Livermore City Council
July 25, 2022

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
x ˜‘‹†™‘”‹•—‹–ƒ„Ž‡Šƒ„‹–ƒ–†—”‹‰–Š‡ˆŽ‹‰Š–ƒ†ƒ–‹‰•‡ƒ•‘ ሺ‹†Ǧƒ›–‘‹†Ǧ
—Ž›ሻ–‘–Š‡‡š–‡–ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡Ǥ
Ǧ
Ǧͻǣ˜‘‹†”‘‘•–‹‰„ƒ–•™Š‡”‡ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡Ǥ

ˆ–”‡‡”‡‘˜ƒŽƒ†–”‹‹‰
ƒ‘–„‡
‘†—
–‡†„‡–™‡‡‡’–‡„‡”ͳͷƒ†
–‘„‡”͵Ͳǡ’”‘’‘‡–•‘ˆ’”‘Œ‡
–•‹’Ž‡‡–‡†—†‡”–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†Žƒ™‹ŽŽ”‡–ƒ‹ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•––‘‡šƒ‹‡–”‡‡•–‘„‡”‡‘˜‡†‘”–”‹‡†ˆ‘”•—‹–ƒ„Ž‡„ƒ–”‘‘•–‹‰Šƒ„‹–ƒ–‘‘”‡–Šƒʹ™‡‡•„‡ˆ‘”‡”‡‘˜ƒŽƒ†–”‹‹‰Ǥ ‹‰ŠǦ“—ƒŽ‹–›Šƒ„‹–ƒ–ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡•ሺŽƒ”‰‡–”‡‡
ƒ˜‹–‹‡•ǡ„ƒ•ƒŽŠ‘ŽŽ‘™•ǡŽ‘‘•‡‘”’‡‡Ž‹‰„ƒ”ǡŽƒ”‰‡”•ƒ‰•ǡ’ƒŽ–”‡‡•™‹–Š‹–ƒ ––Šƒ–
Šǡ‡–
Ǥሻ™‹ŽŽ„‡‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†ƒ†–Š‡ƒ”‡ƒƒ”‘—†–Š‡•‡ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡••‡ƒ” Š‡†
ˆ‘”„ƒ–•ƒ†„ƒ–•‹‰•ሺ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ‰—ƒ‘ǡ
—ŽŽ‡†‹•‡
–’ƒ”–•ǡ—”‹‡•–ƒ‹‹‰ǡ‡–
ǤሻǤ‹š‡†™‹ŽŽ‘™”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ•
”—„ƒ†•–ƒ†•‘ˆƒ–—”‡„”‘ƒ†Ž‡ƒˆ–”‡‡••Š‘—Ž†„‡

‘•‹†‡”‡†’‘–‡–‹ƒŽŠƒ„‹–ƒ–ˆ‘”•‘Ž‹–ƒ”›ˆ‘Ž‹ƒ‰‡Ǧ”‘‘•–‹‰„ƒ–•’‡ ‹‡•Ǥƒ••‹˜‡
‘‹–‘”‹‰—•‹‰ˆ—ŽŽ•’‡
–”—„ƒ–†‡–‡
–‘”•ƒ›„‡‡‡†‡†‹ˆ‹†‡–‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ„ƒ–•’‡
‹‡•‹•”‡“—‹”‡†Ǥ—”˜‡›‡–Š‘†•™‹ŽŽ„‡†‹•
—••‡†™‹–Š ’”‹‘”–‘–Š‡•–ƒ”–‘ˆ•—”˜‡›•Ǥ‡ƒ•—”‡•–‘ƒ˜‘‹†ƒ†‹‹‹œ‡‹’ƒ –•‘•‡•‹–‹˜‡„ƒ–••’‡
‹‡•™‹ŽŽ„‡
†‡–‡”‹‡†‹
‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘™‹–Š ƒ†ƒ›‹
Ž—†‡–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰Ǥ
x ”‡‡”‡‘˜ƒŽ™‹ŽŽ„‡ƒ˜‘‹†‡†„‡–™‡‡’”‹Žͳƒ†‡’–‡„‡”ͳͷሺ–Š‡ ƒ–‡”‹–›’‡”‹‘†ሻ–‘ƒ˜‘‹†‡ˆˆ‡
–•‘’”‡‰ƒ–ˆ‡ƒŽ‡•ƒ†ƒ
–‹˜‡
ƒ–‡”‹–›”‘‘•–•ሺ™Š‡–Š‡”
‘Ž‘‹ƒŽ‘”•‘Ž‹–ƒ”›ሻǤ
x ŽŽ–”‡‡”‡‘˜ƒŽ™‹ŽŽ„‡
‘†—
–‡†„‡–™‡‡‡’–‡„‡”ͳͷƒ†

–‘„‡”͵Ͳǡ™Š‹
Š
‘””‡•’‘†•–‘ƒ–‹‡’‡”‹‘†™Š‡„ƒ–•Šƒ˜‡‘–
›‡–‡–‡”‡†–‘”’‘”‘”™‘—Ž†„‡
ƒ”‹‰ˆ‘”‘˜‘Žƒ–ሺ‘ǦˆŽ›‹‰ሻ
›‘—‰Ǥ
x ƒ
Š–”‡‡™‹ŽŽ„‡”‡‘˜‡†‹’‹‡
‡•”ƒ–Š‡”–Šƒˆ‡ŽŽ‹‰–Š‡‡–‹”‡–”‡‡Ǥ
x
ˆƒƒ–‡”‹–›”‘‘•–‹•Ž‘
ƒ–‡†ǡ™Š‡–Š‡”•‘Ž‹–ƒ”›‘”
‘Ž‘‹ƒŽǡ–Šƒ–”‘‘•–
™‹ŽŽ”‡ƒ‹—†‹•–—”„‡†—–‹Ž‡’–‡„‡”ͳͷ‘”ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•– 358

EXHIBIT B
613
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
Šƒ•†‡–‡”‹‡†–Š‡”‘‘•–‹•‘Ž‘‰‡”ƒ
–‹˜‡Ǥ
x
ˆƒ˜‘‹†ƒ
‡‘ˆ‘ƒ–‡”‹–›”‘‘•––”‡‡•‹•‘–’‘••‹„Ž‡ǡƒ†–”‡‡ ”‡‘˜ƒŽ‘”–”‹‹‰—•–‘

—”„‡–™‡‡
–‘„‡”͵Ͳƒ†‡’–‡„‡”ͳͷǡ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–•™‹ŽŽ‘‹–‘”–”‡‡–”‹‹‰ƒ†”‡‘˜ƒŽǤ ˆ’‘••‹„Ž‡ǡ–”‡‡–”‹‹‰ƒ†”‡‘˜ƒŽ•Š‘—Ž†‘

—”‹–Š‡Žƒ–‡ƒˆ–‡”‘‘‘”‡˜‡‹‰™Š‡‹–‹•
Ž‘•‡”–‘–Š‡–‹‡–Šƒ–„ƒ–•™‘—Ž†‘”ƒŽŽ›ƒ”‘—•‡Ǥ”‹‘”–‘”‡‘˜ƒŽƒ†–”‹‹‰ǡ‡ƒ Š–”‡‡™‹ŽŽ„‡•Šƒ‡‰‡–Ž›ƒ†•‡˜‡”ƒŽ‹—–‡••Š‘—Ž†’ƒ••„‡ˆ‘”‡ˆ‡ŽŽ‹‰–”‡‡•‘”Ž‹„•–‘ƒŽŽ‘™„ƒ–•–‹‡–‘ƒ”‘—•‡ƒ†Ž‡ƒ˜‡–Š‡–”‡‡ǤŠ‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–•™‹ŽŽ•‡ƒ” Š†‘™‡†˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘ˆ‘”†‡ƒ†ƒ†‹Œ—”‡†„ƒ–•ǤŠ‡’”‡•‡ ‡‘ˆ†‡ƒ†‘”‹Œ—”‡†„ƒ–•–Šƒ–ƒ”‡•’‡
‹‡•‘ˆ•’‡
‹ƒŽ
‘
‡”™‹ŽŽ„‡”‡’‘”–‡†–‘ ǤŠ‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–™‹ŽŽ’”‡’ƒ”‡„‹‘Ž‘‰‹ ƒŽ‘‹–‘”‹‰”‡’‘”–ǡ™Š‹
Š™‹ŽŽ„‡’”‘˜‹†‡†–‘–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–ƒ† Ǥ
͵Ǥ͹Ǧʹ
’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†
Žƒ™‘—Ž†‘–ƒ†˜‡”•‡Ž›ƒˆˆ‡
–”‹’ƒ”‹ƒŠƒ„‹–ƒ–ƒ†Ȁ‘”‘–Š‡”•‡•‹–‹˜‡ƒ–—”ƒŽ
‘—‹–‹‡•‹–Š‡Žƒ‹‰”‡ƒǤ
Ǧ
ǦͳͲǣ ˜‘‹†ƒ†’”‘–‡
–”‹’ƒ”‹ƒŠƒ„‹–ƒ–†—”‹‰
‘•–”—
–‹‘Ǥ
”‘’‘‡–• ‘ˆ •’‡
‹ˆ‹
 ’”‘Œ‡
–• —†‡” –Š‡ ’”‘’‘•‡† Žƒ ™‹ŽŽ ‡•—”‡ –Šƒ– ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†”‡•‘—” ‡•’‡
‹ƒŽ‹•–ሺ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–ǡ„‘–ƒ‹•–ǡ‘”‡
‘Ž‘‰‹•–ሻ™‹ŽŽ
Ž‡ƒ”Ž›‹†‡–‹ˆ›”‹’ƒ”‹ƒŠƒ„‹–ƒ––‘„‡’”‡•‡”˜‡†ƒ„—––‹‰–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ”‡ƒƒ†‘—–•‹†‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ †‹”‡ –
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ƒ”‡ƒ ™‹–Š Š‹‰ŠǦ˜‹•‹„‹Ž‹–›
‘•–”—
–‹‘ˆ‡
‹‰ ‘” ƒ”‡”• ሺ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ Žƒ–Š‡ ‘” ’‹ ˆŽƒ‰•ሻ „‡ˆ‘”‡ •‹–‡ ’”‡’ƒ”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ‘•–”— –‹‘™‹ŽŽ‘–‡
”‘ƒ
Š—’‘•‡•‹–‹˜‡ƒ–—”ƒŽ
‘—‹–‹‡•‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†„› –Š‡ ”‡•‘—”
‡ •’‡
‹ƒŽ‹•–Ǥ Š‡ ”‡•‘—”
‡ •’‡
‹ƒŽ‹•– ™‹ŽŽ —•‡ –Š‡ ’”‘Œ‡
–ǯ•˜‡”‹ˆ‹‡†™‡–Žƒ† †‡Ž‹‡ƒ–‹‘ǡ •‘‹Ž• †ƒ–ƒǡ ƒ†Žƒ† ‘˜‡” †ƒ–ƒ –‘
‘ˆ‹” –Š‡Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ Šƒ„‹–ƒ– „‘—†ƒ”‹‡• „ƒ•‡† ‘ ‡š‹•–‹‰ ‘†‹–‹‘• ƒ– –Š‡–‹‡‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ˜‘‹†ƒ
‡ƒ”‹‰Ǥš
Ž—•‹‘ˆ‡
‹‰‘”ƒ”‡”•™‹ŽŽ„‡‹•–ƒŽŽ‡†„‡ˆ‘”‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•ƒ”‡‹‹–‹ƒ–‡†ǡƒ†–Š‡ˆ‡
‹‰™‹ŽŽ„‡ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†–Š”‘—‰Š‘—– –Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ’‡”‹‘†Ǥ ‘
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ƒ
–‹˜‹–›ǡ –”ƒˆˆ‹
ǡ‡“—‹’‡–ǡ ‘” ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ• ™‹ŽŽ „‡ ’‡”‹––‡† ‹ ˆ‡ ‡† •‡•‹–‹˜‡ ƒ–—”ƒŽ
Ǥ
͹ǡ ǡ 
ǡ
359

EXHIBIT B
614
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION

‘—‹–›ƒ”‡ƒ•Ǥš
Ž—•‹‘ ˆ‡
‹‰ƒ†ƒ”‡”•™‹ŽŽ„‡”‡‘˜‡†ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰
‘’Ž‡–‹‘‘ˆ
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•Ǥ
ŽŽ
‘†‹–‹‘• ‹’‘•‡† „› –ƒ–‡ ƒ† ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽ ’‡”‹–• ˆ‘” ‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ™‹ŽŽ „‡ Ž‡ƒ”Ž› ‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡† ‹ –Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ’Žƒ• ƒ†•’‡
‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹‘• ƒ† ‘‹–‘”‡† †—”‹‰ ƒ† ƒˆ–‡”
‘•–”—
–‹‘ –‘ ‡•—”‡
‘’Ž‹ƒ
‡Ǥ
Ǧ
Ǧͳͳǣ‘’‡•ƒ–‡ˆ‘”Ž‘••‘ˆ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒŠƒ„‹–ƒ–Ǥ
x ‘” †‹”‡
– ‡ˆˆ‡
–• ‘ ™‘‘†› ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ –”‡‡• –Šƒ–
ƒ‘– „‡ ƒ˜‘‹†‡†ǡ
’”‘’‘‡–• ‘ˆ •’‡
‹ˆ‹
 ’”‘Œ‡
–• —†‡” –Š‡ ’”‘’‘•‡† Žƒ ™‹ŽŽ
‘’‡•ƒ–‡ ˆ‘” –Š‡Ž‘•• ‘ˆ ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ Šƒ„‹–ƒ– –‘ ‡•—”‡ ‘ ‡–Ž‘•• ‘ˆŠƒ„‹–ƒ– ˆ— –‹‘• ƒ† ˜ƒŽ—‡•Ǥ ‘’‡•ƒ–‹‘ ”ƒ–‹‘• ™‹ŽŽ „‡ „ƒ•‡† ‘•‹–‡Ǧ•’‡ ‹ˆ‹
‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† †‡–‡”‹‡† –Š”‘—‰Š
‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‘™‹–Š–Š‡ ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ –ƒ–‡ ƒ† ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽ ƒ‰‡ ‹‡• †—”‹‰ –Š‡ ’‡”‹––‹‰’”‘
‡••Ǥ–ƒ‹‹—ǡ–Š‡
‘’‡•ƒ–‹‘”ƒ–‹‘™‹ŽŽ„‡ʹǣͳሺ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ–™‘ƒ
”‡• ”‡•–‘”‡†Ȁ
”‡ƒ–‡†Ȁ‡Šƒ
‡† ‘”
”‡†‹–• ’—”
Šƒ•‡† ˆ‘” ‡˜‡”› ͳƒ
”‡”‡‘˜‡†ሻˆ‘”’‡”ƒ‡–‹’ƒ
–•ƒ†ͳǣͳˆ‘”–‡’‘”ƒ”›‹’ƒ
–•ሺ™Š‡”‡ ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ Šƒ„‹–ƒ– ™‹ŽŽ ”‡‰‡‡”ƒ–‡ –‘ ’”‡Ǧƒ –‹˜‹–›
Šƒ”ƒ
–‡”™‹–Š‹ ‘‡ ›‡ƒ”ሻǤ ‘’‡•ƒ–‹‘ ƒ› „‡ ƒ
‘„‹ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ‘ˆˆ•‹–‡”‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ ‘” ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘
”‡†‹–•Ǥ Š‡ ’”‘Œ‡
– ’”‘’‘‡– ‘” ‹–•
‘–”ƒ
–‘” ™‹ŽŽ †‡˜‡Ž‘’ ƒ ”‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† ‘‹–‘”‹‰ ’Žƒ –Šƒ–†‡• ”‹„‡• Š‘™ ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ Šƒ„‹–ƒ– ™‹ŽŽ „‡ ‡Šƒ
‡† ‘” ”‡
”‡ƒ–‡† ƒ†‘‹–‘”‡†‘˜‡”ƒ–Ž‡ƒ•–ͷ›‡ƒ”•ǡ‘”ƒ•†‡–‡”‹‡†„›–Š‡ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡–ƒ–‡ƒ†ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽƒ‰‡ ‹‡•Ǥ
x
ˆ –Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡••—‹–ƒ„Ž‡ ‘•‹–‡ƒ”‡ƒ•ሺƒ†Œƒ
‡– –‘
–Š‡ ’‡”ƒ‡–
‘•–”—
–‹‘ ˆ‘‘–’”‹–ሻ –Šƒ– ƒ”‡ ‘—–•‹†‡ –Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ˆ‘‘–’”‹– ƒ† Š‘‘•‡• –‘
‘’‡•ƒ–‡ ‘•‹–‡ ‘” ‹ –Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–ǯ• ˜‹
‹‹–›ǡ ƒ ”‡˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘ ’Žƒ ™‹ŽŽ „‡ ’”‡’ƒ”‡†Ǥ Š‡”‡˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘’Žƒ™‹ŽŽ„‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡†’”‹‘” –‘ –Š‡”‡‘˜ƒŽ‘ˆ‡š‹•–‹‰”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘ƒ†™‹ŽŽ„‡ ‘†—
–‡†‘•‹–‡‘”‹–Š‡‡ƒ”Ǧ–‡”
360

EXHIBIT B
615
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
‘”Ž‘‰‡”Ǧ–‡”‹’”‘˜‡‡–•˜‹
‹‹–›–‘–Š‡‡š–‡–ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡ǢŠ‘™‡˜‡”ǡ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘•‹–‡•‡Ž‡ –‹‘™‹ŽŽƒ˜‘‹†ƒ”‡ƒ•™Š‡”‡ˆ—–—”‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ‘”
ƒ‹–‡ƒ
‡ƒ”‡Ž‹‡Ž›ǤŠ‡”‡˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘’Žƒ™‹ŽŽ„‡’”‡’ƒ”‡†„›ƒ “—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‘–ƒ‹•–‘””‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘•’‡
‹ƒŽ‹•–™‹–Š‡š’‡”‹‡
‡‹”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ
”‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† ”‡˜‹‡™‡† „› –Š‡ ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ ƒ‰‡
‹‡•Ǥ Š‡”‡˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘’Žƒ™‹ŽŽ•’‡
‹ˆ›–Š‡’Žƒ–‹‰•–‘
ƒ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‡ˆ‘”‡ƒ
Š”‹’ƒ”‹ƒŽƒ†
‘˜‡”–›’‡ƒ†‡ƒ
Š‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘•‹–‡ǡ‡•—”‹‰–Š‡—•‡‘ˆ‰‡‡–‹
 •–‘
 ˆ”‘ –Š‡
‘””‡•’‘†‹‰ †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ƒ”‡ƒ „› ’”‘Œ‡
–ǤŠ‡’Žƒ™‹ŽŽ‡’Ž‘›–Š‡‘•–•—

‡••ˆ—Ž–‡
Š‹“—‡•ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡ƒ––Š‡–‹‡‘ˆ’Žƒ–‹‰Ǥ—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒ™‹ŽŽ„‡‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡†ƒ•’ƒ”–‘ˆ–Š‡’Žƒƒ†™‹ŽŽ‹ Ž—†‡ƒ‹‹—‘ˆ͹Ͳ’‡”
‡–”‡˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘•—

‡••ƒˆ–‡”–Š”‡‡›‡ƒ”•ǡͺͲ’‡”
‡–”‡˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘•—

‡••ƒ––Š‡‡†‘ˆˆ‹˜‡›‡ƒ”•ǡƒ†͹ͷ’‡”
‡–˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹˜‡
‘˜‡”ƒ‰‡ƒˆ–‡”ˆ‹˜‡›‡ƒ”•Ǥ
x Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–‘”‹–•
‘–”ƒ
–‘”™‹ŽŽ”‡–ƒ‹ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†„‘–ƒ‹•–ǡ
”‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ ‡
‘Ž‘‰‹•–ǡ ‘” „‹‘Ž‘‰‹•– ™‹–Š ‡š’‡”‹‡
‡ ‹ ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ”‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ –‘‘‹–‘” –Š‡’Žƒ–‹‰•ƒ•‡ ‡••ƒ”› ˆ‘” ˆ‹˜‡›‡ƒ”•ǤŠ‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–‘”‹–•
‘–”ƒ
–‘”™‹ŽŽ„‡”‡•’‘•‹„Ž‡ˆ‘”ƒ‹–ƒ‹‹‰–Š‡’Žƒ–‹‰•ǡ‹ Ž—†‹‰ƒƒ‰‹‰‹˜ƒ•‹˜‡’Žƒ–•ሺƒ•†‡ˆ‹‡†„› –Š‡ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ˜ƒ•‹˜‡Žƒ–‘—
‹Žሻƒ†‘–Š‡”™‡‡†•ǡƒ†‹’Ž‡‡–‹‰‹””‹‰ƒ–‹‘ƒ†’Žƒ–’”‘–‡ –‹‘‹ˆ‡
‡••ƒ”›ǤŠ‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–‘”‹–•
‘–”ƒ
–‘”™‹ŽŽ•—„‹–ƒ—ƒŽ‘‹–‘”‹‰”‡’‘”–•–‘–Š‡”‡‰—Žƒ–‘”›ƒ‰‡ ‹‡•‹••—‹‰ ’‡”‹–• ”‡Žƒ–‡† –‘ Šƒ„‹–ƒ– ‡ˆˆ‡
–•ǡ‹
Ž—†‹‰  ǡ
ǡƒ† Ǥ‡’Žƒ–‹‰™‹ŽŽ„‡‡
‡••ƒ”›‹ˆ•—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒƒ”‡‘–‡–ǡƒ†”‡’Žƒ
‡‡–’Žƒ–••—„•‡“—‡–Ž›™‹ŽŽ„‡‘‹–‘”‡†ƒ†ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡† –‘ ‡‡– –Š‡ •—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒǤ Š‡ ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ Šƒ„‹–ƒ–‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ™‹ŽŽ „‡
‘•‹†‡”‡† •—

‡••ˆ—Ž ™Š‡ –Š‡ •ƒ’Ž‹‰ –”‡‡•‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡†‡‡– –Š‡•—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒǡ –Š‡Šƒ„‹–ƒ–‘Ž‘‰‡””‡“—‹”‡••—„•–ƒ–‹ƒŽƒ
–‹˜‡ƒƒ‰‡‡–ǡƒ†˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘‹•ƒ””ƒ‰‡†‹‰”‘—’•–Šƒ–ǡ™Š‡ƒ–—”‡ǡ”‡’Ž‹ ƒ–‡–Š‡ƒ”‡ƒǡƒ–—”ƒŽ•–”—
–—”‡ǡ•–”ƒ–‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹‘ǡƒ†•’‡
‹‡•
‘’‘•‹–‹‘‘ˆ•‹‹Žƒ””‹’ƒ”‹ƒŠƒ„‹–ƒ–•‹–Š‡”‡‰‹‘Ǥ
361

