Machine generated transcript of the 2024-08-20 Planning Commission meeting with video timestamps, synchronized with the video posted on our Youtube page.
0:02
okay good evening ladies and gentlemen uh and uh welcome to tonight’s uh August
0:08
20th I call this meeting planning uh I call tonight’s August 20th Planning Commission meeting to order can we have
0:14
a roll call commissioner dumbar here commissioner konac here commissioner ly
0:22
here Vice chair fince chenko here and chairperson Anderson here um let’s stand
0:28
for the pledge of aliance I believe there’s a flag
0:35
outside I pledge allegiance flag of United States of America to
0:42
the stands na indivisible andice for
0:51
all thank you okay that will take us to open Forum
0:58
this is an opportunity for the public to address the Planning Commission regarding any items not on the agenda
1:04
tonight um in Con in conformance with the brown act no Planning Commission action can occur on items presented
1:10
during open Forum um to provide public comment please submit a speaker card when your
1:17
name is called walk up to the back of the projector we will have a microphone
1:22
ready for you um comments are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person per item um the chair May reduce the time
1:29
time in the amount or reduce the amount of time based on the number of persons wishing to speak open form will conclude
1:37
after 30 minutes however if there are are additional speakers open form will
1:42
reconvene after matters for consideration all comments submitted via email to the Planning Commission before
1:48
noon today provided in the Planning Commission and are included in the PC
1:54
packet supplemental materials so do we have any public comment
2:01
Doug man I’m Doug man um Springtown and the
2:09
adjoining areas of the city uh north of 580 have been historically given less
2:15
attention and respect than where we live and I say we because the five of you and me don’t live here uh we’re all you know
2:23
much further south in city and um it we don’t always notice what the heck’s
2:29
going on over here um it was a laudable decision to bring this meeting to the Elks Which is far
2:35
more accessible location for attendees who want to participate and be respected as equals um so let’s talk about
2:44
Equity the if the gavit hill project had been located in
2:49
Southside I have no doubt it would have been conserved long ago being situated
2:54
in the Deep North how long did it take for any of us all of us to even notice
2:59
that this was was going on um residents over here were publicly against uh the
3:04
urbanization of the Hill as far back as 2011 um but the first I heard about it was 29 ask yourselves when was the first
3:13
time you heard about gavet the hill and the controversy uh around it um maybe we
3:19
need some sort of north south awareness committee um or encourage the inclusion
3:24
of Greater Geographic diversity on committees like this so that you know we’re not all from over there sort of
3:30
making decisions about what goes on you know over here over the past few years as a society we have gradually learned
3:37
to our benefit that proactively paying attention to other people who don’t look like us have a different lifestyle or
3:43
live under different conditions than uh than us is a necessary activity for a
3:49
healthy Society uh besides it’s the right thing to do um the people who live north of 580
3:56
are not like us by virtue of their geography um in the Contemporary essence of the
4:02
expression they need to be seen and they want and expect the city
4:08
to do everything in its power to protect an an environmentally sensitive area from being
4:13
destroyed let’s stand firmly with
4:23
them if you have a public comment for open Forum not for the agenda uh
4:28
agendized item just for open form please
4:34
uh okay so um I can’t couldn’t agree more
4:40
with the last speaker um coming from or growing in um living in Springtown for
4:48
30 years I’ve been asking questions that I haven’t had answered since like
4:55
2002 2004 maybe at the latest and you know things kind of get bounced around
5:02
oh that’s you know Public Works um we
5:08
actually had place works here um and there well it wasn’t here well
5:14
there was one here but it was at um the Offa Airway they got the big Center
5:21
there the shrine Center and you know we had assigned
5:27
seats and a lot of people came with friends and good ideas we walked in
5:32
there we couldn’t sit with the people we came with because they wanted to encourage diversity and anything you
5:40
said in your little group sort of was twisted and perceived it was written
5:45
down as a perception from our facilitator there was a facilitator at
5:50
each table so specific things that we were trying to get across were squashed
5:58
you know we had spefic specific things that we were trying to maybe um have our city consider but
6:07
instead they took what you said art my facilitator who you know he still works
6:12
for the city he took what I said and put it under a very general heading and it
6:18
really wasn’t what I was saying so I really think that um something needs to
6:24
be done to bridge the disconnect and it can’t in appearance because when David
6:32
early was asking us questions at the time you know for our area I would give
6:39
him I would ask him questions and he couldn’t answer map
6:45
questions boundary questions things that were extremely relevant to you know the
6:52
conversation and so it got squashed but thank you for listening and I know you
6:58
you you know you have we all have our own backyard and our mind at all times I’m sure but thanks for thinking about
