Planning Commission

DECEMBER 3, 2024 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION December 3, 2024 ________________________________________________________________ REGULAR MEETING 1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jacob Anderson at 7:00 pm, held in person at 1016 S. Livermore Avenue. ROLL CALL – Present: Chairperson Anderson, Vice-Chairperson Yolanda Fintschenko, Commissioner Steven Dunbar, Commissioner Daniel Leary, Commissioner Tracy Kronzak. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. OPEN FORUM Chairperson Anderson opened and closed the public comment period. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER LEARY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KRONZAK AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 3.1 Approval of the August 20, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes. 3.2 Approval of the September 17, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes. 3.3 Approval of the October 15, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes. 3.4 Approval of the November 12, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes. 3.5 Approval of the 2025 Planning Commission calendar. 4. PROJECT REVIEW

PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes DECEMBER 3, 2024 4.1 Redevelop the 85-acre former Springtown Golf Course with a community park and an 18-hole disc golf course and the addition of four pickleball courts/two tennis courts and a new half-basketball court at Marlin Pound Neighborhood Park. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a resolution approving the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 24-008, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Planning Technician Emily LaDue presented the staff report. Chairperson Anderson opened the public comment period. In response to Commission questions, Planning Technician LaDue clarified that, if approved, the project would proceed to Engineering. Kellie Burns, indicated opposition to the proposed pickleball courts due to the loud noise, health effects and impact on property values. She mentioned a pickleball court maker’s recommendation on the distance of courts from homes. Daniel Burns, expressed concern about the noise disruption; impacts on the dog park, walking trails and wildlife; and decline in property values. Craig Gushue, discussed the decibels produced by pickleball; proposed indoor courts; and the impact to the existing birds. George Kooshian, stated the pickleball courts would disrupt the peace and change the nature of their community. He expressed concern about non-resident visitors and suggested pickleball courts at Robertson Park. Christine Guzman, expressed concern with noise pollution; increased traffic of non-residents; noise levels; and environmental and ecological impacts. Connie Kopps, discussed landlocked trails; unclear boundaries of the conceptual plan due to misrepresentation at meetings; need for additional time for honest input; need to address the history of Spring Town; and lack of continuity at meetings. Sandra Grace, encouraged consideration of the manufacturer’s recommendation for distance from homes; expressed concern with noise impacts, parking, and potential litigation. Anna Belaustegui, discussed her enjoyment of the park for over 30 years and expressed concern about noise and traffic impacts from the pickleball courts. Dan Slavec, expressed support for disc golf at Springtown open space. There were no more public comments.

DECEMBER 3, 2024 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION Chairperson Anderson closed the public comment period. Commissioner Leary discussed the mitigated negative declaration; allowable decibel levels; current condition; ambient noise; and increase of 3.5 decibels. Planning Manager Steve Riley explained that pickle ball courts had been included on the conceptual plan for six years and that Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) had no complaints at the other courts. He discussed efforts to provide opportunities to residents north of 580. He stated the environmental document could be adopted with efforts to improve noise impacts. In response to Commissioner Dunbar, Nick Papani, Vice President with Raney Planning and Management, discussed the analysis and noise thresholds; City’s standard of average noise level over a defined period; and instantaneous noise level, L-Max. Commissioner Dunbar stated the City did not have an L-Max standard. He discussed the Danville Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and found the noise levels consistent. Commissioner Kronzak echoed Commissioner Dunbar’s comments. In response to Commissioner Kronzak, Deputy City Attorney explained the purpose of the mitigated negative declaration; confirmed that the City did not have an L-Max; and that the Courts had not considered anecdotes under CEQA. Commissioner Kronzak discussed the decibel measurements; sufficient mitigation; and potential litigation. In response to Commissioner Kronzak, Planning Manager Riley discussed the City’s applicable standards for noise. In response to Vice Chair Fintschenko, Planning Manager Riley explained the reference to other relevant agency guidelines in the initial study check list. City Engineer Joel Waxdeck discussed the 2017 Concept Plan. Vice Chair Fintschenko stated no community members were asking for pickleball and the community park should include amenities wanted by the community. Planning Manager Riley discussed input from LARPD in development of the park; demand for pickleball; and potential for sound reduction measures. In response to Chair Anderson, Mr. Papani explained the noise measurements in the study. In response to Commissioner Kronzak, Mr. Papani explained the sound plan model, and various inputs including topography and elevations. Chair Anderson indicated the findings for the mitigated negative declaration could be made and supported the possibility of modifications as good neighbor solutions. Commissioner Leary agreed with Chair Anderson regarding approval of the mitigated negative declaration and suggested funds be spent on the needs of the community.

PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes DECEMBER 3, 2024 Commissioner Dunbar pointed out that the original location of pickleball was 500 feet from nearest house. He discussed the differences between Magnus and Livermore Downs and proposed project. Director Riley explained the evaluation of the project’s disturbance area with regard to the EIR. Mr. Papani discussed impacts on wildlife, specifically special status species. Commissioner Dunbar stated he did not want to delay the rest of the project due to pickleball. Director Riley clarified that they could be separated. Commissioner Kronzak indicated the mitigated negative declaration was appropriate and the measures proposed were adequate. In response to Commissioner Kronzak, Deputy City Attorney explained that the lead agency determined the level of significance; and the Courts generally deferred to the lead agency’s determination. Commissioner Kronzak stated tennis courts would not solve the noise problem because they would be used for pickleball; and suggested a separate vote on the mitigated negative declaration and pivoting to remediation. Vice Chair Fintschenko suggested looking at other agency standards; separating the projects and requiring a new mitigated negative declaration for pickleball courts. Planning Manager Steve Riley explained options for a supplemental or addendum to the mitigated negative declaration. Vice Chair Fintschenko suggested removing the pickleball component. In response to Chair Anderson, Planning Manager Steve Riley explained options for direction on the Marlin Pound portion. Chair Anderson discussed the definition of community park; clear opposition by the neighbors to pickleball; and Planning Commission consensus to remove the pickleball courts. In response to Commissioner Dunbar, Planning Manager Steve Riley suggested considering land use compatibility. Commissioner Kronzak indicated it was a quasi-judicial matter and the Commission could determine it was not compatible with the existing neighborhood conditions; expressed sympathy to the requests to eliminate noise; and stated findings could be made for the Mitigated Negative Declaration and amendment to eradicate the pickleball courts but retain the tennis courts. CONSENSUS By consensus, the Commission determined to proceed with the SPDR, removing the pickle ball court. Planning Manager Steve Riley discussed the need to determine if there was enough demand for just tennis courts and work with LARPD; and removal of Marlin Pound Park to reevaluate. Planning Technician Emily LaDue explained the potential for an amendment or supplemental. Commissioner Leary discussed the bus stop and crosswalk and traffic flow on Bluebell Drive; and suggested moving the bus stop and adding curb extensions.

DECEMBER 3, 2024 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Dunbar discussed the need for traffic calming on Bluebell and bike and pedestrian access; support for balance of native plants and storage for disc golf. Commissioner Kronzak discussed use of native plantings; bathroom stalls; parking spaces; noise; no response to the tribal requests; park as an asset; formalization of the informal path; and future consideration of a multiuse path. Vice Chair Fintschenko concurred with findings. Chair Anderson expressed excitement about the park and concurred with protected bike lanes. He suggested ensuring a barrier of protection between the parking stalls and play structures and indicated support for disc golf. ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER KRONZAK, APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, THE SPDRM, AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION INCLUDING THE CONDITIONAL REMOVAL OF MARLIN POUND PARK FROM THE SPDRM BASED ON PROHIBITING PICKLEBALL COURTS INSIDE THE PARK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DUNBAR WHO PROVIDED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, ACCEPTED BY COMMISSIONER KRONZAK, TO INCLUDE FURTHER TRAFFIC CALMING ON BLUEBELL DRIVE ADDING CURB EXTENSIONS, INCLUDING PEDESTRIAN ISLANDS AT THE JUDGEMENT OF STAFF, CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS: Resolution 45-24 Adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Springtown Open Space Project per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Resolution 46-24 Approving Site Plan Design Review (SPDR)24-008 for the Springtown Open Space Project FRIENDLY AMENDMENT Commissioner Dunbar moved to amend the motion to include traffic calming on Bluebell Drive and curb extensions. Commissioner Kronzak accepted the amendment. RECESS Chair Anderson called a recess at 9:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:41 p.m. with all Commissioners present. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Hearing to consider a request to authorize a Conditional Use Permit to allow an approximately 19,200 square-foot batting practice facility named D-BAT within an existing building at the northeast corner of Shannon Court and Patterson Pass Road.

PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes DECEMBER 3, 2024 Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a resolution finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(a), Existing Facilities; 2. Adopt a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 24-006, subject to the Conditions of Approval; 3. Direct the Planning Manager to instruct staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the Alameda County Clerk; and 4. Advise the applicant that the Planning Commission’s action is final unless appealed to the City Council within 15 days. Assistant Planner Kaitlyn Harrison presented the staff report. Jeff Tarpley, owner/operator discussed his experience in coaching baseball and the D-BAT franchise. Chairperson Anderson opened and closed the public comment period. In response to Commissioner Kronzak, Assistant Planner Harrison explained the existing and required parking and shared parking agreement. Commissioner Kronzak indicated support for the project. Commissioner Dunbar indicated support for the proposed project. Commissioner Leary indicated support for staff recommendations. Vice Chair Fintschenko indicated the site was well designed for the purpose and the findings could be made. Chair Anderson stated the parking sharing was adequate and expressed excitement about the philosophy. ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER DUNBAR, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR FINTSCHENKO AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS: Resolution 47-24 Finding the batting practice facility within an existing building (D-Bat) at the corner of Shannon Court and Patterson Pass Road is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Resolution 48-24 Approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 24-006 for the D-Bat batting practice facility project 6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION – NONE. 7. MATTERS INITIATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF Planning Manager Steve Riley requested the Commission reconsider the Planning

DECEMBER 3, 2024 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION Commission calendar for 2025. ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER KRONZAK, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR FINTSCHENKO AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, RECONSIDER THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND CORRECT THE JULY DATE OF THE 2025 CALENDAR WITH THE CORRECT JULY DATE. Chair Anderson discussed timing of Stockman Park lights. Commissioner Kronzak mentioned questions submitted on Matters Initiated by Planning Commission (MIP)24-001 and forthcoming questions on Matters Initiated by Planning Commission (MIP)24-002; and requested reassessment of sound levels in the development code, including establishment of an LMax standard. Commissioner Dunbar requested the light at Inman and First Street going towards Livermore High School be adjusted for summer hours. He expressed gratitude for staff and his colleagues. The Commissioners commended Commissioner Dunbar for his service to the City. 8. ADJOURNMENT – at 10:12 pm to a Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, December 17, 2024, at 7:00 pm, Civic Center Meeting Hall, City Council Chambers, 1016 S. Livermore Ave.

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 PM MEETING PARTICIPATION INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND AT THE END OF THE AGENDA IN PERSON INFORMATION: CIVIC CENTER MEETING HALL CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1016 S. LIVERMORE AVENUE Steven Dunbar, Commissioner Tracy Kronzak, Commissioner Daniel Leary, Commissioner Yolanda Fintschenko, Vice Chair Jacob M Anderson, Chair Livermore Planning Commission Agenda December 3, 2024

1. CALL TO ORDER 2. OPEN FORUM In conformance with the Brown Act, no Planning Commission action can occur on items presented during Open Forum. To provide public comment, please submit a speaker card. When your name is called, walk to the lectern to address the Planning Commission. Comments are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person, per item. The Chair may reduce the amount of time based on the number of persons wishing to speak. Open Forum will conclude after 30 minutes; however, if there are additional speakers, Open Forum will reconvene after Matters for Consideration. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and are acted upon by the Planning Commission with a single action. Members of the audience wishing to provide public input must submit a speaker card. 3.1 Approval of the August 20, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the draft minutes. Staff Report Attachments: 1. 08-20-2024 Draft Meeting Minutes 3.2 Approval of the September 17, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the draft minutes. Staff Report Attachments: 1. 09-17-2024 Draft Meeting Minutes 3.3 Approval of the October 15, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the draft minutes. Staff Report Attachments: ROLL CALL Commissioner Steven Dunbar Commissioner Tracy Kronzak Commissioner Daniel Leary Vice Chairperson Yolanda Fintschenko Chairperson Jacob Anderson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Livermore Planning Commission Agenda December 3, 2024

1. 10-15-2024 Draft Meeting Minutes 3.4 Approval of the November 12, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the draft minutes. Staff Report Attachments: 1. 11-12-2024 Draft Meeting Minutes 3.5 Approval of the 2025 Planning Commission calendar. Recommendation: Staff recommends Planning Commission Approve the 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Calendar. Staff Report Attachments: 1. 2025 Proposed Meeting Calendar 4. PROJECT REVIEW 4.1 Redevelop the 85-acre former Springtown Golf Course with a community park and an 18-hole disc golf course and the addition of four pickleball courts/two tennis courts and a new half- basketball court at Marlin Pound Neighborhood Park. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a resolution approving the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 24-008, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Staff Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Concept Plans 3. Development Plans 4. Resolution - Environmental 5. Exhibit A - Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 6. Exhibit B - Caltrans Comment Letter 7. Exhibit C - Comment Letter Kellie Burns 8. Exhibit D - Comment Letter Louise Taylor 9. Exhibit E Response to Comments 10. Resolution - Project 11. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval 12. Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Hearing to consider a request to authorize a Conditional Use Permit to allow an approximately Livermore Planning Commission Agenda December 3, 2024

