|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The long-debated housing project on Garaventa Hill appears one step closer to development, following unanimous support by the Livermore Planning Commission at a special meeting last week.
Their votes hinged on whether the projects latest recirculated partial environmental impact report fully explored the no-project alternative, including potential funding sources that could be used to maintain the site as open space.
That EIR determined keeping open space was unfeasible due to limitations like an unwilling landowner, high acquisition costs and the site’s long-time residential designation.
As such, the commissioners agreed on Nov. 12 that the recirculated partial EIR was complete and the project abides by all laws and standards. Their approval green-lit the project for City Council’s consideration, which is expected to come forward at a regular meeting next Monday (Nov. 25).
If the councilmembers also find that the EIR is complete and the project is law-abiding, then they too must support the housing development, according to Steve Stewart special projects coordinator in the Livermore planning division.
The Garaventa Hills project has brought on public scrutiny and even elicited threats from the public, following a recent hearing for the draft version of the recirculated partial EIR. Amid those threats, Planning Commission Chair Jacob Anderson made clear the role of the government body.
“As the Planning Commission, our responsibility is to determine whether or not the project meets the legal standards. It’s not to make any judgments about the project as a whole or our opinions on the project,” Anderson said.
The meeting kicked off with a presentation lasting about 30 minutes to review the project history and the recirculated partial EIR findings.
It is the same 44-unit single-family housing subdivision the Planning Commission recommended approval of in 2018, later receiving City Council approval in 2019 — before ultimately being overturned because of the courts.
As for the EIR, it concluded that the project would cause no significant and avoidable impacts. The potentially significant impacts were reduced to “less than significant” through mitigation measures, Stewart said.
Among the topics investigated, the EIR expects no significant effect on water quality, flooding or the hydrology of nearby wetlands, given the project’s stormwater handling and pollution prevention measures.
On the biological front, the EIR states that an 85-acre mitigation site will provide compensatory habitat for any disturbed on the project site, as the site may be used for special status species such as the California red-legged frog and the California tiger salamander.
Also, given the natural occurrence of oil seeps in the vicinity the applicant conducted borings. But no evidence of hydrocarbons was found on the site.
Public feedback on the partial EIR has been considered, though the EIR already addresses them, Stewart said. All parts of the project’s EIR do not need to be recirculated to the public for comment and updating because there is no significant new information under the California Environmental Quality Act, according to Stewart.
He also reminded the commission and public, “Recirculation of an EIR to address a limited issue, like the potential funding for preserving this for open space, is not grounds to revisit issues laid to rest in prior analysis upheld with the court.”
In exploration of the no-project alternative, the EIR rules out possible methods of land acquisition.
It found that the property owner is not a willing seller, so the land cannot be purchased using open space funds like the Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund or the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement funds. Using eminent domain to obtain the property is also out of the question because legal defense would cost millions of dollars and is contrary to the City’s regular practices. Finally, the site has been designated as residential land for decades.
It concludes the maintenance of Garavanta Hills property as open space is not feasible.
After the presentation, David Ragland, president of Lafferty communities and applicant Livermore LT Ventures, said only about 9 acres of the site’s 32 acres will be impacted due to this development.
“We’re preserving the beauty of the site, the hills, the natural rock outcroppings, the trails, the meadows, the flowers. That will be something the community will enjoy in perpetuity,” he said.
At this point, there is no going back to make this site a permanent open space, said Alicia Guerra, land-use counsel for Lafferty. “That train has left the station,” she added.
Yet, the project is an ongoing sore-spot for many Livermore residents.
One commenter in particular, Daryl Reed, has opposed the project since co-founding Save the Hill at 12 years old. This was the group that challenged the city’s certification of the EIR and approval of the project in the Alameda County Superior Court in 2019, according to the recirculated Partial Final EIR.
”This project has been repeatedly turned away due to poor planning and I think that it is in Livermore’s best interest to hold builders to a higher standard,” Reed said.
Reed also voiced concern about the impact to PG&E reliability as well as neighborhood traffic and safety following the construction of 44 houses.
The two other public commenters also opposed the development.
They questioned the relevance of the environmental reporting because years have past since parts of the EIR were created. They also worried about potential water contamination with oil and the project’s potential contribution to a nearby alkaline sink.
Commissioner Steven Dunbar questioned staff in response to the commenters’ concerns.
Stewart said drilling on the site went down 62 feet and found no signs of oil. But if hydrocarbons were encountered during the project, then they would not reach the storm drain because they would be separated.
Also the primary draining area for the Springtown alkalized sink (also known as the Springtown Open Space) is north of the site; the site itself contributes minor amounts of drainage to the adjacent wetlands.
On the traffic front, expected volumes are well within the design capacity of residential streets in that area, Stewart said. Though the added transit will contribute to the wait times at the intersection of Laughlin and Northfront roads.
Dunbar expressed sympathy for the commenter concerns, but said he can’t address them from the position of commissioner.
“Within the scope of what I am allowed to do here, I can also make findings that this meets the requirements for the recirculated draft EIR and that the subdivision and site plan design review is appropriate and meets our standards,” Dunbar said.
Finally, the commissioners unanimously agreed to recommend the project to council for its approval.
“Some of us received direct threats after the August 20th meeting. And that is also why we have a representative from LPD here tonight,” Commissioner Tracy Kronzak said. “So I want to thank both LPD but I also mostly want to thank the community for the generosity, kindness and civility of your comments this evening. That is appreciated more than you could possibly imagine as someone who has a family in this town.”