7:04
that and um I really do appreciate what doug man just said he couldn’t it couldn’t be further from the
7:12
truth thank you do we have a any more speakers for open form no then I will
7:18
close the open form and move us to consent calendar which we have none which will take us to project review
7:24
which we have none which will then take us to public hearings and we have have
7:29
5.1 a public hearing to receive comments on recirculated uh partial draft
7:35
environmental impact report uh for garavente Hills project that includes
7:40
the following land use uh entitlements vesting 10 of tra act map
7:46
8094 and site plan design review 13
7:53
-005 um I will hand it over to staff for our uh presentation
8:01
good evening chairperson Anderson members of the commission my name is Steve Stewart special projects
8:06
coordinator and I’m joining at the staff table with Deputy City attorney Katherine Miu uh acting principal acting
8:14
planning manager Ben Murray uh and also Rebecca Al vice president at lamford
8:19
Gregory environmental Consultants is with us um and so
8:30
be juggling a few pieces of equipment here this
8:36
evening so we’re we are here this evening to receive comments on the
8:41
Garena Hills recirculated partial draft environmental impact
8:47
report and uh there’s a particular focus of tonight’s meeting we’ll talk a little
8:53
bit more in detail later on but it’s specifically to receive comments on the
8:58
recirculated portions of the project deir or environmental impact report that
9:03
talked about available funding sources for acquiring and preserving the property as open space under a
9:11
particular project alternative that’s required to be in an in an environmental impact
9:17
report so we’ve recirculated only those parts that have been revised from the
9:23
previous environmental impact report and we’re requesting that comments come in
9:28
just on those recirculated um new parts of the environmental impact report and
9:35
that’s consistent with the court ruling in California environmental law that um
9:42
will only address or respond to comments on that topic in the final environmental
9:47
impact report that’ll be published later on and uh that lines up um with the
9:54
appell at Court’s decision we’ll look at that a little later uh that only that part of the previous environmental
10:00
impact report was found uh deficient uh when the project was
10:06
challenged the court found the rest of the environmental impact report um to be
10:12
adequate reg regarding all other potential environmental impact environmental
10:17
impacts uh so staff and uh Rebecca from Lanier are here to answer questions on
10:22
technical aspects of it but really tonight’s not a it’s not typically a a question and answer time it’s just to
10:31
purely receive comments from uh the public on that draft
10:39
document so just as a reminder here’s the project site it’s shown on our
10:45
general plan land use designation
10:52
map and uh this is the about 32 Acre Site here in between Vasco Road and
10:57
Laughlin Road just north of Altamont Creek Elementary School and Altamont Creek Park the general plan designation
11:06
Urban low 1 and its zoning of residential have been that way since
11:11
about the mid 70s could could predate that but our 1976 General plan
11:17
designates that as residential it has been ever since this is a closer up view of of the
11:25
site and you can see the the Terminus of Bear Creek Drive
11:30
here in the lower right Prov we’ll provide access to it Altamont Creek is a
11:36
a small Creek that runs along the South to the West is the gabena wetlands
11:42
preserve owned and managed by liver area Recreation and Park District and then
11:47
the marilissa development uh and surrounding development and open space on the
11:52
project site
11:57
there so lots of history on the uh project I’m not going to go through all
12:03
these in detail um but it did start in 2011 and 12 with an application and and
12:10
work on an environmental impact report for a project at the time that was 76 units uh it had a two-lane bridge
12:17
going over the Altamont Creek from Hawk Street excuse me and it required a
12:23
general plan amendment to increase the density uh that was already on the property
12:30
uh did some work on that and reduced uh in response in part in response to uh
12:35
City staff and uh comments from uh the community to reduce the density so uh it
12:42
ended up with 47 units the bridge was removed was revised a couple of times uh
12:48
came back to the city council with the bridge removed due to Neighborhood
12:55
concerns uh and in 2015 the uh city council recommended that
13:02
Project Return to the Planning Commission with clear direction to revise the project to reduce grading
13:07
make it more subordinate to the land form and in uh
13:15
2018 the project did return uh with those Council directives
13:22
incorporated into the project and then the environmental impact report was also
13:27
reissued to to cover uh any kind of changes that may have
13:33
occurred from the project and um did not change the previous conclusions of the
13:40
original environmental impact report so the Planning Commission considered that in 2018 the project at this point was 44
13:47
units of 38 single family detached and two uh six affordable
13:53
Duets Council later approved that in 2019 in the spring and certified the
14:00
environmental impact report uh that project on the screen now
14:06
is the project that was approved in 2019 by the council again uh 44 units with
14:12
