CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Monday, September 14, 2015
CLOSED SESSION - 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM
ITEM 5.01 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS (CLICK HERE)
COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3575 PACIFIC AVENUE LIVERMORE, CA 94550
CITY COUNCIL
John Marchand, Mayor Laureen Turner, Vice Mayor Stewart Gary, Council Member Steven Spedowfski, Council Member Bob Woerner, Council Member
Regular City Council meetings are broadcast live on Channel 29 and videotaped for local television and for replay. For a schedule of City Council meeting replay airtimes or to access videos of previous meetings, log onto www.tri-valleytv.org. City Council meetings are also streamed live on the web at www.tri-valleytv.org/live-tv29.html.
1 HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
You can participate in the meeting in a number of ways:
Speaker Cards - If you wish to address the Council, you must complete a speaker card for each item about which you want to speak. The speaker card box is located in the Council Chambers lobby. Place your speaker card in this box behind the tab that corresponds to the agenda item number. Staff will collect the cards for each item immediately before the item is to be considered and gives the speaker cards to the Mayor. The Mayor will call speakers to the public lectern. No cards will be accepted once the presentation on that item has commenced.
Citizens Forum is an opportunity for the public to speak regarding items not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to a maximum of three minutes per person. The Mayor may reduce the amount of time based on the number of persons wishing to speak. You should be aware that the City Council is prohibited by State law from taking action on any items that are not listed on the agenda. However, if your item requires action, the City Council may place it on a future agenda or direct staff to work with you and/or report to the City Council on the issue.
Public Hearings - The topic of the hearing is typically summarized by staff, followed by questions from the City Council and a presentation by the applicant. The Mayor will then open the hearing to the public and offer an opportunity for public comments. You may take a maximum of three minutes to make your comments.
Other Agenda Items are also open for public input including Consent Calendar or Matters for Consideration items. These comments are also subject to the three minute limit.
Written Materials may be submitted by the public. If you wish your materials to be sent to the City Council prior to the City Council meeting, they must be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office no later than noon on Friday, ten days prior to the Monday meeting. Those items will be copied and sent to the City Council with the agenda packet. Materials submitted after noon on Friday, ten days prior to the meeting will be copied and given to the City Council the night of the meeting; however, it is unlikely that the City Council will be able to read the materials before the start of the meeting. Therefore, it is suggested that you give a verbal summary of your materials at the meeting.
The City Council Agenda and Agenda Reports are prepared by City staff and are available for public review on Friday evening, ten days prior to the City Council meeting in the Civic Center Library, 1188 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, and at the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore. The Agenda is also available on the City’s website, http://cityoflivermore.net.
Under Government Code §54957.5, any supplemental material distributed to the members of the City Council after the posting of this agenda will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, and on the City’s web site http://cityoflivermore.net.
If supplemental materials are made available to the members of the City Council at the meeting, a copy will be available for public review at the Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore.
PURSUANT TO TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (CODIFIED AT 42 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 12101 AND 28 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PART 35), AND SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, SEX, DISABILITY, AGE OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE PROVISION OF ANY SERVICES, PROGRAMS, OR ACTIVITIES. TO ARRANGE AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PUBLIC MEETING, PLEASE CALL (925) 960-4200 (VOICE) OR (925) 960-4104 (TDD) AT LEAST 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.
2 CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
CLOSED SESSION – 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3575 PACIFIC AVENUE LIVERMORE, CA 94550
CLOSED SESSION
CALL TO ORDER 6:30 PM
Roll Call Council Member Stewart Gary Council Member Steven Spedowfski Council Member Bob Woerner Vice Mayor Laureen Turner Mayor John Marchand
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
1. Litigation – Conference with Legal Counsel. To meet with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4) to discuss whether to initiate litigation. One Case.
Note: This Closed Session may be continued to the end of the Regular Meeting.
Livermore City Council Agenda September 14, 2015
3 REGULAR MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 PM
1.01 Roll Call Council Member Stewart Gary Council Member Steven Spedowfski Council Member Bob Woerner Vice Mayor Laureen Turner Mayor John Marchand
1.02 Pledge of Allegiance
1.03 Report of Action Taken in Closed Session
2. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
2.01 Confirmation of advisory body appointments and reappointments and administration of oath of office to new members.
Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission - Youth Members Appointment of Ethan Shang Reappointment of Alejandra Arroyo Reappointment of Siddarth Bokka Reappointment of Ellie Deuell Reappointment of Brianna O'Callaghan Reappointment of Maggie Rosendin
Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission - Adult Member Appointment of Ann Brown Staff Report PAGE 16 Attachment 1 - Letters requesting reappointment
2.02 Human Services Commission Annual Update.
Document PAGE 24
3. CITIZENS FORUM
• In conformance with the Brown Act, no City Council action can occur on items presented during Citizens Forum. • Please complete a speaker card. When the Mayor calls your name, walk to the lectern to address the City Council.
Livermore City Council Agenda September 14, 2015
4 • Speakers are limited to a maximum of three minutes per person. The Mayor may reduce the amount of time based on the number of persons wishing to speak. • Citizens Forum will conclude after 30 minutes; however, if there are additional speakers, Citizens Forum will reconvene at 9:30 pm, or following the Public Hearings, whichever occurs first.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and are acted upon by the City Council with a single action. Members of the audience wishing to provide public input must complete a speaker card.
4.01 Approval of minutes - July 13, 2015, special and regular City Council meetings, and July 27, 2015, special and regular City Council meetings.
July 13, 2015 - Draft Minutes PAGE 25 July 27, 2015 - Draft Minutes
4.02 Adoption of an ordinance establishing development standards for Planned Development – Residential (PD-R) District 14-005 and amending the Zoning District Map of the City of Livermore and approving a development agreement between the City and property owners, Righetti Partners, Limited Partnership, and Ponderosa Homes II, Incorporated. (Planned Development – Residential (PD-R) 14-005 and Development Agreement 15-001)
Ordinance PAGE 53 Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C
4.03 Introduction of an ordinance dissolving El Charro Community Facilities District 2009-01 Improvement Area Number 4.
Staff Report PAGE 114 Ordinance
4.04 Resolution approving the 2015-2016 Tourism and Special Event Grant Program in the amount of $4,000.
Staff Report PAGE 119 Attachment 1 - Tourism and Special Event Grant Guidelines Attachment 2 - Grant Applications
Livermore City Council Agenda September 14, 2015
5 Resolution
4.05 Resolution authorizing an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2014-2017 HOME Consortium Agreement with Alameda County Housing and Community Development Department increasing the funding available under that agreement from $116,901 to $245,834 to correct an internal error that the County recently discovered.
Staff Report PAGE 135 Resolution Exhibit A to Resolution
4.06 Resolution approving a supplemental appropriation of $56,670 in unexpended Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Housing and Human Services Grant funds into Fiscal Year 2015-2016 and authorizing execution of contract amendments with Abode Services and Neighborhood Solutions for the funding extensions.
Staff Report PAGE 140 Resolution
4.07 Resolution accepting for permanent maintenance and releasing of security for Freisman Park, Project No. 2007-2066.
Staff Report PAGE 145 Resolution
4.08 Resolution accepting for permanent maintenance and releasing of security for the Isabel Avenue Corridor Landscape Restoration of Various Frontages and Water Reclamation Plant Water Feature, Project No. 1992- 3855.
Staff Report PAGE 148 Resolution
4.09 Resolution authorizing execution of a two-year agreement with Lee & Ro, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $250,000, to provide on-call engineering services for the Water Reclamation Plant.
Staff Report PAGE 151 Resolution Exhibit A to Resolution
Livermore City Council Agenda September 14, 2015
6 4.10 Resolution authorizing execution of a covenant and deed restriction for the habitat mitigation area in and adjacent to the Arroyo Las Positas at the Springtown Golf Course in connection with the Galaxy Court Flood Protection and Trail Culvert Replacement, Project No. 2010-29.
Staff Report PAGE 168 Resolution Exhibit A to Resolution
4.11 Resolutions authorizing execution of an agreement with Monterey Mechanical Co., in the amount of $3,098,000, for construction of the Water Reclamation Plant Electrical Improvements, Project No. 2008-48; and authorizing execution of an agreement with Carollo Engineers, in the amount of $296,426, for construction engineering services for the project.
Staff Report PAGE 182 Resolution 1 - Monterey Mechanical Exhibit A to Resolution 1 Resolution 2 - Carollo Engineers Exhibit A to Resolution 2
4.12 Resolution authorizing the issuance of a purchase order with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $637,762, for the replacement purchase of one 2015 Type I Fire Engine.
Staff Report PAGE 204 Attachment 1 - Cooperative Purchasing Program Attachment 2 - Contract Pricing Worksheet Attachment 3 - Proposal Resolution
4.13 Resolution authorizing execution of a commercial office lease agreement with WEFEA, Inc. at the Livermore Municipal Airport.
Staff Report PAGE 212 Resolution Exhibit A to Resolution
4.14 Resolution authorizing execution of an industrial lease agreement with Bentmoto LLC, dba HK Cycles at the Livermore Municipal Airport; and execution of a termination agreement with Dan Matson to allow for the
Livermore City Council Agenda September 14, 2015
7 continued operation of the same business at the same location under new ownership.
Staff Report PAGE 232 Resolution Exhibit A to Resolution Exhibit B to Resolution
4.15 Resolution authorizing execution of five year agreement with Accela, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $850,000, for the upgrade of Accela Sussex to Accela Civic Asset Management; and execution of a five year funding agreement with Government Capital Corporation, in the amount of $799,564 (total of $821,809 with interest) for the funding of the Accela Sussex to Accela Civic Asset Management upgrade.
Staff Report PAGE 264 Resolution Exhibit A to Resolution Exhibit B to Resolution
4.16 Resolution confirming compensation for Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department personnel away from their official duty station and assigned to an emergency incident.
Staff Report PAGE 371 Resolution
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.01 Hearing to consider a request to subdivide a vacant parcel for the development of 47 detached single family residences, landscaping, appurtenant improvements, and preservation of open space.
• A Response to Comments/Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed which provides responses to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Draft EIR text revisions. • Location: East of North Vasco Road, North of Garaventa Ranch Road/Altamont Creek Drive, and West of Laughlin Road • Site Area: 32± acres • Applicant: Livermore LT Ventures I Group, LLC
Livermore City Council Agenda September 14, 2015
8 • Application Numbers: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB13-001), Planned Development-Residential 13-001, and Site Plan and Design Review 13-005 • Public Improvements: On-site and off-site public improvements: Streets, utilities, storm drain and landscape improvements. • Zoning: Planned Development • General Plan: Urban Low Residential (UL-1: 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre) • Historic Status: None • CEQA: Adequacy of Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2011112045) will be considered for compliance with the provisions of CEQA.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission and staff recommend the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution certifying the final Environmental Impact Report for the Garaventa Hills project and, after approval of the application, instruct staff to file the Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk;
2. Adopt a resolution approving Subdivision 13-001 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094) and Site Plan Design Review 13-005 (Garaventa Hills); and
3. Introduce an ordinance amending the Zoning District Map 13-001 and establishing development standards for Planned Development - Residential (PD-R) District 13-001 (Garaventa Hills).
Staff Report PAGE 374 Attachment 1 - Location Map Attachment 2 - Development Plans Attachment 3 - Proposed Mitigation Parcel Attachment 4 - Similar Development Patterns in Northeast Livermore Attachment 5 - 1990 Maralisa Project Development Plan Attachment 6 - PD Development Standards Attachment 7 - Conditions of Approval, SPDR Attachment 8 - Conditions of Approval, VTTM 8094 Attachment 9 - Planning Commission Resolution of Approval Attachment 10 - Planning Commission Staff Report, August 18, 2015 Attachment 11 - Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT, August 18, 2015
Livermore City Council Agenda September 14, 2015
9 Attachment 12 - Planning Commission Staff Report, July 1, 2014 Attachment 13 - Planning Commission Minutes, July 1, 2014 Attachment 14 - Technical Memo - June 25, 2015 Attachment 15 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment 16 - Letter in support from the property owner Attachment 17 - Letters/emails in opposition from the public Attachment 18 - Petition opposing the project Attachment 19 - Save the Hill Group Comments Attachment 20 - Additional Correspondence Resolution 1 - EIR Exhibit A to Resolution 1 Exhibit B to Resolution 1 Resolution 2 - VTTM and SPDR Exhibit A to Resolution 2 Ordinance Exhibit A to Ordinance Exhibit B to Ordinance
5.02 Hearing to receive protests and confirmation of assessments for the 2013- 2015 Sidewalk Repair Program, Project No. 2014-02.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council continue this item to the September 28, 2015, City Council meeting.
Staff Report PAGE 673
6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
6.01 Discussion and direction regarding City Council appointments to Intergovernmental Agencies. A verbal report may be given.
6.02 Discussion and direction regarding pending State or Federal legislation.
Note: Bills affecting local government operations may be discussed if they were introduced or amended after posting of the Agenda.
7. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MATTERS INITIATED BY CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, STAFF, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
Livermore City Council Agenda September 14, 2015
10 7.01 Council Committee Reports and Matters Initiated by City Manager, City Attorney, Staff, and Council Members. A verbal report may be given.
8. ADJOURNMENT – To a regular City Council meeting on September 28, 2015 at 6:30 pm for the Summer Reading Program Awards, immediately followed by the regular City Council business meeting, Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore.
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO #1 DOCUMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO #2 DOCUMENT
Livermore City Council Agenda September 14, 2015
11 Table of Contents
Agenda 1 Confirmation of advisory body appointments and reappointments and administration of oath of office to new members. Staff Report 16 Attachment 1 - Letters requesting reappointment 18 Human Services Commission Annual Update. Document 24 Approval of minutes - July 13, 2015, special and regular City Council meetings, and July 27, 2015, special and regular City Council meetings. July 13, 2015 - Draft Minutes 25 July 27, 2015 - Draft Minutes 36 Adoption of an ordinance establishing development standards for Planned Development – Residential (PD-R) District 14-005 and amending the Zoning District Map of the City of Livermore and approving a development agreement between the City and property owners, Righetti Partners, Limited Partnership, and Ponderosa Homes II, Incorporated. (Planned Development – Residential (PD-R) 14-005 and Development Agreement 15- 001) Ordinance 53 Exhibit A 55 Exhibit B 59 Exhibit C 60 Introduction of an ordinance dissolving El Charro Community Facilities District 2009-01 Improvement Area Number 4. Staff Report 114 Ordinance 116 Resolution approving the 2015-2016 Tourism and Special Event Grant Program in the amount of $4,000. Staff Report 119 Attachment 1 - Tourism and Special Event Grant Guidelines 121 Attachment 2 - Grant Applications 122 Resolution 133 Resolution authorizing an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2014- 2017 HOME Consortium Agreement with Alameda County Housing and Community Development Department increasing the funding available under that agreement from $116,901 to $245,834 to correct an internal error that the County recently discovered. Staff Report 135 Resolution 137 Exhibit A to Resolution 138
12 Resolution approving a supplemental appropriation of $56,670 in unexpended Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Housing and Human Services Grant funds into Fiscal Year 2015-2016 and authorizing execution of contract amendments with Abode Services and Neighborhood Solutions for the funding extensions. Staff Report 140 Resolution 143 Resolution accepting for permanent maintenance and releasing of security for Freisman Park, Project No. 2007-2066. Staff Report 145 Resolution 147 Resolution accepting for permanent maintenance and releasing of security for the Isabel Avenue Corridor Landscape Restoration of Various Frontages and Water Reclamation Plant Water Feature, Project No. 1992-3855. Staff Report 148 Resolution 150 Resolution authorizing execution of a two-year agreement with Lee & Ro, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $250,000, to provide on-call engineering services for the Water Reclamation Plant. Staff Report 151 Resolution 154 Exhibit A to Resolution 155 Resolution authorizing execution of a covenant and deed restriction for the habitat mitigation area in and adjacent to the Arroyo Las Positas at the Springtown Golf Course in connection with the Galaxy Court Flood Protection and Trail Culvert Replacement, Project No. 2010-29. Staff Report 168 Resolution 170 Exhibit A to Resolution 171 Resolutions authorizing execution of an agreement with Monterey Mechanical Co., in the amount of $3,098,000, for construction of the Water Reclamation Plant Electrical Improvements, Project No. 2008-48; and authorizing execution of an agreement with Carollo Engineers, in the amount of $296,426, for construction engineering services for the project. Staff Report 182 Resolution 1 - Monterey Mechanical 185 Exhibit A to Resolution 1 186 Resolution 2 - Carollo Engineers 190 Exhibit A to Resolution 2 191 Resolution authorizing the issuance of a purchase order with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $637,762, for the replacement purchase of one 2015 Type I Fire Engine. Staff Report 204 Attachment 1 - Cooperative Purchasing Program 207 Attachment 2 - Contract Pricing Worksheet 208
13 Attachment 3 - Proposal 209 Resolution 211 Resolution authorizing execution of a commercial office lease agreement with WEFEA, Inc. at the Livermore Municipal Airport. Staff Report 212 Resolution 214 Exhibit A to Resolution 215 Resolution authorizing execution of an industrial lease agreement with Bentmoto LLC, dba HK Cycles at the Livermore Municipal Airport; and execution of a termination agreement with Dan Matson to allow for the continued operation of the same business at the same location under new ownership. Staff Report 232 Resolution 234 Exhibit A to Resolution 235 Exhibit B to Resolution 252 Resolution authorizing execution of five year agreement with Accela, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $850,000, for the upgrade of Accela Sussex to Accela Civic Asset Management; and execution of a five year funding agreement with Government Capital Corporation, in the amount of $799,564 (total of $821,809 with interest) for the funding of the Accela Sussex to Accela Civic Asset Management upgrade. Staff Report 264 Resolution 268 Exhibit A to Resolution 270 Exhibit B to Resolution 359 Resolution confirming compensation for Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department personnel away from their official duty station and assigned to an emergency incident. Staff Report 371 Resolution 373 Hearing to consider a request to subdivide a vacant parcel for the development of 47 detached single family residences, landscaping, appurtenant improvements, and preservation of open space. Staff Report 374 Attachment 1 - Location Map 382 Attachment 2 - Development Plans 383 Attachment 3 - Proposed Mitigation Parcel 384 Attachment 4 - Similar Development Patterns in Northeast Livermore 385 Attachment 5 - 1990 Maralisa Project Development Plan 386 Attachment 6 - PD Development Standards 387 Attachment 7 - Conditions of Approval, SPDR 389 Attachment 8 - Conditions of Approval, VTTM 8094 393 Attachment 9 - Planning Commission Resolution of Approval 415
14 Attachment 10 - Planning Commission Staff Report, August 18, 2015 420 Attachment 11 - Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT, August 18, 2015 448 Attachment 12 - Planning Commission Staff Report, July 1, 2014 460 Attachment 13 - Planning Commission Minutes, July 1, 2014 484 Attachment 14 - Technical Memo - June 25, 2015 497 Attachment 15 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 507 Attachment 16 - Letter in support from the property owner 519 Attachment 17 - Letters/emails in opposition from the public 521 Attachment 18 - Petition opposing the project 546 Attachment 19 - Save the Hill Group Comments 579 Attachment 20 - Additional Correspondence 583 Resolution 1 - EIR 612 Exhibit A to Resolution 1 615 Exhibit B to Resolution 1 632 Resolution 2 - VTTM and SPDR 644 Exhibit A to Resolution 2 646 Ordinance 668 Exhibit A to Ordinance 670 Exhibit B to Ordinance 672 Hearing to receive protests and confirmation of assessments for the 2013-2015 Sidewalk Repair Program, Project No. 2014-02. Staff Report 673
15
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 2.01
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Susan Neer, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Confirmation of Advisory Body Appointments and Administration of Oath of Office
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City Council Subcommittee on Advisory Bodies recommends the City Council confirm the following appointments to the Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission. Upon confirmation, the City Clerk will administer the oath of office to new members.
SUMMARY
The City Council Subcommittee on Advisory Bodies interviewed the candidates for the Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission on August 25, 2015, and recommends confirmation of the appointments.
DISCUSSION
A motion is in order to confirm the following recommended appointments and reappointments.
Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission – Youth Members Appointment of Ethan Shang to an unexpired term ending September 1, 2016 Reappointment of Alejandra Arroyo to a regular term ending September 1, 2017 Reappointment of Siddarth Bokka to a regular term ending September 1, 2017 Reappointment of Ellie Deuell to a regular term ending September 1, 2017 Reappointment of Bryanna O’Callaghan to a regular term ending September 1, 2017 Reappointment of Maggie Rosendin to a regular term ending September 1, 2017
Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission – Adult Member Appointment of Ann Brown to a regular term ending September 1, 2017
16 Page 2
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
None.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letters requesting reappointment
Prepared by:
Susan Neer City Clerk
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
ITEM 2.02
HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
ANNUAL UPDATE
(A verbal report will be given at the meeting)
24 ITEM 4.01 DRAFT MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL JULY 13, 2015 ______
SPECIAL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER – The special meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor John Marchand at 6:04 pm, in the Multi-Service Center, 3311 Pacific Avenue, Livermore, California.
ROLL CALL – Present: Mayor John Marchand, Vice Mayor Laureen Turner, and Council Member Stewart Gary. Council Member Steven Spedowfski was absent/excused. Council Member Woerner was absent.
City Attorney Jason Alcala reported that CM Spedowfski had already met the ethics training requirements in 2015.
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
1. City Council Training Session – AB 1234 Ethics in Public Service (Part I)
City Attorney Jason Alcala presented the training session.
ADJOURNMENT – 6:51 pm to the July 13, 2015, regular City Council meeting, 7:00 pm, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore, California. ______
REGULAR MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor John Marchand at 7:05 pm, in the City Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore, California.
1.01 ROLL CALL – Present: Mayor John Marchand, Vice Mayor Laureen Turner, and Council Members Stewart Gary, Steven Spedowfski, and Bob Woerner.
1.02 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS – None.
3. CITIZENS FORUM
JULY 13, 2015 Minutes CM/72/15
25 Dave Williams, Livermore, questioned the total cost incurred by the City for the regional theater.
Michael Ferrucci, Livermore, expressed appreciation for the assistance and consideration received pertaining to the fence on his property.
Richard Ryon, Livermore, spoke regarding the upcoming request for proposals process for the downtown.
Michael Tree, Executive Director, Livermore Amador Valley Transportation Authority (Wheels), spoke regarding the evaluation of current services and planning for future public transportation improvements. He encouraged public input via the website at www.wheelsforward.com.
Pat Ferguson, Livermore, spoke regarding special interest groups and the cost of the regional theater and little theater.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, City Manager Marc Roberts said at the July 27, 2015, City Council meeting, there would be a staff report on a policy for the Host Community Impact Fees that would identify the funding for the theater. In response to questions pertaining to the loans, Mr. Roberts said the loan from Alameda County had been repaid; the loan from the City was scheduled to be repaid in January 2016 from the proceeds of the lawsuit with the balance due later that year.
Peter Quinn, Livermore, representing the South Livermore Owners Association, spoke regarding a billing issue with Livermore Sanitation.
Doris Ryon, Livermore, spoke regarding the upcoming request for proposals process for the downtown and the need for ADA parking at the Bankhead Theater.
Diana Carey, Livermore, read a letter from Linda Ryan in support of visual arts in the Cultural Arts District.
Don Meeker, Livermore, spoke regarding retired City of Livermore employee Leslie Wright who passed away in 1949.
Mary Jane Ward, said she did not support a hotel in the downtown and there should be community input.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Community and Economic Development Director Stephan Kiefer said the request for proposals was mostly a request for qualifications from candidates that were interested in proposing a plan for the downtown. He said the proposals would be reviewed by the Council and there would be several community workshops to obtain input on the proposed development of the downtown.
Mayor Marchand said the Council could reject any or all of the proposals.
CM/72/16 Minutes JULY 13, 2015
26
Helen Nelson, Livermore, Save the Hill, spoke against the proposed development project at Garaventa Hills.
Karen Crossley, Livermore, Save the Hill, spoke against the proposed development project at Garaventa Hills.
Cindy Angers, Livermore, Save the Hill, spoke against the proposed development project at Garaventa Hills.
John Stein, Livermore, spoke regarding BART to Livermore.
Mayor Marchand said there would be several community workshops regarding BART to the Isabel station.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Community and Economic Development Director Stephan Kiefer said there were several plans and options being developed that would be vetted through a series of community workshops.
Robert S. Allen, Livermore, spoke regarding parking at the Livermore BART station.
Marilyn Barbao, Livermore, said the downtown did not need a luxury hotel, but did need another parking structure.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Kiefer said the request for proposal included a parking structure.
Dennis Kai, Livermore, Save the Hill, read a letter from his daughter opposing the proposed development project at Garaventa Hills.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
ON THE MOTION OF CM GARY, SECONDED BY VM TURNER, AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
4.01 Approval of minutes - June 22, 2015, regular City Council meeting.
4.02 Adoption of Ordinance 2026 adding Chapter 15.36, Small Residential Rooftop Solar System Expedited Permitting, to the Municipal Code relating to expedited permitting procedures for small residential rooftop solar systems.
4.03 Adoption of Ordinance 2027 establishing the zoning standards for Planned Development - Commercial 14-002 (Development Code Amendment 14-003).
4.04 Resolution 2015-090 establishing the annual affordable for-sale prices, rental rates, and maximum income limits for 2015.
JULY 13, 2015 Minutes CM/72/17
27
4.05 Resolution 2015-091 authorizing execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, approving Tract 7724 Final Map for recording, and accepting Tract Map 7724, Artero; rejecting public utility easements and emergency vehicle access easement, reserving the right to accept the offer at a future date.
4.06 Resolution 2015-092 accepting for permanent maintenance and releasing of security for the Water Reclamation Plant Aeration Basin No. 1 Improvements, Project No. 2011-11.
4.07 Resolution 2015-093 accepting all real property offered by the State of California Department of Transportation with conveyance of State Parcel DD- 033925-01-01, as Record Document Number 2015102339 for roadway purposes as part of the Kitty Hawk Road right of way (Isabel/I-580 Interchange Project No. 1992-38); and Resolution 2015-094 authorizing execution of the first amendment to the Property Exchange Agreement with San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART).
4.08 Resolution 2015-095 authorizing expenditure of general funds for Tri- Valley Community Television operating expenses for Fiscal Year 2015-2016, in the amount of $149,443.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.01 Hearing to consider a request for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Office Commercial and Open Space to Urban Medium Residential; Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning district from Commercial Office and Education and Institution to Low Density Residential; a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the property for the development of 42 detached single-family residences and a 19,600+/- square foot office building; and a Development Agreement for proposed off-site improvements. The proposed development would replace the existing office buildings and adjacent open space on the site. Approximately 1.99 acres will retain the Office Commercial General Plan designation and Commercial Office zoning classification. An Addendum to the Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Sunset Crossing/Catalina Crossing project will be considered.
• Location: 1202 to 1440 Concannon Boulevard and 1510 to 1916 Holmes Street (northeast corner of Holmes Street and Concannon Boulevard) • Applicant: Sunset Development Company • On-site and off-site public improvements: Street improvements include new public streets, sidewalks, and utilities on site; modifications to the median on Holmes Street; addition of bike lanes on Holmes Street; traffic signal improvements at the intersection of Holmes Street and Catalina Drive and the intersection of Concannon Boulevard and Evans Street; new sound walls, landscaping, and public utility connections in the Holmes Street and Concannon Boulevard rights-of-way.
CM/72/18 Minutes JULY 13, 2015
28 • Site Area: 13.46± acres • Zoning: Commercial Office and Education and Institution • General Plan: Office Commercial and Open Space • Historic Status: None • CEQA: An Addendum to the previously-certified Sunset Crossing/Catalina Crossing Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2013102031) has been prepared under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act • Application Numbers: General Plan Amendment 13-005, Zoning Map Amendment 13-002, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8144 (SUB13-005), Site Plan Design Review 13-014, and Development Agreement 14-001
Recommendation: The Planning Commission and staff recommended the City Council:
a) Adopt a resolution adopting the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Sunset Crossing Project and certifying the environmental document; b) Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment 13-005, as proposed; c) Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8144 (Subdivision 13-005) and Site Plan Design Review 13-014, subject to conditions; and d) Introduce an ordinance approving Zoning Map Amendment 13-002 and Development Agreement 14-001 for Sunset Crossing Project
Senior Planner Scott Lee presented the staff report.
Chris Truebridge, Project Manager, Sunset Development, presented the overview of the project. Alex Mehran, Chairman of Sunset Development Company, presented a recap of the two and a half year process of the project.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Lee said the Orchid Ranch project did not pay the affordable housing fee because of units on site and the Transferable Development Credits In-Lieu fee was comparable or the same on a per unit basis.
Mayor Marchand opened the public hearing. Due to the high number of speaker cards submitted, Mayor Marchand requested comments be limited to two minutes per speaker.
Christine Turi, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Amy Montgomery, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Mayor Marchand said that many of the projects being developed today were entitled over ten years ago before the drought so they were being allowed to build. He provided an overview of the current water situation and stressed the importance of watering trees.
JULY 13, 2015 Minutes CM/72/19
29
Randy Kamm, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Peter Quinn, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Eric DiStefano, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Leah Dreger, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Dale Kaye, Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of Sunset Development and the project. She read a letter from Sblend Sblendorio, Chair, Innovation Tri-Valley Housing, Infrastructure and Transportation Committee, in support of Sunset Development and the proposed project.
Scott Roylance, Livermore, spoke in support of the proposed project.
Jeanie Haigh, Livermore, spoke in support of the proposed project.
Daniel Slavec, Livermore, spoke in support of the proposed project.
Mark Triska, Livermore, spoke in support of the proposed project.
John Stein, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Aaron Latkin, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Debbie Carey, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Doug Mann, Citizens for Balanced Growth, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Jan Brovont, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
David Williams, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Richard Ryon, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Mayor Marchand declared a short recess.
All Council Members were in attendance when the meeting reconvened.
Pat Ferguson, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Pamela Latham, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Teresa Miller, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Francis Valente, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
CM/72/20 Minutes JULY 13, 2015
30 Jack Luedemann, Livermore, spoke in support of the proposed project.
Joan Mumma, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Phil Biggs, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Catherine Myers, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Susan Brown, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Rosemary Bartsch, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Judith Sheehan, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Dave Butterfield, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Craig Bueno, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
There were no more speakers and the hearing was closed.
Mayor Marchand said he made his decisions based on good planning and what was best for the community and not by threats made about not getting votes at the next election.
In response to questions by CM Gary, Senior Planner Scott Lee said the office/commercial zoning did allow for some commercial uses other than office as conditional uses. He said the types of commercial uses would be very limited. He added that a restaurant could be permitted as a conditional use.
In response to questions by CM Spedowfski, City Engineer Cheri Sheets said installing a signal at Concannon and Evans would allow for coordination of the signals to improve traffic flow in addition to improved pedestrian safety.
In response to questions by VM Turner, the applicant said no proposals to purchase the property had been received.
Mayor Marchand said the first discussion he had with Sunset Development was about two years ago. At that time, he told the proponent that they needed to get community buy-in. He appreciated the tremendous effort made by Sunset in working with the community and trying to craft something that would work and the assistance provided to the tenants. He said he represented the residents of Livermore and the message was loud and clear that this project was not wanted by the community. Therefore, he would not support the General Plan Amendment.
VM Turner said this was not open space. She agreed that the office plaza fully operational and built out would have more traffic than the project had listed. She said there was enough housing coming and that schools would not be impacted. She did not believe in changing the rules in the middle of a game and could not
JULY 13, 2015 Minutes CM/72/21
31 support the General Plan Amendment. VM Turner applauded the developer for working and listening to the community.
CM Gary said this parcel had gone through at least one General Plan comprehensive community review since it was built and it was always seen as neighborhood/commercial. While he liked Sunset’s plan, it did not have community acceptance and support.
CM Spedowfski said he agreed with the prior comments. He said he believed a project was still there that would meet all of the needs of the community.
CM Woerner said this was a hard decision. He said he did not believe in changing the general plan and was pleased with the high number of speakers that came out to the meeting. He said he would not support the rezoning.
ON THE MOTION OF VM TURNER, SECONDED BY CM WOERNER AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL DENIED THE REQUEST FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE 8144 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP.
Mayor Marchand declared a five minute recess.
All Council Members were in attendance when the meeting reconvened.
The Council voted unanimously to continue the meeting after 11:00 pm to address the remaining items on the agenda.
5.02 Hearing to receive protests related to the non-payment of solid waste, recycling, and organics handling services provided by Livermore Sanitation for collection on the County assessor tax roll.
Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council receive protests and consider adopting a resolution overruling objections and protests to delinquent service fees and confirming the 2015 lien assessments; and direct staff to forward a finalized copy of the assessment report to the County Tax Assessor.
The City Council waived the presentation of the staff report.
Mayor Marchand opened the public hearing.
There were no speakers and the hearing was closed.
ON THE MOTION OF VM TURNER, SECONDED BY CM SPEDOWFSKI AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:
Resolution 2015-096 considering and overruling objections and protests to delinquent service fees and confirming assessments – Livermore Sanitation accounts.
CM/72/22 Minutes JULY 13, 2015
32
6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
6.01 Discussion and direction regarding City Council appointments to Intergovernmental Agencies. None.
6.02 Discussion and direction regarding City Council appointment of one voting delegate and up to two alternates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference, September 30 - October 2, 2015.
Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council appoint one voting delegate and up to two alternates for the annual conference.
City Clerk Susan Neer presented the staff report.
THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED MAYOR MARCHAND TO SERVE AS THE VOTING DELEGATE AND VICE MAYOR TURNER AS VOTING ALTERNATE FOR THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE.
6.03 Discussion and direction regarding pending State or Federal legislation. None.
7. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MATTERS INITIATED BY CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, STAFF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
7.01 Council Committee Reports and Matters Initiated by City Manager, City Attorney, Staff, and Council Members.
Light Bulb Celebration CM Spedowfski said on June 27, 2015, he attended the celebration of a million hours of service of the Livermore Light Bulb held at Fire Station 6.
Sunflower Hill Gardens Ribbon Cutting CM Spedowfski said on July 1, 2015, he attended the ceremony held at Hagemann Farms.
Livermore Amador Valley Transportation Authority (LAVTA) CM Spedowfski said on July 6, 2015, he attended the board of directors meeting. There was discussion on the implementation of the Clipper card and Wheels service.
Sunflower Hill Gardens Ribbon Cutting CM Gary said on July 1, 2015, he attended the ceremony held at Hagemann Farms.
4th of July Fireworks CM Gary said on July 4, 2015, he attended the Red, White, and Boom Block Party hosted by Livermore Downtown Inc.
Ferrucci Fence CM Gary said the fence on Michael Ferrucci’s property could be historically traced back to 1955. He requested staff prepare a packet of criteria to be used in specific cases for unique situations where age of non-conformity
JULY 13, 2015 Minutes CM/72/23
33 under the code could not be determined. CM Gary received consensus from the Council for this item.
4th of July Fireworks CM Woerner said on July 4, 2015, he attended the Red, White, and Boom Block Party hosted by Livermore Downtown Inc.
Livermore Amador Valley Transportation Authority (LAVTA) VM Turner said on June 23, 2015, she attended the Finance Committee meeting.
League of California Cities VM Turner said June 24-26, 2015, she attended the 2015 Mayors and Council Members Executive Forum and Advanced Leadership Workshops.
4th of July Fireworks VM Turner said on July 4, 2015, she attended the Red, White, and Boom Block Party hosted by Livermore Downtown Inc.
Livermore Amador Valley Transportation Authority (LAVTA) VM Turner said on July 6, 2015, she attended the board meeting. She said the community needed to respond to Wheels Forward.
Water Resolution Mayor Marchand requested and received consensus from the Council for the submittal of a resolution requesting the State of California reimburse cities for revenues lost due to state mandated water reductions and in support of new storage and sustainable statewide water strategies.
Flood Control CM Woerner expressed concern for potential flooding pertaining to the El Nino predictions for winter 2015-2016. He requested an update from staff.
Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) Mayor Marchand said on June 25, 2015, he attended the meeting.
Economic Development Alliance (EDA) Mayor Marchand said on July 7, 2015, he attended the East Bay EDA Land Use and Infrastructure Committee meeting in Oakland.
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Mayor Marchand said on July 9, 2015, he attended the meeting. There was a protest hearing for the annexation of the canyon lands to Castro Valley Sanitation.
Archer Futch Mayor Marchand said on July 11, 2015, he attended the services for former Livermore Mayor Archer Futch.
Dick Davies Mayor Marchand said on July 11, 2015, he attended the memorial service for retired Livermore Police Officer Dick Davies.
Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) Mayor Marchand said on July 13, 2015, he attended the meeting. There was an update on the I-580
CM/72/24 Minutes JULY 13, 2015
34 Express Lane and he stated the express lanes were due to open in fall of 2015. He also attended the Policy, Planning and Legislative Committee meeting.
8. ADJOURNMENT – at 11:16 pm, in honor and memory of retired Police Officer Richard “Dick” Davies, to a special City Council meeting on Monday, July 27, 2015, at 6:00 pm, at the Multi-Service Center, 3311 Pacific Avenue; followed by a regular City Council meeting on Monday, July 27, 2015, at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore.
APPROVED: JOHN P. MARCHAND, MAYOR
ATTEST: SUSAN NEER, CITY CLERK
JULY 13, 2015 Minutes CM/72/25
35 DRAFT MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL JULY 27, 2015 ______
SPECIAL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER – The special meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor John Marchand at 6:00 pm, in the Multi-Service Center, 3311 Pacific Avenue, Livermore, California.
ROLL CALL – Present: Mayor John Marchand and Council Members Stewart Gary and Bob Woerner. Vice Mayor Turner and Council Member Spedowfski were absent/excused.
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING CLOSED SESSION ITEMS.
Ken Bradley, Livermore, spoke regarding the differences between ethics and law and said he hoped the training session would focus more on ethics rather than the requirements of the law.
1. City Council Training Session – AB 1234 Ethics in Public Service (Part II)
City Attorney Jason Alcala presented the training session.
ADJOURNMENT – 6:55 pm to the July 27, 2015, regular City Council meeting, 7:00 pm, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore, California. ______
REGULAR MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor John Marchand at 7:04 pm, in the City Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore, California.
1.01 ROLL CALL – Present: Mayor John Marchand and Council Members Stewart Gary, Steven Spedowfski, and Bob Woerner. Vice Mayor Turner was absent/excused.
1.02 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
2.01 Presentation of commemorative plaques by the Historic Preservation
CM/72/26 Minutes JULY 27, 2015
36 Commission.
Mayor Marchand presented the commemorative plaques.
3. CITIZENS FORUM
Anne Giancola, Livermore, spoke regarding the importance of supporting visual artists in the community.
Dan Songey, Livermore, spoke regarding the white traffic stakes downtown near the old theater and suggested implementing an alternative such as potted plants.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Community and Economic Development Director Stephan Kiefer said the streetscape near the old theater would ultimately extend further west, although funding was not presently identified. He said by creating a bulb-out, the white stakes helped enhance traffic and pedestrian safety at the corners.
Don Meeker, Livermore, spoke regarding the history of bicycling in Livermore.
John Stein, Livermore, spoke in support of recent City Council actions on the Sunset Plaza item, the increase in his garbage bill, and bringing BART to Livermore including alternatives to high density housing and involving the community in the process.
Jed Bennett, Livermore, expressed concerns regarding excessive traffic speeds on Garaventa Ranch Road.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Item 4.09 Sherry Nigg, Livermore Downtown Inc. (LDI), spoke regarding the past successes of LDI and expressed appreciation for the City’s support and partnership to enhance the vitality of the Downtown.
ON THE MOTION OF CM GARY, SECONDED BY CM WOERNER, AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
4.01 Resolution 2015-097 affirming actions from the July 13, 2015, City Council meeting denying the General Plan Amendment 13-005 and denying the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8144 (Subdivision 13-005, Sunset Crossing).
4.02 Resolution 2015-098 appropriating $40,000 of Gas Tax Prop 111 funds to the 2015-2106 ADA Access Ramps Project in Fiscal Year 2015-2016; and authorizing execution of an agreement with Breneman, Inc., in the amount of $139,346, for construction of the 2015-2016 ADA Access Ramps, Project No. 2014-07.
JULY 27, 2015 Minutes CM/72/27
37 4.03 Resolution 2015-099 appropriating $68,000 of Measure B Bike/Pedestrian funds in Fiscal Year 2014-2015 to Fiscal Year 2015-2016, for the Annual Crosswalk Safety Improvements Project; and authorizing execution of an agreement with Tim Paxin’s Pacific Excavation, Inc., in the amount of $66,300, for the Annual Crosswalk Safety Improvements, Project No. 2014-06.
4.04 Resolution 2015-100 appropriating $7,000 of Airport funds to the 2015 Slurry Seal Project in Fiscal Year 2015-2016; and authorizing execution of an agreement with American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Co, Inc., in the amount of $973,972, for construction of the 2015 Slurry Seal, Project No. 2015- 04.
4.05 Resolution 2015-101 authorizing execution of a two-year agreement with JR Structural Engineering, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $250,000, for on-call project management services for capital improvement projects.
4.06 Resolution 2015-102 authorizing execution of a two-year agreement with Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, in an amount not to exceed $600,000, for on-call engineering services.
4.07 Resolution 2015-103 authorizing execution of a right-of-way agreement with Zayo Group LLC, for the installation and maintenance of broadband data communication infrastructure within the City's public right-of-way.
4.08 Resolution 2015-104 authorizing execution of an agreement with Carollo Engineers, in the amount not to exceed $207,326, in connection with the Water Reclamation Plant Rehabilitation and Process Improvements – Phase 1, Project No. 2012-13.
4.09 Resolution 2015-105 authorizing execution of an agreement with Livermore Downtown Inc., in the amount of $100,000, for downtown economic development services and related operating expenses for Fiscal Year 2015- 2016.
4.10 Resolution 2015-106 authorizing the destruction of certain City records no longer needed or required for City business.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.01 Hearing to receive protests related to the annual fire hazard abatement program and confirm the 2015 fire hazard abatement assessments on the County tax roll.
Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council consider adoption of a resolution overruling protests and confirming the placement of the assessments on the County tax roll.
Fire Marshal Ryan Rucker presented the staff report.
CM/72/28 Minutes JULY 27, 2015
38 Mayor Marchand opened the public hearing.
There were no speakers and the hearing was closed.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Fire Marshal Rucker confirmed that the total number of parcels requiring abatement had dropped from twelve in the previous year to only five this year.
ON THE MOTION OF CM GARY, SECONDED BY CM WOERNER AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:
Resolution 2015-107 overruling protest and confirming assessments – fire hazard abatement.
5.02 Hearing to consider approval of a vesting tentative tract map to subdivide an approximately 4.9-acre site for development of 49 two-story, single-family residential units, and adoption of a Planned Development- Residential zoning district to establish standards necessary to enable the development. The project proposal includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Mixed Use Medium Density, which requires both a commercial and residential component, to the residential-only Urban High 2 designation with a density range of 8 to 14 dwelling units per acre. The project will include demolition of one existing on-site residence (previously determined as not historically significant by Certificate of Appropriateness 07-017). The project includes a Development Agreement incorporating various off-site improvements. To facilitate the project, the City would vacate portions (on an as needed basis) of East Avenue and South Vasco Road right-of-way no longer needed for roadway purposes.
• Location: The southwest corner of East Avenue and South Vasco Road • Applicant: Ponderosa Homes II, Inc. • On-site and off-site public improvements: Utilities including but not limited to sewer, water, storm drainage, landscaping, lighting, streets, sidewalk, curb, and gutter; modifying public street medians in East Avenue and South Vasco Road; completing widening improvements on East Avenue west of the project site to Research Drive, including related transit improvements; extending approximately 80 feet of public sidewalk southward from the project along South Vasco Road to the northwest corner of Graham Court; street frontage landscaping on East Avenue and South Vasco Road; and work to complete an approximately 1,300-foot trail segment on the east side of South Vasco Road from East Avenue southward to the existing trail terminus. • Site Area: 4.9± acres • Zoning: Planned Development (PD) • General Plan: Transferable Development Credit (TDC) Receiver Site (R) – Neighborhood Mixed-Use Medium (NMM) Density (Commercial: JULY 27, 2015 Minutes CM/72/29
39 maximum floor area ratio 0.30; Residential: [without TDC] 3.0-4.5 dwellings/acre or [with TDC] 15 24 dwellings/acre) • Historic Status: None. One on-site home was previously determined as not historically significant by Certificate of Appropriateness 07-017 • CEQA: A Mitigated Negative Declaration under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be considered. • Application Numbers: General Plan Amendment (GPA) 14-002; Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8195 (SUB14-011); Planned Development – Residential (PD-R) 14-005; Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 14-022; and Development Agreement (DA) 15-001 Recommendation: The Planning Commission and staff recommended the City Council:
a) Adopt a resolution adopting and certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration;
b) Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment 14-002, as proposed;
c) Introduce an ordinance establishing development standards for Planned Development-Residential District 14-005 and amending the Zoning District Map, and approving a development agreement between the City, Righetti Partners, Limited Partnership, and Ponderosa Homes II, Incorporated; and
d) Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8195 (Subdivision 14-011) and Site Plan Design Review 14-022, and the summary vacation of portions of the public right-of-way on East Avenue and South Vasco Road adjacent to the project.
Associate Planner Frank Guido presented the staff report.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Guido confirmed that the project’s plum trees would be fruitless and clarified the cornice materials were typically wood. He said staff would work with the applicant and the landscape architect to see if it were possible to transplant the historic rose bush that was on site.
In response to questions by CM Spedowfski, Mr. Guido identified the placement and number of guest parking spaces in the project. He said the no-parking areas were marked with signage, not red curbs, and said the private access ways would be maintained by a home owners’ association. He confirmed there would be striping and signal changes at the East Avenue turn onto Vasco Road.
Jeff Schroeder, Applicant, Ponderosa Homes, presented an overview of the project. He said traffic had been analyzed to address the neighborhood concerns, and said further analysis had determined that retail was not viable on the site.
Mayor Marchand opened the public hearing. CM/72/30 Minutes JULY 27, 2015
40
John Stein, Livermore, said he was generally supportive of the project. He spoke regarding sound and odor impacts of nearby industrial uses and said the historical rose bush should be preserved.
Kaira, Livermore, presented a petition signed by neighbors in the nearby Birchwood Commons neighborhood expressing concerns regarding population growth and traffic impacts from the Ponderosa project and others, particularly during commute hours. She asked for a temporary moratorium on housing development.
Marie Andreini, Livermore, said she could not imagine forty-nine homes on the project location. She expressed concerns regarding parking and traffic, and compared the project density to buildings in Dublin.
Dan Songey, Livermore, expressed concerns regarding the density of the Ponderosa project and other developments coming into the area.
There were no more speakers and the hearing was closed.
In response to questions by CM Gary, City Engineer Cheri Sheets stated the General Plan provided for future buildout of the community including the North Vasco major arterial. She said both the Traffic Improvement Plan and the General Plan identified improvements along the corridor to accommodate full buildout; she said the project included enhancements of the I-580 interchange and widening along the route.
In response to questions by CM Gary, Community and Economic Development Director Stephan Kiefer said the last General Plan update was in 2003; the property was designated as mixed-use/residential and allowed higher density than what was proposed. He said the applicant had asked for lower density and removal of the commercial portions. City Manager Marc Roberts said the prior plan of 1976 had designated high-intensity commercial development on that corner. He said the intensity of the use on the site had been dropped and would be very similar to development in the area.
In response to questions by CM Gary, Mr. Roberts said the General Plan in 2003 estimated a buildout of nearly 110,000 people; Livermore was presently around 87,000.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Roberts said the density of the Birchwood Commons neighborhood was about ten units to the acre; the Ponderosa project was slightly less dense.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Kiefer said the general density of the four- and five-story units in Dublin was typically over 100 units to the acre; in comparison, the Ponderosa project was ten units to the acre.
In response to questions by CM Spedowfski, Mr. Kiefer spoke regarding retail
JULY 27, 2015 Minutes CM/72/31
41 and grocery space in the vicinity of the project, saying he expected at some point a grocery store would move into the old PW Market site. Mr. Roberts said the grocery format was a difficult market and more small grocery stores might move in as provided by zoning.
In response to questions by CM Woerner, Mr. Kiefer said different cities used different zoning designation terminology; the project was essentially a small lot, single-family detached neighborhood and was similar to the neighborhood across the street.
In response to questions by CM Woerner, Mr. Guido said the Planning Commission had reviewed the sound walls and determined that six-foot sound walls would meet the General Plan standards due to the intermittency of the noise; further, the applicant had requested that the back walls not be too tall.
In response to questions by CM Woerner, Ms. Sheets said traffic modeling had been performed during the General Plan update; based upon that modeling, staff could identify traffic patterns and establish levels of service. She said necessary upgrades were identified and programmed through the Capital Improvement Program in two-year, five-year, and twenty-year projections; additionally, the Traffic Impact Program was updated roughly every five years, which included review of the improvements. She said traffic studies considered the impact of regional traffic and implemented gateway policies to limit the bypass traffic capacity.
Mr. Roberts said traffic was impacted by how well the regional system worked; the answer was not building more local capacity, but to build appropriate systems both on and off the freeway.
Mayor Marchand expressed concerns regarding noise impacts in lots No.1 and No. 13, saying noise mitigation would be easier to do before the homes were built.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Guido said the homes would use STC-31 in the windows to address traffic and industrial noise; he said the scale was logarithmic and a small increase might be sufficient. Mr. Kiefer said staff would work with the applicant to improve the windows on those lots.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Guido said the lot frontage by the alley was smaller than typical lots; people placing their garbage bins would have less distance to travel.
Mayor Marchand requested that the rose bush relocation be incorporated into the plan.
CM Gary expressed support of the staff recommendation, saying the City was approaching a unique growth cycle where the General Plan, developed in 2003 with community collaboration and input, had traded infill development for not developing the north valley and creating sprawl.
CM/72/32 Minutes JULY 27, 2015
42
Mayor Marchand said the Urban Growth Boundary had been established in 2002; the 110,000 population figure was based upon the assumption that BART would come to Livermore. He said if BART did not come to Livermore, the number would be closer to 95,000.
ON THE MOTION OF CM GARY, SECONDED BY CM SPEDOWFSKI AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS AND INTRODUCED THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE:
Resolution 2015-108 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and certifying the environmental document. General Plan Amendment (GPA) 14-002; Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8195 (SUB14-011); Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 14-022; and Development Agreement (DA) 15-001.
Resolution 2015-109 approving General Plan Amendment 14-002.
Ordinance introduced establishing development standards for Planned Development – Residential (PD-R) District 14-005 and amending the Zoning District Map of the City of Livermore and approving a development agreement between the City and property owners, Righetti Partners, Limited Partnership, and Ponderosa Homes II, Incorporated. (Planned Development – Residential (PD-R) 14-005 and Development Agreement 14-002).
Resolution 2015-110 approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8195 (SUB14-011); Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 14-022; and the summary vacation of portions of the public right-of-way on East Avenue and South Vasco Road adjacent to the project.
6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
6.01 Discussion and direction regarding City Council appointments to Intergovernmental Agencies. None.
6.02 Resolution adopting the Host Community Impact Fees Reserve policy.
Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council adopt the resolution.
Administrative Services Director Douglas Alessio presented the staff report.
In response to questions by CM Gary, City Manager Marc Roberts said base case assumed that San Francisco would eventually leave the landfill. He said some of the scenarios included keeping San Francisco indefinitely, but staff did not believe that was likely.
In response to questions by CM Woerner, Mr. Roberts said the time to be most careful was the present when the outstanding balance was large; as the balance dropped, the variability of the interest rates on that portion became more
JULY 27, 2015 Minutes CM/72/33
43 manageable, while the maintenance portion would become less manageable with time. He confirmed there should be no expectation that there would be any excess money.
Mayor Marchand invited public comment.
John Stein, Livermore, spoke in support of conservatively protecting the general fund, and spoke regarding the City’s unfunded liabilities such as health care, pensions, and deferred maintenance. He asked what the interest earnings on the fund would be, stating that any interest earned should go back into the fund.
Scott Kenison, Executive Director, Livermore Valley Performing Arts Center, spoke regarding a visitor’s center at the Bankhead Theater and asked if the City Council could locate funds to assist.
Jean King, Chair, Livermore Valley Performing Arts Center (LVPAC), spoke regarding benefits of a visitor’s center and a newly configured theater lobby. She suggested doing the catch-up over twelve, eighteen, or forty-two years to make more funds available for Bankhead improvements, and requested $40,000 from HCIF or other sources to make the configuration changes to the lobby for a visitor’s center.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Alessio said the multi-party settlement agreement required that any HCIF agreement have the treasury earn interest at the Local Agency Investment Fund rate which was a fraction of a percent.
Mayor Marchand noted that other cities providing funding for theaters and the arts had control over their parks; however, in Livermore, there was a separate park district managing the recreation.
CM Gary spoke in support of the policy, saying protecting the general fund was conservative and responsible.
ON THE MOTION OF CM GARY, SECONDED BY CM WOERNER AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:
Resolution 2015-111 approving a Host Community Impact Fee (HCIF) Reserve Policy.
Mayor Marchand declared a five minute recess.
All Council Members were in attendance when the meeting reconvened.
6.03 Discussion and direction regarding the Requests for Proposals for the marketing, sale, and development of Downtown Specific Plan catalyst sites.
CM/72/34 Minutes JULY 27, 2015
44
Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council provide direction.
Principal Planner Steve Stewart presented the staff report.
David Orozco, Consultant, DTZ, spoke regarding the project.
There was discussion regarding the marketing, timeline, and content of the Request for Proposal (RFP). CM Gary requested the RFP include information regarding facilitation of including ancillary parcels in the plan if they so desired, and said to emphasize that there was flexibility within the broad framework to consider other options.
In response to questions by CM Spedowfski, Mr. Stewart said the RFP timeline was an estimate provided by the brokers and was based on standard market response times. Planning Manager Paul Spence stated that RFPs were generally issued without a specific end date and more time could be added if necessary.
In response to question by CM Spedowfski, Community and Economic Development Director Stephan Kiefer said several attachments and a video would accompany the RFP to highlight the Downtown and market the entire City and surrounding area, along with typical demographic information.
City Manager Marc Roberts spoke regarding the balance between catching people’s attention and providing enough data to help them effectively and efficiently determine if they would like to participate. He said the consultant had an international reach and Livermore’s reputation with the development community would be a benefit.
CM Woerner said the proposal contained many of the elements, but was not quite there. He suggested improving the enticement, painting the picture more broadly with additional focus on the hotel, including more information on the mixed use of retail and residential, and showcasing the hotel as a unique and exciting opportunity. He said the five-page summary needed to pop.
Mr. Kiefer said when RFPs were presented to developers the project was typically either forwarded to an estimator or to the firm’s principals. He said staff’s objective in creating the narrative and supporting documents was for the project to go to the principals.
Mayor Marchand said the proposal needed to be more exciting, such as referring to development of an iconic hotel in a remarkable community. He said the proposal was by no means finished; rather, there would be public workshops and the proposal was intended for developers to provide their best ideas.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Spence said there were close to four hundred parking spaces at the site if the unstriped old Lucky site was included. He confirmed that the parking structure would replace the eliminated
JULY 27, 2015 Minutes CM/72/35
45 parking and add about one hundred spaces.
CM Gary said much of the content was already present in the RFP but the flow needed to be adjusted. He said the videos were very good, but were too long.
Mayor Marchand invited public comment.
Pushpa Krishnan, President, Cantabella Children’s Chorus, said the proposed multipurpose Council Chambers facility should be located downtown rather than near City Hall and said the venue would be good for a choral festival.
Scott Kenison, Executive Director, Livermore Valley Performing Arts Center, said the report needed to consider future needs and spoke regarding the impacts of Livermore’s tourism businesses and including information from neighboring cities, the outlets, the laboratories, and local arts organizations.
Jean King, Livermore, spoke in support of an upscale full-service destination hotel conference center as large as the San Ramon Marriott with conference rooms and over three hundred hotel rooms, and said tourism needed to be more completely evaluated in the RFP.
Jim McGrail, McGrail Wineries, Livermore, said building condos or townhomes would be a waste and the property should be used to enhance the Downtown. He said the study needed to address tourism and a large hotel with a conference center rather than residential.
Bill Zagotta, Livermore, said the project could be the City’s jewel in the crown and said the RFP needed to be revised to attract the best for the Downtown.
Sherry Nigg, Livermore Downtown Inc., spoke in support of allowing developers to submit projects based upon feasibility and economic viability.
Heather McGrail-Lorier, President, McGrail Vineyards and Winery, said the RFP needed to address tourism and said she agreed with Mr. Kenison’s comments.
Paul Thompson, Livermore, spoke regarding his concerns for the site including the need for a hotel/convention center, adequate parking, space for cultural events, retail and commerce, and said there was no place for residential in the Downtown area.
Mary Anne Rozsa, Livermore, spoke in support of a hotel and said as a realtor, her customers wanted a hotel/conference center in the Downtown.
Barbara Steinfeld, President, Visit Tri-Valley, provided information regarding hotel occupancy rates in the Tri-Valley and spoke in support of emphasizing tourism in the RFP and building a hotel and conference room.
Paul Brown, Livermore, read excerpts from an email from Dick Brown and said
CM/72/36 Minutes JULY 27, 2015
46 the RFP needed to emphasize retail. He expressed concerns regarding the size of the hotel and conference center and said the City was moving too fast on the process.
Todd Dibs, Visit Tri-Valley, spoke in support of a destination hotel with meeting space for 1,000 people. He spoke regarding his efforts to bring in regional events and said bigger hotels were needed in Livermore.
John Fletcher, Livermore, expressed concerns regarding the RFP process and said the City needed to slow down, raise their standards, and if necessary get new consultants. He said the priorities should be putting the hotel/conference center first, parking, commercial, and then residential.
John Shirley, Livermore, spoke in support of a first-class hotel with conference space and parking; he said there was not much room for residential in the Downtown.
Don Meeker, Livermore, suggested supporting local artists by incorporating local art on the interior walls of the proposed facility.
Maryann Brent, Livermore, spoke in support of a large hotel and conference center. She said Livermore could be an outstanding tourism destination and spoke regarding the economic impacts of overnight stays at hotels.
Karen Long, Livermore Downtown Inc., spoke regarding prioritizing parking and attracting and retaining the hospitality workforce.
Crystal Burke, Livermore Downtown Inc., spoke regarding the development of the Downtown as a creator of jobs for the hospitality workforce. She spoke in support of a hotel and conference center.
Nick Liang, Livermore, spoke in support of a high-end, high-quality project to make Livermore a more complete and remarkable destination.
Carol Eicher, Livermore, spoke on behalf of former Livermore Mayor Milo Nordyke, saying future plans should include the new Council Chambers located Downtown and made available for other uses such as an art gallery or small theater for choral groups.
Jeff Kaskey, Livermore, spoke regarding marketing Livermore’s revitalized Downtown and wine industry in the RFP. He suggested driving Livermore’s prosperity through other means than by population growth and said tourism data needed to be included in the study.
David Best, Shea Homes, said as a residential developer, he supported a hotel downtown. He said the RFP did a good job of allowing the development community to be creative and would allow them to convey what would be feasible. He said marketing of Livermore would be very important.
JULY 27, 2015 Minutes CM/72/37
47 Linda Milanese, Shakespeare’s Associates, spoke in support of a good-sized hotel and a conference center with a multiuse space that could accommodate 120-150 seat theater productions. She expressed opposition to condos at the location and said diversity Downtown would be important.
Dale Kaye, Chief Executive Officer, Innovation Tri-Valley, read a letter on behalf of John Sensiba, Chairperson, Innovation Tri-Valley Board of Directors, saying all possibilities should be considered within the constraint of market demand, including high-quality hotel accommodations and potentially a multipurpose conference center.
Patricia Munro, Shakespeare’s Associates, expressed support for a conference center with seats for 150-250 that would continue developing the arts, businesses, and vineyards; and said she would not want to see more residential in the Downtown. She said such a facility could be built with retractable seats and be used as a banquet hall or Council Chambers.
Jean Shuler, Livermore, read a letter on behalf of William Goldstein, Director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, supporting exploration of a quality hotel and conference center that could accommodate 200-500 guests in the Downtown.
David Jonas, Livermore, expressed concerns that the City Council’s position was prematurely skewed toward building condos and a small hotel. He spoke in support of a conference center and said the only feasible location would be Downtown.
Chris Chandler, Livermore Valley Winegrowers Association, spoke in support of a full-service hotel with marketing and tourism adjustments in the RFP. She expressed support for residential development in the area in conjunction with the hotel without reducing the hotel’s footprint.
Denise Leddon, President, Livermore-Amador Symphony, expressed support for a new multifunctional Council Chambers located downtown with 150 seat capacity. She said such a venue would allow the Symphony to offer specialty projects.
William Dunlop, Livermore, spoke in support of a hotel and conference center and suggested including information in the RFP regarding alternatives to hotel demand being driven by population growth.
CM Woerner said defining an appropriate mix of retail and residential in the RFP was important to make the location a destination.
In response to questions by CM Spedowfski, Community and Economic Development Director Stephan Kiefer said the hotel study was one of the documents developed to develop a sense of the hotel market and would not be part of the RFP. City Manager Marc Roberts said the report was a conservative document identifying areas of growth and informing how the RFP was crafted.
