Category: <span>Uncategorized</span>

The posting we released last week was also printed in The Independent today. If you saw it, the printed version is basically a duplicate.

Since sending it in for print, there has been no forward movement. The most energetic past supporters, folks like the Chamber of Commerce, continue to want to see the hotel constructed. If the project is stuck in the mud, why not reopen the bidding process to interested hoteliers who might make it happen? The silence from the City is deafening.

In contrast to business support, some residents seem unhappy with the major planning changes since the initial proposal (offsite parking and four stories tall). For a hotel next to the Bankhead, we believe it will regain more support if it is restored as a three story design, with all the parking on site. This is the configuration which was initially supported by a wide range of interests and the public, including the Winegrowers, the Chamber of Commerce, Livermore Downtown, and the many merchants and restaurants in the core area.

Finally, those who ask who we met with at City Hall are missing the point. None of them had any useful information, and it is far more important that no one from the City has come forward with information, despite all the publicity.

Rather than exclusively reacting or griping online, we suggest you direct your requests for advancing this issue (or your objection to it) straight to those who can make a difference, such as:

• City officials
• The Winegrowers Association
• Individual wineries
• The Chamber of Commerce
• Livermore Downtown Inc.
• The many merchants and restaurants in the core area
• Anyone else that you think would be influential

If the subject drops away from the City’s attention, it will continue to be ignored. Your voice may get it moving again.

Citizens for Balanced Growth has finished our investigation into the development of a Livermore downtown hotel.  Bottom line – there is no longer a developer.

Eleven years of planning and outreach have achieved something though. A single person with two shell companies now owns the very valuable downtown real estate which was once under the control of the City. The eventual use of these parcels may be anyone’s guess. Typically, landowners pursue another path when “Plan A” fails. More apartment towers? Retail? Miniature golf? Who can say, but at least for now it’s a perfectly good parking lot.

This month we met with additional senior staff in person, including senior planners and a long employed high level manager. None of them could not identify any ongoing progress or activity. There is no one left for us to ask.

Our investigation also included a direct public outreach component. A 2017 survey revealed that a hotel was desirable, with virtually no opposition. That opinion is no longer as universal. The primary reason for this shift seems to be the controversy in 2022 where the on-site parking was eliminated and a parking lot around the corner and down the street was established. The negative impact on traffic circulation is unwelcome. People expect a hotel to have parking, and some no longer want a hotel for that reason.

No one knows if a future hotel developer will decide to actually build a hotel in the entitled space. One can always hope, but we can’t envision any remedy to the physical and economic challenges of the Council’s chosen site for such a use. With redevelopment complete, Livermore will get the apartment buildings, but we won’t get a hotel.

We also posted this to Nextdoor and received the following comments:

J

Jane Frank

1d·Sandhurst

So sad how the city does not listen to the citizens .

Craig Y.

1d·Downtown Livermore

Jane

you mean the MAJORITY of citizens who voted on several different measures overwhelmingly in SUPPORT of the hotel?🤔

Reply

Brian P.

1d·The Corners

Jane

– Yeah! Measure P only had 66% of the voters approving the hotel not 100%!! That means a third of the citizens didn’t want the hotel where it is now.

Reply

Author

Craig

you may have misinterpreted what Jane intended with this comment. It seems unlikely that she was referring to Measure P, elections, lawsuits, etc., but rather the element of this post regarding the Council’s chosen hotel location. Perhaps she will return to clarify. We have been reminding folks how the parcel next to Bankhead was chosen in 2019 by Council. Many very astute people were advising at the time, that this site was risky and not the best idea. The west side of L on the other hand, had adequate space for a successful iconic hotel. Council ignored this advice, and chose the problematic east side. But there was another related issue where Council refused to believe solid public opinion. It gradually became obvious that the developer at the time, “Presidio Companies”, was an odd choice. Even after they had demonstrated their inadequacy in various ways, Council repeatedly extended their exclusivity while the community was clamoring for Council to reopen the bidding to more viable companies. We believe the combined effects of these dreadful decisions created a double whammy which made construction impossible.

Craig Y.

23h·Downtown Livermore

Citizens for Balanced Growth go away Group of Many Names. List who you are with your REAL Names. Otherwise i have no time to read your nonsense.

Sandra Lee

1d·Carrigan Common/Jensen

“None of them could not identify…..”. Did you intend the double negative? Maybe consider having writings proofread.

Reply

Citizens for Balanced Growth

1d·

Author

Sandra Thank you! Fixed.