some affordable uh Duets interspersed in the development uh has now a bridge back
14:19
over Altamont Creek from Hawk Street extension but only for emergency vehicles and pedestrian bicyclists or
14:26
other forms of Mobility uh has a trail connection down at the South uh Eastern corner
14:34
here about the lots and houses and other improvements comprise about 40% of the
14:41
overall uh lot area about 60% is the uh two nles on the property and the open
14:48
space buffers around the project that’ll remain in its natural
14:54
state and then part of the uh project in uh the property that’s also owned by the
15:01
gaventa family is this 85 acre um property that lafy communities is also
15:08
in contract with them to provide environmental mitigation for development on this site so this site will be set
15:15
aside in perpetuity with conservation easement and endowment and management plan for the um significant biological
15:22
resources on that property
15:30
so that in 2019 I believe save the hill group did challenge the project and in
15:36
2020 the Superior Court denied that lawsuit but in 2022 the appell at court
15:41
did um remand that decision back to
15:46
Superior Court with uh finding that the no project alternative was inadequate
15:52
because it did not include a discussion of uh the potential availability of open
15:59
space funds to acquire and preserve the project site as open space in the no
16:05
project alternative analysis the court also directed the city to rescind or remove the approvals
16:13
and and desertify the eir so the city council did that in November of
16:21
2022 in early 2023 laferty communities applied to proceed with the the project
16:28
and remedy the deficiency identified by the appell at court and uh the city along with lanord
16:36
Gregory uh environmental consultant have been preparing the recirculated partial
16:41
draft environmental impact report that is before you up for uh comments this
16:54
evening so the court uh found
17:00
um all of the other challenges to the E Merit list including challenges to the
17:06
biological resources impacts and hydrological impacts to the Springtown Alkali
17:12
sink um and um just as a reminder the applicant
17:18
does intend to proceed with that exact same project uh that was approved in
17:23
2018 so there’s no changes to project impacts that were evaluated in the um
17:30
subsequent um eirs that revised along with the project
17:36
revisions and so in in uh consistent with the California Environmental
17:41
Quality Act and the Court’s ruling again were um focused our analysis in in this
17:47
draft document on the feasibility and availability of those potential funding
17:54
sources and again the the um
18:00
other environmental analyses included in the eir with stod uh all other legal
18:09
challenges so regarding those open space uh funding sources that might be
18:15
available uh we then set off to explore those over the course of the end of
18:22
2023 and 20 first six months or so of 2024 uh including several appearances at
18:28
the alamont Landfill open space committee to um discuss the availability
18:33
of those funds to acquire the site there’s also funds available for
18:39
open space acquisition uh through a dhy valley settlement agreement um both of those funds do
18:48
require a willing seller and so they they were determined to be ineligible
18:53
for the use to acquire that property as open space
19:00
so we also looked at um
19:05
other ways including eminent domain to uh preserve that property and basically
19:11
take it against the will of the property owner uh with funds from other sources
19:17
like the city’s transferal development credits fund and uh either um a general
19:23
f fund allocation supported through a ballot initiative or Bond measure uh or
19:29
the city’s open space and acquisition management fund so the the property is actually
19:36
outside of the area that’s eligible for the transfer development credits fund money the open space acquisition and
19:42
management fund doesn’t have uh very much in it and we use that to maintain
19:48
some of the open space properties that we have already like uh fence maintenance signage um vandalism repair
19:55
things like that
20:02
and then the the other
20:08
um methods through eminent domain um would require pretty significant legally
20:15
complicated and cost prohibitive fair market uh eminent domain proceedings and
20:22
the use of funds that the city has PRI prioritized elsewhere to provide services
20:29
so the the city council uh and you the Planning Commission and your advisory role will
20:35
take these into consideration uh when you look at the project when it returns along with land use
20:41
entitlements uh and we’re anticipating that to occur in the
20:52
fall so tonight again we’re here to collect comments on that recirculated partial draft dra environmental impact
21:00
report uh we’ll talk the next slide ask some Logistics on where to send those comments um City staff and our
21:08
consultant will take the comments here this evening written and verbal um and
21:14
those comments would be incorporated into the final um partial final
21:21
environmental impact report along with responses to those comments and only
21:27
those comments that are focused on this topic of available funding sources and the no project alternative would be
21:34
responded to um and again we we anticipate the
21:40
Planning Commission and Council looking at the the final recirculated partial
21:46
eir in the fall the 45 day public review period
21:53
commenced on August 30th it runs through September 13th that five
21:59
