City Council - Regular Meeting

November 3rd election. My mic is on.

Members of the City Council, we will have a brief presentation on this item. If you could just give us a moment to pull this up.

GOOD AFTERNOON, HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS OLIVIA NASHED. I AM THE NEW CITY CLERK FOR THE CITY OF LIVERMORE. WELCOME ABOARD. THANK YOU. SO BEAR WITH ME. IT'S MY FIRST PRESENTATION, FIRST MEETING, SO FIRST, A LOT OF FIRSTS TODAY. BUT I AM EXCITED ABOUT BRINGING THIS ITEM FORWARD TO YOU AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START THE PRESENTATION. Oh, my apologies. Can you hear me now?

Okay.

Thank you. So item 3.1 is the appointment of candidates and cancellation of election for the November 3rd, 2026 municipal election. The city of Livermore had three seats up for election for the November 3rd, 2026 general municipal election, and those seats were the mayor's seat, the district one and the district two. The nomination period was July 13 to August 7th, 2026, and all incumbents filed for their respective seats and therefore no extension was applicable. At the close of nomination period, the following candidates qualify to be on the November 3rd, 2026 ballot. For Mayor, John Mershon. For District 1, Evan Branning. And for District 2, Ben Berriantos and Narion Tedamedi. As there was only one candidate qualified for the mayoral race and one candidate qualified for the District 1 race, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10229, the City Council can take one of the following actions. Appoint to the office the persons nominated, which is John Marchand for Mayor and Evan Branning for District 1, or option two would be to continue to hold the election. If the City Council takes action per Option 1, the Mayoral and District 1 uncontested elections will therefore be cancelled. Based on the 2024 general election costs that were received from the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, staff anticipate savings of at least $250,000 if the City Council elects to make the appointments for the qualified candidates and cancel the Mayor and District 1 race for 2026. So, therefore, due to the significant cost savings, the reduction of city and Alameda County Registrar of Voters' staff time, and operational efficiency, it is staff's recommendation that the City Council, one, appoint John Marchand to the Office of Mayor for a two-year term, two, appoint Evan Branning to the Office of Council Member District 1 for a four-year term, and therefore canceling the uncontested November 3rd, 2026 general municipal election for the mayor and the district one. And with that, that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Do we have any public comment?

We do. We do have one comment card from...

Yes, we have one public speaker for item 3.1.

Our first speaker is Jean King.

Good afternoon. It's good for the city to look for ways to save money. $250,000 or perhaps $300,000 is a fairly large amount of money, and we don't want to spend city funds unwisely. At first glance, it seems that's a lot of money for two people's names on the Livermore ballot. But elections cost a lot. Our elections are very complicated. We get different ballots with different districts for city mayor in four council areas, five school areas, LARPD, city, county supervisors, education departments, and judges. state senate and assembly, and federal congressional districts. It takes a lot of effort and funds to keep track of the numerous districts and voters, and to produce and collect and count the ballots. But we do not complain about the cost of elections, for they are fundamental to our democracy. You five people will vote today to put those two uncontested elections and adopt them and you will not be holding elections for those two, the Mayor and District Ones. With either option, it is likely that John Marchand will serve another two year term, and Evan Branning will serve another four year term for District One, and the city will save roughly $250,000 or $300,000. Some will not vote in the November election. Some will only vote for the top of the ballot, the federal and the state contest. Everyone has a right not to vote, but the right to vote should not be taken away. I think that the voters of Livermore want to cast their own votes. Every voter in Livermore should have the opportunity for voting for mayor. Everyone in District One should have the opportunity to vote for their council representative. Livermore voters should see John Marchand's name and decide if they want to give their vote to him as mayor as an endorsement of his work, or leave it blank, or do a write-in and tell, fill in that circle, though rarely do write-in voters ever win elections. Voters in District 1 should see Evan Branning's name and decide if they want to give their vote to him as counsel as an endorsement of his work, or leave it blank, or do a write-in and fill in the circle, though rarely do write-in voters win elections. But voters should have that opportunity to vote. Single candidates occur in most elections with a line for a write-in and a circle to place a vote. Elections are important and voters should not lose that right. Thank you.

