Machine generated transcript of the 2023-12-5 Planning Commission meeting with video timestamps, synchronized with the video posted on our Youtube page.
0:02
so we will go to item five public hearings item 5.1 is a hearing to
0:10
receive public comment on the notice of preparation for an environmental impact report for the east of Greenville
0:16
project and the project is located east of the Livermore city limits in an unincorporated Alameda County and we’ll
0:24
turn it over to uh Mr Stewart thank you chair person
0:30
uh this evening senior planner Ashley ver will provide the staff analysis with
0:36
support from our consultant Eileen Mahoney from Rincon environmental
0:41
Consulting and with that I’ll turn over to miss Vera all right thank you good evening
0:47
everyone so um as noted tonight I will be presenting the east of Greenville um
0:53
project to receive public comments on the scope of the environmental impact report as Mr Stewart noted we have alen
0:59
Mahoney here with FRC con Consultants that is part of the environmental consultant team in addition we have Andy
1:04
Ross our economic development manager providing support as he is the project manager for the general Plan
1:11
update can you hear the microphone a little closer I’m hard of hearing sorry all right the purpose of tonight’s
1:19
meeting is to provide the public the opportunity to comment on the scope of the environmental impact report or E
1:26
comments should be limited to the scope of the EIR rather than the merits of the pro project itself tonight’s meeting is
1:32
not held to conduct a question and answer session however everything uh commented in uh tonight will be made
1:40
part of the project record and a formal response will be drafted as part of the draft environmental impact report
1:46
process please note that staff will be returning to Planning Commission at a future meeting for the commission’s
1:52
comments on the E as well as the project at a as a
1:58
whole this slide shows the general overview of the CEQA process as it relates to this particular project a
2:05
notice of preparation for an environmental impact report was released on November 21st 2023 for a 30-day
2:12
public review period tonight we are requesting comments on the contents of the draft
2:18
IR following the close of the public review period staff and the consultant team will prepare a draft e and
2:25
ultimately a final EIR before returning uh to Planning Commission and Milly city council for a decision on the project
2:33
there will be additional opportunities for public comment during this process including an opportunity to comment on
2:39
the draft IR once it is published the project area is generally
2:44
located east of Greenville Road in Alama County with the exception of parcels located west of Greenville Road between
2:51
marathon drive and National Drive the area includes approximately 1140 acres
2:57
of land and is located outside of the city’s limit El the majority of the project area is also located out of the
3:04
city’s North Livermore Urban growth boundary the project area is currently primarily undeveloped with land
3:11
designated as Agricultural and uh scattered with industrial public utilities and Rural
3:16
residential uses during preparation of the land use
3:22
Alternatives analysis for the general Plan update the project area was selected for further exploration the
3:29
vision for this Focus area is to provide a campus-like environment that supports Innovation and Technology based
3:35
companies including a house a mix of housing uh jobs Services I’m I’m sorry excuse me a mix of jobs no housing uh
3:44
services and amenities to help the community achieve long-term fiscal sustainability and also serve as a
3:50
gateway to the South Livermore Wine Country there are three potential land
3:55
use alternatives for the east of Greenville project that were developed to consider consider uh a variety of
4:01
these land uses to achieve this Vision all three Alternatives consist of generally the same land use uh types but
4:08
in various various proportions and locations as shown on this slide here
4:14
the areas shown in red represent General commercial land uses the areas shown in purple represent industrial uses the
4:21
areas shown in varying shades of green represent Recreation and park uses open
4:26
space uses as well as agricultural uses the areas shown in blue represent public
4:32
uses and finally the areas shown in the hatched pattern represent a research and campus uh type of
4:42
development the project that will be analyzed in the environmental impact report is defined as alternative B
4:48
because it is the most intense land use uh pattern of the three Alternatives and therefore has the most potential for
4:55
possible impact analyzing the most intense alternative is useful for value valuating and understanding uh the
5:01
effects of development in the project area the project also includes modifying
5:08
the existing land use designations to allow for the land uses listed on this slide in addition the project includes a
5:14
potential measure on a ballot to expand the north Livermore Urban growth boundary to include the entirety or a
5:21
portion of the project it is important to note that expanding the north Livermore Urban growth boundary requires voter approval
5:30
although it is uncertain whether the city council will ultimately decide to place the measure on the ballot in order
5:36
to have the option to do so environmental review must be completed the E analysis will provide an
5:42
understanding of potential environmental impacts and help inform city council deliberations and create a potential
5:48
opportunity for Li more voters to decide on the land use
5:54
proposal this slide shows the environmental topics anticipated to be analyzed in the Environmental impact
6:00
report this list includes all topics included in the appendix G of the SQL
6:08
guidelines so there are a few ways to submit public comments on this project the first option is to provide comments
6:14
verbally uh tonight alternatively comments may be provided in either
6:19
writing um and sent to the address shown here uh or um comments can also be sent
6:26
in via email shown to the email address on this slide all comments must be submitted by
6:32
Wednesday December 20th at 5:00 which is the close of the public comment period
6:37
staff requests that the comments are limited to the scope of the IR in closing staff recommends the
6:44
Planning Commission receive public comments on the east of Greenville project notice of preparation and the
6:50
contents of the e no additional action is required by the Planning Commission tonight that concludes my presentation
6:58
and stop is available for for any questions thank you Miss Farah for the
7:03
presentation before we open the public hearing I just want to see if anybody on the Planning Commission has any
7:09
clarifying questions
7:14
ask uh thank you chair person I have two uh if you don’t mind one was um just to
