Livermore City Council
June 12, 2023

EXHIBIT A
1004

CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

NOTES TO SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
8 A. Basis of Presentation
The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the schedule) includes the federal award activity of the City of Livermore, California (City) under programs of the federal government for the year ended June 30, 2022. Federal awards received directly from federal agencies and received through other governmental agencies are included on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. The grant period may be different from City's fiscal year, which is from July 1 through June 30. The information is presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S.

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Because the schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of the City, it is not intended to and does not present the financial position, changes in net position, or fund balances of the City.

B. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Expenditures reported in the schedule are reported on the modified and full accrual basis of accounting, depending on which fund the federal expenditures were incurred. When applicable, such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. No federal financial assistance has been provided to a subrecipient. The City has not elected to use the 10-percent de minimis indirect cost rate as allowed under the Uniform Guidance. No federal financial assistance has been provided to a subrecipient.

C. Reporting Entity
The Schedule of Expenditure of Federal Awards (the Schedule) includes expenditures of federal awards for the City of Livermore, California and its component units as disclosed in the notes to the Basic Financial Statements.

EXHIBIT A
1005

CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
SUMMARY OF AUDITOR’S RESULTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
9 Financial Statements
Unmodified
No
None Reported
No
Federal Awards
No
None Reported
Unmodified
No
CFDA Numbers Name of Federal Program or Cluster

21.027
COVID 19-Coronovirus State
and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds
$ 750,000
Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee? No
Significant deficiency(ies) identified not considered to be material weaknesses? Type of auditor's report issued on whether the financial statements audited were prepared in accordance with GAAP:

Internal control over financial reporting:

Material weakness(es) identified?
Identification of major federal programs:

Dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs:

Noncompliance material to financial statements noted?
Internal control over major federal programs:

Material weakness(es) identified?
Significant deficiency(ies) identified not considered to be material weaknesses? Type of auditor's report issued on compliance for major federal programs:

Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with 2 CFR 200.516(a)

EXHIBIT A
1006

CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
10 None reported.

EXHIBIT A
1007

CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
11 None reported.

EXHIBIT A
1008

CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

SCHEDULE OF PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
12 None reported.

EXHIBIT A
1009
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 5.15
DATE: June 12, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tina Olson, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing an interfund loan in the amount of $500,000 between the Sewer Fund (Lender) and General Fund (Borrower) to fund replacement of Livermore's fire stations' alerting system.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing a $500,000 interfund loan between the Sewer Fund (Lender) and General Fund (Borrower) to fund replacement of Livermore's fire stations' alerting system.

SUMMARY
Livermore’s fire stations need to have their alerting systems replaced in coordination with Alameda County Fire Department estimated to cost $500,000. The same system is used by all agencies in the County and funding the purchase with an interfund loan spreads a large one-time expense over five years and is less expensive compared to a regular bank loan.

DISCUSSION
The Fire department has been using the same dispatching software for approximately 20 years and the system is past its useful life. Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD) worked in cooperation with the Alameda County Regional Emergency Communication Center (ACRECC) to determine which new system would be best to replace the existing dispatching software. Agencies within the County are better able to respond timely to emergencies if everyone is using the same software. ACFD completed the review of the different systems and received a preliminary budget of approximately $100,000 for each fire station the system is installed in. The City of Livermore has five fire stations, so the total estimated cost to replace the dispatching software is $500,000.

During the bi-annual budget process, the City determined the best way to finance this one-time expenditure would be an interfund loan between the Sewer Fund (230) and the General Fund (001). The Sewer Fund has projected Fund Balances of between $19 and $21 million over the next budget cycle and its operations will not be impacted by the interfund loan. The General Fund will receive the $500,000 1010
in the beginning of fiscal year 2023-24 to fund the new software and will make annual payments of both principal and interest to the Sewer Fund. Principal will be repaid in five annual installments of $100,000 plus interest that will be calculated using the average of the previous four quarterly apportionments from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). The City invests approximately 10% of its investment portfolio in LAIF so the Sewer Fund will not lose investment earnings through the proposed inter-fund loan. The first payment will be made in fiscal year 2024-25.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
There is no direct fiscal impact in authorizing the interfund loan as the amounts have been built into the bi-annual budget for fiscal years 2023-25 and will be budgeted in future budget cycles. The interfund loan is both easier for City staff to administer, as well as cost effective. Historical LAIF earnings rates are lower than what it would cost to borrow funds from a bank as LAIF rates are currently 1.7%, while a traditional loan would require more paperwork and current interest rates on a 5-year loan are approximately 3.5%.

COMMUNITY PILLAR
5: A City That Works
GOAL
17: Ensure effective use of public resources

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A - Interfund Loan Agreement
Prepared by: David Doyle
Accounting Supervisor
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
1011
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A FIVE-YEAR INTERFUND LOAN FROM THE SEWER

OPERATING FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND
The City of Livermore (“City”) is replacing the alerting systems at five City Fire stations for which the General Fund is responsible for the estimated $500,000 cost.

The City wants to spread the financing of this one-time expenditure over five years and an interfund loan using the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) interest rate has been determined to be the most economic funding source for the purchase.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that it hereby authorizes the execution of an interfund loan agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and summarized as follows:

1. To loan a principal amount of $500,000 from the City’s Sewer Operating Fund to the General Fund for the purpose of updating the alerting systems at the five City Fire stations.

2. The term of the loan shall be for five years, commencing July 1, 2023, and carry an interest rate equal to the annual LAIF rate of interest (currently 1.73%).

Payments shall be annual, beginning July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2028.

On motion of Council Member _________________________, seconded by Council Member ________________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on June 12, 2023, 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 Alcala
City Clerk City Attorney
Exhibit A – Interfund Loan Agreement
1012

INTERFUND LOAN AGREEMENT
This Loan Agreement (“Agreement”) is executed on ______________, 2023, between the City of Livermore General Fund (“Borrower”) and the City of Livermore Water Resources (“Lender”). Lender agrees to lend to Borrower, and Borrower agrees to repay to Lender an amount not to exceed the Principal Amount and interest accrued on the unpaid loan balance, in accordance with the following:

1. Purpose of the Loan: To provide funds for use by Borrower or its designee, to fund Borrower’s need to purchase equipment to update the alerting systems in each of the fire houses in the City. The loan shall account for borrowing between the General Fund, Fund No. 001 and the Sewer Fund, Fund No. 230.

2. Principal Loan Amount: Not to exceed Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($500,000). The loan will be recorded as receivable to the Lender and payable to the Borrower.

3. Term of the Loan: The term of this loan shall begin on July 1, 2023, and the outstanding loan balance, including accrued interest, is to be repaid by July 1, 2028.

4. Scheduled Payments: Borrower shall make payments each fiscal year beginning with FY 2024-25. Payments will be due on July 1 of each year and will include both a principal (paid in five annual installments of $100,000) and interest payment. At a minimum, annual Scheduled Payments shall equal the amount of any accrued interest though June 30 of that fiscal year plus a principal payment equal one-fifth (1/5) of the original principal amount of $500,000.

5. Repayment Source: The City’s General Fund is the source of the loan payments.

Borrower must maintain positive cash balance of at least 30% of its operating expense/expenditure and debt service transfer budget to be able to repay the loan. Missed scheduled payments shall be reported by the Finance Department to the City Council.

6. Rate of Interest: Interest shall accrue annually on June 30 on the outstanding loan balance at the variable rates based on State of California’s Local Agency Investment Fund. (LAIF).

Interest will be the average of the prior four quarterly apportionment rates (June, September, December, March) currently at 1.73% for fiscal year 2022-23. Loan interest will be recorded as revenue to the Lender and expenditure to the Borrower.

7. General Provisions: This Agreement constitutes the full Agreement by and between the parties and no other representations have been made regarding the contents of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be amended, modified, or altered in any respect unless such amendment, modification or alteration has been reduced to writing and executed by both parties.

EXHIBIT A
1013
LENDER: City of Livermore Water Resources,
a municipal utility
Fund Name: Sewer Fund, No. 230
By:

Anthony Smith, Water Resources Division Manager
BORROWER: City of Livermore
a municipal corporation and general law city
Fund Name: General Fund, No. 001
By:

Marianna Marysheva, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Deputy/Assistant/City Attorney

EXHIBIT A
1014
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 5.16
DATE: June 12, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tina Olson, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Resolutions delegating authority to the Administrative Services Director to make retirement determinations for local safety member employees, and to submit employeroriginated disability applications on behalf of all employees, and establishing a procedure for disability retirement determinations for local safety officer employees

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends City Council take two actions:

1. Adopt a resolution delegating authority to the Administrative Services Director to make retirement determinations for local safety member employees of the Public Employees Retirement System and to submit employer-originated disability applications on behalf of all employees; and,

2. Adopt a resolution establishing a procedure for disability retirement determinations for the City of Livermore's local safety officer employees who are members of the Public Employees' Retirement System.

SUMMARY
The City of Livermore ("City") is a contracting agency of CalPERS for employee retirement benefits. The City has a need to submit both industrial and non-industrial disability applications on behalf of City employees to CalPERS. For industrial disability applications, upon notice of the acceptance of the application, CalPERS requires the governing body of the employer to make a determination of disability.

The City Council may delegate responsibility and authority to submit disability applications for city employees and make disability determinations under Government Code section 21173 to a body or officer of the City. Staff requests consideration of two resolutions updating the process and procedures of disability retirements for all employees.

DISCUSSION
On February 28, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 94-53 whereby it delegated to the Director of Personnel the City Council's authority and duty to make disability determinations for employees who are public safety officers. This authority continues until the present day, however the statutory references contained in Resolution 94-53 are now outdated, and the job title of Director of 1015
Personnel has been changed and the duties and responsibilities of the Director of Personnel have been assumed by the Administrative Services Director. Staff requests that the City Council update the delegation of its authority and duty under the Public Employees' Retirement Law in Resolution No. 94-53, pursuant to Government Code section 21173, to authorize the Administrative Services Director to determine whether a Livermore employee who is a local safety member is disabled for purposes of the Public Employees' Retirment Law and to determine whether such disability is "industrial" within the meaning of the law.

Additionally, there are times where city employees with either industrial or non-industrial injuries who have exhausted all paid leave entitlement and who by the nature of their injury or illness are not able to return to their position or another position with or without accommodation. When this occurs, if the employee has not yet applied for a disability or industrial disability with CalPERS, the City under Government Code 21153 must submit an application to CalPERS on the employee's behalf for a disability or industrial disability retirement.

Currently, City Council has not delegated their authority and duty to submit employer-originated disability applications for all city employees. Staff would like to request the City Council designate to the Administrative Services Director the authority to initiate an application to CalPERS for disability retirement pursuant to Government Code subsection 21152(c) when the Administrative Services Director determines the application is warranted based on competent medical opinion, as well as to initiate applications, when appropriate, to reinstate Livermore public safety employees who are retired for disability. Delegating this authority to the Administrative Services Director would provide consistency in the process and eliminate the need to bring forth these applications that contain confidential personal and medical information at public meetings.

Finally, the City Manager prepared and issued Administrative Regulation No. 34 Resolution of Disputes Regarding Disability Retirement Matters for Sworn Personnel and Reinstatement of Previously Retired Sworn Safety Managers (AR 34) to implement the delegated authority and to establish the City's process for evaluating and resolving disputes relating to determination of safety officer disability retirements or reinstatements from disability retirement. Staff would request the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a procedure for disability retirement determinations for the City of Livermore's local safety officer employees who are members of the Public Employees' Retirement System. These procedures will be used to update AR 34.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRTAIVE IMPACTS
There is no fiscal impact to these resolutions.

COMMUNITY PILLAR
5: A City That Works
GOAL
11: Modernize key business systems and processes to increase efficiency and improve transparency

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution - Delegation of Authority

2. Resolution - Administrative Procedures
1016
Prepared by: Kristen Hilton
Senior Human Resource Analyst
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
1017
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE

SERVICES DIRECTOR TO MAKE RETIREMENT DETERMINATIONS FOR

LOCAL SAFETY MEMBER EMPLOYEES OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT SYSTEM, AND TO SUBMIT EMPLOYER-ORIGINATED

DISABILITY APPLICATIONS ON BEHALF OF ALL EMPLOYEES
(Government Code Sections 21173 and 21152(c))
The City of Livermore (“Agency” for the purposes of this resolution) is a contracting agency of CalPERS for employee retirement benefits.

California Government Code section 21150 et seq. establishes the circumstances under which an employee who is a member of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) may be granted a disability retirement (“Public Employees’ Retirement Law”).

That law requires a contracting agency determine whether an agency employee who is a local safety member is disabled for purposes of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law, and whether such disability is industrial. The agency’s determination for disability retirements and industrial disability retirements must be made based on competent medical opinion. Pursuant to Government Code section 21173, the City Council may delegate its authority and duties to make disability retirement determinations for public safety employees to a subordinate officer.

Pursuant to subsections (c) and (d) in Government Code section 21152, an application for disability retirement may be initiated by the City Council, by the CalPERS member, or any person on the member’s behalf. Pursuant to Government Code section 21173, the City Council may also delegate its authority and duties to initiate that application to a subordinate officer.

On February 28, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 94-53 whereby it delegated to the Director of Personnel the City Council’s authority and duty to make disability determinations for employees who are public safety officers. That authority continues until the present day, but the resolution does not provide the ability to submit employer-originated disability applications for city employees.

The City Manager prepared and issued Administrative Regulation No. 34 Resolution of Disputes Regarding Disability Retirement Matters for Sworn Personnel and Reinstatement of Previously Retired Sworn Safety Members (AR 34) to implement the delegated authority and to establish the Agency’s process for evaluating and resolving disputes relating to determination of safety officer disability retirement or reinstatements from disability retirement. The City Manager has updated AR 34 from time-to-time, and most recently on March 1, 2007.
1018
RESOLUTION NO. ________
The statutory references contained in Resolution No. 94-53 are now outdated, and the job title Director of Personnel has been changed and the duties and responsibilities have been reassigned several times. On June 28, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-161 to change the title for the “Director of Personnel” position to the “Director of Human Resources,” which position then continued to exercise the authority, duties, and responsibilities previously delegated to the Director of Personnel. Subsequently, on October 10, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-192, wherein the City Council eliminated the “Director of Human Resources” job title, which was a department head position, and the department head duties and responsibilities were then assumed by the Administrative Services Director position that was also created by that Resolution.

The City Council now desires to update the delegation of its authority and duty under the Public Employees’ Retirement Law in Resolution No. 94-53, along with the statutory citations and job title designations, pursuant to Government Code section 21173. Specifically, the City Council desires to authorize the Administrative Services Director to determine whether a Livermore employee who is a local safety member is disabled for purposes of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law and to determine whether such disability is “industrial” within the meaning of that law. The City Council also desires to authorize the Administrative Services Director to initiate an application to CalPERS for disability retirement pursuant to Government Code subsection 21152(c) when the Administrative Services Director determines the application is warranted based on competent medical opinion, as well as to initiate applications, when appropriate, to reinstate Livermore public safety employees who are retired for disability.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Livermore, that pursuant to Government Code section 21173, it hereby delegates its authority and duties in Government Code sections 21156 and 21157 and in the Public Employees’ Retirement Law to the Livermore employee who is the Administrative Services Director for the City of Livermore, as that person may change from time-totime, to make disability retirement and industrial disability retirement determinations for Livermore’s public safety employees based on competent medical opinion and as set forth in the Public Employees’ Retirement Law including Government Code section 21154.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Livermore that pursuant to Government Code section 21173, it hereby delegates its authority and duties in Government Code section 21152(c) and the Public Employees’ Retirement Law to the Livermore employee who is the Administrative Services Director for the City of Livermore, as that person may change from time-to-time, to initiate an application by the Agency pursuant to Government Code section 21152(c) for a disability retirement for Livermore employees, an industrial disability retirement for Livermore public safety employees, and to initiate requests for reinstatement of Livermore public safety employees who are retired for industrial disability.
1019
RESOLUTION NO. ________
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Livermore that the delegations of its authorities and duties set forth above for the Agency’s determinations and applications expressly includes all corresponding and necessary authority and duty to make certifications, complete paperwork and provide information required for CalPERS to process those determinations and applications.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that the City Manager is hereby directed to adopt and maintain an administrative regulation outlining the process for submitting employer-oriented disability applications and evaluating and resolving disputes relating to determination of safety officer disability retirement or reinstatements from disability retirement.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that upon its adoption this resolution supersedes Resolution No. 94-53.

On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on June 12, 2023, 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
1020
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR DISABILITY
RETIREMENT DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF LIVERMORE’S LOCAL

SAFETY OFFICER EMPLOYEES WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM
The City Council for the City of Livermore (“City”) has adopted a resolution pursuant to Government Code section 21173 whereby it delegated its authority and duties in Government Code sections 21156 and 21157, and in the Public Employees’ Retirement Law, to the Administrative Services Director for the City of Livermore to make disability retirement and industrial disability retirement determinations for Livermore’s public safety employees.

This resolution is intended to establish the procedures to be followed by the Administrative Services Director when exercising that delegated authority to make those determinations that must be based on competent medical opinion and as set forth in the Public Employees’ Retirement Law, including Government Code section 21154.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Livermore that the following procedure is hereby established for disability retirement determinations for Livermore’s public safety employees:

1. An initial determination will be made by the City upon medical and other available evidence offered by either the applicant or the City to determine whether the applicant is incapacitated from the performance of duty. The determination shall be made within six months of the date of the receipt by the City from CalPERS unless the time requirement is waived in writing by the applicant. Said determination shall be made by the Administrative Services Director designated by the City Council.
a. If it is determined that the applicant is incapacitated, and the incapacity is industrial, the Administrative Services Director will so certify to CalPERS.
b. If it is determined that the applicant is incapacitated, and the cause of incapacity is nonindustrial, the Administrative Services Director will so certify to CalPERS.
c. If it is determined that the applicant is incapacitated, but the applicant contends that the cause of disability is industrial, the applicant may petition the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for a finding of fact determining causation. If the WCAB determines the cause of incapacity to be industrial, or nonindustrial, the City will so certify to CalPERS. d. If it is determined that the applicant is not incapacitated from the performance of duty, it shall notify the applicant and CalPERS of this determination. The City shall notify the applicant by certified mail (return 1021
RESOLUTION NO. ________
receipt requested) or by personal service of their right to appeal the decision and request a hearing within 30 calendar days of the notice.

2. If the applicant delivers to the City a notice of appeal and request for hearing, the hearing shall be held in conformity with the Administrative Procedures Act. The City will notify the Office of Administrative Hearings of the State of California and request a hearing date and, if appropriate, a pre-hearing conference with an Administrative Law Judge to be assigned by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

The City will also notify CalPERS. The City will inform the applicant that the hearing will be held at the time and place designated by the Office of Administrative Hearings which will set a hearing date and preconference hearing.

The applicant will be informed that the hearing will be held and determination made within six months of the submission of the application unless this time limit is waived by the applicant.

3. The hearing shall be conducted before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) alone.

4. An administrative record shall be generated at the hearing pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. All testimony shall be recorded by a Certified Shorthand Reporter.

5. Following the hearing, the ALJ prepares a Proposed Decision. This decision will include a determination of issues, findings, and a summary of facts. The Proposed Decision will be reviewed with the City Manager. The City Manager shall then either:
a. Adopt the ALJ’s Proposed Decision as the City’s Final Decision; or, b. Reject the ALJ’s Proposed Decision and then make their own Final Decision for the City without hearing additional evidence; or, c. Reject the ALJ’s Proposed Decision based on additional evidence and request an additional hearing with ALJ to hear the additional evidence, and thereafter afterward adopt or reject the ALJ’s subsequent Proposed Decision after additional hearing as set forth in subsection (a) or (b) above.

The Final Decision and findings will be served on the applicant by certified mail and CalPERS will be notified.

6. If the Final Decision finds the applicant to be incapacitated, then the City shall so certify to CalPERS. If the Final Decision finds the applicant not to be incapacitated, then the applicant will be further advised that they have 30 calendar days to seek judicial review pursuant to the Public Employees’ Retirement Law and California Government Code section 11523. Such review is by means of filing a Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Superior Court of Alameda County.
a. If a petition for a Writ of Mandate is not timely filed in the Alameda County Superior Court, or the 30 calendar day time period to appeal the City’s Final Decision expires, then the City shall inform CalPERS. 1022
RESOLUTION NO. ________
b. If a petition for a Writ of Mandate is timely filed in the Alameda County Superior Court, then the City shall advise CalPERS upon either the dismissal of that action or upon receipt of a Writ of Mandate from the Superior Court.

On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council
Member___ , the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on June 12, 2023, 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
1023
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 5.17
DATE: June 12, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christine Martin, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution of continued local emergency.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution of continued local emergency in response to impacts from a series of severe storm events.

SUMMARY
On January 10, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution ratifying the Proclamation of the Director of Emergency Services Concerning the Existence of a Local Emergency (Resolution No. 2023-001) in response to impacts from a series of severe storm events.

On February 27 and April 24, 2023, the City Council adopted resolutions of continued local emergency.

California Government Code section 8630 directs the City Council to review the need for continuing the local emergency at least once every 60 days.

DISCUSSION
On January 4, 2023, the Executive Department of the State of California issued Executive Order N-2-23 proclaiming a State of Emergency for the Atmospheric River that started on December 27, 2022. On January 10, 2023, the City Council ratified a proclamation by the Emergency Services Director of the existence of a local emergency due to conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property that arose within the City of Livermore caused by a series of severe rainstorms and high wind commencing in December 2022 and continuing through January 2023.

Proclamation 23-01 was ratified, as required, by the City Council within seven days (Resolution No. 2023-001). Once ratified, California Government Code section 8630 directs the City Council to review the need for continuing the local emergency at least once every 60 days. On February 27, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution of continued local emergency (Resolution No. 2023-06).

On March 1, 2023, the Executive Department of the State of California issued a proclamation of State of 1024
Emergency due to a severe winter storm event beginning in February 2023 bringing damaging winds and historic precipitation that caused federal and state highways and road closures, and continued to threaten critical infrastructures, power outages, etc.

On March 24, 2023, the Alameda County Director of Emergency Services proclaimed a state of emergency due to conditions of continuing peril that have been presented by winter storms that resumed on February 23, 2023, continuing through March 2023, causing extensive damage and local expenses throughout the County.

On February 27 and April 24, 2023, the City Council adopted resolutions of continued local emergency (Resolution Nos. 2023-026 and 2023-072, respectively).

Staff recommends that the City Council continue the emergency proclamation to reflect the fact that emergency repairs have not been fully implemented and on-going work is required to recover from the damage. Continuing the emergency proclamation allows staff to seek reimbursement of the eligible costs of this work from federal and state agencies through the public assistance program.

Work includes removing sediment and debris from creeks and trails, repairing creek banks that have been washed away, repairing damaged trails, and pedestrian bridge abutments. While the repair projects are still under evaluation, staff estimates about 30 damaged sites totaling approximately $9,000,000.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
The continuance of a Local Emergency allows the City to access federal, state and county resources, including potential financial reimbursements.

COMMUNITY PILLAR
1: A Safe Community That Thrives
GOAL
1: Oversee the City's emergency preparedness, management, and response efforts

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution
Prepared by: Herbert Cole
Management Analyst
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
1025
RESOLUTION NO. _______

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION OF CONTINUED LOCAL EMERGENCY
On January 10, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution, Ratifying the Proclamation of the Director of Emergency Services Concerning the Existence of a Local Emergency (Resolution No. 2023-001). The emergency services proclamation concerns conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property which have arisen within the City of Livermore caused by a series of severe rainstorms and high winds commencing in December 2022, and continuing through January 2023. On February 27, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution of continued local emergency (Resolution No. 2023-026).

On March 1, 2023, California Governor, Gavin Newsom, proclaimed a state of emergency due to the severe winter storms that struck in late February as the result of an atmospheric river system forecast to continue through mid-March. The Governor issued his proclamation in response to a series of atmospheric river systems that impacted the State since late December 2022 that forced closures and damaged highways and roads, and caused other impacts that local agencies did not have time to mitigate, and that the continuing storms were expected to exacerbate those conditions.

The Governor adopted a subsequent proclamation on March 28, 2023, to apply his March 1st proclamation to Alameda County. The Governor's proclamation directed the California Office of Emergency Services to provide assistance to local governments for the protection of public health and the environment, allowed for the mobilization of the California National Guard, allowed for state-owned properties to be made available for staging debris, and modifying the hours-of-service limits in the California Vehicle Code and California Code of Regulations for fuel transportation and relief efforts.

Given the declaration of emergency by the State of California and Alameda County, and the existing damage and impacts from the prior storms, and in anticipation of additional storms and wind, and the need for continued debris removal, emergency response and protective measures, and permanent repairs, continue to present conditions that are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City of Livermore.

On March 24, 2023, the Alameda County Director of Emergency Services proclaimed a state of emergency due to conditions of continuing peril that have been presented by winter storms that resumed on February 23, 2023, continuing through March 2023, causing extensive damage and local expenses throughout the Alameda County Operational Area.

Although efforts have been made to remedy the emergency conditions, City staff report that the emergency conditions identified by the proclamation still exist. City staff recommends continuing the declaration of emergency since it is also required to be active in order to remain eligible to apply for and receive funding for costs to respond to and repair damages caused by the storm events.
1026
RESOLUTION NO. _______
Once a proclamation of local emergency is adopted, California Government Code section 8630 directs the City Council to review the need for continuing the local emergency at least once every 60 days.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that it has reviewed the January 4, 2023 proclamation of local emergency that the City Council ratified on January 10, 2023 (Resolution No. 2023-001) and continued on February 27, 2023 (Resolution No. 2023-026) and on April 24, 2023 (Resolution No. 2023-072), as well as the subsequent proclamations of emergency in March by both the State of California and the County of Alameda due to the continuing systems of storms affecting the State and local areas, and hereby finds that conditions warrant continued maintenance of that proclamation of local emergency.

On motion of Council Member ____________________, seconded by Council Member _____________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on June 12, 2023, 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
1027
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 6.1
DATE: June 12, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Public hearing, landowner election, and actions related to formation of Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 for maintenance and public services within the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan area pursuant to the Mello- Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions in connection with the proposed formation of Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 for maintenance and public services within the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan area (CFD) and a related Future Annexation Area pursuant to the MelloRoos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the "Mello-Roos Act"):

1. Conduct the public hearing and consider written and oral protests;

2. Adopt the resolution of formation of a Community Facilities District and Future Annexation Area;

3. Adopt a resolution calling a special landowner election for a community facilities district, and direct the City Clerk to complete the landowner elections;

4. Adopt a resolution declaring the results of the special landowner election and, if the election is successful, direct recording of Notice of Special Tax Lien; and

5. Introduce an ordinance levying special taxes within the CFD (including any territory that annexes into the CFD from the Future Annexation Area).

SUMMARY
The Triad Condominium Project (CAVA), Tentative Tract Map 8609, located at the northwest corner of North Canyons Parkway and Triad Place was conditioned to participate in a maintenance district to finance the maintenance and operation of services associated with the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. The developer, Civic North Canyons Parkway, LLC, has elected to form a community facilities district (CFD) to satisfy this condition.

A petition was filed by the property owner, Civic North Canyons Parkway, LLC requesting the City Council undertake proceedings under the Mello-Roos Act and waive all applicable election notices and 1028
waiting periods to expedite the completion of the district formation. On May 8, 2023, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to form the CFD and the Future Annexation Area, approving the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax ("RMA") for the CFD, calling a public hearing, and directing the City Engineer to prepare and file with the City Clerk a CFD Report describing the services that will be provided by the CFD and an estimate of the fair and reasonable costs to provide the services and incidental expenses associated with the CFD.

Following the public hearing, the City Council may establish the CFD, and the Future Annexation Area, and call for a special landowner election. The property owner will vote on: (1) the levy of the special taxes on taxable property in the CFD pursuant to the RMA; and (2) the appropriation limit for the CFD.

The first-year assessment of the special tax for the property will reflect the costs of maintaining the improvements and an additional amount to reimburse the City for costs of forming the CFD.

With the formation of the CFD, Tentative Tract 8609 becomes Zone 1 within the district and will provide their pro-rata share of maintenance funds for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan public infrastructure and amenities. The maximum annual operation and maintenance costs for the Zone 1 share of the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan public amenities in the CFD is estimated at $48,691 in 2023 dollars to be spread over 112 residential units in Tract 8609. This estimate establishes the Max Cap of the annual assessment for Zone 1 and will be adjusted annually on July 1, based upon the prior calendar year's change in the Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers (San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA) plus one percent (CPI +1%).

As described more completely below, the Future Annexation Area is being established for the CFD to allow for a streamlined process for the future annexation to the CFD of projects that will be required to contribute maintenance funds for the public amenities and/or infrastructure that is installed for each specific project.

DISCUSSION
The Triad Condominium Project (CAVA), located at the northwest corner of North Canyons Parkway and Triad Place was conditioned to participate in a maintenance district to finance the maintenance and operation of public infrastructure and services associated with the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan.

The owner of the project has elected to form a community facilities district (CFD) to meet this condition of approval.

The City Council received a petition from the property owner, Civic North Canyons Parkway, LLC, requesting initiation of formation of a CFD to finance certain ongoing public maintenance and services and waiving the otherwise applicable election time periods and procedures. The City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to form the CFD and set a public hearing for June 12, 2023, for consideration of the formation of the CFD and the Future Annexation Area, including the levy of special taxes according to the RMA and the proposed services to be financed by the special taxes. The RMA has been reviewed by the property owner and is attached to the Resolution of Formation. The boundary map was recorded in the Alameda County real property records, a notice of the public hearing has been published, and a Community Facilities District Report has been prepared and has been published on the City's website.

The areas to be maintained with the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan CFD funding include:

Neighborhood Streets - Main Street, Bicycle Streets, and Pedestrian Streets within the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
1029
Neighborhood Parks
Neighborhood Trails
Neighborhood Plazas
Pedestrian Bridge/Tunnel Crossing of Isabel Avenue
Valley Link Plaza and Pedestrian Bridges
Valley Link Parking Lot
Cost for CFD administration as well as Alameda County’s cost to collect the special taxes, will also be funded by the CFD and are further defined in the description of services attached to the Resolution of Intention.

