Agenda packet — Livermore City Council, June 26, 2023 (part 5 of 6)

EXHIBIT A 705

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Description Unit Fee Source
Transient Aircraft Parking Fees (8 to 24 hours, and any 24-hour period thereafter)
0 - 3,500 pounds (Gross Weight) (A) $ 6.00 Resolution 2022-115 3,501 - 6,250 pounds (A) 8.00 Resolution 2022-115 6,215 - 12,500 pounds (A) 16.00 Resolution 2022-115 12,501 - 25,000 pounds (A) 21.00 Resolution 2022-115 25,001 - 50,000 pounds (A) 32.00 Resolution 2022-115 50,001 pounds and above (designated apron only) (A) 43.00 Resolution 2022-115 Long-Term Vehicle Parking (A) Monthly 50.00 Resolution 2022-115 Annual Commercial Aviation Permit Fee (A) Yearly 150.00 Resolution 2022-115 Gate Card Replacement Fee (A) 20.00 Resolution 2022-115 Hangar Key Purchase - additional key (A) Per key 5.00 Resolution 2022-115 Hangar Re-core (A) 87.00 Resolution 2022-115 Hangar Wait List Deposit for T-Hangars (A) 204.00 Resolution 2022-115 Hangar Wait List Deposit for Box Hangars (A) 365.00 Resolution 2022-115 Fuel Flowage Fees - per gallon delivered 0.11 up to 750k;

0.13 up to 900k;

0.15 above 900k
Resolution 2022-115
Commercial Filming Fees (up to 8 hours, plus $500 per hour thereafter. Staff assistance charges are separate)
On Airport operations area (A) 2,500.00 Resolution 2022-115 On Landside public area (A) 1,000.00 Resolution 2022-115 Beyond eight (8) hours (A) Hour 500.00 Resolution 2022-115 Filming assistance
Airport safety staff (A) Hour 125.00 Resolution 2022-115 Airport management staff (A) Hour 163.00 Resolution 2022-115 Hangar Administration Fee (A) 50.00 Resolution 2022-115 Late Charges and Interest***
Late Charges if monthly rent not paid by the 10th day of each month 5% of Monthly Rent
Resolution 2022-115
Interest on late payments Monthly 0.5% Resolution 2022-115 *** If all charges are not paid within 30 days from the due date, the City may terminate the lease. (A) = Rate is fixed, not subject to annual CPI change.

Airport Fees

Page 41 ends

EXHIBIT A 706

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 7.1

DATE:

June 26, 2023
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Scott Lanphier, Public Works Director
SUBJECT:

Discussion and recommended approval of the Airport Leasing and Development Policy.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

The Airport Commission and staff recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the new Airport Leasing and Development Policy.

SUMMARY
In early 2021, the City Manager directed Airport staff to prepare a new development policy for Livermore Airport (Airport). The prior policy lacked adequate guidance for City staff to review and process proposed projects at the Airport. Since then, staff have engaged a consultant (AMCG) to prepare a new Leasing and Development Policy. This new policy provides enhanced guidance, consistent with best industry practices, for City staff to receive and review any proposed projects at the Airport.

On March 6, 2023, staff presented the draft Leasing and Development Policy to the Airport Commission for comment and review. The draft Leasing and Development Policy was then released to the public for a 45-day comment period, during which the Policy was presented to the Cities of Pleasanton and Dublin in liaison meetings. Hundreds of comments were received, documented and responded to with necessary revisions made to the draft policy; details are available on the Airport website.

The Policy returned to the Livermore Airport Commission June 5, 2023 at which time it was recommended the City Council consider and approve the Policy. Subsequently on June 6, 2023, at the request of Pleasanton, Livermore City staff attended a Pleasanton City Council meeting to receive feedback similar to previously received comments.

DISCUSSION
Development at Livermore Airport is guided by the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) which outlines the types, density and location of any development proposed at the Airport. Attached is a developable area map (Attachment 1), indicating the land available for development at the airport. Historically, the development process has been regulated by an unofficial and ineffective development policy which did not include 707
sufficient information or a well-defined process to allow proper review and approval of proposed development at the Airport. To address this, in early 2021 the City Manager directed staff to prepare a revised, more comprehensive development policy.

In early 2022 airport staff selected a consultant to assist in developing a comprehensive Leasing and Development Policy (Policy) to replace the previous informal Airport policy. The selected consultant, AMCG, produced a draft Policy which was reviewed by staff across the organization. At the March 6, 2023 Airport Commission meeting, the Policy was made available to the public on the Airport website for a 45-day review period, concluding April 24, 2023. During this time, the draft Policy was also presented in public forums to the Cities of Pleasanton (March 30, 2023) and Dublin (April 10, 2023).

The Policy received over 120 comments from approximately 30 community members from throughout the Tri-Valley. Comments identified several key concerns including aircraft noise, Livermore City Council Resolution 2010-058, increased public participation and transparency, and restricting growth at the airport.

The updated and revised policy was brought back to the Airport Commission on June 5, 2023. The Airport Commission recommended the policy be brought before the Livermore City Council, on June 26, 2023 for approval.

At the June 5th Airport Commission meeting, several members of the public spoke regarding their concerns. The general sense of the comments was that the revised Policy did not adequately respond to comments submitted by the public. A summary of comments received, and responses to each comment, has been prepared and posted to the Livermore Airport’s website, and is attached to this staff report (Attachment 2).

In addition, Commissioners requested that a member of the Airport Commission be appointed to the Interdepartmental Review Team (IDRT). The IDRT is comprised of various city staff and is described in the Policy. The IDRT provides a formal review team to assess project proposals as the project follows the application process, Staff recommends the IDRT remain comprised of city staff members only, as the Airport Commission will have an independent opportunity to review projects as they are proposed and brought before the Commission. This approach is consistent with the City’s entitlement process for other development projects.

In response to the many comments received, the draft Policy was updated by city staff. The following provides a summary of key concerns submitted by the public and the way the update to the draft Policy addresses these comments:

1) Noise – The Policy was updated to specifically indicate noise as a measure used to determine the potential impact a proposed project may have. Noise is specifically called out in Section 1.2 and 1.7.

2) Resolution 2010-058 – The Policy references Resolution 2010-058 in Sections 1.2, Section 1.4, Section 2.1, Section 2.2, Section 7.5, and includes the resolution in its entirety in Section 7: Appendix – Airport Development Priorities.

3) Environmental Review – The Policy requires the evaluation of any proposed project to be subject to CEQA and/or NEPA review, which is referenced in Section 1.8. CEQA/NEPA review would thoroughly evaluate such items as lead fuel, noise impacts, visual impacts, circulation and parking, among others, 708
and would also include opportunities for the public to review and comment on the analysis conducted for the project.

4) Public Input – The Policy requires any proposed project that would noticeably increase aircraft activity, vehicle traffic, noise to surrounding neighbors, and/or significantly intensify existing land use(s) to develop a Comprehensive Public Engagement Plan (PEP), which is designed to inform the public about the scale and scope of the project. The PEP is described in Section 1.7.

5) Airport Growth – The ALP is the governing document used by the Policy to comply with previously approved land uses and is referenced in Section 1.1, Section 1.6, and Section 1.8.

The revised Policy includes a much more defined process to thoroughly assess any proposed project, involves review by multiple City departments, and is consistent with other City policies.

At a City of Pleasanton City Council meeting on June 6th, Pleasanton city staff gave a brief presentation on the Policy to their city council. Several members of the public spoke against the Policy, expressing that it still did not adequately address the comments submitted. It should be noted that Pleasanton City staff indicated the revised Policy adequately addressed Pleasanton staff’s concerns. The City Council also asked if Pleasanton could be represented on the Livermore Airport Commission.

Staff is recommending the City Council approve and adopt the new Leasing and Development Policy for the Livermore Airport.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

Adoption of an Airport Leasing and Development Policy is not anticipated to result in any significant effect on City revenues and expenses.

COMMUNITY PILLAR
5: A City That Works.

GOAL
14: Develop, operate, and maintain the City’s infrastructure.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Development Analysis Land Map Version 0.3

2. Stakeholder Comment Compilation and Response-LVK 2023-06-05

3. Public Comment

4. Resolution

5. Exhibit A - Leasing and Development Policy

Prepared by: Michael Musca
Airport Manager

709
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
710
Livermore Airport Land Use
Airport Businesses/FBOs
Airport Fire StaƟon
Current Hangar Development
AircraŌ Parking Aprons
On‐Airport Undeveloped Land (83.49 ac)
Oﬀ‐Airport Undeveloped (65.85 ac)
Request for Proposals
Livermore Airport Development Analysis
2023
FBO
AircraŌ Sales
Misc Businesses
N
EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACHMENT 3
711
June 5, 2023
City of Livermore
680 Terminal Circle
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 960-8220
Comment Compilation and
Response
City of Livermore
Livermore Municipal Airport
Leasing and Development Policy
ATTACHMENT 2
712

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 1
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) This report conveys public/stakeholder comments and the corresponding Airport staff response regarding the draft Leasing and Development Policy (Policy) for Livermore Municipal (Airport). The City of Livermore (City) believes that the proposed Policy set s forth thoughtful and deliberate processes and procedures to evaluate , approve, or reject proposals related to the leasing and/or development (including construction, modification, and/or renovation) of aeronautical and non - aeronautical land and/or Improvements within the legal boundaries of the current Airport Layout Plan for the Airpo rt. The proposed Policy establishes leasing protocols and requirements for attractive, high-quality, consistent, compatible, and sustainable development that protects persons and property with an over -arching goal of improving the Airport for the bettermen t of the City, Airport Tenants, Airport users, and the community.

It is the goal of the City to ensure Airport property is leased and developed in a high -quality manner consistent with sound fiscal management and best practices while ensuring the provision of essential infrastructure, Improvements, and amenities. Additionally, t he proposed Policy reflects Airport Development Priorities established by the Livermore City Council in 2010 through resolution number 2010-058. Resolution 2010-058, will be used as criteria for evaluating all proposals.

The proposed Policy is consistent with established City polic ies, compliant with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Sponsor Assurances , and effectively guides the management of proposals related to the leasing and/or development of aeronautical and non -aeronautical land and/or Improvements at the Airport.

By way of background, when an airport sponsor (in this case, the City of Livermore) obtains a grant for airport improvements under the Airport Improvement Program, the airport sponsor is required to give certain assurances to the FAA known as the Airport Sponsor Assurances (currently comprised of thirty-three assurances). Airport Sponsor Assurance #22, Economic Nondiscrimination, states “ The sponsor may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport.” Federal obligations under Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights, prohibits the City from granting an exclusive right for the use of the airport, including granting an exclusive right to any person or entity providing or intending to provide commercial aeronautical services to the public. In particular, the City may not grant a special privilege or a monopoly to an entity currently providing aeronautical services based at the Airport. The intent of this restriction is to promote aeronautical activity and protect fair competition.

Beyond being consistent with FAA policies and directives, the City believes that this Policy is consistent with best management pra ctices. It is not the desire or the intent of the City to create an undue burden on existing or future operators/tenants, but to provide a comprehensive and deliberative process that is fair and not unjustly discriminatory.

ATTACHMENT 2
713

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 2
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) Several documents provided the foundation for the development of this Policy including FAA Airport Sponsor Assurances, AC 150 -5190-6 Exclusive Rights at Federally Obligated Airports, and Order 5190.6B Airport Compli ance Manual. Interested parties are encouraged to thoroughly review and carefully consider these documents.

The draft Leasing and Development Policy was made available to the public for review and comment over a 49-day period beginning Monday, March 6, 2023 through Monday, April 24, 2023. The City requested that those participating in the review and comment provide specific reasons and alternative language and/or deletions for any proposed changes to the document.

Attached is a compilation of the comments submitted from thirty-seven (37) respondents. All comments have been reviewed and addressed in this document. Each comment is represented by a “C” and the response to the comment is represented by an “R”. The numbering is utilized only as a method to identify and organize comments and responses.

Also, if a respondent has requested to delete language from the draft document, that language has been identified using strikethrough and when a respondent has requested to add language, that language has been identified using red highlight. Any language identified in italics is taken verbatim from the draft documents. It is important to note that editorial comments were accepted and made part of th is report, however because of lack of specificity as to what the respondent wanted changed, they did not necessarily result in modification(s) to the document.

The City wishes to thank all stakeholders and members of the public who took the time to review the draft document and especially the individuals who provided detailed comments for consideration.

ATTACHMENT 2
714

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 3
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) Commenter #1
C1 General Comment: Please note my letter was sent directly to the following people via e-mail: Livermore City Council; Pleasanton City Council; Scott Lanphier Director of Public Works; Michael Musca, City of Livermore Airport Manager as I was not able to download it into this document. Thank you.

R1 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C2 April 17, 2023
To: Livermore City Council Livermore Airport Commission Scott Lanphier, Director of City Public Works Michael Musca, Airport Manager Re: Proposed changes to City of Livermore Airport Development Policy

We are writing you because we have questions and concerns about the proposed new City of Livermore's Airport Development Policy (February 17,2023)
We moved to east Pleasanton in 1992 and at the time of purchasing our house our realtor notified us about the City of Livermore's Airport. It was noted that the airport was created in 1965 as a small recreational airport for small airplanes and was not designated for any other purpose. There was li ttle airplane traffic over our east Pleasanton neighborhood for several years. In early 2000, landing and take -off pattern changes were made at the airport which directly impacted east Pleasanton including homes and schools.

At the time, we voiced our concerns without success.

Today, we regularly have small jets flying over our neighborhood in both take - off and landing maneuvers. We regularly report those planes operating outside approved business hours.

Our concern is for the safety of our neighborhood, i ncluding the impacts of noise, air pollution and possible accidents.

After the public outcry of possibly expanding the airport with a Kaiser Air contract, we appreciated your desire to re-evaluate and update the airport's policies and procedures.

However, as we read the proposed new, City of Livermore Leasing and Development Policy for the airport, we are disappointed in the recommendations.

R2 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C3 • The proposed policy includes an objective on Social factors -"To maintain and enhance a compatible relationship between the airport and the surrounding community”. There are no clear action steps/definitions on what this means… what level of noise is agreed upon, hours of operations, definition of air pollution standards, definition of community, opportunity for community input.

R3 See R4 and R5.

C4 • There is no reference in this document about public input and review of the proposed changes. After the outcry about Kaiser Air expansion, we are shocked that there was no interest to include public participation in the development of the proposed policy and on-going changes at the airport.

R4 To address the question regarding public involvement a new section has been added to the document as follows:

Section 1.7 Public Engagement Requirements
An entity proposing to develop a project that would significantly increase aircraft activity, vehicle traffic, and/or significantly intensify existing land use(s), will be required to develop a comprehensive public engagement plan (PEP) designed to inform the public as to the scope and scale of the proposed project. The PEP is subject to review and approva l by the City. The requirement to develop a PEP is at the sole discretion of the City.

ATTACHMENT 2
715

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 4
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) C5 • Noise policies are ignored in the document, although new policies and guidelines are detailed on things like size of buildings, landscaping, flag poles, lighting, setbacks, vehicle parking, hangar assignments, etc. Why weren’t noise policies created/included?
R5 Airport noise management policies are described and conveyed to aircraft operators through the Airport’s website under the heading Noise Reduction Efforts through Pilot Education and Cooperation . The Livermore Pilot Information Guide provides detailed recommended n oise reduction procedures to mitigate impacts on the surrounding community. Airport staff also conducts aggressive outreach efforts to aircraft operators, based tenants, and commercial aeronautical service providers on the principles of the Airport’s noise abatement program with the overarching goal of reducing overall noise impacts.

The federal government has established a regulatory framework that preempts local governments from unilaterally establishing mandatory aircraft noise abatement procedures and maximum allowable noise limits. Congress enacted the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA; P.L. 101 -508) in 1990 during a time when community noise concerns led to uncoordinated and inconsistent restrictions on aviation that impeded the nation’s airport s ystem. ANCA called for the establishment of a national aviation noise policy. The law increased FAA’s authority over noise matters and authorized ANCA and its resulting regulations (14 C.F.R. Part 161 ) and imposed stringent requirements on airports seeking to implement certain types of noise rules or restrictions, including night curfews, caps on maximum noise levels, numbers of aircraft operations, and noise-based fees. 14 C.F.R. Part 161 is a long and expensive process usually costing millions of dollars with a limited probability of success of being successfully completed and approved by the FAA. Since ANCA’s inception, only a handful of airports have successfully completed implementation of noise-based restrictions developed under 14 C.F.R Part 161.

Therefore, the City is preempted by federal law from unilaterally establishing restrictions on existing or proposed commercial/non -commercial aeronautical operators based upon existing or potential noise impacts from aircraft operations unless it successfully completes a 14 C.F.R. Part 161 process.