7:22
be clear that when we’re talking about this area east of Greenville none of the new expanded area
7:30
that we’re talking about tonight overlaps with the South Livermore special uh planning district does it I
7:38
think there was a little bit of like area where that might have been true or might have not have been
7:50
true so there there maybe a little overlap with the counties South ler
7:56
Valley area plan and the southern end yeah that’s what I was wondering about right so there there’s probably a bit of
8:03
a boundary overlap if I’m understanding correctly from Mr Ross uh but the the rest is um sort of stands on its own
8:11
outside of any the city’s South B Valley specific plan area or counties South L
8:18
area plan great thank you and clarifying question number two is is less I think
8:23
this is a technical thing that I think would be useful for the public in attendance and that is when you say you
8:29
know limit comments to the scope of the eir could you just give an example for all of us just to
8:35
know sure so when we say limit the comments to scope of the IR that means we are looking for comments related to
8:41
the technical nature of the E and the topics that are analyzed by uh an under
8:47
squa and rather than say a a comment that um maybe opines on the project and
8:53
and not a technical nature great thank you Miss thank you Mr Stewart sure chair
8:59
Larry if I can just add on that and um Ashley can you go back to this slide with a graphic on there please so these
9:06
are all the topics and environmental aspects that uh would be included in the
9:13
environmental impact report if you think or the public thinks there’s an area
9:18
that’s not included on here that should be uh that tonight’s an appropriate time
9:23
to bring that up uh because Miss Vera said this is everything in the uh
9:29
California Environmental Quality act dependencies so it’s a pretty exhaustive list and um but if if if uh you think or
9:39
the public thinks there are things missing that should be also analyzed now be appropriate time to to request those
9:45
be included in the scope of the environmental
9:50
document I’m wondering if it would be possible U Mr Stewart and Miss ver to leave this graphic up for the discussion
9:58
so we can just keep referencing it visually thank
10:03
you I I just wanted to make a note for the um for the record and for uh the
10:08
public that uh there is uh audiovisual equipment here tonight that is not part
10:14
of the city um so I just be aware that that is not the city’s audio visual
10:20
equipment and that is an outside group okay thank
10:27
you okay we’ll now open the public hearing and how many speaker cards do we have tonight miss
10:38
stle I have 10 okay so we’ll have a three minutes for each speaker I don’t
10:45
see our eping device up there are you the official okay right so please
10:58
proceed followed by John Stein whenever you have a SQL or anir
11:06
not inir there’s usually one option and one option they give you different options and in evaluating different
11:13
things one option is no project and so that’s the part that I’m speaking here
11:18
tonight is because I believe there should be no project there okay it is
11:23
premature and would be a s significant waste of taxpayers money to commiss and
11:30
environmental impact report eir for developing the land east of Greenville
11:35
Road the land is protected by an urban growth boundary ugb that the residents
11:41
of Livermore strongly support besides there is no current need to consider land outside the ugb for additional
11:48
development there is sufficient land within the ugb to accommodate residential commercial and Industrial
11:56
Development for at least the next next decade and almost certainly for much
12:01
longer than that the population numbers of the city and its consultant place works have used are significantly in
12:09
error in September a city staff report claimed that livermore’s population is
12:14
91,000 in fact the City’s population has never been that high according to
12:20
official state and Census Bureau reports livermore’s population peaked in in 2019
12:26
at 87,8 99 in April of 2020 livermore’s
12:32
official population was reduced by 136 and it has gone down every year
12:38
since then as of January 1st 2023 our population was less than 9
12:45
85,000 that is more than 6,000 lower than the city staff September
12:51
estimates why develop precious open space land when there are alternative
12:57
locations inside the ug GB to accommodate any actual growth for the foreseeable future intensive development
13:04
east of Greenville Road would be extremely costly this rural area now has no public infrastructure and facilities
13:13
for Urban Development it would destroy or harm agriculture Wildlife wetlands
13:19
and watersheds open space and Scenic Beauty air pollution and traffic
13:24
congestion would be increased it would degrade the character of Livermore this proposal is a mistake please vote
13:32
against commissioning an eir at this time for development east of Greenville
13:37
Road to break livermore’s ugb no development here thank
13:46
you John Stein followed by Doug
13:56
Mann uh John Stein uh 1334 Cathy cord city of
14:02
Livermore uh I would urge that uh uh when you do the notice of
14:09
preparation uh you involve not only The Usual Suspects alab County um The Zone 7 the land owners
14:21
LPD a fishing game and the various Transportation uh
14:27
organizations but also expand it to friends of Livermore friends of The
14:33
Vineyards local venters wine grape Growers and other
14:38
irrigated agriculture users uh and uh a tribal
14:44
Conservancy I I think unless there’s a a shared vision for this area perhaps
14:50
somewhat different than the city suggested three options uh the probability of getting gaining vo
14:57
approval is somewhat limited um perhaps uh there can be a set
15:04
of mitigations a smaller area or agriculture that is acceptable to all of
15:10
the various organizations and would urge that uh uh the planning process look into that as
15:18
far as Alternatives uh the area along Jack London Boulevard between Jack
15:24
London Boulevard and the quaries is substantial and the City is currently looking at warehousing and would urge
15:32
the city to look at uh more intensive uses either offices or
15:37
campuses uh perhaps even more commercial also uh in the mid city part
15:43
of the plan uh perhaps uh placing a light industrial along the freeway to
15:49
act as a buffer for the residential uh would be useful that area is bounded on
15:56
one side by railroad tracks and and on the other by 580 and some buffering uh
16:02
would be useful but more important is a shared Vision that stands a chance of being
16:09
approved uh there were three assumptions made uh by the uh uh plan uh General
16:17
plan committee one was that uh there would be voter approval the second is
16:23