On May 29, 2023, a ballot was mailed to the property owner, referencing the RMA. Ballots are due to the City Clerk no later than 7:00 pm on June 12, 2023.

The City Council will conduct the public hearing. The public hearing provides an opportunity for public inquiry into the formation of the CFD (including the RMA and the proposed services) and the Future Annexation Area. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council is asked to consider and adopt the following resolutions:

1. A Resolution of Formation of Community Facilities District and Future Annexation Area, and Authorizing and Directing Actions Related Thereto

2. A Resolution Calling a Special Landowner Election for a Community Facilities District, and Authorizing and Directing Actions Thereto
After calling the special election and receiving the sealed ballot, the City Clerk will open and tabulate the ballot and announce the results of the election. The number of votes allocated to the property owner is based on the number of acres; the Mello Roos Act specifies that each property owner in the CFD will be allocated one vote for each acre or portion of an acre of taxable property owned in Zone 1 of the CFD.

The City Clerk will then complete the election canvass.

Assuming two-thirds of the votes cast at the election are in favor of the ballot measure, the City Council will consider and is asked to adopt the following resolution and introduce the following ordinance:

A Resolution Declaring Results of a Special Landowner Election and Directing Recording of a Notice of Special Tax Lien, and Authorizing and Directing Actions Related Thereto (the City Clerk's canvass will be attached to this Resolution) and
An Ordinance Levying a Special Tax within City of Livermore Community Facilities District 2023-1 (Isabel neighborhood Specific Plan Services) (the "Ordinance").

Following these actions, the City Clerk will record a Notice of Special Tax Lien against the parcel in Zone 1 of the CFD within 15 days after the election. The Ordinance authorizes and levies the Special Tax in perpetuity within the CFD (including any properties that annex into the CFD from the Future Annexation Area) in accordance with the RMA. The Ordinance will go into effect 30 days from the date of final passage, which is anticipated for the City Council meeting on June 26, 2023.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
The City will administer the CFD on an annual basis and will budget for, and manage, the necessary 1030
maintenance, operation, and administration. All related expenditures will be paid by the CFD.

At buildout of the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan area, the estimated annual cost for maintaining all the items in the Description of Services for the CFD is approximately $1,800,000 plus administrative expenses. As each new development within the specific plan is completed, they will be assessed their pro rata share of the overall maintenance expenses of the CFD.

The FY 2024-25 Special Tax Requirement Max Cap for Zone 1 is estimated at $48,691, an average of $435 per residential unit. This amount is the pro-rata share of the CFD maintenance costs attributed to Zone 1. The max cap for Zone 1 will escalate on July 1, 2024, and annually each July 1 thereafter, based upon the prior calendar year’s change in the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers (San Francisco-Oakland- San Jose, CA) plus one percent (CPI + 1%).

The proposed proceedings for the CFD will establish a Future Annexation Area that coincides with the boundary of the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Area in order to allow for streamlined annexation of additional properties' zones into the CFD in the future. Parcels within the Future Annexation Area will be annexed to the CFD only with the unanimous approval of the owner of the parcels, as described in the Resolution of Formation, without further public hearings or additional proceedings. The Denova homes project is included in Zone 1 for purposes of the RMA. Future annexations will be numbered sequentially as distinct zones for purposes of the RMA. Each new zone will be assessed separately, based on their pro rata share of the maintenance funds for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan public infrastructure and amenities.

COMMUNITY PILLAR
2: Economy that Prospers
GOAL
4: Implement the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution of Formation

2. Exhibit A - Description of Services

3. Exhibit B - Rate and Method of Apportionment

4. Resolution Calling for Election

5. Exhibit A - Official Ballot

6. Resolution Declaring Results

7. Exhibit A - Declaring Results

8. Ordinance
Prepared by: Debbie Salgado
Senior Civil Engineer
1031
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
1032

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION OF FORMATION OF A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT AND

FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA
Under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5, commencing at Section 53311, of the California Government Code (the “Act”), this Council is authorized to establish a community facilities district and to act as its legislative body.

This Council adopted a resolution entitled “A Resolution of Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District and Future Annexation Area” (the “Resolution of Intention”), stating its intention to form (i) “City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services)” (the “CFD”) and (ii) “City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services) (Future Annexation Area)” (the “Future Annexation Area”) pursuant to the Act in order to levy special taxes (the “Special Taxes”) to finance all or a part of certain services (the “Services”), as described in the Resolution of Intention.

The Resolution of Intention, incorporating a map of the proposed boundaries of the CFD and Future Annexation Area and stating the Services to be provided and the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Taxes to be levied within the CFD to pay for the Services (the “Rate and Method”), is on file with the City Clerk and the provisions thereof are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein.

On this date, this Council held a noticed public hearing as required by the Act and the Resolution of Intention relative to the proposed formation of the CFD and the Future Annexation Area.

At the hearing all interested persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the formation of the CFD and the Future Annexation Area, the Services to be provided therein and the levy of such Special Taxes according to the Rate and Method were heard and a full and fair hearing was held.

At the hearing evidence was presented to this Council on such matters before it, including a special report (the “Report”) as to the Services to be provided through the CFD and the costs thereof, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk, and this Council at the conclusion of said hearing is fully advised in the premises.

Written protests with respect to the formation of the CFD, the furnishing of specified types of Services and the Rate and Method have not been filed with the City Clerk by 50% or more of the registered voters residing within the territory of the CFD or property owners of onehalf or more of the area of land within the CFD and not exempt from the proposed Special Taxes.

Written protests have not been filed with the City Clerk against the proposed annexation of the Future Annexation Area to the CFD by (i) 50% or more of the registered voters, or six registered voters, whichever is more, residing in the proposed boundaries of the CFD, (ii) 50% or more of the registered voters, or six registered voters, whichever is more, residing in the 1033

Future Annexation Area, (iii) owners of one-half or more of the area of land in the proposed CFD or (iv) owners of one-half or more of the area of land in the Future Annexation Area.

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

1. Recitals Correct. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. No Majority Protest. The proposed CFD, the proposed Future Annexation Area and the proposed Special Taxes to be levied within the CFD have not been precluded by majority protest pursuant to section 53324 or section 53339.6 of the Act.

3. Prior Proceedings Valid. All prior proceedings taken by this City Council in connection with the establishment of the CFD and the Future Annexation Area and the levy of the Special Taxes have been duly considered and are hereby found and determined to be valid and in conformity with the Act.

4. Name of the CFD and the Future Annexation Area. The community facilities district designated “City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services)” of the City is hereby established pursuant to the Act. The future annexation area designated “City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services) (Future Annexation Area)” is hereby established pursuant to the Act.

5. Boundaries of CFD and the Future Annexation Area. The boundaries of the CFD and the Future Annexation Area, as set forth in the map of the CFD and the Future Annexation Area heretofore recorded in the Alameda County Recorder’s Office on May 17, 2023, in Book 19 of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts at Pages 41-42, as document number 2023055836, are hereby approved, are incorporated herein by reference and shall be the boundaries of the CFD and the Future Annexation Area.

Parcels within the Future Annexation Area shall be annexed to the CFD only with the unanimous approval (each, a “Unanimous Approval”) of the owner or owners of each parcel or parcels at the time that parcel or those parcels are annexed, without any requirement for further public hearings or additional proceedings.

6. Description of Services. The Services proposed to be financed by the CFD and the Future Annexation Area and pursuant to the Act shall consist of those items shown in Exhibit A hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. The City intends to provide the Services on an equal basis in the original territory of the CFD and, when it has been annexed to the CFD, the Future Annexation Area.

7. Special Tax.
a. Except to the extent that funds are otherwise available to the CFD to pay for the Services, the Special Taxes, sufficient to pay the costs thereof, secured by the recordation of a continuing lien against all non-exempt real property in the CFD, is intended to be levied annually within the CFD, and collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes or in such other manner as may be prescribed by this Council. 1034

b. The proposed Rate and Method, in sufficient detail to allow each landowner within the proposed CFD to estimate the maximum amount such owner will have to pay, are shown in Exhibit B attached hereto and hereby incorporated herein. c. Territory in the Future Annexation Area will be annexed into the CFD and a Special Taxes will be levied on such territory only with the Unanimous Approval of the owner or owners of each parcel or parcels at the time that parcel or those parcels are annexed into the CFD. Except to the extent that funds are otherwise available to the CFD to pay for the Services, Special Taxes sufficient to pay the costs thereof, secured by the recordation of a continuing lien against all non-exempt real property in the Future Annexation Area, is intended to be levied annually within the Future Annexation Area, and collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes or in such other manner as may be prescribed by this City Council. As required by Section 53339.3(d) of the Act, the Council hereby determines that the Special Taxes proposed to pay for Services to be supplied within the Future Annexation Area shall be equal to any Special Taxes levied to pay for the same Services in the existing CFD, except that a higher or lower tax may be levied within the Future Annexation Area to the extent that the actual cost of providing the Services in the Future Annexation Area is higher or lower than the cost of providing those Services in the existing CFD. In so finding, the Council does not intend to limit its ability to levy Special Taxes within the Future Annexation Area to provide new or additional services beyond those supplied within the existing CFD.

8. Increased Demands. It is hereby found and determined that the Services are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon local agencies, including the City, as the result of development occurring in the CFD and the Future Annexation Area. The Services are in addition to those provided in the territory of the CFD and the Future Annexation Area as of the date hereof and will not supplant services already available within the territory of the CFD and the Future Annexation Area as of the date hereof.

9. Responsible Official. The City Manager (or her designee) of the City of Livermore, City Hall, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550, telephone number 925-960-4040, is the officer of the City who will be responsible for preparing annually a current roll of the levy of the Special Taxes obligations by assessor’s parcel number and who will be responsible for estimating future levies of the Special Taxes.

10. Tax Lien. Upon recordation of a notice of special tax lien pursuant to Section 3114.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code, a continuing lien to secure each levy of the Special Taxes shall attach to all nonexempt real property in the CFD and this lien shall continue in force and effect until the Special Taxes obligation is prepaid and permanently satisfied and the lien canceled in accordance with law or until collection of the Special Taxes by the City ceases.

11. Appropriations Limit. In accordance with the Act, the annual appropriations limit, as defined by subdivision (h) of Section 8 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution, of the CFD is hereby preliminarily established at $3,000,000 and such appropriations limit shall be submitted to the voters of the CFD as hereafter provided. The proposition establishing such annual appropriations limit shall become effective if approved by the qualified electors voting thereon and shall be adjusted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Act and the Constitution.

12. Election and Unanimous Approval. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the proposition of the levy of the Special Taxes and the proposition of the establishment of the 1035

appropriations limit specified above shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the CFD at an election the time, place and conditions of which election shall be as specified by a separate resolution of this Council.

This Council hereby determines that the special tax shall be levied on a parcel in the Future Annexation Area upon receipt of a Unanimous Approval from the owner or owners of such parcel at the time that such parcel is annexed into the CFD, without any requirement for further public hearings or additional proceedings.

13. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.

On motion of Council Member ____________, seconded by Council Member _______________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the 12th day of June, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST:

Marie Weber
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Jason R. Alcala
City Attorney
Exhibit A – Description of Services
Exhibit B – Rate and Method of Apportionment
1036

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF LIVERMORE
Community Facilities CFD No. 2023-1
(Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services)

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
Special Taxes collected in the City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services) (the “CFD”) will fund, in whole or in part, the services listed below. Services may be performed inside the CFD and outside the CFD if the City has concluded that such services would benefit the CFD.

Public Street Services
Public Street Services include maintenance and operation of Main Street, Bicycle Streets, and Pedestrian Streets within the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. Public Street Services include, but are not limited to, pavement restoration and rehabilitation, landscaping and irrigation, maintenance and operation of street lights and specialty lighting, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, street furniture, signage and monuments. The costs of Public Streets Services include any associated electricity, water and other utility costs.

Neighborhood Park Services
Neighborhood Park Services include maintenance and operation of public parks within the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. Neighborhood Park Services include, but are not limited to, landscaping and irrigation, maintenance and operation of park lighting, playground equipment, play fields, parking lots ancillary buildings and structures, sidewalks, fencing, publicly owned masonry walls, public art and other improvements associated with public parks. Neighborhood Park Services also include cleaning and removal of graffiti, trash pickup and weed control. The costs of Neighborhood Park Services include any associated electricity, water and other utility costs.

Neighborhood Trail Services
Neighborhood Trail Services include maintenance and operation of trails within the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. Neighborhood Trail Services include, but are not limited to, trail restoration and rehabilitation, cleaning and trash pickup.

Neighborhood Plaza Services
Neighborhood Plaza Services include maintenance and operation of public plazas within the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. Neighborhood Plaza Services include, but are not limited to, maintenance and operation of plaza hardscapes, landscaping and irrigation, plaza lighting, plaza furnishings, signage and monuments, public art and other improvements associated with public plaza space. Neighborhood Plaza Services also include cleaning and removal of graffiti, trash pickup and weed control. The costs of Neighborhood Plaza Services include any associated electricity, water and other utility costs.

EXHIBIT A
1037
Services Related to Pedestrian Bridge/Tunnel Crossing of Isabel Avenue Services related to Pedestrian Bridge/Tunnel Crossing include maintenance and operation of bridge or tunnel pedestrian surfaces and/or supports, specialty lighting, signage and monuments. Services also include cleaning and removal of graffiti, trash pickup. The costs of these services include any associated electricity, water and other utility costs.

Services Related to Valley Link Plaza and Pedestrian Bridges Services related to Valley Link Plaza include maintenance and operation of Valley Link plaza hardscapes, landscaping and irrigation, plaza lighting, plaza furnishings, signage and monuments, public art and other improvements associated with the Valley Link plaza space.

These services include operation and maintenance of pedestrian surfaces and/or supports.

Services also include cleaning and removal of graffiti, trash pickup and weed control. The costs of these services include any associated electricity, water and other utility costs.

Services Related to Valley Link Parking Lot
Services related to Valley Link Parking Lot include pavement restoration and rehabilitation, landscaping and irrigation, maintenance and operation of street lights and specialty lighting, sidewalks, curb and gutter, signage and monuments. The costs of these services include any associated electricity, water and other utility costs.

Maintenance and Operation of Other Property.

Maintenance and operation of any real property or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of five or more years that is owned by the City or by another local agency pursuant to an agreement entered into under Section 53316.2. “Services has the meaning given that term in the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (the “Act”).
“Maintenance” has the meaning given that term in the Act, and includes, but is not limited to, servicing, repair and removal. The services shall be in addition to those provided in the territory of the CFD before the CFD was created, and the additional services shall not supplant services already available within that territory when the CFD was created.

Special Taxes may be used to fund operating reserves and capital reserves.

Special Taxes may be used to fund “costs” and “incidental expenses” related to the eligible Services as those terms are defined in the Act.

Special Taxes may be levied to cure actual or estimated delinquencies in Special Taxes for the current or previous fiscal years.

Administrative Expenses
The CFD will also finance the expenses incurred by the CFD in administering the CFD, including, but not limited to, the levy and collection of the Special Taxes, the fees and expenses of its legal counsel, costs related to annexing property into the CFD, charges levied by the County of Alameda in connection with the levy and collection of Special Taxes,

EXHIBIT A
1038
costs related to property owner inquiries regarding the Special Taxes, costs associated with appeals or requests for interpretation associated with the Special Taxes and the Rate and Method, costs associated with foreclosure and collection of delinquent Special Taxes and all other costs and expenses of the City and County in any way related to the establishment or administration of the CFD.

EXHIBIT A
1039
City of Livermore
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services) Page 1

CITY OF LIVERMORE
Community Facilities CFD No. 2023-1
(Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services)

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
A Special Tax, as hereinafter defined, shall be levied and collected in City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services) (“CFD No. 2023-1”) each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2022/23, in an amount determined by the application of the procedures below. All Taxable Property, as hereinafter defined, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent and in the manner herein provided.

A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meaning:
“Accessory Dwelling Unit” or “ADU” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Residential Property for which a building permit(s) has been issued for an “Accessory Dwelling Unit” as defined in California Government Code Section 65852.2(j)(1), as may be amended from time to time, which is accessory to a primary Unit. The ADU may be located on the same Assessor’s Parcel as the primary Unit that is the primary Unit or on a separate Assessor’s Parcel. For purposes of clarification, where an ADU and primary Unit are on the same Assessor’s Parcel, the ADU located on such Assessor’s Parcel is considered a separate Unit from the primary Unit on such Assessor’s Parcel for purposes of the Special Tax. Should an Assessor’s Parcel contain only an ADU, such Assessor’s Parcel will be taxed as an ADU Unit only.
“Acre or Acreage” means the land area of an Assessor’s Parcel as shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map or in the Assessor’s Data for each Assessor’s Parcel. In the event the Assessor’s Parcel Map or Assessor’s Data shows no Acreage, the Acreage for any Assessor’s Parcel shall be determined by the CFD Administrator based upon the applicable final map, parcel map, condominium plan, or other recorded County parcel map. If the preceding maps are not available, the Acreage of an Assessor’s Parcel may be determined utilizing GIS.
“Act” means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State. “Administrative Expenses” means the actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the administration of CFD No. 2023-1 including, but not limited to, the following: the costs of computing the Annual Special Tax Requirement and of preparing the Special Tax collection schedules; the costs of collecting the Special Tax, including any charges levied by the County Auditor’s Office, Tax Collector’s Office or Treasurer’s Office; the costs of the City or designee in complying with the disclosure requirements of the California Government Code (including the Act), including public

EXHIBIT B
1040
City of Livermore
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services) Page 2 inquiries regarding the Special Tax; the costs of the City or designee related to an appeal of the Special Tax; and the costs of commencing and pursuing to completion any action arising from any delinquent Special Tax in CFD No. 2023-1. Administrative Expenses shall also include amounts estimated or advanced by the City or CFD No. 2023-1 for any other administrative purposes, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees.
“Annual Services Costs” means the respective amounts determined by the CFD Administrator required to fund services authorized to be funded by CFD No. 2023-1 for the applicable yearly period.
“Annual Special Tax Requirement” means that amount with respect to CFD No. 2023-1 determined by the City Council or designee as required in any Fiscal Year to pay: (1) the Administrative Expenses, (2) the Annual Services Costs, (3) any amount required to establish or replenish any reserve or replacement fund established in connection with CFD No. 2023-1, and (4) any reasonably anticipated delinquent Special Tax based on the delinquency rate for any Special Tax levied in the previous Fiscal Year.
“Assessor’s Data” means Assessor’s Parcel Number, Units, Building Square Feet, Acreage, or other information contained in the records of the County Assessor for each Assessor’s Parcel. “Assessor’s Parcel” or “Parcel” means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor’s Parcel Map and/or Assessor’s Data with an assigned Assessor’s Parcel Number. “Assessor’s Parcel Map” means an official map of the Assessor of the County designating parcels by Assessor’s Parcel Number.
“Assessor’s Parcel Number” means, with respect to an Assessor’s Parcel, that number assigned to such Assessor’s Parcel by the County Assessor for purposes of identification. “Building Square Feet” or “BSF” means all of the square footage within the perimeter of a structure, not including any carport, walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio, or similar area. The determination of Building Square Feet shall be made by reference to the Assessor’s Data.

If the Assessor’s Data does not show Building Square Feet, building permit(s) issued for such structure, or other records of the City shall be used, as determined by the CFD Administrator. “CFD Administrator” means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for determining the Annual Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the Special Taxes. “CFD No. 2023-1” means the City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services).
“City” means the City of Livermore.
“City Council” means the City Council of the City, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 2023-1. “County” means the County of Alameda.
“County Assessor” means the County Assessor of the County.

EXHIBIT B
1041
City of Livermore
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services) Page 3 “Developed Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property in CFD No. 2023-1 for which a building permit for new construction was issued by the City prior to June 30 of the preceding Fiscal Year.
“Exempt Property” means all Assessors’ Parcels within the boundary of CFD No. 2023-1 which are exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to Section E.
“Final Map Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property in CFD No. 2023-1 for which a Final Subdivision Map was approved by City Council prior to June 30 of the preceding Fiscal Year. "Final Subdivision Map" means a subdivision of property created by recordation of a final subdivision map, parcel map or lot line adjustment, approved by the City pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) or recordation of a condominium plan pursuant to California Civil Code 4120, that creates individual lots for which residential building permits may be issued without further subdivision of such property. “Fiscal Year” means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30. “GIS” means a geographic information system.
“Maximum Special Tax” means the maximum Special Tax authorized to fund the Annual Special Tax Requirement in any Fiscal Year that may apply to Taxable Property as described in Section C. “Mixed-Use Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property that could be categorized as having more than one land use, allowing for multiple use types on each such Assessor’s Parcel. For an Assessor’s Parcel of Mixed-Use Property, the Special Tax shall be calculated and levied for each use type present on the Assessor’s Parcel. “Non-Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit(s) was issued for a non-residential use.
“Open Space Property” means property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2023-1 which (i) has been designated with specific boundaries and Acreage on a final subdivision map as open space, (ii) is classified by the County Assessor as open space, (iii) has been irrevocably offered for dedication as open space to the federal government, the State, the County, the City, or any other public agency, or (iv) is encumbered by an easement or other restriction required by the City limiting the use of such property to open space.
“Property Owner’s Association” means any property owner’s association. As used in this definition, a Property Owner’s Association includes any home-owner’s association, condominium owner’s association, master or sub-association or non-residential owner’s association. “Property Owner’s Association Property” means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2023-1 which is (a) owned by a Property Owner’s Association or (b) designated with specific boundaries and acreage on a final subdivision map as property owner association property. “Proportionately” means for Taxable Property that the ratio of the Special Tax levy to the Maximum Annual Special Tax is equal for all Assessors’ Parcels of Taxable Property levied within each property land use classification within CFD No. 2023-1.

EXHIBIT B
1042
City of Livermore
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services) Page 4 “Public Property” means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2023-1 which (i) is owned by a public agency, (ii) has been irrevocably offered for dedication to a public agency, or (iii) is designated with specific boundaries and Acreage on a final subdivision map as property which will be owned by a public agency. For purposes of this definition, a public agency includes the federal government, the State, the County, the City, school districts, or any other public agency. “Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more residential dwelling units. “Special Tax” means the amount levied in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property to fund the Annual Special Tax Requirement.
“State” means the State of California.
“Tax Zone” means a mutually exclusive geographic area within which the Special Tax may be levied pursuant to this Rate and Method of Apportionment. All the Taxable Property within CFD No. 2023- 1 at the time of its formation is within Tax Zone No. 1. Additional Tax Zones may be created when property is annexed to CFD No. 2023-1, and a separate Maximum Special Tax shall be identified for property within each new Tax Zone at the time of such annexation. The Assessor’s Parcels included within a new Tax Zone when such Parcels are annexed to CFD No. 2023-1 shall be identified by Assessor’s Parcel number in the annexation documents at the time of annexation. “Taxable Property” means all of the Assessor’s Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 2023-1 that are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or Section E below. “Undeveloped Property” means all of the Assessor’s Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 2023- 1 that is not classified as Developed Property, Open Space Property, Property Owner’s Association Property, or Public Property.
“Unit” means an individual residential dwelling unit. The number of Units assigned to each Assessor’s Parcel may be determined by (i) referencing Assessor’s Data, (ii) site surveys and physical unit counts, and/or (iii) other research by the CFD Administrator. “Welfare Exempt Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 2023-1 that (a) have been granted a welfare exemption by the County under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code indicated in the Assessor’s Data finalized as of January 1 of the previous Fiscal Year, and (b) are exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to Section 53340(c) of the Act.

B. DETERMINATION OF TAXABLE PARCELS
Each Fiscal Year, the CFD Administrator shall determine the valid Assessor’s Parcel Numbers for all Taxable Property within CFD No. 2023-1. If any Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are no longer valid, the CFD Administrator shall determine the new Assessor’s Parcel Number or Numbers in effect for the then-current Fiscal Year. To the extent a Parcel or Parcels of Taxable Property are subdivided, consolidated, or otherwise reconfigured, the Maximum Special Tax shall be assigned to the new Assessor’s Parcels Numbers pursuant to Section C. The CFD Administrator shall also determine: (i) the Tax Zone within which each Parcel is located; (ii) which Parcels are Taxable Property; (iii) the

EXHIBIT B
1043
City of Livermore
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services) Page 5 number of Units or Building Square Footage each Parcel contains; (iv) the property type, i.e., Residential Property, Non-Residential Property, etc.; and (v) the Annual Special Tax Requirement for the Fiscal Year.

C. MAXIMUM ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX RATES
The Maximum Special Taxes for each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property shall be assigned below:

1. Maximum Special Taxes
The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property within Tax Zone No. 1 shall be assigned according to Table 1 below:

TABLE 1

MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES
TAX ZONE NO. 1
FISCAL YEAR 2022/23*
*On July 1 of each Fiscal Year, commencing on July 1, 2023, the Maximum Special Tax rates for Tax Zone No. 1 shall be increased by the February annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, plus one percent (1.0%). If the percentage change in the CPI-U is negative, the Maximum Special Tax rates shall not be decreased. In the event the index described above ceases to be published, it shall be replaced by another reasonably comparable index, as determined by the City. Different Maximum Special Tax rates and tax escalation factors may be identified in Tax Zones added to CFD No. 2023-1 as a result of future annexations.

2. Mixed-Use Property
In some instances, an Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property may be Mixed-Use Property. The Maximum Special Tax levied on an Assessor’s Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Tax for all residential Units and non-residential Building Square Feet on that Assessor’s Parcel.

3. Accessory Dwelling Units
The Maximum Special Tax for an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be calculated as a percentage of the Maximum Special Tax for the primary Unit the ADU is accessory to, based on Building Square Footage. For example, if a primary Unit of Residential Property with 2,000 BSF has an ADU of 800 BSF, the Maximum Special Tax for the ADU in Tax Zone No. 1 shall be calculated by the following steps:

1. 800 BSF / 2,000 BSF = 0.40 or 40%

2. $434.74 Maximum Special Tax per Unit x 40% = $173.90 Maximum Special Tax for such ADU
Land Use Category
Maximum Special
Tax Rate Per
Residential Property $434.74 Unit
Non-Residential Property 0.00 BSF
Mixed-Use Property
Accessory Dwelling Unit
See below
See below

EXHIBIT B
1044
City of Livermore
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services) Page 6

4. Assignment of Assessor’s Parcel(s) to Property Land Use Category When an Assessor’s Parcel changes from being classified as Undeveloped Property to another land use category and is considered Developed Property, that assignment shall not change due to future changes in land use.

5. Assignment of Maximum Special Tax to Newly Created Assessor’s Parcel(s) When an Assessor’s Parcel changes or subdivides, the Maximum Special Tax shall be assigned to each newly created Assessor’s Parcel so that there is no net loss in the Maximum Special Tax revenue to be generated as a result of changes in the planned development.

When an Assessor’s Parcel changes or subdivides, and there are changes to the overall planned development for each Tax Zone within CFD No. 2023-1, the process for assigning the Maximum Special Tax to each newly created Assessor’s Parcel is as follows:

Step 1: Sum the expected Maximum Special Tax assigned to each Assessor’s Parcel that is being changed or subdivided within that Tax Zone.

Step 2: Identify the newly created Assessor’s Parcel(s) of Taxable Property created by the change or subdivision and assign the Maximum Special Tax to each newly created Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property according to the then-current Maximum Special Tax Rates within that Tax Zone for each Land Use Category. Sum the Maximum Special Tax assigned to each newly created Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property within that Tax Zone.

Step 3: Divide the total expected Maximum Special Tax in Step 1 by the total Maximum Special Tax assigned in Step 2 to arrive at a fraction for that Tax Zone.

Step 4: Apportion the total Maximum Special Tax from Step 1 to each newly created Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property by multiplying each newly created Assessor’s Parcel fraction, determined in Step 3, by the then-current Maximum Special Tax Rates within that Tax Zone for each Land Use Category.

Step 5: The Maximum Special Tax assigned to each newly created Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property shall be the greater of the Maximum Special Tax assigned in Step 2 or the Maximum Special Tax calculated in Step 4 for the Tax Zone.

When an Assessor’s Parcel changes or subdivides, and there are no changes to the planned development for each Tax Zone within CFD No. 2023-1, the Maximum Special Tax shall be assigned according to Table 1 for Tax Zone No. 1, or similar table for each successive Tax Zone.

The planned development for Tax Zone No. 1 is provided in the table below:

Land Use Category
Planned
Development
Residential Property 112 Units
Once created, if a newly created Assessor’s Parcel(s) of Taxable Property further changes or subdivides, the above steps shall be repeated to determine the Maximum Special Tax for the

EXHIBIT B
1045
City of Livermore
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services) Page 7 additional newly created Assessor’s Parcel(s) of Taxable Property created from the change or subdivision.

D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAXES
All Taxable Property shall be subject to the Special Tax defined as follows. The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year by the CFD Administrator.

The Annual Special Tax Requirement shall be apportioned to each Parcel within CFD No. 2023-1 by the method shown below.

First: Determine the Annual Special Tax Requirement.

Second: Levy the Special Tax on each Parcel of Developed Property, Proportionately, up to the applicable Maximum Special Tax.

Under no circumstances will the Special Taxes on any Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property be increased by more than 10% as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other Assessor’s Parcel within CFD No. 2023-1.

E. EXEMPTIONS
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax, no Special Tax shall be levied on Open Space Property, Property Owner’s Association Property, Undeveloped Property, Assessor’s Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical their utilization for any use other than the purposes set forth in the easement, or Public Property, except as otherwise provided in Sections 53317.3, 53317.5 and 533401 of the Act.

No Special Tax shall be levied on any Assessor’s Parcel in any Fiscal Year in which such Assessor’s Parcel is classified as Welfare Exempt Property.