C6 • City of Livermore is part of the Tri -Valley and this document makes no mention of trying to communicate and/or work with the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton officials to maintain a healthy and prosperous valley. Will this occur?
R6 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C7 • The City of Livermore in past policy (Resolution NO. 2010 -058), states the existing demand to increase/change at the airport must have tangible evidence. The new policy states that changes can be made any time by anybody and in fact the proposed contractor can create the demand (Unsolicited Interest) is the term used in the proposal.

R7 Section 1.2. references resolution 2010-058 and is attached to the document as Appendix 7.3. The salient language is as follows: ..resolution 2010-058, will be used as criteria for evaluating proposals for Airport land lease /development…
To further empathize the importance of resolution 2010-058, the following language has been inserted into Section 1.4. Compliance as follows: Entities who desire to lease, construct, modify, and/or renovate aeronautical or non-aeronautical land and/or Improvements at the Airport shall comply with this Policy, Resolution 2010-058, and…
C8 We are so disappointed in this proposed leasing and development policy and hope that additional time can be included to truly look at and include clear definition and standards for social and community needs so that everyone can be satisfied and keep the Tri-Valley a very desirable place to live.

Sincerely,
R8 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #2
C9 It seems all the complaints about the noise have been totally ignored. Pilots do not follow suggested flight paths. Any additional airport activity will not be neighborhood friendly and legally opposed..

R9 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C10 more open hearings about public opinion is needed
R10 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

ATTACHMENT 2
716

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 5
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) Commenter #3
C11 1) I am concerned and feel that All information must be provided publicly without NDN confidential at all stages except for any financial information
R11 The Airport will engage in a transparent development process and will conduct outreach with the public throughout various phases of a particular project. The Airport Manager m ay recommend that the City enter into NDA agreements from time to time, in coordination with the City Manager’s Office and other City departments. This decision will depend on the particular facts of a proposed project, which will vary with each project submittal to the Airport pursuant to the Development Policy.

C12 2) Public notification/comment and airing if any proposals must happen Immediately.

R12 See R4.

Commenter #4
C13 General Comment: What are the noise limits for aircrafts operating within this airport and how would these noise limits be monitored and enforced?
R13 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #5
C14 Honestly, I do not have the time to read and understand this draft I just want to go on record to say that I STRONGLY OPPOSE and expansion of the Livermore airport or any development not supporting it's current configuration, use, or capacity. LVK Is a small airport and should not be turned in to a l arger, high volume airport. The current small planes are great, larger planes should not be allowed. Please consider the Livermore residents and do not negatively impact our quality of life. I do like the idea of offering an airplane mechanic course and partnering with las Positas College. Excellent idea, R14 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #6
C15 Section #2.9
Page # 7
Comment: Section 2.1 says that the City has the right to reject, without cause, any submittal. Fantastic! I loudly applaud this. However, Section 2.9 goes on to list the possible reasons for rejection. I suggest adding a preamble to 2.9 repeating that the City may reject without cause, but that the section contains a partial list of possible reasons. This disparity certainly requires clarification in Section 2.9 restating that the list need not be all-inclusive because the City can reject without cause.

R15 Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, requires the City to make its aeronautical facilities available to the public and its tenants on terms that are reasonable and without unjust discrimination. This federal obligation involves several distinct requirements. First, the City must make the airport and its facilities available for public use. Next, the City must ensure that the terms imposed on aeronautical users of the Airport, including rates and charges, are reasonable for the facilities and services provided.

Finally the terms must be applied without unjust discrimination. The prohibition on unjust discrimination extends to types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, as well as individual members of a class of operator.

Within the forgoing context, the City will add the following language to Section 2.9.: The City at its sole discretion may reject any proposal or application in conformance with Legal Requirements including, but not limited to, for any one or more of the following reasons…

ATTACHMENT 2
717

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 6
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) C16 Section # All
Page #All
Comment: I do not see limitations on the size of operations or the possible combining of leases/developments that could turn small accepted projects into ones that wouldn't have been accepted in total. This seems to be a huge loophole that could be used to the detriment of LVK, Livermore and its residents
R16 Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, requires the City to make its aeronautical facilities available to the public and its tenants on terms that are reasonable and without unjust discrimination. This federal obligation involves several distinct requirements. First, the City must make the airport and its facilities available for public use. Next, the City must ensure that the terms imposed on aeronautical users of the Airport, including rates and charges, are reasonable for the facilities and serv ices provided.

Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #7
C17 No development. Let’s have plenty of people filing lawsuits to bury anymore rubbish about expansion of traffic at the Livermore Airport.

R17 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #8
C18 There are some major concerns - No mention of noise mitigation plans. Airport is not living up to promises made for past 3 years. Airport liaison meetings has no public involvement and doesn’t not happen as frequently as it’s supposed to Planes continue to fly over noise sensitive areas at low altitude Curfew violations continue to occur While all these are going on this document is contradictory to the 2010 resolution of no more expansion and now the city is taking over decisions. When Kaiser project was going on the mayor claimed he had no control. Now it seems opposite. Public is not being involved in any decisions. A proper way is to make this in a true democratic fashion. Put it to v ote and let people decide what they want. People should also be involved from the start, not at the very end with limited time. A handful of people are having a huge impact on not just citizens of Livermore but also Pleasanton.

The overall process is not t ransparent. With so many airports nearby there is no need to further develop the airport here Development and this vague policy will open the doors for future FBOs and possible Amazon cargo flights because of the new warehouse. Please save trivalley and wo rk with your citizens to make it livable for all.

R18 See R16
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #9
C19 Section # 2.1
Page #3-4
Comment: Fails to provide an open and transparent process for RFP/RFI/RFQ. Fails to require ANY public involvement. How will the public be notified and informed about proposals? Where? When? How will the public provide feedback? This Policy says nothing about this. In fact this Policy would be fine with a new development that the public never even got told about. Think about it: a major development that impacts the public every day: this Policy would let that get approved with zero public input, without even letting the publ ic know. This Policy has no problem with that. This is unacceptable. The public should be notified at every stage of the process (Interest, MOU, Concept Plan, etc.). The Public should be able to provide feedback. An acceptable policy would specify that.

R19 See R4.

ATTACHMENT 2
718

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 7
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) C20 Section # 2.1
Page #3-4
Comment: Fails to implement the Livermore City Council Resolution of March 23, 2010 "Future development at the airport shall ONLY occur in response to EXISTING AVIATION DEMAND.

Whether demand exists shall be evaluated by the airport advisory commission and shall be based on TANGIBLE EVIDENCE." The Policy overrides the City resolution, erases it, rewrites it. This is completely unacceptable.

R20 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C21 Section # 2.1
Page #3-4
Comment: Fails to implement the Livermore City Council Resolution of March 23, 2010 "Redevelopment at the airport shall ONLY occur if the Airport Advisory Commission determines that the existing facilities are in NEED of SIGNIFICANT rehabilitation, improvement, or replacement." (emphasis mine) This Policy ignores the City resolution. There is not one word about this in this Policy. This is unacceptable.

R21 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C22 Section # 2.9
Page #7
Comment: Fails to specify noise impacts. Noise impacts get zero consideration in this Policy. This is unacceptable. In fact this is shocking. This Policy spells out 15 different grounds for rejecting an application or proposal. 15 different grounds, yet NOT ONE of them concerns noise impacts.

R22 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C23 Section # 3.2
Page #9
Comment: Fails to even mention a major environmental quality issue: noise. This Policy does not specify a single means or requirement or standard about this impact. Nothing. This is unacceptable.

R23 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C24 Section # 3.3
Page #9
Comment: Fails to specify ANY policy regarding noise. This section features much discussion of not "overburdening the land" and providing the "highest and best use". Yet not one word on noise impacts.

Think about it: is ramping up the noise that hundreds of thousands of residents experience every day, the "highest and best use"? Yet this section does not even mention noise impacts. There's nothing on total noise, nothing on trends, nothing on single noise events, nothing on adhering to the night time curfew.

This is unacceptable.

R24 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C25 Section # 1.1 through 6.9
Page #1 through 23
Comment: Fails to say a thing about noise impacts. Nothing on increased air traffic, larger or noisier planes. Nothing on more planes at lower altitudes, or more takeoffs and landings. Nothing on flight paths over residential areas. Nothing whatsoever. But airport development could affect any and all of these. For instance: a development that adds 150 flights a day of screaming loud luxury jets flying low over neighborhoods, this Policy doesn't have one word to say about that. This Policy literally has more to say about garbage can lids (they must be securely fastened) than about an issue that impacts quality of life of over 100,000 people every day. This is unacceptable. This is shocking.

R25 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

ATTACHMENT 2
719

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 8
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) C26 Section # 1.1 through 6.10
Page #1 through 23
Comment: Fails to provide any requirement for tenants or users to mitigate noise. For instance: mandatory yearly noise and flight path training for all FBOs, their leases, and occupants For instance: signing of a "pledge" to comply with flight path guidelines There is nothing on this. This is unacceptable. Sections

1.1 through 6.10
R26 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C27 Section # 1.1 through 6.10
Page #1 through 23
Comment: Fails to implement the Livermore City Council Resolution of March 23, 2010 "Shall take NO action to SOLICIT OR ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT of a large scale, stand-alone air cargo operator at the Livermore Ai rport." (emphasis mine) Not one word on this in the entire Policy. This is unacceptable.

R27 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C28 Section # 1.1 through 6.10
Page #1 through 23
Comment: Fails to implement the Livermore City Council Resolution of March 23, 2010 "The City does not intend to extend the existing runways." There is nothing in the Airport Development Policy about this. Never even mentioned. This is unacceptable.

R28 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C29 Section # 1.1 through 6.10
Page #1 through 23
Comment: Fails to implement the Livermore City Council Resolution of March 23, 2010 "The city will AGGRESSIVELY FOSTER the REDUCTION of aircraft NOISE" (emphasis mine) There is nothing in the Airport Development Policy about this. Nothing. How will review of development proposals evaluate noise impacts? What are the standards, the requirements, the goals? The Airport Development Policy doesn't have a single word about this. Not. One. Word. A new development could ramp up noise WITHOUT LIMIT, according to this Policy. This is unacceptable. This is complete and utter disregard for the City and the public.

R29 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #10
C30 General comment: It is my opinion and many others that the city of Livermore, the airport management and several of the pilots housing their aircraft at Livermore airport LVK I've been nothing short of negligent in allowing excessive noise by particular pi lots and aircraft over the course of more than 23 years. They always shirk their responsibilities of being good neighbors and considerate aircraft enthusiasts by continuously circling over the homes in the Somerset and surrounding neighborhoods at excessive throttle levels. I have contacted the tower, the airport manager, the airport assistant manager, and the pilots directly as well as the city manager's office, and spoke to the city council about dealing with just a few unruly and thrill seeking pilots th at have found a safe haven at LVK. Since the justified complaints have gone unmitigated, it is my opinion that the city should not have the option of expanding the airport until they do a much improved job of modifying these particular pilots and their planes flying habits. It is unacceptable for the city and airport management to ignore such a ongoing problem. If you can't control just a handful of errant pilots. Then you are not qualified to do improvements at the airport without disrupting even more people's lives. You should know without being better stewards of the airport noise problem, you will face a tidal wave of resistance of which I will be one. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. The reason is simple. Mitigating this problem is not complicat ed. All one would have to do is have the airport manager go and talk to these pilots and it's easy to find them, as currently they are the ones that are flying the Pitts Special Biplanes. This casual encounter might include suggesting that they use the sho rter runway which they are ideally suited for since they only need a short distance for takeoff and landing. This would force them to circle out over the gravel pitch rather than over our homes.

Why is that so hard? It's not!
R30 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

ATTACHMENT 2
720

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 9
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) Commenter #11
C31 Section # 1 through 7
Page #1 through 35
Comment: Nowhere in the document is the word "noise" mentioned. There should be mention of noise and noise abatement/enforcement in the application, leasing, design, development and compliance areas.

R31 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C32 Section # 2
Page #3
Comment: The City Initiative: (where the city can put out an RFI/RFP/RFQ) is worded whenever there is “land/improvement available” – this is in direct contradiction to the 2010 City resolution that explicitly indicates only when “existing demand” with “tangible evi dence.” (The City cannot create demand! It should be noted that it is the Airport Advisory Commission that creates the demand. How does this impact the 2010 resolution? i.e., large planes such as Amazon cargo? or a Jet port for Fixed Based Operators? City Initiative MUST adhere to and enforce the review/notification by the City manager, Airport commission, City staff, etc. Public must continue to be kept in the loop; i.e., informed: of when/IF public notification/comment will happen, that is no potential fo r agreements being signed in secret or not made public until late in the process. Public should be notified at every stage of the process (Interest, MOU, Concept Plan, etc.) and be able to provide feedback . All information must be provided publicly without NDA/confidential agreements at all stages. Financial information could be non -disclosed.

R32 See R4 and R7.

Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C33 Section # 2.1
Page #3
Comment: Attributing the City with powers of "sole discretion" concern me. Sounds like secret meetings, etc.

R33 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #12
C34 Section # 2.1
Page #3-4
Comment: Fails to provide an open and transparent process for RFP/RFI/RFQ.

Fails to require ANY public involvement.

How will the public be notified and informed about proposals? Where? When? How will the public provide feedback? This Policy says nothing about this. In fact this Policy would be fine with a new development that the public never even got told about.

Think about it: a major development that impacts the public every day: this Policy would let that get approved with zero public input, without even letting the public know. This Policy has no problem with that.

This is unacceptable. The public should be notified at every stage of the process (Interest, MOU, Concept Plan, etc.). The Public should be able to provide feedback. An acceptable policy would specify that.

R34 See R4
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C35 Section # 2.1
Page #3-4
Comment: Fails to implement the Livermore City Council Resolution of March 23, 2010 "Future development at the airport shall ONLY occur in response to EXISTING AVIATION DEMAND.

Whether demand exists shall be evaluated by the airport advisory commission and shall be based on TANGIBLE EVIDENCE.

The Policy overrides the City resolution, erases it, rewrites it.

This is completely unacceptable.

R35 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

ATTACHMENT 2
721

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 10
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) C36 Section # 2.1
Page #3-4
Comment: Fails to implement the Livermore City Council Resolution of March 23, 2010 Redevelopment at the airport shall ONLY occur if the Airport Advisory Commission determines that the existing facilities are in NEED of SIGNIFICANT rehabilitation, improvement, or replacement." (emphasis mine)
This Policy ignores the City resolution. There is not one word about this in this Policy. This is unacceptable.

R36 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C37 Section # 2.9
Page #7
Comment: Fails to specify noise impacts.

Noise impacts get zero consideration in this Policy. This is unacceptable.

In fact this is shocking. This Policy spells out 15 different grounds for rejecting an application or proposal. 15 different grounds, yet NOT ONE of them concerns noise impacts.

R37 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C38 Section # 3.2
Page #9
Comment: Fails to even mention a major environmental quality issue: noise.

This Policy does not specify a single means or requirement or standard about this impact. Nothing.

This is unacceptable.

R38 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C39 Section # 3.3
Page #9
Comment: Fails to specify ANY policy regarding noise.

This section features much discussion of not "overburdening the land" and providing the "highest and best use". Yet not one word on noise impacts.

Think about it: is ramping up the noise that hundreds of thousands of residents experience every day, the "highest and best use"? Yet this section does not even mention noise impacts.

There's nothing on total noise, nothing on tr ends, nothing on single noise events, nothing on adhering to the night time curfew.

This is unacceptable.

R39 R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C40 Section # 1.1 through 6.10
Page #1 through 23
Comment: Fails to say a thing about noise impacts.

Nothing on increased air traffic, larger or noisier planes. Nothing on more planes at lower altitudes, or more takeoffs and landings. Nothing on flight paths over residential areas. Nothing whatsoever.

But airport development could affect any and all of these.

For instance: a development that adds 150 flights a day of screaming loud luxury jets flying low over neighborhoods, this Policy doesn't have one word to say about that.

This Policy literally has more to say about garb age can lids (they must be securely fastened) than about an issue that impacts quality of life of over 100,000 people every day.

This is unacceptable. This is shocking.

R40 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C41 Section # 1.1 through 6.10
Page #1 through 23
Comment: Fails to provide any requirement for tenants or users to mitigate noise For instance: mandatory yearly noise and flight path training for all FBOs, their leases, and occupants For instance: signing of a "pledge" to comply with flight path guidelines There is nothing on this. This is unacceptable.

ATTACHMENT 2
722

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 11
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) R41 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C42 Section # 1.1 through 6.10
Page #1 through 23
Comment: Fails to implement the Livermore City Council Resolution of March 23, 2010 "Shall take NO action to SOLICIT OR ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT of a large scale, stand-alone air cargo operator at the Livermore Airport."
Not one word on this in the entire Policy. This is unacceptable.

R42 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C43 Section # 1.1 through 6.10
Page #1 through 23
Comment: Fails to implement the Livermore City Council Resolution of March 23, 2010 “The City does not intend to extend the existing runways.” There is nothing in the Airport Development Policy about this.

Never even mentioned.

This is unacceptable.