Reply

S

Sandra Lee

1d·Carrigan Common/Jensen

Citizens You are welcome!

M

2Fave

Reply

Patricia Patterson

1d·Tex Spruiell Park

Sandra Honestly, that’s your gripe.

Reply

S

Sandra Lee

1d·Carrigan Common/Jensen

Patricia

That was a kind correction. How did you get “gripe” out of it? A gripe is when I tell you to shut your gob hole cause I’m tired of people like you turning everything into drama. Can’t you find anything kind to say, you $&*@)= +=%>¥!!!!

Reply

S

Sandra Lee

1d·Carrigan Common/Jensen

Patricia

And…you take time to genuinely gripe about my “gripe” ? Oh my goodness!

Reply

Joe Clark

1d·Montrose

I see we still have “dead enders” (people who can’t move on after a decision is final) for the downtown developments.

Reply

B

Brian P.

1d·The Corners

Joe

– Not only that, but they hide behind an educational non-profit.

Reply

K

Kent Anderson

1d·Pleasure Island Park

Always was and always will be a stupid stupid place for a hotel. Vote on it now and see what the people who pay attention have to say. Lots of Pied Piper votes in the past but I think a lot of them have passed away…they never went downtown anyway (just like a lot of you)

Reply

P

Pam Condy

1d·South Downtown

I found this information, helpful and informative. Thank you.

Reply

1

Phyllis Pierce

20h·Carrigan Common/Jensen

We don’t need to destroy every open lot that we have just to build on it.

Reply

1

Les Gill

18h·Dunsmuir & Lindenwood

Utterly shocking findings. Thanks for reporting. Frankly I’m amazed that there is no downtown hotel or developer actively working on one. Could it have anything to do with the years of resistance, misleading ballot measures and legal suits brought by this group? Now that you have reached these amazing conclusions, can you explain what your group is doing to promote balanced growth in Dublin 😆😆? Your website has no details.

Reply

Citizens for Balanced Growth

37m·

Author

Les

We did not intend this post to evolve into a protracted debate on all of the things that went wrong with the hotel. There was a single goal – to let people know that the developer is gone even if City officials were avoiding the subject. So, this will be the last installment of our Nextdoor commentary but we are inspired to respond because you do bring up another very relevant point.

In addition to the two obstacles we identified (wrong location and moving the parking off site) there was a third unforced error; the Council made the hotel too tall. The concerned residents had been pleading with Council to not oversize the structure. Council once again did not listen to residents and ended up doing things their own way regardless of the outcry. They made it four stories high. Given this intransigence, the residents followed up with actions that did take time and eventually resulted in Council reducing the height of the hotel from four stories to three. Then they waited a year and reversed themselves, returning it to four stories.

For those who choose to fault an active and engaged public for delays associated with the downtown redevelopment, it is at least equally valid to argue that all of the delays would have been avoided if Council simply followed through on the results of their own community outreach. It is not honest to blame the residents for everything that is gone wrong. Let’s see how things go for SPARC and QUEST.

Reply

G

George C.

12h·Santos Ranch Currier Est

Remember this when your city officials come up for re-election….

Reply

Citizens for Balanced Growth

17 Sep

·Edited

We submitted this letter to the independent and on our social platform.

Still a No-Tell Hotel

After another week, all the people capable of proving that a hotel will be built in downtown Livermore aren’t telling us anything. The Mayor is insisting in chat forums and in this newspaper that the hotel is going to be built next to the Bankhead. Messages to him from Citizens for Balanced Growth requesting clarification remain unanswered.

Ask yourself, if a hotel is in the works, why not spread the news about its progress? Why not reveal who we can contact to verify it is moving forward? Why has Presidio made no public statements in several years? Who owns the entitlements; have they been sold or transferred? Why hide the facts? Each day that passes adds to the mystery.

Last week, we asked if residents still want a hotel today as much as they did in 2015. A strong theme persists in all the responses we received; they want a hotel. If anyone is against it, they have not said anything to us. We’ve checked the forums and don’t find opponents there either.

As the downtown design was taking shape in the early stages, there was a priority ranking derived from public outreach, with 1 being most important and 10 the least. The remaining elements left to be fulfilled are open space (3), hotel (5) and housing (10 — lowest priority). If the final buildout does not include the hotel, residents will feel justifiably cheated.

