Livermore downtown initiative set for November 2020 ballot; referendum looms

City Council hosts spirited debate as petitioners' actions take center stage

Voters in Livermore are poised to settle the debate over their city's Downtown Specific Plan more than a year from now, after the City Council opted to place an initiative measure proposing an alternative redevelopment concept on the November 2020 general election ballot.

A decision made during the council's regular meeting Monday night, Livermore voters will be asked to either support the independently created "Central Park Plan" -- submitted as part of a citizen group's petition -- or oppose that concept in a vote of confidence for the city-approved plan.

"Two goals that we wanted were more open space and more parking and the approved downtown plan has both," Mayor John Marchand said toward the end of Monday's four-hour meeting.

"Somebody talked about with some derision that this was the city-approved plan," Marchand lamented. "That's right, we are the leaders that were elected by this community to develop a plan based on the input ... and who approved the downtown drawing? Who approved the downtown initiative? Was that done in the public? No, that was done by two people. (Our plan) was done by the entire community."

The initiative may be joined on the ballot by a referendum measure that seeks specifically to overturn a council-approved development agreement with a hotelier for downtown.

Tamara Reus, chair of Protect the Central Park Vote, said her group has gathered 8,500 signatures on a referendum petition that supporters will turn in on Wednesday.

If those signatures are verified by Alameda County election officials, it could set the stage for dueling downtown plans on the Nov. 3, 2020 ballot -- when Marchand is termed out and two regular council seats will also be decided.

During Monday's meeting, the council had the options to instead approve the initiative outright or call a special election to be held sooner than the 2020 general election. However, the council did not approve the former due to each council member publicly opposing the Central Park Plan, nor the latter because a special election would cost taxpayers an estimated $639,048 to $798,810, according to city staff.

City officials and members of the public alike spiritedly debated the merits of both plans on Monday, after reviewing an informative report -- referred to as a 9212 report -- created by city staff analyzing the Central Park Plan initiative.

"With respect to the 9212 report, I find it to be very informative and accurate. And I would say with respect to that, based off of the 9212 report, that there is no way that the council can adopt the initiative and move forward in any reasonable manner," Councilman Bob Woerner said. "The summary is we are looking at years of delays ... and at the end of it we get higher costs, less parking and less park."

"This report if you had to come up with a new dictionary entry for defeatism, you might use this report as a citation," countered Doug Mann, one of the residents who claimed the 9212 report was biased in favor of the city's development plan.

Prepared by city staff over the past month, the 9212 report analyzes the merits and pitfalls of the Central Park Plan and compared it to the city's own downtown plan that is currently centered around a 135-room boutique hotel next to the Bankhead Theater.

Livermore's Downtown Specific Plan also contemplates 20,000 square feet for new retail space, a 20,000-square-foot science museum, a 15,000-square-foot black box theater, 130 multifamily housing units and a new public park named in honor of the Livermore Stockmen's Rodeo Association.

According to the 9212 report, the Central Park Plan centers on a design concept with more flexibility and less concrete planning in its layout.

The report summarizes that the Central Park Plan includes up to 30,000 square feet for retail space, up to 30,000 square feet for a center for science culture and education, up to 30,000 square feet for a black box theater, 84 multifamily housing units, a parking structure located at the city's proposed site for the hotel next to the Bankhead, and a 160-room hotel on the west side of South Livermore Avenue.

The distribution of space for retail, theater, science center and other uses has not been designated in the initiative proposal.

"The initiative allows a vast amount of options and we would have to sort through them, so there is no question in my mind that we are at a restart and there is no clarity being offered. And in fact, to me, we are purposely being confused," Woerner said.

City staff did acknowledge that this amount of flexibility -- as well as having only 30 days to conduct the study -- made it challenging to review the project, saying: "The initiative leaves many parameters of the project site's development unspecified, which makes a comparative analysis difficult."

For example, while the city approved plan clearly designates 3.32 acres of land for public open space and 0.46 acres for private open space, the 9212 report found that the Central Park Plan designates 2.37 acres for public open space, 0.4 acres for "potential" open space and 0.75 acres for "potential" private space.

The 9212 report further finds that the uncertainty surrounding the specificity levels of the Central Park Plan would result in the development process for downtown essentially restarting, resulting in four years or more of delays as city officials conduct public outreach, prepare a technical analysis and finalize a fixed plan.

"I think the 9212 report is very optimistic on what the delay might be," added Woerner.

Councilman Bob Coomber criticized the Central Park Plan for not adequately considering the finances required to create a downtown plan saying: "The drawing did not have to take into account the cost of an extra parking structure...We can not afford to put in three big parking structures."

