the hill group were able to raise the funds um and offer more than what the developer is offering with you know
2:21:58
taking into account the value of any potential entitlements on the property um there’s nothing other than contracts
2:22:05
that they have in place that would prevent that from happening but presumably that would involve large sums of
2:22:10
money okay those are my questions at the moment okay thank you uh and again I
2:22:17
want to thank everybody for their comments tonight uh and again staff this has been a significant uh Evolution over
2:22:23
the uh uh the last what 30 years on this
2:22:29
that uh uh this is you originally zoned for housing in 1976 uh and then uh rezoned in in in 88
2:22:38
um some of the I one of the speakers said that this this was was already open space uh but it’s been zoned for housing
2:22:46
since 19 76 so it’s it hasn’t been open space since since uh I’ve been in
2:22:52
Livermore and uh someone else said that uh uh you the access to this site is is
2:22:59
very important to people’s daily lives um and that uh uh this site is currently
2:23:05
a preserve uh but it’s my understanding that this is private property and that
2:23:11
over the course of the last you know 20 years people have been allowed access to
2:23:17
the site um trespassing as it were and having the free enjoyment of the site uh
2:23:25
and we also heard that and I’ve seen uh where you’ve had uh dirt bikes out there
2:23:33
and bikes and some significant damage to that to that site um now
2:23:42
uh they aren’t currently on private property but if this development were to
2:23:48
go through uh there would be legal access ongoing legal access uh to the
2:23:55
site and then funds to maintain the site that correct that’s
2:24:02
correct um and uh to uh council member
2:24:08
Warner’s Point uh has to any Toge has anybody ever made
2:24:13
an offer on this site to purchase it for space I know that this was stated back in
2:24:20
2015 that they were going to to buy the site the neighborhood was going to buy the site do you know if any offer was
2:24:27
ever made I am personally not aware of an offer okay and somebody said that there’s the funds are available but I
2:24:34
presume that would be like the Altimont open space funds but there’s there’s a lot of very specific requirements behind
2:24:41
that funding that’s correct they’re tied to um sites with significant native
2:24:48
significant biological diversity and also uh for non-motorized recreation so
2:24:53
Trail access right and this uh most of the grasses up there are no longer native is that correct that’s that’s
2:24:59
true yeah okay so they’re they’re non-native grasslands all right and
2:25:07
uh so has already been been established
2:25:13
this does meet the general plan requirements and has for some time
2:25:18
correct correct okay and
2:25:24
um yeah uh let me just see if I got any additional notes
2:25:31
um one of the things I thought was interesting was somebody had made the comment that because of this vast open
2:25:38
space uh that the fire insurance for some of the residents was were cancelled
2:25:45
um one of the other hand if a certain portion of this open space
2:25:51
in grass land which does present a fire hazard is reduced wouldn’t that then
2:25:56
reduce the fire hazard
2:26:03
anybody so the combination of better access to the area um the the um
2:26:08
irrigation that happens in the uh yards that immediately surround the uh homes
2:26:14
in that location um and the fact that Wildland interface is a grassland interface which is actually the least
2:26:20
dangerous type of interface versus a tree canopy or other items the area is a relatively low um uh risk uh Wildland
2:26:28
interface obviously any place the city touches open space lands there is a risk the existing neighborhood has some level
2:26:35
of risk because wildlands essentially touch the edge of that neighborhood this area will not significantly increase and
2:26:42
as you say in certain circumstances could actually decrease that risk in certain limited locations um and that’s
2:26:48
why we did have the our fire Personnel take a look at that both for access to it um access to the open space um the
2:26:55
ability to provide High fire hydrants with uh inappropriate links so that essentially hoses can be drug to protect
2:27:02
both this new neighborhood and the existing neighborhood effectively in the case of a fire so we’re not talking about putting up a tree canop be like
2:27:09
paradise no uh you looking at the landscape architecture out there it
2:27:14
looks like they’re fairly widely spaced and uh there’d be a looks like just some
2:27:20
significant breaks in there so you wouldn’t have a uh a wild grassland fire and presumably if the HOA is maintaining
2:27:27
the site uh you wouldn’t have it go wild uh in a wild state that is true the the
2:27:33
trees have been limited the landscape plan uh contemplates uh a limited number
2:27:38
of native Oaks incorporated into the project around the exterior boundaries where the the project uh uh abuts the
2:27:46
weest there wouldn’t be any trees on those uh adjoining property flanks uh
2:27:51
because of the concern about Raptors so the project site has a pretty limited number of trees
2:27:57
Incorporated okay so this is it does follow the general plan uh this area is not open space it
2:28:06
is private property uh which has been accessed over the years uh by the
2:28:12
community um oh last uh has LPD ever expressed an interest in acquiring or
2:28:19
maintaining the property no they have not okay I do
2:28:25
remember though as a former board member at lpda that we had uh looked at a plan
2:28:30
that if this if this development be built and this is where they’re talking about 76 units that there was an that
2:28:37
adjoining open space parcel would be managed by LPD so how if they’ve brought
2:28:42
that up again I do not know but I know that we discussed it at one so that if the development went through the there would be an Associated open space yes
2:28:49
well but there is an Associated open space yes and right now there’s a open space where people are would be but be
2:28:56
managed by an HOA instead of by L RPD yeah it sounds that way to me anyway
2:29:01
okay the adjoining property uh to the West is owned by LPD and right I’m
2:29:06
talking about the the area to the uh to the east oh okay okay so it sounds like a similar
2:29:14
thing happened uh okay uh any further questions
2:29:19
comments if I could com oh go ahead go ahead go ahead I just want to be quick you know it’s really funny um and I
2:29:25
don’t mean funny funny it’s just interesting to hear I’ve been here a few
2:29:30
years not as long as many but long enough to remember when the mirisa development and everything
2:29:36
between Laughlin and Vasco was open space ranchland
2:29:42
Farmland from North Front North none of that
2:29:48
existed and uh I remember having exactly the same opinions as you have of this opin of that opin when I was when I had
2:29:56
to bring that up when that came before the council that and Mira Lisa being the last piece
2:30:02
in that puzzle out there but I just really really died over the amount of
2:30:09
habitat that had been gobbled up by all these places and so it’s it’s interesting just
2:30:17
to hear that all of a
2:30:25
sudden unfortunately families still have kids kids need a place to
2:30:31
live they aren’t going to live with mom and dad forever this is one that’s been a a real
2:30:37
tough decision for me because I it I didn’t like the original version 76
2:30:43
houses and anybody who knows me knows that I know the wildlife in that
2:30:48
neighborhood specifically better than probably anyone in town CU I’m out there almost every day almost every day and I
2:30:56
know where the tiger salamanders live I know their grandparents I know you know
2:31:01
pretty much I I’ve studied them for years in the Brushy Peak area uh in The Alkali sinks all these areas out there
2:31:10
and I just I remember when you know I remember
2:31:15
hiking with my wheelchair up where the new Safeway is right now because there is buring ow habitat I say the new
2:31:21
Safeway how is that Safeway down there in First Street first in Los pitas but before that was
2:31:27
built there were buring owls that I used to check on all the time down there daily before Mines Road went from First
2:31:33
Street to East Avenue it didn’t go through anybody it didn’t go through and
2:31:41
there was a big open space down there where the Safeway is where buring ows
2:31:47
were and I know from being out there and studying and and and I know you know many of you on
2:31:54
the save the hills group are Backpackers and hikers as as and and know me from
2:31:59
meeting me on a trail um
2:32:04
it’s I don’t like when we when this has to happen
2:32:09
when something has to be moved mitigated but
2:32:15
unfortunately we we have to find a place to put all the people we have here we can’t keep
2:32:23
having people drive through town from as Mr Barker said Modesto and probably as
2:32:28
far south as U as Merced and I know some that do that every day and come into
2:32:35
town and and I’d rather have a place for them here to shorten the commute have them live and work in town uh and we
2:32:42
we’re we trying pretty conscientiously during my relatively short time on Council to do
2:32:51
that to make that happen and
2:32:59
uh this this has gotten to the point this development where it’s gotten to a
2:33:04
place where I can just about handle it you know it it’s they’ve the inclusion
2:33:11
85 Acres this huge piece of property that’s almost as big as Sil Sycamore Grove
2:33:17
and um that’s kind of a a good thing to hang on out there that it’s it’s I I’d
2:33:24
just like to see see I I i’ wish the plan had never come up but it’s come this far now it’s been reduced in size
2:33:32
the homes have been reduced the uh there’s plenty of mitigation on the fire
2:33:37
side and Public Safety side so uh I just I’m just fascinated still that you know
2:33:44
because we we all saw Mir Lisa coming in and and were sweating about it back then
2:33:50
so uh just to put in a little bit of perspective more than anything so when you make a
2:33:56
motion oh comment so um I had a bunch of questions
2:34:01
but I hadn’t actually said anything about what I thought so first of all I wanted to uh reiterate to add to agree
2:34:08
with those who have already thanked staff those who have thanked saved the hills um I really appreciated my meeting
2:34:14
with with you save the Hills with with everybody but but when I met with you on Save The Hills um I appreciated the
2:34:22
energy I appreciated your dedication um and I want to encourage
2:34:28
you to you’ve you’ve heard already tonight that there is spaces on the commission for the Arts there’s a space
2:34:35
on there spaces on the Planning Commission please put that energy to use in the commissions as well and in
2:34:42
working on on on furthering city government uh from within as as as well
2:34:48
as well as working uh you know with uh in tandem with the city um I I think
2:34:54
that the work that the city has done on this has over the last 10 years has been remarkable um and my job here tonight as
2:35:03
is all of ours is to uh make a decision on whether or not this follows the rules
2:35:10
that we have in front of us and my judgment is that in fact fact the the
2:35:17
applicant has worked really hard to actually go ahead and follow those rules therefore because I cannot find any
2:35:24
reason not to um I there’s not a lot of choice here um I wanted to say one more
2:35:30
thing and that is about my personal history which is that uh I worked hard on the urban growth boundary uh back in
2:35:36
the early 2000s um I worked hard to make sure that uh it that we were going to
2:35:42
preserve that um and which means of course that we get d answer in internally which is actually better
2:35:48
environmentally it’s better for us as a community um when I started looking into
2:35:54
this I was actually surprised at how far out the urban growth boundary went along with my fellow council member um I went
2:36:00
I when I went and I walked uh the Bluffs I was I was surprised there were actually houses out there um because I
2:36:07
actually somehow thought that the urban growth boundary was was further in um so
2:36:13
the fact of the matter is it was set where it was set we live with it where we live with it we
2:36:18
can make those choices in the future um but I I I don’t believe in
2:36:25
changing the rules in the middle of the game so okay any other comments Mr M
2:36:33
Warner yeah I’ll I’ll just say that I actually you as I said I’ve been part of
2:36:38
this for a lot of years and I I think the uh say the hills group has done a really good job of a very
2:36:47
um very professionally is the only word I can think of of bringing this to our
2:36:53
attention and working with the council I was there for the 2015 and in that case
2:36:59
we had they were at that time I believe asking for General plan changes so we
2:37:05
had a lot of latitude and you can see that back then I think John and I you we were the only ones on this group that
2:37:11
were there for that one um and we really wanted to make sure that this project
2:37:18
was good enough and I think it has become good enough on there is no way
2:37:25
under the rules that we have to work under to get this to zero so I I just want to say is that when I look at it
2:37:32
over the its Evolution that it wouldn’t be as good as it is without the U Save
2:37:39
The Hills group so and I think that’s just exemplary the way that you’ve all
2:37:44
handled this and without it it might have been at the 76 who knows but I
2:37:50
think um this is as as best we can do and we don’t have a lot of latitude from
2:37:57
the council point of view okay was me any comments no all
2:38:05
right uh what’s the pleasure of the council do I have a
2:38:11
motion sure I’ll move we accept staff recommendation okay move by vice mayor
2:38:16
Carling is there a second I’ll second it seconded by council member kumber any
2:38:22
discussion on the motion all in favor I any opposed it passes unanimously thank
2:38:29
you very much it’s a much better project thank you I do appreciate that
2:38:35
having been an environmentalist for uh decades I appreciate that I’ve never heard an
2:38:41
environmentalist say let’s build more houses to reduce Natural Area not
2:38:46
finished thank you very much we’re not finished
2:38:54
okay it’s funny people people complained about you guys coming in
2:39:03
okay okay all right we’ll take a take a five minute break five minute break okay

Machine generated transcript of the 2023 Garaventa Hill urbanization attempt with video timestamps, synchronized with the video posted on our Youtube page.