CM/72/38 Minutes JULY 27, 2015
48
CM Gary said the proposal needed to be economically balanced and profitable for private development. He expressed opposition towards placing a Council Chambers and conference space Downtown, saying the site had a loan obligation of $14 million that had to be repaid to the housing trust fund. He said the Council understood the economics but had to pay municipal bills, maintain quality of life, and provide services. He expressed agreement with comments regarding tourism and future growth statistics and said to pump up the tourism, winery, and shopping center aspects while allowing the private sector to respond. He suggested that local arts groups might consider elementary schools with big parking lots as a better, cheaper option for small performances. He said the Council had not made up their minds; rather, the RFP was an opportunity for the private sector to show what they could do and if the proposals did not meet the quality of life and economic tests, they would say no.
Mayor Marchand said seven million people visited Livermore each year and the marketing of tourism, wineries, and the outlets needed to be enhanced in the RFP. He spoke regarding the residential portion in the Downtown and said the RFP was based upon the projected market demand. He said the RFP needed to go out and convey to developers the remarkable location and tremendous opportunity before them.
Mr. Roberts said staff would work to enhance the sizzle and visioning of the RFP; ensure developers knew both locations were available; provide the latest statistics available; proceed with the RFP now utilizing responses and rated responses to determine the appropriate cutoff time; and bring the best of the proposals back to the City Council to begin the public discussion process.
CM Woerner suggested rephrasing the focus away from residential and leading with the hotel first, followed by the retail, parking, and residential last.
CM Gary spoke regarding letting the developers know that the City Council was listening and willing to work with their needs such as a specific plan amendment or interest in an adjoining property.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Roberts confirmed that the item would come back for additional opportunities to provide input.
THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE RFP AND TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: ENHANCEMENTS TO THE MARKETING AND VISIONING, INCORPORATING CURRENT STATISTICS, EMPHASIZING THE HOTEL OVER THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS, AND EMPHASIZING THE SITE’S FLEXIBILITY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF DEVELOPERS.
The Council voted unanimously to continue the meeting after 11:00 pm to address the remaining items on the agenda.
6.04 Discussion and direction regarding execution of a Disposition,
JULY 27, 2015 Minutes CM/72/39
49 Development and Loan Agreement with MidPen Housing Corporation to initiate the development of the Chestnut Housing Site at 1635 Chestnut Street (217 North N and 1635-1763 Chestnut Street).
Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of a Disposition, Development and Loan Agreement (DDLA) with MidPen Housing Corporation to initiate the development of the Chestnut Housing Site at 1635 Chestnut Street (217 North N and 1635-1763 Chestnut Street); appropriation of $525,000 in City Housing Trust Funds to MidPen Housing Corporation to be provided for the Predevelopment Loan described in the DDLA; and authorizing execution of purchase and sale agreement between MidPen Housing Corporation and Warmington Homes for the market rate portion of the Chestnut Housing Site.
Senior Management Analyst Frances Reisner presented the staff report.
Jan Lindenthal, Vice President of Real Estate Development, MidPen Housing, presented an overview of the project.
In response to questions by CM Woerner, Ms. Lindenthal confirmed that the photographs in her presentation were actual depictions of MidPen’s facilities.
In response to questions by CM Gary, Ms. Reisner said the housing trust fund contain roughly $6 million in unappropriated cash. She said a portion of funding would come in at the sale of the market-rate site, paying for a significant portion of the first phase to be completed over the next few years. She said the City had other housing agreements for projects with the anticipation that additional funds would come in.
Mayor Marchand spoke in support of workforce housing saying it was a component of quality of life for the community. He said the average salary in the Bay Area did not cover the cost of rent and he welcomed this type of collaborative project to improve a blighted site.
Mayor Marchand invited public comment. There were no speakers.
ON THE MOTION BY CM WOERNER, SECONDED BY CM SPEDOWFSKI AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNICL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:
Resolution 2015-112 authorizing an appropriation of up to $525,000 in Affordable Housing Trust Funds (F611) to MidPen Housing for a predevelopment loan; authorizing the execution of a disposition, development, and loan agreement for the Chestnut Housing Site; and authorizing the City Manager to approve a purchase and sale agreement between MidPen Housing Corporation and Warmington Homes.
6.05 Discussion and direction regarding pending State or Federal legislation. None.
CM/72/40 Minutes JULY 27, 2015
50
7. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MATTERS INITIATED BY CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, STAFF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
7.01 Council Committee Reports and Matters Initiated by City Manager, City Attorney, Staff, and Council Members.
Wheels Comprehensive Analysis Workshop CM Spedowfski said on July 15, 2015, he attended the meeting where goals and objectives for the comprehensive analysis were discussed. He said there would be a public meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2015, at the Robert Livermore Community Center to receive comments on the transit system.
Tri-Valley Transportation Commission (TVTC) CM Spedowfski said on July 20, 2015, he attended the meeting.
CM Gary had no report.
Water Policy Roundtable CM Woerner said on July 22, 2015, he attended the meeting which focused on developing a more robust and diverse supply of water.
White Traffic Stakes Downtown In response to comments made during Citizens Forum regarding alternatives to the white traffic stakes downtown, the City Council directed staff to provide an informational memorandum regarding low-cost interim options.
Bankhead Theater Visitor Center Lobby CM Woerner suggested exploration of ways to help the visitor center at the Bankhead Theater progress, such as matching fees up to $20,000 from the City. The City Council directed staff to prepare an informational memorandum to provide information from the tenant showing the economic solvency of the proposal including an operations plan, financing, and stakeholder agreement from others in the Downtown.
Livermorium and Bankhead Theater Plazas The City Council requested briefings regarding the Livermorium Plaza and exploration of enhancements of the Bankhead Plaza, including how the two plazas could work in conjunction for various events.
Alameda County Mayors Conference Mayor Marchand said on July 15, 2015, he attended the conference where there was a presentation on drought strategies by the East Bay Regional Park District and a presentation by East Bay Economic Development Alliance regarding the high level of venture capital investments in Alameda County.
San Francisco Business Times Panel Mayor Marchand said on July 16, 2015, he attended the session where the major issues discussed were housing costs and transportation gridlock.
JULY 27, 2015 Minutes CM/72/41
51 Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) Mayor Marchand said on July 17, 2015, he attended the retreat and panel where there was discussion on increasing the influence of the ACTC in funding and legislation. He said Congressman Swalwell spoke regarding the importance of BART to Livermore along the freeway.
Water Policy Roundtable Mayor Marchand said he attended the meeting with CM Woerner on July 22, 2015, where there was discussion regarding portfolio diversification and using reclaimed water to supplement drinking water.
Retirement of LPFD Deputy Chief Joe Rodondi Mayor Marchand said on July 23, 2015, he attended the Walk-Off ceremony for retiring Livermore- Pleasanton Fire Department Deputy Chief Joseph Rodondi after thirty years in the fire service.
Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) Mayor Marchand said on July 23, 2015, he attended the board meeting where there was an update regarding legislation and projects.
8. ADJOURNMENT – at 11:22 pm, in honor and memory of Hayward Police Sergeant Scott Lunger. Mayor Marchand said the regular City Council meeting on August 10, 2015, was cancelled and the meeting was adjourned to a regular City Council meeting on Monday, September 14, 2015, at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore.
APPROVED: __ JOHN P. MARCHAND, MAYOR
ATTEST: __ SUSAN NEER, CITY CLERK
PREPARED BY: __ SARAH BUNTING, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
CM/72/42 Minutes JULY 27, 2015
52 ITEM 4.02
IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – RESIDENTIAL (PD-R) DISTRICT 14-005 AND AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AND APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROPERTY OWNERS, RIGHETTI PARTNERS, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND PONDEROSA HOMES II, INCORPORATED
(Planned Development – Residential (PD-R) 14-005 and Development Agreement 15-001)
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DOES FIND AND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The zoning standards for this district are those set forth in the Planned Development Standards of Planned Development-Residential 14-005, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2. The Zoning District Map of the City of Livermore is amended by rezoning certain property to PD-R 14-005. The property is located at the southwest corner of East Avenue and South Vasco Road, which is shown on Exhibit B.
Section 3. Pursuant to Government Code section 65863, et seq., the City Council adopts that certain document under City Application Number Development Agreement 15-001 and entitled “Development Agreement the Vines Project” (“Development Agreement”). The Development Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
Section 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized, with the City Attorney’s approval as to form, to sign the Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit C, on behalf of the City of Livermore. The City Clerk is directed to record the Development Agreement within ten days after execution by the City Manager.
Section 5. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 7, 2015 to consider the adoption of, and rezoning the subject site to, PD-R 14-005, and the adoption of the Development Agreement, and recommended that the City Council approve the rezoning and Development Agreement.
Section 6. The City Council considered the findings made by the Planning Commission for the approval of the rezoning and Development Agreement in Planning Commission Resolution Number 16-15 and, based upon the City Council’s own independent review and considerations, hereby adopts the same findings by reference.
Section 7. The City Council considered the environmental review and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration on July 27, 2015, Resolution No. 2015-108.
Section 8. The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore, California.
1 ORDINANCE NO. ______53 Section 9. If any part of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid by a court, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any of the remaining parts.
Section 10. This ordinance, or a comprehensive summary thereof, shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the city of Livermore within fifteen days after its adoption and shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its adoption.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Livermore held on July 27, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Gary, Spedowfski, Woerner, Mayor Marchand NOES: None ABSENT: Vice Mayor Turner ABSTAIN: None
The ordinance was adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council held on ______, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
______Mayor, City of Livermore
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Jason Alcala City Clerk City Attorney
2 ORDINANCE NO. ______54 EXHIBIT A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Planned Development Residential (PD-R) 14-005
Use and development standards for residential development on approximately 5 acres at the southwest corner of South Vasco Road and East Avenue
Recommended for approval by Planning Commission: July 7, 2015
Approved by City Council: **
PD-R-14-005 Contents by Section: A. Purpose and Intent B. Site Requirements C. Location Map
A. PURPOSE AND INTENT
1. The purpose of establishing this Planned Development – Residential (PD-R) District is to regulate the development of 5± acres of land for residential use. The PD-R is located between Vasco Road and Central Avenue.
2. The intent of the Planned Development – Residential District is to accomplish the following:
a. To provide an environment exclusive for and conducive to the development and protection of residential development.
b. To provide aesthetically attractive housing possessing high quality architectural and landscape design.
c. To provide for a residential infill development that respects and responds to the character of the surrounding built environment.
d. To implement the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative Transferable Development Credits Program.
B. SITE REQUIREMENTS
Development shall be for up to 49 single family residential lots, with one home per lot, in conformance with the requirements of the Development Code as it exists now or may be amended in the future except as modified by the following regulations.
1. Building height: Maximum 2 stories and 30 feet to the highest point.
PD 14-005, page 1 55 2. Street frontage Yards, measured from the nearest private street edge of sidewalk or face of curb (minimums):
a. Lots 40 or more feet wide measured in-line with the garage opening: 8 feet for structure and 18 feet for garage. b. Lots less than 40 feet wide measured in-line with the garage opening: 5 feet for structure and garage. c. Front porches may encroach to 5 feet minimum front setback. d. Exception for corner lots’ buildings’ corners: 3.5 feet. The figure below is an example of this standard being met.
3. Side Yards (minimums): 4 feet except 8 feet at the south PD boundary.
4. Rear yards: 10 feet except 8 feet for lot 16 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8195 to accommodate the meander in the East Avenue sound wall. (The Figure below, at the north end of VTTM 8195), identifies the location of lot 16 by the star.)
5. Allowed encroachment into required setbacks: Up to 2 feet, only into required rear yard setbacks, for special architectural features up to 8 feet in width, such as fireplaces, media niches, and bay windows. Such structures may be with or without a foundation underneath.
6. Additions; Accessory structures,
a. Exterior additions of floor area are prohibited except to the rear of a home in cases where the rear setback is over 10 feet. In such cases an addition is subject to a minimum rear setback of 10 feet and requires administrative design review. Interior additions of floor area are permitted provided all other development standards are met.
b. Accessory structures (e.g., sheds, trellises, patio covers) are permitted in conformance with the Development Code as it exists or may be amended.
PD 14-005, page 2 56 7. Parking.
a. Garage conversions are prohibited. Each home lot must maintain a minimum of two covered parking spaces.
b. Guest parking spaces accessible from private streets (minimum number): 24, not counting parking spaces in home garages or on home lot driveways.
8. Lot standards.
a. Minimum lot size: 2,100 square feet
b. Maximum lot coverage: 55%
c. Minimum usable open space to be provided on each lot: minimum dimension 8 feet and minimum area 350 square feet (usable open space includes all lot areas except street frontage yards and driveways).
9. Fence height (maximums, measured from finish pad elevation):
a. All PD-R 14-005 boundaries: 8 feet. b. All other locations: per Development Code fence standards.
10. Streets and sidewalks
a. Private street width (minimums): 20 feet, not counting parallel parking spaces, plus 2.5 feet for each side of a street where garbage bins are to be out at the curb for collection. The minimum street width behind guest parking spaces, that are perpendicular to the travel way, shall meet the aforementioned standard, or 24 feet whichever is greater. Reductions to private street widths are prohibited however may be approved administratively with review and determination by the Community Development Director and Fire Marshall, that the design will not impede the circulation of Fire Department emergency equipment.
b. Minimum width of parallel on-street parking: 8 feet which must be outside of the vehicle travel lane.
c. Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet (measured from face of curb to back of walk).
d. Sidewalks are required on at least one side of any street except alleys with no outlet (e.g., parcels C and D of VTTM 8195)
PD 14-005, page 3 57 11. Private park.
a. Minimum area: 2,700 square feet, not counting adjacent private street sidewalks.
b. Setback in park of above-ground structures over 6 feet in height from any home lot property line: 3 feet
12. Site Plan Design Review Requirement. Before a building permit is issued for any new structure, or a grading permit for grading, the property owner shall obtain Site Plan and Design Review under Chapter 9.07. In addition to any requirements under Chapter 9.07, the Site Plan and Design Review approval for property within this PD district may include development conditions not limited to building design and arrangement; architectural standards; storage facilities; phasing of improvements; circulation; access; lighting; fencing; landscaping and screening; buffers; hours of operation; regulations of noise, vibration and odors; and property maintenance.
13. Stormwater collection, conveyance and treatment facilities shall not be modified without prior review and approval of the City Engineer.
C. LOCATION MAP
PD 14-005, page 4 58 EXHIBIT B
59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.03
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephan Kiefer, Community and Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Dissolution of El Charro Community Facilities District 2009-01 Improvement Area Number 4
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt an Ordinance with findings that Improvement Area No. 4 is not obligated to pay any indebtedness and as a result, Improvement Area No. 4 has no authorization to levy any special tax and therefore dissolves Improvement Area Number 4.
DISCUSSION
The El Charro Community Facilities District 2009-01 (CFD) was formed in February 2009 to provide a financing mechanism for public infrastructure needed to support development in the El Charro Specific Plan Area. The CFD included five improvement areas (IAs) representing territory owned by each of the five property owners. The City then issued debt and levied Special Taxes against all IAs within the CFD. The proceeds were used to build streets, sewers, storm drain and flood control facilities.
In 2014, Premium Outlets (Premium), the owner of territory comprising IA1, purchased the lands associated with IA4 to accommodate expansion of the outlet mall. Premium requested that the City take actions to merge IA4 with IA1. This action would simplify their financing mechanisms and result in a more uniform special tax throughout territory owned by Premium.
In June 2015, after being petitioned by Premium, the City Council held a public hearing and conducted proceedings to annex IA4 into IA1. Subsequently the City refinanced the debt associated with IA1 and IA4 to recognize the merged property. As a result, IA4 no longer has any outstanding indebtedness and therefore has no authorization to levy Special Taxes.
114
Page 2
At this time, staff recommends that the City Council should take the final action to dissolve Improvement Area No.4, as has been requested by Premium.
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
Financing for the CFD is accomplished through Special Taxes that are levied on IA1, IA2, IA3 and IA5 in accordance with the adopted Rate and Method of Apportionment.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
Prepared by:
Cheri Sheets City Engineer
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
115 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE DISSOLVING IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 4 OF CITY OF LIVERMORE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2009-1 (EL CHARRO)
On February 9, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-020 entitled “Resolution of Intention to Establish Community Facilities District,” stating its intention to establish City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2009-1 (El Charro) (the “CFD”), which CFD included five improvement areas (each, an “Improvement Area”), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, sections 53311, et seq., of the California Government Code (the “Act”), to finance the acquisition and construction of certain public facilities.
Also on February 9, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-021, entitled “Resolution of Intention to Incur Bonded Indebtedness” stating its intention to incur bonded indebtedness upon the security of the special tax to be levied within the CFD and the Improvement Areas pursuant to the Act.
Notice was published as required by the Act relative to the intention of the City Council to form the CFD and the Improvement Areas, to provide for certain facilities and to incur bonded indebtedness for the CFD and the Improvement Areas.
The City Council held noticed public hearings as required by the Act relative to (i) the determination to proceed with the formation of the CFD and the Improvement Areas and the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to be levied within the CFD and the Improvement Areas to finance the costs of the facilities and the services and (ii) the issuance of bonded indebtedness for the CFD and the Improvement Areas.
At the hearing, all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the formation of the CFD and the Improvement Areas, the levy of special taxes in the CFD and the Improvement Areas and issuance of bonded indebtedness were heard, substantial evidence was presented and considered by the City Council and a full and fair hearing was held.
Subsequent to the hearing, on March 23, 2009, this City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-043, entitled “Resolution of Formation of Community Facilities District,” Resolution No. 2009-044, entitled “Resolution Determining Necessity to Incur Bonded Indebtedness” and Resolution No. 2009-045, entitled “Resolution Calling Special Election,” which resolutions adopted a definition of the facilities to be financed by the CFD and the Improvement Areas, established the CFD and the Improvement Areas, authorized the levy of a special tax with the CFD and the Improvement Areas, determined the necessity to incur bonded indebtedness in the CFD and the Improvement Areas and called an election within the CFD and the Improvement Areas on the propositions of incurring indebtedness, levying a special tax, and establishing an appropriations limit within the CFD and the Improvement Areas.
On March 23, 2009, a special election was held within each of the Improvement Areas at which the eligible landowner-electors approved such propositions by the two-thirds vote required by the Act, and the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-046, entitled “Resolution Declaring Results of Special Election and Directing Recording of Notices of Special Tax Lien”.
116 ORDINANCE NO. ______On April 2, 2009, a Notice of Special Tax Lien was recorded in the office of the Alameda County Recorder as Document No. 2009096691 to give notice of the lien securing the obligation to pay special taxes to owners of all non-exempt property in Improvement Area No. 4 of the CFD (“Improvement Area No. 4”).
On April 13, 2009, this City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1875 (the “Special Tax Ordinance”) entitled “An Ordinance Levying Special Taxes Within City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2009-1 (El Charro),” pursuant to which the City Council authorized and levied special taxes within the CFD and the Improvement Areas.
The City has conducted proceedings to annex territory in Improvement Area No. 4 into Improvement Area No. 1 and, following an election of the qualified electors in the territory proposed for annexation (the “Annexation Territory”), the City Council, on June 8, 2015, adopted Resolution No. 2015-071, entitled “A Resolution Declaring Results of Special Election to Amend and Restate the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax and Increase the Authorized Principal Amount of Bonded Indebtedness, and to Annex Territory and Directing Recording of Amended Notice of Special Tax Lien”.
The annexation of the Annexation Territory to Improvement Area No. 1 was effective upon the refinancing of indebtedness payable from special taxes levied in Improvement Area No. 1 and Improvement Area No. 4.
The owner of taxable property in Improvement Area No. 4 has asked the City to dissolve Improvement Area No. 4.
Section 53338.5 of the Act authorizes the City Council, by ordinance, to dissolve Improvement Area No. 4 upon determining that (a) the CFD is not obligated to pay any outstanding debt and (b) the CFD has no authorization to levy any special tax.
The City Council wishes to dissolve the Improvement Area No. 4 pursuant to the Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that the recitation of facts set forth in the preceding clauses is true and correct. The City Council further finds that Improvement Area No. 4 is not obligated to pay any indebtedness and, that as a result, Improvement Area No. 4 has no authorization to levy any special tax.
Section 2. By the passage of this ordinance, the City Council hereby dissolves Improvement Area No. 4. Beginning in the fiscal year following the effective date of this Ordinance, the City will have no authority to levy special taxes in Improvement Area No. 4.
Section 3. The City Manager, or his designee, is hereby directed to cause the City Clerk to record an addendum to the Notice of Special Tax Lien in the office of the Alameda County Recorder stating that Improvement Area No. 4 and all associated liens, if any, have been dissolved.
Section 4. The City Manager or his designee is hereby directed to establish a procedure for returning to property owners special tax revenues on hand with the City.
117 ORDINANCE NO. ______Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days from its passage, and shall be published once within fifteen days upon passage and adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in the city of Livermore, county of Alameda.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Livermore held on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
The ordinance was adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council held on ______, 2015, by the following vote
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
______Mayor, City of Livermore
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Jason Alcala City Clerk City Attorney
118 ORDINANCE NO. ______
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.04
DATE: September 13, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephan Kiefer, Community and Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: 2015-2016 Tourism and Special Events Grant Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving the 2015-2016 Tourism and Special Event Grant Program in the amount of $4,000.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the Tourism and Special Event Grant program is to provide financial assistance to organizations that promote Livermore events and generate tourism that benefits the local and regional economy. The application period for the 2015- 2016 Tourism and Special Event Grant Program was May 11, 2015-May 29, 2015. Funding is recommended for the four applicants as indicated below.
The FY 2015-2016 Tourism and Special Event Grant Fund is allocated $5,000 through the approved budget. Events requesting funding must have at least 1,000 people in attendance in order to qualify for the grant funds. Funds will be distributed to approved grant awardees after the event has taken place and receipts are turned into the City for reimbursement. No more than 50% of the cost of the event up to a maximum of $1,000 will be awarded to the organization.
A Request for Applications was released on May 8, 2015 allowing applications to be submitted through May 29, 2015. Four applications were received during this period. Staff recommends that a single grant of $1000.00 each be awarded to the four community organizations that have met the criteria and can generate the most number of attendees. The following applicants are recommended to receive grant funding:
• Bothwell Arts Center- ArtWalk • Livermore Rotary Club – Annual Livermore Rodeo Parade in Downtown Livermore • Shakespeare’s Associates, Inc.- Livermore Shakespeare Festival • Livermore Valley Winegrowers Association – Annual Harvest Wine Celebration
119
Page 2
Each application has been reviewed for applicability to the stated grant criteria as set forth in the guidelines and meets the goals of the City Council in attracting and supporting tourism and special events in Livermore. The table below provides an overview of each of the applications.
Applicant Event Location Attendance Bothwell Arts Center ArtWalk Downtown Green 8,000-10,000 Spaces Livermore Rotary Livermore Rodeo Downtown-Second 12,000-15,000 Club Parade Street (between P St. and Livermore Avenue) Livermore Valley Harvest Wine Livermore Valley 7,000 Winegrowers Celebration Wine Country Association Shakespeare’s Livermore Wente Vineyards 4,000 Associates, Inc. Shakespeare Estate Winery and Festival Tasting Room
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
The approved operating budget in Fund 5001 for fiscal year 2015-16 includes $5,000 for the Tourism and Special Event grant program. No additional fiscal or administrative impacts are anticipated. Net positive economic impact from tourism and special event activities is expected to generate additional revenues in the form of sales tax and hotel occupancy tax.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Tourism and Special Event Grant Guidelines 2. Grant Applications
Prepared by:
Theresa De La Vega Economic Development Specialist
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
120 FY2015-16 Tourism and Special Event Grant Guidelines
Purpose:
The City Council will allocate funds to provide financial support for activities associated with promoting Livermore’s downtown, the wine country, and events that:
promote Livermore as a destination produce an economic benefit to Livermore and the region, and generate tourism in Livermore
Program Guidelines:
1. An application must be filled out and submitted to the Special Event Review Board within the dates of the application period.
2. Preference will be given to requests for events that directly benefit downtown businesses, local wineries and to events that provide enrichment as well as generate the largest attendance (minimum of 1,000 expected attendees) and encourage tourism to the area.
3. Grants cannot exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total event expenses. Groups must demonstrate that at least fifty percent (50%) of the event expenses will be generated from other sources.
4. Grant payments are issued after the event. In order to receive grant payment, grantee must: 1) be able to demonstrate that the event met the required minimum number of attendees (photos or other verification may be requested); and 2) must submit receipts for approved expenses to the Events Coordinator.
5. Funds will be granted only for expenses related to the event, including but not limited to advertising, marketing, transportation, safety and security, rental of equipment or venue, and miscellaneous supplies. Funds will not be granted for items that will be given away or sold in connection with the event, or for salaries associated with event planning and administration or for speaker or guest honorariums.
ATTACHMENT 1
121 ATTACHMENT 2 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING ALLOCATION OF TOURISM AND SPECIAL EVENT GRANT FUNDS FOR JULY 1, 2015 – JUNE 15, 2016
Following guidelines established by the Livermore City Council in 1991, as amended March 3, 2003, via Resolution No. 2003-37, the City annually solicits applications for and awards grants pursuant to the City of Livermore Tourism and Special Event Grant funds. Grants awarded from the Tourism and Special Event Grant program are made to provide financial assistance to organizations that promote Livermore events and generate tourism that benefits the local and regional economy.
The City’s approved operating budget in Fund 5001 for fiscal year 2015-2016, includes $5,000 for the Tourism and Special Event grant program.
Staff sought applications for FY 2015-2016 grant awards of up to $1000 pursuant to the procedure described in the accompanying Staff Report and according to FY2015-16 Tourism and Special Event Grant Guidelines prepared by Staff. Staff received four applications, each seeking $1000 and Staff has determined that each application meets the requirements to warrant the grant award sought and meets the guidelines established by the City Council. Staff, therefore, recommends the City Council award each of the four grants.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Livermore approves the funding of the following applications for the City’s Tourism and Special Event Grant Program, July 1, 2015 – June 15, 2016, each in the maximum amount of $1000:
• Bothwell Arts Center- ArtWalk 2015 • Livermore Rotary Club – Annual Livermore Rodeo Parade in Downtown Livermore • Livermore Valley Winegrowers Association – Annual Harvest Wine Celebration • Shakespeare’s Associates, Inc. - Livermore Shakespeare Festival
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Director of Community and Economic Development is authorized and directed to award each of the Grant funds in compliance with all existing program guidelines
On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
133 RESOLUTION NO. ______
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Robert Mahlowitz City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. ______134
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.05
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephan Kiefer, Community and Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Executing an amendment to the 2014-2017 Alameda County HOME Consortium agreement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2014- 2017 HOME Consortium Agreement with Alameda County Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) from $116,901.42 to $245,834.38.
SUMMARY
Since 1993, the City of Livermore has been a member of the Alameda County HOME Consortium. The City receives HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as a member of the Consortium. Livermore has used HOME funding to develop and preserve affordable housing throughout the City and to prevent families from becoming homeless through rental assistance programs. In 2014, the City entered into a three-year agreement with Alameda County to participate in the HOME Consortium.
During an internal audit, Alameda County HCD found that they inadvertently drew American Dream Down payment Assistance (ADDI) funding from the Livermore’s HOME allocation instead of the ADDI account. Alameda County HCD is requesting the City approve an amendment adding $128,932.96 to the Fiscal Year 2014-2017 HOME Consortium Agreement to fix the internal accounting error. If approved, Livermore’s HOME agreement with Alameda County will total $245,834.38.
DISCUSSION
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocates HOME funds to local jurisdictions for the purpose of expanding the supply of decent, safe, and affordable housing to persons and families with income that is less than 80% of median income (less than $71,600 for a family of four). The Alameda County HOME Consortium
135
Page 2
has a membership of seven cities including Livermore, Pleasanton, Fremont, Hayward, Union City, San Leandro, Alameda, and the unincorporated County. Alameda County administers the Consortium’s HOME entitlement and member jurisdictions allocate HOME funds to affordable housing projects and programs that address local priorities.
Beginning in 2003, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) distributed a special allocation of American Dream Down Payment Assistance Program (ADDI) funding to HOME entitlement jurisdictions. The goal of ADDI was to provide assistance to low-income households interested in purchasing a home. Livermore was the only jurisdiction in the Alameda County HOME Consortium to utilize this funding. Alameda County HCD closed the program in 2014.
During the close out grant audit, Alameda County found that they drew Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 funding totaling $128,932.96 from Livermore’s HOME allocation instead of the ADDI grant. The contract amendment will add the ADDI allocation back into the City’s HOME account to ensure that Livermore has sufficient funding for the current and future HOME funded projects. This change will correct an error, but it will not change the total amount of funds available to Livermore.
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
This amendment fixes an accounting error and replaces funding that was erroneously drawn from the City’s HOME account. The only fiscal or administrative impact is the execution of the amendment of the Livermore Fiscal Year 2014-2017 HOME Consortium Agreement with Alameda County.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
Prepared by:
Jean Prasher Human Services Program Manager
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
136 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY HOME CONSORTIUM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2014-2017
Since 1993, the City of Livermore has been a member of the Alameda County HOME Consortium. The City receives HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as a member of the Consortium. In 2014, the City entered into a three-year agreement with Alameda County to participate in the HOME Consortium.
The Alameda County Housing and Community Development Department is requesting the City approve an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2014-2017 HOME Consortium Agreement increasing the funding available under that agreement from $116,901.42 to $245,834.38 to correct an internal error that the County recently discovered. This amendment will return funding that was inadvertently drawn by the County from Livermore’s HOME allocation instead of from Livermore’s American Dream Down Payment Initiative account with the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment adding $128,932.96 to the City of Livermore’s Alameda County HOME Consortium agreement for Fiscal Years 2014-2017. This will bring the total contract amount to $245,834.38.
On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Catrina Fobian City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
137 RESOLUTION NO. ______EXHIBIT A
138 EXHIBIT A
139
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.06
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephan Kiefer, Community and Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Appropriating Unspent Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Housing and Human Services Grant Funds into Fiscal Year 2015-2016 and Authorizing Execution of Contract Amendments for the Funding Extensions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Human Services Commission and staff recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the supplemental appropriation of $56,670.64 in unexpended FY 2014-2015 Housing and Human Services Grant funds into FY 2015-2016 and authorizing the execution of contract amendments for the funding extensions.
SUMMARY
Two programs receiving Housing and Human Services grant funding from the City in FY 2014-2015 did not fully expend their allocations by the end of the fiscal year on June 30, 2015. As required by Housing and Human Services Grant Program policies, agencies must submit written notification requesting that the City appropriate the unspent funds in FY 2015-2016. The Human Services Commission and Staff recommend approval and supplemental appropriation of the following funding extensions.
1. Abode Services for implementation of the Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program - $32,290.65
2. Neighborhood Solutions for implementation of the City’s low-income Housing Rehabilitation Program - $24,379.99
The execution of contract amendments between the City and each agency will allow extended time for each agency to complete their projects and expend the balance of their funding.
140
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The Human Services Commission and Staff recommend the City Council approve the following appropriation requests for FY 2015-2016.
1. The City Council allocated Abode Services a grant of $40,000 in HOME funds to provide rental assistance and $45,000 of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for case management to help youth that are emancipating out of the foster care system obtain and maintain housing. Because the program provides rental assistance support over two fiscal years, it is necessary for Abode to request a funding extension for a portion of the HOME allocation into FY 2015-2016 to ensure that funds for client expenses are available for the entire period. The City’s CDBG funding is allocated for case management to support the client to maintain their housing and therefore the CDBG funds must also be extended into FY 2015- 2016. The Human Services Commission and staff recommend that the Council approve Abode Services’ funding extension request of $14,670.56 of FY 2014-2015 HOME allocation and $17,620.09 of CDBG allocation into FY 2015-2016.
2. The City Council allocated $42,000 of CDBG funds and of $10,000 of HOME funds to Neighborhood Solutions to provide rehabilitation loans and grants to low-income homeowners in Livermore. An approved low-income homeowner’s rehabilitation project was unable to complete construction by the end of the fiscal year on June 30, 2015. Neighborhood Solutions, the administrator of the program for the City, requests an extension of the remaining $21,550.99 of CDBG funds to finish the rehabilitation. Neighborhood Solutions will use the remaining $2,829 of HOME funds to supplement the rehabilitation of a qualified low-income homeowner. The Human Services Commission and staff recommend that the Council approve appropriation of $24,379.99 into FY 2015-2016.
Staff will prepare contract amendments documenting Council approval of the funding extension thereby allowing each agency extended time to complete their project and expend their funding allocation.
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
All Housing and Human Services Grant funding is from non-General Fund sources and remains available until expended or allocated to a sub-recipient by the City. Grantees may not spend any funding extension requests until the City Council approves the appropriation in the new fiscal year. The only additional fiscal impact that will occur as a result of these requests is the staff time to prepare the contract amendments.
141
Page 3
Recommended Appropriation Agency/Project Funding Source into 2015-2016 $17,620.09 CDBG – Fund 613 Abode Services/ Tenant Based Rental Asst. $14,670.56 HOME - Fund: 671 $32,290.65
$21,550.99 CDBG - Fund: 613 Neighborhood Solutions/ Housing Rehabilitation Program $ 2,829.00 HOME - Fund: 671 $24,379.99 TOTAL $56,670.64
ATTACHMENTS
None.
Prepared by:
Jean Prasher Human Services Program Manager
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
142 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION OF UNSPENT FY 2014-15 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP FUNDS INTO FY 2015-16, AND THE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT AMENDMENTS FOR THE FUNDING EXTENSIONS
Two programs receiving Housing and Human Services grant funding from the City in FY 2014-2015 did not fully expend their allocations by the end of the fiscal year on June 30, 2015. As required by Housing and Human Services Grant Program policies, agencies must submit written notification requesting that the City appropriate the unspent funds in FY 2015-2016. This extension will allow the agencies to complete programs they initiated in FY 2014-2015. The Human Services Commission and Staff recommend approval and supplemental appropriation of the funding extensions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes the supplemental appropriation of unexpended FY 2014-15 Housing and Human Service Grant funds into FY 2015-16 for the agencies and programs authorized as set forth in the chart below.
Recommended Agency/Project Appropriation into 2015- Funding Source 2016 Abode Services/ $17,620.09 CDBG – Fund 613 Tenant Based Rental Asst. $14,670.56 HOME - Fund: 671 $32,290.65 Neighborhood Solutions/ $21,550.99 CDBG - Fund: 613 Housing Rehabilitation Program $2,829.00 HOME - Fund: 671 $24,379.99 Total $56,670.64
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to sign all contract amendments and related documents required in connection with the supplemental appropriation requests identified above.
On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
143 RESOLUTION NO. ______
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Gabrielle Janssens City Clerk Deputy City Attorney
144 RESOLUTION NO. ______
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.07
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephan Kiefer, Community & Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Acceptance for Permanent Maintenance and Release of Security for Freisman Park, Project No. 2007-2066
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance for permanent maintenance and release of the security bonds for Freisman Park.
DISCUSSION
On September 22, 2014, the City Council awarded the contract for construction of Freisman Park to Grade Tech Incorporated. This project constructed a 14 acre passive park adjacent to the Premium Outlet Mall expansion, Premium II. The contractor substantially completed the work on July 25, 2015.
The project included installation of park facilities and landscaping at the 14 acre Freisman Park. Approximately 5 acres of the 14 acre park are dedicated to existing stormwater treatment and detention for runoff from development and roadways in the Specific Plan Area. The remaining 9 acres of the project were improved to include a trail, parking, picnic and a lawn area of grass. The project also installed the landscaping around the detention basin on the north side of Jack London Boulevard, landscaping between the curb and sidewalk on the south side of Jack London Boulevard, and landscaping at the intersection of Livermore Outlets Drive and West Jack London Boulevard. The project was completed in accordance with the contract documents in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer.
The contractor provided a faithful performance bond guaranteeing completion of the project, and that bond must now be released. Six months after the date of the resolution, the labor and materials bond guaranteeing the improvements should be reduced to an amount equal to any claims filed and of which notice has been given. The balance of the bond will be released upon the settlement of all claims and obligations for which the security was given. There are no known claims at this time. The security for the
145
Page 2
guarantee and warranty of work shall remain in effect for one year from the date of the resolution.
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
This project is funded under CIP No. 2007-20. The original construction contract amount was $1,758,186 plus a 10 percent construction contingency. The final project amount was $1,553,266, which is 11.7 percent below the original contract based on final bid item quantities and seven change orders. The total value of change orders was a credit of $201,695, which primarily deferred grading and landscaping on the south side of West Jack London Boulevard to balance the on-haul and off- haul of soil for this and future phases of work. This action saved the City the cost to on-haul soil for this project and will save off-haul soil on later phases of construction. The final bid quantities were slightly less than anticipated based on actual quantities measured in the field.
Maintenance of these park improvements is funded by the El Charro Community Facilities District 2012-1. The District includes all property owners within the El Charro Specific Plan area with the maximum annual assessment of $151,000. The ongoing maintenance costs for the park maintenance are estimated at $145,770 a year.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
Prepared by:
Robert C. Follenfant Construction Inspection Manager
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
146 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE FOR PERMANENT MAINTENANCE AND RELEASE OF SECURITY
(Freisman Park, Project No. 2007-2066)
The City Engineer of the City of Livermore filed with the City Clerk her report in writing that all work on Freisman Park, Project No. 2007-2066 (“Project”), has been completed to City standards. The Project is ready for acceptance by the City of Livermore for routine maintenance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that:
1. The faithful performance bond guaranteeing the Project is hereby released;
2. The labor and materials bond guaranteeing the Project shall, six months after the date of this resolution, be reduced to an amount equal to the amount of all claims filed and of which notice has been given. The balance of the bond shall be released upon the settlement of all such claims and obligations for which the security was given;
3. The security for the guarantee and warranty of work shall remain in effect for one year from the date of this resolution. The contractor is required to reconstruct any deficiencies that occur and to repair or replace defective materials during the maintenance period; and
4. The City hereby accepts the improvements.
On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Robert Mahlowitz City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. ______147
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.08
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephan Kiefer, Community & Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Acceptance for Permanent Maintenance and Release of Security for the Isabel Avenue Corridor Landscape Restoration of Various Frontages & Water Reclamation Plant Water Feature, Project No. 1992-3855
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance for permanent maintenance and release of the security bonds for the Isabel Avenue Corridor Landscape Restoration of Various Frontages and Water Reclamation Plant Water Feature.
DISCUSSION
On November 10, 2014, the City Council awarded the contract for construction of the Isabel Avenue Corridor Landscape Restoration of Various Frontages and Water Reclamation Plant Water Feature to Green Valley Landscape. This project involved restoring the landscaping and irrigation that was removed during the construction of the Isabel Interchange and Widening Projects and installing a new recycled waterfall feature at the Water Reclamation Plant. The contractor substantially completed the work on June 30, 2015.
The project consisted of the installation of new landscaping and irrigation; on Constitution Drive adjacent to Shea Center, on Branson Way around the new Sewer Pump Station, on Isabel Avenue from Airway Boulevard to West Jack London Boulevard adjacent to the Water Reclamation Plant and Livermore Municipal Airport. The project also included a new recycled waterfall feature, sign, and lighting in front of the Water Reclamation Plant. The project was completed in accordance with the contract documents in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer.
The contractor provided a faithful performance bond guaranteeing completion of the project, and that bond must now be released. Six months after the date of the resolution, the labor and materials bond guaranteeing the improvements should be reduced to an amount equal to any claims filed and of which notice has been given. The balance of the
148
Page 2
bond will be released upon the settlement of all claims and obligations for which the security was given. There are no known claims at this time. The security for the guarantee and warranty of work shall remain in effect for one year from the date of the resolution.
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
This project is included as CIP 1992-3855 of the 2014-2017 Capital Improvement Program.
The original construction contract amount was $918,256 plus a 10 percent construction contingency. The final project amount was $928,974, which is 1.2 percent above the original contract based on final bid item quantities and five change orders. The total value of change orders was $25,272, which consist primarily of hauling additional boulders for the recycled water fall feature, installing a maintenance pullout as requested by the Water Reclamation Plant and increasing the size of the water pump for the recycled water feature. The final bid quantities were less than anticipated due to the cost for the installation of the landscaping around the Water Office Building.
Per the contract, the contractor has a one year maintenance and plant establishment period for the landscape improvements The permanent ongoing maintenance costs for the landscape and irrigation are a City responsibility estimated at $20,000 a year that is covered under the City’s Public Works operations budget. The maintenance of the Water Reclamation Plant water feature and sign is the responsibility of the City upon acceptance and is estimated at $4,500 annually which is funded through WRP enterprise funds.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
Prepared by:
Robert C. Follenfant Construction Inspection Manager
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
149 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE FOR PERMANENT MAINTENANCE AND RELEASE OF SECURITY
Isabel Avenue Corridor Landscape Restoration of Various Frontages and Water Reclamation Plant Water Feature, Project No. 1992-3855
The City Engineer of the City of Livermore has filed with the City Clerk her report in writing that all work on the Isabel Avenue Corridor Landscape Restoration of Various Frontages and Water Reclamation Plant Water Feature, Project No. 1992-3855 (“Project”), has been completed to City standards. The Project is ready for acceptance by the City of Livermore for routine maintenance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that:
1. The faithful performance bond guaranteeing the Project is hereby released;
2. The labor and materials bond guaranteeing the Project shall, six months after the date of this resolution, be reduced to an amount equal to the amount of all claims filed and of which notice has been given. The balance of the bond shall be released upon the settlement of all such claims and obligations for which the security was given;
3. The security for the guarantee and warranty of work shall remain in effect for one year from the date of this resolution. The contractor is required to reconstruct any deficiencies that occur and to repair or replace defective materials during the maintenance period; and
4. The City hereby accepts the improvements.
On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Catrina Fobian City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. ______150
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.09
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephan Kiefer, Community and Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Agreement with Lee & Ro, Inc. to Provide On-Call Engineering Services for the Water Reclamation Plant
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of a two-year agreement with Lee & Ro, Inc., in the not to exceed amount of $250,000, to provide on-call engineering services for the Water Reclamation Plant.
SUMMARY
The Engineering Division requires a consultant to provide on-call engineering services for the Water Reclamation Plant (WRP). Engineering services are anticipated to include feasibility studies, detailed engineering design, peer reviews, and general drafting services in connection with a variety of capital improvements projects and maintenance activities at the Water Reclamation Plant. This Agreement will authorize the City Engineer to approve work related to the agreement within the overall contract amount of $250,000.
DISCUSSION
In June 2015, staff sent out a request for qualifications for consultants to perform professional engineering services for water, wastewater, and storm water projects associated with the City’s 2015-2017 Capital Improvement Plan. The purpose of this process was to receive statements of qualifications (SOQ) from multiple consultants and, based on review of these qualifications, establish a short list of consultants that would be eligible for award of engineering design agreements for future water, wastewater, and storm water projects. The short list of consultants is to remain in effect for a period of two years and can be extended for up to 2 one-year terms (for a total duration of four years) as approved by the City Engineer.
The following projects and services are anticipated to fall under the scope of this short list:
151
Page 2
• On-Call Engineering Services for the WRP • On-Call Engineering Services for Water & Wastewater Hydraulic Modeling • On-Call Engineering Services for Storm Water Hydraulic Modeling • 2015 Water Master Plan Update • WRP Emergency Generator Project • WRP Cogeneration Project • WRP Rehabilitation & Process Improvements Project (Phase II) • Arroyo Las Positas Airport Flood Control Project • Water Pump Station Improvements Project • Storm and Sewer Lift Stations Improvements Project • Aeration Basin Efficiency Evaluation • WRP Operations and Procedures Manuals
For each future project or service, staff will select a consultant from the short list whose qualifications is best suited for that specific project or service. In some instances, staff may send a project specific RFP to some or the entire short list of firms so that scope and cost proposals can be considered in the selection process.
The firms that submitted SOQs for the short list were:
• Carollo Engineers, Walnut Creek CA • Joe Hill Consulting Engineers, San Francisco CA • Lee & Ro, Inc., Walnut Creek CA • RMC, Walnut Creek CA • Schaaf & Wheeler, Santa Clara CA • West Yost Associates, Walnut Creek CA • Wood Rodgers, Sacramento CA
A four-person selection committee comprised of staff from Engineering and Water Resources reviewed and rated the statements of qualifications based on overall quality of the proposals, experience and qualifications of firm and key personnel, fair and reasonable fee rates, and availability of resources. Based on review of the proposals and additional interviews, the selection committee established the following short list for water, wastewater, and storm water.
• Carollo Engineers, Walnut Creek CA • Lee & Ro, Inc., Walnut Creek CA • Schaaf & Wheeler, Santa Clara CA • West Yost Associates, Walnut Creek CA
The first service to fall under the scope of this short list is an agreement to provide on-call engineering services at the Water Reclamation Plant. The selection committee rated Lee & Ro as the top consultant for this work. Lee & Ro provides similar on-call services for numerous cities and agencies. Reference checks proved satisfactory.
152
Page 3
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
Funding for services rendered under this agreement will be from the various capital improvement projects in the 2015-2017 Capital Improvement Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
Prepared by:
Todd Yamello Associate Civil Engineer
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager
153 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF TWO-YEAR AGREEMENT WITH LEE & RO, INC., IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $250,000, FOR ON-CALL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
The Engineering Division requires a consultant to provide on-call engineering services for the Water Reclamation Plant. Engineering services are anticipated to include feasibility studies, detailed engineering design, peer reviews, and general drafting services in connection with a variety of capital improvements projects and maintenance activities at the Water Reclamation Plant.
City staff sent out a request for qualifications from consultants interested in the on-call engineering services contract. Staff received three statements of qualifications. After interviews and reviews, City staff rated Lee & Ro, Inc. as the top consultant and determined that they are qualified to provide the services listed above.
Staff proposes a two-year agreement with Lee & Ro, Inc., with a not-to-exceed amount of $250,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes the City Manager to sign, on behalf of the City of Livermore, a two-year Agreement for On-Call Engineering Services for the Water Reclamation Plant, attached hereto as Exhibit A, with Lee & Ro, Inc. in a not-to-exceed amount of $250,000.
On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Catrina Fobian City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. ______154 EXHIBIT A
155 EXHIBIT A
156 EXHIBIT A
157 EXHIBIT A
158 EXHIBIT A
159 EXHIBIT A
160 EXHIBIT A
161 EXHIBIT A
162 EXHIBIT A
163 EXHIBIT A
164 EXHIBIT A
165 EXHIBIT A
166 EXHIBIT A
167
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.10
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephan Kiefer, Community and Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Covenant and Deed Restriction for Habitat Mitigation for the Galaxy Court Flood Protection Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Covenant and Deed Restriction for the habitat mitigation area in, and adjacent to, the Arroyo Las Positas at the Springtown Golf Course in connection with the Galaxy Court Flood Protection and Trail Culvert Replacement Project No. 2010-29.
DISCUSSION
The Galaxy Court Flood Protection and Trail Culvert Replacement Project involved replacement of culverts with a larger box culvert under a trail crossing over the Arroyo Las Positas at the Springtown Golf Course. The project included work within the Arroyo Las Positas disturbing potential habitat areas for special status plants and animals. To mitigate the disturbance of these sensitive habitat areas, the City created a habitat mitigation area along the banks of the Arroyo Las Positas at the project site. The project permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requires that the City execute and record a deed restriction over the mitigation area to protect the area from any future competing interests that might compromise the habitat mitigation area. The deed restriction covers a 25-foot wide strip along the southern bank of the Arroyo Las Positas between Bluebell Drive and the project site. The 0.6 acre mitigation area is within the 100-year flood plain, undevelopable, and is adjacent to the 4th fairway at the Springtown Golf Course. This deed restriction will not impact golf operations at the Springtown Golf Course.
168
Page 2
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the deed restriction. The City currently owns and maintains this property.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
Prepared by:
Kevin Duffus Associate Civil Engineer
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
169 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF COVENANT AND DEED RESTRICTION FOR HABITAT MITIGATION
Galaxy Court Flood Protection and Trail Culvert Replacement, Project No. 2010-29
The Galaxy Court Flood Protection and Trail Culvert Replacement Project involved replacement of culverts with a larger box culvert under a trail crossing over the Arroyo Las Positas at the Springtown Golf Course. The project included work within the Arroyo Las Positas disturbing potential habitat areas for special status plants and animals. To mitigate the disturbance of these sensitive habitat areas, the City created a habitat mitigation area along the banks of the Arroyo Las Positas at the project site. The project permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requires that the City execute and record a deed restriction over the mitigation area to protect the area from any future competing interests that might compromise the habitat mitigation area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to sign, on behalf of the City of Livermore, the Covenant and Deed Restriction in favor of the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board in connection with the habitat mitigation area for the Galaxy Court Flood Projection and Trail Culvert Replacement Project, Project No. 2010-29.
On motion of Council Member ______and seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Jason Alcala City Clerk City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. ______170 EXHIBIT A
171 EXHIBIT A
172 EXHIBIT A
173 EXHIBIT A
174 EXHIBIT A
175 EXHIBIT A
176 EXHIBIT A
177 EXHIBIT A
178 EXHIBIT A
179 EXHIBIT A
180 EXHIBIT A
181
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.11
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephan Kiefer, Community and Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Construction Agreement with Monterey Mechanical Co. and a Construction and Engineering Services Agreement with Carollo Engineers for the Water Reclamation Plant Electrical Improvements Project No. 2008-48
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt a resolution awarding and authorizing execution of an agreement with Monterey Mechanical Co., in the amount of $3,098,000, for construction of the Water Reclamation Plant Electrical Improvements Project.
2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement with Carollo Engineers, in the amount of $296,426, for construction engineering services for the Water Reclamation Plant Electrical Improvements Project.
DISCUSSION
The Water Reclamation Plant Electrical Improvements Project will replace the aging 480- volt switchgear that powers the Water Reclamation Plant. The project also includes running new electrical cables and ductbanks to all of the motor control centers at the Water Reclamation Plant. The electrical improvements are being designed per the recommendations in the Water Reclamation Plant Electrical Master Plan which evaluated the condition of the existing switchgear equipment and electrical systems at the plant. The report concluded that the electrical switchgear equipment is over thirty years old, at the end of its useful service life, and is undersized for future demands. The new switchgear will be supplied from two new transformers. This will provide redundancy to power the WRP even if one of the transformers or fuses fails. The switchgear is also sized to provide power for future plant expansion, has provisions to install a future portable or permanent emergency generator, and is designed to accommodate a future cogeneration system.
182
Page 2
On July 28, 2015, bids for this project were received and opened with four contractors submitting bids. The lowest responsible bidder was Monterey Mechanical Co. The following is a list of the bids received and the Engineer’s Estimate for the project:
CONTRACTOR CITY BID AMOUNT Monterey Mechanical Co. Oakland $3,098,000 Helix Electric, Inc. San Diego $4,937,000 Central Sierra Electric, Inc. Fremont $5,670,000 Blocka Construction, Inc. Fremont $5,798,000 Engineer’s Estimate $4,800,000
In accordance with Livermore Municipal Code Section 2.68.530, Change Order authorization of 10% of the contract value is allowed.
Monterey Mechanical Co. and their electrical subcontractor, HGH Electric, Inc., are established firms who have successfully performed similar projects at the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant and other wastewater plants in the Bay Area.
Staff has compared the engineer’s estimate versus Monterey Mechanical’s bid. Monterey Mechanical’s bid is substantially less than the engineer’s estimate because their purchase prices for conductors, transformers, and switchgear reflect bulk price discounts considerably less than the unit costs included in the engineer’s estimate.
The agreement with Carollo Engineers is to augment staff for construction engineering services on certain specialty work associated with the Water Reclamation Plant Electrical Improvement Project. These services include reviewing submittals, responding to requests for information from the contractor, issuing design clarifications and change orders, attending project meetings, conducting a final inspection, and preparing as-built drawings. The contract amount is approximately 10% of the anticipated construction cost, which is within the fee range anticipated for this type of wastewater treatment plant work. Staff recommends that Carollo Engineers be awarded this contract because they were the design engineer for the project and they have successfully provided construction engineering services for similar projects at the Water Reclamation Plant.
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
Funding for the construction of the WRP Electrical Improvements Project is provided in the 2015-2017 Capital Improvement Plan. The table below identifies the approved budget of $5,800,000 for the project, which covers construction, change orders, construction engineering services, inspections, material testing, and administration.
183
Page 3
Fund Fund Name FY 15-16 FY 16-17 Total No. Water Resources $4,300,000 $0 $4,300,000 239 Replacement 241 Sewer Connection Fees $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000
Total $5,800,000 $0 $5,800,000
ATTACHMENTS
None.
Prepared by:
Joel Waxdeck Senior Civil Engineer
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
184 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AWARDING BID AND AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF AGREEMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,098,000, WITH MONTEREY MECHANICAL CO.
(WRP Electrical Improvements, Project No. 2008-48)
The City of Livermore advertised, and received bids, for the WRP Electrical Improvements, Project No. 2008-48. Monterey Mechanical Co. submitted the lowest responsible bid, in the amount of $3,098,000, acceptable to the City of Livermore.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore:
1. Awards the bid, in the amount of $3,098,000, to the lowest responsible bidder, Monterey Mechanical Co.;
2. Rejects all other bids or proposals; and
3. Authorizes the City Manager to sign and enter into an agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, on behalf of the City of Livermore, with the successful bidder hereinabove, in accordance with the terms, specifications, and general provisions of the bid package for the project specified herein.
On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Catrina Fobian City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. ______185 EXHIBIT A
186 EXHIBIT A
187 EXHIBIT A
188 EXHIBIT A
189 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $296,426, WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS
(WRP Electrical Improvements, Project No. 2008-48)
The WRP Electrical Improvements, Project No. 2008-48 (the “Project”), consists of replacing the aging 480-volt switchgear that powers the Water Reclamation Plant. The Project also includes running new electrical cables and duct banks to all of the motor control centers at the Water Reclamation Plant.
Carollo Engineers designed the Project under a separate agreement. Staff recommends the City now enter into an agreement for construction engineering services with Carollo Engineers. Construction engineering services include reviewing submittals, responding to requests for information from the contractor, issuing design clarifications and changes orders, attending project meetings, conducting a final inspection, and preparing as-built drawings. Staff has reviewed, and concurs with, the scope and fee for services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes the City Manager to sign, on behalf of the City of Livermore, the Professional Services Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, with Carollo Engineers, in an amount not to exceed $296,426, for construction engineering services in connection with the WRP Electrical Improvements, Project No. 2008-48.
On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Catrina Fobian City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. ______190 EXHIBIT A
191 EXHIBIT A
192 EXHIBIT A
193 EXHIBIT A
194 EXHIBIT A
195 EXHIBIT A
196 EXHIBIT A
197 EXHIBIT A
198 EXHIBIT A
199 EXHIBIT A
200 EXHIBIT A
201 EXHIBIT A
202 EXHIBIT A
203
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.12
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Darren Greenwood, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Purchase Order with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. for the replacement purchase of a Type I Fire Engine.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a purchase order with Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. (Pierce) in an amount not to exceed $637,762 for the replacement purchase of one 2015 Type I Fire Engine.
SUMMARY
Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) has determined that the Pierce Quantum Type I Fire Engine is the only manufacturer that meets the needs of LPFD. Based on the research completed by LPFD, staff recommends purchasing the Type I Fire Engine from Pierce, through the Cooperative Purchasing Arrangement of the Livermore Municipal Code 2.68.390.
DISCUSSION
LPFD researched various fire engine manufacturers and determined that the Pierce Quantum Type I Fire Engine is the only make and model that offers the Air Actuated Entry Steps and TAK-4 independent front suspension. These features are not offered by other fire engine manufacturers in the industry. Some of the safety features are Side Roll Protection System which features frontal and side air bags for the passengers and Electronic Stability Control. These are safety features that will reduce the possibility of firefighter injuries.
Staff will be replacing a 1999 Type I Fire Engine, with a current mileage of 152,500. This Fire Engine has exceeded its service life and lifecycle cost, which meet the replacement criteria according to the City of Livermore’s Administrative Regulation #28, Fleet Policy and Procedures.
204
Page 2
The cost of operating and maintaining the 1999 Type I Fire Engine has increased significantly. Emergency response vehicles are critical to be replaced in a timely manner.
The replacement Type I Fire Engine meets the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) #1901 Automotive Fire Apparatus, Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, California Motor Vehicle Code, California Code of Regulations Title 8, 13,15, & 21, and all applicable state and federal regulations. The replacement Type I Fire Engine will be assigned as a first out Fire Engine as responder for emergencies.
The City of Livermore’s Municipal Code 2.68.390, Cooperative Purchasing Arrangement, states:
The administrative services director may purchase supplies and equipment without complying with the quotation or bidding requirements of this chapter, if such purchases are based on an agreement or cooperative purchasing program entered into by any of the following public agencies, regardless of whether the city is a named party to the agreement or an actual participant in such a program:
A. The California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS), the California Communities Purchasing Program, the Western States Contracting Alliance (“WSCA”), The Cooperative Purchasing Network (“TCPN”), the National Joint Powers Alliance, the County of Alameda, the County of Contra Costa;
B. The U.S. Communities Government Purchasing Alliance or the Federal GSA Contracts.
C. Any other cooperative purchasing programs or consortiums, provided the city’s administrative services director (or his or her designee) approves of such participation in writing or if the underlying purchase was made using quotation or bid procedure at least as restrictive as the city’s.
Staff recommends purchasing this replacement fire engine utilizing Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) Acceptance and Award contract #405078. More information can be found at www.h-gac.com/coop. The H-GAC bid procedure for the replacement fire engine meets the City’s municipal code requirement, and awarded the bid to Pierce.
The H-GAC Cooperative Purchasing Program assists local governments in reducing costs through this government-to-government procurement service available nationwide. This program is available to local government entities and qualifying non-profit corporations. Eligible membership and participation includes states, cities, counties, all government agencies, both public and non-public educational agencies, colleges, universities and non-profit organizations. The City of Livermore is currently a registered member. H-GAC offers a multitude of cooperatively contracted products, equipment and service opportunities to education and government entities throughout the country.
The City will receive the H-GAC pricing schedule, the purchase order will be made out to Pierce Manufacturing, but the City will work with the local vendor, Golden State Fire
205
Page 3
Apparatus (GSFA) in Sacramento, Ca. The manufacturer does not sell direct and GSFA is the Northern California representative.
The purchase through H-GAC Acceptance and Award contract #405078 will expedite the delivery of the replacement fire engine by eliminating the bidding process through the City, which could take from 45 to 60 days. This equipment fully meets the operational needs and fits the criteria specified by LPFD.
Pierce has agreed to deliver the equipment 295 – 325 days after receipt of the order. This short delivery time will allow LPFD the opportunity to begin using the replacement fire engine as soon as possible.
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
The replacement purchase of one Type I Fire Engine is approved and budgeted in Fleet Services fiscal year 2015-16 budget. The funding for this purchase has been accumulated in Fund 730 replacement reserves.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Cooperative Purchasing Program 2. Contract Pricing Worksheet 3. Proposal
Prepared by:
Mike Arnerich Public Works Supervisor
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
206
ATTACHMENT 1
COOPERATIVE PURCHASING PROGRAM Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments 3555 Timmons, Suite 120, Houston, TX 77027 Phone: 800-926-0234 Fax: 713-993-4548 www.hgacbuy.org
INVITATION TO SUBMIT COMPETITIVE: BIDS PROPOSALS
INVITATION NO.: FS12-13 ISSUE DATE: July 9, 2013
CATEGORY: Fire Service Apparatus (All Types)
PURPOSE OF THIS INVITATION The Cooperative Purchasing Program (HGACBuy) of the Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments is soliciting offerings for the furnishing of products/services as described herein. These products/services may be purchased by any of more than 7,000 member local governments, districts, agencies in 48 states across the nation. Responses must be submitted in an original and one (1) copy, and shall be subject to the terms, conditions, requirements and specifications detailed in the documents comprising this Invitation. Responses are scheduled to be opened publicly at H-GAC offices on the date indicated. For Bid Invitations, responses will be available for public review until 4:00 p.m. CT that day, and on subsequent days by appointment only. Any Responses submitted later than 1:00 p.m. on the due date will be returned unopened to the bidder/proposer.
PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE & DETAILS
DRAFT SPECIFICATION / INVITATION: May 7, 2013
PRE-BID/PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: June 6, 2013 @ 9:00 a.m. CT; Conference Room B
FINAL SPECIFICATION / INVITATION: July 9, 2013
BID/PROPOSAL RESPONSES DUE: August 13, 2013 @1:00 p.m. CT; H-GAC Clock
PUBLIC RESPONSE OPENING: August 13, 2013 @2:00 p.m. CT; H-GAC Clock
RECOMMENDATIONS TO BOARD: October 15, 2013
CONTRACT START DATE & TERM: December 1, 2013 thru November 30, 2015 The documents comprising this Invitation are available via web download at: https://www.hgacbuy.org/bids/ For assistance regarding this Invitation, please contact: Name: Bill Burton Phone: 832-681-2514 E-mail: [email protected]
CONTENTS OF THIS INVITATION
SECTION A - General Terms & Conditions SECTION B - Product/Service Specific Requirements & Specifications (Final) SECTION C - HGACBuy FORMS (Final) SECTION D - Pro-Forma (Sample) Contract This procurement conforms to government requirements for Competitive Procurement.
