September 12, 2016
CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - The meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor John Marchand at 7:00 pm, in the City Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore, California.
1.01 ROLL CALL - Present: Mayor John Marchand, Vice Mayor Stewart Gary, and Council Members Steven Spedowfski, Laureen Turner, and Bob Woerner.
1.02 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
2.01 Airport Commission Annual Update
Airport Commission Chairperson Alex Shezifi presented the annual update.
Doug Mann, Livermore, spoke regarding increasing the frequency of BART trains to carry more people out of the valley.
Esther Ann Waltz, Livermore, spoke in support of a medicinal cannabis dispensary in Livermore.
Kevin Jameson, Livermore, expressed concerns regarding Cemex, Lake A, and potential mining in what was now a wildlife area. He asked for the City's assistance in obtaining information.
Mark Landeck, Livermore, expressed support for Mr. Jameson's comments.
Robin Landeck, Livermore, supported Mr. Jameson's comments, saying she was very concerned regarding Cemex resuming mining at Lake A.
David McGuigan, Livermore, spoke regarding his arrest by the Livermore Police Department.
Jean King, Livermore, asked the City Council to postpone building the $5 million Council Chamber and put the money toward Downtown development instead.
Bob Carling, Livermore, spoke regarding quality of life in Livermore, such as open space and development of a square in the Downtown. He opposed additional mining by Cemex and asked the City to prevent additional mining in Lake A.
Nancy Elizabeth Saltsman, Livermore, spoke in support of medical cannabis dispensaries in Livermore and said the City Council was not qualified to make medical decisions for patients and their doctors.
John Stein, Livermore, spoke regarding the Delta pipeline project and suggested a statewide growth limitation tied to new water supplies.
Erik Sommargren, Livermore, suggested including a park with a playground and play structure for children into the Downtown project.
Item 4.08 Esther Anne Waltz, Livermore, said the bus routes did not go to the corner of Olivina and suggested the Hagemann Farm improvements include a shelter near the gate for people waiting for transportation.
Item 4.06 In response to questions by Mayor Marchand and CM Spedowfski, City Manager Marc Roberts said the City would be able to consider a methane capture system at the Water Reclamation Plant moving forward into the future. He said a study would need to be conducted regarding the quantity and cleanliness of the methane.
Item 4.01 CM Spedowfski requested the minutes of the August 1 & 8, 2016 City Council / Planning Commission special meeting workshop be removed from the Consent Calendar for additional review by the City Clerk.
ON THE MOTION OF CM TURNER, SECONDED BY CM WOERNER, AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE CONSENT CALENDAR, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM 4.01; THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 1 & 8, 2016 CITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL EETING WORKSHOP MINUTES WERE REMOVED FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW.
4.01 Approval of Minutes - July 25, 2016 regular City Council meeting and August 1 & 8, 2016 City Council/Planning Commission special meeting workshop.
ITEM 4.01 WAS APPROVED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DRAFT MINUTES OF AUGUST 1, 2016, REMOVED FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW BY THE CITY CLERK.
4.02 Acceptance of the 2016 Local Agency Biennial Notice; and ordinance introduced revising Municipal Code Chapter 1.28, Conflict of Interest Code.
4.03 Resolution 2016-101 accepting for permanent maintenance, including public improvements, and releasing of security for Livermore Oaks Joint Venture LLC, Parcel Map 10266. Location: Oaks Business Park, west of Isabel Avenue and south of Jack London Boulevard.
4.04 Resolution 2016-102 accepting certain Tract 7671 (Vinsanto II - Ponderosa Homes II, Inc.) public improvements for permanent maintenance; accepting all real property offered for dedication that were previously rejected; and authorizing partial release of security bonds. Location: south of Obsidian Way, east of Sardonyx Court.
4.05 Resolution 2016-103 rescheduling the proposed Landscape Maintenance District No. LL-863 public hearing date to September 26, 2016 (Tract 8195, The Vines).
4.06 Resolution 2016-104 authorizing execution of an agreement with Cannon Corp., in the amount of $113,251, for programming and networking services during construction of the Water Reclamation Plant Rehabilitation and Process Improvements Phase 1, Project No. 2012-13.
4.07 Resolution 2016-105 authorizing issuance of a purchase order to L.N. Curtis & Sons, in an amount not to exceed $215,000, for the purchase of materials, supplies, and services in support of daily operations for the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department Joint Powers Authority.