19,200 square-foot batting practice facility named D-BAT within an existing building at the northeast corner of Shannon Court and Patterson Pass Road. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a resolution finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(a), Existing Facilities; 2. Adopt a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 24-006, subject to the Conditions of Approval; 3. Direct the Planning Manager to instruct staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the Alameda County Clerk; and 4. Advise the applicant that the Planning Commission’s action is final unless appealed to the City Council within 15 days. Staff Report Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Plan Set 3. Shared Parking Agreement 4. Resolution- CEQA 5. Resolution - Project 6. Exhibit A- Conditions of Approval 6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION 7. MATTERS INITIATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF 7.1 Planning Staff Responses to Matters Initiated by the Planning Commission. Staff Report Attachments: 1. Planning Staff Responses to Matters Initiated by Planning Commission 8. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS 8.1 Supplemental materials received prior to the meeting. Staff Report Attachments: 1. Supplemental Materials 9. ADJOURNMENT To a regular Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, December 17, 2024 at 7:00 pm, Civic Center Meeting Hall, City Council Chambers, 1016 S. Livermore Avenue. 10. HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING You can participate in the meeting in a number of ways: Open Forum is an opportunity for the public to speak regarding items not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person. To address the Planning Livermore Planning Commission Agenda December 3, 2024

Commission you must submit a speaker card to the Planning Commission Liaison prior to the start of that item. Please note that the Planning Commission is prohibited by State law from taking action on any items that are not listed on the agenda. However, if your item requires action, the Planning Commission l may place it on a future agenda or direct staff to work with you and/or report to the Planning Commission on the issue. Public Hearings - The topic of the hearing is typically summarized by staff, followed by a presentation by the applicant, and then questions from the Planning Commission. The Chair will then open the hearing to the public and offer an opportunity for public comments. Speakers are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person. To address the Planning Commission, you must submit a speaker card to the Planning Commission Liaison prior to the start of the presentation of the item. Other Agenda Items are also open for public input including Consent Calendar or Matters for Consideration items. These comments are also subject to the 3-minute limit. Special Meetings, Workshops - The public will have the opportunity to address the Planning Commission regarding the item that is the subject of the special meeting or workshop. Public comments are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person. Submission of Comments Prior to the Meeting: Email Comments may be submitted by the public to the Planning Commission Liaison (planning@LivermoreCA.gov). Items received no later than 12:00 pm on the day of the meeting will be provided to the Commission and available on the City website prior to the meeting. These items will NOT be read into the record. eComments may be submitted by the public using the eComment link here. Comments may be up to 1000 characters in length and will be accepted up until 6:00 pm the day of the meeting. These items will NOT be read into the record and are viewable by the the Commission and the public upon submittal. Submission of Comments During the Meeting: Speakers are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person. To submit a comment in person, you must complete a speaker card for each item. Speaker cards are available in the Civic Center Meeting Hall lobby. Indicate on the card the item number you wish to comment on and submit the card directly to the Planning Commission Liaison prior to the start of the item. Please note that the Planning Commission is prohibited by State law from taking action on any items that are not listed on the agenda. However, if your item requires action, the Planning Commission may place it on a future agenda or direct staff to work with you and/or report to the Planning Commission on the issue. If you would like to deliver written materials to the Commission as part of your public comments, please provide 8 copies of to the Planning Commission Liaison with your speaker card. Livermore Planning Commission Agenda December 3, 2024

The Planning Commission Agenda and Agenda Reports are prepared by City staff and are available for public review on Friday evening, three days prior to the Planning Commission meeting at 1016 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore. The Agenda is also available on the City’s website, http://livermoreca.gov/agenda. Under Government Code §54957.5, any supplemental material distributed to the members of the Planning Commission after the posting of this agenda will be available for public review at City Hall, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, and included in the agenda packet available on the City’s web site at http://livermoreca.gov/agenda. PURSUANT TO TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (CODIFIED AT 42 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 12101 AND 28 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PART 35), AND SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, SEX, DISABILITY, AGE OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE PROVISION OF ANY SERVICES, PROGRAMS, OR ACTIVITIES. TO ARRANGE AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PUBLIC MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE ADA COORDINATOR AT ADACOORDINATOR@LIVERMORECA.GOV OR CALL (925) 960-4170 (VOICE) OR (925) 960-4104 (TDD) AT LEAST THREE (3) BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. Livermore Planning Commission Agenda December 3, 2024