207 ATTACHMENT 2
208 ATTACHMENT 3 Pierce Manufacturing Inc.
AN OSHKOSH CORPORATION COMPANY • ISO 9001:2000 CERTIFIED
2600 AMERICAN DRIVE POST OFFICE BOX 2017 APPLETON, WISCONSIN 54912-2017 920-832-3000 • FAX 920-832-3208 www.piercemfg.com
PROPOSAL FOR PIERCE® FIRE APPARATUS
City of Livermore DATE August 14, 2015 3500 Robertson Park Road QUOTE NO. 40814-15 Livermore, CA 94550 EXPIRES September 30, 2015 SALES REP. Rich Myers
The undersigned is prepared to manufacture for you, upon an order being placed by you, for final acceptance by Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., at its home office in Appleton, Wisconsin, the apparatus and equipment herein named and for the following prices: OPTION A: 100% PRE-PAYMENT AT TIME OF CONTRACT SIGNING # Description Each A One (1) Pierce Quantum 1500 GPM Pumper 558,699.64 B Fire Fighting Equipment 20,645.63 C Communications Package 17,820.00 Two (2) Factory Inspection Trips (5 LPFD representatives on pre-construction, 4 LPFD D representatives on final inspection) 5,445.00 E Delivery / Dealer Preparation 4,300.00 F Performance Bond 1,805.59 G DISCOUNT FOR FULL PAYMENT BY CITY OF LIVERMORE AT CONTRACT SIGNING (26,285.67) H SUBTOTAL 582,430.19 I State Sales Tax @ 9.50% 55,330.87 J TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE 637,761.06
OPTION A: 100% PRE-PAYMENT AT TIME OF CONTRACT SIGNING TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
1) City of Livermore shall pay the purchase price of $637,761.06 for the Product within fifteen (15) calendar days of contract signing directly to Pierce Manufacturing Inc.
2) The proposed delivery timeframe for the Product will not begin until Pierce Manufacturing Inc. approves the contract and receives full payment of the purchase price of $637,761.06.
3) If payment of $637,761.06 is late and if City of Livermore elects not to have the delivery extended, $115.00 per calendar day will be added to the final invoice.
209
OPTION B: PAYMENT AT TIME OF DELIVERY / ACCEPTANCE # Description Each A One (1) Pierce Quantum 1500 GPM Pumper 558,699.64 B Fire Fighting Equipment 20,645.63 C Communications Package 17,820.00 Two (2) Factory Inspection Trips (5 LPFD representatives on pre-construction, 4 LPFD D representatives on final inspection) 5,445.00 E Delivery / Dealer Preparation 4,300.00 F Performance Bond 1,805.59 G SUBTOTAL 608,715.86 H State Sales Tax @ 9.50% 57,828.01 I TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE 666,543.87
OPTION B - PAYMENT AT TIME OF DELIVERY / ACCEPTANCE TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
1. City of Livermore shall pay the purchase price of $666,543.87 for the Product within thirty (30) calendar days after the Product departs the manufacturing facility.
2. If payment of $666,543.87 is late, $115.00 per calendar day will be added to the final invoice.
Said apparatus and equipment are to be built and shipped in accordance with the specifications hereto attached, delays due to strikes, war, or intentional conflict, failures to obtain chassis, materials, or other causes beyond our control not preventing, within about 295 TO 325 calendar days after receipt of this order and the acceptance thereof at our office at Appleton, Wisconsin, and to be delivered to you at LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA.
The specifications herein contained shall form a part of the final contract, and are subject to changes desired by the purchaser, provided such alterations are interlined prior to the acceptance by the company of the order to purchase, and provided such alterations do not materially affect the cost of the construction of the apparatus.
The proposal for fire apparatus conforms with all Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) rules and regulations in effect at the time of bid, and with all National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Guidelines for Automotive Fire Apparatus as published at the time of bid, except as modified by customer specifications. Any increased costs incurred by first party because of future changes in or additions to said DOT or NFPA standards will be passed along to the customers as an addition to the price set forth above.
Any Purchase Order (PO) issued as a result of this proposal should be made out to Pierce Manufacturing Inc.
Unless accepted by September 30, 2015, the right is reserved to withdraw this proposition.
Respectfully Submitted,
Authorized Sales Representative
2
210 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $637,762, FOR A REPLACEMENT FIRE ENGINE
Section 2.38.390 of the Livermore Municipal Code permits the purchase of vehicles and equipment through cooperative purchasing programs if the underlying purchase was made using a quotation or bid procedure at least as restrictive as that of the City of Livermore.
The City of Livermore utilized Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments (HGAC), an authorized Cooperative Purchasing Program, Contract No. 405078, for one replacement fire engine. The HGAC bid procedure is at least as restrictive as that of the City of Livermore.
Pursuant to sections 2.68.040 and 2.68.390 of the Livermore Municipal Code, staff determined Pierce Manufacturing Inc. to be the best value bidder. This bid award is based on cost, and the ability and capacity of the dealership to provide the vehicle specified. Pierce Manufacturing Inc. is the best value bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes the issuance of a purchase order, payable to Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $637,762, for the purchase and delivery of one replacement fire engine, in accordance with the terms, specifications, and general provisions contained in the Request for Bids and sections 2.68.040 and 2.68.390 of the Livermore Municipal Code. Copies of the documents referenced herein are on file in the Purchasing Division.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore rejects all other bids or proposals.
On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Gabrielle Janssens City Clerk Deputy City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. ______211
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.13
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Darren Greenwood, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Approval of Airport Medium-Term Industrial Office Lease Agreement
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an Airport medium-term commercial office lease agreement with WEFEA, Inc.
SUMMARY
The City owns two commercial/industrial buildings at the Airport referred to as “Airport 1” at #180 through #196 Airway Blvd. and “Airport 2” at #160 Airway Boulevard. The buildings accommodate multiple tenants that operate commercial or industrial businesses. Staff recommends approval of a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a medium-term commercial office lease agreement with WEFEA, Inc.
DISCUSSION
On April 30, 2011, two long-term ground lease agreements that were simultaneously executed in 1973 for the two buildings expired. As the parties did not desire to extend or renew the leases, the Airport took possession of the buildings. While most of the building square footage is being used for commercial office use, there are industrial uses in place such as a machine shop as well as one car and one motorcycle repair shop. Although on Airport property, these buildings are located on an approximately 2.1 acre parcel zoned Light Industrial (I-2), where such uses are permitted. Effective May 1, 2011, the City entered into new medium-term lease agreements with all existing tenants.
In November of 2014, Ahart Aviation ceased operation and willfully abandoned 7,085 square feet of office space in the “Airport 1” building. Following extensive clean-up and re-leasing efforts, staff negotiated a medium-term commercial office lease with WEFEA, Inc., a software development company. WEFEA will substantially upgrade and renovate these older offices at their cost and in return, rent will not be due until November 1, 2015
212 to help offset the renovation cost. This lease offers an excellent value for the City. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the lease.
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
The execution of the medium-term office lease will benefit the Airport enterprise fund with annual lease revenues of $53,563.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
Prepared by:
Leander Hauri Airport Manager
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
213
IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH WEFEA, INC.
The City of Livermore owns two commercial/industrial buildings, referred to as Airport 1, located at 180-196 Airway Boulevard, and Airport 2 located at 160 Airway Boulevard, at the Livermore Municipal Airport. These buildings accommodate multiple tenants operating commercial or industrial businesses.
City staff has negotiated and recommends approval of a medium-term commercial office lease with WEFEA, Inc., a software development company, of space nos. 180, 182, 184 and 186 within the Airport 1 building to replace a prior tenant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes the City Manager to sign, on behalf of the City of Livermore, a five-year Commercial Office Lease Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, with WEFEA, Inc., of space nos. 180, 182, 184 and 186 within the Airport 1 building.
On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Robert Mahlowitz City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. ______214 EXHIBIT A
215 EXHIBIT A
216 EXHIBIT A
217 EXHIBIT A
218 EXHIBIT A
219 EXHIBIT A
220 EXHIBIT A
221 EXHIBIT A
222 EXHIBIT A
223 EXHIBIT A
224 EXHIBIT A
225 EXHIBIT A
226 EXHIBIT A
227 EXHIBIT A
228 EXHIBIT A
229 EXHIBIT A
230 EXHIBIT A
231
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.14
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Darren Greenwood, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Approval of Airport Medium-Term Industrial Lease Agreement
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an Airport medium-term industrial lease agreement with Bentmoto LLC, dba HK Cycles, and a Termination Agreement with Dan Matson to allow for the continued operation of the same business at the same location, under new ownership.
SUMMARY
The City owns two commercial/industrial buildings at the Airport referred to as “Airport 1” at #180 through #196 Airway Boulevard and “Airport 2” at #160 Airway Boulevard. The buildings accommodate multiple tenants that operate commercial or industrial businesses. Staff recommends approval of a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a medium-term industrial lease agreement with Bentmoto LLC, dba HK Cycles, and a Termination Agreement to terminate the current lease with Dan Matson. The new tenant will continue to operate a motorcycle repair business as HK Cycles at the location.
DISCUSSION
On April 30, 2011, two long-term ground lease agreements for buildings Airport 1 and 2, executed in 1973, expired. As the existing tenants did not desire to extend or renew the leases, the Airport took possession of the buildings. While most of the buildings’ square footage is being used for commercial office use, industrial uses exist such as a machine shop, a car and a motorcycle sales and repair shop. Located on Airport property, these buildings are zoned Light Industrial (I-2), and allow for this type of industrial use. Effective May 1, 2011, the City entered into a five-year medium-term lease with Dan Matson to operate a motorcycle repair business known as HK Cycles.
232 Mr. Matson informed the Airport Manager over a year ago of his desire to retire and sell the business. Mr. Matson has presented the buyer of the HK Cycles business, Bentmoto LLC, and requests that Bentmoto take over the lease of the HK Cycles premises. Bentmoto will continue to do business as HK Cycles and serve a large list of existing clients. To accomplish this, staff recommends the City enter into a lease Termination Agreement with Mr. Matson and a separate Lease Agreement with Bentmoto. HK Cycles is a valuable tenant and staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the two agreements.
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
The execution of the medium-term industrial lease will continue to benefit the Airport enterprise fund with annual lease revenues of $26,268.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
Prepared by:
Leander Hauri Airport Manager
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
233
IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITY LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF LIVERMORE AND BENTMOTO LLC DBA HK CYCLES AND TERMINATION AGREEMENT WITH DAN MATSON
The City of Livermore (“City”) owns two commercial/industrial buildings, referred to as Airport 1, located at 180-196 Airway Boulevard, and Airport 2 located at 160 Airway Boulevard, at the Livermore Municipal Airport. These buildings accommodate multiple tenants operating commercial or industrial businesses.
On May 1, 2011, the City entered into a five-year lease of space No. 196 of the Airport 1 building with Mr. Dan Matson to operate a motorcycle repair business known as HK Cycles. Mr. Matson is retiring and sold his business to Bentmoto LLC, and requests that the City terminate his lease so that Bentmoto LLC may enter into a lease of the same space to continues operation of the HK Cycles business. Staff recommends that the City execute a lease termination agreement with Mr. Matson, and enter into a lease agreement with Bentmoto LLC.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes the City Manager to sign, on behalf of the City of Livermore:
1. The Termination Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, with Dan Matson, dba HK Cycles, to terminate the May 1, 2011 Lease Agreement of space no. 196 at the Airport 1 building; and.
2. The five-year Industrial Facility Lease Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit B, between the City and Bentmoto LLC, dba HK Cycles, of space no. 196 at the Airport 1 building;
On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Robert Mahlowitz City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. ______234 EXHIBIT A
235 EXHIBIT A
236 EXHIBIT A
237 EXHIBIT A
238 EXHIBIT A
239 EXHIBIT A
240 EXHIBIT A
241 EXHIBIT A
242 EXHIBIT A
243 EXHIBIT A
244 EXHIBIT A
245 EXHIBIT A
246 EXHIBIT A
247 EXHIBIT A
248 EXHIBIT A
249 EXHIBIT A
250 EXHIBIT A
251 EXHIBIT B
252 EXHIBIT B
253 EXHIBIT B
254 EXHIBIT B
255 EXHIBIT B
256 EXHIBIT B
257 EXHIBIT B
258 EXHIBIT B
259 EXHIBIT B
260 EXHIBIT B
261 EXHIBIT B
262 EXHIBIT B
263
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.15
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Douglas Alessio, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing execution of five year agreements with Accela, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $850,000 and Government Capital Corporation Loan Agreement in the amount of $761,025.51 for the upgrade and funding of City's Accela Sussex Asset Management system to Accela’s Civic Asset Management System.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing:
1. Execution of a five year agreement with Accela, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $850,000 to upgrade licensing, data conversion, system installation, and annual maintenance/hosting of the City's Sussex Asset Management system to Accela’s Civic Asset Management System.
2. Execution of a five year funding agreement with Government Capital Corporation in the amount of $761,025.40 ($821,809.15 with interest) for initial expense incurred in Accela, Inc. agreement for license upgrade, data conversion, system installation, and 5 years annual maintenance/hosting of the City's land based management system from Accela Permits Plus to Accela Automation.
SUMMARY
The City’s current server based Accela asset management system, Sussex, is used by the City’s Public Works, Community Development, and other City departments for the purpose of tracking City assets, including overall management, maintenance, and cost allocation. Sussex is at end of life for software support and hardware longevity; the product line has been discontinued by Accela. The current system was installed in 1998, with software updates for the system ending in 2006. Accela Civic Asset Management is the modern version of Accela’s Sussex Asset Management system and is a fully hosted (cloud based)
264
Page 2 asset management solution leveraged off of and tied into the City’s existing cloud based Accela Automation Land Based permitting system and the City’s Graphical Interface System (aka GIS).
The proposed system upgrade agreement with Accela, Inc., and the funding agreement with Government Capital Corporation, is to update the existing Accela Sussex application to Accela Civic Asset Management, while minimizing cash flow impacts on City resources. The updated system will provide a long term modernized asset management platform for City asset’s tracking and improve reporting mechanisms for the public. Enhancements include on-line invoicing and payments, public records access, maintenance scheduling (work orders), and asset status. Customer service will be further enhanced by enabling staff to review submitted trouble reports and respond to submitter with work order status and results. The enhancements will expand online services, thereby facilitating an internet-based “virtual” Public Works asset management program.
The anticipated Accela Civic Asset Management System life is ten years. The Accela, Inc. upgrade agreement is for five years in an amount not to exceed $850,000. Of that not to exceed amount, $761,025.51 covers initial system conversion costs which include the upgrade of Accela Sussex software licenses, data conversion, and Accela Civic Asset Management System implementation, along with five years of annual hosting and annual software maintenance for the new system. A low interest (3.35% APR) five year loan agreement with Government Capital Corporation in the amount of $761,025.51 ($821,809.15 total with interest) is proposed to fund the initial system conversion cost and minimize the impact of the Accela system upgrade on City cash flow.
DISCUSSION
The City’s current Accela asset management system, Sussex, is at end of life for software support and hardware. The current system, installed in 1998, has been phased-out by Accela, Inc. with no new or further software maintenance nor upgrades since 2006.
In 2013 the City converted its land based Accela Permits Plus system servers which handles Livermore Municipal Code and State Building Code permitting and regulations to a cloud based Accela Automation system. This next phase converts the end of life in-house Accela Sussex system to cloud based Accela Civic Asset Management. The asset management portion of the Accela hosted system handles the City’s assets, like streets, sidewalks, curbs & gutters, street lights, traffic control systems, signals, signs, stripping, walls, bridges, trees, landscape areas, median vegetation, irrigation systems, parks, plazas, benches, trash cans, public artwork, City buildings (and all their related systems - HVAC, carpet, furniture, roof, electrical, plumbing, etc.), vehicle fleet, tools, tractors, mowers, street sweepers, LMD cost allocations, accumulated labor cost allocations, invoicing (insurance claims/LMD etc.), ongoing maintenance scheduling, work orders, and so on. The Civic Asset Management data will be tied into the City’s Accela Automation Land Based permitting system and GIS to achieve efficiencies and departmental data sharing not previously possible.
265
Page 3
The upgraded Accela Civic Asset Management product will be implemented as a hosted service (cloud based) thus reducing the number of hardware servers and related maintenance costs to the City. This is seven month upgrade project. The contracts presented tonight encompass all aspects of the system upgrade, including licensing, consulting, software engineering, data conversion, and training, along with five years of annual maintenance and hosting, to first upgrade and then maintain the City’s current Sussex system to Accela’s Civic Asset Management system for five years. The initial Accela system upgrade would be financed through a concurrent five year low interest loan with Government Capital Corporation, as detailed in Fiscal and Administrative Impacts section below. Anticipated Accela Civic system life is ten years. Ongoing annual maintenance and hosting fees in year six and beyond will be funded from Information Technology’s operations budget.
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
Information Technology large project funding has been contemplated with funds set aside over the past ten years in preparation for this system upgrade (Fund 720). The initial system upgrade, and licensing, including five years of annual maintenance/hosting for the system is $761,025.51. The Accela, Inc. agreement amount is not to exceed $850,000 for the initial system upgrade and anticipated incidental implementation expense, such as custom programming modifications for the five year period. The initial system upgrade is proposed to be financed via a low interest rate (3.35% APR) loan with Government Capital Corporation.
Five annual Government Capital loan payments of $164,361.83 will be appropriated from Information Technology Internal Service Fund (Fund 720) to repay the Government Capital Corporation loan, including interest, totaling $821,809.15. This funds the initial system upgrade, or 96.7% of the concurrent five year Accela Inc. service agreement. The remaining 4.3% of the Accela, Inc. five year agreement is a contingency amount. This contingency, and the ongoing annual Accela maintenance and hosting for the Accela Automation system in year six and beyond, is funded from Information Technology’s operations budget (Fund 720).
The first annual loan payment to Government Capital is deferred as part of the loan agreement and would be due February 1, 2016 (FY2015-16). Each of the five annual loan payments will be appropriated from Information Technology’s Fund 720, as part of normal budget cycle approval processes. The City is protected from loan liability should vendor default on agreement, or the City fails to appropriate funds. Additionally, the funding is secured by the Accela license, so the loan does not impact the City’s bond funding capabilities in any way.
The seven month conversion project will require Public Works and Information Technology Division staff support and participation at various levels and intensities during the project implementation. Staff support needs for the project will be incorporated into daily work flow processes.
266
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
None.
Prepared by:
Neal Snedecor Information Technology Manager
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
267 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS WITH ACCELA, INC. AND GOVERNMENT CAPITAL CORPORATION, AND DESIGNATION OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT WITH GOVERNMENT CAPITAL CORPORATION AS A QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATION (FUND 770)
The City’s current Accela asset management system, Sussex, is used by the City’s Public Works, Community Development & Economic Department, and other City departments for the purpose of tracking City assets, including overall management, maintenance, and cost allocation.
Sussex is at end-of-life for software support and hardware longevity as the product line has been phased out by Accela, Inc. The current system was installed in 1998, with software updates for the system ending in 2006. Accela Civic Asset Management System is the modern version of Accela’s Sussex asset management system and is a fully hosted (cloud based) asset management solution.
Government Capital Corporation will provide a low-interest, tax-exempt Technology Lease-Purchase Agreement for the purpose of acquiring said Accela Civic Asset Management System upgrade.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that:
1. The City Manager is authorized to sign, on behalf of the City of Livermore, a five-year agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, with Accela, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $850,000 for the upgrade of Accela Sussex to Accela Civic Asset Management, including hosting and software maintenance services.
2. The City Manager is authorized to sign, on behalf of the City of Livermore, a five-year funding agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit B, with Government Capital Corporation, in the principal amount of $761,025.51 (total of $821,809.15 with interest) for the funding of Accela Sussex to Accela Civic Asset Management upgrade, including five years of hosting and software maintenance services.
3. The Loan Agreement with Government Capital Corporation is designated as a Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligation pursuant to 26 USC §265(b)(3)(B)(III) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
268 RESOLUTION NO. ______
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Jason Alcala City Clerk City Attorney
269 RESOLUTION NO. ______
EXHIBIT A
270 EXHIBIT A
271 EXHIBIT A
272 EXHIBIT A
273 EXHIBIT A
274 EXHIBIT A
275 EXHIBIT A
276 EXHIBIT A
277 EXHIBIT A
278 EXHIBIT A
279 EXHIBIT A
280 EXHIBIT A
281 EXHIBIT A
282 EXHIBIT A
283 EXHIBIT A
284 EXHIBIT A
285 EXHIBIT A
286 EXHIBIT A
287 EXHIBIT A
288 EXHIBIT A
289 EXHIBIT A
290 EXHIBIT A
291 EXHIBIT A
292 EXHIBIT A
293 EXHIBIT A
294 EXHIBIT A
295 EXHIBIT A
296 EXHIBIT A
297 EXHIBIT A
298 EXHIBIT A
299 EXHIBIT A
300 EXHIBIT A
301 EXHIBIT A
302 EXHIBIT A
303 EXHIBIT A
304 EXHIBIT A
305 EXHIBIT A
306 EXHIBIT A
307 EXHIBIT A
308 EXHIBIT A
309 EXHIBIT A
310 EXHIBIT A
311 EXHIBIT A
312 EXHIBIT A
313 EXHIBIT A
314 EXHIBIT A
315 EXHIBIT A
316 EXHIBIT A
317 EXHIBIT A
318 EXHIBIT A
319 EXHIBIT A
320 EXHIBIT A
321 EXHIBIT A
322 EXHIBIT A
323 EXHIBIT A
324 EXHIBIT A
325 EXHIBIT A
326 EXHIBIT A
327 EXHIBIT A
328 EXHIBIT A
329 EXHIBIT A
330 EXHIBIT A
331 EXHIBIT A
332 EXHIBIT A
333 EXHIBIT A
334 EXHIBIT A
335 EXHIBIT A
336 EXHIBIT A
337 EXHIBIT A
338 EXHIBIT A
339 EXHIBIT A
340 EXHIBIT A
341 EXHIBIT A
342 EXHIBIT A
343 EXHIBIT A
344 EXHIBIT A
345 EXHIBIT A
346 EXHIBIT A
347 EXHIBIT A
348 EXHIBIT A
349 EXHIBIT A
350 EXHIBIT A
351 EXHIBIT A
352 EXHIBIT A
353 EXHIBIT A
354 EXHIBIT A
355 EXHIBIT A
356 EXHIBIT A
357 EXHIBIT A
358 EXHIBIT B
359 EXHIBIT B
360 EXHIBIT B
361 EXHIBIT B
362 EXHIBIT B
363 EXHIBIT B
364 EXHIBIT B
365 EXHIBIT B
366 EXHIBIT B
367 EXHIBIT B
368 EXHIBIT B
369 EXHIBIT B
370
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.16
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ruben Torres, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: California Office of Emergency Services Resolution
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution confirming compensation for Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department personnel away from their official duty station and assigned to an emergency incident.
SUMMARY
Adoption of this resolution is a new requirement by the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) to receive reimbursement for emergency incident deployment. Cal OES Fire and Rescue Division administer the process to reimburse each California Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System agency for its costs when assisting the State of California during major emergencies. This includes reimbursement of personnel and emergency apparatus costs. Cal OES requires a governing body resolution from each participating agency identifying portal to portal (from time of initial dispatch to time of return home) compensation as past and current departmental practice for fire department personnel assisting at emergencies away from their official duty station. This resolution will enable Cal OES to continue to reimburse all portal to portal costs incurred by the Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD).
DISCUSSION
Cal OES Fire and Rescue Division is responsible for the development, implementation and coordination of the California Fire Service and Rescue emergency Mutual Aid Plan. This plan was first prepared and adopted in 1950 as part of the California State Civil Defense and Disaster Relief Plan. The purpose of the plan is to provide for systematic mobilization, organization and operation of necessary fire and rescue resources in the state. This includes coordinated responses to major events such as fires, earthquakes, and hazardous materials incidents.
371
Page 2
The State of California, Governor’s Office of Emergency Services has entered into an agreement with other state and federal agencies under the provisions of managing the California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement. This additional agreement is entitled Agreement for Local Government Fire and Emergency Assistance to the State of California and Federal Fire Agencies and is also referred to as the California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA). The CFAA allows for LPFD to be reimbursed for expenses associated with apparatus and personnel assigned to an emergency incident in the jurisdiction of another fire agency. Reimbursement is based on expenses beginning at dispatch from the home agency to the time the resource returned to their home agency (portal to portal). Effective January 2015, local agencies that do not have an existing memorandum of understanding must adopt a resolution indicating that compensation for all hours worked will be reimbursed on a portal to portal basis. LPFD does not have an existing memorandum of understanding and is required to submit such a resolution adopted by its governing bodies for portal to portal reimbursement to continue.
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
This resolution will enable the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) to recover costs associated with the State of California Mutual Aid System.
ATTACHMENTS
None.
Prepared by:
Maria Ojeda Assistant to the City Manager, City of Pleasanton
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
372
IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PORTAL TO PORTAL AND OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR LIVERMORE-PLEASANTON FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND RESPONDING AWAY FROM THEIR OFFICIAL DUTY STATION AND ASSIGNED TO AN EMERGENCY INCIDENT
The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department is a public agency located in the County of Alameda, State of California. It is the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department’s desire to provide fair and legal compensation to its personnel for time worked.
The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department response personnel includes the following positions: Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Battalion Chief, Fire Captain, Engineer, Firefighter/Paramedic, and Firefighter/EMT.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE that the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department will continue to compensate its personnel portal to portal while in the course of their employment and away from their official duty station and assigned to an emergency incident, in support of an emergency incident, or pre-position for emergency response.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department will continue to compensate its personnel overtime in accordance with their current Memorandum of Understanding while in the course of their employment and away from their official duty station and assigned to an emergency incident, in support of an emergency incident, or pre-positioned for emergency response.
On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Gabrielle Janssens City Clerk Deputy City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. ______373
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 5.01
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephan Kiefer, Community and Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Hearing to consider a request for the development of 47 single-family homes on a vacant 32+ acre parcel. (Garaventa Hills)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Planning Commission and staff recommend the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report and, after approval of the application, instruct staff to file the Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk;
2. Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (Subdivision 13-001) and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 13-005;
3. Introduce an ordinance approving Planned Development Residential (PD-R) 13-001.
SUMMARY
Lafferty Homes is proposing a residential development on a vacant, approximately 32- acre site. The proposal is for a 49-lot subdivision (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094), and Planned Development - Residential (PD-R 13-001) to develop 47 single family homes, and one parcel each for the on-site knolls and natural buffers around the perimeter of the project.
The applicant has made significant changes to the development plan in response to concerns from the community, Planning Commission, Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (Park District), and City Staff. These changes to the Project include:
• Reducing the number of units from 76 to 47, • Eliminating a Hawk Street connection and bridge over Altamont Creek, • Preserving the rock outcrop in the northwest corner of the site,
374
Page 2
• Providing more 1 and 1½-story floor plans, • Replacing a portion of roadway with an Emergency Vehicle Access in order to reduce grading, • Eliminating new landscaping between the Project site and the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve to eliminate nesting and perching opportunities for raptors that prey on burrowing owls, • Providing a drain system to collect all runoff from the residential lots and convey it to the treatment basin to protect the soil chemistry in the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve, • Constructing a pedestrian/bicycle path that connects to the existing trail south of Bear Creek Drive to link the Project to Altamont Creek Park, and • Providing visual simulations of the Project in context with the surrounding developed and natural environments.
The Final Environmental Impact Report indicates that the site could be developed without significant impacts to the environment and can support this infill development at a density envisioned under the current 2003 General Plan Urban Low Residential designation, at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre. The Project is comparable in development pattern to the Altamont Creek and Bluff’s developments to the east and northeast (Attachment 4), and provides public access to the on-site knolls and rock outcrop that currently are privately owned.
DISCUSSION
The Project is a 47-unit single-family residential subdivision on a vacant approximately 32-acre site. A westerly extension of Bear Creek Drive provides access to the internal residential street circumscribing the site’s two prominent knolls. Lot sizes range from 7,320 square feet to 13,360 square feet with homes between 3,160 to 4,180 square feet. Lots and roadways will comprise approximately 45 percent of the site, with the remaining land reserved for open space buffers on the site’s edges, undeveloped knolls with informal pedestrian trails, and a storm water detention basin with a new outfall pipe to Altamont Creek.
A Community Facilities District will fund the maintenance of the detention basin, open space buffers, and knolls. The informal trails currently found on the privately owned knolls will be formally open for public access.
The Planned Development District-Residential will establish development standards that enable flexibility in order to respond to sensitive site constraints. The development standards include provisions for setbacks, height, floor area, and open space. Site Plan Design Review provides for review of the site plan, streetscape, architecture, and landscaping details.
This project site has an extensive land use history and is the last remaining developable parcel under the Maralisa development. The Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 18, 2015 includes an extensive discussion of the site’s history and a detailed
375
Page 3
analysis of the project (Attachment 10). The development plans respond to all of the recommendations from the Planning Commission and staff.
General Plan
The site’s General Plan Land Use designation is Urban Low Residential (UL-1), at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre. Consistent with the UL-1 Land Use designation, the proposal’s average density is approximately 1.49 units per acre.
Development of the site did not occur with the rest of the Maralisa project due to unknown environmental constraints, but the Maralisa project moved forward and has a density of 2.2 units per acre. During the City’s General Plan Update in 2003, the General Plan land use designation for the site changed from ULM to its current UL-1. Though the site’s environmental sensitivity was unknown at this time, the change to a lower density was in part due to the site’s potential environmental constraints.
The Project site is within the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary and City boundary, adjacent to established suburban areas, and has a residential General Plan land use designation. The acknowledgement of the site in the General Plan as a location for residential development indicates it is part of the City’s planned growth and not intended as open space.
Zoning
The Project site’s current Zoning Classification is Planned Development (PD). The PD zone applies to areas of the City appropriate for residential, commercial, and industrial planned development projects that require more flexible design standards. The flexibility allows a developer to address geologic, topographical and environmental factors and allows development of projects with open space and neighborhood amenities.
The Project provides open space buffers around the project perimeter, natural knolls in the center of the new neighborhood, and opens the informal trails traversing the knolls and leading to the rock outcrop for public use. See the Planned Development – Residential section in this report for more details on project-specific development standards.
Housing Implementation Program
The applicant is requesting housing allocations that are necessary to develop the property under the City’s 2014-2017 Housing Implementation Program. The allocations would occur upon the City Council’s approval of the Subdivision Map. Consistent with the Green Building Targeted Category approved by the City Council on June 23, 2014, the applicant will develop a photovoltaic system that provides for a minimum of 10 percent of the total anticipated energy demand of the project. Solar shall be provided on at least 20
376
Page 4
percent of units, providing approximately 50 percent of each unit’s anticipated energy demand. The Conditions of Approval include this requirement.
Subdivision
Comparable to the lot sizes in the Altamont Creek development to the east, the Project’s average lot size is approximately 9,500 square feet. Lot sizes in the Bluff’s to the northeast are slightly larger. The new public street is consistent with the City’s Development Standards for local residential streets with separated sidewalks, and matches the design for the existing segment of Bear Creek Drive to the east. Sanitary sewer and water utility stubs are located at the west end of Bear Creek Drive and appropriately sized to accommodate development of the Project.
The subdivision map includes two open space parcels. One parcel is for the two on-site knolls and one parcel is for natural buffers around the north, west and southern boundaries. A stormwater detention basin in the southeast corner of the site collects stormwater runoff and conveys it to Altamont Creek.
Project grading balances cut and fill on-site. The Project preserves the on-site knolls, informal paths, and rock outcrop in the northwest corner of the site. All of these on-site features currently exist on the private property but will be formally accessible to the public with development of the project.
The Project will provide a formal pedestrian/bicycle connection from the southeast corner of the site to the improved trail west of Black Oak Court. A connection at this location will enable residents in the new neighborhood to directly access the existing bridge over Altamont Creek located south of Black Oak Court.
Consistent with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and in agreement with the City’s Housing and Human Services Division, the applicant has agreed to satisfy its affordable housing obligation by paying an in-lieu fee. The Project will generate approximately $733,000 for use by the City toward development of affordable housing. Ultimately, the details of the affordable housing provision will be subject to City Council approval of a Housing Agreement before adoption of the final map.
Environmental mitigation proposed for the project will include the permanent preservation, monitoring and management of an 85-acre parcel in the Springtown Alkali Sink. The mitigation parcel is located north of Scenic Avenue between Bluebell Avenue and Broadmoor Avenue (Attachment 3). The highly sensitive property contains a number of important natural resources including a section of Altamont Creek and a portion of a unique alkali-saline wetland habitat. The Federally protected Palmate Bracted Bird’s Beak is also present on the property.
Environmental permits from Resource Agencies will require the following components to ensure protection of the mitigation property in perpetuity:
377
Page 5
• Permanent conservation easement held by a non-profit trust or other organization approved by the Resource Agencies to hold easements, • A long term management plan that includes an annual maintenance and monitoring cost calculation, and • A non-wasting endowment to fund the long-term management and monitoring consistent with the long-term management plan.
The City owns approximately 300 acres north and immediately adjacent of the 85-acre mitigation property. City staff is working with a consultant and Resource Agencies to establish a mitigation bank on the City owned properties. Establishment of a conservation and/or mitigation bank on the City’s properties would facilitate restoration and permanent preservation. Establishment of the mitigation bank also requires placing the properties under a permanent conservation easement with a long-term management plan and endowment to fund monitoring and maintenance.
Consistent with the City’s General Plan and City Council priorities, the City continues to seek opportunities to acquire open space, in fee and easement, for habitat and agricultural preservation. The City pursues properties with open space General Plan and Zoning designations that are beyond the City’s urban growth boundaries. Acquiring such properties for permanent open space stabilizes land use and strategically secures the urban growth boundaries. Since 2008, the City and partners such as the East Bay Regional Park District and Tri-Valley Conservancy have acquired over 1,000 acres for open space and trails.
Planned Development - Residential
The Livermore Development Code requires projects utilizing the Planned Development Zone to conform to the density specified in the General Plan and to the development standards in the Suburban Residential (RS) zone. The Project conforms to all applicable development standards of the RS zone, except for standards regarding setbacks and floor area ratio.
For each variation from conventional RS provisions, the Development Code requires the applicant to provide a design feature that is in proportion to the degree of variation. The applicant is proposing the following design features that are appropriate for the degree of variation from the standards in the conventional RS zoning:
a. Reservation of open space: Over half of the site (52 percent) is open space, including the two on-site knolls, rock outcrop in the northwest corner, and natural buffers. The on-site knolls and rock outcrop will be publicly accessible.
b. Trails beyond those required under the parkland dedication ordinance: The proposal retains the informal trails that traverse the knolls and requires the applicant to construct a pedestrian/bicycle connection from Bear Creek Road at the site entry to the existing pedestrian/bicycle trail along Altamont Creek.
378
Page 6
c. Clustering of homes (in order to provide greater open space, or more parks, trails, and neighborhood amenities): Clustering the homes along the roadway and lower lying portions of the site and constructing the roadway along the topographic contours enables the provision of greater open space.
d. Provision of public, neighborhood amenities: Granite benches near the rock outcrop will provide opportunities for pedestrian respites and offer views to Brushy Peak and the hills beyond. The knolls, trails and rock outcrop will be publicly accessible.
e. Diversification of building sizes and types: The Project offers five different floor plans with two to three elevations reflecting modern interpretations of a Tuscan architectural style. Two floor plans are one-story, one is one and one-half story, and two are two-story.
Site Plan Design Review
The applicant’s design team worked closely with City staff to develop a site design that is consistent with the City’s Design Standard and Guidelines, the Livermore Development Code, and public safety, engineering, and transportation standards. The development plans and architecture include all of the recommendations from the Planning Commission and staff. The Project reflects appropriate site planning, high quality architecture, and landscape design that contributes positively to the neighborhood’s residential character.
Planning Commission
On July 1, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council deny the Project. Attachments 12 and 13 are the Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes, respectively. Generally, the Commission’s recommendation was due to the Project’s extensive grading, unknown aesthetic context, and concern from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (Park District) regarding compatibility with the adjacent Garaventa Wetlands Preserve. The applicant chose not to pursue a decision from the City Council. Instead, they chose to make more changes to the project and return to the Planning Commission.
On August 18, 2015, the Planning Commission formally considered the project, held a public hearing, and recommended unanimously to approve the project. The Planning Commission commended the applicant for revising the development plans to address concerns from the Commission, community, and Park District. They also commended the Save Our Hill Group for their efforts that led to preserving the on-site knolls and rock outcrop and opened these features formally for use by the public.
The Planning Commission added the following recommendations that the applicant has included in the revised development plans:
• Replace two-story floor plans on Lots 5, 7, and 10 with 1 or 1½ story homes,
379
Page 7
• Address safety concerns regarding the 6-foot high retaining wall along the entry street, and • Work with City staff to determine the extent of stone cladding added to the rear and side elevations.
The Planning Commission also recommended the applicant coordinate development of a grassland management program for the on-site knolls and buffers with City staff and the Park District. The Conditions of Approval include this recommendation (Attachment 8).
Environmental Determination
The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), together with the Draft EIR published in November 2012, constitutes the Final EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA. On June 11, 2014, copies of the Final EIR were made available to the public at the Livermore Planning Division, Livermore Public Library Main Branch, and on the City’s website at www.cityoflivermore.net. The Final EIR continues to be available at these locations and on the City’s website.
The Final EIR indicates that the site could be developed without significant impacts to the environment. A Technical Memorandum prepared by the City’s Environmental Consultant addresses the changes to the Project since issuance of the Final EIR (Attachment 14). Changes are the replacement of the loop road with an Emergency Vehicle Access to reduce grading, and installation of subdrains along the northern and western buffers to convey runoff from project sources to the treatment basin. The Memorandum confirms that the changes to the Project do not require recirculation of the Final EIR.
FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
The development of the project site will increase property valuation of the vacant parcel, resulting in an increase in property tax revenue to the City. The revenue increase will be offset by expenditures on City services such as public safety, road maintenance, and library services to serve the new residents. The project will also be subject to applicable development fees that will help offset the financial impacts of the new development. A community facilities district will cover ongoing maintenance costs of the on-site knolls, trails, buffers, and storm drain detention basin.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map 2. Development Plans 3. Proposed Mitigation Parcel 4. Similar Development Patterns in Northeast Livermore 5. 1990 Maralisa Project Development Plan 6. Planned Development-Residential 13-001 District Standards 7. Conditions of Approval, Site Plan Design Review 13-005 8. Conditions of Approval, Tentative Tract Map 8094
380
Page 8
9. Planning Commission Resolution of Approval 10. Planning Commission Staff Report, August 18, 2015 11. Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes, August 18, 2015 12. Planning Commission Staff Report, July 1, 2014 13. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, July 1, 2014 14. Technical Memorandum from Environmental Consultant dated June 25, 2015 15. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 16. Letter in support from the property owner not contained in the EIR documents 17. Letters/emails in opposition from the public not contained in the EIR documents 18. Petition opposing the project 19. Save the Hill Group Comments
Garaventa Hills Final Environmental Impact Report dated June 2014 is available for public review at the following locations: • Civic Center Library • City Clerk’s Office • City website http://www.cityoflivermore.net/citygov/cd/planning/garaventa_hills_final_eir.asp
Prepared by:
Steve Stewart Principal Planner
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
381 SUB13-001 PD-R 13-001 SPDR13-005
LOCATION MAP d d a a o o R R
o o c c s s a a V V
h h t t r r o o N N d d a SITE a o o R R
n n i i l l h h g g u u a a L L
Scenic Ave.
North
382 ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 5.01
ATTACHMENT 2
Development Plans
is available at the following link:
http://laserfiche.cityoflivermore.net/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=223735
PUBLIC REVIEW COPIES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS:
City Clerk’s Office 1052 South Livermore Avenue
Civic Center Library 1188 South Livermore Avenue
383 City-Owned 300 Acres
(Pending Mitigation Bank)
Proposed Garaventa Hills Mitigation Site
City of Livermore PG&E Mitigation Site
85- Acre Mitigation Parcel
ATTACHMENT 3
384 The Bluffs Subdivision
Wetlands
Garaventa Hills Site
Three Knolls 385 ATTACHMENT 4
Altamont Creek Subdivision
Similar Development Patterns – The Bluff’s and Altamont Creek Subdivisions Garaventa Hills Site
386 ATTACHMENT 5 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Planned Development Residential 13-001
Garaventa Hills
47 residential units, two on-site knolls, open space buffers, and stormwater detention basin on the approximately 31.7-acre Garaventa Property
Location East of North Vasco Road, North of Garaventa Ranch Road/ Altamont Creek Drive, and West of Laughlin Road
Prepared: August 6, 2015 Approved by Planning Commission: August 18, 2015 Approved by City Council: September 14, 2015
PURPOSE: The purpose of establishing this Planned Development District is to regulate the development of approximately 31.7 acres of land located east of North Vasco Road, north of Garaventa Ranch Road/Altamont Creek Drive, and west of Laughlin Road The intent of this Planned Development District is to accomplish the following:
1. To provide an environment for and conducive to the development and protection of single family residential development.
2. To allow residential development consistent with the character of the nearby residential neighborhoods.
3. To allow flexible subdivision design and development that encourages a variety of lot size, housing types, and housing opportunities for various income groups.
A. PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USES
The following are the principal permitted uses in this District:
1. Dwelling: Single family 2. Health Facility: Residential care, 1-6 clients 3. Transitional/Supportive Housing 4. Small and large family home daycare
B. ACCESSORY USES
The following are accessory uses permitted in this District:
1. Secondary Dwelling Unit 2. Home Occupation
1 387 ATTACHMENT 6
C. CONDITIONAL USES
The following uses are permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit in addition to any other prerequisite permits and conformance to all applicable regulations set forth in this Planned Development and elsewhere in the Livermore Development Code:
1. Health Facility: Residential care, 7 or more clients.
2. Public and Quasi-Public in accordance with Livermore Development Code 6.02.090.
D. SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
Planned Development-Residential 13-001 District shall be subject to the same site development standards established in the Suburban Residential (R-S) District and other applicable standards of the Development Code, as amended, except as follows:
1. Front setback: 15 feet minimum.
2. Rear setback: 20 feet minimum.
3. Side setback: 7 feet minimum, total 17 feet.
4. Floor area ratio: 0.45 maximum including garages (except as listed below):
Lot 16 – 0.46; Lot 17 – 0.53; Lot 23 – 0.47; Lot 29 – 0.46; Lot 38 – 0.47; Lot 40 – 0.47.
5. Fences between the house and side property lines shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the front wall of the house, not counting porches, in order to enhance the streetscape by revealing more of the homes and deemphasizing the presence of fencing.
6. Fences along the Common Area boundaries of Lots 1, 13, 14, 29, 30, 38, 39, and 47 shall not exceed more than 50 percent of the lot depth in order to expose more of the homes and deemphasize the fence in these prominent locations.
7. Chain link fencing is prohibited.
2 388 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Site Plan Design Review 13-005 (SPDR 13-005)
Garaventa Hills
47 residential units, two on-site knolls, open space buffers, and stormwater detention basin on the approximately 31.7-acre Garaventa Property
Location East of North Vasco Road, North of Garaventa Ranch Road/ Altamont Creek Drive, and West of Laughlin Road
Prepared: August 6, 2015 Approved by Planning Commission: August 18, 2015 Approved by City Council: September 14, 2015
A. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION
1. The project shall be in conformance with all City Ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies. The conditions listed below are particularly pertinent to this permit and shall not be construed to permit violation of other laws and policies not so listed.
2. Approval is limited to the conformance of the land use and the Planned Development 13-001 requirements. Use of the property shall be limited to those permitted by the Livermore Development Code, as it exists now or may be amended in the future.
3. The permit shall expire on September 14, 2017, unless an extension is submitted and approved prior to expiration of the permit.
B. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall demonstrate conformance to the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Planning Division:
1. The applicant shall respond in writing to all conditions contained herein and in attachments to this document. Responses shall clearly describe how each condition has been met. When the response references construction drawings, the page number and detail reference, if applicable, shall be noted.
2. Provide a photovoltaic system which provides for a minimum of 10 percent of the total anticipated energy demand of the project. Solar shall be provided on at least 20 percent of units, providing approximately 50 percent of each unit’s household’s anticipated energy demand.
1 389 ATTACHMENT 7
3. Prior to any building permit issuance the applicant shall provide a plotting diagram labeling each parcel with floor plan number, elevation style, and color scheme, subject to staff review and approval to ensure variation.
4. Construction plans shall demonstrate that elevations do not repeat directly across the street or on immediately adjacent lots.
5. Exclusion fencing shall extend from the side property lines of Lots 1, 13, and 14 to the Project perimeter fence in order to prevent trespass into the Zone 7 flood protection areas, buffers, and Preserve.
6. Chain link fencing is prohibited.
7. Rear property line fences shall be open view fencing constructed with dark colored materials.
8. Interior residential fences shall match the redwood “good neighbor fence” shown on Sheet L-5.
9. Shorten the length of the fences along the common area boundaries of Lots 1, 13, 14, 29, 30, 38, 39, and 47 so that they do not exceed more than 50 percent of the lot depth in order to enhance the streetscape and deemphasize the fence in these prominent locations.
10. Set all fences between the house and side property lines at least 10 feet back from the front wall of the house, not counting porches, in order to enhance the streetscape by revealing more of the homes and deemphasizing the presence of fencing.
11. Plan 1 Elevations A & B - Provide stone cladding on the exterior master bedroom wall on the rear of elevations.
12. Plan 2 Elevations A & B - Provide stone cladding on the exterior great room walls on the rear elevations.
13. Plan 3, Elevation A - Extend the stone cladding on the second story to all four sides.
14. Plan 4, Elevations A & B - Provide stone cladding on the exterior bedroom no. 4 walls on the rear elevations.
15. Plan 5, Elevations A & B - Provide stone cladding on the exterior kitchen/dining room (ground floor) and bedroom no. 4 (second story) exterior walls.
16. Eliminate the trees proposed between the rock outcrop and new street, and in the northeast portion of the buffer to eliminate all perching and nesting opportunities along the project edges for Burrowing owl predators.
2 390
17. Install retaining walls that are clad in stone that matches the texture and color of the stones found at the rock outcrop and throughout the site for review and approval by the Planning Division.
18. Provide native shrubs in the northeast portion of the buffer along the rear property lines of Lots 23, 24, and 25 in order to soften the visual prominence of the retaining walls.
19. Monitoring, maintenance, and management of the buffers and open space shall be funded by the Community Facilities District or other finance mechanism approved by the City.
20. Monitoring, maintenance, and management of the buffers and open space shall be performed by the City, Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, or other entity qualified to perform the activities identified in the open space management plan.
21. All construction activities shall be subject to the City’s Municipal Code requirements related to construction noise (9.36.080). The applicant shall provide notice of these requirements on all construction plan sets.
22. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance prior to any building permit issuance.
23. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with applicable CalGreen building requirements prior to building permit issuance.
24. A minimum of one 24-inch box and one 15-gallon tree shall be planted in the front yard of each lot.
C. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. This Site Plan Approval Permit is not an authorization to commence construction. Building construction, alterations, repairs, sign erection, or occupancy shall not be permitted without prior approval of the Building Division through issuance of any required permits.
2. Development shall conform to the site plan designated by the City as Exhibit B-1. Exhibit B-1 shall consist of the submitted plan amended by the applicant to reflect any changes indicated above in the Project Specific Conditions or required by the City in the approval process. The applicant shall submit any required amended plans to the Planning Division within 90 days of project approval.
3. Minor amendment to the permit may be approved by the Planning Division, provided the permit is still in substantial conformance with the original approval.
3 391 4. The applicant shall provide proof prior to receiving a building permit for excavation, grading or construction on the site, that Alameda County Vector Control Services District has been contacted to determine if any pre-baiting requirements are necessary to control migration of vermin to adjacent property.
5. To the extent permitted by law, the project applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, boards, commissions, employees and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void the approval of the project or any permit authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice.
4 392 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (Subdivision 13-001)
Garaventa Hills
47 residential units, two on-site knolls, open space buffers, and stormwater detention basin on the approximately 31.7-acre Garaventa Property
Location: East of North Vasco Road, North of Garaventa Ranch Road/ Altamont Creek Drive, and West of Laughlin Road
Prepared: August 6, 2015 Approved by Planning Commission: August 18, 2015 Approved by City Council: September 14, 2015
A. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION
1. The project shall be in conformance with all City Ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies. The conditions listed below are particularly pertinent to this subdivision and shall not be construed to permit violation of other laws and policies not so listed.
2. Approval is limited to the conformance of the land use and Livermore Development Code requirements. Use of the property shall be limited to those permitted by Planned Development – Residential 13-001.
3. Tentative Tract Map 8094 shall expire unless a final map is filed by September 14, 2017, unless an extension is submitted and approved by the City prior to the expiration of the map.
B. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
Prior to issuance of a Final Map, the applicant shall demonstrate conformance to the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Planning Division:
1. The applicant shall respond in writing to all conditions contained in this document and its attachments. Responses shall describe how the condition has been met and shall, where applicable, direct the plan checker to the page and/or drawing detail that demonstrates compliance with the condition. A copy of these responses shall be provided with each set of improvement plans.
2. The Planning Division may approve minor amendment to the permit, provided that the permit is still in substantial conformance with the original approval.
1 ATTACHMENT 8 393 3. Install subdrains along the western and northern perimeters to intercept any subsurface runoff from irrigation, swimming pools, and other suburban sources. Subdrains will convey any remaining runoff to the treatment basin.
4. Coordinate design and construction of perimeter fencing with the City of Livermore, Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, and applicable Resource Agencies.
5. Coordinate design and construction of a pedestrian/bicycle connection from the southeast corner of the Project site to the improved trail west of Black Oak Court with the City of Livermore, Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, and Zone 7.
6. Provide a dark, coated metal view fence that will sit on top of the retaining walls along the rear property lines.
7. Coordinate design and installation of signs to raise public awareness of sensitive resources within the Preserve and lands to the north with the City of Livermore, Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, and applicable Resource Agencies.
8. Eliminate landscape planting in the buffers to eliminate perching for diurnal raptor species that prey on burrowing owls and compete for burrowing owl prey.
9. Develop a management plan for the project’s buffer areas and knolls. Coordinate development of the management plan with the City of Livermore and Livermore Area Recreation and Park District in order to synchronize management with the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve under the Park District’s Grassland Management Plan.
10. Provide native shrubs in the northeast portion of the buffer along the rear property lines of Lots 23, 24, and 25 in order to soften the visual prominence of the retaining walls.
11. The project shall be subject to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
12. Provide a photovoltaic system that provides for a minimum of 10 percent of the total anticipated energy demand of the project. Solar shall be provided on at least 20 percent of units, providing approximately 50 percent of each unit’s household’s anticipated energy demand.
13. Subdivision improvement plans shall include irrigation and utility plans that indicate locations of above ground utilities, including street, pedestrian pathways, lights, backflow prevention devices, and irrigation control cabinets. Plans shall include screening measures such as landscaping, berms, and low walls.
14. Installation of new landscaping shall be subject to the following requirements:
2 394 a. Installation of new landscaping shall be deferred until emergency drought measures, defined as Stage 2 or higher in the Livermore Municipal Water’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, have been removed by the City, with the exception of drought tolerant or very low water use plant material with a Plant Factor of 0.3 or less, which may be installed subject to staff review and approval.
b. In the event a certificate of occupancy is required and ready to be issued prior to installation of all required landscape planting, the property owner shall post a bond covering the cost of deferred landscape installation prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, to ensure installation of landscaping once emergency drought measures have been lifted. Additionally prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy the property owner shall propose an interim stormwater erosion control landscape plan subject to review and approval of the City Engineer, to be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy
C. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Development shall conform to the map designated by the City as Exhibit B-1. Exhibit B-1 shall consist of the submitted map amended by the applicant to reflect any changes indicated above in the Project Specific Conditions or required by the City in the approval process. The applicant shall submit any required amended maps to the Planning Division within 90 days of project approval. Failure to submit the amended map will result in a delay in approval of the final map.
2. The development impact fees (traffic impact, housing in-lieu, park dedication in- lieu, etc.) and project processing fees due in connection with this permit shall be based upon the fees in effect at the time the fee is paid.
3. Prior to receiving a building permit for excavation, grading or construction on the site, the applicant shall contact the Alameda County Vector Control Services District to determine if any pre-baiting requirements are necessary to control migration of vermin to adjacent property.
4. To the extent permitted by law, the project applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, boards, commissions, employees and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void the approval of the project or any permit authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice.
3 395 D. ENGINEERING DIVISION
1. Development shall conform to the attached Engineering Considerations dated August 5, 2015.
E. BUILDING DIVISION
1. Approval of the Tentative Tract Map is not an authorization to commence construction. Building construction, alterations, repairs, sign erection, or occupancy shall not be permitted without prior approval of the Building Division through issuance of any required permits.
F. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. Development shall conform to the attached Fire Department Memorandum dated July 23, 2015.
G. POLICE DEPARTMENT
1. The project shall be required to conform to the provisions of the security section of the Livermore Municipal Code.
4 396 DATE: August 5, 2015
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS - EXHIBIT "A" (Subject to revision prior to final approval by Planning Commission and City Council)
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT: 8094 (SUB13-001) Garaventa Hills
LOCATION: West of Bear Creek Drive (APN 099-0024-001-25)
APPLICANT: Lafferty Communities
Note: Special conditions are shown in standard type. Standard conditions that apply to this project are shown in italics. In addition, standard conditions of approval for this project are listed in Section II of the Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual.
1. DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this agreement, the following words shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
Developer : Person(s) or Corporation(s) signing final map(s) and subdivision agreement(s)
Improvement Plans: Construction drawings for required public and private improvements
Services: Utility lateral, or any portions of a conduit cable or duct, between a utility distribution line and the site it serves
Project: The work to be performed by Developer
2. VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
Approval or conditional approval of this vesting tentative map shall not limit the City Engineer's ability to require workable designs on future grading and improvement plans based upon these Engineering Considerations and the City's standard engineering specifications and details.
The Vesting Tentative Map shall be modified to split a portion of Lot B into a separate Lot C containing the stormwater hydromodification basin and outfall.
Lots A and B shall be Open Space parcels that are retained by a Homeowners Association with open space and drainage easements dedicated to the City for public open space and drainage purposes.
3971 Lot C shall be an Open Space parcel that is also retained by a Homeowners Association with open space, drainage and landscape easements dedicated to the City for public open space, drainage and landscaping purposes.
The developer shall acquire other necessary easements across Alameda County Zone 7 property for the installation of the detention basin outfall.
The existing reserved 1 foot wide access strip on final Tract Map 6880, at the end of Bear Creek Drive, shall revert to public right of way upon the recording of this map.
The developer shall apply deed restrictions to all of the lots of this vesting tentative tract map notifying homeowners of the required provisions for preservation of the existing open space habitat adjacent to the boundaries of this vesting tentative tract map. The deed restrictions shall be subject to Planning Approval.
The developer shall construct a perimeter fence along the entire boundary of this Vesting Tentative Map that is adjacent to the existing open space habitat with signage restricting access to this habitat. The fence design and alignment as well as the signage shall be subject to Planning Division approval.
3. GENERAL
The project shall be in conformance with all City Ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies. The conditions listed below are particularly pertinent to this permit and shall not be construed to permit violation of other laws and policies not so listed.
All required improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the new residential units on this site.
A. IMPROVEMENT PLANS - Exhibit A-1
An engineered improvement plan shall be prepared by the Developer for approval by the City's Departments (including the Community Development, Public Services, Fire, and Police Department), which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, existing site conditions, dedications, grading plans, street design and grades, curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveway grades, and type, size and location of all public works improvements as herein required. Approval of this tentative map does not constitute approval of the details shown thereon. If there is any conflict between the tentative map and these Engineering Considerations, the Engineering Considerations shall govern.
No specific phased development plan has been submitted with this tentative tract application. Therefore all required improvements for this tentative map shall be constructed as one phase. A phased map could only be considered if a specific phasing plan is submitted for consideration as a tentative map amendment.
3982
B. STANDARDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND MAPS
All improvement plans and maps shall conform to the following City of Livermore documents except as modified by these engineering considerations: 1. City of Livermore Standard Specifications and Details 2. Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual
Completed final map and improvement plan checklists from the manual entitled "City of Livermore, Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual" shall be submitted with the first plan check submittal for each phase.
C. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECK AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
All of the standard conditions of approval for subdivisions and major projects as listed in Part II of the City of Livermore Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual apply except for the following:
A-2, A-3, A-4, A-9, A-10, B-9, B-10, B-11, B-13, B-16, G-1, G-2
D. WORK IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
The Developer is responsible for obtaining permits and approvals for construction work and property acquisition that are required by agencies other than the City of Livermore.
Altamont Creek improvements may be subject to requirements of any or all of the following agencies: (1) California Department of Fish and Game, (2) the Army Corps of Engineers, (3) the Regional Water Quality Control Board, (4) State Department of Water Resources (5) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and (6) Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7).
The Project proposes a connection to an existing trail and a new storm drain outfall located within Altamont Creek parcel which is owned by Alameda County Water Agency Zone 7 (Zone 7). An encroachment permit and maintenance agreement from Zone 7 is required for this work.
The Garavanta Wetlands Preserve, owned and managed by the Livermore Area Parks and Recreation District(LARPD), is a sensitive area located to the west of the project site. Management of the open space and natural open space habitat that is part of Lot B adjacent to this sensitive site may be subject to mitigation and management requirements of the resource agencies listed above and LARPD. Any management and fencing plan required for the open space areas shall be coordinated with the City, all the resource agencies, LARPD and Zone 7 as applicable. The developer shall develop and fund all required management and fencing plans and the on-going maintenance required to manage the open space lands in conformance with them.
3993
4. STREETS
A. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS:
The Developer shall offer easements and dedications for, and shall improve his share of the ultimate street widths for the following named streets in accordance with the City's General Plan:
Bear Creek Drive (Street A)
Bear Creek Drive is a local street in the General Plan. The Developer shall remove the existing barricades at the end of existing Bear Creek Drive and extend Bear Creek Drive to this project site as indicated on this vesting tentative map.
Bear Creek Drive shall consist of a 60 foot wide right of way with a 6’ public utility easement and 2’ sidewalk easement adjacent to the right of way on each side of the street. The street width shall be 40 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb with a 7 foot wide bio-retention landscape strip and 5 foot wide sidewalk on each side of the street. The proposed new sidewalks curbs and gutters shall align with and connect to the existing sidewalks, curbs, and gutters per City Standard Detail ST-31.
Bear Creek Circle (Street B )
Bear Creek Circle is a local street.
Bear Creek Circle shall consist of a 60 foot wide right of way with a 6’ public utility easement and 2’ wide sidewalk easement adjacent to the right of way on each side of the street. The street width shall be 40 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb with a 7 foot wide bio-retention landscape strip and 5 foot wide sidewalk on each side of the street.
Bear Creek Circle is proposed to end with a cul-de-sac approximately 500 feet short of Bear Creek Drive (Street A). A 24 foot wide emergency vehicle access (EVAE) and public utility easement (PUE) is proposed to connect Bear Creek Circle (Street B) to Bear Creek Drive (Street A). The Emergency Vehicle Access shall be a driveway a minimum of 20 feet wide with an all-weather surface. This driveway shall be connected to each street with a residential driveway apron with removable bollards, or other devices acceptable to the Fire Marshall, installed at each end to prevent vehicle access while allowing pedestrian, maintenance and EVA access.
The tentative map shows two proposed street elbows on Bear Creek Circle with a cul-de-sac at the end. These elbows and cul-de-sac are to be designed to meet the City of Livermore Standard Detail ST-1A.
Any midblock trail crossing(s) along Bear Creek Circle shall be designed with bulb-outs, lighting, and high-visibility crosswalk.
Where the streets are adjacent to the open space lots, the street treatment shall include relinquishment
4004 of abutter's rights and the construction of a fence behind the sidewalk. The fence design and alignment shall be subject to Planning Division approval. The area between the fence and the back of the five foot sidewalk shall be landscaped and provided with an automatic irrigation system. Only areas approved by Planning on Open Space Lot B in compliance with the environmental permits shall be irrigated.
5. TRAFFIC SIGNALS
In accordance with the project Environmental Impact Report(EIR) mitigation measures the Project shall contribute its fair share of the traffic improvement cost for cumulative impacts at the intersection of Laughlin Road and Northfront Road. The Developer ‘s fair share of these improvements shall consist of paying the required Traffic Impact Fees for this development .
6. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS (Not Used):
7. SANITARY SEWERS
Enhanced specialty paving is not included in this project. Sanitary sewer lines will be publicly-owned and maintained.
Sewer shall be extended across all frontages of each phase. Sewer laterals with two way cleanouts behind the curb shall be installed to each lot or site before the streets are surfaced.
8. STORM WATER DRAINAGE AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
A. General
1. This site is subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Prior to the issuance of the initial grading or building permit, the Developer shall provide evidence that the site is covered by the statewide General Permit to Discharge Storm Water associated with construction activity. This requires confirmation that a Notice of Intent (NOI) and the applicable fee was sent to the State Water Resources Control Board. In addition, the grading plans need to state: "All grading shall be in accordance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by the Developer per the Notice of Intent on file with the State Water Resources Control Board".
2. Necessary interceptor ditches shall be concrete. Field inlets and storm drainage pipe may be necessary in conjunction with concrete interceptor ditches as secondary drainage releases. All interceptor ditches shall be privately maintained.