o and again we’ll take comments received here this evening and treat those just as if you were to email those in real
22:06
quick you said August 30th I think you meant July 30th sorry July 30th yes 45
22:11
day public review comment period uh again with the September 13th
22:18
deadline by 5:00 to send those to me please there’s my contact information
22:23
and my email address is up there if you can include your contact information there that in those Communications that’
22:29
be great and with that uh that concludes
22:35
the presentation and we would just recommend the Planning Commission receive uh public comments and um we’re
22:43
here to answer technical questions if you have those
22:50
thanks thank you um so just to clarify you know the Planning Commission will
22:57
not be voting on anything or doing anything like that tonight we’re here to receive public comment from the public
23:04
that’s correct okay thank you just want to clarify that okay then is there any
23:10
clarifying questions before we open for public comment up here okay then we’ll
23:15
go ahead and Trac commissioner gr Tracy it’s just fine thank you chair
23:24
um two questions um one is in the course of your presentation and obviously the
23:29
the materials that we’ve received you had mentioned that this land and the underlying land use was you know
23:36
designated as Urban low density from at least the 1976 General plan just out of
23:43
curiosity has the Gant family also owned it since prior to that time as
23:49
well I am not sure of that but I do you know they own significant land Holdings
23:54
in in uh North Livermore okay so this is basically though from the purposes of
24:00
General planning this has gone through two revisions of the general plan the 76
24:05
the 2003 yes and then now it’s going to also
24:11
be designated as such in the 2025 is General plan as well that’s right there
24:16
was a f also a focused update in 1988 got it missed that thank you um
24:22
second question regarding sea uh which is as you know an area of personal interest of mine uh by Design uh squa as
24:30
a law has been created as a discovery mechanism by the state of California and
24:36
the Arbiter of those discoveries is the court system by Design is that correct I will turn that over to Deputy
24:44
City attorney Katherine miru for official answer if I understand your question
24:49
correctly it’s that the mechanism to challenge something under squa is the courts yes yes that’s correct and
24:56
secondly now that this has gone through the court of appeals the court have made their ruling and arbitrated on this
25:03
accordingly um do you happen to have the actual text of the arbitration available
25:09
that explicitly calls out this Frame and scope that we’re considering tonight yes
25:15
I do would you be willing to please read that into public
25:20
comment sure so the or a summary of it yes I know how these things look so the
25:28
court of appeal said that the eir that the city was required to set aside the E
25:35
and the project approval because it failed to provide adequate information
25:42
about the funding available for the no project alternative and it dismissed all
25:47
of the other challenges accordingly that’s correct okay great thank
25:53
you thank you anything else okay then I will go ahead and open up the uh public
26:00
comment remember submit a speaker card and then when your name’s called walk up to uh behind the projector and you’ll be
26:08
given the microphone Doug
26:14
man I’m secretary for Citizens for balanced growth squa has Provisions to
26:21
re-trigger an eir when certain new information is obtained about an environmentally damaging project so
26:29
we’ll be starting all over again and continuing for as many years as it
26:34
takes extending far beyond the NPA although the result of tonight’s
26:39
meeting will just contribute to a reverse loop on the SQL flowchart receiving comments might still do some
26:46
good let’s concentrate on the weirdest part of this whole thing which is the interactions with the trustee Lisa
26:53
casito the staff report claims that Cito is not a willing seller we put this expression into the
27:00
dvsa when we uh settled the the lawsuit to prohibit emminent domain purchases
27:08
Cito is a willing seller and actively engaged in the process of selling this
27:13
asset under self-imposed restrictive terms her preferred buyer laferty has
27:20
refused to buy for 13 years casito claims they are restricted by contract
27:26
to sell only to laf what she doesn’t say is it’s an option contract laferty pays them to not sell
27:34
to anyone else but it’s also not Perpetual but one that renews on a regular basis in the renewal periods she
27:43
can sell to anyone February 2nd Livermore offered $868,000
27:48
cito’s February 5 reply defines their selling price as $3.5
27:55
million staff paradoxically followed up February 29th with an offer for 1.74
28:02
million this offer was designed to fail other than to mock aggravate and
28:09
waste the owner’s time what possible purpose did that serve they could have responded if the
28:15
city offered 3.5 million and you were not under another contract would you consider it for
28:21
example we don’t know how many other insults cedo may have endured over the years but one might wonder if this sort
28:28
sort of thing explains the accelerating tone of resentment in her letters here’s where you can help
28:35
although you’re not required to take any action you do have the option to help
28:40
cut through the fog ask your staff to engage a professional mediator a neutral
28:46
party may be able to find solutions to the fractured relationship between the city and the seller as an eir expense
