CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, October 9, 2017 CLOSED SESSION

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

Monday, October 9, 2017

CLOSED SESSION - 6:30 PM

REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3575 PACIFIC AVENUE LIVERMORE, CA 94550

CITY COUNCIL

John Marchand, Mayor Steven Spedowfski, Vice Mayor Robert W. Carling, Council Member Bob Coomber, Council Member Bob Woerner, Council Member

Regular City Council meetings are broadcast live on Channel 29 and videotaped for local television and for replay. For a schedule of City Council meeting replay airtimes or to access videos of previous meetings, log onto www.tri-valleytv.org. City Council meetings are also streamed live on the web at www.tri-valleytv.org/live-tv29.html.

1 HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

You can participate in the meeting in a number of ways:

Speaker Cards - If you wish to address the Council, you must complete a speaker card for each item about which you want to speak. The speaker card box is located in the Council Chambers lobby. Place your speaker card in this box behind the tab that corresponds to the agenda item number. Staff will collect the cards for each item immediately before the item is to be considered and gives the speaker cards to the Mayor. The Mayor will call speakers to the public lectern. No cards will be accepted once the presentation on that item has commenced.

Citizens Forum is an opportunity for the public to speak regarding items not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to a maximum of three minutes per person. The Mayor may reduce the amount of time based on the number of persons wishing to speak. You should be aware that the City Council 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 City Council may place it on a future agenda or direct staff to work with you and/or report to the City Council on the issue.

Public Hearings - The topic of the hearing is typically summarized by staff, followed by questions from the City Council and a presentation by the applicant. The Mayor will then open the hearing to the public and offer an opportunity for public comments. You may take a maximum of three minutes to make your comments.

Other Agenda Items are also open for public input including Consent Calendar or Matters for Consideration items. These comments are also subject to the three minute limit.

Written Materials may be submitted by the public. If you wish your materials to be sent to the City Council prior to the City Council meeting, they must be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office no later than 5:00 pm on Thursday, eleven days prior to the Monday meeting. Those items will be copied and sent to the City Council with the agenda packet. Materials submitted after 5:00 pm on Thursday, eleven days prior to the meeting will be copied and given to the City Council the night of the meeting provided the materials are received in the City Clerk’s Office by 12:00 pm on the day of the Council meeting. However, it is unlikely that the City Council will be able to read the late submitted materials before the start of the meeting. Therefore, it is suggested that you give a verbal summary of your materials at the meeting.

The City Council Agenda and Agenda Reports are prepared by City staff and are available for public review on Friday evening, ten days prior to the City Council meeting in the Civic Center Library, 1188 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, and at the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore. The Agenda is also available on the City’s website, http://cityoflivermore.net/agenda.

Under Government Code §54957.5, any supplemental material distributed to the members of the City Council after the posting of this agenda will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, and included in the agenda packet available on the City’s web site at http://cityoflivermore.net/agenda.

If supplemental materials are made available to the members of the City Council at the meeting, a copy will be available for public review at the Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore.

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 CALL (925) 960-4200 (VOICE) OR (925) 960-4104 (TDD) AT LEAST FOUR (4) DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.

2 CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA

MONDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2017

CLOSED SESSION – 6:30 PM

REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3575 PACIFIC AVENUE LIVERMORE, CA 94550

CLOSED SESSION

CALL TO ORDER 6:30 PM

Roll Call Council Member Robert W. Carling Council Member Bob Coomber Council Member Bob Woerner Vice Mayor Steven Spedowfski Mayor John Marchand

OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

1. To meet with the City Attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1). Discussion in open session would prejudice the position of the City in litigation. (Nevarez v. City of Livermore, Case No. 3:17cv-03894-JCS)

Note: This Closed Session may be continued to the end of the Regular Meeting.

Livermore City Council Agenda October 9, 2017

3 REGULAR MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 PM

1.01 Roll Call Council Member Robert W. Carling Council Member Bob Coomber Council Member Bob Woerner Vice Mayor Steven Spedowfski Mayor John Marchand

1.02 Pledge of Allegiance

1.03 Report of Action Taken in Closed Session

2. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

2.01 Livermore Valley Performing Arts Center Annual Update.

Document PAGE 11

3. CITIZENS FORUM

• In conformance with the Brown Act, no City Council action can occur on items presented during Citizens Forum. • Please complete a speaker card. When the Mayor calls your name, walk to the lectern to address the City Council. • Speakers are limited to a maximum of three minutes per person. The Mayor may reduce the amount of time based on the number of persons wishing to speak. • Citizens Forum will conclude after 30 minutes; however, if there are additional speakers, Citizens Forum will reconvene at 9:30 pm, or following the Public Hearings, whichever occurs first.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

Consent Calendar items are considered routine and are acted upon by the City Council with a single action. Members of the audience wishing to provide public input must complete a speaker card.

4.01 Approval of minutes - September 11, 2017 and September 25, 2017 City Council meetings.

Draft Minutes - September 11, 2017 PAGE 12 Draft Minutes - September 25, 2017 PAGE 23

Livermore City Council Agenda October 9, 2017

4 4.02 Resolution authorizing the negotiation and execution of task orders and work plans for the Tri-Valley Interagency Reciprocal Services Agreement for the Living Arroyos Program.

Staff Report PAGE 29 Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Resolution

4.03 Resolution 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.

Staff Report PAGE 36 Resolution Exhibit A

4.04 Resolution 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.

Staff Report PAGE 54 Resolution

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.

Staff Report PAGE 59 Resolution

4.06 Resolution 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.

Staff Report PAGE 65 Resolution Exhibit A

Livermore City Council Agenda October 9, 2017

5 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

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 recommends 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.

Staff Report PAGE 83 Attachment 1 - Planning Commission Resolution 8-17 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 4 - Concannon Winery Context Map Attachment 5 - Concannon Winery Building Envelope Map Attachment 6 - Concannon Winery Annexation Boundary Map Attachment 7 - Concannon Winery Existing Conservation Easement Exhibit

Livermore City Council Agenda October 9, 2017

6 Attachment 8 - Concannon Winery Future Conservation Easement Exhibit Ordinance Exhibit A to Ordinance Resolution 1 - LAFCO Exhibit A to Resolution 1 Resolution 2 - Property Tax Revenues Agreement Exhibit A to Resolution 2

6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

6.01 Discussion and direction on the BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council provide direction on a draft comment letter to BART.

Staff Report PAGE 153 Attachment 1 - Draft Comment Letter

6.02 City Council Goals and Priorities Fiscal Years 2017-19 Update.

Recommendation: No action is required. This report is for information only.

Staff Report PAGE 161 Attachment 1

6.03 Discussion and direction regarding recreational and medicinal cannabis.

Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance prohibiting all commercial medical and recreational cannabis uses; and

2. Direct staff whether to prepare an ordinance providing an exception to permit and regulate operation of medical cannabis dispensaries in Livermore.

Staff Report PAGE 193 Attachment 1 - Council Staff Report dated December 12, 2016 Attachment 2 - Online Survey Results (in bar graph format) Attachment 3 - Online Survey and Workshop Comments

Livermore City Council Agenda October 9, 2017

7 Attachment 4 - Emails Submitted to the City Attachment 5 - Memo from the City Attorney

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. A verbal report may be given.

8. ADJOURNMENT – To a regular City Council meeting on October 23, 2017 at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS DOCUMENT

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED AT MEETING DOCUMENT

ITEM 6.01 - COMMENTS RECEIVED BY VM SPEDOWFSKI DOCUMENT

Livermore City Council Agenda October 9, 2017

8 Table of Contents

Agenda 1 Livermore Valley Performing Arts Center Annual Update. Document 11 Approval of minutes - September 11, 2017 and September 25, 2017 City Council meetings. Draft Minutes - September 11, 2017 12 Draft Minutes - September 25, 2017 23 Resolution authorizing the negotiation and execution of task orders and annual work plans to the Tri-Valley Interagency Reciprocal Services Agreement to implement the Living Arroyos Program. Staff Report 29 Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map 33 Resolution 34 Resolution 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. Staff Report 36 Resolution 38 Exhibit A 39 Resolution 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. Staff Report 54 Resolution 57 Resolution approving the funding extension of $271,850 in unexpended FY 2016-17 Housing and Human Services grant funds into FY 2017-18 and authorizing the execution of contract agreements and/or amendments for the funding extensions. Staff Report 59 Resolution 63 Resolution 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. Staff Report 65 Resolution 67 Exhibit A 68 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. Staff Report 83

9 Attachment 1 - Planning Commission Resolution 8-17 97 Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Staff Report 105 Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Minutes 118 Attachment 4 - Concannon Winery Context Map 131 Attachment 5 - Concannon Winery Building Envelope Map 132 Attachment 6 - Concannon Winery Annexation Boundary Map 133 Attachment 7 - Concannon Winery Existing Conservation Easement Exhibit 134 Attachment 8 - Concannon Winery Future Conservation Easement Exhibit 135 Ordinance 136 Exhibit A to Ordinance 138 Resolution 1 - LAFCO 142 Exhibit A to Resolution 1 146 Resolution 2 - Property Tax Revenues Agreement 147 Exhibit A to Resolution 2 149 Discussion and direction on the BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. Staff Report 153 Attachment 1 - Draft Comment Letter on BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 156 City Council Goals and Priorities Fiscal Years 2017-19 Update. Staff Report 161 Attachment 1 163 Discussion and direction regarding recreational and medicinal cannabis. Staff Report 193 Attachment 1 - Council Staff Report dated December 12, 2016 201 Attachment 2 - Online Survey Results (in bar graph format) 206 Attachment 3 - Online Survey and Workshop Comments 212 Attachment 4 - Emails Submitted to the City 253 Attachment 5 - Memo from the City Attorney 318

10 ITEM 2.01

LIVERMORE VALLEY PERFORMING ARTS CENTER ANNUAL UPDATE

(A verbal report will be given at the meeting)

11 ITEM 4.01

DRAFT MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL September 11, 2017 ______

CLOSED SESSION

CALL TO ORDER – The Closed Session of the City Council was called to order by Mayor John Marchand at 6:34 pm, in the City Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore, California.

ROLL CALL – Present: Mayor John Marchand, Vice Mayor Steven Spedowfski, and Council Members Robert W. Carling, Bob Coomber, and Bob Woerner.

OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING CLOSED SESSION ITEMS.

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

1. Litigation – Conference with Legal Counsel. To meet with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4) One Case.

______

REGULAR MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor John Marchand at 7:02 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, Bob Coomber, and Bob Woerner.

1.02 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mayor Marchand called for a moment of silence in remembrance of 9/11.

1.03 REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION

City Attorney Jason Alcala said there was no reportable action.

2. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

2.01 Airport Commission Annual Update. September 11, 2017 Minutes CM/73/1

12 Airport Commission Chair Alex Shezifi presented the annual update.

2.02 Confirmation of advisory body appointments and reappointments and administration of oath of office to new members.

Historic Preservation Commission Appointment of Michelle Setchell

Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission - Youth Appointment of Shlok Bansal Appointment of Madeline Lovdahl Appointment of Amelia Nelson Appointment of Ashley Zhuang Reappointment of Ellie Duell Reappointment of Maggie Rosendin Reappointment of Meenakshi Singhal Reappointment of Cheryl Stanley Reappointment of Alicia Zhuang

Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission - Adult Reappointment of Ann Brown

ON THE MOTION OF CM CARLING, SECONDED BY CM WOERNER, AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL CONFIRMED THE APPOINTMENTS.

Deputy City Clerk Jean Bell administered the oath of office to Michelle Setchell, Shlok Bansal, Madeline Lovdahl, Amelia Nelson, and Ashley Zhang.

3. CITIZENS FORUM

David McGuigan, Livermore, commented on pitchess motions, the City Council and the Police Department.

Mayor Marchand asked City Attorney Jason Alcala if the Council took any action as suggested by Mr. McGuigan. Mr. Alcala confirmed that the Council took no action.

Alan Burnham, Livermore, spoke in support of a Science Learning Center in the Downtown development.

Brian O’Reilly, Interfaith Housing, spoke about the critical need for affordable housing for fixed income seniors.

Nancy Bankhead, Livermore, spoke regarding Livermore’s official policy in relation to BART coming to North Livermore.

Kathy Streeter, Livermore, spoke about the Friends of Livermore expenditures in last year’s election cycle and future plans for the Downtown.

CM/73/2 Minutes September 11, 2017

Donna Cabanne, Tri-Valley Sierra Club, spoke in support of open space, a west side hotel, and a low number of housing units reserved for current Livermore workers and residents in the Downtown plan.

Dave Finster, President, Livermore Stockmen’s Rodeo Association, spoke in support of a park in the Downtown area to include a grass area, a veteran’s statue and acknowledgment of the history of Livermore.

Don Staysa, Director and past President, Rodeo Foundation, spoke in support of a war memorial representing Murray Township and Pleasanton veterans, and the Livermore Stockmen’s Rodeo Association as part of the Downtown plan.

Cal Wood, Vice President, Board of Directors, Interfaith Housing, Inc., spoke in support of the acute need for affordable senior housing and the creation of a park in the Downtown commemorating the contributions of the Livermore Stockmen’s Rodeo Association and veterans.

Connie Kopps, Livermore, spoke regarding the purchase of bags in support of a cause and rewards based gaming.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

Item 4.04 Connie Kopps, Livermore, spoke regarding workers in the Artero area and what improvements were made by KB Homes.

Mayor Marchand and Community Development Director Paul Spence confirmed that the work being performed was a public utility easement and an emergency vehicle access.

Item 4.07 Mayor Marchand commented that the Alameda County Home Consortium funds, used to create and maintain affordable housing in Livermore, have been cut by fifty percent.

ON THE MOTION OF VM SPEDOWFSKI, SECONDED BY CM COOMBER AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

4.01 Approval of Minutes – July 10, 2017 and July 24, 2017 regular City Council meetings, and August 7, 2017 special City Council and Downtown Steering Committee Workshop.

4.02 Adoption of Ordinance 2059 amending the Zoning District Map of the City of Livermore, establishing development standards for Planned Development – Residential (PD-R) District 16-004, and approving a Development Agreement (DA) 17-002, between the City and Summerhill Homes for the Arroyo Vista Residential project.

September 11, 2017 Minutes CM/73/3

14 4.03 Ordinance introduced adding Chapter 15.38 to provide an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations.

4.04 Resolution 2017-143 accepting KB Home South Bay, Inc. Artero Tract 7724 public improvements for permanent maintenance; accepting all real property offered for dedication within Tract Map 7724 including, Public Utility Easement, Emergency Vehicle Access Easement; and authorizing release of security bonds. Location: Bluebell Drive and Las Flores Road

4.05 Resolution 2017-144 accepting Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, Brighton Phase 2 Tract 8146 public improvements for permanent maintenance; accepting all real property offered for dedication within Tract Map 8146 including, Public Utility Easement, Emergency Vehicle Access Easement, Storm Drain Easement, and Public Access Easement; and authorizing release of security bonds. Location First Street and Worthing Common

4.06 Resolution 2017-145 determining there remains a need to continue the emergency proclamation declared on March 15, 2017 for the February 19, 2017 flood damage.

4.07 Resolution 2017-146 authorizing the continued participation in the Alameda County Home Consortium for HOME Investment Partnership Program funds; and authorizing execution of the subrecipient agreement with Alameda County for HOME program funding to maintain the eligibility of the consortium for HOME program funds the amount of $100,982 for Fiscal Years 2018-2020.

4.08 Resolution 2017-147 authorizing execution of a monthly rental agreement with Maroon Bear II for a police substation located at the Livermore Valley Plaza, and execution of a subordination, attornment and non-disturbance agreement, and Estoppel Certificate with Heritage Bank of Commerce.

4.09 Resolution 2017-148 authorizing execution of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Association of Livermore Employees.

4.10 Resolution 2017-149 adopting the City of Livermore Salary Plan as of September 4, 2017, in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5

4.11 Resolution 2017-150 authorizing the execution of a grant agreement with the California Office of Traffic Safety Selective Traffic Enforcement Program to receive an award in the amount of $115,000, and appropriation of funds.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.01 Hearing to consider establishing fees for various City services charged by the Community Development Department for building and safety, planning, and engineering services.

Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council adopt a resolution

CM/73/4 Minutes September 11, 2017

15 approving the issuance of the bonds.

Administrative Services Director Doug Alessio presented the staff report. He said staff would like to return to Council in 2018 for consideration of a policy with analysis for cost recovery.

Community Development Director Paul Spence expanded on the increase in fees due to an increase in time spent on infill projects, where it used to be only large projects.

City Manager Marc Roberts stated that for direction tonight, Council was requesting approval of specific fees and fee levels, and direction on a policy moving forward for future consideration of fees.

VM Spedowfski said he supported the development of a fee policy. He said having a fee policy would clearly define charges and eliminate questions regarding increases in the future.

In response to questions by CM Woerner, Mr. Spence said several of the fees were driven by prior applications from an entity such as a business or homeowner. Fees that are 100% recovery were clearly defined.

In response to questions by CM Carling, Mr. Spence said when the fee resolution was last adopted in 2008 the City was at full cost recovery on all fees. Mr. Roberts said the difference between what municipalities charged was based on prior Council direction. He said the fees outlined in the exhibit would increase the cost of the processing of various applications related to development.

In response to CM Woerner, City Attorney Jason Alcala said the City could not recover fees more than the actual cost of service. He clarified that Livermore’s practice was to recover as much of the actual cost of service as possible.

Mr. Roberts said the fees being considered were user fees such as processing, inspection, analysis and not infrastructure fees i.e. to build new roadways, water lines that were separate fees and charged separately.

CM Coomber said the City should be recovering more than 62% of the staff cost especially with regulatory and environmental processes.

In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Alessio said industry best practices was that fees should be reviewed every three to five years. He said that was one of the items he wanted to address in the policy.

Mayor Marchand opened the public hearing.

Connie Kopps, Livermore, said this could be hard to monitor and variables should be factored in. She said people on fixed incomes should be considered.

There were no more speakers and the hearing was closed.

September 11, 2017 Minutes CM/73/5

ON THE MOTION OF VM SPEDOWFSKI, SECONDED BY CM CARLING AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:

Resolution 2017-151 establishing fees for various City services and partially superseding Resolution Number 2008-123.

5.02 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) hearing regarding the issuance by the California Public Finance Authority of multifamily housing revenue bonds in an aggregate 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 related thereto. Location: South Vasco Road and Brisa Street

Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council adopt a resolution approving the issuance of the bonds.

Housing Program Manager Frances Reisner presented the staff report.

Mayor Marchand opened the public hearing.

There were no speakers and the hearing was closed.

ON THE MOTION OF CM COOMBER, SECONDED BY CM WOERNER AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:

Resolution 2017-152 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.

6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

6.01 Discussion and direction regarding Asset Management Program Update for traffic signals, street lights, and traffic signs.

Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council approve a prioritization method for traffic signals, traffic signs and street lights in the development of the Asset Management Program.

Management Analyst Anthony Smith presented the staff report.

CM Carling questioned the purpose of presenting this item to the Council and asked staff to provide more information and details in future reports.

CM Woerner said fixing street lights should be accomplished in a few days, not

CM/73/6 Minutes September 11, 2017

17 45 days as indicated in the staff report. He said street lights should be given a higher priority.

In response to comments made by CM Woerner, City Manager Marc Roberts said the creation and installation of signs through the City’s sign shop was more efficient than using private industry. He explained the City used outside vendors for more expensive objects.

VM Spedowfski reminded everyone that the purpose of the Asset Management Program was to determine what the City’s overall costs were and what the prioritization should be. He suggested the final report should include the costing for an accelerated street light replacement to use as a comparison for all other costs.

Public Works Director Darren Greenwood said in-house staff was directed to prioritize signals that are more important over street lights. He said staff was working on securing an outside contractor to address the backlog of street light replacement.

ON THE MOTION OF CM WOERNER, SECONDED BY CM CARLING AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE PRIORITIZATION METHOD FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND TRAFFIC SIGNS, SUBJECT TO RETHINKING THE STREET LIGHTS.

6.02 Discussion and direction regarding revisions to Livermore Municipal Code Chapter 2.14 Elections.

Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council receive this report and provide direction to staff for potential revisions to Livermore Municipal Code Chapter 2.14 Elections.

City Attorney Jason Alcala presented the staff report.

In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Mr. Alcala said the cost of translation of electronic candidate statements posted on the City’s web page would be borne by the individual candidate.

Mayor Marchand invited public comments.

Jean King, Livermore, spoke on behalf of Lee Yonkers, Friends of Livermore Chair, against campaign limitations from individuals to independent local committees.

Paul Brown, Livermore, spoke regarding Political Action Committee (PAC) campaign donations in the last election and in support of restrictions on donations used for candidates through PACs.

John Stein, Livermore, spoke regarding PAC support of candidates based on specific goals and in support of restrictions on donations used for candidates

September 11, 2017 Minutes CM/73/7

18 through PACs. He said the playing field should be leveled.

City Attorney Jason Alcala provided clarification to a comment made by the public. He said the comment “settled by law” with regards to restrictions on expenditures made by independent expenditure committees, was not the nature of Livermore’s ordinance. Livermore does not regulate the expenditures by any candidate or committee; they regulate the contributions to a particular committee. He said that was an open area of law whether there can be restrictions to contributions to those committees. He said the question was whether those independent expenditure committees should be subject to those contribution laws, but not expenditure laws. He said the current ordinance was unclear as to whether independent expenditure committees were covered.

In response to questions by CM Woerner, Deputy City Clerk Jean Bell said there have been between one and three independent expenditure committees in the last few elections. Mr. Alcala said if directed, staff would conduct the research and analysis and provide the findings to the Council.

In response to questions by VM Spedowfski, Mr. Alcala confirmed that the research would determine if there was possible corruption occurring as a result of the contributions to the independent expenditure committees. He said restrictions would apply only to city committees; would not apply to county or state general purpose committees.

Mr. Alcala answered numerous questions surrounding corruption, enforcement and designation of city, county and state committees.

The City Council received the report and directed staff to return to Council in November with an ordinance revising Livermore Municipal Code Chapter 2.14 Elections to: update language; eliminate limits on campaign contribution amounts; remove the requirement for an independent expenditure committee to obtain the candidate’s approval before making an expenditure on their behalf; and reflect the addition of electronic filing of campaign statements. Council also directed staff to provide an attorney memorandum to Council with additional information concerning the opportunity to place candidate statements on the City’s website and if a Council Member wanted to consider that opportunity, the Council Member could make the request during matters initiated to place it on a future agenda for consideration.

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.

Livermore Downtown Inc. CM Woerner attended the Board of Director’s meeting where there was a presentation from Legacy Partners regarding the Groth Brothers site.

CM/73/8 Minutes September 11, 2017

19 Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) CM Woerner stated on August 31, 2017 he attended the board meeting.

Livermore Cultural Arts Council (LCAC) CM Woerner stated he attended the September 6, 2017 meeting where LCAC voted to be involved in the study of the economic benefits of the arts in the community.

CM Woerner received consensus from Council to direct staff to enter into discussions with the Livermore Stockmen’s Rodeo Association regarding deed restrictions and return to Council in November with further information for consideration.

CM Woerner received consensus from Council to direct staff to poll Downtown business owners and property owners immediately adjacent to city-owned properties to see if there is interest in acquiring a modest amount of city-owned property immediately adjacent to their building and to return to Council with the information.

Livermore-Amador County Transit District (LCTC) CM Coomber attended the Finance and Administration meeting where there was an update on the budget and expenditures, and legislative items.

Vine Theater CM Coomber stated that on August 21, 2017 he attended the showing of 4 Wheel Bob, which was a fundraiser for Sunflower Hill.

September 11th Observance CM Coomber stated he attended the 9/11 observance at Fire Station #6.

Top Business Breakfast Reception CM Carling stated he attended the reception where local businesses were recognized.

Tri-Valley Mayors Summit CM Carling stated he attended the breakfast.

99 Cent Store Grand Opening CM Carling stated he attended the opening.

Livermore Police Department CM Carling stated he attended the swearing in ceremony.

Livermore Valley Business Awards CM Carling stated he attended the luncheon.

Taste of Livermore CM Carling stated he was a judge at the event.

September 11th Observance CM Carling stated he attended the observance at Fire Station #9.

CM Carling received consensus from the Council to direct staff to return to Council with an update to the parking study regarding information on what has been implemented, next steps and cost of the next steps.

Wheels VM Spedowfski stated he attended the meeting. September 11, 2017 Minutes CM/73/9

20 Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) VM Spedowfski attended the meeting on September 11, 2017 where there was a presentation on the BART Environment Impact Report (EIR).

VM Spedowfski received consensus from Council to direct staff to return to Council on October 9, 2017 with a presentation from BART and a draft letter on the EIR for consideration and direction.

Livermore Police Department Mayor Marchand stated he attend the swearing in ceremony.

Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) Mayor Marchand stated on August 31, 2017 he attended the board meeting.

Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce Mayor Marchand stated on August 23, 2017 he attended the meeting where there was a presentation on the BART Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Global Innovation Cities Symposium, Stanford University Mayor Marchand stated he attended the symposium on September 9, 2017 where he gave a presentation on various projects that have taken place in Livermore.

September 11th Observance Mayor Marchand stated he attended the observance at Fire Station #9.

Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) Mayor Marchand stated he attended the meeting where there was an update on Highway 580 express lane statistics. Mayor Marchand also attended the Planning Policy Committee meeting where modifications were made to the Regional Measure 3 (RM3) proposal, and the Transit Committee where Transportation Network Companies (TNC) were discussed.

Downtown Development Neighborhood Meeting Mayor Marchand stated that the next workshops would be held September 13, 2017 at the Shrine Event Center and October 10, 2017 at the Robert Livermore Center.

8. ADJOURNMENT – at 9:59 pm to a regular City Council meeting on September 25, 2017 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.

APPROVED: JOHN P. MARCHAND, MAYOR

ATTEST: SUSAN NEER, CITY CLERK

CM/73/10 Minutes September 11, 2017

PREPARED BY: ______JEAN BELL, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

September 11, 2017 Minutes CM/73/11

22 ITEM 4.01

DRAFT MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 ______

SUMMER READING PROGRAM AWARDS PRESENTATION 6:30 PM

Mayor Marchand called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. All members of the City Council were present. Library Director Tamera LeBeau presented the Summer Reading Program awards. ______

REGULAR MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor John Marchand at 7:18 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, Bob Coomber, and Bob Woerner.

1.02 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS – NONE.

3. CITIZENS FORUM

John Stein, Livermore, suggested the City conduct workshops to discuss future annexations of County parcels. He said the workshops should be conducted with the founders of the North Livermore and South Livermore Valley plans.

David McGuigan, Livermore, continued his remarks regarding Livermore Police and the Mayor.

David Williams, Livermore, spoke regarding various issues including the downtown hotel, a change in the composition of the Council, traffic and BART to Livermore.

Kevin Kohn, Livermore, spoke regarding the needs of the Livermore Little League.

Holly Roberts, Tiny Tyks, Livermore, spoke regarding on-going issues with the homeless at Carnegie Park and the negative effect it was having on her

CM/73/12 Minutes SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

23 business.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

ON THE MOTION OF CM CARLING SECONDED BY CM WOERNER, AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM 4.07, REMOVED FOR SEPARATE ACTION.

4.01 Adoption of Ordinance 2060 adding Chapter 15.38 to provide an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations.

4.02 Resolution 2017-153 authorizing execution of an agreement with Andy’s Roofing Company, Inc. in the amount of $71,914, for construction of the Roof Replacement Project at 141-149 N. Livermore Avenue. Project Number 2016-23

4.03 Resolution 2017-154 authorizing the City Manager to sign the Second Amendment to the Emergency Medical Services First Responder Advanced Life Support Services Agreement between the City of Livermore and Alameda County.

4.04 Resolution 2017-155 authorizing appropriation of general funds to the 2017 Storm Damage Repairs Project and execution of Change Orders up to $650,000 for the construction contract with Innovative Construction Solutions. Project No. 2017-25.

4.05 Resolution 2017-156 and Resolution 2017-157 authorizing execution of the First Amendments to the Subdivision Improvement Agreements for Tract 8121 and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 8216, Shea Sage. Location: Portola Avenue

4.06 Resolution 2017-158 authorizing execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, approving Tract 8343 Final Map for recording and accepting Tract Map 8343, Wayland, except for the following, which the Council rejects at this time, reserving the right to accept the offer at a future date: Wayland Loop, Public Utility Easement, and Sidewalk Easement. Location: Sonoma Avenue and Wayland Loop

4.08 Resolution 2017-159 determining that there remains a need to continue the emergency proclamation declared on March 15, 2017 for the February 19, 2017 flood damage.

4.07 Resolution 2017-160 authorizing the concurrent review of General Plan Amendment (GPA16-004) with Pre-zoning and Annexation (APZ16-003), Development Agreement (DA16-001), Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10720 (SUB 17-005), Conditional Use Permit (CUP16-012),Site Plan Design Review (SPDR16-022) Chick-fil-A. Location: 1754 North Livermore Avenue

Connie Kopps, Livermore, said she had questions on the history of the parcel,

SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 Minutes CM/73/13

24 questioned the disclaimer of the City’s GIS Information on the attached map, and said there should be more attention to detail to all of Livermore’s transactions.

In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Planning Manager Steve Stewart said the disclaimer on the map was to inform the public that the lines on the map were usually within one to two feet; to verify the exact lines required a survey.

Mayor Marchand confirmed that Item 4.07 was to allow concurrent consideration and was not for approval of the project.

ON THE MOTION OF CM WOERNER SECONDED BY VM SPEDOWFSKI, AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED ITEM 4.07 AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2017-160.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.01 Hearing to authorize negotiation of a Development Agreement to secure dedication of open space and off-site public improvements. The City Council will review the Development Agreement with all other project entitlements, including an application to annex the property into the City of Livermore, at a future date for the development of a Chick-fil-A fast food restaurant.

• Location: 1754 North Livermore Avenue (currently within unincorporated Alameda County) • Site Area: 23± acres • Applicant: Chick-fil-A • Application Number: Development Agreement (DA16-001) • Public improvements: To be determined • Zoning: Agriculture (A) (Alameda County) • General Plan: Open Space (OSP) (City of Livermore) • Historic Status: None • CEQA: Not a project as defined by CEQA per Section 21065 • Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing staff to proceed with negotiating terms for a Pre- Annexation/Development Agreement (DA16-001) to be considered by the City Council at a later date concurrently with review of the following entitlements:

• General Plan Amendment (GPA16-004) • Pre-zoning and Annexation (APZ16-003) • Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10720 (SUB17-005) • Conditional Use Permit (CUP16-012) • Site Plan Design Review (SPDR16-022)

Assistant Planner Andy Ross presented the staff report.

In response to questions by the Council, Planning Manager Steve Stewart said

CM/73/14 Minutes SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

25 terms for access and maintenance to the open space would be subject to negotiation with final authorization by the City Council. He confirmed that ownership, terms, timing would be in a draft development agreement for Council review and approval.

Mayor Marchand opened the public hearing.

Connie Kopps, Livermore, said she was concerned about past agreements on that land and wanted to know full and entire history on that land.

In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Planning Manager Steve Stewart said a more detailed discussion about the property and its background, including the General Plan, zoning, and environmental documents would be reviewed and considered by the Council. He said the property was privately owned and there had been preliminary discussion with LAFCO staff. He confirmed Zone 7 would be a stakeholder in the negotiations.

John Stein, Livermore, said it would be nice if the trail could go under Livermore Avenue rather than a grade level crossing. He said there was heavy afternoon use at the interchange and it would be nice to have a merging lane. He said the City did need more accessible open space that could be used for a school or sports park.

There were no more speakers and the hearing was closed.

CM Woerner suggested exploring the site to be used as a sports park.

CM Carling said this was a very busy intersection and said accessibility needed to be a priority.

CM Coomber said Livermore was sorely behind in open space and sports parks.

VM Spedowfski encouraged staff to explore having the trail go under Livermore Avenue but he thought it could be an expensive endeavor.

ON THE MOTION OF CM WOERNER, SECONDED BY CM COOMBER AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:

Resolution 2017-161 authorizing staff to proceed with negotiating terms for Pre- Annexation/Development Agreement (DA) 16-001 with Chick-fil-A

5.02 Hearing to consider the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report for Community Development Block Grant funds.

Recommendation: The Human Services Commission and staff recommended the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing submission of the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report for the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership

SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 Minutes CM/73/15

26 Program to the Alameda County HOME Consortium and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Human Services Specialist Ty Robinson presented the staff report.

Mayor Marchand opened the public hearing.

Greg Scott, Livermore, spoke regarding the needs of the homeless in Livermore. He suggested that the City provide a location for homeless that are living in their cars.

Jane, Livermore, spoke regarding the needs of the homeless and disabled homeless.

There were no more speakers and the hearing was closed.

Mayor Marchand said funding had been cut by over 50%. He said the five shelters in the region were all located in the City of Livermore and the need was far more that any individual city could meet or provide for. He said this item was to discuss and to approve submission of the CAPER.

In response to questions by Mayor Marchand, Assistant Community Development Director Eric Uranga provided the speakers with direct contact information to the City’s Human Services Manager.

CM Carling said staff should explore Mr. Scott’s suggestion of a specified parking area for the homeless who live in their cars.

Mayor Marchand and the City Council expressed their concerns for the number of homeless and the difficulty of providing adequate and necessary services for them.

ON THE MOTION OF CM WOERNER, SECONDED BY CM CARLING AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION.

Resolution 2016-162 approving Fiscal Year 2016-2017 consolidated annual performance and evaluation report for the Community Development Block Grant Program and Home Investment Partnership Program.

6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION – NONE

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.

CM/73/16 Minutes SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

27 8. ADJOURNMENT – at 8:51 pm to a regular City Council meeting on Monday, October 9, 2017, at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore.

APPROVED: JOHN P. MARCHAND, MAYOR

ATTEST: SUSAN NEER, CITY CLERK

SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 Minutes CM/73/17

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.02

DATE: October 9, 2017

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council

FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director

SUBJECT: Task Orders to Implement the Living Arroyos Program

RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution: 1. approving the terms and conditions for the annual Task Orders to the Tri-Valley Reciprocal Services Agreement to implement the Living Arroyos Program; 2. authorizing the City Manager or his designee, the City Engineer, to negotiate and execute Task Orders for the Living Arroyos Program annually for five years under the Tri-Valley Reciprocal Services Agreement between the City of Livermore, Zone 7 of Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Livermore Area Parks and Recreation District, the City of Pleasanton and other agencies which are signatories to the Tri-Valley Interagency Reciprocal Services Agreement; 3. authorizing the City Manager or his designee, the City Engineer, to adopt an annual work plan for the Living Arroyos Program for each fiscal year for the next five years; and 4. authorizing City annual contributions to the Living Arroyos Program not to exceed $100,000 for program costs, and up to $150,000 in project costs in any given year from the programmed operational budget and capital improvement projects budget, respectively.

SUMMARY Since 2013, the Living Arroyos program has successfully leveraged resources and shared expertise to engage the public while restoring, maintaining and monitoring publicly owned creeks within the Tri-Valley. On July 22, 2013, the City Council authorized the City Manager to sign an agreement with the Zone 7 Water Agency and the Urban Creeks Council to initiate and implement the Living Arroyos Program.

Page 2

In 2014, the cities of Livermore, Dublin, Pleasanton and San Ramon, Zone 7, LARPD, and Dublin-San Ramon Services District executed the Tri-Valley Interagency Reciprocal Services Agreement to provide a structure for the successful and efficient coordination of utility and public works maintenance activities, sharing of resources and contracting for services. Task Orders may be initiated under the Reciprocal Services Agreement that specify the scope of work, compensation and payment, and term for desired work under the agreement. The Urban Creeks Council ceased operation in 2015, so the Living Arroyos Program was continued via a Task Order under the Tri-Valley Interagency Reciprocal Services Agreement for Fiscal Year 2016-17. A new task order is needed to continue the program for the current fiscal year. Staff recommends authorizing the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and enter into Task Orders to continue the Living Arroyos Program for the next five years. Specific scopes of work under the Living Arroyos Program are approved annually by the City Engineer. Funding is programmed in the Operating Budget for the Community Development Department and in Capital Improvement Program budget for programs and projects, respectively, to be implemented by the Living Arroyos Program.

DISCUSSION On July 22, 2013, the City Council authorized the City Manager to sign an agreement with the Zone 7 Water Agency and the Urban Creeks Council to initiate and implement the Living Arroyos Program for the purpose of initiating a public volunteer and apprenticeship program that engages the community in the stewardship of local streams. This on-going program leverages resources and shares expertise to engage the public while restoring, maintaining and monitoring publicly owned creeks within the Tri-Valley. This program meets the City’s goals for Asset Management and Disaster Preparedness and Public Safety because it engages and informs the community about the critical function that the streams play with respect to flood protection. On September 22, 2014, the cities of Livermore, Dublin, Pleasanton, and San Ramon, Zone 7, and Dublin-San Ramon Services District executed the Tri-Valley Interagency Reciprocal Services Agreement, which sets the framework for the successful and efficient coordination of utility and public works maintenance activities, sharing of resources and contracting for services. LARPD executed this agreement in 2015. This master agreement identified standard terms and conditions to be used in Task Orders initiated under this agreement including scope of work, compensation, term, and insurance. In 2015, The Urban Creeks Council ceased operation, and the City and Zone 7 continued the Living Arroyos Program under a Task Order to the Reciprocal Services Agreement. Pleasanton and LARPD have since joined the reconfigured Living Arroyos Program. Each year, the Living Arroyos Program employs three apprentices and manages an average of 1,500 volunteers to restore, monitor and maintain creeks. Work in Livermore completed by Living Arroyos includes monitoring and maintaining the mitigation plantings at Airway Culvert, planting, monitoring and maintaining the mitigation plantings at Galaxy Court, and planting native plants on the north bank of the Arroyo Las Positas upstream of

Page 3

Bluebell Avenue. Staff recommends the City continue implementing the Living Arroyos Program to help engage the public and increase awareness of creek maintenance needs, and to provide environmental mitigation for the Stream Maintenance Program, CIP 2013- 23. The Task Order contains the following key terms: • LARPD agrees to be the managing partner utilizing experienced and certified staff to coordinate, supervise, and manage apprentices and volunteers, purchase and install restoration planting, perform maintenance and biological monitoring and reporting for the program. LARPD will recruit apprentices and volunteers, raise funds, and seek donations and resources from supporters. • Zone 7 contributes 60% of the total cost of the program, reflecting a proportional share of creeks owned. Zone 7 agrees to be the Fiscal Agent. • The City contributes 37% of the total cost of the program, reflecting a proportional share of creeks owned. • The City of Pleasanton contributes 3% of the total cost of the program, reflecting a proportional share of creeks owned • Partners grant access for implementation and identify projects, meet, and develop and adopt a work plan each year. Projects in work plan for Fiscal Year 2017-18 include planting, maintenance and/or monitoring at the following locations: • Arroyo Mocho at Stanley Reach • Arroyo Seco Oaks Replacement Project • B-5 Restoration Site Maintenance • Line G-1-1 Sod Maintenance • Galaxy Court • Arroyo Las Positas at Golf Course • Arroyo Las Positas at Bluebell • Arroyos Las Positas at Southern Conveyance • Arroyo Mocho Site 8 Restoration Area • Arroyo Mocho Site 9 Restoration Area • Arroyo Mocho Mederios Parkway • Springtown Restoration – Central / Bluebell Drive • Sycamore Grove • Livermore Trash Hot Spots / Adopt-a-Creek Spot • Upper Touriga Creek

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS The program costs will be provided by the agencies based upon proportionate share of linear feet of creek owned. In Fiscal Year 2017-18, the total estimated program cost is $206,000. Zone 7 will contribute $124,000. Pleasanton will provide $6,000, and the City’s share of the program cost is $76,000. LARPD, as the managing partner, will contribute in-kind services.

Page 4

The City’s share of the FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 Living Arroyos Program cost is already appropriated as part of the operating budget for the Engineering Division. Individual projects’ costs will be funded by the approved Capital Improvement Program. Staff estimates that the following project costs will apply during the current fiscal year: - $20,000 from Fund 220 (CIP 2013-23) - $90,000 from Fund 220 (CIP 2017-25) Fund 220 is the Storm Drain Fund, which pays for the City’s Project Costs for plants and irrigation required by the Environmental Resource agencies for mitigation areas to compensate for environmental impacts from annual maintenance projects including repairs from storm damage. Project costs cannot exceed $150,000 under this agreement.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map of Program Area

Prepared by:

Pamela Lung Senior Civil Engineer

Approved by: Fiscal Review by:

Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director

32 33 ATTACHMENT 1 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION AND SIGNING OF TASK ORDERS AND WORK PLANS UNDER THE TRI-VALLEY INTERAGENCY RECIPROCAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE LIVING ARROYOS PROGRAM

Since 2013, the Living Arroyos Program has successfully leveraged resources and shared expertise to engage the public while restoring, maintaining, and monitoring publicly owned creeks within the Tri-Valley. On July 22, 2013, the City Council authorized the City Manager to sign an agreement with the Zone 7 Water Agency and the Urban Creeks Council to initiate and implement the Living Arroyos Program. In 2014, the Cities of Livermore, Dublin, Pleasanton and San Ramon; Zone 7; LARPD; and the Dublin-San Ramon Services District executed the Tri-Valley Interagency Reciprocal Services Agreement to provide a structure for the successful and efficient coordination of utility and public works maintenance activities, sharing of resources, and contracting for services. Task Orders may be initiated under the Reciprocal Services Agreement that specify the scope of work, compensation and payment, and term for desired work under the agreement.

The Urban Creeks Council ceased operation in 2014, so the Living Arroyos Program was continued via a Task Order under the Tri-Valley Interagency Reciprocal Services Agreement for Fiscal Year 2016-17. New task orders are needed to continue the program in future years.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that: 1. The City Manager, or his designee the City Engineer, is authorized to annually negotiate and execute Task Orders under the Tri-Valley Reciprocal Services Agreement for the Living Arroyos Program for a period of five years in amounts not-to-exceed $100,000 for program costs, and not-to-exceed $150,000 in project costs in any given fiscal year from the programmed operational budget and capital improvement projects budget; and 2. The City Manager, or his designee the City Engineer, is authorized to adopt annual work plans for the Living Arroyos Program during the next five-year period.

On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on October 9, 2017, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

34 RESOLUTION NO. ______ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______Susan Neer Gabrielle Janssens City Clerk Assistant City Attorney

35 RESOLUTION NO. ______

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.03

DATE: October 9, 2017

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council

FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director

SUBJECT: On-Call Hydraulic Modeling and Design Services

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution 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.

DISCUSSION

The Engineering Division requires an engineering consultant to provide on-call engineering services for various City projects including design of repairs for sites damaged during the 2017 storm events and hydraulic modeling support and master planning for various capital projects and proposed developments.

Anticipated work includes assisting with grant applications for projects that will reduce the risk of future flooding such as desilting the Arroyo Las Positas through the Las Positas Golf Course, installing a silt basin at the top of Collier Canyon Road, and installing grade control structures on Cottonwood Creek to reduce scouring. Services may include designing permanent storm damage repairs along the Arroyo Mocho and Collier Canyon Creek. Hydraulic modeling services will likely involve updating the Storm Drain Master Plan, evaluating the flooding risks associated with the updated Zone 7 creek channel hydrology, and evaluating storm, sewer, water, and creek impacts associated with new development as well as updating the storm, sewer, water, and creek system hydraulic models to incorporate new development.

The Agreement for Engineering Design Services will provide on-call engineering services for a period of two years. The Agreement authorizes the City Engineer to approve work related to the agreement within the overall contract amount of $400,000.