B. Storm Drainage Requirements
1. According to the City’s Facilities Planning Guidelines (dated June 2005), the flows must have the following characteristics:
4015 For a 10-year design discharge: a hydraulic grade line (HGL) is no higher than 1.25 feet below the top of curb elevation at any manhole or inlet.
For a 100-year design discharge: a HGL does not exceed the top of curb elevation. (This is required for item 3 above.)
For additional detail on these guidelines, the applicant should refer to the following resources: City of Livermore Storm Drain Master Plan & City of Livermore Facilities Planning Guidelines (both available at the Engineering counter at City Hall).
2. Portions of the Altamont Creek are abutting the tract boundary. This creek is a "Blue Line Creek" as defined by the California State Department of Fish and Game. A Stream Bed Alteration Agreement shall be executed with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and all other necessary permits received prior to commencement of construction work on the facility.
3. This site is adjacent to land with naturally occurring oil which has entered the City’s storm drain system requiring oil remediation. The Developer shall design the storm drain system to prevent oil from entering the City’s storm drain system and Altamont Creek from this development. As a preventative measure the Developer shall provide funds for the future installation of an oil interceptor at or downstream of the storm drain maintenance hole just before water enters the proposed detention basin. The maintenance of the oil interceptor shall be funded by the community facilities district.
4. All storm water runoff accepted from Lot B open space area shall be infiltrated into the ground within Lot B and or conveyed to the proposed HMP detention basin located in Lot C.
C. Stormwater Infrastructure Maintenance Funding
The cost to maintain all private storm water infrastructure installed with this project shall be funded by the Developer.
D. Channels
This Site currently outfalls to Altamont Creek. This creek is currently impacted for sedimentation. The Developer shall provide a Hydro-modification Management Plan “HMP” with calculations demonstrating the impacts to the creek as a result of this development are equal to or less than the existing impacts to the creek prior to development.
The outfall into Altamont Creek shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7, to provide adequate capacity for the 100 year flood flows as designated by Zone 7. A permit or other form of approval shall be obtained from Zone 7 prior to beginning the outfall improvements.
E. Stormwater Treatment, Detention and Low Impact Development Requirements
4026 1. The Developer shall treat the storm water runoff from this site prior to having the storm water enter the City’s storm water distribution system. Low Impact Development, including infiltration and rainwater harvesting, is required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Developer shall complete and or update Low Impact Development Work Sheets with calculations demonstrating that infiltration and rainwater harvesting are infeasible before bio-retention is allowed. The Developer shall provide a storm water treatment plan with calculations indicating treatment that meets the latest requirements described in Section C.3 of the City’s NPDES Permit with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. City approval of this plan and calculations is required prior to the approval of the improvement plans.
2. This project is greater than one acre, the Developer shall provide a Hydrograph Modification Plan (HMP) with calculations in accordance with the Alameda Countywide Cleanwater Program (ACCWP) Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) guidelines. The software for the design of control measures to meet the Flow Duration Control is available to download from www.bayareamodel.org. For additional information you may contact Pamela Lung in the City’s Engineering Department at (925-960-4538)
3. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City of Livermore for all storm water treatment devices deemed necessary on this site. If the stormwater treatment devices will be maintained by the individual homeowners a cleanout will be necessary at the property lines to allow the residents to maintain their portion of the private stormdrain underdrain. If the stormwater treatment device will be maintained by a Homeowners Association then the cleanouts at each of the property lines may not be needed. The stormdrain treatment devices shall be shown on the plat plans and included in the Operations and Maintenance Agreement. The Operations and Maintenance Agreement(s) shall be recorded prior to recordation of the Final Map.
Incorporate measures to mitigate for potential oil from seeps in storm water, and provide for ongoing monitoring and maintenance.
F. Stormwater Treatment Infrastructure Maintenance Funding
The cost to maintain all storm water treatment, detention and low impact development infrastructure installed with this project shall be funded by the Developer.
9. REQUIRED SOURCE CONTROL STORMWATER MEASURES
The Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Order R2-2009-0074 issuing the Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal storm water permit for the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. The 17 member agencies, including Livermore, are subject to this permit and all its requirements including the following:
4037 “The Permittees shall, as part of their continuous improvement process, submit enhanced new development and significant redevelopment Performance Standards that summarize source control requirements for such projects to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff, to the maximum extent practicable…”
In accordance with this requirement, the following source control measures, included as part of these Conditions of Approval, shall be implemented as a part of this project.
A. Structural Control Measures 1. Illegal Dumping to Storm Drain Inlets and Waterways
On-site storm drain inlets, except inlets located in landscaped areas, shall be clearly marked with the words “No Dumping! Flows to Bay” on a plastic marker. The plastic markers are available for purchase from the Water Resources Division. For ordering information, please call 925-960-8100. For projects with newly-developed, privately-maintained streets, agency staff will verify that storm drain inlets have been marked before the final sign-off on the project’s building permit or encroachment permit.
2. Interior Floor Drains
Approved interior floor drains shall be plumbed to the sanitary sewer system and shall not be connected to the storm drain system. The applicant shall contact the Water Resources Division for specific connection and discharge requirements.
3. Parking Garages (Not Applicable)
4. Pesticide/Fertilizer Application and Irrigation
a. Landscaping shall be designed to minimize irrigation and runoff, promote surface infiltration where possible, minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to storm water pollution, and incorporate appropriate Bay-Friendly Landscaping principles.
b. If a landscaping plan is required as part of a development project application, the plan shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project site:
I. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified.
II. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment.
4048 III. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable.
IV. Unless otherwise specified, proper maintenance of landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owner.
V. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as part of the landscaping design. Some examples of IPM principles and techniques include the following:
i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site.
ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. Consider future conditions when plants reach maturity. Consider seasonal changes and time of day.
iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants.
iv. Select pest and disease resistant plants.
v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting the entire landscaping plan. vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects.
VI. Landscaping shall also comply with City of Livermore’s “Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance”. However, areas of a site used for bio-swales or other landscaped areas that function as a storm water treatment measure shall be exempt from the Water Efficient Landscaping requirements.
VII. An efficient irrigation system shall be installed in areas requiring irrigation. An example of an efficient irrigation system is one that includes a weather-based (automatic, self-adjusting) irrigation controller with a moisture and/or rain sensor shutoff, and in which sprinkler and spray heads are not permitted in areas less than 8 feet wide.
5. Pool, Spa, and Fountain Discharges
a. New or rebuilt swimming pools, hot tubs, spas and fountains must have a connection to the sanitary sewer to facilitate draining. This connection could be a drain in the pool to the sanitary sewer or a cleanout located close enough to the pool so that a hose can readily direct the pool discharge into the sanitary sewer cleanout.
b.When draining is necessary, a hose or other temporary system shall be directed into a sanitary sewer cleanout, or vegetated areas that are large enough to accommodate the volume without allowing the discharged water to flow to the storm drain system or receiving water body.
4059
6. Food Service Equipment Cleaning (Not Applicable)
7. Refuse Areas
a. New or redevelopment projects shall provide a roofed and enclosed area for dumpsters, recycling containers, compactors, and food waste containers. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area, to prevent runoff from the refuse area and to properly contain litter and trash. Dumpster leakage from covered trash and food compactor enclosures shall drain to the sanitary sewer via connection to an approved oil and grease interceptor device.
b. Runoff from trash enclosures, recycling areas, and/or food compactor enclosures or similar facilities shall not discharge to the storm drain system. Trash enclosure areas shall be designed to avoid run-on to the trash enclosure area. In most cases, drains are not permitted within trash enclosure areas. A drain, however, must be provided for compactors. If a drain is required in or beneath dumpsters, compactors, and tallow bin areas, it shall be connected to a grease removal device prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer.
1 8. Outdoor Process Activities/Equipment (Not Applicable)
9. Outdoor Equipment/Materials Storage
a. All outdoor equipment and materials storage areas shall be covered and/or bermed, or shall be designed with Best Management Practices (BMP) that effectively minimize the potential runoff and contact of storm water to pollutants.
b. Storage areas containing non-hazardous liquids shall be covered by a roof and be contained by berms, dikes, liners, vaults or similar spill containment devices.
c. All on-site hazardous materials and wastes, as defined and/or regulated by the California Public Health Code must be used, managed, and stored in compliance with the applicable Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department’s requirements and regulations. 10. Vehicle/Equipment and Commercial/Industrial Cleaning (Not Applicable)
11. Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
a. Vehicle/equipment repair and maintenance shall be performed in a designated area indoors, or if such services must be performed outdoors, in an area designed to prevent the run-on and runoff of storm water. Oil and other automotive fluid change service must always be performed indoors.
1 Examples of businesses that may have outdoor process activities and equipment include machine chops and auto repair shops, and industries that have pretreatment facilities.
10406 b. Secondary containment shall be provided for exterior work areas where hazardous materials or hazardous wastes are used or stored. Drains shall not be installed within the secondary containment areas.
c. Vehicle service facilities shall not contain floor drains.
d. Tanks, containers, or sinks used for parts cleaning or rinsing shall not be connected to the storm drain system. Tanks, containers, or sinks used for such purposes shall not be directly connected to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer from such operations require prior approval from the Water Resources Division. The applicant shall contact the Water Resources Division for specific connection and discharge requirements.
12. Fuel Dispensing Areas (Not Applicable)
13. Loading Docks (Not Applicable)
14. Fire Sprinkler Test Water
Provisions shall be made in the project design and construction to allow for the discharge of fire sprinkler test water to an onsite vegetated area. If this is not feasible, provide for discharge to the sanitary sewer in accordance with current plumbing codes.
15. Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water
a. For small air conditioning units, air conditioning condensate shall be directed to landscaped areas as a minimum BMP. For large air conditioning units, in new developments or significant redevelopments, condensation lines shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system, wherever feasible.
b. Roof drains shall discharge and drain away from the building foundation to landscaped areas wherever feasible.
c. Washing and/or steam cleaning activities must be performed at an appropriately equipped facility that drains to the sanitary sewer as specified in Section J. Any outdoor washing or pressure washing must be in compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Program requirements and managed in such a way that there is no discharge of soaps or other pollutants to the storm drain system. The applicant shall contact the Water Resources Division for specific discharge requirements.
16. Architectural Copper Installation
Projects with architectural copper should, if possible, purchase copper materials that have been pre-patinated at the factor. Whether patination is done offsite or onsite, applicant should consider coating the copper materials with an impervious coating that prevents further corrosion and runoff. If patination is done on-site, implement one or both of the following:
11407 a. Collect rinse water in a tank and pump to the sanitary sewer. Contact the City of Livermore Water Resources before discharging to the sanitary sewer.
b. Collect the rinse water in a tank and haul off-site for proper disposal.
B. II. OPERATIONAL BMPS
This section details Best Management Practices (BMP) that private property owners and/or the occupants of private property must implement following the construction of projects. Ultimately, the responsibility for implementation of these BMPs rests with the property owners. The City of Livermore’s Source Control Program routinely performs inspections of industrial and commercial sites to verify BMP implementation and effectiveness.
1. Paved Sidewalks and Parking Lots
Sidewalks and parking lots shall be swept regularly to minimize the accumulation of litter and debris. Wash water resulting from the pressure washing of parking lots must be captured, pretreated (if necessary) to meet local discharge limits, and discharged to the sanitary sewer. Wash water resulting from the pressure washing of sidewalks may be allowed to drain to the storm drain system provided that (a) no soap or other cleaning agents are used, and (b) all debris are trapped and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Under no circumstances shall washwater containing any soap or other cleaning agents be discharged to the storm drain system.
2. Private Streets, Utilities and Common Areas
a. The owner of private streets and storm drains shall prepare and implement a plan for street sweeping of paved private roads and cleaning of all storm drain inlets.
b. For residential developments, where other maintenance mechanisms are not applicable or otherwise in place, a Property Owners Association, Landscape& Lighting District, or an equivalent mechanism shall be created and shall be responsible for maintaining all private streets and private utilities and other privately owned common areas and facilities on the site including landscaping. These maintenance responsibilities shall include implementing and maintaining storm water BMPs associated with improvements and landscaping. CC&R’s creating the association shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the recordation of the Final Map and recorded prior to the sale of the first residential unit. The CC&R’s or Landscape & Lighting District shall describe how the storm water BMPs associated with privately owned improvements and landscaping shall be maintained and detail contact information for the entity responsible for such maintenance activities.
3. Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
12408 a. No person shall dispose of, or permit the disposal, directly or indirectly, of vehicle fluids, hazardous materials, or rinse water from parts cleaning operations into storm drains. b.No vehicle fluid removal shall be performed outside a building, or on asphalt or ground surfaces, whether inside or outside a building, except in such a manner as to ensure that any spilled fluid will be in an area of secondary containment. Leaking vehicle fluids shall be contained or drained from the vehicle immediately.
c. No person shall leave unattended drip parts or other open containers containing vehicle fluid, unless such containers are in use or in an area that cannot discharge to the storm drain.
4. Fueling Areas (Not Applicable)
5. Loading Docks (Not Applicable)
6. On-site Storm Drains
All on-site storm drains must be inspected and, if necessary, cleaned at least once a year immediately prior to the rainy season.
7. Architectural Copper Cleaning, Treating or Washing
When cleaning, treating or washing architectural copper features, implement one or both of the following:
a. Collect rinse water in a tank and pump to the sanitary sewer. Contact the City of Livermore Water Resources before discharging to the sanitary sewer.
b. Collect the rinse water in a tank and haul off-site for proper disposal.
10. WATER SUPPLY (CITY)
Water mains shall be extended across all frontages of each phase and all waterline valves must notate “EPDM” on the valve body. The developer shall install pressure reduction valves (PRVs), backflow prevention devices and appurtenances on the potable water services as directed by the City Engineer.
The fire service backflow preventer(s) shall be effectively screened from the public right-of-way while at the same time preserving ease of maintenance access to the backflow preventer(s). Screening shall be as specified on City Standard Detail W-10A, B and C. The fire service backflow preventer(s) shall meet the performance standards of the backflow preventer shown in City Standard Detail W-10A, B and C.
Prior to removal of a 1-inch, a 1.5-inch, or a 2-inch water service, the Developer shall contact the City’s Water Resources Division at (925) 960-8100, and ask if the City would like to convert the
13409 service to a water sampling station. Existing water services (of any size) that will not be used by the proposed development shall be abandoned at the main. Large services shall be abandoned by placing a blind flange on the tee at the main. Small services shall be abandoned by removing the corporation stop valve and installing the appropriate plug in the service saddle. Any valves or meters on abandoned services shall be removed. The meters shall be returned to the Water Resources Division if they are not reused. The Developer shall coordinate water service removals with the City’s Water Resources Division as well as with the public works inspector.
11. UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES:
All new electric (with the exception of any 60 KV and higher voltage wires) and communication lines along the project frontage and within the project shall be placed underground. Electric, gas, Comcast and SBC utilities are required and shall be placed in a common trench. All electric transformers shall be placed underground.
12. TRAILWAY/BIKEWAY REQUIREMENTS
Construct a bicycle/pedestrian connection from the Project to the existing trail crossing of Altamont Creek near the end of Bear Creek Drive. Obtain access easements necessary to provide public access across Zone 7 property or private property.
13. MEDIANS AND OTHER LANDSCAPED AREAS
Since the City has a new centralized irrigation system with a computer terminal and modem located at the City’s Maintenance Service Center, the Developer shall install a City standard centralized irrigation controller system with communication accessories as approved by the City. The City may exempt this requirement based on the limited size of the landscape area.
14. HORTICULTURIST'S REPORT
A Horticulturist’s report will be required because this site has soil conditions that may detrimental to landscaping.
15. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. Community Facilities District for Landscape and Stormwater Treatment Maintenance
All phases of the development shall either form a new Community Facilities District (CFD) prior to final map approval for the first phase or the Developer shall provide an alternate source of funding or maintenance mechanism as approved by the City. The owners of this tract will be assessed for CFD costs related to maintenance, operation, repair and replacement of the tract's public landscaping, open space, stormwater treatment devices and any public special amenities located within the public right- of-way or easements. The items to be maintained include but are not limited to the following: oil interceptor, roadside bio-treatment swales, bio-retention/detention basin, parkway landscaping, perimeter fencing along the boundary of this map, maintenance of the
14410 bicycle/pedestrian connection from the Project at the end of Bear Creek Drive to the existing trail crossing of Altamont Creek, and maintenance of retaining walls adjacent to public roads. The Developer shall agree to a first year’s lot by lot assessment equivalent to the CFDs first twelve months of estimated costs. The Developer shall be responsible for all costs and work which are required for this CFD. All other provisions of this development not covered by the CFD that require maintenance shall be maintained in a developer established Homeowner’s Association (HOA).
The Developer shall submit an Engineer's Report for the CFD in a hard copy format, and in computer formats on a disk. The computer formats for the Engineer's Report shall be Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel (as applicable) to be compatible with the City's computer system.
16. AIRPORT LOCATION (Not Used)
17. SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT AND SECURITY
Following tentative map approval, the Subdivision Improvement Agreement will not be submitted to the City Council until the Developer has submitted all of the documents indicated in the “Final Approval of Tract Map Checklist” in the Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual (28) days prior to the city council meeting at which the final map will be considered for final approval by the City Council.
18. FEE AMOUNTS
The Developer will be required to pay the applicable development impact fees and project processing fees due in connection with this subdivision. The fee shall be the amount in effect at the time the fee is required to be paid.
19. VEHICLE ACCESS
Prior to or with the submittal for the first plan check of the tract improvement plans and final map, the Developer shall submit for review and approval a traffic control plan for providing safe entry to and exit from the site. The purpose of the plan is to insure that there will be safe entry and exit by construction and other vehicles prior to the installation of the required permanent improvements on Bear Creek Drive.
Access to the development by construction equipment, material delivery and other heavy loads shall be limited by the Developer to the following route:
Vasco Road, Northfront Road, Laughlin Road, Bear Creek Drive
Such heavy loads will not be allowed on existing residential streets in the vicinity of the development.
The wheel-loading on the above routes shall not exceed State load limits. 20. DEVELOPMENTS WITH PRIVATE ROADWAYS AND UTILITIES (Not Used)
15411 412 413 414 ATTACHMENT 9 415 416 417 418 419 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
TO: Chairperson Pann and Members of the Planning Commission
PREPARED BY: Steve Stewart, Principal Planner
REVIEWED BY: Paul Spence, Planning Manager
DATE: August 18, 2015
SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB13-001), Planned Development Residential (PD-R) 13-001, and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 13-005
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB13-001), Planned Development Residential (PD-R) 13-001, and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 13-005, subject to conditions.
BACKGROUND
In 1988, the Area A General Plan Amendment changed the project site’s land use designation from Urban Medium Residential (4.5 dwelling units per acre) to Urban Low Medium Residential (3 dwellings per acre).
On July 6, 1990, the Maralisa builder Hal Porter Homes applied for the allocation of 610 units under the City’s 1991 Housing Implementation Program (Attachment 3). The City Council expressed concerns regarding allocating 610 units to a single project. In response, the builder reduced the number of proposed housing units. Thirty-one custom lots covering the knolls were part of the reduced project. On November 13, 1990, the Livermore City Council adopted Resolution 347-90 approving the Housing Implementation Program (HIP) ranking and allocations for the Maralisa project, but reduced the number of units to 397 units over a three-year period (1991-1993). At this time, the City Council also recommended preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, and Development Agreement.
1 ATTACHMENT 10 420 On January 21, 1992, the Planning Commission continued the Maralisa project in order for the applicant to address environmental issues raised by regulatory resource agencies.
On September 12, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution 94-228, certifying an Environmental Impact Report and approving the Maralisa development (Planned Unit Development 54-90 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6433). The project consisted of 322 residential units including 64 apartments to be subsequently subdivided into condominiums, 119 townhomes, and 139 single family detached units; 2.1-acre park; 10- acre school site; and several parcels for landscaping, environmental protection, and subsequent development. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) included a standard that required a separate environmental determination before permitting any development on the Project site. The PUD also notes that a portion of the density for the Project site is transferred to properties within the Maralisa development south of Altamont Creek. To remain consistent with the General Plan designation for the overall property (3 dwellings per acre), the maximum number of units permitted on the Project site was 76 units.
On March 10, 1997, the Livermore City Council adopted Resolution 97-50 approving an amendment to the Maralisa project to replace 64 condominium/apartments and 119 townhomes with 123 single-family small lot/courtyard detached units and 50 apartments. The PUD Amendment included the same language as the original PUD: requiring separate environmental review prior to developing the Project site; noting the transfer of density to areas south of Altamont Creek; and to remain consistent with the General Plan designation for the overall property the maximum number of units permitted on the Project site was 76 units.
On January 24, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution 2000-10 approving the 2000 Housing Implementation Program allocations. Western Pacific/Garaventa applied for 45 housing unit allocations for the Project site (Attachment 4). The Project, Maralisa Summit, was ranked “Below Average” and did not receive allocations. The Below Average ranking was due to below average landscaping, contributions to City facilities, and project location. The applicant also did not conduct any environmental assessment on the Project site.
During the City’s 2003 General Plan Update, the Project site’s designation was changed again to the current designation of Urban Low Residential (1-1.5 dwelling units per acre). Undeveloped properties to the north and east between the Bluffs and Meadow Glen Drive received the same designation. Lowering the density was due to the potential, but unknown environmental sensitivity of the sites. This density allows up to 47 residential units on the project site.
On July 27, 2011, the applicant submitted a development application for 76 homes on the site. The application included a General Plan Amendment to change the designation to Urban Low Medium Residential (2-3 dwelling units per acre) in order to enable the continued density transfer envisioned under the Maralisa development.
2 421 On October 24, 2011, the City Council adopted a Resolution authorizing execution of an agreement with Lamphier-Gregory to conduct Environmental Review for the Project. The applicant is funding environmental review, but the City is administering the Agreement.
On December 4, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the current applicant’s initial proposal. The initial proposal was for 76 homes with a second access via an extension of Hawk Street and new bridge across Altamont Creek. The proposal included a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Urban Low Residential, at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre, to Urban Low Medium Residential, at 2-3 dwelling units per acre.
In response to direction from City staff and comments received during the December 4, 2012 Planning Commission hearing, the applicant made the changes listed below before the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Project:
• Reduction in the number of units from 76 to 47, • Elimination of the Hawk Street connection and bridge over Altamont Creek, • Preservation of the rock outcrop in the northwest corner of the site, and • Provision of an additional 1-story floor plan and a 1½-story floor plan.
On July 1, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council deny the Project. Attachments 5 and 6 are the Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes, respectively. Generally, the Commission’s recommendation was due to the Project’s extensive grading, unknown aesthetic context, and concern from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (Park District) regarding compatibility with the adjacent Garaventa Preserve. The applicant chose not to pursue a decision from the City Council. Instead, they chose to make more changes to the project and return to the Planning Commission.
On December 10, 2014, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting to present the latest changes to the Project and answer questions. See the Project Description section below for details regarding these additional changes.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Currrent Project
The applicant, Livermore LT Ventures I Group, LLC, made further changes to the project in response to comments made during the July 1, 2014 Planning Commission hearing, and concerns from the Park District. Changes to the Project since the July 1 Planning Commission meeting include:
• Replacing a portion of roadway with an Emergency Vehicle Access in order to reduce grading,
3 422 • Eliminating new landscaping between the Project site and the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve to preserve the natural grassland condition, • Providing a drain system to collect all runoff from the residential lots and convey it to the treatment basin to protect the soil chemistry in the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve. • Constructing a pedestrian/bicycle path that connects to the existing trail south of Bear Creek Drive to link the Project to Altamont Creek Park, and • Providing visual simulations of the Project in context with the surrounding developed and natural environments.
The Project is a 47-unit single-family residential subdivision on a vacant approximately 32-acre site. A westerly extension of Bear Creek Drive provides access to the internal residential street circumscribing the site’s two prominent knolls. Lot sizes range from 7,320 square feet to 13,360 square feet with homes between 3,160 to 4,180 square feet. Lots and roadways will comprise approximately 45 percent of the site, with the remaining land reserved for open space buffers on the site’s edges, undeveloped knolls with informal pedestrian trails, and a storm water detention basin with a new outfall pipe to Altamont Creek.
A Community Facilities District will fund the maintenance of the detention basin, open space buffers, and knolls. The informal trails currently found on the privately owned knolls will be formally open for public access.
The Project includes applications for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development District-Residential, and Site Plan Design Review. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map will subdivide the site into 49 individual parcels, including 47 single-family residential lots, one parcel that is an open space buffer around the perimeter of the site and includes a storm water detention basin, and one parcel for the two knolls.
The Planned Development District-Residential will establish development standards that enable flexibility in order to respond to sensitive site constraints. The development standards include provisions for setbacks, height, floor area, and open space. Site Plan Design Review provides for review of the site plan, streetscape, architecture, and landscaping details.
Environmental Review
In response to verbal and written comments on the Draft EIR, the applicant chose to move forward with one of the Draft EIR Alternatives. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to develop the site consistent with Alternative B: Reduced Density, Current General Plan Density Alternative. The Draft EIR identifies this alternative as environmentally superior to the original 76-unit project with the Hawk Street extension and bridge over Altamont Creek.
The Draft EIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts with the original project or Alternative B. All impacts are either less than significant or will be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures.
4 423
The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), together with the Draft EIR published in November 2012, constitutes the Final EIR. The Final EIR identifies changes in the Project since publication and public review of the Draft EIR. The document provides substantial evidence that these changes would not constitute “substantial new information” requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR.
Generally, the Draft EIR recognizes that Alternative B would include a similar amount of site preparation and grading. However, construction-period impacts related to noise and emissions would be marginally reduced from already less than significant levels due to the reduction in the number of units. Alternative B in the Draft EIR did not include the removal of the Hawk Street extension and bridge over Altamont Creek. This revision eliminates the less than significant impacts to biological habitat and creek channel from the grading and construction.
Overall traffic from the current Project would be less than the original proposal due to the reduction in number of units. However, elimination of the Hawk Street extension and bridge over Altamont Creek results in additional vehicles trips on Bear Creek Drive. The increase is partially offset since the opportunity for school traffic diversions onto Bear Creek Drive, approximately 25 vehicles per day, no longer exists with the elimination of the Hawk Street extension and bridge over Altamont Creek.
Bear Creek Drive currently carries just over 500 vehicles per day. The additional 83 vehicle trips from the Project are within the 5,000 vehicle per day design capacity of Bear Creek Drive. The current Project would generate 41 more vehicle trips on Bear Creek Drive than the initial proposal, as shown in the table below:
Residential Trips Per Day Trips Per Day Total Units AM Peak PM Peak Trips Initial Proposal 76 15 27 42 Current Proposal 47 37 46 83 Additional Total Trips +22 +19 +41
Increases in traffic volumes are not environmental impacts when roadways and intersections continue to function within design capacity and level of service standards. There would be no new or significantly increased impacts related to additional vehicle trips on Bear Creek Drive. Further, the revised access does not cause the Project to exceed the thresholds discussed above for recirculating the Draft EIR. See the Environmental Determination section of this report for further detail and discussion.
PROJECT SITE CONTEXT
The Project is located north of Garaventa Ranch Road and Altamont Creek Elementary School, west of Bear Creek Drive and Laughlin Road. The approximately 31.7-acre site is an undeveloped parcel consisting predominantly of non-native grassland.
5 424 The topography of the site is moderately sloping, having a predominantly 15 percent to 20 percent slope. Altamont Creek, an intermittent stream channel, forms the southern boundary of the site. A saddled ridgeline forms a connection between the two prominent knolls in roughly the center of the site.
Current Zoning Existing General Plan Designation Classification Land Use Urban Low Residential Planned Development Vacant parcel with grassland/cattle North 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre (UL-1) (PD) grazing Parks, Trail Ways, Recreation Altamont Creek beyond which are Corridors, and Protected Areas (OSP) Planned Development single-family residential (Maralisa), beyond which are Urban Low Medium (PD) South Altamont Creek Elementary School, Residential 2-3 dwelling units per acre Planned Unit Development 115 (PUD and Altamont Creek Neighborhood (ULM), Community Facility Elementary 115) Park School K-6 (CF-E). Parks, Trail Ways, Recreation Planned Development (PD) – Corridors, and Protected Areas (OSP), Planned Unit Development 53-93, Open space and single-family Urban Low Residential 1.5-2 units per Planned Unit Development 105, and residential (Altamont Creek East acre (UL-2), and Urban Medium Planned Unit Development 66-94 Development, The Bluffs, Meadow Residential 4.5-6 dwelling units per (PUD 53-93, PUD 105, and PUD 66- Glenn Dr., and Blue Grass Court. acre (UM). 94) Garaventa Wetlands Preserve, Parks, Trail Ways, Recreation Planned Development Altamont Creek beyond which are West Corridors, and Protected Areas (OSP). (PD) single-family residential (Maralisa) and Vasco Road. Subject Urban Low Residential 1-1.5 dwelling Planned Development Vacant grassland Site units per acre (UL-1) (PD)
STAFF ANALYSIS
General Plan
The site’s General Plan Land Use designation is Urban Low Residential (UL-1), at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre. Consistent with the UL-1 Land Use designation, the proposal’s average density is approximately 1.49 units per acre.
Initially, the Project site was part of the Maralisa development project and shared the same “ULM” (Urban Low Medium Residential 2-3 dwelling units per acre) General Plan land use designation. The Maralisa project was constructed in the late nineties and consisted of 312 units south and east of the Project site. The Project site was not developed at that time due to unknown environmental constraints, but the Maralisa project moved forward and has a density of 2.2 units per acre.
During the City’s General Plan Update in 2003, the General Plan land use designation for the site was changed from ULM to its current UL-1. Though the site’s environmental sensitivity was unknown at this time, the land use designation was changed in part due to the site’s potential environmental constraints.
6 425 The General Plan Land Use and Community Character Elements include the following Goals, Objectives, and Policies for new development projects within the City of Livermore:
Goal LU-1 Protect the unique qualities of Livermore, which include a historic Downtown, a variety of residential neighborhoods, vineyards, ranches, natural habitats and open space.
Objective LU-1.1 Locate new development so as to create a consolidated pattern of urbanization, maximizing the use of existing public services and facilities.
Policy P1 Except where special circumstances warrant, the City shall allow development only on those properties immediately adjacent to established urban areas, in accordance with the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative. (2003 General Plan, P. 3-30).
Policy P4 The City shall encourage the use of the planned development concept where possible to decrease construction costs, provide open space, increase the variety of housing types and provide integrated very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing.
The Project site is within the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary and City boundary, adjacent to established suburban areas, and has a residential General Plan land use designation. The acknowledgement of the site in the General Plan as a location for residential development indicates it is part of the City’s planned growth and not intended as non-urbanized land.
Goal CC-1 Preserve and enhance Livermore’s natural setting.
Objective CC-1.1 Use open space to protect and enhance local community character and identity, to preserve rural characteristics, and to provide an edge to urban growth.
Policy P1 The City shall allow no structural development in hillside areas involving skylines, ridgelines, or silhouettes.
Policy P2 The City shall permit no intensive development of the hills. Development including roads, buildings and other structural or land coverage shall be located, sited and designed to fit and be subordinate to the natural landforms. Under no
7 426 circumstances shall development create uniform, geometrically terraced building sites which are contrary to the natural landforms and which detract, obscure or negatively effect the visual quality of the landforms. (2003 General Plan, P. 4-3).
Goal LU-4 Ensure that new development mitigates significant environmental, design, and infrastructure impacts.
Objective LU-4.1 Prevent development from occurring where the location or the physical or biological characteristics of the site would make the land use inappropriate.
Policy P1 Impacts to wetland and biological resources shall be calculated on a gross acreage basis and shall include areas of steep slopes, streets, floodways, and parks dedications that could result in losses of wildlife and plant habitat on a parcel.
Policy P2 The City shall encourage the clustering of development in order to minimize its overall footprint in areas of ecological sensitivity, such as hillsides, alkali springs, creek corridors, and watersheds.
The development plan responds to the natural forms and topography of the site. For example, the Project’s roadway and emergency vehicle access loops around the western knoll and follows the site’s contours along the saddle between both knolls, enabling construction of the roadway and homes at elevations similar to existing Altamont Creek development to the east. Clustering homes along the roadway minimizes the development footprint and enables the preservation of the rock outcrop in the northwest corner, both knolls, and the provision of the natural buffers from 47 feet wide to over 100 feet wide around the site’s perimeter.
The Project reflects a development pattern common to nearby residential development that clusters development in order to avoid natural resources and site constraints. The development pattern for the Altamont Creek subdivision to the southeast that includes Bear Creek Drive, Knoll Way and Court, Edgewater Lane, and Bridle Path Court preserves the on-site knoll on the northwest edge of the project site, avoids seasonal wetlands, and includes structure exclusion zones due to seismic constraints. Similarly, development along Meadow Glen Drive directly east of the Project also avoids seasonal wetlands and includes structure exclusions zones in response to seismic constraints. The Saddleback development, approximately ½-mile to the northwest of the Project, at the northeast corner of Ames Street and Dalton Avenue, avoids seasonal wetlands and preserves on-site knolls (Attachment 7).
8 427 Environmental mitigation proposed for the project will include the permanent preservation, monitoring and management of an 85-acre parcel in the Springtown Alkali Sink. The mitigation parcel is located north of Scenic Avenue between Bluebell Avenue and Broadmoor Avenue (Attachment 8). The highly sensitive property contains a number of important natural resources including a section of Altamont Creek and a portion of a unique alkali-saline wetland habitat. The Federally protected Palmate Bracted Bird’s Beak is also present on the property.
Environmental permits from Resource Agencies will require the following components to ensure protection of the mitigation property in perpetuity:
• Permanent conservation easement held by a non-profit trust or other organization approved by the Resource Agencies to hold easements, • A long term management plan that includes an annual maintenance and monitoring cost calculation, and • A non-wasting endowment to fund the long-term management and monitoring consistent with the long-term management plan.
The City owns approximately 300 acres north and immediately adjacent of the 85-acre mitigation property. City staff is working with a consultant and Resource Agencies to establish a mitigation bank on the City owned properties. Establishment of a conservation and/or mitigation bank on the City’s properties would facilitate restoration and permanent preservation. Establishment of the mitigation bank also requires placing the properties under a permanent conservation easement with a long-term management plan and endowment to fund monitoring and maintenance.
Consistent with the City’s General Plan and City Council priorities, the City continues to seek opportunities to acquire open space, in fee and easement, for habitat and agricultural preservation. The City pursues properties with open space General Plan and Zoning designations that are beyond the City’s urban growth boundaries. Acquiring such properties for permanent open space stabilizes land use and strategically secures the urban growth boundaries. Since 2008, the City and partners such as the East Bay Regional Park District and Tri-Valley Conservancy have acquired over 1,000 acres for open space and trails with nearly $6 million coming from City funding sources.
Zoning
The Project site’s current Zoning Classification is Planned Development (PD). The PD zone applies to areas of the City appropriate for residential, commercial, and industrial planned development projects that require more flexible design standards. According to the Livermore Development Code (Development Code), the flexibility allows a developer to address geologic, topographical and environmental factors and allows projects to be developed with open space and neighborhood amenities.
The Project provides open space buffers around the project perimeter, natural knolls in the center of the new neighborhood, and opens the informal trails traversing the knolls
9 428 and leading to the rock outcrop for public use. See the Planned Development – Residential section in this report for more details on project-specific development standards.
Housing Implementation Program
The applicant is requesting housing allocations that are necessary to develop the property under the City’s 2014-2017 Housing Implementation Program. The allocations would occur upon the City Council’s approval of the Subdivision Map. The Planning Commission will make its review of the subdivision and an affirmative recommendation on the map carries with it an affirmative recommendation of the housing allocations. Consistent with the Green Building Targeted Category approved by the City Council on June 23, 2014, the applicant will develop a photovoltaic system that provides for a minimum of 10 percent of the total anticipated energy demand of the project. Solar shall be provided on at least 20 percent of units, providing approximately 50 percent of each unit’s household’s anticipated energy demand. The Conditions of Approval include this requirement.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 – Subdivision 13-001
Consistent with the General Plan density allowing 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre, the Subdivision (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094) Map shows 47 lots for detached single- family homes covering approximately 10.2 acres (32 percent). The average lot size is approximately 9,500 square feet that is comparable to the Altamont Creek development to the east and slightly less than the Bluff’s further to the north off of Laughlin Road.
Street and Lot Pattern: Streets A and B are public streets, consistent with the City’s Development Standards for local residential streets with separated sidewalks, and match the design for the existing segment of Bear Creek Drive to the east.
The subdivision map includes two open space parcels, Parcels A and B. Parcel A is for the two knolls and Parcel B is for the natural buffer area around the north, west and southern boundaries. A stormwater detention basin in the southeast corner of the site collects stormwater runoff and conveys it to Altamont Creek. The Conditions of Approval (Attachment 11) require the creation of an additional parcel for the stormwater detention basin, separate from the natural buffer parcel, in order to facilitate maintenance of the basin through a Community Facilities District. The Community Facilities District will also fund the maintenance and monitoring of the knolls and open space buffers. City and Park District staff are exploring the opportunity for the District to maintain and monitor the natural buffers in order to synchronize management with the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve.
Grading: Project grading balances cut and fill on-site. The Project avoids grading the rock outcrop on the northwest corner and the tops of the on-site knolls, preserving their natural landform and shape to the maximum extent possible. Retaining walls along the rear yard boundaries further minimize the need to grade further into the natural buffer areas around
10 429 the project perimeter. The retaining walls range in height from one foot up to six and seven feet at the rear of Lots 24, 25 and 26. A six-foot high retaining wall is also necessary along the north side of the entry road in order to minimize grading on the southeastern knoll. The development plans do not indicate the colors and material for the retaining walls. Staff recommends the applicant install retaining walls that are clad in stone that matches the texture and color of the stones found at the rock outcrop and throughout the site.
Recommendation 1: Install retaining walls that are clad in stone that matches the texture and color of the stones found at the rock outcrop and throughout the site for review and approval by the Planning Division.
Utilities and Infrastructure: Sanitary sewer and water utilities are stubbed to the west end of Bear Creek Drive and appropriately sized to accommodate development of the Project. Storm drain and public street infrastructure (street, curb, gutter, sidewalk) are also in place at the west end of Bear Creek Road and are available for connection to the Project.
Trails and Open Space: Informal paths from Bear Creek Drive, Knoll Court, the Zone 7 maintenance road on the Project’s southern boundary, and public trail on the south side of Altamont Creek traverse the Project site, the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve, and privately owned lands to the north. The Project preserves the on-site knolls, informal paths, and rock outcrop in the northwest corner of the site. All of these on-site features which currently exist on private property will be formally accessible to the public with development of the project.
The Project will provide a formal pedestrian/bicycle connection from the southeast corner of the site to the improved trail west of Black Oak Court. A connection at this location will enable residents in the new neighborhood to directly access the existing bridge over Altamont Creek located south of Black Oak Court. The City has a Recreational Use License Agreement with Zone 7 that covers Altamont Creek and adjacent flood plain. The License Agreement enables the City to utilize the area for recreation and park purposes including trails. The City, Park District and applicant will continue to coordinate design and location of fences, gates and trails with Zone 7.
Parking: Each home has a three-car garage, which exceeds the Livermore Development Code requirement for two parking spaces per unit. On-street parking will also be available on both sides of the residential street where it does not interfere with vehicular site distance and turning movements for emergency vehicles.
Solid Waste Collection: Each lot will have sufficient space in side yards or the garage for waste bins (trash, recycling, and organics). There is sufficient room on the street frontages for placing the carts out for collection by Livermore Sanitation.
Affordable Housing: The General Plan Housing Element has the goal of providing housing affordable to all economic segments of the community and requires 15 percent of the dwelling units in the proposed project to be affordable to low and moderate income households, or satisfy this requirement by an alternative means. Consistent with these
11 430 provisions, and in agreement with the City’s Housing and Human Services Division, the applicant has agreed to satisfy its affordable housing obligation by paying an in-lieu fee. The Project will generate approximately $733,000 for use by the City toward development of affordable housing. Ultimately, the details of the affordable housing provision will be subject to City Council approval of a Housing Agreement before adoption of the final map.
Livermore Area Recreation and Park District
Staff from the City and the Park District met on June 18, 2014, to discuss the District’s comments and concerns regarding the Project’s close proximity to the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve. Concerns include the potential impacts to hydrology and soil conditions within the Preserve, selecting appropriate transitional landscaping in the natural buffer between the Preserve and the Project, and controlling damage to habitat and wildlife from trespass and dogs off-leash.
The applicant and environmental consultant from LSA Associates met with Park District Staff on February 12, 2015. The applicant, City and Park District staff met again on July 29, 2015. The purpose of the meetings was to fully understand the District’s concerns and identify measures to address those concerns. The Park District reiterated concerns regarding potential impacts to the Preserve from suburban stormwater runoff, threats to burrowing owl habitat, controlling trespass, and long-term buffer area maintenance. The following revisions to the Project are to address the Park District’s concerns and are included in the Conditions of Approval:
Installation of subdrains along the perimeter of the project to intercept any subsurface runoff from irrigation, swimming pools and other suburban sources. Subdrains will convey any remaining runoff to the treatment basin. Overland flow during heavy rainfall will continue to flow from the natural areas toward the Preserve.
Installation of exclusion fencing along the rear property lines of the new lots and perimeter fencing around the property boundary. Exclusion fencing includes a solid barrier along the bottom to prevent amphibians (California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs) from dispersing into the development. Perimeter fencing will control access and reduce trespass onto the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve. Perimeter fencing design will be coordinated with the Applicant, City, Park District, and Resource Agencies during the subsequent Federal and State environmental permitting process.
Installation of signs with content and locations coordinated with the applicant, City, Park District, and Resource Agencies to raise public awareness of private properties and sensitive resources within the Preserve and lands to the north.
Elimination of landscape planting in the natural buffers to return them to their pre- development condition and eliminate perching for diurnal raptor species that prey on burrowing owls and compete for burrowing owl prey.
12 431
The Park District is developing a Grasslands Management Plan to establish near and long-term management practices for the Preserve. The applicant, City and Park District staff will coordinate development of the management plan for the project’s buffer areas and knolls to be consistent with the Park District’s Grassland Management Plan.
Please see the Environmental Determination section of this report for discussion regarding hydrology and the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve.
Planned Development - Residential
The Livermore Development Code requires projects utilizing the Planned Development Zone to conform to the density specified in the General Plan and to the development standards in the Suburban Residential zone.
The Project conforms to all applicable development standards of the RS zone, except for standards regarding setbacks and floor area ratio. The following table includes development standards for the RS zone and Project. For comparison purposes, the table also includes development standards for the neighboring Altamont Creek development to the east:
Development Standards – RS Zoning District, Project (Garaventa Hills), and Altamont Creek Development Standard RS Garaventa Hills Altamont Creek Building Placement Setbacks Front 20' minimum 15 feet minimum 18 feet minimum Sides: Lots 10,000 sf or less 10' minimum 7' min., total 17' 8' minimum, total 20' Lots over 10,000 sf 12' minimum 7' min., total 17' Rear: Lots 10,000 sf or less 25 ' minimum, 30' avg. 20' min. 25' minimum, 30' avg. Lots over 10,000 sf 25' minimum, 35' avg. Building Form Height 35' maximum 35' maximum. 35' maximum. Floor Area Ratio 0.35 maximum 0.45 maximum including 0.45 maximum including garages (except as guest rooms and listed below): garages. Lot 16 – 0.46; Lot 17 – 0.53; Lot 23 – 0.47; Lot 29 – 0.46; Lot 38 – 0.47; Lot 40 – 0.47. Lot Requirements Lot Size 6,000 sf minimum 6,000 sf minimum 5,500 sf minimum - 11,000 sf maximum
13 432 Development Standard RS Garaventa Hills Altamont Creek Lot Frontage Width 50' minimum 50' minimum 55' minimum (minimum) Average Lot Width 50' minimum 50' minimum 55' minimum Average Lot Depth 80' minimum 80' minimum 80' minimum Parking 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit
For each variation from conventional RS provisions, the Development Code requires the applicant to provide a design feature that is in proportion to the degree of variation. Consistent with the Development Code provision listed below in italics, the applicant is proposing the following design features that are appropriate for the degree of variation from the standards in the conventional RS zoning:
a. Reservation of open space: Over half of the site (52 percent) is open space, including the two on-site knolls, rock outcrop in the northwest corner, and natural buffers that provide wide transitional spaces to the open space north, west, and south of the project. The on-site knolls and rock outcrop will be publicly accessible.
b. Trails beyond those required under the parkland dedication ordinance: The proposal retains the informal trails that traverse the knolls. The applicant is proposing to split the trails below the knolls before they cross Street B, and provide two points of access to each knoll. The Conditions of Approval also require the applicant to construct a pedestrian/bicycle connection from Bear Creek Road at the site entry to the existing pedestrian/bicycle trail along Altamont Creek.
c. Clustering of homes (in order to provide greater open space, or more parks, trails, and neighborhood amenities): Clustering the homes along the roadway and lower lying portions of the site and constructing the roadway along the topographic contours enables the provision of greater open space. The applicant could meet the Floor Area Ratio standard in the RS zone by moving the lot lines to increase lot areas, but instead has chosen to seek variation in order to retain the knolls, rock outcrop, and natural buffers around the site.
d. Provision of public, neighborhood amenities: Granite benches near the rock outcrop will provide opportunities for pedestrian respites and offer views to Brushy Peak and the hills beyond. The knolls, trails and rock outcrop will be publicly accessible.
e. Diversification of building sizes and types: The Project offers five different floor plans with two to three elevations reflecting modern interpretations of a Tuscan architectural style. Two floor plans are one-story, one is one and one-half story, and two are two-story.
14 433 Site Plan Design Review
The Project is consistent with the City’s Design Standard and Guidelines that promote appropriate site planning, high quality architecture, and landscape design that contributes positively to the neighborhood’s residential character.
Building Siting and Orientation: The Design Standards and Guidelines regarding building siting and orientation guide development toward responding to Livermore’s environmental, geographic and topographic conditions and include the following guidelines:
1.1 Natural Site Features Guidelines
1.1.1 Residential layout should preserve existing natural site features such as topography, views and vegetation to enhance the character of the development. Public views of such features should be preserved and incorporated into development proposals.
1.2 Topography Guidelines
1.2.2 In hillside or sloping areas, street and building placement should follow contours rather than being placed at right angles to the prevailing slope.
1.2.3 On sloping sites, staggering placement of units along opposite sides of the street, rather than siting lots directly opposite one another, can provide better preservation of views.
The roadway and homes generally follow the site’s 550 to 570 foot contours enabling the preservation of the on-site knolls and provision of deep, natural buffers along the south, west, and north edges of the Project. Preservation of the southeastern on-site knoll buffers the southeastern edge of the project in combination with the existing knoll and open space preserved during development of the Altamont Creek subdivision to the east. The site plan staggers the homes along opposite sides of the street and will provide opportunities for better views from the Project’s public streets.
Neighborhood Identity: The intent of the Neighborhood Identity guidelines is to ensure residential development reinforces a strong community-oriented identity:
2.1 Neighborhood Context
2.1.1 New residential development should provide variety in the City’s residential development character than currently exists.
2.1.2 New development should not be so different in character that it is visually incompatible with existing development.
15 434 2.1.4 Building design should complement surrounding development.
The Project’s design theme reflects a modern Tuscan style, which appropriately distinguishes the new neighborhood from the Altamont Creek development’s interpretation of Farmhouse, Cottage and Craftsman styles and provides variety to the City’s residential development character. Complementary to neighboring residential development, the Project utilizes a variety of materials and design variations to promote a high-quality character and appearance. Project lot and home sizes are larger than those found in the Altamont Creek development to the east, but comparable to the Bluff’s development to the northeast off of Laughlin Road.
Open Space: The intent of the Open Space guidelines is to ensure that community outdoor components of residential development are aesthetically pleasing and promote great outdoor activity:
3.1 General Open Space
3.1.1 Neighborhood open space should be located to maximize its visual and functional benefits.
3.1.2 Common open space areas should be sited to take advantage of any views out from the site and help preserve views to significant architectural and landscape features within the site.
The central location of the on-site knolls and the natural buffers around the edges of the Project maximizes visual and functional benefits to the new neighborhood and the public. The knolls will be publicly accessible and offer views of Brushy Peak and the ridgelines beyond.
Views and Visual Access: The intent is to ensure that views that are unique and specific to Livermore are preserved from the public areas of residential development.
4.1 Views
4.1.1 Views to the hillsides that surround the City are an important visual resource that should be incorporated into the design of a project.
4.1.2 Views from streets and public areas within the project should be considered a community resource and should be preserved and enhanced through sensitive site design.
4.1.3 Buildings and landscaping should not block public views.
4.1.4 Proper placement of structures can be used to focus and frame significant views and screen out elements that are visually less appealing.
16 435 4.1.6 Preserving views of surrounding open space and hillsides from open space areas within the project will expand the sense of openness, enhance the visual character of the space, and facilitate greater use of the open space.
Siting the homes along the looped roadway that follows the site contours and staggering placement so they are not directly opposite of each other maximizes public and private views out from the Project to Brushy Peak and open space to the north and west. The site plan also maintains portions of the views of the on-knolls from Altamont Creek Park by placing homes west of the Park boundary and avoiding the southeastern knoll. The locations of one and one and one-half story homes were chosen to facilitate views of the northwestern knoll from Altamont Creek Elementary and the neighborhood west of Hawk Street.
All of the floor plans are well under the 35-foot maximum height limit. Plan One and Plan Two floor plans are one-story with heights of 21 feet and 19½ feet, respectively. Plan Four and Plan Five floor plans are two-story and 26 feet tall at the roof ridge. Minimizing building heights facilitates views off-site from the project, and maximizes views of the on- site knolls from neighboring properties. Over 60 percent of the homes (29) are one or one and one-half story floor plans.
The existing knolls on the Project site are approximately 605 and 608 feet high and obstruct views of Brushy Peak from Altamont Creek Park and Altamont Creek Elementary School. The Project will not obstruct views of Brushy Peak and the distant hills to the north from the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve. Ridgelines adjacent to Frick Lake, approximately ¾ of a mile east of the Project range in height from 735 to 807 feet and will backdrop views of the Project from Vasco Road so that new homes will not silhouette against the sky.
In addition to controlling access and trespass, fences play a significant role in minimizing visual prominence from off-site perspectives. The Fencing Plan (Sheet L-4) indicates fence locations for each single-family lot and Sheet L-5 shows fence styles and the Grading Plan (Sheet C-4) includes notes and specifications for perimeter fencing.
The intent of perimeter fencing is to eliminate trespass into the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve, sensitive wetlands to the north, and the Zone 7 flood control property to the south. Staff is recommending the extension of fencing from the side property lines of Lots 1, 13 and 14 to the Project perimeter fence in order to prevent trespass into the Zone 7 flood protection areas, buffers, and Preserve.
Recommendation 1: Exclusion fencing shall extend from the side property lines of Lots 1, 13 and 14 to the Project perimeter fence in order to prevent trespass into the Zone 7 flood protection areas, buffers, and Preserve..
Fencing along the rear lot lines will include design features to exclude small amphibians (California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog) from the residential development. Section A-A on the Grading Plan shows a six-foot high chain link fence with
17 436 openings along the bottom and barbed wire on the top for the perimeter fence. However, the City’s Design Guidelines and Standards prohibit chain link fences.
The Conditions of Approval prohibit chain link fencing and require open view fencing with dark colored materials to minimize visual prominence. Final design is subject to coordination between the applicant, City, Park District and Resource Agencies.
Recommendation 2: Replace chain link perimeter fencing with open view fencing constructed with dark colored materials.
Fences along the rear property lines will also require review by Resource Agencies to ensure the lower section of the wall will exclude amphibians. Currently the Fence Plans indicate a 6-foot view fence on top of the retaining walls along the rear property lines. The walls vary in height between one foot and six feet. Staff is recommending a dark, coated metal view fence on top of the retaining walls/exclusion barriers that are more open and less visually prominent than the view fence shown on Sheet L-5.
Recommendation 3: Replace the open wire view fence shown on Sheet L-5 with a dark, coated metal view fence that will sit on top of the retaining walls along the rear property lines.
Staff is recommending additional modifications to the residential fencing below to enhance the streetscape and minimize the visual prominence of the developments edges from off-site perspectives. The 6-foot high Trex “street elevation fence” will be replaced with the 6-foot high redwood “good neighbor fence.” (Both fences are shown on Sheet L-5)
Recommendation 4: Interior residential fences shall match the redwood “good neighbor fence” shown on Sheet L-5.
Recommendation 5: Shorten the length of the fences along the common area boundaries of Lots 1, 13, 14, 29, 30, 38, 39 and 47 so that they do not exceed more than 50 percent of the lot depth in order to enhance the streetscape and deemphasize the fence in these prominent locations.
Recommendation 6: Set all fences between the house and side property lines at least 10 feet back from the front wall of the house, not counting porches, in order to enhance the streetscape by revealing more of the homes and deemphasizing the presence of fencing.
Massing and Scale: Massing and scale guidelines promote residential development with a pedestrian scale:
1.1.2 Building massing should be varied by employing a variety of techniques, such as recessed porches, bay windows, dormers and varying planes or setbacks. As appropriate to the style of the house, the roof forms should be varied. Roof forms to
18 437 be employed include: hipped roofs, gabled roofs, varying roof pitches, side-to-side gables, front-to-back gables or various combinations.
1.1.3 Façade components should correspond to the scale of the human form. This is accomplished by visually breaking up façades into smaller components with elements such as windows, wall insets, balconies, ledges and trim and by stepping back upper stories.
1.1.4 Façade components should be in proportion to related components, such as the proportion of a column to its base and the width of a column to its height.
General massing and scale of the homes reinforce a pedestrian level design through the provision of projecting and integral porches with decorative iron railings, garages setback from porches and front wall planes, and a variety of hipped and cross-gabled roof forms.
Architectural Style: Architectural style standard and guidelines ensure the residential design contributes to the overall character of Livermore.
2.1.1 Building design should not be limited to any particular style. However, it should generally be compatible with surrounding residential development. The authentic implementation of appropriate established architectural styles is encouraged.
2.1.2 Functional design solutions should be employed that are compatible with the surrounding natural and built environments and that contribute to the character and quality of new residential development.
2.1.3 Building elevations should not be replicated across the street from each other or on adjacent parcels.
The Project features five floor plans in a modern Tuscan architectural style that are consistent with the City’s Design Standards and Guidelines:
• Plan 1 – One story, four bedroom/two and one-half baths, three-car garage, 3,165 square feet. • Plan 2 – One story, four bedroom/two and one-half baths, three-car garage, 3,110 square feet. • Plan 3 – One and one-half story, three to five bedrooms/two and one-half baths, three-car garage, 3,485 square feet. • Plan 4 – Two-story, four to five bedrooms/three baths, three-car garage, 4,045 square feet. • Plan 5 – Two-story, four to five bedrooms/three and one-half baths, three-car garage, 4,180 square feet.
19 438 Plans 1, 4, and 5 have three variations in architectural style, while Plans 2 and 3 have two each. The variety of floor plans and style variations contribute visual interest to the streetscape and facilitates the placement of different floor plans across the street from each other. Large projecting porches and porches integral to the same massing and roof form as the main structure provide usable outdoor space, activate the streetscape, and enhance the pedestrian scale of each home.
Architectural design is also consistent with Design Standard and Guidelines for façades, windows and doors, porches, materials, colors, and roof design:
Façades include entries and porches that relate to the human scale. Windows and doors employ design details that are appropriate to the architectural style and add relief to the wall surface. Porches provide functional outdoor space and provide a transition to between the street and residence. Elevations include natural stone finishes appropriate to the architectural style and design. Colors are earth tone and compatible with the natural setting. Color and material boards will be available at the public meeting. Roof form, color and texture are integral parts of the home designs and compatible with both the natural setting.
Staff is recommending minor revisions to the architecture in order to enhance the rear elevations that will be visible from off-site perspectives. Specifically, staff is recommending additional stone cladding as follows in order to break up the stucco and embellish the rear elevations:
Recommendation 7: Plan 1, Elevations A & B – Provide stone cladding on the exterior master bedroom wall on the rear of elevations.
Recommendation 8: Plan 2, Elevations A & B – Provide stone cladding on the exterior great room walls on the rear elevations.
Recommendation 9: Plan 3, Elevation A – Extend the stone cladding on the second story to all four sides.
Recommendation 10: Plan 4, Elevations A & B – Provide stone cladding on the exterior bedroom no. 4 walls on the rear elevations.
Recommendation 11: Plan 5, Elevations A & B – Provide stone cladding on the exterior kitchen/dining room (ground floor) and bedroom no. 4 (second story) exterior walls.
20 439 Landscape Design: The Design Standards and Guidelines require development plans to contribute positively to the character of residential neighborhoods.
1.1 Function
1.1.1 Landscaping should be an integral part of the overall site design, rather than camouflage unused or unusable spaces or poor architectural design.
1.1.2 Landscape improvements should be utilized to better integrate a development with its setting.
The landscape plans show a small orchard grid of Swan Hill olive trees that signal the entry into the development followed by informal clusters of oak trees (Valley oak and Southern live oak) along the base of the knolls. Street trees are London Planes that distinguish arrival into the developed portion of the neighborhood. Crape Myrtle’s accent trail and sidewalk entries and crossings.
1.2 Existing Landscape Elements
1.2.1 Where feasible, significant existing landscape elements should be preserved and incorporated into development and landscape plans.
1.2.2 Elements such as mature trees, tree groupings, arroyos and rock outcroppings should be considered in the design of the project.
The proposal preserves the rock outcropping in the northwest corner that will be publicly accessible. Stone seats and benches at the rock outcropping will provide a respite opportunity to trail users and residents. In response to the Park District’s concerns with providing trees in the natural buffers that could provide perching and nesting for raptors that prey on Burrowing owls, the Landscape Plans do not include trees in the west and northwest portions of the buffers. The Landscape Plans do show trees proposed for the area between the rock outcrop and new street, and in the northeast and south portions of the buffers. Staff recommends eliminating the trees proposed between the rock outcrop and new street, and in the northeast portion of the buffer to eliminate all perching and nesting opportunities along the project edges for Burrowing owl predators. Staff is also recommending the applicant provide native shrubs in the northeast portion of the buffer along the rear property lines of Lots 23, 24 and 25 in order to soften the visual appearance of the retaining walls.
Recommendation 12: Eliminate the trees proposed between the rock outcrop and new street, and in the northeast portion of the buffer to eliminate all perching and nesting opportunities along the project edges for Burrowing owl predators.
Recommendation 13: Provide native shrubs in the northeast portion of the buffer along the rear property lines of Lots 23, 24 and 25 in order to soften the visual prominence of the retaining walls.
21 440
1.3 Plant Species
1.3.1 Employ a well-coordinated palette of plant species.
1.3.2 Native plant materials and other plant species that are well adapted to local climatic conditions are preferable.
The project will comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Prototypical front yard landscaping shown on Sheet L-4 minimizes turf, and includes native species that are well adapted for low water use.
1.4 Plant Size and Scale
1.4.1 Larger, more mature plant materials shall be used as much as possible to ensure that some immediate effect on the project’s appearance will be attained within two years of planting:
Street trees and front yard trees are 24-inch box, while shrubs range in size from one to 15 gallon with spacing for successful establishment. The prototypical front yard landscaping arranges plant species and sizes in a hierarchy that appropriately accents the homes and functional entry paths leading from the sidewalks to the front entries.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is an informational document. Its purposes, according to CEQA are “to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.” The intent of the information contained in the Garaventa Hills EIR is to be objective and impartial and to enable the reader to arrive at an independent judgment regarding the significance of the impacts resulting from the proposed project.
The Draft EIR includes two alternatives to the original proposal: Alternative A: No Project, No Development Alternative; and Alternative B: Reduced Density, Current General Plan Allowance Alternative. Alternative A assumes no development of the site. Alternative B assumes development of the site consistent with the current General Plan designation of Urban Low Density (UL-1) at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre. After considering public comments on the Draft EIR and the statements given by neighboring homeowners at a number of Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the applicant has chosen to proceed with developing the site generally consistent with the Alternative B.
22 441 The Draft EIR identifies the No Project, No Development Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative since it proposes no changes to the site. However, this alternative would not advance any project objectives, including the contribution of homes to accommodate Livermore’s growing population and regional housing needs, and to provide housing near Tri-Valley employment centers within the existing City Boundary and North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary. The Reduced Density, Current General Plan Allowance Alternative is the next most environmentally superior alternative and would meet all of the Project Objectives.
The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), together with the Draft EIR published in November 2012, constitutes the Final EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA. On June 11, 2014, copies of the Final EIR were made available to the public at the Livermore Planning Division, Livermore Public Library Main Branch, and on the City’s website at www.cityoflivermore.net. The Final EIR continues to be available at these locations and on the City’s website.
A Technical Memorandum prepared by the City’s Environmental Consultant addresses the changes to the Project since issuance of the Final EIR (Attachment 12). Changes are the replacement of the loop road with an Emergency Vehicle Access to further reduce grading, and installation of subdrains along the northern and western buffers to convey runoff from project sources to the treatment basin. The Memorandum confirms that the changes to the Project do not require recirculation of the Final EIR.
Public Comments
On December 4, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public comments on the Draft EIR. In addition to the verbal comments made at the Planning Commission, staff received written comments from the public and other agencies during the 45-day public review period. The Final EIR contains all comments received by the City on the Draft EIR and includes responses to these comments, together with necessary changes or revisions to the text of the Draft EIR document. None of the revisions or responses to comments contained in the Final EIR are “significant new information” under section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and therefore no recirculation of the Draft EIR was required.