28:52
the developer will even pay for it you could also request your staff contract with an actual real estate agent to
28:59
represent the city it costs nothing and there’s no better way to consummate a real estate deal than to give marching
29:05
orders to a motivated professional both of these activities can occur in parallel again you’re not
29:13
required but if you do nothing tonight except passively receive comments undone
29:20
one has to wonder what you as public servants are actually doing to help the
29:27
community the RP draft e remains
29:33
inadequate Bianca
29:44
karell good evening sorry I can’t stand I literally had knee surgery four days ago um but this is a very important
29:51
topic to me my name is Bianca Celli and um I’m save the hill group um I
29:57
appreciate your time this evening very much for your dedication and hard work for all of your planning throughout our
30:03
beautiful town of Livermore it’s very special to me initially I’d like to State for the record and remind City
30:09
staff that we do have a legal right to make comments tonight on the draft Di and the directive to limit comments to
30:15
strictly funding is misinformation and this is why I argue that significant new
30:21
conditions and new information have come up over the last few years that will
30:26
re-trigger the requirements to amend the E and recirculate the city’s project page has
30:33
the 2014 final eir and the 2018 reissued final e most of the reports are from
30:42
2014 the only difference between the two projects was density of the development no new studies the reports in the final
30:50
e are quite old the city lost a presidential legal judgment that required the city to set aside the
30:56
certification of the r feir and the approval of the project what they didn’t
31:01
mention is that they handw wrote a letter to the California Supreme Court in association with other building
31:08
communities and the California Supreme Court came back and said after the city of Livermore requested that the ruling
31:15
be tossed out from the appell at Court ruling and the California Supreme Court said this not only are we upholding this
31:22
presidential ruling but you are no longer allowed to appeal this ruling so that’s says a lot and maybe there are
31:30
issues about the ER that didn’t come out in the courts because this other issue was so important so i’ just like you to
31:36
consider that over the last few years I have been diligent in research and committed to Consulting with experts on
31:43
the pertinent Issues new information and conditions regarding the special Hill there are many lengthy Studies by
31:50
those experts being prepared now the process isn’t quite complete as to what will be in the record yet but comment
31:57
submissions will be made prior to the September 13th deadline the environmental consultant may be
32:03
overwhelmed with the plethora of new information and the Abundant additional work that they may be required to
32:09
perform require regarding the funding issue we can all agree the second the Court’s precedent the precedential
32:16
ruling wherein they vacated the IR and the project we can agree that the valuation on the land declined
32:24
significantly the comment made of the current valuation of the Hill being 15 to 20 million is beyond erroneous
32:31
misinformation and impossible attempt at hindering informed decision-making and public perception the question is the
32:37
city is in good faith honoring the Court’s position that on a piece of land that is so environmentally sensitive and
32:43
rare it’s very it’s a very unique diversity and there’s nothing like it anywhere else in our state conservation
32:52
should be considered and that’s what the court said I was in the hearing when they said it the property was list
32:57
listed at various times since 2017 the listing price in 2017 was 4.9
33:03
million the city’s recent offer of over 800,000 and then 1.7 it wasn’t a fair
33:09
market value offer no wonder the land owners rejected it that’s why they’re
33:14
being considered a unwilling seller they are clear clearly a willing seller thank
33:21
you could you finish up your comment the city contends the land owners are not willing to sell I feel that if a
33:26
Bonafide Fair market value offer was offered they’re a reasonable seller they would consider
33:32
it this loss by the city and the courts was an exit to that option that laf is
33:38
holding on this property but do the land owners know that do they know that there’s funding available to
33:44
purchase I request tonight that you the Planning Commission take to heart the
33:50
magnitude and the time spent on this proposed project it’s been over 12 years
33:56
and I can personally attest to that I’ve been involved I can recommend that you send this back to staff and demand
34:03
preparation of an accurate proper updated and current eir thank you so
34:09
much for your attention thank
34:15
you
34:22
Vladimir I’m going to sit too since you guys are all comfortable um
34:31
uh for one I think you should have letters speak all the way through because she
34:36
underwent surgery as she said four days ago and she is Sav the hill and I think
34:42
what she has to say is pretty important I don’t think there’s any reason to be concerned over the one minute that she
34:48
takes uh just had to say it you know I drove here myself and she’s clearly
34:55
committed uh the other thing I’d like to say is hello to my old friend Steve stwart I remember
35:02
when we were at the Genta meeting a few months ago
35:07