R43 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C44 Section # 1.1 through 6.10
Page #1 through 23
Comment: Fails to implement the Livermore City Council Resolution of March 23, 2010 "The city will AGGRESSIVELY FOSTER the REDUCTION of aircraft NOISE" (emphasis mine) There is nothing in the Airport Development Policy about this. Nothing.

How will review of development proposals evaluate noise impacts? What are the standards, the requirements, the goals?
The Airport Development Policy doesn't have a single word about this.

Not. One. Word.

A new development could ramp up noise WITHOUT LIMIT, according to this Policy.

This is unacceptable.

This is complete and utter disregard for the City and the public.

R44 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #13
C45 Section # 2.1
Comment: Unsolicited Interest
• Issue: Must not be under NDA as that removes all transparency. • Information Secrecy: All information must be provided publicly without NDA/confidential at all stages except for any financial information
R45 See R11
ATTACHMENT 2
723

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 12
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) C46 City Initiative
• This is most worrisome - the city can decide that it wants to put out an RFP/RFI/RFQ without consent from the Airport commission, City council, or any public hearings for anything i.e. pretty much anything that Livermore Airport Staff want to do. I talks about making arrangements without having the airport staff, airport commission, other city officials -- this is absolutely should not be allowed! • For example, agreements MOU that could be agreed to with just council and omitting many of the other participants could be"
• Cargo base for companies like Amazon
• FBO with major jet operations (i.e., 737 maintenance, or major jet port hangers and FBO Is this correct?
• The City Initiative process should clearly state and reference the 2010 Livermore Resolution which indicates the terms for the initiative:
• “Future development at the airport shall only occur in response to existing aviation demand. Whether demand exists shall be evaluated by the airport advisory commission and shall be based on tangible evidence….”
• “Redevelopment at the airport shall only occur if the Airport Advisory Commission determines that the existing facilities are in need of significant rehabilitation, improvement, or replacement” • A City Initiative should NOT be (as in the draft doc ument) - “if Airport land/ improvements exist or become available”
R46 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C47 • Information secrecy: All information must be provided publicly without NDA/confidential at all stages except for any financial information
R47 See R11
C48 ALL Sections: Overall Public Notification and Feedback on any proposal (applies to all sections) ISSUE: Lack of any Public notification and feedback at any stage is not explicitly indicated in the document
• For example, during and after the interest or MOU has been negotiated and signed by the City and Applicant
• There is no public notification/comment of this happening • After the MOU is signed, the Concept Plan is sent to the City – there is no public notification or comment period on this concept plan
• The public should be notified and have provision for review/feedback at every step:
• Upon unsolicited interest
• Prior to MOU approval
• Prior to Concept Plan approval
• At application submission time
• Prior to application approval time
• The onus of notification should fall on the applicant (mailers to airport surrounding community). Putting the draft on airports website cannot be considered as public notification as one can’t expect people to go and keep checking airports website each week.

R48 See R4
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C49 Section 3.2 Environmental Quality
• ISSUE: There is no mention of Noise which is the major environmental quality issue facing the valley with the airport
• Noise is a major environmental factor and the fact that this is not here? Very concerns that the airport is not taking this seriously -- this is a serious omission R49 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

ATTACHMENT 2
724

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 13
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) C50 Section 3.3 Provision of Necessary Airport Land and/or improvements • This section introduces a number of NEW policies regarding land and improvements • ISSUE: Does not have any policy regarding noise (including single noise events), adhering to the nighttime curfew, etc.
• If NEW policies are being added (which they are in this section), then new policies can be added regarding noise, curfew violations, etc. For example:

Mandatory yearly noise/flight pattern training for all companies and their leases Written pledges from all leases to abide on the noise, traffic pattern, voluntary curfews Policy after 2 infractions, that FBO and leases will have a personal meeting with the Mayor and discuss how they will be better citizens. Yes, this is extreme -- so far the airport doesn't seem to have taken any steps for repeat offenders?
R50 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #14
C51 Following are comments I wish to have submitted on the airport development draft.

Most of the issues I have could be addressed by clarification of or addition to the 2010 policy because any detailed planning has to flow from the policy. These are my major concern s:

R51 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C52 —the policy should rule out dealing with single interested developers who approach the airport. If the Airport Planning Commission recommends development, it should not be in response to a single company like Kaiser. Rather, it should stem from the Commission's assessment of needs; an RFP should be called for; and a number of proposals should be considered. Overall, I get the impression that Kaiser bought the politicians. True or not, that’s what some people think.

R52 See R15
C53 —the policy on noise needs significant beefing up and specificity. I understand that the overall cost of noise reduction in Learjets is significantly higher than paying fines indefinitely. This is unacceptable.

Also, one way of dealing with annoying noise in the commu nity is to require 24/7 airport staffing: put the cost in the rents and landing fees and give the citizens a credible outlet for night flight complaints — which are many.

R53 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C54 —the policy on noise needs significant beefing up and specificity. I understand that the overall cost of noise reduction in Learjets is significantly higher than paying fines indefinitely. This is unacceptable.

Also, one way of dealing wi th annoying noise in the community is to require 24/7 airport staffing: put the cost in the rents and landing fees and give the citizens a credible outlet for night flight complaints — which are many.

R54 See R5
C55 —the “appropriate use” of the airport is too broadly defined. I bet quite a few of the past developments benefited other areas beyond the Tri-Valley area. What happens when Tracy industries come wanting to use the airport? The desires of the community’s resident in the Tri-Valley should weigh in strongly here, as these are the people who will have to live with whatever the airport does.

R55 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C56 Overall, the past actions at the airport indicate that there is little agreement on what the airport is for. I doubt residents have a problem with Tri -Valley residents flying and parking their small planes. But the past couple of decades have required frequent large-scale resistance to one or another of the airport’s/City Council’s ideas. I am tired of it; others are too. We spend more time on airport issues than anything else the local politicians do. There is something wrong here, and blaming FAA rule s just won’t do. When, in 2010, the City of Livermore adopted a policy statement that the City does not intend to extend the runways (to accommodate larger planes), many of us read that as weasel-wording rather than a firm statement that residents can rely on.

The new airport management has a massive job to do in rebuilding confidence with the locals. Too much secrecy leads to accusations of greed. Much more transparency is required, or we will stay in the place we have been for a long time.

R56 See R7

ATTACHMENT 2
725

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 14
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) Commenter #15
C57 Section #2.1
Page # 3-4
Comment: OMISSION Does not include requirements for Public Participation to ensure open and transparent processes and procedures. E.g.: public notice, public meetings, requests for public comments, with reasonable timelines, additional public review cycles. ADD Requirements for an open and transparent process for RFP/RFI/RFQ. Requirements for public participation. Requirements for public notification Requirements for public comment and feedback. Requireme nts for additional public review cycles.

R57 See R4
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C58 Section #2.1
Page # 3-4
Comment: OMISSION Does not include a clear statement of the airport development guidelines as defined in the Livermore City Council Resolution 2010 -058. The global reference to Appx B and Resolution 2010-058 is inadequate and creates ambiguity. ADD Call out the Specific Requirements as per Resolution 2010-058: Future airport development only in response to existing demand. Future airport development only in cases where existing facilities are in need. Do not extend runways. Do not solicit or encourage development of large scale, stand-alone cargo operations at Livermore airport.

R58 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C59 Section #2.4
Page # 5-7
Comment: OMISSION Does not include requirements for Public Participation to ensure open and transparent processes and procedures. E.g.: public notice, public meetings, requests for public comments, with reasonable timelines. ADD Requirements for an open and transparent process for RFP/RFI/RFQ.

Requirements for public participation.

Requirements for public notification Requirements for public comm ent and feedback. Requirements for additional public review cycles.

R59 See R7
C60 Section # 2.9
Page # 7
Comment: OMISSION Fails to explicitly state a basis of rejection includes the project will increase the noise impacts to surrounding communities, in compliance with Livermore City Council Resolution 2010- 058. Project cannot be the cause of increased aircraft noise impacts to surrounding communities (Tri - Valley Cities). ADD Call out the Specific Requirements as per Resolution 2010 -058: T he City will aggressively foster the reduction of aircraft noise efforts, including during night hours (but not limited to). City will participate in federal lobbying efforts to legislate phase-out of noise-producing jets.

R60 See R5, R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C61 Section # 2.9
Page # 7
Comment: OMISSION Fails to explicitly state a basis of rejection includes the project will increase the noise impacts to surrounding communities, in compliance with Livermore City Council Resolution 2010- 058. Project cannot be the cause of increased aircraft noise impacts to surrounding communities (Tri - Valley Cities). ADD Call out the Specific Requirements as per Resolution 2010 -058: The City will aggressively foster the reduction of aircraft noise efforts, including during night hours (but not limited to). City will participate in federal lobbying efforts to legislate phase-out of noise-producing jets.

R61 See R5 and R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

ATTACHMENT 2
726

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 15
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) C62 Section # 3.2
Page # 9
Comment: OMISSION Fails to specify City shall not permit development or land use that will increase the noise impacts to surrounding communities, in compliance with Livermore City Council Resolution 2010-058. Project cannot be the cause of increased aircraft noise impacts to surrounding communities (Tri-Valley Cities) ADD Explicit statement to include: City shall not permit development or land use that increases noise impacts to surrounding communities (Tri-Valley Cities).

R62 See R5 and R7
C63 Section # 3.3
Page # 9
Comment: OMISSION Statement that projects resulting in the increased noise impacts to surrounding communities is not permitted (Tri-Valley Cities) MISSING Explicit statement to include: City encourages development that does not result in increased noise impacts to surrounding communities (Tri -Valley Cities).

R63 See R5 and R7
C64 Section # 5.1
Page # 19
Comment: OMISSION Expected noise impacts to surrounding communities (Tri -Valley Cities).

MISSING Explicit statement to include: Concept Plan shall include information about the expected noise impacts to surrounding communities (Tri-Valley Cities) and the plans to mitigate noise impacts.

R64 See R5 and R7
C65 Section # 5.2
Page # 19
Comment: OMISSION Plans to ensure that the project does not increase noise impacts to surrounding communities (Tri -Valley Cities). ADD Explicit statement to include: Development Plan shall identify complete set of plans to ensure project does not cause increased no ise impacts to surrounding communities (Tri-Valley Cities) and the plans to mitigate noise impacts.

R65 See R5 and R7
C66 Section # 7.4
Page # 30-33
Comment: OMISSION Does not include requirements for Public Participation to ensure open and transparent processes and procedures. E.g.: public notice, public meetings, requests for public comments, with reasonable timelines, additional public review cycles. ADD Incorporate Public Participation milestones into flowcharts (Unsolicited Interest, Cit y Initiative, MOU/Agreement Process):

Requirements for public participation. Requirements for public notification Requirements for public comment and feedback.

Requirements for additional public review cycles.

R66 See R4
Commenter #16
C67 Comment: Noise in California Ranch community we live very close. Since 2000 with mayor James we have request to place reduce noise at the Airport. Also stop flying in at 9pm period.

R67 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C68 Comment: If an accident occurred with airplane or biplane who land in Isabel Av. What solution the city has to avoid tragedies. Also make sure do not land in our home R68 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

ATTACHMENT 2
727

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 16
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) Commenter #17
C69 Appendix # 7.4
Page # 30
Comment: A FLAW OF THE RECENT KAISER APPLICATION STRONGLY OPPOSED BY RESIDENTS IS REPEATED IN THIS POLICY DOCUMENT. Until the application is far down the flowchart and presented to the airport commission, there is no requirement for review or input from persons required to be LIVERMORE RESIDENTS.

R69 Appendix 7.4 has been expanded to include Airport Commission participation following submission of an Application (under the Unsolicited Interest process) as well as prior to issuing an RFQ/RFP (under the City Initiative process).

C70 Appendix # 7.4
Page # 30
Comment: ADD an additional task Process between the "Start" bubble and "Interested party initial meeting with IDSRT" as follows: "While in compliance with Brown Act, Interested party meets individually with Airport Commission members, willing to sign NDA if needed, for the purpose of informal presentation and to receive feedback regarding the proposed application prior to IDSRT submittal"
R70 See R69.

C71 THIS WEBSITE FORM
Comment
This website requires at least the input of City and County - Yet there is no input fields for that. There is only an input for "Country"
R71 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C72 THIS WEBSITE FORM
Comment
Once you hit "Review" there is no visible "Edit", or "Go Back" button to make the changes it requires R72 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #18
C73 Section # 1.2
Page # 1
Comment: I have concerns regarding the Livermore Airport New Development Plan Proposal. Please advise where these issues are addressed in your Airport New Development Plan Proposal. The big issues:

R73 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C74 (a) Noise impacts are ignored in the documents; why aren’t noise policies mentioned? R74 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C75 (b) It appears the City can issue an RFI/RFP/RFQ whenever there is “land/improvement available” even without existing demand with tangible evidence (in contradiction to the 2010 City resolution).

R75 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C76 (c) I don’t see it mentioned when/if public notification/comment will happen (when developments are proposed). The public needs to be made aware of proposals that impact them and their daily lives.

R76 See R4
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C77 (d) It appears there’s an ability for city council to bypass city manager, airport commission, airport management and sign a deal for expansion (looking at current proposed wording). Full disclosure and transparency are important.

R77 See R69

ATTACHMENT 2
728

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 17
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) Commenter #19
C78 Section # 2.1
Page #
Comment: Unsolicited Interest Issue: Must not be under NDA as that removes all transparency.

Information Secrecy: All information must be provided publicly without NDA/confidential at all stages except for any financial information City Initiative This is most worr isome - the city can decide that it wants to put out an RFP/RFI/RFQ without consent from the Airport commission, City council, or any public hearings for anything i.e. pretty much anything that Livermore Airport Staff want to do) For example: Cargo base for companies like Amazon FBO with major jet operations ( i.e., 737 maintenance, or major jet port hangers and FBO) Expand runways The City Initiative process should clearly state and reference the 2010 Livermore Resolution which indicates the terms for the i nitiative: “Future development at the airport shall only occur in response to existing aviation demand. Whether demand exists shall be evaluated by the airport advisory commission and shall be based on tangible evidence….” “Redevelopment at the airport sha ll only occur if the Airport Advisory Commission determines that the existing facilities are in need of significant rehabilitation, improvement, or replacement” A City Initiative should NOT be (as in the draft document) - “if Airport land/ improvements exi st or become available” Information secrecy: All information must be provided publicly without NDA/confidential at all stages except for any financial information
R78 See R11
C79 Section # 3.2
Page #
Comment: ISSUE: There is no mention of Noise which is the major environmental quality issue facing the valley with the airport
R79 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C80 Section # 3.3
Page #
Comment: This section introduces a number of NEW policies regarding land and improvements ISSUE:

Does not have any policy regarding noise (including single noise events), adhering to the night time curfew, etc. Since new policies are possible (as indicated in this section), recommend the following policies: Mandatory yearly noise and flight path training for all FBOs, their leases, and occupants Signing of a “pledge” towards these noise / flight path guidelines R80 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #20
C81 Section # 2.1
Page #
Comment: Unsolicited Interest Issue: Must not be under NDA as that removes all transparency.

C82 Section # 2.1
Page #
Comment: The City Initiative process should clearly state and reference the 2010 Livermore Resolution which indicates the terms for the initiative: “Future development at the airport shall only occur in response to existing aviation demand. Whether demand exists shall be evaluated by the airport advisory commission and shall be based o n tangible evidence….” “Redevelopment at the airport shall only occur if the Airport Advisory Commission determines that the existing facilities are in need of significant rehabilitation, improvement, or replacement” A City Initiative should NOT be (as in the draft document) - “if Airport land/ improvements exist or become available” Information secrecy: All information must be provided publicly without NDA/confidential at all stages except for any financial information ATTACHMENT 2
729

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 18
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) R82 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C83 Section # 3.2
Page #
Comment: ISSUE: There is no mention of Noise which is the major environmental quality issue facing the valley with the airport
R83 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C84 Section # 3.3
Page #
Comment: This section introduces a number of NEW policies regarding land and improvements ISSUE:

Does not have any policy regarding noise (including single noise events), adhering to the night time curfew, etc. Since new policies are possible (as indicated in this section), recommend the following policies: Mandatory yearly noise and flight path training for all FBOs, their leases, and occupants Signing of a “pledge” towards these noise / flight path guidelines R84 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #21
C85 Section # 1.2
Page #4
Comment: No mention of when/IF public notification/comment will happen. Public should be notified at every stage of the process (Interest, MOU, Concept Plan, etc.) and be able to provide feedback. All information must be provided publicly without NDA/Confidential at all stages of the process.

R85 See R4
C86 Appendix City Initiatives: Leasing and Development Policy Page #25
Comment: Livermore letter: Point 5 - Noise impacts - ignored in this document and should be asked/addressed by any applicant. There should be new noise policies put in place.

R86 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C87 Appendix Leasing and Development Policy
Page #38- Section 7.7 Advertising Guidelines
Comment: The City Initiative for RFI/RFP/RFQ is worded whenever there is "land/improvement available". This is in direct contradiction to the 2010 City resolution that explicitly indicates only when "existing demand" with "tangible evidence" (they cannot create demand), the city does not make this determination - it is the Airport Advisory Commission that does.

