Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Triad Place topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Livermore Council Approves Isabel Plan Amendment, Moves Forward with Triad Place Development Agreement
Summary
The council found the Triad Place project consistent with prior CEQA analysis and authorized a specific‑plan amendment and introduction of a development‑agreement ordinance to allow roughly 450 housing units on a 27‑acre site, including a minimum $4,202,000 community‑benefit contribution.
The Livermore City Council on May 12 voted unanimously to find a proposed amendment to the Isabel neighborhood specific plan and to introduce an ordinance approving a development agreement for the Triad Place project, a roughly 27‑acre property north of Interstate 580.
City planning staff described the proposal as a land‑use change from business park to a residential transition allowing 15–25 dwelling units per acre. The development agreement would vest land‑use change to allow approximately 450 residential units (the applicant agreed to a minimum of 405 and a maximum of 518 units) and requires entitlements to be submitted within two years. The agreement term would be 15 years with the possibility of council‑approved extension.
Staff said the project would include off‑site improvements (class 4 separate bike lanes along North Canyons Parkway) and must comply with the city's affordable housing ordinance; the agreement allows alternative compliance through inclusionary units or in‑lieu fees and requires an affordable housing agreement during entitlement review.
Planning staff noted the project is covered by the 2024 Isabel Crossings addendum and found no new significant environmental impacts under CEQA sections cited by staff.
On community benefits, staff reported the applicant agreed to contribute a minimum of $4,202,000 based on unit count; $202,000 of that sum is to be deposited into the Social Opportunity Endowment Fund within 180 days of execution, with future payments tied to building permits. Staff and the Planning Commission supported the terms and recommended the council adopt the specific‑plan amendment and introduce the ordinance approving the development agreement.
David Balducci, managing partner of Align Real Estate, said the applicant purchased the campus nine years ago and has struggled to lease older office buildings; "We're optimistic that we can move forward with these 450 homes," he said. A representative of Building Trades and Sheet Metal Workers raised concerns during public comment that workforce and apprenticeship opportunities for at‑risk youth were not clearly spelled out in the community benefits negotiation.
Council members discussed design character (traditional options such as craftsman, farmhouse or Spanish architecture were suggested), transit and traffic implications, the balance between retaining commercial inventory versus adding housing, and the need for labor partnerships and inclusionary housing that serves a range of income levels. Several council members asked staff to ensure the entitlement process addresses inclusionary units, appropriate unit mix, and labor and apprenticeship commitments.
The motion to adopt staff's recommendation (find the project covered by the prior CEQA addendum, adopt the specific‑plan amendment, and introduce an ordinance approving the development agreement) passed unanimously; the council will review specific entitlements (site plan, subdivision maps) later in the process.
Next steps: staff will file a notice of determination with the Alameda County Clerk and the developer will proceed to entitlement applications, at which point the council will review the project's site‑level plans and any required affordability or labor commitments.