and uh my impression was that you were dreading that meeting and I don’t blame you because it was very long and drawn
35:13
out I’m surprised to see you back I think what that says is that
35:18
everybody’s got a price right and uh in this case it was worth it for you to come back
35:24
on on the topic of that uh the main uh your whole argument seems to
35:31
rest on the idea that the land owner is not a willing seller and as Doug and
35:37
Bianca pointed out earlier it’s bogus because they’re trying to
35:45
build as many homes as possible on this land for 10 years now and working with
35:51
the developer these people are trying to make money the reason they’re not a
35:57
willing sell to the city is because you ridicule them with
36:02
$800,000 the other thing that I found interesting actually in your report since we’re discussing the no project
36:09
alternative I thought you should mention how much the land is worth do you know how much it’s worth I know they said it
36:14
earlier but do you know at this point as the city because a few months ago you told me it was $5 to20
36:21
million and as Bianca said there’s some text in uh
36:28
seet that I was reading earlier but something
36:33
about in informed decision making and public participation and I think that when
36:38
you lie about how much the land is worth even though you have letters from the
36:44
land owner and you have I mean this data is easy to find uh and you get this 15 to2 million
36:51
number and people believe you because you have the power of authority I think
36:57
you’re Mis using it so anyway this uh no willing seller
37:04
argument is is false because hypothetically speaking if you throw a100 million dollars at that might bet
37:10
they would change their tune right so it’s just a matter of money if you make a fair offer then they will sell they’re
37:17
probably as tired of this as anybody else of this uh charade that’s been going
37:26
on I guess that that’s it
37:31
huh I’m trying to practice uh not writing any notes so that I get better at public speaking but I might have
37:37
forgotten a few things it’s okay thank
37:45
you Connie
37:50
cops hi um I’m here about 5.1 and um it’s not clear in the
37:57
beginning but it’ll be clear as I read on um our s public hearing item 5.1
38:05
13-5 um our city is unclear with its General planning for all of North Livermore and lands it’s preserving
38:13
there is an opportunity cost to all living in this area as a boundaries of who is responsible for what with land
38:20
owners and shell companies makes getting clear maps and any questions answered
38:25
with honesty impossible it is my firm belief that a general plan
38:30
with Zoning for it should be clear and concise so that all districts together
38:36
can view it in its entirety as all are affected by what you do and what you
38:42
approve it’s impossible to give honest input without that without the big
38:50
picture I do think also um that this land because it’s got to be after it it
38:58
um the the um I forget the parcel number is like 99b that it is a child to something and
39:07
when I called the county um about I think it was that parcel they couldn’t
39:13
tell me for some reason who owned it prior to them they said that wasn’t
39:19
public rec record so I don’t know why and I might have messed up something too
39:24
but I really do think it’s important to um go over with your whole Community the
39:31
past history and why things were preserved and again update your um
39:38
planning to include you know modern day thoughts even when like Public Works was
39:45
coming to my HOA in other part of Springtown when Darren Greenwood was
39:51
telling everybody at my HOA that the city owned our property and the golf
39:57
course was still going so Dynamics around it have also changed and there’s an opportunity cost for those other
40:04
people who also might want to propose some kind of building to you so try to be fair I say take your districts divide
40:13
your housing allocation by your number of districts and at least try to balance
40:19
it out and trick it in I don’t think that that Midtown well we’re getting on
40:24
another subject here so I’ll stop but thank you for taking what I said into consideration I really appreciate it
40:29
thank you thank
40:39
you and that is uh it for public comments um I will bring it uh I will
40:46
close the public comment period and bring it back up here to the commission for anybody that has any
40:53
comments anybody any comments
41:06
on um I believe it’s in the report but staff could you go over the the reason
41:13
for the offers as they were given previously sure the initial offer was
41:21
based on open space prices that we’ve used over time to acquire open space ranges anywhere from 8,000 up to 15,000
41:29
an acre so somewhere in that range uh and then the
41:37
um final offer I know there was one I think there’s one in between uh the
41:43
final offer of 1.78 million was uh direction from
41:49
the um or was suggested by the Altimont Landfill open space committee to re be
41:56
ined line with an acquisition that City
42:02
uh partnered with East Bay Regional Park District on a land across Laughlin road
42:07
that had Urban designations it was about 40,000 an acre um and that project that land is
42:14
now held by uh East Bay Regional Park District that was the price so they kind
42:20
of did some quick math and that that was the amount uh per acre I believe that
42:25
came up to that number and I’d have to look at the in the offer
42:32
I think there’s an offer in between those two numbers that I’m
42:39
not oh yeah and then finally looking at an offer um to look
42:49
