|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Garaventa Hills housing project appears en route for development yet again, despite garnering concern from the majority of the Livermore City Council and opposition from all public commenters Monday night.
The long-debated residential subdivision was approved by a 4-1 tally, with Councilmember Ben Barrientos being the only one to vote against the project. But Barrientos wasn’t alone in voicing displeasure from the dais.
Councilmembers Brittni Kiick and Evan Branning also disliked the project, but decoupled their judgment from their official vote, since the council was bound to consider only whether the development proposal complied with relevant laws and codes.
“My duty here is different than my personal opinion,” Kiick said. “I wish that we were instead having a discussion about how a new generation of leadership and zoning is going to mean that projects like this wouldn’t even get this far because that’s not what we’re zoned for anymore.”
The project approved on Monday is the same one it green-lit in 2019 before being undone by the courts, according to Steve Stewart, special projects coordinator in the Livermore planning division.
Following the council’s re-endorsement, developer Lafferty Communities can construct 44 units on Garaventa Hills in northeast Livermore. Of these, 38 will be single-family detached units and six will be couplet units.
As for the approximately 32-acre site, about 60% will remain undeveloped, according to the staff report.
The only update to the proposal was a recirculated partial final environmental impact report, which explores the no-project alternative as mandated by the state appellate court.
That partial EIR rules out the possibility of obtaining the project site as open space.
Earlier in the month, both the EIR and the overall project was endorsed by the Livermore Planning Commission.
At the council meeting, Stewart reminded the representatives, “If the council finds the project complies with our laws and codes, then the council is required to approve the project, although you may impose conditions appropriately and lawfully.”
The public comment period elicited five speakers who were all strongly opposed to the project, three of whom asked the council to require an environmental report from an unbiased third party.
At the top of the commenters’ concerns were the oil seepages occurring nearby.
Doug Mann, a representative for the Citizens for Balanced Growth, said that nearby seepages suggest a potential hazard for the Garaventa Hills project.
The area smells of oil and tar, said Bianca Covarelli of Save the Hill, the group that challenged the city’s EIR certification and approval of the project with the Alameda County Superior Court in 2019.
“The newly discovered potential hazards will require at least a new hydrologic study and a new geologic study,” Mann said. “This development is a hazard to Altamont Creek, the downstream wetlands and neighborhoods.”
Approval of the project would be illegal, he argued to the council.
Following public comment, Barrientos immediately voiced opposition to the development.
“I’m concerned about the whole development,” he said. “I’d rather see 44 trees put there than 44 houses. And I’m sure it’s not really going to help affordable housing. What’s an affordable duet going to cost, $1 million?”
Councilmember Bob Carling followed up to clarify the role of the council.
This is a quasi-judicial role, he said. And the EIR already laid to rest hydrocarbon analysis.
In response to commenters’ concerns about the potential impact of oil on residents, Kiick then spelled out the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act — the law requiring impact reports — which is to protect the land from the potential effects of development, not to protect people from the environment.
In terms of the project, studies have shown no oil seeps on the site itself, Stewart said.
“The project would install measures in the event hydrocarbons or oil are experienced in the construction of the project or ongoing,” Stewart said.
Carling then reminded audience members that the land cannot be purchased to maintain it as open space.
“One of the Open Space Committee criteria is a willing seller and we do not have a willing seller and therefore the no project alternative is kind of moot,” Carling said.
Kiick then voiced her disagreement with the project, but affirmed her role as a representative.
“My vote will be based on my legal requirement as an elected official in the quasi-judicial role. My comments are as someone who is concerned about climate change, wild-fire risk, flooding, things I actually don’t get to vote on tonight,” Kiick said.
She hopes that this is the last time council must consider the housing project. Instead, she envisions that the future council works to complete the city’s General Plan and address resident concerns like the impacts of climate change.
Branning agreed with many of Kiick’s points.
He added, “The courts have affirmed that the EIR covers all of the items that have been brought before us. I believe the staff’s response answered all of the concerns that were raised. And I did not personally see anything novel in there that was not addressed in the EIR.”
When the time for a final vote came around, the council approved the project and certified its EIR.