0:02
all right well good evening everybody thanks for taking time out of your evening to join us my name is Steve
0:10
Stewart I’m a assistant community development director with the city of Livermore been working here about 23
0:16
years I’m also a Livermore resident. I’m joined tonight by Paul Spence our community development
0:21
director, assistant planner Shannon Pagan and associate planner
0:27
Cam Derwahl and Doug Mann is… I’m with citizens for
0:33
balanced growth and we are the people that consult with the city for the funding which we do have that we can
0:39
use to buy the hill and keep it open space if that’s what the neighbors would like to do. So we’ll talk a little bit
0:46
more about the details of that fund and how that works and what the steps are uh
0:52
entailed in accessing that money um again the idea here is to um share
0:58
information uh about the project process um go a
1:05
little bit about the history kind of what the next steps are try and help you be as fully informed as possible I’ll
1:12
and then we’ll have a time for a Q&A at the end we’ll try and our best to answer any questions that you might have and um
1:20
if we can’t get to them tonight we’ll develop a a kind of an FAQ piece that we’ll end up posting on our uh web page
1:35
and so we’ll we’ll start with kind of a just a general overview of the development review process and what
1:42
happens when folks own land and when they want to do stuff on their property
1:48
um basically it’s the um State Planning
1:53
and Zoning law is the main framework that establishes requirements for cities
1:59
and counties to have a long range plan often called a general plan and then a
2:05
zoning code which implements that so um there’s also some other state laws
2:11
called the subdivision map act that has uh laws around what you have to follow
2:17
both as a city and as a developer for example when you want to divide up land
2:22