EXHIBIT B
616
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
͵Ǥ͹Ǧ͵
’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†
Žƒ™‘—Ž†‘–ƒ†˜‡”•‡Ž›ƒˆˆ‡
–ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽŽ›’”‘–‡
–‡†™‡–Žƒ†•ƒ†‘–Š‡”™ƒ–‡”•”‡‰—Žƒ–‡†—†‡”‡
–‹‘ͶͲͶ‘ˆ–Š‡Ž‡ƒƒ–‡”
–Ǥ
Ǧ
Ǧͳʹǣ˜‘‹†ƒ†’”‘–‡
–™‡–Žƒ†•†—”‹‰
‘•–”—
–‹‘Ǥ
”‘’‘‡–•‘ˆ•’‡
‹ˆ‹
’”‘Œ‡
–•—†‡”–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡† Žƒ™‹ŽŽ‡•—”‡–Šƒ–ƒ“—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡†”‡•‘—” ‡•’‡
‹ƒŽ‹•–ሺ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ™‡–Žƒ†„‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–ǡ‡
‘Ž‘‰‹•–ǡ‘”•‘‹Ž•
‹‡–‹•–ሻ™‹ŽŽ
Ž‡ƒ”Ž›‹†‡–‹ˆ›™‡–Žƒ†ƒ”‡ƒ•–‘„‡’”‡•‡”˜‡†ƒ„—––‹‰–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ”‡ƒƒ†™‡–Žƒ†ƒ”‡ƒ•‘—–•‹†‡‘ˆ–Š‡†‹”‡ –
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ”‡ƒ™‹–ŠŠ‹‰ŠǦ˜‹•‹„‹Ž‹–›
‘•–”—
–‹‘ˆ‡
‹‰‘”ƒ”‡”•ሺ‡Ǥ‰ǤǡŽƒ–Š‡‘”’‹ˆŽƒ‰•ሻ„‡ˆ‘”‡•‹–‡’”‡’ƒ”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ‘•–”— –‹‘™‹ŽŽ‘–‡
”‘ƒ
Š—’‘Œ—”‹•†‹
–‹‘ƒŽ
™‡–Žƒ†•‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†„›–Š‡”‡•‘—”
‡•’‡
‹ƒŽ‹•–ǤŠ‡”‡•‘—”
‡•’‡
‹ƒŽ‹•–™‹ŽŽ—•‡–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ˆ‘‘–’”‹–ƒ†˜‡”‹ˆ‹‡†™‡–Žƒ††‡Ž‹‡ƒ–‹‘–‘ ‘ˆ‹”–Š‡Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ™‡–Žƒ†„‘—†ƒ”‹‡•„ƒ•‡†‘‡š‹•–‹‰
‘†‹–‹‘•ƒ––Š‡–‹‡‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ˜‘‹†ƒ
‡ƒ”‹‰Ǥš
Ž—•‹‘ˆ‡
‹‰‘”ƒ”‡”•™‹ŽŽ„‡‹•–ƒŽŽ‡†
„‡ˆ‘”‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•ƒ”‡‹‹–‹ƒ–‡†ǡƒ†–Š‡ˆ‡
‹‰™‹ŽŽ„‡ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡†–Š”‘—‰Š‘—––Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘’‡”‹‘†Ǥ‘
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–›ǡ–”ƒˆˆ‹
ǡ‡“—‹’‡–ǡ‘”ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ•™‹ŽŽ„‡’‡”‹––‡†‹ˆ‡
‡†™‡–Žƒ†ƒ”‡ƒ•Ǥš
Ž—•‹‘ˆ‡
‹‰ƒ†ƒ”‡”•™‹ŽŽ„‡”‡‘˜‡†ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰–Š‡
‘’Ž‡–‹‘‘ˆ
‘•–”—
–‹‘ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•ǤŽŽ
‘†‹–‹‘• ‹’‘•‡† „› –Š‡ ’”‘Œ‡
–•ǯ –ƒ–‡ ƒ† ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽ ’‡”‹–• ™‹ŽŽ „‡‹’Ž‡‡–‡†ƒ•’ƒ”–‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘•–”—
–‹‘ǡ™‹–Š—Ž–‹ƒ–‡‡ˆ‘”
‡‡–‘˜‡”•‹‰Š–„› ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡ –ƒ–‡ ƒ† ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽ ƒ‰‡
‹‡•Ǥ Š‡
‘†‹–‹‘• ™‹ŽŽ „‡
Ž‡ƒ”Ž›‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†‹–Š‡
‘•–”—
–‹‘’Žƒ•ƒ†•’‡
‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹‘•ƒ†‘‹–‘”‡††—”‹‰ƒ†ƒˆ–‡”
‘•–”—
–‹‘–‘‡•—”‡
‘’Ž‹ƒ
‡Ǥ
Ǧ
Ǧͳ͵ǣ ‘’‡•ƒ–‡ ˆ‘” ‹’ƒ
–• ‘ Œ—”‹•†‹
–‹‘ƒŽ ™‡–Žƒ†• ƒ† ‘Ǧ
™‡–Žƒ†™ƒ–‡”•‘ˆ –Š‡‹–‡†–ƒ–‡•ሺƒ“—ƒ–‹
”‡•‘—”
‡•ሻ’”‹‘” –‘‡ƒ”Ǧ–‡” ƒ† Ž‘‰‡”Ǧ–‡” ‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ‹’ƒ –• †—”‹‰
‘•–”—
–‹‘Ǥ

ˆ’”‘Œ‡
–•‹’ƒ
–Œ—”‹•†‹
–‹‘ƒŽ™‡–Žƒ†•ƒ†‘Ǧ™‡–Žƒ†™ƒ–‡”•ǡ’”‘’‘‡–•‘ˆ–Š‡•‡•’‡ ‹ˆ‹
’”‘Œ‡
–•—†‡”–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†Žƒ™‹ŽŽ†‡˜‡Ž‘’ƒƒ“—ƒ–‹
”‡•‘—”
‡ሺ™‡–Žƒ†•ƒ†‘Ǧ™‡–Žƒ†™ƒ–‡”•‘ˆ–Š‡‹–‡†–ƒ–‡•ሻ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘’Žƒǡ•—„Œ‡ ––‘ƒ’’”‘˜ƒŽ„›–Š‡ǡ™Š‹
Š™‹ŽŽ‡•—”‡‘‡–
Ǥ
͹ǡ ǡ 
ǡ
362

EXHIBIT B
617
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION
Ž‘••‘ˆ™‡–Žƒ†•ˆ”‘†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‹’ƒ
–•ǤŠ‡’Žƒ™‹ŽŽ†‡–ƒ‹Ž–Š‡ƒ‘—–
ƒ†–›’‡‘ˆ™‡–Žƒ†•ሺ„ƒ•‡†‘–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–•ǯ˜‡”‹ˆ‹‡†™‡–Žƒ††‡Ž‹‡ƒ–‹‘ሻ–Šƒ–™‹ŽŽ„‡
‘’‡•ƒ–‡†ˆ‘”ሺ–Š”‘—‰Š’”‡•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ǡ
”‡ƒ–‹‘ǡ‘””‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ሻˆ‘”‹’ƒ
–•‘‡š‹•–‹‰™‡–Žƒ†•ƒ†‘Ǧ™‡–Žƒ†™ƒ–‡”•‘ˆ–Š‡‹–‡† –ƒ–‡•ሺƒ“—ƒ–‹
”‡•‘—”
‡•ሻǡƒ†‘—–Ž‹‡–Š‡‘‹–‘”‹‰ƒ†•—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒˆ‘”–Š‡
‘’‡•ƒ–‹‘™‡–Žƒ†•ƒ†‘Ǧ™‡–Žƒ†™ƒ–‡”•‘ˆ–Š‡‹–‡†–ƒ–‡•Ǥ††‹–‹‘ƒŽ‡Šƒ ‡‡–‘’–‹‘•‹
Ž—†‡ˆ‹•Š„ƒ””‹‡””‡‘˜ƒŽǡ”‹’ƒ”‹ƒ”‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ǡˆŽ‘‘†’Žƒ‹”‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ǡƒ†•–”‡ƒ„ƒŽƒ›„ƒ –‘‹’”‘˜‡‘˜‡”ƒŽŽ‡
‘Ž‘‰‹
ˆ—
–‹‘ƒ†
‘‡
–‹˜‹–›‘ˆ™‡–Žƒ†ƒ†‘Ǧ™‡–Žƒ†™ƒ–‡”•ǤŠƒ
‡‡–•‹–‡•™‹ŽŽ„‡Ž‘
ƒ–‡†ƒ•‡ƒ”–Š‡‹’ƒ
–Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘ƒ•’‘••‹„Ž‡„—–ǡ‹–Š‡‡˜‡––Šƒ–Ž‘
ƒŽ‡Šƒ
‡‡–‘’’‘”–—‹–‹‡•ƒ”‡‘–
ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡ǡ•—
Šƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•™‹ŽŽ‘

—”™‹–Š‹–Š‡•ƒ‡•–”‡ƒ•›•–‡‘”™ƒ–‡”•Š‡†–‘’”‘˜‹†‡‹’”‘˜‡†‡ ‘Ž‘‰‹
ˆ—
–‹‘ƒ†
‘‡
–‹˜‹–›‘ˆ™‡–Žƒ†•ƒ†‘Ǧ™‡–Žƒ†™ƒ–‡”•ƒˆˆ‡
–‡†„›†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ
–‹˜‹–‹‡•Ǥ‘‹–‘”‹‰ƒ†•—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡–‘
”‡ƒ–‡†‘””‡•–‘”‡†™‡–Žƒ†•™‹ŽŽ”‡“—‹”‡–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰Ǥ x – Ž‡ƒ•– –™‘ •—”˜‡›• „› ƒ “—ƒŽ‹ˆ‹‡† ™‡–Žƒ† „‹‘Ž‘‰‹•–ǡ „‘–ƒ‹•–ǡ ‘” ‡
‘Ž‘‰‹•–’‡”‘‹–‘”‹‰›‡ƒ”Ǥ
x – Ž‡ƒ•– ͺͲ ’‡”
‡– ‘ˆ –Š‡
”‡ƒ–‡† ‘” ”‡•–‘”‡† ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡• •—’’‘”–
˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘
‘•‹•–‡–™‹–Š”‡ˆ‡”‡
‡ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡
‘†‹–‹‘•Ǥ
x – Ž‡ƒ•– ͺͲ ’‡”
‡– ‘ˆ –Š‡
”‡ƒ–‡† ‘” ”‡•–‘”‡† ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡• •—’’‘”–
Š›†”‘Ž‘‰‹
”‡‰‹‡••‹‹Žƒ”–‘”‡ˆ‡”‡
‡ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡
‘†‹–‹‘•Ǥ
x ‹‹—‘ˆˆ‹˜‡
‘•‡
—–‹˜‡›‡ƒ”•‘ˆ‘‹–‘”‹‰–‘‡•—”‡•—

॥

”‹–‡”‹ƒƒ”‡‡–Ǥ
x ‡‡†‹ƒŽƒ
–‹‘•–‘”‡•–‘”‡‹–‡†‡†‡
‘Ž‘‰‹
ƒŽˆ—
–‹‘‘ˆ
”‡ƒ–‡†‘”
”‡•–‘”‡† ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡• –Šƒ– ˆƒ‹Ž –‘ ‡‡– –Š‡ •—

॥
”‹–‡”‹ƒ ˆ‘” –Š”‡‡

‘•‡
—–‹˜‡›‡ƒ”•Ǥ
363

EXHIBIT B
618
Responsible Agency/Department/Party Timing of Verification COL City of Livermore CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife TM Prior to approval of tentative tract maps Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control District – Zone 7 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FM Prior to approval of final tract maps LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Park District LVJUSD Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District BP Prior to approval of building and/or grading plans BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District LPC Las Positas College C During construction LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District PC Post construction/on-going

SUMMARY OF IMPACT SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURE AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE
FOR

VERIFICATION

TIMING OF

VERIFICATION

‡–Š‡’Žƒ‹•ƒ’’”‘˜‡†ǡ–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–™‹ŽŽ‹’Ž‡‡––Š‡ƒ“—ƒ–‹
”‡•‘—”
‡
‘’‡•ƒ–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•’”‹‘”–‘–Š‡‹‹–‹ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ‘•–”—
–‹‘ǤŠ‡’”‘Œ‡
–’”‘’‘‡–™‹ŽŽ„‡”‡•’‘•‹„Ž‡ˆ‘”ˆ—†‹‰

‘’‡•ƒ–‘”›‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ǡ‘‹–‘”‹‰‘ˆ–Š‡
”‡ƒ–‡†‘””‡•–‘”‡†ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡•’‡”–Š‡‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘’Žƒǡƒ†ƒ›”‡‡†‹ƒŽƒ –‹‘•‡
‡••ƒ”›ǤŽŽ
‘†‹–‹‘•–Šƒ–
ƒ”‡ƒ––ƒ
Š‡†–‘–Š‡–ƒ–‡ƒ†ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽ’‡”‹–•™‹ŽŽ„‡‹’Ž‡‡–‡†ƒ•’ƒ”–‘ˆ –Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–’”‘Œ‡
–ǡ™‹–Š—Ž–‹ƒ–‡‡ˆ‘”
‡‡–‘˜‡”•‹‰Š–„›ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡–ƒ–‡ƒ†ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽƒ‰‡
‹‡•ǤŠ‡
‘†‹–‹‘•™‹ŽŽ„‡
Ž‡ƒ”Ž›‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†‹–Š‡

‘•–”—
–‹‘’Žƒ•ƒ†•’‡
‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹‘•ƒ†‘‹–‘”‡††—”‹‰ƒ†ƒˆ–‡”

‘•–”—
–‹‘–‘‡•—”‡
‘’Ž‹ƒ
‡Ǥ
364

EXHIBIT B
619

CITY OF LIVERMORE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

AND CONNECTION FEES
Effective July 1, 2021

TYPE OF FEE CITY CODE AND

RESOLUTION WHEN PAYABLE
City Storm Drainage Title 13.44.020,050,100 With Building Permit Ord. 1923
Reso. 2010-177
County Storm Drainage ACFC & WCD With Building Permit
Building Zone 7 Co. Ord. 0-2010-001
Reso. R-2001-4
County Storm Drainage ACFC & WCD With filing of Final Map Public Improvements e.g. Co. Ord. 0-2010-001 or approval of streets, sidewalks, Reso. R-2001-4 Improvement Plans
trails, etc.

County Storm ACFC & WCD With award of
Drainage - Capital Co. Ord. 0-2010-001 contract
Improvements Reso. R-2001-4
Sanitary Sewer Title 13.28.050 With Building Permit
Connection Ord. 1740
Reso. 2010-177
Park Land Dedication Title18.32.020
Ord. 1744
Reso. 2004-259
Concurrently with, or
before the filing of the first
parcel or final map
Park Facilities Fee Title 12.60
Ord. 1743
Reso. 2005-152
With Building Permit
City Water Title 13.20.020 With Building Permit 5/8" $4,839 Connection (1) Ord. 1507 3/4" $7,259
Reso. 2010-177 1" $12,098
1-1/2" $24,196
2" $38,714
Alameda County Ord. FC 72-1 as With Building Permit 5/8" $29,440 Water Connection amended by 3/4" $44,160
Zone 7 FC-96-1792 and See Zone 7 Attachment 1" $73,600
updated 10-20-10
In-Lieu Low Income Title 3.26 With Building Permit
Housing Fee Reso. 2020-186
(Residential)
For Sale & Neighborhood
Plan Areas
Ord. 1988 and 1989
Low Income Housing Title 3.26 With Building Permit Commercial Unit KSF Fee per Unit Impact Fee Reso. 99-18 Retail Commercial KSF $1,935
(Commercial and Ord. 1549 Discount/Service Retail KSF $1,457 Industrial) Office Commercial KSF $1,243
Hotels/Motels Room $949
Industrial
Manufacturing KSF $597
Warehouse/Storage KSF $173
Business/Commercial KSF $1,234
Industrial, High Intensity KSF $612
Industrial, Low Intensity KSF $387
NOTE: Subject to adjustment each year per Construction Cost Index (1) Areas within the California Water Service Area do not pay a City water connection fee. Areas within the Greenville/Vasco Assessment District or within Triad Park do not pay a City water connection fee. The fee for a single family residential unit is the 5/8 inch meter fee. (2) All projects within the Downtown Specific Plan are subject to both City Wide General Plan & Downtown Specific Plan cost recovery. Any project that paid planning entitlement fees prior to July 27, 2008 is not subject to this fee, regardless of when they pull building permits.

NOTE: No impact fees can be charged for ADUs less than 750 square feet. Impact fees allowed for ADUs 750 square feet or larger but shall be charged proportionately in relation to square footage of the primary dwelling.

AMOUNT OF FEE
$0.49/SF
Impervious Surface
$1.00/SF
Impervious Surface
$1.00/SF
Impervious Surface
$1.00/SF
Impervious Surface
Price per User for Meter Size, FOR LARGER METERS, INQUIRE See Attached
Exhibit "B"
The City may approve a credit against the Park Facilities Fee for park land dedication made under LMC 18.32.020. The credit may not exceed the value of the dedication requirement. See LMC 12.60.070 for credit details N/A for Non-Residential
See Attached
Exhibit "A"
Price per User for Meter Size, FOR LARGER METERS, INQUIRE $29.23/SF for all residential housing developments 10 units or less. Projects more than 10 units are subject to must-build requirement of ordinance.

Rental projects 10 units or less are exempt from In-Lieu. Effective 7/28/21, on-site requirement applies for 11+unit projects.

Exhibit C

EXHIBIT B
620

CITY OF LIVERMORE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

AND CONNECTION FEES
Effective July 1, 2021

TYPE OF FEE CITY CODE AND

RESOLUTION WHEN PAYABLE AMOUNT OF FEE
Traffic Impact Fee
NOTE: If special
Assessment District
exists, special
calculations are required
For info regarding the
appropriate
development categories
see Section 12.30 of
the City of Livermore
Municipal Code
With Building Permit
Reso 2005-151
Ord. 1742
Tri-Valley Title 12.24.050 With Building Permit Residential Transportation Ord. 2012 Single family
Development (TVTD) Reso. 2014-184 Multi-family
Fee Affordable Housing*
ADU/SDU** $0.00
*Reso 2015-01 Non Residential
**Reso 2019-03 Retail
Office
Industrial
See Attached Annual
Adjustment to TVTD Fee
Other
Social/Human Services
Facility Fee
Title 12.70
Ord. 1851
With Building Permit
Ord. 1836 Title 12.51 0.33% of total project
valuation
Residential Fee Per Unit
Dwelling Unit $6,334
Non Residential (6) Per SF
Retail/Office $19.52
(1) Areas within the California Water Service Area do not pay a City water connection fee. Areas within the Greenville/Vasco Assessment District or within Triad Park do not pay a City water connection fee. The fee for a single family residential unit is the 5/8 inch meter fee.

See Attached
Exhibit "E"

DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT FEES

TYPE OF FEE
In-Lieu Payment for Public Open Space Resolution 2005-041 Resolution 2017-006
Major attraction fee Resolution 2003-114
In-Lieu Parking Fee
Downtown Revitalization Fee Title 12.32
NOTE: No impact fees can be charged for ADUs less than 750 square feet. Impact fees allowed for ADUs 750 square feet or larger but shall be charged proportionately in relation to square footage of the primary dwelling.

NOTE: Subject to adjustment each year per Construction Cost Index $1,428
South Livermore Road Improvement fee Resolution 2003-114 $11,990 City Wide - Transferrable Development Credits (TDC) Program In-Lieu Fee Ordinance 1979, Development Code Section 4.02.06D

1.5 Credits per single-family detached dwelling, in excess of baseline density within a density range of 1-7 du/acre, 1.25 credits per single family detached dwelling in excess of baseline density within a density range of 8-14 du/acre and 1/2 credit per multi-family attached dwelling - Current InLieu credit is $16,352.31. TDC Ordinance does not apply to residential projects in Downtown Specific Plan, affordable units covered by an agreement and residential projects that have received housing units through the City's Housing Implementation Program (HIP). $3,484.00

CITY RESOLUTION AMOUNT OF FEE
$50 per square foot of required open space
(2) All projects within the Downtown Specific Plan are subject to both City Wide General Plan & Downtown Specific Plan cost recovery. Any project that paid planning entitlement fees prior to July 27, 2008 is not subject to this fee, regardless of when they pull building permits. $1,559
Recycled water fee Resolution 98-175 20% of the current Alameda County Water Connection Fee
SOUTH LIVERMORE VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT FEES (1)

TYPE OF FEE CITY CODE AND RESOLUTION FEE PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT Plan preparation fee Resolution 2003-114
$20,745.40
Art in Public Places Fee
$5,000.00
$0.00
Average Peak Hour Trip
$5,620.00
Per KSF
$3,740.00
$8,590.00

ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
The City of Livermore collects School Mitigation Development Fees (school fees) on behalf of the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. The fees must be paid for by cash or a check made out to the City of Livermore. Fees are due upon issuance of a qualifying building permit.

See Attached Exhibit "D"
See Attached Exhibit "C"
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES:

SOCIAL / HUMAN SERVICES FACILITY
Fee Per Unit
$5,057.00

EXHIBIT B
621

CITY OF LIVERMORE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
EFFECTIVE 07/01/2021
Avg Daily Wastewater
Flow Factor Cost Per Cost Per
User Classification Gallons Per Day/Unit Unit1 GPD Unit Residential (BOD & SS = 285 mg/L)
Single-family residential 180 House $40.11 $7,219.83
Multi-family residential
Studio 95 Residential Unit $40.11 $3,810.47
One Bedroom 107 Residential Unit $40.11 $4,291.79
Two Bedroom 138 Residential Unit $40.11 $5,535.21
Three Bedroom 157 Residential Unit $40.11 $6,297.30
Four Bedroom 180 Residential Unit $40.11 $7,219.83
Commercial (BOD & SS = 285 mg/L unless otherwise shown) Auto repair shops/Auto dealers 0.11 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $4.41 Assembly Facilities2 0.15 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $6.02 Eating drinking facilities w/o cooking 0.35 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $14.04 Gas Stations 0.47 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $18.85
General Use 0.04 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $1.60
Gyms, Health Clubs 0.30 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $12.03 Hotels, Motels (excluding dining facilities) 0.15 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $6.02 Markets 0.19 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $7.62
Mixed Use3 0.10 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $4.01
Medical/Dental Office/ Clinic 0.22 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $8.82 Restaurants (1,000 mg/L BOD, 600 mg/L SS) 0.55 Square Foot of Bldg $59.10 $32.51 Warehouse/Distribution 0.01 Square Foot of Bldg $40.11 $0.40 Industrial/Other (Other Wastewater Customers Not Listed Above) Calculate Case-by-Case Based on Actual Flows/Strengths and Following Rates Connection Fee = (F x "Flow") + (B x "BOD") + (S x "SS") F = Flow cost $/gpd $31.06
B = BOD cost $/lb-day $2,702.16
S = SS cost $/lb-day $1,099.96
discharge
flow, in
"BOD" = The
"SS" = The
Governing Municipal Code Section: 13.28.050
Index Used: ENR 20- City Construction Cost Index
Previous % Change
Base Fee Current Previous Update
Year Update Fee Update to Current Update
Indices: (A) (B) (C) (D) =(C/B)-1
Index Date May-10 May-20 May-21
Index Value 8,761.47 11,418.16 11,989.91 5.01%
Discussion:

Notes:

4. This value is based by formula on BOD

6. Adjustments. The city council may, by resolution, adjust the fee schedule, including the flow factors, from time to time.