F. APPEAL OF SPECIAL TAX LEVY
Any property owner may file a written appeal of the Special Tax with the CFD Administrator claiming that the amount or application of the Special Tax is not correct. The appeal must be filed not later than one calendar year after having paid the Special Tax that is disputed, and the appellant must be current in all payments of the Special Tax. In addition, during the term of the appeal process, all Special Tax levied must be paid on or before the payment date established when the levy was made.

The appeal must specify the reasons why the appellant claims the Special Tax is in error. The CFD Administrator shall review the appeal, meet with the appellant if the CFD Administrator deems necessary, and advise the appellant of its determination.

If the property owner disagrees with the CFD Administrator’s decision relative to the appeal, the owner may then file a written appeal with the City Council whose subsequent decision shall be final and binding on all interested parties. If the decision of the CFD Administrator or subsequent decision by the City Council requires the Special Tax to be modified or changed in favor of the property owner, then an adjustment shall be made to credit the Special Tax in future years.

EXHIBIT B
1046
City of Livermore
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services) Page 8 This procedure shall be exclusive and its exhaustion by any property owner shall be a condition precedent to filing any legal action by such owner.

G. INTERPRETATIONS OF RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The City reserves the right to make minor administrative and technical changes to this document that do not materially affect the rate and method of apportioning the Special Tax. In addition, the interpretation and application of any section of this document shall be at the City’s discretion.

Interpretations may be made by the City Council by ordinance or resolution for purposes of clarifying any vagueness or ambiguity in this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax.

H. MANNER AND DURATION OF SPECIAL TAX
The Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes, provided that the City may directly bill the Special Tax, may collect the Special Tax at a different time or in a different manner if needed to meet the financial obligations of CFD No. 2023- 1, and may collect delinquent Special Taxes through available methods.

Special Taxes shall continue to be levied and collected within CFD No. 2023-1, as needed to fund the Annual Special Tax Requirement, in perpetuity.

I. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
The Special Tax may not be prepaid.

J. REPEAL OF SPECIAL TAX
If the levy of the Special Tax is repealed by initiative or any other action participated in by the owners of Assessor’s Parcels in CFD No. 2023-1, the City shall cease to levy the Special Tax and shall cease to be obligated to provide the authorized services for which the Special Tax was levied. The obligations to provide the authorized services previously funded by the repealed Special Tax shall become the joint obligations of the property owners of Assessor’s Parcels within CFD No. 2023-1.

EXHIBIT B
1047
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION CALLING SPECIAL LANDOWNER ELECTION FOR A

COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
Under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5, commencing at Section 53311, of the California Government Code (the “Act”), the City Council for the City of Livermore (hereinafter “Council”) is authorized to establish a community facilities district and to act as its legislative body.

This Council has adopted a resolution entitled “A Resolution of Formation of a Community Facilities District and Future Annexation Area" (the “Resolution of Formation”), ordering the formation of the “City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services)” (the “CFD”) and a future annexation area, defining the public services (the “Services”) to be provided by the CFD, authorizing the levy of special taxes on property within the CFD and preliminarily establishing an appropriations limit for the CFD, all pursuant to the Act.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Resolution of Formation, the propositions of the levy of the special taxes and the establishment of the appropriations limit shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the CFD as required by the provisions of the Act.

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

1. Issues Submitted. Pursuant to the Act, the issues of the levy of the special taxes and the establishment of an annual appropriations limit shall be submitted to the qualified electors (as described below) of the CFD at an election called therefor as provided below.

2. Qualified Electors. This Council hereby finds that fewer than twelve (12) persons have been registered to vote within the territory of the CFD for each of the ninety (90) days preceding the close of the public hearings heretofore conducted and concluded by this Council for the purposes of these proceedings. Accordingly, and pursuant to Section 53326 of the Act, this Council finds that, for these proceedings, the qualified electors are the landowners within the CFD and that the vote shall be by such landowners or their authorized representatives, each having one vote for each acre or portion thereof such landowner owns in the CFD as of the close of the public hearing not exempt from the special taxes.

3. Conduct of Election. This Council hereby calls a special election to consider the issues described in section 1, above, which election shall be held on June 12, 2023, and the results thereof canvassed at the meeting of this Council on June 12, 2023. The City Clerk is hereby designated as the official to conduct the election and to receive all ballots until the close of business on the election date. It is hereby acknowledged that the City Clerk has on file the Resolution of Formation, a map of the 1048
RESOLUTION NO. ________
boundaries of the CFD, and a sufficient description to allow the City Clerk to determine the electors of the CFD. Pursuant to Section 53327 of the Act, the election shall be conducted by messenger or mail-delivered ballot pursuant to Section 4000 of the California Elections Code. This Council hereby finds that Sections 53326 and 53327 of the Act shall govern for purposes of determining the date of the election.

Pursuant to Section 53326(d) of the Act, if all the qualified voters have voted, the election may be closed with the concurrence of the City Clerk.

4. Ballot. As authorized by Section 53353.5 of the Act, the issues described in section 1 above shall be combined into a single ballot measure, the form of which as attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause a ballot, in substantially the form of Exhibit A, to be delivered to each of the qualified electors of the CFD. Each ballot shall indicate the number of votes to be voted by the respective landowner to which the ballot pertains. Each ballot shall be accompanied by all supplies and written instructions necessary for the use and return of the ballot. The envelope to be used to return the ballot shall be enclosed with the ballot, have the return postage prepaid, and contain the following: (a) the name and address of the landowner, (b) a declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating that the voter is the owner of record or authorized representative of the landowner entitled to vote and is the person whose name appears on the envelope, (c) the printed name, signature and address of the voter, (d) the date of signing and place of execution of the declaration pursuant to clause (b) above, and (e) a notice that the envelope contains an official ballot.

5. Waivers. This Council hereby further finds that the provisions of Section 53326 of the Act requiring a minimum of 90 days following the adoption of the Resolution of Formation to elapse before the special election are for the protection of the qualified electors of the CFD. There is on file with the City Clerk a written waiver executed by all of the qualified electors of the CFD allowing for a shortening of the time for the special election to expedite the process of formation of the CFD and waiving any requirement for notice, analysis and arguments in connection with the election.

Accordingly, this Council finds and determines that the qualified electors have been fully apprised of and have agreed to the shortened time for the election and waiver of analysis and arguments, and have thereby been fully protected in these proceedings.

This Council also finds and determines that the City Clerk has concurred in the shortened time for the election. Analysis and arguments with respect to the ballot measure are hereby waived, as provided in Section 53327 of the Act.

6. Accountability. Pursuant to Section 50075.1 of the California Government Code, the following accountability provisions shall apply to the special taxes: (a) the Services and the incidental costs thereof, all as described in the Resolution of Formation, shall constitute the specific single purpose; (b) the proceeds shall be applied only to the specific purposes identified in (a) above; (c) there shall be created special account(s) or funds(s) into which the proceeds shall be deposited; and 1049
RESOLUTION NO. ________
(d) there shall be caused to be prepared an annual report if required by Section 50075.3 of the California Government Code.

7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.

On motion of Council Member ____________, seconded by Council Member _______________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on June 12, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST:

Marie Weber
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Jason R. Alcala
Jason R. Alcala
City Attorney
Exhibit A – Official Ballot
1050

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF LIVERMORE
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1
(Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services)

OFFICIAL BALLOT

SPECIAL TAX ELECTION
This ballot is for a special, landowner election. You must return this ballot in the enclosed postage paid envelope to the office of the City Clerk of the City of Livermore no later than the hour of 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 12, 2023, either by mail or in person. The City Clerk’s office is located at 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, California.

To vote, mark a cross (X) on the voting line after the word “YES” or after the word “NO”.

All marks otherwise made are forbidden. All distinguishing marks are forbidden and make the ballot void.

If you wrongly mark, tear, or deface this ballot, return it to the City Clerk of the City of Livermore and obtain another.

BALLOT MEASURE: Shall the City of Livermore’s measure to authorize the annual levy of special taxes solely on lands within the City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services) (the “CFD”) in accordance with the rate and method contained in the “A Resolution of Formation of a Community Facilities District and Future Annexation Area” for the CFD (“Resolution of Formation”) adopted by the City Council of the City on June 12, 2023, commencing in the City’s fiscal year 2023-24, to pay for the municipal services described in the Resolution of Formation and to pay the costs of the City in administering the CFD, and the annual CFD appropriations limit of $3,000,000, be adopted? Financial Implications: The special taxes, if levied at the maximum rate and assuming full build out of the property initially included in the CFD, is anticipated to raise $48,691.32 in fiscal year 2023-24 with annual escalation thereafter.

The special taxes are expected to be levied in perpetuity.

YES: __________
NO: __________
1051

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A

By execution in the space provided below, you also confirm your written waiver of the time limit pertaining to the conduct of the election, any requirement for analysis and arguments with respect to the ballot measure and any irregularity in the proceedings relating to the ballot measure.

Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 905-0010-006-00
Acres: 4.926
Number of Votes: 5
Property Owner:

Civic North Canyons Parkway, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company
By: ______________________________
Name: ___________________________
Its: Authorized Signer
Declaration
I hereby affirmatively represent and certify that I have taken all necessary steps, and that I am duly authorized, to sign and submit this Ballot on behalf of the owner(s) of the Property (Tract No. 8609; Assessor’s Parcel Number 905-0010-006-00) to form the Community Facilities District for the Property, and that the City may rely upon my representation to accept this Ballot on behalf of the owner(s) of the Property.

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: ______________________________
Name: ___________________________
1052
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION DECLARING RESULTS OF SPECIAL LANDOWNER

ELECTION AND DIRECTING RECORDING OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL

TAX LIEN
Under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5, commencing at Section 53311, of the California Government Code (the “Act”), the City Council for the City of Livermore (hereinafter “Council”) is authorized to establish a community facilities district and to act as its legislative body.

The Council has adopted a resolution entitled “A Resolution of Formation of a Community Facilities District and Future Annexation Area” (the “Resolution of Formation”), ordering the formation of the “City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services)” (the “CFD”) and a future annexation area, authorizing the levy of special taxes on property within the CFD and preliminarily establishing an appropriations limit for the CFD, all pursuant to the Act.

Under the provisions of the Resolution of Formation and pursuant to a resolution entitled "A Resolution Calling Special Landowner Election for a Community Facilities District" (the “Election Resolution”) heretofore adopted by this Council, the propositions of the levy of the special taxes and the establishment of the appropriations limit were submitted to the qualified electors of the CFD as required by the provisions of the Act.

Pursuant to the terms of the Election Resolution, which are by this reference incorporated herein, the special election has been held and the City Clerk has on file a Canvass and Statement of Result of Election, (the “Canvass”) a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

This Council has been informed of the Canvass, finds it appropriate and wishes to complete its proceedings for the CFD.

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

1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are all true and correct.

2. Issues Presented. The issues presented at the special election were the levy of the special taxes within the CFD and the approval of an annual appropriations limit of not to exceed $3,000,000, all pursuant to the Resolution of Formation.

3. Canvass and Issues Approved. The Council hereby approves the Canvass and finds that it shall be a permanent part of the record of its proceedings for the CFD. Pursuant to the Canvass, the issues presented at the special election were approved by the qualified electors of the CFD by more than two-thirds of the votes cast at the special election.
1053
RESOLUTION NO. ________

4. Proceedings Approved. Pursuant to the voter approval, the CFD is hereby declared to be fully formed with the authority to levy the special taxes and to have the established appropriations limit, all as heretofore provided in these proceedings and in the Act. It is hereby found that all prior proceedings and actions taken by this Council with respect to the CFD were valid and in conformity with the Act.

5. Notice of Special Tax Lien. The City Clerk is hereby directed to complete, execute and cause to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Alameda a notice of special tax lien in the form required by the Act, such recording to occur no later than fifteen (15) days following adoption of this resolution by the Council.

6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.

On motion of Council Member ____________, seconded by Council Member _______________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on June 12, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST:

Marie Weber
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Jason R. Alcala
Jason R. Alcala
City Attorney
Exhibit A – Canvass and Statement of Result of Election 1054

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A

EXHIBIT A

CANVASS AND STATEMENT OF RESULT OF ELECTION

CITY OF LIVERMORE
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1
(Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services)
I hereby certify that on June 12, 2023, I canvassed the returns of the election held on June 12, 2023, in the City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services) and the total number of ballots cast in such District and the total number of votes cast for and against the measure are as follows and the totals as shown for and against the measure are full, true and correct:

Qualified
Landowner Votes
Votes Cast YES NO
City of Livermore
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1
(Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services)
Special Tax Election, June 12, 2023 5 _____ _____ _____ BALLOT MEASURE: Shall the City of Livermore’s measure to authorize the annual levy of special taxes solely on lands within the City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services) (the “CFD”) in accordance with the rate and method contained in the “A Resolution of Formation of a Community Facilities District and Future Annexation Area” for the CFD (“Resolution of Formation”) adopted by the City Council of the City on June 12, 2023, commencing in the City’s fiscal year 2023-24, to pay for the municipal services described in the Resolution of Formation and to pay the costs of the City in administering the CFD, and the annual CFD appropriations limit of $3,000,000, be adopted? Financial Implications: The special taxes, if levied at the maximum rate and assuming full build out of the property initially included in the CFD, is anticipated to raise $48,691.32 in fiscal year 2023-24 with annual escalation thereafter.

The special taxes are expected to be levied in perpetuity.

YES: __________
NO: __________
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND on June 12, 2023.

By:

City Clerk
City of Livermore
1055
ORDINANCE NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

AN ORDINANCE LEVYING A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN CITY OF
LIVERMORE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2023-1
(ISABEL NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN SERVICES)
Under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5, commencing at Section 53311, of the California Government Code (the “Act”), the City Council (hereinafter the “Council”) of the City of Livermore (hereinafter the “City”) is authorized to establish a community facilities district and to act as its legislative body.

On May 8, 2023, this Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-077 entitled “A Resolution of Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District and a Future Annexation Area” (the “Resolution of Intention”), and has conducted proceedings (the “Proceedings”) to establish “City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services)” (the “CFD”) and a future annexation area (the “Future Annexation Area”) pursuant to the Act to finance certain municipal services (the “Services) as provided in the Act.

Pursuant to notice as specified in the Act, and as part of the Proceedings, the Council has held a public hearing under the Act relative to the determination to proceed with the formation of the CFD and the Future Annexation Area and a rate and method of apportionment of the special tax (the “Special Tax”) to be levied within the CFD to finance the Services, and at such hearing all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the formation of the CFD and the Future Annexation Area and the levy of the Special Tax were heard, substantial evidence was presented and considered by this Council and a full and fair hearing was held.

Upon the conclusion of the hearing, this Council adopted its “A Resolution of Formation of a Community Facilities District and Future Annexation Area” (the “Resolution of Formation), pursuant to which it completed the Proceedings for the establishment of the CFD and the Future Annexation Area, the authorization of the levy of the Special Tax within the CFD, and the calling of an election within the CFD on the propositions of levying the Special Tax and establishing an appropriations limit within the CFD.

On June 12, 2023, a special election was held among the landowner voters within the CFD at which such voters approved such propositions by the two-thirds vote required by the Act, which approval has been confirmed by resolution of this Council. 1056
ORDINANCE NO. ________

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Authorization and Levy of the Special Tax. By the passage of this Ordinance, the Council hereby authorizes and levies the Special Tax within the CFD (including any parcel or parcels in the Future Annexation Area that annex into the CFD) pursuant to the Act, at the rate and in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment of Special Tax set forth in the Resolution of Formation, as it may be amended and supplemented from time to time, which rate and method is by this reference incorporated herein. The Special Tax is hereby levied commencing in fiscal year 2023-24 and in each fiscal year thereafter to pay for the Services for the CFD, as contemplated by the Resolution of Formation and the Proceedings, and all costs of administering the CFD.

Section 2. Direction to Determine Special Tax. The City Manager or designee, or an employee or consultant of the City, is hereby authorized and directed each fiscal year to determine the specific Special Tax to be levied for the next ensuing fiscal year for each parcel of real property within the CFD (including any parcel or parcels in the Future Annexation Area that annex into the CFD), in the manner and as provided in the Resolution of Formation.

Section 3. Exemptions; Maximum Special Tax. Exemptions from the levy of the Special Tax shall be as provided in the Resolution of Formation and the applicable provisions of the Act. In no event shall the Special Tax be levied on any parcel within the CFD in excess of the maximum Special Tax specified in the Resolution of Formation.

Section 4. Use of Special Tax. All of the collections of the Special Tax shall be used as provided in the Act and in the Resolution of Formation, including, but not limited to, the payment of costs of the Services, the payment of the costs of the City in administering the CFD, and the costs of collecting and administering the Special Tax.

Section 5. Collection of Special Tax. The Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem taxes are collected and shall have the same lien priority and be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in cases of delinquency as provided for ad valorem taxes; provided, however, that the Council may provide for other appropriate methods of collection by resolution(s) of the Council.

The City Manager of the City (or a designee) is hereby authorized and directed to provide all necessary information to the auditor/tax collector of the County of Alameda in order to effect proper billing and collection of the Special Tax, so that the Special Tax shall be included on the secured property tax roll of the County of Alameda for fiscal year 2023-24 and for each fiscal year thereafter until no longer required to pay for the Services or until otherwise terminated by the City.

Section 6. Severability. If, for any reason, any portion of this Ordinance is found to be invalid, or if the Special Tax is found inapplicable to any particular parcel within the 1057
ORDINANCE NO. ________
CFD, by a court of competent jurisdiction, the balance of this Ordinance and the application of the Special Tax to the remaining parcels within the CFD shall not be affected.

Section 7. Publication. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days of its passage at least once in a newspaper of general circulation circulated in the City or pursuant to such other procedure identified by the City Clerk.

Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days from the date of final passage.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Livermore held on June 12, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

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

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Mayor, City of Livermore
ATTEST:

Marie Weber, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Jason R. Alcala
Jason R. Alcala, City Attorney
1058
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 6.2
DATE: June 12, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Hearing to consider Development Code Amendment (DCA) 22-004, which would amend temporary sign standards in the public right-of-way.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Planning Commission and staff recommend the City Council:

1. Adopt a Resolution finding the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 21084 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(e), which exempts minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment; and

2. Introduce an Ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 22-004, which would amend Livermore Development Code Section 4.06.140 to allow temporary commercial and noncommercial signs in the public right-of-way at intersections of city streets outside the Downtown area from Thursday to Monday.

SUMMARY
Since 2020, the Livermore City Council has received complaints about temporary signs in the public right-of-way and has tried to address the issue utilizing different approaches, culminating in the full ban of all temporary signs in the public right-of-way, which takes effect on July 1, 2023. The Council delayed the full ban to allow staff time to return with additional options for Council’s consideration. Since that time, staff has researched federal and state sign standards, sign standards from nearby cities, and engaged with the real estate industry. Staff has confirmed that local sign standards must adhere to First Amendment law and state requirements regarding local signage. Also, cities in the Bay Area have a range of standards for temporary signs in the public right-of-way, including full bans and limiting sign placement to certain days of the week. Further, physical signage in the public right-of-way continues to be critical for real estate agents and brokers.

Based on this information, staff has prepared recommended sign code amendments that are more 1059
restrictive than current standards but less restrictive than a full ban and create new enforcement provisions to help defray collection and storage costs. Currently, the Neighborhood Preservation section collects approximately 2,000 signs per year and spends about 1,000 hours of staff time annually on sign compliance. Generally, the proposed standards would allow temporary commercial and non-commercial signs in the public right-of-way at intersections of city streets outside the Downtown area from Thursday to Monday. The proposed standards protect the public health, safety, and welfare by addressing the issues of speech, aesthetics, vandalism, commercial signage, and traffic safety, and are consistent with Livermore’s General Plan. The proposed standards only affect signs in the public right-of-way, do not modify the City’s standards for signs on private property, and do not impact the Downtown area. The project is exempt from further California Environmental Quality Act review.

The Planning Commission voted to recommend City Council approve the proposed standards with one modification, which would extend the allowance for signs from Sunday night to Monday morning. Staff supports this modification, and it is included in the proposed amendment. There are no significant fiscal or administrative impacts from the proposed standards, however, increased enforcement during election season is anticipated.

DISCUSSION

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
For a complete project background and analysis of applicable federal, state and local standards, please review the attached Staff Analysis memo (Attachment 1).

PLANNING COMMISSION AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, staff received comments from the Bay East Association of Realtors. Bay East indicated that A-Frame signs in the public sidewalk are critical to their operations.

Given staff's intent to allow for real estate signs in the public right-of-way, staff made minor modifications to the proposed redlines to allow for A-Frame signs on the public sidewalk while still ensuring adequate ADA access. The modifications were included in a supplemental packet that was distributed to the Commission (Attachment 1).

On May 16, the Planning Commission considered the project and supplemental packet at a public hearing. The Commission voted to recommend the City Council approve the redlines with the changes shown in the supplemental packet, with one additional modification, as follows: instead of allowing for signs from Thursday morning to Sunday night, signs should be allowed from Thursday morning to Monday morning. As described in the meeting minutes (Attachment 8), the Commission found the modification would allow residents, other private organizations, campaigns, and City staff more time to collect signs each week. Both the Planning Commission's proposed change and Bay East's recommended change are included in the attached Development Code redlines (Attachment 14). Staff recommends allowing signs until Monday at 8:00am, which is the start time for many staff at City Hall.

The Planning Commission discussed the importance of the First Amendment to the US Constitution and free speech, the difference between commercial and non-commercial signage, and the staff time needed to ensure compliance. Two members of the public spoke at the hearing, including a representative from Bay East. Bay East is fully supportive of the proposed redlines, while the other speaker believed the sign standards should return to allowing signs within 30 days of an election. The full Commission discussion 1060
and public testimony can be found in the meeting minutes (Attachment 8). Staff also received one additional public comment in opposition to the changes (Attachment 9).

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
As described in the Environmental Resolution, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CA Public Resources Code Section 21084 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(e), which exempts minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
There are no significant fiscal or administrative impacts associated with the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments simplify the Livermore Development Code standards, unifying the commercial and non-commercial sign standards, which results in more clarity and increases ease of enforcement.

Further, the standards would limit sign placement only to intersections, concentrating enforcement activities and potentially saving staff time. The standards also institute a new $20 pickup fee per sign, which, if collected, would help to defray sign storage costs. However, staff anticipates additional staff time will be needed to enforce the new standards during election season, given that all temporary signs must be removed each Monday morning, instead of once at the end of election season. The City Council's recently approved two-year budget for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 includes an additional Neighborhood Preservation Officer in the Community Development Department to help handle the increased staff time demands of sign enforcement and other neighborhood preservation issues.

COMMUNITY PILLAR
1: A Safe Community that Thrives
GOAL
14: Update development standards, codes, and ordinances

GUIDING DOCUMENTS
General Plan and Development Code

ATTACHMENTS

1. Staff Analysis with Supplemental Memo

2. July 2020 PC Reso

3. July 2020 CC Report

4. Aug 2020 CC Ordinance

5. Oct 2022 CC Report

6. Nov 2022 CC Report

7. Nov 2022 CC Ordinance

8. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9. Public Comment

10. CEQA Resolution

11. Exhibit A - PC CEQA Reso
1061

12. Ordinance

13. Exhibit A - PC Project Reso

14. Exhibit B - Proposed Redlines
Prepared by: Jake Potter
Senior Planner
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
1062
1 STAFF ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY: Jake Potter, Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: Steve Stewart, Planning Manager
Ben Murray, Principal Planner
DATE: May 16, 2023
SUBJECT: Hearing to consider Development Code Amendment (DCA) 22-004, which would amend temporary sign standards in the public right-ofway.

BACKGROUND
Previous City Council Direction
In January and February 2020, the City Council received several complaints that campaign signs were being vandalized, stolen, and installed inconsistent with the City' s existing regulations for commercial and non-commercial temporary signs.

On March 9, 2020, the City Council directed staff to develop options for an ordinance to limit the placement of campaign signs in the public right of way.

On July 7, 2020, staff presented a revised temporary sign ordinance to the Planning Commission that included the following provisions:
• Restrict the placement of commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in the right-of-way to daylight hours between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Signs could only be placed after 9:00 a.m. and would need to be removed before 5:00 p.m. each day.
• Signs must relate to an event scheduled for a specific date and shall not be displayed sooner than 90 days before that event.

The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny the proposed amendment and recommended that signs be limited to within 30 days of an event (Resolution 21-20 attached as Attachment 2).

On July 27, 2020, staff returned to the City Council and recommended the following amendments to address installation issues with temporary signs, vandalism, and theft:

ATTACHMENT 1
1063
2 • Restrict the placement of commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in the right- of-way to daylight hours between 9: 00 a. m. and 5: 00 p. m. Signs could only be placed after 9: 00 a. m. and would need to be removed before 5: 00 p. m. each day.
• Signs must relate to an event scheduled for a specific date and shall not be displayed sooner than 90 days before that event. Signs must still be removed within five days following the associated event.
• Stake signs shall be constructed of paper or plastic mounted on a wood or metal stick that is pushed or hammered into the ground, and signs shall be no taller than 36 inches above the ground.
• In the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) area only, commercial and non- commercial temporary signs are not permitted in the designated public right- of- way with the exception of A -frame signs. A - frame signs must be:
o No larger than 30 inches wide by 48 inches tall,
o Displayed only between 9 a. m. to 7 p. m.,
o Located within five feet of a front building entrance of commercial uses, o Allow for adequate ADA and public access on the sidewalk, and o Subject to DSP Chapter 6 design standards, including standards for portable signs.
• Any commercial or non-commercial temporary sign placed in the public right- ofway or public property in violation of this section would be subject to removal by the City.

After hearing public comments, and deliberation, the Council voted to deny introducing the ordinance recommended by staff, due in part to concerns with implementation and enforcement. The Council then directed staff to return with a modified ordinance to allow signs to be placed 60 days prior to an election, with no restrictions on the hours signs can be displayed (Staff Report attached as Attachment 3).

On August 24, 2020, staff returned with modified ordinance language and the City Council adopted Ordinance 2099, which implemented the Council’s previous direction (Attachment 4).

On October 24, 2022, after the City Council continued to receive signage complaints, the Council directed staff to return with the temporary sign Development Code amendments previously heard by the Planning Commission in 2020. The City Council also reaffirmed the 60-day time period for the display of non-commercial temporary signs in the public right-of-way, but directed staff to clarify how the date of an event is determined (Staff Report attached as Attachment 5).

On November 28, 2022, staff returned to City Council, clarified that the event date consisted of election day and opening day of all other events, and proposed the following temporary sign ordinance revisions:

ATTACHMENT 1
1064
3 • Restrict the placement of commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in the public right-of-way to daylight hours between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in all designated zones.

Prior to the meeting, the Mayor also proposed the following alternative to staff’s recommendation, which was included in the staff report:
• Prohibit all temporary signs in the public right-of-way of commercial, industrial, and residential zoning districts.

After discussion and deliberation regarding real estate signs, and discussion about needing more information, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2141 by a 3-2 vote, which approved the Mayor’s alternative. The Mayor’s alternative preserved the temporary sign regulations in the Downtown Specific Plan, but prohibited all temporary signs in the rightof-way of residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts. Further, the Mayor’s alternative becomes effective on July 1, 2023, to allow staff to conduct further research and/or prepare additional amendments for City Council’s consideration. The City’s existing temporary sign standards remain in full force and effect until the Mayor’s alternative becomes effective in July (Staff Report and Ordinance attached as Attachments 6 and 7).

Existing Standards
The existing standards allow for different categories of temporary signs in different zoning districts. Generally, temporary non-commercial signs are allowed in the public right-ofway of all residential, commercial, and industrial zones. Temporary commercial signs are generally allowed in the public right-of-way of residential zones. The Downtown Specific Plan has special standards that generally allow for commercial and non-commercial signage in the public right-of-way. Downtown businesses are allowed A Frame signs placed within five feet of a commercial storefront entrance.

Barring any other Council action, these standards remain in effect until July 1, 2023, when all temporary signs are prohibited in the public right-of-way of residential, commercial, and industrial zones, but still allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan. Until July, the existing standards for each zone are as follows:

Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Zones – Non-commercial Non-commercial temporary signs are currently permitted in the public right-of-way of residential, industrial, and commercial zones other than the Downtown Specific Plan, subject to the following:
a. Permitted in the designated public right-of-way, but not in the street, street median, or sidewalk
b. The signs must relate to an event scheduled for a specific date and shall not be displayed sooner than 60 days before that event;
c. Signs must be stake signs with a maximum size of four square feet; ATTACHMENT 1
1065
4 d. No two signs with the same copy shall be placed closer than 50 feet from each other per street frontage;
e. Corner properties may have two of the same sign at the corner; and f. All non-commercial temporary signs shall be removed within five days after the event to which they pertain.

Residential Zones – Commercial
Commercial temporary signs (including garage sale signs and real estate signs) are currently permitted in the public right-of-way of residential zones, subject to the following:
a. Permitted in the designated public right-of-way, but not the street, street median, or sidewalk
b. Signs must relate to an activity permitted within a residential zoning district; c. Signs are only allowed on Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays; d. Signs are limited to four square feet;
e. Only one sign per each advertised activity (e.g., a house for sale, etc.) may be placed at each street intersection leading from the two nearest major streets (reflecting two independent access routes) to the site of the advertised activity; f. Only one sign per each advertised activity, up to a maximum of three signs total, may be placed at any street intersection corner; and g. The sign must be placed so that a minimum of four and one-half feet remains clear on the sidewalk for pedestrians if no other location is possible Downtown Specific Plan - All Temporary Signs
Commercial and non-commercial temporary signs are currently permitted in the public right-of-way of the Downtown Specific Plan, subject to the following:
a. Must be an A-frame sign;
b. No larger than 30 inches wide by 48 inches tall;
c. Located within five feet of a front building entrance of only commercial uses; d. Allow for adequate ADA and public access on the sidewalk; and e. Subject to DSP Chapter 6 design standards, including standards for portable signs.