R87 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

ATTACHMENT 2
730

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 19
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) Commenter #22
C88 Comment: Noise impacts- the document does not address how planning and development will take into account noise impact on the surrounding community and Livermore in general. I suggest detailing noise monitoring procedures and requiring a report on potential noise i mpact of any new development that should be part of the proposal process. There should also be a regular (multiple times a year) way to communicate impacts to the community. Any legal means of supporting noise reduction including adding fines to lease agreements for violations or assessing take off and landing flight paths for the least impact (near freeways when possible instead of homes) should be prioritized.

R88 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C89 Comment: Any proposals that have a direct benefit to the city of Livermore residents should be prioritized. For example, development proposals that include amenities that the community can enjoy (a restaurant or museum).

R89 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C90 Comment: Any proposal for development should be automatically linked to a public announcement. The steps for the approval process should be detailed in the plan and publicized at each stage. Extra opportunity for public input should be built into each stage of the process including the proposal stage R90 See R4
Commenter #23
C91 Section # 1.2
Page # 1
Comment: I am writing to express my concerns regarding the recent changes made to the Livermore Airport Development Policy. While the new policies and guidelines provided in the document cover many areas, I noticed that noise impacts had been ignored. This is a significant issue that needs to be addressed, especially given the high noise le vel during small plane takeovers in areas east of Jordan Ranch/Dublin(Opp Fallon Sports Park) and over the Cottonwood Creek School. Furthermore, I am concerned about the City Initiative clause in the Livermore Airport Development Policy. As per the 2010 City resolution, an RFI/RFP/RFQ can only be put out when there is "existing demand" with "tangible evidence." However, it appears that the Airport Advisory Commission, rather than the city, makes the determination. This raises questions about whether the airport staff is trying to bypass the 2010 resolution to allow for expansion, such as a cargo base for companies like Amazon, FBO with major jet operations (i.e., 737 maintenance or major jet port hangers and FBO), expand runways and impacts a large set of tri- valley communities (Dublin/ Pleasanton /Livermore), and new development projects at the east side of Dublin.

R91 See R5, R7
C92 Section # 2.6
Page # 7
Comment: Lack of transparency and public notification opportunities. There is no mention of when/if the public will be notified or allowed to provide feedback. This could result in agreements being signed in secret and not made public until it is too late in the process. The public should be notified at every stage of the process, from Interest to MOU to Concept Plan, to provide feedback.

R92 See R4
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C93 Section # 3.2
Page # 9
Comment: This significant issue needs to be addressed, especially given the high noise level during small plane takeovers in areas east of Jordan Ranch/Dublin(Opp Fallon Sports Park) and over the Cottonwood Creek School.

R93 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

ATTACHMENT 2
731

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 20
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) Commenter #24
C94 Section # 1.2
Page # 1
Comment: Environmental: any further expansion of the airport will have severe, destructive, environmental impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods, significantly increasing noise and air pollution, negatively affecting the health of residents …this polic y does not adequately address the increased environmental and health damage which will be caused by expansion and extension of services at the airport
R94 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C95 Section # 1.2
Page # 1
Comment: further expansion of the airport will negatively impact the relationship between the airport and the surrounding communities since expansion will result increased pollution and noise, both of which are continuing issues objected to by the surrounding communities.

R95 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C96 Section # 1.2
Page # 1
Comment: Economic issues are not properly addressed…while the airport will undoubtedly benefit financially from airport expansion, local homeowners will definitely not, as noise and pollution will decease property values
R96 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C97 Appendix B-1
Page # 1
Comment: the resolution states in #4 that the city does not intend to extend the existing runways……this offers no real assurance and does not even offer assurance that public input will be solicited, with enough notice to be effective, if such plans come up in future R97 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

As such, a change was not deemed necessary.

C98 Appendix B-1
Page # 1
Comment: #5 states the city will aggressively foster the reduction of airport noise…this section is disingenuous at best, since any noise complaints submitted are met with the standard reference to FAA regulations, which prevent cities or local jurisdictions from enacting any regulation of which aircraft that can use the airport if the facility is adequate…that is why the noise reduction efforts are all voluntary, and why the city will not be aggressively reducing airport noise…expansion of the airport and aircraft services will increase noise and pollution and the only way the city can aggressively work to reduce such is by not increasing traffic through the airport
R98 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C99 Comment: In support of airport expansion, the ever increasing demand for increased hangar space and services is often cited; the inclusion in the document that expansion shall not be solicited and will only be approved if the demand already exists, also specious…as fa r as i can see, the policy plan does not specify when public notice shall be given of proposals and when/if public comments will be solicited regarding such proposals. This should be included in the proposal in a clear way and be required before any advancing of any proposal that will increase airport traffic, and the city needs to be more upfront regarding its lack of power over the real results of expansion, and of how only by not encouraging more airport traffic can the city help protect residents from the health, economic, social and functional goals R99 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #25
C100 Section # 1
Page # 1
Comment: Keeping a "compatible relationship" with the community should include reducing the noise problem. I do not see "noise" discussed. Just because people may have given up complaining about the noise, it does not mean that the problems are solved.

R100 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

ATTACHMENT 2
732

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 21
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) C101 Section # 2
Page # 7
Comment: Increase the communication with and input from the public during the RFQ/RFP process without a public records request.

R101 See R4
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C102 Section # 3
Page # 7
Comment: Increase the communication with and input from the public during the RFQ/RFP process without a public records request.

R102 See R4
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C103 Section # 3
Page # 10
Comment: Leaded gasoline is harmful to the people, animal and the environment. Regulate, reduce and eliminate lead fuel.

R103 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C104 Section # 3
Page # 12
Comment: Appreciate emphasis on protecting water resources. Who will be responsible for the protections?
R104 The City’s Planning Department will ensure compliance with Legal Requirements related to water quality.

Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #26
C105 Section # 2.6; 3.2; 7.5
Page # 7, 9, 34
Comment: My concerns are in agreement with the Livermore Airport Citizen's Group.

R105 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #27
C106 Comment: As a resident that would be impacted by any changes proposed to the operation of the airport, why was I not contacted proactively to solicit my input? You should have a robust public information/outreach campaign. What are the noise impacts that are reasonably foreseeable from this new policy? Why are you not conforming to previous Resolutions adopted by the City regarding airport developments? Local government should be about openly serving the needs of its residents, not hiding major impacts to them until it is too late to do anything about it. Whose need are your really serving?:

R106 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

Commenter #28
C107 Section # 2, 6
Page #
Comment: Why is there no mention of when the public can comment on applications except at a City Council meeting at the very end of the process? The public must be notified and allowed to comment at every step of the process: interest, MOU, Concept Plan, etc. All information should be provided publicly and in a timely manner for all stages excluding financial information. The public should be able to receive feedback concerning comments. The 2.6 Public Disclosure section needs to be re -written to include the above conditions. Giving the public the chance to review documents after making a request under the California Public Records Act is insufficient and denies adequate access to critical information.

R107 See R4
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C108 Section # The City Initiative
Page #
Comment: The City Initiative, (where the city can send out an RFI/RFP/RFO)whenever land is available should be changed to include the 2010 Airport Operational and Development Policies Resolution that explicitly states the city should only send out RFI/RFP/RFOs when there is demand and tangible evidence to document a need.

ATTACHMENT 2
733

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 22
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) R108 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C109 Section # The City Initiative
Page #
Comment: The proposed plan should include point #3 of the 2010 Airport Resolution, " The City Manager, Public Works Director, and Airport manager shall take no action to solicit or encourage development of a large scale, stand-alone air cargo operator at the Livermore Airport." R109 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C110 Section # Development policies
Page #
Comment: The proposed plan should include point #4 of the 2010 Airport Resolution, " The City does not intend to extend the runways"
R110 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C111 Section # Noise Impacts
Page #
Comment: The proposed plan should include and strengthen #6 of the 2010 Airport Resolution, " In cooperation with other Tri -Valley Cities, the City of Livermore will conduct periodic noise monitoring activities and report those activities to local elected Boards at least once a year.

R111 Proposed changes to Resolution 2010 -058 are outside the scope of this proposed Leasing and Development Policy.

Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C112 Section # Goals, Objectives, and Development Priorities ( Sub heading --Environmental) and Section 3.4 Manmade and Natural Hazards
Page #
Comment: The proposed plan does not include any steps to reduce and/or prohibit the use of leaded aviation fuel. Why?? Leaded aviation fuel causes unacceptable levels of lead in the blood of children attending schools and/or using parks nearby. ( Refer to the five year studies by the Santa Clara County Supervisors, the City of San Jose and Kaiser Permanente.) Santa Clara County prohibits planes of any size who use leaded aviation fuel to land/take off and refuel at San Jose Reed Hillview Airport and San Martin Airport in San Jose. There are several schools and parks adjacent to the Livermore Airport.

Allowing the continued use of leaded aviation fuel at the Livermore Airport poses a health risk to children and families nearby. The continued use of leaded aviation fuel directly conflicts and is inconsistent with section 1.2 Goals, Objectives, and Development Priorities that which states that the plan must include " features to minimize adverse impacts to the environment".

R112 Section 1.4 states as follows: “ Entities who desire to lease, construct, modify, and/or renovate aeronautical or non-aeronautical land and/or Improvements at the Airport shall comply with this Policy, Resolution 2010-058, and any federal, State of California (State), Alameda County, or City laws, codes, ordinances, and other applicable Legal Requirements .” If a governmental agency creates a regulation related to the use of leaded aviation fuel, then an entity proposing to develop land or improvements under this policy would be subject to such regulation.

Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

ATTACHMENT 2
734

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 23
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) C113 Section # Noise Impacts/Limits
Page #
Comment: No noise limits were listed in the proposed development plan. Future applicants and operators should be made aware of the current noise limits. The plan should list the general plan limits for the cities of Livermore, Pleasa nton, Dublin and Alameda County's General Plan. ( Depending on weather conditions, planes may land/take off directly over county residences and parcels. ) R113 See R5
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C114 Section # 3.4
Page #
Comment: The plan does not address the issue of PFAS. The plan does not prohibit lease owners from using materials, chemicals, substances, or practices that may increase PFAS levels at the airport and in neighboring areas.

R114 Section 1.4 states as follows: “Entities who desire to lease, construct, modify, and/or renovate aeronautical or non-aeronautical land and/or Improvements at the Airport shall comply with this Policy, Resolution 2010-058, and any federal, State of California (S tate), Alameda County, or City laws, codes, ordinances, and other applicable Legal Requirements. ” This includes compliance with any legal requirement related to PFAS.

Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C115 Section # 3.4
Page #
Comment: The proposed plan needs to address in further detail who will be responsible for drainage and flooding during heavy rain years such as the 2022-23 winter.

R115 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C116 Section # 1.4
Page # 10
Comment: The words " County laws, codes and ordinances" should be added in addition to federal, state and city laws.

R116 Section 1.4 has been changed as follows: State of California (State), Alameda County, or City laws…

ATTACHMENT 2
735

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 24
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) Commenter #29
C117 Comment: Honorable Livermore City Council members:

We are both Seniors and love our home on Amberwood Way. In many ways Livermore is a very nice city, we enjoy our neighborhood, we have a great downtown, etc. We have been homeowners in Livermore for more than 30 years.

I am writing-in regards to the proposed Airport Development Policy. I am hoping that somewhere is the proposal, noise impacts is mentioned. I did not fully read this draft proposal but wanted to let our elected officials know how we feel. We are against any expansion and any more facilities being built that will increase the number of aircraft using our Airport. Our Airport is very busy and popular and we have so many planes flying over our neighborhood. It seems to me that some city officials and some on our Airport Commission want to encourage more aircraft to use our Airport by building more facilities.

Many of the aircraft using our airport are single engine Cessna type planes an d I assume that they are from Flight Schools. Many are flying low and some are loud and disturbing. Seems like our Airport is much busier than Palo Alto, Hayward, Concord, Tracy, Stockton and other nearby cities. Seems like there are more flight schools us ing our Airport and I know flight Schools from other cities use it every day. I have an app on my phone (FlightRadar24) and I can see the airplane traffic at Livermore and other airports. I also know that this app is not 100 % accurate.

The City Council ( I believe it was back around 2005) approved an expansion. I believe back in 2007 our City Council approved a Fixed Base Operator (FBO) which as you know is Five Rivers Aviation. When we bought our home in 1992 it was rare to see a jet using our Airport. Even though many of use residents protested against this expansion and around 1000 residents of Livermore and Pleasanton attended the meeting at Granada High in 2005 to protest this proposed expansion. Sadly our City Council approved the proposal and now we have many large corporate jets flying over our neighborhoods every day.

I know there are people that want our Airport to continue to expand and that is disappointing. Our Airport negatively impacts many neighborhood including ours. Our home is about 3 ½ m iles to the east of our Airport and is slightly north of the flight path. Our Airport can negatively impact the property values of many neighborhoods. It affects the quality of life for many neighborhoods. Thru the years the increase in air traffic has bec ome an on going conversation between our neighbors and us. And from what I have read, many residents in Pleasanton do not like our Airport and the noise these aircraft generate. Please take into consideration before allowing any more expansion, building of facilities, etc. on Airport property.

Please reply to let me know you have received this info and please feel free to comment.

Thank you very much
R118 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

ATTACHMENT 2
736

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 25
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) Commenter #30
C119 April 17, 2023
To: Livermore City Council
Livermore Airport Commission
Scott Lanphier, Director of City Public Works
Michael Musca, Airport Manager
Re: Proposed changes to City of Livermore Airport Development Policy

We are writing you because we have questions and concerns about the proposed new City of Livermore’s Airport Development Policy (February 17,2023)
We moved to east Pleasanton in 1992 and at the time of purchasing our house our realtor notified us about the City of Livermore’s Airport. It was noted that the airport was created in 1965 as a small recreational airport for small airplanes and was not designated for any other purpose. There was little airplane traffic over our east Pleasanton neighborhood for several years. In early 2000, landing a nd take-off pattern changes were made at the airport which directly impacted east Pleasanton including homes and schools.

At the time, we voiced our concerns without success.

Today, we regularly have small jets flying over our neighborhood in both take-off and landing maneuvers.

We regularly report those planes operating outside approved business hours. Our concern is for the safety of our neighborhood, including the impacts of noise, air pollution and possible accidents.

After the public outcry of possibly expanding the airport with a Kaiser Air contract, we appreciated your desire to re-evaluate and update the airport’s policies and procedures. However, as we read the proposed new City of Livermore Leasing and Development Policy for the airport, we are disappointed in the recommendations.

The proposed policy includes an objective on Social factors –“To maintain and enhance a compatible relationship between the airport and the surrounding community”. There are no clear action steps/definitions on what this means… what level of noise is agreed upon, hours of operations, definition of air pollution standards, definition of community, opportunity for community input.

There is no reference in this document about p ublic input and review of the proposed changes. After the outcry about Kaiser Air expansion, we are shocked that there was no interest to include public participation in the development of the proposed policy and on-going changes at the airport.

Noise policies are ignored in the document, although new policies and guidelines are detailed on things like size of buildings, landscaping, flag poles, lighting, setbacks, vehicle parking, hangar assignments, etc. Why weren’t noise policies created/included?
City of Livermore is part of the Tri -Valley and this document makes no mention of trying to communicate and/or work with the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton officials to maintain a healthy and prosperous valley. Will this occur?
The City of Livermore in pa st policy (Resolution NO. 2010 -058), states the existing demand to increase/change at the airport must have tangible evidence. The new policy states that changes can be made any time by anybody and in fact the proposed contractor can create the demand (Unsolicited Interest) is the term used in the proposal.

We are so disappointed in this proposed leasing and development policy and hope that additional time can be included to truly look at and include clear definition and standards for social and community needs so that everyone can be satisfied and keep the Tri-Valley a very desirable place to live.

Sincerely,
C119 See R1 through R12

ATTACHMENT 2
737

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 26
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) Commenter #31
C120 April 7, 2023
Ms. Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
City of Livermore
1052 S. Livermore A venue
Livermore, CA 94550-1052
Via email
RE: City of Pleasanton Comments on the Airport Development Policy and Hanger Waitlist Policy

Dear Marianna -
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Livermore's (Livermore) Draft Airport Development Policy and Hangar Waitlist Policy. Please find below the City of Pleasanton's comments regarding the draft policies. As you are aware, Pleasanton and public concerns are most focused on expansion of airport activity and noise etc. associated with flight activity that may occur with such expansions. As such, it is important that Livermore's policies continue to adhere to the limitations established in Resolution 2010-058, and that there is transparency and appropriate analysis of any project with the potential to increase flight activity.

While we appreciate the more detailed and comprehensive planning and approval approach reflected in the policies, the City of Pleasanton (Pleasanton) is concerned that the policies do not adequately utilize or reflect the 2010 Livermore City Council Resolution as it relates to expansion of airport activities and associated impacts, nor thoroughly articulate how the public and interested parties will be provided notification of major improvements or other planned expansion.