that population would increase and currently in California population and the average
16:31
age uh of that population is getting older and the population is
16:37
decreasing uh finally uh at the workshop there seemed to be the idea that the
16:43
high intensity residential could be concentrated in one area separate from
16:48
the city and I would urge that as you look at this uh that area be integrated
16:55
with the city as much as possible with facilities that are used by the rest of the
17:01
city uh finally the Assumption was made that Capital Improvement funding would
17:06
be available and I’m not sure that the uh eir will discuss uh methods either
17:13
bonding uh user fees or M R thank
17:20
you Doug Mann followed by Jeremy tro masi good evening Commissioners I have
17:27
not spoken with the planning Comm for several years and let me just say once I won’t say this every time I come
17:33
to speak with you because I try to preserve time we only get 3 minutes but thank you for serving on the commission
17:38
uh it’s selfless work no money all the above uh but uh we all know you’re doing
17:45
an important job um so when we have an environmental
17:52
consultant that comes and says only talk about these things um that’s just really
17:58
hard to do um we come here outraged that we have not one not two but three
18:06
alternatives to break our Urban growth boundary no alternative uh to preserve the urban
18:13
growth boundary that we fought so hard to create and that we want to keep and that is the environmentally Superior
18:20
alternative if it existed uh they’re not being given it so they’re not they’re not going to study it um you know this
18:26
has place works fingerprints all over it I’m no fan of place works I don’t think they ever should have been hired by the
18:33
city um I I really don’t know any jurisdiction that would uh even benefit
18:38
from uh hiring place works I I uh they have shown that whenever they whenever
18:44
placeworks come here mostly what they do is they make this place worse and I don’t like it um I don’t know how to
18:52
talk to these topics as instructed by your $300,000 Environmental consultant
18:59
um it’s uh premature it’s unwelcome to have this
19:06
alternative and uh I’m not sure that anything more needs to be said we know that the city council is going to break
19:13
the urban growth boundary we know that’s coming we’re not stupid um and your uh
19:19
place works is going to recommend breaking the urban growth boundary obviously that’s all they’re doing uh
19:25
and you will recommend and alternative of breaking the urban growth boundary
19:30
move forward to the city council I would say send this back to staff with your strongest possible statement that you
19:37
need an alternative that doesn’t break the urban grow boundary thank
19:43
you Jeremy troop mossi followed by Jeff
19:51
Kaskey sheesh how we doing tonight guys thanks
19:57
for being here um so I am uh Jeremy tro MSI I’m the um
20:03
Vice chair on the general planning committee um one of those people who sits through those meetings and spends
20:09
my time much like you so um I’m happy to be here even with the torn ailles um just to put my uh record my my my
20:16
comments on record so um I’m a part of that committee that spends a lot of time with this document and these suggestions
20:21
to you um and I’ll just get to the point um I think it would be irresponsible of
20:26
the city of Livermore on the behalf of everyone who lives here to not consider everything in the scope of our influence
20:33
and that includes what is this east of Greenville no decisions will be made tonight and no decisions will be made
20:39
for the foreseeable future I am asking you to think broader than the comments that you’re going to hear tonight I’m
20:44
trying not to get it only took three comments to get me spicy um because you hear a lot of things in here um I’ve
20:50
been in that meeting for the past nearly two years every other Wednesday you know
20:56
whatever it doesn’t matter um and there is more work happening than what is being suggested this evening decisions
21:02
haven’t been made and at the end of the day it comes to a a complete vote that is the beauty of this democracy so I
21:09
understand we all can come up here and say whatever we’d like to um relative to what we’re suggesting we are simply
21:15
suggesting that we are responsible and how we manage the city its boundaries and how we would like to grow within the
21:20
next 20 to 30 years and if we refuse as a city to go this way it’s such a
21:27
contrast of opinion to cons like to to suggest that we can’t consider going this way um when it comes to Urban
21:33
growth boundaries so um man when you start going off your notes here um I got
21:40
a little time so bear with me um I didn’t crutch up all the way up here not to say a few more things um so I mean
21:48
yeah there’s still a vote the city should do their due diligence and we should learn more about what is ahead of
21:53
us before we are so certain as to what is next for us
22:00
um you know and that’s that’s all I got guys um happy to be here um and I hope
22:05
we can continue to educate ourselves on what’s best for the future of Livermore as an entirety uh we are not the Cow
22:11
Town we used to be Jeff Kaskey followed by David
22:26
rs’s all right anyway ah um good evening Commissioners
22:32
and staff my name is Jeff Kaskey I’m a resident of Livermore for some 40 years
22:39
a decision to break the urban growth boundary should be based on significant compelling needs that can only be met by
22:44
breaking the urban growth boundary and nothing we’ve seen so far shows that need even with requests from both
22:51
General plan advisory committee members and members of the public we have not seen the no build plan for the east of
22:57
Greenville fot Focus area this plan requires that the people of Livermore vote against protecting this
23:03
Agricultural and open space as was just noted we know that Livermore residents value their protected egg and open space
23:09
uh land so the no build options should be included so that we can get a a a
23:15
complete picture for residents to consider there is a lot of underdeveloped and undeveloped land
23:21
available for economic and uh for industrial and research uses uh within the city limits within the city
23:29
we have 78% of the industrial square footage of the whole Tri Valley according to the city’s own Economic
23:34
Development strategic plan it appears that the driving reason for this push is topcon’s ownership of the land in the
23:40
focus area which they want to use for industrial uses it’s not surprising that’s what you would expect them to
23:45
push for um but they don’t need to be bailed out by the city of Livermore um to suddenly get their land revalued as
23:52
industrial land they can buy industrial property the same as everybody else there’s EX existing industrial land um
23:59
and the gpac focus areas suggest even more so besides topcon’s windfall