STAFF ANALYSIS
Based on the City Council’s previous direction to research alternative sign standards and return to decision makers with sign ordinance amendments, staff researched federal and state standards, other jurisdiction standards from nearby cities, and conducted outreach to the real estate community. Staff then prepared revised sign ordinance language based on this research. Both staff’s research and proposed standards are described below. The proposed standards only affect signs in the public right-of-way, do not modify the City’s standards for signs on private property, and do not impact the Downtown area.

ATTACHMENT 1
1066
5 Background Research
Federal and State Standards
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from abridging an individual’s freedom of speech, among other rights. The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment extends this prohibition to states and local jurisdictions. As such, any government standards that restrict speech, which can include certain sign standards, may be subject to judicial review. Although there are limited federal or state standards regarding signage, the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts have established a broad body of case law around sign standards to ensure local, state, and federal agencies do not infringe on freedom of speech. These First Amendment rulings establish several key tenets, including:
• Commercial signage is offered less protection than non-commercial signage [Central Hudson v. New York (1987)];
• Government agencies may not overly regulate temporary non-commercial signs on private property [City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994)];
• Non-commercial sign standards must be content neutral [Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015)]; and
• Government agencies can provide different regulations for onsite vs. offsite signs [City of Austin vs. Reagan National (2022)]
As described above, the courts have generally afforded more protection to noncommercial signage than commercial signage, although both are protected by the First Amendment. Non-commercial signage is generally speech that expresses a political, religious, or other opinion or value or speech that provides commentary or advocacy on topics of public debate or concern. Examples of such signs include “Vote for John Adams” or “End World Hunger.” Commercial signage is generally speech sponsored by a commercial entity with prevailing messages that propose a commercial transaction or market a commercial product. Examples of such signs include “Grand Opening” or “Now Hiring.” As such, government sign standards need to consider these two distinct sign types.

Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that government agencies must treat all noncommercial signage equally, so as not to privilege one type of non-commercial speech over another. For example, local jurisdictions cannot establish different standards for campaign signs than opinion signs or event signs. Therefore, government sign standards need to ensure content neutrality.

Generally, non-commercial sign standards that are content neutral are more likely to withstand judicial review. However, the courts still require that the government demonstrate the sign regulations advance a substantial government interest that warrants limited abridgement of speech. Often, the courts have ruled that traffic safety and community aesthetics are substantial government interests that warrant local sign standards. Therefore, local agencies should tailor their sign standards to further a ATTACHMENT 1
1067
6 government interest, like traffic safety or community aesthetics, but not establish standards that go beyond such interests.

The State of California has not established additional requirements for local sign standards on public property beyond those described by the U.S. Constitution or federal First Amendment jurisprudence. However, California does require local jurisdictions to allow for real estate signs on private property with property owner consent, as specified in CA Civil Code Section 713.

Other Jurisdiction Standards
In order to better understand how other cities approach signs and first amendment considerations, staff analyzed temporary sign regulations for the public right-of-way in five nearby jurisdictions, including Dublin, Pleasanton, San Ramon, Tracy, and Brentwood. Each of the cities is similar to Livermore in that they are primarily suburban or exist on an urban fringe and are small to medium size cities of populations less than 100,000 people.

The standards regarding where signs can be placed, what type of signs are allowed, and the design of such signs (i.e. height and size) varies significantly from city to city. Some do not allow for any private signs in the public right-of-way, while others allow for signs on specific days of the week like weekends or holidays, and some differentiate between types of signs. Irrespective of other city standards, it is important for Livermore’s standards to be consistent with First Amendment case law and state law. However, there is precedent in nearby cities for banning all temporary signs in the public right-of-way and for restricting temporary signs to certain days of the week.

Public Outreach
At the City Council meeting this past November, the City Council received public testimony regarding the importance of real estate signs and deliberated the issue at length. Since the meeting, staff met with representatives from the Bay East Association of Realtors to discuss the real estate industry’s use of physical signage in the public right-ofway. Staff found that physical signage is still critical to real estate agents’ and brokers’ marketing strategy, but primarily on Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays when brokers’ tours and open houses occur. The Bay East Association of Realtors also provides training materials and has internal policies for maintaining public safety. For example, the Association of Realtors instructs its members to avoid placing signs in public medians.

The current standards allow for real estate signs in the public right-of-way while the full ban would not.

Proposed Standards
Livermore’s existing temporary sign standards promote speech in the public realm by allowing for private non-commercial signage to be placed in the public right-of-way. They also allow for common private commercial signage in residential districts like real estate and garage sale signs. However, the standards only allow for non-commercial signs ATTACHMENT 1
1068
7 related to an event. In addition, over the past few years, the City has received complaints about vandalism and theft of temporary signs in the public right-of-way and the City Council has observed an increase in visual clutter throughout the City’s streets, given that signs are allowed for the length of each roadway segment. Ultimately, this prompted the City Council to ban all temporary signs in the public right-of-way, except in the Downtown. However, the ban would prevent speech in the public realm and would prevent typical commercial signs like for real estate and garage sales.

Ordinance Language
Given the limitations of the existing ordinance and the full ban, and given staff’s research described in the previous sections, staff recommends further modifying Livermore’s temporary sign ordinance, but preserving the Downtown Specific Plan and private property standards. Staff’s recommended alternative would replace the existing residential, commercial, and industrial zone standards, and would instead allow for commercial and non-commercial signs in those zoning districts as follows:
• Location: Instead of being allowed anywhere along the public right-of-way, signs would only be allowed at the intersection of two public streets. Maintain standards preventing signs from being placed in the street or street median or sidewalk [Revised by Supplemental Memo 5/16/23].
• Time: Instead of being allowed within 60 days of an event, signs would only be allowed from Thursday through Sunday Monday each week (7:00am Thursday to 11:00pm Sunday 8:00am Monday) [Revised by Planning Commission 5/16/23]. • Size and Type: Maintain standards allowing only for stake signs of four-square feet or less. Add a standard establishing a maximum sign height of three feet. Allow for A-Frame signs [Revised by Supplemental Memo 5/16/23].
• Quantity: Add a standard restricting the quantity of sign copies per intersection to two, with no more than one at each corner.

A redlined copy of the existing ordinance that shows the proposed changes can be found in Attachment 13.

Enforcement
The existing sign ordinance contains enforcement provisions that generally direct the Neighborhood Preservation section to establish confiscation and storage procedures.

Neighborhood Preservation’s practice has generally been to make every attempt to notify identified contacts, if any, allow 24 hours to correct violations and retrieve removed signs.

Violators can generally pick up removed signs free of charge. Currently neighborhood ATTACHMENT 1
1069
8 preservation collects approximately 2,000 signs per year and spends about 1,000 hours of staff time annually on sign compliance.

In order to help defray sign collection and storage costs and to help reduce the spatial burden of sign storage, staff recommends the sign ordinance’s enforcement section be modified to include a $20 maximum sign pickup fee and a storage duration of not less than 10 days.

The proposed standards can be found in the redlines ordinance in Attachment 13.

Health, Safety, and Welfare
Staff’s recommended alternative is more restrictive than current standards by further limiting the location, time, and quantity of signs, but less restrictive than a full ban. The proposed alternative also protects the public health, safety, and welfare by addressing the issues of speech, commercial signage, aesthetics, vandalism, and traffic and pedestrian safety. Specifically, the proposed alternative ensures speech is allowed in the public realm by continuing to allow signs in the public right-of-way. The alternative also ensures the City does not privilege commercial speech over non-commercial speech given that all sign types are treated equally, and the standards are content-neutral given that they don’t single out types of signs or activities. The standards continue to recognize the Downtown as a special commercial area with additional signage allowance and continue to allow for real estate and garage sale signs to be placed in the public right-ofway. The proposal would reduce visual clutter around the city by concentrating signs in specific locations at specific times, and reduces the chance for vandalism by concentrating signs at visible and trafficked street corners. Traffic safety would be maintained by limiting the size and height of signs, ensuring vehicle site lines are uncompromised, and ensuring pedestrian safety by keeping sidewalk areas clear.

General Plan
The proposed modifications are also consistent with the following General Plan Community Character, Circulation, and Economic Development policies, given that the proposal ensures community aesthetic quality, traffic and pedestrian safety, and provides commercial advertising opportunities for local businesses:
• Objective CC-2.2 - Maintain high-quality design of all signage. • Goal CIR-1 - Provide safe, efficient, comfortable, and convenient mobility for all users.
• Objective ED-1.1 - Implement policies and actions that will encourage existing businesses to remain and grow in Livermore, and attract a range of new businesses to locate in Livermore.

ATTACHMENT 1
1070

PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairperson Leary and
Members of the Planning Commission
PREPARED BY: Jake Potter, Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Riley, Principal Planner
DATE: May 16, 2023
SUBJECT: Development Code Amendment (DCA) 22-004, revised redlines.

STAFF ANALYSIS
Background
Subsequent to Planning Commission packet publication, staff received comment from the Bay East Association of Realtors regarding real estate signs and the proposed Development Code redlines. The Bay East Association of Realtors indicated that AFrame signs and placing signs on the sidewalk with necessary accessible clearance is critical for their business operations. Staff also met with the Bay East team to discuss.

Proposed Standards
Based on staff’s initial research and communications with the real estate community, as described in the staff report, staff intended to propose sign standards that would simultaneously respond to the City Council’s concerns about community aesthetics and vandalism, while also allowing for commercial signs in the public right-of-way, like for real estate or garage sales. However, after further review and after discussing with the Bay East Association of Realtors, staff found that the proposed standards would not be sufficient for regular real estate agent business. Therefore, staff proposes the revised attached redlines in lieu of those previously provided in the staff report. Key changes include:

ATTACHMENT 1
1071
Planning Commission Memo
DCA22-004
May 16, 2023

1. Allowing for both stake and A-Frame signs in the public right-of-way;

2. Allowing for signs on the sidewalk, provided adequate clearance for pedestrian accessibility is provided; and

3. Other minor language clarifications
Attachment 1 – Revised Redlines
ATTACHMENT 1
1072
ATTACHMENT 2
1073
ATTACHMENT 2
1074
ATTACHMENT 2
1075
ATTACHMENT 2
1076
ATTACHMENT 2
1077
ATTACHMENT 2
1078
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 5.01
DATE: July 27, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Development Code Amendment 20-003, Temporary Signs

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council introduce an ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 20-003, Temporary Signs.

SUMMARY
In January and February 2020, the City Council received several complaints that campaign signs were being vandalized, stolen, and installed inconsistent with the City’s existing regulations for commercial and non-commercial temporary signs. On March 9, 2020, the City Council directed staff to develop options for an ordinance to limit the placement of campaign signs in the public right of way.

Staff reviewed several approaches to regulating temporary signs to avoid potential theft or vandalism including: prohibiting temporary signs in the public right-of-way; limiting the placement of temporary signs to certain hours of the day; and limiting the placement of temporary signs to a specific time in advance of an event. The options and staff recommendation are discussed below.

DISCUSSION
First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes a distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech, and that governmental officials must place a message into one or the other category for the purposes of regulation. While the First Amendment protects both commercial and noncommercial speech, it affords noncommercial speech a greater degree of protection. Therefore, care must be taken when crafting a sign ordinance to avoid imposing greater restrictions on noncommercial signs in favor of commercial signs.

The proposed amendments respect that jurisprudence and are intended to further the City’s existing interests for sign regulations and its new interests to add additional 223
ATTACHMENT 3
1079

requirements to help address the vandalism and theft of signs, which primarily occurs at night, while preserving the opportunity to place signs in the designated public right-ofway.

The Livermore Development Code (LDC) in Section 4.06.140 regulates commercial and non-commercial temporary signs. Commercial temporary signs are sponsored by a commercial entity with prevailing messages that propose a commercial transaction (real estate leasing and selling activities, temporary retail sales or “now opening” signs). Noncommercial temporary signs provide commentary or advocacy on topics of public debate or concern. Political or campaign signs are non-commercial temporary signs.

Non-commercial temporary signs are currently and will continue to be allowed on private property in all zoning districts. Non-commercial and commercial signs are generally not allowed on any public property except in the public right-of-way as explained below.

Currently non-commercial temporary signs may be placed in the public right-of-way. The public right-of-way includes the street and an area about ten feet wide behind the curb.

These signs are typically located adjacent to sidewalks in landscaped areas but are prohibited on street medians, sidewalks or streets, traffic signals, streetlight poles, and utility poles. In addition, temporary signs are prohibited within school sites, parks and other public property and have minimum spacing requirements (see Attachments 1 and 3 for existing temporary sign regulations). Commercial and non-commercial A-frame signs are also permitted in the public right of way in the Downtown area per the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan.

Staff is recommending Development Code amendments to address the challenge of allowing temporary signs and addressing vandalism and theft. The size and placement restrictions in the existing ordinance summarized above would generally be preserved with the following key additional requirements (see Attachment 2 – redline version of Code changes):
x Restrict the placement of commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in the right-of-way to daylight hours between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Signs could only be placed after 9:00 a.m. and would need to be removed before 5:00 p.m. each day.
x Signs must relate to an event scheduled for a specific date and shall not be displayed sooner than 90 days before that event. Signs must still be removed within five days following the associated event.
x Stake signs shall be constructed of paper or plastic mounted on a wood or metal stick that is pushed or hammered into the ground, and signs shall be no taller than 36 inches above the ground.
224
ATTACHMENT 3
1080

x In the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) area only, commercial and non-commercial temporary signs are not permitted in the designated public right-of-way with the exception of A-frame signs. A-frame signs must be:
o No larger than 30 inches wide by 48 inches tall,
o Displayed only between 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.,
o Located within five feet of a front building entrance of commercial uses, o Allow for adequate ADA and public access on the sidewalk, and o Subject to DSP Chapter 6 design standards, including standards for portable signs.
x Any commercial or noncommercial temporary sign placed in the public right-of-way or public property in violation of this section would be subject to removal by the City. If this amendment is approved, Neighborhood Preservation staff will develop enforcement protocols for the removal and storage of those signs, as well as for their retrieval and possible destruction if not retrieved.

This approach allows signs to be displayed during the most active times of the day.

Removing signs during nighttime hours would significantly reduce vandalism and theft.

Additionally, this approach requires increased responsibility for those wishing to display temporary signs within the public right-of-way.

Less significant temporary sign Development Code changes are also proposed for formatting and internal consistency (see Attachment 2).

The proposed Development Code amendment is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3) - the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed project at its meeting of July 7, 2020. The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding the time of day limitations (i.e. 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) for temporary signs. Such limitations could create an undue burden on persons wishing to display temporary signs. They were generally in agreement with limiting temporary signs to a specified time period prior to an event, but some thought 90 days may be too long.

The Planning Commission voted 2-1 (two Commissioners were absent) to recommend denial of the Development Code amendment as proposed. The Commission did, however, recommend on a 2-1 vote that the City Council consider allowing noncommercial and commercial temporary signs only up to 30 days before a scheduled event, instead of the 90 days that staff is recommending. See Attachments 4, 5 and 6 for the Planning Commission staff report, draft minutes and resolution. 225
ATTACHMENT 3
1081

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
There are no direct initial costs other than printing new public information flyers.

Neighborhood Preservation staff currently spends significant time policing the public right-of-way for sign violations. This Code amendment will initially require additional staff time to explain and enforce the new standards. The proposed Code amendments would better describe a violation and allow City staff to develop enforcement protocols for the removal, storage and retrieval of those signs.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Current Livermore Development Code Section 4.06.140

2. Redline Edits of Livermore Development Code

3. City’s Existing Public Information Political Campaign Flyer

4. Planning Commission Staff Report July 7, 2020

5. Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes July 7, 2020

6. Planning Commission Resolution
Prepared by:

Susan Frost,
Special Projects Coordinator
Approved by: Fiscal Review by:

Marc Roberts Douglas Alessio
City Manager Administrative Services Director
226
ATTACHMENT 3
1082
Civil Code Section 713

4.06.060 Signs on Public Property
ATTACHMENT 1
227
ATTACHMENT 3
1083

4.06.070 Measurement of Sign Area and Height
ATTACHMENT 1
228
ATTACHMENT 3
1084

4.06.130 Master Sign Program

4.06.140 Temporary Signs
ATTACHMENT 1
229
ATTACHMENT 3
1085
Civil Code Section 713
ATTACHMENT 1
230
ATTACHMENT 3
1086

4.06.150 Transect Zones (T4 Neighborhood-Open, T4 Main Street-Open, T4 Main Street) ATTACHMENT 1
231
ATTACHMENT 3
1087
1 Livermore Development Code

4.06.060 Signs on Public Property and in the Designated Public Right-of-Way No signs are allowed on public property or in the designated public right-of-way, except for the following:

A. A public sign erected by or on behalf of the City or other public entity to post legal notices, identify public property, convey public information, or direct or regulate pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

B. An informational sign of a public utility or transit company regarding its poles, lines, pipes, facilities, or routes.

C. An emergency warning sign erected by the City or other public entity, a public utility company, or contractor doing authorized or permitted work on public property.

D. A cCommercial and noncommercial temporary signs in a residential zoning district as authorized under that satisfy the requirements in Section 4.06.140.B (Temporary Signs in Residential Zoning Districts).

E. Signs constructed by the City to direct persons to specific districts, regions, or public facilities.

F. A single banner sign over Fourth Street between South J Street and South K Street and over North Livermore Avenue between Chestnut Street and Railroad Avenue. All such signs are subject to the following regulations:
1) The permitted sign shall be:
a) Noncommercial; or
b) Associated with a civic, community, educational, or cultural event. 2) The sign applicant must apply for an encroachment permit with the City engineer or his or her designee.
3) The City engineer upon review and approval by the planning division shall allow such signs on a first-come, first-served basis for a period not to exceed 14 days per sign.
4) A reservation for installation of a sign is not transferable. The sign locations shall be reserved for use by the City of Livermore during the three weeks prior to any local election.
5) The sign must be installed by the City.
6) The City may charge a reasonable fee to cover the cost of installing the sign, as determined by a resolution of the City Council. Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District and the Livermore aArea rRecreation and pPark dDistrict shall each be granted two free banner installations in a calendar year.

4.06.140 Temporary Signs
A. Temporary signs in commercial and industrial zoning districts. In addition to the permanent signs allowed in this chapter, temporary signs are permitted in Specific Plans, Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Planned Development (PD) district areas that allow commercial and industrial uses and the following zoning districts designated as Neighborhood Business Commercial (CNB), Commercial Service (CS), Highway Service Commercial (CHS), Commercial Office (CO), Professional Office (CP), Research and Development (I-1), Light Industrial (I-2), Heavy Industrial ATTACHMENT 1
232
ATTACHMENT 3
1088
2 (I-3), T4 Neighborhood-Open, and Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU), subject to the following:
1) Only the following types of temporary signs are permitted:
a) A freestanding A-frame sign;
b) A window painting;
c) A banner sign;
d) A beacon;
e) A stake sign constructed of paper or plastic mounted on a wood or metal stick.
2) Prior to displaying a temporary sign which contains commercial sign copy, the owner of such a sign shall register the sign with the Planning Division by completing a form provided by the City. The form shall include the owner’s name, address and telephone number, as well as dates the owner intends on displaying the sign. The City may charge a reasonable registration fee to cover the cost of inspection and enforcement, as determined by resolution of the City Council.
3) A freestanding A-frame sign, window painting or banner sign shall be displayed no more than 35 days in any three-month period on private property. 4) Each parcel shall have no more than one freestanding A-frame sign, window painting or banner sign.
5) For commercial and noncommercial signs on developed parcels, the maximum sign area of a freestanding A-frame sign, stake, or banner sign is one-half of the sign area permitted for a permanent sign in the district in which the parcel is located. For vacant parcels, no commercial signs are permitted. Noncommercial signs are permitted as long as the signs do not exceed four square feet per sign and no two signs with the same copy are located closer than 50 feet from each other.
6) A temporary sign may not be illuminated.
7) A window painting may cover only up to 50 percent of the window area. 8) A temporary freestanding A-frame sign is subject to the following requirements:
a) Maximum size of temporary freestanding A-frame signs is 30 inches wide by 48 inches tall; and
b) A temporary freestanding A-frame sign must be placed on private property or in a landscaped area.
9) Each parcel shall have no more than one beacon, subject to the following requirements:
a) A beacon may be displayed no more than 10 days per year; b) A beacon must be located on-site;
c) A beacon may not create a hazard to pedestrians, vehicles, or aircraft due to its location or movement; and
d) A beacon may only operate during the business hours of the use being identified.
10) Commercial and noncommercial temporary signs are not permitted on public property. For clarification, the term public property for this prohibition means both real property owned by a public entity as well as physical property, including but not limited to, traffic lights, street lights, and utility infrastructure.

ATTACHMENT 2
233
ATTACHMENT 3
1089
3 11) In the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) area only, commercial and noncommercial temporary signs are not permitted in the designated public right-ofway with the exception of A-frame signs, which must be:
a) No larger than 30 inches wide by 48 inches tall;
b) Displayed only between 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.;
c) Located within five feet of a front building entrance of only commercial uses;
d) Allows for adequate ADA and public access on the sidewalk; and e) Subject to DSP Chapter 6 design standards, including standards for portable signs.
10) Noncommercial temporary signs (including campaign and political signs) are permitted iPublic property and public right-of-way signs located on public property or the designated public right-of-way are subject to the following regulations:
a) No commercial or non-commercial signs are permitted on public property; and 11)12) No commercial signs are permitted in the designated public right-of-way, but not in the street, street median, . Non-commercial signs are permitted in all zoning districts;or sidewalk in commercial and industrial zones other than the DSP, subject to the following: provided, signs do not exceed four square feet per sign and no two signs with the same copy are located closer than 50 feet from each other, per street frontage. Corner properties may have two of the same sign at the corner.
a) No commercial or noncommercial signs are permitted on public property; and
b) No commercial signs are permitted on the designated public right-of-way.

Non commercial signs are permitted in all zoning districts; provided signs do not exceed four square feet per sign and no two signs with the same copy are located closer than 50 feet from each other, per street frontage.

Corner properties may have two of the same sign at the corner. a) The signs must relate to an event scheduled for a specific date and shall not be displayed sooner than 90 days before that event; b) May only be displayed between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. each day; c) Signs must be stake signs with a maximum size of four square feet; d) No two signs with the same copy shall be placed closer than 50 feet from each other per street frontage;
e) Corner properties may have two of the same sign at the corner; and, f) All noncommercial temporary signs shall be removed within five days after the event to which they pertain.

B. Temporary signs in residential zoning districts. In addition to permanent signs allowed in this chapter, temporary signs are permitted in Specific Plans, Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Planned Development (PD) district areas that allow residential uses and in zoning districts designated as Downtown Specific Plan (DSP), Suburban Multiple Residential (RG), Multi-Family Residential (MFR), Suburban Residential (RS), Low Density Residential (RL), Rural Residential (R-R), T3 Neighborhood, and T4 Neighborhood, subject to the following:
1) A temporary sign may be placed on private property subject to the following:
a) Noncommercial signs.

ATTACHMENT 2
234
ATTACHMENT 3
1090
4 (1) Maximum four square feet per sign;
(2) No limit on the number of signs permitted; and
(3) Signs must be a stake sign.
b) Commercial signs.
(1) Signage pursuant to Civil Code Section 713 may be freestanding or wall mounted; and
(2) Signs pursuant to a master sign program associated with a residential development are exempt; except they may not exceed 32 square feet and may not exceed one per parcel.
(3) A temporary commercial sign shall not be displayed for more than 35 days in any three- month period on private property. 2) A noncommercial temporary sign (including campaign and political signs) may be placed in the designated public right-of-way, but not the street, street median, or sidewalk, subject to the following:
a) Noncommercial signs;
a) Signs must related to an event scheduled for ra specific date and shall not be installed sooner than 90 days before that event;
b) Signs shall only be displayed in the public right-of-way between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. each day;
b)c) Signs must be stake signs with a maximum size of four square feet; c)d) No two signs with the same copy shall be placed closer than 50 feet from each other per street frontage;
d)e) Corner properties may have two of the same sign at the corner; e)f) All temporary noncommercial temporary signs shall be removed within five days after the event to which they pertain.
3) A Ccommercial temporary signs (including garage sale signs and real estate signs) may be placed in the designated public right-of-way, but not the street, street median, or sidewalk, subject to the following:
a) A temporary commercial sign shall not be displayed for more than 35 days in any three-month period on private property.
b)a) Signs must relate to an activity permitted within a residential zoning district;
c)b) Signs are only allowed on Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.;
d)c) Signs are limited to four square feet;
e)d) Only one sign per each advertised activity (e.g., a house for sale, etc.) may be placed at each street intersection leading from the two nearest major streets (reflecting two independent access routes) to the site of the advertised activity;
f)e) Only one sign per each advertised activity, up to a maximum of three signs total, may be placed at any street intersection corner; and g)f) The sign must be placed so that a minimum of four and one-half feet remains clear on the sidewalk for pedestrians if not other location is possible.
4) All temporary commercial signs are permitted for a total of 35 days per a calendar quarter.
5)4) Commercial and non-commercial temporary signs are not permitted on public property. For clarification, the term public property for this prohibition means ATTACHMENT 2
235
ATTACHMENT 3
1091
5 both real public property and physical public property, including but not limited to traffic lights, street lights, and utility infrastructure 6) No temporary commercial or noncommercial signs are permitted on public property or to be placed in the street or median areas.

C. Enforcement. Any commercial or noncommercial temporary sign placed in the public right-of-way or public property in violation of this section shall be subject to removal by the City and enforcement using the remedies in Chapters 1.20, 8.14, and 8.15 in the Municipal Code, and such other remedies the City may have. The Neighborhood Preservation staff shall develop enforcement protocols for the removal and storage of those signs, as well as for their retrieval and possible destruction if not retrieved.

Section 11.01.020 Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases Stake sign. A sign constructed of paper or plastic mounted on a wood or metal stick that is pushed or hammered into the ground, and the top of which is less than 36 inches above the ground.

ATTACHMENT 2
236
ATTACHMENT 3
1092
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550-4899
(925) 960-4437(925) 960-4429(925) 960-4104
www.cityoflivermore.net
§
ATTACHMENT 3
237
ATTACHMENT 3
1093
10’ Sidewalk
Street
Curb
Landscape Area
Private Property
xxxxxxxx
xxx
xxxx
ATTACHMENT 3
238
ATTACHMENT 3
1094

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
1 TO: Chairperson Fagundes and
Members of the Planning Commission
PREPARED BY: Susan Frost, Special Projects Coordinator
REVIEWED BY: Steve Stewart, Planning Manger
Steve Riley, Principal Planner
DATE: July 7, 2020
SUBJECT: Development Code Amendment 20-003, Temporary Signs

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council instruct staff to file a Notice of Exemption and approve Development Code Amendment (DCA) 20-003 to implement stricter limitations on temporary signs relating the location, time of day, number of days for commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in the public right of way in all zoning districts.

BACKGROUND
In January and February 2020, the City Council received several complaints that campaign signs were being vandalized, stolen, and installed inconsistent with the City’s existing regulations for commercial and non-commercial temporary signs. On March 9, 2020, the City Council directed staff to develop options for an ordinance to limit the placement of campaign signs in the public right of way.

Campaign signs are vandalized or stolen in nearly every election. Many are inadvertently placed in locations that are inconsistent with the City’s existing regulations. This problem impacts nearly every candidate and ballot measure, as well as the campaigns advocating for or against them. Those activities are illegal, but the high number of campaign signs placed during an election make it problematic to enforce compliance and identify responsible parties.

The problem is magnified in Livermore since its ordinances allow campaign signs to the placed in the public right of way. Unlike campaign signs on private property that are generally supervised by people at those locations, campaign signs placed in the public ATTACHMENT 4
239
ATTACHMENT 3
1095
2 right are left largely unattended. The absence of regular oversight makes those signs vulnerable to vandalism and theft.

Earlier this year, the campaigns participating in Livermore’s March 2020 election expressed a shared complaint that the problem was more rampant than ever before, and that reactions and accusations were becoming increasing hostile. For example, there were allegations that campaign signs were repeatedly stolen from certain locations, that signs were cut to pieces in a threatening manner, and that signs were marred by graffiti to alter their meaning. That experience added to the natural tension inherent in every election.

Many community members expressed concern that the activities were unnecessarily dividing the community. Rather than focusing the campaign conversation on the merits of the measure, the campaigns for and against the measure exchanged accusations against each other that their supporters were engaged in illegal activities.

Staff has identified the following options to amend the City’s sign ordinance to address campaign sign theft and vandalism, and the constitutional requirements to respect the hierarchy of non-commercial and commercial speech.

STAFF ANALYSIS
First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes a distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech, and that governmental officials must place a message into one or the other category for the purposes of regulation. While the First Amendment protects both commercial and noncommercial speech, it affords noncommercial speech a greater degree of protection. Therefore, care must be taken when crafting a sign ordinance to avoid imposing greater restrictions on noncommercial signs in favor of commercial signs.

The City has exercised its authority to adopt a sign ordinance to regulate signs in Livermore to implement its interest in community aesthetics through the control of visual clutter, for pedestrian and driver safety, and based upon the findings and determinations when the ordinance was first adopted.

The proposed amendments respect that jurisprudence and are intended to further the City’s existing interests for its sign regulations and its new interests to add additional requirements to help address the vandalism and theft of signs, which primarily occurs at night, while preserving the opportunity to place signs in the designated public right-ofway.

The Livermore Development Code (LDC) in Section 4.06.140 regulates commercial and non-commercial temporary signs and the City summarizes these regulations in a public flyer (see Attachments 1 and 2). Commercial temporary signs are sponsored by a commercial entity with prevailing messages that propose a commercial transaction (real estate leasing and selling activities, temporary retail sales or “now opening” signs). NonATTACHMENT 4 240
ATTACHMENT 3
1096
3 commercial temporary signs provide commentary or advocacy on topics of public debate or concern. Political or campaign signs are non-commercial temporary signs.

