CCMIN061813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dolan noted that active mining sites are primarily located to the east nearest to industrial development. Alternative 4 is the only alternative that anticipates no change to the current placement of the OSC and PGS. It accommodates 45% of total RHNA over the next two cycles, has an even split of single and multi-family units and disperses the latter throughout the plan area. This alternative has the most industrial development, which extends significantly further west to the edge of the PGS transfer station, and locates the school site east of El Charro Road. Alternative 5 at its last meeting, the task force had more detailed discussion about the idea of trying to maintain the mix of units represented throughout the rest of town. They recognized that in order to do so, the overall number of units may have to be increased. Alternative 4 calls for 1,750 total units; it accommodates 62% of RHNA for the next two cycles, and has a 60/40 split of single to multi-family residential. This called for a reduction in the amount of industrial use, specifical y retail located along the El Charro/Busch Road interchange. The City's economic consultant has advised that retail in this area is going to be more neighborhood-serving in nature and would likely never take off into a larger scale retail effort. Alternative 6 contains the greatest number of units (2,279), with a significant portion of that medium density single family detached residential development, but does maintain the type of unit mix seen throughout the rest of town. Staff and the task force acknowledge that this is more of an aggressive option for the purposes of worst case scenario EIR analysis. Retail and office uses are modest and public park acreage is fairly consistent in each alternative. Industrial use ranges from roughly 1.1 to 2.2 million square feet. Councilmember Narum noted that some alternatives call for an almost comparable amount of private and public open space acreage and asked what was behind this. Mr. Dolan explained that it is really a matter of the type of space and whether it is anticipated to be a function of the Parks and Recreation Department or the responsibility of the developer. Councilmember Narum asked whether the proposed volume of industrial space is appropriate given the lower market rates and number of vacancies seen in Livermore. Mr. Dolan explained that the property owners expressed a distinct interest in industrial use. The economic study acknowledges that this is likely a longer term venture but giver the need for buffers between certain land uses and the land use constraints in certain areas, it seems !:o be viable. He noted that recent studies associated with the General Plan also indicate that industrial development is not necessarily unwise in the long term. Councilmember Brown asked whether PGS has an interest in moving its transfer station. Mr. Dolan said PGS likely recognizes that being located in the middle of a residential neighborhood is not in anyone's best interests but that it certainly does come down to financial feasibility. Mayor Thorne noted that relocation of the OSC would require that the fire tower and several other cost intensive structures be rebuilt as well. He wondered whether it would be more cost effective to look into onsite or adjacent mitigation efforts. Mr. Dolan acknowledged the point and said that in looking at both this and PGS, everyone agrees that relocating the latter is a much higher priority. Mayor Thorne opened the item for public comment. City Council Minutes Page 7 of 13 June 18,2013