24:05
there’s really no reason for this change let’s take a look at the areas suggested the wine Catalyst area can be done
24:10
outside the ugb that’s one of the reasons we have a ugb that’s kind of strange to go and
24:16
create an area and then pull it in the research facility Zone sounds interesting but if it’s important why
24:22
wasn’t it suggested in any of the other industrial uses the ones inside the ugb
24:27
none of them are more than 2 miles from the lab two of them are right across the street so if the research facility is
24:32
important and I think it would be cool it can be easily done inside the ugb at the same time along with wildlife
24:39
habitat the land currently contains equestrian facilities grazing land and Rural
24:44
residences this proposed uh change will push them off the land when the property value Rises as it gets revalued as
24:50
industrial land so will their property tax so the increased value will encourage them to sell as the increased
24:57
cost pushes them to sell there was some belief that bringing
25:02
this land into the city would protect it even better but this group actually is probably one of the groups that knows
25:07
best that that’s really not true it takes a vote of three of you folks and three from the city council to completely change the purpose of land
25:14
once it’s inside the city boundary breaking the livermore’s urban
25:19
growth boundary is a far-reaching precedent setting proposal it should be based on unique compelling needs that
25:25
can only be met by breaking the ugb and none of that is here instead this would set a precedent of breaking the ugv to
25:32
benefit influential corporations thank
25:37
you David rounds followed by Alan
25:43
Burnham good evening Commissioners and staff um so my comment on the scoping of
25:50
this project is it should not there should not be an eir at this time um and
25:56
I’ll tell you why in the staff report to the city council on September of
26:02
2022 regarding the comprehensive General Plan update livermore’s current population was pegged at
26:09
91,000 and jobs were at 53,000 this report went on to say that
26:14
using abag and MTC methodology the population could increase to
26:20
120,000 and 57,000 jobs by 2040 fast forward one year to last month
26:30
land use Alternatives report for the general Plan update where they presented these three
26:37
Alternatives uh the growth projections in those plans were wildly optimistic compared to what was projected a year
26:45
ago using the middle alternative for example the general plan document is saying that City should plan for a
26:51
population of 134,00 significantly higher than the 120,000 that was predicted
26:58
last year and for 81,000 jobs which is significantly more jobs than were
27:03
projected last year the general plan document assumes that you can only get these numbers by breaking the urban
27:09
growth boundary and expanding the City by over 1100 Acres today we are reviewing you
27:16
are reviewing a notice of preparation for the eir of the 1100 Acres of current open
27:22
space that Livermore would need to bring into the city limits to achieve these overly optimistic projection my question
27:29
is why spend today the several $100,000 it will cost for an eir for land that
27:34
the city does not need today and might not need in 2045 planning is important but it is a
27:41
difficult process made much more difficult because of the significant changes the bar is seeing around home
27:46
prices and employment many people work at home at least part of the time some people work at home all the time will
27:54
this trend continue sure and it probably probably it will and it
28:00
makes these overly optimistic projections for the general plan document that much more unrealistic once
28:07
the 2024 General Plan update is in effect the city can review that plan every
28:12
year why not produce a document a document that is more realistic for the next 10 years and if circumstances
28:19
change and they will revise the general plan when you have a better idea of what the real changing Trends are today’s
28:26
General plan View and update has not offered compelling reasons for these overly optimistic
28:32
projections if there are compelling reasons they should be clearly stated and Su and clearly and succinctly stated
28:41
to the public particularly if the city expects citizens to vote to break the
28:46
urban growth boundary in order to expand the city thank
28:52
you Alan Burnham followed by Michael fuchi uh good evening honorable uh
28:59
Commissioners I support an e eir to explore environmental aspects um a
29:05
potential development east of Greenville but I’m concerned that the e as proposed will be misconstrued by the public and I
29:12
think you probably heard some of that tonight and it will not but it will not address all the important environmental
29:18
issues needed to inform voters of any proposed modification of the urban growth boundary I don’t really have
29:23
enough time to debate all the the other content that has been said but I but I will make the comment that alternative B
29:30
makes the least sense of any of those three options is the most intensive and that’s why it’s being but but there’s
29:35
really no way in the world that that’s ever going to be done um the the commercial area there is is bigger than
29:42
than all the commercial area u in the west side of uh downtown so the question
29:47
the question is do you actually get the information you need to make an assessment of of a of an environmental
29:54
impact I suggest that perhaps maybe by changing you can if you do that but then you say okay if we reduce the commercial
30:01
down to 30% of that value what difference does it make another words it’s always tradeoffs uh that you have
30:07
to cons be considering um I also recommend that the e address the issue of public benefits
30:14
of this development um it really hasn’t uh been discussed here tonight but it it
30:19
it really impacts all these things as as as other speakers have said one of the
30:25
main justifications of this is is the question of whether or not there’s enough land inside the current um city
30:31
limits to provide all the housing that may be required by Reena um and if you
30:36
don’t analyze this in the context of the overall picture you’re not getting the right answer uh and you also need to
30:44
look at the uh the issue of maintaining good jobs housing uh ratio considering Rea pressures and and and even more
30:51
important generate uh what’s the potential of generating funds to permanently preserve agricultural lands
30:57
and wineries in the east and south of Livermore in other words again one of the reasons for doing this is to
31:03
generate resources to do other things and if you’re not including those other things in the analysis you’re just really not going to get a good answer so
31:10
I that’s why I think you need to take a more holistic view of this e thank
31:16