Additional emails and letters sent to the Planning Commission and staff regarding the Final EIR are Attachment 13 to this staff report. Attachment 14 is a petition in opposition to the proposal. The list below summarizes the most frequently raised concerns regarding potential environmental impacts expressed in the written comments and verbal testimony:
1. Transportation, Circulation and Safety
Comments: Several comments raised concerns about vehicular and pedestrian/student safety on Hawk Street. The concerns arose from the proposal to connect the Project with a bridge over Altamont Creek to an extension of Hawk Street, which serves as a secondary access to Altamont Creek Elementary School. There are
23 442 also concerns with increasing traffic on Bear Creek Drive, the intersection of Laughlin Road and Northfront Avenue, and I-580 on-ramps.
Response: Removing the Hawk Street extension and bridge over Altamont Creek from the Project eliminates potential vehicular and pedestrian conflicts at Hawk Street and Altamont Creek Elementary School.
Bear Creek Drive is a local street with a design capacity to carry up to 5,000 vehicles per day. Currently, this street carries around 500 vehicles per day. Even with a modest increase of vehicles on Bear Creek Drive, the daily volume would not result in more than 5,000 vehicles per day, which is the capacity threshold for local streets in Livermore. The traffic assessment prepared for the chosen alternative estimates 35 AM peak hour trips and 47 PM peak hour trips. There would be no new or significantly increased impact related to increased vehicle traffic on Bear Creek Drive. Additionally, the Project no longer includes a bridge connecting Hawk Street, and therefore affords no opportunity for school traffic diversions onto Bear Creek Drive.
Projections for the Laughlin Road and Northfront Road intersection indicate it is operating below acceptable service levels even without the Project under the cumulative scenario. Without the Project, this intersection has a delay of 5 and ½ minutes in the AM and 5 minutes in the PM peak hours. The Project would result in an increase in delay of approximately 1.1 seconds in the AM peak hour and 3.7 seconds in the PM peak hour. These minor increases would not represent a substantial increase in the severity of the already significant impact. The Laughlin Road and Northfront Road intersection is a future improvement identified in the City’s Traffic Improvement Fee (TIF) Program, to which the proposed project will contribute its fair share of improvement costs.
The Project would contribute a small amount of vehicles to the I‐580 freeway and on- ramps. The results from the traffic model show Project traffic on I‐580 freeway segments are increasing over existing conditions from between 1 to 5 vehicles per hour, which is a less than significant impact.
2. Biological Resources
Comments: Concerns include the elimination of habitat for sensitive animal and plant species.
Response: The Draft EIR acknowledges the permanent loss of up to 31.7 acres of non-native annual grassland that has the potential to support several special status animal species including; California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, vernal pool fairy shrimp, San Joaquin kit fox, western spadefoot toad, California burrowing owl, and American badger. Any disturbance of Federal and State protected animal and plant species requires environmental permits from Federal and State resource agencies, including the US Fish & Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish & Wildlife. Typically, environmental permits from these Resource
24 443 Agencies require habitat loss compensation in the form of habitat acquisition at 3:1 ratios (acres preserved: acres disturbed)
Proposed environmental mitigation for the Project is to place an 85-acre property in the Springtown Alkali Sink, also owned by the Garaventa family, under a permanent conservation easement with an endowment for restoration and management in perpetuity. The 85-acre property has sensitive soils, special status animal and plant species, vernal pools, and a segment of Altamont Creek. The environmental mitigation will be coordinated with the Resource Agencies during subsequent environmental permitting.
The site is within the area covered by the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (Conservation Strategy), a guidance document for regional conservation, and environmental permitting for private and public development projects. The Final EIR includes mitigation measures that require the applicant to acquire offsite compensatory habitat consistent with compensation ratios under the Conservation Strategy. Additional mitigation measures includes pre-construction surveys to ensure species are absent from the site before construction begins, and protection measures to be taken during construction to ensure species do not migrate onto the site.
3. Hydrology
Comments: Concerns with hydrology and stormwater drainage are regarding potential impacts to sensitive wetlands on adjacent properties from diverted drainage and polluted stormwater runoff.
Response: Appendix J to the Final EIR is an evaluation of the potential off-site hydrologic impacts. West of the Project is the Park District’s Garaventa Wetlands Preserve that includes seasonal wetlands and alkaline soils. Dedication of the Preserve to LARPD was a condition of approval for the Maralisa development to the south.
According to the hydrologic study, the primary water sources for the Preserve’s wetlands are direct precipitation falling on the wetland’s surface and surface flows generated by a relatively small tributary area immediately adjacent to the wetlands. In addition, the Preserve receives flows from nearly 645 acres of tributary watershed. The study concludes that the minor changes to onsite drainage patterns proposed with the project will not result in significant impacts to the hydrology of the Preserve.
The hydrologic study prepared for the Project (Final EIR Appendix J) identifies approximately 3.9 acres of vernal pools on the Preserve and the undeveloped property to the north. The study states that vernal pools require a tributary area nearly equal to the size of the pools themselves in order to fully pond in the absence of large storm events.
25 444 Over 4 acres of natural buffers on the north and west edges of the Project will remain undeveloped and will allow overland flow toward the wetlands in the Preserve and to the north. Approximately 2.6 acres will drain to the north and 1.4 acres of open space will drain towards the west. This tributary area is capable of supplying water to 4 acres of vernal pools. This exceeds the estimated 3.9 acres of vernal pools that may be influenced by the project. Therefore, just the area of proposed open space should provide the water supply required to fill the vernal pools during critical times of the year when rain events do not fill the ponds with direct precipitation. In addition, the tributary watershed area contributing to these 3.9 acres of vernal pools is approximately 645 acres to the north and west. This is significantly larger than just the Project’s 4 acres of open space and provides more than ample source flow to fill the vernal pools.
According to the study, precipitation in early winter is the primary source of water for these vernal pools. Research and studies referenced in the report also conclude that significant watershed surface runoff contributions to these types of wetlands rarely occur. When it does, it generally occurs during wet times when the pools are already full, leading to excess runoff. Since the Project has no influence on direct precipitation and is not impacting the area immediately adjacent to the vernal pools, the study concludes that the Project will not significantly impact the hydrology of the Garaventa Wetlands.
Further analysis from a third environmental consultant (LSA Associates) confirms that the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve is not dependent on runoff from the Project site to maintain wetland conditions.
4. Visual Prominence and Views
Comments: Concerns are primarily with the Project’s visual prominence from existing residences in the neighborhoods to the south, east and northeast.
Response: One of Livermore’s most distinctive features are the hills and ridgelines that surround the City, most of which lie outside the City limits. Significant ridgelines located north of the I-580 corridor include Brushy Peak to the northeast, as well as the Altamont Hills east of Vasco and Greenville Roads. Other open space to the north consists of more moderate topography, with rolling hills and rangelands. Livermore’s built environment, and its planning policies, are designed to preserve views to these hills from public vantage points.
The General Plan Community Character Element includes Goals, Objectives and Policies to preserve views of Livermore’s surrounding hillsides and ridgelines, particularly from I-580. The Project does not substantially alter views of identified scenic resources from identified vistas and would not substantially change views toward these scenic resources from nearby public areas.
26 445 Parks are considered public locations from which views are important. The existing views from Altamont Creek Park are currently obstructed by the Project site and do not include views toward Brushy Peak and the ridgelines beyond. The Project maintains portions of the views of the on-site knolls from Altamont Creek Park by placing homes over 500 feet west of the Project entry and avoiding the southeastern knoll. The provision of one and one and one-half story homes along the perimeter offers views of the northwestern knoll from Altamont Creek Elementary and neighborhood west of Hawk Street.
In response to comments from the Planning Commission during the July 1, 2014 meeting the applicant developed new visual simulations (Attachment 2) that show the project in context from several vantage points:
• Altamont Creek Park, • Existing terminus of Bear Creek Drive, • South of Meadow Glenn Drive to the west, • Bluff’s development to the northeast, • Vasco Road, • Public trail along the south side of the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve, and • Existing terminus of Hawk Street.
The visibility of a project from private properties is not intrinsically a significant environmental impact. Further, private views are not considered protected under CEQA nor would changes to these be considered an impact to the environment. As demonstrated in the Final EIR, the Project was found not to significantly alter views of identified scenic resources from identified scenic vistas. The Project is consistent with the character of adjacent residential neighborhoods to the south and east and therefore has only less than significant environmental impacts related to views.
The EIR includes a list of mitigation measures that would reduce certain environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared, which lists each mitigation measure, the method of verification, the timing of verification, and the agency responsible for verifying the implementation of the mitigation measure. Staff recommends including the implementation of the mitigation measures as a condition of approval for the Subdivision and Site Plan Design Review applications.
Recommendation 14: The project shall be subject to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
With the implementation of the mitigation measures as a condition of approval, the project will not have a significant impact on the environment.
27 446 SUMMARY
The Project reflects the applicant’s goal to address community concerns through the site plan, architecture and landscaping. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan density, comparable in development pattern to the Altamont Creek and Bluff’s developments to the east and northeast, and provides public access to the on-site knolls and rock outcrop that currently are privately owned.
The Final EIR indicates that the site could be developed without significant impacts to the environment and can support this infill development at a density envisioned under the current 2003 General Plan Urban Low Residential designation, at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre.
All of the required findings for approving the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development-Residential can be made (see the attached draft Resolution, Attachment 1). Therefore, staff recommends approval of the project, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending the City Council:
1. certify the Environmental Impact Report and, after approval of the application, instruct the staff to file the Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk; 2. approve Subdivision 13-001 (Tentative Tract Map 8094), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; 3. approve Planned Development - Residential 13-001; and 4. approve Site Plan Design Review 13-005, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution of Approval 2. Development Plans 3. 1990 Maralisa Project Development Plan 4. 2000 Maralisa Summit Development Plan 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 1, 2014 6. Planning Commission Minutes dated July 1, 2014 7. Similar Development Patterns in Northeast Livermore 8. Proposed Mitigation Parcel 9. Planned Development-Residential 13-001 District Standards 10. Conditions of Approval, Site Plan Design Review 13-005 11. Conditions of Approval, Tentative Tract Map 8094 12. Technical Memorandum from Environmental Consultant dated June 25, 2015 13. Letter in support from the property owner not contained in the EIR documents
28 447 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.01 Hearing to consider a request to subdivide a vacant parcel for the development of 47 detached single-family residences, landscaping, appurtenant improvements, and preservation of open space.
A Response to Comments/Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed which provides responses to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Draft EIR text revisions.
• Location: East of North Vasco Road, North of Garaventa Ranch Road/Altamont Creek Drive, and West of Laughlin Road • Site Area: 32± acres • Applicant: Livermore LT Ventures I Group, LLC • Application Numbers: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB13-001), Planned Development-Residential 13-001, and Site Plan and Design Review 13-005 • Public Improvements: On-site and off-site public improvements: Streets, utilities, storm drain and landscape improvements. • Zoning: Planned Development • General Plan: Urban Low Residential (UL-1: 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre) • Historic Status: None • CEQA: Adequacy of Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2011112045) will be considered for compliance with the provisions of CEQA. • Project Planner: Steve Stewart
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB13-001), Planned Development Residential (PD-R) 13-001, and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 13-005, subject to conditions.
Principal Planner Steve Stewart introduced the staff report. Staff provided an errata to the conditions of approval, dated August 18, 2015.
Rebecca Gorton, Lamphier-Gregory, summarized the analysis and conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report.
Patrick Toohey, Lafferty Communities, said they believe the project they brought forward in July 2014 was a very good project, but they do appreciate the efforts from staff to help them present an even better project. They intend to create trails to and through the knolls and through the rock outcropping on property that is currently private property. He believes they have a superior project and asked the Planning Commission to support staff’s recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 DRAFT ATTACHMENT 11 448 Chairperson Pann opened the public hearing.
Cindy Angers, Livermore, asked if there would be a photo simulation of the proposed project viewed from the Bluffs development. The hydrology flows into the wetlands, and they have talked a lot over the years about the flow of runoff. The wetlands are so delicate and they are all very concerned about the infiltrated flows and how they travel underneath the drainage system. They would like to pursue an initiative to keep the hill as open space in perpetuity. Instead of mitigating for development of the hill, the property could be a mitigation parcel held in a mitigation bank. They would like to see if the property could be purchased by East Bay Regional Park District or another buyer interested in keeping the property as open space. They would also like to explore having the hill rezoned and moved outside the Urban Growth Boundary.
Tania Ryan, Livermore, said she moved to her neighborhood because they loved the environment and feel of the neighborhood. The traffic situation in Livermore is getting worse. The proposed homes have three-car garages, and she does not understand the report stating the low-impact traffic numbers.
Karen Crosley, Livermore, said there is a more suitable use for the property than what is now proposed. They have a unique opportunity to preserve these hills that have been enjoyed for decades by the public. General Plan Policy LU2.1 P12 requires that proposed development must be in the best interest of the community as a whole.
Shannon Kai, Livermore, said there were a number of reasons against development of the Garaventa Hills including the evidence of burrowing owls and other endangered species, the demand for water and the drought, cramped living space, and pollution. A lot of people use the hills for personal reasons that would be taken away if the proposed development was approved.
Dennis Kai, Livermore, said he has seen evidence of the burrowing owls where proposed lots are planned. He walks his dog in the area because the East Bay Regional Park area closes at 10:00 p.m. He was raised in a town similar to Livermore in southern California that no longer has any hills, just houses everywhere. He does not want that to happen in Livermore.
David Hughes, Livermore, said the General Plan goals require protecting the unique qualities of Livermore. The knolls are a very sensitive area and are just as valuable to the existing neighborhood as they are to Lafferty. This development completely cuts off the views of the knolls. He moved to the Laughlin Road area because of the beautiful and unique knolls. This development would limit the appreciation of those knolls to just the 47 new homeowners. This area defines the charm and character of Livermore.
Helen Nelson, Livermore, said the project would bring more traffic than reported in the traffic study. Kids play in the streets and the new homes would create a completely different environment. The renderings show that there would not be anything left of the hills. The City’s General Plan policies recommend preservation of the hills, hillsides,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 AUGUST 18, 2015 DRAFT 449 slopes, knolls, and silhouettes within the City and state that development shall not obscure or negatively affect visual quality of the landforms.
Marnie Steele, Livermore, read a statement made by the late Bob Baltzer from 2013 where he shared his concern about the proposed development. He had stated that none of the subject area should have been urbanized. His viewpoint was driven by his concerns about the sensitive habitat and other environmental concerns in the area.
Ann Lopez, Livermore, said when they purchased their home 16 years ago, they were told by the developers that the area behind them would never be developed. She is a teacher, and by her estimates, there would be about 39 new students per school level, which is more than a classroom each. The School District would have to hire at least one teacher for each school.
Theresa Dorr, Livermore, said the proposal is not smart growth. Missing from the project is a safe path to the school that would not cross protected land or endangered species. The proposed trail is past the school, soccer fields, and baseball fields; it is not the closest and shortest path. People will create their own path and walk over the endangered species land. The traffic study was done three years ago and economic recovery has increased traffic. Access to Brushy Peak Park has expanded and access to the community has gone from two roads to one. She is concerned about the traffic impacts and safety and the impact to the endangered species. The number of new trees were reduced, but raptors will perch on street lamps and chimneys. The hydrology study is inadequate and based on a distant and dissimilar study area. The proposed deep grading and modifications will change the ground water flow. The project does not follow Livermore guidelines for landscaping and they are putting a large pipe across the Altamont Creek.
Verlin Crosley, Livermore, said the project would destroy the existing beauty and character of the hills. The General Plan states that hills and knolls will be preserved. The project will completely obliterate the landscape they currently enjoy. The developer would remove a significant portion of the hill, leaving a crescent shaped scar on the hill. Most developments merge into the surrounding neighborhoods, but the proposed homes figuratively will be built on an island. The project would harm the character of North Livermore. He strongly objects to the construction of these homes.
Connie Kopps, Livermore, said Livermore does need places for people to live.
Vincent Yazurlo, Livermore, said he is concerned about the impact of the project on the fire department, schools, police department, and water. Traffic is horrendous. Any more traffic trying to get down Northfront Road onto I-580 at 7:30 a.m. would be impossible.
John Suttora, Livermore, said when he recently bought his home, he was torn between North or South Livermore. He bought in North Livermore because of the hills, trails, and openness. He is concerned about Livermore becoming two parts; the south side where they can preserve land and open space in perpetuity, and the north side where they have to sell the land to developers to pay for infrastructure, schooling, etc. The hills are the one
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 AUGUST 18, 2015 DRAFT 450 natural preserve they have on the north side, and he would like them to remain for the next 100 years for his kids to enjoy.
Peter Coutrakon, Livermore, asked why new housing is being built when he has been asked to give up water.
Kim Christensen, Livermore, said the Ohlone Indians considered Brushy Peak to be sacred and he thinks these hills should be considered sacred. The sparsity of City parks is a reflection of the piecemeal planning. The Garaventa hill has become a de facto park because there are no great alternatives. This land should be permanently preserved. The Garaventa family trust has already sold a substantial amount of land and should be good stewards of the land and turn the property over to open space.
Ben Barrientos, Livermore, said he and his wife are teachers. No teachers are going to be able to afford to live in these houses. Maybe the top 10 percent of people could buy these houses. The hills of Dublin are being covered and within five years will be paved with housing. No teacher, fireman, or policeman could buy any of these houses. San Francisco has the same issue. If there were a disaster, their firefighters would not be able to get into San Francisco.
Delwyn Lounsbury, Livermore, said the 85 acres would be permanent mitigation where there is an endangered plant. He was the real estate agent selling these properties 20 years ago when they found the plant. The property is zoned for housing and is planned for housing. The mitigation property used to be planned for 355 houses but was rezoned for open space agriculture. The project area is private property for planned housing.
Richard Norris, Livermore, attorney for Lafferty Communities, said it is a classic issue for a City to deal balancing the comfort of a community against the pressures for growth. Lafferty Communities acquired the parcel that is zoned for the development they have planned. Those objecting to the proposed project would prefer nothing be developed on the site. However, the property is zoned for residential development and is inside the Urban Growth Boundary. The proposed project is a highly evolved plan that addresses the issues of the site as carefully as possible. There have been six community meetings with a total of 30 people attending. For the community as a whole, they have mitigated the project impacts to an extent appropriate to move forward.
Brian Bertoli, Livermore, said he was definitely against building housing on the hill primarily because a lot of people use the area to walk their dogs. The City has been trying to get a dog park in the area, but there has not been any funding. There is a lot of wildlife on the hill. He is concerned about the pesticides used and the impact that would have on the plants and eventually the habitat. The tiger salamander are already declining. The view of the hills is a bonus, but he is mainly concerned about wildlife.
Bianca Covarelli, Livermore, said she agreed with Mr. Bertoli. When she first moved to the area, everything was very pristine, but that has changed. They see owls, foxes, and tiger salamander daily in the project area. The existing natural quiet and serene quality of
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 AUGUST 18, 2015 DRAFT 451 North Livermore will seriously be affected by any additional development. She is concerned about the additional demand on water and the traffic impacts.
Phillip White, Livermore, said his home has about a 20-25 foot elevation cut. After 16 years, there is still no vegetation on the hill where it was cut. The grading that would be done for the proposed project will be significant. Anywhere that the soil is cut off, there is not going to be any vegetation. They are not going to be able to plant trees because they are cutting down to the sandstone.
No one else spoke, and the public hearing was closed.
In response to a question from Vice Chairperson Kaskey, Mr. Stewart said the nearest fire station is Station 8 on Scenic Avenue, which is between 0.9 and 1.6 miles from the project access points at Hawk Street and Bear Creek Drive. The emergency vehicle access would be comprised of decomposed granite. Typically those access points would be controlled with either gates or bollards that may only be removed by emergency personnel.
In response to questions from Vice Chairperson Kaskey, Mr. Stewart said there were currently sewer and water services stubbed to the end of Bear Creek Drive to the south and also water service at the end of Hawk Street, so there would be an extension of sewer and water from Bear Creek. There would also be water service from the end of Hawk Street that will be beneath the ground surface of the creek. It would not be an aerial pipe or structure across the creek. The applicant will need to secure permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the new outfall.
Vice Chairperson Kaskey asked if there was consideration for a bike or pedestrian path as a continuation from Hawk Street to meet up with the trails.
Mr. Stewart said the road is exclusively a Zone 7 maintenance road for the flood channel and is used as a trail. The trail along the south is a multi-use trail as well as a maintenance road for Zone 7 to maintain the flood channel. He does not believe the applicant has explored putting in a bridge for foot traffic. Once you try to span the creek, because of the elevation at the end of Hawk Street and to get over to the other side requires substantial abutting into the creek areas and the flood plain, which the Regional Water Quality Control Board was not encouraging the applicant to pursue. Because of concerns from the public and Planning Commission about cut-through traffic and the trail and sidewalk conflicts with the school because of the Hawk Street connection, the Hawk Street bridge was eliminated from the proposal.
In response to questions from Vice Chairperson Kaskey, Mr. Stewart said there would be a perimeter fence that would have a solid barrier to prevent the movement of amphibians into the buffer area. In conjunction with the work on the trail connection, the applicant, City staff, and Zone 7 are going to look at what the Park District wants to have to control access further out where the trail dead ends and people are able to walk out into the Garaventa wetlands preserve. There has been a lot of damage from trespass on the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 AUGUST 18, 2015 DRAFT 452 preserve area, so the exact location of fencing will be determined in a discussion among those agencies in addition to the environmental resource agencies.
In response to questions from Vice Chairperson Kaskey, Mr. Stewart said the six-foot high view fence shown on L-5 is a view fence that would go along the rear yards of the lots. Staff is recommending that fence design be changed to an open iron fence or a design that would be less visually prominent than the proposed design, such as a black coated iron fence that would allow visual view. The perimeter fence would also be a view fence. The applicant had proposed a chain-link fence based on input from a biologist. The City does not permit chain-link fencing, so the view portion of that fence would also be some sort of dark coated iron that would allow views through. The bottom portion of that fence would need to be approved by the resources agencies to provide some type of amphibian guard to keep critters from getting through into the development.
In response to questions from Vice Chairperson Kaskey, Mr. Stewart stated that LARPD had concerns about some of the added trees and the opportunity for raptors to perch and prey on the burrowing owl. New trees would not be planted adjacent to the Garaventa wetlands preserve to prevent the raptor perching and nesting.
Vice Chairperson Kaskey said she would like to discuss increasing the ratio of one or one and half story houses to help the visual impacts on the views of the hills. The most jarring views are those shown on Page L-14 and the two story homes proposed on Lots 7 and 5 and on Page L-15 the views of the two story homes at Lots 7 and 10.
Vice Chairperson Kaskey asked how the open space parcels would be zoned to ensure they are kept open space in perpetuity.
Mr. Stewart said the General Plan and Zoning designations would not change for the park parcel. The PD District, which include the development standards, would identify the knolls as open space parcels and the subdivision map once recorded would show the parcels as open space. The Conditions of Approval also require the applicant to dedicate both of the knoll parcels and the buffer parcels to the City as an open space easement. That easement would be recorded and mapped as open space.
Vice Chairperson Kaskey said she has met with the developer and with the Save the Hill group.
In response to a question from Commissioner Fagundes, Mr. Stewart said the EIR projection for the 76 unit project expected 21 elementary, 14 middle school, and 17 high school students. That impact would be less with the reduced density of the current project.
In response to a question from Commissioner Fagundes, Ms. Gorton said the project itself does not change the level of service for traffic and would contribute no more than an additional five-second delay at the intersection of Laughlin Road at Northfront Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 AUGUST 18, 2015 DRAFT 453 Mr. Vinn noted future conditions are cumulative for the buildout of the entire General Plan and includes regional traffic that is forecasted to grow through the year 2025. With those conditions, traffic at the existing stop sign would have significant delays. At some point between now and 2025, the City will need to install a traffic signal at that location. This project will pay the appropriate traffic impact fees to pay towards future traffic improvements. A signal would be installed when the intersection meets Caltrans minimum requirements, which includes a defined a number of conditions that would warrant the signal, and when the City programs the funds in the Capital Improvement Program budget. The intersection currently is not scheduled for a signal.
In response to a question by Commissioner Fagundes, Mr. Vinn stated there are no plans to further widen Northfront Road.
In response to questions from Commissioner Fagundes, Mr. Stewart said the project did not include a rendering for the retaining wall. The Conditions of Approval require the materials of the retaining wall be natural materials to reflect the color and texture of the rock outcropping. Mr. Stewart further explained the locations and varying heights of the retaining walls.
In response to questions from Vice Chairperson Kaskey, Mr. Stewart explained the project grading and contour lines of the project site.
Commissioner Fagundes said he is concerned about safety at the top of the six-foot retaining wall along the project entry. He is not sure if a fence would be appropriate at the top, but there should be a safety measure in place to prevent someone from jumping or falling from the top of the wall down to the street.
In response to questions from Chairperson Pann, Mr. Stewart said Laughlin Road is identified as a collector street with a capacity of 20,000 vehicle trips per day. The current traffic counts show about 2,000 trips per day. There is no stop sign at Bear Creek Road and Laughlin Drive. There are no warrants for an all-way stop at the intersection. The speed limit on Laughlin Road is 40 miles per hour, and there have been no reported collisions at that intersection in the past three years.
Chairperson Pann asked for additional explanation on the development of the Urban Growth Boundary line, why it was drawn the way it was, and what the thought was for protecting against urbanization of the open space. There is also property on the south side of town that was preserved through the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan.
Mr. Stewart stated the City’s North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary initiative followed the same boundary line created by the Alameda County Measure D initiative. In the subject location and in most locations in North Livermore the line was designed to be co-terminus with the City limit line, but also to exclude properties that did not already have urban designations. Future development has essentially been prevented beyond the Urban Growth Boundary line so there would not be future development of the knolls and ridgelines. The Urban Growth Boundary initiative was designed to focus development inside the urban growth boundary where services such as sewer, water,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 AUGUST 18, 2015 DRAFT 454 streets, and emergency services are available and preserve the lands beyond in open space or agriculture.
In response to questions by Chairperson Pann, Mr. Stewart said the City of Livermore has an inclusionary housing ordinance that requires builders to either construct a percentage of homes within the development at below-market rates to be affordable to certain income levels. The builder can either choose to build those homes within the project or pay an in-lieu fee per unit into the City’s affordable housing fund that the City can then use to acquire land and develop affordable housing projects. The applicant has chosen to pay the in-lieu fee for this project, which totals about $750,000. These funds are used for projects such as a future development on P and Chestnuts Streets that would include entitlements for a senior affordable component, a family affordable component, and some market-rate units.
Chairperson Pann noted he met with the developer a couple of times since 2014 and he recently met with the Save the Hill group.
Chairperson Pann asked staff to explain why use of a detention area for habitat for some potential wildlife would not be a good idea.
Mr. Stewart noted that first and foremost a detention basin has to function as a flood control feature and needs to handle the runoff that comes from the development, particularly during storm events. Tailoring that area to a particular habitat for a species would require significant augmentation for providing a permanent water supply. That would involve significant effort to monitor and manage, which would interfere with the functionality of a detention basin.
Chairperson Pann asked if there was development potential for the site north of the project site, which is also zoned UH-1.
Mr. Stewart noted that property was not part of the holdings in the early 1990s for development. Based on the experience with the Garaventa wetlands preserve to the west and the presence of vernal pools and alkali soils, the biological value of that site is significantly higher than the project site. He does not expect any sort of environmental permit would be issued from the Federal or resource agencies for development of that site. In 2001, staff initiated a specific plan for the area, and that parcel was slated for preservation.
In response to questions from Chairperson Pann, Mr. Stewart said the proposed 85-acre mitigation parcel is owned by the same property owner. They are currently obligated to manage the property for fire control and mosquito abatement.
Chairperson Pann said that if this project is approved, hopefully there would be measures put in place to protect the sensitivity of the mitigation property. Apparently there has been activities on the properties that is causing ecological damage.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10 AUGUST 18, 2015 DRAFT 455 Mr. Stewart noted the City is experiencing the same trespass issues on the City-owned 300-acre mitigation property that is causing damage to the site.
Vice Chairperson Kaskey said the Save the Hill group has triumphed in saving the hill if the open space area of Lot A can be kept in a state of open space in perpetuity for the public. She supports LARPD’s request to minimize the planting of new trees. She would like to see the landscaping plan include more native plantings. She would also like to discuss changing Lots 5, 7, and 10 to single-story homes to reduce the visual impact of the project from Hawk Street.
Mr. Toohey said they proposed planting trees at the top of the knoll to make it more visually appealing. They were planning to stay away from the trails and cluster the trees near the top and down around the sides a little. They can remove those trees as well if preferred.
Vice Chairperson Kaskey asked how the spread of non-native species could be prevented to ensure the knoll and other open areas remains pristine and in their current condition.
Mr. Toohey said they could accept having the landscaped areas within the lots having a high percentage of native planting, but they do want some grass for the residential lots. They are also required to work with staff and LARPD to develop a grassland management plan. Primarily they are looking at the removal of star thistle, which is an invasive, non-native species.
Mr. Stewart noted that all the grassland is non-native. The distinction is between whether we want to retain its natural condition that it is in now or introduce other species or other landscape plants. What he is hearing is the natural grasses that benefit species and are good for landscape out there is what we would want. Noxious invasive weeds are typically identified for removal, and that would be addressed in the grasslands management plan.
Mr. Toohey said they would agree to a condition that they work with staff, their landscape architect, and LARPD to develop the grassland mitigation plan to include measures to keep out non-native plantings. The open space property needs to be managed for fire breaks and weed abatement. They would work hand in hand with the Fire Department to develop an annual program, usually in the spring, to maintain the property and eliminate fire hazard.
Mr. Toohey noted the project already has 60 percent single and one and a half story homes. If the Commission would like the homes on Lots 5, 7, and 10, be changed to single story, he would ask that the current ratio of single story and two story homes remain within the project.
Chairperson Pann noted there was some question about whether the EIR needed to be addressed again based on the project changes. As he stated last year, the Alternative B in the EIR covered the impacts of this proposed project. He has asked the questions
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 AUGUST 18, 2015 DRAFT 456 about traffic on Bear Creek Drive and Laughlin Road, and he thinks that even though any additional cars would be frustrating, the City designed the streets for those subdivisions and to accommodate future growth, and the EIR addresses those impacts. This property has been scheduled for development and was part of the 2003 General Plan update.
In response to a question from Chairperson Pann, Mr. Stewart provided a summary of the City’s Housing Implementation Program.
Chairperson Pann noted the City does a very good job of managing growth. For about the last 30 years, the Housing Implementation Program has been in operation to manage growth to keep pace with need services, including affordable housing, schools, and water. Right now we are in a drought and we have been through these events before. Droughts are temporary environmental events that he does not believe the City should be basing development around. The City has a long-term growth policy to manage the growth of residential development that is effective and has been working for decades. The City also has implemented stringent water usage design requirements that are stricter than even the State standards, which this project will have to comply. The knolls, trails, and rock outcroppings are tremendous amenities for everyone in the area, and he likes that these amenities are going to be made available for public use. They are going to be maintained and managed, unlike the way they are now, which is definitely a worthwhile tradeoff for any variation in the standard zoning. He thinks reducing the tree planting to protect wildlife is a great idea. The issue of a bridge across the creek for pedestrian access would have been nice, but the environmental impacts of trying to create that bridge outweigh any benefits.
Chairperson Pann noted that the City’s Design Standards and Guidelines require architectural elements on all four sides of buildings and this project does that pretty well. In the areas where that is lacking, the staff report recommends conditions to address that. Staff does a very good job of identifying potential areas to enhance the rear and side elevations, but he has some concerns with some of the recommendations where there is no clear place to stop the stone along the side elevations. Recommendations 8 and 9 are for plans that have a clear delineation of where they could stop and start that stone. However, Recommendations 10 and 11 for Plan 4 and 5 have no clear architectural location on the side to stop that stone. He will making an amending motion to have staff work with the applicant to find architectural elements that make logical places to stop the stone. The rear elevation for Plan 4 clearly delineates an area where the stone could be started and stop, where it is recessed back from the great room. The problem is we do not see architecture in strictly rear elevation form. Especially on a site like this where there are oblique angles all over the place.
Mr. Norris said the developer would be pleased to work with staff to develop architectural elements for the stopping of the stone that is recommended in the staff report so that where the stone begins and ends has architectural logic.
Vice Chairperson Kaskey commended the Save the Hill group. They may not feel like it, but they have legitimized the site. The project will provide space for their walking and hiking without trespassing. They have helped toward making the project the best that it
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12 AUGUST 18, 2015 DRAFT 457 could be for Livermore. If they had been able to approach the heirs of the Garaventa group and been able to get some traction on their ideas before the plan came forward, it would have been more beneficial to them. They want to maintain the area as peaceful, and there is an effort being made to try to keep it that way. The same discussions likely occurred for the protection of endangered species and the rock outcroppings with the Bluffs and Altamont Creek projects. The goal is for clustering houses at a location that is fairly flat and do not require removing large pieces of land. She hopes that the shifting of the two-story homes could be more respectful of the current views. Paying attention to a native vegetation plan and looking at invasive species is the right kind of stewardship for the site and the sites that are biologically sensitive to the north and west. The Save the Hill group has done a fantastic job of pointing out what is important. The project progressed from about 70 houses to the current project with more open space preserved and a park they can visit.
Commissioner Fagundes noted he met with the developer and with the Save the Hill group. The group is well informed and definitely had some impact. He appreciates the applicant working so closely with staff and holding the community meetings, coming to a compromise for what is best. The plan including the public access to the open space is a great way to go for the area. The property is zoned for the development. He would like to see Lots 5, 7, and 10 changed to single story and the two story moved elsewhere within the development. He agrees with Chairperson Pann’s comments regarding water and smart growth throughout the community. He agrees with comments made by both Chairperson Pann and Vice Chairperson Kaskey.
Chairperson Pann said he also appreciates all the efforts of all parties involved. Vice Chairperson Kaskey said it very well, that the Save the Hill group has done a tremendous job in highlighting all the different issues involved in the development, which ultimately created a better project and saved the hill. The time and effort put forth by the public has been very well organized and has brought up many issues that the developer and staff have had to deal with. That input does weigh heavily on the Planning Commission when they consider projects such as this.
MOTION BY KASKEY, SECONDED BY PANN, TO ACCEPT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 17-15, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8094 (SUB13-001), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL (PD-R) 13-001, AND SITE PLAN DESIGN REVIEW (SPDR) 13-005, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, AND AS AMENDED BY ERRATA DATED AUGUST 18, 2015.
FIRST AMENDING MOTION BY KASKEY, SECONDED BY FAGUNDES, DIRECTING THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF TO CONVERT LOTS 5, 7, AND 10 TO ONE OR ONE AND A HALF STORY HOMES IN HEIGHT, MAINTAINING THE PROPOSED RATIO OF ONE, ONE AND A HALF, AND TWO STORY HOMES THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 13 AUGUST 18, 2015 DRAFT 458 VOTE ON FIRST AMENDING MOTION:
AYES: FAGUNDES, KASKEY, AND PANN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: BJORKLUND AND BONANNO.
SECOND AMENDING MOTION BY KASKEY, SECONDED BY FAGUNDES, DIRECTING THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF AND LARPD TO DEVELOP A GRASSLAND MITIGATION PLAN TO ADDRESS INVASIVE SPECIES IN THE OPEN SPACE AREAS.
VOTE ON SECOND AMENDING MOTION:
AYES: FAGUNDES, KASKEY, AND PANN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: BJORKLUND AND BONANNO.
THIRD AMENDING MOTION BY FAGUNDES, SECONDED BY KASKEY, DIRECTING THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF REGARDING SAFETY CONCERNS OF THE SIX-FOOT RETAINING WALL LOCATED JUST TO THE WEST OF THE ENTRANCE TO THE PROJECT SITE FROM BEAR CREEK DRIVE ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE ROADWAY.
VOTE ON THIRD AMENDING MOTION:
AYES: FAGUNDES, KASKEY, AND PANN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: BJORKLUND AND BONANNO.
FOURTH AMENDING MOTION BY PANN, SECONDED BY KASKEY, DIRECTING THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THE ARCHITECTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO ADDING STONE CLADDING TO THE REAR ELEVATIONS, LISTED AS RECOMMENDATIONS 7 THROUGH 11 IN THE STAFF REPORT.
VOTE ON FOURTH AMENDING MOTION:
AYES: FAGUNDES, KASKEY, AND PANN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: BJORKLUND AND BONANNO.
VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION:
AYES: FAGUNDES, KASKEY, AND PANN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: BJORKLUND AND BONANNO.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 14 AUGUST 18, 2015 DRAFT 459 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
TO: Chairperson Kaskey and Members of the Planning Commission
PREPARED BY: Steve Stewart, Principal Planner
REVIEWED BY: Paul Spence, Planning Manager
DATE: July 1, 2014
SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB13-001), Planned Development Residential (PD-R) 13-001, Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 13-005
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB13-001), Planned Development Residential (PD-R) 13-001, and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 13-005, subject to conditions.
BACKGROUND
In 1988 the Area A General Plan Amendment changed the subject property’s land use designation from Urban Medium Residential (4.5 dwelling units per acre) to Urban Low Medium Residential (3 dwellings per acre).
On July 6, 1990, the Maralisa builder Hal Porter Homes applied for the allocation of 610 units under the City’s 1991 Housing Implementation Program (Attachment 3). On November 13, 1990, the Livermore City Council adopted Resolution 347-90 approving the Housing Implementation Program (HIP) ranking and allocations for the Maralisa project, but reduced the number of units to 397 units over a three-year period (1991 – 1993). The builder reduced the number of housing unit allocations he was seeking in response to the City Council’s concerns regarding allocating 610 units to a single project. The development plan for the reduced number of units included 31 custom lots covering the knolls on the Project site. At this time, the City Council also recommended preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the subsequent Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, and Development Agreement applications.
1 460 ATTACHMENT 12 On January 21, 1992, the Livermore Planning Commission continued Planned Unit Development 54-90, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6433, and Development Agreement 41- 91 in order for the applicant to address environmental issues raised by regulatory resource agencies.
On September 12, 1994, the Livermore City Council adopted Resolution 94-228, certifying an Environmental Impact Report and approving the Maralisa development (Planned Unit Development 54-90 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6433). The project consisted of 322 residential units including 64 apartments to be subsequently subdivided into condominiums, 119 townhomes and 139 single family detached units, a 2.1-acre park, a 10-acre school site, and several parcels for landscaping, environmental protection, and subsequent development. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) included a standard that required a separate environmental determination before any development was permitted on the Project site and also notes that a portion of the density for the Project site had been transferred to properties within the Maralisa development south of Altamont Creek. To remain consistent with the General Plan designation for the overall property (three dwelling units per acre), the maximum number of units permitted on the Project site was 76 units.
On March 10, 1997, the Livermore City Council adopted Resolution 97-50 approving an amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6433 and PUD to replace 64 condominium/apartments and 119 townhomes with 123 single-family small lot/courtyard detached units and 50 apartments. The PUD Amendment included the same language as the original PUD requiring separate environmental review prior to developing the Project site, noting the transfer of density to areas south of Altamont Creek, and to remain consistent with the General Plan designation for the overall property (three dwelling units per acre), the maximum number of units permitted on the Project site was 76 units.
On January 24, 2000, the Livermore City Council adopted Resolution 2000-10 approving the 2000 Housing Implementation Program allocations. Western Pacific/Garaventa applied for 45 housing unit allocations for the Project site (Attachment 4). The Project, Maralisa Summit, was ranked “Below Average” and did not receive allocations. The Below Average ranking was due to below average landscaping, contributions to City facilities, and project location. The applicant also did not provide any new information regarding environmental resources on the property.
During the City’s 2003 General Plan Update the Project site’s designation was changed again, along with the undeveloped properties to the north and east between the Bluffs and Meadow Glen Drive, to the current designation of Urban Low Residential (1 and 1.5 dwelling units per acre). The density was lowered due to the potential, but unknown environmental sensitivity of the sites. This density allows up to 47 residential units on the project site.
On July 27, 2011, the applicant submitted a development application to the City. The application was to develop the project site with 76 single family homes and included a General Plan Amendment to change the designation to Urban Low Medium Residential
2 461 (2-3 dwelling units per acre) in order to enable the continued density transfer envisioned under the Maralisa development and allow the proposed number of units.
On October 24, 2011, the City Council adopted a Resolution authorizing execution of an agreement with Lamphier-Gregory to conduct Environmental Review for the Garaventa Hills proposal. Environmental Review, including preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, would be administered by the City of Livermore and funded by the applicant, Lafferty Communities.
On December 4, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in order to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the current applicant’s initial proposal. The initial proposal was for 76 homes with a second access via an extension of Hawk Street and new bridge across Altamont Creek. The proposal included a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Urban Low Residential, at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre, to Urban Low Medium Residential, at 2-3 dwelling units per acre.
Based upon public feedback regarding the project, the applicant made modifications to the project to address community concerns regarding the number or units, circulation, pedestrian safety, views, and access to the on-site knolls and their informal trails.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Currrent Project
The applicant, Livermore LT Ventures I Group, LLC, has made the following revisions to the Project since circulation and public review of the Draft EIR, including the comments made during the December 4, 2012, Planning Commission hearing:
Reduction in the number of units from 76 to 47. Elimination of the Hawk Street connection and bridge over Altamont Creek. Preservation of the rock outcrop in the northwest corner of the site. Provision of an additional one-story floor plan and a one and one-half story floor plan.
The Project is a 47-unit single-family residential subdivision on a vacant approximately 32-acre site. A westerly extension of Bear Creek Drive provides access to the internal looped residential street circumscribing the site’s two prominent knolls. Lot sizes range from 7,320 square feet to 13,360 square feet with homes between 3,160 to 4,180 square feet. Lots and roadways will comprise approximately 48 percent of the site, with the remaining land reserved for open space buffers on the site’s edges, undeveloped knolls with informal pedestrian trails, and a storm water detention basin with a new outfall pipe to Altamont Creek.
The Project includes applications for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development District – Residential, and Site Plan Design Review. The Vesting Tentative
3 462 Tract Map will subdivide the site into 50 individual parcels, including 47 single-family residential lots, one parcel that is an open space buffer around the perimeter of the site and includes a storm water detention basin, and two parcels for the two knolls.
The Planned Development District – Residential will establish development standards that enable flexibility in order to respond to sensitive site constraints. The development standards include provisions for setbacks, height, floor area, and open space. Site Plan Design Review provides for review of site plan, streetscape, architecture, and landscaping details.
Environmental Review
In response to verbal and written comments on the Draft EIR the applicant chose to move forward with one of the Draft EIR Alternatives. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to develop the site consistent with Alternative B: Reduced Density, Current General Plan Density Alternative. The Draft EIR identifies this alternative as environmentally superior to the original 76-unit project with the Hawk Street extension and bridge over Altamont Creek.
The Draft EIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts with the original project or Alternative B. All impacts are either less than significant or will be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures.
The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), together with the Draft Environmental Impact Report published in November 2012, constitutes the Final EIR. The Final EIR identifies changes in the Project since publication and public review of the Draft EIR. The document provides substantial evidence that these changes would not constitute “substantial new information” requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR.
Generally, the Draft EIR recognizes that Alternative B would include a similar amount of site preparation and grading. However, construction-period impacts related to noise and emissions would be marginally reduced from already less than significant levels due to the reduction in the number of units. Alternative B in the Draft EIR did not include the removal of the Hawk Street extension and bridge over Altamont Creek. This revision eliminates the less than significant impacts to biological habitat and creek channel from the grading and construction.
Overall traffic from the current Project would be less than the original proposal due to the reduction in number of units. However, elimination of the Hawk Street extension and bridge over Altamont Creek results in additional vehicles trips on Bear Creek Drive. The increase is partially offset since the opportunity for school traffic diversions onto Bear Creek Drive, approximately 25 vehicles per day, no longer exists with the elimination of the Hawk Street extension and bridge over Altamont Creek.
Bear Creek Drive currently carries just over 500 vehicles per day. The additional 83 vehicle trips from the Project are within the 5,000 vehicle per day design capacity of Bear Creek
4 463 Drive. The current Project would generate 41 more vehicle trips on Bear Creek Drive than the initial proposal, as shown in the table below:
Residential Trips Per Day Trips Per Day Total Units AM Peak PM Peak Trips Initial Proposal 76 15 27 42 Current Proposal 47 37 46 83 Additional Total Trips +22 +19 +41
Increases in traffic volumes are not considered environmental impacts when roadways and intersections continue to function within design capacity and level of service standards. There would be no new or significantly increased impacts related to additional vehicle trips on Bear Creek Drive. Further, the revised access does not cause the Project to exceed the thresholds discussed above for recirculating the Draft EIR. See the Environmental Determination section of this report for further detail and discussion.
PROJECT SITE CONTEXT
The Project is located north of Garaventa Ranch Road and Altamont Creek Elementary School, west of Bear Creek Drive and Laughlin Road. The approximately 31.7-acre site is an undeveloped parcel consisting predominantly of non-native grassland.
The topography of the site is moderately sloping, having a predominantly 15 percent to 20 percent slope. Altamont Creek, an intermittent stream channel, forms the southern boundary of the site. A saddled ridgeline forms a connection between the two prominent knolls in roughly the center of the site.
Current Zoning Existing General Plan Designation Classification Land Use Urban Low Residential Planned Development Vacant parcel with grassland/cattle North 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre (UL-1) (PD) grazing Parks, Trail Ways, Recreation Altamont Creek beyond which are Corridors, and Protected Areas (OSP) Planned Development single-family residential (Maralisa), beyond which are Urban Low Medium (PD) South Altamont Creek Elementary School, Residential 2-3 dwelling units per acre Planned Unit Development 115 (PUD and Altamont Creek Neighborhood (ULM), Community Facility Elementary 115) Park School K-6 (CF-E). Parks, Trail Ways, Recreation Planned Development (PD) – Corridors, and Protected Areas (OSP), Planned Unit Development 53-93, Open space and single-family Urban Low Residential 1.5-2 units per Planned Unit Development 105, and residential (Altamont Creek East acre (UL-2), and Urban Medium Planned Unit Development 66-94 Development, The Bluffs, Meadow Residential 4.5-6 dwelling units per (PUD 53-93, PUD 105, and PUD 66- Glenn Dr., and Blue Grass Court. acre (UM). 94) Garaventa Wetlands Preserve, Parks, Trail Ways, Recreation Planned Development Altamont Creek beyond which are West Corridors, and Protected Areas (OSP). (PD) single-family residential (Maralisa) and Vasco Road. Subject Urban Low Residential 1-1.5 dwelling Planned Development Vacant grassland Site units per acre (UL-1) (PD)
5 464 STAFF ANALYSIS
General Plan
The site’s General Plan Land Use designation is Urban Low Residential (UL-1), at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre. Consistent with the UL-1 Land Use designation, the proposal’s average density is approximately 1.49 units per acre.
Initially, the Project site was part of the Maralisa development project and shared the same “ULM” (Urban Low Medium Residential 2-3 dwelling units per acre) General Plan land use designation. The Maralisa project was constructed in the late nineties and consisted of 312 units south and east of the Project site. The Project site was not developed at that time due to unknown environmental constraints, but the Maralisa project moved forward and has a density of 2.2 units per acre.
During the City’s General Plan Update in 2003, the General Plan land use designation for the site was changed from ULM to its current UL-1. Though the site’s environmental sensitivity was unknown at this time, the land use designation was changed in part due to the site’s potential environmental constraints.
The General Plan Land Use and Community Character Elements include the following Goals, Objectives, and Policies for new development projects within the City of Livermore:
Goal LU-1 Protect the unique qualities of Livermore, which include a historic Downtown, a variety of residential neighborhoods, vineyards, ranches, natural habitats and open space.
Objective LU-1.1 Locate new development so as to create a consolidated pattern of urbanization, maximizing the use of existing public services and facilities.
Policy P1 Except where special circumstances warrant, the City shall allow development only on those properties immediately adjacent to established urban areas, in accordance with the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative. (2003 General Plan, P. 3-30).
Policy P4 The City shall encourage the use of the planned development concept where possible to decrease construction costs, provide open space, increase the variety of housing types and provide integrated very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing.
6 465 The Project site is within the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary and City boundary, adjacent to established suburban areas, and has a residential General Plan land use designation. The Project site is acknowledged in the General Plan as a site for residential development and therefore part of the City’s growth and not intended as non- urbanized land.
Goal CC-1 Preserve and enhance Livermore’s natural setting.
Objective CC-1.1 Use open space to protect and enhance local community character and identity, to preserve rural characteristics, and to provide an edge to urban growth.
Policy P1 The City shall allow no structural development in hillside areas involving skylines, ridgelines, or silhouettes.
Policy P2 The City shall permit no intensive development of the hills. Development including roads, buildings and other structural or land coverage shall be located, sited and designed to fit and be subordinate to the natural landforms. Under no circumstances shall development create uniform, geometrically terraced building sites which are contrary to the natural landforms and which detract, obscure or negatively effect the visual quality of the landforms. (2003 General Plan, P. 4-3).
Goal LU-4. Ensure that new development mitigates significant environmental, design, and infrastructure impacts.
Objective LU-4.1. Prevent development from occurring where the location or the physical or biological characteristics of the site would make the land use inappropriate.
Policy P1 Impacts to wetland and biological resources shall be calculated on a gross acreage basis and shall include areas of steep slopes, streets, floodways, and parks dedications that could result in losses of wildlife and plant habitat on a parcel.
Policy P2 The City shall encourage the clustering of development in order to minimize its overall footprint in areas of ecological sensitivity, such as hillsides, alkali springs, creek corridors, and watersheds.
7 466 The development plan responds to the natural forms and topography of the site. For example, the Project’s roadway loops around the western knoll and follows the site’s contours along the saddle between both knolls, enabling construction of the roadway and homes at elevations similar to existing Altamont Creek development to the east. Clustering homes along the roadway minimizes the development footprint and enables the preservation of the rock outcrop in the northwest corner, both knolls, and the provision of the natural buffers from 47 feet wide to over 100 feet wide around the site’s perimeter.
The Project reflects a development pattern common to nearby residential development that clusters development in order to avoid natural resources and site constraints. The development pattern for the Altamont Creek subdivision to the southeast that includes Bear Creek Drive, Knoll Way and Court, Edgewater Lane, and Bridle Path Court preserves the on-site knoll on the northwest edge of the project site, avoids seasonal wetlands, and includes structure exclusion zones due to seismic constraints. Similarly, development along Meadow Glen Drive directly east of the Project also avoids seasonal wetlands and includes structure exclusions zones in response to seismic constraints. The Saddleback development, approximately ½-mile to the northwest of the Project, at the northeast corner of Ames Street and Dalton Avenue, avoids seasonal wetlands and preserves on-site knolls (Attachment 5).
Environmental mitigation for the project will include the permanent preservation, monitoring and management of an 85-acre parcel in the Springtown Alkali Sink. The mitigation parcel is located north of Scenic Avenue between Bluebell Avenue and Broadmoor Avenue. The property contains a number of important natural resources including a section of Altamont Creek and a portion of a unique alkali-saline wetland habitat. The Federally protected Palmate Bracted Bird’s Beak is also present on the property.
Zoning
The Project site’s current Zoning Classification is Planned Development (PD). The PD zone applies to areas of the City appropriate for residential, commercial, and industrial planned development projects that require more flexible design standards. According to the Livermore Development Code (Development Code) the flexibility allows a developer to address geologic, topographical and environmental factors and allows projects to be developed with open space and neighborhood amenities.
The Project provides open space buffers around the project perimeter, natural knolls in the center of the new neighborhood, and preserves the informal trails traversing the knolls and leading to the rock outcrop. See the Planned Development – Residential section in this report for more details on Project-specific development standards.
8 467 Housing Implementation Program
The applicant is requesting housing allocations that are necessary to develop the property under the City’s 2014-2017 Housing Implementation Program. The allocations would occur upon the City Council’s approval of the Subdivision Map. The Planning Commission will make its review of the subdivision and an affirmative recommendation on the map carries with it an affirmative recommendation of the housing allocations. Consistent with the Green Building Targeted Category approved by the City Council on June 23, 2014, the applicant will develop a photovoltaic system which provides for a minimum of 10 percent of the total anticipated energy demand of the project. Solar shall be provided on at least 20 percent of units, providing approximately 50 percent of each unit’s household’s anticipated energy demand. The Conditions of Approval include this requirement.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 – Subdivision 13-001
Consistent with the General Plan density allowing 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre, the Subdivision (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094) Map shows 47 lots for detached single family homes covering approximately 10.2 acres (32 percent). The average lot size is approximately 9,400 square feet which is comparable to the Altamont Creek development to the east and slightly less than the Bluff’s further to the north off of Laughlin Road.
Street and Lot Pattern: Streets A and B are public streets, consistent with the City’s Development Standards for local residential streets with separated sidewalks, and match the design for the existing segment of Bear Creek Drive to the east. Subject to review and approval by the Alameda County Office of Emergency Services for emergency response purposes, the name for the new street will likely be Bear Creek Circle or Loop.
The subdivision map includes three open space parcels, Parcels A, B and C. Parcels A and B are for the two knolls and Parcel C is for the natural buffer area around the north, west and southern boundaries. A stormwater detention basin in the southeast corner of the site collects stormwater runoff so that flows into Altamont Creek after development match flows before development of the site. The Conditions of Approval (Attachment 6) require the creation of an additional parcel for the stormwater detention basin, separate from the natural buffer parcel, in order to facilitate maintenance of the basin through a Community Facilities District. The Homeowners Association will be responsible for maintenance of the knolls and open space buffers.
Grading: Project grading balances cut and fill on-site. The Project avoids grading the rock outcrop on the northwest corner and the tops of the on-site knolls, preserving their natural landform and shape to the maximum extent possible. Retaining walls along the rear yard boundaries further minimize the need to grade further into the natural buffer areas around the project perimeter. The retaining walls range in height from one foot up to six and seven feet at the rear of Lots 24, 25 and 26. A six-foot high retaining wall is also necessary along the north side of the entry road in order to minimize grading on the southeastern knoll. The development plans do not indicate the colors and material for the
9 468 retaining walls. Staff recommends the applicant submit colors that are compatible with the natural environment and materials that are high quality for review and approval by the Planning Division.
Recommendation 1: Submit colors and material for the retaining walls that are compatible with the natural environment and materials that are high quality for review and approval by the Planning Division.
Utilities and Infrastructure: Sanitary sewer and water utilities are stubbed to the west end of Bear Creek Drive and appropriately sized to accommodate development of the Project. Storm drain and public street infrastructure (street, curb, gutter, sidewalk) are also in place at the west end of Bear Creek Road and are available for connection to the Project.
Trails and Open Space: Informal paths from Bear Creek Drive, Knoll Court, the Zone 7 maintenance road on the Project’s southern boundary, and public trail on the south side of Altamont Creek traverse the Project site, the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve, and privately owned lands to the north. The Project preserves the on-site knolls, informal paths, and rock outcrop in the northwest corner of the site. All of these on-site features will be formally accessible to the public.
Staff is recommending the applicant seek permission from Zone 7 for a formal pedestrian/bicycle connection from the southeast corner of the Project site to the improved trail west of Black Oak Court. A connection at this location will enable residents in the new neighborhood to directly access the existing bridge over Altamont Creek located south of Black Oak Court. If Zone 7 refuses to grant a connection at this location, then residents in the new neighborhood will access the existing bridge over Altamont Creek via the sidewalk connecting from the new roadway to the existing sidewalk along Bear Creek Drive and Black Oak Court.
Recommendation 2: Seek permission from Zone 7 to construct a formal pedestrian/bicycle connection from the southeast corner of the Project site to the improved trail west of Black Oak Court.
Parking: Each home has a three-car garage which exceeds the Livermore Development Code requirement for two parking spaces per unit. On-street parking will also be available on both sides of the residential loop street where it does not interfere with vehicular site distance and turning movements for emergency vehicles.
Solid Waste Collection - Each lot will have sufficient space in side yards or the garage for waste bins (trash, recycling, and organics). There is sufficient room on the street frontages for placing the carts out for collection by Livermore Sanitation.
Affordable Housing: The General Plan Housing Element has the goal of providing housing affordable to all economic segments of the community and requires 15 percent of the dwelling units in the proposed project to be affordable to low and moderate income households, or satisfy this requirement by an alternative means. Consistent with these
10 469 provisions, and in agreement with the City’s Housing and Human Services Division, the applicant has agreed to satisfy its affordable housing obligation by paying an in-lieu fee. The Project will generate approximately $733,000.00 for use by the City toward development of affordable housing. Ultimately, the details of the affordable housing provision will be subject to City Council approval of a Housing Agreement before adoption of the final map.
Livermore Area Recreation and Park District
Staff from the City and the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (Park District) met on June 18, 2014, to discuss the District’s comments and concerns regarding the Project’s close proximity to the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve (Preserve). Concerns include the potential impacts to hydrology and soil conditions within the Preserve, selecting appropriate transitional landscaping in the natural buffer between the Preserve and the Project, and controlling damage to habitat and wildlife from trespass and dogs off-leash.
Please see the Environmental Determination section of this report for discussion regarding hydrology and the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve. City and District Staff reached agreement on the following design components that are included as Conditions of Approval to address landscaping compatibility, and reduce trespass and damage from domestic animals:
1. Construct a new, open wire deer fence along all of the Project boundary lines to minimize trespass and access to sensitive habitat.
2. Fences along the rear yards of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall be solid board in order to minimize potential disturbance to sensitive habitat within the Preserve from light and noise.
3. Provide a minimum of five signs, with content and locations coordinated with Park District staff, to raise public awareness of sensitive resources within the Preserve and lands to the north.
4. Replace oak and other large tree species proposed in the natural buffers around the project with smaller, native and drought tolerant species to eliminate perching for diurnal raptor species that prey on burrowing owls and compete for burrowing owl prey.
City staff will also engage Zone 7 and Park District staff in discussions regarding controlling unauthorized access to the Preserve, Zone 7 maintenance road, and flood control facilities.
11 470 Planned Development - Residential
The Livermore Development Code requires projects utilizing the Planned Development Zone to conform to the density specified in the General Plan and to the development standards in the Suburban Residential zone.
The Project conforms to all applicable development standards of the RS zone, except for standards regarding setbacks and floor area ratio. The following table includes development standards for the RS zone and Project. For comparison purposes, the table also includes development standards for the neighboring Altamont Creek development to the east:
Development Standards – RS Zoning District, Project (Garaventa Hills), and Altamont Creek
Development Standard RS Project (Garaventa Altamont Creek Hills) Building Placement Setbacks Front 20' minimum 15 feet minimum 18 feet minimum Sides: Lots 10,000 sf or less 10' minimum 7' min., total 17' 8' minimum, total 20' Lots over 10,000 sf 12' minimum 7' min., total 17' Rear: Lots 10,000 sf or less 25 ' minimum, 30' 20' min. 25' minimum, 30' avg. Lots over 10,000 sf avg. 25' minimum, 35' avg. Building Form Height 35' maximum 35' maximum. 35' maximum. Floor Area Ratio 0.35 maximum 0.45 maximum 0.45 maximum including including garages guest rooms and (except as listed garages. below): Lot 16 – 0.46; Lot 17 – 0.53; Lot 23 – 0.47; Lot 29 – 0.46; Lot 38 – 0.47; Lot 40 – 0.47. Lot Requirements Lot Size 6,000 sf minimum 6,000 sf minimum 5,500 sf minimum - 11,000 sf maximum Lot Frontage Width 50' minimum 50' minimum 55' minimum (minimum) Average Lot Width 50' minimum 50' minimum 55' minimum Average Lot Depth 80' minimum 80' minimum 80' minimum Parking 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit
12 471 For each variation from conventional RS provisions, the Development Code requires the applicant to provide a design feature which is in proportion to the degree of variation. Consistent with the Development Code provision listed below in italics, the applicant is proposing the following design features that are appropriate for the degree of variation from the standards in the conventional RS zoning:
a. Reservation of open space: Over half of the site (52 percent) is open space, including the two on-site knolls, rock outcrop in the northwest corner, and natural buffers that provide wide transitional spaces to the open space north, west, and south of the project. The on-site knolls and rock outcrop will be publicly accessible.
b. Trails beyond those required under the parkland dedication ordinance: The proposal retains the informal trails that traverse the knolls. The applicant is proposing to split the trails below the knolls before they cross Street B, and provide two points of access to each knoll. The Conditions of Approval also require the applicant to coordinate with Zone 7 in order to provide a pedestrian/bicycle connection from Bear Creek Road at the site entry to the existing pedestrian/bicycle trail along Altamont Creek.
c. Clustering of homes (in order to provide greater open space, or more parks, trails, and neighborhood amenities): Clustering the homes along the roadway and lower lying portions of the site and constructing the roadway along the topographic contours enables the provision of greater open space. The applicant could meet the Floor Area Ratio standard in the RS zone by moving the lot lines to increase lot areas, but instead has chosen to seek variation in order to retain the knolls, rock outcrop, and natural buffers around the site.
d. Provision of public, neighborhood amenities: Granite benches near the rock outcrop will provide opportunities for pedestrian respites and offer views to Brushy Peak and the hills beyond. The knolls, trails and rock outcrop will be publicly accessible.
e. Diversification of building sizes and types: The Project offers five different floor plans with two to three elevations reflecting modern interpretations of a Tuscan architectural style. Two floor plans are one-story, one is one and one-half story, and two are two-story.