Pleasanton's specific comments of the Draft Policies are as follows:

R120 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C121 Comment:

1. The Draft Policy does not adequately tie the basis or rationale for approval of improvements to the specific parameters outlined in Resolution 2010 -058. As you are aware, the Resolution generally seeks to limit the expansion of airport operations and additional flight activity, base any expansion solely on the basis of existing demand and "tangible evidence" thereto; to control noise, and more specifically, to limit certain expansions such as the extension of runways or development of large air -cargo operations.

R122 See R7
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C123 Comment:

2. In Section 1.2, the bullet list of objectives used to evaluate proposals is deemed to "reflect the Airport Development Priorities" in Reso 2010 -058. It further notes they will be "used as criteria for eval uating proposals for Airport land lease/development, as further explained in this document." However, the relationship between the (somewhat generic) objectives, and the very specific guidance of the Resolution is unclear, and the Policy does not in fact provide any further explanation or reference to the Resolution, other than attaching the Resolution as an appendix. For example, the policy does not actually directly cite or use any of the criteria stated in the Resolution (e.g. determination/findings that improvement necessary to support existing demand, versus supporting expansion/increase in capacity or size of aircraft that can be accommodated). Explicit compliance with the Resolution is not called out in Section 1.4 (Compliance), nor in the review proc edures in Section 2.2 with respect to new leases, or Section 3 .3 with respect to provision of improvements.

R123 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

ATTACHMENT 2
738

COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE

Comment Compilation and Response 27
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) C124 Comment:

3. The Airport Development Policy does not address requirements for CEQA / NEPA environmental review. As noted in the preface, whether based on an individual proposal or a more comprehensive plan (as Pleasanton suggests may be appropriate), CEQA and/or NEPA review will be required for many projects, and will help provide disclosure of potential impacts through evaluation of noise, air quality, hazards and other impacts if there is a change in operations associated with a lease or improvements).

R124 A new Section 1.8 Environmental Review has been added to the document.

C125 Comment:

4. The Policies are unclear about what notification is to be provided to the public or other interested parties (such as the City of Pleasanton), and at what stages in the process. As written, no public notification for any lease or improvement, beyond that required for a standard City Council or planning application (if required) is noted. While we do not think it will be necessary or appropriate to require a public notice for minor changes (e.g. repair of an existing building), certain actions or approvals, particularly those that would constitute an expansion or intensification of use, may warrant additional notification or referral.

R125 See R4
Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

C126 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss in more detail.

Sincerely,
R126 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.

ATTACHMENT 2
739
From: LA CG
To: Debbie Elam
Cc: Marie Weber
Subject: Comments to be included in the City Agenda Packet - Livermore Airport Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 1:11:39 PM
Debbie,
Please find below the comment to be included in the packet. Thanks for all your help. regards, LACG
The latest document released on the previous Friday by the Livermore Airport ignores many of the public comments on the earlier draft, and appears not to be done in good faith (a CEQA violation from my understanding?).

The airport is the one city Asset that impacts the lives of probably 200,000 people. Not like a new apartment, or a new street, or a shopping mall. It requires special and more serious scrutiny (and checks and balances) on what gets developed at the airport.

1. Noise
We do understand the the noise guidelines/standards are set by the FAA , and note they were primarily established for large urban (i.e. SFO) airports, not that of small regional airports.

We hope you will agree that the noise is a large issue with the community.

The question is what can the Airport do to lower the noise, including what can be put into the Airport Development Policy -- the current proposal does nothing -- and hence inconsistent with 2010 "aggressively reducing the noise" mandate. Several suggestions that have been given now and in the past include:
- Much more aggressive and training/education of the tenants -- For example, the Airport Development Policy could state:
- All tenants and their leases,etc will attend a yearly training on noise mitigation flight paths etc (when safe)
- All tenants will in writing acknowledge the voluntary curfew and suggested flight paths (when safe)
- All tenants will be required to sign a "pledge" to the above. (there may be no legal recourse if they "break" the pledge -- but it sends a clear signal that noise is taken very seriously by Livermore and be part of our community.
- If a tenant violates the voluntary night curfew more than X times, they will have an additional training. 3rd time around a meeting with the airport manager/director etc. 5th time the Mayor.
- All tenants must have a 16 x 20 clearly visible in each building/hanger with the noise mitigation recommendations by the Airport Management (i.e. curfew hours, best practices, recommend flight paths (when safe))

- There is much more that can be done with creativity -- you are the professionals. Why wasn't this done and included after receiving strong feedback on this? ATTACHMENT 4
740
Most of the 2010 resolution provides direction and guidance -- the Airport Development Policy (and other documents) is where the IMPLEMENTATION should be specified. That is what is lacking and ignored.

2. Public notification / comment and transparency.

The process stated below is not transparent, and does not provide the public visibility at the early stages to provide feedback concerns:
- Almost all documents/communications get marked "NDA/confidential", and then the city does not provide them. Hence the explicit request that all documents/communications (except) financial will be available to the public-- put in the Airport Development Policy -- which was ignored.
- An example of this was with Kaiser -- no documents/communications (between Kaiser/City) were allowed to be made public during the process, since they were conveniently under NDA.
- By the time an MOU is signed, it is basically a "Done Deal". The city council, city manager, airport manager are completely incented to complete the deal as fast as possible with little change.

The current document, the Public Engagement Plan -- nothing about comments and actions. And no criteria, and it is AFTER agreement has been made (all incentives are to go through the motions and not have any changes).
- By the time it gets to City Council nothing much changes -- City Council are incredibly busy, and typically it is rub stamped (watched this over 20 years) --- in all likelihood City Council will rubber stamp the new Airport Development Plan ( I hope not, but that has happened in the past)
Hence the request for additional notification AND comment through each phase (interest, MOU, Concept Plan) -- but those comments were ignored.
(another example was less than 1 business day between the release of the Airport Development Plan after the comments -- and the Airport Commission Meeting --- do you believe this is fair or an attempt to push it through quickly with little review (this is what the public perceives).

Yes, the public has more opportunity in the June 26th council meeting to give feedback -- but shouldn't these have been addressed with Staff before it even gets to the City Council -- or is it City Council's job to address all the comments that the Airport Staff ignored?

3. CEQA / NEPA
It is clear, given the 65 DB CNL (average cumulative noise) set by the FAA, that all CEQA's and comment periods are just paperwork. SNEL is the critical issue which the Airport doesn't address. In fact, the last noise study -- was SNEL in it?

4. Livemore voluntary curfew and "Good Neighbor Policy" -- how can the Livermore Airport do better?
- The Livermore Airport does not "aggressively" address the issues -- have to disagree there. - No training for operators/leases -- just a link to see the website - Complaints get logged and no actions are done for specific complaints -- "we can't do anything" -- which is not true.
- Voluntary curfew violators get a relatively weak letter. No consequences (even a phone ATTACHMENT 4
741
call from the Airport Management on how it (iimpacts the peoples live) - Pilots who do touch and gos after 10 pm (or endless circle around residential areas) -- the airport knows who it is -- why aren't they talking to them and ask them to do it at other times - - or another airport (can't legally deny them). The FAA does not restrict the livermore airport from asking them to refrain/prefer (optionally) from doing it at LVK.

4. Can the airport do more? Yes...and some of this can be codified in the Airport Development plan.

In short: there's a lot airports can do, they're not limited to FAA regs, they can do more.

Congressional Research Service, Federal Airport Noise Regulations and Programs, R46920, September 27, 2021, by Rachel Yang
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46920
Also available here, higher quality PDF
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R46920.pdf
-- CRS is a high quality source: "CRS reports are considered in-depth, accurate, objective, and timely, and topped the list of the "10 Most-Wanted Government Documents" survey by the Center for Democracy and Technology"
In short: there's a lot airports can do, they're not limited to FAA regs, they can do more. -- The CRS report explodes the myth that the FAA ties the airport's hands:
"airports may implement noise-related restrictions on aircraft operations" "Airports also may implement voluntary noise abatement procedures, like “fly friendly” programs under which aircraft operators fine-tune flight procedures and routes to minimize noise impact in certain communities or neighborhoods"
"airports may make their own decisions whether or not to address noise complaints when the measured noise level is below the DNL 65 dB threshold," "Airports may use their own operating revenues from commercial leases, parking charges, and other sources to fund noise projects as well" "airports may choose to work directly with multiple stakeholders without relying on a federal regulatory process and establish voluntary noise abatement or mitigation programs outside of the Part 150 process."
"other major stakeholders have important responsibilities as well in addressing aviation noise:
state, county, and municipal governments own and operate airports while also exercising authority over local land use planning and development, zoning, and housing regulations;
airport owners are primarily responsible for airport planning and operations, including airport location and design, land acquisition, and ground procedures that may affect the noise level ATTACHMENT 4
742
beyond the airport perimeter;
aircraft manufacturers and aircraft engine manufacturers must comply with noise criteria in order to obtain the FAA certification required to put aircraft into service; and aircraft operators are responsible for managing their fleets and for scheduling and flying in a way that minimizes ground-level noise impact."

5. The City Initiative
"The City Initiative: (where the city can put out an RFI/RFP/RFQ) is worded whenever there is “land/improvement available” – this is in direct contradiction to the 2010 City resolution that explicitly indicates only when “existing demand” with “tangible evidence” - and the city does not make this determination – it is the Airport Advisory Commission that does. Likewise “Encourage imaginative and innovative development of land” (section 1.2) is hardly consistent with meet existing demand.

And yet they claim in that same section “The above objectives reflect the Airport Development Priorities established by the Livermore City Council in 2010 through Resolution number 2010-058”; no, they do not.
"
These comments were given, and ignored. Surprised that Staff would continue to propose policy that is in direct contradiction to the 2010 Resolution.

6. Most of the comments were responded to in this manner:
"Comment noted. No
specific alternative language or deletions provided."
I have attached the comment document -- you will lose count >70% of the staff responses were this.

Example:

C123 Comment:

2. In Section 1.2, the bullet list of objectives used to evaluate proposals is deemed to "reflect the Airport
Development Priorities" in Reso 2010-058. It further notes they will be "used as criteria for evaluating
proposals for Airport land lease/development, as further explained in this document." However, the
relationship between the (somewhat generic) objectives, and the very specific guidance of the Resolution
is unclear, and the Policy does not in fact provide any further explanation or reference to the Resolution,
other than attaching the Resolution as an appendix. For example, the policy does not actually directly cite
or use any of the criteria stated in the Resolution (e.g. determination/findings that improvement necessary
to support existing demand, versus supporting expansion/increase in capacity or size of aircraft that can
be accommodated). Explicit compliance with the Resolution is not called out in Section 1.4 (Compliance),
ATTACHMENT 4
743
nor in the review procedures in Section 2.2 with respect to new leases, or Section 3 .3 with respect to
provision of improvements.

R123 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided. (is this a reasonable response ?)
ATTACHMENT 4
744
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Chel Kel
Livermore City Council; Scott Lanphier; Michael Musca; City Clerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Pleasanton Weekly Editor; The Independent; [email protected]; Angela Hescher; [email protected]
Livermore Airport
Monday, June 19, 2023 11:03:37 AM
We were very unhappy to see that the new Livermore Airport Development and Leasing Policy does not substantively address the problems of noise and pollution that are causing my family to seriously consider selling our home on .

We urge the Livermore City Council to reject this policy as written. We don't want to leave our home, but for the health and comfort of our family, we will be forced to sell if there is no effort to improve the current levels of noise and pollution.

Sincerely,
Michele Keller
Brian Sullivan
ATTACHMENT 4
745
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

BRYAN ZLOTY
City Clerk
Regarding the Livermore Airport and expansion plans
Monday, June 19, 2023 11:30:13 AM
To whom it may concern,
Regarding the Livermore Airport and expansion plans
Our home located, at , and is in the
direct approach flight
path to the Livermore Airport. My wife an I regularly experience noise due to late- night flight arrivals (past 10:00pm), and during normal hours of operation noise from incoming jets is often excessive; not to mentioned that on more than one occasion, I’ve found unexplained 'debris' I've found on our property.

Obviously, we have concerns about plans to expand the airport.

If we had been aware of this, we would have seriously reconsidered our decision to purchase this home on December 2020...

If my work schedule will allow, I plan to attend the next city council meeting to express my concerns in person, as it seems that noise complaints go largely ignored...

Respectfully,
Bryan Zloty
ATTACHMENT 4
746
Michael Musca
From:

Sent:

City of Livermore govAccess CMS Site <[email protected]> Tuesday, June 13, 2023 12:55 PM
To: LVKairport
Subject: Airpost Noise
I
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Message submitted from the <Livermore, CA> website.

Site Visitor Name: Doug Blasco
Site Visitor Email:

Good Afternoon,
Lately I have heard a very vocal
minority within the Livermore Community who are complaining about Airport Noise.

I just want to go on record that my wife and I have lived within the approach/departure corridor at the east end of the airport since 95 '.

During that time, we have never had any complaints with the level of noise we experience.

What can I say, we Love Airport Noise.

Sincerely,
Doug and Robyn Blasco
1 ATTACHMENT 4
747
Michael Musca
From:

Sent:

City of Livermore govAccess CMS Site <[email protected]> Thursday, June 15, 2023 5:30 PM
To: Michael Musca
Subject:

I
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Message submitted from the <Livermore, CA> website.

Site Visitor Name: Ricardo
Site Visitor Email:

Stop the endless line of planes from your airport from flying over vintage hills in Pleasanton. It's too much! Send them in a manner around to Dublin, San Ramon, Pleasanton and Livermore. SPREAD THE PAIN. 1 ATTACHMENT 4
748
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE AIRPORT LEASING AND

DEVELOPMENT POLICY
The purpose of the City of Livermore (City) Airport Leasing and Development Policy (Policy) is to set forth processes and procedures to evaluate and approve, or reject proposals related to the leasing and/or development including construction, modification, and/or renovation of aeronautical and nonaeronautical land and/or improvements within the legal boundaries of the current Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for the Livermore Municipal Airport (Airport).

This Policy establishes leasing protocols and requirements for compatible and sustainable development that protects persons and property.

It is the goal of the City to ensure Airport property is leased and developed in a high-quality manner consistent with sound fiscal management and best operational practices while ensuring the provision of essential infrastructure, improvements, and amenities that support the overall operation of the Airport.

This Policy reflects the Airport development priorities established by the Livermore City Council in 2010 through Resolution number 2010-058.

Airport staff selected AMCG as the consultant of record for assistance in drafting the Policy which was reviewed by City staff at all levels.

Airport staff presented the draft Policy to the Airport Commission for review and comment on March 6, 2023, and subsequently released the draft Policy for public review for a 45-day comment period, whereby it was transmitted to the Cities of Pleasanton and Dublin in liaison meetings.

City (Airport) Staff received over 120 comments from approximately 30 community members from throughout the Tri-Valley area, which identified several key concerns including aircraft noise; the Livermore City Council Resolution 2010-058; increased public participation; increased transparency; and restricting growth at the airport.

In response to comments received, the Policy was revised by City staff in the following key areas:

1. Noise – The Policy was updated to specifically indicate noise as a measure used to determine the potential impact a proposed project may have. This is specifically addressed in Sections 1.2 and 1.7 of the Policy. 749
RESOLUTION NO. ________

2. Resolution 2010-058 – The Policy references Resolution 2010-058 in Sections 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 7.5 and includes the Resolution in its entirety in Section 7: Appendix of the Policy– Airport Development Priorities.

3. Environmental Review – The Policy requires the evaluation of any proposed project to be subject to CEQA and/or NEPA review, which is referenced in Section 1.8 of the Policy. CEQA/NEPA review would thoroughly evaluate such items as lead fuel, noise impacts, visual impacts, circulation and parking, among others, and would also include opportunities for the public to review and comment on the analysis conducted for the proposed project.

4. Public Input – The Policy requires any proposed project that would noticeably increase aircraft activity, vehicle traffic, noise to surrounding neighbors, and/or significantly intensify existing land use(s) to develop a Comprehensive Public Engagement Plan (PEP), which is designed to inform the public about the scale and scope of the project. The PEP is described in Section 1.7 of the Policy.

5. Airport Growth – The ALP is the governing document used pursuant to the Policy to comply with previously approved land uses and is referenced in Section 1.1, 1.6, and 1.8.

On June 5, 2023, after incorporating comments received as outlined above, the revised Policy was brought back to the Airport Commission.

The Airport Commission unanimously passed the draft Policy with the recommendation that the City Council approve the new Policy with additional language in the first paragraph of section 2.1, to specify that the IDRT (Inter-departmental Review Team) also include a member of the Airport Advisory Commission.

The revised Policy includes a more defined process to thoroughly assess any proposed project it addresses requested changes made by the Airport Commission, and involves review by multiple City departments. The Policy has been provided to the public on several occasions for an opportunity to review and provide feedback, and the Policy is consistent with other City policies.