The City sent out a request for qualifications and proposals in June 2017 for consultants to provide on-call engineering support services for various City projects. Seven engineering companies submitted proposals, which were reviewed by a selection

Page 2

committee comprised of staff from the Engineering Division. The following top four rated firms were selected for interviews:

• Schaaf & Wheeler • Michael Baker International • BKF Engineers • Bellecci & Associates

The selection committee rated Schaaf & Wheeler as the top consultant based on the experience of their project team and their level of expertise with creek repair projects and hydraulic models. Schaaf & Wheeler has effectively provided similar services for the City on other projects. They have proven to be a knowledgeable and responsive consultant with reasonable rates.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

Funding for the services rendered under this agreement will be derived from the various capital improvement projects in the approved Capital Improvement Program, developer fees for various development projects for which consultant services are required, and the Engineering operating budget for master planning and other miscellaneous consultant services. No additional appropriation is necessary.

ATTACHMENTs

None

Prepared by:

Joel Waxdeck Senior Civil Engineer

Approved by: Fiscal Review by:

Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager

37 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SCHAAF & WHEELER FOR ON-CALL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED ON A TASK ORDER BASIS

The Engineering Division of the City of Livermore requires a consultant to provide on-call storm, sewer, and water system hydraulic modeling and design services for various City projects and proposed new developments.

City staff sent out requests for a Statement of Qualifications from firms interested in providing professional engineering services for on-call engineering support services for various City projects. Seven Statements of Qualifications were received. After interviews and reviews, City staff rated Schaaf & Wheeler as the top consultant for on-call hydraulic modeling and design services and determined that they are qualified to provide the services listed above.

Staff proposes a two-year agreement with Schaaf & Wheeler, in a not-to exceed amount of $400,000.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes the City Manager to sign, on behalf of the City of Livermore, the Engineering Design Services Agreement For Services To Be Provided On A Task Order Basis, attached hereto as Exhibit A, with Schaaf & Wheeler for on-call engineering for a two-year term in a not-to-exceed amount of $400,000.

On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on October 9, 2017, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______Susan Neer Gabrielle Janssens City Clerk Assistant City Attorney

Exhibit A - Agreement

RESOLUTION NO. ______38 EXHIBIT A

39 EXHIBIT A

40 EXHIBIT A

41 EXHIBIT A

42 EXHIBIT A

43 EXHIBIT A

44 EXHIBIT A

45 EXHIBIT A

46 EXHIBIT A

47 EXHIBIT A

48 EXHIBIT A

49 EXHIBIT A

50 EXHIBIT A

51 EXHIBIT A

52 EXHIBIT A

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.04

DATE: October 9, 2017

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council

FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director

SUBJECT: Water Reclamation Plant Hypochlorite Mixing Structure Replacement - WRP Rehabilitation and Process Improvements, Project No. 2012-13

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution:

1. appropriating $400,000 in Sewer Replacement Funds (Fund 239) and $300,000 in Sewer Connection Fees (Fund 241) to the WRP Rehabilitation and Process Improvements Project 2012-13 in FY 2017-18; and

2. authorizing the City Manager to award and execute the construction contract for the WRP Hypochlorite Mixing Structure Replacement as part of WRP Rehabilitation and Process Improvements, Project No. 2012-13 in an amount not to exceed $700,000 and authorize up to an additional 10% in change orders pursuant to the requirements of State law and the City’s Municipal Code

SUMMARY

The WRP Rehabilitation and Process Improvements Project No. 2012-13 involves replacing and repairing critical facilities at the Water Reclamation Plant. The majority of the project (Phase 1) is currently under construction. A portion of the project (Phase 2), consisting of replacing the hypochlorite mixing structure, still needs to be put out to bid. Unspent FY 2016-17 budget for the WRP Rehabilitation and Process Improvements Project needs to be appropriated to the FY 2017-18 budget so that the project can be completed. Additionally, staff recommends that the City Manager be authorized to award the construction contract to replace the damaged hypochlorite mixing structure so that the critical work can be completed as soon as possible. This will reduce the risk of the structure failing and impacting the City’s ability to disinfect wastewater at the Water Reclamation Plant.

Page 2

DISCUSSION

The WRP’s hypochlorite mixing structure (mixing structure) was originally constructed in 1978. The mixing structure disinfects the final effluent prior to discharge to the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) outfall. In early 2016, staff noticed visual damage to the east concrete wall of the mixing structure while performing repairs to nearby piping. Subsequent inspections and testing determined the east concrete wall and steel reinforcement is significantly damaged and requires replacement to maintain the structural integrity of the overall facility. The damage is due to previous sodium hypochlorite piping leaks that occurred along the east wall. These pipes have since been relocated. The WRP cannot discharge to the LAWMA outfall without the chemical dosing and mixing that occurs at the mixing structure. Therefore, special construction sequencing and bypassing will be required to keep the WRP operational during replacement.

On December 12, 2016, the City Council authorized adding the WRP hypochlorite repairs to the Phase 1 WRP Rehabilitation and Process Improvements Project 2012-13, which was under construction at the time. The engineering agreement with Carollo Engineers was amended to cover the design of the repairs and the change order allowance for the construction contract was increased so that the repairs could be completed by the construction contractor.

A technical memorandum was prepared by Carollo Engineers in April 2017 that evaluated repairing the structure vs. replacing the structure. Staff determined that replacement is preferable to repair because replacement reduces the amount of time that bypass pumping is required and replacement provides a new structure with a much longer service life. Carollo Engineers is currently finalizing the design of the replacement structure.

The Phase 1 WRP Rehabilitation and Process Improvements are almost complete. The construction contractor has faced some challenges meeting deadlines during construction. Therefore, staff recommends that the WRP Hypochlorite Mixing Structure Replacement be competitively bid as a separate Phase 2 project. This will allow a single focus specification and a specialty contractor to bid this important work. Due to the critical nature of the mixing structure staff is asking that the City Council delegate authority to award the construction contract, with provision of up to 10% in change orders, to the City Manager. This will expedite the overall schedule for replacement.

The cost estimate for bypassing and replacing the mixing structure is $700,000.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

Funding for the WRP Rehabilitation and Process Improvements Project 2012-13 is included in the 2017-19 Capital Improvement Plan. The original budget adequately covered the existing construction contract for the Phase 1 improvements and the estimated costs for replacing the hypochlorite mixing structure and all associated

Page 3

construction contingencies, design, inspection, materials testing, and project administration costs. However, due to a fire at the hypochlorite tank manufacturer, the original work was unexpectedly delayed and those unspent FY 2016-17 funds need to be appropriated to the FY 2017-18 budget for the project. $400,000 of unspent Fund 239 and $300,000 of unspent Fund 241 monies needs to be appropriated to the Project budget in FY 2017-18.

The existing and proposed budgets for this project are summarized in the table below.

Existing WRP Rehabilitation and Process Improvements, Project 2012-13

Fund FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 Total 239 Sewer Replacement $2,000,000 $1,683,704 $3,683,704 241 Sewer Connection Fees $1,000,000 0 $1,000,000 Total $3,000,000 $1,683,704 $4,683,704

Proposed WRP Rehabilitation and Process Improvements, Project 2012-13

Fund FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 Total 239 Sewer Replacement $1,578,678 $2,083,704 $3,683,704 241 Sewer Connection Fees $680,456 $300,000 $1,000,000 Total $2,259,134 $2,383,704 $4,683,704

ATTACHMENTS

None

Prepared by:

Tom Purcell Assistant Civil Engineer

Approved by: Fiscal Review by:

Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager

56 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS OF SEWER REPLACEMENT FUNDS (FUND 239) AND SEWER CONNECTION FEES (FUND 241) TO THE WRP REHABILITATION AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 2012-13, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD AND EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT AND CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE PROJECT

The WRP Rehabilitation and Process Improvements Project No. 2012-13 involves replacing and repairing critical facilities at the Water Reclamation Plant. The majority (Phase 1) of the project is currently under construction. A portion of the project (Phase 2), consisting of replacing the hypochlorite mixing structure, still needs to be put out to bid. Unspent FY 2016-17 budget funds for the WRP Rehabilitation and Process Improvements Project need to be appropriated to the FY 2017-18 budget so that the project can be completed. Additionally, staff recommends that the City Manager be authorized to award the construction contract to replace the damaged hypochlorite mixing structure so that the critical work can be completed as soon as possible, reducing the risk of the structure failing and impacting the ability to disinfect wastewater at the Water Reclamation Plant.

Staff, therefore, recommends that the City Council delegate its authority to the City Manager to award a construction contract for the WRP Hypochlorite Mixing Structure Replacement Project bid pursuant to the requirements of State law and the City’s Municipal Code, in an amount not-to-exceed $700,000, and authorize change orders up to an additional 10%.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore:

1. Approves appropriating $400,000 in Sewer Replacement Funds (Fund 239) and $300,000 in Sewer Connection Fees (Fund 241) to the WRP Rehabilitation and Process Improvements Project No. 2012-13 in FY 2017-18; and

2. Delegates authority to the City Manager to award and execute a construction contract, contingent upon City Attorney approval as to form and adequate insurance and security being provided, for the Phase 2 WRP Hypochlorite Mixing Structure Replacement as part of the WRP Rehabilitation and Process Improvements Project No. 2012-13 in an amount not-to-exceed $700,000, and up to an additional 10% in change orders pursuant to the requirements of State law and the City’s Municipal Code; and

On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on October 9, 2017, by the following vote:

57 RESOLUTION NO. ______AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susan Neer Gabrielle Janssens City Clerk Assistant City Attorney

58 RESOLUTION NO. ______

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.05

DATE: October 9, 2017

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council

FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director

SUBJECT: Unspent FY 2016-17 Housing and Human Services Grant Funds

RECOMMENDED ACTION

The Human Services Commission and staff recommend the City Council adopt a resolution appropriating $271,850 in unexpended FY 2016-17 Housing and Human Services Grant funds into FY 2017-18 and authorizing the execution of contract agreements and/or amendments for the funding extensions.

SUMMARY

As of June 30, 2017, four agencies receiving Housing and Human Services grant funding from the City in FY 2016-17 did not fully expend their allocations. The cumulative total of unexpended allocations is $271,850. The Housing and Human Services Grants program policies and procedures require agencies to submit written notification requesting that the City appropriate unspent funds into FY 2017-18. The Human Services Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the supplemental appropriation of the following requested funding extensions.

1. Abode Services for implementation of the Housing First Program and Homeless Outreach - $74,917 (carryover amount).

2. Axis Community Health predevelopment and/or capital funding for their proposed dental clinic - $40,000 (carryover amount).

3. ECHO Housing Homeless Prevention program (ECHO) for the implementation of the Homeless Prevention Program - $56,933 (carryover amount).

4. Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) predevelopment and/or capital funding for the proposed school based health and dental clinic - $100,000 (carryover amount).

Page 2

The execution of a contract amendment and/or agreement between the City and each agency will allow extended time for each agency to complete their projects and expend the balance of their funding.

DISCUSSION

On April 11, 2016, the City Council approve the following appropriation requests for FY 2016-17.

1. The total grant funds allocated to the Abode Services Housing First Program was $264,163. Of the total amount allocated, $159,478 were HOME Investment Partnership and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The program scope includes rental assistance subsidies and case management to implement their Housing First program that helps homeless individuals, families and/or youth aging out of the foster care system to obtain and maintain their housing. The program provides support through two fiscal years, therefore requiring a funding extension into the next fiscal year to ensure program subsidy availability.

The Abode Homeless Street Outreach program (HSOT) received $79,684 of In-Lieu, General Fund and Social Opportunity Endowment (SOE) funding to work with and link Livermore’s homeless persons with available resources and/or benefits. Abode’s grant was not fully expended due in part to staff turnover, which impacted their ability to provide outreach services.

The total grant funds allocated to the Abode AC Impact program was $25,000 of Housing In-Lieu (In-Lieu) funds to provide case management to seven former Livermore homeless residents currently housed in permanent housing.

Abode Services carryover amount for implementation of the Housing First, Homeless Outreach and AC Impact programs is $74,917.

2. Axis Community Health predevelopment and/or capital funding for their proposed dental clinic - $40,000. Due to the uncertainty of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) this project was put on hold. The ACA has not been repealed; therefore, Axis will move forward with the project.

Axis Community Health carryover amount for predevelopment and/or capital funding for their proposed dental clinic is $40,000.

3. The ECHO program allocation included $50,000 of HOME funds to pay for rental assistance subsidies and $35,000 of CDBG funding for case management to ensure clients stabilize and maintain their housing. The program provides support through two fiscal years, therefore requiring a funding extension into the next fiscal year to ensure program subsidy availability. ECHO Housing carryover amount for the implementation of their Homeless

Page 3

Prevention program is $56,933.

4. The project allocation for the LVJUSD proposed school based Dental clinic was $100,000 of Human Services Facility Fee funding. The unanticipated closure of one of Livermore’s charter schools resulted in increased enrollment for the school district. The increased enrollment required the LVJUSD to repurpose the proposed project site to accommodate the students. LVJUSD has identified a new project site and will move forward with the project in the upcoming year.

LVJUSD carryover amount for predevelopment and/or capital funding for the proposed school based health and dental clinic is $100,000.

The execution of contract amendments and/or agreements between the City and the identified agencies will allow extended time for each agency to complete their projects and expend the balance of their funding.

Once approved, staff will prepare contract amendments for Abode Services, Axis Community Health, ECHO Housing and the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District for FY 2017-18.

Total Recommended Funding Agency/Project Appropriation into Funding Source Amount FY 2017-18 FY 2016-17 Abode Services HOME Fund 671/ $12,807 Housing First Program $159,478 CDBG Fund 613 General Fund/ Abode Services $50,000 $69,684 In-Lieu Fund 611 Homeless Street

Outreach $8,581 SOE Fund 620 $10,000 Abode Services $3,529 In-Lieu Fund 611 AC Impact $25,000 $74,917

Axis Community $40,000 $40,000.00 HSFF Fund 333 Health

$5,478 CDBG Fund 613 ECHO Housing $41,031 Homeless Prevention Program $76,676 $51,455 HOME Fund 671

$96,933

Page 4

LVJUSD School Based Health & $100,000 $100,000.00 HSFF Fund 333 Dental Clinic $100,000.00

TOTAL FUNDING EXTENSION: $271,850

Once approved staff will prepare contract amendments for Abode Services, Axis Community Health, ECHO Housing and LVJUSD for FY 2017-18.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

The appropriation of unexpended Non-General fund sources from federal CDBG, HOME, SOE, HSFF and In-Lieu funds from FY 2016-2017 to FY 2017-2018, in the amount of $271,850, will have no significant impact on the City’s General Fund budget. The only fiscal impact that will occur is the staff time to prepare the contract agreement and/or contract amendments.

All Housing and Human Services Grant funding is from non-General Fund sources and remains available until expended or allocated to a sub-recipient by the City. The Non- General Fund sources of funding listed are specifically designated for Housing and Human Services Grant activities. Grantees may not spend any funding extension requests until the City Council approves the appropriation in the new fiscal year.

ATTACHMENTS

None

Prepared by:

Ty Robinson Human Services Specialist

Approved by: Fiscal Review by:

Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director

62 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION OF UNSPENT FY 2016-17 HOUSING & HUMAN SERVICES GRANT FUNDS INTO FY 2017-18 AND THE AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AMENDMENTS FOR THE FUNDING EXTENSIONS

As of June 30, 2017, four agencies receiving Housing and Human Services grant funding in FY 2016-17 from the City did not fully expend their allocations. The amount of unexpended allocations totals $271,850. The Human Services Commission and City staff recommend the City Council approve a funding extension of $271,850 in unexpended FY 2016-2017 grant funds into FY 2017-18 and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute contract agreements and/or amendments for the funding extensions.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes the supplemental appropriation of unexpended FY 2016-17 Housing and Human Service Grant funds into FY 2017-18 for the four agencies authorized programs and/or projects identified below:

Total Funding Recommended Agency/Project Amount Appropriation into Funding Source FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18

Abode Services HOME Fund 671/ $159,478 $12,807 Housing First Program CDBG Fund 613

General Fund/ $50,000 Abode Services $69,684 In-Lieu Fund 611 Homeless Street Outreach $10,000 $8,581 SOE Fund 620 Abode Services $3,529 In-Lieu Fund 611 AC Impact $25,000 $74,917

Axis Community Health $40,000 $40,000 HSFF Fund 333

$5,478 CDBG Fund 613 ECHO Housing $41,031 Homeless Prevention Program $76,676 $51,455 HOME Fund 671

$96,933 LVJUSD School Based Health & Dental $100,000 $100,000 HSFF Fund 333 Clinic $100,000

TOTAL FUNDING EXTENSION: $271,850

63 RESOLUTION NO. ______BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to sign all documents to effectuate the supplemental appropriations identified above.

On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on October 9, 2017 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______Susan Neer Gabrielle Janssens City Clerk Assistant City Attorney

64 RESOLUTION NO. ______

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 4.06

DATE: October 9, 2017

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council

FROM: Susan Neer, City Clerk

SUBJECT: Destruction of Certain City Records

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing destruction of certain City records that are no longer needed or required for City business, in accordance with Government Code § 34090 and the approved City Records Retention Schedule.

SUMMARY

The City’s Records Retention Schedule establishes time limits for retention and final disposition of City records in accordance with State, Federal and local laws. Government Code § 34090 authorizes the destruction of City records when they are no longer required, with the approval of the legislative body by resolution and the written consent of the City Attorney, the City Clerk, and the head of the respective city department. The City Clerk has identified various records that have met or exceeded their retention and are ready for destruction.

DISCUSSION

The City’s Records Retention Schedule was originally approved by the City Council on March 26, 1984 and has been amended several times since then. The Records Retention Schedule is used by all City departments to manage active and inactive records by establishing retention and destruction dates in accordance with applicable laws.

Government Code § 34090 authorizes the destruction of any city record, document, instrument, book or paper, without making a copy thereof, after the same is no longer required, with the approval of the legislative body by resolution and the written consent of

Page 2

the City Attorney, the City Clerk, and head of the respective city department. Government Code § 34090 does not authorize the destruction of the following records:

 Records affecting the title to real property or liens thereon  Court records  Records required to be kept by statute  Records less than two years old  The minutes, ordinances, or resolutions of the legislative body or of a city board, committee or commission

City records that have met and/or exceed their retention in accordance with City’s Records Retention Schedule have been identified and approved for destruction by the City Clerk, the City Attorney and respective department heads. Staff is requesting the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the destruction of the attached list of documents (Exhibit A to the resolution) as they are no longer needed or required for City business.

Upon adoption of the resolution by the City Council, records are scheduled to be destroyed no later than November 30, 2017.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

The cost of the shredding service is estimated to be less than $2,500 annually and is included in the adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18.

ATTACHMENTS

None.

Prepared by:

Susan Neer City Clerk

Approved by: Fiscal Review by:

Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director

66 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS NO LONGER NEEDED OR REQUIRED FOR CITY BUSINESS

Consistent with the requirements in Government Code section 34090, the City of Livermore’s Records Retention Schedule authorizes the timely destruction of certain City records that are no longer needed for City business.

The City Clerk determined that the records listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto, are eligible for destruction consistent with the City’s retention schedule. The records have been reviewed by the respective department heads and found to be no longer required for City business. After careful review, the City Attorney has consented to the destruction of these records.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore determines, based upon the information present, that the records listed in the attached Exhibit A are no longer required for City business, and hereby authorizes their destruction pursuant to Government Code section 34090.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the records detailed in Exhibit A shall be destroyed no later than November 30, 2017.

On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on October 9, 2017, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______Susan Neer Gabrielle Janssens City Clerk Assistant City Attorney

Exhibit A – Records Destruction Notices

67 RESOLUTION NO. ______68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 5.01

DATE: October 9, 2017

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council

FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director

SUBJECT: Pre-zoning and Annexation of the Concannon Winery in order to provide sewer service (Annexation Pre-Zoning 16-002)

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Introduce an Ordinance pre-zoning the Concannon Winery Property to the South Livermore Valley-Agriculture (SLV-AG) Zoning District.

2. Adopt a resolution certifying the environmental determination and instruct staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the Alameda County Clerk, and authorizing staff to submit an application to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission for annexation of the Concannon Winery Property.

3. Adopt a resolution authorizing execution of the Transfer of Property Tax Revenues Agreement for the property with Alameda County.

SUMMARY

The Wine Group, LLC. is proposing annexation of approximately 79.4 acres located in unincorporated Alameda County known as the Concannon Winery (Property). The purpose of the annexation is to facilitate connection of the Property to the City’s municipal sanitary sewer. The project does not propose physical or land use changes. The annexation requires pre-zoning the Property to the South Livermore Valley- Agriculture (SLV-AG) Zoning District, which would allow viticulture and winery operations to continue.

The proposed annexation would enable the City to provide sanitary sewer service, which will alleviate potential health and water quality issues caused by existing, non-compliant, on-site wastewater treatment systems. The proposal implements City and Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) policies for the provision of

Page 2

efficient public services and a logical municipal boundary. The annexation is consistent with the Livermore General Plan Policies to support South Livermore Valley as a premier wine destination and the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (Urban Growth Boundary) policies that allow for limited extension of services under certain conditions.

If the Council approves the pre-zoning and supports the annexation, then staff would submit an application to LAFCo, which has final authority over the annexation. If LAFCo approves the annexation, the City limits would be adjusted to include the Property. However, the Urban Growth Boundary will remain in place without change. The City of Livermore will become the land use regulator for and provide municipal services, including sewer, police and fire, to the Concannon Winery property.

DISCUSSION

Background

Alameda County and South Livermore Valley landowners and winery owners/operators, continue to approach the City regarding connecting to the City’s sanitary sewer system. They are seeking sewer connections because the State Regional Water Quality Control Board, County Department of Environmental Health, and Zone 7 Water Agency (Agencies) have restricted issuing permits for new on-site wastewater treatment (septic) systems or replacing failing septic systems.

The Agencies’ positions reflect their missions to protect the Tri-Valley’s groundwater basin. The Agencies have identified high nitrate concentrations in groundwater throughout the Tri-Valley resulting from past livestock operations and failing, undersized, or inefficient septic systems. These issues have the potential to adversely affect water quality and public health, safety, and quality of life. The Agencies’ position is severely limiting septic system construction, replacement, and expansion, which negatively impacts the South Livermore Valley wine industry and related uses. The safest, most reliable and permanent solution is connecting to the City’s sanitary sewer system.

On November 17, 2014, the applicant submitted an application to the City requesting an Out-of-Area Service Agreement for connection of the Concannon Winery to the City’s sanitary sewer to accommodate winery production wastewater and domestic wastewater streams. The Wine Group, LLC made the request based on Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board that prescribe the winery’s waste discharge requirements. The Water Board has issued a notice of violation because the applicant’s wastewater treatment system (underground septic system) has been unable to meet the Water Board’s permit requirements for over two years.

On March 7, 2000, the City adopted the Urban Growth Boundary. On February 9, 2004, the City Council incorporated the Urban Growth Boundary initiative language into the Livermore 2003-2025 General Plan. The City also relies on Out of Area Service Policies that establish conditions for providing utility services beyond the City boundary and

Page 3

procedures for developing Out of Area Service Agreements. Proposals for urban services (sewer and water) beyond the City boundary and Urban Growth Boundary require consistency with the General Plan and Out of Area Service Policies.

The General Plan and Out of Area Service Policies require properties adjacent to the City boundary, like Concannon Winery, to annex into the City in order to receive urban services. On May 2, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council annex the Concannon Winery to facilitate connection to the City sewer system. (See Attachment 1 - Planning Commission Resolution 1). On June 21, 2016, the Wine Group submitted an application requesting annexation into the City of Livermore.

Project Site and Site Context

Concannon Winery is located in unincorporated Alameda County adjacent to and northeast of the Tesla Road and South Livermore Avenue intersection (See Attachment 4, Context Map). To the west of the project site is approximately 110 acres comprised primarily of vineyards and five rural-residential parcels ranging from two to four acres in size. Vineyards are also located to the south across Tesla Road. To the north of the site are existing single-family residential neighborhoods that are within the City limits except for approximately 12 residential properties on Almond Avenue, which are located in unincorporated Alameda County. The Buena Vista Avenue neighborhood is located to the east of the site and is also in unincorporated Alameda County.

The Concannon Winery is a well-known vineyard and wine production facility. In 1883, James Concannon founded the Concannon Vineyard and achieved quality in sacramental and commercial wines, which helped establish Livermore Valley as one of America's select wine-growing regions.1 In 1958, the property was established as California Historical Landmark No. 641. Due to its long-standing history, the Concannon Winery is a recognized part of the Livermore community.

Three parcels under common ownership and operating in conjunction with one another comprise the Property. Improvements on the Property include vineyards, two administration and wine production facilities totaling approximately 44,000 and 55,000 square feet, an approximately 13,500 square-foot tasting room and wine bar, a 2,250 square-foot a caretaker residence, a 2,600 square-foot historic home, landscaped gardens and patio area, and other visitor serving amenities. Cumulatively, these site improvements equal approximately 12 acres (Attachment 5, Site Improvements). The remaining 68 acres are vineyards and open space.

Currently, a conservation easement, held by the Tri-Valley Conservancy, encumbers two of the property’s three parcels (See attachment 7 - Existing Conservation Easement Exhibit). The conservation easement limits Concannon’s commercial development to the existing 15-acre building envelope and prohibits further subdivision. The conservation easement does not currently encumber the third parcel, containing the southern office

1 California Office of Historic Preservation, https://www.californiahistoricallandmarks.com/landmarks/chl- 641, March 6, 2017

Page 4

building. As part of the annexation, Concannon and the Tri-Valley Conservancy would amend and restate the current easement to include the third parcel and amend the 15 acre building envelop to create a 17-acre building envelope. The new building envelop would accommodate all of the existing buildings on the property including the existing southern office building on the third parcel. (See attachment 8 - Future Conservation Easement Exhibit).

The Livermore General Plan land use designation for the property is Agriculture/ Viticulture (AGVT). The General Plan applies Open Space and Agriculture land use designations primarily to outlying areas of the City, creating a “greenbelt” around the City and preserving Livermore’s agriculture and scenic vistas. The current Alameda County zoning for the property is Agriculture with a Cultivated Agriculture overlay consistent with implementing the County’s South Livermore Valley Area Plan (Area Plan). Similar in purpose to the City’s South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (Specific Plan), the purpose of the Area Plan is to promote the South Livermore Valley as a premier and historic, visitor- serving, wine region. Table 1 summarizes the General Plan land use designation, current zoning, and existing land use of the subject site and surrounding properties.

Table 1 Current General Plan Current Zoning Existing

Designation Classification Land Use City: Planned Unit City: Single Family Development #143 Residential and Rural North Rural Residential (RR) Alameda County: Single Residential Family Residential Zoning (R- Alameda County: Rural 1-L-B-E) Residential Alameda County: South Agriculture/Viticulture (AGVT) Agriculture/Cultivated Alameda County: Vineyards Agriculture Zoning Alameda County: Single Alameda County: Single East Rural Residential (RR) Family Residential Zoning (R- Family Residential and Rural 1-L-B-E) Residential Alameda County: Alameda County: Vineyards West Agriculture/Viticulture (AGVT) Agriculture/Cultivated and Rural Residential Agriculture Zoning City: Agriculture/Viticulture Alameda County: Vineyards, Wine Production (AGVT) Subject Agriculture/Cultivated and Bottling Facilities, Alameda County: Site Agriculture Zoning Administrative Offices, and Large Parcel Agriculture Visitor Serving uses (LPA)

General Plan Consistency - South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary

The Concanon Winery property is located within Livermore’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). As described in the Livermore General Plan, areas outside of the City limits, but within the City’s SOI, are areas which the City expects to annex in future years. The 2003

Page 5

General Plan identifies the Concannon Winery within the City’s SOI and therefore contemplates the annexation of the Property. The property is outside of, but adjacent to, the City’s municipal boundary and South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary.

In March 2000, Livermore voters passed Measure K, establishing the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary with goals of limiting urbanization and preserving open space, habitat, and agriculture. In February 2004, Measure K was incorporated into the Livermore 2003-2025 General Plan. The General Plan prohibits the City’s extension of urban services beyond the Urban Growth Boundary with limited exceptions, regardless of whether a property is within the City limits.

The Urban Growth Boundary policies include provisions for extending urban services beyond the Boundary for non-urban uses as defined in General Plan policy LU-18 P1 that states:

“For the purposes of this section, “urban uses” and “urban development” include any use that is not permitted on lands with a general plan land use designation of Limited Agriculture; General Agriculture; Viticulture; Agriculture/Viticulture; Parks, Trailway and Recreation, Corridor, and Protected Areas; or Range and Grassland, as those designations existed on December 6, 1999.”

Concannon Winery is a permitted use under the Agriculture/Viticulture General Plan land use designation. In addition, Concannon Winery meets the criteria to get sewer service established under General Plan Goal LU-18, Policy P4, which states the City may “Extend urban services only to areas within the UGB, except that the City may provide:”

• “(iii) urban services for commercial uses on parcels outside of the South Livermore UGB which parcels were existing as of October 27, 1997, subject to the following:”

Finding The Concanon Winery property includes three parcels that existed in the current configuration prior to 1997.

• “(iii) (a) the subject property is designated under the South Livermore Valley Area Plan for agricultural uses, with associated allowable commercial uses;”

Finding: The South Livermore Valley Area Plan (adopted and administered by Alameda County) designates the Concannon Winery property as part of the Vineyard Area subarea. Alameda County Agriculture/Cultivated Agriculture zone implements the Area Plan and allows agricultural and associated allowable commercial uses. The City’s SLV-AG zone is comparable to the County zoning and consistent with the intent of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan.

• “(iii) (b) the service(s) will be utilized for allowable commercial uses consistent with the provisions of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan only;”

Page 6

Finding: The South Livermore Valley Area Plan envisions Livermore Valley as a premier wine region. The Concannon Winery is an established wine making, wine tasting, and grape growing facility. Alameda County zoning for the site is Agriculture/Cultivated Agriculture, which allows agricultural and associated allowable commercial uses. The City’s SLV-AG zone is comparable to the County Zoning and consistent with the intent of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan. Sewer service will be utilized for an allowable commercial use consistent with the provisions of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan.

• “(iii) (c) the subject property is located adjacent to the Livermore municipal boundaries as of the date of the adoption of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan and, is located adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary;”

Finding: The Property consists of three parcels under common ownership that are integrally connected to facilitate wine production and winery-related visitor services. A single conservation easement covers the Property that is located adjacent to the municipal boundaries and was so at the time of the adoption of the Specific Plan in 1997. Additionally, the subject property is located adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary.

• “(iii)(d) if required by City or LAFCO policy, the property will annex to the City;”

Finding: The project includes annexation of the subject property into the City.

• “(iii)(e) the service(s) can be provided to the subject property without any potential growth inducing impacts associated with potential provision of urban services to areas not otherwise allowed to receive such services under the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan or South Livermore Valley Area Plan;”

Finding: The services would be provided to the Concannon Winery property, which is an existing wine making and visitor serving facility, and related agricultural uses consistent with the Livermore General Plan land use designation AGVT, the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan and Alameda County South Livermore Valley Area Plan.

In addition, the proposed City pre-zoning to SLV-AG prohibits further subdivision limiting future growth inducing development of the property. The purpose and regulations of the SLV-AG zone do not allow urban land uses. Additionally, the majority of the subject property is encumbered with a conservation easement that prohibits subdivision and development of the subject property and further limits intensification of the site to the building envelope. As a condition of approval, the remainder of the property will also be encumbered with a conservation easement. Sewer service would be provided from the north of the property via Almond Avenue, which limits services to the subject property without the ability to further extend infrastructure in a manner that would result in growth inducing impacts.

Page 7

• “(iii)(f) before receiving such service(s), the property owner will record a conservation easement over the subject property in a form acceptable to the City which restricts use of the subject property to agricultural and open space uses, except as to a delineated commercial use area within which allowable commercial uses and intensity of such uses shall be delineated; and”

Finding: A conservation easement, held in perpetuity by the Tri-Valley Conservancy, currently encumbers two of the three parcels that make up the subject property. As a condition of approval, the applicant would be required to encumber the remaining six-acre parcel. The Tri-Valley Conservancy and the applicant have indicated that they would amend and restate the existing easement to include this parcel (See Attachment 8 – Future Conservation Easement). The City would be a third-party beneficiary of the conservation easement. The conservation easement restricts the uses of the site to agriculture and open space uses except for a commercial building envelope containing the winery buildings and tasting room.

Additionally, General Plan Land Use Policy LU-18 P4 (iv) allows the City to extend sewer service to contiguous uses within the unincorporated geographic area, without Livermore- Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) approval, if the areas are annexed. The project proposes annexation of the subject property. Thus, LAVMA approval is not required.

General Plan Land Use Consistency and Pre-Zoning

The proposed annexation, and ultimate connection to the sanitary sewer system, is consistent with the following General Plan Polices:

“Goal LU-13 Promote the South Livermore Valley as a unique and historic wine region.”

“Goal LU-14 Take a proactive approach to protect, enhance, and increase viticulture and other cultivated agriculture.”

Page 8

The General Plan policies are intended to protect agriculturally viable land from urbanization. The Concannon Winery is an established wine producing and visitor serving facility. Most of Concannon’s property is held under a conservation easement, which limits subdivision and urban development. Thus, the proposed annexation and ultimate provision of sanitary sewer services, supports and implements the goals of the General Plan by enabling the Concannon Winery to continue to function as a premiere wine destination and proactively protect the agricultural soils that support the viticulture operations.

The General Plan designates the project site Agriculture/Viticulture (AGVT). The General Plan describes the AGVT land use designation as:

“areas designated to preserve and promote agriculture and viticulture uses in locations suitable for cultivated agriculture, and to protect sensitive or unique environmental and land characteristics, including an area’s rural character.”

The Concannon Winery is a consistent land use with the General Plan AGVT designation. The Specific Plan acknowledges Concannon Winery for its long-standing winemaking traditions. Neither the General Plan, nor the Specific Plan, anticipate land use changes for the Concannon Winery property.

The project site does not have a City zoning designation. Therefore, the area must receive a pre-zoning designation before annexation. The proposed South Livermore Valley/Agriculture Zoning District (SLV-AG) zoning district must be consistent with the General Plan Agriculture Viticulture land use designation. According to the Livermore Development Code (Development Code), the SLV-AG:

“Implements the Agriculture Viticulture General Plan designation. The zone will provide for uses and development standards that enhance and support agriculture, viticulture, and related wine country commercial uses. This designation protects existing viticultural and cultured agricultural uses, and provides space for and encourages such uses in places where more intensive development is not desirable or necessary for the general welfare. This zone should be used in areas where the urban designation of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan is not applicable.”

The Winery’s existing uses, building placements, site layout, and overall character are compatible with the AGVT General Plan Land Use designation and the SLV-AG zone and generally comply with applicable development standards (see Exhibit A to Ordinance). Currently, the SLV-AG zone establishes a minimum lot size of 100 acres, and the property contains three parcels of 69±, 6±, 5± acres, respectively. However, the SLV-AG zone has a provision that allows any existing SLV-AG lot to be considered a lot of record that can be used or developed in accordance with the SLV-AG standards. Furthermore, no further subdivision or property line revisions for the site would be allowed except in conformance with the minimum lot specifications.

Page 9

The SLV-AG zone is comparable to and, in part, more restrictive than the current Alameda County A/CA zoning. Table 2 compares the two zones.

Table 2 Standard County A/CA Zoning City SLV-AG Zoning Project Compliance with SLV-AG General Plan AG/VT AG/VT Yes Permitted Use Crop production, livestock Crop production, livestock Yes grazing, Winery grazing, Small and Medium Winery Conditionally Animal keeping facilities, Animal keeping facilities, Yes Permitted Use Bed and Breakfast, Bed and Breakfast, Restaurants, Caretaker Restaurants, Caretaker units, Winery Related units, Large Winery Uses and Offices Min. Lot Size 100 acres (Residential - 100 acres Yes-considered a lot of 20acres) record Min. Lot Width N/A 100 linear feet Yes Min. Lot Depth N/A N/A N/A Front Setback 30 feet 30 feet Yes Side Setback 10 feet 20 feet Yes Rear Setback 10 feet 50 feet Yes Height Limit 30 feet 40 feet* Yes Lot Coverage Within Building Envelope 20% Yes *Upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Agricultural or Public Buildings could be 100 feet in height

Although Concannon Winery has indicated they do not have any intention to expand the facility, under the SLV-AG zone, Concannon Winery would have the potential to develop the Property further. Based on the development standards in the SLV-Ag zoning district, additional building coverage is limited to approximately 30,000 square feet.

The County’s existing Conditional Use Permit, which authorizes and conditions food service on the property, runs with the land. After annexation, the City would have enforcement authority in addition to discretionary approval for any proposed future developments or proposed changes in use through its own Conditional Use Permit review process.

The SLV-AG zone requires any Conditional Use Permit to include Site Plan and Design Review approval to ensure that new structures are compatible with the character of South Livermore Valley. Specifically, that uses and structures are located within the conservation easement-building envelope, appropriate to the Historic status of the site, and in compliance with all applicable development standards such as parking, landscaping, setbacks, height limits, and emergency vehicle circulation.

Annexation

Annexation is the process by which unincorporated land is made a part of (incorporated into) the City of Livermore. The Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission

Page 10

(LAFCo) is the agency that oversees boundary changes, including annexations, to cities and special districts. Generally, LAFCo’s purpose is to ensure the orderly formation of local government agencies to preserve agricultural and open space lands, discourage urban sprawl, and ensure efficient provision of urban services.

The Property is bound on the north by the City boundary and the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary. At this location, the two boundaries are coterminous (See Attachment 4, Context Map). Upon annexation, the City municipal boundary would change to include the Property (see Attachment 6, Annexation Boundary Map). However, the Urban Growth Boundary would remain in its current location. Amending and/or relocating the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary requires a majority vote of Livermore residents and is neither proposed, nor considered as part of this project.

Based on the policy analysis above, staff recommends the City Council find that the proposed pre-zoning and annexation complies with General Plan policies.

Property Tax Sharing Agreement with Alameda County

As with any annexation, the City is required to execute an agreement between the City and Alameda County for the exchange of property tax revenue. Traditionally, the City and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors have agreed to a method for equitably distributing property taxes as part of a Master Agreement. Staff recommends the City Council adhere to this Master Agreement by adopting the attached resolution.

Public Infrastructure and Services

Annexation will result in a change to the current service providers to the Concannon Winery. Table 3 outlines current service provisions and changes, which will occur with annexation:

Table 3 Service Current Provider Change with Annexation Change to Livermore Pleasanton Fire Fire Alameda County Fire Department Change to Livermore Police Police Alameda County Sheriff Department Water Cal Water No Change Developed Parcels: Septic Sewer Change to City Sewer Service Vacant Parcels: None Solid Waste Livermore Sanitation No Change

Concannon Winery would pay for and construct the proposed sewer connection project, obtain all necessary permits and pay all applicable connection fees, as is typical with annexations or development projects.

Page 11

Environmental Determination

The project requests the legislative act of establishing a City zoning classification for the project site and changing the City’s municipal boundaries in order to provide sewer service. Because Concannon Winery is a long-established facility and the project does not include any land use changes, facility expansion, subdivision, or other site development, staff recommends the City Council find the project Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15319. Section 15319 exempts annexations of existing facilities that comply with the pre-zoning that limit the provision of services to only the existing use and structures.

Planning Commission and Public Comment

On May 2, 2017, the Planning Commission reviewed the application and voted unanimously to recommend the City Council approve the Pre-zoning and authorize an annexation application to LAFCo. Based on their review, and the analysis described above, the Commission determined the proposed Annexation and Pre-zoning proactively addressed an environmental and public health concern and was consistent with City policy and applicable development standards.

During public testimony, members representing Friends of Livermore, Sierra Club, and Friends of the Vineyards requested the Planning Commission recommend including the following development standards from Alameda County Measure D into the Pre-zoning designation:

1. 2- acre development envelope (with exceptions for necessary agriculture building)

2. 12,000 square foot residential building limit

3. A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.01 for non-residential buildings but not at less than 20,000 square feet allowed for any parcel

In 2000, Alameda County voters passed Measure D, which established an urban growth boundary around the urban areas of unincorporated Alameda County. The measure also created land use restrictions and development standards for unincorporated agricultural areas.

Staff emphasized that imposing these standards were unnecessary and problematic for the City for the following reasons:

1. Annexation lands are subject to City land use and development standards rather than inherited County land use and development standards.

2. The Measure D initiative provisions specifically do not apply to South Livermore Valley area, in which Concannon Winery is located. However, the City’s current

Page 12

General Plan Agriculture/Viticulture (AGVT) and proposed South Livermore/Agriculture zone appropriately reflect and implement the goals for the South Livermore Valley wine country as premier wine producing region.

3. Upon Annexation, the Property would become non-conforming with the City’s standards.

Thus, applying the Measure D development standards to the Property would result in unintended negative consequences both from a land use planning perspective and to Concannon’s winery operations.

Applying the 0.01 FAR standard would result in non-conforming structures, which means that the Winery’s existing structures would not meet the City’s SLV-AG zoning standards. The intent of a legal, non-conforming designation is to gain conformance over time, transition to compatible uses and structures, and in some cases, phase uses out of certain areas. Eventually, land uses relocate to appropriate locations and structures comply with the new standards.

Based on Livermore Development Code non-conforming standards, in the event a structure incurs damage by fire, earthquake, flood etc. that costs more than 50 percent of the appraised value of the structure to repair, then the structure may only be reconstructed in conformance with the current zoning. Therefore, if damage of more than 50 percent of the appraised value of the Concannon Winery occurs, then the applicant would not be able to rebuild its existing square footage under the Measure D 0.01 FAR standard. Consequently, Concannon’s winery and visitor serving structures would need to be significantly reduced in size, likely diminishing winery production or leading to the closure of the facility. This is in direct conflict to the City’s General Plan policies to promote and protect the South Livermore Valley as a premier wine producing region, and would negatively affect one of the South Livermore Valley’s oldest and well-known winemakers.

The Planning Commission concluded that the General Plan, the SLV-AG zoning standards, historic status, and conservation easement would provide adequate regulatory control over any proposed development in the future.

Conclusions and Recommendations

As discussed above, staff concludes the following:

• Annexing the Concannon Winery Property would alleviate potential environmental, public health, and safety issues by providing sanitary sewer service to an existing winery facility. • Connecting to City sanitary sewer service would allow the business to eliminate the discharge violation with the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Page 13

• The Property’s land use is consistent with the General Plan and South Livermore Valley Specific Plan goals to establish and maintain the South Livermore Valley as a premier wine region. • The structures that comprise the Property are legal under existing County land use and zoning standards. • The structures that comprise the Property would be legal and in compliance with the City’s proposed SLV-AG zone. • Through annexation, the City’s municipal boundary would include the approximately 79.4 acre Property. • The South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary would remain in its current location. • Connection to the City’s sanitary sewer, beyond the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary, is consistent with Livermore General Plan policy. • The combination of zoning and a restated conservation easement, would limit winery expansion to the building envelope.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

Revenues

Upon annexation, the City will receive a portion of the Winery’s property taxes and sales taxes. These will be collected and deposited in the General Fund, which the City will use to fund essential services. In addition, the City will receive annual sewer service fees used to maintain the wastewater treatment and conveyance system.

Costs

Concannon Winery will pay the costs associated with the annexation process including the preparation of all necessary LAFCo application materials and City staff time thorough the City’s application fee. Concannon will also pay all the design and construction costs of the actual sewer connection.