Any other speakers?

We have no more speakers.

I'm sorry. Wow. we are not taking the right to vote away from anyone. Everyone, 85,000 people had the opportunity to file, some of them maybe not legally, but no one's taking away anyone's right to vote. The fact that this saves, we are all stewards of the public's money, and people would have a chance to see my name on the ballot, which really would be an exercise in egotism, just to require people to see my name. That's not a good use of funds. I'm running unopposed because people apparently think I'm doing a good job. And part of that good job is saving and being wise about the use of public funds. Sure, I could, as I said, in an expression of egotism, we could be like an election in Russia and say, yes, I got 100% of the vote. But that's a meaningless gesture. It's a far better reason to wisely use the public funds and not have an election that's just an exercise in egotism. It's how do we best serve the public and best use the public's money. And the best way to do that is to not go through the meaningless gesture of holding an election for which there is no other one running. It's far better to use those funds to serve this community. So with that, if there's no further comment, I'll take a motion.

Can I make it? Sure. Okay. One thing is that People kind of ignore local elections, which I think is sad, and we should find a way to make sure some of these, all of them should be contested one way or the other. I'm sure Marshall would have won easily, but it's a good way to have a discourse publicly to see what people are thinking. Are they starting to change their opinions or their ideas? And so I can't vote no because I don't see a way to throw $200,000 on an election that we know the outcomes are going to be. So that's my thing. Just like school board races, they're local. It doesn't take that much to get elected. But if we... don't have qualified people who are interested in the good of the people, we could have people taking over some of these election seats that had nefarious intent. So that's my only concern. The public, they do complain about things, but then it's like put up or shut up. If you have a concern, then run. It's not easy running. It's hard. It takes time because you can't sit there like the field dreams and, oh, put my name out there, they will come. It doesn't work that way. You have to go and get these votes. And a lot of people, I was looking next door, and some people didn't even know their election was coming up. I guess they missed the 14th Congressional District because their election, what election? The one you just missed. Anyway, I don't feel like we should do what the sheriff does. You don't vote, you get voted. a little ticket, $10, because you have a right, you know, and a lot of us don't exercise our rights. We should vote. I have never missed a vote, you know, since I was a kid. I feel obligated. I've had neighbors who had never registered. I said, you know, you come here to our country, and people died in some countries, like, God, which one? One Central American country said, oh, I think it's Guatemala, no more elections. We know how it's going to come out. Yeah, yeah, because you've got a lot of guns. So I feel that, you know, I gave them four registration cards. Fill them out and then go vote, you know, for whatever you want or against whatever you want. People need to know how people think. And, you know, what is it? What, 60% of the people vote? And school board races, maybe you're lucky if you get 15% of the people vote. And some of these, I was telling Christy, I sat on a school board, they get nasty. Some of those, because you're dealing with parents who are concerned about their kids. So anyway, that's it. Thank you.

I have a question potentially for our city attorney or city clerk. In an election where there's only one candidate, is there a way for that candidate to lose? Is there a minimum number of votes they need? No. No, but if they get zero or one, and presumably the candidate himself will vote for himself, so they would get at least the one vote, and that's enough to win. So there's no way for the outcome to be any different than us appointing them today, in which case I think we should save the $250,000.

I would just like to note that there is a – process for write-in candidates, which with the appointment, there would be no write-in candidates. But there would have to be enough people, enough voters that write in the same name for that person to win over a candidate that's already running. Okay.

And, you know, these were not people who've already been elected by the people? Correct. I might think differently, but they've already been elected by the people, and they've served. People have watched them serve, and no one has challenged them.