Site Plan Design Review
The Project is consistent with the City’s Design Standard and Guidelines that promote appropriate site planning, high quality architecture, and landscape design that contributes positively to the neighborhoods residential character.
Building Siting and Orientation: The Design Standards and Guidelines regarding building siting and orientation guide development toward responding to Livermore’s
13 472 environmental, geographic and topographic conditions and include the following guidelines:
1.1 Natural Site Features Guidelines
1.1.1 - Residential layout should preserve existing natural site features such as topography, views and vegetation to enhance the character of the development. Public views of such features should be preserved and incorporated into development proposals.
1.2 Topography Guidelines
1.2.2 - In hillside or sloping areas, street and building placement should follow contours rather than being placed at right angles to the prevailing slope.
1.2.3 - On sloping sites, staggering placement of units along opposite sides of the street, rather than siting lots directly opposite one another, can provide better preservation of views.
The roadway and homes generally follow the site’s 550 to 570 foot contours enabling the preservation of the on-site knolls and provision of deep, natural buffers along the south, west, and north edges of the Project. Preservation of the southeastern on-site knoll buffers the southeastern edge of the project in combination with the existing knoll and open space preserved during development of the Altamont Creek subdivision to the east. The site plan staggers the homes along opposite sides of the street and will provide opportunities for better views from the Project’s public streets.
Neighborhood Identity: The intent of the Neighborhood Identity guidelines is to ensure residential development reinforces a strong community-oriented identity:
2.1 Neighborhood Context
2.1.1 - New residential development should provide variety in the City’s residential development character than currently exists. 2.1.2 - New development should not be so different in character that it is visually incompatible with existing development. 2.1.4 - Building design should complement surrounding development.
The Project’s design theme reflects a modern Tuscan style, which appropriately distinguishes the new neighborhood from the Altamont Creek development’s interpretation of Farmhouse, Cottage and Craftsman styles and provides variety to the City’s residential development character. Complementary to neighboring residential development, the Project utilizes a variety of materials and design variations to promote a high-quality character and appearance. Project lot and home sizes are larger than those found in the Altamont Creek development to the east, but comparable to the Bluff’s development to the northeast off of Laughlin Road.
14 473 Open Space: The intent of the Neighborhood Identity guidelines is to ensure residential development reinforces a strong community-oriented identity:
3.1 General Open Space
3.1.1 - Neighborhood open space should be located to maximize its visual and functional benefits.
3.1.2 - Common open space areas should be sited to take advantage of any views out from the site and help preserve views to significant architectural and landscape features within the site.
The central location of the on-site knolls and the natural buffers around the edges of the Project maximizes visual and functional benefits to the new neighborhood and the public. The knolls will be publicly accessible and offer views of Brushy Peak and the ridgelines beyond.
Views and Visual Access: The intent is to ensure that views that are unique and specific to Livermore are preserved from the public areas of residential development.
4.1 Views
4.1.1 Views to the hillsides that surround the City are an important visual resource that should be incorporated into the design of a project.
4.1.2 Views from streets and public areas within the project should be considered a community resource and should be preserved and enhanced through sensitive site design.
4.1.3 Buildings and landscaping should not block public views.
4.1.4 Proper placement of structures can be used to focus and frame significant views and screen out elements that are visually less appealing.
4.1.6 Preserving views of surrounding open space and hillsides from open space areas within the project will expand the sense of openness, enhance the visual character of the space, and facilitate greater use of the open space.
Siting the homes along the looped roadway that follows the site contours and staggering placement so they are not directly opposite of each other maximizes public and private views out from the Project to Brushy Peak and open space to the north and west. The site plan also maintains portions of the views of the on-knolls from Altamont Creek Park by placing homes west of the Park boundary and avoiding the southeastern knoll. The locations of one and one and one-half story homes were chosen to facilitate views of the northwestern knoll from Altamont Creek Elementary and neighborhood west of Hawk Street.
15 474
All of the floor plans are well under the 35-foot maximum height limit. Plan One and Plan Two floor plans are one-story with heights of 21 feet and 19 and ½ feet, respectively. Plan Four and Plan Five floor plans are two-story and 26 feet tall at the roof ridge. Minimizing building heights facilitates views off-site from the project, and maximizes views of the on-site knolls from neighboring properties. Over 60 percent of the homes (29) are one or one and one-half story floor plans.
The existing knolls on the Project site are approximately 605 and 608 feet high and obstruct views of Brushy Peak from Altamont Creek Park and Altamont Creek Elementary School. The Project will not obstruct views of Brushy Peak and the distant hills to the north from the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve. Ridgelines adjacent to Frick Lake, approximately ¾ of a mile east of the Project range in height from 735 to 807 feet and will backdrop views of the Project from Vasco Road so that new homes will not silhouette against the sky. Rear yard fences are open wire, except for Lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, in order to avoid creating a wall-like effect around the Project and visually soften the edges of the development.
Massing and Scale: Massing and scale guidelines promote residential development with a pedestrian scale:
1.1.2 Building massing should be varied by employing a variety of techniques, such as recessed porches, bay windows, dormers and varying planes or setbacks. As appropriate to the style of the house, the roof forms should be varied. Roof forms to be employed include: hipped roofs, gabled roofs, varying roof pitches, side-to-side gables, front-to-back gables or various combinations.
1.1.3 Façade components should correspond to the scale of the human form. This is accomplished by visually breaking up façades into smaller components with elements such as windows, wall insets, balconies, ledges and trim and by stepping back upper stories.
1.1.4 Façade components should be in proportion to related components, such as the proportion of a column to its base and the width of a column to its height.
General massing and scale of the homes reinforce a pedestrian level design through the provision of projecting and integral porches with decorative iron railing, garages setback from porches and front wall planes, and a variety of hipped and cross-gabled roof forms.
Architectural Style: Architectural style standard and guidelines ensure the residential design contributes to the overall character of Livermore.
2.1.1 Building design should not be limited to any particular style. However, it should generally be compatible with surrounding residential development. The authentic implementation of appropriate established architectural styles is encouraged.
16 475 2.1.2 Functional design solutions should be employed that are compatible with the surrounding natural and built environments and that contribute to the character and quality of new residential development.
2.1.3 Building elevations should not be replicated across the street from each other or on adjacent parcels.
The Project features five floor plans in a modern Tuscan architectural style that are consistent with the City’s Design Standards and Guidelines:
Plan 1 – One story, four bedroom/two and one-half baths, three-car garage, 3,165 square feet.
Plan 2 – One story, four bedroom/two and one-half baths, three-car garage, 3,110 square feet.
Plan 3 - One and one-half story, three to five bedrooms/two and one-half baths, three-car garage, 3,485 square feet.
Plan 4 – Two-story, four to five bedrooms/three baths, three-car garage, 4,045 square feet.
Plan 5 – Two-story, four to five bedrooms/three and one-half baths, three-car garage, 4,180 square feet.
Plans 1, 4 and 5 have three variations in architectural style, while Plans 2 and 3 have two each. The variety of floor plans and style variations contribute visual interest to the streetscape and facilitates the placement of different floor plans across the street from each other. Large projecting porches and porches integral to the same massing and roof form as the main structure provide usable outdoor space, activate the streetscape, and enhance the pedestrian scale of each home.
Architectural design is also consistent with Design Standard and Guidelines for façades, windows and doors, porches, materials, colors, and roof design:
Façades include entries and porches that relate to the human scale. Windows and doors employ design details that are appropriate to the architectural style and add relief to the wall surface. Porches provide functional outdoor space and provide a transition to between the street and residence. Elevations include natural stone finishes appropriate to the architectural style and design. Colors are earth tone and compatible with the natural setting. Color and material boards will be available at the public meeting. Roof form, color and texture are integral parts of the home designs and compatible with both the natural setting.
17 476
Plan 3, Elevation A includes stone cladding on the front elevation for the garage, porch and second story bonus room (Sheet 3.2). However, the stone cladding on the second story breaks to stucco just under midway through the elevation (Sheet 3.3.1). Staff recommends extending the stone cladding on the side elevations for the full extent of the second story wall.
Recommendation 3: Plan 3, Elevation A - Extend the stone cladding on the side elevations for the full extent of the second story wall.
Landscape Design: The Design Standards and Guidelines require development plans to contribute positively to the character of residential neighborhoods.
1.1 Function
1.1.1 – Landscaping should be an integral part of the overall site design, rather than camouflage unused or unusable spaces or poor architectural design.
1.1.2 – Landscape improvements should be utilized to better integrate a development with its setting.
The landscape plans show a small orchard grid of Swan Hill olive trees that signal the entry into the development followed by informal clusters of oak trees (Coast live oak, Valley oak and Southern live oak) along the base of the knolls. Street trees are London Planes that distinguish arrival into the developed portion of the neighborhood. Crape Myrtle’s accent trail and sidewalk entries and crossings.
1.2 Existing Landscape Elements
1.2.1 – Where feasible, significant existing landscape elements should be preserved and incorporated into development and landscape plans.
1.2.2 – Elements such as mature trees, tree groupings, arroyos and rock outcroppings should be considered in the design of the project.
The proposal preserves the rock outcropping in the northwest corner that will be publicly accessible. Stone seats and benches at the rock outcropping will provide a respite opportunity to trail users and residents.
1.3 Plant Species
1.3.1 – A well-coordinated palette of plant species should be employed.
1.3.2 – Native plant materials and other plant species which are well adapted to local climatic conditions are preferable.
18 477 The project will comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Prototypical front yard landscaping shown on Sheet L-4 minimizes turf, and includes native species that are well adapted for low water use.
1.4 Plant Size and Scale
1.4.1 – Larger, more mature plant materials shall be used as much as possible to ensure that some immediate effect on the project’s appearance will be attained within two years of planting:
Street trees and front yard trees are 24-inch box, while shrubs range in size from 1 to 15 gallon with spacing for successful establishment. The prototypical front yard landscaping arranges plant species and sizes in a hierarchy that appropriately accents the homes and functional entry paths leading from the sidewalks to the front entries.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for any project which may have a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is an informational document, the purposes of which, according to CEQA are “to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.” The information contained in the Garaventa Hills EIR is intended to be objective and impartial and to enable the reader to arrive at an independent judgment regarding the significance of the impacts resulting from the proposed project.
The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), together with the Draft EIR published in November 2012, constitutes the Final EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA. On June 11, 2014, copies of the Final EIR were made available to the public at the Livermore Planning Division, Livermore Public Library Main Branch, and on the City’s website at www.cityoflivermore.net.
The Draft EIR includes two alternatives to the original proposal: Alternative A: No Project, No Development Alternative; and Alternative B: Reduced Density, Current General Plan Allowance Alternative. Alternative A assumes no development of the site. Alternative B assumes development of the site consistent with the current General Plan designation of Urban Low Density (UL-1) at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre. After considering public comments on the Draft EIR and the statements given by neighboring homeowners at a number of Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the applicant has chosen to proceed with developing the site generally consistent with the Alternative B.
The Draft EIR identifies the No Project, No Development Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative since it proposes no changes to the site. However,
19 478 this alternative would not advance any project objectives, including the contribution of homes to accommodate Livermore’s growing population and regional housing needs, and to provide housing near Tri-Valley employment centers within the existing City Boundary and North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary. The Reduced Density, Current General Plan Allowance Alternative is the next most environmentally superior alternative and would meet all of the Project Objectives.
Public Comments
On December 4, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public comments on the Draft EIR. In addition to the verbal comments made at the Planning Commission, staff received written comments from the public and other agencies during the 45-day public review period. The Final EIR contains all comments received by the City on the Draft EIR and also includes responses to these comments, together with necessary changes or revisions to the text of the Draft EIR document. None of the revisions or responses to comments contained in the Final EIR would be considered “significant new information” under section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and therefore no recirculation of the Draft EIR was required.
Additional emails and letters sent to the Planning Commission and staff regarding the Final EIR are Attachment 9 to this staff report. Attachment 10 is a petition in opposition to the proposal. The list below summarizes the most frequently raised concerns regarding potential environmental impacts expressed in the written comments and verbal testimony:
1. Transportation, Circulation and Safety
Comments: Several comments raised concerns about vehicular and pedestrian/student safety on Hawk Street. The concerns arose from the proposal to connect the Project with a bridge over Altamont Creek to an extension of Hawk Street, which serves as a secondary access to Altamont Creek Elementary School. There are also concerns with increasing traffic on Bear Creek Drive, the intersection of Laughlin Road and Northfront Avenue, and I-580 on-ramps.
Response: Removing the Hawk Street extension and bridge over Altamont Creek from the Project eliminates potential vehicular and pedestrian conflicts at Hawk Street and Altamont Creek Elementary School.
Bear Creek Drive is a local street with a design capacity to carry up to 5,000 vehicles per day. Currently, this street carries around 500 vehicles per day. The traffic assessment prepared for the chosen alternative estimates 35 AM peak hour trips and 47 PM peak hour trips. Even with this modest increase of vehicles the daily volume would not result in more than 5,000 vehicles per day. There would be no new or significantly increased impact related to increased vehicle traffic on Bear Creek Drive. Additionally, the Project no longer includes a bridge connecting Hawk Street, and therefore affords no opportunity for school traffic diversions onto Bear Creek Drive.
20 479 The Laughlin Road and Northfront Road intersection is projected to be operating below acceptable service levels even without the Project under the cumulative scenario. Without the Project, this intersection would have a delay of 5 and ½ minutes in the AM and 5 minutes in the PM peak hours. The Project would result in an increase in delay of approximately 1.1 seconds in the AM peak hour and 3.7 seconds in the PM peak hour. These minor increases would not represent a substantial increase in the severity of the already significant impact. The Laughlin Road and Northfront Road intersection is a future improvement identified in the City’s Traffic Improvement Fee (TIF) Program, to which the proposed project will contribute its fair share of improvement costs.
The Project would contribute a small amount of vehicles to the I‐580 freeway and on- ramps. The results from the traffic model show Project traffic on I‐580 freeway segments is expected to increase over existing conditions from between 1 to 5 vehicles per hour, which is a less than significant impact.
2. Biological Resources
Comments: Concerns include the elimination of habitat for sensitive animal and plant species.
Response: The Draft EIR acknowledges the permanent loss of up to 31.7 acres of non-native annual grassland that has the potential to support several special status animal species including; California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, vernal pool fairy shrimp, San Joaquin kit fox, western spadefoot toad, California burrowing owl, and American badger. Any disturbance of Federal and State protected animal and plant species requires environmental permits from Federal and State resource agencies, including the US Fish & Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish & Wildlife. Typically, environmental permits from these Resource Agencies require habitat loss compensation in the form of habitat acquisition at 3:1 ratios (acres preserved: acres disturbed).
Proposed environmental mitigation for the Project is to place an 85-acre property in the Springtown Alkali Sink, also owned by the Garaventa family, under a permanent conservation easement with an endowment for restoration and management in perpetuity. The 85-acre property has sensitive soils, special status animal and plant species, vernal pools, and a segment of Altamont Creek. The environmental mitigation will be coordinated with the Resource Agencies during subsequent environmental permitting.
The site is within the area covered by the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (Conservation Strategy), a guidance document for regional conservation, and environmental permitting for private and public development projects. The Final EIR includes mitigation measures that require the applicant to acquire offsite compensatory habitat consistent with compensation ratios under the Conservation Strategy. Additional mitigation measures includes pre-construction surveys to ensure
21 480 species are absent from the site before construction begins, and protection measures to be taken during construction to ensure species do not migrate onto the site.
3. Hydrology
Comments: Concerns with hydrology and stormwater drainage are regarding potential impacts to sensitive wetlands on adjacent properties from diverted drainage and polluted stormwater runoff.
Response: Appendix J to the Final EIR is an evaluation of the potential off-site hydrologic impacts. West of the Project is the Park District’s Garaventa Wetlands Preserve (Preserve) that includes seasonal wetlands and alkaline soils. The Preserve was dedicated to LARPD as a condition of approval for the Maralisa development to the south.
According to the hydrologic study, the primary water sources for the Preserve’s wetlands are direct precipitation falling on the wetland’s surface and surface flows generated by a relatively small tributary area immediately adjacent to the wetlands. In addition, the Preserve receives flows from nearly 645 acres of tributary watershed. The study concludes that the minor changes to onsite drainage patterns proposed with the project will not result in significant impacts to the hydrology of Preserve.
The hydrologic study prepared for the Project (Final EIR Appendix J) identifies approximately 3.9 acres of vernal pools on the Preserve and the undeveloped property to the north. The study states that vernal pools require a tributary area nearly equal to the size of the pools themselves in order to fully pond in the absence of large storm events.
Over 4 acres of natural buffers on the north and west edges of the Project will remain undeveloped and flow toward the wetlands in the Preserve and to the north. Approximately 2.6 acres will drain to the north and 1.4 acres of open space will drain towards the west. This tributary area is capable of supplying water to 4 acres of vernal pools. This exceeds the estimated 3.9 acres of vernal pools that may be influenced by the project. Therefore, just the area of proposed open space should provide the water supply required to fill the vernal pools during critical times of the year when rain events do not fill the ponds with direct precipitation. In addition, the tributary watershed area contributing to these 3.9 acres of vernal pools is approximately 645 acres to the north and west. This is significantly larger than just the Project’s 4 acres of open space and provides more than ample source flow to fill the vernal pools.
According to the study, precipitation in early winter is the primary source of water for theses vernal pools. Research and studies referenced in the report also conclude that significant watershed surface runoff contributions to these types of wetlands rarely occur. When it does, it generally occurs during wet times when the pools are already full, leading to excess runoff. Since the Project has no influence on direct precipitation and is not impacting the area immediately adjacent to the vernal pools, the study
22 481 concludes that the Project will not significantly impact the hydrology of the Garaventa Wetlands.
4. Visual Prominence and Views
Comments: Concerns are primarily with the Project’s visual prominence from existing residences in the neighborhoods to the south, east and northeast.
Response: One of Livermore’s most distinctive features are the hills and ridgelines that surround the City, most of which lie outside the City limits. Significant ridgelines located north of the I-580 corridor include Brushy Peak to the northeast, as well as the Altamont Hills east of Vasco and Greenville Roads. Other open space to the north consists of more moderate topography, with rolling hills and rangelands. Livermore’s built environment, and its planning policies, are designed to preserve views to these hills from public vantage points.
The General Plan Community Character Element includes Goals, Objectives and Policies to preserve views of Livermore’s surrounding hillsides and ridgelines, particularly from I-580. The Project does not substantially alter views of identified scenic resources from identified vistas and would not substantially change views toward these scenic resources from nearby public areas.
Parks are considered public locations from which views are important. The existing views from Altamont Creek Park are currently obstructed by the Project site and do not include views toward Brushy Peak and the ridgelines beyond. The Project maintains portions of the views of the on-site knolls from Altamont Creek Park by placing homes over 500 feet west of the Project entry and avoiding the southeastern knoll. The provision of one and one and one-half story homes along the perimeter offers views of the northwestern knoll from Altamont Creek Elementary and neighborhood west of Hawk Street.
The visibility of a project from other locations is not intrinsically a significant environmental impact. Further, private views are not considered protected under CEQA nor would changes to these be considered an impact to the environment. As demonstrated in the Final EIR, the Project was found not to significantly alter views of identified scenic resources from identified scenic vistas. The Project is consistent with the character of adjacent residential neighborhoods to the south and east and therefore has only less than significant environmental impacts related to views.
The EIR includes a list of mitigation measures that would reduce certain environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared, which lists each mitigation measure, the method of verification, the timing of verification, and the agency responsible for verifying the implementation of the mitigation measure. Staff recommends including the implementation of the mitigation measures as a condition of approval for the Subdivision and Site Plan Design Review applications.
23 482 Recommendation 4: The project shall be subject to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
With the implementation of the mitigation measures as a condition of approval, the project will not have a significant impact on the environment.
SUMMARY
The Project reflects the applicant’s goal to address community concerns through the site plan, architecture and landscaping. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan density, comparable in development pattern to the Altamont Creek and Bluff’s developments to the east and northeast, and provides public access to the on-site knolls and rock outcrop that currently are privately owned.
The Final EIR indicates that the site could be developed without significant impacts to the environment and can support this infill development at a density envisioned under the current 2003 General Plan Urban Low Residential designation, at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre.
All of the required findings for approving the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development-Residential, can be made (see the attached draft Resolution, Attachment 1). Therefore, staff recommends approval of the project, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
1. adopt the attached Resolution recommending the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report and, after approval of the application, instruct the staff to file the Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk; 2. approve Subdivision 13-001 (Tentative Tract Map 8094), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; 3. approve Planned Development - Residential 13-001; and 4. approve Site Plan Design Review 13-005, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution of Approval 2. Development Plans 3. 1990 Maralisa Project Development Plan 4. 2000 Maralisa Summit Development Plan 5. Similar Development Patterns in Northeast Livermore 6. Conditions of Approval, Tentative Tract Map 8094
24 483 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.01 Hearing to consider a request to subdivide a vacant parcel for the development of 47 detached single family residences, landscaping, appurtenant improvements, and preservation of open space. A Response to Comments/Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed which provides responses to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Draft EIR text revisions. • Location: East of North Vasco Road, North of Garaventa Ranch Road/ Altamont Creek Drive, and West of Laughlin Road • Applicant: Livermore LT Ventures I Group, LLC • On-site and off-site public improvements: Streets, utilities, storm drain and landscape improvements. • Site Area: 32± acres • Zoning: Planned Development • General Plan: Urban Low Residential (UL-1: 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre) • Historic Status: None • CEQA: An Environmental Impact Report under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be considered (State Clearinghouse Number 2011112045). • Application Numbers: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB13-001), Planned Development-Residential 13-001, and Site Plan and Design Review 13-005 • Project Planner: Steve Stewart
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB13-001), Planned Development Residential 13-001, and Site Plan Design Review 13-005, subject to conditions.
Principal Planner Steve Stewart introduced the staff report.
Patrick Toohey, Lafferty Communities, provided a history of the project design and reviewed the project site plan, architecture, and environmental impacts and mitigation.
Chairperson Kaskey opened the public hearing.
Cindy Angers, Livermore, said she was representing the Save the Hill Group, which was formed in 2012 in response to the news of a potential housing development slated for the hill in North Livermore. Since that time, they have worked together to educate the City as to the negative impacts of the proposed development. They have utilized their various backgrounds and have met with agencies, organizations, and specialists to put together their project review comments and concerns on this proposed project. The hill is a very environmentally sensitive green filled site at the very edge of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The proposed project is far better suited for a flat infill site, not on the sensitive, hilly site. General Plan Policy LU-4.1 P2 supports this finding. The EIR found seven threatened and/or listed wildlife species that could be impacted by this development
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 484 ATTACHMENT 13
including the CTS (California Tiger Salamander). Three of these species have recently been seen by members of the group. This is the third attempt to develop the hill. The other two attempts have failed. The Save the Hill Group has done research as to a more positive use of the environmentally delicate site. They have begun looking at funding options, land transfer techniques, and possible agencies interested in their help to acquire the parcel to keep it as open space in perpetuity. She asked the Commission to please consider a better use for the hilly North Livermore site and vote no on the project.
Scott Steele, Livermore, questioned how everyone in their neighborhood would be safe if there was a fire. He would be very interested in having the Fire Department’s perspective on how the new development would be protected and if the homes would be sprinklered.
John Lindquist, Livermore, said he was very disappointed to be here again. When they were here a year ago, they talked to the Planning Commission about the various reasons why they did not endorse the project and could not support it. Those feelings have not changed and he feels despite the changes the builder has made to the project, the essential elements of the project have not changed. The site is still not suitable for development. There is not a single flat part of the parcel except for the knolls. As a resident of Bear Creek Drive, he is concerned about traffic impacts. He does not want the street to go through; there are better and easier ways for the developer to provide access to Vasco Road. They should go out from the northwest corner to Vasco Road. The developer told them they were denied that access by the Army Corps of Engineers, but he has never seen that letter. He questions the value of the mitigation property because it is unbuildable anyway. That does not help anybody. The last iteration of the 76 homes said there was going to be about 200,000 cubic yards of dirt removed. That issue was not addressed with the new project.
Marnie Steele, Livermore, said she is also opposed to the project because of the problems with traffic safety. The report determines that traffic on the single access road on Bear Creek Drive will increase 55 percent with up to 169 car trips per day on the minor local street. The residents that live at the corner of Bear Creek Drive and Laughlin Road wrote a letter that is included in the packet that states they already have issues with traffic speeding down Laughlin Road, which causes issues for safety for the neighborhood children, pedestrians, dog walkers, and bicycle riders heading up Brushy Peak on the narrow two-lane road. If Bear Creek Drive is going to be the only access to the development, the safety of all of these people has to be considered. Stop signs on Laughlin Road would be a must and would need to be vigorously enforced. These issues were ignored in the EIR because they were not considered an environmental impact because the capacity threshold allows for 5,000 cars. She is also concerned about what would happen during an emergency with a single access on Bear Creek Drive. An emergency presents life safety issues related to the response time for a truck to drive around the neighborhood to find Bear Creek Drive and then navigate through the community. There is a risk of street blockage for the trucks and a risk of blockage for evacuation. Congestion at Laughlin Road and Northfront Road, as readily admitted in the staff report, is known to be a problem and this development will exacerbate the existing conditions. There is a future improvement identified in the City’s traffic impact fee program; however, this improvement should be put in place before any new traffic is
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 JULY 1, 2014 485
added. The City needs to use common sense when considering what is a deal breaking significant impact to the neighborhood. Developing this sensitive hill and adding twice as much traffic to a quiet neighborhood is the wrong move.
Karen Crosley, Livermore, said she remembers the big push to build houses in this general area in the 1990s. The houses were built on the flat areas and the two knolls were left and have been used by the public extensively over the years. The hills are not made of dirt; they are made of rocks. They had to use jackhammers to plant plants when they built on the hill for Altamont Creek. The houses are going to have to be expensive because just building on that site is going to be extremely expensive. Livermore does not need more expensive homes. Livermore needs homes that our children and grandchildren can afford to buy. If developers are allowed to build on this one knoll, they will build on the other knoll eventually. She hopes the Planning Commission will not recommend approval of this project. It would impact too much of the neighborhood and so much is lost from the environment. Just from the aesthetic point of view, the City would be losing more than it would be getting.
Steve Telleen, Livermore, said that along with receiving notice of this meeting, he received a notice that the City Council has declared a water shortage emergency and mandatory water use restrictions were now in place. He does not understand how the City could now be looking at approving a project that will have additional water demand in perpetuity. In the next 80 years, there will probably be two more droughts and the City cannot even support the people it has now. The City does not have the water to support the project. Until the water problem is solved, and not just today but for the next 80 years, new development that needs water from California should not be approved.
Ann Lopez, Livermore, said that about 15 years ago they purchased a new home in the Maralisa Courtyards that back up to the Garaventa Hills. They were told by the builders that nothing would ever be built on the knolls behind their courtyards. That guarantee and the view of the hills were very good selling points for them deciding to buy a home there. They are also concerned about traffic that the proposed new houses would generate, particularly in front of the Altamont Creek Elementary School where parents drop off and pick up their children. Many of them cross the street at Garaventa Ranch Road and at Hawk Street. She is glad they are not building the bridge and she hopes that Hawk Street stops where it is because it is a walkway for the kids.
Helen Nelson, Livermore, said the decision the Planning Commission makes about the Garaventa Hills subdivision will adversely affect hundreds of people. Any new development must follow the Livermore General Plan. There are several glaring examples of how the project goes against the General Plan, which emphasizes many times that the knolls and hills of Livermore should be preserved and protected from development. The General Plan Community Character Element clearly states in Policy CC-1.1 P2 that under no circumstances shall development create uniform geometrically terraced building sites on the landforms, meaning the hills and knolls. This language is emphatic against development of hills and seems quite clear. General Plan Policy CC-1.1 P11 states the City shall preserve and enhance natural amenities such as ridgelines, grasslands, knolls, hilltops, slopes, and others. Therefore, the slopes and knolls should
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 JULY 1, 2014 486
be preserved. There are other policies in the General Plan that state the hills, slopes, and knolls should be protected from development. She agrees with a previous speaker about the drought. The General Plan states in Objective LU-2.1 that new housing would be developed at a rate that can be absorbed by public infrastructure and in a manner that fits within Livermore’s character. Since there is not enough water for the citizens of Livermore at this time and lawns are turning yellow and plants are dying, this subdivision cannot be absorbed by public infrastructure. It would seem irresponsible for the Planning Commission to put its approval on a subdivision that would take hundreds of thousands of gallons of water to build. She hopes the Commission will vote against the project.
Ray Reed, Livermore, said he is part of the Save the Hill Group and he opposes the project in its entirety. As a group they organized neighborhood information stands to reach out to their neighbors and they got an overwhelming response; they received over 200 signatures. The overall consensus was that the residents of Livermore do not like what Dublin has become and does not want their neighborhood to end up like that. Dublin will one day be a dictionary terms for poor planning and urban sprawl. They hate the traffic now and do not want this project to add even one more car to the already miserable commute. It has been the norm to wait in line in the morning and evening to turn on to and off of Northfront Road, and the intersection at Vasco Road is ridiculous. The hills as they stand currently are nature’s perfect answer to Livermore’s largest problems, traffic and water. The hills do not require any water or maintenance and year after year they serve the community and do not cost a dime. They attract hikers, cyclists, dog walkers, and are the gateway to the Brushy Peak park. They hope one day they will be able to gather funding to preserve these hills in perpetuity. Until then, they hope to keep the bulldozers at bay. The proposed community would be better served on a much flatter piece of property that the developer would not have to carve and fill to create space for 47 homes. The hills belong in the Urban Growth Boundary, not surrounded by houses looking back at the boundary. If the Commission does vote in favor of the project, he asked that the number of houses be reduced and the bridge be added back for a bike and pedestrian path and emergency vehicle access.
Vivian Connolly, Livermore, said she grew up in the neighborhood and will be going to UC Davis in the fall to be an environmental science major. Every 4th of July, a bunch of them use the hill to watch the fireworks. She does not know what they would do if the hill wasn’t there anymore. She is going off to college, and it is weird to think about coming home and seeing that the hill is gone. She has a lot of memories of that hill.
James Wilk, Livermore, said the previous speakers made valid points. The Save the Hill Group has done an amazing job at reaching out to the community. They set up card tables in a park one weekend, set up at Garaventa Ranch Road one weekend, and put out signs asking neighbors to come to this meeting. The overwhelming response has been that people do not agree with the development because we do not need this right now, not at this time. The petition that was signed by over 200 people is not binding, but they wanted to give a voice to everyone even if they could not attend this meeting. That is the voice of North Livermore reaching out to the Planning Commission asking that they not recommend the project go forward.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 JULY 1, 2014 487
No one else spoke, and the public hearing was closed.
In response to questions by Vice Chairperson Spedowfski, Mr. Stewart said the Toyota site had about 0.0095 acres of seasonable depressions from utility pole laydown, a leaking hose bib, and a disconnected sink drain from a trailer. Because of the economic downturn, it took Toyota about three years to complete the mitigation.
Vice Chairperson Spedowfski noted he had issue with the pedestrian access to the site. It was interesting that there would be houses within close distance to a school, but not necessarily within walking distance. He asked what the options were for controlling the pathway leading through the Alameda County Flood Control District’s parcel. Flood control districts can get very touchy about what structures and improvements can be built in flood control channels and he does not know if the City can request the developer to work with Alameda County Flood Control, but it cannot be required since there are no easements, like what is in place for the Hawk Street bridge.
Mr. Stewart said that was correct. The Conditions of Approval include a condition requiring the applicant to seek permission from Zone 7 to construct on that property, but Zone 7 could deny that. The Altamont Creek development to the east has some joint maintenance trail access there so the City is hopeful that sort of pattern would continue with the Flood Control District. The City would facilitate that conversation.
In response to questions from Vice Chairperson Spedowfski, Mr. Stewart said there will be some hydro seeding on parts of the hill on Lot A.
Vice Chairperson Spedowfski said he received the letter from LARPD bringing up the hydrologic study and relying on vernal pools near Dixon and Sacramento Valley that may not necessarily relate to the conditions here. He asked how something as unique as the situation there could be studied with the alkali sink and the marsh, especially when related to areas that may not be in the same condition.
Mr. Stewart said the initial hydrology was updated to get a more comprehensive look than just comparing a particular site. They looked at the entire watershed that contributes to the wetlands, not only on the wetlands preserve owned by LARPD, but also to the north and then also included a more thorough description of the wetlands preserve next door. These wetlands are common in this part of North Livermore and are all over the mitigation property. The primary source of water is precipitation. The watershed that contributes to the overflow, if there is any, is typically the size of the wetland itself and the watershed that contributes to these particular wetlands is about 645 acres. It comes from the north, flows down from the north, west, and east. The open space around the project is about four acres, which is just over the amount of wetlands between the properties to the north and south. If the runoff or drainage from the site were a significant contribution to the wetlands, there would be enough from the buffers just to provide water flow to those in the event that occurs.
Vice Chairperson Spedowfski said he appreciated the pictures but he really would have appreciated some type of simulated view of the proposed project. When they have been
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10 JULY 1, 2014 488
presented projects previously that had different visibility impacts, typically they would receive some type of simulation view or a graphic simulation of what it would have looked like at different phases, what the view would look like from the access road, what it would look like from the school, and from Vasco Road. It is difficult to get a feel of the true impact of the project to the site. Some type of simulated view would have been helpful.
Commissioner Pann noted, in response to a comments from the public, all new homes in California are required to be sprinklered for fire prevention. He asked staff to also confirm that the revised proposal has no off-hauling of dirt from the site.
Mr. Stewart confirmed the project does balance cut and fill all within the site.
Commissioner Pann asked if staff could comment on the Fire Department’s review of the proposed project, particularly regarding the single point of access.
Mr. Stewart said the Fire Department accepted the project design with a single access point primarily because all the buildings will be sprinklered. They have the ability to control hydrant locations to ensure they are placed strategically within the project where needed. The roadways themselves have to be designed to allow emergency vehicles to turn and move freely throughout the development. There are other larger developments, particularly in South Livermore, that have a single access to the project. The Fire Department will make sure other provisions are in place for emergency access and disaster preparedness.
Commissioner Pann noted that the Draft EIR provided information on school capacity and the project’s impact on middle schools. He asked if there was updated information.
Rebecca Gorton, Lamphier Gregory, said they were the primary preparer of the Environmental Impact Report. The EIR indicated no significant impact in relation to schools. The threshold for schools is whether the project would cause a physical impact related to actually building new schools or expanding facilities. This project is relatively small and would not in and of itself require new schools. Contribution to cumulative increases throughout the City would actually be paid for through school mitigation fees consistent with State law, so there was not a significant impact identified. In the Setting section of the report they looked at current enrollment and capacity information, and a lot of the schools were at or nearing capacity, and the closest middle school was a few students above capacity. This project with the reduced number of units would actually have less students generated than in the previously proposed project. The previous project identified an impact of about 14 middle school students; the current project would generate 8 to 9 middle school students.
Commissioner Pann said it is known and has been seen in other projects that school numbers fluctuate from year to year. It does not seem as though the project would impact the area enough that a student in the area would not be able to go to the middle school.
Ms. Gorton noted it is expected that schools adjust enrollment boundaries, enrollment fluctuates over time, and new projects contribute to school mitigation fees.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 JULY 1, 2014 489
Commissioner Pann said he is aware there are environmental concerns about some sort of bridge across the Altamont Creek, but he would like the idea of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge that could also provide emergency vehicle access. At least then people would not have to traverse all the way down the street to get to the existing access that Zone 7 would hopefully provide. The EIR did mention that would be a sensitive bridge to build as far as environmental impacts, and maybe the environmental impacts outweigh the building of even a bike or foot bridge, but he would like to hear what the rest of the Commission thinks.
In response to questions from Commissioner Pann, Mr. Stewart said secondary dwelling units is listed as an accessory use in the zoning district as well as in the Planned Development district. However, most of the homes are close to the maximum floor area ratio.
Commissioner Pann stated that the amount of stone and the location of the stone proposed on several of the architectural styles is really well suited for the proposed Tuscan architectural theme throughout the project. He asked how the stones at the columns and different recesses would be treated, particularly on the Elevations A and B and if the stone would wrap around the columns and/or recesses. Some projects cut off the stone just after it wraps to the side elevations, which looks really bad. The elevation looks great if you look straight at it, but usually you are looking at a home from all different angles.
Mr. Toohey said the intent was to wrap the stone around the columns and into recesses and even to return it back to a definitive stopping point somewhere on the architecture so it is not just on the façade.
Vice Chairperson Spedowfski asked if the applicant could speak to the issue of access to Vasco Road.
Mr. Toohey said the resource agencies require a wetland delineation. In order to do that, you bring out the resource agencies and they go through the delineated wetland, and then the Army Corps of Engineers approves the delineated wetland. Their consultant, Jeff Olberding, was out there with the Corps and had a chance to review the Dalton Road access. The problem with that one is that it is the LARPD mitigation property for the Maralisa development. They do not want the road to Dalton Road travelling over what already has a conservation easement across it. They did not see the take as just property for the road, they saw the take as the entire site. They then went to the adjacent property owners to the east and asked to put a road through that property. Lafferty offered to completely improve the road all the way through with sidewalks on both sides, but the property owners were not interested in any development on their property. According to the Corps, the best crossing location was across the Altamont Creek. There is not a lot of habitat value in the existing intermittent stream. The Army Corps of Engineers said they should cross at Hawk Street if anywhere.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12 JULY 1, 2014 490
Commissioner Cole asked staff to respond to the concern about approving new development during the drought.
Mr. Spence stated the City Council has looked at the issue and is certainly very involved. The City gets most of its water from the California State Water Project. A drought management plan has been developed with Zone 7 and other area cities to deal with potential reductions in water allocations. The drought this year exceeded those planned emergency thresholds, so we find ourselves in a significant drought emergency. At the same time, we recognize that droughts occur from time to time in California. The most effective water storage and distribution answers are going to happen at the State level. At the local level, we have worked with partner agencies to ensure we have significant infrastructure to accommodate our General Plan build out. The City has developed drought measures for the community, and other Tri-Valley cities have done the same thing. The City Council has not yet placed a moratorium on development. This project would be required to comply with conservation measures, including deferred landscaping. However, taking the step of cutting off all economic development is a significant step, and because Livermore shares water resources with Dublin and Pleasanton and other area cities, it is a step that would have to be taken together as a region.
Commissioner Storti asked why the new project reduced the density and eliminated the bridge.
Mr. Stewart said both those changes were responses to concerns and comments heard during the environmental review process and at meetings where residents were speaking to the Planning Commission and City Council.
In response to a question from Chairperson Kaskey, Mr. Stewart said the exact location of fire hydrants is determined after the map approval when improvement plans are submitted, including pipe layout of the sewer, water, and other infrastructure. The Fire Department participates in that review.
In response to a question from Chairperson Kaskey, Mr. Stewart said there were no traffic improvements such as stop signs or signals associated with the project nor does the project warrant such improvements. The project will contribute its fair share of traffic impact funds for regional improvements at the intersection at Laughlin and Northfront Roads, which will eventually require a signal.
In response to questions from Chairperson Kaskey, Mr. Stewart explained the grading requirements of the site.
Mr. Toohey noted the rock outcroppings at the top of the knolls will remain, particularly on the bigger knoll to the northwest, and the bigger rock outcropping to the very northwest corner will remain. A lot of the smaller outcroppings would be removed. Depending on the quality of the rock, some are incorporated into the landscape design. If the rock is actually sandstone, it would not weather well through rain, and would be buried in the fill. A geotechnical report was prepared to analyze the density of rock on the site. All the rock on site can all be handled by the machines and no blasting would be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 13 JULY 1, 2014 491
In response to questions from Vice Chairperson Spedowfski, Mr. Stewart said the Conditions of Approval require a funding mechanism be in place to ensure retaining walls be maintained over time.
Vice Chairperson Spedowfski asked if there was any consideration for a Geologic Hazard Abatement District.
Mr. Stewart said that because of the naturally occurring petroleum in the Bear Creek subdivision, the applicant was required to do extra borings to try to find any on the site. Even though they did not, they will be required to create a Community Facilities District that will fund maintenance should it occur. Also, the design of the storm drain and pipe systems have to take that into consideration and be constructed to avoid the same kinds of problems.
Mr. Toohey noted the petroleum follows the fault line out from the oil fields to the south. They do not expect to find any oil on this site but are conditioned to put separators in just in case so it would not end up in the Altamont Creek if it should occur in the future. As to the question about a Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), there has not been one considered for this project but all precautions have been put in place so one could be there. Behind all the houses, there is a 15 foot debris bench that is designed to be installed. That is a condition they will take if that is something the Planning Commission feels is necessary. Their geotechnical consultant, ENGEO runs all the GHADs in Northern California. If it was a condition, they would like to join an existing GHAD.
Vice Chairperson Spedowfski said he has personal direct experience working with residents who have had landslides that effect their property and they were not part of GHAD or Community Facilities District and had to bear the entire burden of repairing the slide threatening the homes.
Mr. Toohey said staff has not brought it up yet; this is the first time they have really considered it other than making preparations for any issues coming off the hills. That is a condition they would accept.
Chairperson Kaskey said the recent letter from LARPD did give her pause because they did not come back with a suggestion or recommendation of what they think could be helpful. We are kind of in a situation where she has zoning that is consistent with development but at the same time, they have a piece of information saying that there is sensitivity and concern. Her interpretation may be that they would like a larger buffer on the west side of the project.
In response to questions from Vice Chairperson Spedowfski, Mr. Stewart said it is well known that the wetlands here as well as the other vernal pools in the area and in the other part of Springtown are sensitive. They contain a unique soil and hydrologic regime. LARPD was expressing their awareness of the sensitively of the site next door and wanted to ensure the project is as responsive as possible with a sensitive design. The natural buffers around the project will continue to drain towards the wetland as they do
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 14 JULY 1, 2014 492
now. The rear yards where you might have fertilizers, stuff people do on their personal lawns, are going to drain toward the streets and into the swales and collect down into the detention basin so pollutants not removed would not be headed towards the wetlands.
Chairperson Kaskey asked if she could get more information on the public comment about neighboring residents buying the property.
Cindy Angers, Livermore, said once they get this development stopped, the Save the Hill Group would like to work toward preserving the land as open space in perpetuity. The first step would be finding the funding. They have done some homework and are looking at various grants and other sources as well as an agency that would take responsibility and ownership of the land and keep it as open space. They have not yet worked with the City or contacted the property owner to discuss these options. They just thought it was important for the Planning Commission to know that the group is looking past tonight.
In response to a question from Chairperson Kaskey, Ms. Lung said the Engineering Considerations recommend splitting a portion of Lot C into a separate Lot D parcel because Lot D would contain the stormwater hydromodification basin and outfall and would require different on-going maintenance. Lot C would remain as primarily a landscape easement.
In response to a question from Chairperson Kaskey, Mr. Stewart said that during the improvement plan process, additional project details would be provided, including which homes would provide solar.
Commissioner Storti stated this project has gone back and forth for a long time. They have heard from various groups and it has gone through a number of iterations regarding the layout. He is disappointed the current proposal removed the bridge at Hawk Street. It came up in previous meetings that people did not want it because of the traffic and now it seems they want it back. He does appreciate all the work done by the staff, the applicant, and the community. It is a difficult site with a lot of constraints. It was part of the original General Plan for the area and they are trying to work through a number of different issues. After he read all the materials, he had thought he had made a decision, but after listening to public comment he may be leaning the other way. He thinks the project works with the constraints that have been placed upon it by various agencies. He applauds the applicant for trying to work through those issues. We do not often see such a drastic decrease in density from an original proposal to where they showed up here. It may not be exactly what everybody wants, but it seems to be a middle ground. He wishes there was a way to get the bridge back in to help with circulation, but he does understand that the school is right there. The suggestion of a bridge at least for pedestrians/bicycles and emergency vehicles may be plausible, but again it effects the density.
Commissioner Cole said everyone has definitely worked very hard on this project. The level of detail was amazing. The community has worked among themselves and has been diligent. The developer has tried this, tried that, responded to this and that, and yet she looks at where we are and listens to everything, and she still is thinking the same thing. There was a big drop in density but it still does not work right. There are retaining
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 15 JULY 1, 2014 493
walls following up the hill, grading is still an issue, and the sensitivity of the site is immense. Everything is a stretch, nothing flows naturally. There are all the State requirements about bioswales. She knows John Lawrence from the years she was on the Tri Valley Conservancy and he worked on the additions to Sycamore Grove Park, all the habitat and management plans. The letter from LARPD is not off the cuff. No matter what is done, the project does not get it right, and over time the geologic conditions will start to rear its head. North Livermore is a nice place to live, but she cannot make the finding that the site is physically suitable for this type of development. She has listened and read and admired the inventiveness and ingenuity and level of skill and technology, but sometimes it is just too much of a stretch. The General Plan needs to go back and be tweaked from time to time. Things change. Things are done in great quantity and relatively fast in the scheme of things, and she appreciates that the property’s designation has been in the General Plan for a long time, but she cannot make the findings to support the project. Whatever they do, the project is not going to work well on that site.
Vice Chairperson Spedowfski said he agreed with Commissioner Cole. At the higher density, everybody said no they did not want Hawk Street to go through with all the traffic. Then at the lower density, he thinks Hawk Street starts making sense. Although the density was reduced from the previous proposal, it is still at the maximum density allowed for the site and Hawk Street would be very difficult to implement. Even though there has been a sign there for years saying the street would go through, you would have to put that up with the speed and rate that people cross that street. Some type of bollards and emergency access might help. He does not like relying on requests from other agencies to put a path through; it is too important of an issue to go ahead and make the request without having certain assurances. It would have been beneficial to have some type of simulated views of the project. He does not believe he can make the findings to support the site, specifically the Site Plan Design Review Findings 3.b, d, and f.
Commissioner Pann said the project has been difficult to follow as it has had a long history of proposed developments. He applauds staff for doing an excellent job in helping the Commission to navigate the history, going through the long process of different and multiple proposals that most in the audience live in now. Back in the early 90s a project was proposed that eliminated both knolls. That project lost out in the HIP selection process about 14 years ago. The site has had a long history and he does appreciate everyone coming to all the different meetings. The concerns of the neighboring residents have been clearly heard by the staff and by the applicant. That can be seen by the fact that the proposed project chose Alternative B in the EIR, which is identified as “environmentally superior.” He feels this project is within substantial compliance of Alternative B that was studied in the EIR, and so he does not believe a separate EIR process needs to be done. The access to the existing trails as he understands it right now are going to be maintained by the project and the access would be improved, providing the surrounding neighbors almost a better experience than they currently have for the site. Based on this plus the fact that the project complies with the revised 2003 General Plan and greatly improves on what was proposed in the 2000 project, he can support the findings to approve the Tentative Map. Although the proposed Planned Development setbacks are reduced from the RS zoning standard, he feels it is substantially compliant and similar to the surrounding neighborhoods. He took into
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 16 JULY 1, 2014 494
consideration the effort to minimize the impact on open space by minimizing these standards and so therefore, because they are trying to maximize the open space and be sensitive to the surrounding neighbors, he can support the Planned Development findings.
Commissioner Pann noted that, in general, the homes are well designed and he appreciates the consistent design language of the common Tuscan theme. The proposed site and architecture are almost creating a small Italian neighborhood feel at the northern edge of the City. He does have comments on the proposed architecture, but by the sound of the other Commissioners, his comments may not be relevant tonight. He appreciates the inclusion of the additional single story and one and a half story homes to the product mix. This will help mitigate the view concerns. He is a little concerned about the three-car front garages of Plans 1 and 5. We really should not see any more elevations with three- car garages dominating the fronts of houses. Although he is not necessarily going to propose any sort of amendment to those plans, he would like to caution staff and future applicants that these garage dominated front elevations are a look that should no longer be proposed. He does support staff’s condition for requiring stone along the sides of the second floor of Plan 3 Elevation A, but that does not go far enough. The way the roof of Plan 3 rises in the rear, it minimizes the height of the rear wall on the second floor, and because these homes will be visible from all angles from the surrounding neighbors, he will be proposing an amending motion to continue the stone on all four sides for this particular elevation. As he referred to earlier on the “salami cut to the stone,” he does not like how it is done on the side elevations on the first floor. This is especially prominent on Plan 1 Elevation B and Plan 3 Elevation B. It can make sense to do this on some projects where you have some flat areas and the sides really get hidden behind fences, but it does not make sense to carry the stone down a side yard that is only 7 feet wide for 40 feet down the side of the house. He understands that and we do want it to be on the front and wrap but he would encourage staff in future applications to explore other options on how to deal with this. He appreciates the applicant’s comment earlier about wrapping the stone, and he asks that staff ensure the construction drawings show the stone wrapping around the columns and around recesses and is not just cut off at the edges, particularly on the columns. If these comments are all addressed, he can support the findings for the Site Plan Design Review. The applicant chose the Alternative B in the EIR, and he finds the project is within substantial compliance of that alternative. Therefore, he can support the CEQA findings and overall would support the project with staff’s conditions.
Chairperson Kaskey said she was initially very encouraged when the plan came to her because she knew it would be a very unique neighborhood. Then digging into the plan, she was also struck with how many things did not work. You would think that area would be allowed to have live oaks but there is even a disagreement with that because it would encourage raptors such as the red-tailed hawk that would then go after the burrowing owl. She is hopeful there will be a way to develop this parcel. They seem to keep inching toward it. Again the issue with the alkali sink to the west sounds like it still needs some kind of work. She is hopeful to see something where again they can reconsider the Hawk Street bridge and maybe with some kind of reduction in the density for the site there still can be gained a very unique neighborhood. But at this point, she does not think they have everything lined up. There seems to still be a lot of mitigation going on and not
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 17 JULY 1, 2014 495
having the view corridors understood, it is still a little bit difficult for her. She was encouraged that the tops of the knolls could be saved and some of the rock outcroppings. She is hopeful that she will again see a project called Garaventa Hills with a lower density, a better exit, and better routing of the traffic in and out. She cannot specifically say what should change because she is still missing some information, but she is not going to be able to find for all the staff recommendations.
MOTION BY SPEDOWFSKI, SECONDED BY KASKEY, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 21-14, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8094 (SUB13-001), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL 13-001, AND SITE PLAN DESIGN REVIEW 13-005.
Rick Norris, Attorney for Lafferty Communities, thanked the Planning Commission for its thoughtful consideration. Before the vote is taken, they would like to ask for a continuance. They have listened carefully to what has been said and they think there are opportunities for them to do better and bring back a changed project that addresses those concerns. They would like to have at least one more opportunity to work with staff to address the concerns that have been raised and come back with some changes.
In response to a question from Chairperson Kaskey, Mr. Spence said a denial from the Planning Commission would not prevent the applicant from coming back. The Planning Commission’s action is a recommendation to the City Council.
Ms. Morrison noted the options the Commission has tonight are either a vote on the pending motion, the motion could be withdrawn, or there could be a motion to allow a continuance. If the Commission votes to recommend denial of the project, the applicant is not precluded from postponing appearance before the City Council.
Commissioner Storti asked if the applicant could make modifications and present that project to the City Council without coming back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Spence said that would depend on the degree of changes. An EIR has been prepared and the proposed project and alternatives have been analyzed. If the project deviated substantially from any of the alternatives, there would need to be a revised analysis. The project could move forward to the City Council if the applicant proposed minor modifications and the project was found to still be consistent with the analysis in the EIR.
AYES: COLE, KASKEY, SPEDOWFSKI, AND STORTI. NOES: PANN. ABSENT: NONE.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 18 JULY 1, 2014 496 LAMPHIER-GREGORY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
PREPARED FOR: Steve Stewart Principal Planner City of Livermore 1052 S. Livermore Avenue Livermore, CA 64550
PREPARED BY: Rebecca Gorton Lamphier-Gregory, Inc. 1944 Embarcadero, Oakland, CA 94606
SUBJECT: Garaventa Hills Project – Assessment of Project Changes
DATE: June 25, 2015
Background and Purpose
The Garaventa Hills Project was analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with State Clearinghouse Number 2011112045 with a Draft EIR circulated in November 2012 and a Final EIR issued in June 2014. No final determination has been made on the Project or EIR.
Since issuance of the Final EIR, the Project description has been revised as follows:
1. Roadway Revision. To reduce the amount of grading proposed, the previously designated Street B connection has been revised as a narrower EVA (emergency vehical access) with the main roadway ending in a cul-de-sac.
2. Stormwater System Revision. In coordination with Livermore Area Recreation & Parks District (LARPD), to address concerns that freshwater runoff from the project could occur despite the design of the stormwater system, the applicant has added subdrains at the base of the fill slopes along the western and northern boundaries (lots 1 to 25) to capture any potential runoff from the project from escaping into the neighboring wetland areas.
The revised project plan is included as Figure 1. For comparison, the previous plan (that had been included in the Final EIR) is included as Figure 2.
Note that other details are being coordinated with LARPD, such as the specifics of landscaping and design of the boundary fencing. These specifics are more detailed then previously considered but would not change conclusions of the analysis in the EIR.
The purpose of this memo is to assess whether the changes to the Project would require recirculation of the EIR. Recirculation of an EIR is discussed in Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as follows:
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT – ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT CHANGES 497 ATTACHMENT 14 6/25/2015
public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. "Significant new information" requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com.(1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).
Assessment of the Roadway Revision
Kittleson and Associates, the preparers of the traffic analysis for the EIR were consulted and determined that the revised site plan does not change any traffic analysis or conclusions since the amount of units and access to the site remains the same.
The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Departmennt has reviewed the proposed revision and determined that the EVA would be acceptable for emergency vehicle access.
The revised roadway would require less grading and all impacts would be the same or marginally lessened from those identified in the EIR with the revised roadway.
Assessment of the Stormwater System Revision
Malcolm J. Sproul, Principal at LSA Associates, peer reviewed the biological analysis in the EIR and coordinated with LARPD regarding their concerns. A letter dated April 1, 2015 is attached, which details this coordination.
An additional letter (dated May 29, 2015 and also attached) from Mr. Sproul follows up with an assessment that the proposed changes to the stormwater system would not cause impacts related to reduced stormwater flow to the wetlands.
The revised stormwater system would not change any of the impacts or conclusions in the EIR. Conclusions
The document provides substantial evidence that the proposed changes to the Project would not constitute “substantial new information” and so would not require recirculation under section 15088.5 of the CEQA
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT – ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT CHANGES PAGE 2 OF 5 498 6/25/2015
Guidelines. To that end, the following conclusions can be made from information in this document and attachments:
(1) The revised project would not result in new significant impacts nor are new mitigation measures are proposed.
(2) The revised project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact.
(3) There are no new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures required to lessen significant environmental impacts of the revised project that the applicant declines to adopt.
(4) Project revisions do not result in fundamental inadequacies in the Draft EIR such that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Therefore, based on the substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency, including this document and attachments, recirculation of the EIR would not be required to address the proposed revised Project.
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT – ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT CHANGES PAGE 3 OF 5 499 Figure 1: Previous Plan (June 2014)
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT – ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT CHANGES PAGE 4 OF 5 500 Figure 2: Current Plan (June 2015)
Note that the subdrain will be located downslope of lots 1 through 25 per project conditions. (Shown here for lots 1 through 13 only.)
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT – ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT CHANGES PAGE 5 OF 5 501 502 503 504 505 506 LIVERMORE GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
Air-1: Basic Construction Management Practices. The Project shall Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify requirements Livermore demonstrate proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and demolition, building Developer are included in Community operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading or grading permits construction Development permits, including implementation of the following BAAQMD “Basic contracts and are Department Construction Mitigation Measures”. met during • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, construction graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be 507 completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
ATTACHMENT 15 • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Bio-2: Construction-Period Protection of Offsite Wetlands and Vernal Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify requirements Livermore Pools. The applicant shall implement the following measures to minimize demolition, building Developer are included in Community the potential impact to off-site wetlands and vernal pools resulting from or grading permits construction Development construction activities on the Project site. contracts and are Department
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 1 Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
a) Stormwater Best Management Practices shall be implemented during met during construction activities to avoid the potential for sediments and other construction pollutants to enter the offsite wetland areas. b) Install fencing and signage identifying the limits of the wetlands and providing a physical barrier to keep construction equipment and personnel out of the sensitive habitat areas. c) Schedule grading in close proximity to offsite vernal pools during the non-rainy season in order to minimize potential for sedimentation of the pools. d) Stabilize the natural vegetated buffer between the grading area and the offsite wetlands during the early phases of construction so that it serves as a protective barrier for the wetlands. Stabilization can be accomplished through establishment of vegetation and/or temporary Best Management Practices to prevent erosion and sedimentation from occurring, such as erosion control mats, silt fences, fiber rolls, and/or soil binders.
508 Bio-3a: Conduct surveys to determine presence/absence of VPFS. Prior to initiation of Applicant / Verify survey was Livermore Complete surveys following protocol deemed acceptable by the USFWS site disturbance Developer performed and, if Community to determine presence/absence of VPFS in the seasonal wetland on the VPFS present, Development Project site prior to initiation of construction. The presence of VPFS can verify USFWS Department be assumed instead of implementing the surveys required by this measure. authorization and If no VPFS are found, no further mitigation is required. If VPFS are found compensatory or assumed to be present, implement Mitigation Measures 3b and 3c. habitat decided.
Bio-3b: Obtain Authorization from USFWS for take of VPFS. If VPFS are found as a result of directed surveys or are assumed to be present, the Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS for take of VPFS prior to filling or disturbance of the seasonal wetland. USFWS authorization may be obtained through Section 7 of the ESA as a component of the USACE permitting process (see wetland impacts below).
Bio-3c: Obtain offsite compensatory habitat for loss of VPFS habitat if determined to be present. If VPFS are found as a result of directed surveys or are assumed to be present, compensatory habitat shall be provided for loss of this habitat at a 9:1, 10:1 or 11:1 mitigation ratio depending on the location of the mitigation site, as recommended in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS). Final
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 2 Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
replacement ratios shall be based on the assessed functions and values of an agency approved mitigation site.
Bio-4a: Obtain Authorization from USFWS and CDFG for potential take Prior to initiation of Applicant / Verify USFWS and Livermore of CTS. The Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS site disturbance Developer CDFG authorization Community and CDFG for potential take of CTS prior to initiation of any ground and compensatory Development disturbance activities. habitat decided and Department construction Bio-4b: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of minimization Potential Upland Aestivation Habitat for CTS. The compensatory habitat measures included shall be provided at a 2.5:1 to 3:1 ratio for acres permanently lost and at a in construction 1.5:1 ratio for areas temporarily disturbed, as recommended in the contracts. EACCS. Final replacement ratios shall be based on the assessed functions and values of an agency approved mitigation site. The mitigation site should be of sufficient quality and quantity to fully offset the permanent loss of habitat and should be permanently protected and managed in perpetuity with sufficient funding to maintain and enhance the quality of
509 the site for CTS.
Bio-4c: Implement Appropriate Measures during Construction to Minimize Potential Take of CTS. Minimization measures specified in the authorizations obtained from USFWS and CDFG shall be implemented prior to and during construction: Such measures could include the following: • Project applicant shall contract with a Designated Biologist approved by USFWS and CDFG to monitor construction activities. • All earthwork in the construction area shall be confined to the period of June 15 to October 31, or as approved by USFWS and CDFG. • A barrier with one-way ramps shall be constructed around the limits of grading in the fall prior to the initiation of construction. This barrier will allow CTS to move out of the construction area during the fall/winter and keep them from returning in the spring. • Before any construction activities begin, the Designated Biologist will conduct a training session with construction personnel to describe the CTS and its habitat, the specific measures being implemented to minimize effect to the species, and boundaries of the construction area. • The Designated Biologist shall complete walking surveys of the construction area prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities each
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 3 Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
day during the construction period. If any CTS are discovered, the Designated Biologist shall move the animal to a safe, nearby location as predetermined through consultation with USFWS and CDFG.
Bio-5a: Obtain Authorization from USFWS for Potential Take of CRLF. Prior to initiation of Applicant / Verify USFWS Livermore The Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS for site disturbance Developer authorization and Community potential take of CRLF prior to initiation of any ground disturbance compensatory Development activities. habitat decided and Department construction Bio-5b: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of minimization Potential Upland Habitat for CRLF. The compensatory habitat shall be measures included provided at a 2.5:1 to 3:1 ratio for the acres permanently lost and at a 1:1 in construction ratio for areas temporarily disturbed, consistent with the EACCS contracts. recommendations for the species. Final replacement ratios shall be based on the assessed functions and values of an agency approved mitigation site. The mitigation site can be the same as that obtained for Mitigation Measure Bio 4b, as long as there is sufficient area to provide habitat for
510 both CRLF and CTS.
Bio-5c: Implement Appropriate Measures during Construction to Minimize Potential Take of CRLF. Minimization measures specified in the authorizations obtained from USFWS shall be implemented prior to and during construction. Such measures are expected to be similar to those described for Mitigation Measure 4c.