The City will incur costs associated with providing urban services such as Police and Fire, Parks, Library Services and other Community facilities.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Commission Resolution 8-17 2. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 2, 2017 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 4. Concannon Winery Context Map 5. Concannon Winery Building Envelope Map 6. Concannon Winery Annexation Boundary Map 7. Concannon Winery Existing Conservation Easement Exhibit 8. Concannon Winery Future Conservation Easement Exhibit

Page 14

Prepared by:

Andy Ross Associate Planner

Approved by: Fiscal Review by:

Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director

96 97 ATTACHMENT 1 98 99 100 101 EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Annexation and Prezoning 16-002

4596 Tesla Road

Authorization to pre-zone approximately 79.4± acres comprised of three privately owned parcels, to the South Livermore Valley/Agriculture Zoning District (SLV-AG), and authorize an annexation application to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission

Recommended for Approval by Planning Commission: May 2, 2017 Approved by City Council: October 9, 2017

A. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION

1. The project shall be in conformance with all City Ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies. The conditions listed below are particularly pertinent to this permit and shall not be construed to permit violation of other laws and policies not so listed.

2. Approval is limited to the conformance of the land use and the Livermore Development Code requirements. Use of the property shall be limited to those permitted by the Development Code, as it exists now or may be amended in the future.

B. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

Prior to Annexation Map Recordation, the applicant shall demonstrate conformance to the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Planning Division:

1. The applicant shall respond in writing to all conditions contained herein and in attachments to this document. Responses shall clearly describe how each condition has been met. When the response references construction drawings, the page number and detail reference, if applicable, shall be noted.

2. The applicant shall convey a 25-foot trail easement at the north end of the property aligning west to east from the intersection of Almond Avenue to eastern annexation area boundary line, consistent with the Livermore Bikeways and Trails Master Plan. The applicant shall be responsible for any necessary amendments to the Conservation Easement.

3. The applicant shall record a conservation easement over the 6± acre parcel

1 102 containing the South Building, in a form acceptable to the City, to be held by a qualified third party, restricting use of the subject property to agricultural and open space uses, except for commercial uses permitted in compliance with SLV-AG zoning district located within a delineated envelop.

4. The applicant shall provide design and improvement plans for a future on-site wastewater treatment facilities subject to site plan and design review approval.

5. This pre-zoning and authorization to apply to annex is not an authorization to commence construction or constitute connection to sewer. Construction of sewer extension or alteration shall not be permitted without LAFCo approval and approval of the Building Division through issuance of any required permits.

6. Annexation shall conform to the map exhibit designated by the City as Exhibit B-1.

7. The development impact fees and project processing fees due in connection with this permit shall be based upon the fees in effect at the time the fee is paid.

8. To the extent permitted by law, the project applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, boards, commissions, employees and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void the approval of the project or any permit authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice.

C. ENGINEERING DIVISION

Development shall conform to the following comments from the Livermore Engineering Division:

1. Prior to connection to City Sewer, the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit for work in the public right-of-way with Engineering and an industrial waste discharge permit with Water Resources.

2. Applicant shall provide improvement plans for all work in the public right-of-way to be submitted to the City for review and approval.

3. Applicant shall provide a sewer study demonstrating that the City’s downstream sewer system has the capacity to receive peak discharge for the 12 properties along east side of Almond Avenue that are currently outside the City limits, in addition to the project.

4. Applicant shall pay all fees required for the issuance of any permits and the connection to City Sewer system.

2 103

5. Approval or conditional approval of this annexation shall not limit the City Engineer's ability to require workable designs on improvement plans based upon these Engineering Conditions and the City's standard engineering specifications and details.

D. BUILDING DIVISION

The project shall be required to meet the requirements of the current California Building Standards in effect at the time of the Building Permit Application.

3 104 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT

TO: Chairperson Fagundes and Members of the Planning Commission

PREPARED BY: Andy Ross, Assistant Planner

REVIEWED BY: Steve Stewart, Planning Manager Steve Riley, Principal Planner

DATE: May 2, 2017

SUBJECT: Annexation Pre-Zoning (APZ) 16-002 – Annexation of 79.4± acres on Tesla Road – Concannon Winery

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve Annexation Pre-Zoning 16-002 and:

1. confirm the environmental determination and instruct staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk;

2. pre-zone the Concannon Winery property to the South Livermore Valley/Agriculture Zoning District; and

3. authorize staff to submit an application for annexation of the Concannon Winery to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission.

BACKGROUND

South Livermore Valley stakeholders (Alameda County, landowners, and winery owners/operators) continue to approach the City regarding connecting to the City’s sanitary sewer system. They are seeking sewer connections because the State Regional Water Quality Control Board, County Department of Environmental Health, and Zone 7 Water Agency (Agencies) have limited the number of permits issued for constructing new septic systems or replacing failing septic systems.

The Agencies’ positions reflect their missions to protect water resources in the Tri- Valley’s groundwater basin. The Agencies have identified high nitrate concentrations in

1 105 ATTACHMENT 2 groundwater throughout the Tri-Valley resulting from past livestock operations and failing, undersized, or inefficient septic systems. These issues have the potential to adversely affect water quality and public health, safety, and quality of life. The Agencies’ position is effectively limiting septic system construction, replacement, and expansion, which is impacting the South Livermore Valley wine industry and related uses.

Options available to address the groundwater nitrate problem include on-site wastewater treatment facilities, large-scale holding tanks, and connecting to City sewer service. On- site wastewater treatment facilities are prohibitively expensive for most landowners. Large-scale holding tanks are generally a temporary solution and have their own environmental issues, including leakage. The safest, most viable, and permanent solution is connecting to the City’s sewer system.

On November 17, 2014, the Wine Group, LLC submitted an application requesting an Out-of-Area Service Agreement (OASA) for connection of the Concannon Winery to the City’s sanitary sewer service to accommodate winery production wastewater and sanitary domestic wastewater streams. The Wine Group, LLC made the request based on Waste Discharge Requirements, issued by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), which prescribes waste discharge requirements for Concannon Winery (Concannon). The Water Board has issued a notice of violation because Concannon’s wastewater treatment system (underground septic system) has been unable to meet the Water Board’s permit requirements for two-years.

On March 7, 2000, the City adopted the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The City Council later incorporated the UGB initiative language into the Livermore 2003- 2025 General Plan on February 9, 2004. The City also has Out of Area Service Policies that establish conditions for providing utility services beyond the City boundary and procedures for developing Out of Area Service Agreements. Thus, proposals for urban services (sewer and water) beyond the City boundary and UGB require consistency with the General Plan UGB and Out of Area Service Policies.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project is the annexation of an approximately 79.4+ acres of unincorporated land comprised of three parcels and prezoning the Concannon property to the South Livermore Valley/Agriculture (SLV-AG) Zoning District (Attachment 5). The purpose of the prezoning and annexation is to facilitate extending sanitary sewer service. There are no physical or land use changes proposed for the property. The SLV-AG zoning will allow viticulture and winery operations to continue on the property.

2 106 The Planning Commission’s action is a recommendation to the City Council. If the Council approves the pre-zoning and endorses the annexation, then staff would submit an application to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), which has final authority over the annexation.

Project Site Context

Concannon Winery is located in unincorporated Alameda County on the north side of Tesla Road near the intersection of South Livermore Avenue to the west and the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue to the east. To the west of the project site is approximately 110± acres and comprised primarily of vineyards and five rural-residential parcels ranging from 2-4± acres in size. Vineyards are also located to the south across Tesla Road. To the north of the site are existing single family residential neighborhoods that are within the City limits except for approximately 12 residential properties on Almond Avenue, which are in unincorporated Alameda County. The Buena Vista Avenue neighborhood is located to the east of the site and is also in unincorporated Alameda County.

The project site is one property that consists of three parcels operating in conjunction with one another. The property contains vineyards, two wine production and bottling facilities totaling 45,000± and 50,000± square feet, a tasting room, a caretaker residence, landscaped gardens and patio area, and other visitor serving amenities. Cumulatively, these site improvements equal approximately 12± acres (Attachment 3 Concannon Site Improvements Map). The remaining 68± acres are vineyards and open space.

Two of the property’s parcels are encumbered with a conservation easement. The conservation easement limits Concannon’s commercial development to the existing building envelope and removes Concannon’s ability to subdivide and further develop the property. The third parcel, containing the southern office building, is not encumbered with a conservation easement; however, this area is effectively built out under the County and City zoning regulations and due to its size of 6± acres. Thus, the parcel cannot be further subdivided. (See Attachment 4 Building Envelope Map). The property’s three parcels act as one closely integrated site through common ownership and the interactive function of wine production and visitor serving uses.

The current Alameda County zoning designation for the property is Agriculture with a Cultivated Agriculture overlay consistent with implementing the County’s South Livermore Valley Area Plan. Similar in purpose to the City’s South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP), the purpose of the Area Plan is to promote the South Livermore Valley as a premier and historic, visitor-serving wine region.

The Livermore General Plan land use designation is Agriculture/Viticulture (AGVT). Table 1 summarizes the General Plan land use designation, current zoning, and existing land use of the subject site and surrounding properties.

3 107 Table 1 Current General Plan Current Zoning Existing

Designation Classification Land Use Planned Unit Development and Alameda County Single Single Family North Rural Residential (RR) Family Residential Zoning (R- Residential 1-L-B-E) Alameda County Agriculture/Viticulture Agriculture/Cultivated Vineyards South (AGVT) Agriculture Zoning

Alameda County Single Family Single Family Rural Residential (RR) Residential Zoning (R-1-L-B- East Residential E) Alameda County Agriculture/Viticulture Agriculture/Cultivated Vineyards and Rural West (AGVT) Agriculture Zoning Residential

City: Vineyards, Wine Agriculture/Viticulture Alameda County Production and Bottling Subject (AGVT) Agriculture/Cultivated Facilities, Administrative Site Alameda County: Agriculture Zoning Offices, and Visitor Large Parcel Serving uses Agriculture (LPA)

STAFF ANALYSIS

The proposal is to annex an approximately 79.4+ acre property, consisting of three parcels, to provide sanitary sewer service and address public health and ground water quality issues caused by inadequate on-site wastewater treatment.

The Concannon Winery is a well-known facility adjacent to the Livermore City limits. In 1958, the winery site was established as California Historical Landmark No. 641. In 1883, James Concannon founded the Concannon Vineyard and achieved quality in sacramental and commercial wines, which helped establish Livermore Valley as one of America's select wine-growing regions. In addition, grape cuttings from this vineyard were introduced to Mexico between 1889 and 1904 for the improvement of its commercial viticulture.1 Due to its long standing history, the Concannon Winery is already a recognized part of the Livermore community. Annexation would not affect Concannon’s historic status.

1 California Office of Historic Preservation, https://www.californiahistoricallandmarks.com/landmarks/chl- 641, March 6, 2017

4 108 Annexation would facilitate the City’s provision of sanitary sewer service and clearly distinguish the City’s responsibility to deliver urban services including police, fire, permitting, land use, and other governmental services. Concannon currently treats wastewater through on-site treatment and dispersal systems. These systems are required to comply with discharge permits issued by California State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board), which establish minimum standards to protect water quality and public health.

Water Board staff have indicated that Concannon’s wastewater treatment and dispersal systems do not comply with the winery’s current discharge permit. Because of increasingly restrictive State water policies and local health regulations, Concannon and Water Board staff have concluded the most effective solution to address wastewater discharge compliance, alleviate groundwater contamination, and maintain winery operation levels, is to connect to the City’s sanitary sewer system. Annexation would facilitate resolution of these issues by enabling the Concannon access to City sanitary sewer service. According to the 2003-2025 Livermore General Plan, INF-2.1 P6:

“Structures with plumbing that are located within City limits shall connect to the public wastewater collection system, unless topography, or distance from the public sewer system indicate a need for an exemption.”

Staff has determined that if the property were annexed into the City, connection is technically feasible. The Wine Group is currently proposing to connect Concannon Winery domestic waste water to the City system. Wine production wastewater would be treated on-site and reclaimed for irrigation purpose and only flow to the City sewer system in an emergency situation. Annexation has the benefit of providing the City with regulatory discretion for future facility expansion or modifications that may impact wastewater flows and provision of sewer services.

Annexation

Currently, the Concannon Winery property is located in unincorporated Alameda County. The property is adjacent to the Livermore’s City Boundary on the north. At this location the two boundaries are coterminous. (See Location Map).

Annexation is the process by which unincorporated land is made a part of (incorporated into) the City of Livermore. LAFCo is the local agency that oversees boundary changes, including annexations to cities and special districts. Generally, LAFCo’s purpose is to ensure the orderly formation of local government agencies to preserve agricultural and open space lands, discourage urban sprawl, and encourage efficient provision of urban services.

Upon annexation, the City municipal boundary would change to include the Concannon Winery property (see Attachment 2, Annexation Boundary Map). However, the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary would remain in its current location. Relocating the

5 109 UGB requires a majority vote of Livermore residents and is not being considered as part of this project.

General Plan Consistency

The 2003 General Plan provides the contextual framework for the development and preservation of the South Livermore Valley as a unique and historically notable part of the community. The General Plan contains goals, policies, and designations that are both consistent with the Alameda County South Livermore Valley Area Plan and provides the regulatory foundation for the City’s South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP). The proposed annexation, and ultimate connection to the sanitary sewer system, is consistent with the following General Plan Polices:

“Goal LU-13 Promote the South Livermore Valley as a unique and historic wine region.”

“Goal LU-14 Take a proactive approach to protect, enhance, and increase viticulture and other cultivated agriculture.”

The General Plan policies are intended to protect agriculturally viable land from urbanization. The Concannon Winery is an established wine producing and visitor serving facility. Most of Concannon’s property is held under a conservation easement. Thus the proposed annexation and ultimate provision of sanitary sewer services, supports and implements the goals of the General Plan by enabling the Concannon Winery to continue to function as a premiere wine region destination and proactively protect the agricultural soils that support the viticulture operations.

The General Plan designates the project site Agriculture/Viticulture (AGVT). The General Plan describes the AGVT land use designation as:

The Concannon Winery is a consistent land use with the General Plan AGVT designation. The SLVSP acknowledges Concannon Winery for its long standing wine making traditions. Neither the General Plan, nor the SLVSP, anticipate land use changes for the Concannon Winery property.

Pre-Zoning Classification

The project site does not have a City zoning designation. Therefore, the area must receive a prezoning designation before annexation. Any proposed zoning district must be consistent with the General Plan land use designation. According to the Livermore Development Code (Development Code), the South Livermore Valley/Agriculture Zoning District:

6 110

“implements the Agriculture Viticulture General Plan designation. The zone will provide for uses and development standards that enhance and support agriculture, viticulture, and related wine country commercial uses. This designation protects existing viticultural and cultured agricultural uses, and provides space for and encourages such uses in places where more intensive development is not desirable or necessary for the general welfare. This zone should be used in areas where the urban designation of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan is not applicable.”

The Winery’s existing uses, building placement, site layout, and overall character are compatible with the AGVT General Plan Land Use designation and the SLV-AG district and generally comply with the applicable development standards. Any deviations from the SLV-AG standards, including lot sizes, would be considered legal non-conforming. Currently, the SLV-AG zone establishes a minimum lot size of 100 acres. However, the property contains three parcels of 69±, 6±, 5± acres, respectively. The SLV-AG zoning includes a provision for any existing lots to be considered a lot of record to be used or developed in accordance with the SLV-AG standards. However, no further subdivision would be allowed.

The SLV-AG zone is comparable to and, in part, more restrictive than the current Alameda County A/CA zoning. Table 2 compares the two zones.

Table 2 Standard County A/CA City SLV-AG Zoning Project Compliance Zoning with SLV-AG General Plan AG/VT AG/VT Yes Permitted Use Crop production, Crop production, livestock Yes livestock grazing, grazing, Small and Winery Medium Winery Conditionally Animal keeping Animal keeping facilities, Yes Permitted Use facilities, Bed and Bed and Breakfast, Breakfast, Restaurants, Caretaker Restaurants, units, Large Winery Caretaker units, Winery Related Uses and Offices Min. Lot Size 100 acres 100 acres Yes-considered a lot (Residential - of record 20acres) Min. Lot Width N/A 100 linear feet Yes Min. Lot N/A N/A N/A Depth Front Setback 30 feet 30 feet Yes Side Setback 10 feet 20 feet Yes Rear Setback 10 feet 50 feet Yes

7 111 Standard County A/CA City SLV-AG Zoning Project Compliance Zoning with SLV-AG Height Limit 30 feet 40 feet Yes Lot Coverage Within BE 20% Yes

Currently, under the Alameda County regulations, Concannon Winery has an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which authorizes and conditions food service on the site. The City will succeed the existing CUP. Future developments or proposed changes in use would require a CUP amendment through the City, consistent with the General Plan AGVT designation and applicable SLV-AG zoning, and Livermore Development Code standards, as they exist now or are amended in the future.

Additionally, if annexed, zoning enforcement would be the responsibility of the City. According to the Eastern Alameda County Code Enforcement Officer, the County received four inquiries between 2004 and 2014 including commercial truck parking, lighting conditions, operating without a permit, and inhabited recreational vehicle on property. Two of the complaints were unfounded, one was permitted per the County Zoning ordinance, and the other complaint was addressed by Concannon Winery.

Staff supports pre-zoning the Concannon Winery property to SLV-AG.

South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary

Concanon Winery property is located within Livermore’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The property is adjacent to City’s municipal boundary and South Livermore Urban Growth Boundaries.

In March 2000, Livermore voters passed Measure K, establishing the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) with goals of limiting urbanization and preserving open space, habitat, and agriculture. In February 2004, the contents of the UGB initiative were incorporated into the Livermore 2003-2025 General Plan Land Use Element. The Urban Growth Boundary prohibits the City’s extension of urban services beyond the UGB with limited exceptions, regardless of whether a property is within the City limits. The General Plan South Livermore UGB policies cannot be amended or repealed, unless approved by a majority of Livermore voters.

The South Livermore UGB policies include provisions for extending urban services beyond the UGB for non-urban uses as defined in General Plan policy LU-18 P1 that states:

8 112 Concannon Winery is a permitted use under the Agriculture/Viticulture General Plan land use designation. In addition, Concannon Winery meets the criteria established under Policy LU-18; P4, which states:

“Extend urban services only to areas within the UGB, except that the City may provide: (iii) urban services for commercial uses on parcels outside of the South Livermore UGB which parcels were existing as of October 27, 1997, subject to the following”:

Response: The Concanon Winery property includes three parcels that have existed in the current configuration prior to 1997.

(iii) (a) the subject property is designated under the South Livermore Valley Area Plan for agricultural uses, with associated allowable commercial uses;

Response: The South Livermore Valley Area Plan designates the Concannon Winery property as part of the Vineyard Area subarea. Alameda County Agriculture/Cultivated Agriculture zone implements the Area Plan and allows agricultural and associated allowable commercial uses. The City’s SLV-AG zone is comparable to the County zoning and consistent with the intent of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan.

(iii) (b) the service(s) will be utilized for allowable commercial uses consistent with the provisions of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan only;

Response: The South Livermore Valley Area Plan envisions Livermore Valley as a premier wine region destination. The Concannon Winery is an established wine making, wine tasting, and grape growing facility. Alameda County zoning for the site is Agriculture/Cultivated Agriculture, which allows agricultural and associated allowable commercial uses. The City’s SLV-AG zone is comparable to the County Zoning and consistent with the intent of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan. Sewer service will be utilized for an allowable commercial use consistent with the provisions of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan.

(iii) (c) the subject property is located adjacent to the Livermore municipal boundaries as of the date of the adoption of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP) and, is located adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary;

Response: The subject property is made up of three parcels under common ownership that are integrally connected through the function as a single wine production and visitor serving use. Further, the property is connected together by a conservation easement. The subject property is located adjacent to the municipal boundaries and was so at the time of the adoption of the SLVSP. Additionally, the property is located adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary.

(iii)(d) if required by City or LAFCO policy, the property will annex to the City;

9 113 Response: The project includes annexation of the subject property into the City.

(iii)(e) the service(s) can be provided to the subject property without any potential growth inducing impacts associated with potential provision of urban services to areas not otherwise allowed to receive such services under the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan or South Livermore Valley Area Plan;

Response: The services would be provided to the Concannon Winery property, which is an existing wine making and visitor serving facility and related agricultural uses consistent with the Livermore General Plan land use designation AGVT, the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan and Alameda County South Livermore Valley Area Plan.

In addition, the subject property’s proposed City pre-zoning to SLV-AG would not permit further subdivision limiting future growth inducing development of the property. The purpose of the SLV-AG zone and permitted uses do not allow urban land uses. Additionally, the majority of the subject property is encumbered with a conservation easement that prohibits future development of the property and further limits intensification of the site. As a condition of approval, the remainder of the property will also be encumbered with a conservation easement. Sewer service would be provided from the north of the property via Almond Avenue, which limit services to the subject property without the ability to further extend infrastructure in a manner that would result in growth inducing impacts.

(iii)(f) before receiving such service(s), the property owner will record a conservation easement over the subject property in a form acceptable to the City which restricts use of the subject property to agricultural and open space uses, except as to a delineated commercial use area within which allowable commercial uses and intensity of such uses shall be delineated; and

Response: A conservation easement, held in perpetuity by the Tri-Valley Conservancy of which the City is a third-party beneficiary, currently encumbers two of the three parcels that make up the subject property. As a condition of approval the applicant would be required to encumber the remaining six-acre parcel. The Tri-Valley Conservancy has indicated that they would amend the existing easement to include this parcel. The City would continue to be a third-party beneficiary of the conservation easement. The conservation easement restricts the uses of the site to agriculture and open space uses except for a commercial building envelope containing the winery buildings and tasting room.

Additionally, Land Use Policy LU-18 P4 (iv) allows the City to extend sewer service to contiguous uses within the unincorporated geographic area, without Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) approval, if the areas are annexed. The project proposes annexation of the subject property. Thus, LAVMA approval is not required. Based on the policy analysis above, staff recommends the Planning Commission find the proposed pre-zoning and annexation complies with General Plan policies.

10 114 Public Infrastructure and Services

The property and annexation boundaries include a portion of Tesla Road up to the center line of the roadway. Alameda County holds an existing road easement and maintains Tesla Road. Typically, the County will continue to retain the roadway easement with the change of jurisdictional boundaries and would continue maintenance responsibilities. This will be confirmed during negotiations with Alameda County that occur as part of LAFCo’s annexation application review process.

Pending approval of the annexation, Concannon Winery will extend sewer service approximately 2,200+ feet from an existing sewer main at the southern end of Almond Avenue. Concannon Winery will pay for all the costs associated with extending sewer infrastructure. In addition to City sewer service, Concannon anticipates installing a pretreatment facility to reclaim water for irrigation purposes. If in the City limits, the new facility would require City review and approval.

Cal Water Service Company currently provides municipal water service to the Concannon Winery. (Zone 7 Water Agency provides irrigation water). Thus, the project does not propose extension of City water service. Table 3 outlines current service provision and changes, which will occur with annexation:

Table 3 Service Current Provider Change with Annexation Yes, change to Livermore Fire Alameda County Fire Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) Yes, change to Livermore Police Police Alameda County Sheriff Department (LPD) Water Cal Water No Change

Wastewater On Site Septic System Yes, City Sewer Connection

Solid Waste Private Waste Hauler Livermore Sanitation

OTHER AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENTS

Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)

City staff has discussed the proposed annexation with the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission staff. Generally, the proposed annexation and provision of sewer service is consistent with LAFCo policies for logical boundaries, and delivery of municipal services. LAFCo staff acknowledged that this annexation would require reorganization of service providers including Alameda County Fire and Sheriff. LAFCo staff also inquired about the surrounding area, including Buena Vista Avenue, and any potential for future annexations. Unlike the Concannon Winery annexation proposal, which is one property under single ownership, the Beuana Vistas and Almond Avenue neighborhoods are complex. Given the large number of individual parcels, property owners, and land area,

11 115 any proposal for future annexation of unincorporated Almond Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue would require extensive neighborhood outreach and a comprehensive study in coordination with Alameda County and other appropriate public agencies and service providers. If the City Council authorizes an annexation application for the Concannon Winery property, then the City will submit a separate application to LAFCo for their formal review.

Zone 7 Water Agency

Generally, Zone 7 Staff supports the annexation and notes that the extension of sewer service will achieve local groundwater management objectives.

Alameda County Community Development Department

City staff has discussed the proposed annexation with the Alameda County. Generally, the County does not object to the proposed annexation. If the City Council authorizes an annexation application, then the City and County will negotiate terms for annexation, including tax sharing, as part of the formal LAFCo application review process.

Public Comment

On April 28, 2017, staff received an email from citizen Jean King requesting additional conditions be placed on the annexation. (See attachment 6 Email from Jean King).

SUMMARY

Pre-zoning and annexation of the Concannon Winery will allow the City to provide sanitary sewer service, which protects public health and safety by addressing a threat to ground water quality. The project implements City and LAFCo policies to provide a logical municipal boundary and efficient provision of services. The annexation is consistent with the Livermore General Plan Policies to support South Livermore Valley as a premier wine destination and the South Livermore UGB policies that allow for extension of services subject to applicable criteria. If LAFCo approves the annexation, the City limits will be adjusted to include the property. However, the UGB will remain in place without change. The City of Livermore will become the land use regulator for and provide municipal services to the Concannon Winery property.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

The project requests the legislative act of creating a City zoning classification for the project site and changing the City’s municipal boundaries in order to provide sewer service. Because the Concannon Winery is a long-established facility and the project does not include any land use changes, facility expansion, subdivision, or other site development, staff recommends the Planning Commission find the project Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15319. Section 15319 exempts annexations of

12 116 existing facilities that comply with the pre-zoning that limit the provision of services to only the existing use and structures.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, make the findings, and recommend the City Council approve Annexation Pre-Zoning 16-002 and:

1. confirm the environmental determination and instruct staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk;

2. pre-zone the Concannon Winery property to the South Livermore Valley/Agriculture Zoning District; and

3. authorize staff to submit an application for annexation of the Concannon Winery to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution Recommending Approval 2. Annexation Boundary Map 3. Concannon Site Improvement Map 4. Concannon Building Envelope Map 5. South Livermore Valley/Agriculture Zoning District 6. Email from Jean King dated April 28, 2017

13 117 5.02 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 (SLV-AG). 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: Sewer Connection. • 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. • Project Planner: Andy Ross

This item was continued from March 21, 2017.

Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify the environmental document and approve Annexation-Prezoning (APZ) 16-002, subject to Conditions of Approval.

Andy Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.

Chairperson Fagundes opened the public hearing.

John Stein, Livermore, said he would urge the City to provide sewer connection to the winery as groundwater protection is important. However, he opposes the change in municipal boundaries. A goal of the South Livermore plan was to separate agricultural and municipal uses. When the lines were drawn, the Retzlaff Winery was specifically excluded to keep agriculture outside the City boundaries. This proposal is also contradictory to City General Plan policy about consolidating urban boundaries. He is particularly concerned about the land north of there that is not under easement; particularly, the church and Retzlaff properties. There will be pressure to develop that under the City’s guidelines. It would be better to keep the Urban Growth Boundary and City municipal boundary the same. There is also the on-going conflict between the winery and residents along Buena Vista Avenue that would now be a County-City issue rather than just a County issue. There are questions about agricultural uses that City zoning does not seem to take into account, such as storage of vehicles, storage of fuels, storage of agricultural chemicals, seismic standards for large thin wall tanks under reinforced masonry buildings, and disposal of agricultural waste. He asked if trucks would now be allowed to use Livermore Avenue where currently they use Vasco Road. There are also special events and coordinating uses of Tesla Road. He asked how

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 MAY 2, 2017 DRAFT 118 ATTACHMENT 3

many more wineries will want to be annexed to the City, either adjacent or gradually working even further out to Wetmore Road or Wente. Overall, it is better to maintain a clear line between agricultural and municipal uses and keep the boundaries the same. The Sparkling Wine Cellar was provided sewer service but not annexed to the City, and that has worked for almost 25 years. He is not sure what the on-going benefits of annexation would be to the Livermore residents.

Jean King, representing Friends of Livermore, said they support the South Livermore Valley Area Plan and its permanent easements managed by the Tri-Valley Conservancy and vineyards that have been protected and promoted by these plans. They also support protection of the water supply in South Livermore. It was quite forward thinking of the writers of the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to include provisions for dealing with properties outside the UGB but adjacent to the City and UGB. One of the important provisions for receiving City services is that the properties require a permanent agricultural easement. Those provisions are quite clear and include reference to the South Livermore Valley Area Plan, the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, and the South Livermore UGB, but they do not refer to the County Measure D. Friends of Livermore believes the following provisions from Measure D should be included in the requirements for the new development on properties outside the UGB: 1) a 2-acre development envelope with exceptions for necessary agriculture buildings; 2) a 12,000 square-foot residential building cap; and 3) a 0.01 floor area ratio for non- residential buildings with up to 20,000 square feet allowed for any parcel. They are not asking for any changes to the County Measure D and they are not asking for any changes to the South Livermore UGB. It seems properties that receive City services should be able to accept these provisions. The uses already in place are grandfathered and these proposed provisions would only apply to new development under this arrangement. There should be concern about setting a precedent and the unintended consequences.

Dick Schneider, representing the Sierra Club as a member of the Tri-Valley Group Executive Committee, said he was one of the authors of Alameda County’s Measure D. He echoes some of the comments made by Mr. Stein and Ms. King regarding setting precedent. This is a unique situation, but as mentioned by Mr. Ross, the Regional Water Quality Control Board is getting more stringent and they know of other proposals to extend sewer out to parcels further away. The staff report is clear what the South Livermore UGB is intended for, quoting… “In March 2000, Livermore passed Measure K, establishing the South Livermore Valley Urban Growth Boundary with goals of limiting urbanization and preserving open space habitat and agriculture.” It was not just due to the expansion of urban development, but was also to protect the open space quality of the area. With septic as the way to deal with waste, there is a natural constraint. The groundwater is a natural constraint on development in the South Livermore Valley area. If you remove that natural constraint by allowing sewer hook-up, there will be a tendency to create more development. It may not be urban development, but it may be a lot of extra commercial development. That is why the Sierra Club, Friends of Livermore, and Friends of the Vineyards think several of the development

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 MAY 2, 2017 DRAFT 119

standards from Measure D should be incorporated into this and future proposals - in a sense, creating a policy going forward rather than approving one, maybe another, and creating a de facto policy. These policies would limit the scale of development that is currently constrained by the Water Board but would not be constrained if it attaches to sewer. If an area is annexed into Livermore, the City has authority to add these building and development standards to City ordinances. If Mr. Stein’s recommendation is accepted and the property is left just outside the UGB, but sewer connection goes forward, the City would not have a role in applying these development standards. A couple of comments made when discussing this proposal with the Sierra Club was that Concannon should pay the full cost of its addition to the Livermore sewer system for any upgrades, maintenance, or other improvements that is added burden on the system, including any accelerated deterioration of existing infrastructure by its increased load on the system. Existing ratepayers should not in any way have to subsidize Concannon’s access to Livermore’s sewer system. They are also concerned whether Livermore’s sewer system has the capacity going forward to accommodate planned and proposed development plus the future possibilities of additional wineries and other commercial development outside the current City limits and outside the UGB when they need help as well. This is a long-term policy decision, not just an application decision.

No one else spoke, and the public hearing was closed.

In response to a question from Chairperson Fagundes, Mr. Ross said he believes this is the first and only request for an existing winery to connect to the City’s sewer system.

Steve Stewart, Planning Manager, stated Mr. Schneider did allude to an effort out there to try and get City sewer service further out past Tesla Road. That effort was withdrawn because it would have needed an amendment to the initiative language, requiring a vote of the people. That was different circumstances and those properties clearly did not meet the criteria in the UGB Initiative like this project does.

In response to a question from Chairperson Fagundes, Mr. Ross said that, according to City policy for an Out-of-Area Service Agreement, property must annex into the City to receive City sewer service.

Commissioner Kaskey asked if there are examples of Out-of-Area Service Agreements where property was not annexed into the City.

Mr. Ross said there is an Out-of-Area Service Agreement at Sycamore Grove to provide sewer service for park visitors and a second one to provide water service to Shadow Cliffs. Those agreements are permitted because they are between governmental agencies.

Mr. Stewart stated there are other cases in the North Livermore UGB Initiative. There is an Out-of-Area Service Agreement off Patterson Pass Road for a restroom at the Zone 7 treatment facility. The City also extended potable water to neighbors around the

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 MAY 2, 2017 DRAFT 120

Vasco Road Landfill when the landfill expanded its County’s use permit. The County imposed conditions on that project to pay for City water service for public health and safety.

Commission Bonanno asked if there are specific conditions under which exceptions can be made.

Mr. Ross replied that in the cases mentioned by Mr. Stewart, Vasco Road was declared an emergency by Alameda County, which is one of the criteria that must be met in order to obtain an Out-of-Area Service Agreement.

Catrina Fobian, Assistant City Attorney, stated these agreements preceded the City’s updated policy adopted at the end of 2016, which is guided in part by the government code that outlines when out-of-area services can be provided. Exceptions include government-to-government agreements and emergencies. One of the requirements if a project does not meet one of these specific exceptions, such as Concannon’s scenario since it is neither a governmental entity nor is there an emergency, is that they have to annex into the City.

In response to a question from Commissioner Kaskey, Mr. Ross stated the Vineyard Estates area at Kalthoff Common and Vallecitos is outside the South Livermore Valley UGB, but within the City limits.

Mr. Stewart said that providing sewer service would not be permitted today since the properties are not adjacent to the UGB.

Commissioner Kaskey said providing sewer service to one of the three parcels looks like leapfrogging and you have to go through one parcel to get to the other.

Mr. Ross noted all the existing facilities on the property, including the building to the south, building to north, tasting room restaurant, caretaker unit, and historic house all generate some sort of wastewater that would require sewer service.

In response to questions, Mr. Ross clarified the outline of the existing building envelope. Any expansion of Concannon’s facilities would be in that area. Currently, any site improvements would be subject to County zoning standards. Under City zoning standards, any development would follow SLV-AG zoning standards which would be limited to 20 percent lot coverage.

Commissioner Kaskey noted the proposal by the Friends of Livermore indicated a 1 percent Floor Area Ratio.

In response to questions from Vice Chairperson Bjorklund, Mr. Stewart said the site would already exceed the FAR standard proposed in Measure D. The existing uses would be grandfathered in but no additional improvements would likely be permitted.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 MAY 2, 2017 DRAFT 121

Commissioner Kaskey stated a lot of white storage trucks are consistently parked on the property; she counted 15 today. She asked if those are storage containers for the site because of the growth of the business.

Kyle Schmidt, Director of Environmental Services for The Wine Group, stated that at this point, there are no planned additions to the business operations. Since 2000, they have grown in their production capacity in accordance with what they are permitted from Alameda County.

Kevin Baskin, Facility Director for The Wine Group at Concannon Vineyard, said everything shown in red on the map is already impervious surface except for some small acreage on each side of the historic house. There is no plan to expand any further. They added two buildings in 2007 and 2012, but cannot add any further; they are at their building envelope as it is.

Commissioner Bonanno said there is a difference between not having plans to expand and being unable to expand because the site is already built out. She asked if it is possible for any further development on the property regardless of The Wine Group’s plans.

Mr. Stewart replied that under the County’s zoning, there is no lot coverage limitation. The entire building envelope could be covered with buildings, parking, or whatever. Under the City’s zoning, they would be limited to a maximum site coverage of 20 percent, which is more restrictive than County zoning. The site currently looks very close to being built out. With annexation, the City would have discretion over any sort of expansion or change of use.

Commissioner Kaskey asked what would have to be done in order to override the easement. There are three parcels and she thinks she is hearing that they cannot individually sell off a parcel.

Mr. Ross replied they would have to amend the easement with the Tri-Valley Conservancy, and that is a very difficult thing to do. The Tri-Valley Conservancy’s mission and mandate is to implement the South Livermore Valley Area Plan and Specific Plan. There are ratios that they follow as far as developable area versus preserved open space areas. He does not believe there would be a likely scenario where the Conservancy would agree to an amendment to expand any development opportunity.

Mr. Stewart added that in the early 2000s, before Campo di Bocce and the development on the corner of Isabel and Vineyard Avenues was done under the Ruby Hill settlement agreement, there was a 3-acre building envelope approved with sewer from Pleasanton and water from Livermore. They wanted to creep out into that 3-acre building envelope by about 20,000 square feet for paving, parking, or a trash enclosure. Neither the City

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10 MAY 2, 2017 DRAFT 122

nor the Tri-Valley Conservancy was supportive of that proposal. Amending an easement to provide a commercial benefit could cause legal trouble. Even if someone wanted to amend an easement, it would be very challenging as these are permanent conservation easements designed to be in perpetuity. They are designed to incorporate agriculture or open space, but not urban development.

Commissioner Kaskey noted there is one section without an easement. She asked why someone would give up that open space without protection.

Mr. Ross replied that as a requirement of the annexation and to be consistent with the South Livermore Valley UGB policies, Concannon would put that parcel under easement. The Tri-Valley Conservancy has already checked in with City staff to indicate they would accept the easement.

Mr. Schmidt stated they have spoken with the Tri-Valley Conservancy and would provide the easement as required.

In response to a question from Commissioner Kaskey, Mr. Ross said the City has not had any contact with the Page Mill or Retzlaff Wineries regarding any interest they may have in annexation or connection to City services.

Mr. Stewart said Retzlaff would appear to meet the adjacency requirement. The City would have to run it through the other UGB Initiative requirements. The Page Mill Winery is not adjacent to the UGB, so they would not qualify. The City does not have sewer infrastructure down the full length of Livermore Avenue. The City Council has full discretion on whether or not to grant these requests. It is not a permit by right that they automatically get to be annexed and qualify for services. The City shares the same concerns the representatives from Friends of Livermore and Sierra Club have expressed regarding setting a precedence. Staff has met with Ms. King, and Mr. Ross has evaluated the South Livermore boundary to find other cases where there might be some opportunity. The Retzlaff Winery appears to be the only site with potential conditions for annexation similar to Concannon.

Ms. Fobian noted that considering the discretion the Planning Commission and City Council have, it is very important to note that Mr. Ross has gone through all the policies to ensure all the boxes can be checked. However, the decision is not just about checking the boxes; that is where the element of discretion comes in. There are certain boundaries where discretion lies. In this instance, what Mr. Ross had presented is a project where all the boxes area checked, and now there is a policy question. As each potential project may come in, the same sort of intense analysis would go with that. If you look at those policies, it really was written with forward thinking about properties that are adjacent that may need this sort of annexation in order to provide services. It is up to the Planning Commission, and then ultimately the City Council, to decide. As far as precedential effect, always remember the discretion element. If you can distinguish it, then it is not hard-set precedent.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 MAY 2, 2017 DRAFT 123

Commissioner Kaskey referred to an email that suggests conditions that would require a “2-acre development envelope with exceptions for necessary ag buildings, 12,000 square foot residential building cap, and the 0.01 FAR for non-residential buildings with up to 20,000 square feet allowed for any parcel.” She asked how that could apply to this project.

Mr. Stewart stated that to have policies like that in place is to have them in the General Plan or in Measure K (the City’s South Livermore UGB Initiative). This particular case meets the UGB Initiative standards. He is not sure how those requirements would be put in place without amending the General Plan, potentially having to change the UGB Initiative, and completing a Development Code amendment. He does not know the implications of Measure D.

Commissioner Kaskey asked what it would look like for these three parcels. Having just read the e-mail, she is not quite sure how she will take this request. What she is trying to understand is what these conditions would look like.

Mr. Ross referred to the approximately 6-acre parcel that is not under easement. Under the City’s zoning, 20 percent coverage would be permitted, approximately 17,000 square feet. A 0.01 FAR would result in about 2,600 square feet of allowable building space. There is building already at 40,000 square feet. Staff is asking the Planning Commission, and ultimately the City Council, to adopt zoning appropriate for the current site conditions, which is the South Livermore Valley-Agriculture (SLV-AG) Zoning District. If these extra conditions are added to the site, non-conformities are automatically created.

Commissioner Bonanno asked for clarification on what is allowable under Measure D and Measure K.

Mr. Stewart replied under the County’s South Livermore Valley Area Plan, a 100-acre parcel could subdivide into five 20-acre sites, each with a 2-acre building envelope with 18 acres of vineyards or open space under permanent easement around those building envelopes. They have to have 100 acres to begin with, and they have to have adequate water and septic capability. The South Livermore Valley Area Plan is exempt from Measure D restrictions. That is the density bonus program under the County’s General Plan. The current zoning under Alameda County is Large Parcel Agriculture, which permits one unit per 100 acres, the same as the City’s SLV-AG District proposed. Under the City’s General Plan and zoning, a 100-acre parcel would not be eligible to be further split. Under the County, if they prove they have water, sewer, and adequate services, they could split into five 20-acre parcels with 2-acre building envelopes. The conservation easement is applied regardless of jurisdiction and zoning and ties all the properties together; they cannot be bought or sold separately.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12 MAY 2, 2017 DRAFT 124

Vice Chairperson Bjorklund noted there were to be further negotiations with Alameda County regarding terms for tax sharing. The County will continue to retain the roadway easement even though half the roadway will go into the City. He asked if that is similar to other areas in the City. He wants to be sure the County would maintain the roadway when it comes time to repair and that they do not come to the City and say they do not have the funding. He asked for information about the other City services that would be impacted, such as Police and Fire.

Mr. Stewart said there was a similar agreement with Alameda County for road maintenance on Greenville Road when the City annexed the Livermore Labs. Wetmore Road is similar where the City annexed development, including the winery parcels and rural homes, with SLV-AG zoning; however maintenance remains under the purview of the County. The City Attorney’s Office will work with the County to develop an agreement that works for both parties, including tax-sharing and responsibility for maintenance and care of the roadway. The City’s Police and Fire Departments would take over support of the site from the County.

Debbie Salgado, Associate Civil Engineer, stated the City has designated truck routes and those would not change as a result of this project. In this area, local deliveries are allowed only on Concannon Boulevard and Tesla Road, not on South Livermore or through downtown. Any other truck movements would have to come into the City for a special transportation permit. Vasco Road is also a permitted truck route.

Chairperson Fagundes asked what impacts this type of agricultural use would have on the sewer system and if there is the possibility of recycled wastewater.

Mr. Ross said Concannon is putting in a wastewater pretreatment system, so there would be two streams that would get treated. There will be a domestic stream and one created from winery operations. The winery wastewater would be treated and reused for irrigation.

Mr. Schmidt replied what Mr. Ross said is correct. They are currently constructing a wastewater treatment system specifically for the winery wastewater with a targeted treatment goal in accordance with their current permit of very low discharge wastewater. In all possible opportunities, that wastewater would be used as irrigation water. The domestic wastewater such as from the restrooms in the existing buildings is not covered by that permit and would be connected to the City’s sewer system.

In response to questions from Commissioner Kaskey, Mr. Schmidt said the waste treatment system itself is being constructed in the corner of an existing parking lot and has a footprint of approximately 2,400 square feet. They are losing some parking spaces that would not be replaced elsewhere on the site.

In response to questions from Commissioner Bonanno, Mr. Baskin said the storage containers that are in the vineyards generally hold raw materials, bottling supplies,

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 13 MAY 2, 2017 DRAFT 125

boxes, and cases. The containers rarely stay on the site for more than 24 hours at a time and are constantly rotated through. Within a few hours of being parked, trucks are being unloaded and loaded and then move along. They do try to minimize the number of trucks rotating through as much as possible.

Mr. Stewart confirmed that activity is permitted as part of the agricultural operations unless the trucks were parked on public roadway.

Commissioner Bonanno said she is slightly confused about the various requirements of Measure D. She asked if the three standards listed in Ms. King’s e-mail for the 2-acre development envelope, 12,000 square foot residential building cap, and 0.01 FAR are a part of Measure D.

Mr. Stewart said that was correct.

Commissioner Bonanno stated that according to the County zoning, which is regulated by Measure D, you could subdivide a 100-acre parcel into five 20-acre parcels with 2-acre building envelopes, which seems inconsistent with the 1 percent FAR.

Mr. Stewart said that would be correct, except that Measure D does not apply to the South Livermore Valley Area Plan. Another piece of information for context, the Buena Vista neighborhood is outside of the County’s South Livermore Valley Area Plan and is subject to Measure D, so there they have those restrictions in place.