Okay. Thank you. Council Member Dundar. I would maybe say it this way. I think that trying to break out the percentages of how many people vote for Council Member Branning or Mayor Marchand without an opponent relative to other races would be splitting hairs relative to the American Community Survey that we do every year to see how people feel about City of Livermore governance, which includes all of us up here as an indicator. So relative to that thing that we normally do, and as you know, add our own questions to sometimes to get more specific info. I don't think that this is worth that cost. We have better things to spend our money on.

Well, and in the most recent poll, 92% of the people agreed that Livermore is a great place to live and raise a family. That's 92%. So I have never missed an election since I was 18. And the reason being is because I turned 18 during the Vietnam War. And we did not have the right to vote for our federal representatives who had the ability to send us off to war and to die. And we could not vote for our representatives. And it was the Vietnam War that gave 18-year-olds the right to vote. And that's why I've never missed an election since then. I have to say that I am... shocked at the cynicism here, because our election date used to be on odd years, which The speaker and the owner of the newspaper preferred having it on odd years because it reduced voter turnout. And one of the reasons that I advocated for change the election date from odd years to even years was that the city saved a million dollars per election. And it increased voter turnout by 30%. 30% more people voted. Now, what's cynical about it is that people that wanted to control the city wanted to have a lower voter turnout. They didn't want people to vote because they could better manipulate the vote. On the other hand, I wanted more people to vote because I wanted to hear from more people. And that's what we've successfully done. We increased voter turnout 30%, so we are hearing from more voters. We're going to save the – I hope that we're going to save the residents of Livermore a significant amount of money rather than just wasting it on an exercise in ego.

So if there's – are there any other comments? I would move approval of the staff recommendation.

Motion by Council Member Dunbar. I'll have a second. Seconded by Vice Mayor Wong. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor? I'm sorry. We're not online, right? So we can just do this by voice vote? Okay. Question for the city attorney. With this appointment, I will be personally benefiting financially. Is there a conflict of interest here? Should I have accused myself?

There's not a conflict of interest. The FPPC has issued opinion letters stating that voting under for appointments under 102.29 of the Elections Code is not a conflict of interest.

Okay. Very good. Thank you. So with that, I will call the question. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? It passed unanimously. Thank you very much. Okay, moving on to 3.2. This is a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation of low-income housing funds. And this is regarding the contract with Bay Cities Paving and Grading. Item 3.2.

I have a question.

Yes.

It's a legal question. You know, I was involved with a referendum to have a vote on Eden Housing. And this village thing is, you know, Eden Housing. So am I supposed to recuse myself or what?

That is a decision that you can choose to make. I'm sorry. This is Kim Sealy, your city attorney. That is a decision that you can make. There is not a financial conflict of interest, but whether there is a bias, that would be a determination that you should make and then choose whether to recuse or participate.

So I'm a simple man. COUNTRY FOLKS LIKE JOE SCARBOROUGH SAYS, YES OR NO, SHOULD I RECUSE MYSELF? I DIDN'T GET THAT.

IT'S A DECISION THAT YOU CAN MAKE IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAVE ANY BIAS TOWARDS THE PROJECT BECAUSE OF YOUR AFFILIATION WITH THE PROJECT.

WELL, I DO, BECAUSE I SO WANT TO MOVE NORTH OF RAILROAD.

THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU RECUSE YOURSELF.

CAN I HAVE A LATTE? OKAY.

And I loved the citation of Sam Irvin. I'm just a poor country lawyer from the Watergate, which shows how far back we go.

Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Rick Texon. I'm an Assistant City Engineer in the Engineering Division, which is a part of the Community Development Department. This presentation will provide a brief description of the Livermore Village Remediation Soil Removal Project, highlight some of the benefits of that project, and identify the actions requested of Council. The project is located at the corner of Railroad Avenue and L Street in an area generally referred to as Livermore Village. The project location, shown in red, is one of three sites in the Livermore Village area overseen by the Water Board. The proposed excavation work for this project is part of a residential development project and will be implementing the downtown workforce housing project, including two residential buildings and a park, which was previously entitled and found to be exempt from CEQA based on the 2004 and 2009 environmental impact reports and addenda. The project involves soil removal to facilitate subsequent construction of the Downtown Workforce Housing Project and Veterans Park. The project consists of the following main activities. Erecting a perimeter fence to control access to the site during construction. Demolishing and removing existing infrastructure, including pavement, gravel, Parking wheel stops, parking barriers, lighting, conduits, and piping. Excavating and direct loading soil for landfill disposal. Importing and backfilling with clean water board approved soil. Work will be performed in compliance with the water board approved site management plan. which identifies soil management requirements during soil disturbing activities associated with development and maintenance activities at the site. The site management plan anticipates construction of the downtown workforce housing project. This project is funded by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Equitable Community Revitalization Grant. which term ends on February 26, 2027. Project benefits stem from minimizing exposure to the public, to maintenance workers, and to construction workers, to soil containing heavy metals. Here you see a schematic cross-section of soil at the site with new surface soil depths highlighted. In general, excavation in the downtown area shows elevated heavy metals and shallow soil. In the zero to two feet depth, we consistently see elevated lead concentrations, with lead, arsenic, and nickel exceeding environmental screening levels. Depending on this, this presents a possible exposure to the public, routine maintenance workers, and construction workers. In fact, excavation to a depth of two feet has required class two landfill disposal at various projects in the Livermore Village area, including in and around Stockings Park and the L Street Garage. In the two to five foot depth, lead concentrations dropped considerably, but arsenic and nickel continue to exceed environmental screening levels. Public exposure is unlikely at this depth, but there is exposure to maintenance and construction workers. Excavation to a depth of five feet will reduce exposure for these workers and will also provide us an opportunity to find and remove underground storage tanks, which has occurred both at the Stockman Park area and the Elstree Garage area. Beyond 5 feet, which is the lowest zone, exposure will be very limited and infrequent, even to construction workers. Any earthwork will require shoring for limiting exposure to soil. It's anticipated that following site management plan procedures as needed at the time of soil disturbance will be adequate. So removing soil from 0 to 5 feet deep in advance of the Downtown Workforce Housing Project and Veterans Park construction will minimize potential delays during their construction, improve worker health and safety during their construction, and reduce landfill off-hauling during their construction. Accordingly, Accordingly, the recommended action is to rescind resolution number 2026-125, adopt the SQL findings presented in the staff report and the resolution, authorize the supplemental appropriation and budget reductions, award the construction contract to Bay Cities Paving and Grading Inc., reject all other bids and proposals. authorize the 10% change order allowance, and authorize the city manager to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the council for your time and consideration today.

Thank you. Do you have any public comment?

Yes, Mayor, we do have one public comment in person, Brian Swanson.