into lots for residential houses for example or industrial complexes or
2:28
shopping malls or if you want to subdivide your property and build a duplex for example and then the permit
2:35
streamlining Act is another law that sort of establishes timelines and
2:41
procedures to um make sure that uh projects move forward with a process and
2:47
allows the public to participate and gets to a conclusion at some point and then at the local level we
2:54
have a general plan and a Livermore development code which is our zoning code
3:00
again the general plan is a policy document it um sets forth policies for
3:06
how the city will grow or develop or preserve land for about a 10 to 20 year
3:12
time period our last our current General plan was done in 2003 we’re about two
3:19
years into a comprehensive update for a general plan that’ll look out to the
3:24
year 2045 and there are opportunities to participate in that process if you’re
3:30
interested uh we are developing a draft land use um scenario over the next
3:37
couple of months and you’ll if you haven’t seen us out of farmers markets or other local events there’s
3:43
opportunities to uh participate in workshops online and through uh other
3:49
channels the website for that is Imagine Livermore 2045 and again that’ll Set uh
3:55
development and preservation policy for another uh 20 years or
4:01
so the development code uh implements the general plan so
4:07
that um essentially create um governs the way
4:13
that land is um used or developed like it’ll establish the height of buildings
4:20
how far they’re set back from the road from each other how big they are the bulk of them the
4:27
design and for uses you you know it ensures that uses are compatible with
4:32
each other so you don’t have schools for example next to gas stations or things
4:38
like that the all California cities and
4:44
Counties have a general plan this is the city’s General plan map and you can see in the middle is the
4:53
32 acre uh gaven Hills project site it’s um the different colors on the
5:00
map mean different types of land uses the shades of brown and yellow are
5:05
generally residential Red’s commercial uh this is Brick Lake up here
5:11
um but you’ll see the the s’s General plan designation has a ul1 which is
5:17
urban low residential one uh which is think two uh one to two units to the
5:23
acre shares the same general plan designation of some of the other lands out there Bluffs is a little
5:30
um higher density
5:35
there yeah the um uh then this is the zoning map that
5:41
implements the development policies in the general plan and uh so again the the gaven site
5:49
is kind of right in the middle there outlined in light blue it has a zoning designation of plan unit development
5:57
115 which uh identifies that it was part of the um
6:03
zoning and development plan who you don’t have to touch it for it to move um
6:09
part of the development plan for uh the development to the South some of the development to the
6:16
East and um so that’s the gray there means plan development or plan unit
6:21
development um those zoning designations mean that you can tailor the development
6:28
to respect effect earthquake fall zones for example um Hills um other resources
6:36
like Creeks um and then move the development to around different places
6:42
uh where typical zoning wouldn’t allow it but um a lot of the zoning out here is PD or plan
6:49
development and again this is designed to implement the general plan so the the Gaben Hills project
7:00
is um the actual development applications
7:07
are I’m sorry I may have missed
7:12
a you could just jump to the part where we saved the hill Steve uh yeah we’ll have FAQ at the end
7:18
there God thanks um so again every property owner has a right to apply to
7:25
use their property to develop structures that could range in size from accessory dwelling units adus you might have heard
7:32
sheds gazebos uh residential development um the city’s obligated to to process
7:39
those applications and evaluate those for consistency with the general plan and
7:45
Zoning uh in the gabena um sorry that process also allows uh Property Owners
7:53
or developers to make changes to the project to gain consistency with those
7:58
uh codes and and general plan so um you know for example if you’re going to
8:04
build a gazebo in your backyard you may not get the building code electrical code right the first time you have an
8:09
opportunity to go back and forth fix it and get it to comply with those codes
8:14
yes hey Steve I’m just wondering when you’re talking through the processes are you going to take questions like if we
8:21
have a question about the process itself not not the development but but what you’re talking about yeah you we can
8:27
well I’d like to do questions at the end about everything okay uh just to make sure we kind of finish I have about 30
8:35
minutes or so and about hour for the most important parts of your questions
8:42
and and other information is that all right thank you sure so in the in the gaven um
8:51
pills uh case the property does have a general plan and residential zoning
8:56
designation they resubmitted a project and paid for to to move forward again
9:02
after a court decision I’ll talk about all that later in April March and April
9:07
and um it’s the city’s role to evaluate that
9:13
application again against a general plan and zoning and design
9:19
[Applause] standards so there are various roles
9:24
that the parties play in the development process staff will look at the application evaluate it for consistency
9:31
with the general plan zoning design standards and guidelines we’ll refer that project out to other agencies like
9:38
liore area Recreation and Park District uh Zone 7 flood control agency Public
9:44
Works police fire uh to get their comments on development and then we’ll
9:50
take all that information prepare a staff report and uh that document along
9:56
with some technical studies our typically put in a package for the Planning Commission for the public to
10:03
look at the Planning Commission and city council to look at uh when they’re making their decisions on a
10:09
project the Planning Commission uh will in this case be
10:15
advisory to the city council
10:22
um and uh they’ll be they typically will act in two ways when they’re looking at
10:28
a there’s a legislative uh way with they’re considering a new law or a new code or
10:36
if they want to change a law or a code or they’re acting their quasi Jud
10:42
judicial role where they’re applying existing law and evaluating project if
10:48
it meets it or not city council is the decision maker
10:54
in a uh in in this case both roles uh that they’ll be also be acting in a
11:00
similar role a legislative role is when they’re looking at new laws or changing existing
11:07
laws or in the gaven case a quasi judicial role where they’re evaluating a
11:14
project for conformance with existing law they’re not we’re not proposing to change any laws to allow this project to
11:21
move forward um legislative decisions have a lot of discretion where the city
11:27
council can say Noe uh we don’t think that’s that project’s appropriate we don’t we’re not going to
11:34
uh approve it uh K iici they’re not obligated to approve it but they do have to look at
11:40
it very closely in comparison to the existing laws and standards in place so
11:46
there’s not as broad discretion to say you know I don’t like the project so I’m not approving it
11:57
basically and so again in the in the gaven Hills uh project they’ll be acting
12:02
in a quasi judicial role to make sure that the project complies with our
12:08
zoning uh and general plan the the project itself has not
12:13
changed since the uh 2018 and 19 approvals
12:20
um and so they they um based on city council direction did a
12:26
number of uh revisions of the project to gain consistency with our general plan and
12:33
Zoning part of the development review process is also to uh includes
12:40
environmental review under the California environmental equality act which is SQL for short and um the main purpose of seqa is
12:49
to fully inform the public and decision makers about the potential environmental
12:55
impacts of a project also Foster coordination between
13:00
other agencies like the ones I mentioned before but also including federal and
13:05
state resource agencies uh and then enhance public
13:10
participation in the process so there’s a separate public process that allows input on the environmental documents for
13:19
projects and just really quickly um an overview of squa the first step is
13:25
determine if it’s a project or not project is any sort of activity governmental uh organization carries out
13:32
that may that will have an impact on the environment or may have an indirect uh
13:40
but foreseeable impact on the environment so that means it’s a project once it’s a project there’s a
13:46
number of exemptions that SQL has in it um this gaven project is not exempt so
13:54
it’s subject to squa then the third step will it result in significant environmental
14:01
impacts and uh then depending on the answer to that if there are no
14:06
significant impacts a negative declaration or a mitigated negative
14:11
declaration is prepared it’s an environmental document uh that that
14:16
includes a statement that there’s no impacts the environment or if there are significant
14:22
impacts that an environmental impact report is prepared and that’s what was done for the Gan Hills project and the
14:30
idea of an environmental impact report is to identify those unavoidable impacts
14:35
and include uh project features that will minimize or reduce those environmental
14:42
impacts to levels that are not significant anymore this is about two years worth of
14:50
college stuff in about five minutes so sorry uh and then
14:55
finally uh public hearings for development riew process um there’ll be
15:00
a few I already mentioned for SQL they’ll have the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to allow
15:06
comments on the environmental uh document and then uh after the public
15:13
comment period just 45 days on that closes um and we’ll talk about calendar
15:19
later on the Planning Commission will hold a a public hearing it’ll be a recommendation to the city council and
15:27
then the city council will hold another public hearing where the final decision would be
15:33
made so that’s kind of an overview of the development process and what this Project’s gone through since about 2011
15:41
if you count all of the time uh so just a little bit of history
15:46
on the site and the area back there the the site Genta and the surrounding area
15:52
had residential designations on it from our 1976 plan it was revised in 1988
15:59
uh where they lowered the density a little bit from 4 and 1/2 units to the acre to two two to 3 units to the acre
16:07
back in that 2003 General Plan update it was changed again and lowered lowered
16:13
the density from three units to the acre to one to one and a half units to the acre in 2012 is when lafy applied to
16:22
have the uh applied for the development they were proposing 76 residential units
16:28
with a bridge over par St you hired L Gregory in 2011 right so uh can you uh
16:38
can we wait till the end I’m happy to talk about environmental uh stuff in the
16:43
process um so
16:49
2012 uh application moved forward to 76 units
16:55
um and that included a general plan Amendment change the existing law to
17:00
allow more units than the actual General plan and Zoning allowed uh they’ve worked with staff on
17:07
projects we on uh the project we got them to reduce it down to 47 units heard
17:13
from the public they didn’t want the ha Street Bridge so that was removed and that did not require a general plan
17:21
Amendment and then uh in 2014 it made it to the Planning Commission Planning
17:26
Commission recommended denial do the extensive grading and uh Aesthetics concern from
17:33
the park district on impacts to the adjacent gabena Wetlands
17:38
preserve uh they uh did some more um work on the project we met with the LI
17:45
with the park district to address their concerns uh those features were included
17:50
into the the project uh Planning Commission at that time recommended approval to the city
17:57
council but the city Council said uh go back work on your project some more uh
18:03
make it more subordinate to the land form out there and uh then come back to the Planning Commission so over that
18:11
about 2 and 1 half year time period uh they did uh work on the project removed
18:17
uh units narrowed the street widths uh provided more single story houses got
18:22
lowered some of the retaining walls uh tried to reduce the amount of overall grading
18:29
and um added back in the uh bridge over Hawk Street but it would be only for
18:36
emergency vehicles pedestrians and bicycles or any type of Mobility uh
18:44
equipment uh Planning Commission recommended approval 2018 city council
18:50
uh considered the project in the environmental document and approved it in
18:55
2019 and the um approval was challenged by save the hill
19:02
group in 2019 uh or at least that’s when the
19:08
court decision was I don’t know when the exact filing was but the um Superior Court uh denied the lawsuit uh but then
19:15
on appeal the appell appell court reversed that uh decision and sent it
19:21
back to the lower court uh for further proceedings with direction to the city
19:27
to remove the or resend the approvals of the project in the environmental
19:32
document and said that the no project alternative in the environmental impact
19:37
report was um inadequate because it failed to disclose and analyze open
19:44
space funding that could be used to conserve the property as part of their no project
19:52
alternative uh so so in 20 late 2022 almost a year ago uh the city council
19:59
did remove or resend the approvals for the project and they also desertified
20:05
the environmental impact report so those were uh no longer um
20:12
approved and uh later in the spring of 2023 is when
20:18
laery uh said or uh we’re going to we want to remedy what the court said was
20:24
wrong with our environmental document and um move move forward with doing that
20:29
and go through the process again and um that is kind of where we’re at
20:36
today so they they do have an application in for the same development
20:42
it’s uh um 44 homes six um sorry I’m
20:47
jumping ahead I’ll get to the project in a second um the way that environmental
20:53
docu environmental review documents are handled um is a developer
20:58
will pay for that to the city the city will go and hire an environmental
21:05
consultant so that we retain control over the document the content uh the
21:11
developer not allowed to review it or have input into it uh so that it remains
21:18
but they pay for it they do pay for it right which I think I just said right
21:23
they pay that City administers a contract and um
21:30
uh so we have oversight of How It’s prepared uh then it’s released to the
21:36
public for public review uh but anyways that that’s how an environmental impact
21:41
report is handled uh on the payment side who administers it it’s the
21:48
city so the the court decision talked about these open space
21:53
funds and um we’ll go into some more details on those
21:59
now uh so in particular they mentioned the Altamont Landfill open space fund
22:05
and the dty valley settlement agreement fund uh regarding the Altamont fund that
22:13
was established in 1999 when the Altimont landfill wanted to expand uh through litigation and an
22:19
eventual settlement um the landfill operator was obligated to pay a fee for
22:27
each ton of waste disposed that could go towards acquiring open space
22:33
so um right now is about 20 half 20.6 million in that account that could be
22:39
used to acquire open space um the first priority that’s in
22:45
the settlement agreement for open space to be acquired is it has to be biologically
22:51
diverse second is that it has to have significant visual values and or
22:57
non-motorized Rec Recreation so value value for trail Trails or passive
23:03
Recreation again about $2.6 million in that account the dhy valley settlement
23:10
agreement which um Doug and his group citizens are balanced growth were parties to along with the city and a
23:16
handful of other uh parties was a settlement agreement uh basically over
23:23
development in the tasahara valley uh and the provision of water the
23:29
settlement agreement required the developers out there the time windamir Chappelle and uh a handful of other
23:37
developers to pay $11,000 for each uh residential unit built uh to a fund to
23:45
be used for open space resulted in $5.7 million um there’s about $4.9 million in
23:54
that account now and the priorities for that are for
23:59
acquiring open space from willing sellers of um agriculture or um open
24:06
space for um either in fee or with easements but anyways for acquiring open
24:12
space or agricultural lands to preserve those funds can be used north of i580 and basically east of
24:21
Dublin and again there’s about $4.9 million in that
24:26
account back to the Altamont uh open space fund there’s a process for both of
24:33
these funds and how those funds can be accessed the Altamont open space committee consists of Alama County the
24:41
Sierra Club city of Livermore and city of
24:46
Pleasanton city of Livermore Sierra Club and Alam County make decisions on money that’s supended in East County uh these
24:54
are the priorities um that the committee has identified for West County and East
25:02
County including Duan count Canyon alai sink area of Springtown Altamont
25:08
Wildlife Corridor and some uh Coral Hollow and Cedar Mountain in the South part of the
25:14
county there’s a lot of text on this slide sorry I’m not going to go over each other but they um these points here
25:23
basically help the committee understand or evalue Grant applications for what
25:29
has significant native biod diversity value same with the second priority
25:36
that’s in the settlement agreement for non-motorized recreation or visual character the committee’s also adopted
25:44
uh three criteria to evaluate proposals for
25:50
Acquisitions um those include strategic value and land protection so is it at
25:56
risk of being developed is it in a place that could lead to further uh protection is it continuous to other
26:03
protected lands uh so that’s the sort of um strategic value there are there other
26:10
funding sources to partner with that money so uh you know typically they can
26:15
be pretty expensive so you try and find Partners like East Bay Regional Park District Tri Valley
26:21
Conservancy uh to City of Livermore to uh partner together and and fund and
26:29
finally the last criteria adopted by the committee is willing sellers is a property on the market is a owner
26:35
willing to sell it over time that committee has spent
26:44
about a little over uh over $7 million to acquire a little under 1300 Acres
26:49
throughout East County um city of Livermore has bought a few of those uh
26:55
and some in partnership with citizens for Val growth
27:05
um uh and then turning to the dhy valley settlement agreement
27:11
um those again are for for acquiring property from ruling sellers of
27:16
agricultural or open space lands about $4.9 million in that account the the
27:22
transactions in green are the ones we’ve used the dty valley settlement agreement
27:28
money to contribute towards uh they were also partnered with money from East bake
27:33
Park district and the alamont money to put together a package to buy uh these
27:39
properties and they’re outlined in green here uh 79 Acres up here called Eddy
27:45
flat and then the Farber property over here to the east of the Garena
27:51
site and um those are currently owned by East Bay Park District they’ve developed some
27:57
some stage in area facilities here eventually this will be part of the Brushy Peak uh
28:03
complex it doesn’t have Trails on there
28:11
already so the you know both of these open space funds have requirements for
28:17
Willing sellers uh the Gava family has not been
28:23
a willing seller to the city um you know we’ll we’ll ask them again uh but it’s
28:32
been our experience for years now that they’re um they’re in a contract with
28:37
laery they’re not interested in selling it to the city
28:43
um and so uh based on our experience with these
28:48
committees the acquisition of the gabena piece or gabena property would not be
28:55
eligible to use these funds based B on the criteria that are in place and have been used over the last 15
29:04
years so the current project talked about a little bit it’s it’s uh
29:09
44 single family homes I think there are eight eight single story uh
29:17
units there are six affordable units that are Duets on the corners so a total
29:24
of 44 homes 38 single fames six of horable the lot sizes range from a
29:31
little over 8,500 ft to over 13,000 Square ft the home sizes range from
29:37
about 2400 Square ft to a little over 3,000 square
29:44
ft the twostory homes are about almost 32 ft tall there’s a 35t height maximum
29:51
there uh and then there’s eight eight one-story homes the project will have have um
29:58
publicly accessible uh and sort of more improved Trails out to the Rock
30:05