Commissioner Pann said it would be helpful if a map could show the site with the different standards overlaid so they could understand better what a 20 percent lot coverage looks like versus 0.01 FAR. He understands the numbers but he does not understand how those numbers apply to the flag lot. He would like clarification of how much area has already been built compared to what could still be built since there are multiple properties that are encumbered together as if they are one.

Mr. Ross stated that the building envelope shows the area in which development can occur. Table 2 in the staff report shows the various zoning standards such as setbacks and lot sizes. The site as developed complies with proposed City zoning. Staff did some rough lot coverage calculations and determined that would be in compliance as well.

Commissioner Pann stated he understands the project area would comply with the current zoning standards, but the concern he is hearing is what could potentially be built. It may not be The Wine Group’s plan at this time, but they may not own the property forever. If someone else takes over the property and decides to convert some impervious surface to a building, they would like some clarity on the amount of development that could be done. An impervious surface could be changed to a parking lot or a building. A parking lot could actually be changed to a pervious surface parking lot as well, which may allow additional building on other parts of the property. He is trying to understand what parts of the three different properties within the larger building

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 14 MAY 2, 2017 DRAFT 126

area could be developed. He asked for an explanation about what the conservation easement means and what the conservation easement building envelope encumbers.

Mr. Ross replied the conservation easement includes the area outlined in green and red. The green area is the area that has relinquished its development rights and cannot be subdivided or developed. The red area is the buildable envelope in which you can build. The easement provides permitted uses, so in the green area permitted uses would be cultivated agriculture open space and the building envelope would not be a legal parcel, it is not a flag lot, it would just be defined as an exhibit in the easement based on the legal description.

Commissioner Pann asked what sort of encumbrance they would have if the property was annexed in and was under this particular zoning. There would likely be restrictions on improvements or any expansion of existing facilities that would fall under the new zoning standards for that property.

Mr. Ross stated that was correct. A new building, depending on the use, or expansion of an existing building would likely come in as a modification to the Conditional Use Permit, removing the grandfathered status and giving it a legal conforming status.

Commissioner Pann asked for information on the benefit to the City of an annexation, as asked under the public hearing.

Mr. Ross stated one of the largest benefits would be the provision of sanitary sewer service that addresses potential groundwater quality issue. The City would also have land use authority and jurisdiction over how the property develops as well as sales and property tax revenue.

Commissioner Pann said there would definitely be benefits, especially considering water quality concerns and City involvement in future development decisions. There was recently a large residential building approved by the County near Concannon Boulevard and Wente Street that the City had no say in on the size or style.

Commissioner Kaskey stated given current social media buzz about sewer fees, we might want to get on the record the connection and everything is not coming from those increases in sewer fees.

In response to questions from Commissioners Pann and Kaskey, Mr. Ross replied said staff has worked closely with the Water Resources Division to ensure the City has the capacity to handle the project. Concannon will also pay all appropriate fees for connections. Because the winery is a unique use, Concannon will monitor flows and be in constant communication with the City’s Water Resources staff at the Water Reclamation Plant.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 15 MAY 2, 2017 DRAFT 127

Mr. Stewart said Water Resources staff was involved in the project early on to ensure the capacity was there and to make sure the City could still build out its General Plan, with operations at the Water Treatment Plant not strapped by serving the winery. A lot of the micro-breweries in town also have a certain type of waste that was not necessarily contemplated when the Water Treatment Plant was designed. Water Resources staff is working with those breweries and wineries to make sure we have the appropriate mechanical, chemical, and bio treatment available to handle that capacity.

In response to a question from Vice Chairperson Bjorklund, Mr. Ross said similar to other private property users, Concannon Winery would be responsible for maintenance of the sewer line through their property down to Almond Avenue up to the City’s right-of- way. The connection within the public right-of-way would be maintained by the City.

In response to questions from Commissioner Pann, Mr. Ross confirmed that the standard connection fees would be paid by the applicant and there is no special privilege being provided. Concannon will be subject to all the standard connection fees that any project would have.

Commissioner Bonanno stated she is trying to understand what could happen on the buildable piece of the property. It appears to be built out already. She asked if the concern is that the buildings would be bulldozed and something else could be built there.

Mr. Ross noted that for this particular situation, we are talking about providing service to an existing facility. That is not to say it won’t be bulldozed and rebuilt sometime in the future. However, Concannon Vineyards has been in existence since the late 1800s and is a historic landmark, so it’s unlikely that scenario would occur.

Commissioner Pann said the annexation would be a benefit to the City. Concannon has been in Livermore almost as long as we have been a city. They bring in a number of visitors to the Valley as well as just being a great place for our own citizens to go, and we can help make it a safer place and make the groundwater safer. He understands the concerns about future development that may or may not occur. We are not making a whole lot of exceptions to the City zoning and what is already there. This is a historical site that has been in operation for a long time. The likelihood of them really changing much or adding more services or capacity seems unlikely and would fall under the permitting requirements that would be required of any project. He does not necessarily feel they are setting a precedent since this type of application is discretionary. The annexation will provide a lot of benefits to Concannon and to the City in general. No open space issues are being violated and additional conservation easements are being offered.

Commissioner Bjorklund said he agrees. Any changes would have to go through the City processes for planning and building permits. The winery has been there for a long

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 16 MAY 2, 2017 DRAFT 128 time and the systems are overburdened. Water quality improvements are a huge benefit to the community. The positives definitely outweigh any negatives.

Commissioner Kaskey stated she has a lukewarm feel about this because again she is trying to judge the leapfrogging effect. She asked if a property across the street could ask for extended services.

Mr. Ross replied no, considering General Plan and Urban Growth Boundary policies. The subject property is located adjacent to Livermore municipal boundaries. There are three parcels but they are all interrelated and function as one property.

Commissioner Kaskey stated to try to pull those three parcels apart, in this very unique case, would be difficult to do because they do not have 100 acres. The easement allows only the 20-acre parcel to be the building envelope.

Mr. Ross said that was correct.

Commissioner Kaskey asked what would happen if the Page Mill or Retzlaff wineries wanted the same deal.

Mr. Ross stated staff would have to look at any proposals on a case-by-case basis. However, at the initial planning level review it does not look like Page Mill would meet the same findings. Staff would have to take a look at the conditions for Retzlaff.

Commissioner Kaskey stated she would like more information on the site coverage but that does not change the increase in the easement. The Friends of Livermore and Sierra Club wanted that looked into compared to what could be done if it was annexed. She thinks the issue is that there are additional requirements that some are saying we should look into. But she does not know how much more she would gain on this particular property understanding that. She does not have a sense of whether the difference is black and white or grey and another shade of grey.

Commissioner Bonanno stated she is a little conflicted as well. Our winegrowers and wineries are a vital part of our economy and enable us to continue to make the Urban Growth Boundary viable. We are in a position where the State has increased its requirements or is making it difficult for people to maintain their septic systems, and that puts our wineries in a tough position of mitigating these issues. We all want our groundwater protected and this is one reasonable way to go about doing that. If we deny this, they cannot just continue to operate and not be in compliance with State regulations. A very expensive solution would be to build their own waste treatment plant that deals with sewage. There are other ways to get around this but it doesn’t seem like a reasonable path for businesses either. She is leaning toward the benefits that outweigh the risks. This is a very complicated situation and understanding all the various regulations and which apply where has been a real learning experience. Implementing the Measure D requirements does not seem to be possible because the

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 17 MAY 2, 2017 DRAFT 129 property does not fall under Measure D. So she does not know how to even address that and it seems we do not have a legal path forward through that concern or through that request.

Ms. Fobian stated the problem is the inconsistency. If the standards proposed by Ms. King are imposed, we arguably are violating the policies that we have adopted for our own Urban Growth Boundary. There is a reason why we have two different Urban Growth Boundary policies. We are guided by our policies that were adopted by a vote of the people, and so there is a legal path forward to do those things. To change those policies to include those sorts of provisions would require a vote of Livermore citizens. And right now that is not what is being proposed.

Chairperson Fagundes stated there are a lot of positives to annexing the winery property. Having Concannon as part of the City would be a tremendous complement to the City. Concannon is one of the first wineries to be founded in the nation. We are also helping the environment by doing this. Growing up on a ranch, he understands septic problems and how it can affect groundwater. Understanding the Urban Growth Boundaries and Measure D and Measure K is a great learning experience. His understanding is that Measure D was meant for North Livermore, not so much for South Livermore. It is definitely a strong complement to the City and we are in fact doing an environmental favor. There are a lot of benefits. He also has complete confidence that the City has great building codes and any type of future development would be thoroughly evaluated and scrutinized.

MOTION BY PANN, SECONDED BY BJORKLUND, TO ACCEPT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 8-17, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ANNEXATION-PREZONING (APZ) 16-002.

AYES: BJORKLUND, BONANNO, FAGUNDES, KASKEY, AND PANN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 18 MAY 2, 2017 DRAFT 130 Concannon Winery

Notes:

2,030.4 0 1,015.21 2,030.4 Feet NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Feet Livermore IT, GIS Services Scale: 1: 12,183 131 ATTACHMENT 4 Concannon Site Improvements

Notes:

Prepared: 398.5 0 199.26 398.5 This map is based on City of Livermore GIS Feet Information and reflects the most current information at the time of this printing. The map is intended for 3/13/2017 NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Feet Scale: 1: 2,391 reference purposes only and the City and its staff is 11:05:52 AM Livermore IT, GIS Services not responsible for errors. 132 ATTACHMENT 5 133 ATTACHMENT 6 Existing Conservation Easement Exhibit 134

Conservation Easement

ATTACHMENT 7 Conservation Easement Building Envelope Future Amended and Restated Conservation Easement Exhibit

Conservation Easement 135

Conservation Easement Building Envelope ATTACHMENT 8

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE SOUTH LIVERMORE VALLEY – AGRICULTURE ZONING STANDARDS FOR THE CONCANNON WINERY (APZ16-002)

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The zoning standards for this district are those set forth in the South Livermore Valley - Agriculture (SLV-AG) Zoning District, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Section 2. The Zoning District Map of the City of Livermore is amended by pre- zoning certain property known as the Concannon Winery (APNs 099-1200-001-00, 099-1200-002-00, 099-1200-003-00), on file with the City Clerk.

Section 3. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 2, 2017 to consider the pre-zoning, and recommended that the City Council approve the pre-zoning by Planning Commission Resolution No. 8-17. Based upon the City Council's own independent review and consideration, the City Council hereby adopts the Planning Commission's findings and recommendations by reference.

Section 4. ·Establishment of the SLV-AG zone is consistent with the General Plan and meets all the requirements of the Livermore Development Code.

Section 5. This ordinance, or a comprehensive summary thereof, shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the city of Livermore within fifteen days after its adoption and shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its adoption.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced, by the following vote, at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Livermore held on October 9, 2017:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

The ordinance was adopted, by the following vote, at the regular meeting of the City Council held on ______:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

136 ORDINANCE NO. ______

______Mayor, City of Livermore

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______Susan Neer Gabrielle Janssens City Clerk Assistant City Attorney

Exhibit A – SLV-AG Zoning Standards

137 ORDINANCE NO. ______Planned Development 3.04.050

3.04.050 South Livermore Valley/Agriculture (SLV-AG) Zone

A. Purpose C. Building Form Requirements The purpose of the South Livermore Valley/Agriculture Building Height (SLV–AG) zone is to implement the Agriculture Viticulture Main Building 40' max. General Plan designation. The zone will provide for Agriculture-related or Public uses and development standards that enhance and 1 support agriculture, viticulture, and related wine country Structures 100' max. commercial uses. This designation protects existing Lot Coverage 20% max. viticultural and cultured agricultural uses, and provides 1 Upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. space for and encourages such uses in places where more intensive development is not desirable or necessary for D. Parking Requirements the general welfare. This zone should be used in areas See Chapter 4.04 (Parking Standards). where the urban designation of the South Livermore E. Lot Requirements Valley Specific Plan is not applicable. Land shall be zoned to the SLV-AG zone to reflect:: Density See 6.02.030 (Density A. The actual use of the land at the time of adoption of Bonus) this chapter; Lot Size 2 100 acres min. B. The best use of the land based on soil type, location, Lot Street Frontage Width 100' min. and surrounding land uses; 2 Any existing lot, parcel, or site zoned SLV-AG shall be C. Land intended by the City not to be converted to considered a lot of record and may be developed or urban use in the foreseeable future; utilized in accordance with applicable regulations. No lot, D. Land found not suitable for urban use due to parcel, or site shall be subdivided nor shall property lines environmental constraints and natural or other be otherwise revised except in conformance with the hazards associated with the land; minimum lot specifications. E. Land having resources found to be in the public interest to preserve; and F. Land found inappropriate for the density bonus provisions of PD-AG zone. B. Building Placement Requirements Setback Front 30' min. Rear 50' min. Side 20' min. The construction of buildings for the conduct of agricultural activities or the exterior conduct of any agricultural activities which involve the keeping of animals, other than grazing in open pasture, shall have a minimum setback of 50 feet adjacent to any areas designated for residential, commercial or educational/institutional uses.

EXHIBIT A Livermore Development Code 3-83 138 3.04.050 Planned Development South Livermore Valley/Agriculture (SLV-AG) Zone

F. Miscellaneous Requirements Site Plan and Design Review is required for all Conditional Use Permits (Section 9.07). Lots without frontage on a public street may be permitted subject to the following private street requirements: A minimum paved width of 20 feet. Four-foot-wide compacted aggregate base shoulders on each side of the paving. No parking permitted along the street. All private streets shall have a minimum right-of-way width of 40 feet. All private driveways shall conform to the following minimum requirements: A minimum width of 16 feet. If the driveway will be utilized by more than one lot or when it crosses over another lot it shall be paved. A driveway utilized by only one owner may be constructed with a compacted aggregate base. For paved driveways, four-foot-wide compacted aggregate base shoulders on each side of the driveway. If any driveway will be utilized by more than one lot or if it crosses over another lot, use of the driveway shall be assured by joint ownership or granting of easements.

3-84 Livermore Development Code 139 Planned Development 3.04.050 South Livermore Valley/Agriculture (SLV-AG) Zone

G. SLV-AG Use Table

Specific Use Specific Use 1 SLV-AG 1 SLV-AG Land Use Type Regulations Land Use Type Regulations Agricultural Industry, Manufacturing and Processing Agriculture Accessory Structure ZUP Agriculture Processing 2 6.03.010 CUP Agriculture Roadside Stand Warehousing and Distribution ≤ 400 sf CUP Facilities (agricultural products) CUP Animal Keeping Facility: LMC Title 6 Recreation, Education & Public Assembly Equestrian facility CUP Commercial Recreation Facility: 6.03.050 Kennel CUP Golf course and country club CUP Veterinary clinic, animal hospital CUP Camping and picnicking areas CUP Crop Production, Horticulture, Public and Quasi-Public 6.02.090 CUP Orchard, Vineyard, Grazing, Residential Livestock, and Poultry P Caretaker Residence, Single 4 CUP Grazing of horses or cattle, Dwelling: Secondary Unit 4 6.03.120 CUP noncommercial breeding, or Dwelling: Single-Family P training of horses P Services: General Olive Mill: Lodging: Boutique P Bed & Breakfast 6.02.010 CUP Large CUP Bicycle Rental, 50 bicycles or less CUP Winery: Cemetery 6.03.040 CUP Boutique P Restaurant 5 CUP Small 3 P Transportation, Communications, Infrastructure Large CUP Telecommunication Facility 6.02.100 CUP

Key P Permitted Use ZUP Zoning Use Permit Required CUP Conditional Use Permit Required -- Use Not Allowed End Notes: 1 A definition of each listed use type is in Part 11. 3 Not associated with on site winery or olive mill . 3 On parcels greater than ten acres. 4 Up to 1,200 sf. 5 Maximum of 49 permanent indoor seats (seated service only), that features agricultural products of the South Livermore Valley Area.

Livermore Development Code 3-85 140 3.04.050 Planned Development South Livermore Valley/Agriculture (SLV-AG) Zone

3-86 Livermore Development Code 141 IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION 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 PURSUANT TO THE CORTESE-KNOX- HERTZBERG LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT

Concannon Winery, which is comprised of three parcels located north of Tesla Road and contiguous to the City boundary (APNs 099-1200-001-00, 099-1200-002-00, 099- 1200-003-00) (hereinafter referred to as “Concannon Winery property” or “subject property”), is a long-standing wine production facility located in South Livermore Valley in unincorporated Alameda County. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a map depicting the Concannon Winery property.

The California State Regional Water Quality Control Board has identified noncompliance with wastewater treatment and discharge systems on the Concannon Winery property.

The City has an interest and authority in protecting the public’s general health, safety, and welfare, as well as protecting groundwater resources within the Tri-Valley Groundwater Basin.

City policies do not allow the connection of service beyond the City’s boundaries without annexation into the City.

The Wine Group LLC initiated an application for Annexation Pre-Zoning 16-002 to annex the Concannon Winery property in order to receive sanitary sewer service to satisfy wastewater treatment and discharge requirements. Concurrent with this resolution, the City Council introduced an ordinance to pre-zone the Concannon Winery property to zoning standards set forth in the South Livermore Valley – Agriculture (SLV-AG) Zoning District.

Pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act, beginning with section 56000 of the California State Government Code, an affected city, as therein defined, may make a proposal for an annexation and request initiation of proceedings by resolution adopted by its legislative body.

The City of Livermore is an “affected city” for an annexation proposal because its sphere of influence contains territory for which a change of organization is proposed.

A public hearing notice was duly mailed to neighboring property owners and published in a newspaper of general circulation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore finds that the proposed annexation and extension of utility services is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15319, which exempts annexations of existing facilities that comply with pre-zoning and extension of utility services have the capacity to serve only the existing facilities.

142 RESOLUTION NO. ______

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings:

The proposed annexation and extension of urban services complies with the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Policies for extension of urban services (sewer and water) beyond the Urban Growth Boundary. The South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Policies in the Livermore General Plan establish criteria that enable the City to extend urban services beyond the Urban Growth Boundary as stated in Goal LU-18, Policy P4 only where:

1. Urban services for commercial uses on parcels outside of the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary, which parcels were existing as of October 27, 1997.

Finding: The Concannon Winery property includes three parcels that existed in their current configuration prior to 1997.

2. The subject property is designated under the South Livermore Valley Area Plan for agricultural uses with associated allowable commercial uses.

Finding: The South Livermore Valley Area Plan designates the Concannon Winery property as part of the Vineyard Area subarea. Alameda County Agriculture/Cultivated Agriculture zone implements the Area Plan and allows agricultural and associated allowable commercial uses. The City’s SLV-AG zone is comparable to the County zoning and consistent with the intent of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan.

3. The service(s) will be utilized for allowable commercial uses consistent with the provisions of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan only.

Finding: The South Livermore Valley Area Plan envisions Livermore Valley as a premier wine region. The Concannon Winery is an established wine production facility. The City’s SLV-AG zone is comparable to the County Zoning, which permits commercial uses associated with agriculture, and consistent with the intent of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan. Sewer service will be utilized for an allowable commercial use consistent with the provisions of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan.

4. The subject property is located adjacent to the Livermore municipal boundaries as of the date of the adoption of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP) and is located adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary.

Finding: The subject property is made up of three parcels under common ownership that are integrally connected through their function as a single wine production and visitor serving use. The parcels are further connected by a conservation easement. The subject property is located adjacent to the Livermore municipal boundaries and the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary.

5. If required by City or Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) policy, the property will annex to the City.

Finding: The project includes annexation of the subject property into the City.

143 RESOLUTION NO. ______6. The service(s) can be provided to the subject property without any potential growth- inducing impacts associated with potential provision of urban services to areas not otherwise allowed to receive such services under the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan or South Livermore Valley Area Plan.

Finding: The services would be provided to the Concannon Winery property, an existing wine making and visitor serving facility with related agricultural uses, consistent with the Livermore General Plan land use designation AGVT (Agriculture/Viticulture), the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, and Alameda County South Livermore Valley Area Plan.

In addition, the proposed City pre-zoning to SLV-AG prohibits further subdivision limiting future growth-inducing development of the property. The purpose of the SLV-AG zone and permitted uses do not allow urban land uses. Further, the majority of the subject property is encumbered with a conservation easement that prohibits subdivision and development of the subject property and further limits intensification of the site to the building envelope. As a condition of approval, the remainder of the property will also be encumbered with a conservation easement. Sewer service would be provided from the north of the property via Almond Avenue, which limits services to the subject property without the ability to further extend infrastructure in a manner that would result in growth-inducing impacts.

7. Before receiving such service(s), the property owner will record a conservation easement over the subject property in a form acceptable to the City, which restricts use of the subject property to agricultural and open space uses, except as to a delineated commercial use area within which allowable commercial uses and intensity of such uses shall be delineated.

Finding: A conservation easement, held in perpetuity by the Tri-Valley Conservancy, currently encumbers two of the three parcels that make up the subject property. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to encumber the remaining six-acre parcel. The Tri- Valley Conservancy has indicated that they will amend the existing easement to include this parcel. The City will be a third-party beneficiary of the conservation easement. The conservation easement restricts the uses of the site to agriculture and open space uses except for a commercial building envelope containing the winery buildings and tasting room.

BE FURTHER IT RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes submission of an application to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission to begin proceedings for the proposed annexation of the Concannon Winery property.

On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on October 9, 2017, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

144 RESOLUTION NO. ______ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______Susan Neer Gabrielle Janssens City Clerk Assistant City Attorney

Exhibit A - Map

145 RESOLUTION NO. ______146

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FOR THE CONCANNON WINERY PROPERTY

The Wine Group LLC initiated an application with the City of Livermore to annex three parcels comprising approximately 79.4 acres located north of Tesla Road and contiguous to the City boundary, with APNs 099-1200-001-00, 099-1200-002-00, 099-1200-003-00 (“Concannon Winery property”) in order to receive sanitary sewer service to satisfy wastewater treatment and discharge requirements.

Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 provides, among other things, that no local agency jurisdictional change can be completed without the agencies affected first having agreed upon an exchange of property tax revenue.

On August 15, 1995, the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy on annexation and tax sharing agreements that provided, in part, “that it is the policy of this Board that the County will negotiate all tax sharing agreements in good faith, and consider compensation to the County for the full range of costs associated with providing Countywide facilities and services”.

Each specific annexation requires a resolution from the annexing city and the County agreeing to the exchange of property tax revenues as a requisite before the annexation can be completed and filed with the State.

The City of Livermore and the County of Alameda now desire to enter into a tax exchange agreement specific to the property subject to the proposed annexation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore, that the annexation by the City of Livermore of the Concannon Winery property located in unincorporated Alameda County will be effective the fiscal year following the filing with the State Board of Equalization of the Certificate of Completion for such property, provided the filing occurs prior to December 31 of the preceding year.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the Auditor-Controller of the County of Alameda shall be directed to cause an exchange of property tax revenues pursuant to the provisions of, and in substantial conformance with, the draft property tax sharing agreement (attached as Exhibit A) between the County of Alameda and the City of Livermore, pursuant to the foregoing policies.

On motion of Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member ______, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on October 9, 2017, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

147 RESOLUTION NO. ______

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______Susan Neer Gabrielle Janssens City Clerk Assistant City Attorney

Exhibit A – Draft Property Tax Sharing Agreement

148 RESOLUTION NO. ______EXHIBIT A

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA AND THE CITY OF LIVERMORE REGARDING TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONCANNON WINERY ANNEXATION

This Agreement is made pursuant to the provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 and shall constitute the agreement for exchange of property tax revenues required by the Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b)(6). Furthermore, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b)(5) provides that if a jurisdictional change will alter the service area or service responsibility of a special district, the Board of Supervisors of the county in which the special district is located shall negotiate any exchange of property tax revenues on behalf of the special district.

The parties agree that the parcels to be annexed are described as follows:

The approximately 79.4-acre property is located north of Tesla Road and contiguous to the City Boundary on the north. The subject property is developed with a winery production facility, visitor-serving uses, caretaker residence landscaping, and vineyards. The subject property is designated Agriculture/Viticulture under the 2003 Livermore General Plan.

Exhibit A lists all applicable parcel numbers to this agreement and is incorporated herein. The parties agree that for the annexation of these parcels, the Auditor- Controller of the County of Alameda is directed to cause an exchange of property tax revenue as follows:

A. The City is entitled to receive an allocation of computed property tax revenue equivalent to the share of property tax revenue it receives on a weighted average citywide. The weighted citywide average shall be computed annually as follows: multiply the city’s current AB8 factor in each tax rate area within the city by the current secured assessed valuation in each tax rate area to arrive at a product for each tax rate area. The sum of those products is divided by the total secured assessed valuation within the city to arrive at a weighted citywide average. The secured tax roll is used here to establish the weighted citywide average. However, the factors resulting from application of the formula will apply to all tax rolls.

B. In the event that the City currently provides a service within its incorporated City limits such as Fire or Library, and if that service is currently being provided by a County taxing agency or special district in the territory proposed for annexation, the County shall receive an allocation of computed property tax revenue equivalent to the share of property tax revenue received by the County taxing agency or special district in the territory proposed for annexation. The County’s receipt of that allocation shall not diminish the City’s receipt of its allocation calculated under A above.

Transfer of Property Tax Revenues Page 1 Rev. 9/2017 149 EXHIBIT A

C. In the event that the City assumes full responsibility for a service not currently being provided by the City within its incorporated city limits, but being provided by a separate County taxing agency or special district within the territory proposed for annexation, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code 99(b), the City shall receive, in addition to the allocation determined in A above, an allocation of computed property tax revenue equivalent to the share of property tax revenue received by the County taxing agency or special district in the territory proposed for annexation.

D. The County shall receive an allocation of computed property tax revenue equivalent to its current share of property tax revenue in the territory proposed for annexation plus the share or shares of property tax revenue allocated to it in section B above, less the share of computed property tax revenue allocated to the City in section A above, and in section C above as applicable.

E. In the event that this annexation includes or results in the detachment of one or more parcels or portions thereof from the City and those parcels or portions thereof are transferred to the County or to another jurisdiction, the City hereby waives any right, interest, or claim to property tax on such parcels or portions thereof as identified in Exhibit A. The parcels or portions thereof shall be transferred to the County or jurisdiction subject to the conditions of paragraphs A through D as specified in this agreement.

This exchange of property tax revenues will be effective as to each property annexed within the subject annexation area for the fiscal year following the filing with the State Board of Equalization of the Certificate of Completion for such property providing the filing occurs prior to December 31 of the preceding year.

CITY OF LIVERMORE

DATED: ______Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DATED: ______City Attorney

Transfer of Property Tax Revenues Page 2 Rev. 9/2017 150 EXHIBIT A

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

DATED: ______President, Board of Supervisors

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DATED: ______County Counsel

Transfer of Property Tax Revenues Page 3 Rev. 9/2017 151 EXHIBIT A

Exhibit A

Parcels Subject to This Property Tax Sharing Agreement Upon Annexation

APNs

Parcel 1 099-1200-001-00 Parcel 2 099-1200-002-00 Parcel 3 099-1200-003-00

152 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 6.01

DATE: October 9, 2017

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council

FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director

SUBJECT: BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council provide direction on a draft comment letter to BART on the BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report.

DISCUSSION

On July 31, 2017, BART released a draft Environmental Impact Report for the BART to Livermore Extension Project (EIR) for public review. BART has already conducted a public outreach meeting in Livermore at the Robert Livermore Community Center on August 22 and in Dublin at the Shannon Community Center on August 29. Tonight, BART staff will be presenting a general overview of the BART EIR to City Council. The public can provide comments in writing on the EIR: 1) by mail at BART to Livermore Extension Project, 21st Floor, 300 Lakeside Drive, Oakland, CA 94612, 2) by email at [email protected], or 3) via the project website at www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/contact. The public review period ends at 5 pm on October 16.

The EIR includes a proposed project, three alternatives and a no build scenario. The proposed project is an extension of full BART rail service from the existing Dublin/Pleasanton station approximately 5.5 miles within the I-580 median to a station just east of Isabel Avenue and an approximate 1.9 mile tail track leading to a storage and maintenance yard and shop facility in North Livermore about ½ mile west of Livermore Avenue. One alternative is light rail service (either electric (EMU) or diesel (DMU), which also includes tail track and smaller yard and shop north of I-580. Another alternative is Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) where the bus operates in the I-580 Express/HOV lanes and has direct freeway access to a bus platform at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The third alternative is Enhanced bus service, which is similar to the existing LAVTA bus services to BART. The no-build scenario assumes no rail extension or increased bus services.

153

Page 2

Staff has prepared the attached draft comment letter to send to BART, and seeks direction by the City Council. The draft letter highlights the benefits of full BART compared to the other alternatives, outlines concerns regarding the CEQA analysis regarding impacts of the yard and shop facilities, and requests additional analysis, when selecting a preferred alternative, of alternative land use forecasts, travel time forecasts, and direct Tri-Valley to Silicon Valley BART service to assess their impacts on BART ridership.

Full BART performs significantly better than the alternatives with respect to generating new BART riders and providing environmental benefits such as reducing vehicle miles travelled, greenhouse gasses, and energy consumption. Full BART also best serves and supports the proposed Isabel Neighborhood Plan, including provisions for job creation and affordable housing. The DMU/EMU alternatives provide significantly fewer new BART riders and environmental benefits at approximately the same cost as full BART. The bus alternatives provide far less environmental benefits and levels of transit service to Livermore and are not consistent with the City’s General Plan for this project. Both the DMU/EMU and Express Bus/BRT alternatives have significant right of way impacts in the vicinity of the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.

The CEQA issues and concerns relate to the analysis of the yard and shop facilities. The proposed configuration would affect the rural character of North Livermore with respect to noise, lighting, aesthetics, and biological resources. Alternative designs should be considered to reduce the environmental impacts of the yard and shop including reducing the size and/or physically shielding the facility from adjacent properties. Any mitigation land should be acquired in North Livermore adjacent to the proposed yard and shop facility to preserve this area from any future development and enhance the biological environment.

Finally, prior to selecting a preferred alternative, the City is seeking additional analysis regarding land use forecasts, travel time forecasts, and direct BART service from the Tri- Valley to Silicon Valley. Adjusting where housing and job production is expected to occur within the Northern California Mega Region to match current trends, acknowledging the frequency of incidents on I-580 and its impacts on travel time, and providing direct BART connectivity from the Tri-Valley to the job heavy Silicon Valley is likely to boost BART ridership above levels identified in the draft EIR.

Staff is seeking direction from the Council on the draft comment letter to be submitted to BART by the October 16 deadline.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

154

Page 3

The full BART project is estimated to cost $1.3 billion (2017 dollars), escalated to $1.6 billion at the mid-point of construction assumed to be in the year 2024. The DMU alternative has the same $1.6 billion cost (in 2024). The Express Bus/BRT alternative would cost $400 million, and the Enhanced Bus alternative would cost $25 million.

Approximately $550 million of funding has been secured This includes $40 million of Traffic Impact Fees on development from the City of Livermore, approximately $110 million in regional bridge tolls funds and $400 million in Alameda County Measure BB sales tax funds. There are several potential funding sources including: • Regional Measure 3 (RM3), which would extend and increase the existing bridge tolls up to $3 and includes $100 million that the project could qualify for; however, RM3 requires a regional vote to be implemented. • SB1 includes several competitive fund programs that this project could apply for including Local Partnership Program, Solutions for Congested Corridors, and Transit InterCity and Commuter Rail. • State Cap and Trade funding

Providing direction on draft comment letter has no material fiscal or administrative impacts.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Comment Letter on BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report

Prepared by:

Bob Vinn Assistant City Engineer

Approved by: Fiscal Review by:

Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager

155 October 15, 2017

Bay Area Rapid Transit District Attention: BART to Livermore Extension Project 300 Lakeside, 21st Floor Oakland, CA 94612

Dear Mr. Tang: Thank you for coordinating with the City of Livermore in the preparation of the BART to Livermore Draft Project-level Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The DEIR evaluates four alternatives for improving the BART connection with Livermore: 1) A full BART extension to Isabel; 2) A diesel or electric multiple unit (DMU/EMU) extension to Isabel; 3) Express-bus service to Dublin/Pleasanton BART; and 4) Enhanced-bus service to Dublin/Pleasanton BART. The release of the Draft EIR is a key milestone towards fulfilling the City’s General Plan Policy to extend BART service to Isabel Avenue in the median of I-580. The Draft EIR shows that a conventional BART extension would have clear benefits over the other three alternative modes analyzed: • The proposed BART extension would generate the most daily new BART riders (11,900 v. 7,000 for DMU/EMU without the Isabel Neighborhood Plan) and have the most environmental benefits compared to the other alternatives with respect to reduced daily vehicle miles traveled (244,000 v. 140,600 for DMU/EMU) greenhouse gases emissions (11,200 metric tons of CO,e/year v. 3,500 for DMU and 6,000 for EMU), and reduced energy consumption (130,800 million BTUs/year v. 35,000 for DMU and 66,500 for EMU). • The proposed BART extension is 66% more cost effective than the DMU/EMU Alternative as measured by capital costs per new daily BART rider. It is also more cost effective than the DMU/EMU and Enhanced Bus Alternatives when measured by annual operational costs per new daily BART rider. • The proposed BART extension would generate at least 3.4 times more riders than the Express Bus/BRT Alternative, resulting in 151,400 fewer Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) per day and about 7,400 fewer metric tons of Green House Gases (GHG) per year. In addition, when farebox recovery rates are considered, the proposed BART alternative may be more cost effective than Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). • The proposed BART extension would create a major opportunity for the City of Livermore and property owners to implement best practices for transit-oriented development on approximately 1,130 acres of land around the proposed Isabel Station, including approximately 52 acres owned by BART.

156 ATTACHMENT 1 • The proposed BART extension would help implement Plan Bay Area goals for targeting regional housing and job growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) served by regional transit. o It would support the Isabel Neighborhood Plan which, if adopted, is estimated to generate over 4,000 new housing units and about 9,000 new jobs—increasing the estimated new daily BART ridership to 13,400. o It would leverage Livermore’s progressive affordable housing policies to place high frequency transit near a walkable neighborhood of affordable housing in the Isabel Neighborhood Plan. o It would take advantage of reverse commute capacity in the BART system by linking to jobs in Livermore. o It would enhance the core system by providing a new maintenance yard and shops and by extending the tail tracks to accommodate 12-minute headways. • The proposed BART extension would link Las Positas Community College to the rest of Chabot Community College system. The draft EIR proposes a 25% allocation to the Project of cost of the shop facilities, because the shop has been designed with 10 service bays while only 2-3 are required to serve the extension. The draft EIR proposes 100% allocation to the Project of the cost of the 172 train car storage yard while only 36 train cars are needed to serve the extension. The draft EIR proposes 100% allocation of the cost of the 1.9 mile tail track to the Project while the tail track serves both the core system and the extension. Since the yard and tail tracks benefit both the core system and the extension, the cost allocation for those facilities should be proportional to their benefit of number of train cars served (20.9%). With respect to the other alternatives studied in the Draft EIR: • Livermore cannot support the bus alternatives because they do not do enough to advance the project objectives of improving access to the BART system from Livermore, increasing transit ridership, and reducing VMT/GHG. In particular, the Enhanced Bus Alternative would have no measureable effect since it is very similar to the system changes that LAVTA already implemented within the last year. The City will continue to support LAVTA’s efforts to provide local bus service and connections to the BART system, but regional users of the system, including Livermore residents and workers and those from the Central Valley, need direct access to the regional transit system. In addition, the bus alternatives fail to adequately support transit-oriented development, reducing the ability for the Isabel Neighborhood to support much needed housing in the region. • Livermore is concerned about negative effects on our neighboring cities with the DMU/EMU and Express Bus/BRT alternatives. BART would have fewer impacts on the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton compared to the DMU/EMU or Express Bus/BRT alternatives, because it would not require modifications to the existing

157 ATTACHMENT 1 Dublin/Pleasanton station nor significant right-of-way acquisition adjacent to I- 580 in the vicinity of the station. If a DMU/EMU-BART transfer station is ultimately desired, it is more appropriate at a new Isabel Station or a station further east that can be designed to accommodate it rather than at the existing Dublin/Pleasanton station that is already surrounded by development. The City has of the following comments on the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR: The City is concerned about the size and location of the yard and shops. We recognize that BART studied several locations for a maintenance yard and storage tracks in the vicinity of the Isabel Station, and based on the analysis of the constraints, selected the Hartman Road location as the most cost-effective and least impactful. We have the following concerns: The proposed configuration would affect the rural character of North Livermore with respect to noise, lighting, aesthetics, and biological resources. a. The analysis of long-term noise impacts should identify the 24-hour average noise level at the closest residence to the yard, reflecting the potential for 24/7 activity, and identify mitigations for this impact if found to be significant. Consider moving the noise generators as far south as possible to increase the distance to sensitive receptors. b. The aesthetics analysis should consider the effect of nighttime lighting on nearby residents and potential berm or other design treatments to minimize any adverse effects. c. We strongly encourage BART to consider alternative designs and locations to avoid relocation of Hartman Road and displacement of existing residences/businesses, while continuing to minimize impacts to known habitats of sensitive species. This could involve reducing the size of the yard to accommodate fewer shop spaces, if possible. d. The EIR should survey all properties in the vicinity of the proposed yard that have not yet been surveyed to determine the presence or absence of protected species, prior to finalizing the yard location and design. Site-specific surveys may reveal a better location that minimizes impacts to both residents and biological resources. e. The mitigation measures for potential impacts to biological resources and farmland should be revised to provide stronger protection of the rural character and open space assets in North Livermore. Revising the mitigation measures to specify geographic requirements and priorities would ensure consistency with and help implement the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy, which establishes a vision and guidelines for open space preservation in the project area. o The City is requesting that the compensatory mitigation for biological resources and farmland impacts must be provided in Eastern Alameda County, not anywhere in Alameda County as indicated in the Draft EIR. The top priority should be sites immediately adjacent to the area of project impacts. If this is not possible, other properties in North Livermore and Doolan

158 ATTACHMENT 1 Canyon (within unincorporated Alameda County) offer many opportunities. Potential mitigation areas that are farther from the project footprint but still within Eastern Alameda County include: Altamont hills, Greenville Road, and South Livermore. o Second, open space preservation should prioritize land that is adjacent to urban growth boundaries and/or existing easements, in order to create and protect wildlife corridors. For example, establishing easements on either side of I-580 could enable the connection of the north and south sides of the freeway via tunnels. o Third, BART should work with the City and County to leverage other resources for open space preservation to maximize the value of the mitigation and benefits to North Livermore. For example, the City’s Transfer of Development Credit program has been used to acquire and maintain land for natural resource and agricultural purposes in this area. When considering choosing a preferred alternative, the City requests that BART consider other issues that influence ridership projections. a. First, the land use assumptions in the travel model assume that housing growth will keep up with demand through 2040, and that adjacent regions provide more job growth relative to housing. The City recognizes the need to use Plan Bay Area land use assumptions in the travel model for the purpose of evaluating transportation-related impacts, since Plan Bay Area is the adopted regional plan for land use and transportation. While considering demographic and economic trends, the forecast of population and job growth at the jurisdictional level also assumes local government cooperation in implementing visionary policies. While the City of Livermore is committing to transit-oriented development of our self-identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs), many other Bay Area jurisdictions are less inclined to accommodate their fair share of regional housing demand. It is very likely that the Bay Area housing market will not keep pace with housing demand generated by job growth (as has been the case for decades), and that people will continue to seek more affordable housing options at the edges and outside of the region. The Tri-Valley experiences the side effects of this job-housing mismatch, as the I-580 corridor has become one of the most congested corridors in the region. When choosing a preferred alternative, BART should analyze projected land use based on actual trends and consider ridership based on those conditions in addition to Plan Bay Area. b. Second, the travel model assumes “normal” travel conditions without delay-causing incidents such as traffic accidents, and uses travel time as the dominant factor in predicting travel choices by mode. The City realizes that this is a standard practice in the industry for CEQA. In reality, there are frequent incidents on I-580 that slow down traffic and add

159 ATTACHMENT 1 unpredictability and frustration to daily commutes. Incidents are more likely to affect the two bus alternatives evaluated in the EIR because the buses would use the same travel lanes as vehicles, while rail modes use separate facilities. When evaluating the preferred alternative, BART should consider travel model assumptions that reflect the likelihood of incidents in this corridor. This will likely result in longer travel times for buses with resulting changes in ridership. c. The EIR assumed that the Bayfair Connector Project was implemented; however, a one-seat ride from Tri-Valley to Silicon Valley was not operationally included. This operational change has the potential to further boost BART ridership, especially when considering the Livermore Extension. The City asks that this analysis be performed and considered when selecting a preferred alternative.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and your ongoing coordination.

Sincerely,

Paul Spence Community Development Director

160 ATTACHMENT 1

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 6.02

DATE: October 9, 2017

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council

FROM: Marc Roberts, City Manager

SUBJECT: City Council Goals and Priorities Fiscal Years 2017-19 Update

RECOMMENDED ACTION

This report is for information only.

SUMMARY

On February 15, 2017, the City Council held a workshop to establish its goals and priorities for FY 2017-19 and provide direction regarding the development of a two-year work plan. The FY 2017-19 Goals and Priorities and work plan were approved by the City Council on April 24, 2017.

DISCUSSION

Every two years, a Council Goals and Priorities Workshop is held to identify, discuss, and prioritize key issues that will be addressed over a two-year period. Based on direction received at the workshop, a report outlining Council goals and priorities, including a list of action items, is brought forward to Council for consideration as part of the two-year budget adoption process.

On April 24, 2017, Council approved six core goals and priorities. The approved FY 2017-19 goals are listed below:

1. Affordable Housing and Homelessness. Expand affordable housing opportunities and implement a Housing First Model to reduce homelessness.

2. Asset Management. Establish a comprehensive Asset Management Program, ensuring the community continues to receive vital services through a sustainable infrastructure strategy.

161

Page 2

3. Disaster Preparedness and Public Safety. Improve disaster preparedness, ensuring staff and community emergency readiness, and expand the use of technology, enhancing public safety.

4. Downtown. Enhance the City’s vibrancy by completing critical projects downtown, ensuring the right balance of local amenities to support quality of life.

5. Innovation and Economic Development. Encourage an innovation-driven economy, supporting revenue-generating businesses, high-quality jobs, and entrepreneurs.

6. Long-Term Financial Stability. Implement sound financial practices to sustain the City’s long-term financial viability.

Throughout the year, periodic goal implementation updates are presented to Council. The attached FY 2017-19 City Council Priorities Report summarizes recent accomplishments in each of the priority areas.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

There are no fiscal or administrative impacts associated with this update.

ATTACHMENTS

1. FY 2017-19 City Council Priorities Report

Prepared by:

Christine Rodrigues Assistant to the City Manager

Approved by: Fiscal Review by:

Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director

162 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS: Expand affordable housing opportunities and implement a Housing First Model to reduce homelessness.

Action Items Finance Strategies for Development of Estimated 1. Status Update Lead Affordable Housing Units Completion A) Sunflower Hill

1. Secure City financing and Project received entitlement from Council summer entitlement for the development 2017. Staff currently working with Mid Pen and Spring 2018 CDD with Mid Pen Sunflower Hill to secure financing, including Low Income Tax Credit financing and Alameda County Measure A-1 bond funds.

2. Work with Mid Pen to develop the Sunflower and Mid Pen are currently in the process of Low Income Tax Credit developing the project’s services plan and completing Spring 2018 CDD Application for the site necessary submittal requirements for a Low Income Housing Tax Credit Application.

3. Begin construction of the project Development timeline pending based on success of the Tax Credit Application in March 2018. Spring 2018 CDD

B) Chestnut 1. Work with Mid Pen as they apply In June 2017, Mid Pen was awarded approximately for low income housing tax credit $16M in competitive Tax Credit Financing for Chestnut financing Senior project. The project is going through the process Spring 2018 CDD of creating a parcel map and improvement plan check

ATTACHMENT 1 necessary to meet funding deadlines and close on all construction and permanent financing by November 27, 2017. Construction is anticipated to begin in December 2017.