you Michael fuchi followed by Richard Ryan good
31:23
evening I brought a guitar with me because um what can I say I I I’ve own a
31:28
music store in Livermore for over 30 years I’ve lived in Livermore as a resident for over 40 years and uh I
31:35
can’t remember the last time I brought a guitar to a city council meeting or meeting like this but um I just wanted
31:41
to say that I agree with several speakers that have spoken about baying breaking the e or breaking the urban
31:48
birth boundary so instead of like preparing uh a speech tonight I thought I’d just write a few words and and sing
31:55
a short song um that might be uh helpful for the other voices out there that
32:01
couldn’t make the meeting tonight so I’ll do this why not leave my boundary alone in my place
32:10
I call home let the dear and anal play where selom is heard a developer
32:20
word and the skies are not cloudy all day oh Home on the
32:29
Range is the urban growth boundary we claim it benefits us all that the all
32:37
here our call to maintain a strong boundary this
32:43
way home Home on the Range with a boundary not subject to
32:51
change it’s a right to protect and not to neglect the open space that Still
33:02
Remains that’s all I got to say all right thank you appreciate the
33:08
time Juan Pablo Gales Martinez gvan
33:17
sorry followed by Paula
33:23
Peterson I’m afraid I can’t top what you just heard
33:28
uh I I would just like to I I think
33:33
we’re out of work what was the speaker who was the next speaker Juan Pablo
33:39
sorry Mr Ryan was next I think followed by okay I just want to make sure we got the right order yeah I’m Richard
33:46
Ryan I’d like this just second the comments of previous speakers
33:52
particularly Jean King and and and the comments of other people this whole thing seems to be
33:59
premature the the the general uh plan commission is still here holding
34:07
public hearings on this topic it’s hasn’t been decided by the city council it hasn’t been decided by anybody yet it
34:14
just seems to be incredibly premature to even be considering an eir
34:21
so I I would hope that you would just send it back to the staff and say hold this for a while and uh
34:28
see what what what comes out of the public hearings that that are taking place so
34:34
thank
34:44
you the previous gentleman look more like a Juan Pablo than I do
34:50
so good evening ladies and gentlemen my name is Juan senior landage manager for
34:56
thank you for to comment here uh tonight among the many projects we’ve been
35:01
involved in in this area with my tenure at SMD is the creation of a permanent East Side Urban limit line for the city
35:07
of Dublin the uh permanent West Side Urban limit line that was used to be uh
35:13
uh temporary on the west side of Dublin and we also waited on the Aramis solo project proposed for County land in the
35:19
north limore area as well as a proposed Cemetery more recently uh that we’ve had
35:24
concerns with BB Chang land use biological impacts things like that with regard to this project uh tonight glad
35:32
to see uh uh basically throwing the kitchen sink of squa uh at this and
35:37
that’s pretty good because this project would most likely require an examination of all those uh issues what is usually
35:45
missing from an examination of biological resources that in our experience is very uh cogent to this
35:51
specific project is that uh this project is being proposed in the narrowest point
35:57
in the 200m long diabal range which runs from basically the tip of Contra Costa
36:03
County from the water down to the Kern County the little tippy top right there
36:09
so it is the neck I like to call it of Mount diu the the thin thin connection
36:18
that that very popular Mountain very biologically Rich area has to the rest of the diabo range and based on all
36:24
sorts of research that we’ve seen uh uh regarding climate change the need for a north south uh migration Corridor for
36:31
various plant and Wildlife species uh but even perhaps more importantly the
36:36
need to maintain it for populations that currently exist and require their genetic inte Integrity to be maintained
36:42
the population South of the 580 to connect them with the north uh a lot of times that examination of the importance
36:50
of wildli quarters missing from squa documents uh that examine things like
36:55
this also we note that there are very very few Crossings Wildlife Crossings
37:01
along the 580 that connect the north and south side of the Diablo range and one of them would be directly impacted uh by
37:08
this proposal so uh definitely examination of that would be uh very important obviously has been noted um a
37:16
no project alternative would be well served being included in this squid document and
37:24
if another set another alternative besides a no project is to be considered
37:30
one thing we’ve noticed is that uh cities that like to expand their uh
37:37
urban urban limit lines we call them in qu Costa County Urban growth boundaries here but for example Pittsburgh they
37:43
will attempt to set aside small areas of open space or mitigation land in a sea of
37:49
development maybe better served to have a wide swath along one side one axis of
37:55
this project uh that could amarate some of your mitigation concerns that’s it for me thank
38:01
you Paula
38:10
Peterson hi there um my name is Paula Peterson and I really wasn’t sure what
38:16
an eir was so I kind of Now understand a little bit about it but um I’ve heard
38:24
people here say I’ve been here for 40 years um my family’s been here uh since
38:31
the 1800s I heard somebody say that this is no longer a Cow Town well I still run
38:38
cattle today because my grandfather ran cattle today the property that you are
38:44
doing this eir is where I live I heard somebody say that if um we we expand the
38:52
urban growth boundaries that the population of the people that live there will probably have to pay higher
38:59
property taxes or eventually have to move that’s me that’s I I will be
39:05
affected um we talk about this being 20 years from now so I’m speaking for my
39:11
grandsons because today they’re learning how to run cattle they’re learning the responsibilities of being in a country
39:19
World um you take that away and which we’re taking away today where kids don’t
39:25
even have that cap capability of doing you know the outdoor things that they
39:30
should be doing we becoming a um computer technology where kids are you
39:37
know on their phones or they’re on their video games uh you know I’m fortunate to
39:43
have grandsons that will grow up to learn how to have the responsibilities of being able to um
39:52
have good ethics good work ethics uh learn the you know the life of um uh the
40:01
circle of life kind of things kids today don’t get to learn that um this
40:08
environmental whatever I’m not sure exactly what it all means and how it all
40:14
handles but I think it has already been said that we have a lot of um places