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore, that it hereby:

1. Approves the Airport Development Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and which is incorporated by this reference.

2. Authorizes the City Manager to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

On motion of Council Member ______________________, seconded by Council Member ______________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on June 26, 2023, by the following vote:
750
RESOLUTION NO. ________
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ /s/ Tara Mazzanti
Marie Weber Tara Mazzanti
City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A - Leasing and Development Policy 2023-06-02
.
751
June 5, 2023
City of Livermore
680 Terminal Circle
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 960-8220
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore
Livermore Municipal Airport (LVK)
June 2023

EXHIBIT A
752

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Leasing and Development Policy i
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 3

1.1. Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2. Goal, Objectives, and Development Priorities ......................................................................... 3

1.3. Definitions and Acronyms ........................................................................................................ 3

1.4. Compliance ............................................................................................................................... 3

1.5. Applicability .............................................................................................................................. 3

1.6. General Requirements .............................................................................................................. 4

1.7. Public Engagement Requirements ........................................................................................... 4

1.8. Environmental Review ............................................................................................................. 4

1.9. Airport Land Use Commission Review .................................................................................... 5

2. LEASING PRACTICES .................................................................................................................... 7

2.1. Expression of Interest ............................................................................................................... 7

2.2. Application for Leasing Land and/or Improvements .............................................................. 8

2.3. Approval Process ...................................................................................................................... 9

2.4. Approved Application Processing ............................................................................................ 9

2.5. Demonstrating Immediate Need ............................................................................................ 11

2.6. Public Disclosure .................................................................................................................... 11

2.7. Reversion of Improvements .................................................................................................... 11

2.8. Term of Agreement ................................................................................................................. 11

2.9. Possible Grounds for Rejecting an Application or Proposal ................................................ 11

3. LEASEHOLD DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 13

3.1. General .................................................................................................................................... 13

3.2. Environmental Quality ........................................................................................................... 13

3.3. Provision of Necessary Airport Land and/or Improvements ................................................ 13

3.4. Manmade and Natural Hazards ............................................................................................ 13

3.5. Reuse of Resources ................................................................................................................. 14

3.6. Restricted Improvements ........................................................................................................ 14

4. DESIGN CRITERIA ........................................................................................................................ 15

4.1. Accessory Buildings................................................................................................................ 15

4.2. Changes, Additions, and Deletions ........................................................................................ 15

4.3. Aircraft Accesses .................................................................................................................... 15

4.4. Antennae ................................................................................................................................. 15

4.5. Ramps ...................................................................................................................................... 16

4.6. Improvement Height ............................................................................................................... 16

4.7. Doors ....................................................................................................................................... 16

4.8. Exterior Lighting and Security .............................................................................................. 16

4.9. Exterior Materials .................................................................................................................. 16

4.10. Exterior Storage...................................................................................................................... 17

4.11. Fences, Gates, and Buffers .................................................................................................... 17

4.12. Garbage and Recycling Containers ....................................................................................... 17

4.13. Flagpoles ................................................................................................................................. 17

4.14. Grading and Drainage ........................................................................................................... 18

4.15. Landscaping ............................................................................................................................ 18

4.16. Loading and Service Areas .................................................................................................... 19

4.17. Open Sided Buildings ............................................................................................................. 19

4.18. Pedestrian Circulation ............................................................................................................ 19

4.19. Residence ................................................................................................................................ 20

4.20. Setbacks .................................................................................................................................. 20

EXHIBIT A
753

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Leasing and Development Policy ii
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

4.21. Signage .................................................................................................................................... 20

4.22. Buildings ................................................................................................................................. 21

4.23. Utilities .................................................................................................................................... 21

4.24. Vehicle Parking ...................................................................................................................... 21

5. PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT APPROVAL ........................................... 23

5.1. Concept Plan ........................................................................................................................... 23

5.2. Development Plan ................................................................................................................... 23

5.3. Requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration ......................................................... 24

6. CONSTRUCTION PHASE ............................................................................................................. 25

6.1. Pre-Construction Meeting ...................................................................................................... 25

6.2. Permits, Licenses, Inspections, and Certifications ................................................................ 25

6.3. Bonds ...................................................................................................................................... 25

6.4. Insurance ................................................................................................................................ 25

6.5. Clean-Up During Construction.............................................................................................. 26

6.6. Damages During Construction .............................................................................................. 26

6.7. Erosion Prevention During Construction ............................................................................. 26

6.8. Inspections .............................................................................................................................. 26

6.9. Protection of Property and Work in Progress ....................................................................... 27

6.10. As-Built Drawings .................................................................................................................. 27

7. APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................................... 28

7.1. Airport Development Priorities .............................................................................................. 28

7.2. Definitions .............................................................................................................................. 31

7.3. Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ 34

7.4. Leasing Practices Flowchart .................................................................................................. 35

7.5. Lease / Development Proposal Evaluation Form .................................................................. 39

7.6. RFI, RFQ, and/or RFP Document Guidelines ..................................................................... 40

7.7. Advertising Guidelines ........................................................................................................... 40

7.8. Insurance ................................................................................................................................ 40

EXHIBIT A
754

LEASING PRACTICES
Leasing and Development Policy 3
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose
The purpose of the City of Livermore (City) Leasing and Development Policy (Policy) is to set forth processes and procedures to evaluate and approve or reject proposals related to the leasing and/or development (including construction, modif ication, and/or renovation) of aeronautical and non - aeronautical land and /or Improvements within the legal boundaries of the current Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for the Livermore Municipal Airport (Airport). This Policy establishes leasing protocols and requirements for compatible and sustainable development that protects persons and Property.

The above objectives reflect the Airport Development Priorities established by the Livermore City Council in 2010 through Resolution number 2010-058, a copy of which is attached in Appendix 7.1. The above Goal, and Objectives, and Development Priorities established in Resolution 2010-058, will be used as criteria for evaluating proposals for Airport land lease /development, as further explained in this document.

1.3. Definitions and Acronyms
The terms defined in Appendix 7.2 or acronyms outlined in Appendix 7.3 and identified by use of a capital letter, whenever used in th is Policy, shall be construed as defined therein unless (from the context) a different meaning is intended or unless a different meaning is specifically def ined. Words or phrases that are not defined shall be construed consistent with common meaning or as generally understood.

1.4. Compliance
Entities who desire to lease, construct, modify, and/or renovate aeronautical or non-aeronautical land and/or Improvements at the Airport shall comply with this Policy, Resolution 2010-058, and any federal, State of California (State) , Alameda County, or City laws, codes, ordinances, and other applicable Legal Requirements.

1.5. Applicability
This Policy sets forth requirements which shall be met by any entity who desires to lease, construct, modify, and/or renovate aeronautical or non-aeronautical land and/or Improvements at the Airport.

EXHIBIT A
755

LEASING PRACTICES

Leasing and Development Policy 4
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
➢ No entity may deviate from this Policy unless a written exemption or waiver has been granted in advance by the City, subject to approval of a Waiver Request Letter specified in Section 5.2. ➢ Existing Lessees may be subject to this Policy upon modification of any existing Agreement.

If this Policy is amended after an entity has entered into an Agreement, the entity may not be required to comply with the amended Policy, except as provided for in such Agreement, or until such time as:
➢ the existing Agreement has been amended;
➢ the City approves an assignment to another entity; or ➢ the entity enters into a new Agreement.

1.6. General Requirements
All development, improvement, renovation, or landscaping shall comply with the Airport Layout Plan, Minimum Standards, 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace, and/or other Legal Requirements. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Policy, land and/or Improvements shall not be developed or used in such a manner as to:
➢ interfere with aircraft communication or navigation equipment, ➢ adversely impact the visibility of airport lighting and/or signage, ➢ impair the visibility of aircraft crew members or Air Traffic Control (ATC) personnel; or ➢ otherwise endanger or adversely impact the arrival, departure, or maneuvering of aircraft.

1.7. Public Engagement Requirement
An applicant proposing to develop a project that would noticeably increase aircraft activity, vehicle traffic, noise to surrounding neighbors, and/or significantly intensify existing land use(s), will be required to develop a comprehensive public engagement plan (PEP) designed to inform the public as to the scope and scale of the proposed project. The PEP shall be prepared by an independent third-party consultant paid for by the applicant and contracted by the City and is subject to review and approval by the City.

1.8. Environmental Review
All proposed projects will be initi ally evaluated to determine impacts to the existing Airport Layout Plan (ALP) or if an environmental review is necessary. Additionally, all proposed projects must undergo a formal FAA determination whether FAA approval is required under Section 163.

Any project proposing new development or a change in land use may be subject to environmental review.

This review will be conducted in coordination with the Community Development Department at the time of project entitlement. Developer is required to cover the cost of environmental processing.

In general, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process can be initiated concurrently but may be finalized separately, and at different points in time. This process will be handled using the same procedure that all proposed projects submitted to the City for environmental review and clearance proceed under, and as required by the applicable Legal Requirements. Additionally, the FAA must determine for all projects whether, under Section 163, that agency’s approval will be required, and, if so, what level of NEPA review is needed. NEPA review is not required if there is no FAA approval required. Entities who desire to lease, construct, modify, and/or renovate aeronautical and non-aeronautical land and/or Improvement at the Airport shall cover the consultant costs to prepare all completed environmental clearance documents pursuant to NEPA and CEQA, consistent with the City’s requirements. The environmental review process must be completed before a

EXHIBIT A
756

LEASING PRACTICES

Leasing and Development Policy 5
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
project commences, and it must also receive all required approvals from the City’s Community Development Department.

CEQA – The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, 21000, et seq. of the California Public Resources Code) requires the potential impacts of projects having a physical impact on the environment to be analyzed prior to initiating construction. State CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378 exempts projects that have no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

City Council’s action involving approving this Policy does not directly authorize the construction of any future individual projects. Subsequently, future City Council action, if taken, to approve consideration of a development proposal, will be the triggering event necessitating CEQA review.

If not exempt, beginning with an initial study under CEQA, each project will be reviewed by Airport management and the City’s planning staff. The initial study will determine the appropriate level of CEQA documentation/coordination necessary and advise on additional actions, documentation, and public involvement required to conclude the process. In all efforts associated to the proposed project and CEQA, the Airport will be the lead agency and the project proponent will be the City.

FAA Section 163 Determination – Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 and FAA’s implementing policies require a determination as to whether any Airport project requires FAA approval.

The project proponent shall provide sufficient information for the City to make a formal request to the FAA for a determination of the applicability of Section 163. FAA approval is required if the project meets one of three criteria: (a) the project would have a material impact on the safe and efficient operation of aircraft; (b) the project would have an adverse effect to the safety of people or property on the ground; or (c) the project would have a significant adverse effect on the value of prior federal investments in the Airport. Project proponents are urged to consult the latest FAA guidance on compliance with Section 163 to determine whether FAA approval is likely to be required but must recognize that the FAA is the final arbiter of the applicability of this law. If any of these criteria is met, the project will require FAA approval of an amendment or revision to the Airport Layout Plan.

If FAA determines that its approval is required, the agency will inform the City what level of environmental review will be required pursuant to NEPA. The project proponent will be required to fund and coordinate the environmental review process as provided in this section.

NEPA – The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq., 1969) establishes the broad national framework for protecting the environment. NEPA's basic policy is to assure that all branches of government consider the environment prior to undertaking any major federal action that significantly affects the environment.

NEPA requirements are invoked whenever FAA approval of a project is required. The FAA determines whether its approvals would trigger a Categorical Exclusion, an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

1.9. Airport Land Use Commission Review
The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) typically reviews development projects on properties surrounding an airport, not on airport property itself. The Commission's jurisdiction covers the area surrounding the airport within a specified distance, called the Airport Influence Area (AIA), which is

EXHIBIT A
757

LEASING PRACTICES

Leasing and Development Policy 6
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
determined by the type and size of the airport. The AIA typically extends beyond the airport property, and the commission's authority covers all land use decisions within this area.

However, if a proposed development project on airport property involves a change in land use or zoning, the ALUC may have jurisdiction to review and approve the project. In this case, the City would need to submit the project to the ALUC for review and approval before proceeding.

It is the City’s role, in conjunction with A irport Land Use Commission , to review and determine if the proposed project and associated development are compliant with the Livermore Land Use Compatibility Plan. If a proposed project is determined to be subject to ALUC review and approval, the applicant shall develop required documentation for review by the City and ALUC.

EXHIBIT A
758

LEASING PRACTICES

Leasing and Development Policy 7
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

2. LEASING PRACTICES
The leasing practices set forth in this section are summarized in Appendix 7. 4. Note: procedures and timelines stated herein are recommended and may be adjusted by the City Manager who has the capacity to recommend alternate timelines to meet demands of the project based on complexity and good faith effort of the Developer.

2.1. Expression of Interest
Unsolicited Interest – Interested parties may approach the City to express unsolicited interest in developing (or redeveloping) aeronautical or non-aeronautical land and/or Improvements at the Airport. All unsolicited interest in development (or redevelopment) will be directed to the Inter-Departmental Staff Review Team (IDSRT), through the Airport Manager. The IDSRT will include the Airport Manager, the Director of Public Works, and representatives from the Community Development Department, City Manager’s Office and City Attorney’s Office.

The interested party shall initiate the process by contacting the Airport Manager in writing (via email or mail) and requesting a pre-submittal meeting with the IDSRT to discuss the proposal concept. This meeting will provide the interested party with the opportunity to discuss the proposed operation, layout plan, uses, and development concept(s). This meeting also provides the opportunity for the interested party to obtain general comments regarding the feasibility of the proposal concept and identify potential issues, problems, or challenges.

At the IDSRT’s discretion, additional meetings may be requested with the interested party to further discuss the proposal concept, along with additional supporting information or documentation.

The IDSRT will evaluate all proposals based on the Goal, Objectives , and Development Priorities established in Section 1.2, including Resolution 2010 -058, and in conformance with the General Requirements set forth in Section 1.6. An evaluation form is included in Appendix 7.5.

Following the initial meeting(s) with the interested party and submission of any supporting information, the IDSRT, through the Airport Manager will , within sixty (60) calendar days, provide written rejection of the unsolicited proposal concept in conformance with Section 2. 9, or request the entity submit a formal Commercial Operator and Lessee Application (Application) as discussed in Section 2.2. In the alternative, the City reserves the right to proceed with a Competitive Proposal Process as described in this Section (City Initiative).

City Initiative – If Airport land and/or Improvements exist or become available, in the City’s sole discretion, the City may issue a Request for Interest (RFI), Request for Qualifications (RFQ), and/or a Request for Proposal (RFP).
➢ Guidelines for development of the RFI/RFQ/RFP document are provided in Appendix 7.6. ➢ The City may advertise the RFI/RFQ/RFP opportunity. Advertising Guidelines are provided in Appendix 7.7.
➢ The RFI/RFQ/RFP will specifically include as evaluation criteria the Goal, Objectives , and Development Priorities established in Section 1.2, including Resolution 2010-058, and General Requirements set forth in Section 1.6.

The City may, in its sole discretion, hold a pre-proposal meeting with interested parties to: (a) discuss the RFI/RFQ/RFP opportunity, document, and/or related processes, (b) conduct a tour of the Airport and/or the

EXHIBIT A
759

LEASING PRACTICES

Leasing and Development Policy 8
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
subject land and Improvements with the IDSRT, and (c) provide prospective respondents with the opportunity to ask questions.

After the stated deadline, the City shall review the submittals for compliance with the RFI/RFQ/RFP specifications and criteria and shall rank the submittals. ➢ Submittals received after the stated deadline may not be considered and may be retur ned unopened.
➢ The City may, in its sole discretion, interview respondents. ➢ The City has the right , with or without cause, to reject any or all submittals, to advertise for new submittals, and/or to modify any or all RFI/RFQ/RFP processes. The City will no tify respondents of any changes to the process or submittal requirements. ➢ The City shall be under no obligation to make an award or to make an award to the respondent specifying the highest level of compensation to the City.

Upon completion of an RFI proce ss (if utilized), the City may, or may not , in its sole discretion, invite respondents to respond to an RFQ or RFP. Upon completion of an RFQ process (if utilized), the City may, in its sole discretion, invite the most qualified respondents to respond to an RFP. ➢ If only one respondent expresses interest or is considered qualified by the City, the City may, in its sole discretion, negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with the qualified respondent without issuing an RFQ/RFP.

Upon completion of an RFP process (if utilized), the City may select the best respondent in the City’s sole discretion.

Once selected, the City and the selected respondent shall utilize the MOU and DDA process outlined in Section 2.4. If the City and the selected respondent are unable to reach agreement on either an MOU or a DDA, at the sole discretion of the City, the City may terminate negotiations and negotiate with the next best respondent and so on.

Initiative of Others – If, during an Application process occurring outside of an RFI/RFQ/RFP process, another qualified entity expresses interest in leasing and demonstrates an i mmediate need for the subject land or Improvements (as outlined in Section 2. 5), the City may, in its sole discretion, negotiate with the entity(ies) and/or issue an RFQ/RFP in which case, the Competitive Proposal Process described in this Section shall be followed.