Application for the Tax Credit financing for Chestnut Family project will be submitted in March 2018.

Page 1 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Affordable Housing and Homelessness.docx 163 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS: Expand affordable housing opportunities and implement a Housing First Model to reduce homelessness.

Action Items 2. Work with Mid Pen to identify Mid Pen is working with the City and will coordinate Housing First units with the Livermore Housing Authority on developing referral systems and selection criteria for 10 homeless Spring 2018 CDD units within Chestnut Senior project and 5 homeless units in the Chestnut Family project.

3. Secure appropriate support Recruitment for the Homeless Outreach Specialist services for Housing First units position is expected to be complete this Fall. The Winter 2017-18 CDD Specialist will secure support services to accomplish this action item. C) Interfaith Housing

1. Work with Interfaith Housing to explore options and develop plans for an intergenerational Winter 2017-18 CDD multifamily affordable rental project

2. Identify and secure site appropriate for a 60-80 unit Winter 2017-18 CDD project

3. Develop plans for a 60-80 unit multifamily development Spring 2018 CDD

4. Develop regulatory and loan agreements Spring 2018 CDD

5. Identify and secure sources of outside funding for site Spring 2018 CDD acquisition

6. Provide Interfaith with financing for the acquisition and partial Summer 2018 CDD construction

Page 2 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Affordable Housing and Homelessness.docx 164 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS: Expand affordable housing opportunities and implement a Housing First Model to reduce homelessness.

Action Items 7. Obtain project entitlements Fall 2018 CDD 8. Work with Abode housing to identify and secure appropriate Fall 2018 CDD services for the site

D) Site at 2047 First Street

1. Identify developer for a mixed- use retail/affordable housing Spring 2018 CDD project

2. Develop plans for a mixed-use Summer 2018 CDD affordable housing development

3. Take plans through entitlement Fall 2018 CDD 4. Identify and secure project financing Fall 2018 CDD

Estimated 2. Site Acquisition and Rehabilitation Status Update Lead Completion A) Work with the Livermore Housing Authority (LHA) on the rehabilitation of their units on Bluebell Ave, Chestnut Ave, and I Street with the goal of designating the units for use by homeless persons as part of the City’s Housing First Program

Page 3 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Affordable Housing and Homelessness.docx 165 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS: Expand affordable housing opportunities and implement a Housing First Model to reduce homelessness.

Action Items 1. Approve the loan and regulatory There have been significant delays in approving the agreements for the sites loan and regulatory documents that will allow for the rehabilitation work to begin. This delay is primarily due to the Livermore Housing Authority Board failing to act Fall 2017 CDD on the approval of the documents. Staff is working on alternative methods to force compliance.

2. Develop final scope of rehabilitation work Winter 2017-18 CDD

3. Work with LHA to secure bank financing Winter 2017-18 CDD

4. Begin rehabilitation construction Spring 2018 CDD 5. Complete rehabilitation work Summer 2018 CDD 6. Identify appropriate level of support services Summer 2018 CDD

7. Identify eligible homeless persons to move into vacant Summer 2018 CDD units

B) Work with Housing Consortium of the Eastbay (HCEB) to identify and develop 3 projects to house persons CDD who are homeless as part of the Housing First Program  1. Identify existing multifamily unit Worked with HCEB to secure the Vineyard Church site projects 20 units or less for (460 North Livermore Ave.) for future development into Completed CDD purchase 14-20 units of affordable housing with housing first units and on-site services to support homeless and the surrounding low income neighborhoods.

Page 4 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Affordable Housing and Homelessness.docx 166 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS: Expand affordable housing opportunities and implement a Housing First Model to reduce homelessness.

Action Items 2. Identify and secure sources of outside funding for acquisition Winter 2017-18 CDD and rehabilitation

3. Develop rehabilitation plan/scope of work Spring 2018 CDD

4. Work with Abode housing to identify and secure appropriate Spring 2018 CDD services

5. Provide HCEB with the financing for the acquisition and Spring 2018 CDD rehabilitation

6. Identify and secure outside financing for the project Spring 2018 CDD

7. Acquire the sites and begin rehabilitation Fall 2018 CDD

C) Work with the real estate community and nonprofit developers to identify new sites for development of affordable housing for use with the Housing First Program

1. Work with Nonprofit developer to Identified and currently in discussion with local non- Summer 2017 CDD identify site for use in the profit housing developers, in partnership with local development of a new brokers, to identify potential sites and leverage City and construction rental multifamily County A-1 Bond funds to purchase the sites. project (20-40 units) to house persons who are homeless as part of the Housing First Program

Page 5 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Affordable Housing and Homelessness.docx 167 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS: Expand affordable housing opportunities and implement a Housing First Model to reduce homelessness.

Action Items 2. Provide financing for the acquisition Winter 2017-18 CDD

3. Identify and secure sources of Through the Affordable Housing Ordinance, secured a outside funding for 30-unit site acquisition provision in the Summerhill acquisition/construction Arroyo Vista neighborhood Development Agreement to Winter 2017-18 CDD facilitate the identification of future affordable housing sites valued at $2.8M. Will seek properties to secure in summer 2018.

4. Work with nonprofit to develop project plans and obtain project Spring 2018 CDD entitlements

5. Work with Abode housing to identify and secure appropriate Fall 2018 CDD services

Create affordable ownership Estimated 3. Status Update Lead opportunities Completion A) Administer the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program

1. Develop Inclusionary Housing Auburn Grove Low Income Housing Agreement (LIHA) agreements for Sonoma School is underway. Arroyo Vista Development LIHA is Summer 2017 CDD site, Auburn Grove and Arroyo pending however; major deal points were approved in Vista developments the project’s Development Agreement. Sonoma school site (Wayland) LIHA is complete.

2. Create the buyer eligibility list for Buyer eligibility lists for the projects will be created Sonoma School site, Central through the annual Affordable Homeownership Winter 2017-18 CDD Crossing Development, Arroyo Program application process, conducted by Hello Vista, and Auburn Grove Housing. The next process for calendar year 2018 will developments be held in December 2017.

Page 6 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Affordable Housing and Homelessness.docx 168 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS: Expand affordable housing opportunities and implement a Housing First Model to reduce homelessness.

Action Items 3. Work with Hello Housing to The Affordable Homeownership eligibility list was qualify buyers for The Vines, created in January 2017. Hello Housing and City have Spring 2018 CDD Central Crossing Development, identified eligible buyers for all of the Below Market and Meridian Station Rate (BMR) homes. Townhomes

4. Work with Hello Housing to Fall 2018 CDD qualify buyers for the Sonoma School site and Auburn Grove

5. Provide appropriate financial The City provided Down Payment assistance to two Fall 2017- CDD assistance (Down Payment households. All buyers used Mortgage Credit Fall 2018 Assistance Program, Mortgage Certificates. Credit Certificates) to eligible buyers

6. Assist buyer and seller in Six total units have been sold and all deadlines with the Winter 2017-18 CDD completing the purchase developers have been met. transaction

B) Administer the City’s Down Payment Assistance Program

1. Provide ten 2nd mortgage DPA Two homebuyers purchasing Below Market Rate units Summer 2018 CDD loans to eligible low and used City Down Payment Assistance funds. moderate income homebuyers

C) Identify outside resources that can be used to expand existing ownership programs and create new ones

Page 7 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Affordable Housing and Homelessness.docx 169 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS: Expand affordable housing opportunities and implement a Housing First Model to reduce homelessness.

Action Items 1. Apply for County Measure A Working with Alameda County on the application bond funds for down payment process for the $50M Down Payment Assistance Fall 2017 CDD assistance portion of Measure A-1 funds. Staff participated in the selection process for the countywide provider. First round of Measure A-1 funds for Down Payment Assistance expected at the beginning of 2018.

2. Apply to State HCD/Cal Home for funds for down payment Spring 2018 CDD assistance

Estimated 4. Homeless services Status Update Lead Completion A) Work with Abode Housing on expanding existing outreach services through the coordinated point of entry program to the homeless

1. Develop outreach program with Staff is working with Abode to identify space and Abode services facilitate implementation of the East County Housing Winter 2017 CDD Resource Centers (HRC), which will bring in an additional $400K for homeless outreach and housing resource coordination.  2. Secure coordinated entry service Abode was awarded funds for the East County HRC in Completed CDD money from Alameda County May 2017.

3. Assist in the funding of program Spring 2017 CDD

Page 8 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Affordable Housing and Homelessness.docx 170 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS: Expand affordable housing opportunities and implement a Housing First Model to reduce homelessness.

Action Items 4. Provide outreach service to 20 Hiring for the Homeless Outreach Specialist position is homeless each year for the next expected to be complete by Fall 2017. The Specialist Fall 2017- CDD two years will expand the outreach service program to meet this Fall 2019 action item.

B) Homeless Encampments

1. Work with Neighborhood Staff has collaborated to identify, target and clean up Preservation, Public Works, and encampments through the following: proactive PD Police Department to identify patrol in targeted areas, coordination with Crime Scene ways to reduce the number of Cleaners to tailor appropriate clean-up, reached encampments Citywide agreement with Zone 7 to allow access to and clean-up Fall 2017 CDD on their properties, and expanded the efforts of the Homeless Street Outreach team including providing the community with an online reporting tool.

2. Work with Abode to expand Staff is working with Abode Services to expand outreach and services to outreach services through the additional County persons living in encampments Housing Resource Center (HRC) funding. Fall 2017- with the goal of moving ten CDD Fall 2018 persons out of the camps and into housing

C) Work with Dublin, Pleasanton and the County to implement a coordinated point of entry program for our shelters and service providers and for the provision of homeless services in the City

Page 9 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Affordable Housing and Homelessness.docx 171 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS: Expand affordable housing opportunities and implement a Housing First Model to reduce homelessness.

Action Items 1. Identify location for the Underway primarily through initiation of the East coordinated point of entry County Housing Resource Center. Staff is working Fall 2017- CDD program with Abode to set up a core HRC location in Livermore Winter 2017-18 with satellite service locations in Pleasanton and Dublin.

2. Work with the faith community Through the Vineyard housing and services site and nonprofit service to fill development process, staff and Housing Consortium of service gaps and expand the East Bay (HCEB) have begun engaging with the existing services faith-based community to identify homeless support Fall/Winter CDD services that would be appropriate for the site, as well 2017 as program gaps that could be filled in other locations in the City.

3. Identify services needed Winter 2017-18 CDD 4. Work with nonprofit service providers and faith community to CDD develop ways to fill these gaps Winter 2017

5. Secure program funding from Alameda County and State CDD agencies Spring 2018

6. Provide Gap financing for services CDD Spring 2018 7. Provide expanded services to at least 40 homeless persons over Fall 2017- CDD the next two years Fall 2018 D) Work with the TriValley Haven on Assessment underway. Scope of Work and budget to the funding of the rehabilitation of be completed by year-end. Winter 2017-18 CDD their two homeless shelters

Page 10 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Affordable Housing and Homelessness.docx 172 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – ASSET MANAGEMENT: Establish a comprehensive Asset Management Program, ensuring the community continues to receive vital services through a sustainable infrastructure strategy.

Action Items Asset Identification & Condition Estimated 1. Status Update Lead Assessment Completion A) Review initial findings of asset inventory and present potential prioritization methods and preliminary management strategy concepts to the City Council for the following asset classes:  1. Walls Staff provided a review of the findings of the asset inventory and prioritization methods for Decorative Completed PW Walls at the March 27, 2017 Council Meeting. Council adopted the prioritization methodology.  2. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Staff provided a review of the findings of the asset Ramps inventory and prioritization methods for Sidewalks and Completed PW Pedestrian Ramps at the June 12, 2017 Council Meeting. Council adopted the prioritization methodology.

3. Artwork, Bridges & Curb/Gutter Fall 2017 PW

4. Parks, Landscape & Trails The review and findings for Parks, Plazas, Trails and Landscape is scheduled for the October 9, 2017 Summer 2017 PW Council Meeting.  5. Streetlights & Traffic Controls The review and findings for Traffic Signals, Streetlights and Traffic Signs was presented at the September 11, Completed PW 2017 Council Meeting. Council adopted the prioritization methodology.

6. Storm Drains & Waterways Fall 2017 PW

Page 11 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Asset Management.docx 173 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – ASSET MANAGEMENT: Establish a comprehensive Asset Management Program, ensuring the community continues to receive vital services through a sustainable infrastructure strategy.

Action Items B) Complete Phase II agreement with Staff completed a supplemental agreement with Kayuga to complete additional Kayuga to complete the inventory of Las Positas Golf Winter inventory and assist in project Course assets. The larger, Phase II assessment PW 2017-18 implementation agreement with Kayuga will be completed in 2018.

C) Issue a RFP for a tree inventory project aimed at locating and assessing all of the City’s trees, Spring 2018 PW including street trees

Develop Asset Management Estimated 2. Status Update Lead Strategies, Policies, and Prioritization Completion A) Present refined management Staff has begun internal discussion and planning to strategy options for each asset class determine a format and strategy for Council workshops and options for prioritizing the and/or presentations to aid in the final prioritization and Winter PW allocation of funds between asset decision-making process. 2017-18 classes to City Council

B) Council Workshop to prioritize available funding across asset Spring 2018 PW classes

C) Council adoption of Asset Management Policies Summer 2018 PW

Estimated 3. Community Engagement Status Update Lead Completion A) Continue Citizen’s Asset Staff has continued to meet monthly with the CAMP Management Committee (CAMP) and has obtained input on prioritization and Meetings to obtain input on management strategies for each asset class. CAMP proposed management strategies has also provided input on public outreach and is Fall 2017 PW and prioritization options obtaining a booth at the Farmer’s Market so CAMP members can share their perspective on the City’s Asset Management Plan with the public.

Page 12 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Asset Management.docx 174 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – ASSET MANAGEMENT: Establish a comprehensive Asset Management Program, ensuring the community continues to receive vital services through a sustainable infrastructure strategy.

Action Items B) Conduct public education and Staff has begun internal discussions on a public outreach with the goal of informing outreach plan, including the potential use of an residents on the issues facing the outreach consultant. Summer 2018 PW City’s assets and garnering input on a variety of possible solutions

Estimated 4. Data Management and Improvement Status Update Lead Completion A) Establish data hierarchy, enter initial asset inventory data into work management software and perform Winter PW gap analysis to identify missing data 2018-19 and future data needs

B) Continue to improve data related to Staff and Kayuga Consultant have continued to collect assets by collecting more inventory additional data to further describe the condition of and assessment information as various City assets. The latest effort in early September Ongoing PW needed and update work 2017 will be to inspect Las Positas Golf Course management software facilities.

Page 13 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Asset Management.docx 175 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL- DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND PUBLIC SAFETY: Expand the use of technology, enhancing public safety and improve disaster preparedness, ensuring staff and community emergency readiness.

Action Items Estimated 1. Disaster Preparedness Planning Status Update Lead Completion A) Complete update of EOC Organization Updated EOC Organization Chart to identify key  Chart personnel, for each position, including back-up Completed CMO/LPFD personnel.

B) Update Emergency Operations Plan Staff is finalizing Emergency Operations Plan. It will be reviewed by Council in Winter 2017-18. Winter 2017-18 LPFD

C) Develop plan to update and produce new annexes to the Emergency Spring 2018 LPFD Operations Plan

D) Complete Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Staff is meeting monthly and coordinating with Pleasanton, Dublin, DSRSD and the consulting firm of Tetra Tech to develop a Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Spring 2018 CDD/LPFD Plan.

E) Complete Disaster Debris Management Plan Spring 2019 PW

F) Develop standing orders and contracts Staff is currently working on a disaster procurement for specialized equipment, services, and policy and pricing schedule, including pre-negotiated PW/CAO/ resources that may be needed during a contracts for equipment, services and related Fall 2017 ASD disaster agreements.

Estimated 2. Disaster Preparedness Staff Training Status Update Lead Completion A) Develop comprehensive Disaster EOC position specific training, and a training tracking Preparedness Training Plan for all staff method for all staff training, have been identified. Implementation of EOC training plan began in September 2017. Work on the plan for all staff training is Summer 2017 CMO/LPFD underway with internal meetings. First steps include brown-bag lunches and will be begin October 2017.

Page 14 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Disaster Preparedness and Public Safety.docx 176 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL- DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND PUBLIC SAFETY: Expand the use of technology, enhancing public safety and improve disaster preparedness, ensuring staff and community emergency readiness.

Action Items B) Implement comprehensive Disaster Sent first group of 15 staff to an intensive four-day Cal Preparedness training for City Office of Emergency Services CSTI (California Fall 2017 Executive Team and other EOC staff Specialized Training Institute) training in September CMO/LPFD Winter 2017-18 2017. Additional staff will attend the next CSTI session in spring of 2018. C) Complete Disaster Service Worker Winter 2018-19 training for all staff and City Council CMO/LPFD

D) Conduct training for City Council on their role in a disaster Winter 2018-19 CMO/LPFD

Community Disaster Preparedness Estimated 3. Status Update Lead Education Completion A) Develop Community Disaster Preparedness Education Plan, including Winter 2017-18 community outreach and expanded LPFD CERT trainings

B) Implement Community Disaster Preparedness Education Plan Summer 2018 LPFD

Estimated 4. Emergency Operations Center Upgrade Status Update Lead Completion A) Evaluate technology in current EOC The current EOC has a limited number of functional and update as needed phone lines (analog, VoIP and Satellite), computers with basic Microsoft office software. Staff is in the process of contracting with a company for emergency management software (item 4.B, below) that will significantly improve Fall 2017 LPFD/IT and enhance technology and capabilities in the EOC. Staff is exploring options for additional ways to improve response, including mobile/scalable EOC equipment (i.e., EOC in a Box).

Page 15 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Disaster Preparedness and Public Safety.docx 177 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL- DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND PUBLIC SAFETY: Expand the use of technology, enhancing public safety and improve disaster preparedness, ensuring staff and community emergency readiness.

Action Items B) Acquire and implement emergency Staff has identified an appropriate emergency management software management software and is currently in process of coordinating with Pleasanton on the details of the Winter 2017-18 LPFD/IT contract.

C) Provide final review and finalize bid Design is complete. Bids will be opened in Fall 2017. CDD/LPFD/ process for EOC layout and equipment Fall 2017 IT D) Complete demolition of existing building to be replaced by new Community Winter 2017-18 CDD Meeting Hall/EOC

E) Begin construction of new Community Meeting Hall/EOC Spring 2018 CDD

F) Complete construction of new Community Meeting Hall/EOC Spring 2019 CDD

Expand Use of Technology for Public Estimated 5. Status Update Lead Safety Completion A) Add 2 mobile Automatic License Plate Staff is currently identifying locations in individual Area Readers (ALPR) systems per Area Command areas. Fall 2017 PD Command

B) Add fixed ALPR systems at 50 percent Staff is currently identifying locations and determining if of all City entrance points proposed traffic signals and power poles for mounting are City owned, and if not determining responsible state Spring 2018 PD entity and discussing approval to mount ALPRs.

C) Add additional Community Safety Staff met with possible vendor for demonstration. Cameras at strategic locations Securing several cameras for testing and evaluation. Fall 2018 PD throughout the City Identifying areas in the City.

Page 16 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Disaster Preparedness and Public Safety.docx 178 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL- DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND PUBLIC SAFETY: Expand the use of technology, enhancing public safety and improve disaster preparedness, ensuring staff and community emergency readiness.

Action Items D) Add fixed ALPR systems at the Identifying locations and determining if proposed traffic remaining 50 percent of all City signals and power poles for mounting are City owned, entrance points and if not determining responsible state entity and Spring 2019 Police discussing approval to mount ALPRs.

Estimated 6. Traffic Behavior and Enforcement Status Update Lead Completion A) Hire Part Time Limited Duration Traffic Based on budgetary constraints this goal will be Engineer to oversee comprehensive completed utilizing a combination of existing staff and CDD citywide traffic behavioral analysis consultant services.

Page 17 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Disaster Preparedness and Public Safety.docx 179 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – DOWNTOWN: Enhance the City’s vibrancy by completing critical projects downtown, ensuring the right balance of local amenities to support quality of life.

Action Items Estimated Lead 1. Steering Committee/Community Outreach Status Update Completion  A) Issue Request for Proposal (RFP), City Council authorized issuance of an RFP for a interview, and select outreach/planning consultant to facilitate the Downtown Steering Committee consultant on February 27, 2017. On April 24th, the City Council authorized an agreement with PlaceWorks to act as a Completed CDD facilitator for the Downtown Steering Committee and assist with the implementation of the Council’s selected public outreach program.

 B) Convene Steering Committee On April 10, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution 2017-041 confirming the formation of the Steering Committee, the appointment of its members, and Completed CDD establishing its duties and responsibilities.

 C) Steering Committee to develop The Steering Committee met eight times from April community outreach program on hotel through June. At the June 29 meeting, the Steering Committee reviewed and agreed to forward the Public Completed CDD Engagement Plan to the City Council.

D) Conduct community outreach with hotel Outreach began in September 2017. Summer 2017 CDD focus E) Provide community outreach report back The report back to the City Council is planned for late to City Council on hotel November 2017. Fall 2017 CDD

 F) Steering Committee to develop At the June 29, 2017 meeting, the Steering Committee community outreach program on catalyst reviewed and agreed to forward the Public Engagement Completed CDD sites Plan for the catalyst sites to the City Council.

G) Conduct community outreach on Outreach and engagement on the catalyst sites began in remaining catalyst site areas September. Fall 2017 CDD

H) Provide community outreach report to City Council on remaining catalyst sites Fall 2017 CDD

Page 18 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Downtown.docx 180 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – DOWNTOWN: Enhance the City’s vibrancy by completing critical projects downtown, ensuring the right balance of local amenities to support quality of life.

Action Items Estimated Lead 2. Finance Committee Status Update Completion  A) Finance Sub-Committee to review City The Finance Sub-committee worked with staff and budget and financing mechanisms for consultants to review budget and finance mechanisms for downtown improvements downtown and their work was forwarded to the Completed ASD Downtown Steering Committee.

B) Finance Sub-Committee to review cost The Finance Sub-Committee reviewed cost estimates for  estimates for construction, operation, maintenance and construction and a final report was and maintenance of downtown prepared by NBS consultants. Completed ASD improvement alternatives

C) The results of the Finance Sub-Committee work were  Finance Sub-Committee to provide forwarded to the Council for review at the joint meeting report back to Council on financing with the Downtown Steering Committee on August 7, Completed ASD recommendations for downtown 2017. improvements

Estimated 3. Hotel Status Update Lead Completion A) Council to confirm preferred These characteristics will be discussed during public characteristics for hotel (location, size, outreach and staff will look for Council direction when the Fall 2017 CDD amenities, etc.) outreach report returns to Council in late November 2017.

B) Hotel developer to submit hotel concept plans for City Council review and Fall 2017 CDD direction

C) Council approval of hotel disposition and development agreement Winter 2017-18 CDD

D) Planning Commission/City Council review of entitlement plans for hotel Winter 2017-18 CDD

E) Hotel begins construction Fall 2018 CDD

Page 19 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Downtown.docx 181 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – DOWNTOWN: Enhance the City’s vibrancy by completing critical projects downtown, ensuring the right balance of local amenities to support quality of life.

Action Items Hotel opens for business F) Fall 2019 CDD

Estimated 4. City Catalyst Sites Status Update Lead Completion A) City Council to confirm preferred land uses and characteristics for catalyst sites Winter 2017-18 CDD

B) City Council to confirm preferred site plan and land use concept Spring 2018 CDD

C) Issue RFP for developer(s) selection Summer 2018 CDD D) City Council to select preferred developer for downtown project Summer 2018 CDD

E) City Council approval of Disposition and Development Agreement Summer 2018 CDD

F) Entitlement plans submitted for downtown improvements Fall 2018 CDD

G) Planning Commission/City Council review and approval of downtown Winter 2018-19 CDD entitlement plans

H) Downtown improvements begin construction Summer 2019 CDD

Page 20 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Downtown.docx 182 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – DOWNTOWN: Enhance the City’s vibrancy by completing critical projects downtown, ensuring the right balance of local amenities to support quality of life.

Action Items Estimated 5. Parking and Circulation Status Update Lead Completion Six I Street Parking Garage alternatives were presented  A) Provide report to Council on I Street to City Council on April 24, 2017. Completed CDD parking garage options B) Select preferred plan for I Street garage City Council selected two alternatives for further study. Detailed information for the two I Street Parking Garage Fall 2017 CDD alternatives will be provided to City Council in Fall 2017.

C) Acquire land for I Street garage, if City’s right-of-way agent has contacted potential necessary impacted property owners. Final acquisition will proceed Spring 2018 CDD once Council selects preferred alternative in Fall 2017.

D) Approval of entitlement plans for I Street garage Fall 2018 CDD

E) Begin construction on I Street garage Summer 2018 CDD

F) Complete construction of I Street garage Fall 2019 CDD

G) Analyze Livermore Village parking alternatives Spring 2018 CDD

H) Council selection of preferred parking option for Livermore Village site Spring 2018 CDD

I) Approval of entitlement plans for Livermore Village parking Winter 2018-19 CDD

Page 21 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Downtown.docx 183 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – DOWNTOWN: Enhance the City’s vibrancy by completing critical projects downtown, ensuring the right balance of local amenities to support quality of life.

Action Items J) Implement short term parking strategies Staff has implemented the following strategies: updated from the Parking Management Plan, e.g. parking time limits, added ADA compliant parking spaces, shared parking agreements added short-term drop off zones in front of the Bankhead Theater, added diagonal parking on the west end of First Ongoing CDD Street. Staff and the consultant are currently exploring shared parking strategies with local businesses, with a report back to Council expected in Winter 2017-18.

Estimated 6. Small Projects – Shade/Lights/Livermorium Status Update Lead Completion A) Shade Project at Shea Stage/Bankhead This project is not funded in the current budget cycle of Plaza the 2017-2019 Capital Improvement Plan.

1. Issue RFP and select consultant Staff will work with a landscape architect to explore options for Council consideration. Spring 2019 CDD

2. Develop and evaluate options and obtain community feedback Summer 2019 CDD

3. Council selection of preferred shade project option Fall 2019 CDD  B) Downtown Lighting Options 1. Identify options for downtown lighting Issued RFPs, interviewed consultants and selected improvements Kimley Horn and Associates to study existing conditions and propose options. Consultant has developed an inventory of existing street lights and updated City’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) with this Completed CDD information. A lighting level analysis has been conducted and preliminary lighting recommendations have been submitted.

Page 22 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Downtown.docx 184 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – DOWNTOWN: Enhance the City’s vibrancy by completing critical projects downtown, ensuring the right balance of local amenities to support quality of life.

Action Items 2. Obtain public feedback on lighting options A public night walk was conducted on September 14, 2017. Staff will also be making presentations to Fall 2017 CDD Livermore Downtown, Inc. and gathering input at Farmer’s Markets in the Fall.

3. City Council approval of lighting project Winter 2017-18 CDD

4. Installation of lighting improvements Spring 2018 CDD C) Livermorium plaza design 1. City Council direction on Alternatives presented to Council on April 24, 2017. Livermorium plaza design approach Council requested that staff analyze design modifications Winter 2017-18 CDD and report back with updated information. 2. Planning Commission and Council review of design plans and Council Summer 2018 CDD approval of budget

3. Construction of plaza improvements Fall 2018 - CDD Spring 2019 4. Negotiation with Chevron on City will prepare site remediation plans and negotiate the remediation costs remediation costs with Chevron. The schedule is to Spring 2018 CDD design the remediation (Fall 2017 to Summer 2018) and complete the remediation project by Fall 2018. Estimated 7. Infill Parcels Status Update Lead Completion  A) Evaluate barriers Based on Council direction, staff identified parking cost barriers as a significant factor for downtown infill parcels. Completed CDD

 B) Propose strategies Staff prepared an infill incentives program to reduce parking in-lieu costs for targeted infill parcels in the heart of downtown. This draft program was reviewed by the Completed CDD Planning Commission and Council in Spring 2017.

Page 23 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Downtown.docx 185 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – DOWNTOWN: Enhance the City’s vibrancy by completing critical projects downtown, ensuring the right balance of local amenities to support quality of life.

Action Items  C) Implement strategies The City Council approved a downtown incentive program on July 24, 2017. Currently, one developer is pursuing a project that will take advantage of this Completed CDD program.

Estimated 8. Historic Process and Standards Status Update Lead Completion A) Evaluate review process and standards Spring 2018 CDD Meet with stakeholders B) Summer 2018 CDD

C) Develop revisions to process standards Fall 2018 CDD D) Adoption of new processes and standards Winter 2018-19 CDD

Page 24 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Downtown.docx 186 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Encourage an innovation-driven economy, supporting revenue-generating businesses, high-quality jobs, and entrepreneurs.

Action Items: Estimated 1. Encourage an Innovation-Driven Economy Status Update Lead Completion A) Expand financial support for i-GATE’s The renovation of the new i-GATE facility, known move into a larger facility. i-GATE will as The Switch, is nearly complete, with an use the funds to cover facility expenses anticipated soft opening for existing members Summer 2017 OIED as it builds its community of during the second week in September 2017. entrepreneurs, startups, and technology developers.

B) Identify industry clusters present in Livermore and key factors influencing these clusters. Activities include:

1. Analysis of significant industry Staff is partnering with other Tri-Valley cities, clusters by growth and size. Alameda County, and Innovation Tri-Valley in Fall 2017 OIED identifying key industry clusters in Livermore.

2. Solicit input from leaders in identified sectors on strategies to Spring 2018 OIED facilitate growth in targeted industries.

C) Support and promote technology- related marketing/branding, including:

1. Development of marketing materials Staff has contracted with a local video production that brand Livermore as a uniquely company to create two promotional videos for attractive destination for knowledge Livermore. One video will feature Livermore's Winter 2017-18 OIED workers. vibrant cultural and lifestyle amenities, aimed at attracting knowledge workers and potential visitors to Livermore. The other will focus on Livermore's emerging tech and innovation ecosystem, targeting CEOs and startup founders seeking a home for their company. Production is scheduled to begin in September 2017.

Page 25 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Innovation and Economic Development oiedrev.docx 187 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Encourage an innovation-driven economy, supporting revenue-generating businesses, high-quality jobs, and entrepreneurs.

Action Items: 2. Targeted marketing efforts to recruit See Action Item 1.B, above. desired industries, including the Summer 2018 OIED development of sector-specific marketing materials. D) Support Lawrence Livermore and LVOC development efforts continue during Sandia National Laboratories efforts to administration changes in Washington, and the develop the Livermore Valley Open labs continue to explore development options for Ongoing OIED Campus (LVOC) through advocacy with the High-Performance Computing Innovation federal and state agencies, Center (LLNL) and CREATE Building (Sandia). engagement with potential industry and LLNL is also preparing to open its new Advanced academic partners, and planning for Manufacturing Laboratory which will offer impacts of LVOC build out. collaborative research opportunities with industry and academic partners.

Estimated 2. Business Attraction and Retention Status Update Lead Completion A) Facilitate the relocation, retention, and Completed relocation assistance for Gillig and expansion of businesses in Livermore Toyota Materials Handling. Ongoing assistance Ongoing OIED for FM Industries and Dräxlmaier.

B) Develop a Livermore Economic Staff is consulting with other ED professionals that Development Strategic (EDS) Plan. have developed an EDS Plan to identify best practices in developing the Plan and scope of work and to aid in identifying potential consultants Winter 2017-18 OIED and work samples. Selection of consultant is expected by end of Fall 2017.

C) Evaluate current data transfer and Staff is working with the chamber, i-GATE broadband capabilities and deficiencies. members and neighboring cities’ economic development staff to determine current and future business needs. Evaluation is expected to be Winter 2017-18 OIED complete in early 2018. Once evaluation is complete, staff will engage broadband providers and target areas of the city for enhanced service.

Page 26 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Innovation and Economic Development oiedrev.docx 188 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Encourage an innovation-driven economy, supporting revenue-generating businesses, high-quality jobs, and entrepreneurs.

Action Items: D) Evaluate and adjust current permitting and related development impact fees with the goal of minimizing business Spring 2018 CDD/OIED expansion impediments.

E) Update and expand the City’s economic The City-wide Communications Team is gathering development website. data and information and coordinating with local Winter 2017-18 OIED and regional partners in making updates and improvements to the City economic development web pages.

Estimated 3. Workforce Development and Attraction Status Update Lead Completion A) Develop and market a database which Data sources for this project have been identified tracks Tri-Valley workforce and jobs and will receive additional focus in the Tri-Valley (business type) demographics. Rising report update being commissioned by Winter 2017-18 OIED Innovation Tri-Valley.

B) Organize and facilitate four career fairs Conducted Manufacturing Careers Hiring event and recruitment events to connect and 2 Tri-Valley Regional Job Fairs in Spring employers to their potential workforce; 2017. Upcoming Tri-Valley Manufacturing Day is Fall 2017 & scheduled for October 6, 2017. OIED Spring 2018

Page 27 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Innovation and Economic Development oiedrev.docx 189 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Encourage an innovation-driven economy, supporting revenue-generating businesses, high-quality jobs, and entrepreneurs.

Action Items: C) Facilitate training programs in targeted Tri-Valley Manufacturing Day event, scheduled for industry sectors to tailor the skills of our October 6, 2017, also connects educational resident workforce to better match institutions with local advanced manufacturers to currently expanding and future job facilitate and promote training programs that are opportunities. designed to develop skills that better match job October 2017 & opportunities in high tech manufacturing. March 2018 OIED Livermore Host businesses that have confirmed hosting facility tours include Gillig, Topcon, Bakefresh, Lam Research, and EIS.

Estimated 4. Tourism Attraction and Promotion Status Update Lead Completion A) Develop a Shopping and Dining Identified partners in developing the Shopping Campaign Initiative to promote and Dining Initiative. Partners include the outlets, shopping and dining in Livermore. Winegrowers Association, and Livermore Summer & OIED Downtown, Inc. A shopping and dining guide is Fall 2017 expected to be completed by Fall 2017.

B) Support at least three tourism attraction Sponsorship grants have been awarded to partners through sponsorships, Livermore Downtown Inc., Livermore membership and active participation. Winegrowers Association, and the Livermore Summer 2017 & Chamber. We are also supporting Visit Tri-Valley OIED Summer 2018 through our membership and Board participation in the Tourism Marketing District.

C) Livermore Hospitality website featuring concierge Develop a tourism-related outreach, videos is now live and can be used by tourism- marketing and branding campaign and related businesses. Next step will be broad Summer 2017 & connect tourism-related business OIED promotion through partner organizations including Summer 2018 owners and professionals with Visit Tri-Valley. resources to help them succeed.

Page 28 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Innovation and Economic Development oiedrev.docx 190 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – LONG-TERM FINANCIAL STABILITY: Implement sound financial practices to sustain the City’s long-term financial viability.

Action Items Estimated 1. Fee Study Status Update Lead Completion  A) Conduct a fee study to evaluate the Council adopted a fee study at September 2017 City current fees and set fees at appropriate Council Meeting. Completed ASD levels supportable by data

Estimated 2. Debt Policy Status Update Lead Completion A) Develop an appropriate Debt Policy to provide guidance on Debt Issuance and Winter 2017-18 ASD Management  B) Monitor interest rates and explore Letter of Credit was renewed in March 2017. refinancing options related to the City’s ASD variable rate debt Completed

Estimated 3. Compensation Policy Status Update Lead Completion A) Replace existing outdated With labor negotiations completed, the compensation Compensation Policy policy study is underway. Next steps is a meet and Winter 2017-18 ASD confer with bargaining units.

Estimated 4. Financial Software Update Status Update Lead Completion A) Transition City’s financial software from Transition of the City's financial software began in outdated legacy system to modern web- August 2017. Majority of work will occur October Winter 2017-18 ASD based technology thru December.

Page 29 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Long Term Financial Stability.docx 191 FY 2017-19 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES REPORT

GOAL – LONG-TERM FINANCIAL STABILITY: Implement sound financial practices to sustain the City’s long-term financial viability.

Action Items Core Services Alignment with General Estimated 5. Status Update Lead Fund Resources Completion A) Identify non-core services impacting Staff is currently reviewing Golf and Horizon General Fund resources (i.e., golf, programs. downtown, and historic resources) and Fall 2019 ASD develop sustainable funding strategies for each

Infrastructure Repair and Replacement Estimated 6. Status Update Lead Funding Completion A) Develop a sustainable funding strategy necessary to provide resources for the ongoing task of infrastructure repair and Winter 2017-18 ASD replacement

Page 30 of 30 L:\Council\City Council Priorities Report\FY 2017-19\Long Term Financial Stability.docx 192

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 6.03

DATE: October 9, 2017

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council

FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director

SUBJECT: Medical and Recreational Commercial Cannabis Uses

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. direct staff to prepare an ordinance prohibiting all commercial medical and recreational cannabis uses; and

2. direct staff whether to prepare an ordinance providing an exception to permit and regulate operation of medical cannabis dispensaries in Livermore.

SUMMARY

On December 12, 2016, the City Council directed staff to initiate public outreach on the prospect of permitting a medical cannabis dispensary use in Livermore. Following Council’s direction, staff conducted an online survey and public workshops to gather public input on the subject. The public outreach did not gather feedback regarding cultivation, manufacturing, and other commercial cannabis activities, including recreational cannabis sales outlets.

The public outreach program consisted of an online survey and three public workshops conducted in the spring and summer of this year. The feedback was mixed, with survey respondents generally in favor of a medical cannabis dispensary that is well regulated, but with residential neighbors near the heavy industrial zone on the east side of the city strongly opposed an ordinance permitting medical cannabis dispensaries.

If the Council does not approve an ordinance prohibiting commercial cannabis uses by the end of the 2017, the State can start issuing licenses for cannabis businesses in Livermore. The State will not issue licenses in cities that have an ordinance prohibiting cannabis uses. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance

193

Page 2

prohibiting cannabis use to comply with the State deadline and direct staff whether to prepare an ordinance providing an exception to permit and regulate operation of medical cannabis dispensaries in Livermore.

DISCUSSION

The Council’s direction included public outreach through an online survey and public workshops on the prospect of permitting a medical cannabis dispensary use in Livermore in the Heavy Industrial (I-3) zoning district on the east side of Livermore (see Attachment 1). As part of the public outreach program, the City posted an online survey on the City website for three weeks beginning February 13, 2017. The public was notified of the survey through social media outlets, including Facebook and Nextdoor.com, and the City website.

Survey Results

Over 1,200 people participated in the online survey, 1,100 of which indicated that they were Livermore residents. Results are summarized in Table 1 on the following pages.

Table 1: Online Survey Results Response: Response: All Online Survey Question Response Options Livermore Participants Residents Only 1. Do you think cannabis is Yes 73.6% 71.5% medically beneficial? No 12.9% 14.0% Not Sure 13.4% 14.5% 2. Do you or anyone you know Yes 65.2% 62.4% use medical cannabis? No 34.8% 37.6% 3. If you are a medical cannabis Visit a dispensary in 19.3% 24.0% patient, how do you obtain another city medical cannabis? Delivered to home 16.6% 16.8% Both of the above 43.9% 31.5% Other 20.0% 27.7% 4. If the City of Livermore were Yes 58.4% 56.6% to permit medical cannabis dispensaries, would the industrial No 26.6% 28.8% zone on the eastern edge of town be an appropriate location? Not Sure 15.0% 14.7%

194

Page 3

Response: Response: All Online Survey Question Response Options Livermore Participants Residents Only 5. If the City of Livermore were to develop regulations to permit medical cannabis dispensaries, how important is each of the following regulations to you? A. Locate dispensaries away Very Important 61.3% 62.7% from residences, schools, churches, parks, and other Somewhat Important 22.7% 21.8% sensitive uses. Not Important 15.9% 15.5% B. Control the number of Very Important 54.7% 57.6% dispensaries. Somewhat Important 27.0% 24.7% Not Important 18.3% 17.7% C. Control the size of a Very Important 49.6% 51.9% dispensary or the quantity of cannabis stored at a Somewhat Important 22.2% 21.8% dispensary. Not Important 28.1% 26.3% D. Ensure safe and secure Very Important 90.0% 90.4% operation of dispensaries. Somewhat Important 8.0% 7.6% Not Important 1.9% 2.0% 6. Should the City of Livermore Yes 60.8% 58.0% develop an ordinance to permit an appropriately regulated No 33.1% 35.8% medical cannabis dispensary? Not Sure 6.1% 6.2%

The survey also included the option for respondents to provide comments. Those comments are compiled in Attachment 3 of this report.

To check whether the survey results are representative of opinions regarding cannabis in the general population, staff compared the results of Question 6 of the survey with the voting results of Proposition 64 on the November 2016 ballot. It is not an exact comparison because the City’s online survey addressed medical cannabis dispensaries in Livermore, whereas Proposition 64 addressed whether recreational cannabis use should be permitted in California. The voting results of Prop 64 among Livermore residents were 57.7 percent voted yes and 42.3 percent voted no. Those results are similar to the responses to the online survey question asking whether the City should develop an ordinance to permit medical cannabis dispensaries, in which 58 percent of Livermore residents responded yes, 35.8 percent responded no, and 6.2 percent were unsure. The comparable results of the online survey and the Prop 64 vote provides a

195

Page 4

measure of assurance that the online survey is representative of opinions about cannabis among the general population of Livermore.

The majority of survey respondents also supported all of the potential regulatory restrictions included in the survey (i.e., the majority of responses to each potential regulation were “very important” or “somewhat important”).

Public Workshops

Staff also conducted three public workshops. All three workshops were structured the same way, starting with a presentation by staff that provided background information on the subject and ending with sessions for the workshop attendants to provide input. The public had the opportunity to provide input three ways: small group discussions recorded with notes by a moderator, interactive boards, and comment cards. The interactive boards posed seven questions (see Table 2 below). Workshop participants were able to vote for an answer to each question. An eighth interactive board allowed open-ended comments.

Workshop 1 was held on June 21, 2017. This workshop was open to the general public. Approximately 60 people attended this workshop.

Workshop 2 was held on August 14, 2017. This workshop targeted residents who live near the Heavy Industrial zoning district on the east side of the city that was identified as a potential area to locate dispensaries. Approximately 60 people attended the workshop, many of whom reside in the new Vineyard Crossing neighborhood along Brisa Street, east of Vasco Road.

Workshop 3 was held on August 17, 2017. This workshop targeted businesses and property owners in the Heavy Industrial zoning district on the east side of the city that was identified as a potential area to locate dispensaries. Ten business and property owners attended this workshop

The following table summarizes the responses to the questions presented on the interactive boards at the three workshops:

Table 2: Workshop Responses on the Interactive Boards

Interactive Board Question Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3 Choices Citywide Neighborhood Businesses 1. Should the City of Livermore Yes 43 6 4 develop an ordinance to permit an No 7 49 2 appropriately regulated medical Not Sure 4 0 2 cannabis dispensary? Total # of 54 55 8 Responses

196

Page 5

Interactive Board Question Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3 Choices Citywide Neighborhood Businesses 2. How many dispensaries should None 8 50 0 the City allow? 1 4 4 0 2 14 0 1 3+ 30 2 0 Depends* N/A N/A 5 Total # of 56 56 6 Responses 3. If Alameda County approves a Yes 43 5 3 medical cannabis dispensary near No 13 52 3 Livermore, should the City Not Sure 0 0 1 continue its efforts to allow a Total # of 56 57 7 dispensary? Responses 4. Should the City of Livermore Yes 43 54 8 regulate the hours of operation for No 13 1 0 a medical cannabis dispensary? Total # of 56 55 8 Responses 5. Should the City of Livermore Yes 37 13 4 allow medical cannabis delivery Yes, but only 12 3 1 services from a Livermore-based to Livermore dispensary? residents No 7 42 1 Total # of 56 58 6 Responses 6. Should the City of Livermore Yes 18 53 7 control the size of the dispensary No 33 2 1 and/or the amount of cannabis Not Sure 5 1 0 inventory? Total # of 56 56 8 Responses 7. Should the City apply a fee to Yes 36 59 8 the dispensary to cover police and No 15 0 0 additional support services? Not Sure 5 1 0 Total # of 56 60 8 Responses * This option for Question 2 was added based on feedback received at the third workshop only and reflects a response that is contingent upon Alameda County’s action regarding dispensaries.