40:21
inside the city limits that we can look at growing uh it’s already been known
40:27
that the population is you know going down not going up I had heard also how we were going to make this this whole
40:34
growth thing was going to make it so that people could live in Livermore and work in
40:40
Livermore today if you don’t make 100,000 each in a dual resident you will
40:46
not be able to buy a house in liver rent in Livermore is extremely high
40:53
so expanding the city of Livermore is is not going to fix the problems that we
40:58
have today and I don’t see that we’re addressing the problems we have today so
41:04
I’m obviously a no no growth um I think she said it the best that how she
41:12
explained the whole thing the gentleman that said that this is no longer a cowboy Town look at your emblem there’s
41:18
a cowboy so that’s just my my take and
41:24
thank you for listening
41:29
those are all the cards I
41:37
have okay so we will thank you very much for the comments we will close the public comment period And there’s no
41:45
action required tonight from the Planning Commission but want to give each commissioner a chance if they’d like to ask uh make a comment regarding
41:55
and these are comments regarding the scope of the contents of the E and so we’ll go to uh commissioner dumbar
42:04
first uh thanks I’ll keep this uh brief thank you for being here and expressing your concerns I know that um as was
42:11
expressed it’s a rather specific topic and I hopefully you saw that we accepted your comments
42:17
um as broad as they were and they will all be taken back um I there were some
42:23
things I just wanted to quickly go through a no project alternative is required for this analysis correct as
42:28
with an so it will be analyzed correct that’s correct
42:34
okay and um there were a lot of smaller things that I think will be they’re all
42:41
getting written down and recorded and they’ll will’ll be addressed the other one I heard was
42:48
um that I wanted to jump after let me see if I can find it um an e does address public benefit in a
42:57
roundabout way but it’s primarily focused on environmentalism you know the the impact
43:03
of a project and the the public benefits are not really necessarily required or
43:08
are only required in certain cases is that generally correct okay so it’s we we should talk
43:16
about it and I think I heard the word uh clear and concise explanation of the trade-offs and I I’m I’m looking for
43:22
that as well and I think we should all expect that um
43:28
I think those were the the ones that stuck out to me oh I my uh roommate in college is finishing up his PhD at Davis
43:35
with a PhD in geography and his specialty is in Wildlife quarters so I really appreciated that comment thank
43:46
you commissioner PCO thank you chairperson Larry um I
43:53
think most of my questions were covered by commissioner Dumar um there was uh
44:00
one thing I did want to clarify that it is the um City staff so the city of
44:06
Livermore is initiating the eir is my understanding and it’s required by law
44:12
in order for it to be considered by the city council um am I wrong about that so
44:23
um earlier this year the city council did direct staff to to initiate an environmental impact report for this
44:29
project uh the city is acting as uh what’s called the lead agency under squa
44:34
um meaning that they are the decision makers uh as it relates to um the environmental document being certified
44:41
ultimately as we know the the final decision regarding the ballot does um depend on voter approval um but you you
44:48
have that correct that uh the the city is um drafting the IR essentially thank
44:55
you
45:07
Mr CAC thank you chairperson um several of
45:13
the other Commissioners have asked questions that I was rapidly typing a bullet point list note uh up here to
45:19
cover so thank you other Commissioners um there are two areas in specific that I would
45:28
just want to offer comment on um the E itself please correct me if I’m wrong is
45:34
by necessity site specific because it can only consider the boundaries of the area that whatever land use change is
45:41
being proposed in correct that’s correct it’s putting together a baseline area to evaluate and
45:49
evaluate those impacts um the follow-up question I have is is with regard to the
45:55
topics that are here and this is mostly because we get a you know boot camp in this sort of information but with regard
46:01
to the topics here these are the ones that the state of California but requires in a squa sort of environmental
46:10
review right that is correct okay um looking at sort of the California
46:16
required topics on this list there are a couple that I would like to uh request
46:22
special emphasis on as part of this environmental and PCT report one is
46:28
Transit uh and Transit accessibility I do have some concerns
46:34
regarding Transit integration with the rest of the city of this area and then
46:40
the second area would be um related to
46:46
the I’m sorry I’m looking for the exact technical term here public services and
46:52
public service and public servicing utilities to this area uh as part of that as areas of specific
46:59
study that said one of the questions that remained in my mind that I think
47:07
has been also articulated by a number of folks here tonight is while not in the
47:12
direct scope of what is considered a technical eir there is a bigger why I
47:17
think in my mind and in some of the minds of the commenters here tonight and
47:22
I do want to ask that as part of this process can we focus on elements of that
47:29
bigger why uh I believe one commenter spoke about it as can we make this e a
47:34
little bit more holistic in its approach even if that is not necessarily what is ordinarily done for the case of
47:42
an um in that regard the areas that were kind of on my mind as well were impact
47:50
on Agra business and small business uh in that area impact on wildlife and
47:56
Wildlife Resources specifically biological resources um and also impact on uh
48:05
plantable acreage for our Vineyards which was why I was asking uh which sort
48:11
of specific plans this area might overlap with earlier um and
48:17
lastly one of the other things and I will say this having personally come from the general plan advisory committee
48:24
is that this is about eval ating tradeoffs um and I think there
48:29
is to a lot of the points that are being made tonight you know there’s this
48:37
analysis of do we have enough land in
48:42
aggregate for specific commercial and Industrial uses versus do we have enough
48:49
of that land concentrated in the right areas for these uses and it’s sort of
48:56
you know the same argument that Xfinity or Comcast uses and says oh we’re not a
49:02
monopoly because we cover all of Northern California but Verizon covers all of Nevada right well that’s not very
49:08
local that’s very that’s very sort of hyper Regional and I think in this case