Bio-6a: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of Within 30 days prior Applicant / Verify survey was Livermore potential burrowing owl habitat. The compensatory habitat to be obtained to initiation of site Developer performed and Community as described for Mitigation Measures Bio-4b and 5b should also be disturbance verify compensatory Development determined as occupied or suitable for burrowing owls in order to habitat decided and, Department compensate for potential habitat loss resulting from the Project. if required, appropriate buffers Bio-6b: Conduct a Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey. A pre- are included in construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 construction days prior to initiation of any ground-disturbing activities to ensure contracts. individual owls are not harmed. If the survey occurs during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31) and owls are observed on or within 250 feet of the area of disturbance, a 250-foot buffer should be established around the occupied burrow with construction fencing. The fenced area
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 4 Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
should remain in place for the duration of the breeding season while construction activities are occurring. If the survey is conducted outside of the breeding season and owls are observed, owl eviction may be allowed if authorized by CDFG.
Bio-7a: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of 14 to 30 days prior to Applicant / Verify survey was Livermore Potential American Badger Habitat. The compensatory habitat to be initiation of site Developer performed and Community obtained as described for Mitigation Measures Bio-4b and -5b will also be disturbance verify compensatory Development determined as occupied or suitable for American badger to compensate habitat decided and, Department for potential habitat loss resulting from the Project. if required, relocation has Bio-7b: Conduct a Pre-Construction American Badger Survey. A pre- occurred. construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any Project activity likely to impact potential burrows. If occupied burrows are found, one of the following actions shall be implemented by the applicant:
511 1. Initiate an on-site passive relocation program, through which badgers are excluded from occupied burrows by installation of a one-way door in burrow entrances, monitoring of the burrow for one week to confirm badger usage has been discontinued, and hand excavation and collapse of the burrow to prevent reoccupation; or 2. Have a qualified biologist actively trap and relocate badgers to suitable off-site habitat in coordination with the CDFG.
Bio-8a: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of 14 to 30 days prior to Applicant / Verify survey was Livermore potential SJKF habitat. The compensatory habitat to be obtained as initiation of site Developer performed and Community described for Mitigation Measures Bio-4b and 5b should also be disturbance verify compensatory Development determined as occupied or suitable for SJKF in order to compensate for habitat decided and, Department potential habitat loss resulting from the Project. if required, that avoidance or Bio-8b: Conduct pre-construction surveys for San Joaquin kit fox: The exclusion zones are pre-construction survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist no included in less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of construction ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any Project activity contracts. likely to impact the San Joaquin kit fox. • If potential dens are present, their disturbance and destruction will be avoided.
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 5 Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
• If potential dens are located within the proposed work area and cannot be avoided during construction, qualified biologist will determine if the dens are occupied or were recently occupied using methodology coordinated with the USFWS and CDFG. • If unoccupied, the qualified biologist will collapse these dens by hand in accordance with USFWS procedures (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). • Exclusion zones will be implemented following USFWS procedures (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999) or the latest USFWS procedures available at the time. The radius of these zones will follow current standards or will be as follows: Potential Den—50 feet; Known Den— 100 feet; Natal or Pupping Den—to be determined on a case‐by‐case basis in coordination with USFWS and CDFG. • Pipes will be capped and trenches will contain exit ramps to avoid direct mortality while construction area is active.
Bio-9: Conduct a pre-construction survey for western spadefoot toad. A Within one week Applicant / Verify survey was Livermore
512 survey for western spadefoot toad shall be conducted by a qualified prior to initiation of Developer performed and, if Community biologist a maximum of one week prior to construction. The survey site disturbance required, relocation Development should include the potential breeding habitat and an area within 50 feet of has occurred. Verify Department that habitat. If a western spadefoot toad is found, the biologist shall move training of it to suitable habitat in a safe location outside of the construction zone. In construction the event that a western spadefoot toad is observed within an active workers and halt construction zone, the contractor shall temporarily halt construction requirement is activities until a biologist has moved the toad to a safe location outside the included in construction zone, within similar habitat. construction contracts.
Bio-10: Conduct a Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Pre- Within 30 days prior Applicant / Verify survey was Livermore construction surveys for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird to initiation or Developer performed and, if Community Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game Code of California shall be resumption of required, buffer Development conducted within 30 days of initiation of construction activities. The construction activities zones are included Department survey area shall include the Project site and areas within 100 feet of the in construction site. If active nests are found, the Project shall follow recommendations of contracts. a qualified biologist regarding the appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity. The buffer shall be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. If there is a complete stoppage in construction activities for 30 days or more, a new nesting-survey shall be completed
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 6 Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
prior to re-initiation of construction activities.
Bio11a: Obtain authorization from USACE, CDFG and RWQCB for fill Prior to initiation of Applicant / Verify USFWS/ Livermore of wetlands and alteration of Altamont Creek. The applicant shall obtain site disturbance Developer CDFG/ RWQCB Community the necessary permits from the USACE, CDFG and RWQCB pursuant to authorization and Development §404 of the Clean Water Act, §1602 of the California Fish and Game wetland re-creation. Department Code, and §401 of the Clean Water Act, respectively.
(Bio-11b: Not applicable to revised project)
Bio-11c: Re-creation of 0.004 Acre of Seasonal Wetland. The applicant shall create a minimum of 0.004 acre of seasonal wetland habitat either onsite or offsite to replace the area lost through Project construction. Creation of this habitat shall be done in consultation with USFWS if the existing seasonal wetland is found to support VPFS (see Mitigation Measure Bio-4c).
513 Culture-1a: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify requirements Livermore Mitigation. In the event that previously unidentified historical resources demolition, building Developer are included in Community are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction or grading permits construction Development activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until then during contracts and track Department the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist, and construction if outcome if triggered specific mitigation measures can be implemented to protect these triggered resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code.
Culture-1b: Prepare Mitigation Plan, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. Because of the high potential for unique paleontological resources within the Project area, a qualified professional Paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Mitigation Plan outlining a paleontological monitoring plan and a salvage plan to be implemented during construction excavation and other ground-disturbing activities for the Project. The Paleontological Mitigation Plan should include the following: in the event that previously unidentified paleontological resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified Paleontologist, and specific mitigation measures can be implemented to
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 7 Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code.
Culture-1c: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, and appropriate action taken in coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or, if the remains are Native American, section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code.
Geo-2: Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation report Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify completion Livermore prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural building or grading Developer of report and Community Design Plans as prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper permits adherence of Development
514 slope and foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in structural design Department accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical plans to the report Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer. The structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code.
Geo-5: Construction-Period Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verification of Livermore (SWPPP). The Project applicant shall prepare and implement a SWPPP building or grading Developer Construction Community for the proposed construction period. The SWPPP and Notice of Intent permits and ongoing General Permit from Development (NOI) must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board to during construction the State Water Department receive a Construction General Permit. The plan shall address National Resources Control Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, include Board and inclusion applicable monitoring, sampling and reporting, and be designed to protect of BMPs in water quality during construction. The Project SWPPP shall include “Best construction Management Practices” (BMPs) as required by the State and the Regional contracts. Water Quality Control Board for preventing stormwater pollution through soil stabilization, sediment control, wind erosion control, soil tracking control, non-storm water management, and waste management and materials pollution control. The SWPPP shall take into account the following considerations recommended by the preliminary geotechnical report:
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 8 Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
• Ponding of stormwater, other than within engineered detention basins, should not be permitted at the site, particularly during work stoppage for rainy weather. Before the grading is halted by rain, positive slopes should be provided to carry surface runoff to storm drainage structures in a controlled manner to prevent erosion damage. • The tops of fill or cut slopes should be graded in such a way as to prevent water from flowing freely down the slopes. Due to the nature of the site soil and bedrock, graded slopes may experience severe erosion when grading is halted by heavy rain. Therefore, before work is stopped, a positive gradient away from the tops of slopes should be provided to carry the surface runoff away from the slopes to areas where erosion can be controlled. It is vital that no completed slope be left standing through a winter season without erosion control measures having been provided. • Because the existing bedrock is relatively nutrient-poor, it may be difficult for vegetation to become properly established, resulting in a potential for slope erosion. Revegetation of graded slopes can be aided by retaining the organic-rich strippings and spreading these materials 515 in a thin layer (approximately 6 inches thick) on the graded slopes prior to the winter rains and following rough grading. When utilizing this method, it is sometimes possible to minimize hydroseeding.
GHG-1: Increased Energy Efficiency. The Project shall demonstrate Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify energy Livermore proposed energy efficiency at least 16% greater than Title 24 construction permits Developer efficiency Community requirements prior to issuance of building permits. calculations for Development construction plans. Department
GHG-2: GHG Emissions Reduction Best Management Practices (BMPs). Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify inclusion of Livermore The Project shall demonstrate proposed compliance with City of construction permits Developer BMPs in Community Livermore General Plan Climate Change Element BMPs prior to issuance construction plans. Development of building permits, including the following. If the City’s Climate Action Department Plan is approved prior to issuance of permits, requirements of the Climate Action Plan can be substituted for the BMPs below. • Climate BMP No. 1 – Energy-efficient buildings in compliance with the Livermore Green Building Ordinance. • Climate BMP No. 2 – Use of energy-efficient appliances that meet Energy Star standards. • Climate BMP No. 3 – Incorporate solar roofs into commercial development. Residential development to be “solar-ready” including
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 9 Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
proper solar orientation (south facing roof area sloped at 20° to 55° from the horizontal),clear access on the south sloped roof (no chimneys, heating vents, plumbing vents, etc.), electrical conduit installed for solar electric system wiring, plumbing installed for solar hot water system, and space provided for a solar hot water storage tank. • Climate BMP No. 4 – Incorporate transit and bicycle/pedestrian connections into development. • Climate BMP No. 5 – has been omitted as it applies only to Commercial/Industrial projects. • Climate BMP No. 6 – has been omitted as it applies to parking lots and structures. • Climate BMP No. 7 – In compliance with the Construction and Demolition Ordinance, recycle construction materials and divert construction waste from disposal as feasible. • Climate BMP No. 8 – Include recycling facilities to provide for commercial and/or community recycling of plastic, paper, green waste, 516 and food waste. • Climate BMP No. 9 –Incorporate “heat island” treatments including cool roofs, cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees. • Climate BMP No. 10 –Use landscaping that meets the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
Haz-2: Confirm Absence of Near Surface Oil or Implement Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify measures to Livermore Overexcavation. The absence of naturally occurring oil should be grading permits and Developer be implemented in Community confirmed during grading of the site. If oil is encountered during grading, during grading the event of near Development the following overexcavation shall be implemented: surface oil Department • The area where naturally occurring near surface oil is encountered encounters are shall be overexcavated a minimum of 10 feet below proposed finish included in grade and replaced with engineered fill. This will provide a low construction permeable fill cap to prevent the upward migration of oil. contracts. • Where proposed storm drain lines cross areas where naturally occurring near surface oil is encountered, the area shall be overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet beyond the outside diameter of the proposed storm drain line. The excavation should be backfilled with engineered fill and the storm drain line trenched through the fill. The storm drain trench within the previously overexcavated and backfilled area should be lined with 20 mil visqueen prior to placement of
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 10 Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
shading and the storm drain line. • In every case the utility lines shall be designed to be airtight to prevent potential oil from entering the utility lines. • Any stormwater underdrains shall be shallow or eliminated in areas of potential oil seepage. • If oil is encountered then an oil/water separator shall be installed to treat stormwater prior to entering the creek. • A Community Facilities District, or other funding mechanism approved by the City, shall be formed in order to fund remedies to public infrastructure and utilities in the event oil seepage occurs after construction of the Project.
Traf-5: Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses. The Prior to issuance of Applicant/ Verify Livermore Project’s on-site transportation elements, such as sight distances, construction permits. Developer in recommended Community driveway locations, and marked crosswalk locations, have been reviewed Coordination with design features are Development by the Livermore staff with design-level project approvals and meet Livermore included in final Department applicable local regulations. The following design details are Community designs. 517 recommended, though final details will be determined through Development consultation with Livermore staff, taking into consideration constraints of Department the site: a) The stem of each intersection should be stop-controlled or contain other intersection controls. b) Livermore thoroughfare standards should be followed, which could involve narrowed vehicle lanes, widened sidewalks, reduced corner radii, and installation of corner bulb-outs. Narrower vehicle travel lanes and tighter corner radii with bulb-outs are associated with lower vehicle travel speeds, increased visibility between pedestrians and motorists, and reduce pedestrian roadway exposure. c) The mid-block trail crossings on Street A between Lot D and Lot B, and on Street B between Lot A and Lot B should be marked with warning signs and a high-visibility crosswalk and include bulb-outs and lighting to enhance pedestrian visibility. d) According to Livermore’s Municipal Code 3-15-050, driveways should be located more than 20 feet from the corners.
Traf-6: Emergency Access. The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify inclusion of Livermore has reviewed the Revised Project. Conditions of approval for the Vesting construction permits Developer conditions of Community Tentative Tract Map include additional design features and measures approval in plans. Development
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 11 Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
necessary for emergency response. Department
Traf-7: City Review of Construction Plan. It is expected that the Prior to issuance of Applicant/ Review Livermore construction plan will be reviewed by the City of Livermore and designed construction permits. Developer in construction-period Community to meet applicable regulations. Coordination with traffic plan. Development Livermore Department Community Development Department
Traf-10: Laughlin Road & Northfront Road Intersection Improvements. Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify Livermore The Project shall contribute a fair share amount to improvements at this certificate of Developer in improvements have Community intersection, as determined by the City of Livermore Community occupancy permits for Coordination with been implemented. Development Development Department. The improvements shall consist of either A) or residences. Livermore Department B) below, again as determined in coordination with the City of Livermore Community Community Development Department: Development A) Roundabout. Install a roundabout with yield-control at all three Department
518 intersection legs. The current vehicle lane configuration would remain, but right-of-way may need to be expanded to accommodate traffic movements through the intersection. OR B) Signal Control. Signalize the intersection. The current vehicle lane configuration would need to be altered from the existing one lane in each direction to include a left-turn pocket in the eastbound direction and a right-turn pocket in the westbound direction. Right-of-way may need to be expanded to accommodate the turn-pocket lanes at the intersection.
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 12 519 ATTACHMENT 16 520 ATTACHMENT 17 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 Addendum to the Statement by Helen Nelson in objection to the Planned Development of Garaventa Hills.
These are from excerpts from the Draft EIR for the Garaventa Hills Project in Livermore, CA. These are policies in the General Plan of Livermore: Page 13-4 in Policy CC-1.1.PW. “The City shall permit no intensive development of the hills . . . Under no circumstances shall development create uniform, geometrically terraced building sites which are contrary to the natural landforms of which detract, obscure, or negatively effect the visual quality of the landforms.”
POLICY CC-1.1.P1. The City shall allow no structural development in hillside areas involving skylines, ridgelines, or silhouettes.
Page 13-5 POLICY CC-1.1.P9. Open space shall be used as a buffer between incompatible land uses within urban or essentially undeveloped areas. My suggestion: Use this policy to make the hills a permanent open space buffer. In fact, we hope to work with the city to find a grant to purchase the hills for an open space area.
Pages 13-5 and 13-6 POLICY CC-1.1.P11. The City shall preserve and enhance, or work with and support the efforts of other agencies, as appropriate (e.g., with joint grant applications, sharing of staff resources and legal services), to preserve and enhance the following natural amenities: (a) Ridgelines (b) Oak Woodlands and Grasslands DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PAGE 13-6 GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT (c) Grasslands (d) Riparian Woodland (e) Arroyos and Creeks (f) Knolls (g) Brushy Peak (h) Arroyo Mocho/Cedar Mountain (i) Corral Hollow (j) Sycamore Grove (k) Hilltops (NLUGBI) (l) Slopes (NLUGBI) (m) Viewscapes (NLUGBI) (n) Frick Lake
Their response: The Project preserves the creek and retains the on-site knolls while developing lower lying grassland. The City will ultimately determine consistency, but it should be noted that the Project site is acknowledged in the General Plan as a planned site for residential development. My Comment: The general plan states that the area is a “planned site”. But plans can change and this area is definitely at least a knoll, and it is a grassland, and it is has a hilltop, and it has slopes, and it has viewscapes. So for those 5 natural amenities (out of the 12), the hills should be “preserved and enhanced”.
On Page 13-2 POLICY LU-2.1.P1. The City shall ensure that the management of community growth will assure
541 that the natural amenities and environmental qualities which are among its greatest assets can be successfully improved, preserved, and enhanced. My Comment: There are very few hills or even knolls in Livermore, especially ones that provide the magnificent views that these hills provide. Therefore, the policy clearly states that they need to be preserved since there are so few to begin with. They are truly unique and precious, as well as being a great asset. Once they are destroyed, they can never be replaced.
Page 13-2 The following General Plan goals, objectives and policies would be applicable to the Project (note that this is not intended to be a complete list or determination of consistency): GOAL LU-1. Protect the unique qualities of Livermore, which include a historic Downtown, a variety of residential neighborhoods, vineyards, ranches, natural habitats and open space. My Comment: Although this area is within the Urban Growth Boundary, it is already a natural habitat for many species of birds, mammals, and reptiles, many of them possibly endangered. Plus, it has become a beloved natural open space for the people who live around it and it should be protected for those reasons. Page 13-8 POLICY CC-4.16.P1. Views from scenic routes will comprise essentially all of the remainder of the Valley beyond the limits of the I-580 Scenic Corridor. The I-580 Scenic Corridor is intended to establish a framework for the observation of the views beyond; therefore, in all areas in the Valley extending beyond the scenic routes, scenic qualities should be preserved through retaining the general character of natural slopes and natural formations, and through preservation and, where desirable, enhancement of water areas, water courses, vegetation and wildlife habitats. My Comment: “Retaining the general character of natural slopes and natural formations” should definitely be a clear policy to not allow any building of homes on these lovely slopes, not to mention the wildlife habitats that they are. My daughter saw a 6-point buck up on the hills once, and I have seen red-tailed hawks, prairie dogs, rabbits, squirrels, and a coyote. Burrowing owls and Fox have been spotted there, as well.
OBJECTIVE LU-2.1. Develop and phase new housing at a rate that can be absorbed by public infrastructure and in a manner that fits within Livermore’s character. My Comment: It is not in Livermore’s character to demolish three of the few wild and scenic hills Livermore has. Livermore is a flat city and the few hills it has must be protected.
Their (the Planning Department) Comment: The proposed Project is within the Urban Growth Boundary, adjacent to established urban areas, and already annexed into the City. My Comment: This does not mean that it must be destroyed, plowed under, and built over. It means the hills fall under the protection of the policies against building on the hills.
POLICY LU-2.1.P13. All residential growth shall be consistent with the policy that a proposed development must be in the best interest of the community as a whole, considering that our goal is to achieve balance in our community. My Comment: Destroying these hills and open space would not be taking into consideration the best interests of the citizens who love these hills. Plus, I consider this a mandate that the development should be brought to the attention of the entire city of Livermore, since the hills should belong the to every citizen of Livermore, not just to those of us in the immediate neighborhood. The city needs to have a vote on this when something as important as some of the few hills are being threatened. Therefore, we plan to start an initiative to protect the hills.
542 Page 13-3 The City shall maintain an area of non-urbanized land surrounding Livermore to serve as a buffer between communities. Uses that are considered compatible with this area include agriculture, grazing, open space, recreation, and reclaimed sand and gravel extraction. My Comment: These hills are a beloved open space area where residents can go to be away from and above the developed area and enjoy an untouched, natural environment near their own homes and neighborhoods. They provide recreation for people and children of all ages. The accessibility of the hills for recreation for citizens of all abilities and all ages is one of the main reasons they need to be protected as open space.
GOAL CC-4. Protect and enhance public views within and from established scenic routes, including views of arroyos. OBJECTIVE CC-4.1. Protect public views from scenic routes and corridors.
Page 13-13 POLICY CC-4.12.P1. In both urban and rural areas, normally permitted uses of land should be allowed in scenic routes, except that panoramic views and vistas should be preserved and enhanced My Comment: Once again, the views from the hills and of the hills themselves, without and houses on them, are fantastic!
543 544 545 STOP DEVELOPMENT ON GARAVENTA HILL
We, the undersigned, call upon the Planning Department and the City Council Members to reject any proposal to develop the hills behind Altamont Creek School and Park in North Livermore.
Lafferty Communities is proposing to build houses on this site and is in process to bring the project to the Planning Department. The City is not requiring a new Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), concealing the impact to our community. This and any proposed development on this site is bad for Livermore and should be rejected for the following reasons:
■ It is not safe ‐ Only one access road with no alternate plan for emergencies.
■ It will overload traffic on Bear Creek Drive ‐ the 47 proposed houses will add 55% more cars ‐ an estimated 169 cars per day!
■ It is environmentally harmful and careless ‐ these Hills are a delicate area and this development would impact the adjacent areas' threatened wildlife species and rare wetlands.
■ It will overload North Livermore infrastructure ‐ fire safety, schools, traffic, water and other utilities, grocery store, etc.
■ It requires a revised DEIR: we demand one because the builder has drastically changed the design plans of the community.
ATTACHMENT 18 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 Save The Hill Group -Proposed Garaventa Hill Project Review FEIR-Dev Plan Comments
QUESTION/ REFERENCE CONCERN # QUESTION/CONCERN BASIS OF QUESTION/CONCERN DOCUMENT TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION
Vehicles traveling on Laughlin to Increased traffic on Laughlin due to reach Brushy Peak parking lot have the popularity of EBRPD's Brushy greatly increased. Also, our Peak along with the improved recovering economoy produces DEIR, dated 12-2012: economy necessitate an updated more car trips on all neighborhood Chapter 16 Traffic and T&C-1 traffic study. streets. Circulation.
Study references that the capacity threshold for local Livermore streets is 5000 cars per day. Bear Creek is not that large. The outflow on Laughlin and the increase to Major redesign with single access Altamont Creek Road and Northfront point necessitates revised traffic are glossed over. This is insufficient T&C-2 study. mitigation.
Speed control and pedestrian safety features should be added to both Bear Creek and to Laughlin. Safety on Bear Creek is not mitigated by comparing to streets that can handle Speeding on Laughlin; safety on 5000 cars per day. Will speed T&C-3 Bear Creek control devises be required? Plans loosely draw a path from the development to the park at the Zone 7 service road. A well thought out and maintained path should be provided to the park and school for pedestrian safety. Another path concept well worth Children in the new development will looking into is to provide a bridge at T&C- 4 need a safe path to the school. Hawk for this ped path of travel.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Garaventa Wetlands and wetlands on the parcel to the North are both immediately adjacent to The Hill site, therefore features many of same impacted species affected by the proposed project. These parcels Opportunity for mitigation parcels should be mitigation for The Hill, E-1 immediately adjacent to The Hill. instead of the other 85 acre site.
This is similar to one of LARPD's comments that we learned of at the July 2014 Planning Commission meeting when Laffert presented . FEIR includes Revised Evaluation of Potential Off-site Hydrologic Impacts study, dated March 2012. Revised study again relies on past studies of two 'similar vernal pools' located in Dixon (75 miles to the N.) and near Hydrological study is inadequate Mather Air Force base (88 miles to since based on distant and the NE), both are unacceptable FEIR, page 3 of E-2 dissimilar study areas. distance from project site. Appendix J This land is not the protected LARPD land to the West. It appears that this northern parcel had been ignored Hydrological study lacks analysis of with regard to the same proposed project's impacts to environmental issues that will exist to E-3 wetlands to North of site. the west. FEIR, Appendix J
579 ATTACHMENT 19 Save The Hill Group -Proposed Garaventa Hill Project Review FEIR-Dev Plan Comments
QUESTION/ REFERENCE CONCERN # QUESTION/CONCERN BASIS OF QUESTION/CONCERN DOCUMENT the FEIR response to this is misleading: residents have indeed found special status wildlife at or on The Hill. Development is an obstacle for wildlife in the wildlife corridor. Wetlands near The Bluffs for Red Legged Frog and Tiger Salamander was created/protected for the benefit of these species and now we are allowing this obstacle? This Proposed project impedes development is an obstacle for other E-4 movement thru wildlife corridor. wildlife as well. This is similar to one of LARPD's comments that we learned of at the July 2014 Planning Commission meeting when Laffert presented . Grading and other modifications of The Hill will undoubtedly change ground water flows, there is lack of Lack of analysis on ground water analysis of ground water changes modifications to the adjacent affect to the wetlands and vernal E-5 wetlands and vernal pools. pools to the West and North. FEIR, Appendix J Insufficient response to Comment J- E-6. Dogs are not the only interruption that will be brought to the Burrowing Owls. Response to comment B-19 relies on the existing fencing to protect the Owls. Proposed fencing is not clearly Project will increase impacts to shown on Plans, so cannot Burrowing Owl's habitat immediately determine if new fencing is E-6 adjacent to proposed project. adequate. FEIR, page 24-69 This site is a greenfield site. Numerous other locations are better suited for this proposed project to be We urge the City to focus E-7 built upon. development on infill sites. Response to this comment (Comment J-E-8) states that the design of the detention basin meets requirements. We ask you to reconsider this concept of the basin to also provide habitat for wildlife. This concept was successfully Detention basin to be designed to implemented in a recent NE Dublin E-8 provide habitat for wildlife. housing development. FEIR, page 24-70 Redesign of major features (traffic, drainage, circulation, etc.) necessitate a Subsequent EIR, not simply a revised traffic study. Also, EIR failed to analyze Alt. B, Lower E-9 Density Build out. FEIR, page 21-1, 2 Lots of development here in Livermore despite current drought - recommend postponing this E-10 development if ever allowed. Crossing the creek bed is an attractive nuisance. An alternative pedestrian route needs to be Children in the new development will installed to ensure safety of the need a safe path to the school to animals and environmentally ensure minimal disruption to the sensitive plants that thrive in the E -11 creek. riparian area.
580 page 2 of 4 Save The Hill Group -Proposed Garaventa Hill Project Review FEIR-Dev Plan Comments
QUESTION/ REFERENCE CONCERN # QUESTION/CONCERN BASIS OF QUESTION/CONCERN DOCUMENT Response to Comment J-E-1 says, Due to the high number of "However, this is just a proposal at listed/threatened species impacted this point and the specific location for by this proposed project, the bilogical mitigation will be compensatory habitat should be coordinated with regulartory included for public review, especially agencies per standard procedures, E -12 agencies reviews. as specified in the DEIR." FEIR, page 24-68
VISUAL IMPACTS Exterior Architectural Features should be on all sides of homes, since higher elevation and transparent fencing allows for views V-1 from all sides.
Open Space Comment J-OS-2 & J-OS-3 consistently state that this land will be privately owned. Concern that new landowner may later petition the City for exclusion from City review and acceptance related to use of the land. Will the City make this "City review and acceptance" a permanent requirement? How will this be How can retained open space be enforced? (A Public Access OS-1 permanently kept as open to public. Easment?)
Trails shown on the Development Trails should be wider and include Plans are inadequate in length (as more areas of public access (much compared to "no-project") and width was lost and not mitigated with the OS-2 (as needed to maintain quality use). inclusion of houses on the site).
EARTHWORK/GRADING/WALLS Up to 7' high retaining wall, with 6' Grading plan is poorly done, more fence on top of that, with 2 story attention should be given to cost homes on lots behind that mean that and visual impacts of current a very tall visual blight will be seen G-1 grading. from many at The Bluffs. 6' height retaining wall plus 30' cut into first hill will create a negative visual impact, seen by surrounding Extensive grading at project entry neighborhoods and the LARPD park G-2 drive creates negative visual impact. and trail. While one purpose of surrounding this project with a wall is to exclude the amphipians, the walls could actually intail more wildlife damage G-3 Project surrounded by wall. than any good. Per the Grading plan in the DEIR, backyards will be quite steep, 2.5:1 and 3:1. This steep slope will need This point was responded to in J-OT- to be landscaped to prevent erosion 10 via J-ER-5; as stated, there will and be self treating. Maintaining be steeper portions in yards, landscape on a steep slope is although not the entire yard. Can difficult and expensive. Slopes the city require the HOA to enforce should be shallower to allow for proper erosion control in private G-4 proper maintenance. backyards? This hilly site will require extensive Extensive grading against Livermore grading, however, substantial General Plan which encourages grading is discouraged by the natural earthform and limited General Plan. Recommend a site G-5 grading. with less elevation changes. OTHER
581 page 3 of 4 Save The Hill Group -Proposed Garaventa Hill Project Review FEIR-Dev Plan Comments
QUESTION/ REFERENCE CONCERN # QUESTION/CONCERN BASIS OF QUESTION/CONCERN DOCUMENT Lack of native California plant species, addition of trees to grasslands that naturally are very sparely treed, and large quantity of Proposed landscape irresponsibly trees will severly alter the natural OT-1 done. ecosystem on The Hill. Concerns about EVA access, and proposed water line at Hawk, perhaps a Bridge at Hawk should be added. However, adding a bridge negatively impacts the sensitve Altamont Creek. This bridge is a good example of how this project just OT-2 Bridge at Hawk doesn't fit this site.
General Plan encourages Pedestrian Development plan not pedestrian Oriented development. Revisions to OT-3 oriented. this plan needed to meet that goal.
Notes:
1. These Plan and EIR review comments are based on the following documents: DEIR, 12-2012, FEIR, 6-2014; Development Plans and Vesting Tenative Map, Civil and Landscape sheets only, 6-2015. 2. This list is compiled from all of the review comments and concerns as of August 12, 2015 from the Save Our Hill group. 3. Some of these comments were submitted in 2014 but are included in this list (again) because either there was no response in the FEIR or the response was insufficient.
Authors of this List include the below: Cindy Angers, Landscape Architect QSD/P, CPESC, LEED Verlin (Ted) Crosley, Retired Cost Analysis Supervisor, Certified Professional Estimator, MS Management, BS Engineering, Contracting Officer, Training Officer, Retired Lt. Colonel, USAF. Karen Crosley, Retired Nurse Marnie Steele, Sr. Manager Cost Accounting Ray Reed, Construction Foreman Helen Nelson, Teacher Theresa Dorr, Marketing Director and others in the Save The Hill Group.
582 page 4 of 4
ITEM 5.01
ATTACHMENT 20
Additional Correspondence Received
583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT
The City Council held a public hearing on September 14, 2015, considered the Planning Commission recommendation for certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Garaventa Hills project, and adopted the following findings:
On July 27, 2011, the City received an application to develop a single-family residential subdivision on the site located east of North Vasco Road, North of Garaventa Ranch Road/Altamont Creek Drive, and West of Laughlin Road. The application included a General Plan Amendment to change the designation to Urban Low Medium Residential (2-3 dwelling units per acre) in order to enable the continued density transfer envisioned under the Maralisa development, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the site, and Site Plan Design Review for the landscaping, architecture, and improvements.
The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be prepared for the aforementioned applications for the Garaventa Hills project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
On November 18, 2011, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) pursuant to CEQA to obtain comments on the proposed scope of the EIR for the Garaventa Hills project.
On December 7, 2011, the City held a public scoping meeting for public agencies, organizations, and members of the public to review the proposed project and provide comments on the scope of the environmental review process.
On November 8, 2012, a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was issued, including notices to interested groups and individuals for a 45-day public comment period. A Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR, public comment period, and hearing date was published in a newspaper of general circulation pursuant to CEQA.
On December 4, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for initial proposal. The initial proposal was for 76 homes with a second access via an extension of Hawk Street and new bridge across Altamont Creek. The proposal included a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Urban Low Residential, at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre, to Urban Low Medium Residential, at 2-3 dwelling units per acre.
On December 26, 2012, the public comment period on the Draft EIR was closed.
612 RESOLUTION NO. ______The applicant made the changes listed below to the Garaventa Hills project before review and consideration by the Planning Commission:
• Reduction in the number of units from 76 to 47; • Elimination of the Hawk Street connection and bridge over Altamont Creek; • Preservation of the rock outcrop in the northwest corner of the site; and • Provision of an additional 1-story floor plan and a 1½-story floor plan.
The Draft EIR includes two alternatives to the original proposal: Alternative A: No Project, No Development Alternative; and Alternative B: Reduced Density, Current General Plan Allowance Alternative. Alternative A assumes no development of the site. Alternative B assumes development of the site consistent with the current General Plan designation of Urban Low Density (UL-1) at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre. After considering public comments on the Draft EIR and the statements given by neighboring homeowners during the Citizens Forums at a number of Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the applicant has chosen to proceed with developing the site generally consistent with the Alternative B.
On June 11, 2014, a Final EIR was distributed consisting of copies of all written and oral comments, a list of commenters, all responses to oral and written comments, and an appendix containing minor corrections of the Draft EIR. A notice of the Final EIR availability and certification recommendation hearing date was published in a newspaper of general circulation.
On July 1, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council deny the Project. Generally, the Commission’s recommendation was due to the Project’s extensive grading, unknown aesthetic context, and concern from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District regarding compatibility with the adjacent Garaventa Preserve.
On June 3, 2015, the City received revised plans for the Garaventa Hills Project.
• Replacing a portion of roadway with an Emergency Vehicle Access in order to reduce grading; • Eliminating new landscaping between the Project site and the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve to preserve the natural grassland condition; • Providing a drain system to collect all runoff from the residential lots and convey it to the treatment basin to protect the soil chemistry in the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve; • Constructing a pedestrian/bicycle path that connects to the existing trail south of Bear Creek Drive to link the Project to Altamont Creek Park; and • Providing visual simulations of the Project in context with the surrounding developed and natural environments.
613 RESOLUTION NO. ______On August 18, 2015, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council to certify the Final EIR. The Livermore Planning Commission found that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of the CEQA statute, CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s local CEQA requirements and the Final EIR reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission of the City of Livermore. Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission recommended certification of the Garaventa Hills Final EIR, subject to final review and consideration to the City Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of the CEQA statute, CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s local CEQA requirements, including the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The City thus approves and adopts the Final EIR and the Findings, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Final EIR reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council of the City of Livermore.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that, based on the above findings, the Garaventa Hills Final EIR is certified as compliant with the intent and requirements of the CEQA statute, CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s local CEQA requirements.
On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Jason Alcala City Clerk City Attorney
614 RESOLUTION NO. ______Exhibit A
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT
(SCH NO. 2011112045)
The following Findings, the mitigation measures specified herein, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached hereto are hereby adopted by the Livermore City Council in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Sections 21081, 21081.5, 21081.6, and 21166, and the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15091 through 15093, and Section 15162 for the Garaventa Hills Project (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB13-001), Planned Development Residential (PD-R) 13-001, and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 13-005).
A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The Project is comprised of the following:
1. The Project is a 47-unit single-family residential subdivision on a vacant approximately 32-acre site. A westerly extension of Bear Creek Drive provides access to the internal residential street circumscribing the site’s two prominent knolls. Lot sizes range from 7,320 square feet to 13,360 square feet with homes between 3,160 to 4,180 square feet. Lots and roadways will comprise approximately 45 percent of the site, with the remaining land reserved for open space buffers on the site’s edges, undeveloped knolls with informal pedestrian trails, and a storm water detention basin with a new outfall pipe to Altamont Creek.
The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) would be prepared for the Project. The requirements for an EIR, under CEQA, are set forth in PRC 21100 and 21100.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15120 et. seq.
On November 18, 2011, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) pursuant to CEQA to obtain comments on the proposed scope of the EIR for the Garaventa Hills project. On December 7, 2011, the City held a public scoping meeting for public agencies, organizations, and members of the public to review the proposed project and provide comments on the scope of the environmental review process. On November 8, 2012, a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was issued, including notices to interested groups and individuals for a 45-day public comment period. A Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR, public comment period, and hearing date was published in a newspaper of general circulation pursuant to CEQA. On December 4, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for initial proposal. The initial proposal was for 76 homes with a second access via an extension of Hawk Street and new bridge across Altamont Creek. The proposal included a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Urban Low Residential, at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre, to Urban Low Medium Residential, at 2-3 dwelling units per acre. On December 26, 2012, the public comment period on the Draft EIR was closed.
1 Resolution No. 615 Exhibit A
On June 11, 2014, the Final EIR was distributed consisting of copies of all written and oral comments, a list of commenters, all responses to oral and written comments, and an appendix containing minor corrections of the Draft EIR. A notice of the Final EIR availability and certification recommendation hearing date was published in a newspaper of general circulation. The analysis and conclusions contained in the Final EIR reflect the independent judgment of the City.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A detailed description of the Project is included in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR and Chapter 22 of the Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). The project analyzed within the Final EIR is comprised of the following components described below.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Subdivision). The Vesting Tentative Tract Map will subdivide the site into 49 individual parcels, including 47 single-family residential lots, one parcel that is an open space buffer around the perimeter of the site and includes a storm water detention basin, and one parcel for the two knolls.
Planned Development District - Residential. The Planned Development District- Residential will establish development standards that enable flexibility in order to respond to sensitive site constraints. The development standards include provisions for setbacks, height, floor area, and open space.
Site Plan Design Review. Site Plan Design Review provides for review of the site plan, streetscape, architecture, and landscaping details.
C. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Per the analysis of environmental aspects in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would not result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.
D. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR THAT ARE REDUCED TO A LEVEL OF “LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT” BY THE MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT
The following significant impacts have been identified that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated into the Project. The significant impacts identified below are presented in summary form. For a detailed description of the significant impacts and mitigation measures, see the appropriate text in the Final EIR.
1. Air Quality
Impact Air-1: Construction Period Dust, Emissions and Odors. Construction of the Project would result in temporary emissions of dust, diesel exhaust and odors that may result in both nuisance and health impacts. Without appropriate measures to control these emissions, these impacts would be considered significant.
2 Resolution No. 616 Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure Air-1: Basic Construction Management Practices. The Project shall demonstrate proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits, including implementation of the following BAAQMD “Basic Construction Mitigation Measures”. • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
2. Biological Resources
Impact Bio-1: Loss of Annual Grasslands. The Project will result in the permanent removal of up to 31.78 acres of non-native annual grassland habitat. Non-native annual grasslands are common throughout the region and removal of this plant community is not considered a significant impact unless special status species are known to use the habitat. Because the site has the potential to support several special status species, this impact would be considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures Bio-3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b, and 5c would reduce this impact to less than significant levels through mitigation specific to the special status species that the site could support.
Impact Bio-2: Loss of Designated Critical Habitat for Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp. The Project will result in the permanent loss of up to 31.78 acres of grassland that is included within designated VPFS critical habitat. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-2: Construction-Period Protection of Offsite Wetlands and Vernal Pools. The applicant shall implement the following measures to minimize the potential impact to off-site wetlands and vernal pools resulting from construction activities on the Project site.
3 Resolution No. 617 Exhibit A
a) Stormwater Best Management Practices shall be implemented during construction activities to avoid the potential for sediments and other pollutants to enter the offsite wetland areas. b) Install fencing and signage identifying the limits of the wetlands and providing a physical barrier to keep construction equipment and personnel out of the sensitive habitat areas. c) Schedule grading in close proximity to offsite vernal pools during the non-rainy season in order to minimize potential for sedimentation of the pools. d) Fully stabilize the natural vegetated buffer between the grading area and the offsite wetlands during the early phases of construction so that it serves as a protective barrier for the wetlands.
Mitigation Measure Geo-5, which requires implementation of a construction-period stormwater pollution prevention plan including Best Management Practices for preventing construction-period stormwater pollution through soil stabilization, sediment control, wind erosion control, soil tracking control, non-storm water management, and waste management and materials pollution control, would also help to mitigate Impact Bio-2.
Impact Bio-3: Potential Take of Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp. The Project will result in the permanent loss of approximately 0.004 acre of seasonal wetland that could be occupied by VPFS. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-3a: Conduct surveys to determine presence/absence of VPFS. Complete surveys following protocol deemed acceptable by the USFWS to determine presence/absence of VPFS in the seasonal wetland on the Project site prior to initiation of construction. The presence of VPFS can be assumed instead of implementing the surveys required by this measure. If no VPFS are found, no further mitigation is required. If VPFS are found or assumed to be present, implement Mitigation Measures 2b and 2c.
Mitigation Measure Bio-3b: Obtain Authorization from USFWS for take of VPFS. If VPFS are found as a result of directed surveys or are assumed to be present, the Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS for take of VPFS prior to filling or disturbance of the seasonal wetland. USFWS authorization may be obtained through Section 7 of the ESA as a component of the USACE permitting process (see wetland impacts below).
Mitigation Measure Bio-3c: Obtain offsite compensatory habitat for loss of VPFS habitat if determined to be present. If VPFS are found as a result of directed surveys or are assumed to be present, compensatory habitat shall be provided for loss of this habitat at a 9:1, 10:1 or 11:1 mitigation ratio depending on the location of the mitigation site, as recommended in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS). Final replacement ratios shall be based on the assessed functions and values of an agency approved mitigation site.
Impact Bio-4: Loss/Disturbance of Habitat for and Potential Take of Individual California Tiger Salamanders. The Project will result in the permanent loss of up to 31.78 acres and temporary disturbance of 0.08 acre of potential upland aestivation habitat for CTS. In addition, loss of the 0.004 acre seasonal wetland could result in loss of onsite breeding habitat for CTS. This is a potentially significant impact.
4 Resolution No. 618 Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure Bio-4a: Obtain Authorization from USFWS and CDFG for potential take of CTS. The Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS and CDFG for potential take of CTS prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities.
Mitigation Measure Bio-4b: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of Potential Upland Aestivation Habitat for CTS. The compensatory habitat shall be provided at a 2.5:1 to 3:1 ratio for acres permanently lost and at a 1.5:1 ratio for areas temporarily disturbed, as recommended in the EACCS. Final replacement ratios shall be based on the assessed functions and values of an agency approved mitigation site. The mitigation site should be of sufficient quality and quantity to fully offset the permanent loss of habitat and should be permanently protected and managed in perpetuity with sufficient funding to maintain and enhance the quality of the site for CTS. Bio-4c: Implement Appropriate Measures during Construction to Minimize Potential Take of CTS. Minimization measures specified in the authorizations obtained from USFWS and CDFG shall be implemented prior to and during construction: Such measures could include the following: • Project applicant shall contract with a Designated Biologist approved by USFWS and CDFG to monitor construction activities. • All earthwork in the construction area shall be confined to the period of June 15 to October 31, or as approved by USFWS and CDFG. • A barrier with one-way ramps shall be constructed around the limits of grading in the fall prior to the initiation of construction. This barrier will allow CTS to move out of the construction area during the fall/winter and keep them from returning in the spring. • Before any construction activities begin, the Designated Biologist will conduct a training session with construction personnel to describe the CTS and its habitat, the specific measures being implemented to minimize effect to the species, and boundaries of the construction area. • The Designated Biologist shall complete walking surveys of the construction area prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities each day during the construction period. If any CTS are discovered, the Designated Biologist shall move the animal to a safe, nearby location as predetermined through consultation with USFWS and CDFG.
Impact Bio-5: Loss of Habitat for and Potential Take of Individual California Red-Legged Frogs. The Project will result in the permanent loss of up to 31.78 acres and temporary disturbance of 0.08 acre of potential upland habitat for CRLF. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-5a: Obtain Authorization from USFWS for Potential Take of CRLF. The Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS for potential take of CRLF prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities.
Mitigation Measure Bio-5b: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of Potential Upland Habitat for CRLF. The compensatory habitat shall be provided at a 2.5:1 to 3:1 ratio for the acres permanently lost and at a 1.5:1 ratio for areas temporarily disturbed, consistent with the EACCS recommendations for the species. Final replacement ratios shall be based on the assessed functions and values of an agency approved mitigation site. The mitigation site can be the same as that obtained for
5 Resolution No. 619 Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure Bio 4b, as long as there is sufficient area to provide habitat for both CRLF and CTS
Mitigation Measure Bio-5c: Implement Appropriate Measures during Construction to Minimize Potential Take of CRLF. Minimization measures specified in the authorizations obtained from USFWS shall be implemented prior to and during construction. Such measures are expected to be similar to those described for Mitigation Measure 4c.
Impact Bio-6: Loss of burrowing owl habitat and potential harm to individual burrowing owls. The Project will result in the permanent loss of up to 31.78 acres of grasslands that provide habitat for the burrowing owl. Additionally, individual owls could be harmed during construction activities if they are occupying burrows on the site. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-6a: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of potential burrowing owl habitat. The compensatory habitat to be obtained as described for Mitigation Measures Bio-4b and 5b should also be determined as occupied or suitable for burrowing owls in order to compensate for potential habitat loss resulting from the Project.
Mitigation Measure Bio-6b: Conduct a Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey. A pre- construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to initiation of any ground-disturbing activities to ensure individual owls are not harmed. If the survey occurs during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31) and owls are observed on or within 250 feet of the area of disturbance, a 250-foot buffer should be established around the occupied burrow with construction fencing. The fenced area should remain in place for the duration of the breeding season while construction activities are occurring. If the survey is conducted outside of the breeding season and owls are observed, owl eviction may be allowed if authorized by CDFG.
Impact Bio-7: Loss of Potential Habitat and Potential Harm to Individual American Badgers. The Project will result in the permanent loss of up to 31.78 acres of grassland that could provide suitable habitat for American badger. American badgers are a State Species of Special Concern and are typically found in grasslands where there is sufficient food (burrowing rodents), friable soils, and relatively open, uncultivated ground. Badgers have large home ranges, typically from about 395 to 2,100 acres, and are generally solitary aside from temporary family groups, transient mating bonds, and overlapping home ranges. No badgers or signs of badger use have been observed on the Project site. Although not observed on the Project site, there is potential for American badgers to use burrows on the property. Project construction activities could also harm individual badgers if they occupy the site when grading begins. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-7a: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of Potential American Badger Habitat. The compensatory habitat to be obtained as described for Mitigation Measures Bio-4b and 5b will also be determined as occupied or suitable for American badger to compensate for potential habitat loss resulting from the Project.
Mitigation Measure Bio-7b: Conduct a Pre-Construction American Badger Survey. A pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days
6 Resolution No. 620 Exhibit A
and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any Project activity likely to impact potential burrows. If occupied burrows are found, one of the following actions shall be implemented by the applicant:
1. Initiate an on-site passive relocation program, through which badgers are excluded from occupied burrows by installation of a one-way door in burrow entrances, monitoring of the burrow for one week to confirm badger usage has been discontinued, and hand excavation and collapse of the burrow to prevent reoccupation; or 2. Have a qualified biologist actively trap and relocate badgers to suitable off-site habitat in coordination with the CDFW.
Impact Bio-8: Loss of potential foraging habitat and potential harm to individual San Joaquin Kit Fox: The Project will result in the permanent loss of up to 31.78 acres of grassland within the historical range of SJKF. Additionally, there is a slight potential for kit fox to forage or den on the site. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-8a: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of potential SJKF habitat. The compensatory habitat to be obtained as described for Mitigation Measures Bio-4b and 5b should also be determined as occupied or suitable for SJKF in order to compensate for potential habitat loss resulting from the Project.
Mitigation Measure Bio-8b: Conduct pre-construction surveys for San Joaquin kit fox: The pre-construction survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any Project activity likely to impact the San Joaquin kit fox. • If potential dens are present, their disturbance and destruction will be avoided. • If potential dens are located within the proposed work area and cannot be avoided during construction, qualified biologist will determine if the dens are occupied or were recently occupied using methodology coordinated with the USFWS and CDFG. • If unoccupied, the qualified biologist will collapse these dens by hand in accordance with USFWS procedures (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). • Exclusion zones will be implemented following USFWS procedures (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999) or the latest USFWS procedures available at the time. The radius of these zones will follow current standards or will be as follows: Potential Den—50 feet; Known Den—100 feet; Natal or Pupping Den—to be determined on a case‐by‐case basis in coordination with USFWS and CDFG. • Pipes will be capped and trenches will contain exit ramps to avoid direct mortality while construction area is active.
Impact Bio-9: Loss of Potential Habitat for and Potential Harm to Western Spadefoot Toad: The Project will result in the permanent loss of 0.004 acre of potential breeding habitat for western spadefoot toad and up to about 31 acres of potential burrowing habitat. Additionally, there is a slight potential for individual western spadefoot toads to be harmed during construction activities. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-9: Conduct a pre-construction survey for western spadefoot toad. A survey for western spadefoot toad shall be conducted by a qualified biologist a
7 Resolution No. 621 Exhibit A
maximum of one week prior to construction. The survey should include the potential breeding habitat and an area within 50 feet of that habitat. If a western spadefoot toad is found, the biologist shall move it to suitable habitat in a safe location outside of the construction zone. In the event that a western spadefoot toad is observed within an active construction zone, the contractor shall temporarily halt construction activities until a biologist has moved the toad to a safe location outside the construction zone, within similar habitat.
Impact Bio-10: Disturbance of Nesting Birds. Construction activities could adversely affect nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or Fish and Game Code of California. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio-10: Conduct a Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Pre- construction surveys for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game Code of California shall be conducted within 30 days of initiation of construction activities. The survey area shall include the Project site and areas within 100 feet of the site. If active nests are found, the Project shall follow recommendations of a qualified biologist regarding the appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity. The buffer shall be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. If there is a complete stoppage in construction activities for 30 days or more, a new nesting-survey shall be completed prior to re-initiation of construction activities.
Impact Bio-11: Fill of Jurisdictional Wetlands: The proposed activity will permanently impact approximately 0.004 acre of seasonal wetland habitat. This area is jurisdictional waters/wetlands. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Bio11a: Obtain authorization from USACE, CDFG and RWQCB for fill of wetlands and alteration of Altamont Creek. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the USACE, CDFG and RWQCB pursuant to §404 of the Clean Water Act, §1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, and §401 of the Clean Water Act, respectively.
Mitigation Measure Bio-11c: Re-creation of 0.004 Acre of Seasonal Wetland. The applicant shall create a minimum of 0.004 acre of seasonal wetland habitat either onsite or offsite to replace the area lost through Project construction. Creation of this habitat shall be done in consultation with USFWS if the existing seasonal wetland is found to support VPFS (see Mitigation Measure Bio-4c).
3. Cultural Resources
Impact Culture-1: Disturbance of Unidentified Archaeological Resources, Paleontological Resources or Human Remains. During earth-moving activities at the Project site, it is possible that unidentified archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains could be uncovered and disturbed. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Culture-1a: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In the event that previously unidentified historical resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a
8 Resolution No. 622 Exhibit A qualified archaeologist, and specific mitigation measures can be implemented to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code.
Mitigation Measure Culture-1b: Prepare Mitigation Plan, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. Because of the high potential for unique paleontological resources within the Project area, a qualified professional Paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Mitigation Plan outlining a paleontological monitoring plan and a salvage plan to be implemented during construction excavation and other ground-disturbing activities for the Project. The Paleontological Mitigation Plan should include the following: in the event that previously unidentified paleontological resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified Paleontologist, and specific mitigation measures can be implemented to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code.
Mitigation Measure Culture-1c: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, and appropriate action taken in coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or, if the remains are Native American, section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code.
4. Geology and Soils
Impact Geo-2: Seismic Hazards. The Project is located in a seismically active region and likely to be subject to strong seismic shaking during the life of the improvements. The potential for liquefaction is considered to be low, though densification and lateral spreading is possible. The impact related to seismic hazards would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure Geo-2: Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper slope and foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer. The structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code.
Impact Geo-3: Unstable Soils and Slope Stability. The topography and soils at the Project site represents a concern for unstable soils and landslides if not properly mitigated. The impact related to unstable soils and landslides would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure Geo-2 would also serve to mitigate Impact Geo-3 through requiring compliance with a design-level geotechnical investigation and recommendations.
9 Resolution No. 623 Exhibit A
Impact Geo-4: Expansive Soils. The Project proposes deep fill in some locations that could result in swell/settlement if not properly mitigated. The impact related to expansive soils would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure Geo-2 would also serve to mitigate Impact Geo-4 through requiring compliance with a design-level geotechnical investigation and recommendations.
Impact Geo-5: Construction-Period Soil Erosion. Grading and construction activities will expose soil to the elements, which would be subject to erosion during storm events. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Geo-5: Construction-Period Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The Project applicant shall prepare and implement a SWPPP for the proposed construction period. The SWPPP and Notice of Intent (NOI) must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board to receive a Construction General Permit. The plan shall address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, include applicable monitoring, sampling and reporting, and be designed to protect water quality during construction. The Project SWPPP shall include “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) as required by the State and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for preventing stormwater pollution through soil stabilization, sediment control, wind erosion control, soil tracking control, non-storm water management, and waste management and materials pollution control.
The SWPPP shall take into account the following considerations recommended by the preliminary geotechnical report: • Ponding of stormwater, other than within engineered detention basins, should not be permitted at the site, particularly during work stoppage for rainy weather. Before the grading is halted by rain, positive slopes should be provided to carry surface runoff to storm drainage structures in a controlled manner to prevent erosion damage. • The tops of fill or cut slopes should be graded in such a way as to prevent water from flowing freely down the slopes. Due to the nature of the site soil and bedrock, graded slopes may experience severe erosion when grading is halted by heavy rain. Therefore, before work is stopped, a positive gradient away from the tops of slopes should be provided to carry the surface runoff away from the slopes to areas where erosion can be controlled. It is vital that no completed slope be left standing through a winter season without erosion control measures having been provided. • Because the existing bedrock is relatively nutrient-poor, it may be difficult for vegetation to become properly established, resulting in a potential for slope erosion. Revegetation of graded slopes can be aided by retaining the organic- rich strippings and spreading these materials in a thin layer (approximately 6 inches thick) on the graded slopes prior to the winter rains and following rough grading. When utilizing this method, it is sometimes possible to minimize hydroseeding.
5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1:Increased GHG Emissions. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would be additional sources of GHG emissions, primarily through consumption of
10 Resolution No. 624 Exhibit A
fuel for transportation and energy usage on an ongoing basis. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Increased Energy Efficiency. The Project shall demonstrate proposed energy efficiency at least 16% greater than Title 24 requirements prior to issuance of building permits.
Impact GHG-2: Compliance with Livermore Climate Change Element. The Project plans are not detailed enough at this stage to determine consistency with best management practices included in the Climate Change Element of the Livermore General Plan. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure GHG-2: GHG Emissions Reduction Best Management Practices (BMPs). The Project shall demonstrate proposed compliance with City of Livermore General Plan Climate Change Element BMPs prior to issuance of building permits, including the following. If the City’s Climate Action Plan is approved prior to issuance of permits, requirements of the Climate Action Plan can be substituted for the BMPs below. • Climate BMP No. 1 – Energy-efficient buildings in compliance with the Livermore Green Building Ordinance. • Climate BMP No. 2 – Use of energy-efficient appliances that meet Energy Star standards. • Climate BMP No. 3 – Incorporate solar roofs into commercial development. Residential development to be “solar-ready” including proper solar orientation (south facing roof area sloped at 20° to 55° from the horizontal),clear access on the south sloped roof (no chimneys, heating vents, plumbing vents, etc.), electrical conduit installed for solar electric system wiring, plumbing installed for solar hot water system, and space provided for a solar hot water storage tank. • Climate BMP No. 4 – Incorporate transit and bicycle/pedestrian connections into development. • Climate BMP No. 5 – has been omitted as it applies only to Commercial/Industrial projects. • Climate BMP No. 6 – has been omitted as it applies to parking lots and structures. • Climate BMP No. 7 – In compliance with the Construction and Demolition Ordinance, recycle construction materials and divert construction waste from disposal as feasible. • Climate BMP No. 8 – Include recycling facilities to provide for commercial and/or community recycling of plastic, paper, green waste, and food waste. • Climate BMP No. 9 –Incorporate “heat island” treatments including cool roofs, cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees. • Climate BMP No. 10 –Use landscaping that meets the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact Haz-2: Oil Seepage Possibility. Because there are oil seepage issues on a nearby site, it is possible, though unlikely, that near-surface oil could exist on the Project site. The possibility of future oil seepage from near-surface oil is a potentially significant impact.
11 Resolution No. 625 Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure Haz-2: Confirm Absence of Near Surface Oil or Implement Overexcavation. The absence of naturally occurring oil should be confirmed during grading of the site. If oil is encountered during grading, the following overexcavation shall be implemented:
• The area where naturally occurring near surface oil is encountered shall be overexcavated a minimum of 10 feet below proposed finish grade and replaced with engineered fill. This will provide a low permeable fill cap to prevent the upward migration of oil. • Where proposed storm drain lines cross areas where naturally occurring near surface oil is encountered, the area shall be overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet beyond the outside diameter of the proposed storm drain line. The excavation should be backfilled with engineered fill and the storm drain line trenched through the fill. The storm drain trench within the previously overexcavated and backfilled area should be lined with 20 mil visqueen prior to placement of shading and the storm drain line
7. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact Hydro-1: Construction-Period Erosion and Siltation. Construction of the proposed Project would involve grading activities that would disturb soils at the site. Such disturbance would present a threat of soil erosion by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to runoff during construction, which could result in siltation to receiving waters. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Geo-5, which requires implementation of a construction-period stormwater pollution prevention plan including Best Management Practices for preventing construction-period stormwater pollution through soil stabilization, sediment control, wind erosion control, soil tracking control, non-storm water management, and waste management and materials pollution control, would also mitigate Impact Hydro-1.
8. Traffic/Transportation
Impact Traf-10: Laughlin Road & Northfront Road Intersection. The addition of Project trips would have a cumulatively considerable impact on the delay at an intersection already projected to operate below acceptable levels (an increase of 5.2 seconds of average delay during the PM peak hour under Cumulative Plus Project conditions). This is a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Traf-10: Laughlin Road & Northfront Road Intersection Improvements. The Project shall contribute a fair share amount to improvements at this intersection, as determined by the City of Livermore Community Development Department. The improvements shall consist of either A) or B) below, again as determined in coordination with the City of Livermore Community Development Department:
12 Resolution No. 626 Exhibit A
a) Roundabout. Install a roundabout with yield-control at all three intersection legs. The current vehicle lane configuration would remain, but right-of-way may need to be expanded to accommodate traffic movements through the intersection. or b) Signal Control. Signalize the intersection. The current vehicle lane configuration would need to be altered from the existing one lane in each direction to include a left-turn pocket in the eastbound direction and a right-turn pocket in the westbound direction. Right-of-way may need to be expanded to accommodate the turn-pocket lanes at the intersection.
E. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR
The Final EIR identifies the following less than significant impacts. The less than significant impacts identified below are presented in summary form. For a detailed description of the less than significant impacts, see the appropriate text in the Final EIR.
The analysis in this EIR identifies the following environmental effects to be less than significant.
1. Aesthetics 2. Agricultural, Forest and Mineral Resources 3. Cultural Resources 4. Land Use and Planning 5. Noise 6. Population, Public Services and Recreation 7. Utilities/Service Systems
F. OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENTS
1. Growth-Inducing Impacts There are two types of growth-inducing impacts that a project may have: direct and indirect. To assess the potential for growth-inducing impacts, the project’s characteristics that may encourage and facilitate activities that individually or cumulatively may affect the environment must be evaluated (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)).
Direct growth-inducing impacts occur when the development of a project imposes new burdens on a community by directly inducing population growth, or by leading to the construction of additional developments in the same area. Also included in this category are projects that remove physical obstacles to population growth (such as a new road into an undeveloped area or a wastewater treatment plant with excess capacity that could allow additional development in the service area). Construction of these types of infrastructure projects cannot be considered isolated from the development they facilitate and serve. Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth, or projects that indirectly induce growth may provide a catalyst for future unrelated development in an area such as a new residential community that requires additional commercial uses to support residents.
13 Resolution No. 627 Exhibit A
The Garaventa Hills Project would develop 47 dwelling units.Using the City of Livermore’s 2013 persons per housing rate of 2.81 (as reported by the California Department of Finance), the Garaventa Hills project would add 132 persons. The City of Livermore’s 2013 population was reported to be 83,325 by the California Department of Finance; thus, the addition of 132 persons would represent an increase of 0.16 percent. This amount of population growth is considered negligible; therefore, direct population growth would be less than significant. Additionally, the project sites are currently served by urban infrastructure and utilities; thus, development of the proposed projects would not remove a physical barrier to growth. No impacts would occur.
2. Cumulative Impacts CEQA defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects, which, when considered together, are considerable, or which can compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential environmental impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively significant. These impacts can result from the proposed project alone, or together with other projects. The CEQA Guidelines state: “The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.” Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
The proposed projects’ cumulative impacts were considered in conjunction with other proposed and approved projects in the Livermore area. Based on the analyses in the Draft EIR, the proposed project will not result in cumulatively significant impacts, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, in the following areas: air quality/greenhouse gas emissions; biological resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; noise; and utility systems.
G. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
When making findings, the lead agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the mitigation measures it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Report program for the Project included as Exhibit A to these findings. The mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to reduce significant impacts and adopted and incorporated in to the Project will be monitored pursuant to this monitoring program.
H. ALTERNATIVES
The Final EIR includes two alternatives to the original proposal: Alternative A: No Project, No Development Alternative; and Alternative B: Reduced Density, Current General Plan Allowance Alternative. Alternative A assumes no development of the site. Alternative B assumes development of the site consistent with the current General Plan designation of Urban Low Density (UL-1) at 1-1.5 dwelling units per acre. After considering public comments on the Draft EIR and the statements given by neighboring homeowners at a number of Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the
14 Resolution No. 628 Exhibit A
applicant has chosen to proceed with developing the site generally consistent with the Alternative B.
Project Objectives. The objectives for the proposed project include:
1. Complete implementation of current Planned Development zoning designation that reflects the Project site’s inclusion in the Planned Unit Development Permit (PUD 115-A) for the Maralisa development, which indicated development with a maximum of 76 single-family homes. 2. Contribute to housing availability to accommodate Livermore’s growing population and to help satisfy Livermore’s share of regional housing needs. 3. Provide housing near Livermore and Tri-Valley employment centers within the existing City Boundary and North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary. 4. Provide a high-quality residential neighborhood that is compatible and integrated with existing nearby residential, park, school and open space uses. 5. Provide adequate access to the site for safety purposes while minimizing environmental impacts and satisfying natural resource and flood control regulatory agencies. 6. Provide buffers as a separation and natural transition from adjacent open space and habitat to urban development. 7. Conserve the two prominent knolls as visual resources for the community. 8. Retain public access to trails around the knolls as a public amenity for hiking and vista views.