outcrop uh again the emergency vehicle access from Hawk Street it’ll allow uh
30:11
also Trail use for students or pedestrian
30:18
bikes and the some of the revisions that they’ve made we’re pushing the development further back to sort of to
30:25
preserve as much of that first as possible uh and then have some view
30:30
corridors into the site and the NES from alamont Creek Park down
30:38
here part of the other piece of this is um in order to offset or or compensate
30:46
for the environmental impacts of the 32 Acre Site the Gaba family also owns this 85
30:53
acre mitigation site and that’ll be set aside and permanently preserved uh for
31:00
um federal and state endangered plant and animal and amphibian species and
31:06
alont Creek here so uh that’ll be under a permanent easement managed over uh
31:14
perpetuity um using funds from an endowment that the developer is going to have to
31:19
establish and that’ll be um sort of enable a
31:25
contiguous um spring Al I preserve in the Springtown preserve area
31:31
there so that’s part of the project um next
31:38
steps I mentioned the the public hearing for the environmental impact report we
31:43
anticipate that could be in January we’ll try and update the schedule as as
31:49
things occur it’s a little it’s fluid so uh this is what we’re anticipating at this
31:55
point uh and then hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council in the spring of
32:01
2024 um and again if those change we’ll try and let you know of the
32:06
schedule um and that at um so we’ll turn it over
32:13
to questions about all of this uh if you have any other questions
32:19
after we leave tonight this is my direct phone line my email address if you’d like to be put on a distribution list to
32:26
be notified of future meetings or project status uh send me an email we’ll
32:33
get you on the master list and make sure you’re contacted that way as well and
32:39
um just talk getting into a question that um Doug man raised or mentioned
32:45
earlier on the the start on the environmental impact report uh was
32:52
2011 uh I was younger then so I you know maybe my memory is off yeah yeah uh so
32:59
the um I I’ll have to clarify the timing of
33:05
that stuff yeah they were they were hired in in 201 in 2011 by the city but the developer asked you to hire them you
33:13
didn’t do a bid process or anything to make sure that you were getting an environmental organization that was on our side they asked you to hire to hire
33:21
them they told you how much you they wanted to pay they paid you the money and you paid the exact same amount of
33:27
money which is not uncommon for agencies in general I don’t hear a question there
33:33
but uh but um just to respond so we’ve used lamford Gregory on a lot of
33:39
projects they’re a reputable environmental consulting firm they’ve done a lot of work in Alam County
33:45
they’ve done a lot of work in the tribe alley uh they’re a reputable firm so is there any reason why you wouldn’t want
33:50
to put this out to bid just get two more environmental firms to chime in on what they’ll do as far as creating the
33:57
environmental impact report that is best for Livermore I don’t know Doug I’d have to go back and look exactly when we made
34:03
that decision have you hired ler Gregory yes they have been hired because last
34:09
time it went to a council for to the council for consent calendar to be approved before you hired L left Gregory
34:15
this time it did not go to consent calendar right why is that because the budget amount is under the amount that
34:22
requires Council approval okay you do know that we want to be informed about all of these things as they come we
34:28
didn’t even okay this is important yeah I get that so I I do want to have other folks an opportunity to I would like
34:35
other folks to ask uh questions we have an opportunity to talk quite a bit uh
34:41
offline and outside of this meeting yeah I have a question when’s Doug’s presentation cuz I want him to do one like that too well when when he’s more
34:48
than welcome to organize a neighborhood meeting well the reason I’m asking is because when you went to court right it
34:53
was the city and the developer versus the citizens right right so when you give a presentation you know I’m under
35:00
the assumption that uh you’re a little bit biased right appreciate that a
35:05
little bit you know so that’s why I give more Credence to Doug when it comes to
35:11
this because I know he’s trying to save property but uh the question I had was uh is this meeting a public uh record
35:17
like public does it go on public record it’s not a officially an official public
35:23
noticed meeting and things we’ll put the um recording online just the recording
35:28
that just ended uh did the can you check for the presentation okay um we we’re making
35:34
another recording the entire night will be available to everybody through review
35:40
good but I mean uh if this meeting is not a matter of public record with the
35:45
city then these comments you’re not the comments that are going to be made here you’re not exactly you know going to be
35:51
held accountable to because the only language that the city seems to understand so far is litigation right so
35:59
things that are going to be said now with the camera turned off that’s just going to go into one year not the other
36:04
right no uh appreciate your um yeah your
36:09
question so we’re doing this to try and convey information and share it and be transparent okay like I said we’re
36:16
obligated to process a development application laferty is applied to move forward we’re evaluating the project to
36:23
on the general plan and the zoning trying to help folks understand the
36:29
process this was done because folks wanted to have a neighborhood meeting a long time ago when the the project
36:35
wasn’t sort of even moving anywhere well I just want to make sure people here
36:41
understand that you know the comments that are going to be made from year on after aren’t going to exactly hold as
36:47
much weight as if you showed up to the city council meeting or something like that right so we would definitely
36:54
encourage you to show up to these we’re not decision makers right ultimately your Planning Commission is the
36:59
recommending body it seems like it seems like everybody I talked to City says that they’re not the decision maker but
37:05
somebody keeps making these decisions so right such as such as proceeding with
37:11
this project so we I think it’s Steve tried to point out this evening yeah we
37:16
have a system in place and all cities do yeah that require City staff to process
37:22
permits yeah many of these requirements are established by the state they’re part of a city’s obligation if you want
37:29
to put a shed in your yard as Steve said you got to come and get a permit if a developer wants to develop a piece of property yeah there’s a permit process
37:36
and we don’t have the authority or ability to say no I’m sorry we don’t want to process your permit well uh on
37:42
the topic of permits I think just last year the city approved a permit to build utilities for Genta right and and that
37:50
permit was never supposed to be approved right so there’s something to be said about the the permits that the city
37:56
approved uh and also the city did end up going to court and losing right those were
38:01
permits you also approved right so there’s something to remember there and also uh
38:08
uh I guess I’ll POS a question you say if I want to build a shed in my backyard then I have to go to the city and ask
38:14
for a permit what if I wanted to build a sky scraper would you allow me to do that you would have to uh come in and
38:21
can I can I you ask me a question okay yeah go ahead well I I I understand the answer already uh it’s too long the the
38:28
the answer should be no uh it’s an absurdity for a reason that what I’m asking
38:34
because I want to point out that the city does have the authority to make
38:39
decisions over what’s built and what’s not so so if you did come to the public counter and say I want to build a SK
38:45
skyscraper we would say no the general plan and Zoning don’t allow it and we would say no and that’s what I was going
38:51
to try to answer for we would say no because our codes establish certain
38:57
regulations about how the land can be used right if if you buy a piece of residential property maybe you have a
39:03
single story home Yeah the code would allow you to build a second story right and so we don’t make those decisions
39:09
those decisions are made by by City councils ultimately that set the rules in place we refer to the codes and and
39:16
review the codes and that’s how we process perits and so that’s what we’re
39:23
doing here as well I think you know Steve pointed out there was long ago a residential designation put in place we
39:29
didn’t decide that we’re just well I mean residential designations that been put in place before like the far property right but then later it was
39:36
overturned and it was preserved right so it’s not like yeah that property still does have a residential designation on
39:42
we’ll probably change it with a general Plan update but we had a willing seller there who wanted to sell the property to
39:47
the city we negotiated transaction there well I think if you’re talking about money willing sellers are you know it’s
39:56
a matter of how much the property is worth so if you’re uh allowing the developer to put initially 76 homes Now
40:05
44 of course if you’re going to allow to destroy the property then the property is worth uh building on right because
40:13
then there’s a incentive financially to actually develop it if you don’t allow
40:19
the developer to uh grate the land and uh destroy the
40:25
natural landscape then uh the seller would become a willing seller because there wouldn’t be
40:31
any profit in developing it so does that make sense it it does so if somebody has
40:37
and and perhaps after we’re done with this question we can let other people ask questions hog in the whole thing you
40:43
want to stand up later we can answer more of your but I see other people going like this around the room so um if
40:50
if somebody has a designation on their property the city can make a change to it but if we remove all economic value
40:56
value from the property we said we’re going to change the designation on this property from residential to open space
41:03
that would be a taking I’m not asking you to do that it’s just when you said in 2013 there was uh 47 homes allowed to
41:10
build on there and then after 10 years of uh consideration you only removed
41:15
three homes to try and mitigate the you know aesthetic and environmental impact
41:21
that you’re going to have on the uh on the neighborhood you only remove three homes that’s not really I’m not so this
41:28
is a I’m going to let other people ask
41:35
nuts so can you tell us then so maybe maybe answer or tell us Steve you had
41:43
mentioned putting up a website can you maybe talk a little bit about that you had said possibly setting up a website
41:50
about this project and then the other thing maybe you guys can share to help people understand the process
41:57
who do we i s email to
42:02
you email to you you going to have time to answer all of those you know what I mean I mean there becomes a an
42:08
overwhelming thing when you’re talking about something on this scale so maybe if you guys could talk to or about how
42:15
we as residents can talk to you guys or send in comments
42:22
maybe not all of us can go to City Council meetings and now we can’t do Zoom because of other stuff um so maybe
42:30
if you guys could speak to that it would be helpful for people to understand how to get their point across or their
42:35
opinion across sure so we have a web page on the the city’s website and I can
42:43
send that link around if you go to the city’s page and search gaven you’ll find
42:49
it uh but we intend to build that up and have it be a little more probably not
42:54
interactive but to to be updated with the latest information uh the latest calendar and
43:02
um again like I said we’ll try and put some some frequently asked questions and answers on there um of course you get
43:10
all overwhelming and it you know email me all day and that wouldn’t be very productive but um hope you don’t do that
43:18
but uh you know in the early early on when save the hill group first met I met with Cindy Andrews Marne and and Helen
43:27
Nelson at the counter many times and tried to make sure they had the latest
43:32
information that was accurate about the project how to participate and so part of our job as
43:40
public servants is to provide information to the public and so you
43:46
know I’m happy to meet uh meet and talk about it share the documents that we
43:53
have and we start getting them uh we’ll have a team here that’ll uh also be
43:59
available to um to help with that and um
44:05
I forgot this the second part of your the you said web page and then how to oh how to get oh who to talk to yeah and I
44:14
think your city council members uh are all have public phone phone numbers and
44:21
emails those are very effective they’re the ones making the decision your planning Commissioners also have email
44:28
contacts and uh phone numbers on the web I think their phone numbers are on the um City’s website so sharing your
44:36
concerns with them many of them will meet uh in person if that if um your
44:44
schedules can line up but having you have access to local officials and
44:49
that’s one uh I think upside of working in a local government is we have
44:54
accountability to the people people we serve and so do our decision makers so Steve you’ve hired lere Gregory if
45:00
people have questions for lere Gregory would you encourage them to ask them and should lere Gregory uh then give them a
45:07
reasonable response no any kind of questions to L Gregory particular should come through me why is that cuz we’re
45:13
administering the contract okay could we change the contract else um that’s you
45:19
see that’s the thing the contract didn’t go to council so we couldn’t review it to uh guard against things like this
45:25
because lampier Gregory should probably be open to receiving information from everybody they’re doing an environmental
45:31
impact report and they will all the comments that come in will go to them
45:37
especially when the public comment period is open if you have questions that you would like pose to them I will
45:43
send those over and we can do our best to answer them that’s all public information you’ve requested
45:50
records uh we have to produce emails there’s you know all that stuff stuff is
45:56
public information and you do a pretty good job on the public records request I will say appreciate that yeah U Michelle
46:03
sorry the other question I have too is the contractor that you you’ve
46:09
contracted with to do the eir they’re the same ones that did it before correct yes so I guess my
46:17
question not specifically to you but to the city would be why would you hire the
46:23
same per contract with the same company that it got knocked out through
46:30
Court I mean why would you why would you use the same company when obviously their
46:36
original one was flawed and got for better lack of better way to say it thrown out by the court and now it has
46:43
to be redone so why why would the city and if you can even answer this but why would the city do that why would they
46:49
hire the same person that was part of the original problem if do my best to
46:56
answer that Paul maybe you can add uh but um part of it has to do what they they’ve did a lot of work on the project
47:04
they’re familiar with the area they wrote the environmental impact report that’s uh um a
47:12
fairly timec consuming and expensive process to start from square one with a
47:17
consultant we’d have to go back to square one basically but maybe you’d get a better result so the the main reason
47:24
why that was spot was a uh I mean the the appell court founded flawed was the
47:30
reason that was mentioned in here we didn’t look at open space conservation
47:36
funding to preserve the property and that’s the first time across the state
47:41
that’s ever been brought up in court and it’s the first decision around that it a
47:48
surprise so um it’s that’s what lamford Gregor will be looking to uh remedy
47:55
other than that all the other information is the same they have all that research all the technical studies
48:02
giving that uh yes sir in the back
48:07
sorry if the seller was if the land owner was willing to sell you have an estimate on how much it would
48:13
cost it’s um all always negotiated of course it’s Urban value with the land
48:19
use designations on it now we’re estimating it to be between $ 15 and $20 million that’s so much
48:27
about that’d be pretty substantial right it’s more than these people in the room could get to collect if they wanted to
48:32
buy it and do with their speak for yourself well I mean if you feel so strongly about it maybe collect some
48:38
money and buy it got it sorry gentleman in the
48:48
back sorry did the land owner give you a reason why she doesn’t want to sell to the
48:53
city uh they are one in contract with ly
48:59
the G and I st have you ever have you spoken to them have you spoken to the
49:07
ladies so I’m going to answer the gentleman’s question in the
49:12
back um the gabena family has owned lots of property out here you probably some
49:18
of you folks here live on land that they owned at one point in time and sold to
49:24
Developers the city tried to buy the property the 85 acre property back in
49:30
2006 and seven or so had it appraised I thought I had a deal with the the
49:38
gals um their Uncle put the gash on it both times because he said he didn’t
49:45
want to sell it for conservation purposes he wanted to develop it so that’s kind of their track record of
49:52
their history um yeah he died in right right we have a couple of letters from
49:59
uh the um Elder owners now who also have a
50:05
um trustee who say they’re not interested in selling the property to the city for conservation or who’s the
50:13
trustee it would be great if you’d stop interrupting me Doug you’re leaving things out I don’t remember the name of
50:19
the trustee off the top of my head but I’d be happy to get you their name please do yes sir so let me try to give you
50:27
some history of the environmental impact may I come up to the board sir and I
50:34
want to say thank you for your presentation I thought you did a really good job in laying it out thank you I am
50:39
Pro development but not for this project what you didn’t see and what you’re not talking to is that in this area I’ve
50:46
been a resident here along with my entire family since 1999 and our home
50:51
was just being built now were you aware that this this Hill that you want to
50:56
build on is due to an upwelling of oil are you aware of that that just
51:03
continue I want to make sure you guys got this because you’re going to be a processor so please let me finish the
51:10
presentation what you guys are going to do you’re just going to process information you’re basically an operations guy that’s going to take
51:16
information in and filter it out and hopefully people will come back and get us answers to what we asked for but last
51:22
time they were very dismissive very dismissive and then it only took the
51:27
court to overturn it but in this area you know that there was an oil spill due
51:34
to a fracture in the storm drains right and that filled up that entire area that
51:41
had that been lit up that whole side over there on Edgewater every one of those people
51:48
would had to move out and that probably would have come back up to the storm drains and taken those ownes out you’re aware of that you had to go back in and
51:55
you had to reseal it so if this home or this home site is an upwelling of oil
52:02
and you sorry about that I don’t know how you’re going to bring that back but if that is due to an upwelling and
52:07
you’re going to put in those storm drains where’s the storm drain is going to come through right back into that
52:13
area and if there’s a leak in there you had to go back in and reseal it and you
52:18
had to spend thousands and thousands of dollars per day to filter out that water
52:24
that had all that o in it those are the things we want to make sure that you see and that’s a concern of mine because I’m
52:30
less than a tenth of a mile from where that spilled was I don’t think a lot of the other folks were here but since 99
52:37
and to include the Greystone environmental impact had oil listed in there to include some
52:44
carcinogens the next question was in that development what happens when you come into the filter and out of all of
52:51
that development what’s going to go down to the alkaline silk sink which is further down talking with Pam the other
52:57
day at Zone 7 meeting that’s part of core of engineers
53:02
are you guys taken this to the core of engineers too to have discussion of what that impact is going to be when you go
53:07
to build those are the type of things I want to make sure looked at and then we
53:13
talked about Mitigation Of overdevelopment we got a simple question
53:19