Once the fee is established, it shall automatically be increased annually based upon the Engineering News Record (ENR) 20- City construction Cost Index. In calculating the adjustment, the rate (in each use category, including the flow, BOD and SS costs) for the base year is multiplied by the index for the then-current year, divided by the base year index.

EXHIBIT A

1. Building square footage means the square footage sum of the floor area at each floor level included with the surrounding principal outside faces of exterior walls of a building or portions thereof, including mezzanines and lobbies. It does not include floor area devoted to vehicle parking, necessary interior driveways and ramps. The gross floor area of a building or portions thereof that doesn't have surrounding exterior walls shall include the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above.

3. Mixed Use applies to parcels with Mixed Use zoning and in the Downtown Core District only.

2. Theaters can alternately estimate daily flow based on 2 gallons per seat ($80.22 per seat) The base year unit fees for Flow, BOD, and SS were determined in the March 2010 Wastewater, Water, Storm Drain Connection Fee Study for Expansion of Sanitary Sewer, Water Reclamation Plant, and Wastewater Disposal Facilities prepared for the City of Livermore by Craig R. Lawson Utility Management Consultant.

Wastewater Connection Fee Schedule
(fees Calculated from base year)

EXHIBIT B
622

CITY OF LIVERMORE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
EFFECTIVE 07/01/2021
Non-Residential (per 1,000 sq ft)
Source - Park Facilities Fee Study (2004) Table 8; MuniFinancial $12,552
$3,599
Multi-Family Studio
Residential (per dwelling unit)

EXHIBIT B
Park Facilities Fee Schedule
Single Family (& 4 bedroom multi-family) $21,155

LAND USE TOTAL FEE
Warehouse $1,339
Commercial $2,682
Multi-Family 3 bedrooms $18,406
Multi-Family 2 bedrooms $16,221
Senior Housing
$11,215
$1,783
Office $3,835
Industrial
Multi-Family 1 bedroom

EXHIBIT B
623

CITY OF LIVERMORE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
EFFECTIVE 07/01/2021
Units of Use Fee Rates
d.u. $10,546
d.u. $4,915
d.u. $5,502
d.u. $7,110
d.u. $8,314
d.u. $3,236
K s.f. $28,641
K s.f. $18,335
K s.f. $11,384
K s.f. $5,751
per/room $8,268
d.u. $3,017
d.u. $3,378
d.u. $4,365
d.u. $5,104
K s.f. $12,968
Average Peak Hour Trip $13,179
Land Uses
Citywide Except Downtown
Residential
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Studio
Hotel/Motel
Downtown Specific Plan
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 or more Bedroom
Senior Housing
Commercial
Office
Other

EXHIBIT C
Traffic Impact Fees Schedule
Multi-Family
Studio
1 Bedroom
Industrial
Warehouse
Commercial
3 or more Bedroom
2 Bedroom

EXHIBIT B
624

CITY OF LIVERMORE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
EFFECTIVE 07/01/2021
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District Resolution: 044 - 19/20 Fee Effective May 18, 2020 (see attached Reso)
INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE/MANUFACTURING $0.66/sq.ft.

OFFICE $0.66/sq.ft.

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT $0.66/sq.ft.

HOSPITALS $0.66/sq.ft.

RETAIL & SERVICES $0.624/sq.ft.

HOTEL/MOTEL: $0.316/sq.ft.

SELF STORAGE $0.18/sq.ft.

RESIDENTIAL: $4.08/sq.ft.
(Includes single family home, multi-family home, manufactured home, and mobile home) SENIOR HOUSING $0.66/sq.ft.
(Includes manufactured home or mobile home located in a mobile home park, subdivision, cooperative or condiminium for mobile homes limited to 55 and older residents.)
RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS $4.08/sq.st. (501 sq.ft. or more) (Residential additions 500 sq.ft. or less and senior housing projects are exempt) * Additions are cumulative over time to a limit of 500 sf before fees square footage.
** The fee owed is based upon the fee amount in effect at the time the fee is paid.

LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
685 East Jack London Blvd, Livermore, Ca 94551

FACILITIES PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION
Jan Shipley, Construction Supervisor (925) 606-3390
Facilities Fax Number (925) 606-3327
Exhibit "D"

LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

SUMMARY OF SCHOOL MITIGATION PROGRAM
are assesed. Once assessed, fees are paid on the entire added

EXHIBIT B
625

CITY OF LIVERMORE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
EFFECTIVE 07/01/2021
Units of Use Fee Rates
d.u. $1,677
d.u. $1,415
d.u. $1,298
d.u. $996
d.u. $996
K s.f. $7
K s.f. $5
K s.f. $5
K s.f. $3
K s.f. $2
K s.f. $6
K s.f. $3
K s.f. $5
Retail
Office
Other Non-Residential
Service
Industrial
Manufacturing/R&D
Warehousing
Construction/Repair/Wholesale

EXHIBIT E
Social and Human Service Facility Fee Schedule
Land Uses
Residential Uses
Mobile Home
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Attached
Multi-Family
Office
Secondary Unit
Non-Residential Uses
Commercial

EXHIBIT B
626
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ZONE 7 100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY, LIVERMORE, CA 94551  PHONE (925) 454-5000  FAX (925) 454-5727 (FC) December 28, 2020
Subject: 2021 Update for Development Impact Fee for Flood Protection and Storm Water Drainage
This letter is to inform Zone 7’s development community that the Flood Protection and Storm Water Drainage Development Impact Fee (DIF) for 2020 will remain to be $1.00 per square foot of new impervious area, for the time being. Please continue to utilize the existing Development Impact Fee Impervious Surface Calculations worksheet (enclosed), which is also available in Adobe PDF format on Zone 7’s website www.zone7water.com, located under the Quick Links column under Permits & Fees.

Developers (or property owners) need to submit to the collecting City/County agencies, prior to approval of any final map and/or issuance of any building (or use) permit, a current Development Impact Fee Impervious Surface Calculations worksheet and associated plot plan for each individual building lot (or Parcel) requiring a building (or use) permit and any Parcel/Tract proposing streets, sidewalks, or other non-building impervious areas in its development. All impervious square-footage of the parcel should be reported whether there is an impact or not. The worksheet is to be filled out in its entirety, for Zone 7 and the Cities’/County’s use and record. Zone 7’s collecting agents are to fill out the staff section of the worksheet, acknowledging collection of the fees, and are to return the completed worksheets to Zone 7 for their use and record of the fee collection.

Should you have any questions concerning the Development Impact Fee update or collection process please contact me at (925) 454-5075 or email at [email protected], and I will be glad to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,
Jeff Tang, P.E.

Associate Civil Engineer
Flood Control Engineering
Enclosure
cc: Jarnail Chahal, Zone 7
Joe Seto, Zone 7
Digitally signed by Jeff Tang
DN: cn=Jeff Tang, o=Zone 7 Water Agency,
ou, [email protected], c=US
Date: 2020.12.28 13:38:22 -08'00'

EXHIBIT B
627
Zone 7 M&I Connection Fee
Rate Schedule
Effective Janaury 1, 2021
Meter Size
Recommended
Maximum Rate for
Continuous Use
(gpm)
Connection Fee
Amount
5/8" & 1" FS* 10 $29,440
3/4" 15 $44,160
1" 25 $73,600
(DISPLACEMENT TYPE) 50 $147,200
Omni C2 160 $471,040
Omni T2 160 $471,040

OMNI WITH
50GPM RESTRICTION 50 $147,200
(DISPLACEMENT TYPE) 80 $235,520

OMNI WITH
80GPM RESTRICTION 80 $235,520
Mueller MVR
Pleasanton Only 115 $338,560

OMNI WITH
120GPM RESTRICTION 120 $353,280
Omni C2 160 $471,040
Omni T2 200 $588,800
3" to 10" **
* When the Fire Department requires fire sprinklers, a 1-inch meter may be obtained at the same rate as a 5/8-inch meter.
** Connection fees for meter sizes 3-inches and above will be determined by using the fee factor for maximum continuous flow rate.

Fees for meters other than those listed above will be determined based upon the maximum continuous flow rating for the brand and type of meter.

These fees are based on the Maximum Continuous Flow Rate through a 5/8" meter as defined by AWWA C700 for Cold-Water Meter -- Displacement Type, Bronze Case.

Any changes to meter capacities will affect the above connection fees.

REV 01/07/2020
Currently, the 2-inch Mueller MVR is only available in Pleasanton. 1 1/2"
2"
e:\steven\connfee\admin\connfee2002\connection fee rate schedule 01-01-21 Zone7M&I w-gpm

EXHIBIT B
628
REV 01/04/2021
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ZONE 7 100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY, LIVERMORE, CA 94551  PHONE (925) 454-5000  FAX (925) 454-5727

WATER CONNECTION FEE INFORMATION SHEET
Effective January 1, 2021
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND
A. The Water Connection Charge Ordinance No. FC 72-1 as amended for Zone 7 was established January 18, 1972. The ordinance is applicable over the Zone 7 area that includes Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, Sunol, and surrounding communities.

The Ordinance requires a one-time water connection fee for all new water services from a water system that is directly connected to the Zone 7 water supply system.

This fee is used for funding the costs of expanding the Zone 7 water treatment and distribution system to serve new development.

B. The amount charged for a water connection is determined by the size of the meter to be installed. The meter sizes and corresponding water connection fees are listed below.

II. PROCEDURES FOR PAYMENT OF WATER CONNECTION FEES IN LIVERMORE,

PLEASANTON, & DUBLIN
The water connection fees are collected by the Building Departments of the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, and by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, which are agents for Zone 7. For that area within the Cal Water service area which is located outside of the Livermore city limits, connection fees will be paid at the Zone 7 office in Livermore.

III. WATER CONNECTION FEE SCHEDULE - FEES ARE REVIEWED AND SUBJECT TO

PERIODIC MODIFICATION
Meter Size Fee Factor Connection Fee
5/8" & 1" FS* 1.0 $29,440
3/4" 1.5 $44,160
1" 2.5 $73,600
1 1/2"
(DISPLACEMENT TYPE) 5.0 $147,200
Omni C2 16.0 $471,040
Omni T2 16.0 $471,040
2"
OMNI WITH 50GPM RESTRICTION 5.0 $147,200
(DISPLACEMENT TYPE) 8.0 $235,520
OMNI WITH 80GPM RESTRICTION 8.0 $235,520
Mueller MVR - Pleasanton Only 8.0 $235,520
OMNI WITH 120GPM RESTRICTION 12.0 $353,280
Omni C2 16.0 $471,040
Omni T2 20.0 $588,800

EXHIBIT B
629
REV 01/04/2021
* Connection fees for meters 3-inch and larger and for meters with fee factors other than those listed above, will be determined by Zone 7, using the fee factor for Maximum Rate for Continuous Operation, as defined by AWWA. These fees are based on the Maximum Continuous Flow Rate through a 5/8" meter and are proportional based on flow ratings for the various sized meters. Flow ratings for displacement type meters are defined by AWWA C700 for Cold-Water Meter -- Displacement Type, Bronze Case. Flow ratings for turbine type meters are defined by AWWA C701 for Cold Water Meters -- Turbine Type, For Customer Service. Any changes to meter capacities will affect the above connection fees.

NOTE: This new fee schedule is effective January 1, 2021 IV. EXEMPTIONS
No fee will be collected for SEPARATE private fire service connections. See Section VI of the Ordinance (copy available upon request).

V. PARTIAL EXEMPTIONS
A partial exemption sometimes applies for domestic fire sprinkling systems up to 1" meter size. See Section VI of the Ordinance (copy available upon request).

VI. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Call Steven Ellis at (925) 454-5037 or e-mail at [email protected].

EXHIBIT B
630
RESOLUTION NO. 044-19/20

TO UPDATE STATUTORY DEVELOPER FEES IMPOSED ON NEW RESIDENTIAL

AND COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS PURSUANT TO EDUCATION CODE SECTION 17620
WHEREAS, the School Board ("Board") of the Livermore Valley Joint Unified District ("District") provides for the educational needs for TK-12 students within the City of Livermore and a portion of the unincorporated counties of Alameda and Contra Costa (collectively, "Counties"); and WHEREAS, The State Allocation Board has taken action pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(b)(3), which authorizes Districts to increase Statutory Developer Fees to $4.08 per square foot for assessable space of residential development and $0.66 per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space for all categories of commercial/industrial development, as long as such Statutory Developer Fees are properly justified by the District pursuant to law; and WHEREAS, new residential and commercial/industrial development continues to generate additional students for the District's schools and the District is required to provide school facilities ("School Facilities") to accommodate those students; and
WHEREAS, overcrowded schools within the District would have an impact on the District's ability to provide an adequate quality education and negatively impacts the educational opportunities for the District's students; and
WHEREAS, the District does not have sufficient funds available for the construction or reconstruction of the School Facilities, including acquisition of sites, construction of permanent School Facilities, and acquisition of interim School Facilities, to accommodate students from new residential and commercial/industrial development; and
WHEREAS, the Board of the District has received and considered two studies entitled "Residential Development School Fee Justification Study for Livermore Valley Joint Unified District" and "Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study for Livermore Valley Joint Unified District" ("Studies"), which Studies include information, documentation, and analysis of the School Facilities needs of the District, including (a) the purpose of the Statutory Developer Fees; (b) the use to which the Statutory Developer Fees are to be put; (c) the nexus (roughly proportional and reasonable relationship) between the residential and commercial/industrial development; and (1) the use for Statutory Developer Fees; (2) the need for School Facilities; (3) the cost of School Facilities; and the amount of Statutory Developer Fees from new residential and commercial/industrial development; (d) a determination of the impact of the increased number of employees anticipated to result from the commercial/industrial development (by category) upon the cost of providing School Facilities within the District; (e) an evaluation and projection of the number of students that will be generated by new residential development; (n the new School Facilities that will be required to serve such students; and (g) the cost of such School Facilities; and WHEREAS, said Studies pertaining to the Statutory Developer Fees and to the capital facilities needs of the District were made available to the public as required by law before the Board considered at a regularly scheduled public meeting the Statutory Developer Fees; and -1-

EXHIBIT B
631
(
WHEREAS, all required notices of the proposed Statutory Developer Fees have been given; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of the District relating to the proposed Statutory Developer Fees; and
WHEREAS, Education Code Section 17621 provides that the adoption, increase or imposition of any fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement, pursuant to Education Code Section 17620 shall not be subject to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That the Board accepts and adopts the Studies.

Section 2. That the Board finds that the purpose of the Statutory Developer Fees imposed upon new residential development is to fund the additional School Facilities required to serve the students generated by the new residential development upon which the Statutory Developer Fees are imposed.

Section 3. That the Board finds that the Statutory Developer Fees imposed on new residential development will be used only to finance those School Facilities described in the Study and related documents and that these School Facilities are required to serve the students generated by the new residential development within the District; and that the use of the Statutory Developer Fees will include construction or acquisition of additional School Facilities, remodeling existing School Facilities to add additional classrooms, and technology, and acquiring and installing additional portable classrooms and related School Facilities, with the specific location of new schools, remodeling of existing School Facilities, and additional portables to be determined based on the residence of the students being generated by such new residential development, as well as any required central administrative and support facilities, within the District.

Section 4. That the Board finds that there is a roughly proportional, reasonable relationship between the use of the Statutory Developer Fees and the new residential development within the District because the Statutory Developer Fees imposed on new residential development by this Resolution, will be used to fund School Facilities which will be used to serve the students generated by such new residential development.

Section 5. That the Board finds that there is a roughly proportional, reasonable relationship between the new residential development upon which the Statutory Developer Fees are imposed, and the need for additional School Facilities in the District because new students will be generated from new residential development within the District and there is not sufficient capacity in the existing School Facilities to accommodate all additional students.

Section 6. That the Board finds that the amount of the Statutory Developer Fees levied on new residential development as set forth in this Resolution is roughly proportional and reasonably related to, and does not exceed the cost of, providing the School Facilities required to serve the students generated by such new residential development within the District. ·
-2-

EXHIBIT B
632
Section 7. That the Board finds that the purpose of the Statutory Developer Fees imposed on new commercial/industrial development is to fund the additional School Facilities required to serve the students generated by the new commercial/industrial development upon which the Statutory Developer Fees are imposed.

Section 8. That the Board finds that the Statutory Developer Fees imposed on new commercial/industrial development (by category) will be used only to finance those School Facilities described in the Studies and related documents and that these School Facilities are required to serve the students generated by such new commercial/industrial development; and that the use of the Statutory Developer Fees will include construction or acquisition of additional School Facilities, remodeling existing School Facilities to add additional classrooms and technology, and acquiring and installing additional portable classrooms and related facilities, with the specific location of new schools, remodeling of existing School Facilities, and additional portables to be determined based on the residence of the students being generated by such new commercial/industrial development, as well as any required central administrative and support facilities within the District.

Section 9. That the Board finds that there is a roughly proportional, reasonable relationship between the use of the Statutory Developer Fees and new commercial/industrial development by category within the District because the Statutory Developer Fees imposed on commercial/industrial development by this Resolution will be used to fund School Facilities which will be used to serve the students generated by such new commercial/industrial development.

Section 10. That the Board finds that there is a roughly proportional, reasonable relationship between the new commercial/industrial development by category, upon which the Statutory Developer Fees are imposed, and the need for additional School Facilities in the District because new students will be generated from new commercial/industrial development within the District and the District does not have sufficient student capacity in the existing School Facilities to accommodate these anticipated students.

Section 11. That the Board finds that the amount of the Statutory Developer Fees levied on new commercial/industrial development by category as set forth in this Resolution is roughly proportional and reasonably related to and does not exceed the cost of providing the School Facilities required to serve the students generated by such new commercial/industrial development within the District.

Section 12. That the Board finds that a separate account has been established for the deposit of Statutory Developer Fees imposed on residential and commercial/industrial development and that said account has at all times since been separately maintained, except for temporary investments, from other funds of the District.

Section 13. That the Board finds that the funds of the account, described in Section 12, consisting of the proceeds of Statutory Developer Fees have been imposed for the purposes of constructing and reconstructing those School Facilities necessitated by new residential and commercial/industrial development, and thus, these funds may be expended for those purposes. The Statutory Developer Fees may also be expended by the District for the costs of performing any study or otherwise making the findings and determinations required under subdivisions (a), (b), and (d) of Section 66001 of the Government Code.

In addition, the District may also retain, as appropriate, an amount not to exceed in any fiscal year, three percent (3%) of the fees collected in that fiscal year pursuant to Education Code Section 17620 for reimbursement of the administrative costs incurred by the District in collecting the Statutory Developer Fees. -3-

EXHIBIT B
633
Section 14. That the Board hereby increases the Statutory Developer Fees as a condition of approval of new residential development projects and imposes the Statutory Developer Fees on such development projects in the following amounts:

A. $4.08 per square foot of assessable space for new single family detached residential development and new multifamily attached residential development, including new residential projects, manufactured homes and mobile homes as authorized under Education Code Section 17625, and including residential construction other than new construction where such construction results in an increase of assessable space, as defined in Government Code Section 65995, in excess of 500 square feet. However, these amounts shall not be imposed on any development project used exclusively for housing senior citizens, as described in Civil Code Section 51 .3, or as described in Subdivision J of Section 1569.2 of the Health and Safety Code or paragraph 9 of subdivision (d) of Section 15432 of the Government Code or any mobile home or manufactured home that is located within a mobile home park, subdivision, cooperative or condominium for mobile homes limited to older persons as defined by the Federal Fair Housing Amendments of 1988.

B. $0.66 per square foot of assessable space for new residential development used exclusively for the housing of senior citizens, as described in Section 51 .3 of the Civil Code or as described in subdivision J of Section 1569 of the Health and Safety Code or paragraph 9 of subdivision (d) of Section 15432 of the Government Code or any mobile home or manufactured home that is located within a mobile home park, subdivision, cooperative or condominium for mobile homes limited to older persons as defined by the Federal Fair Housing Amendments of 1988.

Section 15. That this Board hereby increases the Statutory Developer Fees as a condition of approval of new commercial/industrial development projects and levies the Statutory Developer Fees on such development projects in the following amounts per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space for the following categories of commercial/industrial development:

Retail and Services
Office
Research and Development
Industrial/Warehouse/Manufacturing
Hospitals
Hotel/Motel
Self-Storage
$0.624
$0.66
$0.66
$0.66
$0.66
$0.316
$0.018
Section 16. That the proceeds of the Statutory Developer Fees established pursuant to this Resolution shall continue to be deposited into that account identified in Section 12 of this Resolution, the proceeds of which shall be used exclusively for the purpose for which the Statutory Developer Fees are to be collected, including accomplishing any study, findings or determinations required by subdivisions (a), (b) and (d) of Section 66001 of the Government Code or retaining an amount not to exceed in any fiscal year, three percent (3%) of the fees collected in that fiscal year pursuant to Education Code Section 17620 for -4-

EXHIBIT B
634
reimbursement of the administrative costs incurred by the District in collecting the Statutory Developer Fees or in financing the described Study or in defending the imposition of Statutory Developer Fees.

Section 17. That the Superintendent, or her designee, is directed to cause a copy of this Resolution to be delivered to the building official of the Cities and Counties within the District's boundaries and the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development ("OSHPD") along with a copy of all the supporting documentation referenced herein and a map of the District clearly indicating the boundaries thereof, advising the Cities, Counties, and OSHPD that new residential and commercial/industrial development is subject to the Statutory Developer Fees readopted pursuant to this Resolution and requesting that no building permit or approval for occupancy be issued by any of these entities for any new residential development project, mobile home, or manufactured home subject to the Statutory Developer Fees absent a certification from this District of compliance of such project with the requirements of the Statutory Developer Fees, nor that any building permit be issued for any non-residential development absent a certification from this District of compliance with the requirements of the applicable Statutory Developer Fees.

Section 18. That the Board hereby establishes a process that permits the party against whom the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees are imposed, the opportunity for a hearing to appeal that imposition of Statutory Developer Fees for commercial/industrial development as required by Education Code Section 17621(e)(2). The appeal process is as follows:

A. Within ten (10) calendar days of being notified, in writing, (by personal delivery or deposit in the U.S. Mail) of the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees to be imposed or paying the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees, pursuant to Education Code Section 17620, a party shall file a written request for a hearing regarding the imposition of commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees. The party shall state in the written request the grounds for opposing the imposition of commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees and said written request shall be served by personal delivery or certified or registered mail to the Superintendent of the District.

B. The possible grounds for that appeal include, but are not limited to, the inaccuracy of including the project within the category pursuant to which the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees are to be imposed, or that the employee generation or pupil generation factors utilized under the applicable category are inaccurate as applied to the project.

C. Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the written request for a hearing regarding the imposition of commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees, the Superintendent of the District, or her designee, shall give notice in writing of the date, place and time of the hearing to the party appealing the imposition of commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees. The Superintendent, or her designee, shall schedule and conduct said hearing within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the written request. The Superintendent, or her designee, shall render a written decision within ten (10) days following the hearing on the party's appeal and serve it by certified or registered mail to the last known address of the party.
-5-

EXHIBIT B
635
D. The party against whom the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees are imposed may appeal the Superintendent's, or her designee's, decision to the Board of the District.

E. The party appealing the Superintendent's, or her designee's decision, shall state in the written appeal the grounds for opposing the imposition of the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees and said written appeal shall be served by personal delivery or certified or registered mail to the Superintendent of the District.

F. The possible grounds for that appeal to the Board of the District include, but are not limited to, the inaccuracy of including the project within the category pursuant to which the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees are to be imposed, or that the employee generation or pupil generation factors utilized under the applicable category are inaccurate as applied to the project.

G. Within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the written request for a hearing regarding the imposition of commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees, the Superintendent of the District, or her designee, shall give notice in writing of the date, place and time of the hearing to the party appealing the imposition of commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees. The Board of the District shall schedule and conduct said hearing at the next regular meeting of the Board, provided that the party is given notice at least five (5) working days prior to the regular meeting of the Board. The Board shall render a written decision within ten (10) days following the hearing on the party's appeal and serve the decision by certified or registered mail to the last known address of the party.

H. The party appealing the imposition of the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees shall bear the burden of establishing that the commercial/industrial Statutory Developer Fees are improper.

Section 19. That the Superintendent is authorized to cause a certificate of compliance to be issued for each development project, mobile home and manufactured home for which there is compliance with the requirement for payment of the Statutory Developer Fees in the amount specified by this Resolution.

In the event a certificate of compliance is issued for the payment of Statutory Developer Fees for a development project, mobile home or manufactured home and it is later determined that the statement or other representation made by an authorized party concerning the development project as to square footage is untrue, then such certificate shall automatically terminate, and the appropriate City shall be so notified.

Section 20. That no statement or provision set forth in this Resolution, or referred to therein shall be construed to repeal any preexisting fee previously imposed by the District on any residential or nonresidential development.

Section 21. That the District's Statutory Developer Fees will become effective sixty (60) days from the date of this Resolution unless a separate resolution increasing the fees immediately on an urgency basis is adopted by the Board.
-6-

EXHIBIT B
636
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by roll call vote this 17• day of March 2020. / / AYES: Bueno / Prusso / RoggeL Wenzel_L_White __ _
NOES: Bueno ___ Prusso ___ Rogge ___ Wenzel __ White __ _ ABSTENTIONS: Bueno ___ Prusso __ Rogge ___ Wenzel __ White __ _ ABSENT: Bueno ___ Prusso __ Rogge ___ Wenzel __ White. __ _ BY ~
Clerk of the Board of Educ tion v ore
Valley Joint Unified School Dist ct of Alameda
County and Contra Costa County, State of California
-7-

EXHIBIT B
637
To: Tri-Valley Transportation Council
From: TVTC Finance Committee
By: Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Date: April 19, 2021
Subject: ADOPT the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Construction Cost Index Annual Adjustment

BACKGROUND
The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF) specifies that the TVTDF amounts are to be adjusted automatically as of July 1 of each year to reflect changes in regional construction costs. JEPA Section 3(D)(I) requires the TVTC adopt the adjustment by a simple majority.

DISCUSSION
The amount of the adjustment is based on the change in the “Construction Cost Index” (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area, as reported annually in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The December 2020 ENR CCI for the San Francisco Bay Area is +3.2%.

RECOMMENDATION
The TVTC Finance Committee recommends the TVTC adopt the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Construction Cost Index Annual Adjustment and notify each TVTC member agency to collect the TVTDF rates as listed below starting July 1, 2021:

Single Family Residential $5,057.00/Dwelling Unit (DU)
Multi-Family Residential $3,484.00/DU
Office $8.59/sq. ft. Gross Floor Area
Retail $3.74/sq. ft. Gross Floor Area
Industrial $5.00/sq. ft. Gross Floor Area
Other $5,620.00/average am/pm peak hour trip
ADU/SDU $0
Affordable Housing $0
Scott Perkins
TVTC Chair
Vice Mayor
San Ramon
(925) 973-2544
Jean Josey
TVTC Vice-Chair
Councilmember
Dublin
(925) 833-2530
Renee Morgan
Mayor
Town of Danville
(925) 918-3999
David Haubert
Supervisor District 1
Alameda County
(925) 551-6995
Candace Andersen
Supervisor District 2
Contra Costa
(925) 957-8860
Brittni Kiick
Councilmember
City of Livermore
(925) 960-4019
Karla Brown
Mayor
City of Pleasanton
(925) 931-5001

EXHIBIT B
638
TVTDF Historical Fee Rates
2019 2020 2021
Single Family Residential (per DU) $4,650.56 $4,901.00 $5,057.00 Multi-Family Residential (per DU) $3,203.48 $3,376.00 $3,484.00 Office (per SF Gross Floor Area) $7.90 $8.33 $8.59
Retail (per SF Gross Floor Area) $3.41 $3.63 $3.74
Industrial (per SF Gross Floor Area) $4.60 $4.85 $5.00
Other (average am/pm peak hour trip) $5,167.00 $5,446.00 $5,620.00 Affordable Housing * $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ADU/SDU** $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
*Pursuant to Resolution 2015-01 Adjusting the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Schedule **Pursuant to Resolution 2019-03 – Resetting the Accessory Dwelling Unit/Secondary Dwelling Unit Fee in the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Program

EXHIBIT B
639
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 7.1
DATE: July 25, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing the City Manager to purchase Renewable 100, which contains 100% renewable electricity from solar and wind sources in California, as the default electricity product for Livermore's Municipal East Bay Community Energy Accounts.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to purchase Renewable 100 as the default electricity product for Livermore’s municipal East Bay Community Energy accounts. The Renewable 100 product contains 100% renewable electricity from solar and wind sources in California.

SUMMARY
The City of Livermore's (the City) municipal electricity accounts (municipal accounts) are currently enrolled in the Bright Choice option through East Bay Community Energy (EBCE). Bright Choice provides approximately 60% carbon-free energy at a discount compared to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) rates. Municipal accounts include all facilities where the city pays for electricity.

The City Council could choose to enroll all municipal accounts in EBCE’s Renewable 100 option at a $0.0075 per kilowatt-hour premium over PG&E rates. Based on the city's 2021 electricity usage, Renewable 100 would cost approximately $96,696 more than the city would pay for Bright Choice and $70,389 more than PG&E rates annually.

The Renewable 100 product contains 100% renewable electricity from solar and wind sources in California. Decarbonizing electricity is a major component of Livermore’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) update, which is expected to be brought to City Council for consideration in early fall 2022. Renewable 100 would reduce municipal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by approximately 2,515 metric tons annually compared to Bright Choice.

DISCUSSION
Background
640
The City Council approved a Joint Powers Authority agreement to join EBCE on November 28, 2016.

The City of Livermore started receiving power from EBCE when the agency launched in 2018. At the time, EBCE offered three power mix options:

Bright Choice – at least 38% renewable energy and 47% carbon free energy for a total of 85% carbon-free energy at 1.5% lower rate than PG&E rates
Brilliant 100 – 100% carbon-free energy at price parity to PG&E rates Renewable 100 – 100% renewable energy at a premium of $0.01/kWh over PG&E rates All residential, commercial, and municipal accounts in Livermore were originally enrolled in the Bright Choice option. On July 8, 2019, the City Council decided to enroll the city's municipal accounts only into Brilliant 100. Municipal accounts include all facilities where the city pays for electricity.

In 2020, the EBCE Board of Directors decided to remove nuclear power as a carbon-free energy source.

As a result, rates for the Brilliant 100 product did not support the costs of energy procurement and service to EBCE customers, largely because of high procurement costs for large hydroelectric power.

Therefore, Brilliant 100 was subsidized by rates paid by Bright Choice and Renewable 100 customers.

On November 18, 2020, the EBCE Board voted to continue to offer Brilliant 100 with 100% carbon-free content at price parity to PG&E rates through December 31, 2021, and then discontinue the product. All Brilliant 100 accounts automatically transitioned down to Bright Choice after December 31, 2021, unless they requested to opt-up to Renewable 100. As a result, the city's municipal accounts returned to Bright Choice.

In 2021, Bright Choice included approximately 60% carbon-free electricity. In comparison, PG&E's reported power mix included 92% carbon-free sources. Alternatively, the Renewable 100 option remains 100% renewable, relying on solar and wind from California as its energy sources.

As part of its FY 2022-23 budget, the EBCE Board adopted a new rate structure for the Bright Choice and Renewable 100 products. Bright Choice is now offered at a 3% discount to PG&E rates and Renewable 100 is offered at a $0.0075/kWh premium.

EBCE reinvests excess revenue back into local programs to help customers install clean energy technologies and provides dollars directly to the community through grants and sponsorships. The City and Livermore residents have been beneficiaries of these programs and grants.

Renewable 100 for Municipal Accounts
Enrolling municipal accounts in the Renewable 100 option would reduce municipal GHG emissions by approximately 2,515 metric tons annually compared to Bright Choice, equivalent to the emissions of 547 cars per year (using US Environmental Protection Agency estimates of 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per car, per year).

Based on the city’s 2021 electricity usage (approximately 9,385 MWh), Renewable 100 would cost approximately $96,696 more than Bright Choice and $70,389 more than PG&E generation rates, annually. The estimated costs under EBCE’s new FY 2022-23 rate structure are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 - EBCE Program Cost Comparison
641
Energy Program
2020 GHG
Intensity (MT
CO2e/MWh)
Annual GHGs
Produced (MT
CO2e/MWh)
Annual Cost for
Livermore Municipal
Accounts
Cost Difference
Compared to
PG&E
PG&E unknown unknown $876,914 --
Bright Choice (at 3%
below PG&E rates)

0.268 2,515 $850,607 - $26,307
Renewable 100
($0.0075/kWh
premium over PG&E
rates)
0 0 $947,303 + $70,389
Nine of the fourteen EBCE member cities have already enrolled their municipal accounts into Renewable 100, including Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Pleasanton, Piedmont, and San Leandro. In the future, the City Council can also consider enrolling community-wide accounts (residential and commercial) to Renewable 100 as other cities have done, including Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Hayward, Piedmont, Pleasanton, and San Leandro.

At the time of this report, there are no alternatives to EBCE's Renewable 100 through PG&E.

Nonresidential capacity in PG&E's Solar Choice program is full and customers are being waitlisted for future enrollment if capacity becomes available. PG&E's Regional Renewable Choice program requires a customer to contract directly with a renewable energy developer for energy from a specific communitybased project within PG&E's service territory. No Regional Renewable Choice projects are currently available.

State Decarbonization Goals and the Livermore Climate Action Plan In 2018, Governor Jerry Brown signed Executive Order B-55-18, which sets a state goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. Additionally, Senate Bill 100 established a 2045 deadline to power all retail electricity sold in California with renewable and carbon-free sources.

The city is currently updating its Climate Action Plan (CAP) to align with these goals. Decarbonizing electricity will be a major component of the city's climate action strategy. Opting-up municipal accounts to Renewable 100 would reduce municipal GHG emissions and demonstrate the city's commitment to taking tangible actions to address climate change locally.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
Under EBCE’s new rate structure, switching the city’s accounts to Renewable 100 would cost approximately $96,696 more per year than the Bright Choice plan. That increase will be spread across 11 of the City's funds, of which $44,000 will be covered by the Sewer Fund, $15,500 by the Facilities Rehabilitation Program Fund, $11,800 by the Water Fund, $2,500 to the General Fund, and the balance spread among the remaining seven funds. This increased cost was not accounted for in the City's FY 2022-23 budget but can be absorbed by the budget because there should be sufficient savings in other budget categories.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution
642
Prepared by: Tricia Pontau
Senior Planner
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
643
RESOLUTION NO. _______

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PURCHASE
RENEWABLE 100 AS THE DEFAULT ELECTRICITY PRODUCT FOR
THE CITY OF LIVERMORE’S MUNICIPAL ACCOUNTS WITH

EAST BAY COMMUNITY ENERGY
In 2016, the Livermore City Council adopted Ordinance 2047 and approved Resolution No. 2016-172 to participate with other agencies in Alameda County to implement, form, and join East Bay Community Energy Authority (“EBCE”) as a community choice aggregation program pursuant to California Public Utilities Code section 366.2.

EBCE was formed, effective December 1, 2016, and exists to provide electricity rates that are lower and competitive with those offered by PG&E for similar products, differentiated energy supply options that include electric supply with lower greenhouse gas intensity than PG&E, and more renewable energy at competitive rates.

In 2018, the City of Livermore (“City”) started purchasing electricity from the EBCE.

At that time, the EBCE offered three power mix options:
 Bright Choice – at least 38% renewable energy and 47% carbon free energy for a total of 85% carbon-free energy at 1.5% lower rate than PG&E rates  Brilliant 100 – 100% carbon-free energy at price parity to PG&E rates  Renewable 100 – 100% renewable energy at a premium rate that is $0.01/kWh over PG&E rates
All residential, commercial, and municipal accounts in Livermore were initially enrolled in the Bright Choice option. On July 8, 2019, the City Council decided to enroll the City's municipal accounts into Brilliant 100. The residential and commercial accounts were not changed and remained enrolled in the Bright Choice option.

On November 18, 2020, the EBCE Board of Directors voted to discontinue Brilliant 100, effective after December 31, 2021. On the effective date, all Brilliant 100 accounts automatically transitioned to Bright Choice unless ratepayers requested to opt-up to Renewable 100. The City did not exercise that option, and as a result, the City's municipal accounts transitioned to Bright Choice after December 31, 2021.

In 2021, Bright Choice included approximately 60% carbon-free electricity. In comparison, PG&E's reported power mix included 92% carbon-free sources.

Alternatively, the Renewable 100 option remains 100% renewable, relying on solar and wind from California as its energy sources.

As part of its FY 2022-23 budget, the EBCE Board adopted a new rate structure for the Bright Choice and Renewable 100 products. Bright Choice is now offered at a 3% discount to PG&E rates and Renewable 100 is offered at a $0.0075/kWh premium. 644
RESOLUTION NO. _________
The City of Livermore now desires to enroll its municipal accounts in Renewable 100. The residential and commercial accounts will not be changed and will remain enrolled in either Bright Choice or the product selected by the individual account holder.

Based on the City’s 2021 electricity usage (approximately 9,385 MWh), Renewable 100 would cost approximately $96,696 more than Bright Choice and $70,389 more than PG&E generation rates, annually.

The City of Livermore is updating its Climate Action Plan, which will outline strategies to reach carbon neutrality by 2045 and prepare for the impacts of climate change, consistent with State goals. Decarbonizing electricity is one of the major strategies outlined in the plan.

Enrolling the city’s municipal accounts in Renewable 100 would reduce municipal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by approximately 2,515 metric tons annually compared to Bright Choice and demonstrate the city's commitment to taking tangible actions to address climate change locally.

On July 25, 2022, the City Council considered the staff recommendations and public testimony.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes the City Manager to enroll the city’s municipal electric accounts in EBCE’s Renewable 100 service option.

The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, in Livermore, California.

On motion of Council Member , seconded by
Council Member , the foregoing resolution was passed
and adopted on July 25, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Jason Alcala
Marie Weber Jason Alcala
City Clerk City Attorney
645
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 7.2
DATE: July 25, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott Lanphier, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution appropriating $25,000 from the Water Enterprise Fund for participation in the Pure Water Tri-Valley potable reuse demonstration project phase 2 public education and outreach efforts.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution appropriating $25,000 from the Water Enterprise Fund in Fiscal Year 2022-23 for participation in the Pure Water Tri-Valley potable reuse demonstration project phase 2 public education and outreach efforts.

SUMMARY
Staff from the Dublin San Ramon Services District has requested the City of Livermore's participation in the current phase of a project to demonstrate the feasibility of using highly-treated wastewater in new ways. If approved, the current phase of the project would require up to $25,000 from the City and would focus on public outreach and education efforts.

DISCUSSION
In 2018, the Tri-Valley's water agencies, which are the City of Livermore (Livermore Municipal Water), the City of Pleasanton, California Water Service Company (Cal Water), Dublin San Ramon Services District (DRSRD), and Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7), completed a “Joint Tri-Valley Potable Reuse Feasibility Study”. Potable reuse is the practice of using advanced treatment processes to clean wastewater to a level that meets drinking water standards. This study concluded that reusing treated wastewater in the Tri-Valley could add a new, locally controlled source of water to its portfolio that could help ensure water supply sustainability for the area. The City of Pleasanton ultimately opted out of the following studies in early 2021, resulting in Zone 7 assuming all costs to keep a variety of related studies moving forward.

Currently, DSRSD is proposing an education and outreach campaign to help understand public perception of potable reuse and to determine the feasibility of constructing a demonstration project.

DSRSD staff have approached City of Livermore to gauge interest in participating as a project partner. 646
DSRSD staff are asking for a contribution of $25,000 and staff time with no commitment to participate in future phases.

If constructed, the demonstration project would treat up to 200,000 gallons of wastewater per day at the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) pump station in Pleasanton. The treated water would be discharged into Alameda Creek, and Alameda County Water District (ACWD) would divert it downstream for local groundwater recharge. The treated water would also be available for public taste testing.

This is the initial stage of a potentially larger project. If the pilot project proves successful, and the public is confident that potable reuse is viable, a larger project could be planned and constructed. A larger future project would treat greater quantities of wastewater which could be used in several ways:
• Discharged into Alameda Creek for downstream groundwater recharge and the Tri-Valley would obtain treated water in a “swap” deal from another source. • Used to recharge Tri-Valley groundwater aquifers.
• Used to supplement surface water such as the Del Valle reservoir.

DSRSD currently uses all its wastewater during the summer months to meet its customers’ current demand for recycled water. It is worth noting that should Livermore participate in future phases of this project, or other larger future projects, most of the treated wastewater would need to be supplied by the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant. If the pilot project is constructed, the City could supply necessary treated wastewater to allow the project to operate year-round. Participation in a larger future project would decrease the treated wastewater supply the City of Livermore has available to expand its recycled water system in the future and reduce the total amount of locally-controlled water available directly to the City.

Staff is recommending that the City participate in the current phase of this project. Drought conditions continue to worsen over time and the need for viable water reuse is important. This project would help demonstrate to the public that potable reuse is a part of the long-term solution to reliable water sources for the Tri-Valley.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
The cost of participating in the current phase of the Pure Water Tri-Valley demonstration project is $25,000 and would be paid for by the Water Enterprise Fund. These funds are not currently in the approved FY 2022-23 budget but would be appropriated by the attached resolution. Staff anticipates only minor impacts on staff time to participate in this project.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Project Fact Sheet

2. Resolution
Prepared by: Anthony Smith
Water Resources Division Manager
647
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
648
Regional Purified Water Pilot Project
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and Alameda County Water District (ACWD) are studying the potential to develop a purified water pilot project in collaboration with other Bay Area water and wastewater agencies. The pilot would leverage existing resources and infrastructure to demonstrate and build public awareness around the benefits of purified water and regional collaboration.

Purified Water is one of multiple water supply options being explored by Bay Area agencies to improve long-term water resiliency for the region. Purified water is produced using advanced treatment technologies to purify treated wastewater effluent to a high quality that is suitable for augmenting drinking water sources. Purified water is a new, locally available and sustainable supply that makes use of a resource that would otherwise be discharged to San Francisco Bay.

DUBLIN

FREMONT
NEWARK

PLEASANTON

TO ALAMO CREEK
680
680
238
ACWD intercepts flow;
diverts to Quarry Lakes
Purified water
discharged
to creek
84 PURIFIED
WATER

ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT

ADVANCED OXIDATION

REVERSE OSMOSIS PILOT LOCATION
(AT LAVWMA)

DSRSD WWTP

MEMBRANE

FILTRATION

TREATED

WASTEWATER

FROM LAVWMA
Pilot Concept
The proposed concept was developed through a series of
workshops with potential partner agencies. The pilot would purify treated wastewater from the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA), which originates from DSRSD and Livermore Wastewater Treatment Plants and is currently
discharged to the San Francisco Bay. The pilot project would operate year round with flows from DSRSD and Livermore, or seasonally with flows from only DSRSD due to existing irrigation recycled water demands. Utilizing treated wastewater flows would retain this resource locally and purify it through a multi-step advanced treatment process involving membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light advanced oxidation. The envisioned pilot project would deliver 0.2 million gallons per day of purified water to a nearby canal, which would supplement flows in Alameda Creek and ultimately be diverted by ACWD 15 miles downstream for groundwater recharge.
580
DRAFT | May 30, 2022
Key Benefits of Purified Water Pilot
– Provides an interactive public outreach opportunity.
– Demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of purified water technology. – Collects data to inform future full-scale regional purified water project options. – Promotes regional collaboration.
– Leverages existing infrastructure and makes use of wastewater currently discharged to San Francisco Bay.

ATTACHMENT 1
649
Regional Collaboration
The purified water pilot would bring together partners currently involved in other ongoing regional efforts and build upon both the Tri-City and the Tri-Valley studies. The purified water pilot would benefit these ongoing efforts and the broader region by performing public outreach and education and collecting data to inform future full-scale reuse efforts and/or water transfer or exchange partnerships in the Bay Area.

Potential Partner Agencies
These agencies have provided input to develop
the pilot concept and are evaluating potential
participation in Phase 2 to futher advance the
project.
– Alameda County Water District
– City of Livermore
– Dublin San Ramon Services District
– Livermore-Amador Valley Water
Management Agency
– Union Sanitary District
– Zone 7 Water Agency
2022 2023 2024 2025
PHASE 1
Initial Feasibility Study
PHASE 2
Public Outreach
Grant Funding
PHASE 3
Implement Pilot
Estimated Timing
Monitor funding opportunities Pursue funding
Outreach and eduction efforts
Decision point for participation in next phase
$340,000 O&M
for a two-year pilot
$2.3M Capital Cost
(planning level estimate) 2-year pilot project
Small-scale
treatment
system (~50 ft x 60 ft)

0.2MGD
Public Outreach and Education
The pilot would be designed to enable public tours and other interactive outreach components--such as displaying real-time water quality data and producing purified water on-site.

