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