that was asked if you went back in 1964 down south in Southern California
53:25
Diamond Bar California was Outback just like Livermore 10 years later you go down and
53:32
take a snapshot of Livermore or Diamond bar now it’s freeways coming through
53:37
homes no open space and here you got biological issues or the ecological
53:43
issues and some of those went away the burrowing out the red the the the red
53:48
tail fox which is now moved all the way down I believe to that alkaline sink that used to be up in this area so those
53:55
are the things I want to make sure you guys are addressing but again is this truly the right place to do it because
54:02
the more you open this up and you’re saying you want to preserve the biological ecological area
54:09
you think about all those kids are going to come out and going to walk along that Creek like what they started to do here
54:15
what’s going to happen down there at the creek it will no longer be a preserve no you don’t send the email get
54:23
address I’m sorry email it won’t get
54:28
addressed so there’s a number of pieces that you raised in their geomorphology of the
54:34
area presence of oil or uh yeah presence of oil basically um federal army cor
54:45
Engineers um the sites had extensive first of all
54:50
we of course knew about the uh oil issues out there um
54:56
required extra testing below the site and
55:01
adjacent all that information is part of the environmental impact report they didn’t find any oil deposits there we
55:08
still know there’s an issue out there the site is the developer is required to
55:16
um uh specially design their pipes so they’re sealed from allowing oil to seep
55:21
into their drainage and their water they have to have um separators in the event
55:28
that it it does get there somehow they also have to get permits
55:34
from the Army Corps of Engineers bet US fishing Wildlife US
55:39
fishing game Sorry us fish and wildlife service state department fishing game uh
55:46
and Regional water quality control board in addition to what they’re doing for the environmental impact report so yes
55:53
they’ll have to square away with those agencies too um you am I miss and then uh oh in
56:01
terms of how the hills were formed there I you know I don’t know if that’s due to other there are active faults and things
56:08
out there I’m not I don’t I don’t know that it’s what the particular reason is
56:13
if it’s presence of oil that made that uh upheave sorry that just no to the
56:21
gentleman’s point though I mean we’re trying to answer your questions tonight but we would encourage you to send us emails and you know project manager for
56:29
this development instead of having five or six people you have to send it to
56:34
yeah is there just one sure his his his contact information
56:40
is I have a few cards not one for everybody uh yes sir so obviously
56:48
there’s a lot of passion that surrounds this project it’s been going on for a long time there’s a lot of uh back and
56:56
forth going on we were involved prior to when it got approved last time we went
57:02
to the city council meeting you know we invested with the people in the neighborhood it seems like there’s a lot
57:08
of hostility even now you guys feel very uncomfortable for whatever reason I
57:13
don’t know why that is but it seems like you’re very defensive and it seems like
57:19
instead of it being a collaboration it seems like we’re just talking to each other and not really coming to a
57:25
conclusion that’s best for this neighborhood and for Livermore in general I’ll tell you what when we went
57:31
to the city council when they approved it laferty was there he was aggressive he was arrogant he was you know just
57:39
very very matter of fact and did not give a you know wrap about it and I don’t feel like the city council really
57:46
listened to the you know the neighborhood as well so what we’re seeing right now is almost just another
57:54
representation of that same experience we had you know four years ago when this got you know when it got approved and it
58:00
turned into what it is how can we make this better how can we resolve this you
58:06
know in a better fashion I mean from the standpoint of what kind of changes could
58:11
be made to this I mean you talked about the hawk Bridge you know that should still be in play that was 10 15 years
58:17
ago when some other neighbors who are probably not even here now fought to get that removed okay and so having now just
58:25
one access point to this new neighborhood is presents a problem for us that that live in this general area
58:32
we’ve got you know a lot of traffic issues we got speed issues we have access issues things like that so
58:38
there’s just more to this right now that I think is going and I just feel like it’s just going to be Ram roted again
58:44
you’ve got an agenda going right now we’re going to be voting on this real soon and really we haven’t discussed the
58:50
project again it it it seems to me it’s a new project not a not a project that’s you know been morphed over multiple you
58:57
know iterations of it so how do we how do we solve that does anybody else feel that here if I may first of all to
59:03
repeat citizens for balance growth doesn’t believe this hill really can be urbanized so what the court wants the
59:11
city to do and what they seem to be well in a way avoiding doing is fully examine
59:19
the no project alternative you know we we’re not we’re not seeing
59:26
aggression uh in in terms of uh you’ve never spoken with the
59:31
owners um you hired Lam Fe Gregory without telling anybody um who’s Lao by the
59:39
way that’s a question for you Lao you never even heard of Lao Lao paid you
59:45
$54,000 for the E process it we I don’t know what Lao is mar Maran do you know
59:51
what lafo is La communities you know no laugh out you see you don’t even know
59:57
who you’re getting money from they pay it’s on your receipt that you sent
1:00:05
me no it’s not no no sir it’s a separate company it’s a separate company
1:00:11
now sometimes people do this to establish shell companies to obscure and
1:00:17
confuse what’s going on behind the seats there’s a lot to talk about regarding
1:00:22
the no project alternative and that is what I believe is going to float to the surface and end up with something
1:00:29
similar to what happened with the Farber property the parallels with the Farber property are unbelievable Farber took 15
1:00:37
years to fail the zoning was exactly the same as gent Hill we’re now at year 13
1:00:45
so perhaps we’re a couple of years from putting this to bed and keeping it open space we’ll buy the land done Mr Man
1:00:55
we had a question over here but to your point I answered
1:01:00
it but you did from but that’s part that’s part of the problem is that you
1:01:06
guys are fighting amongst each other we’re feeling this tension out here and I respect all you guys but there’s
1:01:12
there’s you guys have your agenda he has his agenda we are caught in the middle of all this and it just seems like we’re
1:01:18
not communicating well our agenda is to try to share information appreciate that
1:01:25
andar your your comments and concerns we do care about comments and
1:01:31
concerns live here in Livermore too so you know that the process is is handled appropriately professionally and and you
1:01:39
know based on where we are right now we are intending to look fully at the no project alternative and all of this out
1:01:46
why are you only intending to and haven’t done that already we are in process why is that why are you
1:01:51
presenting us a project that’s ready to go that’s going to be approved within a couple of months and you haven’t even looked at the no project alternative I
1:01:57
mean what kind of attitude is that we were folks were saying you guys are hiding stuff this is an effort to try
1:02:04
and give you information of where we’re at right now but it’s the same thing it was four years ago did hi it the
1:02:10
environmental evaluation process has has just started yeah yeah but it looks like
1:02:16
the project’s already ready to go yeah that’s way I feel too how are you just starting the environmental uh assessment
1:02:23
of of the land if you already have a project to present to us you already have the units play the project
1:02:30
applicant has told us that they are resubmitting the same project it’s not
1:02:35
changed right so that’s the project that we’ve been given that’s the application that we’ve received okay and so we are
1:02:42
beginning the environmental review go uh Mr first and then uh lady
1:02:48
there it said that they have a contract with laferty is that an open-ended
1:02:53
contract or is that has a Time certain contract I I have never seen it I do
1:02:59
know that they you know laugh laties pay them uh money over time
1:03:06
to keep the contract going that’s usually how land deals work L pays them separately just clarify that lafy pay
1:03:14
has an individual Rel relationship with lampier Gregory and they get paid by
1:03:20
paying you and then you pay lampier Gregory as well correct I believe that’s the
1:03:25
case uh I don’t know what the contract looks like between and property owner so
1:03:31
my question basically is if if it was a a Time certain contract and there was a 10-year contract or something is there
1:03:38
any hope for us that it would the contract would run out and the women might be open to other Alternatives no
1:03:46
we we’ve asked several times that sh he said we’re willing to ask again and to try to engage um and and and see if that
1:03:54
answer changes I’m also the SI Club rep for the
1:04:00
open space committee we’ve discussed this project a number of times we have the money to help purchase it but again
1:04:07
we need a willing seller but there is money
1:04:12
available yes hi uh I’m a new uh resident of the area so learning and uh
1:04:20
my question is uh where can I learn about uh uh
1:04:27
environmental aspects uh aspects of this development about possible problems and
1:04:33
the way they suggest to mitigate them so like any website any report I can read
1:04:41
sure we do have copies of the document electronically I can share we’ll get
1:04:47
that posted up on the website so you can look at it um and it has all the
1:04:53
technical studies biology geology um drainage traffic all that
1:05:00
stuff if you really if you want to look at all that yeah so um I’ll get the
1:05:05
message out to the group uh when we post that up on the website um we’ll also put
1:05:12
up the past uh plans and the planning commission reports and things like that
1:05:17
that that summarize some of that stuff okay thank you thanks uh in the back oh very back the
1:05:26
uh the website is it just the city of lore website City Livermore
1:05:33
ca.gov okay and search G venon that’ll take you to the web
1:05:39
page yes
1:05:44
sir I have a couple of questions but they’re all one one word answers um how
1:05:50
much is uh impact fees for the city of Livermore per lot in this
1:05:56
development I don’t know the answer to it’s like 100,000 it’s usually I suspect
1:06:03
it’s more than 100,000 yes but those impact fees cover the cost of providing
1:06:09
service the city does not make money on those what when are they collected
1:06:15
they’re collected typically at building permit issuance so I’m sorry I I want to add on
1:06:23
what you just said just really quickly you said it goes to the city maintenance I thought the project was going to be I
1:06:30
didn’t think the city was going to maintain that property it covers the cost of service so what service though
1:06:38
so we police and get firemen so you’re not specifically same
1:06:45
service for that development I mean as far as um streets and and sewer and no
1:06:54
so there are variety of fees right that are uh conglomerated into at one point
1:06:59
there’s a school impact fee for example and Zone 7 has a fee there’s an impervious surface fee there’s a fee uh
1:07:06
for processing the building permit a variety of different fees by government code we cannot charge more than it costs
1:07:14
to provide whatever service is incorporated into that fee is
1:07:19
that help answer that question or Steve you have any else
1:07:24
no uh then right up here sir so following up on the question about the
1:07:30
environmental impact report um on page
1:07:35
or slide number 20 there is the question of is the property contiguous to
1:07:41
existing protected lands or does it link protected lands now sorry can you say that again
1:07:48
yeah so on slide number 20 there is a
1:07:54
question of is the property contiguous to existing protected lands or does it link protected
1:08:02
lands now looking at the
1:08:10
map on slide number
1:08:20
28 oh there we go just uh west of the site the project the
1:08:28
proposed site isn’t that a some kind of a preserve Wildlife
1:08:35
Preserve yes that’s owned it’s the gavan wetlands preservable why isn’t it l such
1:08:42
in the map I don’t have lots of preserve
1:08:48
properties I just have and then and then and then there is Brushy Peak yeah east of Lain
1:08:55
Road okay another another uh area that is feated
1:09:01
as environment sensitive okay and there is a
1:09:06
corridor on the west side of of the project site that links the two so my
1:09:12
question is what does the uh the the environmental impact report have to say
1:09:18
about about that do you know
1:09:24
about a wildlife Corridor yeah I mean about the question on on slide number 20 is the property
1:09:32
continuous to existing protected lands yeah so the the the criteria on slide 20
1:09:38
are in the settlement agreement to determine if the money can be used for the property I think you could could
1:09:45
easily find the property meets these criteria that it that it
1:09:52
is adjacent to environmentally protected areas right so what does the
1:10:00
environmental report have to say about time their money can be used and our money can be used the money is not the
1:10:06
issue the issue I’m not asking about the money I’m asking about you know what does the environmental impact report say
1:10:13
about it because it seems to me like they over they’ve overlooked that if if it’s if it’s listed as um
1:10:21
well a criteria for rejecting this
1:10:26
site for development yeah my belief is that there are going to be a lot of
1:10:32
environmental details that were that people did not have the wherewithal to
1:10:38
put into the report that are going in now and it’s going to make it much more difficult to even think about developing
1:10:44
that Hill okay good good so so the the environmental impact report does discuss
1:10:51
the biological value of the property it’s relationship to other land yeah
1:10:56
Wildlife movement so I’m I’m curious because I haven’t read the report what what does it have to say about that
1:11:03
question you how does it answer that question uh it’s they’re going to do a
1:11:09
new report yeah I’d like to get access to the report as well
1:11:15
following prev an old report too that’s not going to be what it’s going to be
1:11:20
and but the I heard something about the report being roked the prev report the approval of it
1:11:28
was taken away not the reported stealth is still there but the the city City’s
1:11:33
approval of it was taken away or yeah the the approval of the whole project
1:11:39
was wased right okay set aside is this
1:11:44
Steve I have a real question right here we have a question yes um I’m a mom of two young children and I’m planning on
1:11:49
raising my kids here and you mentioned in the current project lafy has a school SCH fund set aside can you tell me what
1:11:56
that fund entails or where that what it is sure each residential development has
1:12:02
to pay a school mitigation fee and that’s one of those impact fees that the gentleman brought up um it’s based on
1:12:11
square footage of a house I believe and basically goes to cover the cost of
1:12:16
providing school um services for the um
1:12:22
K through 12 in the school district so if our sorry if our current school is pretty
1:12:30
much at capacity where are these children going to be going to school yeah they’ll um do they build
1:12:38
pods and put them on campus that’s been one way the district has addressed some
1:12:44
uh when folks decide to go to a school because you can take your kids to any school in the Livermore School District
1:12:50
I believe thought I thought that not anymore oh sorry yeah no it’s okay it just changed last year so those children
1:12:59
uh will be if they’re K through a five will be going here but we’re full yes so they will be going to school in
1:13:07
so we we did just have a meeting recently with the superintendent and he did say that children were allowed to go
1:13:13
to other schools as long as there were openings in those schools I mean there may be some schools that are full and at
1:13:19
capacity and they can’t accept new children but if a child wanted to go across town to another school and that
1:13:25
school was open he did tell us that that was allowed so we we’re full you’re full of
1:13:32
this we right and so the district can use that money to build new classrooms
1:13:38
uh to build new facilities it really is intended to be for construction of facilities and so that would be an
1:13:45
option for the school district how many homes 38 no 44 44 homes so you’re
1:13:52
probably you know looking at 40 to 60 children somewhere in that
1:13:58
Reg Steve is the 76 home sorry uh let’s go this is quick Steve is the 76 home
1:14:04
plan off the table I don’t yes okay yeah um uh sorry go to you the other thing I
1:14:11
want to make sure you put on your timeline is that pg& tore up a portion
1:14:16
of Bear Creek to lay an upgrade wire why wasn’t that up on our timeline to
1:14:22
support that project well I mean you’re if we’re going to be transparent yeah that was
1:14:30
being done after it was denied and yet did the city do that and who’s paid who
1:14:36
paid for that we did probably through pg& but everything in there was told
1:14:41
stop and it was supposed to be an upgrade right I’m sorry and no one really seems to know who requested it
1:14:47
and who approved it if you read the articles that have been published one group says well I got the application
1:14:52
from this group but I didn’t know it was gent and then the other group said well I knew it was gent but then we didn’t send it on and it’s just a whole bunch
1:14:59
of finger yeah it’s a lot of people called pg& they just said oh next thing you know I think they got lot of phone
1:15:06
calls says we don’t know so I I don’t have that information prepared today because but I’m just curious how much of
1:15:12
that was actually laid as part of that Foundation to bring
1:15:17
power to that site how much of that was actually done I I don’t think that uh
1:15:24
any new lines were actually laid and kept in place but and I don’t have the information today but we can provide
1:15:30
that for you if you can provide some of that on the website yeah I want to clarify something in regards to How the
1:15:38
City Works and uh you know I understand you guys uh maybe offended by my you know
1:15:47
belligerant or but um when I spoke to the city regarding this pg& line that
1:15:54
was being put in without the project being approved I mean it took so much effort just to get something that shouldn’t be happening and something
1:16:00
that people shouldn’t even be paying for to you know get the head Engineers of PG
1:16:06
and the city out there and to get them to stop that it’s ridiculous it’s it’s embarrassing for the city and you know
1:16:13
the people that I’m talking to these head engineers and so forth they’re collecting like up to half a m in
1:16:19
salaries and this is the kind of thing that goes on right so so uh to your
1:16:25
question who approved it uh the person that approved the project or that pg& uh
1:16:31
line was her name is far LS right and she maybe you know her but she uh she is
1:16:38
in charge of this Genta project and she’s in charge of all encroachment permits in the city so for the city to
1:16:43
say that oh we didn’t know this and they didn’t know that it’s just another lie and it’s unfortunately it seems that’s
1:16:50
the way the city tends to work that’s why I want to I guess make a point again out
1:16:56
of this not even being a matter of public record because these things are being said and then it just gets dusted
1:17:04
under the mat it doesn’t really I mean did anybody get a uh held accountable for that PJ screw up anybody no right do
1:17:12
you know no you don’t right even though you’re the project manager for this project right so so uh errors are made
1:17:21
right yeah expensive errors though right and does anybody pay for that other than us no that’s the thing and there’s no
1:17:29
there’s no really there’s not really a remedy to it there’s nothing that you could say it’s just it’s it it would be more of a uh you know action speak
1:17:38
louder than words thing you know so you may say things to me that we are all human beings but at the end of the day
1:17:45
uh you know nothing gets changed so sadly I trying to answer your question yeah okay go go ahead answer so UHS
1:17:53
happen sometimes right and when when that happens we go back and look at what happened in the system some changes were
1:17:59