Additional comments written on the eighth interactive board and comment cards from each workshop are compiled in Attachment 3.

The workshop roundtable consisted of small group discussions focused on concerns the participants had about medical cannabis dispensaries and potential regulations that could

197

Page 6

address those concerns. A complete list of the concerns raised during the discussions are included in Attachment 3.

The feedback from participants of Workshop 1 of the general public was generally consistent with the responses to the online survey. There were a number of attendees who were strongly supportive of allowing medical cannabis uses in Livermore and a much smaller number who were opposed to the use.

The feedback from participants of Workshop 2, consisting of residents near the industrial zone on the east side of the city, was much more negative about the prospect of a medical cannabis dispensary. The vast majority of participants were very opposed to the idea of a medical cannabis dispensary in their neighborhood and many did not want a dispensary in Livermore at all. A total of 49 of 55 respondents opposed an ordinance permitting dispensaries. The top concerns raised in Workshop 2 include:

• Increase in crime • Increase in traffic and impaired drivers • Decrease in safety • Decrease in property values

There are few technical studies on the impacts of medical cannabis dispensaries on crime due to the relative newness and scarcity of this land use. The few studies that have been done show inconclusive connections between legal medical cannabis sales and crime. One study conducted in 2012 assessed the relationship of medical cannabis dispensaries and crime in Sacramento1. This study found no correlation between the density of cannabis dispensaries and the rates of violent and property crime. However, the sample size of the study was small. Another study conducted in 2015 in Long Beach, California found that higher densities of medical cannabis dispensaries in adjacent areas were related to higher rates of both violent and property crime2. Finally, a comprehensive study analyzing 34 months of police data in Denver, Colorado found that higher densities of cannabis sales outlets (including medical and recreational sales outlets) were related to higher rates of property crime, but not violent crime3. In summary, study results are still very limited and somewhat mixed. There is no conclusive finding on the relationship between medical cannabis dispensaries and crime, although two studies suggest that higher densities of cannabis outlets may have an effect on the crime rate in adjacent areas.

The impact of medical cannabis dispensaries on property values is also inconclusive. According to an academic study4 and an industry study by realtor.com5, retail cannabis

1 Kepple and Freisthler, 2012 2 Freisthler et al., 2015 3 Freisthler et al., 2017 4 “The Effect of Legalizing Retail Marijuana on Housing Values: Evidence from Colorado”, Cheng Cheng, Walter J. Mayer, Yanling Mayer, December 20, 2016. 5 “Will Legal Marijuana Give Home Prices a New High?”, Yuqing Pan and Clare Trapasso, November 16, 2016.

198

Page 7

businesses have no negative impact on housing prices. Other types of cannabis businesses such as cultivation businesses do appear to have a negative impact on housing prices. Cultivation and manufacturing of cannabis products have a greater problem of controlling odor, which can be a nuisance on surrounding properties.

Nonmedical Cannabis Commercial Uses

The passage of Proposition 64, or the Adult Use Marijuana Act (AUMA), last year made commercial recreational cannabis uses legal in the California. In June 2017, the State adopted SB-94, or the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), that combines medical and adult-use (i.e., recreational) cannabis regulations into a single licensing structure. The State is expected to start accepting applications for licenses for cannabis businesses at the beginning of 2018. To ensure the State does not issue a license for a cannabis business in Livermore, the city must have an ordinance clearly prohibiting the commercial cannabis use before the State starts issuing licenses.

The City currently has an ordinance prohibiting medical cannabis dispensaries and commercial cultivation of cannabis, but this ordinance does not apply to other commercial recreational or medical cannabis uses. Considering that local control over commercial cannabis uses is at stake, staff recommends the City Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance prohibiting all commercial medical and adult-use cannabis uses in Livermore. After adopting the ordinance, the Council has the option to consider amending the ordinance in the future to permit specific commercial cannabis uses, such as medical cannabis dispensaries.

Even if the Council wishes to permit medical cannabis uses in Livermore, a prohibition on all cannabis uses, followed by the granting of specific exceptions for medical cannabis dispensaries is the clearest method of communicating that the City is taking full control of these land use regulations. This methodology removes ambiguity and makes it clear that the only exceptions to the City’s ban are those uses specifically permitted by the City. It also protects the City from unintentionally granting control of any aspect of this use to the State in the event that a decision on specific exceptions cannot be reached before the end of the year.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

If the Council decides to retain the current ordinance prohibiting medical cannabis dispensaries and direct staff to prepare an ordinance prohibiting all other commercial cannabis uses, there would be no fiscal and administrative impact.

If the Council decides to direct staff to prepare an ordinance permitting medical cannabis dispensaries or any other commercial cannabis uses, staff would analyze the fiscal and administrative impacts of the proposed change and include the analysis in a subsequent staff report. The city has the ability to assess fees on cannabis businesses to cover the costs of administering and enforcing adopted cannabis regulations. Initially, the assessed

199

Page 8

fees would be based on an estimate and, therefore, may not completely cover the costs. The fees could be adjusted over time after the city accrues more experience on the cost of administering and enforcing cannabis regulations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council Staff Report, dated December 12, 2016 2. Online Survey Results (in bar graph format) 3. Online Survey and Workshop Comments 4. Emails submitted to the City 5. Memorandum from the City Attorney

Prepared by:

Scott Lee Principal Planner

Approved by: Fiscal Review by:

Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director

200 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: December 12, 2016

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council

FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director

SUBJECT: Medical Cannabis Dispensary Regulations and Public Outreach Plan

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council discuss potential medical cannabis regulations and public outreach plan and provide direction on proceeding with the development of an ordinance permitting a medical cannabis dispensary.

DISCUSSION

On October 24, 2016, the City Council directed staff to develop regulations for its consideration that would, if adopted, permit medical cannabis dispensary use in the heavy industrial district on the city’s east side and to return to Council with an outline of prospective regulations for establishing and operating a dispensary. (The previous staff report is attached, including a map that shows the proposed area for a dispensary.)

Currently, medical cannabis dispensaries are prohibited in the city. They are also prohibited in Pleasanton, Dublin, and San Ramon. The nearest medical marijuana dispensary is located in an unincorporated area of Hayward. Alameda County currently permits up to three dispensaries in unincorporated areas of the County. The County is in the process of amending its ordinance to allow up to six dispensaries, including two in the east part of the County.

Prospective Regulations

The purpose of a proposed ordinance would be to regulate the storefront distribution of medical cannabis to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Livermore. Any ordinance must be consistent with the State Compassionate Use Act of 1996, the State Medical Cannabis Program Act (SB 410), and all State laws and regulations relating to medical cannabis dispensaries. The intent of the regulations would be to allow local residents, who are qualified patients eligible to use medical cannabis under State law, safe and convenient access to medical cannabis.

201 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2

Staff of the Community Development Department, Police Department, and the City Attorney have identified prospective regulations to meet the purpose and intent of a medical cannabis dispensary ordinance. These regulations are based on the best practices of other California cities and counties that permit medical cannabis dispensaries (including the cities of San Jose, Berkeley, Palm Springs, and Santa Barbara, and Alameda County). Staff recommends the following components of a prospective ordinance:

1. Amend the Development Code to include a medical marijuana dispensary as a conditional use in the Heavy Industrial (I-3) zoning district. Limit the activity of a dispensary to on-site sales only, i.e., prohibit cultivation, manufacture, and delivery of medical cannabis.

2. Require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP): A CUP is a discretionary entitlement that allows the City to impose conditions of approval in order to ensure land use compatibility with existing and future uses in the vicinity. Conditions of Approval may go beyond the standards set forth in the Development Code and other ordinances in order to ensure the use will not endanger or jeopardize the public health, safety, convenience and welfare. A CUP also requires a Planning Commission public hearing and public notification of the hearing prior to approval. A final decision on a CUP application is usually made by the Planning Commission, but the Council can make an exception for a medical cannabis dispensary and require a Planning Commission recommendation and final approval by the City Council.

3. Require proof of a State license for operating a dispensary. Presently, the State does not license medical marijuana dispensaries but is working on the licensing requirements and is expected to start issuing licenses in January 2018. This requirement will ensure all dispensaries meet State-established standards for product safety, sales, and operation. However, due to the State’s timeline, City- issued dispensary licenses would be delayed until the State starts issuing licenses in early 2018.

4. Require a revocable City Dispensary Operating License. In addition to the State license, the City can require a license ensuring local review of public safety matters. Under State law, a State license will not be valid unless a dispensary also obtains a City license. An annual renewal of a City Dispensary Operating License would be required. Key requirements for the license would be: a. Proof of a valid State license to operate a dispensary. b. Submittal of a security plan, including the installation of a video surveillance camera and recording system, an alarm system, adequate lighting of the site, and the presence of State-certified security guards. c. Police background checks on the dispensary owner and employees. Preclude employees who have a record of felony and certain misdemeanor crimes.

202 Page 3

d. Identify other dispensaries owned and operated by the applicant currently or in the past, if applicable. e. Provision of suitable locked storage of cannabis products. f. A floor plan showing a lobby waiting area used to receive qualified patients and primary caregivers and a separate and secure designated area for dispensing medical cannabis. g. A plan for verifying customers are qualified patients or primary caregivers as defined by State law. h. Compliance with all the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. i. Noncompliance with any of the requirements would result in the revocation of the City license. This would in effect cease the operation of the dispensary. j. An annual fee would be charged for the license. The amount of the fee would be determined by the City to cover the cost to administer and enforce the license. The Council can also consider assessing an additional fee based on the amount of medical cannabis sold at the dispensary (for example, the City of San Jose has a Marijuana Business Tax of 10 percent of the gross receipts).

5. Establish zoning standards, such as a requirement that a dispensary is located at least 1,000 feet from sensitive uses such as residential zones and uses, schools for children, day care centers, churches and places of worship, parks, and recreational uses that attract children. Also, if more than one dispensary were to be allowed by the City’s ordinance, a requirement for a 2,000-foot buffer between dispensaries would be proposed.

6. Establish performance standards for a dispensary to control noise through compliance with the Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 9.36) and the General Plan Noise Element, odor so that no obnoxious odors or fumes are emitted to be perceptible by a reasonable person at the property line, and other potential impacts.

7. Establish operational standards, including but not limited to: prohibit consumption of cannabis products on the premises; prohibit persons under the age of 18 to be on the premises; prohibit consumption of alcohol on the premises; require cannabis products to be dispensed in child-resistant containers, provide educational materials on the safe use of medical cannabis, and limit the hours of operation (for example, from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., daily).

8. Limit retail sales to medical cannabis products only. Prohibit the sale of smoking paraphernalia and accessories.

9. Limit the number of dispensaries. Initially limit the number of dispensaries to one. If there is more than one application, then the City will conduct a competitive selection process based on criteria stated in the prospective ordinance, such as the applicant’s experience operating a dispensary, the quality of the security plan, the appropriateness of the proposed location of the dispensary, and the

203 Page 4

completeness of the application. After one or two years, if the first dispensary operates in an acceptable manner, the Council would have the option to increase the maximum number of dispensaries to two.

10. Limit the size of the dispensary and/or the amount of cannabis products stored on the premises to meet the intent of a community-serving business and not a regional-serving business. For example, dispensaries located in unincorporated Alameda County have been operating with a maximum limit of 20 pounds of cannabis to be stored at the dispensary.

The proposed regulations are not intended to permit or regulate the sale of nonmedical (or “recreational”) cannabis. Also, the proposed regulations will not affect the growing or consumption of cannabis by individuals who do so in conformance to State law.

Public Outreach Plan

At the October 24 meeting, Council directed staff to develop a public outreach plan, including workshops to gather public input on the subject of medical marijuana dispensaries. Should Council direct staff to move forward with the development of medical cannabis regulations, staff proposes to conduct at least two public workshops, provide on-line information, and conduct an on-line survey prior to the required Planning Commission public hearing to review a new ordinance. The workshops would be organized as follows:

 Public workshop for the general public. The first objective of the workshop would be to inform the public of the prospect of a medical cannabis dispensary in the City, and to share potential regulations that would affect how the dispensary operates. The second objective would be to allow the public to ask questions and offer comments to staff, which would be taken into consideration in the drafting of the medical cannabis dispensary ordinance.

 Another public workshop would target an audience that may be directly impacted by a medical cannabis dispensary, including property owners and tenants in the Heavy Industrial (I-3) zoning district, the Chamber of Commerce, local health care facilities, medical cannabis advocacy groups, qualified patients, and caregivers.

Additional public outreach could be provided based on community response.

Staff will incorporate public input in drafting an ordinance for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The public will have an opportunity to directly address the Planning Commission and City Council at the respective public hearings that are required for the adoption of a new ordinance.

204 Page 5

POTENTIAL REGULATION FOR COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

At the November 8, 2016 election, California voters approved Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). That measure created a regulatory framework to allow the recreational use of marijuana by adults, and made certain changes to the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) for medicinal marijuana. The AUMA regulates the commercial aspects of recreational and medicinal marijuana, and preserves local control for each city to determine whether it wants to permit or prohibit those activities locally. If permitted, each city can also adopt local regulations that do not conflict with the AUMA, MMRSA, Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), or the Compassionate Use Act (CUA).

Livermore currently prohibits commercial medicinal marijuana activities, except for deliveries originating from properly licensed dispensaries located outside Livermore to qualified patients and primary caregivers in Livermore. However, Livermore has not considered the regulation of commercial activities for recreational marijuana. Absent the adoption of a prohibition prior to January 1, 2018, the AUMA will allow state licensed operators to engage in commercial activities for recreational marijuana in Livermore after that date.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

Aside from staff time, there are no fiscal and administrative impacts related to the drafting of an ordinance regulating medical cannabis dispensaries.

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council Staff Report, October 24, 2016 2. City Council Meeting Minutes

Prepared by:

Scott Lee Senior Planner

Approved by: Fiscal Review by:

Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio City Manager Administrative Services Director

205 Medical Cannabis Dispensary Survey Via Facebook and Nextdoor

Questions 1. Where do you live? Livermore 1115 Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon, or Danville 78 Other 21 Total 1214 Where do you live? 1200 1115

1000

800

600

400

200 78 21 0 Livermore Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon, or Other Danville

Question 2. Do you think cannabis is medically beneficial? Yes 890 No 157 Not Sure 162 Total 1209

Do you think cannabis is medically beneficial? 1000 890 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 157 162 100 0 Yes No Not Sure

ATTACHMENT 2 206 Medical Cannabis Dispensary Survey Via Facebook and Nextdoor

Question 3. Do you or anyone you know use medical cannabis? Yes 786 No 420 Total 1206

Do you or anyone you know use medical cannabis? 900 786 800 700 600

500 420 400 300 200 100 0 Yes No

Question 4. If you are a medical cannabis patient, how do you obtain medical cannabis? Visit a dispensary in another city 135 Delivered to home 116 Both of the above 307 Other 140 Total 698

If you are a medical cannabis patient, how do you obtain medical cannabis? 350 307 300 250 200 135 140 150 116 100 50 0 Visit a dispensary in another Delivered to home Both of the above Other city

207 Medical Cannabis Dispensary Survey Via Facebook and Nextdoor

Question 5. If the City of Livermore were to permit medical cannabis dispensaries, would the industrial zone on the eastern edge of town be an appropriate location? Yes 702 No 320 Not Sure 181 Total 1203 If the City of Livermore were to permit medical cannabis dispensaries, would the industrial zone on the eastern edge of town be an appropriate location?

800 702

600

400 320 181 200

0 Yes No Not Sure

Question 6. If the City of Livermore were to develop regulations to permit medical cannabis dispensaries, how important is each of the following regulations to you? A. Locate dispensaries away from residences, schools, churches, parks, and other sensitive uses. Very Important 736 Somewhat Important 273 Not Important 192 Total 1201

Locate dispensaries away from residences, schools, churches, parks, and other sensitive uses. 800 736 700 600 500 400 273 300 192 200 100 0 Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important

208 Medical Cannabis Dispensary Survey Via Facebook and Nextdoor

Question 6. If the City of Livermore were to develop regulations to permit medical cannabis dispensaries, how important is each of the following regulations to you? B. Control the number of dispensaries. Very Important 654 Somewhat Important 323 Not Important 219 Total 1196 Control the number of dispensaries 700 654

600

500

400 323 300 219 200

100

0 Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important

Question 6. If the City of Livermore were to develop regulations to permit medical cannabis dispensaries, how important is each of the following regulations to you? C. Control the size of a dispensary or the quantity of cannabis stored at a dispensary. Very Important 594 Somewhat Important 267 Not Important 337 Total 1198

Control the size of a dispensary or the quantity of cannabis stores at the dispensary. 700 594 600 500

400 337 300 267 200 100 0 Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important

209 Medical Cannabis Dispensary Survey Via Facebook and Nextdoor

Question 6. If the City of Livermore were to develop regulations to permit medical cannabis dispensaries, how important is each of the following regulations to you? D. Ensure safe and secure operation of dispensaries. Very Important 1076 Somewhat Important 96 Not Important 23 Total 1195 Ensure safe and secure operation of dispensaries. 1200 1076

1000

800

600

400

200 96 23 0 Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important

Question 7. Should the City of Livermore develop an ordinance to permit an appropriately regulated medical cannabis dispensary? Yes 737 No 402 Not Sure 74 Total 1213

Should the City of Livermore develop an ordinance to permit and appropriately regulated medical cannabis dispensary? 800 737 700 600 500 402 400 300 200 74 100 0 Yes No Not Sure

210 Medical Cannabis Dispensary Survey Via Facebook and Nextdoor

Non-survey question: Of the 698 people that answered Question 4, If you are a medical cannabis patient, how do you obtain medical cannabis? How many answered Question 7. Should the City of Livermore develop an ordinance to permit an appropriately regulated medical cannabis dispensary? Yes 475 No 33 Not Sure 74 Total 582

Answered #4 and #7 500 475 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 74 33 50 0 Yes No Not Sure

211 Medical Cannabis Online Survey- February 27- March 6, 2017 Additional Comments

Comment Number Comment 1. Please allow for dispensaries to come to Livermore. It's tax dollars for the city and a great service to patients who need this medicine. 2. many people would benefit from this...it is very effective in pain control & minimizing effects of cancer treatments, why deny this to people who need it? 3. I support it do to lack of sources for medical marijuana I do not like driving 30-45 mins just to get my medicine. A dispensary in Livermore Dublin or Pleasanton would be highly benificial. 4. Open up already 5. why are you dragging your feet? the ordinance was voted on and passed. 6. In my experience these facilities do not remain inside the intended parameters. I was against legalization and still oppose it. With BART coming to Livermore, add marijuana dispensaries, I see undesirable conditions ahead. Sorry but no thanks. 7. In my experience with medical cannabis dispensaries in other cities I have lived, they attract groups of people that would be detrimental to Livermore. Crime is a concern as well as the example it sets for our children. Livermore already has issues with graffiti, homelessness and crime that aren't being resolved and adding a cannabis dispensary will only add to the problems. With all the effort that the Downtown Livermore Association is putting into attracting new business and residents, lets make sure we attract the right groups to our area. A cannabis dispensary is not the kind of business I want in our city. Thank you. 8. Drugs should be dispensed from pharmacies and not from a single purpose facility. 9. I oppose the legalization of pot and so oppose having a dispensary here in Livermore. Period. I fear the easier it is to obtain ( and there are lots of unscrupulous doctors to write those prescriptions) the more drivers there will be operating under the influence. And of course there's that whole addiction issue ... 10. In a city filled and littered with alcohol, I believe adults should also have a responsible healthier alternative. An alternative that also hold very very real health benifits which help me personally with my many ailments. 11. There are medical dispensaries in many other cities/towns. The problem with medical marijuana is the misdiagnosis and abuse of the drug. Anyone over 18 can go to any rent a doctor and obtain a card. There is no benefit to bringing a dispensary to Livermore but there are many risks. It's a cash business and crime will undoubtably increase, driving under the influence without accountability will increase accidents, this city will become one of tolerance for people looking for an easy way out instead of working hard to make the best life and be the best person. Complacency is the main benefit of marijuana and Livermore will become just like the stereotypical US, full of free loading, lazy, entitled citizens that spend more time blaming others for their lack of success instead of holding themselves accountable for their fate. 12. It should be discreet and not a local potheads hangout like I have seen in Sacramento. Think more drug store, less head shop. 13. I support medical and legalized recreational pot. I'd like to see another survey once I know more about the pros and cons of your questions. 14. I completely disagree with having a dispensary in our town!!

212 ATTACHMENT 3 15. I have previously volunteered at non profit dispensaries dating back to 2005 in Los Angeles. Like many people assumed the "patients" would be nothing more than stoner punk kids and I did not actually take into consideration the "real" patients they were actually assisting. From first hand experience I can truthfully state there is MORE patient relief taking place with the dispensaries. I personally am not a user of marijuana but that is because my health is great. To imagine it being unavailable to cancer patients and individuals in need of medical marijuana relief, seems inhumane when I have witnessed the benefits. I come from a pharmacy background as well, the addictive properties for legal pain relievers have caused more harm in patients than those I have witnessed use medical marijuana in substitute. I agree with limiting the amount of dispensaries but do believe a few should be strategically placed in areas away from children but still local. Rules applied on storefronts should be tasteful and not flamboyant for the passing traffic. Weight limits should be void. Like any business own, I do not see anyone keeping unnecessary stock on hand. Thank you kindly for hearing my opinion and I look forward to seeing Livermore progress as a compassionate city. 16. I do support because it will bring more money to the city and allow people who need the medicine to access it easier. Also a safer option for some people using pills for medicine 17. I absolutely support a medical cannabis dispensary in Livermore! Access to proper and safe medicine should be readily available for residents in their own city. If you won't allow a dispensary, I would request that a few of the 10+ BARS throughout downtown get shutdown. 18. I am vehemently against the council's proposal to legalize cannabis medical dispensaries in the City of Livermore. It is widely accepted that medical cannabis dispensaries sell their products for recreational purposes without being detected or penalized. This will attract unsavory and undesirable people into our community risking our safety and security. It will also encourage youth in our community to approach these dispensaries to purchase their products illegally. All this will consequently lead to a drastic reduction in our property values. Our young family will surely move out of Livermore. 19. Delivery is preferred for patients too ill to travel. It also provides a discreet and safer method of obtaining medicine. 20. The city of Livermore should not allow the use or medical dispensary in the city. Contrary to the understanding that it is used for medical only is absurd. This city already has a crime problem with deviants hanging out smoking at the parking garage, and spraying graffiti throught out the west side and downtown area. 21. Medical cannabis in Livermore would be a key location for patients like myself and many others. 22. Put dispenseries in ground floor retail, ground floor office-professional zones, in the downtown areas and allow in shopping centers and highway commercial zones. Relax and don't be so uptight over the legalization process. 23. Having to drive to the Bay Area and it's a long drive when your on chronic pain. I have to stop every 20min to stretch so it makes it a half day event. I should be able to heft my medicine in my own town 24. Finally. California approved this awhile back . The drive to another city is costly and is painful to my legs and feet. 25. Medical cannabis saves lives. We need to grow with it. 26. As a mother who owns a home downtown Livermore, I think the location could be appropriate. Many neighbors and parents who I speak with are pro cannabis use so it would be nice for Livermore to keep up with the times, It would bring vitality to the city. 27. A nice safe dispensary with educated personal is very helpful and needed. When using medically this can benefit many patients . A cafe would be nice. 28. It's time to normalize this economy. You must have a license to buy, so, once verified, where you buy is irrelevant. Also, delivery can create unnecessary risks for drivers.

213 29. Alcohol is legal and it ruins lives let's replace it with some herb yo 30. It doesn't harm anyone. why prevent business from coming into the city?? 31. This could be great tax revenue. 32. I personally travel to cities like Oakland and Hayward to get my meds. Not only is it a Hassel to drive, the locations are not safe. Having a safe and secure dispensary in Livermore would help me and many other patients greatly. 33. Medical cannabis saved my life. Without it I would have weathered away and died. The harsh reality of side affects of LEGAL PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS. 34. Because I want one. 35. I totally support a medical cannabis dispensary in Livermore. Marijuana helps a lot of people and the closest dispensary is not close. Please please please build a dispensary in Livermore. 36. I support it most definitely, I just think it should be easier to access rather then putting it so far back in the city. 37. If Alameda county as a whole voted 66.4 percent (accd. Secretary of state) for LEGAL RECREATIONAL use should be decriminalized, I think it would prove as a disservice for local government to restrict public access to Marijuana, ESPECIALLY since our counties statistics prove that the tri-valley as a whole could benefit. I-3 heavy industrials keeps it from prying eyes, as well as east side of the city keeps "Over the hill" problems from arising ( At the very least mitigate ). Everything that the city is doing to benefit those who NEED marijuana to sustain quality of life is absolutely fantastic. 38. Help the homeless in our town first !!!!! 39. Please keep it AWAY from downtown and the wineries!!!!! 40. NO, NO, absolutly NO!!! -request from resident medical cannabis patients???? Potheads are going to love this! Please don't insult my intelligence, Drugs are Drugs --- No redeeming features, just higher crime rate and more DUI's. Livermore doesn't need this crap just to raise more money. You and I know it's just a source of revenue for the city to tap into. Do you really believe citizens of Livermore really want and need a pot store in their comunity? 41. Do not hasten the city going to pot. Keep the status quo. 42. CBD is non pychoactive and helps without impairment. 43. I believe if it is done legally and correct then it is beneficial to those in need. Unfortunately there are always a few that mess it up for everyone. The lawbreakers in the people that do it illegally. 44. I am OK with it, I'd just like to see that it does not attract a lot of lingering lowlifes. 45. I will never vote for anyone that speeds up our city going to pot. 46. Everyone I know who smokes medical mj does not need it. They got the "Pot medical card" from a real Dr. but they just fake it to get it. They've told me it's so easy. Everyone does it, been doing it for around 7-8 years now. The Dr.'s giving out the prescriptions know exactly what's going on. So lame. Livermore, especially the east side, is undergoing a great building surge and the Springtown Golf course turned bike path etc is underway. Would absolutely HATE something so unnecessary as a pot store for people who have obtained prescriptions to be in Livermore. They can keep going to Oakland for their pot or they can just take 2 Aleves. 47. Medicines are dispensed via Pharmacies and not via smoke shop. Permitting anything in the name of medicine will only go to encourage vested interest pushing boundaries of Livermore Laws and stress precious resources of Livermore PD and other public infrastructures 48. Its legal now. Though a lot of people use the dispensaries to get recreational pot now, there is products available at medical dispensaries that are truly designed to help the people that are using it as a medicine as opposed to those who just want to smoke out.

214 49. Livermore is a family oriented city and having things like a dispensary is almost like having strip clubs. It attracts the wrong kind of people whether medically need or entertainment. Please do not allow this to happen to Livermore. 50. My survey is responding in favor of dispensary solely for my dog who has Invetebrsl disc disease. Uses cvs oil for pain 51. Keep them out of Livermore. It is Federally restricted. 52. As a clinical psychologist, I do see merit in the use of medicinal marijuana for some purposes; however, I also treat people with the psychological addiction to it. Those with painful cancer treatments are part of that. I also see people getting prescriptions from their doctors for it for ridiculous reasons. People are getting it for all types of reasons that can lead to addictions. I do not think it is regulated enough or thought through enough yet. There are not clear enough guidelines on its use like other medications have. Most have distinct distinct diagnoses they are proscribed for. I know people who have had it prescribed for some headaches! Really? It's use needs to be more clear and specific in my opinion. There is also the issues with possible drawing of illegal sales of it for nonmedical reasons. But, that happens already. Increased marijuana theft of the dispensary is possible. It could be an issue and we already are having increased car thefts and other crimes lately in the city that we are not used to having here. I also do not want to have to stand outside in my yard with my 6 year old children spelling pot smoke over the fence and having to leave my own yard to avoid it. It has too strong of a smell. I have that problem now already. My son and I have asthma and the air quality out here is bad enough without the added problem of personal smoke invading our air space. 53. It's a necessary tool in treating a variety of maladies. Really, there is no threat to increased drug use or crime. 54. I support medicinal use. I do not support adult recreational Prop64. Medically the benefits are very strong i have watched two people pass from different types of cancer and in the end that was one of the only things to help ease the trauma and pain. :-( 55. its 2017! 56. Since cannabis is "legal", all sorts of people will be using the dispensary, not just medical users. It brings an unsavory group to the community which will increase crime and lower property values. Let them open over in Tracy or Pleasanton. 57. I'm a 46 year old mom who doesn't use cannabis or know anyone who does. If a legitimate doctor has prescribed cannabis to a patient they should not have to travel miles away to get it. Help provide those in need with a safe place to obtain their medication. Not all people who use cannabis are "druggies" and our community will be better if there was a local dispensary. 58. Cannabis has been proven over many years to pretty benign and new laws are not needed. We already have too many laws on the books as it is. 59. I should not be forced to drive to Hayward or San Jose to get my medicine. I should be able to shop on the town I live in...Allowing the funds and taxes I spend to go to our city...Not anyone elses. Money raised could be earmarked for school...Or city repairs...Or homelessness in our city just like Colorado does. Thanks for listening! 60. The people of California voted to legalize Cannabis. why would they City government restrict access? Livermore citizens could be developing a Cannabis industry side by side with its winery industry. 61. This is my home. I want to be able to obtain the medicine of my choice with out leaving the trivalley for more urban areas. Delivery services can be very helpful for when i am not able to leave my home but many of them are nothing more than drug dealers manipulating the legal system. I believe a dispensary should be allowed to operate as a delivery as well for livermore and surrounding cities.

215 62. I think the legalization of marajuana is a huge step in the right direction. Marajuana has many, many great and important uses for people. It's a natural plant for goodness sake! I think it is being judged much like I'm sure alcohol was judged when it first became legal, but alcohol has far worse side affects. I am 100% FOR a marajuana dispensery in our community! 63. Despensaries should be zoned the same way that liquor stores are 64. Definitely do NOT support a medical cannabis dispensary. This is exactly how the cannabis community works. First it's about medical reasons then it's about let's legalize for any reason. 65. The health benefits for critically ill patients is something that cannot be ignored. Some people need canabis for for pain and for healing. 66. This is a legal business.... get city government out of the way and let people conduct legal commerce. It is not the city's job to legislate morality. And Cannabis is proven to be medically beneficial so it doesn't matter what other residents think. 67. I support medical marijuana because it has so many medical benifits. I have known people close to me go into remission after smoking/ingesting marijuana for cancer. It is great for depression, PTSD, anxiety, insomnia and many more medical conditions. 68. Medical Marijuana is an important and relevant treatment now for many health issues. We voted to allow recreational use as well in the last election and we should be ready for that as well. 69. Allow recreational too. To deny the city the windfall of tax money it will generate is just stupid. Recreational use is now legal. Recreational dispensaries will be a dime a dozen in 2018. Get with the program Livermore, get that money and deliver back to the residents of Livermore in the form of reduced taxes, noticeable and outlandish improvements to the schools and community parks and facilities. Make Livermore look rich and the people who are "against" cannibis and its dispenseries will become silent. Once people see what all that money can do for them, they won't care about whatever anecdotal and ill conceived reasons they have for being opposed. 70. I believe with special attention paid to who or what businesses receive approval to operate, we can have a very positive, safe and functional dispensary or dispensaries in Livermore. I would imagine that this industrial area would be a great location for commericial cultivation as well, and that may be another area that Livermore can progress into the marijuana businesses of the future and i would imagine increase revenue of the city! With close attention paid to security and surveillance, I dont think there would be a problem with crime. 71. Yes please! Id rather give my money to Livermore business than antioch and san jose. 72. Having access to medical marijuana is crucial to my quality of life. As a burn survivor who's sustained 3rd degree burns on 35% of my body, cannabis helps me manage my PTSD and epidermis/nerve pain. Holistic Harvest is my go to place! Jeremy is knoweldgeable about treating specific health issues and provides affordable and effective products. I highly support opening a dispensary in a Livermore! There are many residents who would medically benefit and I hope my elected officials will also make this determination. 73. I get deliveries from Holistic Harvest. The owner and operator is a Livermore native and very knowledgeable on medicinal marijuana treatments. I have serious health problems and him and my doctors have really going what works for me. 74. There are enough marijuana dispensaries in the state. There is no need to bring that type of element to the city of Livermore. 75. This is a no-brainer - the City of Livermore should be involved in growing changes with medical and recreational marijuana access.

216 76. I belive cannabis can be used medically and if controlled and regulated would only strengthen Livermore as a community 77. Please don't permit this! Livermore is such a great city, and think the space could be used more constructively. More wineries, restaurants, shops ECT. 78. I totally support medical cannabis. 79. With the pending legalization of marijuana recreational use, it seems silly not to allow medical dispensaries. We should capture as much of the tax revenue as possible. 80. Having a very professional delivery service such as Holistic Harvest would be a great benefit to all patients. They help guide us through the process and make it easy. They are Livermore natives and we should not have outside influences running a dispensary here. Keep it in Livermore and it will be a great success for all of us. 81. I totally support it and I would like to see a legal cannabis dispensary in Livermore. 82. Why is the presence necessary in Livermore? Is the city that desperate for cash flow? Are you trying to find another way to finance the Bankhead? The people who want the "medical grade" cannibis can travel to Dublin to get it. 7 miles shouldn't hamper them from obtaining the drugs. The closest physician who prescribes is out there as well. The city has enough problems. Help the people in the homeless encampments. Stop the drug deals outside the safeway and downtown parking garage. Get control of the current problems before you welcome new ones. If you want to see what happens, take a trip out to Denver. Dispensaries, mattress shops and pawn shops in every strip mall. Just sad and pathetic. For shame! 83. Medical marijuana dispensaries should not be allowed in the city, let alone directly adjacent to two of the nation's federal laboratories. 84. Do NOT support dispensaries...Do support strong controls to limit location, much like was done for strip clubs.. 85. A dispensary will bring more crime to the city. My family is adamantly opposed to the city adopting an ordinance to allow a dispensary. 86. I am a huge cannabis advocate. As a mom and working professional I break many of the typical stigmas associated with cannabis and am happy to speak up about the medical benefits. I 100% support a dispensary in Livermore and what's sad is that most of the people who would voice an opposition are so undereducated in where cannabis is today. 87. IF PROPERLY REGULATED, this could be a benefit to many people in the community. 88. We are a town known for alcohol -- which is shown to be medically harmful and was previously illegal through prohibition. Let's move into 2017 and allow for dispensing medically helpful cannabis and be a forerunner on this issue while reaping the financial benefits through taxes. 89. It's legal and I have no problem with it. I dont use cannabis but I have no problem with it. 90. It would bring in much needed tax revenue. There are a number of delivery services here already, but I know for a fact that having a building that people can walk into will generate much more. At the moment I go all the way to Berkeley if I'm going to go to a dispensary. Would be awesome if I could walk to one. 91. It's a "No brainer". 92. I support it because everybody uses it anyway so we might as well have it available here. 93. I do not support the use of marijuana for any reason and feel that dispensaries would be detrimental to livermore. 94. NO, NO, NO 95. We don't need it. Let them go somewhere else. The crime associated with it (regardless of everyone's opinion) is not worth the risk. It's getting bad enough here. NO MORE!

217 96. I think dispensaries should be in both east and west ends of the city to serve people on both sides of the city. 97. I am not in support of breaking federal laws. 98. I am fine with those who need it but dont put a dispensary in livermore. That will attract more people who cheat to get the medical use to come here. 99. Legal cannabis sales will reduce reason for there to be crime. 100. As an educator and therapist, I have seen a tremendous abuse of medicinal marijuana and marijuana cards. As an educator who knows the negative impact on individual's physical and mental health, I've seem poor judgement such asdriving under the influence. I don't want this is my community. As I stated earlier, most people in my experience don't have medical conditions that require a card. This brings something we don't need in Livermore. We already fight people smoking publicly and in our parks and I don't want their access to increase. It sends a wrong message. Thank you. 101. I feel it can help alot of different medical conditions. I have Parkinsons and I am going to ask my Dr. what he thinks about using it for my condition. 102. I have seen first hand how it affects and changes a person. Several friends as a matter of fact. This should not be allowed in the city, county, or state. It is bad for the anyone who uses it. 103. For chemo and glaucoma patients, cannabis has been successful in patients feeling better. BUT, we need to make sure that only people with medical reasons come to Livermore and not for recreational purposes. 104. I work in SF, and since prop 47 and the increase in dispensaries, I have seen a HUGE increase in street and property crimes in the areas around them. I sincerely hope Livermore takes this into consideration. If the people in need of "medicine" they should be able to travel to Oakland or SF 105. While I believe medical marijuana use can be beneficial for a group of patients who have legitimate need, I believe the abuses by many without true medical need far outweigh the benefits. 106. I travel to Oakland to buy my CBD oil, why shouldn't our own city benefit from the sale of these products? The dispensary I go to in Oakland (Harborside) is very clean, professional & safe. Livermore needs it's own dispensary, many people sick with cancer and other diseases benefit greatly from medical marijuana. 107. Please keep this industry out of Livermore. Once the door is opened, no turning back is possible. Just like localized gambling and Indian gaming. Like medical marijuana, gambling provides revenue to a city but brings a ton of unwanted other effects. Let's not sanitize the subject by calling it cannabis. It's marijuana. Much of the "medical" users up to now are really just "recreational" users who have obtained permits in the past through lax regulations, enabling health professionals, or outright fraud. Leave the genie in the bottle! 108. It's a plant and it is everywhere at the moment in CA. Legal dispensaries and delivery services cut out gangs and put the money into the pockets of the community. Not allowing dispensaries and delivery services will keep the money in the black market. The black market down want play by the rules and doesn't pay the fees legal businesses pay. Not legal place to get it locally will not make cannabis go away. It just adds to the problem of illegal operations that are looking for money wherever they can get it I.e. minors. Also lab testing is done on products sold legally. A safe place to get safe MEDICINE is a must. Better the community and get off the propaganda fed to us by old racist morons. Do the right thing. 109. This is something I believe our city can do if well planned. It would generate income and is a benefit t members of the community. I feel strongly that it is away from the 'center' of town and do believe it should be properly monitored. In Oakland, there is a security guard outside during business hours. 110. We have enough riff raff in the city. No need to draw more in. Anyone can get a medical cannabis card. What a joke to those it can really help.

218 111. I do not think it is a good idea to bring this to Livermore. 112. I think the added tax revenue should stay in Livermore. 113. Marijuana dispensaries bring the wrong crowd into the city. It's been proven over and over again that any pot head can go find a crooked doctor to write them a script. We don't need this in our city. Let them go somewhere else. 114. Too easy for anyone to get Medical Prescription on internet . My dog can get one. Neighbors have one and have 1 year old in proximity. Unsafe. 115. Some people need it. Others have medical cards for dumb reasons and just like to smoke it. Now that the state has legalized it I think it is important to have an actual medical dispensary. The medical patients may not feel comfortable going to the adult use locations when they start popping up. I don't think it will affect the crime rate. Eventually selling weed will be taken out of the criminals hands. And probably into big Tobacco. 116. Listen to the lessons learned in Colorado. You need an easy, cheap way to test intoxication. Limits need to be set that the police are willing to enforce. While it would be great to get the tax money from the sale of marijuana, safety is way more important. No high drivers! 117. I do not support any types of drug in Livermore. We will have that people driving stone in this city. The plannification commite in this tow only open the door to storage business next to trailor communities and residence. And now cannabis wake up livermore create more cultural art intead of drugs. Is time for another mayor. Need to go! 118. The rampant obtaining of medical cards fraudulently, bring this dangerous drug within reach of the youth. No way in this town!!! 119. Don't put the dispensary in some industrial area where it can not be seen or quickly and frequently monitored by the police. How about the underused shopping center on Pacific Avenue. It would be easily available to patients and on the radar of the police to protect customers from becoming the victims of crimes. 120. Crime rates would increase. It's too easy to get a medical card and many people abuse the drug. 121. i do not support medical cannabis in Livermore. i do not believe it will be regulated properly. and for who truly need "medical" cannabis...i think they are quietly using it. once it's it is legal itvwill be abused. 122. I believe Livermore should approve a medical cannabis dispensary. In my opinion having a dispensary is safer and more regulated than having a delivery service, which the city residents currently use. Having a dispensary will also help generate tax revenue. I do believe a zone is necessary, for a couple of reasons. First being the peace of mind of people who do not understand the drug and its benefits. Second to maintain the city's reputation to people who are uneducated. I do not believe there is an abnormally large security risk to neighborhoods or their residents. 123. Marijuana is legal in the state of California. With that being said, restricting local residents from getting their medicine in their home town is wrong. Us as livermore residents should not have to go to unsafe cities (such as Oakland/San Francisco) to get medicine. 124. Although I do support Prop 64 and believe in the positive effects of cannabis on medical patients. I do not want a dispensary in the city of Livermore. 125. Dear god please don't do it 126. I completely support Medical Cannibis

219 127. I think that a segment of the population wants a more holistic approach to health and would like to get off the pharmaceuticals to manage pain/illness. These people are looking for both factual information and medicine. It is difficult to obtain this when everything is so secretive. There are MANY people here in Livermore that are using medical cannabis and they shouldn't have to travel to other cities to obtain what is already legal. I like the fact that there are dispenssaries that deliver, but it would be nice to go into a shop and talk to knowledgeable people and buy medicine with no stigma attached 128. I think it's reasonable to have a dispensary here, with our population and size. I have no problem with it. 129. If we have to have one, I think it should be in the industrial side of town, and a satellite police station next door to or. I'd rather not have it in Livermore, period. 130. I am a teacher in Hayward and, unfortunately, almost every high school student has a medical card because Doctor's sell them for $40 in Oakland. The biggest user in Hayward are children. I can find no justification for exposing Livermore's children to this life destroying drug. If people want an Oakland lifestyle then they need to move there. 131. Instead of making residents spend money at dispensaries in other counties, keep the money here on Livermore. 132. This is an opportunity for the city to step up and allow a healing center for those in need of medical cannabis, as well as creating a revenue income that should be seriously considered before being tossed off the table. 133. The last thing Livermore needs is a cannabis dispensary. I only know one user with a real need and it is delivered to her door. 134. As a 20 year Livermore resident our town has already seen an increase in illicit activity as our town is the inbetween location for the valley and Oakland. Is the city prepared to take on this type of business? More police officers, which we already need without the dispensaries. Let's put the "tax income" aside and keep our city out of the business of getting people high. 135. I do not want to have cannibus dispenseries in Livermore. We have enough crime from people from Oakland and the valley using Livermore as their "halfway" point to deal dope. Keep it out of here!!!! 136. I am a home health aide and have seen the benefits of medicinal marijuana used for medical purposes. 137. What are the requirements for those who are applying for medical cannabis? How do we know it's a requirement for their medical condition, versus being used for recreational use? Also, what studies have been done regarding increase in crime rates in locations where cannabis dispensaries are located? Why not have medical cannabis delivered to those who require it for their medical condition? All these questions should be answered and the results made available to the public before a dispensary is allowed. It also seems that Livermore residents should be allowed to decide whether cannabis dispensaries are allowed or not, rather than politicians making that decision for them. 138. There is no reason that a permitted business should not be able to sell a product held by the State of California to be legal and unrestricted to those seeking to purchase it. There is far more harm done to our citizens by alcohol and tobacco products which are accessable nearly everywhere within the city limits. Resist the prohibition on marijuana that is undoubtedly being promoted by those who know nothing about it. 139. I know of at least two people with medical marihuana cards that they got through dr shopping. I don't want people like that in my neighborhoods 140. Zoning the business in the industrial district is inconvenient. You have liquor stores, and tobacco stores all over the city. Each is far more harmful than cannabis. Allow it. Regulate it. But they should be allowed to open anywhere. Just like any other business.