4.08 Resolution 2016-106 authorizing execution of the first amendment to the ground lease agreement with the Livermore Heritage Guild and a supplemental appropriation of up to $27,000 to pay for repairs, maintenance and security on the Hagemann Farm property located at 455 Olivina Avenue.
4.09 Resolution 2016-107 summarily vacating sanitary sewer easements on Lot 229 of Tract Map 2682 and authorizing execution of a quit claim deed for the vacated easements. Location: 1123 Norfolk Road.
4.10 Resolution 2016-108 authorizing execution of a grant deed transferring a vacated portion of South Vasco Road right-of-way parcel to Ponderosa Homes II, Inc., in exchange for $10,590; and Resolution 2016-109 authorizing execution of a grant of easement to Ponderosa Homes II, Inc., for a two-foot wide wall easement. Location: 5195 and 5945 East Avenue. (The Vines - Ponderosa Homes II, Inc.)
4.11 Resolution 2016-110 authorizing execution of an easement and maintenance agreement with Sage Homeowner's Association. Location: Southwest corner of Isabel Avenue and Portola Avenue.
4.12 Resolution 2016-111 approving the funding extension of $92,185 in unexpended Fiscal Year 2015-16 Housing and Human Services Grant funds into Fiscal Year 2016-17; and authorizing execution of contract agreements and/or amendments for the funding extensions.
4.13 Resolution 2016-112 authorizing execution of a purchase and sale agreement with Technology Drive, LLC, in the amount of $450,000; and authorizing execution of a ground lease agreement for Livermore Municipal Airport property with Technology Drive, LLC.
4.14 Resolution 2016-113 adopting the City of Livermore Salary Plan as of September 5, 2016 in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5
5.01 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) Hearing
Hearing to consider approval of issuance by the California Public Finance Authority of multi-family housing revenue bonds in one or more series at no time to exceed $55,000,000 in outstanding aggregate principal amount, to finance the acquisition and construction of a 171-unit multifamily rental housing project located at South Vasco Road and Brisa Street. (Ageno Apartments)
Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council adopt a resolution approving issuance of the bonds and authorizing execution of a joint powers agreement with California Public Finance Authority to issue the bonds and certain other matters relating thereto.
Assistant Community Development Director Eric Uranga presented the staff report.
In response to questions by CM Spedowfski, Mr. Uranga confirmed that the original project had consisted of homeownership and rental components; he clarified that the bond would provide financing for the rental component.
Mayor Marchand opened the public hearing.
There were no speakers and the hearing was closed.
ON THE MOTION OF VM GARY, SECONDED BY CM WOERNER AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:
Resolution 2016-114 approving the issuance by the California Public Finance Authority of multi-family housing revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not-to-exceed $55,000,000 for the purpose of financing or refinancing the acquisition and construction of Ageno Apartments and certain other matters relating thereto.
5.02 Hearing to consider various actions to pre-zone and annex the approximately 9.34-acre Pleasant View Lane Neighborhood and form an assessment district to provide sewer service and construct roadway improvements along Arroyo Road and Pleasant View Lane.
. Location: East of Arroyo Road, South of Cabernet Way, West of Gamay Road, and North of Chardonnay Way. (Assessor Parcel Numbers are listed on the staff report.)
. Site Area: 9.34± acres
. Applicant: City of Livermore
. Application Number: Annexation Pre-Zoning 16-001; Assessment District 2016-2
. Public improvements: Sewer, curb, gutter, and sidewalk within public right-of-way, street lighting, and fire hydrants
. Zoning: Alameda County Single Family Residential, Limited Agriculture Combining District, five-acre minimum buildable site area Zoning District (R-1-L-B-E)
. General Plan: Urban Low Residential 2 (UL-2)
. Historic Status: None
. CEQA: Recommending finding the project is Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15319, which exempts annexations of existing facilities developed to the density allowed by the current zoning or pre-zoning and of individual small parcels of the minimum size for facilities exempted by section 15303, which exempts new construction or conversion of small structures; and recommending finding the roadway improvements project Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, which exempts minor alterations of land, which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees including the work conducted in existing right-of-ways.
Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council:
a) Introduce an ordinance establishing the Suburban Residential Zoning District for the Pleasant View Lane Neighborhood (APZ16-001);
b) Adopt a resolution authorizing submission of an application to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission for annexation of the Pleasant View Lane Neighborhood;
c) Adopt a resolution authorizing negotiations with the Alameda County Administrator to prepare a Transfer of Property Tax Revenue Agreement;
d) Adopt a resolution authorizing execution of a funding agreement to accept a financial contribution of $350,000 from Alameda County Department of Public Works to fund roadway improvements;
e) Adopt a resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report and directing related actions;
f) Adopt a resolution of intention to make acquisitions and improvements related to Assessment District 2016-2 and schedule a public hearing date for November 28, 2016;
g) Adopt a resolution authorizing utilization of funds from debt issuance to reimburse expenditures incurred for the project prior to date of issuance.
Assistant Planner Andy Ross and Associate Engineer Tom Purcell presented the staff report.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Ross confirmed that one of the large parcels would be able to subdivide their property, and would pay additional connection fees to the City if they did so.
Mayor Marchand opened the public hearing.
Doug Mann, Livermore, said Alameda County had made a mistake when they allowed small parcels to be served by leach lines and the issue needed to be corrected; he expressed concerns regarding zoning changes for the properties.
Delphine Perry, Livermore, said retired people and young families would not be able to afford the assessment. She said that only two of the lots would be able to build an additional house on their properties.
Ofelia Nieves, Livermore, spoke regarding her failed septic line and expressed support for the annexation.
There were no more speakers and the hearing was closed.
CM Spedowfski said the highest end of the assessment was a lot of money, but if the system discharged into a creek or neighbor's property, fines could range from $10,000-$40,000 per occurrence. He expressed concern for homeowners who would have no way to fix their systems.
In response to questions by CM Spedowfski, Mr. Purcell confirmed that the property ballot would require 50% plus one to pass and said assessments were based on actual construction costs.
In response to questions by VM Gary, City Manager Marc Roberts said the City had always required full civic improvements for past annexations; the proposed annexation proposed a lower level of improvements and was very unique. He spoke regarding the annexation's history, saying the City was balancing health and safety, while not requiring a huge subsidy from the rest of the city, and having it be affordable so a majority would find the benefit acceptable.
VM Gary suggested separating the non-sewer and non-fire hydrant requirements, so the occupants could request an additional assessment for enhancements at a later date.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Roberts said the County had never offered money for an annexation before. He said many of the houses would be inhabitable in the near future and the primary cost was the sewer.
In response to questions by VM Gary, City Engineer Cheri Sheets said the sewer improvements represented $1.1 million of the $1.5 million in costs. She said standard sewer connection fees varied. Mr. Roberts said total fees for newly developed units were typically over $100,000 per unit for water, sewer, and existing infrastructure; the annexed area was buying into services that Livermore taxpayers had already built.
In response to questions by CM Woerner, Mr. Roberts said the septic systems were in various conditions, but even the systems that were in relatively good shape wouldn't be able to meet future standards. He confirmed that the neighborhood was paying for the sewer extension, including the design, construction, easement, and incidentals.
CM Turner supported allowing the neighborhood to make the decision. She said with the County's support a good compromise had been achieved.
VM Gary supported staff's recommendation, saying he believed individual voters should make the decision.
ON THE MOTION OF VM GARY, SECONDED BY CM WOERNER AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL INTRODUCED THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS:
Ordinance introduced establishing the Suburban Residential Zoning District for the Pleasant View Lane Neighborhood (APZ16-001).
Resolution 2016-115 authorizing an application to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission requesting initiation of proceedings for the proposed annexation of the Pleasant View Lane Neighborhood pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act.
Resolution 2016-116 authorizing negotiations with the County Administrator for exchange of property tax revenue for the Pleasant View Lane Neighborhood.
Resolution 2016-117 authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Alameda County and to accept and expend funds for improvements to the Pleasant View Lane Neighborhood.
Resolution 2016-118 of intention to make acquisitions and improvements. Assessment District 2016-2 Pleasant View Annexation.
Resolution 2016-119 primarily approving Engineer's Report and directing related actions. Assessment District 2016-02 Pleasant View Annexation.
Resolution 2016-120 declaring intention to reimburse expenditures under federal tax rules.
5.03 Hearing to increase the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee. In accordance with changes to the City's Affordable Housing For-Sale Prices, and current market-rate housing prices, the City's Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee will increase from $11.65 to $22.46 per square foot pursuant to the City's Affordable Housing Fee Ordinance.
Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council continue the item to October 10, 2016.