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 PM MEETING PARTICIPATION INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND AT THE END OF THE AGENDA IN PERSON INFORMATION: CIVIC CENTER MEETING HALL CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1016 S. LIVERMORE AVENUE Steven Dunbar, Commissioner Tracy Kronzak, Commissioner Daniel Leary, Commissioner Yolanda Fintschenko, Vice Chair Jacob M Anderson, Chair Livermore Planning Commission Agenda December 3, 2024 1

1. CALL TO ORDER 2. OPEN FORUM In conformance with the Brown Act, no Planning Commission action can occur on items presented during Open Forum. To provide public comment, please submit a speaker card. When your name is called, walk to the lectern to address the Planning Commission. Comments are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person, per item. The Chair may reduce the amount of time based on the number of persons wishing to speak. Open Forum will conclude after 30 minutes; however, if there are additional speakers, Open Forum will reconvene after Matters for Consideration. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and are acted upon by the Planning Commission with a single action. Members of the audience wishing to provide public input must submit a speaker card. 3.1 Approval of the August 20, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the draft minutes. Staff Report Attachments: 1. 08-20-2024 Draft Meeting Minutes 3.2 Approval of the September 17, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the draft minutes. Staff Report Attachments: 1. 09-17-2024 Draft Meeting Minutes 3.3 Approval of the October 15, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the draft minutes. Staff Report Attachments: ROLL CALL Commissioner Steven Dunbar Commissioner Tracy Kronzak Commissioner Daniel Leary Vice Chairperson Yolanda Fintschenko Chairperson Jacob Anderson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Livermore Planning Commission Agenda December 3, 2024 2

1. 10-15-2024 Draft Meeting Minutes 3.4 Approval of the November 12, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the draft minutes. Staff Report Attachments: 1. 11-12-2024 Draft Meeting Minutes 3.5 Approval of the 2025 Planning Commission calendar. Recommendation: Staff recommends Planning Commission Approve the 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Calendar. Staff Report Attachments: 1. 2025 Proposed Meeting Calendar 4. PROJECT REVIEW 4.1 Redevelop the 85-acre former Springtown Golf Course with a community park and an 18-hole disc golf course and the addition of four pickleball courts/two tennis courts and a new half- basketball court at Marlin Pound Neighborhood Park. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a resolution approving the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 24-008, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Staff Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Concept Plans 3. Development Plans 4. Resolution - Environmental 5. Exhibit A - Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 6. Exhibit B - Caltrans Comment Letter 7. Exhibit C - Comment Letter Kellie Burns 8. Exhibit D - Comment Letter Louise Taylor 9. Exhibit E Response to Comments 10. Resolution - Project 11. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval 12. Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Hearing to consider a request to authorize a Conditional Use Permit to allow an approximately Livermore Planning Commission Agenda December 3, 2024 3

19,200 square-foot batting practice facility named D-BAT within an existing building at the northeast corner of Shannon Court and Patterson Pass Road. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a resolution finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(a), Existing Facilities; 2. Adopt a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 24-006, subject to the Conditions of Approval; 3. Direct the Planning Manager to instruct staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the Alameda County Clerk; and 4. Advise the applicant that the Planning Commission’s action is final unless appealed to the City Council within 15 days. Staff Report Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Plan Set 3. Shared Parking Agreement 4. Resolution- CEQA 5. Resolution - Project 6. Exhibit A- Conditions of Approval 6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION 7. MATTERS INITIATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF 7.1 Planning Staff Responses to Matters Initiated by the Planning Commission. Staff Report Attachments: 1. Planning Staff Responses to Matters Initiated by Planning Commission 8. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS 8.1 Supplemental materials received prior to the meeting. Staff Report Attachments: 1. Supplemental Materials 9. ADJOURNMENT To a regular Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, December 17, 2024 at 7:00 pm, Civic Center Meeting Hall, City Council Chambers, 1016 S. Livermore Avenue. 10. HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING You can participate in the meeting in a number of ways: Open Forum is an opportunity for the public to speak regarding items not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person. To address the Planning Livermore Planning Commission Agenda December 3, 2024 4