49:15
you know educating our voters and educating our city with regard to why
49:21
some of the sizing of the proposed land uses are being proposed this way would
49:27
would be a very edifying component to this as it moves forward um because I
49:33
I’ve heard you know that yes in aggregate if you were to take all the commercial and industrial space and pack
49:40
it all together we have plenty of it but some of those sites are too small to be useful for the kind of uses we want for
49:46
our city moving forward so I think digging into that a little bit would be something you
49:52
know that I believe would be edifying for both our voters and for for for folks moving forward and again none of
49:59
these are things that are typically considered in an e but due to the sensitivity of this area and due to the
50:06
history were just comments I wanted to add as areas if you can include please
50:13
do I Anderson thank you uh and thank you everybody for the comments um I know
50:20
that they will all be deeply noted by staff um I just did want to do some
50:27
clarification uh we are not voting on anything tonight
50:33
correct that is correct thank you um the city council has already commissioned
50:39
the eir to be done that’s correct that is correct and if I may add
50:46
in uh commissioner Vin jenko’s earlier question related to the state requirement I wanted to reiterate yes it
50:52
is a state requirement based on the actions that we do need to do an eir um
50:57
uh in order to consider any movement forward at all regardless of the outcome
51:04
thank you um and uh we have as a Planning Commission no authority to stop
51:12
this eir correct that’s that’s correct yeah um so
51:19
especially since it’s on the agenda as receiving public comment there’s nothing
51:25
we could could do in this agenda item to say no even if we wanted
51:32
to that’s correct and and um we would bring this this item at a future public
51:37
hearing for your recommendation at that time that that would be appropriate all thank you appreciate that I’ll just add
51:43
to there’ll be another uh public comment for the actual draft environmental impact report
51:49
itself awesome yeah because tonight is about the scoping what are we going to look at right um
51:56
moving on down the line um and uh commissioner Dunbar brought this up
52:01
about the uh no project option that is not just something we will look at
52:06
that’s legally required Now isn’t it yeah so okay um thank you
52:14
um uh next uh taxes uh Prop 13 still
52:19
covers all properties in the state correct that’s my understanding yes okay
52:27
so property tax would would only rise at 2% um for property owners until they
52:36
sell that land that’s right okay I just wanted to double check on that as well
52:41
um um
52:46
so and then
52:53
um oh that was since the voters okay this question is going to have a lot of ifs so I
53:01
apologize first if the council votes if it moves forward if it goes to the
53:06
voters um and then if the voters approve so after all those steps if that’s what
53:14
ends up happening then the land use designation would be decided at that
53:19
point is that correct yeah so there would be additional steps that would occur after
53:26
that um including um things like annexation of the properties uh future
53:32
more detailed planning of the area as well um that would all be something developed in the future okay so we’ll
53:41
have even more the public will have even more opportunity at that point for land use
53:47
designation correct that is correct so a lot this
53:53
year is still a very high level picture of the land use pattern out here and as Miss feris said there’s a range of
54:00
different land use types we’re considering as part of this alternative and that’ll have to get further refined as we move through the
54:06
process thank you um it is good to see you here Mr Ross because this question
54:12
kind of pertains to the other e we have is there any overlap between the two
54:18
IRS or are they just completely separate they are separate but related so they’re
54:24
working on Parallel paths now and the general Plan update eir is looking at
54:30
the Citywide scale at East potentially east of Greenville because the decisions on what the preferred Landing scenario
54:36
has not been decided yet plus all the other Focus areas and this particularly
54:42
is looking solely at the east of Greenville area at some point in the future they may merge and we’ll just
54:48
have to keep coordinating these efforts as we move forward thank you so much um U thank you
54:55
Steph I really appreciate all that um I think uh it was uh Jeremy tro masi
55:00
brought up the point that this is this is a very thoughtful process that we’re that there’s a lot behind the scenes
55:06
that we are you know that staff is working on to make sure that we have every option available and understand
55:14
everything about this so uh I appreciate all your hard work um Jeremy sh M also
55:21
said that we’re no longer a cow toown um we may not be the same type of Cow Town
55:26
but we’re still a cow toown at heart so um that that’s all I
55:33
have okay thank you to everybody who came tonight provide their comments on this uh e
55:39
scoping yes oh yeah yeah I’m sorry thank you so much chairperson Larry I had one
55:45
more question regarding the scope and it’s just an understanding because this is for a plan for 20 years from now as
55:53
as one of the commenters pointed out when the ER is done is only the impact
55:59
looked at immediately when the land use designation could be changed or are
56:04
there projections for what could happen in the the 20 years down the
56:10
road yeah so the E will look at both essentially the the present day but also
56:17
um kind of fast forward into the future and and look at um other kind of changes
56:22
in the environment expected projects in the pipeline line and kind of what we call the in the IR the cumulative
56:28
conditions of the project and how that may impact um the topics listed
56:33
here I would just add really quickly to to put another point on what Miss ver said is we would look at a scenario
56:41
where whereby all these land uses on the map that are colors are built out right
56:47
to see what would that impact look like and we would project what time frame we think we would get built out at and
56:53
that’s how we’re Sim similar doing this with the E and some of the analysis we’ve done as part of the land use
56:58
Alternatives those evaluations look at what would the conditions look like at
57:04
buildout at year 2045 it doesn’t tell us how fast or when but if we fast forward
57:10
into time and and assumed everything got built out this is what we would expect
57:15
to happen Okay thank you Mr so I’m assuming that would include so that would include the impacts in all these
57:22
areas including agriculture and Agra business um assumptions based on
57:28