220 141. I think there are other alternatives, and should not come to our community. Save our moral values. 142. I do not support a medical cannabis dispensary anywhere near the so called "industrial " area as it appears to be in my "backyard!" Keep your medicinal marijuana away from Livermore where the homeless population is growing daily, enough already!! 143. Too easy for anyone to get medical prescription for marijuana 144. As a person living with multiple sclerosis I have found cannabis to be an extremely effective medication for me . 145. It has medical benefits, however, I do know that quite a few people have medical cards and do not need them....so somehow, that needs to be addressed. 146. Medical Cannabis should be obtained in a doctors office alone - not through dispensaries - else will attract bad crowd as well since these can be obtained by false measures. 147. No. Just no. I do not agree with using an illegal substance as medicine. In existing dispensaries, it is far too easy to obtain it for what I consider questionable "medical" use. We do NOT need this in Livermore! 148. Livermore has enough problems with gangs, transients and all the dopers. They also have problems with the bars downtown. Now you want to add to the problem? Marijuana IS a gateway drug. There are already problems with people smoking in their vehicles which means they are driving under the influence. You guys are short on police officers anyway, this will affect the community dramatically and there aren't enough officers now. It's bad enough there is a vape store and a tattoo parlor in Springtown that bring out the felons from Springtown Inn and Motel 6 why doesn't the city just buy a few abandoned houses and turn them into crack houses? This city needs a major cleanup that can only be accomplished by hiring more officers to work with the community in problem areas. This city is turning into a Hayward and your problem children are going to Pleasanton and Dublin to commit crimes. 149. I do not support an ordinance allowing dispensaries in our community. No matter what part of town you re-zone to allow this type of business, you will receive complaints. There are plenty of other city's where people can go purchase it. Let those City's be the first to manage the trial and errors. There are far more important projects and initiatives that staff should be working on. If ultimately the City goes down this path, I would thoroughly recommend conditioning the businesses (and operators) as best you can so staff can review, modify, suspend and/or revoke without having to go back to Council each time. Consider giving your Zoning Administrator or City Manager the authority. As a resident and mother of two young kids, this is not what I want in my community. 150. I don't see any reason why the city should not allow a cannibis dispensary and loose out on possible tax revenue. 151. Floral Elements has been a safe and compassionate delivery provider for past year for me! They are very responsible and friendly people! 152. The Floral element Delivery service is the best in town for my medical cannabis. they really care about there patients. 153. I don't support medical cannabis dispensary because more people are using this as a way to support their recreational cannabis consumption. It is way to easy to get a medical cannabis card to allow recreational use. As more people become cannabis users and the area around the dispensary or the downtown area start to have issues associated with recreational use it creates problems for our police dept. or the police dept. stops dealing with issues around this because it becomes a no win situation. 154. Please choose Floral Element Flowers as the growers and store operators, I own a catering business in town and after long days of standing I depend on the strains that Floral grows, pharma drugs destroy my insides and leave me restless at night. Adam has helped me so much and deserves to get this permit, thank you for your time.

221 155. Thank you for asking for our input. I strongly believe that medical cannabis is beneficial for healing patients. I also believe that in many cases it is more healthful than chemical prescriptions available. CBD oils, hemp oils, and the like have been scientifically proven to have healing benefits, and as such, I would welcome the dispensaries in my neighborhood to make the natural medicine more readily available. 156. I do support a medical cannabis dispensary in Livermore. Without the option of delivery services, the nearest dispensaries are around a 45 minute drive away. I would like to specifically mention The Floral Element as my choice for a potential dispensary. I have been a customer for over a year now and think they would be a great choice to serve Livermore's medicinal cannabis patients. 157. Science shows it can be medically beneficial. 158. These facilities medical or not always bring a criminal elrment to the area of operation. You can expect more robberies and burglaries in and around the area as well as a lower quality of life for those who reside in the area due to the type of people who frequent these places. 159. I have been a medical cannabis patient for number of years and have been looking for a reliable service that I can use that is close to me.The Floral Element is the only delivery service I have used that makes me feel comfortable and confident in the products I am receiving. I have used anti-anxiety medications for nearly my whole life, the side-effects were unbearable and I was so happy to find medical cannabis to help. I would be so ecstatic to see the Floral Element as my local dispensary, the products they grow themselves are phenomenal quality and have given me so much relief with my anxiety and appetite relief. 160. Opening a medical dispensary would be very beneficial to the people and patients of Livermore. The only reason someone would disagree is because of fear. The fear of the unknown 161. The one concern about locating the medical marijuana dispensary is how difficult it might be for patients to access it. Perhaps making certain the chosen site is on a bus route would make sense. 162. Many use medical cannibis as an alternative to dangerous and addictive prescription drugs. They should be easily accessible. 163. 10,000 will die of accidental overdose of perscription opioid based drugs this year, even more will become addicted. Pain management through caniboids can prevent these deaths and allow people to manage their pain in a safer non-addictive manner. 164. I'm writing to show my support for the Floral Element, these kind souls have helped me get off of 7/10 of my arthritis medications in the past years. They are compassionate, professional, and dedicated to bringing high quality and lab tested cannabis to their home, my son went to high school with Adam and he is just a class act. He treated his own father with CBD last year through his failing battle with cancer, the kid deserves it. Please make the right choice. 165. Adam and the team at the Floral Element have been a shining star in my recently dark world, my husband passed away from cancer this past year and I am a lightning strike survivor, we have 4 kids the youngest with special needs. These people not only gave us 50% off of everything to ease our pain, they always took the time to throw in extras for us to try, took the time to care about my kids (they've brought fruits, veggies, toys). It is making me cry thinking about these great people not being able to thrive in our community, there should be no other choice to grow and operate in Livermore, you've found your people and they are amazing!! 166. My Mother and myself ONLY use the CBD flower that the Floral Element grows, if this is taken away from our community we will be forced to use another company that cannot guarantee they have the products we need that we can TRUST. There are too many people not doing this the right way and Floral is, please make them your choice. Thank you!

222 167. Please choose the Floral Element as your permitted growers and storefront operators. My daughter has unexplainable migraines that doctors couldn't figure out, and it actually took a doctor from Kaiser in Pleasanton to refer me to the Floral Element due to their success and excellence in customer care with cannabis. Adam sat with me for hours over the last year to help us, we will be devastated if we lose them. 168. Sometimes non sick people buy marihuana too at these dispensaries. Pretty much anyone who has a little bit of cash can get a medical card. So then you have the drug addicts and dealers also hanging out at these places. I know this because there are 2 illegal ones in Livermore that I've seen already and reported them and the police has still to do something about it. 169. With my condition worsening I depend on the CBD and Indica strains that Floral Element grows, my MS is getting worse and I depend on this as a local patient. Please choose them when making this decision, thank you! 170. I had a friend who has since passed away. He had cancer, and medical marijuana helped him. He had to go to another city to obtain his medicines, because it was not allowed in his town. I watched how hard that was for him--already very ill-- to have problems obtaining a medicine that actually gave him more relief than the narcitics prescribed for pain did. It was sad to see, and I am certain many others have similar issues as they get sicker and driving is more difficult. 171. Medical marijuana dispensaries are a good idea as long as for those reasons an alternative to Medical medicine not recreational use with the recent law change I'm afraid medical marijuana will be abused. I'm all for having a dispensary it must be only for a medically approved by a doctor Client Services only..since i use medical marijuana currently through delivery service I would most likely remain a private patient through medical delivery I don't care to walk through a door of a dispensary unless there is something unavailable to delivery that was better assist in my condition. 172. I do not think that Livermore should have a dispensary. It may bring the unwanted to our hometown city. 173. A dispensary will increase crime. 174. I fully support medical Marijuana because I am a cancer patientvm & prefer this oprions compared to narcotics. 175. I think a good look into the pro's and con's of a medical cannabis dispensary and maybe talk with city's who have dispensaries and see if they notice any ill affects of having one in there town. Would they approve it again? 176. Should be picked up at a pharmacy just like any other DRUG thru your Dr. All pharmacys should carry or not permitted in the county. 177. I supported a dispensary because I prefer people NOT traveling to other cities to bring their marijuana home to Livermore. Keeping the taxes local to the city for the local users and not having people driving stoned because they have to drive so far to pick up their marijuana. People are going to get their marijuana somewhere, better be in our city with regulation then on the black market or going out of town to drive back in, and I really don't like that delivery services are coming from out of town so the money spent is leaving town. I truly believe a dispensary would reduce the amount of black market sales going on in places like parks and the paths off vasco. 178. As long as it's run for medical purposes only, I don't have a problem with having a dispensary in our community. 179. People need it and they will get it anyway, even if they have to do it illegally. It shouldn't be a crime and if it is, it is a victimless crime. At least we don't have dealers working the streets or out of homes in neighborhoods.

223 180. My wife is a Cancer survivor and had cannabis pills prescribed to her by Kaiser during Chemo. So I am supportive of the benefits of Cannabis to aid/help patients, but I hesitate due to chemical contamination of the Cannabis. In a recent random testing from other Bay Area dispensary every sample contained carcinogens which exceeded state standards, thus putting patients at risk of other medical issues leading to death. I feel this area of the Dispensary is not regulated well and could further harm a patient and for this reason alone, I cannot support this for Livermore. If it proceeds then additional regulation should be imposed at a local city level. Note: I have worked in the healthcare industry for the past 15 years. 181. I believe Livermore residents who need medical canabis deserve local stores to serve their needs. 182. With TWO national science laboratories in Livermore both of which employ workers that have security clearances and are therefore prohibited from any contact with Schedule 1 drugs it is a very bad idea to attempt removing the existing prohibition. 183. Put it this way, what if the closest kaiser was 45 mins away, your option is to drive 45 mins to pick up your heart medicine or pay at 15% upcharge to have it delivered to you ... wouldn't you agree just to open a new kaiser here ? Just saying ... from a responsible cannabis user 184. I voted No for the proposition and so my vote stands for anything within city limits. 185. I absolutely do not support a marijuana dispensary in Livermore whether it is for medical purposes or not. No matter what lawmakers say, legalizing marijuana makes it more accessible to minors and I certainly do not think having a dispensary in Livermore will benefit the community in any way at all. 186. I am certain that the use of marijuana is beneficial to those patients that truly need it....cancer, glaucoma, other terminal illnesses, but I recently moved out of a neighborhood where the individual had a medical permit to grow up to 8 plants for his chronic back pain. He had 18 and above young adults in and out of his house on a regular basis, sitting around smoking all day. When the police came to check on them, they found they all had medical issued permits to smoke. My daughter has told me that some doctors for 100.00 will issue them for the most minor of issues....anxiety, headaches. I don't feel there is enough control or overnsight on how the permits, or medical licenses are handed out and too many individuals are smoking while driving. I believe this marijuana issues is a direct link to young adults not working, stealing packages of porches, breaking into mailboxes and other minor to moderate crimes. Second off - a lot of houses were just constructed over off Brisa and there may be a 1000 foot buffer but I think that the families that just purchased those homes would not have bought had they known you would be placing a dispensery over there. I believe they are still constructing as we speak. I wish Livermore would think a little harder on what brings crime to our city or acts as a jumping off point for crime before jumping in with both feet all for the sake of a dollar! 187. Cannabis is so helpful for my arthritis 188. I don't believe cannabis is medically necessary, and it has unhealthy side effects. 189. There are more people who do not have a medical issue who obtain a medical rx in order to use these dispensaries. We don't need this in Livermore. Livermore is already experiencing high crime and problems with the homeless. For once, let Dublin open a dispensary. Although there are high standing citizens who use these dispensaries, but Livermore doesn't need this and Dublin is near. Pleasanton stays nice by not allowing the dispensaries, homeless, etc. Go visit a dispensary and see some of the cretins that hang around them. We don't need a marijuana dispensary in Livermore! 190. Let Pleasanton take it on. I do not want this anywhere in Livermore. If this is allowed I will go out of my way to make sure every single person on the Board is voted out. Not acceptable at all.

224 191. Safety of city residents Please do not allow Our officer have a hard enough time with our current problems We are beginning to clean up our town let's continue forward and not backward Thank you 192. Don't like to travel into industrial areas - not enough people (like in downtown) feels unsafe for me to go. Would prefer more commercial area where others are "looking" too. 193. I've had the unique past experience where I've both worked and lived near areas where dispensaries were newly developed. In both instances there was a noticeable drop off in area quality or inability to develop. Crime became more common, of the minor nature fortunately, but it was clear there was a certain flow of the visitors. I've been hearing of people coming to Livermore from other cities to conduct criminal activities and I fear this would only perpetuate it. It's unfair to say I am completely against it. I understand the tax boon that could help our city grow but the steps needed to ensure it doesn't increase criminal activity not stunt our development are very precise. Unless there is a clear cut plan, taking into account studies done on other cities that have done the same, I would have to vote No 194. I don't care if this is legal in California or not, I have no interest in bringing it to my neighborhood EVER! Do you watch TV, Have you ever seen when the reporters film in these places, they may be medical dispensaries, but it looks like a bunch of pot heads having a great time getting away with something they shouldn't be doing to start with. SO PLEASE, FORGO THE TAX MONEY YOU ARE DESPERATLY LOOKING FOR AND DO NOT ALLOW POT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE THE NEXT ONES TO BE BOOTED OUT OF CITY COUNCIL. THIS MEANS YOU SPEDOWSKI AND WARNER! 195. This is no good. It puts all Livermore citizens at risk. Ask yourself if you would allow this next door to your residence and if it's ok then great, vote for it. If not say no! 196. Do not allow this in our city! More traffic than Costco for it's size. Distrupts all local businesses. Go to San Jose and sit front of any dispensary there and just watch. Not in our town and understand both Dublin and Pleasanton don't want it either. Can be supplied by mail. 197. We already have enough problems keeping the city safe and secure. We should not willingly invite this into our city. Please go spend an hour in the parking lot near one of these facilities in another city before even considering this. Do you really want this in our city? 198. I don't truly understand the need for medical cannabis dispensaries. If the thought is to support access to cannabis for medical reasons, why not have patients get their prescriptions filled at pharmacies which I would hope already has the knowledge and experience to ensure public and patient safety. 199. Depends on location. City has built a lot of high density homes in the industrial zone on the east side of town. Does not seem like that area is all that industrial anymore. By airport or further from homes perhaps. And what guarantees will be in place to ensure it remains a medicinal not recreational outlet? So many have fake cards not sure it really means much. 200. Not in Livermore 201. I do not support a cannabis dispensary in the city of Livermore, for any reason. It should be controlled medically by a pharmacist, in a drugstore environment, same as any other prescribed drug. 202. I feel medical cannabis dispensary would be beneficial for the residents that need it for medical. With all the bay area traffic very stressful for people that have medical issues . 203. Having to drive to Hayward to obtain medication is crazy when I can go sown the street to get alcohol that really has no medical benefit? Asking other to drive to me from out of town just adds cars to the freeways! 204. Brings in people that use it for recreation. Too many people driving "high" after leaving the dispensary.

225 205. Livermore is a quaint cute town. That will lose its charm, if it allows the legal sale of drugs. And expects respect for enforcement against drug users and the sale of drugs. Let the doctors despense marajuana to treat those in need. 206. none 207. Because statistics show that crime goes up in the areas dispensing cannabis....the city of Livermore already has enough problems with homeless people, we certainly don't need a cannabis dispensary to add this "growth" 208. Still not allowed by Federal Government. Will just bring the wrong crowd that follow these places. 209. Please don't put one here in beautiful Livermore. Let the losers drive to Oakland to get there drugs. 210. Not in favor of having a medical cannabus dispensary in Livermore. 211. Cannabis has proven to have significant utility in treating medical issues; I would support any number of dispensaries in a much more broad area than the current proposed zones. I would also not support restrictions on type or amount of cannabis products which could be sold- flowers/concentrates/extracts/edibles/topicals/sprays/inhalants/etc. all have differing utility to medical patients, and each patient has varying need which may require broadly varied intensities of treatment. The primary risk which arises from cannabis dispensaries is due to the illegal nature of the substance; it is no more risky than a pharmacy, however. Properly licensed and regulated dispensaries are a benefit to the local economy as well as to local citizens. Thank you! Signed, a resident within 1000 yards of the proposed zone (Patterson Pass / Vasco). 212. The location should be near the police station so it can be monitored properly. Also, based on what I've heard, it's been too easy for people to get a medical permit that really didn't need one to support their recreational habits. I'm not in favor of having one in Livermore. 213. I live near the possible dispensary site. It's bad enough we must worry about drivers who just finished wine tasting, we don't need the risk of drivers under the influence of marijuana on the road too. A medical dispensary is a horrible idea and I do not support it. 214. I think there is use for the pain easing benefits of marijuana - both people and pets 215. Put one over on the west side of town too. Like before. 216. I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of so called medical Marijuana. I believe it is a crock of crap, as all of the patients I've seen seen appear to be very healthy, happy and stoned youngsters, hipsters or hippies. Call it what it is, a desire to get high without legal consequences, which as of now, there are none anyway. I don't support an open air pot store in livermore, period. 217. Many of patients have found medical cannabis very useful in their treatment. They shouldn't have to drive so far to get it. 218. I think you guys picked a great area. I have no interest in Pot myself, and want it nowhere near my children, but I think there should be a way for people to somehow get at it safely and legally that is taxed. That area means it isn't near and homes, schools, or churches so I can't see how it will bother anyone provided parking is sufficient. 219. I do feel that there is benefit from medicinal cannabis. My wife and I considered it's use in relieving cramps and as a sleep aid, unfortunately she passed away before we made a decision. She had ALS for which there is no cure. 220. I have seen firsthand the benefits of medical marijuana on patients in need. I have also witnessed the horrible effects of opioid addiction and how destructive that can be for families. There has been some research on how medical marijuana may help those families that have opioid addiction problems. I believe a dispensary or two in Livermore would be a welcome addition for patients within the city limits. I would have some concern about only one dispensary as that might create a monopoly. 221. Should not be allowed in livermore!

226 222. As long as we can keep marijuana out of the hands of children I will support this initiative. 223. We do not need this in our city! Do NOT allow this! If people need medical Marijuana, they can go to the big cities for it. We have enough of a problem of late with lowlifes coming into our town and breaking into mailboxes, automobiles and homes, and stealing our hard earned dollars. We do not need another magnet for people like that! NO to a medical marijuana dispensary in the city of Livermore!! 224. already enough escalation of crime in the city ....this will just add to it ...... everyone knows many Drs who will write medical use ...... so it becomes recreational / criminal 225. Crime is already high in my neighborhood. Cars broken into, packages stolen. Concerned this would entice additional criminal elements to our town, worsening the current problem 226. It is the law - for years. Treat dispensaries like liquor stores. 227. i don't want it around my children. In addition the area around these facilities are dumps and often scary places. 228. Please do not allow this to destroy are city, do not give into the selfishness of drug addiction. 229. i fear our state might move to expand recreational cannabis and distribution will expand 230. There are plenty of cannabis dispensaries around. We really don't feel that our city needs to have any of them here. 231. Livermore is a family town. Lets not ruin the healthy, family-oriented town. We have worked hard to preserve our values. If folks need marijuana, they can travel to Oakland. Definitely not in my backyard!!!! 232. there is a need 233. Livermore has a special place on the map, we are between Tracy and Dublin, Pleasanton and over into Castro Valley. I think keep our city from having a dispensary will direst those that need to outer cities who may have 234. There are no peer reviewed clinical trials showing both efficacy and safety for the treatment of any medical condition using medical marijuana. In addition there are already three prescription medications based upon marijuana: - Marinol and Cesamet: Both drugs are used to treat nausea and lack of appetite related to chemotherapy and in AIDS patients. They are man-made versions of THC, the primary chemical in marijuana that gives users a “high.” Both were approved in the 1980s. - Epidiolex: This drug to treat children’s epilepsy received FDA approval in 2013. Its use is highly restricted. These medications can be prescribed by a patient's doctor. There is no need for medical marijuana. Bottom line: the only reason to get a "weed card" is to get stoned legally. Opening dispensaries in Livermore will only increase crime. 235. Don't follow the crowd keep Livermore drug free. Let the problems that come with having a dispensary go to another city. 236. After seeing firsthand benefits where conventional medications failed I feel it's become a viable option for many people 237. Cannabis is a drug and should not be legalized. The city is looking for trouble by allowing for these dispensaries. Please do not allow this! 238. I support it because I know a number of people who truly benefit from medical Cannabis. If it is done correctly, well implemented, and with properly written statutes, it can be a very safe and useful resource in our community. The proposed location of the industrial Eastern side of Livermore is perfect for such an operation. 239. NO selling of marijuana in Livermore. Too many bad repercussiose will develop. 240. I firmly believe a dispensary in Livermore would greatly help the local residents. 241. I do not think this is a good idea...my concern would be that it would attract undesirable people to our city which in turn would make it less safe. 242. I don't think it's something Livermore should get involved with.

227 243. I think it is important to allow the dispensaries here in Livermore. Otherwise patients go to other cities and the other cities get the taxes. 244. I look at it as a place for healing to begin and life without pain. I think it should be accessible for seniors, people who can't drive, and basically everyone. I have no problem having it in my neighborhood or where I frequent, much like I would welcome an urgent care clinic or Planned Parenthood. The benefits totally outweigh the risks. 245. If its used for medical reasons and prescribed by a doctor, then let the pharmacy networks deal with dispensing the drug. Anything else is just legalizing drug dealers that happen to have a storefront (dispensary). The government will still get the tax revenue. 246. There is no scientific data to justify using Marijuana as a drug. 247. It's legal, it's safe, it's beneficial and it's a lucrative tax source. Why would you not want it? 248. No dope! This is bad for our country! Do not be fooled to think people should be druged to the point they do not feel anything. 249. I have seen medical cannabis help patients with pain and also those going through chemo. I think it is less addicting than opioids and when done legally, a good option. 250. Don't put limits on the amount of edible cannabis product they can have 251. I believe that it is very sad that Prop 64 passed for CA. 252. Medical cannabis is very well known to be used by many for recreational cannabis. Recreational cannabis should not be allowed as there are significant problems / issues as well documented by states such as CO that have legalized it. These problems and issues remain largely unaddressed, for example how to test for impaired driving with recreational cannabis. 253. I do not support Livermore having a cannibis dispensary as it does not fit in with the city. 254. If you allow this into our city - the number of transients will increase. Not to mention that crime will go up. Livermore has seen a surge in crime because it's becoming a meeting point for drug deals - don't make this any worse. Please listen to the people that live here and pay taxes to be here and don't just look at the money and tax benefits from this business that encourages drug use. 255. As a Medical Cannabis Patient. the Floral Element is number 1 place for my medicine. There really nice and care about there patients. 256. The floral element is the number one medical cannabis delivery service in the tri valley. They know how to grow clean cannabis for there patients. 257. Keep this dispenseary!!! 258. Floral Element is a fabulous dispensary and delivers excellent customer service. They would be my #1 choice to grow and operate a dispensary in Livermore. There products are top notch and they even offer organic options. I ask that you please seriously consider allowing Floral Element a dispensary permit so I can continue to have access to a medication that works wonders for me. Thank you! 259. I have Fibromyalgia, migraines and stomach problems that make it hard to eat sometimes at all. I have trouble moving around a lot. Cannabis helps with various things. Including enabling me to eat and move around more so I can do more things with family and friends. Before The FLORAL ELEMENT my mother used to have to drive me to Hayward where I would sit or lean/squat against a wall for up to 45 min. waiting for my turn to be rushed in and out only to end up wandering around an unknown neighborhood looking for my mom since there was NO PARKING allowed around that particular Dispensery in Hayward. The FLORAL ELEMENT has been a Godsend!!! If they are forced elsewhere it will make it much more difficult for me. I don't want to have to go back and forth again it's VERY taxing on my body! Please don't take The FLORAL ELEMENT from us.

228 260. i dont support this line of business in my area. I do believe the use can help pts with certain issues but I have issues with how easy it is to get a card. I dont believe in the medical reasons for obtaining a card for use. this promotes the wrong intent and then brings with it the wrong element of people in our community. 261. I'm not against cannabis for medical purposes, but I don't want a dispensary located in Livermore. Online or mail order should be fine 262. Ive Been medical Patient for a few years the The Floral element is the the best around for my medicine. They grow Clean Medical Cannabis and they care about there patients. 263. Medical cannabis works, so don't make it harder than it needs to be. I think that if the outlet is properly secured, it doesn't matter where it is located. 264. Since California has legalized cannabis use, we should make every effort to make it safely accessible in our community. I appreciate that the City of Livermore's leadership is exploring how best to make this possible. 265. I believe that the City of Livermore needs to permit medical cannabis dispensary within the city to continue to support the health and well-being of the many patients that live within the city limits. One such group "The Floral Element" have proven time and again they are part of the local community and are responsible enough to help drive the city's initial permit program to great successes both from a business and community standpoint. While medical marijuana has always carried a stigma due to unjust federal regulations, recent studies and research has undoubtedly shown the benefits using marijuana to treat various ailments and diseases. 266. Please choose the Floral element as your permitted dispensary, Adam and his team are the only people who consistsntly grow the CBD strains my mother needs for her chemo, I don't trust anyone else, please. These are passionate and trustworthy members of our community and they are your clear choice to operate a dispensary. Thank you! 267. They help many and harm none. I support Floral Element as my preferred provider 268. Floral Element Deliveries is the only delivery service that I use. there strains of flowers are specifically designed for my medical needs. I've tried several other places and none of them have lived up to my expectations. The Floral Element Deliveries service meet and exceed all expectations. 269. I support medical cannabis dispensaries. I recently went through 12 rounds of chemo without the use of medical cannabis to help with the many side effects, I would have been and probably would still be on many prescription drugs. I was so lucky to find Flora Elements, their customer service, knowledge and most of all quality of their product is unrivaled. I hope and pray they stay. 270. I support medical cannabis dispensaries for many reasons. First of all, I recently went through 12 rounds of chemo and without medical cannabis to help with the many side effects that poison brings, I would have been on several prescription drugs. I was so lucky to have found Flora Elements, their customer service, knowledge and most of all quality of product is unrivaled. I hope and pray they stay !!! 271. If it is for medical use then it should be made available in a pharmacy, not in a dispensary. Are the prescriptions for medical cannabis done electronically from a doctors office? This is to be sure there are no forged signatures to acquire cannabis for non-medical uses. 272. I personally have witnessed the medical benefits of cannabis and would like this to be available to people who are in need of other therapeutic option. 273. stop this safety issue from coming to Livermore 274. I support medical cannabis in the City of Livermore. I would specifically choose Floral Element as the main dispensary and grow in Livermore because I trust their company, employees and grow. I have trusted them and used their services for 2 years and very satisfied with their quality of medical cannabis products and service to me as their patient.

229 275. I support medical cannabis in the city of Livermore and have been a long time supporter of The Floral Element Collective. I would choose The Floral Element to be the main medical cannabis collective and grow in the Livermore area. I have ben using their service for multiple years and they are the only dispensary I trust to grow clean proper medical cannabis. Their service and quality of grow is the main reason I go to them only. 276. most card carrying "medical marajuana patients" and the "doctors" who prescribe are not on the up and up. it is HIGHLY abused. My Brother-in-law was a so called "patient", and i saw 1st hand the abuse and destruction. ANYONE can get a card from "doctors" who do not specialize in any way concerning the use of cannabis or have any real understanding or training in regards to it, and are making it available to drug addicts! There are scientific studies that prove cannabis is a gateway drug. if Livermore gets a dispensary, we will have more drug addicted "patients" and their behaviors affecting the safety and family friendliness, and whole character of our city. 277. Cannabis does have positive effects on a number of medical conditions. That is an undebatable fact now. And personal leisurely use of Cannabis is absolutely fine in my opinion. I would like to see a single dose THC level amount guideline such as Colorado has done. Education of it's use will be important as it has been in the dark for so long. But I do not think there should be limits set. And I would like to see Dispensaries that are professional Businesses that are run efficiently. Not a fly by night operation. 278. I have been a Livermore resident for over 10 years, and feel I deserve to have a medical dispensary in my town. I think giving patients options (edibles, plant form) on how they intake the medication is extremely important. We are all different and what works for one person, may not work for another. I have been a customer of Floral Element for close to year and feel they have professionalism, integrity and genuine concern for their patients. They would be a great addition to our Livermore community! 279. The floral element is the number one source of my medical cannabis needs. They grow specific Strains of medicine that help me and they grow constant quality medicine that is hard to find now a days. 280. I've been a medical Cannabis for a few years now and Ive been to these "dispensary" before and Livermore needs a team Like The Floral Element Delivery service who can provide Patients with the right Clean Medicine they need. Livermore has been a great model for the alcohol industry and now it's time for Livermore to show the tri-valley we can do the same for medical cannabis. The Floral Element Delivery service would be the perfect team for this to grow and Operate a dispensary. They seem like they are in it for the Patients and not in it for the money 281. I currently recieve my Medical Cannabis from a local delivery program called FLORAL ELEMENTS. They provide high quality medications that have allowed me to walk again (I suffer from severe low back pain which forced me to retire from my Nursing career). Cannabis relaxes my muscles and dampens my pain enough to allow me to function! I can finally sleep again! Floral Elements employs delivery personnel who are Always professional, responsible, and very knowledgeable. I would strongly support and recommend FLORAL ELEMENTS for any and All Permits that will allow them to open a dispensary in Livermore. They are Super Deserving! Thank You! 282. They take the weed they buy from these toke shops and sell it to other people or share it with their friends for partying. Don't be idiots. Learn from other cities by looking at their schools taking "medicinal marijuana" weed swsy from students every day. 283. I am HIGHLY against any kind of cannabis dispensary in my city, Livermore. I, along with many others oppose this. 284. I am concerned that bringing a medical cannabis dispensary to our town would bring with it a set of problems that our town does not need. 285. I would prefer this not be in Livermore. But the evidence is growing that it is beneficial for an number of difficult to treat medical issues. It seems cruel to make people who are ill have to travel long distances.

230 286. As a registered pharmacist, I do see a place for medical cannabis; HOWEVER, I have always felt the best places for the dispensaries should be near clinics and hospitals. 287. I have worked next to one of this places for 7 years. And have see a lot of things happen in the parking lot and in front of the store. There was security on the property. It helped very little. The repair shop I worked at had cars broken into and theft. Not an issue before the store opened. If you need this then go to an already establish dispensary outside of the tri valley. There is also delivery companies. 288. I presume Livermore would collect tax revenue that is currently going to dispensaries or delivery services in other cities. Also, ease of access for those who need this product (i.e. Cancer patients) 289. If we don't allow it or regulate it, it will still be here with a lot more problems, headaches and police activity. Let's watch it, it is legal, and control it's activity. 290. In an age where we get delivered home many of our purchases, it is probably a better idea to avoid opening dispensaries in cities, and promote the home delivery. Even pharmacies these days are striving to provide online delivery. Even something as simple an innocuous as a nebulizer cannot easily be brought in stores and most people get it deliver to their home. The same could be done with medical cannabis, specially, taking into account the many unintended consequences that come from having a dispensary. Has the city studied how dispensaries affect the real state value of the properties around it? Is there information from the police department of increase of criminal activity, substance abuse, exposure to minors, etc...? I would like to get more information on those matters when it comes to send suggestions to the city. Also, how much money is it going to cost the city to make sure that all the regulations mentioned above are followed? Is that money that could be spared for further investment in schools, transportation and infrastructure? Thank you. 291. I think there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate why these dispensaries are important. We need to strike the right balance between safety, security and health benefits. Properly regulated, this should work. 292. It would be very convenient for me and properly regulate. I imagine it would be a plus, regarding revenue. 293. I used to take 9 morphine pills, several Norco, muscle relaxers (two different ones), anti- depressants, anti-anxiety pills, every day. I now ONLY use medical cannabis, and am able to manage my chronic pain as well, if not better, and without all of the associated side effects of the pharmaceuticals I had been using. I will NEVER go back, and I know others can be helped in the same way. 294. This is an industry that would crest taxes for Livermore. If regulated properly it can be a legitimate and viable business that actually gives back to the community. 295. I support a medical cannabis dispensary. I believe the presence of a medical cannabis dispensary will benefit a large number of patients and offer additional health management options. 296. All the medical marijuana users I know basically use it for recreation. It is a free for all with the medical cannabis cards. You just have to find the right doctor. Also, I have to drive to another city for my vitamins and another for organic food choices, I don't think it's a big deal to ask marihuana users to drive to another town to get marijuana. There is no reason to have one in livermore. I am sure that no matter where you put a dispensary there will be loitering and an indigent element added to the city at least. I would rather not add to the burden on our police force. 297. NO! Increased DUIs, fraudulent permits getting drugs into non medical hands which mean more drugs in circulation in our city! 298. It's a proven fact that crime and other quality of life issues increase dramatically after these dispensaries were allowed in cities across the bay area and the nation. Livermore to say no to all dispensaries. 299. Cannabis should be distributed through pharmacies like all other drugs.

231 300. I moved to this city because it is the ONLY clean, family-oriented city in the Bay Area. I've lived here for nearly 10 years and would hate to see the crime these dispensaries bring with them. Not in Livermore. Not ever. 301. Any dispensary needs to be closely regulated and inspected by the city. The one last year that was shut down was a joke. Run by and frequented by a group that could have come right out of the 60's 302. It's ridiculous that the city has banned dispensaries and also created language in the city code to consider anyone giving medical cannabis to another within city limits are defined as a "collective'. This needs to be fixed.Why are you considering a "medical" dispensary when it's now LEGAL. GET WITH THE TIMES FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! 303. Not in Livermore 304. While I am not personally a medical marijuana patient, I have family that is and have been able to see the benefit first hand. I would like medical marijuana to be accessible to those Livermore residents who need it. 305. Treat this like any other business 306. The people are going to other towns why shouldn't livermore get the benefits from taxes and keep our didn't safer then then having to travel out of the area to get it it's already proven it helped medically I don't understand why it can't be set up here in Livermore I think it would be a good thing . 307. Medical cannabis dispensaries will generate city revenue and provide easy and convenient access to safe locations for users. 308. Please open one here in town as marijuana is used by many. It'll be nice to bring the business here in town as opposed to having a delivery system in the other tri-valley areas! 309. I support a medical, or even a recreational cannabis outlet, as long as the ownership is responsible and respectful of the neighborhood and the business community. Frankly, cannabis is greatly helpful to medical patients with serious issues like cancer and AIDS, and used recreationally, it has less down side than alcohol. It can be abused, of course. I'd probably be more upset about a really sketchy corner liquor store that's selling lots of cheap pints of vodka than a slightly sketchy "medical" marijuana storefront. Both need to be well-kept and not nuisances to the community, and I think cannabis dispensaries are currently highly motivated to be responsible. 310. It's better to allow the dispensary and be able to regulate what is happening. Otherwise it will happen illegally and the city will not be able to regulate (and enjoy the tax benefits). 311. Keep pot dipsensaries out of Livermore. Why are we even considering this. Do you think our neighbor Pleasanton is even considering this issue? Why is Livermore considering this. 312. It is legal now and should be easily obtained by those who need it without having to travel out of town or deal with mail order. 313. Placement should be such that patients who need it can get there -- are they mobile? do they need public transit? Prefer not near schools; prefer you adhere to standard tobacco smoking regulations re: limitations...it is, a more pervasive smelling smoke - but mostly it's smoke! and if tobacco is bad, and vaping is bad, I'd think this would be bad for 2nd'hander's too 314. If this is truly to accommodate the medical needy, dispensaries should be accessible by public transportation. 315. I feel this will have a negative image on Livermore and invite criminal activities. If people want to use medical cannabis, they should be able to get it away from cities and in rural areas. 316. i am ok with allowing the dispensary to sell for recreation as well - for 2018 as per Prop 64 317. Medical cannabis provides relief for many different medical problems and as long as it is legal to use in this state, the residents of Livermore shouldn't have to drive long distances

232 for it. If pharmacys and liquor stores are allowed, there is no reason not to allow medical cannabis dispensaries to operate legal within the city limits.

318. Medical cannabis dispensaries often break regulations and need tight supervision and accountability. If people need cannabis for medical reasons, they should get it from a medical pharmacy. Our police department is already understaffed, crime is on the rise, and I fear that a dispensary will only bring further crime and problems to our community. 319. I don't believe that a medical dispensary will only serve people with a true medical need. it is fairly easy to get a prescription, so just about anyone who wants to get cannabis can and will. 320. NO OUTLETS 321. I do not support any kind of cannabis dispensary as it will ALWAYS be misused as people get medical cannabis authorization then sell it on to people who only want it for recreation. Livermore is one of the few places in Bay Area that is not full of drugs, crime and bad smells, it should not be allowed to turn into Oakland. 322. Medical Marijuana has been proven to treat all sorts of ailments and symptoms of serious ailments providing a higher quality of life without the harmful side affects of most prescription drugs. 323. Do not allow it in our community. It's too easy for people to get a note from a Doctor sayinmg they need it. It'll bring in undiseriables into our community. Already too much crime here. 324. This could be a good source of revenue if properly regulated. If the Police department is for this, then so am I. If they feel they have the power to control and regulate and observe then great. If not, I would say don't do it 325. A necessity for many ill people. 326. To my understanding, there is a cannabis dispenser in Dublin, why do we need one in Livermore? Plus, I believe there are delivery services. I don't support a dispensary in Livermore. I moved to Livermore to get away from crime and drugs so my kids wouldn't be effect by such an environment. And although I think some people benefit from medical cannabis, I also know plenty of individuals who are fraudulent in their claims in needing medical cannabis. I don't agree and don't want it here. 327. I have a medical cannabis card & i find it very helpful to have dispeneries close by. i love using the delivery service, but sometimes that's not an option. 328. It would be to readily available for teens in our community. If you need it, you can find a way to have them deliver it to you at home without changing our City ordinances. 329. I have been a prop215 card holder since 2003, and a patient of the Floral Element since early 2014. I would ONLY recommend them as the collective to represent this industry in my hometown. Adam and his crew grow impeccable products, have more connections to the industry than any other service, and the entire team lives in this valley. The level of dedication to helping people is unparalleled, customer service is top tier, and they are the only service I have allowed in my home. I don't want to see the shady Tree of Life /Elevated group people who already operate illegally in the area to have a chance at this, please make the right decision. Thank you 330. If the prices are too high patients will continue to have it delivered or go some where wlse. Don't over tax the dispensary. 331. Right not the process for obtaining a medical cannabis card is joke. If and when it is determined that cannabis is medically effective, the prescription process should be the same as other controlled substances. That way they can regulate doctors who prescribe cannabis for stupid stuff like headaches.

233 332. There are already 2 legal drugs allowed: Alcohol & Nicotine. We do NOT need a 3rd one made legal. 2 are bad enough and do plenty of damage to people's health. I am a medical professional who has to deal with health issues caused by legal drug abuse on a daily basis! 333. I have visited areas in Washington and Colorado where dispensaries are located. The surrounding areas were blighted and felt unsafe with adults loitering and appearing to be up to no good. 334. Keep the drugs and potheads out of livermore 335. I am not for a dispensary inLivermore. My grandfather used cannibas for his severe skin condition. I am around children who use it for their terminal illnesses. I am slightly familiar with the good it can do for some. In my opinion. If it's for medical use, it should be treated as such. A RX should be given and picked up at a pharmacy. Those are all over and have been placed and built to handle all medications. This will also cut back on strangers randomly coming into livermore. If we live in livermore and our Dr. Is here We don't randomly go to Danville to pick up our RX. Clearly, I'm missing something... not sure why we need dispensarys when the proper stores already exist. I hope Livermore does their homework and extensive research on this subject. It has a lasting and not always good (even with the money it brings) effect on a town as my inlaws have learned in Colorado. thank you very much for asking! I appreciate that. Good luck we will be crossing our fingers and following you on this topic. - your neighbor and voter 336. I do no want pot in our city. I do not want it in our state. All we need are more people driving around stoned in our city.? 337. Getting a medical RX card for cannabis is way too easy and thus many, many people are abusing it. I don't want our city to attract people who my drive, ride or work under the influence. I just think that these types of dispensaries invite crime, DUIs, and frankly, the kind of people we don't need in Livermore. Further, Greenville Road is the gateway to the eastern edge of our wine tasting area. Do we really want a cannabis store being one of the first things a visitor sees and maybe the last, when a person who is high drives out of Greenville and kills someone? 338. do not allow one in the city of livermore 339. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I appreciate it. 340. Medical cannabis has been available in other communities for many years. Apparently, it is not a serious problem for "patients". I also think many people get Rx's from doctors who do not need the treatment, thus it is abused. 341. There are many dangerous aspects of marijuana use that are never discussed in these situations. I definitely don't want this in Livermore. Thank you 342. Do not allow these in Livermore. The issues surrounding this type of business, even medical is not conducive to the family environment that exemplifies this city. If you think it is so necessary to have this type of business then put it closer the medical buildings or downtown and not near the freeway. 343. I'm strongly opposed to this. I don't believe we have enough of a police force to regulate and follow up on the problems this will occur. 344. My major concern is crime associated with cannabis in general. I am also concerned one turns into more than one like a regular pharmacy and also the security issues that seem to arise with cannabis dispensaries. I don't want one causing more robbery/theft issues than we are already having in Livermore. People come from out of town for these already; I don't want to add cannabis to the mix! 345. Observe and learn from the negatives and positives from other cities' licensed dispensaries to form a sensible and workable basis for Livermore's ordinance. With proper planning, Livermore can support a successful, safe and legal dispensary. I think the industrial area on the east end of the city is a good location, as only people who have business in the area ever go there anyway - this area is not a center of general public congregation.

234 346. I've known folks to obtain a medical cannabis permit but they use it for recreational purposes . Concerned about the character of folks that will be brought to the Livermore area 347. Don't want any of this here in Livermore. I also own a small business downtown and don't want to see any of this come into our small town. Focus on what we do well- wine and hospitality. 348. I do not use cannabis medically or recreationally, but I know many people who do. I have seen definite positive results for the people in my life who use medical cannabis. 349. Without knowing the pros and cons in detail, these are my best guesses. 350. SUPPORT: Close family members use CBD (non THC) cannabis oils for Chron's disease. Medical research has shown that much of the non THC is beneficial w/o getting high. Put the dispensary close to the police station to intimidate overuse/abuse. Keep away from industrial areas as this is just asking for trouble. Keep it close to normal businesses to acceptable & normal behavior. Make the permit conditional so associated undesired behaviors can trigger a shut down if increased arrests or strange events wrt cannabis use occur. 351. It will become legal in California within a year thanks to recently passed state proposition. By not allowing them in Livermore, you are effectively sending tax money to other cities. I know many Livermore residents that benefit from medicinal marijuanna yet spend their money in other cities like San Jose, Hayward, Oakland, and San Francisco aside from other means. Allowing a dispensary via ordinance would be a great step in creating more revenue for Livermore instead. If you would like more information on what a clean, regulated, legal, and safe cannabis dispensary looks like, please visit Purple Lotus Patient Center in San Jose. As someone who has lived in Livermore my entire life, as well as someone who has only ever used medical cannabis privately and legally, I can say that the dispensary mentioned above is the best example of one that does not infringe upon a community or bring crime; since I know these are areas of concern with any new legalized substance. Purple Lotus is also located in an industrial part of that city, away from residences and places of conflict. I also ask that you please consider the underground drug market that would effectively be sanctioned without any police force involved due to this action. Many dispensaries I've spoken to in San Francisco are very fierce proponents of maintaining the legality and ethics of their industry. In SF, dispensaries work with local police to provide education of cannabis products, especially new ones that are released frequently, in order to catch underage abusers and illegal sales. If a new cannabis dispensary is safe, regulated, and ethical, I believe it would be a great benefit to the city of Livermore! 352. Medicinal Marijuana has a place in society. 353. Cannibis is a miracle worker!!! 354. I support any cannabis dispensary, especially for an alternative to opioid addiction for patients in pain. Please give access. 355. Livermore is the Center of Criminal activity just on how our city is physically between the Tri-valley and Silicon Valley. Cannabis is just another element that will bring more Crime to our city. 356. If Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon, Danville, and Walnut creek don't allow this why would Livermore? Those cities are highly respected and where people want to live and feel safe. Let's have the same regulations as those cities. Please don't downgrade our city by allowing this. 357. I do not support the medical dispensary, however if the city did allow this, we should be looking at taxing them at a higher level and greatly increasing cost of permits. I would also make them develop their own land and put them out by the garbage dump. I feel like people still drive down Greenville to get to the wineries and we don't want our town to be known as a place we didn't keep safe, especially when we had a choice in the matter. Keep it out of the public eye and especially away from traffic associated with the wineries.