Commission you must submit a speaker card to the Planning Commission Liaison prior to the start of that item. Please note that the Planning Commission is prohibited by State law from taking action on any items that are not listed on the agenda. However, if your item requires action, the Planning Commission l may place it on a future agenda or direct staff to work with you and/or report to the Planning Commission on the issue. Public Hearings - The topic of the hearing is typically summarized by staff, followed by a presentation by the applicant, and then questions from the Planning Commission. The Chair will then open the hearing to the public and offer an opportunity for public comments. Speakers are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person. To address the Planning Commission, you must submit a speaker card to the Planning Commission Liaison prior to the start of the presentation of the item. Other Agenda Items are also open for public input including Consent Calendar or Matters for Consideration items. These comments are also subject to the 3-minute limit. Special Meetings, Workshops - The public will have the opportunity to address the Planning Commission regarding the item that is the subject of the special meeting or workshop. Public comments are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person. Submission of Comments Prior to the Meeting: Email Comments may be submitted by the public to the Planning Commission Liaison (planning@LivermoreCA.gov). Items received no later than 12:00 pm on the day of the meeting will be provided to the Commission and available on the City website prior to the meeting. These items will NOT be read into the record. eComments may be submitted by the public using the eComment link here. Comments may be up to 1000 characters in length and will be accepted up until 6:00 pm the day of the meeting. These items will NOT be read into the record and are viewable by the the Commission and the public upon submittal. Submission of Comments During the Meeting: Speakers are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person. To submit a comment in person, you must complete a speaker card for each item. Speaker cards are available in the Civic Center Meeting Hall lobby. Indicate on the card the item number you wish to comment on and submit the card directly to the Planning Commission Liaison prior to the start of the item. Please note that the Planning Commission is prohibited by State law from taking action on any items that are not listed on the agenda. However, if your item requires action, the Planning Commission may place it on a future agenda or direct staff to work with you and/or report to the Planning Commission on the issue. If you would like to deliver written materials to the Commission as part of your public comments, please provide 8 copies of to the Planning Commission Liaison with your speaker card. Livermore Planning Commission Agenda December 3, 2024 5

The Planning Commission Agenda and Agenda Reports are prepared by City staff and are available for public review on Friday evening, three days prior to the Planning Commission meeting at 1016 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore. The Agenda is also available on the City’s website, http://livermoreca.gov/agenda. Under Government Code §54957.5, any supplemental material distributed to the members of the Planning Commission after the posting of this agenda will be available for public review at City Hall, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, and included in the agenda packet available on the City’s web site at http://livermoreca.gov/agenda. PURSUANT TO TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (CODIFIED AT 42 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 12101 AND 28 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PART 35), AND SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, SEX, DISABILITY, AGE OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE PROVISION OF ANY SERVICES, PROGRAMS, OR ACTIVITIES. TO ARRANGE AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PUBLIC MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE ADA COORDINATOR AT ADACOORDINATOR@LIVERMORECA.GOV OR CALL (925) 960-4170 (VOICE) OR (925) 960-4104 (TDD) AT LEAST THREE (3) BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. Livermore Planning Commission Agenda December 3, 2024 6

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 3.1 DATE: December 3, 2024 TO: Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Steve Riley, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Approval of the August 20, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the draft minutes. SUMMARY DISCUSSION ATTACHMENTS 1. 08-20-2024 Draft Meeting Minutes Prepared by: Michele Donley Division Clerk 7

AUGUST 20, 2024 Draft Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2024 ________________________________________________________________ REGULAR MEETING 1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jacob Anderson at 7:00 pm, held in person at 940 Larkspur Drive. ROLL CALL – Present: Chairperson Anderson, Vice-Chairperson Yolanda Fintschenko, Commissioner Steven Dunbar, Commissioner Daniel Leary, Commissioner Tracy Kronzak. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Anderson led the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. OPEN FORUM Chairperson Anderson opened the public comment period. Doug Mann discussed less attention paid to Springtown and adjoining areas north of 580; opposition to urbanization of the hills; controversy surrounding Garaventa Hills project; need for greater geographic diversity on the Commission; and protection of the area. Connie Kopps expressed concern with unanswered questions since 2002; PlaceWorks at a meeting with assigned seats, and misinterpretation of comments by the facilitator. Chairperson Anderson closed the public comment period. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR – NONE 4. PROJECT REVIEW – NONE. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Public hearing to receive comments on the Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report (RP Draft EIR) for the Garaventa Hills Project that includes the following land use entitlements: VestingATTACHMENT 1 8

