October 9, 2017
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 Steven Spedowfski, and Council Members Robert W. Carling and Bob Coomber. Council Member Bob Woerner was absent/excused.
1.02 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1.03 REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Jason Alcala said there was no reportable action.
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
2.01 Livermore Valley Performing Arts Center Annual Update
Scott Kenison, Executive Director, Livermore Valley Performing Arts Center, presented the annual update.
Dave Wetmore, Intermediate Little League, presented the results of the 2017 Little League Intermediate World Series that was held in Livermore.
Greg Scott, Livermore, spoke regarding the CAPER and the homeless situation in Livermore.
Andrew Barker, Livermore, spoke regarding the repayment of affordable housing funds used to purchase land in the Downtown.
John Stein, Livermore, spoke regarding the Sage project and how the scenic corridor was disappearing.
David McGuigan, Livermore, continued his comments regarding the Mayor and the Livermore Police Department.
Mayor Marchand removed Items 4.05 and 4.06 for separate discussion and action.
ON THE MOTION OF CM CARLING, SECONDED BY VM SPEDOWFSKI AND, AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 4.01 - 4.04.
4.01 Approval of Minutes - September 11, 2017 and September 25, 2017 regular City Council meeting.
4.02 Resolution 2017-163 authorizing the negotiation and execution of task orders and work plans for the Tri-Valley Interagency Reciprocal Services Agreement for the Living Arroyos Program.
4.03 Resolution 2017-164 authorizing the execution of a two-year agreement with Schaaf & Wheeler in the amount of $400,000 for on-call hydraulic modeling and design services.
4.04 Resolution 2017-165 appropriating $400,000 in sewer replacement funds and $300,000 in sewer connection fees to the Water Reclamation Plant Rehabilitation and Process Improvements Project 2012-13; and authorizing the City Manager to award the contract for construction of the hypochlorite mixing structure replacement in an amount not to exceed $700,000 and authorize up to an additional 10% in change orders.
Mayor Marchand invited public comment on Items 4.05 and 4.06.
Item 4.05 Resolution approving a supplemental appropriation of unspent FY 2016-17 Housing and Human Services grant funds in the amount of $271,850 into FY 2017-18 and authorizing the execution of contract agreements and/or amendments for the funding extensions.
Greg Scott, Livermore, spoke regarding the unspent funds and said the City should allocate more funds for the homeless.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Human Services Program Manager Claudia Young said these were not additional funds. She said staff was actively reviewing current programs to target areas that would benefit the homeless most effectively.
Item 4.06 Resolution 2017-167 authorizing destruction of certain City records, in accordance with Government Code section 34090 and the approved City Records Retention Schedule, that are no longer needed or required for City business.
Connie Kopps, Livermore, requested documents pertaining to Springtown not be destroyed.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, City Clerk Susan Neer stated the destruction of documents did not include documents for active projects and noted there are several types of documents that have permanent retention.
ON THE MOTION OF CM COOMBER, SECONDED BY CM CARLING, AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED ITEMS 4.05 AND 4.06 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS:
4.05 Resolution 2017-166 approving a supplemental appropriation of unspent FY 2016-17 Housing and Human Services grant funds in the amount of $271,850 into FY 2017-18 and authorizing the execution of contract agreements and/or amendments for the funding extensions.
4.06 Resolution 2017-167 authorizing destruction of certain City records, in accordance with Government Code section 34090 and the approved City Records Retention Schedule, that are no longer needed or required for City business.
5.01 Hearing to consider a request by the Wine Group LLC to annex into the City of Livermore and prezone the Concannon Winery site to South Livermore Valley-Agriculture Zoning District. Annexation would enable the property to connect to the City's sanitary sewer system.
. Location: 4596 Tesla Road
. Site Area: 79.4± acres
. Applicant: Wine Group LLC
. Application Number: Annexation-Prezoning (APZ)16-002
. Public improvements: None
. Zoning: Alameda County Zoning: Agriculture/Cultivated Agriculture (A/CA)
. General Plan: Agriculture and Viticulture (AGVT)
. Historic Status: California Historic Landmark number 641
. CEQA: Recommending finding the project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act under Section 15319, which exempts annexation of existing facilities.
Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council:
1. Introduce an ordinance establishing the South Livermore Valley-Agriculture zoning standards for the Concannon Winery;
2. adopt a resolution certifying the environmental determination and authorizing submittal of an application to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission to request initiation of proceedings for the proposed annexation of the Concannon Winery property;
3. adopt a resolution authorizing execution of the transfer of property tax revenue agreement for the Concannon Winery property with Alameda County.
Associate Planner Andy Ross presented the staff report.
Kyle Schmidt, Director of Environmental Services for The Wine Group, LLC, presented an overview of the request to connect to the City's sanitary sewer system.
In response to questions by VM Spedowfski, Planning Manager Steve Stewart said this was a unique situation. He described other parcels that were under a permanent conservation easement with no development potential and some larger parcels that were under easement by the Tri-Valley Conservancy with no development rights. He said there may be other smaller parcels that could apply and would be subject to the same test and a test against the South Livermore growth boundary policies with ultimate discretion by the Council. He explained why the use of a variance or an out-of-area service agreement were not being considered.
In response to questions by CM Coomber, Mr. Stewart said a plume of nitrates that originated offsite had migrated and was in the groundwater underneath the winery. He said the county and state were enforcing the Clean Water Act provisions and the applicant was hit with permit requirements.
Mayor Marchand opened the public hearing.
Tamera Reus, Friends of the Vineyard, expressed concerns about the urban growth boundary (UGB) and the South Livermore Plan. She requested alternatives such as the use of a variance be explored.
John Stein, Livermore, spoke in support of the City providing wastewater treatment to Concannon and questioned the best way of doing so. He suggested options the City should use instead of annexation.
Dick Schneider, representing the Sierra Club, spoke regarding the urban growth boundary, the importance that the correct signals and precedence were set and that a variance should be used instead of annexation.
Chris Chandler, representing Livermore Valley wineries and vineyards, spoke regarding the history of Concannon Winery and in support of the annexation.
Jean King, Friends of Livermore, read a statement from Lee Yonker, Friends of Livermore requesting staff explore using a variance or other option instead of annexation.
There were no more speakers and the hearing was closed.
In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Stewart explained the differences between an annexation and a variance.
In response to questions by CM Carling, Community Development Director Paul Spence said there were a few ways to limit uses on the property which included easements over the property, or planned development zoning which was specialized zoning. Mr. Stewart added that it would be appropriate to include some amount of limit within the easement.
City Manager Marc Roberts said Council's action could provide direction if there was to be a limit on the square footage and certain uses to be explicitly excluded. Easements over the property would be reconfigured and extended and so one way you could do that would be to limit through the easement the types of land uses that are permitted on the building, or the building envelope area. Staff would need to work with the Tri Valley Conservancy to do that. Council can provide that direction, for example, to limit the uses or to limit the amount of development. That might be the simplest way, the other way would be to do planned development zoning, which is specialized zoning. That would have to go back through your Planning Commission and come back to council.
Bob Coomber, Livermore, spoke in support of taking action to protect the groundwater, mitigate the nitrate plumes and preserving the urban growth boundary.
In response to VM Spedowfski, Mr. Roberts said this particular action was an ordinance; any particular direction given by Council would be presented at the second reading that would include the exact language for consideration and adoption. If Council were not comfortable with the language at that point, the ordinance would not be adopted at the second reading, and staff would continue to search for an answer. He said zoning or an easement would be the two tools staff recommended for expedience to put it in the easement and then have the zoning be the longer term. If you ultimately did adopt new zoning, that would apply to this parcel, as well, at that time they came for any changes because, of course, it would be their zoning district we were taking about ultimately amending.
IT WAS MOVED BY CM CARLING. SECONDED BY CM COOMBER TO
ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT
THERE WOULD BE AN EASEMENT THAT PRECLUDED CERTAIN USES
INCLUDING HOSPITALITY, HOTEL, AND EVENT CENTER, AND CAP
SQUARE FOOTAGE AT 130,000.
VM Spedowfski said he still wanted more information on easements and
the use of a variance.