However, once the MOU (as discussed in Section 2.4) is: (a) executed by the Applicant and City, and (b) the earnest money deposit has been provided to the City, the City is under no obligation to negotiate with any entity other than the Applicant or issue an RFQ/RFP.

2.2. Application for Leasing Land and/or Improvements
If desirous of leasing Airport land and/or Improvements on a long-term basis (i.e., greater than one year), entities with or without a current Development Agreement shall complete all relevant and applicable sections of the Application and submit to the Airport Manager for consideration by the IDSRT.

New Agreements shall be subject to all applicable Legal Requirements; Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, obligations, and guidance; the Airport’s policies, standards, rules, regulations, and directives; the City’s zoning, building, fire, and safety codes; Goal, Objectives, and Development Priorities, established in Section 1.2, including Resolution 2010-058 (Appendix 7.1), and General Requirements set forth in Section 1.6; and all other Legal Requirements of any Agency having jurisdiction.

EXHIBIT A
760

LEASING PRACTICES

Leasing and Development Policy 9
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
A non-refundable application fee shall be submitted with the Application, as stipulated in the Airport’s Rents and Fees Schedule.

2.3. Approval Process
Once Applicant has submitted a completed Application to lease Airport land and/or Improvements on a long-term basis, Applicant shall submit any additional information, data, and/or documentation that may be required or requested by the IDSRT or City to evaluate the Application. Incomplete Applications will not be accepted . Applications that do not comply with this Policy shall be rejected in accordance with Section 2.9. The City will convey the reason(s) for rejecting the Application in writing to the Applicant.

2.4. Approved Application Processing
Within ninety (90) calendar days of the Airport Manager receiving a completed Application, the following processes should be completed:
➢ The IDSRT shall conduct an initial review to ensure the Application is compliant with the qualifications, standards, and requirements established by the City including the Minimum Standards and Airport Rules and Regulations, located at:
https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5677/637238462369030000

➢ If initially approved by the IDSRT, the Application shall be presented to the Airport Commission for review and consideration. The Airport Commission may either:
o recommend rejection of the proposal in accordance with Section 2.9 or o recommend that the City Council approve the proposal and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an MOU.
➢ Unless the Application is rejected in accordance with Section 2.9, the City shall convey to the Applicant the key terms and conditions (including rents, fees, and other charges) that have been established by the City for leasing the Airport land and/or Improvements identified by the Applicant.

Within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the key terms and co nditions from the Airport Manager, the Applicant shall indicate if the key terms and conditions established by the City are acceptable to the Applicant.
➢ If the key terms and conditions established by the City are not acceptable to the Applicant, the Applicant shall present to the IDSRT, through the Airport Manager revised key terms and conditions that are acceptable to the Applicant within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the information from the City.
➢ The City, through the IDSRT, may negotiate the revised key terms and conditions with the Applicant and/or initiate the Competitive Proposal Process described in Section 2.1. ➢ If the City and the Applicant are unable to reach agreement on the revised key term s and conditions within thirty (30) calendar days of the time the information is presented to the City by the Applicant, the City is not obligated to lease Airport land and/or Improvements to the Applicant and may cease further negotiations.

Public Engagement Plan and Memorandum of Understanding - If the City and the Applicant reach agreement on key terms and conditions, the Applicant shall: (a) sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City outlining the key terms and conditions, and (b) pay an earnest money deposit in cash or letter of credit to the City in the amount equivalent to the rents, fees, and other charges (total compensation) estimated for the proposed use of the property or one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever

EXHIBIT A
761

LEASING PRACTICES

Leasing and Development Policy 10
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
is greater – as evidence of the Applicant’s good faith to enter into a Development Agreement with the City.

The signed MOU, including the Public Engagement Plan (PEP) required in Section 1.7, shall be presented for consideration to the City Council. The City Council may either reject the MOU in accordance with Section 2.9 or authorize the City Manager to negotiate a Development Agreement with the Applicant.

➢ If an MOU is not executed by the City Council and the Applicant within sixty (60) calendar days of reaching agreement on key terms and conditions which includes an earnest money deposit, the City is not obligated to lease Airport land and/or Improvements to the Applicant and the earnest money (if provided) shall be returned to the Applicant, without interest.

Once the MOU is executed by the parties and earnest money deposit received, the Applicant shall submit five copies of the Concept Plan (in accordance with Section 5.1) to the City within forty-five (45) calendar days. The City shall review the Concept Plan and address all preliminary questions or concerns with the Applicant. The Applicant may be required to meet with the City to present and discuss the Concept Plan.

Upon acceptance of the Concept Plan (as applicable) or upon execution of the MOU, a draft Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) which includes the terms and conditions of the MOU, shall be prepared by the City for review by the Applicant. The Applicant and City staff may work together to discuss and finalize the terms of the DDA.
➢ If the Applicant does not agree to and execute the DDA within sixty (60) calendar days of receiving the draft Development Agreement, the earnest money deposit may be forfeited by the Applicant to the City.

After the City Council approves the MOU, the Applicant shall also begin preparation of a complete Planning Entitlement package. This may include, but is not limited to:
➢ A completed Planning General Application for all applicable Planning Entitlements; and ➢ Site plans, building elevations, and floor plans, building colors and materials, civil engineering plans, circulation plans, any special studies or analysis needed for environmental review and related documents and materials as required by the City’s Planning Division; and ➢ All applicable fees required for permit processing, environmental, and project review.

The Planning Entitlements and a copy of the DDA executed by the Applicant shall be reviewed and approved or denied by the City Council.

Once the City Council approves, and the City executes, the DDA , the Applicant shall pay a security deposit in the form of cash or a letter of credit – in the amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the rents, fees, and other charges (total compensation) for the first year of the Development Agreement or two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), whichever is greater – to the City. The earnest money may also be applied to the security deposit.
➢ If the Applicant does not pay the security deposit to the City, the Development Agreement shall be voided, and the earnest money shall be forfeited by the Applicant to the City.

Following approval of all applicable Planning Entitlements and prior to applying for a building permit, the Applicant shall deliver to the City within one-hundred twenty (120) calendar days:
➢ Complete set(s) of final construction drawings, signed by an architect or engineer certified or licensed in the State; and
➢ One complete as-built drawings including plan map set following completion of the project.

EXHIBIT A
762

LEASING PRACTICES

Leasing and Development Policy 11
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
Failure to Comply - Applicants’ failure to comply with specified response time periods, or any provision of the Development Agreement , may result in the termination of the Development Agreement . All negotiations may cease, and the earnest money and/or security deposit may be forfeited to the City.

2.5. Demonstrating Immediate Need
An entity seeking to lease Airport land and/or Improvements must demonstrate the entire land area(s) and/or the entire Improvement(s) seeking to be leased will be Immediately utilized. At the City’s sole option, a phased development of Airport land may be considered which should include specific development milestones within the Agreement.

2.6. Public Disclosure
Applicants and RFI/RFQ/RFP respondents should be aware that the City is subject to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code section 7920.000 et. seq.) , which may give the public t he right to examine documents in possession of a California Agency unless an applicable legal exemption applies.

If an Applicant or respondent clearly identifies any proprietary and/or Confidential Information submitted to the City and the City receives a request from the public for release of such information, the City shall comply with State law regarding notification to Applicant. Applicant or respondent understands that City may be required to disclose Confidential Information pursuant to judicial action, governmental regulations or investigation, or other requirements.

2.7. Reversion of Improvements
Unless otherwise stated in an Agreement, upon expiration or earlier termination of the Agreement, at City’s option, the ownership of all Improvements made to the leasehold shall revert (transfer) and become the sole property of the City. If the City elects not to claim the Improvements, the Lessee shall remove and/or demolish any and/or all Improvements (as des ignated by the City) and return the Leased Premises to its original condition and character, ordinary and reasonable wear and tear excepted.

2.8. Term of Agreement
The term of an Agreement shall be commensurate with the dollar amount of Capital Investment made by the Lessee in the Leasehold Premises and/or Airport infrastructure, consistent with the capital investment formula as adopted by the City from time to time . In any event, the maximum term of a n Agreement, including option periods, may not exceed forty (40) years. When no Capital Investment is made, the term of the Agreement shall be at the discretion of the City but may not be greater than 20% of the term of the previous Agreement (if an existing Lessee) or 5 years, whichever is less.

2.9. Possible Grounds for Rejecting an Application or Proposal In this section, the term “activity” is inclusive of all Commercial Aeronautical Activities, Non-Commercial Aeronautical Activities, and non-aeronautical activities.

The City at its sole discretion may reject any proposal or application in conformance with Legal Requirements including, but not limited to, any one or more of the following reasons (as determined in the sole discretion of the City):
➢ The entity, for any reason, does not fully meet the qualifications, standards, and requirements established by the City. The burden of proof shall be on the entity and the standard of proof shall be by clear and convincing evidence.

EXHIBIT A
763

LEASING PRACTICES

Leasing and Development Policy 12
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
➢ The City or the FAA has determined that the contemplated activity and/or Improvements would create a safety or security risk at the Airport or constitute a Hazard, obstruction, or danger to air navigation.
➢ The City would be required to expend funds and/or supply labor and/or materials in connection with the proposed activities and/or Improvements that the City is unwilling and/or unable to expend or supply.
➢ The financial plan associated with the proposed activities and/or Improvements is not demonstrated to be realistic and attainable and/or will result in a financial operating loss or hardship for the entity.
➢ No appropriate, adequate, or available land and/or Improvement exists at the Airport to accommodate the proposed activity or Improvements at the time the proposal or application is submitted, nor is such availability contemplated within a reasonable period of time. ➢ The proposed activities and/or Improvements do not comply with the ALP currently in effect or anticipated to be in effect.
➢ The entity’s occupancy, use, or development of Airport land and/or Improvements could be detrimental to the public, result in congestion of aircraft, and/or negatively impact the safety and/or efficiency of the Airport, Operators, Tenants, or users of the Airport. ➢ The entity intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented or failed to disclose material fact in a proposal, in an application, and/or in supporting documentation. ➢ The entity or any officer, director, agent, representative, shareholder, or key employee thereof has a record of violating the Legal Requirements of the City, any other airport sponsor, the State, the FAA, or any other Legal Requirement applicable to the Airport and/or the entity’s proposed activity.
➢ The entity or any officer, director, agent, representative, shareholder, or key employee thereof has defaulted in the performance of any Agreement or Sublease at the Airport or at any other airport.
➢ The entity does not exhibit adequate financial capability, capac ity, or responsibility to undertake, sustain, and maintain the proposed activity and/or Improvements. ➢ The entity cannot obtain a bond or insurance in the type and amounts required by the City for the proposed activity and/or improvements.
➢ The entity seeks terms and conditions which are inconsistent with the Minimum Standards, Airport Rules and Regulations, this Policy, and/or any request for qualifications and/or proposals (or any other document) issued by the City.
➢ The entity’s interests and/or the proposed activity, Improvements, or use, is inconsistent with the mission, vision, values, goals, or objectives of the Airport; the best interest of the City; or any Airport Sponsor Assurances.
➢ The entity has been a party to vexatious or frivolous litigation, including, without limitation, administrative litigation, against the City.
➢ The proposed activity is determined not to be the highest and best use of the property.

EXHIBIT A
764

LEASEHOLD DEVELOPMENT

Leasing and Development Policy 13
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

3. LEASEHOLD DEVELOPMENT

3.1. General
This Policy does not address every type of condition or detail that may be encountered during the design and construction process. As such, entities are encouraged to maintain an on-going review process with the City (beginning early in the design stage) to ensure that the entity’s Development Plan (discussed in Section

5.2) is acceptable to the City.

Where a specific material is identified (or specifications are provided for a specific type of material), a material having the same or equivalent specifications may be utilized if approved in advance and in writing by the City. No occupancy of any Improvement shall be permitted before completion and a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is issued by the Agency having jurisdiction.

3.2. Environmental Quality
The City encourages: (a) orientation of Improvements to take advantage of natural sunlight and prevent Improvements from blocking direct sunlight to other Improvements , (b) the use of bar riers as a defense against wind, (c) the use of landscaping to maximize cooling in the summer , and (d) design features and the use of construction methods, techniques, and/or industry best practices that focus on sustainability, conserves energy, and reduces impacts on natural resources.

The City shall not permit development or land use that (a) adversely affects the quantity, quality, or reliability of water resources; (b) occurs at the expense of established water dependent activities; (c) results in increased alkalization of water, loss of stream flows, or the unnecessary destruction of wildlife habitat; or (d) entails future major expenditures on the part of the public to reacquire or redistribute water resources.

The City will not permit development or land use that accelerates erosion of soil and rock (including stream sedimentation, dust, and gullying), alters drainage and/or floodwater patterns, exacerbates flood hazards, reduces natural vegetation, creates visual scars, leaches minerals, or destroys animal habitats.

3.3. Provision of Necessary Airport Land and/or Improvements The City encourages development that fully utilizes, but does not overburden , existing land and/or Improvements. In cases where existing land and/or Improvements are not fully utilized, the City encourages development that:
➢ minimizes aircraft, vehicle, and pedestrian congestion and promotes safety, security, and efficiency;
➢ includes facilities to collect, treat, and dispose of the types and quantities of stormwater runoff anticipated and ensures that such facilities have the capacity, quality of discharge, p oint of discharge, and reliability to support the intended use; ➢ has a water supply of the quality, quantity, pressure, and reliability that is required to support the intended use;
➢ has paved road access for Emergency Services; and
➢ consists of Improvements that make highest and best use of the land area with reasonable land to Improvement ratios.

3.4. Manmade and Natural Hazards
The City requires development that does not expose others to avoidable natural and manufactured hazards.

As such, the City encourages development which:

EXHIBIT A
765

LEASEHOLD DEVELOPMENT

Leasing and Development Policy 14
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
➢ is designed, constructed, and located in a manner that is compatible with existing hazards and does not create any additional hazards and
➢ is not located in floodplains, geologically hazardous areas, or other natural hazard areas that could threaten the development, the Airport, or the health, safety, security, or welfare of the public.

3.5. Reuse of Resources
The City encourages development which uses recycled materials, promotes recycling of materials used in construction, and reuses wastewater.

3.6. Restricted Improvements
Temporary Building – Portable buildings which are intended to be in place for six (6) months or less shall be deemed to be temporary. Temporary buildings including offices or storage facilities shall not be placed on the Airport without the prior written approval of the City through the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) process. Temporary buildings are subject to Livermore Development Code Chapter 9.09, Temporary Use Permits, as it exists today or amended.
➢ Portable/mobile homes or recreational vehicles are prohibited from being placed on the Airport. ➢ A request for approval of any temporary building shall be submitted to the Airport Manager and Community Development Department for review and approval through the TUP entitlement process. The request must include a site plan showing the proposed location, access plan, size, construction material, purpose, and provisions for dismantling and/or removal no later than thirty ( 30) calendar days after development of permanent Improvements are completed.

Temporary buildings may only be utilized for construction management purposes and/or while engaging in Commercial Aeronautical Activities during development or renovation of permanent Improvements.

Obstruction Marking and Lighting – All proposed Improvements and/or renovations shall conform with CFR Part 77 and shall not be deemed a hazard to air navigation. No development shall be permitted or approved by the City that establishes a hazard or creates a nonconforming Improvement or natural vegetation that increases the hazard to air navigation. ➢ Entities shall prepare and submit FAA Form 7460 -1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration and all required attachments/exhibits to the FAA and City. All Improvements shall conform with FAA obstruction lighting/marking requirements. Entities shall, at its sole cost and expense install, operate, and maintain required markings and/or obstruction lighting deemed necessary by the FAA, City, and any other Agency having jurisdiction.

EXHIBIT A
766

DESIGN CRITERIA

Leasing and Development Policy 15
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

4. DESIGN CRITERIA

4.1. Accessory Buildings
All accessory buildings shall be identified on the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2) and approved in writing by the City prior to construction. Accessory buildings include any building serving a purpose customarily incidental to the principle use of the main use, structure and/or building, and which does not change the character of the principal use. Accessory buildings incl ude any building(s) that are intended to be in place for more than six months and not considered a temporary building (as described in Section 3.6) . Accessory buildings shall match the architectur al design and materials of the main Improvement and comply with Livermore Development Code Section 4.02.030, Accessory Structures, as it exists today or amended.

4.2. Changes, Additions, and Deletions
Prior to making any changes, additions, or deletions to existing land and/or Improvements, the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2) shall be submitted to the Airport Manager and Community Development Department and approv ed in writing by the City. Changes, a dditions, or deletions shall match the architectural design and materials of the main Improvement. Changes, additions, and/or deletions shall conform to all applicable codes, ordinances, or other Legal Requirements.