PLANNING COMMISSION Draft Minutes AUGUST 20, 2024 Tentative Tract Map 8094 (SUB13-001) and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 13-005 Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive public comments regarding the Recirculated Partial Draft Environmental Impact Report (RP Draft EIR) for the Garaventa Hills Project. No action is required by the Planning Commission at this meeting. Special Projects Coordinator Steve Stewart presented the staff report. Chairperson Anderson opened the public comment period. In response to Commission questions, Special Projects Coordinator Stewart and Deputy City Attorney Katherine Mirassou discussed challenges under CEQA through the Courts and the decision by the Court of Appeals; urban low density land use designation; property owned by the Garaventas; and CEQA. Doug Mann, I am Secretary for Citizens for Balanced Growth. CEQA has provisions to retrigger an EIR when certain new information is obtained about an environmentally damaging project. So, we’ll be starting all over again, and continuing for as many years as it takes, extending far beyond the NDA. Although the result of tonight’s meeting will just contribute to a reverse loop on the CEQA flow chart, receiving comments might still do some good. Let’s concentrate on the weirdest part of this whole thing, which is the interaction with the trustee, Lisa Quisito. The staff report claims that Quisito is not a willing seller. We put this expression into the DBSA when we settled the lawsuit to prohibit eminent domain purchases. Quisito is a willing seller and actively engaged in the process of selling this asset under self-imposed restrictive terms. Her preferred buyer, Lafferty, has refused to buy for 13 years. Quisito claims they are restricted by contract to sell only to Lafferty. What she doesn’t say is it’s an option contract. Lafferty paid them to not sell to anyone else. But it’s also not perpetual, but one that renews on a regular basis. In the renewal periods, she can sell to anyone. February 2 nd, Livermore offered $868,000. Quisito’s February 5 reply defines their selling price as $3.5 million. Staff paradoxically followed up February 29 th with an offer for $1.74 million. This offer was designed to fail. Other than to mock, aggravate and waste the owner’s time, what possible purpose did that serve? They could’ve responded if the City offered $3.5 million, if you were not under another contract, would you consider it, for example. We don’t know how many other insults Quisito may have endured over the years but one might wonder if this sort of thing explains the accelerated tone of resentment in her letters. Here’s where you can help. Although you’re not required to take any action, you do have the option to help cut through the fog. Ask your staff to engage a professional mediator, a neutral party who may be able to find solutions to the fractured relationship between the City and the seller. As an EIR expense, the developer will even pay for it. You could also request your staff talk to an actual real estate agent to represent the City. It costs nothing and there’s no better way to consummate a real estate deal than to give marching orders to a motivated professional. Both of these activities can occur in parallel. Again, you are not required, but if you do nothing tonight except passivelyATTACHMENT 1 9

AUGUST 20, 2024 Draft Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION receive comments, (buzzzer), I’m done. One has to wonder, what you as public servants are actually doing to help. The RP Draft EIR remains inadequate. Bianca Covarelli, Good evening. I’m sorry I can’t stand. I literally had knee surgery four days ago, but this is a very important topic to me. My name is Bianca Covarelli and I say (inaudible). I appreciate your time this evening and very much for your dedication and hard work for all of your planning for our beautiful town of Livermore. It’s very special to me. Initially, I’d like to state for the record and remind City staff that we do have a right to make comments tonight on the Draft EIR and to direct it to limit comments to strictly funding is misinformation and this is why, I argue that significant new conditions and new information have come up over the last few years that will retrigger the requirements that amend the EIR and recirculate. The City’s project page has 2014 Final EIR and 2018 reissued Final EIR. Most of the reports are from 2014. The only difference between the two projects was density of the development, no new studies. The reports in the Final EIR are quit old. The City lost a prejudicial legal judgement that required the City to set aside certification of the RFEIR and the approval of the project. What they didn’t mention is that they hand wrote a letter to the California Supreme Court in association with other building communities. And the California Supreme Court came back and said after the City of Livermore requested that the ruling be tossed out from the Appellate Court ruling, and the California Supreme Court said this, ‘Not only are we upholding this precedential ruling, but you are no longer allowed to appeal this ruling’. So, that says a lot. And maybe there are issues about this that didn’t come out in the courts because this other issue is so important. So, I’d just like you to consider that. Over the last few years I have been diligent in research and committed to consulting with experts on the pertinent issues, new information and conditions regarding this special hearing. There are many, many studies by those experts being prepared now. The process isn’t quite complete as to what will be in the record yet but comment submissions will be made prior to the September 13 deadline. The environmental consultant may be overwhelmed with the plethora of new information and additional work that may be required to be performed. Regarding the funding issue, we can all agree the second courts precedential ruling wherein they vacated EIR and the project, we can agree that the valuation of the land declined significantly. The comment made about the current valuation of the hill being $18 to $20 million is beyond erroneous. Misinformation and a possible attempt at hindering informed decision making and public perception. The question is the City in good faith honoring the Court’s decision that on a piece of land is so environmentally sensitive and rare, it’s a very new diversity and there’s nothing like it anywhere else in our state. Conservation should be considered and that’s what the Court said. I was at the hearing when they said it. The property was listed at various times since 2017. The listing price in 2017 was $4.9 million. The City’s recent offer of over $800,000 and then $1.7, it wasn’t a fair market value offer. No wonder the land owners rejected it. That’s why they’re being considered an unwilling seller. They’re clearly a willing seller. The City contends the landowners are not willing to sell. I feel that if a bonifide fair market value offer was offered, they’re a reasonable seller, they would consider it.ATTACHMENT 1 10