made I believe in the processing and the review to make sure that wouldn’t happen again um yeah you know what sorry to you
1:18:07
know what the engineers told me at first when I brought that up they they they lied to me and they said that that line
1:18:13
was being laid as a general Improvement to the neighborhood and I looked at the permits myself and it was clearly being
1:18:20
laid parallel to the existing utility just to support a project that’s not even approved so you know you say
1:18:27
mistakes happen and we’re human beings but this is not a matter of mistakes that’s just a flat out lie right
1:18:32
Professional Engineers certified by the board are lying to me directly to make sure that things that shouldn’t be
1:18:38
happening are happening at the expense of uh taxpayer dollars right so that’s
1:18:44
not you know so I I doubt that anybody was lying to you oh do you want me to
1:18:49
pull the emails up and and go back to the conversation I could show it to you but I know you don’t really care so it’s
1:18:56
okay see things he we here here’s the thing we we do care and we are trying to
1:19:02
have a conversation with you the gentleman in the back asked us about having a simple conversation I’m trying
1:19:07
to do that it’s challenging yeah it is with me with me it’s especially challenging yeah it tends to be that way
1:19:13
you understand you understand that that um challenges are trust when stuff like
1:19:20
this happens and they go oh it’s a mistake I saw a quote from the G who mentioned
1:19:27
and she said that her quote well I don’t want I don’t know exact but her point
1:19:32
was I check these permits you know inside and out over and over and then
1:19:39
later on it’s like well I made a mistake you know that’s that’s and and this is
1:19:44
got to be tough thing for you guys but yet we trust what we being told and it’s
1:19:49
really hard to do that when things brought up that we weren’t aware
1:19:55
of and then when we me but when it was caught that that
1:20:03
they were trying to put a line in there and then it’s just said as a mistake so what if we didn’t call out
1:20:09
that thing would that where where would that mistake be now that mistake would be lines going in for a development that
1:20:17
from really hasn’t been approved is that right so we ones that are hurt by that
1:20:24
and then you’ve got to understand you know a gentleman back there said there’s
1:20:30
tension and all that well you got to understand that that
1:20:35
that these things that have happened are to our detriment and if we
1:20:42
don’t find them then we could get screwed so you got to understand that
1:20:49
why we’re coming out this way because there’s been mistakes made and it’s like
1:20:55
but it’s not it’s not it’s a big deal and as this goes
1:21:01
on it’s hard to trust do you understand that can you guys understand that I do so so uh okay
1:21:11
so it is you know I don’t know if I can have a different word than unfortunate but very
1:21:16
unfortunate that that happened obviously right and and the last thing we want to do is undermine trust with the community
1:21:22
we’re that happen so I mean it really has to be on the money when you guys
1:21:28
tell us stuff because then we find out it’s not quite what it’s being we’re
1:21:33
being told and so now we’re like is this is this real is this real is is there
1:21:39
something here that we haven’t been aware of or on purpose
1:21:45
not aware of something again so so we are trying to come before you today and do the best that we can to
1:21:52
provide Pro you with information we’re happy to have an ongoing dialogue with you and continue the conversation we’re
1:21:58
going to do our very best and I’m sorry that things have happened before that undermine trust you know we’re going to
1:22:03
try to rebuild that with you and and have a a dialogue and help you to be
1:22:09
aware of you know all the possible actions and opportunities within this process right um and you that there was
1:22:18
a second spill anything else that we can do you let us know
1:22:23
so were you aware there was a second oil spill in that same location after you guys sealed it and the and the fire
1:22:29
department knew nothing of it they didn’t know about the first one in the healing and I walked out to the fire
1:22:35
department and I said were you aware this happened a few years back and they
1:22:41
they were unaware so my question there is when we’re talking transparency is there Communications within all
1:22:46
Departments of the city being told that all of this conversation we have when
1:22:51
you finished your presid presentation is probably not going to be brought up because there’s nothing in there
1:22:57
recorded to grab all the conversations except potentially the note tier but there were some other things my biggest
1:23:03
concern is the welfare of my family and the neighbors that are there because of that oil spill and you’re saying there
1:23:09
was no oil to found over that way with the up welding you’re going to put storm drains in they going to go down lower
1:23:15
that’s going to connect to right where we’re at that’s my concern and with with
1:23:20
what was presented before uh not so sure I’m kind of trusting these guys that are coming out to do the environmental
1:23:26
impact how are you ensure that’s going to be unbiased and who’s going to be held responsible if something goes the
1:23:34
wrong way that’s the question accountability so I you got to know you did a great job up here in presenting in
1:23:41
the timeline that you had but how much of this information that you’re getting here from everybody was actually
1:23:46
provided to you to include in that timeline so part of that is are you really listening to us and it may not
1:23:54
have been you at that time but somebody was there because I can tell you that the person that was there previously was
1:24:00
at this last meeting at the at the presentation over there by Costco by the
1:24:06
by the city of Livermore she’s retired it was Pam and she we kind of went over this entire discussion and what was
1:24:14
going to happen at this meeting and I said it it sounds like there’s nothing really been done to change to really
1:24:21
bring change and to step forward and say accountability and we’re going to find
1:24:28
somebody out there that’s really going to do that environmental impact potentially we can we can
1:24:33
trust to include everything else you’ve talked about what about it used to be a
1:24:40
preserve it used to be what’s going to happen to it now and if you think that
1:24:47
putting a foot bridge over there and emergency access boy that’s going to open that up so much for Altimont Creek
1:24:53
and anything that’s that’s what is that east east of the Vasco Road that’s not
1:24:58
going to be a preserve anymore I sorry which used to be a preserve the one that I
1:25:04
point yeah so appreciate those com got fol waiting
1:25:10
in the back
1:25:16
um yeah this project has been going on forever I mean it just seems like it’s dragging on dragging on do you all have
1:25:23
a good idea of the C ciens of Livermore who actually live here um raised
1:25:30
families here are more people opposed to this project or are they for it do you
1:25:35
all know that because I would think as y’all’s you know serving us y’all would do
1:25:41
what’s best for us and not for a developer and the money so I’m saying
1:25:47
more people are against this project why can’t y’all do all you can to kill this project so we can move on I have two
1:25:54
kids they’ve gone to the school they’re going to the the the schools are overcrowded you cannot fix
1:26:00
infrastructure issues already when this is being built it’s going to be too late it’s like trying to wind the highway
1:26:05
it’s just no time we have traffic issues when they’re building right back here and my kids are playing what are you
1:26:12
going to be doing about all the dust blowing around because there’s high winds up there is this all in the environmental impact so yes we are very
1:26:20
passionate about it because we live here we’re raising our families and we don’t want this project to proceed and I want
1:26:25
you the city to do everything thing they can do to kill it if you haven’t even talk to the owners in good faith I mean
1:26:34
that’s the first thing you should do say hey the people want to preserve it and appeal to their emotions all it’s all
1:26:41
about money too but if you can you should be able to find out how much La
1:26:46
is going to pay them if we have funds in the I don’t care if it’s going to drain it if the funds are there just pay it
1:26:52
and because that’s what the community wants I’m so tired of this project we’ve
1:26:58
been trying to save this hill over and over I enjoy hike hiking this hill with my family every freaking day so you’re
1:27:05
trying to take that away and we don’t want it list listen I’m them yes you’re
1:27:12
you’re you’re for it that’s fine but I think you’re the minority I probably am in this room I agree yeah CU we all live
1:27:18
here well I live here too but appreciate those we we we’ like sorry I’m asking
1:27:24
them a question on what are they’re doing about trying like I said I agree it’s not it’s their property but if
1:27:30
we’re willing to pay them the same amount and it’s all about money it’s all it is they will to sell that’s a
1:27:36
different story problem they’re they’re selling it to lafy right it’s to being develop it’s the same thing it’s money
1:27:41
so how much money are La going to pay them the city pay
1:27:47
them well focus it on us that’s great um we’re we’re doing our best to convey
1:27:54
information to you about the project we will uh we’re going to be updating our city council we do that through written
1:28:02
uh updates on how this meeting went sort of what the sentiments were what the points were um I know you know it
1:28:13
doesn’t um it’s clear that most of the community surrounding the hill doesn’t want it developed okay we understand
1:28:21
that um so then shouldn’t that be the first thing that you take into account before
1:28:26
doing everything else I mean the people that live here that’s first right and then everything
1:28:32
else so I want to go back to uh gentleman there and the uh Mr first then
1:28:37
up front here are you going to answer that later or what is that what what
1:28:42
what is that you moving on to the other gentleman shouldn’t that be the first thing that you consider when it comes to
1:28:48
building yeah I understand so when it comes to building shouldn’t be the first thing the people that already live there
1:28:55
and are impacted I I understand you’re tired you I’m just but but that’s that’s a
1:29:01
real question you know isn’t that the first thing that you consider the people there that are impacting so if you’ll
1:29:08
let us answer that question we will and then we can move to the next person about that okay so so we do obviously
1:29:14
care about the community we live here in the community we care you said you’d let me answer the
1:29:20
question in the community where I mean I live here by the hill so okay let’s go
1:29:25
to the next person I he passed a gentleman here and then I want to uh represent a different position here guys
1:29:31
cuz maybe the community around here doesn’t want this development but I want to represent the people who aren’t here
1:29:37
and that’s the people who are going to move in here right if you go back before we had the Bluffs and we had alut Creek
1:29:43
if farmer Frick put up his hand and said I don’t want the I want to save the Bluffs I want to save ultim Creek you know what it wouldn’t have been
1:29:49
developed right I’ve got four kids you’ve got two kids we have a housing crisis for God’s sakes right hey let me
1:29:56
talk we have a housing crisis my kids I’ve three of them already moved out of the house none of them could live in
1:30:02
Livermore anymore right they can’t afford I can’t afford to hire employees because they can’t afford to live here
1:30:09
yes this isn’t going to solve it but let’s let the people let’s re think about the people who are going to live
1:30:15
here who are going to be our neighbors who are going to be great people maybe they can even live in Livermore yes
1:30:20
thank you very much for Pres You’ beening of they feel hostile you guys have been attacking them for 2 hours for
1:30:27
an hour and a half here anyway thank you very much for a great job that the
1:30:32
community does not feel the same way as all these people here do thank God that there’s other people thank you question
1:30:40
for me sorry sorry we have question uh question from over here on the side yeah
1:30:48
um guys progress is inevitable it’s going happen whether we like it or not
1:30:53
we’re just population population population we voted down I don’t I’ve
1:30:58
been here since 01 we voted down I believe it was measure B 15 years ago
1:31:04
they were going to give water treatment plant they were going to give a million dollars towards a new high school they
1:31:11
were going to give a new fire department and we voted it down so our
1:31:16
responsibility is to make sure what’s being built is is going to impact us the least
1:31:23
amount but it’s going to happen whether we like it or not you know it’s just progress we voted down Ikea because we
1:31:30
didn’t like the color and we we thought it was going to have too much traffic well the traffic’s coming by anyway well
1:31:36
we’re not getting the economic U proceeds from but my kids are going to be right over here my kids are here too
1:31:42
here I live right down the street for long it took me 5 minutes to walk be Modesto no I yeah it’s true actually cuz
1:31:50
um my kids can’t I actually can’t [Music]
1:31:55
so we have to grow all right appreciate that car our water um I want to make sure our
1:32:03
water so I know we already have a water issue we be I know you’ve gone from 77
1:32:09
to 40 something just great so the lots are bigger less I think that’s great
1:32:15
lots are bigger less houses how is it impact our water supp so yeah
1:32:22
our water is a regional thing we do get our water from a wholesaler which is
1:32:28
Zone 7 comes from the Delta they sell it to the city um here and we also buy
1:32:35
water from cow water they they have um back in our last General Plan update
1:32:43
said okay yes Livermore we’ll have enough water for you to build out your general plant we’re going we’re going
1:32:50
through that again now uh that type of analysis in our general Plan update now to look at Water Supply
1:32:57
um especially given the the climate and um drought and
1:33:04
um so if this project were approved there would be enough water what Steve
1:33:10
is mentioning is Citywide we’re also looking at additional locations for Change and opportunities for growth and
1:33:17
the state requires us to plan for a certain amount of housing so we’re looking at that in water
1:33:22
more holistically but for this project if it were approved this next time it
1:33:27
would be enough but what is he being change from the existing system now the
1:33:33
existing the water would stay the same basically is what you’re saying the water the existing water
1:33:40
supply would not be impacted okay um Carol hi I’m Carol I just have
1:33:49
hopefully a relatively quick question question and comment and it seems like the major point is the lowliness of the
1:33:56
seller so what I want to point out is is it kosher for the city to contact the
1:34:05
real estate broker who I assume is the representative of the ladies um and copy a letter to the
1:34:14
ladies saying that you would like to have a meeting with the real estate
1:34:20
broker and the ladies included just to discuss what their
1:34:26
concerns are and maybe something can get
1:34:31
resolved since you’re also talking to the ladies so I was wondering if that was
1:34:39
would be kosher and that in the letter you said you would say that you want to
1:34:44
understand their point yeah I think we can express to
1:34:50
them that there other groups or folks who would like to talk with them maryan what do you think short answer yes I I’m
1:34:56
sorry I can’t Maran what do you think sorry I can’t comment without my giving me permission without can can can we go
1:35:06
have tea with the lady no you cannot You’ been very hostile to them and to me
1:35:14
and things that you said in the newspaper and I really do not want to
1:35:20
talk to you anymore right there we have time for a couple more
1:35:26
questions our folks are here to shut down the so s here and then we’ll finish
1:35:31
up in the back there so I think I think there’s a u General plan meeting uh
1:35:37
coming up on the 15th at cochi will this be covered there or is this Beyond is
1:35:42
that meeting Beyond because that I think you said General plans are 10 to 20 years out so this is within 10 years for
1:35:52
sure is that the thinking at this point uh this this or could it go into could it spill
1:35:59
into the 10 to 20 year out window so to speak since it’s gone on for 15 years 13
1:36:08
years whatever I’ve heard today so so the Community Wide meeting that we’re having is focused on other areas of the
1:36:15
city that are specifically called out as Focus areas uh and that’s the that’s the general gist of that meeting but we’re
1:36:23
in the midst of an Outreach process and you can provide us with any feedback that you’d like about growth or change
1:36:29
or not wanting change within the community and this isn’t the meeting for that though this is the one on the yeah
1:36:36
the one later this month one on the 15th is though okay we will not be focusing on this site in particular okay because
1:36:43
I I I like what the city’s done with all the parks we have we have LPD has 40 to
1:36:49
50 neighborhood parks and they got those by asking the developer to donate land
1:36:55
like this Timar Creek Trail was one of the best trails in the city of Livermore it’s wonderful wouldn’t have been there
1:37:01
without those homes being built those neighborhood homes by the way right so
1:37:06
if this thing’s going to get built I’m thinking what is what do we want the developer to kick in and what we really
1:37:13
need I think safety wise is something like an underpass on Vasco
1:37:19
Road because there was a boy that got hit in 2022 and it was a near Miss we
1:37:25
dodged a bullet and he survived he wasn’t hurt very badly but Vasco
1:37:32
Road and kids with schools on both sides of Vasco Road right over here it just
1:37:37
doesn’t make sense so I’ve asked the city to look at doing an underpass right
1:37:43
where the Creek is like we have on Home Street like the city of Fremont has you
1:37:48
know where you go under poo Padre and and dakot and all those other busy
1:37:53
streets there’s no interaction so to me that’s a safety issue those those are
1:37:58
bigger safety issues than a burrowing owl or some salt uh or some other
1:38:04
environmental minor issues you know we’re talking about lives here so uh I
1:38:10
would advocate for that and and if we’re going to you know dangle a carrot in front of the developer possibly we ask
1:38:19
them to kick in and coordin this with Zone 7 and connect and do what LPD says
1:38:26
their Charter is to do which is to tie all their parts together and and
1:38:31
Christenson middle Sports field is LPD uh Timar Creek Trail is La RPD and
1:38:38
they could that could be the first connection so to speak uh to do what they want they say they want to do okay
1:38:45
thanks for the feedback last lastly here w does the
1:38:51
city consider their 2022 climate Action Plan before they approve this project
1:39:06
yes environmental report uh the 20 the most recent climate action plan was
1:39:14
adopted uh last last year so that document was after the environmental impact report so in this next
1:39:23
uh no sorry so that the the new I’m not sure I have to get back to
1:39:29
you in particular AR if it’s going to touch on that what should uh the
1:39:40
it’ss they’re just going to pass through the old environmental impact rep that
1:39:46
doesn’t make sense they have to address the decision the climate action
1:39:52
plan what I right so we we I I’ll give specific answer to that
1:40:00
we’re taking notes here um the previous environment we had a climate Action Plan
1:40:07
before the most recent one so I I believe the environmental document references
1:40:14
that okay and I we do need to wrap up I um do you know why the the Superior
1:40:21
Court denied the save the hill plan originally because the project was
1:40:27
consistent with the general plan no no that’s
1:40:33
incorrect no that’s not like the the trial court would you let
1:40:39
let’s answer his question the trial court denied it on a technicality the technicality was that the uh the the
1:40:47
residents who were bringing these issues to the council weren’t sophisticated
1:40:52
enough in their language to use the magic words the appellant court said you don’t need magic words they were telling
1:40:58
you they were asking where’s the money they asked you Steve is there any money and you
1:41:04
said nothing that’s what was illegal they also asked you where the money no they
1:41:11
didn’t I didn’t even know about I I didn’t know about G to Hill until I read about it in the paper after the meeting
1:41:18
coming out tonight we have to wrap it up I
1:41:30
still