Owner of Dublin’s “Crosby property” appeals Save Mount Diablo’s successful suit against Dublin’s unlawful action

CBG is eager to assist the Court in this case. Along with other friendly environmental organizations (California Wildlife Foundation, Greenbelt Alliance, and the Ohlone Audubon Society) we have filed a “Friend of the Court” brief in support of the trial court decision. The case is now in appellate court.

The original lawsuit opposed the City of Dublin’s decision to put Measure II on the November 2024 ballot without any kind of environmental review. The deceptive measure was the first step in breaking Dublin’s 2014 Urban Limit Line. You can read the brief if you like.

The expectation of eventually building the “Wine Country Hotel at the Bankhead” seems to have come unraveled. The Independent published a story about it, and we investigated. The phone numbers for Presidio are disconnected, no responses to email, behind in their state filings, and the agent for service process resigned (no one to contact for legal matters). Their representative Rikesh Patel, who oversaw the development negotiations and was the face of the project, hasn’t worked there since 2019 and no replacement has been identified. All of this considered, the company does not appear to functionally exist in California anymore.

The unfortunate breakdown was ultimately hard to avoid. We believe the location was the main problem, since it was never going to be able to accommodate adequate parking for the guests, as well as several other challenges. Ultimately, it was as infeasible as we suspected it would be since it was conceived in 2016.

There is a group of concerned residents that is proposing a new location they believe can allow a downtown hotel to be a success. Their website at livermorecommunitycoalitionspeaks.com explains their example in more detail. You can reach out to Safia Hasan Livermore.community.coalition@gmail.com with questions.

We hope City officials can be inspired to fulfill one of the major priorities expressed by the residents during the original outreach.

History of the Downtown Livermore Hotel Planning

In 2016, Lennar Multifamily Communities (now Quarterra) originally was poised to develop a massive 260 unit apartment complex. The residents pushed back, and elected a new Council that year with candidates who pledged to do something different. The new Council focused on a smaller housing plan and other aspects including the Presidio hotel planning.

The Valley Link Rail commuter train project through Livermore is not making impressive progress, and may never be built.

We periodically check the pulse of the proposed Valley Link commuter train. In short, things are looking dire.

• The JPA committee still meets every couple of months, as they have been doing since 2015.
• The lawsuit is still ongoing, and it could devstate the administration budget.
• They have not made any progress on the substantial funding gap for many years.
• The informational websites are looking abandoned – still claiming that construction could begin in 2025.
• It is now being designed to end at Mountain House. No more Tracy, River Islands, or Stockton plan.

The final dagger may be the absence of federal funding, upon which the feasibility has always relied. California should not confidently expect new federal funds for transit projects until at least 2030. Unfair, but could be expected nonetheless. By the time it might be politically possible to request funds, who can say in what condition the federal debt will be, and the added scrutiny under which it is dispersed? By that time, will it be considered standard operating procedure to withhold California funding?

Isabel Developments

The failure of Valley Link is not the worst part of the problem though. That honor goes to the thousands of new residents that will soon be living in the new developments going in near Costco. The entire justification for the original zoning intent was based on the existence of a real BART station within walking distance. When that didn’t happen in 2015, the “almost BART” Valley Link was proposed. After that was taking too long, the Council made the truly awful decision to rezone the area for building without any requirement for transit.

Today, thousands of homeowners are being courted to buy these homes with the promise of the future Valley Link transit station. Read it for yourself in Harridge Development Group’s information sheet for the Isabel Crossing development. When the traffic problems created by the development become a problem, residents will be angry and the developers will be long gone.

Southfront Station

The trouble isn’t confined to Isabel/580 either. The other concerning area is Southfront road – the other proposed Livermore station, where a general plan update is suggesting future high density development. Here’s a recent reference to the “Midtown Focus Area” (often called “Midtown” even though it’s not near downtown) in the context of the City of Livermore General Plan update:

“The Midtown focus area includes the site for a future Valley Link station, and the vision for this focus area is a transit-oriented, complete neighborhood with a mix of housing, jobs, and services.”

and …

“… the Planning Commission recommends … identifying the Midtown Area designation on the General Plan land use map and preparing a specific plan to address Valley Link access, housing unit targets, and neighborhood circulation and services.”

No clear path forward

Valley Link is dream project in a continuing search of financial viability. Some public works projects, even those planned with the best intentions, just fail. Valley Link may be headed toward collapse if progress on funding continues to stall. We made a similar conclusion about BART to Livermore, years before officials would admit the truth. We are equally as skeptical now, as we were then.