Grant funding
potentially
available
Identify Stakeholders Collect Data Develop Outreach Strategy Goals and Objectives
Messaging
Strategies (Pilot Testing)
Timeline
Evaluation
Surveys &
Focus Groups
How stakeholders
feel about
purified water
GRANT

CURRENT STATUS
Tri-City
Studies
Tri-Valley
Studies
Regional
Purified
Water
Pilot
Other Interested
Stakeholders
ATTACHMENT 1
650
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING $25,000 IN WATER ENTERPRISE

FUNDS FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE PURE WATER TRI-VALLEY
POTABLE REUSE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT PHASE 2 PUBLIC

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION EFFORTS
In 2018, the Tri-Valley's water agencies, which are the City of Livermore, the City of Pleasanton, California Water Service Company , Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), and Zone 7 Water Agency, completed a “Joint Tri-Valley Potable Reuse Feasibility Study.” Potable reuse is the practice of using advanced treatment processes to clean wastewater to a level that meets drinking water standards. This study concluded that reusing treated wastewater in the Tri-Valley could add a new, locally controlled source of water to its portfolio that could help ensure water supply sustainability for the area.

DSRSD is proposing an education and outreach campaign to help understand public perception of potable reuse and to determine the feasibility of constructing a demonstration project. DSRSD staff has approached City of Livermore staff to gauge interest in participating as a project partner. DSRSD staff is asking for a contribution of $25,000 and staff time with no commitment to participate in future phases.

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

1. City staff is authorized to participate in the current phase of the Pure Water TriValley potable reuse demonstration project.

2. Appropriate $25,000 in Water Enterprise Funds from Fund 250 in Fiscal Year 2022-23.

3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of this resolution, including approving and executing a memorandum of agreement, subject to review and approval as to form by the City Attorney, with the Tri-Valley’s water agencies.

On motion of Council Member ______________________, seconded by Council Member ______________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on July 25, 2022, by the following vote:
651
RESOLUTION NO. ________
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ /s/ Jason Alcala
Marie Weber Jason Alcala
City Clerk City Attorney
652
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 7.3
DATE: July 25, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tina Olson, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Resolution calling for and giving notice of the holding of a general municipal election for the submittal of an initiative entitled: "South Livermore Sewer Extension Project" to the voters of the City of Livermore and consolidating that election with the General Municipal Election to be held Tuesday, November 8, 2022.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council do the following:

1. Adopt the resolution consolidating the City Council initiative with the November 8, 2022 General Municipal Election and requesting services from Alameda County Registrar of Voters;

2. Consider appointing a subcommittee to prepare a ballot argument and rebuttal argument, or defer argument in favor of the measure to the Tri-Valley Conservancy as a bona fide proponent for the measure; and

3. Direct the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure.

SUMMARY
The purpose of this election is to submit the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary initiative to the voters and consolidate that election with the general municipal election on November 8, 2022.

DISCUSSION
In accordance with California Election Code section 9222, the City Council may submit the attached ordinance (Exhibit A), without alteration, to the voters at the next regular municipal election on November 8, 2022. It should also be determined whether to appoint a subcommittee to prepare a ballot argument (300 words) and rebuttal argument (250 words). The Council may also defer its argument in favor of the measure to the Tri-Valley Conservancy as a bona fide proponent for the measure.

Ballot Measure Arguments
Timelines for ballot measure arguments have been modeled after the provisions set forth in California Elections Code sections 9286 and 9285. Accordingly, direct arguments for or against the measure are 653
due within 14 days from calling the election; and rebuttal arguments for or against are due within 10 days after the final filing date for direct arguments.

Ballot Question
On July 11, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the ballot question and language for the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative and directed staff to conduct all necessary actions to prepare materials for the November 8, 2022, ballot.

Impartial Analysis
In accordance with California Elections Code section 9280, the City Council may direct the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall then prepare an impartial analysis of the measure (not to exceed 500 words) showing the effect of the measure on existing law and the operation of the measure. The analysis shall then be printed preceding the arguments for and against the measure.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
The estimated cost for the November 8, 2022 election provided by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters is $4-$6 per registered voter (excluding sample ballot cost and Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog and Vietnamese translation). Currently there are 56,968 registered voters in Livermore, estimating the cost to be $227,872- $341,808. Staff anticipates the actual cost for the November 8, 2022 election to be at the lower end of the estimate provided by the Registrar of Voters based on the expenses incurred from past elections. Placing a measure on this ballot would incur approximately $15,000 in additional costs related to printing, typesetting, and translating the measure. At this time staff believes sufficient funds are budgeted and an additional appropriation is not needed.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A - Ballot Question and South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative Prepared by: Marie Weber
City Clerk
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
654
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A

GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF THE SOUTH

LIVERMORE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE TO THE VOTERS OF THE

CITY OF LIVERMORE AND CONSOLIDATING THAT ELECTION WITH THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022
On June 27, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-110 that called and gave notice of a General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022, for the purpose of the election of Mayor and two members of City Council and requested the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to permit the Registrar of Voters to render assistance in all required election services in the conduct of the November 8, 2022, municipal election.

On July 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-125 that approved the ballot question and language for the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative and directed staff to conduct all necessary actions to prepare materials for the November 8, 2022, ballot. At that same meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-124 that certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and approved the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Regarding the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the South Livermore Sewer Expansion Project and the measure.

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

Section 1. For the general municipal election called and ordered on June 27, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-110, the Livermore City Council hereby also submits to the qualified electors of the City of Livermore, an initiative measure entitled “South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary”, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. The ballot question shall read as follows:

Measure: South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary
Shall the ordinance amending the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary policies in the City of Livermore’s General Plan to allow the City to extend sewer service to permitted uses within the South Livermore Valley Area Plan Planning Area be adopted?
Yes
No
655
RESOLUTION NO. ________
Section 2. Under the laws of the State of California relating to general law cities, and in particular section 1405 of the Elections Code, it is hereby ordered that the general election on the initiative measure be consolidated with the general municipal election held in the City of Livermore, County of Alameda, State of California, on November 8, 2022.

Section 3. The City Council of the City of Livermore requests the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to issue instructions to the county election department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election.

Section 4. The City Council of the City of Livermore recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any additional costs.

Section 5. The vote requirement for the measure to pass is a majority (50%+1) of the votes cast.

Section 6. The Alameda County Registrar of Voters (county elections department) is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. The election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regarding the statewide election.

Section 7. The City Council of the City of Livermore directs the City Clerk to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda, and to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters (ROV), and to take such further actions as may be requested by the County Elections officials in connection with the general election on November 8, 2022.

Section 8. The City Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary initiative measure to the City Attorney, and the City Attorney is instructed to prepare an impartial analysis thereof, consistent with the provisions of section 9280 of the Elections Code. The City Clerk is further instructed to include the City Attorney’s impartial analysis in the Voters Information Pamphlet.

Section 9. Pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to general law cities within the State, and in particular, sections 9282 and 9286(a) of the Elections Code, arguments for and against the South Livermore Valley Urban Growth Boundary initiative measure, which are limited to 300 words in length, may be submitted to the City Clerk, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 8, 2022.

Section 10. Pursuant to section 9285 of the Elections Code, rebuttal arguments, which are limited to 250 words in length, will be permitted and must be submitted to the City Clerk, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, no later than 5p.m. on Thursday, August 18, 2022.
656
RESOLUTION NO. ________
Section 11. 24-hour ballot drop boxes will be open beginning Monday, October 10, 2022, through November 8, 2022, until 8 p.m. 11-day vote centers will be open beginning Saturday, October 29, 2022, through November 7, 2022, for at least eight hours and on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. 4-day vote centers will be open beginning Saturday, November 5, 2022, through November 7, 2022, for at least eight hours and on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m.

Section 12. The City Clerk is hereby directed to post and/or publish all official notices and printed matters, and in cooperation with the County of Alameda, furnish all supplies necessary to lawfully conduct the election.

Section 13. Notice of the time and place of holding the election is hereby given and the City Clerk is directed to give such further and additional notice of the election in the time, form, and manner required by law.

Section 14. In all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections, and the general municipal election called and ordered on June 27, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-110.

Section 15. This resolution shall take effect immediately.

The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, in Livermore California.

On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council
Member , the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on July 25, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Jason R. Alcala
Marie Weber Jason R. Alcala
City Clerk City Attorney
Exhibit A – Ballot Question and South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative 657
Question on the ballot:

Measure __: Shall the ordinance amending the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary policies in the City of Livermore’s General Plan to allow the City to extend sewer service to permitted uses within the South Livermore Valley Area Plan Planning Area be adopted? Yes__ No __.

EXHIBIT A
658
Measure
Full Text of Measure
Measure _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY AMENDING THE SOUTH LIVERMORE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY POLICIES IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE’S GENERAL PLAN TO ALLOW THE

CITY TO EXTEND SEWER SERVICE TO PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE SOUTH LIVERMORE VALLEY AREA PLAN PLANNING AREA.

The people of the City of Livermore, California do ordain as follows:

Section 1. Purpose and Findings.

The purpose of this initiative is to protect water quality and agriculture by updating the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (South Livermore UGB) policies to allow full implementation of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan. If this initiative measure is adopted by the Livermore voters, the South Livermore UGB policies would be amended to allow the City to extend sewer service beyond the South Livermore UGB to a limited portion of the South Livermore Valley, including properties fronting portions of South Livermore Avenue, Buena Vista Avenue, Tesla Road and Greenville Road in order to protect water quality, support agriculture, and enable connection of compatible uses, consistent with the provisions of Measure D.

This initiative would not change the boundaries for the South Livermore UGB or make any changes to the South Livermore Valley Area Plan or the Alameda County Measure D approved by county voters in 2000.

A. Findings:

The people of the City of Livermore find that this initiative promotes and protects the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of City residents, based upon the following:

1. The South Livermore Valley Area Plan (Area Plan) was adopted by Alameda County Board of Supervisors in 1993 to ensure the survival and enhancement of the century-old Livermore wine region. The Area Plan protects and expands agriculture and restricts commercial and residential development adjacent to Livermore while promoting uses that enhance the recognition and image of the area as an important premium wine and agricultural region.

2. To build upon and advance the goals of the Area Plan, Livermore voters approved the South Livermore UGB in 2000. The boundaries for the South Livermore UGB as adopted by the voters is in the City of Livermore General Plan as Figure 3-6, a copy of that figure is attached as Attachment 1.

3. The South Livermore UGB was intended to protect and enhance agriculture and open space in the South Livermore Valley. It has created a thriving agricultural economy in the region by supporting the goals of

EXHIBIT A
659
the Area Plan, providing regulatory stability, and removing speculative acquisition of farmland by urban developers.

4. When the South Livermore UGB was adopted and later reaffirmed by the voters, it was anticipated that the unincorporated area outside the South Livermore UGB would be developed to its full potential without the use of a sewer system operated by a governmental agency such as the City of Livermore.

5. In the last two decades the groundwater basins throughout the State of California have experienced a steady decline in water quality. Regulatory agencies are working toward protecting our groundwater in an effort to safeguard this important resource. Many of these actions place undue hardships on property owners located outside the South Livermore UGB; and some properties are unable to operate effectively or realize development potential as contemplated by the Area Plan, Alameda County Measure D, and the South Livermore UGB.

6. Measures taken today to improve our groundwater quality in the future will help improve public health, agriculture, and quality of life in Livermore and the surrounding region.

7. This initiative promotes the Area Plan’s purpose of expanding and enhancing cultivated agriculture by facilitating the types of development envisioned in the Area Plan and ensures that conservation easements will be held by land trusts accredited by national organizations (such as the Tri-Valley Conservancy accredited by the Land Trust Alliance). This initiative limits sewer service extensions to land uses that are consistent with the Area Plan, as it exists now or is amended in the future, and in conformance with Alameda County Measure D.

8. This initiative retains the South Livermore UGB location shown in Attachment 1 while amending the South Livermore UGB policies in the General Plan concerning extension of sewer services to allow the City to provide sewer services to uses contemplated by the Area Plan, as it exists now or is amended in the future, and in conformance with Alameda County Measure D.

9. The amendments will ensure that South Livermore UGB policies remain relevant and appropriate in light of a changing environment. This will improve the region’s capacity to improve water quality and provide ongoing support for agricultural protection.

Section 2. General Plan Amendments.

This initiative hereby amends the City of Livermore General Plan (“General Plan”) Goal LU-18 and the associated Objective (LU-18-1) and Policies (P1-P7). Text to be inserted in the General Plan is indicated in bold double underlined type (example). Deletions are shown in strikeout font (example). Text in standard type appears in the General Plan as of the submittal date and is not changed by this Initiative. The amendments are as follows:

EXHIBIT A
660
Goal LU-18 It is the goal of the City to establish a coherent and logical pattern of urban uses that protects and enhances open space and agricultural uses by providing a clear and permanent boundary for urban uses within the City's planning area. The provisions of GOAL LU-18, as readopted by the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative and amended by this initiative, shall be amended only by a vote of the people.

Objective LU-18.1 Maintain a permanent Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) on the City’s southern edge (as indicated Figure LU 3-6 and the City’s Land Use Map) beyond which urban development shall not be permitted. Non-urban uses, such as agriculture, parks, and open space may be permitted within and beyond the South Livermore UGB. (Relevant provisions of that the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative are found in Appendix 3 of Appendix A B of the General Plan.)
Policies
P1 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 uses existed on December 6, 1999. (South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative, 3-7- 2000).

P2 For the purposes of this section, “urban services” refer to sewer and water service.

P3 For the purposes of this section, “South Livermore Valley Area Plan” refers to the South Livermore Valley Area Plan adopted on February 23, 1993 by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, as it exists now or may be amended in the future.

P34 For the purposes of this section, “South Livermore Valley Specific Plan” refers to the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan adopted on November 17, 1997 by the Livermore City Council, as it exists now or may be amended in the future.

P5 Permit only non-urban uses beyond the South Livermore UGB within the City's municipal boundary. Beyond the City’s municipal boundary discourage and oppose any urban uses that do not directly contribute to the conservation of agriculture and the goals of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan and South Livermore Valley Specific Plan.

P46 Extend urban services only to areas within the UGB, except that the City may provide:
(i) sewage treatment and disposal services to the Veterans Administration Hospital for hospital uses;
(ii) urban services for residences on parcels outside of the South Livermore UGB which parcels were existing as of October 27, 1997, provided the property receiving such services shall record a binding agreement between the property owner and the City disallowing further division of the property and any provision of urban services to non-residential uses upon the property;

EXHIBIT A
661
(iii) sewage treatment and disposal services for residences on parcels outside of the South Livermore UGB provided the property receiving such services shall record a binding agreement between the property owner and the City disallowing further division of the property and any provision of urban services to non-residential uses upon the property, and subject to the following:
(a) The property receiving the services is designated under the Livermore General Plan, South Livermore Valley Area Plan, or South Livermore Valley Specific Plan for residential uses, and in conformance with Alameda County Measure D; or
(b) The property receiving the services was also a residential use on the date of this initiative.
(iii iv) 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:
(a) the subject property is designated under the South Livermore Valley Area Plan or South Livermore Valley Specific Plan for agricultural uses, with associated allowable commercial uses;
(b) the service(s) will be utilized for allowable commercial uses consistent with the provisions of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, or South Livermore Valley Area Plan as they exist now or are amended in the future, in conformance with Alameda County Measure D; (c) the subject property is located adjacent to the Livermore municipal boundaries as of the date of the adoption of the SLVSP and, is located adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary;
(d) if required by City or LAFCO policy, the property will annex to the City; (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; and
(f) before receiving such service(s), the property owner will record a conservation easement over the subject property with a land trust accredited by a national land trust accreditation organization in a form acceptable to the City and subject to an endowment requirement or other financial assurance in an amount that is reasonable and customary for the type of easement used to satisfy this requirement.

The conservation easement restricts use of the subject property to agricultural and open space uses, except as to within a delineated commercial use area, not to exceed 10% of the property within which

EXHIBIT A
662
allowable commercial uses and intensity of such uses shall be delineated permitted and described in the conservation easement. The conservation easement shall require all visitor-serving commercial buildings to be located within the delineated commercial use area on a contiguous development envelope not to exceed 2 acres, unless subject to a clustering plan under Measure D Program 34 (Clustering), as written when this initiative goes into effect. The City may only extend such services to permitted commercial uses described in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, or the permitted commercial uses described in the South Livermore Valley Area Plan and in conformance with Alameda County Measure D as applicable;
(v) sewage treatment and disposal services for commercial uses on parcels outside of the South Livermore UGB, subject to the following:
(a) the subject property is designated under the South Livermore Valley Area Plan or South Livermore Valley Specific Plan for agricultural uses, with associated allowable commercial uses;
(b) the service(s) will be utilized for allowable commercial uses consistent with the provisions of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, or South Livermore Valley Area Plan as they exist now or are amended in the future, in conformance with Alameda County Measure D;
(c) if required by City or LAFCO policy, the property will annex to the City;
(d) 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;
(e) Alameda County has not permitted more than 180,000 square feet of commercial use within the area covered by the South Livermore Valley Area Plan, including commercial use existing as of the submittal date. If Alameda County permits 180,000 square feet or more of commercial use, then existing sewage treatment and disposal service may continue, but no new sewage treatment and disposal service shall be permitted pursuant to this subsection (v); and
(f) before receiving such service(s), the property owner will record a conservation easement over the subject property with a land trust accredited by a national land trust accreditation organization in a form acceptable to the City and subject to an endowment requirement or other financial assurance in an amount that is reasonable and customary for the type of easement used to satisfy

EXHIBIT A
663
this requirement. The conservation easement restricts use of the subject property to agricultural and open space uses, except within a delineated commercial use area, not to exceed 10% of the property within which allowable commercial uses and intensity of such uses shall be delineated permitted and described in the conservation easement. The conservation easement shall require all visitor-serving commercial buildings to be located within the delineated commercial use area on a contiguous development envelope not to exceed 2 acres, unless subject to a clustering plan under Measure D Program 34 (Clustering), as written when this initiative goes into effect. The City may only extend such services to permitted commercial uses described in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, or the permitted commercial uses described in the South Livermore Valley Area Plan and in conformance with Alameda County Measure D as applicable;
(ivi) for sewer service in unincorporated areas, the connections (residential and commercial) pursuant to any of the subsections above shall allow no more wastewater flow than the equivalent of ten residential units as required by the LAVWMA Joint Powers Agreement. This requirement shall apply cumulatively to all contiguous uses within the unincorporated geographic area. Larger scale sewer service to unincorporated areas requires the unanimous approval of the LAVWMA Board of Directors. If areas are annexed, this restriction will not apply.

P57 Encourage compatible uses immediately inside the South Livermore UGB, as necessary to prevent potential land use conflicts with outlying non-urban uses.

P68 The South Livermore UGB is indicated by a solid line in Figure 3-6 and the City's land use map.

P79 The foregoing provisions of Objective LU 18.1 and Figure 3-6, as readopted by the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative and amended by this initiative , shall be amended only by a vote of the people or otherwise in accordance with Section

3.D. of the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative.

Section 3. Adoption, Effective Date, and Implementation.

B. Adoption and Effective Date. This ordinance shall be adopted by the City Council for the City of Livermore if approved by a majority of qualified electors at the city’s general municipal election held on November 8, 2022, and pursuant to California Elections Code section 9217 shall be effective ten (10) days following the date upon which the Livermore City Council declares by resolution the results from that election. Upon the effective date of this initiative, (1) the provisions of Section 2 of the initiative are hereby inserted into the City of Livermore General Plan, as an amendment thereof; except that if the four amendments of the mandatory elements of the General Plan permitted by State law for any given calendar year have already been utilized in the year in which the initiative becomes effective, this General Plan amendment shall be the first amendment inserted into the City of Livermore General Plan on January 1 of the next year.

Upon the effective date of this initiative, any provisions of the City Code or of any

EXHIBIT A
664
other City of Livermore ordinance or resolution that are inconsistent with the General Plan amendments adopted by this Initiative shall not be enforced in a manner inconsistent with this Initiative.

C. Amendments. This initiative may be amended or repealed only by the qualified voters of the City of Livermore at a City election.

D. Interim Amendments. The date that the notice of intention to circulate this initiative was submitted to the elections official of the City of Livermore is referred to in this initiative as the “submittal date.” The City of Livermore General Plan in effect on the submittal date as amended by this initiative comprises an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies for the City of Livermore. In order to ensure that nothing in this initiative would prevent the General Plan from being an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of the policies of the City of Livermore, as required by State law, and to ensure that the actions of the voters in enacting this Initiative are given effect, any amendment or update to the General Plan that is adopted between the submittal date and the date that the General Plan is amended by this initiative measure shall, to the extent that such interim-enacted provision is inconsistent with the General Plan provisions adopted by this initiative, be amended as soon as possible to ensure consistency between the provisions adopted by this initiative and other provisions of the General Plan. Likewise, any amendment to the City Code that is adopted between the submittal date and the date that the City Code is amended by this initiative shall, to the extent that such interimenacted provision is inconsistent with the City Code provisions adopted by this initiative, be amended as soon as possible to ensure consistency between the provisions adopted by this Initiative and other provisions of the City Code.

E. Conforming Amendments: The text of the City of Livermore General Plan that refers to the “South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative, passed by local voters in March 2000,” on pages 3-8, 3-52, 3-53, and 3-69, is hereby updated to add after each occurrence of those words, “and amended by this initiative, passed by the local voters in November 2022,” with the name for this initiative in the ballot for the November 8, 2022 election inserted in place of this initiative in that sentence, as well as the areas of the Livermore General Plan amended by this initiative where the words “this initiative” are used.

F. Other City Ordinances and Policies: The City of Livermore is hereby authorized and directed to amend the City of Livermore General Plan, all specific plans, the City Code, including the Zoning Code and other ordinances and polices affected by this initiative as soon as possible as necessary to ensure consistency between the provisions adopted in this Initiative and other sections of the General Plan, all specific plans, and other City ordinances and policies.

G. Reorganization: The General Plan may be reorganized or readopted in different format, and individual provisions may be renumbered or reordered, in the course of ongoing updates of the General Plan, provided that the provisions adopted by section II of this initiative shall remain in the General Plan unless earlier repealed or amended by vote of the people of the City of Livermore.

EXHIBIT A
665
H. Implementing Ordinances: The City Council is authorized to adopt implementing ordinances, guidelines, rules, and regulations, as necessary, to further the purposes of this initiative.

I. Enforcement and Defense of Initiative: The City Council shall take all steps reasonably necessary to enforce this initiative and to defend it against any challenge to its validity.

J. Project Approvals: Upon the effective date of this initiative, the City of Livermore and its departments, boards, commissions, officers and employees, shall not grant, or by inaction allow to be approved by operation of law, any general plan amendment, rezoning, specific plan, subdivision map, use permit, amended use permit, building permit, or any other entitlement, that is inconsistent with this Initiative.

Section 4. Severability and Interpretation.

This initiative shall be interpreted so as to be consistent with all applicable Federal, State, and City laws, rules, and regulations. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion of this Initiative is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this initiative. The voters hereby declare that this initiative, and each section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof would have been adopted or passed even if one or more sections, subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts, or portions are declared invalid or unconstitutional. If any provision of this initiative is held invalid as applied to any person or circumstance, such invalidity shall not affect any application of this initiative that can be given effect without the invalid application. This initiative shall be broadly construed in order to achieve its purpose. Any singular term shall include the plural and any plural term shall include the singular. The title and captions of the various sections in this Initiative are for convenience and organization only, and are not intended to be referred to in construing the provisions of this initiative.