MAYOR MARCHAND CALLED FOR THE VOTE.
THE VOTE TO INTRODUCE THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE AS
AMENDED AND ADOPT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS WAS 3-0-1
(VM SPEDOWFSKI ABSTAINING), AND THE MOTION CARRIED
4-0 PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 15.3.
Ordinance introduced establishing the South Livermore Valley-Agriculture
zoning standards for the Concannon Winery.
Resolution 2017-168 certifying the environmental determination and
authorizing submittal of an application to the Alameda County Local Agency
Formation Commission to request initiation of proceedings for the proposed
annexation of the Concannon Winery property
Resolution 2017-169 authorizing execution of the transfer of property tax revenue agreement for the Concannon Winery property with Alameda County
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
6.01 Discussion and direction regarding the BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council provide direction on a draft comment letter to BART.
BART Director John McPartland, presented a brief overview of the draft EIR.
Assistant City Engineer Bob Vinn, presented the staff report.
Andrew Tang, BART, presented the BART to Livermore Draft Environmental Report.
Mayor Marchand invited public comment.
Robert S. Allen, Livermore, former BART Director, spoke regarding alternatives and options to provide BART to Livermore.
John Stein, Livermore, said full BART to Livermore was out of reach and and Plan Bay Area was a failure. He suggested the use of tandem busses.
Tom Jefferson, Livermore, said full BART should go to Greenville Road and noted there were no plans for parking.
Elizabeth Judge, Livermore, said the draft comment letter lacked outrage over the lengthy wait for BART to Livermore and there should be other plans for linking BART to ACE.
Evan Branning, BART to Livermore Coalition, said the comment letter should include that the yard and shop portion be considered separately, and said growth assumptions and usages continually exceeded projections.
Asa Strout, Livermore, spoke in support of full BART to Livermore and agreed with Mr. Branning that the yard and shop should be a separate project.
There were no more speakers.
VM Spedowfski presented his comments to the draft letter to BART and submitted a copy to the City Clerk for the administrative record.
CM Carling said he had presented his suggestions to the City Manager to be included in the letter to BART.
ON THE MOTION OF MAYOR MARCHAND, SECONDED BY CM COOMBER AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE, VM SPEDOWFSKI AND CM CARLING WERE APPOINTED TO A SUBCOMMITTEE TO DEVELOP THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE COMMENT LETTER TO BART BEARING THE SIGNATURES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
6.02 City Council Goals and Priorities Fiscal Years 2017-19
Recommendation: No action required.
Item 6.02 was rescheduled to the October 23, 2017 City Council meeting.
6.03 Discussion and direction regarding recreational and medicinal cannabis.
Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council:
1. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance prohibiting all commercial medicinal and recreational cannabis uses; and
2. Direct staff whether to prepare an ordinance providing an exception to permit and regulate operation of medicinal cannabis dispensaries in Livermore.
Principal Planner Scott Lee presented the staff report.
In response to questions by VM Spedowfski, Mr. Lee said from the online survey respondents, 24 percent of Livermore residents visit a dispensary in another city, 16.8 percent had it delivered at home, and 31.5 percent used both services. In actual numbers, 116 had the cannabis delivered to their homes and 307 actually obtained cannabis both by going to a dispensary and having it delivered to their home.
In response to CM Carling, Mr. Lee said the Alameda County Cannabis Ordinance would be effective October 12, 2017 and would allow a dispensary on Ag Zones, so it could be at a number of locations.
In response to Mayor Marchand, Mr. Lee said the City sent a letter to the County stating dispensaries outside of the urban growth boundary would constitute urban use.
Mayor Marchand invited public comment.
Robert Common, Livermore, spoke in support of a dispensary and delivery service in Livermore.
Tom Jefferson, Livermore, spoke in support of the recommendation of prohibiting all commercial medicinal and recreational cannabis uses.
Varadha Venkatest Sivqvamakrishnan, Livermore, submitted 200+ letters from residents in opposition to permitting a medicinal cannabis dispensary in Brisa Corridor near Vineyard Crossing neighborhood.
Bidun Tummala, Livermore, spoke in opposition to permitting a medicinal cannabis dispensary in the Brisa neighborhood.