THE CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED THE ITEM TO THE OCTOBER 10, 2016 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
6. p>MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
6.01 Discussion and direction regarding the BART/Isabel Neighborhood Plan.
Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council review the Draft Preferred Plan for the Isabel Neighborhood and direct staff to proceed with preparation of a Draft Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report with the Preferred Plan as the basis of the project description.
Assistant City Engineer Bob Vinn, Associate Planner Lori Parks, and Principal Planner Steve Riley presented the staff report.
In response to questions by CM Woerner, Mr. Riley said the height of the video simulations was four feet as directed by the Scenic Corridor Policy.
Mayor Marchand invited public comment.
Doug Mann, Livermore, expressed concerns regarding the project including traffic considerations and the need to increase the frequency of BART trains.
Andrew Barker, Livermore, spoke regarding parking and the proposed City-owned garage. He said parking was a private benefit and users of parking spaces should pay for the cost rather than being subsidized by the City.
Ester Ann Waltz, Livermore, expressed support for the project, saying she would like BART to lay the tracks and build the station first. She asked for more high-density homes and more housing programs for those in need.
John Stein, Livermore, said the project didn't meet Livermore's needs. He spoke regarding Scenic Corridor analysis; CalTrans requirements; schools, parks, and fire stations; the Airport Protection Area; and questioned where the planners and developers lived.
Doug Giffin, Livermore, said changes to the Scenic Corridor should be applied to the entire neighborhood plan. He asked the Council to implement the City's designation as a priority development area, and asked for an increase in the amount of general commercial space studied.
Robert S. Allen, Livermore, said there needed to be a better means of connecting Livermore to the existing BART system until the rails were built, such as a direct shuttle bus, and said the park-and-ride needed to be enlarged.
John McPartland, BART Director, District #5, responded to questions raised earlier in the evening, saying the intent was for BART's new fleet to increase the number of cars, along with a new control system, which would increase ridership by 20-30%. He said BART was working on an EIR that would be voted on by the end of the year; and said transit oriented development offered the population an alternative to using cars.
There were no more speakers.
CM Woerner commented that some elements of the plan were good and should be considered even without BART. He suggested staff work to identify areas that might be considered even if BART did not happen.
VM Gary suggested using the oblique view angles and modeling actual impacts along the remaining parcels in the scenic corridor.
CM Turner spoke regarding views entering Livermore looking north, saying the current views were beautiful but would be obliterated by the plan. She suggested lowering the height of specific buildings to unblock the view of the hills from the eastbound north view.
In response to questions by CM Turner, Mr. Vinn said the community had expressed interest in parking garages on both sides of the freeway to help disperse traffic; one advantage of a City-owned garage was the ability to control operations. He said staff could look at the land use for the parking garage.
In response to questions by CM Spedowfski, City Manager Marc Roberts said staff was not proposing to increase the number of Regional Housing Need Allocation units, but rather would move the units from Greenville to Isabel.
CM Spedowfski commented that the plan would not increase the number of housing units in town, and would be completed over twenty years. He said even if schools were built in the area, there might not be enough students to fill them. He said he would like a future discussion regarding what assurances there were from BART if the City were to go forward with the plan. He spoke regarding past Scenic Corridor exemptions and said the City was doing an excellent job maintaining the corridor. He agreed with looking at oblique angles, saying keeping long-term views in mind was important.
VM Gary suggested bringing the scenic corridor back as a separate item, including the whole planning area, and including the eastbound views as well as the westbound.
VM Gary expressed reservations that the plan would not exist without BART. He said the price for BART to satisfy the regional funding entities might be an intensification of use that the community ultimately would reject. He said Livermore needed to understand that the community could have BART at this density, but if it did not want the density, at some point the community would have to back away from BART. He said the issues were complex and a comprehensive plan and multi-step community engagement process was needed to make it happen. He supported a motion to continue the planning effort.
Mayor Marchand spoke regarding the Urban Growth Boundary passed in 2002, saying he had participated in the General Plan Review and there had been an understanding that rather than urban sprawl, the community would grow inward. He said the plan had a great deal to offer; many people wanted BART and a walkable community. He said there would be plenty of time once BART adopted the plan, mode, and right-of-way.
CM Woerner said the area wasn't well-planned at the moment; he said there were good elements in the plan independent of whether BART came or not. He said the Council had the opportunity to plan it well.