Section 4. Exemptions for Certain Projects.

K. This initiative shall not apply to (1) any project that has obtained as of the effective date of the Initiative a vested right pursuant to state or local law or (2) any land that, under state or federal law, is beyond the power of the local voters to affect by the initiative power reserved to the people via the California Constitution.

L. In the event a property owner contends that application of this initiative effects an unconstitutional taking of property, the property owner may request, and the City Council may grant, an exception to application of any provision of this initiative if the City Council finds, based on substantial evidence, that both (1) the application of any aspect of this initiative would constitute an unconstitutional taking of property, and (2) the exception will allow additional or continued land uses only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid such a taking.

Attachments

EXHIBIT A
666
Attachment 1 – Diagram showing the location of the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as approved by the voters. The UGB boundaries are not changed by this initiative. This diagram is provided for informational purposes only.

EXHIBIT A
667
11 Attachment 1
This diagram shows the location of the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as approved by the voters on [date] and depicted in the City of Livermore General Plan as Figure 3-6. The UGB location is not changed by this initiative. This diagram is provided for informational purposes only .

EXHIBIT A
668
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 10.1
DATE: July 25, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tina Olson, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Supplemental materials received prior to the meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

SUMMARY
These materials were posted online and made available to the public at the same time that they were distributed to the City Council.

4.0 Citizens Forum
Material: Public Comment Received

6.1 Hearing to adopt a resolution approving the waiver and refund of $132,562 in penalties and interest related to delinquent special taxes levied in City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 99-1 (Tri-Valley Technology Park) on property owned by the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

6.2 Hearing to consider comments and protests relating to the disposition of City-owned property at 2324 Second Street (former SBC building) to Mr. Michael Messinger for the purposes of converting it from an office to restaurant use and a resolution approving the sale of the Property and authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Michael Messinger to update the Schedule of Development.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

6.3 Hearing to consider a request for Site Plan Design Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map to develop the northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Collier Canyon Road, which would implement the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan.

Materials: Public Comment Received and PowerPoint Presentation 669

7.1 Resolution authorizing the City Manager to purchase Renewable 100, which contains 100% renewable electricity from solar and wind sources in California, as the default electricity product for Livermore's Municipal East Bay Community Energy Accounts.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

7.2 Resolution appropriating $25,000 from the Water Enterprise Fund for participation in the Pure Water Tri-Valley potable reuse demonstration project phase 2 public education and outreach efforts.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

7.3 Resolution calling for and giving notice of the holding of a general municipal election for the submittal of an initiative entitled: "South Livermore Sewer Extension Project" to the voters of the City of Livermore and consolidating that election with the General Municipal Election to be held Tuesday, November 8, 2022.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

8.0 Council Committee Reports and Matters Initiated by City Manager, City Attorney, Staff, Council Members.

Material: Council Reports

DISCUSSION

ATTACHMENTS

1. Supplemental Materials
Prepared by: Debbie Elam
Deputy City Clerk
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
670
From: david.

To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Referendum
Date: Friday, July 22, 2022 1:34:36 PM
Marie
According to the Independent news paper July 21, 2022 you have declined to process the referendum for the Move Eden Housing organization. If this is correct then you are not doing your job as City Clerk of Livermore. Further, if you are unwilling to performing your required job duties then you should resign from your position immediately.

Marie, you “do not have the power even on the advice of counsel, to not perform the clearly stated legal responsibilities set forth in the Elections Code.” It’s pretty simple, do your job or leave! The taxpayers of Livermore deserve better!
Dave
Livermore, CA
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
671
From: Eileen Greenlee
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Support Your Decision
Date: Friday, July 22, 2022 3:25:30 PM
Livermore City Clerk Marie Weber,
I have been a Livermore resident since 1983 and am now raising my family in Livermore. I fully support the Eden Housing Development in downtown Livermore and support your decision that Resolution No. 2022-085 is NOT a legislative act and thus is NOT subject to referendum.

Thank you,
Eileen Greenlee
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
672
From: Jay Felch
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: "Move Eden Housing"
Date: Friday, July 22, 2022 4:33:05 PM
Office of the City Clerk,
I support you 100%. The Livermore City Council and staff have gone above and beyond to complete the Downtown Livemore project. All the opposition does is slow things down and make it cost more.

Go Livermore City Clerk!
-- Jay Felch
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
673
From: Kelly Y
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Thank you to Marie Weber
Date: Saturday, July 23, 2022 11:15:42 AM
I just wanted to state that I support the city clerk! It is your job to process paperwork appropriately, not as desired by specific city residents. I am sorry that the Independent Newspaper and the Move Eden Housing Group are behaving like bullies; they are ignoring the law and pushing on you to bend to pressure. I know we have a right to free speech but misinformation campaigns are despicable. So, thank you for doing your job despite the personal attacks on your integrity.

Kelly Youngblood
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
674
From: Jen Gates
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden Housing
Date: Saturday, July 23, 2022 11:38:22 AM
How the group of people against the Eden housing project is treating city employees and the people of livermore is awful. Keep up the great work at supporting your city!
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
675
From: William Zagotta
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Cc: Jean King
Subject: Comments regarding Eden project. Let citizens be heard by electing CC members in Nov.

Date: Saturday, July 23, 2022 5:17:25 PM
Let Livermore Vote. 8,000 Livermore citizens signed petitions to qualify the referendum giving city voters a voice on the location of Eden Housing. The city should be respecting the process and allowing a vote.

The courts, not the city, will determine whether what the city is doing is legal or not. But by forcing this measure to go to the courts, it is wasting taxpayer dollars. Instead, we should be putting this issue in front of voters immediately.

Best of all. Don’t accept or reject the referendum. The petition circulators would be willing to let the vote in November decide by electing CC member who agree with one side or the other. But don’t foreclose the chance to take one last measure of the citizens opinion about this project. You could do this by putting the referendum on the ballot. NOT LIKELY. OR …
Don’t take final action with Eden until after Election Day. Then each citizen could then show approval or disapproval by electing council persons who agree with each citizens preference. No use of our taxes for a special election.

I know this will delay the ultimate CC action by a few months but the project will mark our city for a hundred years.

Make sure you know what the citizens prefer before you drop the guillotine.

Cheers,
Bill
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
676
From: Mary A ROZSA
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Cc: The Independent
Subject: Comment for City Council Meeting Monday 5/25/2022 Date: Saturday, July 23, 2022 7:50:39 PM
Mary Anne Rozsa, Livermore Resident
I just want to comment on the lack of democracy in our City. The current Council and Mayor do not want to allow the signed petitions by Livermore residents, in fact, over 8,000 voters to qualify the referendum to be on the ballot in November. Those voters expressed their opinions and want to have a voice in the location of Eden Housing. I did walk door to door having the petition signed and was welcomed by the majority of home owners wanting to be able to have some say of what goes on the last large piece of property in our Downtown. It should be the voice of the people making the decision about what happens in our City core, not just the elected officials. We voted you into office to represent us and listen to our concerns so please start paying attention because there is certainly more than 8,000 feeling disenfranchised in our City.

Mary Anne Rozsa
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
677
From: Kim Ancira
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden Housing
Date: Saturday, July 23, 2022 8:43:25 PM
I am very upset that the signatures we signed for will not it be counted. This project is wrong for downtown, put it somewhere else in town, please.

I have lived here 52 years and no one I know wants this monstrosity.

Kim Ancira
Sent from my iPad
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
678
From: Ernestina
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden housing
Date: Saturday, July 23, 2022 11:10:56 PM
To: City Clerk
My wife and I have lived in Livermore since 1972, 50 years. We found it to have a friendly downtown which contributes to the charm of Livermore. Putting a huge housing project, Eden Housing, downtown will ruin that atmosphere. Such housing should be sited somewhere else.

Just think of the traffic jams on crowded downtown streets.

We very strongly oppose putting it in the downtown region.

The residents of Livermore should vote on the siting of Eden Housing.

Please convey our sentiments to the City Council.

Thank you
Henry & Ernestina Shay
Henry D. (Hank) Shay
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
679
From: merbear19
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden Project Relocation
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 7:57:35 AM
Let's put this matter to rest, i.e. to the vote, also putting to rest the division in the city over the Eden Project.

The need for Low Income housing is recognized by all. Location is the problem.

Council members should ask themselves if really believe they will be voted in at future elections if this does not go to DEMOCRATIC VOTE?
This housing project has the potential to throw Livermore onto a new trajectory for the future.

Location is the crucial matter. A poor decision, putting the Eden Project in the center of downtown, will result in a city in which a boutique hotel is misplaced.

Stop blocking the the process of democracy.

LET US VOTE!
Janet Allan-Daum
Livermore
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
680
From: Jean
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Referendum petition
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 8:01:09 AM
Please respect the voices of Livermore citizens. Respect them by acknowledging the significance of 8000 signatures on the petition Respect them by hearing and understanding the desire of a significant portion of the population to hold a referendum election. Respect them by hearing the strong wishes of many citizens for something different than what is being bull dozed by the council and mayor. Respect them by remembering that your job is not to independently make decisions and changes but to listen to, respond to and lead according to the wishes and intensions of the population you are supposed to serve. Public service requires including the public! Jean Wolitzer
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
681
From: Tom Ramos
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Move Eden Housing
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 9:11:29 AM
I would like the council to know that as I stood and volunteered to collect signatures for the referendum, I met several hundred Livermore voters in one week, At least two thirds of those citizens stated they were unhappy with the way the city council was changing our downtown and they opposed the proposed site for the Eden Housing project and wanted it sited elsewhere.

Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
682
From: RICHARD RODDA
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Downtown
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 9:47:20 AM
8,000 Livermore citizens signed petitions to qualify the referendum giving city voters a voice on the location of Eden Housing. The city should be respecting the process and allowing a vote.

The courts, not the city, will determine whether what the city is doing is legal or not. But by forcing this measure to go to the courts, it is wasting taxpayer dollars. Instead, we should be putting this issue in front of voters immediately. Of course, you can also just say that you agree with a previous speaker.

Please work for our city, not against the wishes of the citizens.

Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
683
From: Bill Leach
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Citizen Comment on Referendum
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 11:17:22 AM
Re Eden Housing Referendum: Allow the vote in November. A central open space is of long-term value to residents -- the people should be granted their say.

Bill Leach
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
684
From: BARBARA JOHNSON
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden housing location
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 12:56:51 PM
I have been against the location of the Eden housing from the beginning. The City Counsel has ignored the voice of the people. This is the WRONG location for this project. I rarely go downtown anymore because the parking is so limited. Please do the right thing and find a better location away from the middle of our beautiful little town. Barbara Johnson
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
685
From: Ruth Ann Hunt
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Verification of petition signatures
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 1:20:00 PM
I urge the Livermore City Council to approve verification of the signatures for the referendum to change the location of the Eden Housing Project. I eagerly signed the petition, one of thousands to do so, and believe strongly that the signees’ opinions should not be ignored, discounted, or denied. Not to allow the citizens of Livermore to vote on the location of Eden Housing would be shockingly undemocratic. I call on the City Council to do the right thing.

Ruth Ann Hunt
Livermore, CA 94550
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
686
From: Chuck Borzileri
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Citizens Referendum for the July 25th City Council Meeting Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 1:25:48 PM
To: The Mayor, city council members, city clerk, and city attorney Subject: Referendum to vote on Eden Housing location
You decided to give Eden Housing the property in question, and even loan them the money to finance the loan over the objections of many residents. You do not represent Eden Housing! Your decision inspired a referendum giving the city voters a voice on the location of Eden Housing. This referendum was accomplished in less than 30 days through volunteers effort and personal expense of the citizens. This referendum was presented to the city clerk on July 8th. These 8,000 plus voters are the people you should be representing. Previous statements by you that the citizens of Livermore approve of the location of Eden Housing have proven to be false. Let the citizens of Livermore decide. PLEASE DO YOUR JOB, and represent the citizens of Livermore, put it on the November ballot.

Charles Borzileri
citizen of Livermore Ca.94551
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
687
From: Nifdude
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Move Eden Housing referendum
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 1:33:35 PM
To the Livermore City Council regarding the Move Eden Housing referendum:

Verify the signatures! Allow the people to vote on this controversial project’s location. Let the democratic process do its work.

John T. Hunt
Livermore, CA 94550
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
688
From: Jay Davis
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Letter of Support
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 2:18:42 PM
Attachments: Letter to City.docx
This from Mary and me for the Council Meeting packet.

Jay
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
689
Mary and Jay Davis
We wish to write to support and to commend the City legal staff in their ruling that the Eden Housing matter is not subject to referendum.  This decision reinforces a very important principle of law and governance that should be respected.

There is a painful trend of late to try to reverse any and all governmental decisions or processes any group dislikes by an immediate call for a referendum, a recount, or the rerun of an election.  One only need look at the history of the 2020 Presidential Election to receive a graduate course in this trend.  It is important to insist that rules be followed even when they are uncomfortable.

We ourselves have expressed concerns with the Eden Project.  It seems unattractive and a poor use of space.  That said, its opponents have notably refused to come up with legal or fiscal mechanisms to resolve the problem, appealing to a mixture of political threat and near slander, imminent domain fantasy, and Easter Bunny financing.

We strongly support the City’s action.  If the matter need be resolved in Court, that is the appropriate venue, not a referendum.

Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
690
From: Rob Blum
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: City Council....Signed Petitions
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 2:39:58 PM
To the City Council,
The petition to qualify for the referendum to have Eden Housing relocated have been signed by 8,000+ Livermore citizens that have been submitted legally and ahead of the due date.

Let the citizens of Livermore vote on the location of Eden Housing. The City Clerk has a legal obligation to follow through, process the referendum and begin verification of Voter Signatures.

The City Council and City Clerk should respect the process and allowing the voting by the citizens of Livermore.

Robert Blum
Resident of Livermore CA.

Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
691
From: Mike Thompson
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Cc: Jean King
Subject: REFERENDUM
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 3:29:00 PM
Please take note that we believe your refusal to forward the referendum signatures for approval is illegal. It certainly stinks of bias politics. This is not what we expect in our town. Mike has been a resident since 1965 and Anita since 1980.

Sincerely,
Michael Thompson and Anita Thompson
Sent from my iPad
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
692
From: Eugene Franck
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Let the people vote
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 3:56:46 PM
Let the people vote and get a defined answer what the people want.

Eugene Franck
Livermore, CA 94560
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
693
From: MARJORY JONG
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden Housing
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 4:27:15 PM
To whom it May Concern,
I very much want to see a lovely central park in downtown Livermore. We have grown to become a huge town of almost 100 thousand people. Our town is a rich place of heritage and character. Let’s add to it, not detract from it! Let Livermore vote! Over 8,000 Livermore citizens have signed the petition to qualify the referendum giving city voters a voice on the location of Eden Housing. It is an outrage that the city is not respecting the process and allowing the vote.

Marjory Jong
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
694
From: VIVIAN GUZMAN
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: I SUPPORT THE REFERENDUM!
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 4:41:37 PM
I cannot participate in the zoom meeting on Monday evening, but I want my message to be seen and recognized!
I support the referendum that gives city voters a voice on the location of Eden Housing!
PLEASE support the more than 8000 Eden Housing referendum signatures that were
turned into the City on July 8th!
Vivian Guzman, Livermore Resident
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
695
From: Roger Everett
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Livermore Residents Deserve a Referendum
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 4:48:10 PM
Importance: High
The citizens of Livermore have submitted a qualified request for a Referendum on the Eden housing location – we have a right to be heard!!
I fully support low income housing for future Livermore residents – but not in heart of our downtown business center.

The parking woes resulting from this placement will plague our city center for many, many years to come.

Roger
Roger N Everett
Livermore, CA 94550-2331
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
696
From: Paula Nelson
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Comments
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 5:07:11 PM
As a resident of Livermore for 59 years, I would like to submit my written comments to be filed into the agenda packet for the July 25th city council meeting.

I signed the referendum petition in good faith hoping to have a vote on the sale of the city property to Eden housing.

If enough signatures prove to be valid, the referendum should be allowed.

Paula Nelson
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
697
From: Anna Lim
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Livermore Council Meeting July 25, 2022
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 5:09:47 PM
Livermore Council Meeting July 25, 2022

4. Citizens Forum
We feel that Livermore citizens should be allowed to vote on the location of the Eden Housing Project.

Robert and Anna Lim
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
698
From: Wesley Nelson
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Referendum
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 6:00:39 PM
As a signer of the petition to refer City
Council Resolution No. 2022-085 to
Livermore's voters, I want the City
Council and all City officials to respect
my wishes and process the paperwork as
required by law!
Wesley A. Nelson,
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
699
From: JOHNNA THOMPSON
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Referendum Refuseniks
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 6:46:12 PM
Dear City Clerk,
This council seems to have no end of dirty tricks to try to thwart the efforts of Livermore's citizens to preserve the character of our downtown. Your refusal to accept the signatures of more than 8000 of Livermore voters who disagree with the the council's previous antidemocratic machinations to fast-track the Eden housing development ahead of November's council election is just the latest ploy to foist on all of us the council's ill-conceived and unpopular vision of a housing-dense city center. You have just told every one of those good-faith signers that their voices don't matter in this city. It's disgusting that the council has used you to do their dirty work. They used your predecessor similarly; she quit shortly thereafter.

Four-story apartment blocks, especially ones as architecturally uninspiring as Eden's, do not say "charming historic downtown" to potential visitors looking for a wine-country destination in which to spend their tourist dollars. The council may be trying to give the finger to us downtown preservationists, but they're cutting off Livermore's nose in the process, and using you to hide behind.

Johnna Thompson
Livermore
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
700
From: Denise Leddon
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Support the Referendum - 4.0 Citizens Forum
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 8:19:44 PM
I cannot attend the Monday, July 25, City Council meeting. Here are my comments instead:

I support the referendum to give a voice to the people. Eden Housing needs to be moved off the town square. There are other solutions for relocation. The current city council has not been willing to listen for years. They can't seem to think of any solution to provide a beautiful large green space for the citizens of Livermore and visitors alike by moving the Eden Housing nearby. I look forward to enjoying my aftervolunteer-meetings meals and snacks, outdoors, at local restaurants while enjoying the large green space town square. A city council should be more receptive to the needs of us and all future generations that will enjoy a beautiful large green town square. I support moving Eden Housing. I support the referendum allowing the citizens to vote. The city council must listen and allow the referendum.

Thank you,
Denise Leddon
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
701
From: Tom and Barbara Soules
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Moving Eden Housing
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 8:30:26 PM
Dear City Clerk,
My name is Thomas Soules and I live in Livermore at . I went door-to-door collecting signatures for the referendum. 80-85 % of my neighbors signed it. All my neighbors were in favor of moving the Eden Housing structure to another location. These folks do not represent a small minority.

Regardless of legalize - the simple fact is these folks in Livermore want these structures moved to a different location to preserve the character of Livermore and alleviate the parking and traffic problems that would occur. Why won't the city council listen to its constituents and consider them? Are they so hung up on agreements or wording in agreements or grants that could be changed? Is this message so hard to understand and aren't we all on the same page and want what is best for Livermore?
Thank you,
Tom Soules
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
702
From: cpchar
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Referendum to Resolution N0. 2022-085
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 8:34:22 PM
Attachments: REFERENDUM to RESOLUTION NO. 2022-085.pdf
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
703
REFERENDUM to RESOLUTION NO. 2022-085
Livermore citizens approved Proposition P, the plan for the redevelopment of downtown Livermore. The plan had the layout for a hotel, apartments, the economic requirements for the people living in the apartments, retail areas, a central park, and parking structures. But, when the City Council presented its plan most of the components had changed. Now there would have to be a separate parking area for the hotel guests which the city would initially finance.

The number of apartments had increased which would increase the population density of the downtown area, an already congested area. No longer would people of moderate income such as teachers and firemen be allowed in the apartments. Only low income applicants would be allowed. To accommodate the increase in the number of apartments the apartment buildings would add on approximately another 2 floors creating a tunnel effect between First and Railway along L Street. The even more inadequate parking garage on the corner of First and L would be about 4+ stories high adding to the tunnel effect. The Central Park for the citizens of Livermore disappeared.

Many citizens complained that this was not the plan they had voted for. These citizens were chided and called racists and NIMBYS. Many of these so-called racists actually have plans to increase the number of housing units for low income citizens. To combat the complaints by the citizens the City Council passed Resolution No. 2022-085 which allowed the city to sell the property to Eden Housing by the end of September before the November election to try to prevent any changes in the council’s plan by new members of the city council. This council obviously believes in an autocracy and not democracy.

A group called Move Eden Housing gathered over 8000 signatures, more than the required 5,702 to place the Referendum to Resolution No. 2022-85 on the ballot.

The City Clerk was told not to accept the signatures. Amazing! This City Council is convinced even after the collection of over 8000 signatures that it knows better than those citizens who originally voted them in to the council. An autocracy at work. The City Clerk should be instructed to accept the 8000+ signatures to avoid wasting citizens’ money on a lawsuit and to continue the democratic process.

Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
704
Carol Chargin
Livermore, CA
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
705
From: Phyllis Engler
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden Housing
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 8:38:04 PM
Let Livermore Vote! Give Livermore voters a voice in the location of Eden Housing. Respect the fact that over 8,000 Livermore residents signed petitions to bring this question to a vote.

Phyllis Engler
Livermore
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
706
From: ROSE Ramos
To: Debbie Elam
Subject: Fwd: RE: The proposed Eden Housing site
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 12:18:36 PM
From: Rose Ramos t>
Debbie, Thank you for your note. I have revised my comments after getting your response. It is okay to submit the following note to the city council.

Thank you for your assistance.

Rose O'Brien
-------
Subject: The proposed Eden Housing site
I am UNHAPPY that the city council has decided to place a large apartment complex in the heart of our downtown, and most of my neighbors and Livermore friends agree with me. I am not opposed to affordable housing in Livermore for local residents, but affordable housing must be done carefully and not the way the council is choosing to do it now. I pray for a city council that allows the citizens of Livermore to vote on such an important project.
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Debbie Elam <[email protected]>
To: ROSE Ramos >, Cityclerk - Livermore
<[email protected]>
Date: 07/25/2022 10:53 AM
Subject: RE: The proposed Eden Housing site
Your public comment has been received and will be included in the supplemental materials packet that is provided to City Council and the public prior to tonight’s City Council meeting. If you do not wish to have your comment included, please email [email protected] before noon today, Monday, July 25, 2022.

Sincerely,
Debbie Elam
Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk’s Office
City of Livermore
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
707
(925) 960-4211
www.cityoflivermore.net
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
708
From: Richard Andrews
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Referendum
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 10:46:16 PM
City Council.

Livermore, CA
Dear Council Members.