Alternatives. The following alternatives to the proposed project are considered in the EIR:
Alternative A: No Project, No Development Alternative. Alternative A is a “no project” alternative. It assumes the proposed Project is not approved and the site would remain in an undeveloped state, with no development of roadways or residences.
Alternative B: Reduced Density, Current General Plan Allowance Alternative. Alternative B assumes the Project site is developed consistent with the current “UL-1” (Urban Low Residential 1-1.5 dwelling units per acres) General Plan designation. Given this current General Plan designation, the Project site could be developed with another residential project, which could result in the same or greater impacts than the proposed project. Specifically, this alternative assumes 47 residential units would be constructed on the 31.7-acre site (at approximately 1.5 units per acre). This is 62% of the units proposed under the Project. A residential development at these lower densities would likely be comprised of larger lots covering a similar area as under the Project.
Conclusion on Alternatives
No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified under the proposed Project. All Project impacts are either less than significant or can be reduced to those levels through implementation of the mitigation contained in this Draft EIR. Because of the low impact of the proposed Project, differences between it and the Alternatives are marginal and limited to reductions in already less than significant impacts.
The Draft EIR identifies the No Project, No Development Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative since it proposes no changes to the site. However,
15 Resolution No. 629 Exhibit A
this alternative would not advance any project objectives, including the contribution of homes to accommodate Livermore’s growing population and regional housing needs, and to provide housing near Tri-Valley employment centers within the existing City Boundary and North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary.
The CEQA Guidelines also require that “if the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives.
The Reduced Density, Current General Plan Density Alternative is the next most environmentally superior alternative with the lower density contributing to reduced impacts related to both the construction period and operational period. Alternative B would result in marginal reductions in already less than significant impacts, requiring mostly the same mitigation. The Reduced Density, Current General Plan Allowance Alternative meets all of the Project Objectives.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the City Council sees no reason to turn down the project as proposed, as it is consistent with the General Plan and consistent with stated project objectives. The No Project Alternative does not meet the objectives of proposed project.
I. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth above, there are no significant adverse environmental impacts which are identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, a statement of overriding considerations is not required for approval of the proposed project.
J. RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
No new or substantial changes to the EIR were proposed as a result of the public comment process. The Final EIR responds to comments and makes only minor technical changes, clarifications or additions to the EIR. The minor changes, clarifications, and additions to the EIR do not identify any new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts. Therefore, recirculation of the EIR is not required.
K. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council base their findings and decisions contained herein. Documents related to this Project are located in the Livermore Community Development Department, Planning Division, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, CA.
L. SUMMARY
1. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City has made one or more other following findings with respect to each of the significant effects of the Project:
16 Resolution No. 630 Exhibit A
a. Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
b. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that agency.
c. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, economic or other considerations made infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
2. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, it is determined that all significant effects on the environmental due to the approval of the proposed project have been eliminated or substantially lessened.
17 Resolution No. 631 EXHIBIT B
LIVERMORE GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
Air-1: Basic Construction Management Practices. The Project shall Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify requirements Livermore demonstrate proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and demolition, building Developer are included in Community operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading or grading permits construction Development permits, including implementation of the following BAAQMD “Basic contracts and are Department Construction Mitigation Measures”. met during • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, construction graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Bio-2: Construction-Period Protection of Offsite Wetlands and Vernal Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify requirements Livermore Pools. The applicant shall implement the following measures to minimize demolition, building Developer are included in Community the potential impact to off-site wetlands and vernal pools resulting from or grading permits construction Development construction activities on the Project site. contracts and are Department
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 1 632 EXHIBIT B
Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
a) Stormwater Best Management Practices shall be implemented during met during construction activities to avoid the potential for sediments and other construction pollutants to enter the offsite wetland areas. b) Install fencing and signage identifying the limits of the wetlands and providing a physical barrier to keep construction equipment and personnel out of the sensitive habitat areas. c) Schedule grading in close proximity to offsite vernal pools during the non-rainy season in order to minimize potential for sedimentation of the pools. d) Stabilize the natural vegetated buffer between the grading area and the offsite wetlands during the early phases of construction so that it serves as a protective barrier for the wetlands. Stabilization can be accomplished through establishment of vegetation and/or temporary Best Management Practices to prevent erosion and sedimentation from occurring, such as erosion control mats, silt fences, fiber rolls, and/or soil binders.
Bio-3a: Conduct surveys to determine presence/absence of VPFS. Prior to initiation of Applicant / Verify survey was Livermore Complete surveys following protocol deemed acceptable by the USFWS site disturbance Developer performed and, if Community to determine presence/absence of VPFS in the seasonal wetland on the VPFS present, Development Project site prior to initiation of construction. The presence of VPFS can verify USFWS Department be assumed instead of implementing the surveys required by this measure. authorization and If no VPFS are found, no further mitigation is required. If VPFS are found compensatory or assumed to be present, implement Mitigation Measures 3b and 3c. habitat decided.
Bio-3b: Obtain Authorization from USFWS for take of VPFS. If VPFS are found as a result of directed surveys or are assumed to be present, the Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS for take of VPFS prior to filling or disturbance of the seasonal wetland. USFWS authorization may be obtained through Section 7 of the ESA as a component of the USACE permitting process (see wetland impacts below).
Bio-3c: Obtain offsite compensatory habitat for loss of VPFS habitat if determined to be present. If VPFS are found as a result of directed surveys or are assumed to be present, compensatory habitat shall be provided for loss of this habitat at a 9:1, 10:1 or 11:1 mitigation ratio depending on the location of the mitigation site, as recommended in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS). Final
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 2 633 EXHIBIT B
Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
replacement ratios shall be based on the assessed functions and values of an agency approved mitigation site.
Bio-4a: Obtain Authorization from USFWS and CDFG for potential take Prior to initiation of Applicant / Verify USFWS and Livermore of CTS. The Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS site disturbance Developer CDFG authorization Community and CDFG for potential take of CTS prior to initiation of any ground and compensatory Development disturbance activities. habitat decided and Department construction Bio-4b: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of minimization Potential Upland Aestivation Habitat for CTS. The compensatory habitat measures included shall be provided at a 2.5:1 to 3:1 ratio for acres permanently lost and at a in construction 1.5:1 ratio for areas temporarily disturbed, as recommended in the contracts. EACCS. Final replacement ratios shall be based on the assessed functions and values of an agency approved mitigation site. The mitigation site should be of sufficient quality and quantity to fully offset the permanent loss of habitat and should be permanently protected and managed in perpetuity with sufficient funding to maintain and enhance the quality of the site for CTS.
Bio-4c: Implement Appropriate Measures during Construction to Minimize Potential Take of CTS. Minimization measures specified in the authorizations obtained from USFWS and CDFG shall be implemented prior to and during construction: Such measures could include the following: • Project applicant shall contract with a Designated Biologist approved by USFWS and CDFG to monitor construction activities. • All earthwork in the construction area shall be confined to the period of June 15 to October 31, or as approved by USFWS and CDFG. • A barrier with one-way ramps shall be constructed around the limits of grading in the fall prior to the initiation of construction. This barrier will allow CTS to move out of the construction area during the fall/winter and keep them from returning in the spring. • Before any construction activities begin, the Designated Biologist will conduct a training session with construction personnel to describe the CTS and its habitat, the specific measures being implemented to minimize effect to the species, and boundaries of the construction area. • The Designated Biologist shall complete walking surveys of the construction area prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities each
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 3 634 EXHIBIT B
Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
day during the construction period. If any CTS are discovered, the Designated Biologist shall move the animal to a safe, nearby location as predetermined through consultation with USFWS and CDFG.
Bio-5a: Obtain Authorization from USFWS for Potential Take of CRLF. Prior to initiation of Applicant / Verify USFWS Livermore The Project applicant shall obtain authorization from USFWS for site disturbance Developer authorization and Community potential take of CRLF prior to initiation of any ground disturbance compensatory Development activities. habitat decided and Department construction Bio-5b: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of minimization Potential Upland Habitat for CRLF. The compensatory habitat shall be measures included provided at a 2.5:1 to 3:1 ratio for the acres permanently lost and at a 1:1 in construction ratio for areas temporarily disturbed, consistent with the EACCS contracts. recommendations for the species. Final replacement ratios shall be based on the assessed functions and values of an agency approved mitigation site. The mitigation site can be the same as that obtained for Mitigation Measure Bio 4b, as long as there is sufficient area to provide habitat for both CRLF and CTS.
Bio-5c: Implement Appropriate Measures during Construction to Minimize Potential Take of CRLF. Minimization measures specified in the authorizations obtained from USFWS shall be implemented prior to and during construction. Such measures are expected to be similar to those described for Mitigation Measure 4c.
Bio-6a: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of Within 30 days prior Applicant / Verify survey was Livermore potential burrowing owl habitat. The compensatory habitat to be obtained to initiation of site Developer performed and Community as described for Mitigation Measures Bio-4b and 5b should also be disturbance verify compensatory Development determined as occupied or suitable for burrowing owls in order to habitat decided and, Department compensate for potential habitat loss resulting from the Project. if required, appropriate buffers Bio-6b: Conduct a Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey. A pre- are included in construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 construction days prior to initiation of any ground-disturbing activities to ensure contracts. individual owls are not harmed. If the survey occurs during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31) and owls are observed on or within 250 feet of the area of disturbance, a 250-foot buffer should be established around the occupied burrow with construction fencing. The fenced area
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 4 635 EXHIBIT B
Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
should remain in place for the duration of the breeding season while construction activities are occurring. If the survey is conducted outside of the breeding season and owls are observed, owl eviction may be allowed if authorized by CDFG.
Bio-7a: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of 14 to 30 days prior to Applicant / Verify survey was Livermore Potential American Badger Habitat. The compensatory habitat to be initiation of site Developer performed and Community obtained as described for Mitigation Measures Bio-4b and -5b will also be disturbance verify compensatory Development determined as occupied or suitable for American badger to compensate habitat decided and, Department for potential habitat loss resulting from the Project. if required, relocation has Bio-7b: Conduct a Pre-Construction American Badger Survey. A pre- occurred. construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any Project activity likely to impact potential burrows. If occupied burrows are found, one of the following actions shall be implemented by the applicant: 1. Initiate an on-site passive relocation program, through which badgers are excluded from occupied burrows by installation of a one-way door in burrow entrances, monitoring of the burrow for one week to confirm badger usage has been discontinued, and hand excavation and collapse of the burrow to prevent reoccupation; or 2. Have a qualified biologist actively trap and relocate badgers to suitable off-site habitat in coordination with the CDFG.
Bio-8a: Obtain Offsite Compensatory Habitat for Loss/Disturbance of 14 to 30 days prior to Applicant / Verify survey was Livermore potential SJKF habitat. The compensatory habitat to be obtained as initiation of site Developer performed and Community described for Mitigation Measures Bio-4b and 5b should also be disturbance verify compensatory Development determined as occupied or suitable for SJKF in order to compensate for habitat decided and, Department potential habitat loss resulting from the Project. if required, that avoidance or Bio-8b: Conduct pre-construction surveys for San Joaquin kit fox: The exclusion zones are pre-construction survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist no included in less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of construction ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any Project activity contracts. likely to impact the San Joaquin kit fox. • If potential dens are present, their disturbance and destruction will be avoided.
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 5 636 EXHIBIT B
Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
• If potential dens are located within the proposed work area and cannot be avoided during construction, qualified biologist will determine if the dens are occupied or were recently occupied using methodology coordinated with the USFWS and CDFG. • If unoccupied, the qualified biologist will collapse these dens by hand in accordance with USFWS procedures (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). • Exclusion zones will be implemented following USFWS procedures (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999) or the latest USFWS procedures available at the time. The radius of these zones will follow current standards or will be as follows: Potential Den—50 feet; Known Den— 100 feet; Natal or Pupping Den—to be determined on a case‐by‐case basis in coordination with USFWS and CDFG. • Pipes will be capped and trenches will contain exit ramps to avoid direct mortality while construction area is active.
Bio-9: Conduct a pre-construction survey for western spadefoot toad. A Within one week Applicant / Verify survey was Livermore survey for western spadefoot toad shall be conducted by a qualified prior to initiation of Developer performed and, if Community biologist a maximum of one week prior to construction. The survey site disturbance required, relocation Development should include the potential breeding habitat and an area within 50 feet of has occurred. Verify Department that habitat. If a western spadefoot toad is found, the biologist shall move training of it to suitable habitat in a safe location outside of the construction zone. In construction the event that a western spadefoot toad is observed within an active workers and halt construction zone, the contractor shall temporarily halt construction requirement is activities until a biologist has moved the toad to a safe location outside the included in construction zone, within similar habitat. construction contracts.
Bio-10: Conduct a Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Pre- Within 30 days prior Applicant / Verify survey was Livermore construction surveys for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird to initiation or Developer performed and, if Community Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game Code of California shall be resumption of required, buffer Development conducted within 30 days of initiation of construction activities. The construction activities zones are included Department survey area shall include the Project site and areas within 100 feet of the in construction site. If active nests are found, the Project shall follow recommendations of contracts. a qualified biologist regarding the appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity. The buffer shall be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. If there is a complete stoppage in construction activities for 30 days or more, a new nesting-survey shall be completed
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 6 637 EXHIBIT B
Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
prior to re-initiation of construction activities.
Bio11a: Obtain authorization from USACE, CDFG and RWQCB for fill Prior to initiation of Applicant / Verify USFWS/ Livermore of wetlands and alteration of Altamont Creek. The applicant shall obtain site disturbance Developer CDFG/ RWQCB Community the necessary permits from the USACE, CDFG and RWQCB pursuant to authorization and Development §404 of the Clean Water Act, §1602 of the California Fish and Game wetland re-creation. Department Code, and §401 of the Clean Water Act, respectively.
(Bio-11b: Not applicable to revised project)
Bio-11c: Re-creation of 0.004 Acre of Seasonal Wetland. The applicant shall create a minimum of 0.004 acre of seasonal wetland habitat either onsite or offsite to replace the area lost through Project construction. Creation of this habitat shall be done in consultation with USFWS if the existing seasonal wetland is found to support VPFS (see Mitigation Measure Bio-4c).
Culture-1a: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify requirements Livermore Mitigation. In the event that previously unidentified historical resources demolition, building Developer are included in Community are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction or grading permits construction Development activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until then during contracts and track Department the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist, and construction if outcome if triggered specific mitigation measures can be implemented to protect these triggered resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code.
Culture-1b: Prepare Mitigation Plan, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. Because of the high potential for unique paleontological resources within the Project area, a qualified professional Paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Mitigation Plan outlining a paleontological monitoring plan and a salvage plan to be implemented during construction excavation and other ground-disturbing activities for the Project. The Paleontological Mitigation Plan should include the following: in the event that previously unidentified paleontological resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified Paleontologist, and specific mitigation measures can be implemented to
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 7 638 EXHIBIT B
Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code.
Culture-1c: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, and appropriate action taken in coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or, if the remains are Native American, section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code.
Geo-2: Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation report Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify completion Livermore prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural building or grading Developer of report and Community Design Plans as prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper permits adherence of Development slope and foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in structural design Department accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical plans to the report Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer. The structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code.
Geo-5: Construction-Period Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verification of Livermore (SWPPP). The Project applicant shall prepare and implement a SWPPP building or grading Developer Construction Community for the proposed construction period. The SWPPP and Notice of Intent permits and ongoing General Permit from Development (NOI) must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board to during construction the State Water Department receive a Construction General Permit. The plan shall address National Resources Control Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, include Board and inclusion applicable monitoring, sampling and reporting, and be designed to protect of BMPs in water quality during construction. The Project SWPPP shall include “Best construction Management Practices” (BMPs) as required by the State and the Regional contracts. Water Quality Control Board for preventing stormwater pollution through soil stabilization, sediment control, wind erosion control, soil tracking control, non-storm water management, and waste management and materials pollution control. The SWPPP shall take into account the following considerations recommended by the preliminary geotechnical report:
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 8 639 EXHIBIT B
Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
• Ponding of stormwater, other than within engineered detention basins, should not be permitted at the site, particularly during work stoppage for rainy weather. Before the grading is halted by rain, positive slopes should be provided to carry surface runoff to storm drainage structures in a controlled manner to prevent erosion damage. • The tops of fill or cut slopes should be graded in such a way as to prevent water from flowing freely down the slopes. Due to the nature of the site soil and bedrock, graded slopes may experience severe erosion when grading is halted by heavy rain. Therefore, before work is stopped, a positive gradient away from the tops of slopes should be provided to carry the surface runoff away from the slopes to areas where erosion can be controlled. It is vital that no completed slope be left standing through a winter season without erosion control measures having been provided. • Because the existing bedrock is relatively nutrient-poor, it may be difficult for vegetation to become properly established, resulting in a potential for slope erosion. Revegetation of graded slopes can be aided by retaining the organic-rich strippings and spreading these materials in a thin layer (approximately 6 inches thick) on the graded slopes prior to the winter rains and following rough grading. When utilizing this method, it is sometimes possible to minimize hydroseeding.
GHG-1: Increased Energy Efficiency. The Project shall demonstrate Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify energy Livermore proposed energy efficiency at least 16% greater than Title 24 construction permits Developer efficiency Community requirements prior to issuance of building permits. calculations for Development construction plans. Department
GHG-2: GHG Emissions Reduction Best Management Practices (BMPs). Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify inclusion of Livermore The Project shall demonstrate proposed compliance with City of construction permits Developer BMPs in Community Livermore General Plan Climate Change Element BMPs prior to issuance construction plans. Development of building permits, including the following. If the City’s Climate Action Department Plan is approved prior to issuance of permits, requirements of the Climate Action Plan can be substituted for the BMPs below. • Climate BMP No. 1 – Energy-efficient buildings in compliance with the Livermore Green Building Ordinance. • Climate BMP No. 2 – Use of energy-efficient appliances that meet Energy Star standards. • Climate BMP No. 3 – Incorporate solar roofs into commercial development. Residential development to be “solar-ready” including
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 9 640 EXHIBIT B
Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
proper solar orientation (south facing roof area sloped at 20° to 55° from the horizontal),clear access on the south sloped roof (no chimneys, heating vents, plumbing vents, etc.), electrical conduit installed for solar electric system wiring, plumbing installed for solar hot water system, and space provided for a solar hot water storage tank. • Climate BMP No. 4 – Incorporate transit and bicycle/pedestrian connections into development. • Climate BMP No. 5 – has been omitted as it applies only to Commercial/Industrial projects. • Climate BMP No. 6 – has been omitted as it applies to parking lots and structures. • Climate BMP No. 7 – In compliance with the Construction and Demolition Ordinance, recycle construction materials and divert construction waste from disposal as feasible. • Climate BMP No. 8 – Include recycling facilities to provide for commercial and/or community recycling of plastic, paper, green waste, and food waste. • Climate BMP No. 9 –Incorporate “heat island” treatments including cool roofs, cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees. • Climate BMP No. 10 –Use landscaping that meets the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
Haz-2: Confirm Absence of Near Surface Oil or Implement Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify measures to Livermore Overexcavation. The absence of naturally occurring oil should be grading permits and Developer be implemented in Community confirmed during grading of the site. If oil is encountered during grading, during grading the event of near Development the following overexcavation shall be implemented: surface oil Department • The area where naturally occurring near surface oil is encountered encounters are shall be overexcavated a minimum of 10 feet below proposed finish included in grade and replaced with engineered fill. This will provide a low construction permeable fill cap to prevent the upward migration of oil. contracts. • Where proposed storm drain lines cross areas where naturally occurring near surface oil is encountered, the area shall be overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet beyond the outside diameter of the proposed storm drain line. The excavation should be backfilled with engineered fill and the storm drain line trenched through the fill. The storm drain trench within the previously overexcavated and backfilled area should be lined with 20 mil visqueen prior to placement of
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 10 641 EXHIBIT B
Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
shading and the storm drain line. • In every case the utility lines shall be designed to be airtight to prevent potential oil from entering the utility lines. • Any stormwater underdrains shall be shallow or eliminated in areas of potential oil seepage. • If oil is encountered then an oil/water separator shall be installed to treat stormwater prior to entering the creek. • A Community Facilities District, or other funding mechanism approved by the City, shall be formed in order to fund remedies to public infrastructure and utilities in the event oil seepage occurs after construction of the Project.
Traf-5: Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses. The Prior to issuance of Applicant/ Verify Livermore Project’s on-site transportation elements, such as sight distances, construction permits. Developer in recommended Community driveway locations, and marked crosswalk locations, have been reviewed Coordination with design features are Development by the Livermore staff with design-level project approvals and meet Livermore included in final Department applicable local regulations. The following design details are Community designs. recommended, though final details will be determined through Development consultation with Livermore staff, taking into consideration constraints of Department the site: a) The stem of each intersection should be stop-controlled or contain other intersection controls. b) Livermore thoroughfare standards should be followed, which could involve narrowed vehicle lanes, widened sidewalks, reduced corner radii, and installation of corner bulb-outs. Narrower vehicle travel lanes and tighter corner radii with bulb-outs are associated with lower vehicle travel speeds, increased visibility between pedestrians and motorists, and reduce pedestrian roadway exposure. c) The mid-block trail crossings on Street A between Lot D and Lot B, and on Street B between Lot A and Lot B should be marked with warning signs and a high-visibility crosswalk and include bulb-outs and lighting to enhance pedestrian visibility. d) According to Livermore’s Municipal Code 3-15-050, driveways should be located more than 20 feet from the corners.
Traf-6: Emergency Access. The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify inclusion of Livermore has reviewed the Revised Project. Conditions of approval for the Vesting construction permits Developer conditions of Community Tentative Tract Map include additional design features and measures approval in plans. Development
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 11 642 EXHIBIT B
Verification Implementation Mitigation Measures Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Date/Initials Responsibility
necessary for emergency response. Department
Traf-7: City Review of Construction Plan. It is expected that the Prior to issuance of Applicant/ Review Livermore construction plan will be reviewed by the City of Livermore and designed construction permits. Developer in construction-period Community to meet applicable regulations. Coordination with traffic plan. Development Livermore Department Community Development Department
Traf-10: Laughlin Road & Northfront Road Intersection Improvements. Prior to issuance of Applicant / Verify Livermore The Project shall contribute a fair share amount to improvements at this certificate of Developer in improvements have Community intersection, as determined by the City of Livermore Community occupancy permits for Coordination with been implemented. Development Development Department. The improvements shall consist of either A) or residences. Livermore Department B) below, again as determined in coordination with the City of Livermore Community Community Development Department: Development A) Roundabout. Install a roundabout with yield-control at all three Department intersection legs. The current vehicle lane configuration would remain, but right-of-way may need to be expanded to accommodate traffic movements through the intersection. OR B) Signal Control. Signalize the intersection. The current vehicle lane configuration would need to be altered from the existing one lane in each direction to include a left-turn pocket in the eastbound direction and a right-turn pocket in the westbound direction. Right-of-way may need to be expanded to accommodate the turn-pocket lanes at the intersection.
GARAVENTA HILLS PROJECT MMRP PAGE 12 643 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION 13-001 (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8094) AND SITE PLAN DESIGN REVIEW 13-005 (GARAVENTA HILLS)
At a public hearing on August 18, 2015, the Planning Commission considered an application by Livermore LT Ventures I Group, LLC to develop 47 residential units, preserve open space buffers and two on-site knolls, and a stormwater detention basin on approximately 32± acres located east of North Vasco Road, North of Garaventa Ranch Road/Altamont Creek Drive, and West of Laughlin Road.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed development, and determined that the project is consistent with the Livermore General Plan and related policies.
After the public hearing, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. 17-15, approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB 13-001) and Site Plan Design Review 13-005 (SPDR13-005), subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The City Council held a public hearing on September 14, 2015 and considered the recommendations of the Planning Commission, along with pertinent drawings, documents, and testimony. The City Council incorporates herein by reference, the information comprising its and the Planning Commission’s record, and adopts the same in support of its findings and decisions concerning this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore as follows:
1. The City Council approves and adopts the recommendations and findings of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-15 as its own.
2. The City Council finds the proposed development consistent with the General Plan and approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB 13-001) and Site Plan Design Review 13-005 (SPDR 13-005), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. The City Council also adopts the Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB 13-001) and Site Plan Design Review 13-005 (SPDR 13-005), attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. By separate Resolution No. ______, the City Council considered, made findings, approved and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number: 2011112045) for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB 13-001) and Site Plan Design Review 13-005 (SPDR 13-005).
644 RESOLUTION NO. ______
4. The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be found in the Office of the City Clerk, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, in Livermore, California.
5. This resolution is effective on the same date as Ordinance No. ______.
6. The City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk.
On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Jason Alcala City Clerk City Attorney
645 RESOLUTION NO. ______CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8094 (Subdivision 13-001)
Garaventa Hills
47 residential units, two on-site knolls, open space buffers, and stormwater detention basin on the approximately 31.7-acre Garaventa Property
Location: East of North Vasco Road, North of Garaventa Ranch Road/ Altamont Creek Drive, and West of Laughlin Road
Prepared: August 6, 2015 Approved by Planning Commission: August 18, 2015 Approved by City Council: September 14, 2015
A. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION
1. The project shall be in conformance with all City Ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies. The conditions listed below are particularly pertinent to this subdivision and shall not be construed to permit violation of other laws and policies not so listed.
2. Approval is limited to the conformance of the land use and Livermore Development Code requirements. Use of the property shall be limited to those permitted by Planned Development – Residential 13-001.
3. Tentative Tract Map 8094 shall expire unless a final map is filed by September 14, 2017, unless an extension is submitted and approved by the City prior to the expiration of the map.
B. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
Prior to issuance of a Final Map, the applicant shall demonstrate conformance to the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Planning Division:
1. The applicant shall respond in writing to all conditions contained in this document and its attachments. Responses shall describe how the condition has been met and shall, where applicable, direct the plan checker to the page and/or drawing detail that demonstrates compliance with the condition. A copy of these responses shall be provided with each set of improvement plans.
2. The Planning Division may approve minor amendment to the permit, provided that the permit is still in substantial conformance with the original approval.
1 EXHIBIT A 646 3. Install subdrains along the western and northern perimeters to intercept any subsurface runoff from irrigation, swimming pools, and other suburban sources. Subdrains will convey any remaining runoff to the treatment basin.
4. Coordinate design and construction of perimeter fencing with the City of Livermore, Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, and applicable Resource Agencies.
5. Coordinate design and construction of a pedestrian/bicycle connection from the southeast corner of the Project site to the improved trail west of Black Oak Court with the City of Livermore, Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, and Zone 7.
6. Provide a dark, coated metal view fence that will sit on top of the retaining walls along the rear property lines.
7. Coordinate design and installation of signs to raise public awareness of sensitive resources within the Preserve and lands to the north with the City of Livermore, Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, and applicable Resource Agencies.
8. Eliminate landscape planting in the buffers to eliminate perching for diurnal raptor species that prey on burrowing owls and compete for burrowing owl prey.
9. Develop a management plan for the project’s buffer areas and knolls. Coordinate development of the management plan with the City of Livermore and Livermore Area Recreation and Park District in order to synchronize management with the Garaventa Wetlands Preserve under the Park District’s Grassland Management Plan.
10. Provide native shrubs in the northeast portion of the buffer along the rear property lines of Lots 23, 24, and 25 in order to soften the visual prominence of the retaining walls.
11. The project shall be subject to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
12. Provide a photovoltaic system that provides for a minimum of 10 percent of the total anticipated energy demand of the project. Solar shall be provided on at least 20 percent of units, providing approximately 50 percent of each unit’s household’s anticipated energy demand.
13. Subdivision improvement plans shall include irrigation and utility plans that indicate locations of above ground utilities, including street, pedestrian pathways, lights, backflow prevention devices, and irrigation control cabinets. Plans shall include screening measures such as landscaping, berms, and low walls.
14. Installation of new landscaping shall be subject to the following requirements:
2 647 a. Installation of new landscaping shall be deferred until emergency drought measures, defined as Stage 2 or higher in the Livermore Municipal Water’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, have been removed by the City, with the exception of drought tolerant or very low water use plant material with a Plant Factor of 0.3 or less, which may be installed subject to staff review and approval.
b. In the event a certificate of occupancy is required and ready to be issued prior to installation of all required landscape planting, the property owner shall post a bond covering the cost of deferred landscape installation prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, to ensure installation of landscaping once emergency drought measures have been lifted. Additionally prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy the property owner shall propose an interim stormwater erosion control landscape plan subject to review and approval of the City Engineer, to be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy
C. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Development shall conform to the map designated by the City as Exhibit B-1. Exhibit B-1 shall consist of the submitted map amended by the applicant to reflect any changes indicated above in the Project Specific Conditions or required by the City in the approval process. The applicant shall submit any required amended maps to the Planning Division within 90 days of project approval. Failure to submit the amended map will result in a delay in approval of the final map.
2. The development impact fees (traffic impact, housing in-lieu, park dedication in- lieu, etc.) and project processing fees due in connection with this permit shall be based upon the fees in effect at the time the fee is paid.
3. Prior to receiving a building permit for excavation, grading or construction on the site, the applicant shall contact the Alameda County Vector Control Services District to determine if any pre-baiting requirements are necessary to control migration of vermin to adjacent property.
4. To the extent permitted by law, the project applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, boards, commissions, employees and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void the approval of the project or any permit authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice.
3 648 D. ENGINEERING DIVISION
1. Development shall conform to the attached Engineering Considerations dated August 5, 2015.
E. BUILDING DIVISION
1. Approval of the Tentative Tract Map is not an authorization to commence construction. Building construction, alterations, repairs, sign erection, or occupancy shall not be permitted without prior approval of the Building Division through issuance of any required permits.
F. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. Development shall conform to the attached Fire Department Memorandum dated July 23, 2015.
G. POLICE DEPARTMENT
1. The project shall be required to conform to the provisions of the security section of the Livermore Municipal Code.
4 649 DATE: August 5, 2015
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS - EXHIBIT "A" (Subject to revision prior to final approval by Planning Commission and City Council)
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT: 8094 (SUB13-001) Garaventa Hills
LOCATION: West of Bear Creek Drive (APN 099-0024-001-25)
APPLICANT: Lafferty Communities
Note: Special conditions are shown in standard type. Standard conditions that apply to this project are shown in italics. In addition, standard conditions of approval for this project are listed in Section II of the Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual.
1. DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this agreement, the following words shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
Developer : Person(s) or Corporation(s) signing final map(s) and subdivision agreement(s)
Improvement Plans: Construction drawings for required public and private improvements
Services: Utility lateral, or any portions of a conduit cable or duct, between a utility distribution line and the site it serves
Project: The work to be performed by Developer
2. VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
Approval or conditional approval of this vesting tentative map shall not limit the City Engineer's ability to require workable designs on future grading and improvement plans based upon these Engineering Considerations and the City's standard engineering specifications and details.
The Vesting Tentative Map shall be modified to split a portion of Lot B into a separate Lot C containing the stormwater hydromodification basin and outfall.
Lots A and B shall be Open Space parcels that are retained by a Homeowners Association with open space and drainage easements dedicated to the City for public open space and drainage purposes.
6501 Lot C shall be an Open Space parcel that is also retained by a Homeowners Association with open space, drainage and landscape easements dedicated to the City for public open space, drainage and landscaping purposes.
The developer shall acquire other necessary easements across Alameda County Zone 7 property for the installation of the detention basin outfall.
The existing reserved 1 foot wide access strip on final Tract Map 6880, at the end of Bear Creek Drive, shall revert to public right of way upon the recording of this map.
The developer shall apply deed restrictions to all of the lots of this vesting tentative tract map notifying homeowners of the required provisions for preservation of the existing open space habitat adjacent to the boundaries of this vesting tentative tract map. The deed restrictions shall be subject to Planning Approval.
The developer shall construct a perimeter fence along the entire boundary of this Vesting Tentative Map that is adjacent to the existing open space habitat with signage restricting access to this habitat. The fence design and alignment as well as the signage shall be subject to Planning Division approval.
3. GENERAL
The project shall be in conformance with all City Ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies. The conditions listed below are particularly pertinent to this permit and shall not be construed to permit violation of other laws and policies not so listed.
All required improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the new residential units on this site.
A. IMPROVEMENT PLANS - Exhibit A-1
An engineered improvement plan shall be prepared by the Developer for approval by the City's Departments (including the Community Development, Public Services, Fire, and Police Department), which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, existing site conditions, dedications, grading plans, street design and grades, curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveway grades, and type, size and location of all public works improvements as herein required. Approval of this tentative map does not constitute approval of the details shown thereon. If there is any conflict between the tentative map and these Engineering Considerations, the Engineering Considerations shall govern.
No specific phased development plan has been submitted with this tentative tract application. Therefore all required improvements for this tentative map shall be constructed as one phase. A phased map could only be considered if a specific phasing plan is submitted for consideration as a tentative map amendment.
6512
B. STANDARDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND MAPS
All improvement plans and maps shall conform to the following City of Livermore documents except as modified by these engineering considerations: 1. City of Livermore Standard Specifications and Details 2. Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual
Completed final map and improvement plan checklists from the manual entitled "City of Livermore, Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual" shall be submitted with the first plan check submittal for each phase.
C. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECK AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
All of the standard conditions of approval for subdivisions and major projects as listed in Part II of the City of Livermore Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual apply except for the following:
A-2, A-3, A-4, A-9, A-10, B-9, B-10, B-11, B-13, B-16, G-1, G-2
D. WORK IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
The Developer is responsible for obtaining permits and approvals for construction work and property acquisition that are required by agencies other than the City of Livermore.
Altamont Creek improvements may be subject to requirements of any or all of the following agencies: (1) California Department of Fish and Game, (2) the Army Corps of Engineers, (3) the Regional Water Quality Control Board, (4) State Department of Water Resources (5) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and (6) Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7).
The Project proposes a connection to an existing trail and a new storm drain outfall located within Altamont Creek parcel which is owned by Alameda County Water Agency Zone 7 (Zone 7). An encroachment permit and maintenance agreement from Zone 7 is required for this work.
The Garavanta Wetlands Preserve, owned and managed by the Livermore Area Parks and Recreation District(LARPD), is a sensitive area located to the west of the project site. Management of the open space and natural open space habitat that is part of Lot B adjacent to this sensitive site may be subject to mitigation and management requirements of the resource agencies listed above and LARPD. Any management and fencing plan required for the open space areas shall be coordinated with the City, all the resource agencies, LARPD and Zone 7 as applicable. The developer shall develop and fund all required management and fencing plans and the on-going maintenance required to manage the open space lands in conformance with them.
6523
4. STREETS
A. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS:
The Developer shall offer easements and dedications for, and shall improve his share of the ultimate street widths for the following named streets in accordance with the City's General Plan:
Bear Creek Drive (Street A)
Bear Creek Drive is a local street in the General Plan. The Developer shall remove the existing barricades at the end of existing Bear Creek Drive and extend Bear Creek Drive to this project site as indicated on this vesting tentative map.
Bear Creek Drive shall consist of a 60 foot wide right of way with a 6’ public utility easement and 2’ sidewalk easement adjacent to the right of way on each side of the street. The street width shall be 40 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb with a 7 foot wide bio-retention landscape strip and 5 foot wide sidewalk on each side of the street. The proposed new sidewalks curbs and gutters shall align with and connect to the existing sidewalks, curbs, and gutters per City Standard Detail ST-31.
Bear Creek Circle (Street B )
Bear Creek Circle is a local street.
Bear Creek Circle shall consist of a 60 foot wide right of way with a 6’ public utility easement and 2’ wide sidewalk easement adjacent to the right of way on each side of the street. The street width shall be 40 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb with a 7 foot wide bio-retention landscape strip and 5 foot wide sidewalk on each side of the street.
Bear Creek Circle is proposed to end with a cul-de-sac approximately 500 feet short of Bear Creek Drive (Street A). A 24 foot wide emergency vehicle access (EVAE) and public utility easement (PUE) is proposed to connect Bear Creek Circle (Street B) to Bear Creek Drive (Street A). The Emergency Vehicle Access shall be a driveway a minimum of 20 feet wide with an all-weather surface. This driveway shall be connected to each street with a residential driveway apron with removable bollards, or other devices acceptable to the Fire Marshall, installed at each end to prevent vehicle access while allowing pedestrian, maintenance and EVA access.
The tentative map shows two proposed street elbows on Bear Creek Circle with a cul-de-sac at the end. These elbows and cul-de-sac are to be designed to meet the City of Livermore Standard Detail ST-1A.
Any midblock trail crossing(s) along Bear Creek Circle shall be designed with bulb-outs, lighting, and high-visibility crosswalk.
Where the streets are adjacent to the open space lots, the street treatment shall include relinquishment
6534 of abutter's rights and the construction of a fence behind the sidewalk. The fence design and alignment shall be subject to Planning Division approval. The area between the fence and the back of the five foot sidewalk shall be landscaped and provided with an automatic irrigation system. Only areas approved by Planning on Open Space Lot B in compliance with the environmental permits shall be irrigated.
5. TRAFFIC SIGNALS
In accordance with the project Environmental Impact Report(EIR) mitigation measures the Project shall contribute its fair share of the traffic improvement cost for cumulative impacts at the intersection of Laughlin Road and Northfront Road. The Developer ‘s fair share of these improvements shall consist of paying the required Traffic Impact Fees for this development .
6. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS (Not Used):
7. SANITARY SEWERS
Enhanced specialty paving is not included in this project. Sanitary sewer lines will be publicly-owned and maintained.
Sewer shall be extended across all frontages of each phase. Sewer laterals with two way cleanouts behind the curb shall be installed to each lot or site before the streets are surfaced.
8. STORM WATER DRAINAGE AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
A. General
1. This site is subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Prior to the issuance of the initial grading or building permit, the Developer shall provide evidence that the site is covered by the statewide General Permit to Discharge Storm Water associated with construction activity. This requires confirmation that a Notice of Intent (NOI) and the applicable fee was sent to the State Water Resources Control Board. In addition, the grading plans need to state: "All grading shall be in accordance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by the Developer per the Notice of Intent on file with the State Water Resources Control Board".
2. Necessary interceptor ditches shall be concrete. Field inlets and storm drainage pipe may be necessary in conjunction with concrete interceptor ditches as secondary drainage releases. All interceptor ditches shall be privately maintained.
B. Storm Drainage Requirements
1. According to the City’s Facilities Planning Guidelines (dated June 2005), the flows must have the following characteristics:
6545 For a 10-year design discharge: a hydraulic grade line (HGL) is no higher than 1.25 feet below the top of curb elevation at any manhole or inlet.
For a 100-year design discharge: a HGL does not exceed the top of curb elevation. (This is required for item 3 above.)
For additional detail on these guidelines, the applicant should refer to the following resources: City of Livermore Storm Drain Master Plan & City of Livermore Facilities Planning Guidelines (both available at the Engineering counter at City Hall).
2. Portions of the Altamont Creek are abutting the tract boundary. This creek is a "Blue Line Creek" as defined by the California State Department of Fish and Game. A Stream Bed Alteration Agreement shall be executed with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and all other necessary permits received prior to commencement of construction work on the facility.
3. This site is adjacent to land with naturally occurring oil which has entered the City’s storm drain system requiring oil remediation. The Developer shall design the storm drain system to prevent oil from entering the City’s storm drain system and Altamont Creek from this development. As a preventative measure the Developer shall provide funds for the future installation of an oil interceptor at or downstream of the storm drain maintenance hole just before water enters the proposed detention basin. The maintenance of the oil interceptor shall be funded by the community facilities district.
4. All storm water runoff accepted from Lot B open space area shall be infiltrated into the ground within Lot B and or conveyed to the proposed HMP detention basin located in Lot C.
C. Stormwater Infrastructure Maintenance Funding
The cost to maintain all private storm water infrastructure installed with this project shall be funded by the Developer.
D. Channels
This Site currently outfalls to Altamont Creek. This creek is currently impacted for sedimentation. The Developer shall provide a Hydro-modification Management Plan “HMP” with calculations demonstrating the impacts to the creek as a result of this development are equal to or less than the existing impacts to the creek prior to development.
The outfall into Altamont Creek shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7, to provide adequate capacity for the 100 year flood flows as designated by Zone 7. A permit or other form of approval shall be obtained from Zone 7 prior to beginning the outfall improvements.
E. Stormwater Treatment, Detention and Low Impact Development Requirements
6556 1. The Developer shall treat the storm water runoff from this site prior to having the storm water enter the City’s storm water distribution system. Low Impact Development, including infiltration and rainwater harvesting, is required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Developer shall complete and or update Low Impact Development Work Sheets with calculations demonstrating that infiltration and rainwater harvesting are infeasible before bio-retention is allowed. The Developer shall provide a storm water treatment plan with calculations indicating treatment that meets the latest requirements described in Section C.3 of the City’s NPDES Permit with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. City approval of this plan and calculations is required prior to the approval of the improvement plans.
2. This project is greater than one acre, the Developer shall provide a Hydrograph Modification Plan (HMP) with calculations in accordance with the Alameda Countywide Cleanwater Program (ACCWP) Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) guidelines. The software for the design of control measures to meet the Flow Duration Control is available to download from www.bayareamodel.org. For additional information you may contact Pamela Lung in the City’s Engineering Department at (925-960-4538)
3. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City of Livermore for all storm water treatment devices deemed necessary on this site. If the stormwater treatment devices will be maintained by the individual homeowners a cleanout will be necessary at the property lines to allow the residents to maintain their portion of the private stormdrain underdrain. If the stormwater treatment device will be maintained by a Homeowners Association then the cleanouts at each of the property lines may not be needed. The stormdrain treatment devices shall be shown on the plat plans and included in the Operations and Maintenance Agreement. The Operations and Maintenance Agreement(s) shall be recorded prior to recordation of the Final Map.
Incorporate measures to mitigate for potential oil from seeps in storm water, and provide for ongoing monitoring and maintenance.
F. Stormwater Treatment Infrastructure Maintenance Funding
The cost to maintain all storm water treatment, detention and low impact development infrastructure installed with this project shall be funded by the Developer.
9. REQUIRED SOURCE CONTROL STORMWATER MEASURES
The Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Order R2-2009-0074 issuing the Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal storm water permit for the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. The 17 member agencies, including Livermore, are subject to this permit and all its requirements including the following:
6567 “The Permittees shall, as part of their continuous improvement process, submit enhanced new development and significant redevelopment Performance Standards that summarize source control requirements for such projects to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff, to the maximum extent practicable…”
In accordance with this requirement, the following source control measures, included as part of these Conditions of Approval, shall be implemented as a part of this project.
A. Structural Control Measures 1. Illegal Dumping to Storm Drain Inlets and Waterways
On-site storm drain inlets, except inlets located in landscaped areas, shall be clearly marked with the words “No Dumping! Flows to Bay” on a plastic marker. The plastic markers are available for purchase from the Water Resources Division. For ordering information, please call 925-960-8100. For projects with newly-developed, privately-maintained streets, agency staff will verify that storm drain inlets have been marked before the final sign-off on the project’s building permit or encroachment permit.
2. Interior Floor Drains
Approved interior floor drains shall be plumbed to the sanitary sewer system and shall not be connected to the storm drain system. The applicant shall contact the Water Resources Division for specific connection and discharge requirements.
3. Parking Garages (Not Applicable)
4. Pesticide/Fertilizer Application and Irrigation
a. Landscaping shall be designed to minimize irrigation and runoff, promote surface infiltration where possible, minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to storm water pollution, and incorporate appropriate Bay-Friendly Landscaping principles.
b. If a landscaping plan is required as part of a development project application, the plan shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project site:
I. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified.
II. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment.
6578 III. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable.
IV. Unless otherwise specified, proper maintenance of landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owner.
V. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as part of the landscaping design. Some examples of IPM principles and techniques include the following:
i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site.
ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. Consider future conditions when plants reach maturity. Consider seasonal changes and time of day.
iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants.
iv. Select pest and disease resistant plants.
v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting the entire landscaping plan. vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects.
VI. Landscaping shall also comply with City of Livermore’s “Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance”. However, areas of a site used for bio-swales or other landscaped areas that function as a storm water treatment measure shall be exempt from the Water Efficient Landscaping requirements.
VII. An efficient irrigation system shall be installed in areas requiring irrigation. An example of an efficient irrigation system is one that includes a weather-based (automatic, self-adjusting) irrigation controller with a moisture and/or rain sensor shutoff, and in which sprinkler and spray heads are not permitted in areas less than 8 feet wide.
5. Pool, Spa, and Fountain Discharges
a. New or rebuilt swimming pools, hot tubs, spas and fountains must have a connection to the sanitary sewer to facilitate draining. This connection could be a drain in the pool to the sanitary sewer or a cleanout located close enough to the pool so that a hose can readily direct the pool discharge into the sanitary sewer cleanout.
b.When draining is necessary, a hose or other temporary system shall be directed into a sanitary sewer cleanout, or vegetated areas that are large enough to accommodate the volume without allowing the discharged water to flow to the storm drain system or receiving water body.
6589
6. Food Service Equipment Cleaning (Not Applicable)
7. Refuse Areas
a. New or redevelopment projects shall provide a roofed and enclosed area for dumpsters, recycling containers, compactors, and food waste containers. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area, to prevent runoff from the refuse area and to properly contain litter and trash. Dumpster leakage from covered trash and food compactor enclosures shall drain to the sanitary sewer via connection to an approved oil and grease interceptor device.
b. Runoff from trash enclosures, recycling areas, and/or food compactor enclosures or similar facilities shall not discharge to the storm drain system. Trash enclosure areas shall be designed to avoid run-on to the trash enclosure area. In most cases, drains are not permitted within trash enclosure areas. A drain, however, must be provided for compactors. If a drain is required in or beneath dumpsters, compactors, and tallow bin areas, it shall be connected to a grease removal device prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer.
1 8. Outdoor Process Activities/Equipment (Not Applicable)
9. Outdoor Equipment/Materials Storage
a. All outdoor equipment and materials storage areas shall be covered and/or bermed, or shall be designed with Best Management Practices (BMP) that effectively minimize the potential runoff and contact of storm water to pollutants.
b. Storage areas containing non-hazardous liquids shall be covered by a roof and be contained by berms, dikes, liners, vaults or similar spill containment devices.
c. All on-site hazardous materials and wastes, as defined and/or regulated by the California Public Health Code must be used, managed, and stored in compliance with the applicable Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department’s requirements and regulations. 10. Vehicle/Equipment and Commercial/Industrial Cleaning (Not Applicable)
11. Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
a. Vehicle/equipment repair and maintenance shall be performed in a designated area indoors, or if such services must be performed outdoors, in an area designed to prevent the run-on and runoff of storm water. Oil and other automotive fluid change service must always be performed indoors.
1 Examples of businesses that may have outdoor process activities and equipment include machine chops and auto repair shops, and industries that have pretreatment facilities.
10659 b. Secondary containment shall be provided for exterior work areas where hazardous materials or hazardous wastes are used or stored. Drains shall not be installed within the secondary containment areas.
c. Vehicle service facilities shall not contain floor drains.
d. Tanks, containers, or sinks used for parts cleaning or rinsing shall not be connected to the storm drain system. Tanks, containers, or sinks used for such purposes shall not be directly connected to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer from such operations require prior approval from the Water Resources Division. The applicant shall contact the Water Resources Division for specific connection and discharge requirements.
12. Fuel Dispensing Areas (Not Applicable)
13. Loading Docks (Not Applicable)
14. Fire Sprinkler Test Water
Provisions shall be made in the project design and construction to allow for the discharge of fire sprinkler test water to an onsite vegetated area. If this is not feasible, provide for discharge to the sanitary sewer in accordance with current plumbing codes.
15. Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water
a. For small air conditioning units, air conditioning condensate shall be directed to landscaped areas as a minimum BMP. For large air conditioning units, in new developments or significant redevelopments, condensation lines shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system, wherever feasible.
b. Roof drains shall discharge and drain away from the building foundation to landscaped areas wherever feasible.
c. Washing and/or steam cleaning activities must be performed at an appropriately equipped facility that drains to the sanitary sewer as specified in Section J. Any outdoor washing or pressure washing must be in compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Program requirements and managed in such a way that there is no discharge of soaps or other pollutants to the storm drain system. The applicant shall contact the Water Resources Division for specific discharge requirements.
16. Architectural Copper Installation
Projects with architectural copper should, if possible, purchase copper materials that have been pre-patinated at the factor. Whether patination is done offsite or onsite, applicant should consider coating the copper materials with an impervious coating that prevents further corrosion and runoff. If patination is done on-site, implement one or both of the following:
11660 a. Collect rinse water in a tank and pump to the sanitary sewer. Contact the City of Livermore Water Resources before discharging to the sanitary sewer.
b. Collect the rinse water in a tank and haul off-site for proper disposal.
B. II. OPERATIONAL BMPS
This section details Best Management Practices (BMP) that private property owners and/or the occupants of private property must implement following the construction of projects. Ultimately, the responsibility for implementation of these BMPs rests with the property owners. The City of Livermore’s Source Control Program routinely performs inspections of industrial and commercial sites to verify BMP implementation and effectiveness.
1. Paved Sidewalks and Parking Lots
Sidewalks and parking lots shall be swept regularly to minimize the accumulation of litter and debris. Wash water resulting from the pressure washing of parking lots must be captured, pretreated (if necessary) to meet local discharge limits, and discharged to the sanitary sewer. Wash water resulting from the pressure washing of sidewalks may be allowed to drain to the storm drain system provided that (a) no soap or other cleaning agents are used, and (b) all debris are trapped and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Under no circumstances shall washwater containing any soap or other cleaning agents be discharged to the storm drain system.
2. Private Streets, Utilities and Common Areas
a. The owner of private streets and storm drains shall prepare and implement a plan for street sweeping of paved private roads and cleaning of all storm drain inlets.
b. For residential developments, where other maintenance mechanisms are not applicable or otherwise in place, a Property Owners Association, Landscape& Lighting District, or an equivalent mechanism shall be created and shall be responsible for maintaining all private streets and private utilities and other privately owned common areas and facilities on the site including landscaping. These maintenance responsibilities shall include implementing and maintaining storm water BMPs associated with improvements and landscaping. CC&R’s creating the association shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the recordation of the Final Map and recorded prior to the sale of the first residential unit. The CC&R’s or Landscape & Lighting District shall describe how the storm water BMPs associated with privately owned improvements and landscaping shall be maintained and detail contact information for the entity responsible for such maintenance activities.
3. Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
12661 a. No person shall dispose of, or permit the disposal, directly or indirectly, of vehicle fluids, hazardous materials, or rinse water from parts cleaning operations into storm drains. b.No vehicle fluid removal shall be performed outside a building, or on asphalt or ground surfaces, whether inside or outside a building, except in such a manner as to ensure that any spilled fluid will be in an area of secondary containment. Leaking vehicle fluids shall be contained or drained from the vehicle immediately.
c. No person shall leave unattended drip parts or other open containers containing vehicle fluid, unless such containers are in use or in an area that cannot discharge to the storm drain.
4. Fueling Areas (Not Applicable)
5. Loading Docks (Not Applicable)
6. On-site Storm Drains
All on-site storm drains must be inspected and, if necessary, cleaned at least once a year immediately prior to the rainy season.
7. Architectural Copper Cleaning, Treating or Washing
When cleaning, treating or washing architectural copper features, implement one or both of the following:
a. Collect rinse water in a tank and pump to the sanitary sewer. Contact the City of Livermore Water Resources before discharging to the sanitary sewer.
b. Collect the rinse water in a tank and haul off-site for proper disposal.
10. WATER SUPPLY (CITY)
Water mains shall be extended across all frontages of each phase and all waterline valves must notate “EPDM” on the valve body. The developer shall install pressure reduction valves (PRVs), backflow prevention devices and appurtenances on the potable water services as directed by the City Engineer.
The fire service backflow preventer(s) shall be effectively screened from the public right-of-way while at the same time preserving ease of maintenance access to the backflow preventer(s). Screening shall be as specified on City Standard Detail W-10A, B and C. The fire service backflow preventer(s) shall meet the performance standards of the backflow preventer shown in City Standard Detail W-10A, B and C.
Prior to removal of a 1-inch, a 1.5-inch, or a 2-inch water service, the Developer shall contact the City’s Water Resources Division at (925) 960-8100, and ask if the City would like to convert the
13662 service to a water sampling station. Existing water services (of any size) that will not be used by the proposed development shall be abandoned at the main. Large services shall be abandoned by placing a blind flange on the tee at the main. Small services shall be abandoned by removing the corporation stop valve and installing the appropriate plug in the service saddle. Any valves or meters on abandoned services shall be removed. The meters shall be returned to the Water Resources Division if they are not reused. The Developer shall coordinate water service removals with the City’s Water Resources Division as well as with the public works inspector.
11. UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES:
All new electric (with the exception of any 60 KV and higher voltage wires) and communication lines along the project frontage and within the project shall be placed underground. Electric, gas, Comcast and SBC utilities are required and shall be placed in a common trench. All electric transformers shall be placed underground.
12. TRAILWAY/BIKEWAY REQUIREMENTS
Construct a bicycle/pedestrian connection from the Project to the existing trail crossing of Altamont Creek near the end of Bear Creek Drive. Obtain access easements necessary to provide public access across Zone 7 property or private property.
13. MEDIANS AND OTHER LANDSCAPED AREAS
Since the City has a new centralized irrigation system with a computer terminal and modem located at the City’s Maintenance Service Center, the Developer shall install a City standard centralized irrigation controller system with communication accessories as approved by the City. The City may exempt this requirement based on the limited size of the landscape area.
14. HORTICULTURIST'S REPORT
A Horticulturist’s report will be required because this site has soil conditions that may detrimental to landscaping.
15. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. Community Facilities District for Landscape and Stormwater Treatment Maintenance
All phases of the development shall either form a new Community Facilities District (CFD) prior to final map approval for the first phase or the Developer shall provide an alternate source of funding or maintenance mechanism as approved by the City. The owners of this tract will be assessed for CFD costs related to maintenance, operation, repair and replacement of the tract's public landscaping, open space, stormwater treatment devices and any public special amenities located within the public right- of-way or easements. The items to be maintained include but are not limited to the following: oil interceptor, roadside bio-treatment swales, bio-retention/detention basin, parkway landscaping, perimeter fencing along the boundary of this map, maintenance of the
14663 bicycle/pedestrian connection from the Project at the end of Bear Creek Drive to the existing trail crossing of Altamont Creek, and maintenance of retaining walls adjacent to public roads. The Developer shall agree to a first year’s lot by lot assessment equivalent to the CFDs first twelve months of estimated costs. The Developer shall be responsible for all costs and work which are required for this CFD. All other provisions of this development not covered by the CFD that require maintenance shall be maintained in a developer established Homeowner’s Association (HOA).
The Developer shall submit an Engineer's Report for the CFD in a hard copy format, and in computer formats on a disk. The computer formats for the Engineer's Report shall be Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel (as applicable) to be compatible with the City's computer system.
16. AIRPORT LOCATION (Not Used)
17. SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT AND SECURITY
Following tentative map approval, the Subdivision Improvement Agreement will not be submitted to the City Council until the Developer has submitted all of the documents indicated in the “Final Approval of Tract Map Checklist” in the Development Plan Check and Procedures Manual (28) days prior to the city council meeting at which the final map will be considered for final approval by the City Council.
18. FEE AMOUNTS
The Developer will be required to pay the applicable development impact fees and project processing fees due in connection with this subdivision. The fee shall be the amount in effect at the time the fee is required to be paid.
19. VEHICLE ACCESS
Prior to or with the submittal for the first plan check of the tract improvement plans and final map, the Developer shall submit for review and approval a traffic control plan for providing safe entry to and exit from the site. The purpose of the plan is to insure that there will be safe entry and exit by construction and other vehicles prior to the installation of the required permanent improvements on Bear Creek Drive.
Access to the development by construction equipment, material delivery and other heavy loads shall be limited by the Developer to the following route:
Vasco Road, Northfront Road, Laughlin Road, Bear Creek Drive
Such heavy loads will not be allowed on existing residential streets in the vicinity of the development.
The wheel-loading on the above routes shall not exceed State load limits. 20. DEVELOPMENTS WITH PRIVATE ROADWAYS AND UTILITIES (Not Used)
15664 665 666 667 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AND ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – RESIDENTIAL (PD-R) DISTRICT 13-001 (GARAVENTA HILLS)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DOES FIND AND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The zoning standards for this district are those set forth in the Planned Development Standards of Planned Development-Residential 13-001, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2. The Zoning District Map of the City of Livermore is amended by rezoning certain property, East of North Vasco Road, North of Garaventa Ranch Road/Altamont Creek Drive, and West of Laughlin Road, which is shown on the attached Exhibit B.
Section 3. The Planned Development meets all the requirements set forth in the Livermore Development Code.
Section 4. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 18, 2015, to consider the Planned Development and recommended that the City Council adopt the Planned Development. The City Council is satisfied with the Planning Commission’s recommendations and findings contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-15, and based upon the City Council's own independent review and consideration hereby adopts the same by reference.
Section 5. By separate Resolution No. ______, the City Council considered, made findings, approved and certified Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number: 2011112045) for the Planned Development Standards of Planned Development-Residential 13-001.
Section 6. The zoning and Planned Development Standards proposed by PD-R 13-001 for the district are consistent with the General Plan and the Livermore Development Code.
Section 7. The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore, California. If any part of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid by a court, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any of the remaining parts.
ORDINANCE NO. ______668 Section 8. This ordinance, or a comprehensive summary thereof, shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the city of Livermore within fifteen days after its adoption and shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its adoption.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Livermore, held on September 14, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
The ordinance was adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Livermore, held on September 28, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
______MAYOR CITY OF LIVERMORE
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Susan Neer Jason Alcala City Clerk City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. ______669 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Planned Development Residential 13-001
Garaventa Hills
47 residential units, two on-site knolls, open space buffers, and stormwater detention basin on the approximately 31.7-acre Garaventa Property
Location East of North Vasco Road, North of Garaventa Ranch Road/ Altamont Creek Drive, and West of Laughlin Road
Prepared: August 6, 2015 Approved by Planning Commission: August 18, 2015 Approved by City Council: September 14, 2015
PURPOSE: The purpose of establishing this Planned Development District is to regulate the development of approximately 31.7 acres of land located east of North Vasco Road, north of Garaventa Ranch Road/Altamont Creek Drive, and west of Laughlin Road The intent of this Planned Development District is to accomplish the following:
1. To provide an environment for and conducive to the development and protection of single family residential development.
2. To allow residential development consistent with the character of the nearby residential neighborhoods.
3. To allow flexible subdivision design and development that encourages a variety of lot size, housing types, and housing opportunities for various income groups.
A. PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USES
The following are the principal permitted uses in this District:
1. Dwelling: Single family 2. Health Facility: Residential care, 1-6 clients 3. Transitional/Supportive Housing 4. Small and large family home daycare
B. ACCESSORY USES
The following are accessory uses permitted in this District:
1. Secondary Dwelling Unit 2. Home Occupation
1 670 EXHIBIT A
C. CONDITIONAL USES
The following uses are permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit in addition to any other prerequisite permits and conformance to all applicable regulations set forth in this Planned Development and elsewhere in the Livermore Development Code:
1. Health Facility: Residential care, 7 or more clients.
2. Public and Quasi-Public in accordance with Livermore Development Code 6.02.090.
D. SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
Planned Development-Residential 13-001 District shall be subject to the same site development standards established in the Suburban Residential (R-S) District and other applicable standards of the Development Code, as amended, except as follows:
1. Front setback: 15 feet minimum.
2. Rear setback: 20 feet minimum.
3. Side setback: 7 feet minimum, total 17 feet.
4. Floor area ratio: 0.45 maximum including garages (except as listed below):
Lot 16 – 0.46; Lot 17 – 0.53; Lot 23 – 0.47; Lot 29 – 0.46; Lot 38 – 0.47; Lot 40 – 0.47.
5. Fences between the house and side property lines shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the front wall of the house, not counting porches, in order to enhance the streetscape by revealing more of the homes and deemphasizing the presence of fencing.
6. Fences along the Common Area boundaries of Lots 1, 13, 14, 29, 30, 38, 39, and 47 shall not exceed more than 50 percent of the lot depth in order to expose more of the homes and deemphasize the fence in these prominent locations.
7. Chain link fencing is prohibited.
2 671 SUB13-001 PD-R 13-001 SPDR13-005
LOCATION MAP d d a a o o R R
o o c c s s a a V V
h h t t r r o o N N d d a SITE a o o R R
n n i i l l h h g g u u a a L L
Scenic Ave.
North
672 EXHIBIT B CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 5.02
DATE: September 14, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephan Kiefer, Community and Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Hearing for Protests and Confirmation of Assessments for the 2013-2015 Sidewalk Repair Program, City Project CIP 2014-02
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council continue this item to September 28, 2015, City Council meeting.
Prepared by:
Carlo Sendaydiego Traffic Engineer
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:
Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director
673 ADJOURNMENT
TO A REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 AT 6:30 PM
FOR THE SUMMER READING PROGRAM AWARDS
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY THE REGULAR
CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3575 PACIFIC AVENUE LIVERMORE
674