Generally, the City cannot create or enforce stricter regulations on temporary noncommercial signage, than for temporary commercial signage. The City can consider different regulations for different parts of the City if the regulations within that geographic area do not favor commercial signs over non-commercial signs.

Non-commercial temporary signs are currently allowed on private property in all zoning districts. Non-commercial temporary signs may also be placed in the public right-of-way (ROW) (generally within 10 feet of back of curb (but varies some older parts of City) and must meet the following restrictions among others:
x maximum of four square feet per sign;
x signs must be stake signs;
x no two signs with the same copy may be closer than 50 feet of each other per street frontage;
x corner properties may have two of the same signs at the corner; and x signs must be removed within five days following the associated event (e.g. after the election date)
These signs are typically located adjacent to sidewalks in landscaped areas but are prohibited on street medians, sidewalks or streets, traffic signals, streetlight poles, utility poles, schools, parks and public property.

Commercial and non-commercial A-frame signs are also permitted in the public ROW in the downtown area per the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan.

As discussed above, the primary concern with temporary campaign signs is vandalism and theft, particularly signs placed in the ROW. Potential solutions include:

1. prohibiting placement of all temporary signs in the ROW (except governmental public information and traffic safety signs);

2. prohibiting the placement of commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in the ROW during certain hours of the day; and

3. prohibiting placement of commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in the ROW during a specific time in advance of standard election dates.

The first option above would prohibit both commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in the ROW. This would limit campaign signs to private property only (with property owner’s permission) and have little effect on campaign signs on private residential property. However, it would require that campaign signs be placed on private commercial property with property owner permission and outside of the public ROW. It may be more difficult to get a commercial property owner to agree to signage and time consuming to find the right person to get said permission.

ATTACHMENT 4
241
ATTACHMENT 3
1097
4 The second option would be to allow commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in the ROW only during certain hours of the day, for example, 9 a.m.- 5 p.m., or 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. to allow more exposure to daily commuters. With this approach, temporary signs would be placed in the morning and removed in the evening each day. While this approach would likely decrease potential problems with vandalism and theft, it would require additional effort and possibly cost for those wishing to display temporary signs. It may also present enforcement challenges for the City’s Neighborhood Preservation staff.

The third option is prohibiting the placement of commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in the ROW during a specific time in advance of standard election dates, such as 60 or 90 days and letting signs stay out all day and night with no time restrictions.

A fourth option is to create a hybrid amendment that includes elements from the different options above. One option would be to allow temporary signs during certain hours and establishing a specific time they are out, 60 or 90 days before the election.

RECOMMENDATON
Staff is recommending Development Code amendments as shown in Attachment 3 to address the challenge of allowing temporary signs and addressing vandalism and theft.

The size and placement restrictions in the existing ordinance described above would generally be preserved with the following key additional requirements:
x Restrict the placement of commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in the ROW to daylight hours between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Signs could only be placed after 9:00 a.m. and would need to be removed before 5:00 p.m. each day. x Signs must relate to an event scheduled for a specific date and shall not displayed sooner than 90 days before that event. Signs must still be removed within five days following the associated event.
x Stake signs shall be constructed of paper or plastic mounted on a wood or metal stick that is pushed or hammered into the ground, and signs shall be no taller than 36 inches above the ground.
x Any commercial or noncommercial temporary sign placed in the public right-of-way or public property in violation of this section shall be subject to removal by the City.

Neighborhood Preservation staff shall develop enforcement protocols for the removal and storage of those signs, as well as for their retrieval and possible destruction if not retrieved.

This approach allows signs to be displayed during the most active times of the day.

Removing signs during nighttime hours would significantly reduce vandalism and theft.

ATTACHMENT 4
242
ATTACHMENT 3
1098
5 Additionally, this approach requires increased responsibility for those wishing to display temporary signs within the ROW.

Neighborhood Preservation currently spends significant time policing the ROW for sign violations. The ordinance amendments would better describe a violation and allow City staff to develop enforcement protocols for the removal and storage of those signs.

In addition to the amendments summarized above, less significant changes are proposed for formatting and internal consistency.

SUMMARY
The proposed Development Code amendment revises the regulations for the placement of temporary commercial and non-commercial signs in the public right-of-way. The revisions are intended to support and provide for free speech in the community through temporary signs while addressing concerns with vandalism, theft, aesthetics and public safety.

OTHER AGENCY/DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
None

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3) - the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

Staff finds that the proposed amendments to the Development Code would not result in significant effect on the environmental as the ordinance addresses temporary signs and not permanent alternations to the environment.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Development Code Temporary Sign Section 4.06.140

2. Flyer for current regulations of campaign signs

3. Draft Ordinance showing redline changes to Development Code

4. Planning Commission Resolution
ATTACHMENT 4
243
ATTACHMENT 3
1099
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 JULY 7, 2020
DRAFT

PLANNING COMMISSION

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
JULY 7, 2020

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.03 Hearing to consider amending the Livermore Development Code regarding, Temporary Signs, including Section 4.06.140, to update sections relating the location, time of day, number of days for commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in all zoning districts.
x Location: Citywide
x Site Area: Not applicable
x Applicant: City of Livermore
x Application Number: Development Code Amendment (DCA) 20-003 x Public improvements: Not applicable
x Zoning: Various
x General Plan: Various
x Historic Status: Not applicable
x CEQA: Recommend finding the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061(b)(3) that the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
x Project Planner: Susan Frost, Special Projects Coordinator Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council instruct staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the Alameda County Clerk and approve Development Code Amendment (DCA) 20-003.

Susan Frost, Special Projects Coordinator, presented the staff report.

Chairperson Fagundes opened the public hearing. No one came forward and the public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Bonanno asked and confirmed that the A-frame signs similar to the ones seen on First Street in front of restaurants in the evening would still be allowed and the ordinance amendment allows them to be displayed between 9AM and 7PM or 2 hours longer than the cut-off in other areas other than the downtown.

ATTACHMENT 5
244
ATTACHMENT 3
1100
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 JULY 7, 2020
DRAFT
Commissioner Bonanno said she supports the ordinance change but worries about businesses downtown that hold evening business, such as Aviation who has an A-frame that directs people in the evening. She asked if these would not be allowed after 7PM, and Ms. Frost confirmed.

Commissioner Bonanno asked and confirmed with staff that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council. She believed there were parts of the City where it is an undue restriction on places that are active after 7PM.

Commissioner Stein asked if it was possible to distinguish between commercial and campaign signs in any way and asked how this will be enforced given it is outside of normal working hours, noting it may be hazardous if people are putting up and taking down signs in the dark.

He also asked how regional campaign signs will be managed if non-City agencies do not read the City’s ordinance. Lastly, this tends to favor incumbents and one of the major uses of signs is to get the candidate s’ names before the public.

Principal Planner Steve Riley responded that the City must allow commercial and noncommercial signs under the same regulations and cannot impose restrictions on one and not the other.

Ms. Frost added that the ordinance specifically relates to commercial signs and noncommercial and not just campaign signs which are a form of non-commercial signs but the distinction is really commercial and non-commercial. They are being treated similarly.

She said staff wanted to do something less restrictive than prohibiting all signs altogether in the public right-of-way, so this was a compromise as a way to achieve goals while still providing some form of restrictions.

Mr. Stewart said in terms of enforcement it is always a challenge with these types of signs during any time of the year. Enforcement would be through the City’s Neighborhood Preservation Department and the Police Department and their employees. It does offer enforcement opportunities around the clock, but it is difficult on weekends, given higher priorities. He stated Doug Martin, Neighborhood Preservation Manager, is present and can add to his comments.

Neighborhood Preservation Manager Doug Marin referred to enforcement outside of normal working hours and said staff most likely would not be doing any enforcement in the evenings past 5PM and staff starts at 7AM so the 9AM timing provides the opportunity for staff to monitor those areas and remove any signs. This also could have some influence on the downtown A-frame signs if those needed to go a little later.

ATTACHMENT 5
245
ATTACHMENT 3
1101
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 JULY 7, 2020
DRAFT
Again, he said they would monitor in the morning when they are not likely to be out, and an extension of hours in the evening is much less of a burden to staff than the earlier morning hours would be.

Mr. Riley said in regards to getting information out to the different campaigns, when folks file to run in the local elections they must review rules and procedures relating to signs with the City Clerk. The City Clerk would convey the new code amendments to those running for office to ensure they know the rules.

Chairperson Fagundes re-opened the public hearing to accept two comments that came in during the public hearing.

Evan wrote: After the vandalism from the last campaign season, he encouraged the Commission to pass this ordinance and encourage the time to be extended by about 2 hours on each end.

Chad wrote: What is the goal of restriction of campaign signs the Commission intends to achieve?
Chairperson Fagundes closed the public hearing.

Chairperson Fagundes said he has concerns with the risk associated with installing signs along the roadway which causes hazards as well as having them gathered after the election. He thinks enforcement will be difficult and does not know how practical the timeframe is.

Commissioner Bonanno said she would support increasing the time to make it more open, cited issues with campaign signs which have been defaced, destroyed, thrown into the landscape, and thinks this is primarily what this is intended to address.

She said she still finds signs from over a year ago when walking and thinks this addresses the issue and would like to see the window expanded so as not to penalize businesses. She also appreciates Mr. Martin’s comments, and thinks the hazards of people pulling signs out of the right-of-way will not happen often. And, while unfortunate to take this action, she completely supports it.

Commissioner Stein said he generally is opposed to vandalism but it is a balance between free speech and over-regulation and said he will probably oppose the recommendation. He thinks the campaign signs for individuals are generally less often vandalized than the initiative where feelings run high but overall, it is a balance between free speech and regulation and he is willing to tolerate the vandalism. He wished people would remove signs at the end of a campaign but stated he will probably not support the change in the sign ordinance.

ATTACHMENT 5
246
ATTACHMENT 3
1102
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 JULY 7, 2020
DRAFT
Chairperson Fagundes agreed and if a sign is seen lying in a ditch the City should be enforcing fines if they are not picked up within five days past the event. But, when putting out signs, unfortunately there are vandals and these are just some of the things that happen. This is the risk someone takes for putting signs out in the public right-of-way and he does not think there is anything stopping people from picking up their signs, so he thinks this is a bit stiff.

He could support something where the window to put signs out before an election or event for a 60 to 90 day period, but if anything is changed they should establish a window of days rather than hours. Enforcing it will be difficult as well and thinks this causes more enforcement and hazards and could not support the change. He could support narrowing down the days to between 60 and 90 days.

Commissioner Bonanno said she thought there was already a restriction of when signs can be put up.

Mr. Martin stated there currently is no time limit preceding an election.

Chairperson Fagundes stated he would not mind making a recommendation to indicate between 75 days or 90 days.

Commissioner Stein asked if the Commission could separate the motion and asked if 60 days had any support.

Commissioner Bonanno said she thinks people do not put signs out before 60 days anyway so she did not think it would make much of a difference.

Chairperson Fagundes agreed and thinks it has been around 60 days. He said he could not support the recommendation but also was not sure there was a motion.

Commissioner Bonanno made a motion for approval. There was no second and the motion died.

Senior Assistant Attorney Kim Cilley stated there is some case law on regulating a certain number of days prior to an election. If this is something staff would like her to look into, she would need additional time because this was not considered.

Mr. Stewart stated the Commission would need to make a recommendation to the City Council and stated in the staff report there is a provision that states, “Signs shall not be displayed sooner than 90 days before the event” so this would be a new one. He assumes this has been vetted against any law in place now. Therefore, the Commission could add that back in, but staff would need a recommendation to the City Council.

Ms. Cilley added that it would be for non-commercial and not just political signs.

ATTACHMENT 5
247
ATTACHMENT 3
1103
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 JULY 7, 2020
DRAFT
AMENDING MOTION BY STEIN, SECONDED BY FAGUNDES, TO APPROVE THE 90-

DAY LIMITATION ON COMMERCIAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL SIGNS WITH NO TIME LIMITS.

VOTE ON AMENDING MOTION:

AYES: FAGUNDES, STEIN.

NOES: BONANNO
ABSENT: ANDERSON, BJORKLUND.

Mr. Stewart clarified that the Commission needs to be clear that there is an amending motion for the 90 day limitation and the main motion would need to reflect the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council.

Commissioner Stein stated if the Commission votes down the main motion, he asked if this means the amending motion is voted down, given they were not separating them.

Ms. Cilley stated the main motion would be either to recommend the City Council approve or deny. The Commission can make a recommendation of approval and then have amending motions of what the Commission would want changed from what the Resolution is recommending to the Council. Or, the Commission could recommend denial of the Resolution and provide follow-up direction to the Council.

Commissioner Stein stated his intent is that there be a limitation on days before an event for commercial or non-commercial signs, but no limitations as to time of day.

Ms. Cilley stated this would be a recommendation that the City Council approve the change in the ordinance as modified. The Planning Commission resolution would either recommend approval or not and then amending motions to make changes to that proposed ordinance, how the Commission would like it to be different, and to handle those in amending motions.

Commissioner Bonanno asked Mr. Martin when signs usually go up. She thinks the 90- day restriction may be a red herring, so the Commission might be making this more complicated than it needs to be.

Mr. Martin stated 30 days is very typical but staff did receive a complaint of signs going up in the Springtown area already. So, this is very unusual to see them that early.

MOTION BY STEIN, SECONDED BY FAGUNDES, TO DENY STAFF’S
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 21-20, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 20-003.

ATTACHMENT 5
248
ATTACHMENT 3
1104
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 JULY 7, 2020
DRAFT

AMENDING MOTION BY STEIN, SECONDED BY BONANNO, TO LIMIT COMMERCIAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL SIGNS TO A FIXED PERIOD OF 30 DAYS BEFORE THE EVENT.

VOTE ON AMENDING MOTION:

AYES: BONANNO AND STEIN.

NOES: FAGUNDES.

ABSENT: ANDERSON AND BJORKLUND.

VOTE ON MAIN MOTION:

AYES: FAGUNDES AND STEIN.

NOES: BONANNO.

ABSENT: ANDERSON AND BJORKLUND.

Chairperson Fagundes stated the main motion passes by a vote of 2-1 and he confirmed with Mr. Stewart that staff had direction to recommend to the City Council.

ATTACHMENT 5
249
ATTACHMENT 3
1105
ATTACHMENT 6
250
ATTACHMENT 3
1106
ATTACHMENT 6
251
ATTACHMENT 3
1107
ATTACHMENT 6
252
ATTACHMENT 3
1108
ATTACHMENT 6
253
ATTACHMENT 3
1109
ATTACHMENT 6
254
ATTACHMENT 3
1110
ATTACHMENT 6
255
ATTACHMENT 3
1111
1 ORDINANCE NO. _____________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LIVERMORE DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, BY AMENDING PART 4 (GENERAL TO ZONES), CHAPTER 4.06 (SIGN STANDARDS), SECTION 4.06.060 (SIGNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY) AND SECTION 4.06.140 (TEMPORARY SIGNS); AND PART 11 (DEFINITIONS), CHAPTER 11.01 (DEFINITIONS), SECTION 11.01.020 (DEFINITIONS OF SPECIALIZED TERMS AND PHRASES)

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

Section 1. Section 4.06.060 (Signs on Public Property) of the Livermore Development Code is amended to read as follows:

4.06.060 Signs on Public Property and in the Designated Public Right-of-Way No signs are allowed on public property or in the designated public right-of-way, except for the following:

A. A public sign erected by or on behalf of the City or other public entity to post legal notices, identify public property, convey public information, or direct or regulate pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

B. An informational sign of a public utility or transit company regarding its poles, lines, pipes, facilities, or routes.

C. An emergency warning sign erected by the City or other public entity, a public utility company, or contractor doing authorized or permitted work on public property.

D. Commercial and noncommercial temporary signs that satisfy the requirements in Section 4.06.140 (Temporary Signs).

E. Signs constructed by the City to direct persons to specific districts, regions, or public facilities.

F. A single banner sign over Fourth Street between South J Street and South K Street and over North Livermore Avenue between Chestnut Street and Railroad Avenue. All such signs are subject to the following regulations:
1) The permitted sign shall be:
a) Noncommercial; or
b) Associated with a civic, community, educational, or cultural event. 2) The sign applicant must apply for an encroachment permit with the City engineer or his or her designee.
3) The City engineer upon review and approval by the planning division shall allow such signs on a first-come, first-served basis for a period not to exceed 14 days per sign.
256
ATTACHMENT 3
1112
2 ORDINANCE NO. _____________
4) A reservation for installation of a sign is not transferable. The sign locations shall be reserved for use by the City of Livermore during the three weeks prior to any local election.
5) The sign must be installed by the City.
6) The City may charge a reasonable fee to cover the cost of installing the sign, as determined by a resolution of the City Council. Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District and the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District shall each be granted two free banner installations in a calendar year.

Section 2. Section 4.06.140 (Temporary Signs) of the Livermore Development Code is amended to read as follows:

4.06.140 Temporary Signs
A. Temporary signs in commercial and industrial zoning districts. In addition to the permanent signs allowed in this chapter, temporary signs are permitted in Specific Plans, Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Planned Development (PD) district areas that allow commercial and industrial uses and the following zoning districts designated as Neighborhood Business Commercial (CNB), Commercial Service (CS), Highway Service Commercial (CHS), Commercial Office (CO), Professional Office (CP), Research and Development (I-1), Light Industrial (I-2), Heavy Industrial (I-3), T4 Neighborhood-Open, and Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU), subject to the following:
1) Only the following types of temporary signs are permitted:
a) A freestanding A-frame sign;
b) A window painting;
c) A banner sign;
d) A beacon;
e) A stake sign.
2) Prior to displaying a temporary sign which contains commercial sign copy, the owner of such a sign shall register the sign with the Planning Division by completing a form provided by the City. The form shall include the owner’s name, address and telephone number, as well as dates the owner intends on displaying the sign. The City may charge a reasonable registration fee to cover the cost of inspection and enforcement, as determined by resolution of the City Council.
3) A freestanding A-frame sign, window painting or banner sign shall be displayed no more than 35 days in any three-month period on private property.
4) Each parcel shall have no more than one freestanding A-frame sign, window painting or banner sign.
5) For commercial and noncommercial signs on developed parcels, the maximum sign area of a freestanding A-frame sign, stake, or banner sign is one-half of the sign area permitted for a permanent sign in the district in which the parcel is located. For vacant parcels, no commercial signs are 257
ATTACHMENT 3
1113
3 ORDINANCE NO. _____________
permitted. Noncommercial signs are permitted as long as the signs do not exceed four square feet per sign and no two signs with the same copy are located closer than 50 feet from each other.
6) A temporary sign may not be illuminated.
7) A window painting may cover only up to 50 percent of the window area. 8) A temporary freestanding A-frame sign is subject to the following requirements:
a) Maximum size of temporary freestanding A-frame signs is 30 inches wide by 48 inches tall; and
b) A temporary freestanding A-frame sign must be placed on private property or in a landscaped area.
9) Each parcel shall have no more than one beacon, subject to the following requirements:
a) A beacon may be displayed no more than 10 days per year; b) A beacon must be located on-site;
c) A beacon may not create a hazard to pedestrians, vehicles, or aircraft due to its location or movement; and
d) A beacon may only operate during the business hours of the use being identified.
10) Commercial and noncommercial temporary signs are not permitted on public property. For clarification, the term public property for this prohibition means both real property owned by a public entity as well as physical property, including but not limited to, traffic lights, street lights, and utility infrastructure.
11) In the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) area only, commercial and noncommercial temporary signs are not permitted in the designated public right-of-way with the exception of A-frame signs, which must be:
a) No larger than 30 inches wide by 48 inches tall;
b) Displayed only between 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.;
c) Located within five feet of a front building entrance of only commercial uses;
d) Allow for adequate ADA and public access on the sidewalk; and e) Subject to DSP Chapter 6 design standards, including standards for portable signs.
12) Noncommercial temporary signs (including campaign and political signs) are permitted in the designated public right-of-way, but not in the street, street median, or sidewalk, in commercial and industrial zones other than the DSP, subject to the following:
a) The signs must relate to an event scheduled for a specific date and shall not be displayed sooner than 90 days before that event; b) May only be displayed between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. each day;
c) Signs must be stake signs with a maximum size of four square feet; d) No two signs with the same copy shall be placed closer than 50 feet from each other per street frontage;
e) Corner properties may have two of the same sign at the corner; and, 258
ATTACHMENT 3
1114
4 ORDINANCE NO. _____________
f) All noncommercial temporary signs shall be removed within five days after the event to which they pertain.

B. Temporary signs in residential zoning districts. In addition to permanent signs allowed in this chapter, temporary signs are permitted in Specific Plans, Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Planned Development (PD) district areas that allow residential uses and in zoning districts designated as Downtown Specific Plan (DSP), Suburban Multiple Residential (RG), Multi-Family Residential (MFR), Suburban Residential (RS), Low Density Residential (RL), Rural Residential (RR), T3 Neighborhood, and T4 Neighborhood, subject to the following:
1) A temporary sign may be placed on private property subject to the following:
a) Noncommercial signs.
(1) Maximum four square feet per sign;
(2) No limit on the number of signs permitted; and
(3) Signs must be a stake sign.
b) Commercial signs.
(1) Signage pursuant to Civil Code Section 713 may be
freestanding or wall mounted; and
(2) Signs pursuant to a master sign program associated with a residential development are exempt; except they may not exceed 32 square feet and may not exceed one per parcel. (3) A temporary commercial sign shall not be displayed for more than 35 days in any three- month period on private property. 2) A noncommercial temporary sign (including campaign and political signs) may be placed in the designated public right-of-way, but not the street, street median, or sidewalk, subject to the following:
a) Signs must relate to an event scheduled for a specific date and shall not be installed sooner than 90 days before that event; b) Signs shall only be displayed in the public right-of-way between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. each day;
c) Signs must be stake signs with a maximum size of four square feet; d) No two signs with the same copy shall be placed closer than 50 feet from each other per street frontage;
e) Corner properties may have two of the same sign at the corner; and, f) All noncommercial temporary signs shall be removed within five days after the event to which they pertain.
3) A commercial temporary sign (including garage sale signs and real estate signs) may be placed in the designated public right-of-way, but not the street, street median, or sidewalk, subject to the following:
a) Signs must relate to an activity permitted within a residential zoning district;
b) Signs are only allowed on Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.;
c) Signs are limited to four square feet;
259
ATTACHMENT 3
1115
5 ORDINANCE NO. _____________
d) Only one sign per each advertised activity (e.g., a house for sale, etc.) may be placed at each street intersection leading from the two nearest major streets (reflecting two independent access routes) to the site of the advertised activity;
e) Only one sign per each advertised activity, up to a maximum of three signs total, may be placed at any street intersection corner; and f) The sign must be placed so that a minimum of four and one-half feet remains clear on the sidewalk for pedestrians if no other location is possible.
4) Commercial and non-commercial temporary signs are not permitted on public property. For clarification, the term public property for this prohibition means both real public property and physical public property, including but not limited to traffic lights, street lights, and utility infrastructure C. Enforcement. Any commercial or noncommercial temporary sign placed in the public right-of-way or public property in violation of this section shall be subject to removal by the City and enforcement using the remedies in Chapters 1.20, 8.14, and 8.15 in the Municipal Code, and such other remedies the City may have. The Neighborhood Preservation staff shall develop enforcement protocols for the removal and storage of those signs, as well as for their retrieval and possible destruction if not retrieved.

Section 3. Section 11.01.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases), Subsection S. (Definitions) of the Livermore Development Code is amended as follows:

Section 11.01.020 Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases Stake sign. A sign constructed of paper or plastic mounted on a wood or metal stick that is pushed or hammered into the ground, and the top of which is less than 36 inches above the ground.

Section 4. The City Council finds that the proposed project is exempt from review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3) - the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and the City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk.

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

The foregoing ordinance was introduced at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Livermore City Council held on July 27, 2020, by the following vote:
260
ATTACHMENT 3
1116
6 ORDINANCE NO. _____________
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

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

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

MAYOR, CITY OF LIVERMORE
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ _________________________________ Marie Weber Jason Alcala
City Clerk City Attorney
261
ATTACHMENT 3
1117
ATTACHMENT 4
1118
ATTACHMENT 4
1119
ATTACHMENT 4
1120
ATTACHMENT 4
1121
ATTACHMENT 4
1122
ATTACHMENT 4
1123
ATTACHMENT 5
1124
ATTACHMENT 5
1125
ATTACHMENT 5
1126
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 6.5
DATE: November 28, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 14, 2022. Hearing to consider amending the Livermore Development Code regarding temporary signs, including Section 4.06.140, to update regulations relating commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in all zoning districts.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
a) Based on City Council direction, staff recommends the City Council waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 22-003, Temporary Signs, to update sections relating to the location, time of day, and number of days for commercial and noncommercial temporary signs in all zoning districts. or
b) As an alternative to the Development Code Amendment requested by the City Council, the Mayor recommends the City Council waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance to prohibit the placement of all temporary signs in the public right-of-way in commercial, industrial, and residential zoning districts.

SUMMARY
Council Direction:

The City Council and staff have received complaints that campaign signs were being vandalized, stolen, installed inconsistent with the City’s existing sign regulations and that components of the signs are littering the cityscape. On October 24, 2022, the City Council discussed the matter and directed staff to return with the development code amendments for temporary signs previously recommended for approval in 2020 by the Planning Commission. On that date, the City Council reaffirmed the 60 day time period for the display of noncommercial temporary signs in the public right-of-way, but directed staff to clarify how the date of an event is determined for the display of a noncommercial temporary sign in the public right-of-way. Lastly, on that date the City Council reaffirmed that temporary signs placed in the ATTACHMENT 6
1127
public right-of-way in violation of the ordinance are subject to removal and confiscation.

Relevant amendments previously recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission include the following regulations:

Restrict the placement of commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in the right-of-way to daylight hours between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Signs could only be placed after 9:00 a.m. and would need to be removed before 5:00 p.m. each day.

Signs must relate to an event scheduled for a specific date and shall not be displayed sooner than 30 days before that event.

On July 27, 2020, the City Council considered the recommendation from the Planning Commission, directed revisions, and subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 2099 on August 24, 2020. The Council removed the restriction on displaying temporary signs to certain hours of the day, and set the duration of display to 60 days before an event. Attachment 1 is the July 27, 2020 staff report.

Staff recommends the City Council introduce an ordinance establishing the daily limitations on displaying commercial and non-commercial signs in the right-of-way previously recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff is also clarifying that the event date would be the actual election date for an election event, or the opening day for other events. The Amendment is intended to support and provide for free speech in the community through temporary signs while addressing concerns with vandalism, theft, aesthetics and public safety.

Mayor Alternative:

The City Council directed staff to amend the Development Code to prohibit the placement of temporary signs on the public right-of-way to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in commercial, industrial, and residential zoning districts.

As Mayor, I recommend the City Council consider an alternative amendment to the Development Code to prohibit the placement of all temporary signs in the public right-of-way in commercial, industrial, and residential zoning districts.

DISCUSSION
Council Direction:

Staff is recommending Development Code amendments to address the challenges associated with the display of temporary signs (Attachment 2). The Development Code includes the following provisions addressing commercial and noncommercial signs in commercial and industrial zones other than the Downtown Specific Plan, and residential zoning districts:

Noncommercial temporary signs are currently permitted in the designated public right-of-way, but not in the street, street median, or sidewalk, subject to the following:
a. The signs must relate to an event scheduled for a specific date and shall not be displayed sooner than 60 days before that event;
b. Signs must be stake signs with a maximum size of four square feet; ATTACHMENT 6
1128
c. No two signs with the same copy shall be placed closer than 50 feet from each other per street frontage;
d. Corner properties may have two of the same sign at the corner; and, e. All noncommercial temporary signs shall be removed within five days after the event to which they pertain.

The size and placement restrictions listed above and already in the Development Code would be preserved with the following key additional requirement:

Restrict the placement of commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in the public right-ofway to daylight hours between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in all designated zones.

This approach allows signs to be displayed during the most active times of the day and increases responsibility for those wishing to display temporary signs. Removing signs before nightfall would significantly reduce vandalism and theft.

Temporary sign regulations in the Downtown Specific Plan area will not be changed by the proposed amendment. In the Downtown Specific Plan only, commercial and non-commercial temporary signs would remain prohibited in the designated public right-of-way with the exception of A-frame signs.

Regarding determining the date of an event, staff is recommending that, for events like an election the event date for the purposes of the ordinance is the actual election date and not the voting period for the run-up to the election, and for multi-day events like a county fair the event date is the first day the fair opens to the public.

Any commercial or noncommercial temporary sign placed in the public right-of-way or public property in violation of these provisions would be subject to removal by the City. Current enforcement practice is to make every attempt to notify identified contacts, if any, and/or property owners of improperly placed signs, allow 24 hours to correct violations, and retrieve removed signs. If this amendment is approved, Neighborhood Preservation staff will develop enforcement protocols to remove and confiscate signs violating the provisions.

The proposed Development Code amendment is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3) - the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
There are no direct initial costs other than printing new public information flyers. The revised flyers would continue to describe prohibited locations and how to install signs properly. Neighborhood Preservation staff currently spends significant time policing the public right-of-way for sign violations. Staff may need to adjust shift start and stop times for Neighborhood Preservation employees during certain periods in order to enforce the time limits. This Code amendment will also initially require additional staff time to explain and enforce the new standards.

Mayor Alternative:

ATTACHMENT 6
1129
At the regular City Council meeting on October 24, 2022, I joined a majority of the City Council that directed staff prepare amendments to the temporary sign ordinance to restrict the placement of temporary signs on the public right-of-way to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in commercial, industrial, and residential zoning districts. However, I believe a better course of action is to prohibit the placement of all temporary signs in the public right-of-way for those zoning districts.

I believe a blanket prohibition against the placement of all temporary signs in the public right-of-way in commercial, industrial, and residential zoning districts is a better course of action because it is simpler in concept and more straightforward to enforce. This approach is also consistent with the legal advice we received at the regular meeting on October 24, 2022, that it is best for the regulations to be content neutral. I recommend the City Council discuss my proposal at the meeting on November 14, 2022, and introduce the ordinance I have proposed.

