A plan to buy a private parcel in north Livermore and preserve it for open space isn’t feasible, city staff have said, because the owners aren’t willing to sell it to the city. Opponents have argued that the city isn’t trying hard enough.
The statements were made to the Livermore Planning Commission on Aug. 20 during a public hearing on the Garaventa Hills project, which has been in and out of court for several years. Opponents of the plan have said they will continue to push the city to buy the land.
The city staff’s opinion that it is unable to do so has not changed since the city was ordered by California’s First District Court of Appeal to redo an environmental report for a proposed housing development.
The Garaventa Hills project is proposed for a privately-owned 32-acre property located on the northern edge of Livermore, east of Vasco Road and west of Laughlin Road. The property lies within the city’s urban growth boundary and has been zoned for residential development since the 1970s.
The plan proposes 44 residential units, which includes 38 detached single-family homes and six units in two-unit attached houses covering more than half the site. These are officially called “duet” houses, because the two units can be bought and sold separately, unlike a standard duplex. The rest of the site would remain undeveloped and would feature public hiking trails.
The developer, Lafferty Communities, filed its revised draft environmental impact report for the project earlier this month.
Opponents of the plan, the Save the Hill Group and Citizens for Balanced Growth, want the city to purchase the property and instead preserve it as open space. A lawsuit filed by the groups in 2019 says the city hasn’t done enough to try to buy the property from the Garaventa family, including identifying potential funding from a conservation account.
That was the focus of the project’s opponents in the public hearing, who considered the city’s attempts to have been lowball offers.
“The city’s recent offer of over $800,000 and then $1.7 million, wasn’t a fair market offer. No wonder the owners rejected it,” said Bianca Covarelli, who said she represented the Save the Hill group. “That is why they are considered an unwilling seller. The city contends the owners are not willing to sell. I feel that if a bona fide, fair market value offer was made, they’d be willing sellers.”
Doug Mann, secretary for Citizens for Balanced Growth, said the group will continue to fight the development, and said the city should continue its efforts to buy the property, even as the development process begins anew.
“We’ll be starting all over again for as many years as it takes,” said Mann. “Although you are not required to take any action (tonight), you, as a neutral party may be able to find solutions to the fractured relationship between the seller and the city … you could also request your staff contract with an actual real estate agent to represent the city. It costs nothing.”
The project opponents also believe that the hill and wetlands provide a unique environment for several species that are protected under the California or federal Endangered Species Acts, including the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, California burrowing owl, San Joaquin kit fox, western spadefoot toad, vernal pool fairy shrimp, Livermore tarplant, palmate-bracted bird’s beak, and Congdon’s tarplant.
The property owners have rebuffed several attempts to sell to the city, however. The city offered approximately $860,000 for the land on Feb. 2. When that was declined, the city asked if the owners would accept a fair-market price.
“The City received a reply letter on February 13, 2024, stating that the owners were not willing to discuss selling the property to any entity other than Lafferty Communities because of their existing contract and legal obligation,” the city’s report to the Planning Commission states.
The city made one more attempt on Feb. 29, offering $1.7 million, which it considered a fair-market price. The owners declined the offer and asked the city to stop sending offers to buy the property.
The city had applied to the Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee for funding for the purchase, but that group does not provide funding if there is not a willing seller. The same condition applies to money from the Dougherty Valley Settlement Fund and the city’s own Transferrable Credits Development Fund, the latter of which also can only be used to buy properties beyond the urban growth boundary. “Regarding those open space funding sources that might be available,” said Steve Stewart, the city’s special projects manager, “We stopped to explore those over the course of 2023 and 2024, including several appearances at the Altamont Open Space Committee to discuss the availability of those funds … there are also funds through the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement. Both of those funds do require a willing seller, so they were determined to be ineligible.”
The report also states the city is unlikely to condemn the property via eminent domain, saying it would be cost-prohibitive. The report estimates it would cost anywhere from $17 million to $35 million, not counting the costs of expected legal challenges, and would be inconsistent with the city’s past practice of using eminent domain for public rights-of-way, such as streets, sidewalks and trails.
The remaining option, drawing from the city’s general fund, would require a public vote on a ballot initiative or bond measure.
The original development application was filed in 2019, but the citizens groups sued, stating that the city had failed to identify potential preservation funds that could be used to acquire the land. The opponents lost the initial case, but won on appeal in 2023, prompting the City Council to revoke its approval of the plan. The California Supreme court later rejected the city’s request to “depublish” the appellate ruling, which allows the case to be citable and used as a precedent for future litigation.
Developer Lafferty Communities re-filed the application this month, this time including the funding sources and a “No Project, No Development” option among other choices. Most of the rest of the proposal remained unchanged.
The report, officially called a “Recirculated Partial Draft EIR,” is available for public view and comments through Sept. 13. It can be read online on the city’s website at https://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/environmental-documents.
The document can also be read in person at City Hall, 1052 S. Livermore Ave., and at the Civic Center Library, 1188 S. Livermore Ave.
The project will eventually go before the City Council for approval.