235 358. We have a festival based on getting people hammered drunk in the middle of the day leading to nultiple DUI's, but a dispensary is too much? I support the idea of Livermore allowing dispensaries. 359. I personally do not like the smell of the cannabis and would appreciate that the dispensary isn't near to the residential areas. I also want to make sure that it is not near schools or accessible by teens. While my friend suffers from massive headaches and brain problems and finds relief from occasionally using cannabis, I don't feel that the pot does kids any good and is generally detrimental. Just like all drugs, there should not be unlimited access to it. 360. I do not support a medical cannabis dispensary in Livermore. Leave that to other cities. We don't need something like that in Livermore. We already have the "not to naughty" porn store, and way too many bars, too many drug and gang problems in our city. All cannabis does is let people get high and that's why they say they don't feel the pain. Drugs is already a very BIG problem in Livermore and the Livermore schools and we don't need this. Too many doctors just basically "hand out" the medical cannabis cards to anybody that wants one, and I mean literally. I know several friends that have gotten them that have no real need except to smoke cannabis to get high. 361. I believe that cannabis may have some medical benefits, but I don't think it needs to be sold in Livermore. It is easy enough to get as it is and the potential for more abuse will go up if Livermore sells it. 362. Just as the city of Livermore is considering Bart, let's look at Pleasanton's crime rate, it has increased dramatically, I do not want the same thing in my city. Not only am I not for the medical dispensary but I'm also not for all the panhandling and homelessness here in the city of Livermore. It is out of control and bringing in drugs will bring in more problems like more panhandling more homelessness, more crime. No to drugs, no to medical dispensaries, no to Bart! 363. I do not understand the purpose of question #2: "do you think cannabis is medically beneficial?" Shouldn't the medical benefits be a matter of medical record and not subjective opinion of residents? I would hate for personal bias to taint the medical considerations. 364. It has proven to help cancer patients. Why shouldn't Livermore prosper in helping cancer patients or other medical conditions that require the use for medicinal purposes. 365. Check out what happened in Colorado after it was legalized and the dispensaries were opened. The crime rates went up and also the oil you can get from some doctors is more effective than smoking cannabis without the "side effects" so dispensaries are not necessary 366. I support medical cannabis because there are many people who have medical conditions that benefit from it . Having a dispensary locally would be like having a drug store that is convenient. Many have conditions that make it hard for them to travel. 367. Do not support the idea of allowing a drug that is federally illegal to be on the streets. Shame on those that do. 368. If you have ever been to a dispensary in San Jose they are all very clean professionally run stores with a lot of rules about smoking and loitering. You would not know they were there unless you went inside. 369. My only concern, as with any substance and it's abuse, is how do you regulate those who use it, and then operate vehicles or equipment? Even certain prescription drugs have a warning on them about the use of the drug and it's ability to impair either motor functions or cognitive ability. Will there be something put in place to help prevent these people whom I trust NEED the Marijuana for medical use from using it in a matter that would be considered illegal. 370. I don't believe a cannabis dispensary is nessesary in the city of livermore. There is not a big consumer use In our city limits to support it. There are dispensaries within a 20mile drive.

236 371. I voted against the legalization. I am not for any kind of dispensary in my town. 372. Medical cannabis is a vital therapeutic choice for many people and should be available in their community. 373. I am against medical pot because of the broad definition of what is medically needed. In cases when pot is medically needed it should be dispensed like other prescription drugs. 374. If it gives those suffering from cancer some relief--I don't see the difference between a medical pharmacy, that dispenses thousands of pain pills and a cannabis dispensary. No one asks about the location of pharmacies. They are everywhere. Pills are everywhere. Why single out cannabis? if the industrial area is designated for industrial--keep it that way. It's not accessible to everyone. There are lots of places in downtown Livermore that are safe, secure and accessible. Let's show some compassion on this decision. 375. Hopefully this important service is provided for our residents who are in need and fear- mongering and false information don't derail those from happening 376. There are plenty of other areas within a short driving distance for people to get theirid medical Marijuana. There is no need to allow one in Livermore 377. I believe that there is a lot of medical cannabis cards that are fraudulently issued and it would be likely that cannabis would get to our homeless on the streets and increase their population in Livermore. 378. This medical facilities are a joke. Anyone can go in and get permission from a doctor to buy as much matsjusna as they want within five minutes . I didn't believe it so I went to Oakland and told them that I had headaches sometimes . I got a prescription on the spot, when into the store and I could've bought as much as I wanted! A joke! 379. Keep it out of our city!!! 380. Stop the prohibition, my king do have easy access to pot, your blocking legal access just promotes corner selling - be responsible and stop your blocking of progress 381. The picture of the finest quality in community management, product(fully tested), facility, security, suppliers and fairness is BPG-BERKELEY PATIENT GROUP they are the model business. Unless you use--which if you work for the city, you'd been drug tested--you have no experience of facts, results and the truth of the new canabis world. Circa 1900 -2017 allot has been discovered!!! CITY cannot hire SME/EXPIERENCEd in this matter because of your anti-drug policy. So, how do you fairly motion and administer? 382. I think it should be dispensed with a doctor's prescription at a normal pharmacy. Just like other medications. Hopefully that would only allow people who should have it to get it. 383. I would only support it if the dispensary would be located inside city hall where the morons who thought that it was a good idea would have to deal with the consequences. 384. Not in support of any kind of marijuana sales in Livermore 385. Do not support it, if it is available to be delivered to your home, don't see the need of a location in Livermore. If this is adopted. I hope that we only have 1 or 2 dispensaries in town. More than that is not needed. 386. This is all fine and dandy, but the voters just legalized it for recreational use. Trying the medical route now is too little, too late. We did have done this 5+ years ago. 387. While it might help a few people, it should be more closely regulated. Not some individual who gives out "need" to allow drug use. We have to much of a problem already. 388. There are positive medical uses for cannabis and its derivatives but, like any prescription drug, it should be regulated by the FDA, prescribed by a doctor and dispensed by licensed pharmacies and handled by pharmaceutical professionals. Until these regulations are in place, the increase of cannabis related DUI and illegal activities under the influence is significant in cities with cannabis dispensaries. It will become a risk to the people of Livermore and our visitors.

237 389. I do not want a medical cannabis dispensary in our town. It will make it too easy for our youth and young adults to get. 390. Need more information about how other cities established and govern medical cannabis dispensaries, all negatives experienced, and what was done to avoid/overcome the negatives and produce a positive result for the neighborhoods and communities in which they are located. If Livermore is to allow a dispensary, it needs to do so in a manner that produces a benefit to the neighborhood in which it is located and Livermore from the first day of operation. 391. If the Marijuana is for Medical purposes it should be dispensed by Medical facilities. NO NEED to create a Special Dispensary. 392. With the increase in crime in our city already, I question the wisdom in bringing a dispensary into our city. I would like to hear with the police department thinks of this as well as studies from other cities citing the effects of having a dispensary to the community. 393. It helps manage pain and I must travel tonSan Jose for purchases 394. There is a medical need and patients should have local access 395. Many people who use medical marijuana may have transportation issues, so dispensing a legal drug in Livermore should not be a problem. 396. I have severe liver damage caused by cancer treatment. Because my liver is damaged, medical cannabis is the only pain killer I can use that doesn't process theough the liver. I currently have to travel 1 hour + each direction to get medical cannabis. 397. Its not needed here. I believe thst the general location becomes degraded and trashy around such dispensaries. 398. Tax dollars may as well stay here. If people need it they will get it from other cities and bring it back to Livermore. 399. As long as this is MEDICAL ONLY and stays at ONE dispensery! And stays way out there. 400. The Industrial area on the eastern side of town is an inappropriate location as it has too many child centered recreational venues - Lost World, ice rink, party Palooza, etc If a medical marijuana dispensary is approved, its on a matter of time before a recreational use dispensary is allowed. Statistics show crime rates increase in areas around dispensaries. I might support a dispensary if it is located next to a 24/7 police substation. 401. As a nurse I support the use of medical cannabis 402. Medical marijuana is a joke, perpetuated by junk science. There are equal and safer ways to get the benefits without getting high and the rest of the negatives such as lung cancer. 403. I want all patients who would benefit from medical cannabis to be able to easily get a supply from a well-run, well-regulated local dispensary. It's the right thing to do. 404. I don't support the city of Livermore putting in a medical cannabis dispensary. 405. Will attract undesirable people 406. I think it is still illegal on the federal level. What about the increase of crime because of the cash only sale – banks still adhere to federal law. Who will pay for the additional police officers? Is the state and the city of Livermore going to look the other way? If marijuana really has a medical use, shouldn’t the pharmaceutical companies be making pot pills? Seems to me that Livermore and the patients would be better with mail order. 407. I do believe that medical cannabis is necessary, but I don't feel that it is necessary in Livermore. I believe this is a slippery slope to a larger problem in our city! 408. Cannabis dispensaries should not be permitted anywhere in Livermore. This would be a huge mistake. I am 100% against this.

238 409. Are you kidding me!!!! Why in the world is Livermore even thinking about these dispensaries? Crime is up in Livermore and you would be inviting more crime. We already have a lot of rift raft downtown!! We are 100% against medical marijuana dispensaries!! The highschool kids are already hanging out at the parking structure by the Bankhead smoking marijuana and who knows what else!!! Is this really what Livermore wants for our kids?? "Medical"is the word always used to start!! Please NO MEDICAL MARIJUANA Dispensaries in Livermore!!! 410. Do not want a dispensary in Livermore. There is a dispensary already located in Alameda County. In addition, other routes of THC delivery to patients can be established. Methadone patients have to travel for meds also. Many residents of Livermore have to travel to other locations within the county for services, some of which cannot be delivered to your door. The patients of Cannabis dispensaries have managed well prior to legalization. Why now- just because of legalization. If meds were so crucial to their well being they would continue to obtain in other areas of Alameda county or relocate. Livermore has enough area's to tackle like Bart, downtown infrastructure, homelessness, crime and other issues to maintain the quality of life and improve it within the city than to add to its agenda managing and overseeing a dispensary. 411. Disgusting. Please don't let our town continue to go downhill. The homeless and graffiti are already on an acute increase...we do not need medical marijuana now, too. 412. I'm a resident and I always prefer to spend locally. 413. Please do NOT approve!!!! 414. Support! Question #2 isn't really a valid question. It's benefit has been scientifically proven. It social acceptance is the real issue. Please take care of the patients in livermore! 415. Support; but should be located in an area of Livermore zoned industrial. 416. DO NOT SUPPORT IT. Will bring crime and additional outsiders to Livermore. No research has proven marijuana beneficial to a person. The amount of money the city thinks they will get, is under estimated. Can't track cash. On top of this, Livermore Police can't or won't deal with current issues facing the city. 417. I don't want one in Livermore. I think people should have to travel to a different city that already has one. I'm not convinced they are medically necessary. 418. If some people find that cannabis provides pain relief that other medications do not provide, then they should have access to it within their own communities. I do think that it should only be obtained by a licensed physicians prescription. The dispensaries should follow regulations that are similar to that of regular pharmacies. 419. Not legal by Federal law http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal- defense/federal-crime/medical-marijuana-federal-laws.htm 420. Crime will rise as sadly not everyone who goes to a medical canabis dispensery has the legal authority to do so. 421. I support it. It's an effective pain reliever that has less side effects and addictiveness than alternatives, opiates, muscle relaxers, etc. 422. We have alcohol all over this town, this shouldn't even be a discussion. 423. It is beneficial for some ailments, It is legal in California, there is no reason to make Livermore patients travel to another city to get their prescription filled. 424. I am a longtime resident of 58 years and I am against the continued over development of this once quiet and small town. The senseless decisions the city has made has brought an increase in crime, vandalism and lack of sufficient infrastructure to support the growth. I and my family are totally against the thought of having cannabis dispensary in livermore

239 425. I know people with chronic medical conditions for which there is no cure who find that cannabis, while not curing anything, relieves their symptoms. I've also known one cancer victim who had lost 40 lbs due to nausea who was able to regain a healthy weight after using cannabis to control his nausea. Although I find cannabis distasteful, personally, I'm fine with consenting adults choosing to use it for either medical or recreational purposes. I think as a matter of compassion for those needing the former use, we should allow medically oriented dispensaries at a minimum. 426. I don't support a dispensary in our family- centric community. I do think it will bring a different crowd to town. And yes, it would only be medical marijuana, but MANY people have prescriptions for it that aren't really medically necessary, and use it for a way to get clean good drug for recreational use. If a dispensary is absolutely necessary, I think it should be downtown (not on 1st, but in a more trafficked area) to provide some accountability for the customers. The east side of town in the industrial area would definitely draw a different crowd to that area, as activity could occur beyond the public eye. 427. Medical cannabis is legal and helps those who need it. We have the right to have a local dispensary whether others choose to use it or not! Our need for it is valid, heathy, medically backed, and our right to choose to it for our medical need. 428. Medical cannabis is much safer than addictive opioids dispensed at pharmacies across the city. I'm much less concerned about cannabis being sold but more concerned with making sure the city is able to maintain the dispensary a safe location. 429. The law permits these businesses and the use of this helps a lot of people. The city should comply. The city should make sure that they are run legally and the businesses are safe and not use ordinances to prevent them from operation. 430. If it is medically necessary for some people then why deny them the convince 431. I feel medical cannabis is very important to many different people for different reasons . I did like the location of the last dispensary . Close to town , but out of the way . 432. Medical cannabis is a great benefit to a number of patients. It is allowed by California law, and requires a prescription. It should not be discriminated against simply because some people are fortunate not to need it. It is a private matter between a patient and their prescriber. 433. Absolutely no marijuana dispensaries should be allowed operate in Livermore. 434. I do not use cannabis, but it is a wonderful substance that helps many of my friends. Furthermore, I find it incredibly irresponsible to keep cannabis hard to obtain for those who desperately need it. Also, if cannabis is banned, why isn't tobacco? It's a far larger health concern and needs banning far more than marijuana. 435. That dispensary location is going to be near a highly active childrens area. While I am a nurse and have seen some benefit, I have a sneaking suspicion this is not for those who actually need it, but a way for the city to make more money. I live in this area and what nothing to do with it or have it near me. I am highly against this. 436. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed 420yoloswag blazin yooooooooo 437. I think the problem with medical cannabis dispensaries is that they are easily abused by people without legitimate medical conditions. I think by allowing these dispensaries to operate in Livermore, the crowd that they attract will make Livermore a less desirable city to live in. 438. Most of my 9 brothers & sisters are lifetime users and to a number, none have reached their potential in life. Very sad.

240 439. I do not use cannabis for recreational or medical purposes, but I AM VERY aware of its medicinal benefits and WHY it is restricted in our country. I do support allowing medical cannabis dispensarIES in our town-- with thought and care of its location, in light of protection and safety of staff and anonymity (due to some residents' opposition) of patients accessing the availability of the dispensary. 440. My concern is that it is illegal according to federal law. I seem to recall learning that states may restrict items or procedures but may not allow what federal law prohibits. I suggest that the City attorney research this issue to avoid conflict with federal law. 441. Numerous medical studies have been performed which show the medical benefits of cannabis for many ailments. The city already has cigarettes and alcohol sold all over the place, even in the grocery stores where our children go frequently. Cannabis, medical or recreational, is no different than these other items and should be handled in the same ways while keeping in accordance with state laws. This is a real opportunity for the city to benefit from the taxes and it should not be squandered. If you are ok with alcohol being sold all over the city, you should be ok with marijuana, especially for medicinal use. It's a no-brainer. 442. It is beneficial and allowed by state law. Better than opioids. 443. It's 2017 for gosh sakes. 444. It's like letting the door open for other places like these to come, the damage to kids who use other to pick this stuff up. 445. Not only should medical cannabis despisaries be available in the city of Livermore, but also recreational cannabis. 446. I am told the cost of mailing is free, so that is still a benefit for those in need. 447. I am currently the only medical marijuana inspector in code enforcement for the city of San jose. The Sgt for the program lives in Livermore as well. Feel free to contact me with any questions. [email protected] 448. I am not sure I would have to see studies based on crime and do we have enough officers to support such a new type of business. I would hate to over burden our officers. 449. I am a patient who relies on mm for many things, I currently have to drive to Oakland, would rather spend my money locally 450. Keep all drug out of reach of our children. Adults can't even handle it. This would add more to our medicine cabinets and that is already too big of an issue. 451. Please no cannabis dispensary. Anyone can get a cannabis card. The system is abused. 452. I live on the eastern side of Livermore, and have for over 15 years. It seems that the eastern side of Livermore is viewed as less important than other parts of Livermore. We have more crime, less police presence, and less services like grocery stores. For a more balanced Livermore, these dispensaries should be moved to other locations such as off airway Boulevard 453. Since it's been proven to help in certain medical situations (relief for cancer patients, etc.), I am "cautiously" in favor... but feel they should be closely regulated. 454. You can buy beer, wine, liquor, and other alcoholic beverages in stores, service stations, liquor stores, and big box stores. There is little medical benefit. Persons who have a prescription for medical marijuana deserve some ease in obtaining said drugs. 455. We should already have one in town. I don't personally use cannabis but have seen first hand the amazing results for patients suffering. It is healthier and safer than a lot of prescription drugs. 456. Save this for another city, don't bring it to livermore.

241 457. My main concern is how this might affect the child (under 18) population of Livermore and surrounding communities. I have the same concern for liquor and smoke shops. If there's any way that advertising or promotion for a dispensary would be directed to, acccesible by, or appealing to children, I'd be very against a dispensary being located in Livermore. 458. City of Livermore does not need a dispensary. Little do they know the tobacco shops (example the one on vasco) is already peddling cannabis. Now if Livermore were to open said shop 35% of sales should go to schools and not padding the pockets of city officials. 459. I know more people that abuse medical cannabis than use it as treatment for an actual illness. Do not want to see this in Livermore 460. We don't need it to be any easier for people to buy pot. I don't know one person who gets medical cannabis that actually needs it for a legitimate medical condition. The Dr's still prescribe, the sellers sell and the government taxes. Everybody is just making money off of it. 461. The evidence that it is medically useful is mounting, but the practice if pretty "wild west" based on associated criminal activity. Put the dispensary in an office next door to LPD. I could live with that. 462. We all know that for the most part, this method of legally purchasing the drug is a complete scam. Getting a card is easy and its regulation a joke. Someone needs to wake up and understand this. That said, the area around the "drug house" would very quickly become an unsafe area where once again law enforcement would have to clean-up YOUR mess. Let Pleasanton or Dublin take it, their cities are already a mess. 463. Medical marijuana has many benefits for people with medical issues such as epilepsy, ptsd and many more.. 464. Having medical cannabis available for specialized ailments is necessary in Livermore. 465. It's legalized for the state and medically beneficial. Livermore residents shouldn't have to go out of their ways to obtain medication. Furthermore now that it is legal we should make it " acceptable ". 466. No drugs in livermore! Especially not next to LLNL or SNL. 467. This is nuts. You can't smoke, smoke creates problems and why do we have to add additional problems in our community 468. It will not only attract drug users, they will be hanging out in those areas. 469. do not support. 470. I feel that this would just invite more problems for our city and we need to deal with the current ones before adding something else. We don't need any more crime in Livermore. 471. It is a narcotic. 472. I don't want to see the crime accociated with a dispensary. Medical uses are important but not enough security and regulations have opened it up to others. 473. I do not support the sale of medical cannabis. In my opinion, I think crime will increase, more people from out of the area will come to Livermore to purchase it and I think many of these individuals may not have a true medical reason to use it and it's another outlet to buy cannabis. Don't approve this please!!! 474. I think it would be wasteful for the city to permit medical cannabis dispensaries unless residents don't feel that state regulation are sufficient. 475. All cannabis - no matter what - NEED TO BE OUTLAWED!!! 476. Since recreational use will soon be legal I don't see a need to establish a medical cannabis dispensary in Livermore. Instead, gear up for the problems the city will have once legal use comes into effect. 477. I believe people should have access to medicine they need. Ill patients might not have the means to travel to another town for their cannabis.

242 478. I DoNot support a dispensary in Livermore 479. Don't--there will be recreational users who get Rx for it, potential increase of crime for stealing it and $ from dispensaries, more drivers on drugs causing "accidents". 480. The western edge of town might make more sense for traffic abatement. The other Tri- Valley cities would likely frequently a Livermore dispensary, so a western location would prevent those trips from worsening 580 congestion. 481. While you're at it just follow state law and allow legal sale of recreational marijuana while you're at it. The people have already spoken, your nonsense regulation based on a false sense of moral superiority helps no one. 482. Livermore doesn't need to add to the overall problem of being under the influence. The smoke that users put into the air will impact anyone in the area. 483. If it's medically needed and someone has a prescription for it, why not? it was legalized for a reason. 484. This might be a dumb question , but why can't pharmacies dispense medical cannabis . After they dispense drug such as oxycodone. 485. It would be great to be able to get my medicines within the city that I live. I fully support a quality based dispensary in Livermore 486. Don't allow one to open in Livermore. There are other ways for them to obtain their cannabis. 487. I have known friends who have been in so much pain that they only thing that relieves it is Medical cannabis. 488. Should not have it period. Isn't out towns core the idea of family and values? Seems to be changing to money and greed w the mayor and council. 489. I think a medical cannabis dispensary is a very bad idea for the city. If it was put on the ballot I would vote NO and organize against it 490. There are dispensaries nearby that users could avail themselves too. Not in Best interest of the community. But then we have Not To Naughty on First St. near a yogurt shop that attracts young children and families. Maybe put it next to Not To Naughty. 491. Support for medical and recreational use. The latter will happen regardless so we my as well get taxes and ensure quality and safety. Put the crooks out of business. 492. We don't need that here 493. The city has many issues to resolve. Livermore should put their time and talent into solving the robberies, gangs, graffiti, potholes and homeless issues first. We need clear under the influence limits that the police are willing to enforce for marijuana before a dispensary is allowed. 494. It would be good to avoid this , then solving the problem 495. Would it be possible to have a joint venture between us, Dublin and Pleasanton so no one city would be supporting all the other local areas needs. 496. It's cruel and negligent for cities to ban access to needed resources -- especially those that are ill or suffer from chronic pain. 497. I'm 60 and many people don't know how bennifical medical csnnabus is. If it is controlled and I don't have to drive far it is truly a plus to our fine community! 498. It is still against Federal law to consume and dispense cannabis (medical or not). I believe there is more abuse of the system. I do NOT want to see it anywhere near our town. 499. Although I do not use it I do believe there are benefits and adults should be allowed to make this decision and use it within the privacy of their own home.

243 500. If it's a benefit for medical reasons and it's legal for such purposes then Livermore should make it available for it's residents. 501. It seems the some form of crime always follows cannabis dispensaries. I don't want that anywhere in our city. 502. The closest dispensary is in San Jose. It would be greatly beneficial to have one in the Tri- Valley. 503. The proposed location is too close to new home development off Vasco. I am not in favor of a dispensary in Livermore. 504. I think that left over hippies and immature people need to smoke marijuana. When it was for medical use it should of been dispensed through a pharmacy. Now it is a whole different story. 505. I trust that doctors will prescribe medical cannabis only when it's medically appropriate. 506. I am not in favor of cannabis dispensaries in Livermore 507. I do not support a 'medical' dispensary for Livermore. It can become a slippery slope, first medical, then recreational. I am a health care professional and do not support this in Livermore. 508. The people that need it, shouldn't have to travel too far. It's now "legal" but needs to be heavily controlled. A reasonable taxation could help city income to makeup for the extra expense of having one or two in town. 509. Don't want it in my town period!!! 510. We already have a growing crime issue, I do not think we should bring this into our city. These establishments help some but most people are abusing it. 511. I think Livermore has big issues with drugs and homelessness and I am against a dispensary in our town. A drug deal gone bad ended with a man shot in my Neighboorhood, so we do not need more drugs available in our town. The dispensaries don't care of the user is using it recreationally or for medical purposes. Anyone can get a license whether they are sick or not..it would be great if we could vote on this as a community in a proper election rather than a survey monkey. 512. "Medical" Dispensaries are a sham. A dispensary does not fit with the Livermore culture. 513. I would like to use tax revenues to invest in a new baseball complex for the children of Livermore. 514. Do some research on the city of Lake forest, ca dispensaries. Total nightmare. 515. The bottom line is at a federal level it's illegal. Secondly, no reputable bank will do business with them- leading to issues of cash flow, failure to pay appropriate taxes, cash storage issues, money trail and who is investing and who really backs these enterprises. Unless a requirement is interim and yearly CPA audited financials due to the city within 60 days of the close of the term ( 6/30 & 12/31) there is no way to keep them on the up and up. Community safety out weighs ease of use. 516. Have seen medical dispensaries in other cities. It is a magnet for unsavories. Not something I would want in my own backyard. 517. I think a medical marijuana dispensary should be in an area that is easily accessible to all that need it. I don't think it needs to be hidden away somewhere. 518. I'm not a marijuana users. But it's not going to stop people from using it. So we might as well get the tax benefit from it. Our city could build and maintain many useful projects. 519. Seriously it's being grown in this city all over for medical use. May I add I do not smoke it or use it for myself in any copacity what so ever! I use CBD oil to help my senior dog and it has worked wonders! This is a big deal for medical needs, please be open to it. So many it can help, I've whitnessed it first hand! Does a lot of good! My mastiff is 13, it's literally healing her abscessed tumor's in front of my very eyes with in 2 weeks! 🙏🙏

244 520. Just allow them downtown. the only requirement is away from schools. And yes limit the number of them for sure.. 521. Since no other city in the TriValley is permitting this, why is Livermore going for it? We will become the TriValley dispensary. If we do allow it, it should be in in the middle of downtown, easily accessible and easily monitored, not stuck in the middle of no where. These are currently all cash businesses, still not legal federally, and we have a new administration, is it in our best interest as a City to open these and I would definitely not support commercial grows. 522. I just don't feel like it fits our community. 523. Let other cities carry this one. We already extend ourselves for other social services beyond the rest of the tri valley. 524. I do not support any cannabis use medical or otherwise. Do not want it near my home, children or work. Do not want to smell it or be exposed to it in anyway. Do not want people driving while under the influence of it. 525. Not a good idea. 526. My mother died of metastasized breast cancer over 30 years ago. it would have made her last days more tolerable. 527. I think that marijuana has very limited therapeutic benefits and the medical marijuana industry tends to abuse prop 215's ambiguity as to what constitutes a legitimate medical need. 528. It seems to me that it would be making a statement that Livermore is in support of the using of illegal drugs, which I'm sure is not the intent. I'm certain there are other legal methods for people with prescriptions for this drug to obtain it and I suggest they stick to those other already available options. 529. I work in a business complex on the East side by the industrial area and I really do not want to deal with people driving impaired to the dispensary. Nor do I want to smell it. 530. I support a strongly regulated dispensary in Livermore. I do not use marijuana but do feel that people that find medicinal help from it should have a place near where they live to obtain it. 531. The city should allow it. If done right, they won't be negative establishments. It seems they should be located near hospitals, doctors offices or clinics. The city should also think about how it wants to regulate legal recreational marijuana because if they don't offer it in a good way, it will be offered in bad ones. 532. I do not think the city of Livermore should have a medical marijuana dispensary in town. 533. It's unclear how safe and secure this would be (i.e. potential for robberies of the dispensary, fraudulent claims and more by those who wish to use it recreationally). If a person has a medical need for it then it would stand to reason that their doctor should be able to advise them how to legally obtain it from already-existing dispensaries. I have seen no evidence published proving a demonstrated need for this in our community. I would not be willing to pay taxes to fund, protect or maintain such a dispensary. 534. Any person can Google search "Robbery statistics with the dispensaries" and see clear as day that marijuana and Crime go hand-in-hand. Never thought I would see the day that I have to leave Livermore because of the transient problem and now you're going to legalize marijuana. Bravo on ruining such a great city 535. Medical Cannabis has so many benefits for those with Epilepsy, especially with those who cannot be controlled with medication. It would benefit many people in Livermore, just thinking of those with Epilepsy. 536. Just keep it away from residential areas & schools. What other cities in the area are providing dispensaries? We surely do not wish to draw users of cannabas into Livermore. I believe that each town/city should serve their own citizens. 537. We do not need a dispensary in Livermore. This will attract unwanted criminal activity and vagrant. Please reconsider this idea to operate in Livermore.

245 538. Im not sure I like this idea, I understand that it is helpful to some and needed, but I would hope it would be obscure and EXTREMELY regulated, no promotions or advertising allowed, there is already more than enough marijuana running around this town 539. I am against dispeceries. It will attract the wrong types of people visiting livermore. If the dispensary only sold to Livermore residents I would be more inclined to support it. 540. * A growing trend in this industry is delivery to the patient. Is that available to Livermore residents and are there multiple providers? * Is Livermore looking at multiple providers? 541. I support medical cannabis because it helps with my seizures and migraines from a traumatic brain injury. It would be more beneficial to have it local than have to drive to San Jose or Oakland. 542. Not near any schools or homes or any area that has potential to be zoned for schools or homes. It needs to maintain the appearance and safety standards of any other type of business in Livermore and not allow consumption on site. A portion of the taxes the city receives should be set aside for drug use reduction programs. 543. Any council member that thinks this a good idea, should be required to go to San Jose and then spend just two hours in the parking lot of a dispensary. I think it would tell you a whole different story. People who need it for a medical reason have all sorts of ways of delivery, it's not needed in our town. 544. Not all persons who obtain a prescription for cannabis actually need it; the persons I know who obtained prescriptions in the past did not. Further, we already have a problem on Concannon of persons outside of Livermore using it as a connecting route to bypass the freeways; it can reasonably be assumed that persons seeking to access such a dispensary will be traveling through this and other residential arteries in Livermore and may be a potential danger on our streets; there is not a lot of public transportation in that area to mitigate the risks. Further, in the proposed area, there are sports, activity, and party places all geared toward children and any such dispensary should be well away from these places too. It is highly doubtful that there is such a need to outweigh the potential risks to our community. 545. So people don,t have to go to another city medicine is important for those who use it 546. We do not need a dispensers in Livermore... It would bring nothing but trouble. 547. I support medical cannabis because it helps anxiety and a few other medical factors related. 548. Cannabis will soon be legal so the need for dispensaries makes little sense. Other areas with dispensaries see an increase in crime in that area because the law is abused 549. Medical permission can be obtained for about any reason, thus it is really recreational/medical and I would prefer dispensaries remain outside of Livermore. 550. Livermore promotes a healthy, outdoor and environmentally friendly life style. Allowing dispensaries undermines our brand and value proposition. I have no objection to people using cannabis for medicinal purposes and feel uncomfortable feeling we would be promoting a dispensary. 551. Would rather have it located near other retail locations instead of hidden in industrial area so it can be more easily monitored. Being hidden away might make the employees and customers easier to rob. 552. Not sure why it needs to be in an industrial area.

246 553. The person I know who used it was terminally ill and died a short time after using it. I believe there are probably other medications that could have helped in the way that marijuana did. I believe that if marijuana was indeed proven to be a valid medication that it should be controlled through any other drug store and not have it's own special dispensary. As it currently stands, I believe it is a gateway drug and that it attracts a criminal element (even if there are a few who may be helped by it.) I don't believe that it is necessary nor beneficial for Livermore to allow this element into our family-friendly town. We have worked too hard to make this a family-friendly community to bring this temptation near our children nor to make it seem acceptable to them, when drugs are such a huge issue for them. There are other acceptable medications without risking so much. 554. I believe the majority of medical Marijuana claims are false. If someone has cancer, fine. But most clients of medical Marijuana, that I personally know, obtained their card via false pretenses. I have been a drug and alcohol counselor in this area for over 14 years. I have heard story after story of young people getting cards for multiple reasons. These same clients make fun of the process because to them it is a joke. 555. A magnet for more traffic, people and crime is not what I would like for Livermore. With the widening of Highway 84, the resumed mining by CEMEX and the development of 580 at Isabel, there has already been a marked increase in all of the above. 556. I had past uncles that used it and it helped them alot. They are no longer with us. 557. I don't feel Livermore should allow this. We already have people wine tasting and driving and now have people puffing and driving. Leave the dispensaries for the bigger cities. It will just bring people from the Central Valley here and we already have enough crime issues and with Bart coming eventually it will be overkill 558. I don't use marijuana but I know people who cannot function without it. That said, I want it to be well regulated so it's not easily accessible to childre and those who may abuse it. 559. This is ridiculous. We don't need this 560. I know alot of people whos lives were changed for the negative by marijuana , by legalizing it we are telling our youth its safe and okay, lets be real %95 who use it for medical purpose are full of it, and the gov. is lured by the money. Stay on the side of whats right. 561. It's time to grow up people. Why should the people of Livermore lose out on the taxes generated by both medical and adult use dispensary's 562. Medical uses of cannabis have been research and have been affective for treatment of various medical conditions. To not allow the access to this medicinal alternative to patients needing it is a disservice to our community. Times are changing and we need to be open minded to the new discoveries for health care alternatives. It's not all about big business pharmacology and may be an better choice than many of the harmful drugs being prescribed and used by western medicine. I'm in favor of this initiative! 563. I think the city also needs to consider the up coming recreational marijuana dispensaries. There is a demand and I want the city to maximize tax earnings. 564. I think this is very important and we should allow it - we are forward thinking city not stuck in the 1950's. Marijuana is legal and should be sold I think like it is in Oregon in shops not just for medical reasons - but the least we can do is sell it in a medical dispensary 565. Luckily at this time I do not know anyone who used it, but it was people who had cancer and used it for the pains. If it is regulated and well controlled that it is for medical use only and only sold by prescription, I do not see any problem

247 Medical Cannabis Workshop: Comments

Public Workshop: 06/21/17

Comment Comment Number 1. Please provide relevant statistics regarding concerns > lower crime rates vs other businesses (Banks, Liqueur Store, etc.) for dispensaries. 2. How to address or when we will discuss a follow up of the possibility of implementing such dispensary and when it will be readdressed therefore leading to recreational purposes. 3. What are the statistics regarding DUI's- alcohol drugs cannabis? 4. Why is the process so much different for cannabis than wineries? 5. Opens the door for nonmedical being purchases. Why are we the only ones that are even thinking of it in the Valley. Brings in people from other areas to purchase. What is the regulations if smoking it as to where you can smoke it. How many city officials will it take to enforce? 6. Will the City of Livermore, by law, allow local wineries to make cannabis infused wine? Why/why not? If we get a head start on this, we could create a new market that could financially help the city of Livermore. Business friendly and tourist friendly. Livermore can be a leader. 7. What is the police chiefs opinion on...1. Will legalizing pot lower alcohol consumption which will lower potential traffic accidents? 2. What is the police chiefs opinion on pot dispensaries? One doesn't need to track users, if they are not tracked on alcohol usage. 8. Please email PowerPoint presentation. Thank you. 9. More communications to residence on topic, request for input, timeline for input and city council presentation/report timeline and city council action on report timeline 10. Please keep dispensaries out of the City. We have more pressing issues to fix. Major public safety issue that is already strapped thin. 11. I think that City staff should do field trips to existing professional dispensaries like Harborside in Oakland and San Jose and Magnolia Wellness in Oakland. I'm sure it would be productive and educational for everyone. 12. 1. Easy to transition from medical to recreation. 2. Quality of life/crime around dispensary. 3. People from San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton all coming to Livermore as they don't have a dispensary. 13. I would like to see the products dispensed to have a lower THC so the effect of the drug is the relieve pain not get high. I would like to see the dispensary regulated in a similar manner like the pharmacies. 14. I have used cannabis for nerve pain until a drug was prescribed- I used Harborside and was amazed at how it was set up. Very business like, professional and if you did not have a card to buy you were not admitted to the building. 15. AB 110- SB 94 MAUCRSA 16. This is an opportunity for the City. A task force should be put together by Council. Task force should research each license type and decide a business plan for City. It may not be needed to provide a dispensaries but get revenue from permitted distribution, processing, and transportation license types. Example allow a processing and distribution license types with tax revenue for City of each pick up. No dispensary but we get revenue for material sales throughout reason. Call me! 17. It is here. Learn to work with it. 18. Like the zoning area. Believe should be Livermore resident owner and operated. Limit to 3-4. 19. I think no vote will prevail in number. I am for. 20. Will police strictly honor validity of prescription for patients?

248

Neighborhood Workshop: 8/14/17

Comment Comment Number 1. It's a big 'NO." I care for my family safety and neighborhood safety. 2. This dispensary is going to have direct impact on safety of my home and my family. 3. This will have direct negative impact on home value. 4. Concerns about increase in crime, traffic, impact on property value, future development, and possible increase in homeowners insurance and property taxes. 5. Do not want dispensary near residences. 6. IDEAL: Delivery service only- no storefront will address resident concerns and city can still benefit financially. 7. Block captain under neighborhood watch program. I would strongly oppose opening the medical dispensary in such a close proximity to the residential area. 8. Block Captain watch program 9. Security and safety in residential area on Brisa. BIG NO. 10. We live nearby the location where the dispensary is getting established. We say "no" to this [illegible] certainly not in residential area. 11. No to medical cannabis near my housing community, it impacts my kids and the safety of my family. I would suggest to keep the dispensary out of the city limit. If the city is not benefitted from the dispensary then why put a dispensary in Livermore City limit. 12. Law enforcements are after the [illegible] I want my kids and family in happy and safe environment. Not under strict law enforcement. This dispensary is certainly a safety concern to our community and I don't want my kid to even be aware of this. DUI and consumption in neighborhood parks is a big concern. 13. No to medical cannabis. Safety of neighborhood and especially for kids safety. Increased traffic; potential accidents (DUI); proxy purchase; sincerely request city not to open or consider medical cannabis dispensary 14. No medical cannabis dispensary in my area. Community is filled with kids and parents, not a suitable place. Uptake in crime, too much traffic, property value plummets, junkies seen all around. 15. Increase in crime in (Brisa St) neighborhood (500 families are affected) (including kids and women); smoking cannabis in parks (affecting kids playing in parks); schools are affect close by 16. Increase in crime; safety for families, 500 families; DUI, exposure to children; property value impact; smoking close to parks 17. Block access to dispensary though residential streets. (Better by freeway). Please allow medical only in Livermore. 18. We oppose to have dispensary in the proposed area. 19. I oppose the dispensary. We only see all bad impact on the community which is very close to the proposed dispensary area. 20. Kids safety, re-do online survey; crime rate; increase in traffic; property value. I oppose this dispensary. 21. No, please do not construct in our neighborhood. 22. Increase traffic on Brisa street. Area no longer residential, 500 kids in nearby community exposed to the thought of cannabis needs to be explained to them. Public parks in area may have attract people taking cannabis

249 23. We are totally do not want dispensary center anywhere near to vineyard crossing. We have kids and my major concern tendency these kind of dispensary not required in residential area. Please consider this kind request to future of my kids. 24. This are has more number of families with kids. It will be more traffic in this area if dispensary is opened and it is not encouraged/supported by me. 25. Strictly oppose opening of marijuana dispensary. Brisa Street foot traffic would greatly increase. 26. Survey was never notified to the nearest neighborhood and the results cannot be accurate without the nearest neighborhood consideration. This will definitely effect the surroundings and the price values of the houses. Strongly disagree with the proposal. 27. The survey should have been made more accessible to all residents. Please re-open the survey if it is going to be used as a data point for opening the dispensary. 28. This is a big safety concern for all of us living on Brisa and Vasco. The property values will go down. NO TO THE DISPENSARY. 29. Kids safety; two public parks, increase crime, traffic problem, DUI, impact on schools, ACE station nearby, smoking cannabis in parks, impact property values, waste disposal, 500 families nearby. Wrong message to kids. Women's safety problem. Need to open online survey. 30. Too close to residential place. Driving under the influence; smoking cannabis in parks; safety of neighborhood; waste disposal; increase in crime 31. We don't want dispensary to be in our neighborhood. 32. We do not want to setup a medical cannabis in Livermore by Brisa St. This draws unpleasant crow to the neighborhood where 500+ family lives with two public parks. 33. Please include me on the email update list/process 34. Crime/safety; increase traffic/accidents; we don't want any dispensary in Livermore; we need real data. 35. Even though we are designated as residential area, we are almost 400 family's with more than 500 children, the proposed area is very close to our area, we completely oppose this as they will impact the community. 36. NO. Need valid data to prove/as a proof of who is requesting for this? Show as data pertain to Livermore residents allows for this.

Property Owner/Tenant Workshop: 8/17/17

Comment Comment Number 1. Traffic

2. Consumption on premises

3. Dancing guy with sign not in character with area

4. Culture clash with labs and contradictory

5. Employees not allowed

6. City/Lab Meeting

7. Location at perimeter of City may be impact by ag use on county land

8. Pinnacle Place condos isolated, existing loitering problem

250 9. 694 Pinnacle- existing cultivation odor is a problem

10. Too limited of area

11. Emphasize stakeholders

12. Look at other areas of the city.

251 Medical Cannabis Workshop Interactive Board #8: Additional Comments

Public Workshop: 6/21/17

Comment Comment Number 1. Make it safe for medical use. PS Yes. 2. No dispensary/no problems. 3. Put the money where the community need (NO DRUGS) 4. Livermore Owned and operated/full lab tested meds 5. regulations enforced and paid for by fees 6. more education on risks vs benefit/science 7. Introduce cannabis as a legitimate medicine rather than an abused drug. 8. Note huge state/city tax income 9. Don't waste time regulation what's already regulated by the state.

Neighborhood Workshop: 8/14/17

Comment Comment Number 1. Please say no to medical cannabis in Livermore. 2. Statistics say number of accidents increased by 6%, after cannabis legalizing so "No" 3. Yes it should be allowed for it helps people 4. Please allow medical use only in Livermore 5. Vineyard Community has 550 houses. So it should not be considered as heavy industrial zone. > Voted and agreed to this point by everyone that this is not industrial area. 6. Kids and families in the neighborhood are not going to be safe. 7. Need to educate kids about pot which is a behavioral concern. 8. Public parks are open to everyone, rise of crime and safety 9. Safety to children and families 10. No dispensary in Livermore or in particular no on Brisa Street 11. No one on Brisa Street is aware of this online survey. We want this to be reopened and we want our opinion to be counted. 12. We shouldn't allow it at the first place (legally), but if we can't control the state/county, at least we can make our city free of drug. So strongly NO! 13. No one aware of the online survey, we on the KB Community did not receive any communication (please re-do survey if possible). 14. Crime rate would increase drastically which would lead to lower property values. 15. Please do not allow any medical dispensary in Livermore- strictly NO 16. If you allow this it will be unsafe to children's health. 17. We don't want any medical dispensary close to my neighborhood. 18. If you wanted to allow show us the proof of Livermore residents requesting for this. Should be valid with IDs.

252 253 ATTACHMENT 4 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 ATTACHMENT 5 319 320 321 ADJOURNMENT

TO A REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2017

7:00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3575 PACIFIC AVENUE LIVERMORE

322