Why do you insist on ignoring what is right and what your constituents have told you that they want? Once again you have failed your constituents, and proceeded with what YOU and former mayor Marchand want. You are even proposing to fund Eden Housing with a spurious loan to finish the job. One you altered more than once to suit your needs, and not what a majority of the public wants nor agreed to.

Having the Clerk not recognize a legal referendum is yet another example of your not supporting the people.

This also comes at a time when you tried to hide further skullduggery in regard to the Garaventa Hill proposal by trying to retract a legal publication that showed your questionable actions. The Supreme Court of California rightly said "NO" to this nefarious effort.

The City’s refusal to verify the referendum signatures shows how little you care for the taxpayers, and how much you support your mayor, exmayor Marchand, and developers. Why are you not paying for all this legal maneuvering yourselves, instead of spending City money to have the City Attorney serve as your flack? Maybe if you spent your money instead of ours, you'd think otherwise.

Your methods and machinations in this whole matter have been disappointing and anything but transparent. You should be ashamed.

Richard Andrews
Livemore, CA. 94550
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
709
From: Carrie Seng
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: I support the Referendum
Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 11:55:23 PM
Dear Livermore City Council,
I would like to vote on the referendum. I am not affiliated with any group, just live in Livermore and I am disappointed in the direction Livermore is being taken. I think the beauty and attraction of Livermore has been the small town feel, one of the few towns left with a cozy downtown. The cozy towns are the ones people flock to!! These huge apartments on L Street overshadow our town. I think housing is of course important, but we should be more creative and resourceful in the planning. Please let us vote on the Referendum so you we will all know the public mind! Thank you,
Carrie Seng
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
710
From: California Legal Services
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Let the Citizens vote on the Eden project!
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 3:16:23 AM
Enough is enough with all these games the City officials are playing.

What is the City Council afraid of by allowing the citizens of this town to have a vote on the issue and have the matter decided by the majority of the Citizens? These folks were ELECTED TO REPRESENT the citizens of this town. To state the referendum is invalid and ignore the 8000+ people that signed it is an abuse of the power that we the citizens gave them in their roles!
The Council needs to PROVE that Livermore citizens want Eden housing downtown by putting it to a vote for all eligible voters to have their input. There's nothing to be afraid of in letting our voices be heard, right?
Robin Groth-Hill
California Legal Services
Livermore, CA 94550
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
711
From: Steve and Katie Myers
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: comment for City Council meeting July 25th
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 5:40:58 AM
Let Livermore Vote. 8,000 Livermore citizens signed petitions to qualify the referendum giving city voters a voice on the location of Eden Housing. The city should be respecting the process and allowing a vote.

The courts, not the city, will determine whether what the city is doing is legal or not. But by forcing this measure to go to the courts, it is wasting taxpayer dollars. Instead, we should be putting this issue in front of voters immediately.

Katie Myers
Livermore resident
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
712
From: Debra Mara
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden housing
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 6:31:32 AM
I am a Livermore resident and am directly affected by the location of Eden Housing. Over 8,000 Livermore citizens signed petitions to qualify the referendum, giving city voters a voice on the location of Eden Housing. The City should be respecting the process and allowing a vote.

Sincerely,
Debra Mara
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
713
From: Marlise Mullins
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden Housing Project PLEASE LET LIVERMORE VOTE!! Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 6:33:12 AM
Let Livermore Vote! 8,000 Livermore citizens signed
petitions to qualify the referendum giving city
voters a voice on the location of Eden Housing.

Livermore should be respecting the process and
allowing a vote.

The courts, not the city, will determine whether
what the city is doing is legal or not. But by forcing
this measure to go to the courts, it is wasting
taxpayer dollars. Instead, we should be putting this
issue in front of voters immediately. With all the
crime coming to Livermore all we need is more
housing! Even those that voted yes the first time
have changed their minds since the original plan
changed so much and promises have not been
kept.

Marlise Mullins
Livermore
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
714
From: Terry Cuellar
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden Housing
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 6:42:30 AM
I have lived in Livermore for over 60 years & in the past several years I DO NOT AGREE with all this housing & especially the low income housing you are allowing against the will of what the people want.

Our crime rate rate is up & I don't believe for a minute everything gets reported. Traffic is ridiculous. We have people cutting thru town to avoid 580 & 680. Water is already a problem. Taxes are ridiculous. What are you thinking????? I plan on selling in the next few years & moving out of state & I was born & raised in California. Livermore is pricing all of us tax payers out & soon you will only have the low income here. Who will support them then!!!!!

TERRY CUELLAR
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
715
From: Rita Sullins
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden Housing
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 6:59:27 AM
I am a Livermore resident and am directly affected by the location of Eden Housing. Over 8,000 Livermore citizens signed petitions to qualify the referendum, giving city voters a voice on the location of Eden Housing. The City should be respecting the process and allowing a vote.

Thank you,
Rita Sullins
Livermore, Ca. 94550
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
716
From: Donna Stevens
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Referendum signatures
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 7:10:14 AM
We urge the Council to verify signatures and put the Downtown referendum on the ballot.

It is not a small minority of Livermore citizens who are opposed to the current direction for downtown. We very much understand and back the need for affordable housing, but it does not belong in the middle of our downtown. The Save Livermore Downtown committee and many others have pointed out other nearby locations that would provide more space for housing and let us have the lovely downtown we deserve.

PLEASE LISTEN!! This is too important to turn your heads and cover your ears to better ways to develop downtown Livermore.

We feel ignored and stepped on. You can do better for the people of Livermore.

Duane and Donna Stevens
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
717
From: Laura Angelo
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden Housing
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 7:18:38 AM
I am a Livermore resident and am directly affected by the location of Eden Housing. Over 8,000 Livermore citizens signed petitions to qualify the referendum, giving city voters a voice on the location of Eden Housing. The City should be respecting the process and allowing a vote.

Laura Angelo
Livermore, Ca 94550
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
718
From: Joe Hill
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden Project
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 8:55:15 AM
Councilmembers,
It is very disappointing that you are ignoring the voice of the voting community here in Livermore on the Eden Housing issue. Over 8000 people have voiced their objection to the sale and loan you all decided to move forward with. The voters should have the right to have this issue on the ballot this November so the true level of support for your actions can be seen in the results.

Why is it that you would ignore our rights as citizens of this community and push through a project that has been very controversial? If you are so sure that it has the majority of the community's support, let it be voted on so it's deemed a fair decision by the WHOLE community, not just 5 Council Members.

Our voices have the right to be heard.

Joseph Hill
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
719
From: John Volkman
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Livermore housing referendum for city council meetings July 25, 2022 Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:13:18 AM
To the city of Livermore. There is a referendum that I support, that the citizens of Livermore be able to vote on the forced Livermore housing dictatorship. We are supposed to have a democratic system in place that allows the voice of the people. (Thus a vote to allow or disallow things that effect the community as a whole). I have been a Livermore resident for over 55 years and fully support the referendum that the citizens of Livermore should be able to vote on this forced housing project location.

John Volkman
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
720
From: Victoria Whyte Ball
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: statement to the City Council July 25t meeting Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:25:35 AM
Dear City of Livermore,
Please Let Livermore Vote. 8,000 Livermore citizens signed petitions to qualify the referendum giving city voters a voice on the location of Eden Housing. I am one of these signers.

Please respect the process and allow us to vote. We are not a minority. Most people don’t want a big housing complex downtown.

By forcing this measure to go to the courts, it is wasting taxpayer dollars. Instead, we should be putting this issue in front of voters immediately.

Respectfully,
Victoria Whyte Ball
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
721
From: Jessica Anaya
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Re: Eden Housing Land
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:29:39 AM
Councilmembers,
It is very disappointing that you are ignoring the voice of the voting community here in Livermore on the Eden Housing issue. Over 8000 people have voiced their objection to the sale and loan you all decided to move forward with. The voters should have the right to have this issue on the ballot this November so the true level of support of your actions can be seen in the results.

Why is it that you would ignore our rights as citizens of this community and push through a project that has been very controversial. If you are so sure that it has the majority of the community support, let it be voted on so it's deemed a fair decision by the WHOLE community, not just 5 Council Members.

Our voices have the right to be heard.
--
Jessica Anaya
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
722
From: Kylene Hill
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: EDEN HOUSING
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:33:29 AM
Councilmembers,
It is very disappointing that you are ignoring the voice of the voting community here in Livermore on the Eden Housing issue. Over 8000 people have voiced their objection to the sale and loan you all decided to move forward with. The voters should have the right to have this issue on the ballot this November so the true level of support of your actions can be seen in the results.

Why is it that you would ignore our rights as citizens of this community and push through a project that has been very controversial. If you are so sure that it has the majority of the community support, let it be voted on so it's deemed a fair decision by the WHOLE community, not just 5 Council Members.

Our voices have the right to be heard.

Thank you,
Kylene Hill
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
723
From: James Caselli
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Declined Referendum
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:37:20 AM
To City Council,
Seriously? Hiding behind the city clerk's refusal to process a referendum to avoid facing concerned citizens? Regardless of legal semantics regarding administrative vs. legislative, there is a much more basic tenant at play here. That tenant is doing what's right. Ignoring concerned citizens is not right.

When I have previously stated that waiting a few months to allow a vote, the response was that we had already voted. That may be true but new events have come to light. People now have an idea of what the city's proposed plan would look like, based on current construction. Plus the fact that plans have changed sufficiently since the last vote to warrant a second opportunity.

Respectfully, Jim Caselli
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
724
From: krystal hill
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: EDEN HOUSING LAND
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:37:28 AM
Councilmembers,
It is very disappointing that you are ignoring the voice of the voting community here in Livermore on the Eden Housing issue. Over 8000 people have voiced their objection to the sale and loan you all decided to move forward with. The voters should have the right to have this issue on the ballot this November so the true level of support of your actions can be seen in the results.

Why is it that you would ignore our rights as citizens of this community and push through a project that has been very controversial. If you are so sure that it has the majority of the community support, let it be voted on so it's deemed a fair decision by the WHOLE community, not just 5 Council Members.

Our voices have the right to be heard.
- Krystal Hill
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
725
From: Tom Jefferson
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: July 25 City Council Citizens Forum Comment
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:50:37 AM
Comment on Referendum concerning the proposed Eden Housing In 2017 the City of Livermore spent $500k on public outreach to help determine how the property west of the Bankhead to L St. should be redeveloped.

Outreach participants were asked to rank 10 potential features of the redevelopment project from 1 to 10. The participants thought the most important feature was parking and least important was housing.

Yet, the City has continued to push for housing with the proposed Eden Housing 130 units of housing.

On May 24 the Livermore City Council agreed to loan Eden Housing $7+ million so Eden could buy the property for their housing. What a great deal for Eden and what a terrible deal for Livermore. Apparently the Council thinks Eden can't get their own financing. How long will it be before the Council decides to forgive the loan?
This terrible May 24 Council agreement has led to a referendum petition to rescind that agreement. Signature gatherers obtained 8,032 signatures and turned them in to the City. But the City has decided the referendum petition is not eligible for filing as a referendum.

Unbelievable that the City would do so and so unfortunate for the residents of Livermore.

The residents of Livermore should be allowed to vote on the referendum.

Thomas Jefferson
Livermore, CA 94550
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
726
From: Sheryl Volkman
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Comment for City Council meeting July 25th 2022 Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:55:33 AM
City Council,
I have been a Livermore resident for over 50 years, I am a business owner in the city of Livermore and I support the Referendum.

Sincerely, Sheryl Volkman
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
727
From: Ted Schaefer
To: Cityclerk - Livermore; citymanager
Subject: Referendum on Eden
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:57:21 AM
The city clerk MUST verify the 8000 signatures gathered for the referendum.

This is democracy in action to negate a purely un-democratic initiative to tie the hands of any future city council, which would be a terrible precedent and totally illegal, especially just months before an election in November.

The Eden project is on the wrong side of the street, too tall, too wide, and has no breaks between buildings. It looks for all purposes to be a medieval prison wall.

Eden has sold to the public as housing for public servants like teachers, fireperson, police, librarians, etc. Yet that was all propaganda to gain voter support, and they all make too much money to qualify.

So, who will qualify to rent at Eden?? Those who were born and raised in Livermore, or from anywhere?
What age groups could rent there--young, elderly, or any age? What marital status will be allowed to rent at Eden---only singles, only marrieds with or without children, divorced, widowed, etc. Who decides? Who sets occupant preferences or percentage quotas by class? Is there a minimum income to qualify for rental, or will Eden just be home to the homeless and very marginally employed? How soon will Eden devolve into Section 8 housing for all or most, like elsewhere of their properties?
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
728
Eden must be moved across the street--
or to small parcels throughout the city
or to subsidized apartments at Legacy
and Livermore should build a beautiful downtown park for future generations of Livermore families to meet at and enjoy, like thousands of towns across California and America
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
729
From: Tamara Reus
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Cc: Livermore City Council
Subject: Written Comment for July 25th City Council Meeting Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:07:29 AM
Attachments: 2022_07_24_CouncilStatement.pdf
Tamara Reus
City of Livermore Resident
July 25, 2022
Item 4

VIA EMAIL
Honorable Mayor and City Council:

I am submitting this statement under Agenda Item 4, Citizens Forum, regarding the pending referendum petition. A pdf version of the statement is also attached for your convenience.

I have been made aware of an organized effort by those who support the city’s Eden Housing Plan to make it appear like there is a groundswell of opposition to the referendum petition submitted to the City Clerk on July 8th. These individuals are using the Citizen’s Forum portion of Monday’s Council meeting to raise this issue when it is not on the agenda, involved no advance notice to the public, and leavies little opportunity for the referendum proponents to organize a coordinated response to counter the claims of the Plan supporters.

These politicized tactics serve to further divide the community, distort the reality of the broad support for the referendum, and are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Under the law, a City Clerk has a ministerial duty to process a referendum petition once received. The Clerk has no discretion to decide whether the subject of the petition is legally referendable. This only becomes a relevant question if it is determined that sufficient signatures have been submitted to qualify the referendum for the ballot. We are not at that point yet.

By preventing the Clerk from doing her job, the City Staff and Council are interfering with the public process. The underlying reason is to create a delay so that that referendum cannot qualify for the November ballot. This would help protect the Council’s ill-advised decision to move up the date of the transfer of property rights to Eden Housing and tie the hands of future City Councils.

The position taken by the City Attorney on the processing of the referendum is undemocratic and goes against the right of the people to voice their opposition to the Council’s actions. It is another demonstration of the abuse of power this Council tolerates and encourages on a regular basis because of a highly-politicized vendetta against those who are willing and able to fight city hall.

Over 8000 people signed the referendum petition. There are many people in Livermore who do not like what our City Council is doing to our downtown and how they distort the facts and malign those who disagree with them.

I hope that the Councilmembers will not let their minds be clouded by the strong emotions that Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
730
are in play. Please follow the law and let the City Clerk do her job. The people deserve to be heard.

Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
731
Tamara Reus
City of Livermore Resident
July 25, 2022
Agenda Item 4.

VIA EMAIL
Honorable Mayor and City Council:

I am submitting this statement under Agenda Item 4, Citizens Forum, regarding the pending referendum petition. A pdf is also attached for your convenience.

I have been made aware of an organized effort by those who support the city’s Eden Housing Plan to make it appear like there is a groundswell of opposition to the referendum petition submitted to the City Clerk on July 8th. These individuals are using the Citizen’s Forum portion of Monday’s Council meeting to raise this issue when it is not on the agenda, involved no advance notice to the public, and leavies little opportunity for the referendum proponents to organize a coordinated response to counter the claims of the Plan supporters.

These politicized tactics serve to further divide the community, distort the reality of the broad support for the referendum, and are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Under the law, a City Clerk has a ministerial duty to process a referendum petition once received. The Clerk has no discretion to decide whether the subject of the petition is legally referendable. This only becomes a relevant question if it is determined that sufficient signatures have been submitted to qualify the referendum for the ballot. We are not at that point yet.

By preventing the Clerk from doing her job, the City Staff and Council are interfering with the public process. The underlying reason is to create a delay so that that referendum cannot qualify for the November ballot. This would help protect the Council’s ill-advised decision to move up the date of the transfer of property rights to Eden Housing and tie the hands of future City Councils.

The position taken by the City Attorney on the processing of the referendum is undemocratic and goes against the right of the people to voice their opposition to the Council’s actions. It is another demonstration of the abuse of power this Council tolerates and encourages on a regular basis because of a highly-politicized vendetta against those who are willing and able to fight city hall.

Over 8000 people signed the referendum petition. There are many people in Livermore who do not like what our City Council is doing to our downtown and how they distort the facts and malign those who disagree with them.

I hope that the Councilmembers will not let their minds be clouded by the strong emotions that are in play. Please follow the law and let the City Clerk do her job. The people deserve to be heard.

Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
732
From: Marcus Libkind
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Public comment for July 25, 2022 City Council Meeting Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:25:01 AM
Mayor and Livermore City Council,
I am utterly dismayed at the City of Livermore hampering its citizens from expressing their opinion as to where the Eden Project should be sited. Why is the City and Council set against the citizens voting on the future location of the Eden Project?
The latest move by the City and Council is to refuse to certify the 8000 signatures gathered for a referendum that would require a November vote. It appears that the City is doing everything in their power to move forward with a project that is not supported by its citizens. The City and Council has peaked the ire of the majority of the city’s residents and the Council knows any vote will go against them.

What we need is one Council member to be strong and speak up for what is right and start a movement within the Council. We need someone to speak up like in “12 Angry Men” when Henry Fonda went against the other 11 jurors and in the end swayed the jury. Who on the Livermore City Council is going to be that brave person? That person will be a hero.

Marcus Libkind
Livermore, CA
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
733
From: Rich Buckley
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden Housing Referendum
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:35:57 AM
Re: PUBLIC COMMENT: Concerning the Eden Housing Referendum item Let Livermore Vote. 8,000 Livermore citizens signed petitions to qualify the referendum giving city voters a voice on the location of Eden Housing. The city should be respecting the process and allowing a vote. That represents nearly half the usual voter turnout.

There is no legal, moral, or ethical basis for the council to override Livermore citizen constitutional rights to petition the government. Your overreach of power is noted. And, the captured City Clerk should be returned to an elected post placed above paycheck pressures of the City council and staff, freed to carry out their duties of office unhampered.

Rich Buckley
Livermore, CA 94550
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
734
From: Sally Mote-Yaffe
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Let Livermore Vote!
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:36:14 AM
Dear City Council,
This letter is in support of letting the citizens of Livermore vote on the moving of Eden Housing. 5000 signatures were required to put this issue on the November ballot. The Signature gatherers were able to secure many more than the 5000 needed. The process should be respected and the vote should be able to move forward. If the council chooses to block the process I understand this will then go before the courts. Wouldn’t it be more efficient to let the voters decide?
Sally Mote-Yaffe, M.A.

Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
735
From: E Judge
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: July 25 Council Meeting / Citizens Forum Comment Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:37:08 AM
Oh, Come On, Let the Signatures Be Processed
Dear Council,
A conflict of interest exists when citizens collect signatures to thwart a city council action and those signatures have to be submitted to authorities of the offending city before they can get processed further! This is the third referendum citizens have attempted since this whole downtown debacle began, but this one has stalled because you want to prevent it from passing on the November ballot.

City Council has:

1. used our funds over four years ago to find out what citizens wanted for downtown only to throw out the results;

2. used our funds to allow a hotel to purchase a valet parking lot right where a larger Eden Housing project might have gone;

3. planned to use more of our funds to enable Eden to purchase the valuable land in question in order to prevent actions by a future council.

Clearly you have a conflict of interest! It appears that the city is motivated to do just about anything to preserve locating a large housing project in the very center of town where future festivals could be held for a city of a hundred thousand.

Regardless of whether the housing is market or affordable, it is a big mistake to put any housing there.

Citizens are desperately trying to keep you from making this permanent mistake.

You should let the referendum signatures go forward to the Registrar of Voters to appear on the ballot. At least then you can say you were democratic about it and let the chips fall where they may.

Most Sincerely,
Elizabeth M. Judge
Livermore, CA 94550
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
736
From: Kathy Pedrini
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Referendum - Let Livermore Citizens Vote!
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:41:42 AM
To the Livermore City Council,
Over 8,000 Livermore citizens signed petitions to qualify the referendum giving city voters a voice on the location of Eden Housing. The city should be respecting the process and allowing a vote. Let the residents of Livermore vote on the location of Eden Housing! Thank you,
Kathy Pedrini
Livermore
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
737
From: Lucy
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Referendum on Eden Housing
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:55:57 AM
I just learned that the Livermore governance is not going to allow the referendum on relocating Eden Housing to go on the ballot in November. Presumably, we have a democracy and yet, we peasants are apparently not permitted to achieve our goals through legal means.

Amazing. Even though we got over 8,000 signatures, that does not matter. One suspects that they do not want the voters to have a chance to weigh in on this come November. What other reasons could they have? They certainly do not want to listen and prefer to paint those of us who dissent as a ‘wealthy’ minority. Probably the word entitled goes in there too. Regardless of their arguments, I believe this referendum should go on the November ballot, as is right and fair.

Lucy M Hair
Livermore citizen, 94550
Sent from Proton Mail for iOS
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
738
From: Susan MacLean
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Vote
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:03:53 AM
I would like to be able to vote on the proposed location of Eden Housing. I would have signed the referendum if I had had the opportunity.

Susan C. MacLean
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
739
From: Lee MacLean
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Referendum on downtown
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:07:04 AM
Livermore City Council,
I urge you to accept that the referendum is an opportunity for the voters to express their desires. The continued slighting of the Livermore electorate is disgraceful. The Council has not explained its actions, communicated in any significant manner, is attempting to load poison pills into the process and blocking attempts by the public to have a say. Your actions and those of the City Clerk are clearly ethically challenged, and maybe illegal. You need to listen to the public. Allow the referendum to go forward.

Lee MacLean
Livermore Residet
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
740
From: Angus stew
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: City council meeting
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:08:02 AM
I have lived in Livermore for over ten years. Most of my extended family lives here too. We talk about the City's downtown plan at our large family dinners and get-togethers. No one in the family wants the housing in the project area. We do support affordable housing. I support the referendum and believe that citizens should get to vote. Please honor the signatures of over 8,000 of us and put the referendum on the ballot.
-Angus Stewart
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
741
From: gregorymullins
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden housing project
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:11:56 AM
Let Livermore Vote! 8,000 Livermore citizens signed petitions to qualify the referendum giving city voters a voice on the location of Eden Housing. Livermore should be respecting the process and allowing a vote.

The courts, not the city, will determine whether what the city is doing is legal or not. But by forcing this measure to go to the courts, it is wasting taxpayer dollars. Instead, we should be putting this issue in front of voters immediately. With all the crime coming to Livermore all we need is more housing! Even those that voted yes the first time have changed their minds since the original plan changed so much and promises have not been kept.