Zach Madison, Livermore, spoke in opposition to permitting a medicinal cannabis dispensary in the Brisa neighborhood.
Michaela, High Elevation, spoke in support of medicinal cannabis and a regulated store in Livermore.
Anthony Rangel, Natures Remedy, spoke regarding the legalization of
Steve Traugott, spoke in support of a dispensary closer to the hospital
and medicinal offices and not in the business area.
Amber Smidebush, said cannabis kills cancer and spoke in support of
medicinal, not recreational cannabis.
Josh Governor, agreed with Amber Smidebush's comments.
Peace Love, Earth, said there have never been overdoses from cannabis.
Lou Tremaine, Fairfax, spoke in support of a dispensary.
Lynnette Shaw, Fairfax, spoke in support of a dispensary.
Vikas, Livermore, said the City should allow home deliveries but no
Rajesh Tedla, Livermore, spoke in opposition to a neighborhood
dispensary and said medicinal cannabis should be sold in a pharmacy.
Kumar Ganrau, Livermore, said the dispensary should be located closer to the downtown.
Gopi Karuturi, Livermore, spoke in opposition to the proposed location
of the dispensary.
George Duarte, spoke in opposition to the ban and supported delivery
Satya Jandhyala, Livermore, expressed concern regarding potential crime
that a neighborhood dispensary
There were no more speakers.
CM Carling said the City was considering taking action to prohibit all commercial medicinal and recreational cannabis uses, and consider exceptions to permit and regulate operation of medicinal cannabis dispensaries in Livermore. By taking these actions, this would prevent the State from taking over local control.
In response to questions by CM Carling, City Attorney Jason Alcala said the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) was first adopted and implemented by the State Legislature, was to actually require some relationship between the qualified patient and the primary physician who took care for that individual, beyond simply just meeting them and giving them a card. The intent was to make it more rigid and have some relationship with that individual, as opposed to just getting that particular card. He confirmed that there could be a county dispensary outside the city limits. He added that while the City's ordinance did not allow deliveries, the ordinance did not expressly prohibit deliveries.
Mayor Marchand said that if medicinal cannabis was a drug then it should be dispensed in a pharmacy. He said Livermore needed to take action so not to lose local control, to preserve the city's authority and not give it up to the state.
In response to VM Spedowfski, Mr. Alcala said he would review model ordinances with other cities should the Council's goal be the prohibition of all commercial medicinal and recreational cannabis uses and then create an exception to the prohibition to allow deliveries from licensed dispensaries outside of the city to qualified patients and primary care givers within the city.
VM Spedowfski said the City's smoking ordinance should be reviewed to prohibit smoking anything in a park. He suggested restricting the zone for a dispensary to the Las Positas area in the upper northeast corner of the town away from the neighborhood. He said if option one in the staff report was adopted, then the second option should be to preserve the ability to deliver in town.
CM Coomber said he really liked the idea of an ordinance to enable deliveries in Livermore rather than a storefront. He suggested delivery
drivers be regulated or licensed by the city.
After discussion, the City Council provided direction to staff:
ON THE MOTION OF CM CARLING, SECONDED BY VM SPEDOWFSKI
AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF
TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITNG ALL COMMERCIAL MEDINCINAL AND RECREATIONAL CANNABIS USES, AND TO CREATE A LIMITED EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICINAL CANNABIS FROM A PROPERLY LICENSED DISPENSARY OUTSIDE LIVERMORE TO QUALIFIED PATIENTS AND PRIMARY CARE GIVERS IN LIVERMORE.
VM Spedowfski requested and received consensus from the Council to direct staff to conduct additional research and outreach to see if a dispensary north of Las Positas would be a more acceptable location.
7. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MATTERS INITIATED BY CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, STAFF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
7.01 Council Committee Reports and Matters Initiated by City Manager, City Attorney, Staff, and Council Members.
Mayor Marchand said the reports would be presented at the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT - at 11:59 pm to a regular City Council meeting on Monday, October 23, 2017 at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore.
JOHN P. MARCHAND, MAYOR
SUSAN NEER, CITY CLERK