ON THE MOTION BY CM WOERNER, SECONDED BY CM SPEDOWFSKI AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO PROCEED WITH PREPARATION OF A DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WITH THE PREFERRED PLAN AS THE BASIS OF THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
ON THE MOTION BY VM GARY, SECONDED BY CM WOERNER AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO RETURN WITH A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REGARDING OPTIONS FOR UPDATING THE SCENIC CORRIDOR POLICY, INCLUDING DISCUSSION REGARDING THE OBLIQUE ANGLES, IN ALL DIRECTIONS, AND EXTENDING THE ANALYSIS AREA.
CM Turner said future visuals should incorporate the BART train, since the views might be a moot point if BART were in the way.
VM Gary spoke regarding the tail track shown in slide four of the presentation, saying the project would include a train station with supplemental rails to store train cars; he said in addition to sound walls, there might be parked cars parallel to the freeway and train yards in the open space area. He asked that sound walls and train stacking be included in future planning and visualizations.
In response to questions by VM Gary, Mr. Roberts said BART was the other partner in the project and would include station simulations as part of their environmental work. He said BART was a few months behind the City's process.
6.02 Discussion and direction regarding regulatory options for the delivery of medicinal cannabis.
Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council provide direction.
City Attorney Jason Alcala presented the staff report.
In response to questions by CM Turner, Mr. Alcala said staff did not have information available regarding the average amount of medicinal cannabis used by patients.
CM Turner expressed concerns regarding the distance between Livermore and permitted dispensaries, saying if drivers could only carry so much, multiple trips per day would be required to serve the roughly 2,000 patients in Livermore.
Mayor Marchand invited public comment.
Scott Varady, Livermore, said he was a retired law enforcement officer and spoke regarding his personal experience with medicinal cannabis. He said Livermore had always been innovative, but was behind the times on this issue.
Nicole D. spoke regarding various types of cannabis and her personal experience using medicinal cannabis. She said delivery services were needed for people who could not leave their homes.
Nancy Elizabeth Saltsman, Livermore, spoke regarding the benefits of medicinal cannabis, saying that limiting the hours that dispensaries and delivery services were allowed to dispense was unconscionable.
Ian Andrew, Livermore, expressed support for bringing safer access to medicinal cannabis to Livermore residents. He spoke regarding medical benefits of cannabis for veterans and said a city tax could help manage oversight and regulation.
Lynnette Shaw, Fairfax, spoke regarding her work to establish licensed dispensary systems across the nation. She expressed support for dispensaries and offered her services to Livermore.
Coleman Stecyk, Livermore, spoke in support of medicinal cannabis and deliveries in Livermore. He said limiting the time of delivery services could burden patients who were gainfully employed.
Robert Common, Livermore, spoke regarding his personal experiences with medicinal cannabis and asked the Council to consider allowing delivery systems in Livermore.
Aaron Augustis, Novato, spoke regarding his personal experiences as a veteran using medical cannabis for combat-related PTSD and expressed support for delivery service access in Livermore.
Anthony Rangel, Nature's Remedy Collective, Bay Area Grow for Veterans, expressed support for safe, local access to medicinal cannabis and spoke regarding the activities of Nature's Remedy Collective to support the Livermore community.
Amber Smidebush, spoke regarding her personal experiences as a medicinal cannabis patient. She expressed support for delivery services, local access to medicinal cannabis, and access to information for patients.
Michael Brown, Livermore, expressed support for medicinal cannabis and providing local access for patients.
Adam Pine, Floral Element, Inc., spoke regarding his medicinal cannabis delivery service. He supported local dispensaries and expressed concerns regarding regulation of delivery services.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Pine said it was difficult for patients to find someone to explain medicinal cannabis because learning institutions did not yet exist; he said people who worked in the industry became aware of treatment options and best practices through experience.
There were no more speakers.
CM Turner shared her personal experiences as medicinal cannabis patient and as a nurse; she expressed disappointment that the City was considering this issue rather than regulating dispensaries in Livermore. She said that deliveries were all that Livermore patients had, and she did not support delivery regulation at all. She said the Council wanted local control, but kept postponing the decision and needed to do what was right for the community. She said Livermore was very progressive on many issues, and backwards on this one issue. She said a working model existed and she wanted to discuss legalizing dispensaries in Livermore.
CM Spedowfski said if Livermore was not currently experiencing problems with deliveries, he was not in favor of adding more regulation. He said he would be open to discussing anything and everything that might benefit residents of Livermore, including dispensaries. He suggested looking at one dispensary; he said he was not interested in taxing medicinal cannabis.