PLANNING COMMISSION Draft Minutes AUGUST 20, 2024 This gloss by the City and the courts was an exit to that option that Lafferty’s holdings on this property. Do the land owners know that? Do they know that there’s funding available to purchase? I request tonight that you, the Planning Commission, take to heart the magnitude and the time spent on this proposed project. It’s been over 12 years and I can personally attest to that, I’ve been involved. I could recommend that you send this back to staff and demand preparation of an accurate, proper, updated and current EIR. Thank you so much for your attention. Vladimir, I’m going to sit too since you guys are all comfortable. For one, I think you should have let her speak all the way through because she underwent surgery as she said four days ago and she is Save the Hill and I think what she has to say is pretty important. I don’t think there is any reason to be concerned over the one minute that she takes. I just had to say, you know I drove her here myself and she is clearly committed. The other thing I’d like to say is hello to my old friend Steve Stewart. I remember when we were at the Garaventa meeting together a few months ago. My impression was that you were dreading that meeting and I don’t blame you because it was very long and drawn out and I’m surprised to see you’re back. I think what that says is that everybody’s got a price. Right? And in this case it was worth it for you to come back talking. On the topic of that, the main, your whole argument seems to rest on the idea that the land owner is not a willing seller and as Doug and Bianca pointed out earlier, it’s bogus because they’re trying to build as many homes as possible on this land for ten years now and working with the developer. These people are trying to make money. The reason they are not a willing seller to the City is because you ridiculed them with $800,000. The other thing that I found interesting actually in the reports, since we’re discussing a no project 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 earlier but do you know? At this point, as the City because a few months ago you told me it was $15-20 million. As Bianca said, there’s some text in CEQA that I was reading earlier but something about informed decision making and public participation. And I think that what you lie about how much the land is worth even though you have letters from the landowner, I mean this data is easy to find. And you get this $15-20 million number and people believe you because you have the power of authority, I think you’re miss using it. So anyway, this no willing seller argument is false because hypothetically speaking if you throw $100 million at them I bet they would change their tune, right. So it’s just a matter of money. If you make a fair offer, then they will sell it. They’re probably as tired of this as anybody else, of this masquerade that’s been going on. I guess that’s it. I’m trying to practice not writing any notes so that I get better at public speaking but I might have forgotten a few things. That’s okay. Connie Kopps, Hi. I’m here about 5.1 and it’s not clear in the beginning but it will be clear as I read on. On public hearing Item 5.1, 13-005. Our City is unclear with its general planning for all of Livermore and lands it’s preserving. There is an opportunity __ to all living in this area as the boundaries of who is responsible for what with land owners and shell companies, makes getting clear maps and any questions answered with honesty impossible. It is my firm belief that a General Plan with Zoning should be clear and concise so that all districts together can viewATTACHMENT 1 11

AUGUST 20, 2024 Draft Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION it in its entirety as all are affected by what you do and what you approve. It’s impossible to get honest input without that, without that, without the big picture. I do think also that this land, because it’s got a B after it, the parcel number is like 99B, that it is entitled to something. When I called the County about, I think it was that parcel, they couldn’t tell me for some reason who owned it prior to them. They said that wasn’t public record. So, I don’t know why and I might have messed up something too. But I really do think it’s important to go over with your whole community the past history and why things were preserved and again update your planning to include modern day thoughts. Even when like Public Works is coming to my HOA in the other part of Spring Town when Darrell Greenwood was telling everybody in my HOA that the City owned our property and the golf course was still going, so the dynamics around it have also changed and there’s an opportunity cost for those other people who also might want to propose some kind of building to you. So try to be fair. I say, take your districts, divide your housing allocation by the number of districts and at least try to balance it out. I don’t think that Midtown, we’ve gotten onto another subject here so I’ll stop. Thank you for taking what I said into consideration. I really appreciate it.