The Mayor also instructed that the enforcement date for either ordinance, if adopted, should be delayed until July 1, 2023, to allow staff to research and development of any additional amendments directed by the City Council.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
There are no fiscal or administrative impacts associated with this item.

ATTACHMENTS

1. July 27 2020 Staff Report

2. Council Direction LDC - Redline Edits

3. Council Direction Ordinance, DCA 22-003

4. Mayor Alternative LDC - Redline Edits

5. Mayor Alternative Ordinance, DCA 22-003
Prepared by: Steve Stewart
Planning Manager
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
ATTACHMENT 6
1130
ATTACHMENT 7
1131
ATTACHMENT 7
1132
ATTACHMENT 7
1133
ATTACHMENT 7
1134
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 May 16, 2023
DRAFT

PLANNING COMMISSION

DRAFT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
May 16, 2023

1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daniel Leary at 7:00 p.m., via Zoom teleconferencing and inperson.

ROLL CALL – Present were Chairperson Daniel Leary; Vice Chairperson Jacob Anderson, CM Steven Dunbar, CM Yolanda Fintschenko, CM Tracy Kronzak.

Also present were: Principal Planner Steve Riley; Senior Assistant City Attorney Kim Cilley; Associate Planner Jake Potter; Division Clerk Michele Donley.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Chairperson Leary.

2. OPEN FORUM
John Stein, 1334 Kathy Court, said because of State and local mandates, Livermore is on the way to many TOD projects, which assumes a robust mass transit network. He cited increasing pressure on City operating funds, decline in services, declines in transit ridership, pressure in funding services, and thinks cities will be forced to look for increased sources of new funding with limited options. Possible sources are a regional sales tax, the City and County general funds or Community Service Districts. If those fail, there will be a decline in services and said the question is how to plan for that. Some options are looking at the 15 minute city where there are services like work, school, shopping, and personal services are all within a 15 minute walk which would require changes in zoning.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Anderson requested staff retain historical minutes, given they are now digitized. Senior Assistant City Attorney Kim Cilley referred to the City’s retention schedule approved by the City Council, and recalled that video recordings have a retention of 2 years.

3.1 Approval of the February 21, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.

MOTION BY DUNBAR, SECONDED BY ANDERSON, TO ADOPT THE FEBRUARY 21, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.

AYES: ANDERSON, DUNBAR, LEARY.

NOES: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

ABSTAIN: FINTSCHENKO, KRONZAK.

ATTACHMENT 8
1135
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 May 16, 2023
DRAFT

3.2 Approval of the April 4, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.

MOTION BY ANDERSON, SECONDED BY KRONZAK, TO ADOPT THE APRIL 4, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.

AYES: ANDERSON, DUNBAR, LEARY, FINTSCHENKO, KRONZAK.

NOES: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

3.3 Approval of the May 2, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.

Chairperson Dunbar stated he had a minor modification under discussion of the hotel item on page 20. “CM Dunbar said with regards to a railroad, he does not believe it is appropriate to cross at have site access via a railroad.” MOTION BY DUNBAR, SECONDED BY ANDERSON, TO ADOPT THE MAY 2, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, AS AMENDED.

AYES: ANDERSON, DUNBAR, LEARY, FINTSCHENKO, KRONZAK.

NOES: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

4. PROJECT REVIEW – None.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.1 Hearing to consider Development Code Amendment (DCA) 22-004, which would amend temporary sign standards in the public right-of-way.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions, recommending the City Council:

1. Find the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 21084 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(e), which exempts minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment; and

2. Approve Development Code Amendment 22-004, which would amend Livermore Development Code Section 4.06.140 to allow temporary commercial and non-commercial signs in the public right-of-way at intersections of city streets outside the Downtown area from Thursday to Sunday.

Jake Potter, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and overview of temporary signs in the public right-of-way project, specifically to consider a Development Code Amendment 22-004.

ATTACHMENT 8
1136
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 May 16, 2023
DRAFT
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions, recommending the City Council 1) Find the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 21084 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(e), which exempts minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment; and 2) Approve Development Code Amendment 22-004, which would amend Livermore Development Code Section 4.06.140 to allow temporary commercial and non-commercial signs in the public right-of-way at intersections of city streets outside the Downtown area from Thursday to Sunday.

CM Kronzak asked and confirmed that in the City limits, real estate signs are allowed to be placed on public and private property.

Chairperson Leary opened the public comment period.

David Stark, Chief Public Affairs and Communications Officer, Bay East Association of Realtors, thanked staff for proactively reaching out to them soon after the Council action last year regarding this issue. In early conversations with staff regarding tracking of sign complaints it was made clear they do not have a problem with real estate open house signs. Their association takes sign ordinances seriously, noting the types of ordinances throughout the county are very different and their association provides summaries of sign ordinances to all realtors. At each new member orientation, he provides a presentation and create videos about specific government interactions on local sign ordinances and proactively educate members about various ordinances. They support staff’s recommendations and once approved by the City Council, will work with realtors to get the word out.

John Stein said he supports the changes to accommodate real estate signs. There are a couple hundred existing A-frame signs that various businesses put up and he thinks the problem was the political signs and not the A-frame signs, which he described. He would suggest 2 minor changes: 1) that political signs only be allowed within 30 days of an election; and 2) that they be allowed to stay up all week long. This would accommodate most of the concerns.

CM Kronzak said their questions are around the non-commercial sign limitations. They asked if the City is concerned at all that by combining commercial and non-commercial signs under the same regulations and time boxing that Thursday to Sunday there might be a challenge from a litigious political campaign regarding undue burden and First Amendment rights with regard to advertising for their campaign.

Mr. Potter said one of the things staff was careful to do was make sure they did not privilege the commercial speech over non-commercial speech. The commercial standards set the baseline. In terms of the timeline, this is part of the reason they did not want to create an overly onerous timeline. They can be put up any time prior to an election but they do have to take them down and put them back up as other communities require.

ATTACHMENT 8
1137
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 May 16, 2023
DRAFT
CM Kronzak asked what other communities require non-commercial signs to be taken down and put up this way.

Mr. Potter said there are cities such as Brentwood that allows signage only on weekend and again, based on staff’s review of case law, they wanted to be sure they were aligning those 2 sets of standards together so they did not have a content-based restriction so as not to unduly burden non-commercial speech.

CM Kronzak said it is consistently true that courts have found it is easier to regulate commercial versus non-commercial signage, and Mr. Potter confirmed this is correct.

CM Fintschenko said she is concerned very much that placing a burden of removing signs every week for an election will privilege some campaigns over others that have more money, can pay fines, and just put out new signs. It would also discourage new candidates and new voices. She asked if the recommendation can be modified. She does not want to jeopardize the real estate brokers, but if the concern is keeping everything the same she asked if it is possible to have a 30 day timeframe where you can put a sign up and allow them to go all week. She feels this was forced into the Thursday through Sunday to accommodate the real estate community which is fine, but at the same time for First Amendment rights, it seems like undue burden.

Mr. Potter said it can be modified. He clarified that staff went through approximately 15 different versions of this and there are pros and cons. Staff was looking at a hybrid approach whereby they allowed for signs on Thursday through Sunday and they also allowed for signs throughout the entire week in advance of each of the elections, but they did not call out the election because you cannot given that would be a content based restriction. So, what they thought was there are 3 elections generally across a year. This option would allow for signs throughout the entire week in the month of February, May, and October in advance of each of the elections. This could take care of campaign or any type of political signs.

In addition to that, they thought you could also have real estate signs on Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, so it is additive through the year. For those 3 months that coincide with the elections you can have signs the entire week. In that way, they are being content-neutral, the commercial still establishes the baseline, they are not privileging commercial speech over non-commercial speech, and they proposed what they are proposing tonight because of the complexity. But, it is possible to try to better accommodate non-commercial signage.

ATTACHMENT 8
1138
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 May 16, 2023
DRAFT
CM Fintschenko said she was concerned with all the enforcement of signs up and down during the week that this may not actually mitigate some of the burden even though there will be the fee. Another concern she has is once you put a sign up, there is no reason to be around it. This started out because the City was trying to prevent vandalism. Now there might be a reason for people to hang around signs twice a week so she thinks placing the signs on the intersections would help, but having people fuss with signs twice a week invites the appearance of vandalism and could contribute to it. She does not think the day restriction serves the intent of what prompted the ordinances.

Mr. Potter said staff’s intent here was to make sure there were as many eyes on the corners as possible. So, instead of having signs along the right-of-way, if they are at the corner they might reduce the chance of vandalism. If vandals do not abide by the sign laws, they might be discouraged by the traffic out there, but he understands the point of the appearance of vandalism.

CM Dunbar asked why did staff decide on 11:00 p.m. Sunday as the cut-off as opposed to 9:00 a.m. Monday. Mr. Potter said they just aligned with the City’s noise ordinance for consistency.

CM Dunbar said in hearing discussion, the trick with the 30-60 days was addressed and he thinks all are improvements to the previous situation knowing the enforcement is everything after July. He spoke about his campaign in 2020 and said he had no signs.

He came rather close to winning, so he is not convinced signs are important at all. He also knows it is not the only trash on the street because there is other vandalism but these signs come with stakes and sometimes those stakes come loose and come out. Either they get in the street or they fall over on the sidewalk, both of which are safety issues.

CM Dunbar said he is in support of staff’s recommendation and said he was trying to figure out the points about people paying the fines outright. He also thinks $20/sign will add up fast and asked if the City considered dealing with serial offenders separately.

Mr. Potter said the existing sign ordinance references administrative penalty section of the LMC. This collection fee would be separate from that. It is $100 on the first offense and then it ratches up from there. So, if there was a serial offender there is a fine remedy in place through existing standards.

Vice Chairperson Anderson suggested no matter what the PC decides, freedom of speech is of the utmost importance and political speech should be the least restrictive if they have any differentiation. He agrees with staff to keep it standard across the board.

He asked if someone paying the fee is tracked because this will be a campaign expense.

He confirmed the $20 fee could be set lower and he suggested clarifying language around that. Regarding storage, he asked staff about how the language is written that states the City will hold the sign up to 10 days.

ATTACHMENT 8
1139
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 May 16, 2023
DRAFT
Mr. Potter clarified that it would be at least 10 days so that the owner of the sign has a defined time period to come get it, but staff can look at making more clarification if it would help.

Vice Chairperson Anderson thanked staff for revisions in the supplemental because he had concerns about ADA, as well as education. He confirmed there is an exemption for governmental agencies for their signs such as street signs, voting locations, event signs, etc. He was supportive of the current timeframes, thinks CM Dunbar had a good point about moving it to Monday morning, and voiced support of staff recommendations.

Chairperson Leary thanked staff for the code amendments and was happy staff was treating the commercial and non-commercial signs the same. This will reduce the impact the temporary signs have on the City’s landscape and aesthetics. He thinks the 50 feet from the mid-point of the curb turn is a good solution so they are narrowing the footprint of the signs geographically, not treating political signs any differently, reducing the safety impact of signs on pedestrians and traffic safety which has a more reasonable chance of being enforced, and he liked the idea of Monday morning at 9:00 a.m. The changes allow for a variety of signs, and he read off agencies that do not allow political signs which were Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Danville, Ripon, and the State of California.

CM Kronzak said they had been clear in their statement not to say campaign or political signs, and they are concerned about non-commercial signs and limitations. They can imagine a world where someone could make a case that in fact, by conforming noncommercial signs to commercial sign timelines it would represent an undue burden on unfinanced campaigns that do not have the ability to go out, put up signs, and put them back down again. There are also community event that use signs as advertisements for those events, and they agreed with this as written by staff except point 11-B conforming them both to the same time block.

CM Fintschenko said unlike CM Kronzak, she is specifically concerned about the First Amendment right related to freedom of expression as it relates to elections. She thinks that one of the things that is an unintended consequence is it limits how people can participate and the election process. This means they must have volunteers to place signs between 9:00 and 5:00 on a weekday and weekend when a lot of people might be working. So, this skews who can participate and volunteer their time in the political process.

She thinks the level of signage, participation, and passion seen in the last election represents an engage electorate which is what they should be striving for in a democracy.

Since non-commercial signs tend to be allowed more protection she does not think they would be erring by allowing non-commercial signs, especially political signs, to be able to be up for a dedicated period. Maybe they must address the issues of pollution or litter, which are reasonable concerns like getting in the way of pedestrians or people who need to use bicycles, crutches, or wheelchairs.

ATTACHMENT 8
1140
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 May 16, 2023
DRAFT
Senior Assistant City Attorney Kim Cilley commented that this is a highly litigious area.

There are so many cases in this area under First Amendment. The law is not clear. Most recently, the Supreme Court has said content neutrality is very important and that is where they are left in terms of regulation and challenge. She does not think there is any way to say any ordinance is full proof from a First Amendment challenge because that law is constantly changing, and there could be an argument favoring candidates of certain financial means. She has not seen this argument made in terms of temporary signs. When commercial and non-commercial are treated the same and the regulation is contentneutral, reasonable time, place, and manner restriction have been generally upheld. A time, place, and manner restriction would be based like the example of Thursday to Sunday or Thursday to Monday.

She added that for the period of time, there are also issues with before an event or an election. There have been cases that have challenged a 30-day period, and in one case it was said to have benefitted incumbents because they are more well-known. For those who are new to an election, 30 days may not be enough. There was a case in the City of Antioch challenging their ordinance that had 60 days and this was struck down. So, the law is not clear and there is no perfect answer. She knows with several jurisdictions she reached out to she has asked them about their ordinance, and they will acknowledge that they do not enforce the ordinance because they know it is unconstitutional and has been on the books for a long time. So, it is hard to find new recent First Amendment sign ordinances that are fully defensible. They feel comfortable with the proposal by staff.

When you treat commercial and non-commercial differently there are loopholes where inadvertently you may give a benefit to a commercial sign that you did not give to commercial.

CM Dunbar said it is up to Council and staff to decide what they think is going to be legally appropriate and it is beyond the Planning Commission to some degree other than making CEQA findings. He thought maybe the Commission can recommend this resolution within a scope of recommendations they have talked about here, all of which are better than the previous case scenario in terms of no enforcement at all. He thinks they are clear they are treating everything the same.

Vice Chairperson Anderson said he thinks Chairperson Leary, himself and CM Dunbar have made it clear they want to treat them the same, but CM Kronzak was saying something different because of the timing.

CM Dunbar said in terms of a defensibility standpoint, it is also not political. He sees pool care signs all over the place that have been left behind for years and trashed, which he considers just as ugly. He wants to make the point that they will still have lots of signs on private property.

ATTACHMENT 8
1141
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 May 16, 2023
DRAFT
He said whatever recommendation gets approved by Council, he thinks they should plan for public communication of that recommendation now. He suggested having examples in pictures, identifying those good and those that are not, and ensuring the defensibility on restrictions of signs for reasons of access, aesthetics, and lack of trash on the streets.

He noted CM Kronzak referred to 11-B and asked her what her proposes.

CM Kronzak said they would propose 3 changes to 11-B, which are in alignment with public comment and some of the discussion of the other Commissioners here: 1) Commercial signs are permitted Thursday through Monday each week, 7:00 a.m.

Thursday through 10:00 a.m. Monday; 2) Non-commercial signs are permitted 45 days prior to event; and 3) There was a clause in one of the previous items related to removal of signs post-event of up to 10 days, and this would be the enforcement mechanism on those signs.

CM Dunbar asked what the Commission is sending to the City Council in terms of the PC’s recommendation, which is related to aesthetics and not necessarily legal recommendations. He asked if staff thinks it is appropriate to move forward with this recommendation while also suggesting the Council review alternatives discussed here.

Ms. Cilley said staff did not investigate all the specifics on the 45 days. She remembers doing this research a couple of years ago, and 45 days could be too short.

CM Kronzak said they had seen in other states and in California case law when they did a review that the 60-day period is the most defensible period of time.

Ms. Cilley said it is, with the caveat there has been a challenge and it was overturned as not being enough. It may be a trial court decision so it would not be binding. They do have some degree of legal defensibility of a 60-day and she did not think it would extend to the 45-day.

CM Kronzak said they would suggest 60 days.

CM Dunbar referred to timing and being able to start Monday morning and he wants to avoid litigious people from calling it in Monday morning at 6:00 a.m. so it is moved before there is a notification period. The third alternative would be if staff has a contact with the campaign to give them notification to pick it up themselves as opposed to directly picking it up.

Mr. Potter said it gets to be a little bit of a challenge on the administrative side and you get down the path of registering with a local agency a non-commercial sign which is also a bit of a challenge. On some of the previous points, if the PC feels that an alternative proposal would allow the PC to make the findings, it is within the PC’s purview to do that.

ATTACHMENT 8
1142
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 May 16, 2023
DRAFT
Staff references some policies in the General Plan they think it supports and the other relates to public safety and welfare. As far as the events go, they tried many options. The tough part is then a City official must determine what an “event” is. This gets into a discretionary decision which is part of the reason why staff was considering a time of calendar days.

Vice Chairperson Anderson said case law is evolving around this topic, and if the Council was to approve something and case law changes he asked and confirmed the Council can change it. Therefore, he said he does not think the Commission should be questioning what might happen. He voiced support of staff’s recommendations, agreed with what CM Dunbar is saying and suggesting framing a motion asking the Council to look at all options and recommendations, but that they are sending forward staff’s recommendation, with an amendment around Sunday evening’s time and changing it to Monday morning.

Chairperson Leary said he was also supportive of staff’s recommendations. When he was looking at all the other cities’ ordinances, Pleasanton and Dublin have a “permission to post” in their ordinance and he spoke of the many signs in Google street view.

Ms. Cilley said she did a deep review of Dublin’s ordinance with one of the former Councilmembers. Interestingly, you will find sections that either prohibit or permit temporary signs. There are other provisions within that same chapter exactly the opposite. So, there are conflicting provisions in a number of those ordinances, including some of the City’s own.

Chairperson Leary said Dublin has a one-page examples with nice colored pictures with the “x’s” and check boxes, and the 4 do’s and don’ts about temporary signs. Ms. Cilley said this is not their ordinance, and the provisions are inconsistent with their ordinance.

So, it is difficult given inconsistencies between jurisdictions.

CM Fintschenko said in terms of the enforcement it states, “Neighborhood Preservation staff shall charge a non-compliant sign collection fee in an amount not to exceed $20/sign.” She asked if this is regardless of someone collects a sign or not.

Mr. Potter said this would be levied at the time of collection.

CM Fintschenko said she did place signs for 2 different campaigns and while the campaigns may have received information about those, as a campaign worker they did not. Someone handed them a sign and said you can put this in a yard or a public place.

So, coming back to the intent behind this which is to make things more compliant, while she thinks a penalty can be helpful she wonders if it would be more helpful of having some requirement of making sure that if you are going to post a sign you read something so they know the rules.

ATTACHMENT 8
1143
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10 May 16, 2023
DRAFT
Mr. Potter said the City Clerk does deliver materials to the campaign with standards, but it is a challenge for all campaign workers. In some ways, it is difficult to reach out into that area. To some degree, it is a civil matter between the campaign and those individuals.

But, staff is also hearing loud and clear about the education component as well and how important that is because there are many areas around the City where it is not clear what the public right-of-way is and a private property may extend further than one may have thought.

CM Fintschenko said she thinks what CM Kronzak proposed is something she would support. As written, she would not support what staff is recommending. She feels very strongly about not privileging freedom of speech around elections. Nobody wanted this rule because everyone was upset about realtor signs or wine tasting signs. It was specifically around elections. She understands they must write something that is legally defensible, and thinks CM Kronzak’s solution is one way to deal with that but fundamentally it is freedom of speech around exercising your democratic freedoms.

Vice Chairperson Anderson voiced rebuttal, stating they are not limiting people’s individual rights to post campaign signs at their house. Those freedoms are still there for people to be able to post whatever they want on their individual property. He is supportive of staff’s recommendations and they provide opportunities for people to exercise their free speech.

Chairperson Leary said one thing about the private property argument is if one of his daughters wanted to run for office. She does not know anybody that has a front yard and lives in an apartment and they could post one on their balcony, so this is why he likes staff’s code amendments because it allows for that possibility for the weekend to put out a sign.

CM Kronzak said the cities mentioned that have total bans on temporary signs, they asked and confirmed those are defensible. They referred to breaking apart the time period for 11-B. They asked if it is the case that if the time period on 11-B were to be as it stands right now, except for changing the time from 11:00 p.m. Sunday until 10:00 a.m. Monday, they asked if this would produce any undue burden on City staff.

Mr. Potter said they spoke with the Neighborhood Preservation team and as indicated in the staff report, they spend approximately 1,000 hours a year on sign complaints. This proposal would require during the election season likely more stringent enforcement on Mondays. The existing standards allow for a larger period of time of 60 days and at the end of that period is when the Neighborhood Preservation team would be active. In this case, it would be active each Monday throughout the campaign season. During noncampaign season times it is unlikely to have a significant impact, but staff knows the primary causes of this time burden are from campaign signs and other signs like garage sale or lost pet signs affixed to City property.

CM Kronzak asked and confirmed the fee is only paid if someone shows up and collects the signs.

ATTACHMENT 8
1144
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 May 16, 2023
DRAFT
CM Kronzak said their profound concern is 11-B as written is putting preference towards commercial signs over non-commercial signs and they have listened to enough people talk about this and read enough to say they could make a clear case for why that would be so. They support the entire recommendation except for this limitation largely because of CM Fintschenko’s comments. The City is dancing around the idea that this is a sign volume issue during campaign seasons and that is admittedly an area of maximum public concern across the City, but they are also looking at the through the lens of a community organizer who would be trying to get word out about a specific happening or a new endeavor that would also be bound by this where there is a specific date and time event attached to those signs. So, they appreciate public comments on this, appreciate staff’s work on this, but at least if the PC makes a recommendation to revisit 11-B they cannot support this right now.

CM Dunbar said to keep things moving forward, he asked if it is fair to say the Commission can make the findings for CEQA with the staff recommendation.

CM Fintschenko said in addressing Vice Chairperson Anderson’s comment about not abridging freedom of speech. Part of freedom of speech is not simply the right to wear a tee short or personally display who you favor in an election. Part of this is being able to lend your support in a meaningful way. For many people, the best thing they can do to help someone out beyond something that shows a personal commitment by being on their property or on their person or car is to try and influence the public through something that is not so personal, not so private, and would be encompassed by something like being able to post a sign on a public roadway. She thinks anything that makes it seem like it is going to be problematic for a campaign automatically privileges certain campaigns over others and privileges certain candidates over others. She thinks this is part of the protection of free speech and not just to be able to personally state or display a preference for a candidate.

CM Dunbar said on the time period, he is happy to have staff review that and come back to the Council with whatever they think is appropriate. He understands consistency with other laws, trying not to be litigious, try to make it easy for enforcement staff to pick it up in a time that makes sense for them to do so he will not include this as part of the motion, but just as a recommendation.

His other two recommendations would be to state the other penalties more clearly or reference the other penalties beyond the $20 penalty in the development code or repeat infractions that are already part of the code and point towards them so they are clear to candidates if the Council decides to move forward. Also, regarding communications with candidates themselves, a one-pager with all these changes that the City Clerk would give out at the time of application would be another part of that communication strategy they already talked about.

ATTACHMENT 8
1145
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12 May 16, 2023
DRAFT
With regards to the ordinance itself he is still leaning toward approval of the recommendations, though unintended consequences are hard. He thinks there are other venues beyond signage that this could be the case too, such as social media where every dollar buys you another view and it is always going to come down to money to some degree, but he is not sure money necessarily buys you the pick up and drop off. It has to be more volunteers unless there are a handful of locations, and someone might still be able to compete just with volunteers.

Chairperson Leary said on 4-61 on the page before that where there are no changes, on filling out the form under A.2, he asked if it is intended that only the commercial sign would fill out the form. It does not say non-commercial.

Mr. Potter said correct; regular temporary signs in a commercial district have to go through a sign permit for being on private property which is in the first section it is referring to, but not non-commercial signs.

Vice Chairperson Anderson asked if a split vote can occur, with CEQA compliance being one of them.

Ms. Cilley said the Commission can do it either way but if the Commission votes “no” you do not need to comply with CEQA. Her recommendation would be to make a motion and you can modify the motion based on staff’s recommendation or modify it and vote on that.

Vice Chairperson Anderson moved staff’s recommendations with the emphasis to the City Council to look at all options discussed tonight.

Mr. Potter asked if it is possible to describe the options discussed.

Vice Chairperson Anderson suggested the Council review options of time changes for placement of signs.

CM Kronzak interjected and suggested recommendation number 1 would be that staff evaluate splitting 11-B into the following: 1) Non-commercial signs 60 days prior to event, and commercial signs Thursday through Sunday, 7:00 a.m. through 10:00 a.m. Monday.

CM Dunbar said another way of handling this would be to have a motion by CM Kronzak for her specific wording that maybe fails but gets the wording to the Council.

Vice Chairperson Anderson withdrew his motion. Mr. Potter suggested the Commission make motions and then hold discussion on them. Ms. Cilley added that the Commission would have to vote on the last motion first.

ATTACHMENT 8
1146
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 13 May 16, 2023
DRAFT
CM Kronzak said this is the reason they are splitting them. The differences between motions 1 and 2 is if they go by strict rules of order, they will vote on motion 2 first which they expect to fail; however, motion 1 still captures some intent regarding CM Dunbar’s points around taking signage away on a Sunday night versus Monday morning which they believe is still a recommendation they should be making to the Council.

After brief clarification, the Planning Commission voted on the following motions, in order, with the following votes. The underlined motion is the one that carried and approved the project.

1. Failed Motion
MOTION BY KRONZAK, SECONDED BY FINTSCHEKNO, TO SPLIT 11-B BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL WHICH WOULD READ, “COMMERCIAL SIGNS ARE PERMITTED FROM THURSDAY THROUGH SUNDAY EACH WEEK, 7:00 A.M. THURSDAY THROUGH 10:00 A.M. MONDAY. NON-COMMERCIAL SIGNS ARE PERMITTED 60 DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT 24/7.”
AYES: FINTSCHENKO, KRONZAK.

NOES: ANDERSON, DUNBAR, LEARY.

ABSENT: NONE.

2. Passed Motion

MOTION BY KRONZAK, SECONDED BY DUNBAR, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO CHANGE 11-B TO THE FOLLOWING: “SIGNS ARE PERMITTED FROM THURSDAY THROUGH MONDAY EACH WEEK, 7:00 A.M. THURSDAY TO MONDAY MORNING, AT A TIME DETERMINED BY STAFF.”
AYES: ANDERSON, DUNBAR, KRONZAK, LEARY.

NOES: FINTSCHEKO.

ABSENT: NONE.

3. No Vote Motion

MOTION BY ANDERSON, SECONDED BY LEARY, TO ADOPT STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS, AS PRESENTED TONIGHT.

NO VOTE WAS NEEDED OR TAKEN ON THIS MOTION.

6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION – None.

ATTACHMENT 8
1147
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 14 May 16, 2023
DRAFT

7. MATTERS INITIATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF

7.1 CM Dunbar reported Caltrans District 4 is refreshing their bike plan which was passed previously in 2018, and they have a survey out and he encouraged Commissioners and the City to spread it far and wide.

7.2 The Wheels agency is working on their update to the long-range transit plan, and he would like to speak with John Stein after the meeting and get him involved with it.

7.3 Mr. Riley reminded Commissioners of the State APA conference and 3 Commissioners have indicated they wish to attend and they are registered and have hotel arrangements. There is still time for the other 2 Commissioners if they wish to attend.

7.4 Staff plans to hold a PC meeting on June 6th and has items lined up for that meeting. The joint Council meeting has been rescheduled to July 18th.

8. ADJOURNMENT – 8:55 p.m. to a regular Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, June 06, 2023 at 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Meeting Hall, City Council Chambers, 1016 S. Livermore Avenue.

Minutes prepared by:

Lisa Harper Consulting
ATTACHMENT 8
1148
-----Original Message-----
From: ATHENA LYNCH
Sent Thursday, June 1, 2023 3:45 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Temporary signage in public right of way
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at httr2s:Uaka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I am writing to oppose any change to the existing signage rules.

I am a moderator on one of the local social media sites and witnessed much of the complaining about political signs last election cycle. There was particular 'outcry' about one candidate supposedly putting up signs before the "60 days prior to election" date. While this rule may have worked when there was only one election day, with early voting options it seems this rule could be refined.

Sincerely,
Athena Lynch
Sent from my iPad
ATTACHMENT 9
1149
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 22-004

FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS EXEMPT FROM THE

PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
On December 1, 2022, the City of Livermore (“City”) initiated an application for Development Code Amendment (DCA) 22-004, which would amend Livermore Development Code Section 4.06.140 to allow temporary commercial and non-commercial signs in the public right-of-way at intersections of City streets outside the downtown area from Thursday to Monday (the “Project”).

On May 16, 2023, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the Project, made the necessary findings, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 19-23 recommending the City Council find the Project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

On June 12, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, Planning Commission and staff recommendations, and all public comments and testimony, and findings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that prior to taking action on the Project, and at a properly noticed public meeting, the City Council reviewed written and oral staff reports, conducted a public hearing on the Project and took testimony, and received into the record all pertinent documents related to the Project (collectively, the “Record Evidence”). The City Council’s determination is based on the Record Evidence, which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore, has considered the findings made in Planning Commission Resolution No. 19-23, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the City Council hereby adopts the same findings by this reference and incorporates them as their own findings as part of this resolution. Based upon the City Council's own independent review of the Record Evidence and considerations, the City Council hereby finds that:

1. The Project is statutorily exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CA Public Resources Code Section 21084 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(e), which exempts minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment; and

2. None of the exceptions to the categorical exemption listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
1150
RESOLUTION NO. ________
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Livermore City Council directs the Planning Manager to file a Notice of Exemption with the Alameda County Clerk if the Project is approved.