In the Summer of 2016 it became clear that Livermore was falling behind in the spending required to maintain its roads, sidewalks, buildings, and other public infrastructure. This insight was the result of a determined effort by the Community Asset Management Program committee, established to determine the state of our assets and what it would take to maintain them.

The general message since that time, is that Livermore is drastically underspending, with many ideas on what to do but no concrete solutions. It should come as no surprise that the first proposal would be a new tax increase. Council decided in 2022 to spend $95,000 on a poll that showed such a plan would fail at the ballot. There has been no followup since then.

In the Spring of 2021, staff prepared a very articulate powerpoint that clearly defined the problem. Page 3 of the PDF shows that although Livermore spends $10 million per year on maintenance, it needs to spend $40 million. From the document:
Infrastructure Dilemma
• Repair/Replace ALL Assets- $40 million per year
Current Spending on Asset Repair and Replacement- $10 million per year
• Minimum Level of Service (High Risk Only) – $20 million per year

Thus, a $30 million per year deficit.

The longer PowerPoint version of the Spring 2021 presentation puts it more bluntly on Page 39 (notes section):
So, we’ve established that we need at least $30M/year. This is way too much to simply shift existing City budget dollars around. 

If Livermore does not increase funding, infrastructure citywide will slowly grind down and deteriorate. This is an “off the books” deficit, so it is easily ignored or forgotten by the people responsible for closing the budget gap. We encourage everyone to read through the information on livermoreassets.net/documents and research for yourself in greater detail. We find it eye opening, and alarming.

There is a viable solution

All of the money necessary to close the budget gap exists unspent, in the form of Livermore sales taxes that are being held for the Valley Link Train construction. The train has other funding sources too, but it is not clear it will be built. CBG is on record as expecting it will NOT be built, due to a number of factors. We recommend that those $20 million per year of sales taxes be redirected toward Livermore’s deficit using standard legislative procedures.

Statement to Livermore City Council

Prepared for the June 26, 2023 Open Forum

CBG values our historical partnership with the City of Livermore as we have worked together on environmental protection.  We began our cooperative efforts more than 20 years ago, when the City joined our successful lawsuit against a damaging development that ultimately created a multimillion dollar fund to acquire open space. 

The City and CBG continue to enjoy a shared goal and partnership to protect open space and the environment. Today, Garaventa Hill is first on our list to protect, and that is why the following subject is troubling.

The General Council of the FPPC Mr. Bainbridge sent a letter on June 16th to your City Attorney.  He states, “Lafferty is currently preparing a revised EIR for the Project…” and “The revised EIR and renewed application will be submitted to the Planning Commission”.  He also mentions Lafferty Communities as the owner of the Hill, which we know to be false. This raises a number of questions that beg clarity.

CBG has made public records requests so that we may review the root sources of this official communication and hopefully provide answers as to the genesis of these surprising statements. On numerous occasions we have already made it clear to your staff that we want to be informed about ANY development efforts that may jeopardize Garaventa Hill. Whatever the city knows, we need to know. 

Total transparency is essential for us to best assist the City to fulfill our shared commitment to preserving the Hill.  As a non-profit organization, we have tools and techniques for environmental protection that the City does not have.  Likewise, the City has resources that are not available to CBG. Together, we can continue to be responsive and work in tandem for the benefit of all Livermore residents.

CBG has been educating, protecting and defending for four decades. Here’s something we’ve learned. It is not unusual that after an agency’s staff members become involved in a process (such as the 10 years of Garaventa), it takes time for them to relearn new habits when conditions change.  Garaventa Hill is no longer developable, and that truth is a newer concept for City staff. It is entirely appropriate for your City Manager to give her staff regular reminders of that change, and preempt unintentional negative results. Otherwise, she risks having people on the inside working against Council’s wishes.

We thank you in advance, if there is anything you can do to expedite the records request we made through the portal.  We’ll update you on our findings once we know more.

Livermore Airport expansion policies

The Livermore Airport Commission has recommended a new airport policy that is at odds with residents, and with long sought requests of neighboring cities.

The May 16 2023 Pleasanton council meeting had many residents expressing discontent over noise and pollution. The Livermore Airport Commission followed on June 5th with a contentious meeting that left residents unsatisfied with the process and feeling left out.

The following day, the Pleasanton City Council reviewed the update. The general message from residents and elected officials was that although Pleasanton has to bear the effects of noise and pollution, it has no practical way to influence the activities. It will send a letter in advance of the June 26 2023 Livermore Council meeting to articulate their concerns.

The Livermore Airport Citizen’s Group has been very vocal on these issues. Among their grievances of the recommendation:

  • Fails to implement the Livermore City Council Resolution of March 23, 2010 “The city will AGGRESSIVELY FOSTER the REDUCTION of aircraft NOISE”
  • Public is in the dark, little transparency
  • The City Initiative:  (where the city can put out an RFI/RFP/RFQ) is worded whenever there is “land/improvement available” – this is in direct contradiction to the 2010 City resolution that explicitly indicates only when “existing demand” with “tangible evidence” – and the city does not make this determination – it is the Airport Advisory Commission that does. Likewise “Encourage imaginative and innovative development of land” (section 1.2) is hardly consistent with meet existing demand. And yet they claim in that same section “The above objectives reflect the Airport Development Priorities established by the Livermore City Council in 2010 through Resolution number 2010-058”; no, they do not.

LVK affects residents in all three Valley cities. Consequently, it would only be fair to include wider representation on policy making. Livermore should rework the makeup of the Commission to include representatives from Pleasanton and Dublin at minimum.

With Livermore’s propensity to casually codify recommendations that are before them, it would be better to have such recommendations developed with everyone’s input included and debated. Good neighbors deserve a good helping of courtesy.

Whether or not the proposed Valley Link Rail train follows the same fate as “BART to Livermore”, remains to be seen. BART was a 50 year story with multiple chapters that ultimately amounted to nothing except tens of millions wasted on studies and planning. Added to that were hundreds of millions of Livermore tax funds that never went to serve our residents.

Since Valley Link’s inception, the agency in charge has produced occasional promotional updates. We can expect that to continue. You’ll hear about it in the news, at meetings and through various forms of commentary. But, will the train ever arrive?

We can’t know the answer to that question now. The problem is, Livermore officials are preemptively going about City business as if it will be built, rather than presenting it as something that may be built.