Members in support of the Central Park Plan spoke out in favor of the council declaring a special election to settle the issue as soon as possible, and disregarded the 9212 report, accusing city staff of creating a "propaganda piece" in support of the council's plan.

"The report was clearly written or directed by those who would benefit from attempting to show that the initiative could take and I quote 'an additional four years or more.' Those people are willing to make or attempt to make it sound like it could take that long regardless of facts of logic. Indeed, the report looks at how the city can stretch it out but fails to even consider reporting on how quickly it could be done," said resident Jeff Kaskey, who referred to the city report as a "vendetta document."

While tempers did not flare as high as past council meetings on the city's downtown plan, accusations of threats of violence arose from opposing sides, with Mayor Marchand stating that his neighbor had been threatened by a Central Park Plan petitioner.

"Last week a paid signature gatherer threatened to shoot one of my neighbors, threatened to shoot one of my neighbors; this has been encouraged to get out of control," Marchand said. That was not the sole threat to come out of the downtown debate, with a public speaker stating that they overheard one man threaten another with violence at the last council meeting.

"We have a credibility crisis," Marchand continued. "We need to get correct information out to our community and what were seeing isn't helping. It is turning this community against itself. Neighbors are concerned because neighbors are fighting neighbors ... This is tearing our community apart."

The full 9212 report can be viewed online at the Livermore City Council webpage at

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.


2 people like this
Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Aug 27, 2019 at 6:54 pm

Grumpy is a registered user.

Glad I don't live in Livermore.

8 people like this
Posted by RDJR
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 28, 2019 at 8:46 am

Livermore Downtown has been used as a political pawn for YEARS. Kudos to the city Council for finally addressing the last bit of development regardless of the big money special interest fighting them. The City plan has universal support.

6 people like this
Posted by Bob Koelle
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 28, 2019 at 9:57 am

A telling statement: "Central Park Plan includes up to...30,000 square feet for a black box theater." The Bankhead is 34,000 square feet. The agenda today is the same as it always was - create a new large performing arts space, instead of the smaller, flexible, privately funded black box theater.
There is no Central Park plan. It's a drawing. The supporters are either those who want a performing arts complex, or those duped into believing that the drawing represents something that could actually happen. It can't, it won't.
Confused? Please go to a Unify Livermore public meeting to learn facts. Hear from business owners and town leaders and the representatives from the groups who stitched together the approved plan. The town has already spoken, and will speak clearly again, if the truth is known.

8 people like this
Posted by Kel
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 28, 2019 at 5:49 pm

For goodness sakes. Joan are you listening? We’re all completely sick and tired of your shenanigans and your grown up temper tantrum. Stop already. We don’t want your second giant theater and we don’t want your garage next to the Bankhead. Most of all we don’t want you trying to steamroll us into doing your bidding. We want the plan that our community spend years negotiating. It is time for you to sit back and cut it out.

3 people like this
Posted by David
a resident of Golden Eagle
on Aug 28, 2019 at 8:49 pm

Joan is a longtime resident of LIVERMORE, having dedicated her life to many altruistic, community endeavors. She shows what a women of character, integrity and intelligence can do in the face of power politics and downright hostility toward women in leadership. There’s no room for paternalizing misogynism from men threatened by her obvious abilities to meet challenges head -on.

8 people like this
Posted by Kel
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 28, 2019 at 9:29 pm

This is hardly a case of misogyny David. In the past Joan has certainly done some good things. But she is way off base here, both with what folks want and with what the town needs.

Her selfish desire to get it all done her way, no matter the cost to Livermore is over the top. We spent years planning, and compromising, and speaking with community members, business owners, and neighbors. The downtown plan is the result of that. Joan’s “plan” is half baked at’s not a fully realized plan, more of a concept. What few details it lists are inferior to the plan we actually have. Her concept has less open space, has no hotel operator interested, has no traffic report done, and has too few of the mandated -by the state because we used their money to get this land- housing units, (which by the way, her units are too small for the “family housing” she claims them to be) which would require we give back millions of dollars to the state. It is a fiscal nightmare. Her petioners lied to everyone across town, threatened folks in their homes, and trespassed on property in an effort to get more signatures. That hardly sounds like someone who has Livermore’s interests at heart, but it sure sounds like someone who will spend any amount of money to get her way.

Past accomplishments do not give anyone the right to bulldoze her way across town, lying in her publication, and trying to fool us all into thinking her vague concept is better than a well thought out plan.

No thanks. I still want Joan to knock it off.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Differentiating Grief from Clinical Depression
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,523 views

Jammed BART trains demand innovative thinking moving forward
By | 9 comments | 1,041 views