The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be found in the Community Development Department, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, in Livermore, California.

On the motion by Council Member ____________________, seconded by Council Member ____________________, the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted on June 12, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ /s/ Kimberly D. Cilley
Marie Weber Kimberly D. Cilley
City Clerk Senior Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – Planning Commission Resolution No. 19-23
1151

EXHIBIT A
1152

EXHIBIT A
1153

EXHIBIT A
1154
ORDINANCE NO. ___

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING LIVERMORE DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION

4.06.140 TO ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL

SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT INTERSECTIONS OF CITY STREETS

OUTSIDE THE DOWNTOWN AREA FROM THURSDAY TO MONDAY
In January and February 2020, the City Council received complaints that campaign signs were being vandalized, stolen, and installed inconsistent with the City of Livermore' s existing regulations for commercial and non-commercial temporary signs.

On March 9, 2020, the City Council directed staff to develop options for an ordinance to limit the placement of campaign signs in the public right of way.

On August 24, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2099, which restricted signs to be placed 60 days prior to an election.

On October 24, 2022, after the City Council continued to receive signage complaints, the City Council directed staff to return with the temporary sign, Development Code amendments previously heard by the Planning Commission in 2020.

On November 28, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2141, which prohibited all temporary signs in the right-of-way of residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts outside the Downtown. The City Council delayed the effective date of the ordinance to July 1, 2023, and directed staff to return with further code amendments.

On December 1, 2022, the City initiated an application for Development Code Amendment (DCA) 22-004, which would amend Livermore Development Code Section

4.06.140 to allow temporary commercial and non-commercial signs in the public right-ofway at intersections of city streets outside the Downtown area from Thursday to Monday (the “Project.”)
On May 16, 2023, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the Project , made the necessary findings, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-23 recommending the City Council approve Development Code Amendment (DCA) 22-004.

On June 12, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, Planning Commission and staff recommendations, and all public comments and testimony, and findings.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Findings. The City Council has considered the findings made in Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-23, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and hereby adopts the same findings by this reference and incorporates them herein. 1155
ORDINANCE NO. ___
Section 2. Public Hearing. Prior to taking action on the Project, and at a properly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Livermore reviewed written and oral staff reports, conducted a public hearing on the Project and took testimony, and received into the record all pertinent documents related to the Project (collectively, the “Record Evidence”). The City Council’s determination is based on the Record Evidence, which is incorporated into this Ordinance by reference.

Section 3. Environmental. The City Council has adopted Resolution No. [________] finding Development Code Amendment (DCA) 22-004 to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CA Public Resources Code Section 21084 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(e); and has found that none of the exceptions to the categorical exemption listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

Section 4. Ordinance. The City Council hereby approves Development Code Amendment (DCA) 22-004 and Section 4.06.140 of the Livermore Development Code is amended as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto.

Section 5. Consistency. The ordinance is consistent with the Livermore General Plan, any applicable specific plan, and the Livermore Development Code.

Section 6. Publication, Effective Date, and Enforcement Date. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Livermore within 15 days after its adoption and shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after its adoption. If the ordinance amendment is approved at the June 12, 2023 City Council meeting, Ordinance No. 2141 will be superseded and shall not be enforced on July 1, 2023.

Section 7. Filing. Planning Manager is directed to file a Notice of Exemption with the Alameda County Clerk.

Section 8. Documents. The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based on can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore, California.

Section 9. Severability. If any part of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid by a court, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any remaining parts.
1156
ORDINANCE NO. ___
The foregoing ordinance was introduced at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Livermore held on June 12, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

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

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
________________________________
Mayor, City of Livermore
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ /s/ Kimberly D. Cilley
Marie Weber Kimberly D. Cilley
City Clerk Senior Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A - Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-23
Exhibit B – Redlined Livermore Development Code Section 4.06.140 1157

EXHIBIT A
1158

EXHIBIT A
1159

EXHIBIT A
1160
Sign Standards 4.06.140

4.06.140 Temporary Signs
A. Temporary signs in commercial and industrial zoning districts.

In addition to the permanent signs allowed in this chapter, temporary signs are permitted on private property in Specific Plans, Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Planned Development (PD) district areas that allow commercial and industrial uses and the following zoning districts designated as Neighborhood Business Commercial (CNB), Commercial Service (CS), Highway Service Commercial (CHS), Commercial Office (CO), Professional Office (CP), Research and Development (I-1), Light Industrial (I-2), Heavy Industrial (I-3), T4 Neighborhood-Open, and Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU), subject to the following:

1. Only the following types of temporary signs are permitted:
a. A freestanding A-frame sign;
b. A window painting;
c. A banner sign;
d. A beacon;
e. A stake sign.

2. Prior to displaying a temporary sign which contains commercial sign copy, the owner of such a sign shall register the sign with the Planning Division by completing a form provided by the City. The form shall include the owner’s name, address and telephone number, as well as dates the owner intends on displaying the sign. The City may charge a reasonable registration fee to cover the cost of inspection and enforcement, as determined by resolution of the City Council.

3. A freestanding A-frame sign, window painting or banner sign shall be displayed no more than 35 days in any three-month period on private property.

4. Each parcel shall have no more than one freestanding A-frame sign, window painting or banner sign.

Livermore Development Code 4-61
(Revised 2/23)

EXHIBIT B
1161

4.06.140 Sign Standards

5. For commercial and noncommercial signs on developed parcels, the maximum sign area of a freestanding A-frame sign, stake, or banner sign is one-half of the sign area permitted for a permanent sign in the district in which the parcel is located.

For vacant parcels, no commercial signs are permitted. Noncommercial signs are permitted as long as the signs do not exceed four square feet per sign and no two signs with the same copy are located closer than 50 feet from each other.

6. A temporary sign may not be illuminated.

7. A window painting may cover only up to 50 percent of the window area.

8. A temporary freestanding A-frame sign is subject to the following requirements:
a. Maximum size of temporary freestanding A-frame signs is 30 inches wide by 48 inches tall; and
b. A temporary freestanding A-frame sign must be placed on private property or in a landscaped area.

9. Each parcel shall have no more than one beacon, subject to the following requirements:
a. A beacon may be displayed no more than 10 days per year; b. A beacon must be located on site;
c. A beacon may not create a hazard to pedestrians, vehicles, or aircraft due to its location or movement; and
d. A beacon may only operate during the business hours of the use being identified.

10. Commercial and noncommercial temporary signs are not permitted on public property. For clarification, the term public property for this prohibition means both real property owned by a public entity as well as physical property, including but not limited to traffic lights, street lights, and utility infrastructure.

11.10. In the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) area only, commercial and noncommercial temporary signs are not permitted in the designated public rightof-way with the exception of A-frame signs, which must be:
a. No larger than 30 inches wide by 48 inches tall;
b. Located within five feet of a front building entrance of only commercial uses; c. Allow for adequate ADA and public access on the sidewalk; and d. Subject to DSP Chapter 6 design standards, including standards for portable signs.

11. In commercial and industrial zones other than the DSP, Commercial and Noncommercial temporary signs are permitted in the designated public rightof- way, but not in the street or street median, subject to the following:
a. Signs may only be located at the intersection of two public rights-of-way.

1. For purposes of this section, a ‘public right-of-way’ has the same meaning as Livermore Municipal Code Section 12.45.110 (Q).

2. For purposes of this section, ‘at the intersection’ means within 50 feet of the center point of each corner radius.
b. Signs are permitted from Thursday through Monday each week (7:00am Thursday to 8:00am Monday).
c. Signs shall be stake or A-Frame signs with a maximum size of four square feet; d. Signs shall be three feet or less in height.
e. A maximum of two signs with the same copy may be placed at any

EXHIBIT B
1162
intersection, with no more than one sign copy at each intersection corner. f. Signs shall not be placed on the sidewalk, unless four feet of clearance is maintained for pedestrian accessibility.
g. Signs shall not be placed on physical public property, which for the purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, traffic lights, street lights, and utility infrastructure.

Temporary signs are not permitted in the designated public right-of-way, and are not permitted in the street, street median, or sidewalk in commercial and industrial zones other than the DSP.

B. Temporary signs in residential zoning districts.

In addition to permanent signs allowed in this chapter, temporary signs are permitted in Specific Plans, Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Planned Development (PD) district areas that allow residential uses and in zoning districts designated as Downtown Specific Plan (DSP), Suburban Multiple Residential (RG), Multiple Family Residential (MFR), Suburban Residential (RS), Low Density Residential (RL), Rural Residential (R-R), T3 Neighborhood, and T4 Neighborhood, subject to the following:
4-62 Livermore Development Code
(Revised 2/23)

EXHIBIT B
1163
Sign Standards 4.06.140

1. A temporary sign may be placed on private property subject to the following:
a. Noncommercial signs.
(1) Maximum four square feet per sign;
(2) No limit on the number of signs permitted; and
(3) Signs must be a stake sign.
b. Commercial signs.
(1) Signage pursuant to Civil Code Section 713 may be freestanding or wallmounted; (2) Signs pursuant to a master sign program associated with a residential development are exempt; except they may not exceed 32 square feet and may not exceed one per parcel; and
(3) A temporary commercial sign shall not be displayed for more than 35 days in any three-month period on private property.

1. Commercial and Noncommercial temporary signs are permitted in the designated public right-of- way, but not in the street or street median, subject to the following:
a. Signs may only be located at the intersection of two public rights-of-way.

1. For purposes of this section, a ‘public right-of-way’ has the same meaning as Livermore Municipal Code Section 12.45.110 (Q).

2. For purposes of this section, ‘at the intersection’ means within 50 feet of the center point of each corner radius.
b. Signs are permitted from Thursday through Monday each week (7:00am Thursday to 8:00am Monday).
c. Signs shall be stake or A-Frame signs with a maximum size of four square feet; d. Signs shall be three feet or less in height.
e. A maximum of two signs with the same copy may be placed at any intersection, with no more than one sign copy at each intersection corner. f. Signs shall not be placed on the sidewalk, unless four feet of clearance is maintained for pedestrian accessibility.
g. Signs shall not be placed on physical public property, which for the purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, traffic lights, street lights, and utility infrastructure.

2. Temporary signs are not permitted in the designated public right-of-way, and are not permitted in the street, street median, or sidewalk in residential zones.

3. A commercial temporary sign (including garage sale signs and real estate signs) may be placed in the designated public right-of-way, but not the street, street median, or sidewalk, subject to the following:
a. Signs must relate to an activity permitted within a residential zoning district; b. Signs are only allowed on Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays; c. Signs are limited to four square feet;
d. Only one sign per each advertised activity (e.g., a house for sale, etc.) may be placed at each street intersection leading from the two nearest major streets (reflecting two independent access routes) to the site of the advertised activity; e. Only one sign per each advertised activity, up to a maximum of three signs total, may be placed at any street intersection corner; and

EXHIBIT B
1164
f. The sign must be placed so that a minimum of four and one-half feet remains clear on the sidewalk for pedestrians if no other location is possible.

4. Commercial and non-commercial temporary signs are not permitted on public property. For clarification, the term public property for this prohibition means both real public property and physical public property, including but not limited to traffic lights, street lights, and utility infrastructure.

C. Enforcement. Any commercial or noncommercial temporary sign placed in the public rightof-way or public property in violation of this section shall be subject to confiscation and removal by the City and subject to enforcement using the remedies in Chapters 1.20, 8.14, and 8.15 LMC, and such other remedies the City may have. The Neighborhood Preservation staff shall develop enforcement protocols for the removal and storage of those signs, as well as for their retrieval and possible destruction if not retrieved, subject to the following:

1. Neighborhood Preservation staff shall store non-compliant signs for at least 10 days.

2. Neighborhood Preservation staff shall charge a non-compliant sign collection fee in an amount not to exceed $20.00 per sign.
. (Ord. 2141 §§ 1 – 3, 2022; Ord. 2099 § 2, 2020)
Livermore Development Code 4-63
(Revised 2/23)

EXHIBIT B
1165
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 6.3
DATE: June 12, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brandon Cardwell, Innovation and Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Hearing to authorize negotiation of a Development Agreement to secure funding and timing of off-site public improvements in association with an industrial proposal known as the Greenville Community Charging Depot (Greenville CCD).

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing staff to proceed with negotiating the terms of a Development Agreement with FM Greenville, LLC ("Forum"), to develop an industrial project known as the Greenville Community Charging Depot (Greenville CCD) to be considered by the City Council at a later date.

SUMMARY
The applicant, FM Greenville, LLC ("Forum"), proposes to develop an industrial project known as the Greenville Community Charging Depot (Greenville CCD) by installing electric vehicle charging infrastructure for semi-trucks, providing charging for fleet owners and independent owner-operators for overnight charging, as well as opportunity charging during the day. Charging stations will not be accessible to the general public. The project site is being purpose-built to serve the drayage fleets that operate from the Port of Oakland to the San Joaquin Valley. Forum is developing the Charging Depot to help address state mandates driving zero-emission transportation adoption. The proposed project's goals are aligned with the Livermore Climate Action Plan and Economic Development strategies to foster green and innovative businesses. Forum is requesting to enter into a Development Agreement to secure funding and timing of public improvements in association with the project. The Livermore Development Code requires City Council authorization for staff to proceed with negotiating a Development Agreement.

Staff recommends the City Council authorize staff to proceed with negotiating the terms of a Development Agreement.

DISCUSSION
In September 2022, staff began preliminary conversations with Forum to develop a Community Charging Depot with electric vehicle charging infrastructure for semi-trucks, providing charging for fleet owners and independent owner-operators for overnight charging, as well as opportunity charging during the day. 1166
The charging infrastructure would serve the drayage fleets that operate from the Port of Oakland to the San Joaquin Valley. The proposed site consists of an approximately 4.4-acre lot located at 151 Greenville Road, which is in the Heavy Industrial (I-3) Zone. The proposed use is permitted on the site.

On May 22, 2023, the applicant submitted an application to the City for the following entitlements:

Site Plan Design Review (SPDR 23-004)
Development Agreement (DA 23-001)
Staff has determined that the project has the potential to help with the implementation of the City's Climate Action Plan strategies to foster new green business and is aligned with the City's Economic Development strategies to help facilitate innovation and startups.

In addition to payment of the estimated fees, the applicant is required to make on-site and off-site public improvements and frontage improvements, including street widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, and lighting improvements, among others. The applicant has requested a Development Agreement (Agreement) to provide flexibility with the timing and funding of required public improvements associated with the project.

The Livermore Development Code requires Council authorization for staff to proceed with negotiating the Agreement, which would be brought back to Council for consideration at a future date. Staff intends to review the project entitlements at a staff level and will provide the site layout as a reference when reviewing the Development Agreement to provide the City Council and the public a more complete understanding of the project. Staff recommends the City Council authorize staff to negotiate a Development Agreement to secure funding and timing of off-site public improvements in association with the project.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
Costs associated with allocation of staff resources in negotiating terms and timing of the Development Agreement are part of the entitlement process. The Development Agreement application fees paid by the applicant already consider these costs.

COMMUNITY PILLAR
3: Environmental Stewardship
GOAL
1: Lead efforts to implement the updated Climate Action Plan in collaboration with internal and external partners.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution
Prepared by: Theresa De La Vega
Management Analyst
1167
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
1168
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH NEGOTIATING TERMS

FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH DEVELOPER FM GREENVILLE, LLC (“FORUM”)
The applicant, FM Greenville, LLC (“Forum”) submitted an application to the City of Livermore (“City”) for Development Agreement (DA) 23-001 and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 23-004.

A Development Agreement is the appropriate mechanism to secure funding and timing of off-site public improvements in association with the proposed Community Charging Depot (“Greenville CCD”) in Livermore, CA.

Section 9.04.040 of the Livermore Development Code states that the City Council shall hold a noticed public hearing where it shall determine whether it wishes to enter into a Development Agreement along with the general subject areas City staff is authorized to negotiate.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that it hereby authorizes staff to negotiate Development Agreement 23-001 containing the terms by which Forum shall secure funding and timing of off-site public improvements associated with the proposed Greenville CCD.

On motion of Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council Member ______________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on June 12, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________ /s/ Katherine Mirassou
Marie Weber Katherine Mirassou
City Clerk Deputy City Attorney
1169
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 10.1
DATE: June 12, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marianna Marysheva, City Manager
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.

3.2 Presentation of the 2023 High School Senior Arts Awards Material: PowerPoint Presentation

3.4 Informational presentation regarding the 2022 Eastern Alameda County Human Services Needs Assessment including an overview of the project scope and status being completed with the cities of Pleasanton and Dublin
Material: PowerPoint Presentation

4.0 Open Forum
Material: Public Comments Received

6.1 Public hearing, landowner election, and actions related to formation of Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 for maintenance and public services within the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan area pursuant to the Mello- Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

6.2 Hearing to consider Development Code Amendment (DCA) 22-004, which would amend temporary sign standards in the public right-of-way.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation
1170

6.3 Hearing to authorize negotiation of a Development Agreement to secure funding and timing of offsite public improvements in association with an industrial proposal known as the Greenville Community Charging Depot (Greenville CCD).

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

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

DISCUSSION

ATTACHMENTS

1. Supplemental Materials
Prepared by: Debbie Elam
Acting Assistant City Clerk
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
1171
1 Commission for the Arts
2023 High School Senior Arts Awards
Del Valle High School
Katherine Martinez – Visual Arts
Granada High School
Calvin Ray Shawler – Performing Arts
Livermore High School
Amira Sain – Literary Arts
Dorothee Catipon – Performing Arts
Madison Scerbo – Performing Arts
1 Item 3.2
PowerPoint Presentation
1172
1 Eastern Alameda County
Human Services Needs
Assessment
Agenda
Introductions
Overview of the JSI Process and Timeline
Review of Findings So Far
Questions
1 2
Item 3.4
PowerPoint Presentation
1173
2 The JSI Team
Becky Reno, PhD, MSW, MA
Project Director
She, her, hers
Deanna Lewis MPH, RDN
Co-Project Director
She, her, hers
Corina Pinto, MS
Qualitative Data Lead & Community
Engagement Technical Advisor
She, her, hers
Alison Salomon MPH, MCRP
Quantitative Data Lead
She, her, hers
Nadia Syed, MPH
Qualitative and Community
Engagement Technical Advisor
She, her, hers
Naomi Miller-Altuner
Project Associate
She, her, hers
Anupam Sharma
Project Associate
He, him, his
Timeline and Deliverables
Phase 5:

Recommendation &
Implementation
Final report
including
recommendations
and implementation
plans for cities and
region
Report
Presentations
September - October 2023
Phase 4: Data Analysis
and Review
Short term and longer
term human service
needs (services &
infrastructure)
Key trends
Peer Review Report
Draft Report for feedback
from advisors and
Commision
June- August 2023
Phase 2 - Quantitative
Data Collection
Draft of existing
services and
inventory
September- October 2022
Phase 1 - Project
Management &
Timelines
Project Work Plan
Timeline
Schedule of
meetings and
Scope of Services
July - A ugust2022
Phase 3: EAPAC and Qualitative
Data Collection
EAPAC Meeting Summary
Public Meeting & Outreach
Summary (Includes KII, Focus
Groups, Council, Commission,
and Advisory Summaries)
November 2022 - May 2023
3 4
Item 3.4
PowerPoint Presentation
1174
3 Equity Framework

CENTERING LIVED EXPERIENCE
Thoughtful and deliberate engagement of those with lived experiences Centering individual and community assets, capabilities, resources, and strengths

STRENGTHS-BASED APPROACH

EQUITABLE DATA PRACTICES
Apply principles of accessible data collection and analysis

COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING
Engaging in power sharing activities to support community members’ capacity to develop, implement, and sustain local initiatives
Kimi Watkins- Tartt
Alameda County CHIP
Alcian Lindo
Tri-Valley Career Center
Liz Perez-Howe
Axis Community Health
Evette Brandon
Alameda County Social Services
Carolina Guzman
Alameda County DPH
John Bost
Open Heart Kitchen
Anissa Basoco-Villarreal
Alameda County Social
Services
Christine Beitsch-Bahmani
CityServe of the Tri-Valley
Catherine Arthur
Livermore USD
Community Liaison
Josh Thurman
City of Livermore
Jay Ingram
City of Pleasanton
Shaun Chilkotowsky
City of Dublin
Becky Hopkins
City of Pleasanton
5 6
Item 3.4
PowerPoint Presentation
1175
4 Eastern Alameda Power and Action
Committee (EAPAC)
Deidre S. (Pleasanton)
Emily W. (Livermore)
Francesca R. (Pleasanton)
Jasmin S. (Dublin)
Maria Z. (Pleasanton)
Maria G. (Dublin)
Shanee S. (Dublin)
Trenton T. (Livermore)
Whitley A. (Livermore)
Priority Groups
● Youth
● Disability Groups
● Unhoused
● Seniors/Older Adults
● Indigenous Communities
● Educators - work in TV but do not live there
● Churches/Faith Based Leaders
● First responders
● Non - English Speakers
● Livermore Wine Agricultural Workers
● LGBTQ Community
● Female Heads of Households
7 8
Item 3.4
PowerPoint Presentation
1176
5 Preliminary Interview
Themes
Nonprofit Focus Group Findings
Workload and the
Pandemic
● Increased need for services
during and after the Pandemic
● Increased workload for nonprofits
→ can be challenging and
demotivating
Need for Collaboration
● Sense that nonprofits are siloed, not
collaborative
● Lack of understanding of what other
nonprofits are doing → duplication
of services
● Some improved collaboration during
the pandemic, but more
coordination/collaboration is needed
9 10
Item 3.4
PowerPoint Presentation
1177
6 Major Community Needs

1. Housing and services for unhoused people

2. Food

3. Mental health services

4. Specialty health services

5. Service navigation

6. Transportation

7. Changing racial/ethnic demographics
Questions?
[email protected] | mytrivalley.org
11 12
Item 3.4
PowerPoint Presentation
1178
1 Debbie Elam
From: fziomek
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2023 11:31 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public comment for the City Council Meeting 6/12/23 Attachments: Public Comment 6-10-23 to the City Council.docx Good day,
Could you please include the attached Public Comment with the next City Council Meeting on 6/12/23? It’s regarding the East Ave. Corridor Study.

Thank you.

Felicia Ziomek
Livermore, CA
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
1179
Public Comment to the City Council for their 6/12/2023 mee�ng

Good evening, Mayor Marchand & City Council. My comments below are regarding the East Ave Corridor Study. My posts on NextDoor regarding this subject triggered MANY replies.

1. Survey: You need a beter designed survey, which should be writen by an impar�al party. The ques�ons in the current survey are leading & reinforce pre-conceived no�ons of the project’s value. You can gather beter data with a more neutral survey to allow for more nega�ve feedback. Only 1 ques�on allowed for feedback, and it wasn’t clear the respondent could write more than 1 sentence.

2. Outreach: Now that the Public Health Emergency has ended, you need to thoroughly survey or meet with directly affected residents, rather than ge�ng feedback from ci�zens pos�ng feedback on social media. I understand a survey was performed, but several directly affected residents men�oned they weren’t aware of this project at all.

Several residents on East Ave. didn’t receive any no�ce sent to them; they only saw the survey link on my post. Polling Livermore residents who don’t travel on East Ave. isn’t as helpful feedback as those affected daily by the proposed changes. Perhaps one idea is to have a mee�ng with the parents of the students at East Ave. Middle School and Livermore High School, a�er school resumes in the fall? That way you’ll have contact with those who experience East Ave. on a daily basis.

3. Proposal to close 1 car lane in each direc�on: This isn’t possible. East Ave. is a “major East-West collector street” and a “4-lane arterial” per city documents. Narrowing First St. to 1 lane each direc�on worked because we have Railroad & 4th Street as alterna�ves.

There isn’t a nearby alterna�ve to East Ave. And you can’t look at average daily traffic volume as a measure of whether 1 car lane can be eliminated. People don’t experience average volumes; they experience actual traffic volumes at the �me they’re traveling.

Currently, with 4 car lanes, traffic backs up during school drop-offs and pick-ups. We don’t experience the minimal traffic at 2am. Actual car volumes by hour are a more accurate gauge to assess volumes and evaluate poten�al changes. While there was a recent 1-week data collec�on by the city’s traffic consultants (ending the evening of June 8th), the descrip�on of the data collec�on is: “the informa�on is used to compute hourly trips, AM and PM peak trips, and the daily or weekly averages”. I’ve asked for more informa�on regarding the computa�on steps, because unless the computa�on accurately reflects the actual car volumes, you don’t get a complete picture of what families experience daily during the school year. And if you do have a trial run of elimina�ng car lanes, these trials MUST be done during the school year to get the full impact.

4. Proposal to eliminate parking on East Ave: This shouldn’t be done. Many businesses on East Ave. need curbside parking. Side streets can’t accommodate the inflow of the Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
1180
Public Comment to the City Council for their 6/12/2023 mee�ng

addi�onal parked cars. Parking on East Ave. was eliminated over 20 years ago in my neighborhood (the eastern end of East Ave.), and now I can rarely park in front of my house (I live one parallel street north of East Ave.). Cars consistently violate the 72-hour rule, even remaining up to 1 week. We report them to the city, but due to higher priori�es (which I completely understand), the viola�ons aren’t addressed. Ci�zens aren’t allowed to leave a note on viola�ng cars, because that’s considered impersona�ng a police officer. When contractors perform improvements on my house, there’s no place to park. And now, because there are SO many cars parked on my street ( ), we’re encountering cars blocking fire hydrants and cars viola�ng red curbs. Apartment dwellers living in 2–3-bedroom apartments are assigned only 1 parking spot in the apartment complex. When they own more than 1 car, they need to park the extra ones in the neighborhood.

5. Proposal to add bike lanes on East Ave.: That’s great IF we keep 2 car lanes in each direc�on. A handful of people believe if East Ave. is cut to 1 car lane in each direc�on, instead of driving, people will ride their bike or walk instead. That’s not going to happen. Ci�zens will get angry, and car emissions will increase from cars backed up on East Ave.

Thank you.

Felicia Ziomek
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
1181
From: Tashenia Pearson
To: City Clerk
Subject: Please add to June 12, 2023 Agenda
Date: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:08:39 PM
I am writing to express the matter of an unsafe wall that is located at 664 Buckeye Drive, was constructed by the builder in 1971. City of Livermore currently is refusing to follow their own codes. The wall was built without obtaining the required permits per Section 105 of the California Building Code, no building, structure, or any part thereof shall be erected, altered, repaired or moved unless a separate permit for each building or structure has been obtained from the building official. The wall violates California Building, Fire, PGE, Plumbing, Health & Safety codes.

There is NO status of limitation or “grandfather” laws on illegal construction. The wall not only poses a danger to the public but also violates your local laws and regulations. The structure is deteriorated, leaning into the neighboring property, illegally located and has been constructed with inferior materials.

The wall and attached easement violated the City of Livermore 1969 Declaration of Restrictions. Per California Building Code 105.4 “The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and or other data shall not prevent the code official from requiring the correction of errors”
My request is for the city council to make the city building department do their job and following their own local laws removing this illegal structure an easement from my property.

Thanks,
Tashenia Pearson
Item 4.0
Public Comment Received
1182
1 Community Facilities District No. 2023-1
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services
June 12, 2023
Presented by
Debbie Salgado, Senior Civil Engineer
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services
• Community Facilities Districts (CFD) provide a funding mechanism for infrastructure or maintenance.
• Property owners within the district are assessed annually to provide this funding.
1 2
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
1183
2 PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF

CITY OF LIVERMORE
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2023-1 (ISABEL

NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN SERVICES)

AND FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA CITY OF LIVERMORE

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services
The amenities to be maintained with the CFD funding include:
• Neighborhood Streets - Main Street, Bicycle Streets, and Pedestrian Streets
• Neighborhood Parks
• Neighborhood Trails
• Neighborhood Plazas
• Pedestrian Bridge/Tunnel Crossing of Isabel Avenue
• Valley Link Plaza and Pedestrian Bridges
• Valley Link Parking Lot
3 4
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
1184
3 Staff recommends that City Council:

1. Adopt a Resolution of Formation of a Community Facilities District and Future Annexation Area; and

2. Adopt a Resolution Calling Special Landowner Election for a Community Facilities District

3. Break to conduct Special Landowner Election for a Community Facilities District

4. Adopt a Resolution Declaring Results of Special Landowner Election and Directing Recording of Norice of Special Tax Lien

5. Introduce Ordinance Levying Special Tax within City of Livermore Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Services)
5 Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
1185
1 Temporary Signs in the Public Right-of-Way
Development Code Amendment (DCA) 22-004
City Council
June 12, 2023
Jake Potter, Associate Planner
Background
Prior Standards
• Different Commercial/ NonCommercial standards
• Non-Commercial signs limited
to 60 days before event
• Com. Signs on Th, Sa, Su
1 2
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
1186
2 Background
Prior Standards
Adopted Standards
(Effective July 1)
• Different Commercial/ NonCommercial standards
• Non-Commercial signs limited
to 60 days before event
• Com. Signs on Th, Sa, Su
• No temporary signs allowed
Background
Prior Standards Proposed Standards
• No temporary signs allowed • Different Commercial/ NonCommercial standards • Non-Commercial signs limited
to 60 days before event
• Com. signs on Th, Sa, Sun
• Commercial/Non-Commercial
standards are the same
• Only at intersections
• Only on Thurs. – Mon.