Good afternoon, mayor and council members. Brian Swanson, AICP certified planner. And actually here, because the last meeting was so dense, having to clean up issues that weren't provided my attention then because of the density of the meeting. So here I am. Before I begin, I think I heard already that my comments have been received. I think I provided copies of the dies, too. So I object to the proposed CEQA findings, contract, re-award, change order authority, and implementation authority. Resend resolution number 2026-125 separately, then continue the balance. The city's late production confirms that the executed contract number 26-0031 on July 28th, under the resolution now being rescinded, The packet contains a second version signed by Bay Cities on August 10th, with city signatures blank. The city has not disclosed whether the first contract remains in effect, what commitments or performance has occurred, or how rescission affects it. The record lacks a prong-specific section 15162 comparison addressing project changes, change circumstances, and new information, including new or more severe impacts, and feasible new or different mitigation. The site management plan describes approximately 20 feet beneath building A, nine feet beneath building B, and two feet in the remaining area, including Veterans Park. Bid alternate two adds three feet for a total of five feet site-wide, with off-haul, import, Black Hill, and compaction The city has not mapped limits, quantities, truckloads, haul distances, emissions, or citations for prior analyses. The HAS-4 mitigation measure required investigation and an appropriate remedy. It identified removal, treatment, capping, and institutional controls as possible remedies. It did not mandate the exact five-foot program. The six page contract incorporates project specific conditions, specifications, drawings, bid schedules, and environmental requirements that are not public. The generic standards still contain unfinished editorial instructions where project level mitigation and storm water requirements should appear. The city has not demonstrated the enforceability of the mitigation monitoring reporting program, the site management plan, the water board requirements, monitoring or reporting, and the Stop Work Authority. The analysis also omits current air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, truck mileage, noise, cultural resources, and cumulative impacts. The July 31st notices cite conflicting precisions, and the packet does not establish any alternative exemption. Rescind the first, continue the balance, complete the record, and return for a lawful decision.

Thank you. Do we have any other speakers?

Mayor, if I just may, since we've started virtual meetings, I'd like to make a quick announcement. For those that are joining us virtually via Zoom, if you have a public comment, please use the raised hand feature in order to ensure that we call upon you for public comment. And Mayor, while we're waiting on Zoom, just to double check, if you want to invite anyone else in the audience that may have a public comment, you're welcome to do so.

Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to comment on this item? While we're waiting, I would ask the city attorney, do you have any comments in response to the comments from Mr. Swanson?

Thank you, Mayor Marchant and members of the council. Kim Seeley, your city attorney. As staff correctly noted, the proposed excavation work is not an independent action. It is really part of the residential development project. The excavation work is a subsequent approval merely implementing the downtown workforce housing project, which includes two residential buildings and a park. It was previously entitled, and it was found to be exempt both by the city council and by the courts, and found to be exempt based on the EIRs and addenda for the downtown specific plan and subsequent EIRs. There are no changes, no substantial changes in the project. There have been no changes in circumstances that have occurred and no significant new information that would require changes in the EIRs and addenda already prepared. In accordance with CEQA guidelines, section 15162, no further environmental review is required. Thank you.

It's funny. I actually recall Judge Markman making the comment that, you know, since 2007, nothing has changed on this site. So the original EIR was still valid because nothing had changed since 2007 when the site was acquired. So it's funny. When you mentioned that about just sort of flashed in my mind, oh, I remember that.

That's correct.

Mayor, there are no additional public comments on this item.

Okay. Seeing no additional comments, I'm going to close the public comment period and bring it back to the council. Questions or comments from the council? Council Member Dunbar.

I'll comment and then throw a question at a certain point. Has any performance occurred on the contract or was all work stopped since?

No performance has occurred on the contract.

Thank you. What I heard was a claim that significant new information has occurred. I read all those claims in the email packet. I was on the Planning Commission through this project multiple times and have seen this project multiple times. I have read the SMP. I have read the EIR documentation, both the supplemental and addendums that have occurred over the various years. I do not find that there is any new information that would constitute such a determination to change that. So I can make the findings that staff is recommending. I hope, Mr. Swanson, that your accommodation requests have been dealt with or at least moving in the right direction. Thank you for bringing those to our attention. As you have noticed, new city clerk and new performance here. But I simply disagree with the assertions being made. Thank you.

Vice Mayor, comments?

I've also read the emails and appreciate that and agree that there have been no changes to this project. So I'm comfortable with staff recommendation. Okay. Do I have a motion? I'll move approval of staff recommendation.

Okay. It's been moved. And I will second. Seconded by Council Member Dunbar. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposition? Abstentions? It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. We can bring Council Member Berrientos back in. All right. You're back just in time for the adjournment. We're going to adjourn to a regular hybrid city council meeting Monday, September 14th at 7 p.m. We'll see you here. Thank you very much.