The Isabel Neighborhood problem

The so-called “Isabel neighborhood” area of town was prematurely rezoned for 4000 new homes in 2022. The City Council did not wait for public transit planning to be finalized prior to beginning to construct housing units. The disturbing part is that the housing developers are being told in very certain terms by city staff that the area will be served by a Valley Link train station. Currently, that is too strong a statement and is irresponsible to assert.

We are quite concerned that the overt promotion of Valley Link will encourage some of the home buyers, if not most of them, to expect to be able to use Valley Link for daily transportation. If it does not come to fruition, one can envision a great deal of strife and very possibly lawsuits on the basis of false advertising. Those lawsuits might not be limited to the developers, as the city is openly publicizing to the developers that the train will be built. In the process of selling newly built residences, these developers will doubtlessly laud the train as one of the benefits to buyers.

We would caution everyone at this time (residents, city staff, developers, and any agency) to consider the Valley Link train as a potential transit project with an unknown operational date. Ideally, the actual construction of most Isabel related projects should be put on hold until we can have greater certainty about the transit availability.

It is also worth remembering that the original idea was for no Isabel neighborhood at all, unless the area was serviced by full, real BART. It won’t be fair to anyone if we end up creating a borough poorly planned from a traffic perspective, and not even a consolation train to show for it.

The status of the Lafferty Communities’ “Garaventa Hills” housing development is one of the most frequent questions we are asked. It is an understandable concern for many of our residents in an environment where there is very little new information.

Real Estate Robots

Some online real estate sites have listings that add to the confusion. Many of them are robots that scrape old information, present it as new, and the search engines treat it as current information despite it being bogus. Thus, if you search for “Garaventa Hill” or “Garaventa Hills” with any regularity, you are bound to see some misleading results. Today, we saw this:

Garaventa Hill 2023 Update

This deceptive site masquerades as a place you can get actual real estate information. The date – April 2023 – gives one the impression that it is somewhat current information about a downtown Livermore development with inventory. When you click the link, you are shown other properties. Classic clickbait.

Legitimate Media Not Without Fault

There are also innocent mistakes that have caused unnecessary confusion. For example, there was the electrical expansion project that PG& E failed to realize was no longer necessary. There is no need to expand infrastructure for a cancelled development. It was a disturbing episode, but the way it was reported by The Independent was far from perfect. The headline “”Litigants Surprised By Renewal of Garaventa Project” accidentally suggested that the developer was preparing to move forward. The content of the article was well done, but anyone who stopped at the headline could get the wrong impression.

Garaventa Hill Is Safe (until further notice)

The “Garaventa Hills” housing development project does not exist. Rest assured, nothing has changed since the Supreme Court invalidated the EIR. No substantive attempt to resurrect it has been made. All the funding necessary to buy the land for the purpose of conservation is in a protected account and ready to be used whenever the landowners would like to sell. In the mean time, there is no development option.

It is always possible that someone will try something with any undeveloped piece of property. Fortunately for Garaventa Hill, there are now several organizations which will be ready to act promptly in opposition if any hint of development discussions comes about.

Livermore Wine Country Inn proposed hotel and conference center location
The proposed 30-room Inn with large restaurant, full bar, hair salon with day spa and gift shop cannot proceed as the design violates aspects of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan.

There is a proposal for a hotel called the Livermore Wine Country Inn. It would be located at the intersection of Hansen Road and Arroyo Road in deep South Livermore. The project is separate and has no connection with the Presidio Companies’ proposal for a potential downtown hotel.

Progress on the development was halted by the Court of Appeals. The reason behind the ruling against the developer follows a theme that is becoming uncomfortably familiar, as it is a result of elected officials insisting on not doing what the regulations state they must do, and ignoring public advice to do what is legal.

The proposed site is located in the South Livermore Vally Specific Plan area (SLVSP), which articulates the requirement for 100 foot setbacks on that parcel for the B&B. Instead, both the Planning Commission and the Livermore City Council sided with the developer and against the residents. The developer wanted to bend the rules and require only half the required setback (50 feet) – officials were happy to go along.

Now the entire project is uncertain. If all parties would have simply followed the rules and developed the space as originally envisioned in the SLVSP, Livermore Wine Country Inn might be hosting guests already and supporting our tourist industry. Instead, it is possible it can’t be built at all, and tremendous time, money and attention will have been wasted.

Planning Commission should have done everyone a favor and rejected the design in 2019. Failing that, the Council should have listened to the pleas of residents to make the project conform.

The next mistake to be made is up to the City Attorney. He could keep it going in the courts, or support the community and accept the loss. Let us hope the legal process is over and that the project can be reworked accordingly into a form more closely envisioned in the framework of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan.

New housing developments of 11 or more units are required to make at least 15% of those units permanently priced significantly below market value. This applies apartments, condos, townhomes, single family homes – any form of dwelling unit.

Developers usually don’t like building them, so they take advantage of a loophole. Instead of creating affordable units, they are allowed to offer a payment to the City as a condition of making more or all of the units available at market rate. This fee goes into a special fund that is held with the City, that is supposed to eventually be used in some manner to build affordable units in the future. There are a number of problems with this arrangement that directly lead to the inadequate affordable inventory.

Not enough units have been built

This is the obvious primary problem. Many people who work in Livermore cannot live there due to insufficient income. A variety of essential occupations fall into this trap, such as teachers, healthcare workers, first responders, and the list goes on.

Affordable projects take too long

As the fees are collected over time, the challenge becomes how to spend them. The typical scenario is that City staff and the Council should be proactive in getting them applied toward actual, shovel-ready projects in what would hopefully be a sufficiently rapid pace. The expensive market rate projects can be ready to be occupied in as little as a year or two, but the affordable projects can languish for decades. When they do get built, they tend to be 100% below market concentrated compounds. It has long been known that such a configuration is not the best way to welcome people with diverse income levels into the fabric of the city.

“Inclusionary Housing” is superior to affordable housing projects

Like most communities, Livermore practices inclusionary zoning policies (also known as inclusionary housing policies and IZ policies). They aim to create affordable housing units by encouraging or requiring housing developers seeking to construct new market-rate units to set aside 15% of the units as affordable for moderate-income to low-income tenants or homeowners. IZ policies are designed to encourage new housing developers to build affordable homes in market-rate housing areas with the goal of creating communities with diverse income levels.

Here’s how it works in Livermore

Inclusionary zoning can be mandatory, voluntary, or a combination. Livermore requires new constructions of 11 units or more to set aside 15% of dwelling units for affordable housing programs. Developers often claim that the project won’t be feasible for a variety of reasons and may offer to pay their way out of building as many, or any. Sometimes several factors interact to either increase or decrease the number of units built such as: density bonuses, expedited approvals, fee waivers, and subsidies.

Benefits of Inclusionary vs. Concentrated Affordable Zoning

  1. Increased supply of affordable housing: Inclusionary zoning policies help increase the amount of affordable housing available to lower-income and moderate-income households. IZ also offers a path to meeting federal fair housing standards set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  2. Greater opportunity for low-income households: As housing prices soar, inclusionary zoning ordinances aim to help low-income renters and homeowners afford to live in areas with greater access to employment, schools, and public transportation.
  3. Decrease economic and racial segregation: Inclusionary zoning can help create a more economically and racially diverse city by enabling people to live throughout Livermore and not just relegated to parts of town deemed less desirable.
  4. Healthier: Living in a mixed-income community can have a positive effect on our residents’ health, such as a reduction in stress and overall improved mental health.

Solutions

Fees are too low

With developers so commonly choosing to buy their way out of building the units, clearly the fee structure is inadequate. The city council has the sole authority to adjust the fee.

The usual standard in the US is for the fee to be adequate to construct each of the unbuilt units at a future date. A case in point is the Lassen Road Townhomes, where the developer (WestGate Ventures) was allowed to avoid building 14 townhomes for a mere $776,000. In no version of reality could a future unit be built for $55,000. This has been a common condition in recent years, and fees need to be substantially higher.

Systemic Dysfunction

City Staff and Council are prone to run on autopilot when it comes to developers. Projects get proposed Planning Department, then run through Planning Commission with a lot of negotiations and modifications. By the time it gets to Council, it is easier to say “yes” than it is to challenge the process for adequacy, as was not done with Lassen Road Townhomes. Council needs to demand much more to ensure a better affordable mix within future housing developments.

The standard practice of producing EIRs was upended to some degree by a recent loss in the Supreme Court by the City of Livermore. We decided to investigate deeper into the process of how these reports are created and by whom.

In Livermore’s case, the report with the salient deficient information was produced by Lamphier-Gregory for a development that would have been called Garaventa Hills. Now, an effort by Save Seven Hills Ranch to preserve open space instead of developing it into housing gives us the opportunity to examine the DEIR documents of these two nearby proposed developments. The first one has already failed, and we believe this new one is on its way to a comparable

outcome.

Recently, we noticed a striking similarity within a key element of each report: the “No Project Alternative”. This is the component that was found to be out of compliance with CEQA law in three different courts, with finality at the California Supreme Court. Although we are a Tri-Valley organization, we do share some environmental kinship with neighboring counties; we also receive court mandated compliance reports on water delivery in Contra Costa County, where Seven Hills Ranch is located. Thus, we’ll wade into the Spieker development for the purposes of education and study.

Comparing the “No-Project Alternatives”

For the Livermore “Garaventa Hills” proposal, the DEIR was written by Oakland based Lamphier-Gregory. The DEIR for the Spieker proposal was written by San Jose based David J. Powers & Associates.

EIRs are usually very long documents – well over 100 pages. As we have observed before, the purpose of these reports is often far less about environmental protection and much more about pushing a development project forward. For the good of the environment, CEQA requires a No-Project Alternative for a legislative body to consider. It usually is identified as the environmentally superior alternative among all the others, as to avoid describing it this way would be inaccurate.

Here they are side by side:

Garaventa Hill (Lamphier):

Under a “no development” alternative, the Project site would remain in an undeveloped state. There would be no impacts on the environment, 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.

Seven Hills Ranch (Powers):

The CEQA Guidelines specifically require consideration of a “No Project” Alternative. The purpose of including a No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project. The Guidelines specifically advise that the No Project Alternative is “what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” The Guidelines emphasize that an EIR should take a practical approach, and not “…create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment (Section 15126.6[e][3][B]).”
The No Project Alternative assumes that the project site would remain as it is today with the existing buildings being reoccupied.
Comparison of Environmental Impacts
The No Project Alternative would avoid all the project’s environmental impacts.
Relationship to Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives as no change would be made to the existing land uses at the site and the current land uses do not provide any senior living facilities.
Conclusion
Because the No Project Alternative would not result in any new development on the site, this alternative would avoid all environmental impacts of the project. This alternative would not, however, meet any of the project’s objectives.

Notice the similarity in the language, and the general disinterested “mood” of the content. It is hard to believe the reports were prepared by two entirely different companies, for different counties, and different developers. Let’s face it, Lamphier-Gregory and David J. Powers are both essentially saying to their respective legislative bodies, “you seriously can’t do this”. As one of three alternatives presented in the massive EIRs, they occupy less than a page each.

We believe we see rather unhelpful brevity and insincerity of the overall effort to truly examine the alternative that is in the public’s best interest. That is what was struck down by the Court.

The Appellate justices noted (in “Save the Hill”): “As the Guidelines make clear, an EIR “shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.” (Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (b), italics added.)” and:

“Lacking adequate information regarding the no-project alternative, the city council could not make an informed, reasoned decision on whether this Project should go forward. Accordingly, its decisions to certify the RFEIR and approve the Project must be set aside… (See Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236;”

Getting Involved Earlier

The public often desires to make a real difference in how our government agencies impact the environment due to legislative actions. Typically intervention begins after the information spreads about an undesirable proposal, at some point after a DEIR is first produced. Community organizing then starts, with the focus on the legislative body being primary. This may be too late. Could there be a better way?

If the public can get ahead of the process at an earlier stage, (for example, if active concerned residents were to intervene at the bidding stage where environmental consultants first get involved) it might go a long way toward redirecting the momentum of staff and the elected body.

Let’s suppose an RFP is bid on by three consultants. The choice of vendor will be made at a public meeting, where comments could be given at this earlier date and perhaps encourage the bidders to reconsider their interest. Bidders may learn about crucial elements that might make the project unbuildable or very difficult evaluate. Perhaps they would need to adjust their bids to reflect additional costs, consider undiscovered obstacles, or not get involved at all. No consultant, no project.

Conclusion (for now)

CBG has not spent an extensive amount of time collecting the large number of EIR documents that would be required to discuss any definitive patterns within the Environmental Consultancy industry. What we do see in this case is an extraordinary similarity in the methods by which environmentally superior alternatives to development are disadvantageously positioned in legislative body reports. We expect to add more information as it becomes available.