population and housing and a range of those assumptions yes that’s correct thank
57:38
you okay I just had uh one question on the E process and then two comments on
57:45
the scoping Miss Vera the question is could you describe to me the process I
57:50
heard some question from the public about how we’re going to invol involve stakeholders and other agencies that’s
57:58
not a chapter in the e but that’s a process that you go through how how are they
58:04
involved sure so I I believe the comment you’re referencing to is talking about maybe distribution of County the
58:11
documents yeah fishing game yeah so the um all these environment documents including the nose preparation and
58:17
eventually the the draft di those are sent to those uh those agencies um
58:23
consistent with state law and requirements as well as kind of our neighboring agencies such as Alam County
58:30
um and so those those will be sent um when it comes to a groups that are not
58:35
necessarily listed on um say the state’s list of kind of distribution for example
58:40
like it’s you know calr gets a copy um uh fishing game as with noted gets a
58:46
copy um when there’s other groups outside of that uh the city does have a um interest list that can be um added to
58:53
a list serve uh that’s kind of similar to like a public hearing notice list where they are notified of document
58:59
availability um and provided again the opportunity to to comment okay the
59:06
comment I see in your list here uh geology and soils and when I’m looking
59:11
at the alternative B uh and the land uses I’m just you’re going to have to
59:17
make some assumptions for density right you’re uh to look at traffic and I’m
59:24
wondering about the Contours at the North End of the of the the area that
59:29
we’re talking about and how is that part of the process you’re going to be looking at how you would fit those
59:36
industrial Parcels in there and how the grading would look that would affect D that would affect geology right right so
59:44
the the E will include a set of assumptions on um kind of the maximum intensity of development based on each
59:51
individual use that could go in and then analyze it assuming that maximum intensity is Mr
59:58
Stewart no I wasn’t going to add anything into what SP was okay saying so there wouldn’t be a grading
1:00:05
plan in in the E you would just assume that all the density that’s shown
1:00:11
in the I call it the purple area is possible and analyze the site in that way that’s right the cir is um
1:00:18
considered to be programmatic in nature where it is kind of a higher um level look at it uh in the future if uh you
1:00:26
know detailed planning were to continue on this project and and ultimately development were to occur then that’s
1:00:32
when um things like raing plans would be would be provided okay last uh item for
1:00:39
scoping I believe it’s Patterson P Road there’s the uh transmission lines that
1:00:44
uh run parallel with Road just on the south side and they’re not your typical uh secondary or primary power lines
1:00:52
these are the I don’t think it’s p though there’s a substation too right there at patteron Pass Road and I know
1:00:58
that can sometimes impact what can happen underneath so that would then there’s a
1:01:05
chapter on utilities right so that’s a different group that’s not your typical
1:01:11
P coordination it’s it’s a go ahead I believe those are the power lines that
1:01:17
that substation feeds the labs which is on a different network and different grid and so we would look at the impact
1:01:23
of the project development to the existing conditions and that would be part of the existing conditions we’d
1:01:28
also look at how would this development or area be Serve by utilities like PG
1:01:35
Etc okay all right we no action from the commission but yes
1:01:42
yes I apologize CH person Larry um I did have one more question and one more
1:01:47
comment um Miss in addition to the two areas of specific emphasis that I called
1:01:53
out related to the environmental imp report the public services and transportation areas I actually had the
1:01:58
word Wildfire circled on my little notepad which is in my mind it was a
1:02:04
proxy for something that is actually not listed by the state which is the impacts
1:02:09
of climate change um and I know that’s very very hard to sort of assess but at
1:02:16
the same time I think 20 years from now if we continue on the trend of warming
1:02:21
that we’re on we’re going to be pushing about 2° cels and honestly that may actually affect
1:02:27
the kind of land uses we want to put out in that area should it move forward so I
1:02:33
had Wildfire circled as a proxy for can we also start thinking more about the
1:02:38
impact of climate change here in our region um and what that might mean for how we want to do with our land uh so
1:02:45
that was the other actual area I neglected to mention and then I also just neglected to say thank you um
1:02:51
there’s a lot of folks here tonight and I’m deeply appreciative of everyone in this town and thank you for coming out
1:02:57
tonight and thank you to staff for this incredibly hard work putting this together thank
1:03:05
you just one more for me and I’ll reiterate uh thank you for coming out all of you um those of you familiar with
1:03:12
this process and those of you unfamiliar with this process you’re welcome here um and some of you may unfamiliar might
1:03:18
think this was all very dry it’s all just a part of the process we’re all eagerly awaiting that draft IR I’m sure
1:03:24
I will see many of your faces again on that um I wanted to tee
1:03:29
up uh a question to staff that I will probably ask when the draft comes back
1:03:36
which is to say when the draft comes back this commission I want everyone to understand
1:03:41
our role here this commission is going to make a determination whether that e is adequate correct we are not
1:03:49
necessarily going to make a determination that that is the option that we want the city council to take or
1:03:54
the staff that that’s the one we like but only to say that the all the environmental impacts have been properly
1:04:00
addressed that’s what we’re being asked to do here whether they should do something is a council question is that
1:04:07
correct that is correct to ultimately make a recommendation on either certifying the e or not and that
1:04:13
recommendation will go to council um that will occur once the final eir is is
1:04:19
drafted we are certainly open to our own personal opinions but that’s the thing that we task to do with and then I’ll
1:04:26
probably ask it the same way when we come back so
1:04:31
thanks Mr Stewart do you have what you need on this item we do thank you very much all right
1:04:38
we will ask I ask one conclude I oh so there’s opportunity to I’m sorry public
1:04:44
comment is closed but you have an opportunity until December 20th to send in your
1:04:50
comments yeah appreciate that so we’ll move on to item
1:05:11
6.1