Superior Court finds Livermore City Council’s obstruction is STILL too sneaky

On November 15th 2024, Superior Court Judge Michael Markman ruled that Livermore’s tactic to avoid putting a downtown housing project on the ballot would not stand. You can read the judge’s order and also the coverage in The Independent.

October 9, 2024

Citizens for Balanced Growth has filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court due to improper conduct relating to open space funding. The Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement fund is administered by Livermore and is supposed to be spent on open space protection in accordance with a set of procedures. These procedures were not followed and money was spent, even after city staff were made aware that they were breaching the terms of the Agreement. Here is a link to the complaint.

This is not the first time City staff have failed to properly manage this money. In 2019, Save the Hill group sued Livermore for a different reason. That time, it was for ignoring the fund when it was readily available for protecting Garaventa Hill from undesirable urbanization. Our current lawsuit may even complicate the City’s ability to comply with the 2023 ruling against them and affect how long it will take them to fully resolve their violation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the court order in that case.

The current lawsuit was filed because City staff recommended to use the DVSA fund to purchase property without a required consultation with CBG. Staff were fully aware that they would be breaching the Agreement, but went ahead and did it anyway, brushing aside our required oversight role.

Essentially, Livermore trapped CBG in a “catch 22” situation, wanting us to support multiple property purchases, but denying us the details we needed in order to analyze the nature of the expenditures and the terms of the sales. The suit seeks to force staff to follow the proper procedures and ensure there is a mechanism in place to keep this problem from happening again. We are confident the Court will judge the facts of the case in our favor.

Once the Fund is again operating normally, it will be able to once again be used for its intended purpose of acquiring open space land that benefits all of us, as well as future generations.

Founded by a group of concerned residents including local legends Don Miller and Margaret Tracy, CBG has achieved many beneficial environmental outcomes along the way since 1982. We continue our vital work in any capacity where we can be helpful, and effective.

Dublin

We oppose the Dublin measure to expand its ULL. The opposition argument says it best:

Argument Against Measure _
Dublin Traffic Relief, Clean Air/Open Space Preservation Measure

Measure_ is deceptive. It claims to reduce traffic and preserve open space, but in reality it would increase traffic and reduce open space. It would allow giant distribution warehouses east of Fallon Road, huge truck traffic, and pollution. No Environmental Impact Report was prepared for voters to make an informed decision, inviting a lawsuit.

Measure_ overturns Dublin residents’ decision in 2014 to create an eastern Urban Limit Line to protect scenic Doolan Canyon from being developed. When developers tried to break the Urban Limit Line to allow 2,000 houses, Dublin voters rejected their initiative by 84%.
Our 2014 Urban Limit Line already allows the Dublin Blvd. extension to connect Dublin with Livermore, but it doesn’t allow major urban development in the scenic corridor. Now the city council wants a blank check to allow massive new development on that open space land. There is no plan, no environmental report, no actual agreement with the developer about costs. The only thing known for sure is that our eastern greenbelt will be lost. Currently, Dublin and Livermore will split the $55 million estimated cost of the roadway. If Measure _ passes, Livermore pays NOTHING. Dublin is responsible for all $55 million. That means massive development along the roadway. Proponents of Measure _ claim it will be good for the environment, but local environmental groups Save Mount Diablo, Audubon Society, California Native Plant Society East Bay Chapter, and others oppose Measure _ because it will actually:

• Reduce open space
• Destroy wildlife habitat
• Worsen traffic and congestion
• Block scenic views with giant warehouses
• Increase air pollution from cars and huge delivery trucks
• Significantly increase water consumption and sewage treatment loads
  Asking Dubliners to break our Urban Limit Line, take on new financial risks, and lose more open space is wrong. Dublin deserves better. Vote No on Measure
  
  Dave Bewley
  Co-author, Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014
  Shirley Lewandowski
  CEO, West Dublin Alliance
  Seth Adams
  Conservation Director, Save Mount Diablo
  Marlene Massetti
  Signature Collector, Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014
  Uday Meyyappan
  Dublin Resident

Mayor

Dr. Sherry (Xin) Hu
Jean Josey
Shawn Costello
Thomas G Evans

City Council

District 1

Michael McCorriston

District 3

Razi Hasni
John Morada

Pleasanton

Mayor

Jack Balch
Karla Brown

City Council

District 2

Valerie Arkin
Craig Eicher

District 4

Matt Gaidos
Vivek Mohan

Livermore

City Council

Here is a candidate list (Mayor unopposed)

District 3

Steven Dunbar
David Farley
Jeff Kaskey

District 4

Thomas Soules
Kristie Wang

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