Greg Mullins
Livermore
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note9, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
742
From: Tony H
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: I support the referendum on Eden
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:21:33 AM
Dear Livermore City Council
I have been a Livermore resident for 7 years. I support the 8000+ signatures for the referendum on the Eden location. Please let Livermore residents vote on this issue! Thank you
Tony Hutter
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
743
From: Rifka Several
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: email comment for 4.0 Citizens Forum, July 25 Council Meeting Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:22:00 AM
Thank you to the City Council for allowing public comment on 4.0 Citizens Forum at the July 25, 2022 meeting. As 8000 concerned citizens have signed the referendum petition, respect for our neighbors would lead to having this issue proceed to a vote. This is also the most costeffective and inclusive measure. Please remember that this referendum is about moving the much-needed Eden Housing and not for eliminating it. Moving the housing allows for a development of a city center that better serves our community and downtown businesses.

Rifka Several
Livermore, CA 94551
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
744
From: Tarashamm
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:29:32 AM
Dear Livermore City Council,
I have lived in downtown Livermore for over 7 years. I support the 8000 signatures for the referendum on moving the Eden location. This needs to be moved from the central commerce area of or city, once there it won’t be able to be changed with the times. Please let Livermore residents vote on this issue, let this issue return to the people. They don’t what this!
Tara Hamm
Tara Hamm
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
745
From: Betty Murillo
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Support the Referrendom
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:29:38 AM
I, Betty Murillo support the referendum 100 percent. I was born in 1947 & raIsed in Livermore. The Murillo family has been here since 1908. We ran the Murillo Blacksmith & Welding shop since 1936. We do not want to see more multiple, high rise dwellings in the down town area. WE NEED A DOWN TOWN PARK, so people can picnic, read, walk, converse and be in nature, listen to fountains & be amongst trees & grass. Don’t ruin our downtown area for developers, don’t let this be about money. THERE ARE OTHER AREAS AVAILABLE TO PLACE THESE HIGH RISE DWELLINGS, NOT IN OUR DOWNTOWN AREA. Do the right thing for a change, something that most of the people in Livermore want!!! Most cities have downtown parks because they care about people and their well being, their spiritual selves. People need these areas to refresh themselves and to use as a gathering spot for families and friends. Most people care about the humanity and well being of others. Please allow a park, NOT MORE BUILDINGS!!! I love Livermore and would rather have a park downtown, not more stack & pack buildings. Please allow the park foe the well being of all. Thank You for listening!!! Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
746
From: annelyn
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Cc: Greg Rogers
Subject: Proposed Eden Housing building
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:29:58 AM
Good morning council members,
We are residents of Livermore and support the referendum.

Please respect citizen voices and let us vote.

Greg & Annie Rogers
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
747
From: Anna Siig
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: New site for Eden Housing
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:30:17 AM
Hello,
Please do not put Eden Housing downtown, around the Square.

Anna Siig
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
748
From: Greg Rogers
Cc: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Proposed Eden Housing building
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:31:47 AM
Good morning council members,
We are residents of Livermore and support the referendum.

Please respect citizen voices and let us vote.

Greg & Annie Rogers
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
749
From: Kaitlin Cordova
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden housing vote
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:37:56 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
I frequently visit livermore and spend a large amount of time in downtown. Please respect the residents signatures and move the Eden housing project to a different part of town. Let the city hold a vote on this.

Thank you.

Regards,
Kaitlin
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
750
From: N J Foss
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Eden Housing
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:38:41 AM
Let the citizens of Livermore have a say in where the housing is going to be placed. over 8000 people signed the petition to qualify the referendum giving the citizens of Livermore a voice on the location of Eden housing The city should be respecting the process and allowing a vote.

Norma Foss
Sent from my iPhone
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
751
From: Helen J. Barnes
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:48:29 AM
To our City Clerk, City of Livermore:

My name is Helen Barnes, I live at ., Livermore, Ca 94551 Yes, I am a registered voter.

I would like to share my feelings with you respecting the process and allowing Livermore citizens to vote on the location of Eden Housing in downtown Livermore. I feel that a large apartment house in the middle of the open space downtown would detract from the beauty of that area better suited for a park.

Respectfully.. Helen Barnes
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
752
From: dennis_elchesen
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Input for CIty Council Meeting on 7/25/2022
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:49:24 AM
Input for CIty Council Meeting on 7/25/2022
Livermore City Council Members: Please certify the 8000+ signatures from Livermore residents that were recently collected in support of the referendum on the Eden Housing project. Thank you! Dennis Elchesen
Livermore, CA 94550
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
753
From: Joan Green
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:49:12 AM
Dear Sirs:

The citizens of Livermore should have the right to vote on whether the Eden Housing Development should be located in the proposed area in the center of their City. 8,000 signatures should be sufficient to enact that right.

Please, allow us to have our say!
Sincerely,
Joan T. Green
Livermore, cA 94551
(Longtime resident of this City)
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
754
From: Don Swanson
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Let the citizens of Livermore vote
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:50:25 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
Livermore City Clerk,
My family has had 6 generations that have lived in Livermore. I have lived in Livermore the majority of my life and have volunteered well over 10,000 hours to this city. Both of my children are Livermore home owners and are raising their families here as well. It is imperative that the citizens of Livermore are given the opportunity to vote on what is being done with our city. Please respect the legal process and allow the over 8,000 petition signatures related to the referendum to be validated. Allow the citizens of Livermore to vote on anything related to Eden Housing this coming November.

Thank you
-- Don

DON SWANSON
Director of Operations / Team Owner
Keller Williams Tri-Valley Realty
w
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
755
From: Tim Sage
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Fwd: I support the Referendum
Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:57:37 AM
I support the Referendum
Dear Livermore City Council,
I am a long time Livermore resident and am disappointed in the high rise buildings planned for/and already built in our downtown. The Legacy development on 'L' Street is overwhelming in size and height and I really am saddened to think of even more large structures on 'L' Street and Railroad Avenue. I participated in several of the community outreach meetings (regarding downtown redevelopment) of five years or so ago and I witnessed citizen after citizen come forward and stress their desires to retain our city's small town feel.

Please allow Livermore residents to vote on the Referendum.

Respectfully,
Tim Sage
Livermore
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
756
From: Michael Fredrich
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Cc:

Subject: Regarding the rejection of the Move Eden Housing referendum petition Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:58:10 AM
Regarding the rejection of the Move Eden Housing referendum petition, it seems that the Livermore City council has descended to a new low. The city clerk does not have the power to reject the referendum petition submitted by Move Eden Housing. Election Code Section 9210(b) requires that city clerk accepts the petition for filing if it meets certain requirements, which it has.

But this council has again shown a willingness to ignore the wishes of the people of Livermore and now to break the law. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Michael Fredrich
Livermore
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
757
1 Waiver and Refund of Penalties Paid by Livermore
Valley Joint School District for
CFD-99-1
July 25, 2022
Presented by Tina Olson, Administrative Services Director Overview
• City established Community Facilities District (CFD) 99-1 (TriValley Technology Park)  Levied special taxes
 Issued bonds in 2015 to help fund infrastructure improvements • School District acquired 3 properties in CFD 99-1 in 2018  School District thought it was exempt from CFD special taxes  School District did not pay CFD 99-1 special taxes 2018 thru 2022 • In March 2022 School District paid the back taxes and $132,562 in penalties and interest
• City does not require the $132,562 to administer the CFD or pay debt service on bonds
1 2
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
758
2 Staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing and approve waiver and refund of the School District’s CFD
penalties and interest after deducting expenses of $2,000 incurred by the City to address the delinquencies and waiver request.

Recommendation
3 Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
759
1 2324 Second Street Property Disposition
City Council
July 25, 2022
Presented by:

Fran Reisner, Housing Programs Manager
History & Background
• Building was constructed in 1928 and
continuously housed telephone
operations until 2004.
• City solicited interested buyers in 2011,
prior to dissolution of Redevelopment
Agency (RDA), and selected Michael
Messinger.
• Oversight Board for the former RDA
approved the proposed sale in the LongRange Property Management Plan. • City and Michael Messinger entered into
a Purchase and Sale Agreement in July
2021.
1 2
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
760
2 Purchase and Sales Agreement Terms
• Buyer to pay City a purchase price of
$860,000 as-is.
• Buyer to convert the building into a
restaurant use consistent with the
Downtown Specific Plan that also
preserves its historic character
• Buyer to secure a downtown design
approval and consistency determination
with historic requirements.
• Buyer to prepare and submit building
plans for all structural and tenant
improvements.
• City to transfer property no later than
December 31, 2022.

Next Steps & Timeline
• July/early August: Downtown Design approval by Staff and Certificate of Appropriateness with historic standards. • November 1: Buyer to submit building permit application for all improvements to the City Building Division.
• December 1: Deadline to secure a determination of application completeness from the City’s Building Official.
• December 31: Deadline to close escrow and transfer the property. 3 4
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
761
3 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council hear comments and protests on the following actions to be considered by the City Council relating to the disposition of city-owned property at 2324 Second Street, and adopt a resolution authorizing the following:

1. Final action to approve the sale of the Property as set forth by Government Code sections 37422-37423; and

2. The City Manager to sign, on behalf of the City of Livermore, the First Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Michael Messinger and all related documents necessary to effectuate the sale of the Property, subject to City Attorney form approval. 5 Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
762
From: YOLANDA MEIDER
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Comments for the City Council Members - July 25,2022 Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 12:22:07 PM
City council members my name is Yolanda Meider a resident of the Montage Community since 2012.

I have concerns regarding the proposed SHEA development on Portola Avenue.

1. The entrance/exit onto Dovecote – will cause major traffic congestion at the intersection of Dovecote and Montage Drive. Drivers going from Dovecote to Heligan wanting to get to Collier Canyon there is entrance access only. We see drivers not turning around and use the entrance as an exit. This is going to add to already a hazardous situation. Is it possible to have Portola Avenue as their only entrance/exit or have an entrance/exit on the upper portion of the new development onto Collier Canyon. I have discussed these concerns with Stephen Riley, principal planner.

2. Install a tubular fence – for separation of properties. Tubular fencing is attractive and prevents people from the new development to park in the guest parking and also easy access through the landscaping into the Montage community. Parking in Montage is a real problem.

3. Add a Tot Lot. We do not want residents from the new development and that would be the apartments and condos utilizing Montage community Tot Lot. The usage of the residents of the new development will put the burden on the Montage HOA for repair cost and maintenance and adding to our parking issues.

Thank you
Item 6.3
Public Comment Received
763
From: Barbara Robinson
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Comments to Livermore City Council regarding Montage Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 1:06:40 PM
I would appreciate it if you would provide my comments to the city council for the July 25 meeting at 7:00 p.m.

July 24, 2022
To: Livermore City Council:

Our home is our most valuable asset. My husband and I bought into this community 11 years ago.

The property in front was owned by Shea and we were told it would be a commercial shopping area.

Those plans have changed many times because of the proposed Bart and now Valley link. What we didn't expect is that there would be apartments. Many of us participated in the planning and that planning included apartments and high density housing, but not apartments in front of Montage.

Our Community understands this plan was developed in 2020 and we were never told. The sign in front of our property was our first notification and that was in the last couple of months.

I recognize that we will probably have little chance of changing anything, but my hope is that the City Council and Shea will please give thought to our community with the following concerns and why we are concerned.
· Montage has 3 entrances and 2 exits for 566 homes and condos, Montage Drive and Heligan at Campus Hill. We have 3 entrances, add Collier Canyon but that is illegally used as an exit as well. Huge concerns there will be an accident. Personally witnessed usage as an exit.

1. New Community - will use the one street coming out of the condos to access Portola and a proposed street exiting into our community on Dovecote to Montage.

Is there some way they can change this so that there are no exits or entrances into Montage. The new community will travel to the exit where they find the least traffic, Heligan at Campus Hill and the illegal exit onto Collier Canyon as well.

2. Because of access to Dovecote, parking problems, which are already a concern, will increase.
· Architecture of the building would look great if it was in front of Sage on the same property. Montage is Mediterranean and the new community is Modern Farm. It is a beautiful design. But it adjoins Montage and doesn't aesthetically harmonize with our community. Can it be softened somehow so both communities are complemented? · We have a huge rodent problem and they are presently eating water lines inside our units. When excavating starts, more rodents will be uprooted and head for our buildings at a cost to the Association and the homeowners. What can be done to help with this? We experienced this on a major scale when Sage was built.

I would appreciate consideration of any requests by the Developer and the City Council. I will be virtually attending the meeting on 7/25 at 7.

Respectfully,
Barbara Robinson. Montage Board Member
Item 6.3
Public Comment Received
764
From: Phil Wong
To: Cityclerk - Livermore
Subject: Comments/Concerns on the proposed development by Shea at the northeast corner of Portola and Collier Canyon Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 10:30:48 PM
These comments are for the City Council meeting on 7/25 to the discuss the subject development.

I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed development by Shea at the northeast corner of Portola and Collier Canyon. Parking is already severely congested in the Montage neighborhood and it is often difficult to find street parking in the evenings. In addition, we already see students from Las Positas College parking in Montage to avoid paying the parking fees. That only adds to the parking problems here. Adding another 300 units next to Montage on such a small parcel with a similar number of parking spaces per units will only exacerbate the issue. I understand that Shea has met the required number of parking spaces per units, but meeting that requirement does not adequately address the reality of the situation.

I am also concerned about how bringing an apartment complex next to Montage could bring additional crime that will lower property values. I am not opposed to Livermore wanting to build apartments in the city. However, I would like the city to consider moving apartments across the street to the southern side of Portola Ave. (closer to the freeway) At this early stage of the development of the Isabel neighborhood, such tradeoffs can be easily accomplished with minimal impacts to Shea. However, the benefits and community goodwill towards the existing residents of Shea would be immense.

Sincerely,
Phil Wong
Item 6.3
Public Comment Received
765
From: Erika Conner
To: Cityclerk - Livermore; Bob Woerner; Brittni Kiick; Patricia (Trish) Munro; Robert Carling Subject: Safety/traffic concerns about Shea development near Montage Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:43:38 AM
Dear City Council,
I am writing to express my concern with the new development Shea is planning in front of Montage. I am a homeowner in this community and have been for 8+ years. I recently attended a call with Shea and the Planning Commission and was incredibly disappointed that it seems like no one is taking our concerns seriously. Please, if you haven't already, come by the area so you can see what we're referencing. The drawings don't put into context how bad the traffic (among other issues) will be.

Shea does not have a good track record or reputation for building and while they claim they've done research on what this will do to traffic in the area, they're missing a huge safety concern.

In the last meeting they said that this new development will not impact traffic in this area. That is not correct.

Currently, we have an entrance off of Collier Canyon that is one-way. I can't tell you how often every day I see people ignoring that and going the opposite direction because it's easier than driving to the other two-way entrance down the street. I've almost been hit multiple times.

This is a big problem for pedestrians, children and other cars coming into the entrance. Once the construction is done, the amount of traffic going out the wrong way will double. This is not safe and a great concern; please refrain from approving this plan until you can fully evaluate what this will do to traffic and pedestrian safety.

We have a lot of other concerns:

How can you add housing anywhere increasing demand for drinkable water when we are all being asked to reduce water usage by 15% due to the limited water supply? This plan was approved when Bart was still coming and it no longer is - so why are the same plans being allowed in?
Parking in the area is already a huge problem because students from Las Positas park in our neighborhood. Shea even acknowledged during a call that parking would be an issue in this new development.

The style of this development is completely opposite what's already in the area- it doesn't fit in at all.

Shea built our homes and we have major issues, issues that will only grow for us if we have more rodents from this construction. Who will ensure they do the right thing when building?

Item 6.3
Public Comment Received
766
1 Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan – Shea Portola
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8613 – Subdivision (SUB) 21-006, Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 21-005; and Consistency Determination (CD) 22-001
City Council
July 25, 2022
Jake Potter, Associate Planner
Background
1 2
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
767
2 Site Plan and Compatibility
Architecture and Landscape
3 4
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
768
3 Housing and Affordability
Sustainability
5 6
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
769
4 Neighborhood Meeting and Planning
Commission
Primary Resident Concerns
• Parking
• Apartments and Affordability Levels
• Build Quality
• Public Engagement
Planning Commission Conditions
• Additional street trees
• Increased tree size
• Additional pedestrian connections
• Retaining wall softening
Additional Staff Condition
• On street parking
Recommendation
The Planning Commission and staff recommend the City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution finding that the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15182 (c) and 15183;

2. Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8613 – Subdivision (SUB) 21-006, Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 21-005; and Consistency Determination (CD) 22-001, together with the requested Density Bonus Waiver and incentive/concession, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and

3. Instruct staff to file a Notice of Exemption, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, subject to project approval.
7 8
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
770
1 Municipal East Bay Community
Energy Accounts
July 27, 2022
Sarah Ansell, Climate Action Plan Intern
Tricia Pontau, Senior Planner
Background
April
• East Bay Community Energy (EBCE)
provides more renewable energy than
PG&E at competitive rates
• EBCE purchases electricity, while PG&E
delivers power, maintains the grid, and
bills customers
1 2
Item 7.1
PowerPoint Presentation
771
2 Background
April
When EBCE started, it offered three energy options:

More renewables
than PG&E at a
lower rate than
PG&E
100% carbon-free
energy at the
same rate as
PG&E
100% renewable
energy at a slight
premium over
PG&E rates
Background
Livermore was a April
founding member
of EBCE
Livermore started
receiving energy
from EBCE
Livermore enrolled
municipal accounts in
Brilliant 100
EBCE phased out
nuclear and discontinued
Brilliant 100
Municipal
accounts returned
to Bright Choice
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
3 4
Item 7.1
PowerPoint Presentation
772
3 Options Available Today
April
60% carbon-free
energy at a 3%
discount to PG&E
100% renewable
energy for $0.075/kWh
more than PG&E
$70,388 more than
PG&E annually
$26,307 less than
PG&E annually
Reported 92%
carbon-free
energy
Benefits of Renewable 100
April
• Decarbonize municipal electricity, a major
component of the Climate Action Plan
update expected to be adopted this fall
• GHG reductions of approximately 2,515
metric tons per year, equal to the emissions
of 547 cars
• Progress toward State and CAP goal of
carbon neutrality by 2045
• Allows the City to lead by example and take
local actions to address climate change
• EBCE invests revenues into local
programs to expand clean energy and
improve energy resilience
• Electric vehicle charging hubs
• Municipal Fleet Electrification Plan
• Critical Municipal Facility Resilience Program
5 6
Item 7.1
PowerPoint Presentation
773
4 Recommendation
April
• Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to purchase Renewable 100 as the default electricity product for Livermore's municipal East Bay Community Energy accounts.
7 Item 7.1
PowerPoint Presentation
774
1 Pure Water Tri-Valley Demonstration Project
July 25, 2022
Presented by Anthony Smith, Water Resources Division Manager Pure Water Tri-Valley
History
• Potable reuse is the use of highly treated wastewater to supplement potable supplies (directly or indirectly)
• In 2018, Tri-Valley water agencies together completed a Joint Tri-Valley Potable Reuse Feasibility Study
• In 2021, the City Council of Pleasanton voted to suspend future participation in follow-up studies
1 2
Item 7.2
PowerPoint Presentation
775
2 Pure Water Tri-Valley
Current Project
• Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) has initiated the initial phases of a demonstration project
• The goal is to understand public perception and determine feasibility of constructing a demonstration project
• The current phase will focus on public education and
outreach
Pure Water Tri-Valley
Partner Agencies
• DSRSD
• Union Sanitary District
• Alameda County Water District
• Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency
• Zone 7 Water Agency
• City of Livermore
3 4
Item 7.2
PowerPoint Presentation
776
3 Pure Water Tri-Valley
Request
• DSRSD staff have requested that potential partners
contribute $25,000 to help with the costs of public outreach and education
• DSRSD staff have no expectation of future participation or funding
• If approved by Council, $25,000 would be appropriated from the Water Enterprise Fund (Livermore Municipal
Water)
5 Item 7.2
PowerPoint Presentation
777
1 Notice and Consolidation of a General Municipal
Election to be held Tuesday, November 8, 2022,
to include the Submittal of an Initiative Entitled:
"South Livermore Sewer Extension Project"
July 25, 2022
Presented by
Marie Weber, City Clerk
Previous Action
• At the July 11, 2022 City Council meeting the
Council adopted resolutions taking the following
action:
– Certified the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; – Approved the ballot question and language for the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative;
– Directed staff to conduct all necessary actions to prepare materials for the November 8, 2022, ballot.
1 2
Item 7.3
PowerPoint Presentation
778
2 Consolidation/Ballot Arguments
• In accordance with California Election Code section 9222, the City Council may submit the ordinance, without
alteration, to the voters at the next regular municipal election on November 8, 2022.
• The City Council should also be determined whether to appoint a subcommittee to prepare a ballot argument (300 words) and rebuttal argument (250 words). The Council may also defer its argument in favor of the measure to the Tri‐ Valley Conservancy as a bona fide proponent for the
measure.

Staff Recommendation

1. Adopt the resolution consolidating the City Council initiative with the November 8, 2022 General Municipal Election and requesting services from Alameda County Registrar of Voters;

2. Consider appointing a subcommittee to prepare a ballot argument and rebuttal argument, or defer argument in favor of the measure to the Tri-Valley Conservancy as a bona fide proponent for the measure; and

3. Direct the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure. 3 4
Item 7.3
PowerPoint Presentation
779
Council Member
Committee
Meeting Date Committee Agenda Link Meeting Type Committee Report: Summary Mayor Woerner 7/12/2022 Alameda County Health Care Servcies Agency Elected Officials COVID Update Mayor Woerner 7/13/2022 Tri Valley San Joaquin Regional Rail Authority https://www.valleylinkrail.com/valleylink‐project Board Meeting Mayor Woerner 7/14/2022 Local Agency Formation Commission https://alamedalafco.org/ Mayor Woerner 7/14/2022 State of the City Address
https://www.livermoreca.gov/Home/Components/
News/News/426/3774 Chamber Wine Country Event series Update on city developments, programs and initiatives Item 8.0
Council Reports
780
Council Member
Committee
Meeting Date Committee Agenda Link Meeting Type
Council Member Carling 7/13/2022 Altamont Landfill Community Monitor Committee board meeting Item 8.0
Council Reports
781
Council Member
Committee
Meeting Date Committee Agenda Link Meeting Type Committee Report: Summary Council Member Munro 7/14/2022 Mayor's State of the City Address https://www.livermoreca.gov/Home/Components/
News/News/426/3774
Council Member Munro 7/20/2022 East Bay Community Choice Energy Joint Powers Authority https://ebce.org/meetings/board‐of‐directors‐meeting‐7‐20‐22/ Board Meeting Council Member Munro 7/21/2022 Dublin‐Livermore Liaison Committee Discussed airport monitoring present and future.

Council Member Munro 7/20/2022 Town Hall with Congressman Eric Swalwell Town Hall Congressman Swalwell discussed funding forinfrastructure, particularly Valley Link, areas of national concern (particularly limiting access toweapons of war), and funding for many smaller projects that help our city thrive.

Item 8.0
Council Reports
782