VM Gary said the delivery system in Livermore was working. He said Livermore was large enough and diverse enough to have a limited dispensing conversation; knowing there were legalities in zoning and restricting sensitive businesses in terms of quantity. He said he didn't know if it was one or a very small number; he'd like a model ordinance back for conversation as soon as practical. He spoke regarding his vision for medicinal cannabis, saying Livermore did not need to go into the big cannabis business and he was not interested in taxing anything other than direct costs.
CM Woerner said the City was on track to be prepared for whatever was decided at the state level; he agreed with waiting and monitoring to see what happened in a few weeks.
Mayor Marchand expressed agreement with the Council's comments, saying the landscape would change dramatically in the next few weeks. He said cannabis needed to be removed from Schedule I and he believed the best model would be dispensing cannabis through pharmacies. He did not recommend taking action until better indication was given by the state.
VM Gary suggested staff bring zoning and regulatory options back to the City Council at the second meeting in November.
In response to questions by VM Gary, City Manager Marc Roberts said staff could bring back an item in October regarding zoning options for a dispensary. He said staff would prefer that an ordinance be informed by state law; realistically, preliminary discussions could happen in December.
THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO RETURN WITH MEDICINAL CANNABIS DISPENSARY ZONING OPTIONS IN OCTOBER; AND TO RETURN WITH PRELIMINARY LANGUAGE IN DECEMBER REGARDING THE MECHANICS OF REGULATION.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MATTERS INITIATED BY CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, STAFF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
CM SPEDOWFSKI MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEM 7.01 TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SECONDED BY CM TURNER. THE MOTION FAILED ON A 2-3 VOTE (CM WOERNER, VM GARY, AND MAYOR MARCHAND VOTING NO).
THE CITY COUNCIL MOVED TO FINISH THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING. MOTION CM WOERNER, SECONDED BY VM GARY, 3-2 VOTE (CM SPEDOWFSKI AND TURNER VOTING NO).
7.01 Council Committee Reports and Matters Initiated by City Manager, City Attorney, Staff, and Council Members.
Downtown Development CM Woerner requested and received consensus from the Council for staff to return with an agenda item addressing options for putting parking next to the existing parking garage and getting the maximum number of spaces as soon as possible.
Cemex In response to comments made during Citizens Forum, VM Gary requested and received consensus from the Council for staff to work with the surrounding neighborhood to provide research and records. CM Spedowfski asked that staff distribute information regarding the history of the site to the Council.
Downtown Development CM Gary requested and received consensus from the Council for staff to prepare information regarding the housing component in the Downtown project, enlarging the scale to the entire Downtown, and bring the steps necessary to have a conversation regarding the carrying capacity of dwelling units, which would inform the traffic model.
Expansion of Plastic Bag Ban CM Turner requested and received consensus for staff to place the City's potential participation in the expanded Alameda County plastic bag ban on a future City Council agenda.
Host Community Impact Fees (HCIF) CM Turner said several community members had asked to divert HCIF toward the Downtown development; she requested and received consensus from the Council for staff to prepare a report on the current financial status of the Bankhead Theater to determine whether HCIF could be used for another source.
National Night Out CM Spedowfski said on August 2, 2016 he attended the interfaith community event.
Interfaith Backpack Project CM Spedowfski said on August 13, 2016 he attended the community event.
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) CM Spedowfski said he attended the Projects and Services Committee meeting and the Board meeting on September 12, 2016.
Campaign Signs CM Spedowfski asked staff to work with campaign committees to prevent early posting of signs.
Downtown Development CM Spedowfski requested that the minutes from the August 1, 2016 City Council/Planning Commission special meeting workshop reflect the project applicant's response to his question pertaining to whether reducing the number of housing units by half would be a non-starter.
Livermore Valley Performing Arts Center (LVPAC) Mayor Marchand requested and received consensus from the Council for LVPAC provide a mid-year update to the City Council regarding finances and their capital campaign.
Downtown Development Nonprofit Subcommittee Mayor Marchand appointed CM Spedowfski and CM Woerner to a City Council Subcommittee to explore fundraising opportunities with nonprofit organizations or foundations for Downtown amenities.
ADJOURNMENT - at 11:25 pm to a regular City Council meeting on Monday, September 26, 2016, at 6:30 pm for the Summer Reading Program Awards, immediately followed by the regular City Council business meeting, Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore.
JOHN P. MARCHAND, MAYOR
SARAH BUNTING, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
SUSAN NEER, CITY CLERK