at the fair market value of the property in other words have it appraised at its you know current value based on its
42:56
residential Des designations which would likely Drive the cost up pretty significantly and
43:02
those are the some of the numbers that are mentioned in the report so is it fair to say there’s a
43:09
there’s a cost basis of the parcel as open space land and there’s a cost basis
43:14
of the parcel hi develops in terms of its market value that’s right so we made an open space
43:21
value we made an offer that was consistent with another offer for urban designated lands that we were able to
43:28
acquire with the SP Park District and then offered to engage at a fair market
43:33
value conversation so that offer was comparable to the L per acre cost of
43:40
other partials that we’ve acquired recently that’s right
43:46
okay I might have more but I’ll pass off
43:51
for commiss CR one quick followup to commissioner
43:57
dunbar’s question um there were two sets of numbers in those reports ones were
44:03
the numbers in the offer letters that you just described uh along with the evaluations and where they came to and
44:10
from the the question I have is if all Bells were chiming um and
44:18
ultimately you know the other set of numbers that I were considering were the
44:24
city’s availability of money at all to make an offer that would be double or
44:30
triple the 1.7 million that was stated my understanding from all the financial
44:35
reports attached to this is we simply would not have the money to actually make that kind of offer as held against
44:42
our other priorities and things that we are otherwise maintaining is that
44:49
correct I think the short answer is yes and some of it would depend upon you
44:55
know a price that you could negotiate right um second question are
45:00
you aware of any community- based efforts to raise money to acquire the land from the property owner at a value
45:06
that would be higher than the $1.7 million that the city offered I am not okay thank
45:15
you thank you yeah commissioner L thank you I had more of a uh process question
45:25
um I saw in the uh staff report there’s reference to the uh California court of
45:30
appeal first appell at District so is everything um that we need to know is in
45:38
that judgment that came from the court in terms of the reason we’re here tonight the reason we’re recirculating
45:44
the E is it do I have that right yes that’s correct okay and
45:51
something that caught my ear as you mentioned was it the property you gave a
45:57
value of was it 40,000 an acre was that the Farber property yes and that’s what
46:02
the judge I think mentioned specifically in the court case was the Farber property
46:09
right as it
46:14
comparable they do I saw that in there he gave that as an example um so just
46:20
like since we’re only doing comments tonight I just wanted to uh highlight a couple things that I saw in the U um the
46:27
save the hill group versus city of Livermore um the judge cited mostly
46:33
cited other cases but I found a few that he just to be sure that when we’re
46:40
recirculating um the comment from me would be to make sure we look at the judgment and see what the judge is
46:47
asking for and uh so it could be evaluated you know In The End by the
46:52
decision makers but one of the comments was um the description this is citing the fishing game case the description
46:59
must be straightforward and intelligible assisting the decision maker and the public in ascertaining the environmental
47:06
consequences of doing nothing uh another I’ll just do two more
47:12
um the other item the judge said was the failure to include relevant information
47:19
precluded informed decisionmaking I think he he mentioned that he was citing the city council meeting and and
47:28
how um there wasn’t enough information on the no project so the judge mentioned
47:33
that and then one more um lacking adequate information regarding the no
47:39
project alternative the city council could not make an informed reason decision on whether this product should
47:45
go forward and so it goes along in that vein and I didn’t see anything else in
47:52
that eight or nine page judgment beyond the no project alternative
47:57
so that’s that’s my comment thank
48:02
you okay commissioner jumar uh just to be clear um in this the
48:12
scheme of the second offer that was made you the staff of the city of liore made
48:17
that offer because of the directive of the Altimont open space committee at that price is that correct that’s
48:23
correct thank you um
48:30
I thank the comments that I heard tonight I learned some new information that I appreciated
48:36
um about contact contract terms um I’m hoping to hear more about potential new
48:42
information that be may be of use when that letter comes in um forgive me because I take notes
48:49
because I wouldn’t be able to keep up with all the things but uh notes are good uh but I think that uh as by law
48:58
that all the comments received tonight will be responded to where
49:04
appropriate um and we’ll have to make a final decision when it comes back to us
49:09
that time thank you anybody else yeah I just
49:17
have one question uh for staff and and maybe the environmental consultant um
49:24
what would trigger a new eir and how would that be discovered in
49:32
this
49:44
process so I think with the court case it’s not as straightforward of an answer as it usually would be um rather than
49:51
answering tonight I’ll consult with your legal counsel and we’ll have a better answer in the finally hour
50:02
thank you anybody else um I just wanted to clarify one