Adopted Standards
(Effective July 1)
3 4
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
1187
3 Proposed Standards
• Private property standards stay the same
• DSP standards and Downtown banner standards stay the same • Outside DSP, all commercial and non-commercial signs allowed:
• Location: At all intersections
• Time: 7:00am Thursday – 8:00am Monday
• Type: Stake sign or A Frame sign
• Size: Four s.f.
• Quantity: Two copies per intersection
• Enforcement: Non-compliant signs removed, $20 pickup fee, held for 10 days Recommendation
The Planning Commission and staff recommend the City Council:

1. Adopt a Resolution finding the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 21084 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(e), which exempts minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment;

2. Introduce an Ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 22-004, which would amend Livermore Development Code Section

4.06.140 to allow temporary commercial and noncommercial signs in the public right-of-way at intersections of city streets outside the Downtown area from Thursday to Monday
5 6
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
1188
1 Authorization of a Development Agreement
for
Greenville Community Charging Depot
June 12, 2023
Project Site - 151 Greenville Road
• Site Area: Approximately 4.4
acres
• Zoning: Heavy Industrial (I-3)
Zone
• Project Description:
• Electric vehicle charging
infrastructure for semitrucks,
• Both overnight and daytime
charging.
1 2
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
1189
2 Development Agreement - 151 Greenville Road
Development Agreement
purpose:
• provide flexibility in delivery of
public improvements
Key Development Agreement
Parameters:
• secure terms and timing for the
financing of off-site public
improvements
Staff Recommendation
• Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing staff to proceed with negotiating the terms of a Development Agreement with FM Greenville, LLC ("Forum"); • The Development Agreement will be considered by Council at a future date; and • Authorization to negotiate does not constitute approval of the Project nor of the Development Agreement.
3 4
Item 6.3
PowerPoint Presentation
1190
Council Member
Date ofMeeting orEvent
Committee orOrganization
Meeting or Event Type (ex.board meeting or ribboncutting) Summary of Meeting or Event Mayor Marchand 5/25/2023 Chamber of Commerce Summer Luncheon Series Presented the Annual State of the City Address with an
overview of the highlights of our remarkable city.

Mayor Marchand 5/25/2023
Alameda CountyTransportationCommission Commission meeting Considered budget and the annual Comprehensive
investment Plan expenditures.

Mayor Marchand 5/28/2023
Veterans of ForeignWars and American
Legion Community gathering Spoke at the Memorial Day remembrance Mayor Marchand 5/30/2023
City ofLivermore/LVJUSD Community celebration Livermorium Day celebration at Livermorium Plaza Mayor Marchand 6/2/2023 LVJUSD Ribbon‐cutting Ribbon‐cutting of the new LHS pool and Athletic Complex Mayor Marchand 6/4/2023
Livermore ArtAssociation Art Reception Attended a reception for local artists.

Mayor Marchand 6/5/2023 City of Livermore Presentation
Presented a Proclamation from the City of Livermorerecognizing the National Day of Portugal.

Mayor Marchand 6/6/2023 City of Livermore Community gathering Attended the public town hall community information
pop‐up outside of Rincon Library.

Mayor Marchand 6/7/2023 Chamber of Commerce Business Alliance Meeting Provided the monthly Mayor's Report and heard an
update on Las Positas College from LPC President DyrellFoster.

Mayor Marchand 6/7/2023
Topcon Global
Positioning Systems
Met with members of theleadership team.

Heard and update on future plans and talked about theneeds to expand their campus and an agricultural equipment proving ground to the east.

Item 8.0
Council Reports
1191
Council Member
Date ofMeeting orEvent
Committee orOrganization
Meeting or Event Type (ex.board meeting or ribboncutting) Summary of Meeting or Event Council Member Barrientos 6/6/2023 City Town hall at Rincon City information booths , art activities, musicCouncil Member Barrientos 6/8/2023 Personal Wife’s granddaughter’sgraduation in Clovis The granddaughter sang the National Anthem😃 Council Member Barrientos 6/3/2023 Canine Companions
Fund raiser for Canine
Companions in Santa Rosa
Many dogs mingled among the crowds, puppies were
presented, a recipient of a guide dog shared her story,over $200k was raised Council Member Barrientos 6/10/2023 City Rodeo Parade Quick ride missed the bands Item 8.0
Council Reports
1192
Council Member
Date ofMeeting orEvent
Committee orOrganization
Meeting or Event Type (ex.board meeting or ribboncutting) Council Member Carling 5/24/2023 StopWaste board meeting Council Member Carling 5/24/2023
Tri‐Valley Cities Council
Dinner
Council Member Carling 5/25/2023
State of the Cityluncheon
Council Member Carling 5/29/2023
Memorial DayRemembrance
Council Member Carling 5/30/2023
Livermorium DayCelebration
Council Member Carling 6/6/2023
Town Hall Rincon
Library
Council Member Carling 6/8/2023 StopWaste Board meeting Item 8.0
Council Reports
1193
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 10.2
DATE: June 12, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marianna Marysheva, City Manager
SUBJECT: Supplemental materials received at the meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

SUMMARY

DISCUSSION

ATTACHMENTS

1. Items Received at the Meeting
Prepared by: Debbie Elam
Acting Assistant City Clerk
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
1194
June 12, 2023 Open Forum Livermore City Council Meeting RE Proposed Cell Phone Tower in Macho Park Livermore CUP 22-004 Mayor Marchand and Members of the City Council,
Tonight I wish to bring to your attention how the notification process for the April 18, 2023 Planning Commission meeting regarding the proposed cell phone tower in Mocha Park appears from the public perspective.

Some residents who live near the park received a Public Hearing Notice for the April 18, 2023 meeting (attached). Please note the tiny font used for this notice.

This notice was received 7 calendar days before the meeting, with a note that the agenda documents which describe the project would not be available for public review until after 4 p.m. Friday April 14, 2023 for a meeting scheduled the following Tuesday April 18, 2023- a total of 4 days. I believe that this was the first notice to the public for this project, which dated documents in the agenda packet show has been in progress for more than 5 years.

When questioned by the planning Commissioners about the timing and format of the mailed notice, staff replied that: "it takes quite a bit of time and analysis to get a project packaged up ... ", and that Notices mailed out 10 days in advance meet the minimum notice period required by statute. Staff also stated that they are working with the City legal department on the format of the notice.

The public experiences up to this point give the appearance of a process that discourages public input by not providing the public enough time to review or respond to matters of concern.

I light of this experience, I would like to request that the Council direct staff to do more than the minimum statute requirements for this Appeal including:
• Confirm at its earliest convenience the current expected date for the public hearing for the Appeal of this project. (At the last City Council meeting Mayor Marchand graciously stated that the Appeal for this project is expected to be heard in September 2023)
• Fully describe the format for the public hearing- how much time for each party to speak, who will be allowed to address to the Council, will the project applicant (AT&T) also be given time to address the Council, will the public be given time, will there be back and forth discussion, Q and A., etc. • Give a minimum of 30 days' notice to the appeal applicant of any scheduled public hearing.
• Provide the staff report on this matter for public review a minimum of 30 days prior to the public hearing.

Thank you for your consideration.

Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1195
Sincerely,
Keith Rothenberg
Livermore, CA. 94550
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1196
\
\ .

CITY OF LIVERMORE-PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Thit·· Is to··advise that the Livermore Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing at its meeting of April 18, 2023 beginning at 7:00 p,m. to consider the matters listed �10\"'-
Hearing to cons!def a request for a Conditional Use Permit to authorize a new vlireless telecommunication facility.con§1sting ot a 70-foot monotree supporting nine AT&T piiol!II ante.rmas and ground-mounted equipment surrounded by a s x-fOOI lall chain link fence with slats on property owned by the City of Livermore.

Location. 1174 M�street
�:

Sile area: 3.54 acres
New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC
Application Numbei:: Conditional Use Permit (CUP}21-001 Public lmprovemenls: ADA accessible.curb cut on Macho Street Zoning: Education and Institution (E)
General Plan: Open Space (OSP}
Historic Slatus: None
CEQA:' _ Recommend finding this project is categoricaJly Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA}, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversian of Small Stnictures.

Project Planner, Jennifer Ackerman, Assistant Planner
Consult the�II 18. 2023 PI8J!!lll)g 8"omm1ssian M�l,!llng agenda for location and participation options published the evening of April 14, 2023 at wW1.'{jiyl;!!ID_Qf.e_Cll_gQJffilllillda ex al the City Cledc's 0ffice, 1052 Sooth crv-ermore Avenue Livermore, CA 94550.

The City invites public comment on the matter with the following formats available:

1. \/Vritt.en comments are to be submitted prioJ to the meeung by using e-aimment (on website) until 4:00 p.m., by emailing [email protected] no later than 12:00pm, or·by pefivering to the Plani'l!ng Division _ at 1052 S Live11J1ore Ave by 12:0o p.m. lhe day of the meeting

2. I� comments may � proVia,w at the OJliic Centw M�ling Malh' Public comments are limited to 3 minutes; and the Chairperson may reduce the amount of time based on the number of persons wishing to speak.

Staff report and rec:ommet,dalion will be available.for review in the Planning Commissio _ i1 i)genda paci<l:!t from the evening of April 14, 2023, which can be found on the City of Uvermo(e website.at www.liverrrioreCA.gov If you would like a copy of the agenda, plepse reaph 01.11 lo -toe Planning Division's Office by email at [email protected], b'y phone al (925) 960-4450, orby mail, 1052 South Livermore fvenue Lnl!;!rmore, CA 9455D. \Nrifieo information regarding these agenda ltems must be received in the Planning Division's Office by 5:00 p.m. on April 13, 2023, to be included in the agenda packet. Materials submitted after the 5:00 p.m. Thursday deadline will be given to the Planning Commission the night of the meeting, provided the materials are received in the Planning Division's Office.by 12;00 p.m. on the day of the me(;ltlng.

If �ou chall1;mge these items in court, you may be limited lo rais ng only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered at, 01' prior to. the public hearing. No e: if these actions are subject to the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 1094.5, and you cl!oose to challenge these actions in co1.1.t, you must seek judicial review wiihin the time specified in the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 1094.6 All.interested persons are invited lo attend.
•in-person participation may not be available resulting from a declared emergency in response to COVID·19_ Please reference the meeting agenda for location.

Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1197
664 Buckeye Drive - Health and Safety 80 foot long deteriorating wall with no footing.

1. Structure Engineer report

2. Structure Engineer testimony stating wall is unsafe.

3. City of Livermore Phillip Wisotsky - city has not received Pearson concerns of wall 50-year-old deteriorating condition or out of code location of wall.

4. Original 664 Buckeye Drive no permit listed for wall, house has wood fencing.

5. Bolts on 664 Buckeye Drive for shower wall that was holding wall up.

6. City of Livermore approved plan of house show no wall 2 feet from home.

7. Survey Report showing wall.

8. Alameda Tax Assessor for 664 Buckeye Drive

9. The original VA letter builder had agreed to remove the wall.

10. Original homeowner letter

11. The top wall was 32 inches it is now 33 inches.

12. The bottom wall was 26 inches it is now 28 inches.

13. Pictures showing no exit for side bedrooms.

14. The neighbor has now extended the wall to the sidewalk building 7 feet over the property line and built post on top of my electrical lines.

15. Structure built now removed, wall is leaning.

16. The shower was removed which was holding up wall. The wall is 80 feet long with no footing.

Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1198
r
BISHOP

ASSOCIATES

ENGINEERING

ADVANCED DESIGN, PROTOTYPE & MANUFACTURING
664 Buckeye Dr.

Livermore, CA 94551
To whom it may concern,
Engineering Evaluation Letter
5/26/2022
A brick-wall fence with a redwood lattice cap extending well over six feet high and located two to three feet from the north side wall of the residence at 664 Buckeye Dr. in Livermore is not structurally sound and presents a hazard to the surrounding properties. The wall is leaning away from the subject property and the footing has obvious signs of cracking indicating the footing for the wall is not performing as required. The construction of the wall is without the required reinforced steel ties and bars, thus creating a demolition hazard should the waU break apart and fall. No records of permits or engineered drawings used to create this wall were found by the City of Livermore Building Department.
2157 Fourth Stn:et. Livermore. CA 94550 10 925-200-6240 I G 925-960-9255 e bob@bishopassociatesengineering I ® bishopassociatesengineering.com Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1199
Steven Bryce Neef Testimony
Pg 58
bachelor's degree from Cal Poly
5 in San Luis Obispo in architectural engineering
licensed as a civil engineer in the
11 state of California.
12 Q. And when were you licensed?
13 A. 1984.
14 Q. And have you been continuously licensed
15 as a civil engineer in California since 1984?
Pg 63
2 Q Have you ever inspected walls before in
3 other circumstances that are like this wall
that's
4 described in Exhibit 57?
5 A. I have never seen one that was only
6 4 inches thick. I've inspected many that were 6
or 8 inches thick.

Pg 65
9 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned in this
10 sentence about this concrete wall that -- you
use
11 the word "is not structurally sound."
12 What do you mean by that?
13 A. Well, it was -- we believe it was never
14 permitted. We believe it was never engineered.
15 And a 4-inch wall cannot be made strong
16 enough to be 5 or 6 feet tall and not fail at
the
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1200
17 base in an earthquake or a wind event.

Pg 66
17 A. Right now the wall is 10 to 15 degrees
18 out of vertical at one end of the wall leaning
away
19 from the house.
20 Q. And when you see that on a wall, is there
21 any concern that you have when something is
leaning
22 10 to 15 degrees like that?
23 A. Yeah. One of two things is happening:
24 Either the wall has broken free of the
foundation
25 and is falling over or the foundation is
rotating
1 in the dirt. And so it's in process of failing.

Pg 67
13 Q. What do you mean it's not performing as
14 required?
15 A . It ' s - - it ' s required to stand up .
16 Performing meaning it's doing its job so it's
17 staying vertical. This wall is not staying
18 vertical. It's over 10 to 15 degrees, so it is
19 failing.

Pg 68
10 Q. Okay. And then it says, the next
11 sentence, "The construction of the wall is
without 12 the required reinforced steel ties and
bars."
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1201
13 Do you see that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Were you able to determine that that is
16 true?
17 A. I was able to determine that a 4-inch
18 slump stone wall can't possibly be reinforced
with
19 the correct steel. We did not break the wall,
open it up, or see what's inside, but from the way
it's performing, we believe there's no steel in
it.
22 The slump stones don't come with large
23 hollow cavities that you could thread steel
24 through.

Pg 69
25 Q. And then it says "thus creating a
1 demolition hazard should the wall break apart
and fall. What do you mean by that?
A. Well, it's a hazard -- you know, who
5 knows when it's going to fall. It's a hazard in
an
6 earthquake for sure, and it's a hazard when they
7 try to tear it down that it's going to come
apart
s on them.
9 Like I say, it's in the process of
10 failing, but it ha� not failed. But there's no
way
11 to predict when it's going to go over.

Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1202
12 Q. It says here, the next sentence, "No
13 records of permits or engineer drawings used to
14 create this wall were found by City of
Livermore
15 Building Department."
16 How do you know that?
17 A. Well, Bob Bishop went down and talked to
18 the head of building department. They went
through
19 the files. You know, they can look up the
address
20 and saw that no permits had been pulled for
that
21 address.
22 Q. Would a wall like this normally require a
23 permit?
24 A. Yes, because it's block. If you build a
25 wooden fence, you don't need a permit, but when
you
Pg 70
1 build a block over 3 feet tall, you got to get -
2 because it has to be inspected to make sure it
was
3 done right.

Q. Would you ever need to have an engineer
5 look at a wall like this before you put on that
6 wood lattice on top?
7 A. Technically, you should. I bet nobody
sever would. A lot of work gets done without
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1203
9 permits. And anytime you modify a structure,
10 you're supposed to get a permit.

Q. And is adding that redwood lattice cap on
12 top of this modifying it?
13 A. Yeah. You're adding load. I doubt that
14 that's the cause of its failure. It's going to
15 fail with or without that lattice.

Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1204
Phillip Wisotsky testimony
2 9
Q Has the City ever decided whether or not
3 the concrete wall violates any other city codes?
4 5
10 11
A
wall.

No. We only addressed the height of the
Did you ever measure how far that concrete wall
is from the Pearson structure?
A I did. It is in my notes somewhere. I
12 don't know off the top of my head what that distance is. 13 Q Did you ever research whether a concrete
14 wall could ever be built in that location today?
15 16
17 18
A
Q
A
Q
I did not.

Do you know whether it could or not?
I do not know.

Other than the height of the concrete
19 wall and the shower structure that was attached to the 20 wall, did you ever research whether there are any other 21 violations with that concrete wall?
22 23
A
Q
Could you repeat that, please?
Well, let me back up and make it easier.
24 What did you research about that concrete wall
25 as to whether it violated city codes?
36 1 A I didn't research anything about that
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1205
2 wall regarding the violations of city codes other than 3 the height.

So, height is a violation but Health and Safety
ingress and egress is not?
2 6
Q Yeah. If there are any violations of the
3 city code of that wall, all of those matters the City 4 understands will be taken up in arbitration; is that
5 correct?
A Well, no. The height of the fence -- or
7 the height of that wall with that additional lattice
8 topper is a violation. That violation still exists, and 9 the City will address that after arbitration has
10 concluded because the Watsons had raised concern about 11 if they were to remove that lattice topper at the time I 12 issued the order, damage could occur to the wall and the 13 Watsons had stated that the Pearsons, somebody from the 14 Pearson household, had agreed to put that lattice topper 15 on the wall at the time of its installation; therefore, 16 now that they are requesting its removal and it could 17 cause damage to the wall, then any repairs and the cost 18 of those repairs create a conflict as to who should pay 19 for those. That should be addressed in arbitration.
20 Q Would that conclusion by the City have
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1206
21 changed if understood that Ms. Pearson did not give
22 permission?
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1207
Bua !(O j'9 . Dr i'.'IG
NUMDER 664 :mu:r.'1' mriuxttl'IIWo' . .A.JQWtlfm.
n U'I L D 1 ,� c· f :'1 � ,, l:: C ·r ION R. c; r. 0 R l) --------
-
---_________ ., _______________________ .. ..:-.---------------- _._...,.,._ ----•·--________ .. ----- CITY OF · 'LlV ERMlJRF
T\'Pt or , .. .
n:..OCKO�TRAC:!__)03) . , -�-ll�J�!'.:�o. ::::.· .t� ga::�.� . v�-��'..., _-�7, 10(
LOT r,
,. 3 ------- PJ::RMl:TS CON'rRA'CTbN.. , ,1NSP1-·<-,lTlONS· . r DA}�-"� , . INSPBCTOJl •.w \ ,·, I , "� �., �-,:o- (.,J..

BUl!t_plNG (', 3
1()71''0\·tnt,1:· .
-,t"--1 I '\
;�· . : '.� 4�Ql>�k+��1:na�K .. -lt'//�i74 r (t.;;;.;.._, __ 1\ ,, .'- ------� I I •
FbRMS t,:.: ,,.,..,,�_. ......... & S�'}' f!?J . .L..t I ' L.� ,.\ ___ _.. PLUMBiN_G ___ -"'"\-,,.-:1 -./
"1-:1-+--.,�-/-. -7-. ��-,� ��� ;;1;�•t:.::.,'J,; 1 !_' OUOH PLlJMBLNC•Utlu.�1, : _. ___ >---_ ' fJMlll.Nd-'ro a c.t.,,.1., --l , GA·s . +..,./ / 1·ROU�-t:I-·G-AS�tr'.�s•t 1
. l t.k! : (1 � ,.,...
-
E\iF .. CTRtC
. 1 . )
- .... - '�\ /l'7
• ·. : I ROUCH E:LEC�tuc
---
. j ,,·z (.L...1 .. .
�-1th1'0!; -;��� ..... ,o_.:._ __ .,-=-l--1-__J1�------.._--+,_..__. ____ . . . . �ffi.:tf (&./ J ...
l/--.. --i,f-��.:;.;:<:.:i.:,T;.:.;.t=-=tt-10--R- -. L-_, A ..... _,-rl..,_i, • --� -�11' t 1 � .
.. \-· ' :-- f ;:�;.,t;.ll, - �, ·.
�EWER LATERAJ
-v�it/·
. ·INAr.��L. tr .pAS
·��t·l) qt •'.!: ►.ii·::'ict::'
------- � � , =w --11"'1 •f'. .r, .. -- -----� ; ' l� ,,...r, ,,. . •. ' h-M/t p ' �� #.J0""'.1"6'""'
•
' l -� I
.. __/1

1._ -�\�i:�,1\LC . ·. ·�··i ,J�"i"{,,, {.�I! • • i{.��
. _
.......... ---- ,
0 • f�N""'"' I.H.'!Ll)t�O . 1..; �!ft/ • .
�--'I <--
JI.,. qT "'"\• ••� ........,, ..., .. ___ ..........,...,.. ___ ,_.,,._~_, __ ....,. • µ ___ ...,..$,.......,\.; . t . ( ' .,__.,.,,, f' .__, - .- • /_ _ II ,,l; � • · . ··· · ii � / l�v·£L. blOEWI\L_I< _ t l \1-.,r "" .... $.Ja i • • :t::P"-._;;, l I � ______,. __ ....,____ • ■
J , ·.• • .
....
- • �
I. I C:,R��\''AV .. �PPR.OACH 1 • . ________ NCM��n ? /\ \ ST'{\-:�T t' .- \ 1• · "''-,, , ' .1..1\lo .. aye 1 7oW'?t,,'1\----------- n'Y"l-1 "NA . tr t.i ""'
il r ·.,d t t t t I 1 ·: I ±#bl b 1 d f • d '11 Hi:' I LJ: I d I S%r"1 9'±11 ' ;L!lP t ' I 1d t I f!tN tft•I '-¼t U;taf,,' '�LJ I I J J lt.t.L.J:J.. � Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1208
Here is a bolt that is holding the shower wall this is illegal also this has damaged the concrete wall
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1209
....
••
Ii
.. ii
.., I
ti ..
t4 -:;:i
..
.........
"·
'•
'I
I;
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1210
H' MZ t, =�� .. �
aA8111 OF IIEAA- ./IIWIJ 1111' IC PIOltY JM
IW'S'AT,,_.D,MlilfiMa:uffl'IBUIIS. mACl".m, Pllll'D/111, pa,r,a;oc-S,(I ��ASIGllllfX111Jlfc.ut I
i 11/
• /

BAIIIII OF ELEVATION,
HMISf:Tfll'aDr/latNr-lmRJIII ASIJIC �·,11 ffllllll .JIIUl·-..01 .f:f 11" :::w=-:;.-=.:c� •

PEARSON
#2019-023292
1 STORY HOME
L£QAL 0E8CRPTION,
�����=
""'"
:1:-=.�-:::,,=,�
--
. .,.

I
I
,__ 111
I ■ I • ...._ � 111: H !U � -�' I ... ::a;;;j1:
i �i U
�L
, r--
i5
,. ii{ I
'
I
I
I
'
I
I.

I
I
� Iii I I
I
I
t
� z
1 � SCALE:1•4

ABIIREVIADQNI
It IIDtfTQa
a aa:w:w,u.ny,or
ft FME.tlaal JDC l'IPtrifflDUCIIII'
m. 1BDl«:IIE nm,..
w IBtim:IN11111rr•
,..
., ■DIED """"-
LEiElm. -­ ?//7777777 / flit% rr ...,_
--- �-- @ ___ ,
IJ if:D-fl«lllp;
Im iDJ-GU
'f
"'1'mYUC"-� rJOfXJ'IUlr"-a&ft"t
----- f/.'IJOl'W

IIURVEY NOTE&
f. fBD .. Wfa'IRIDtl.U.YOlmD.

Z. nEIIJIOtflllSMrr.-:n.

J. CMDIHTDIXIIIWIJ..-�lrllD[

4. IWEPROIIBffllEAIIW',11.\GIMr,an.

IIURVEYOR'8 8TATEIEfT
IIJW't:mft'I.Y.,._f!AAN'rMl«fftEClf ,._.lffaE'lllflf�■JNHIEMIIB'l'S IYKrtaelillM.UMl�M:fArHIBUlT
(TJUOMl£Jll!Dl•.U.1"tE2d:N.
_,_ LS.1115511.DJJ.U,,,,/Jlltt
"'
u
:!
i!0 ...
..
'i
�
I { APN: 98 .. 400,-111 j DESIGNED u,,,iDER 'THE 01r.ecT10N CF j � j to ) N\"ISDl!I I m j l<H j o.-.rt j Sl'EET )1 f r::.-. . �- � --.....::-... -.,: BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY _.. ... "�· I .. � ..,,,..,.,,.""g;:.."""'' (9·'"�' � .½ c.,._.. � ..II"'::' :) .,� n,,.e,n,,11 1 ....,,. - 6 .......i.. .__ � 664 BUCKEYE DR .,.,.., ,,,._ ""'"' ,.., - • - MILANI -�- ,,,;, f« IH-a1t 0Ao\.V.'T4 J1.,u.l.6io cw.n .,..,.,.:o,, fc,-(.ll,�� CMIIN:ilM..... _.... .,._ CnTOFUYHMOllf AI.AMftJACDl:lffl CALl.fOH.&A ,,AA ™ t••• or 1;,a,w Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1211
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1212
VEroWiS AOMIN,STRATIOtf
RE.GK)NAL OfflCl
March 28, 49 FOURTH STREET 1973
343/261
6AN FRANCISCO, CAi.lFOANtA 941<11
LH 673021 CA SF
PEARSON, Laceriay.

Mr. H. C. Elli9't, III
Viae President·
/ H. C. Elliot�, Inc.
47 Quail CoJ)rt, Suite 101
Walnut Cr9?'k, CA 94596
Dear Mr. Elliott:
644 Buckeye Drive
Livermore, CA
May we refer you to our original letter dated December
17, 1971 concerning an easement and boundary problem
on the subject property. It was our understanding that
we had reached an acceptable solution.

We do not expect the Pearsons to incur attorney fees
concerning this problem .. Therefore, as outlined in our original ietter. we request that you take immediate steps to acquire a vacation of the easement by the owner of
Lot 21 and remove the concrete wall.

We were assured by you personally over one year ago that the problem would be resolved. we would appreciate a
status report immediately.

Sincerely yours,
LAWRENCE B. BULLARD
Chief, Construction
& Valuation Section
Enclosure:

Letter dated December 17, 1971
cc:

Betty J. Browner, Attorney
Lacerial c. Pearson L------
Security Pacific National Bank
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1213
i-1rs. 0. J. Pearson
664 Buckeye Drive
i Livermore, California 9 455(1
Octooer 6, 1971

ACTION LINE
Oakland 'l'rib une
P.O. Box 509
Oakland, California 94604
'l'wo months ago we purchased a Sum@rset Uf.l JC!?
il.C. Elliott in the Livermore V lle
our ne\'l home we were in.fi.: r.me-a =
p opert1 w't1i ct1. 1'0.rth�rn:.,.,- seven (7) reel.
is separated - �' a brj __ k walJ. and l.ea:ving
t;l)ree (3) :f'e12c to ent:e.r i.:,he north s:1. e of
e w:1.th l.ess than
ba.c ky"' _ ·d.
our �arage �o our
Af'ter cnecking tli th the Pu' lding Department we find that we are paying taxes on the seven ( 7) feet wl1ici1 we can not use.

We also found out that this easement eJCisted before we pua:-chased the i1ome and we were iiot informed o.bout tilJ_G ea.sem:::nt br::ior·e we purchas , the home. Can you help us on the tax structure? We are also having a problem trying to get our repair work taken care of inside the house. I have turned a number of complaint slips in and vis1ted the offic2 to see about this, only to be confronte.d with a nu1:1ber of excuses. For example, my fireplace, ( which was O:Jtinna::. i tern), needed cleaning badly and when I finally did get someone out to see about it they said they couldn, t clean it, they could 0�1ly paint 1 t and they did j U$ t that while I was not at home. Also the painter wasted paint on my sofa and tried to remove it with tiater and spotted the mater;!a:l and roared the appearance of the sofa.

I a.m n<a)t, $at:i:'"ec. .,.11,;1 tl!.1.S pal,1 1-."10. fir·ep ce, (which is thE:
only painted/one in the tract), for I paid for a new brict fireplace and I feel I should get what I paid for.

P.S. Viy Hoene Phone: �4.3-60;23
Work No. : 893-5176 Work days, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays between the hours of 12:00 F.M. to 5:00 P.M.

Ny tract No. 3031 lot�
Very truly yours,
Mrs. O.J. Pearson
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1214
Top wall is 32" wall is fallen into neighbor's yard by 6" this wall is not safe it will fall over.

Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1215
Bottom of the wall is 26"
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1216
Photo of Pearson's gate, gas meter and Electrical Main Panel.

Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1217
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1218
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1219
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1220
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1221
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1222
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1223
Pearson is gate to access backyard please look at gate size. 24,, Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1224
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1225
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1226
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1227
"Nothing in this award is intended to affect the enforcement actions of the City of Livermore. The issues addressed here relate only to the Easement and the Wall Agreement. Nothing in the Easement or Wall Agreement provide the basis to make any conclusion as to the clearance that might be required for the gas meter or for access for }'disabled persons. The footnote in Claimant's closing Reply Brief referencing P.G.& E. information not in the record was not considered.

This is an interim partial award not intended to be subject to judicial review until issued as a final award.

AWARD
Based upon the foregoing, I award, as an Interim Partial Award, as follows:

1. Claimant shall recover nothing from Respondents. Respondents are to remove the wood lattice from the top of the wall at their sole expense;

2. I find that Respondents are the prevailing/successful party. Should Respondents believe there is a legal basis for an award of award of attorneys' fees and costs, Respondents shall submit any motion for attorneys' fees and costs within twenty days of the date of this Interim Partial Award providing the legal basis for the recovery of fees and costs and the itemized amount of fees and costs incurred, paid or requested. Claimant shall have thirty days from that date to submit any objection or motion to tax costs;

3. This Interim Partial Award is in full settlement of all claims and counterclaims submitted in this arbitration with the exception of attorneys' fees and costs.

All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied. This Award shall remain in full force and effect until such time as a Final Award is rendered. -8- 535469.1
Item 4.1
Public Comment Received
1228
Item Name Comment

5.15) Resolution authorizing an michelle mitchell
Re: Agenda Item 5.15I am enquiring as to why the City of Livermore is increasing sewer rates and then turning around and loaning the General Fund a half million dollars for the replacement of Livermore's fire stations' alerting system. If the Sewer Fund is funded well enough to make a loan for that large of an amount, why are the sewer rates increasing? Why isn't the General Fund supporting the alerting system? Michelle MitchellPaul Maciolek Item 5.15
eComment
1229