50:10
thing um do we legally have any authority to take any action tonight as
50:17
a Planning Commission no you don’t other than the advertised activity in the notice which
50:24
is to receive public comment so even if we really really really wanted to we
50:29
legally could not that’s right correct um just wanted to clarify that um also
50:37
just a clarification um the reason we have uh the time limits for certain uh
50:43
amounts for certain people I mean for all people is that it’s the same for everybody that everybody gets a chance
50:48
to speak um and then I I don’t have any further
50:56
comments um I just want to um thank everybody for coming out
51:01
tonight um it’s really appreciated when people come out and uh come to these and
51:07
actually make their voices heard I really appreciate that uh um and please
51:13
when this does come back to us come um whether it you know we end up doing it
51:18
here or we end up doing it back at the council chambers please come give your
51:23
comments um and I really appreciate all that one thing that I will not
51:31
tolerate um that and please don’t assume that you anybody was a speaker of this
51:37
but I’m just going to say this as just is um classifying that we as a
51:46
commission do not care about any certain areas of um of town I I want to clarify
51:55
I lived 600 feet from this building I spent more time on the commission as a
52:02
resident of Springtown than I did anywhere else so I do do not classify people as
52:13
you know not caring for certain areas of town um because I do truly care about
52:20
this side of town um also uh in future please uh refrain
52:29
from any attacks on staff like calling them Liars or anything like that um they
52:35
are doing their job to the best of their ability if you truly do think that they are purposefully lying there are there
52:42
are legal channels and public records requests that you can make um of them um
52:48
but they do everything in the public eye and our public servants um so please um
52:54
refrain from any personal attack on them um and again I just want to
53:00
reiterate to everybody that came out tonight thank you I really do appreciate it and um we will definitely delve into
53:05
all the information that was provided tonight and uh when it comes back around to us thank you um is there anything
53:12
else from the commission anything else from
53:20
staff uh not on this end no okay then um that will end uh uh
53:27
5.1 and that will take us to item six which there is none and that will take
53:33
us to item seven matters initiated by Planning Commission and staff um does
53:38
anybody up here have anything yes commissioner cron I actually do want to piggyback on
53:46
one of the um notes that were made by several of the public commenting folks here tonight um I’m actually a huge
53:53
believer in community engagement as part of democracy and democracy and action
53:59
and honestly if we have the opportunity to take this on the road like we’ve done
54:04
tonight even though tonight the we know why we’re here because the main Council chamber is under renovation but if it is
54:12
not a logistical nightmare for staff to take this kind of meeting on the road
54:17
occasionally so that neighborhoods can be reached like this one um I would
54:22
absolutely love to know if that is possible and if we can do that more often I would be in full support of it
54:29
uh and also to piggyback on the chair’s comments I live about a mile and a half that way so yeah North Livermore is an
54:36
area that I do believe is one that I care about deeply and one that I know is
54:42
sometimes feels like the redheaded stepchild of livmore so there you go thank
54:48
you thank you um I have one item uh and
54:53
it is that we continue to pressure Cal Trans about the First Street Springtown
54:59
Boulevard overpass um I recently rode my bike
55:05
across it not tonight and I deliberately did not ride my bike tonight because of
55:11
that incidence it’s I’ve said it once before I’ve actually I’ve said it many times before
55:17
that we really need a change there and I know it’s very frustrating because that is calr owned operated and maintained um
55:27
but as a city we can still apply the pressure that we can to calr cuz it is
55:34
truly in need of some work um yeah anything else up here y commission D
55:42
Bar on that note I believe we had our what we wanted to do to repave that
55:47
stuck in a design decision designed standard decision document for I don’t
55:53
even know how long but I did ride my bike here over that overpass and it’s still not fun it’s been not fun for a
55:59
long time and it needs to be better and I think everybody knows that keep
56:04
pushing thank you do we have anything from staff no nothing extra from staff
56:11
okay nothing else
56:18
anybody do you want to ask staff personally afterwards or ask
56:24
I I wanted to ask L the the uh Planning Commission conference is happening in
56:30
September obviously and the Tuesday night following uh while the conference
56:36
is still happening down in Riverside there is an ordinarily scheduled Planning Commission meeting that it
56:41
might be wise to see if we could uh potentially move items away from since
56:47
all the Commissioners will be at the planning conference in Riverside that was
56:54
it okay yeah um anything else and we got nothing from
57:03
staff okay we’re all good okay then I will journ this meeting to our next
57:09
regularly scheduled meeting September 3rd I believe sorry if I have
57:15
got that date wrong let me double check yes September 3rd okay thank you this meeting is Jed
57:42
there