4.3. Aircraft Accesses
To allow for the safe, secure, and efficient operation of aircraft and to minimize potential conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians:
➢ all aircraft access points (i.e., Taxi ways and Taxi lanes) shall meet the design standards stipulated in Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A Airport Design, as may be amended; ➢ a minimum of 40 feet of frontage Ramp is required between the edge of the access Taxiway or Taxilane and the closest exterior wall of any hangar;
➢ frontage Ramp shall be constructed or leased and able to accommodate the largest aircraft the hangar is designed to accommodate and shall comply with the Minimum Standards; ➢ if two hangars (excluding rows of T-hangars or Executive Hangars) access a common Taxiway or Taxilane, a minimum of at least 40 feet of access Taxilane shall be required between the two frontage Ramps, edge to edge;
➢ where a common access Taxilane is required, the Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) shall be required to lease and construct at least one-half of the required access Taxilane; ➢ a maximum of two vehicle or pedestrian access points shall be permitted to the Ramp, Taxiway, or Taxilane; and
➢ each access point must be under video surveillance with appropriate signage identifying such.

4.4. Antennae
All required antennae, satellite dishes, and similar equipment shall be identified in the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2) and approved in writing by the City prior to construction. No antennae, satellite dish, or similar equipment shall be allowed that interferes with existing or future Airport, aircraft, or vehicle operations. When possible, all antennae, satellite dish, or similar equipment shall be screened from view.

FAA Form 7460 -1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Al teration shall be completed and all antennae, satellite dishes , and similar equipment must comply with 14 CFR Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace.

EXHIBIT A
767

DESIGN CRITERIA

Leasing and Development Policy 16
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

4.5. Ramps
Operators providing rotary wing aircraft parking shall adhere to the design standards described in AC 150/5390-2C Heliport Design, as may be amended. Operators providing fixed wing aircraft parking shall adhere to the design standards described in AC 150/5300-13A Airport Design, as may be amended.

4.6. Improvement Height
The overall height of any Improvement shall be dependent on the type of use (or activity) and/or the current or projected size of aircraft using the Improvement. Only those Improvements not considered an obstruction under 14 CFR Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace , as determined by the FAA and approved by the City, and consistent with City zoning requirements shall be constructed.

4.7. Doors
Hangar doors shall be sliding, overhead, or bi -fold, consistent with industry best practices, based on the size of the hangar. Hangar doors shall be constructed of pre -finished aluminum, pre-finished steel, or flexible fabric curtain (designed specifically for hangars) and shall complement the building from a design and color perspective.
➢ Wood, plastic, corrugated fiberglass, tin, or other unfinished materials are prohibited. ➢ Translucent panels may be incorporated into pre-finished aluminum or pre-finished steel doors to provide additional lighting.
➢ Pedestrian doors shall comply with all applicable codes, ordinances, and Legal Requirements. ➢ All pedestrian doors shall be pre -finished metal construction in metal jambs and shall complement the building from a design and color perspective.

Vehicle access doors shall be overhead construction and shall complement the building from a design and color perspective.

4.8. Exterior Lighting and Security
A lighting plan describing the exterior illumination layout and fixture selection shall be submitted with the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2) and approved in writing by the City prior to construction.

The lighting plan shall be consistent with the City of Livermore Design Standards and Guidelines , as it exists today or amended. In addition, the lighting plan shall meet the following requirements:
➢ lights shall not be placed to cause glare , interference w ith Airport, aircraft, or vehicle operations, or illuminate areas outside of the intended area including adjacent land and/or Improvements; and
➢ height of exterior light poles shall comply with 14 CFR Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace.

4.9. Exterior Materials
Exterior building materials shall be compatible with adjacent buildings and shall not affect Airport, aircraft, or vehicle operations. Building glazing shall not cause glare or reflections that will interfere with Airport, aircraft, or vehicle operations. Reflective glass and/or other reflective materials will not be approved by the City. All building materials must be consistent with the City of Livermore Design Standards and Guidelines, as it exists today or amended.

EXHIBIT A
768

DESIGN CRITERIA

Leasing and Development Policy 17
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
Samples of exterior building materials and colors shall be submitted with the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5. 2) and approved in writing by the City prior to construction . Building exteriors shall use a neutral earth-tone color palette compatible with existing Improvements at the Airport.

4.10. Exterior Storage
Unless approved in advance and in writing by the City, outside storage of any article, good, material, machinery, equipment (excluding Refueling Vehicles and ground support equipment), tools, trees, shrubs, plants (except approved landscaping), or similar items shall be visually screened from public view consistent with Livermore Development Code Section 6.03.100, Outdoor Storage, as it exists today or amended.

No storage shed or accessory building other than the main Improvement shall be permitted except during construction or unless approved in writing by the City with a TUP entitlement prior to construction or installation. Objects such as water towers, storage tanks, processing equipment, cooling towers, communications towers, vents, and other buildings or equipment shall be compatible with the main Improvement or effectively shielded from view and shall be approved in writing by the City prior to construction.

4.11. Fences, Gates, and Buffers
Required fencing, gates, and buffers shall be identified in the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2) and approved in writing by the City prior to construction. Submittal shall include identification of the (a) location of fences, gates, and buffers, (b) the type, height, and color of the materials used for construction, and (c) other unique design features or considerations. Fences must be consistent with Livermore Development Code Section 4.05.040, Fences and Screening. Fencing and gates shall be the same type of material and style of the existing Airport perimeter fence and gates and consistent with the City of Livermore Design Standards and Guidelines, as they exist today or amended. Fences and gates shall be properly maintained, fully functional, and in good appearance.

When possible, fences, gates, and buffers shall not be permitted directly adjacent to aircraft Movement Areas and Non-Movement Areas unless identified with markers, lights, or other devices (e.g., reflectors on all sides). Fences, gates, and buffers directly adjacent to aircraft Movement Areas and Non-Movement Areas must have a security card or key pass access control mechanism to restrict access to authorized personnel only. The height of all buffers of unsightly areas (e.g., storage area) shall be at least equal to the material being stored or screened.

4.12. Garbage and Recycling Containers
Exterior garbage and recycling containers must be consistent with Livermore Development Code Section

6.03.130, Solid Waste and Recycling Container Enclosures, as it exists today or amended. Exterior garbage and recycling containers must be equipped with securely fastened lids and shall be screened on all sides from view. All areas utilized for garbage and recycling container locations shall be paved.

4.13. Flagpoles
All flagpoles shall be located in such a manner and distance from Ramps, Taxiways, or Taxilanes to prevent being a hazard to Airport, aircraft, or vehicles operations. The height of flagpoles shall comply with 14 CFR Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace. The flag of the United States shall only be displayed in accordance with Title 4 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). Flagpoles are subject to Livermore Development Code Section 4.02.040, Special Height Regulations , as it exists today or amended.

EXHIBIT A
769

DESIGN CRITERIA

Leasing and Development Policy 18
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

4.14. Grading and Drainage
A site plan indicating proposed grading and drainage (including drainage flow, contours, and elevations) shall be submitted with the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2) and approved in writing by the City prior to construction. Compatible grading and drainage between adjacent land and Improvements shall be established to control drainage and erosion and shall meet the following requirements:
➢ Grading permits shall be obtained from the Agency having jurisdiction prior to performing any grading.
➢ Grades, berms, channels, and swales shall be an integral part of the grading, drainage, and paved surface design.
➢ Paved area grades shall not exceed two percent (2.0%) slope for concrete and asphalt paving. ➢ Drainage (and all related facilities) shall be designed to prevent standing water and accommodate all storm water generated by the land in accordance with the Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the City’s SWPPP. ➢ All grading and drainage shall meet the design standards described in AC 150/5320-5C Airport Drainage Design, as may be amended.
➢ All other applicable requirements as set forth in the Livermore Development Code.

Drainage shall not adversely impact adjacent land and Improvements and shall flow into natural or developed drainage.

Unless otherwise approved by the City , the elevation of the land shall not be changed so as to materially affect the surface elevation or grade of the surrounding land.

Gutters and downspouts shall be used to facilitate drainage from roofs.

Hangar floor drainage shall flow through an oil/water separator in compliance with the Airport’s SWPPP and applicable Legal Requirements.

4.15. Landscaping
The City encourages landscaping that creates a compatible and continuous relationship between the land and the Improvements, minimizes the use of irrigation water, maintains an aesthetically pleasing appearance in all areas not covered by Improvements, Ramps, vehicle parking areas, and enhances the existing character of a site. Any portion of the site that is not improved shall be landscaped according to the approved landscaping and irrigation plan submitted with the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2) and approved in writing by the City prior to construction. Landscaping is subject to Municipal Code Chapter

13.235, Water Efficient Landscape, Livermore Development Code Chapter 4.05, Landscape Standards, and the City of Livermore Design Standards and Guidelines, as they exist today or amended. ➢ Landscaping materials shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy (CO). ➢ All landscaping shall be maintained and repaired and kept in good appearance on a year-round basis.
➢ The Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) shall be solely responsible for landscape maintenance and repair including weed control and removal and replacement of diseased or dead vegetation.

Areas with road frontage shall be landscaped with berms and/or shrubbery to provide effective screening of aircraft or vehicle parking areas.
➢ Berms and/or shrubbery shall have a maximum height of four feet, as measured from the aircraft and/or vehicle parking area.

EXHIBIT A
770

DESIGN CRITERIA

Leasing and Development Policy 19
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
➢ Berm slopes shall not exceed two feet horizontal to one foot vertical ( 2:1) with a three foot wide flat crown.
➢ Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) shall provide shade trees indigenous to the area that conform to all applicable codes, ordinances, and Legal Requirements in all vehicle parking areas.

Landscaping shall also be used, consistent with all applicable codes, ordinances, and Legal Requirements, to screen unsightly items such as heating and air conditioning units, trash and recycling containers, loading docks, utility boxes, etc. Landscaping materials shall be indigenous to the State and may include such items as trees, shrubs, hedges or bushes, and ground cover such as grass or landscaping rocks. Small landscaping rock may be permitted provided it does not create a hazard to persons or Property including aircraft.

Decorative bark and seed or fruit bearing trees will not be approved by the City.

All landscaped areas shall be irrigated by a permanent, underground irrigation system that can support the type and amount of landscaping i nstalled. The landscape plan shall minimize the use of irrigation water.

Landscaping materials shall be compatible with the surrounding land and Improvements and shall not pose a hazard to Airport, aircraft, or vehicle operations. At all times, landscaping shall (a) comply with 14 CFR Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace, (b) not obscure ATC line of sight, and (c) not exceed 25 feet above ground level.

4.16. Loading and Service Areas
In addition to being functional and aesthetically pleasing, loading and service areas shall meet the following requirements:
➢ Loading areas, loading docks, vehicle parking areas, and service areas shall be planned so the use of any one of these areas does not interfere with the use of any of other areas. ➢ All areas utilized for loading and service area shall be paved. ➢ Loading docks or service areas shall not be visible from the street . If necessary, to restrict visibility from the street, a landscaped buffer shall be installed. ➢ Loading areas shall be denoted by a yellow painted curb with the words “Loading Zone” in black lettering.

4.17. Open Sided Buildings
Buildings shall be fully enclosed. No open sided buildings shall be permitted with the exception of aircraft shade ports and/or wash racks.

4.18. Pedestrian Circulation
Pedestrian movement shall be safe, convenient, and orderly. Pedestrian circulation must be consistent with Livermore Development Code Section 4.04.070.B, Pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths , and City of Livermore Design Standard and Guidelines, as they exist today or are amended. Walkways shall conform with applicable codes, ordinances, and Legal Requirements. Convenient pedestrian access from all aircraft and vehicle parking areas to building entrances shall be provided. Pedestrian walkways shall be constructed of concrete. Bituminous asphalt, dirt, and gravel walkways will not be approved by the City. Pedestrian access to land and Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as may be amended, and any other applicable Legal Requirements. Pedestrian access to Restricted Areas shall be controlled with a security pass, key card, access gate or other approved security access system.

EXHIBIT A
771

DESIGN CRITERIA

Leasing and Development Policy 20
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

4.19. Residence
No building, vehicle, Equipment, or aircraft shall be used as a place of residence either on a temporary or permanent basis.

4.20. Setbacks
To provide sufficient space between Improvements and streets, to ensure adequate light ing, privacy, and sound control, and to allow for landscaping and access (including aircraft, vehicle, and Emergency Vehicle access), the following setbacks shall be met and maintained:

Minimum Building Setback Requirements
➢ Refer to the applicable zoning regulations set forth in the Livermore Development Code, Part 3, Specific to Zones.

Vehicle Parking Area Setback Requirements
➢ Parking is prohibited within a setback area.
➢ Refer to Livermore Development Code Section 4.05.30, Parking Lot Landscaping , for additional requirements within a potential setback area.

Utility Transformer or Meter Setback Requirements
➢ Street right-of-way: minimum of five feet.
➢ Side lot line:
• With Ramp – minimum of 10 feet
• Without Ramp – minimum of 40 feet
No part or portion of any Improvement shall be erected, constructed, or extended closer than the distance from the Movement Areas as depicted by the building restriction line in Exhibit A of the ALP. The City shall determine the required setback distances for each Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) from any adjacent Ramp, Taxilane, or Taxiway edge.

The entire setback area shall be graded and seeded, sodded, or landscaped between the lot lines and from the Ramp to the building face in a manner that produce s an acceptable lawn or landscaped area with exception of the areas which are required for Ramps, driveways, roadways, walkways, or vehicle parking areas.

The City reserves the right to evaluate this Section where the requirements are subject to modification, since different setbacks may be required based on a number of factors such as: lot size, shape, or configuration; Improvement use; aircraft Design Group; location on the Airport; and adjacent or surrounding land and/or Improvements.

4.21. Signage
Signage shall conform to applicable codes, ordinances, and Legal Requirements and be uniform and the graphics shall (a) balance identification with image; (b) communicate information in a straightforward and aesthetically pleasing manner ; and (c) be compatible with surrounding Improvements, the natural environment, and the over all character of the lot. Directional signage shall improve and/or enhance the safety, security, and efficiency of aircraft, vehicle, and pedestrian movement.

A signage plan shall be submitted with the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2) and approved in writing by the City prior to installation of signage.

EXHIBIT A
772

DESIGN CRITERIA

Leasing and Development Policy 21
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
General – All existing signs, on the date of adoption of this Policy, are considered approved by the City if the signs do not create a hazard to Airport, aircraft, or vehicle operations, and/or pedestrians and if the signs comply with 14 CFR Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace.

Signage must be consistent with Livermore Development Code Chapter 4.06, Sign Standards, and City of Livermore Design Standards and Guidelines, as they exist today or are amended.

4.22. Buildings
Buildings shall be masonry, concrete, or steel frame load bearing construction.

Wood framed buildings will not be approved by the City.

4.23. Utilities
A utilities plan identifying all utilities shall be submitted with the Development Plan (as outlined in Section

5.2) and approved in writing by the City prior to construction . All utility improvements shall meet the requirements of the Agencies having jurisdiction and all applicable Legal Requirements.

Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) is responsible for the maintenance and repair of all utility lines to the site and for keeping all shutoffs readily accessible and fully functional . Lessee shall preserve existing utility easements and recognize that the potential exists to change existing easements and/or add future easements.

No pipe, conduit, cable, or line for water, gas, sewage, drainage, steam, electricity, or any other energy or service shall be installed or maintained on any lot (outside of any building) above the surface of the ground with exception of hoses, movable pipes for irrigation, or transformers used during construction. ➢ Transformers shall be co-located with utility meters and screened with landscaping and setback at a safe distance.

Utility costs and expenses for any equipment (including meters) and services (including temporary service) for the Leased Premises shall be the sole responsibility of Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) from the date of Notice to Proceed with construction.
➢ Extension of utilities to proposed facilities shall be the sole responsibility of Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable).
➢ Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) or contractor shall be responsible for returning any areas disturbed by excavation and installation of any utilities or related equipment to the condition before construction.

4.24. Vehicle Parking
A landside vehicle parking area plan describing the vehicle parking layout shall be submitted with the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2) and approved in writing by the City prior to construction.

All vehicle parking areas shall be paved with a weight bearing capacity that accommodates anticipated usage and the heaviest expected load.

Number of Vehicle Parking Spaces – Vehicle parking areas shall provide parking consistent with Livermore Development Code Chapter 4.04, Parking Standards, as it exists today or amended. In addition, the following parking ratios apply:
➢ One vehicle parking space per 1,000 square feet up to 20,000 square feet of building area which is used for aircraft storage and/or maintenance. One vehicle parking space per 2,000 square feet of building area in excess of 20,000 square feet.

EXHIBIT A
773

DESIGN CRITERIA

Leasing and Development Policy 22
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
➢ One handicapped space is required for every 25 spaces and one of every 8 handicapped accessible parking spaces, but always at least one, must be “van-accessible”.

EXHIBIT A
774

PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL

Leasing and Development Policy 23
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

5. PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT APPROVAL

5.1. Concept Plan
At a minimum, the Concept Plan shall include the following information:
➢ name of the proposed development (project name);
➢ vicinity map with scale (1” = 2,000 feet preferred), north arrow facing the top of the page, and date of preparation;
➢ location and legal description of the lot;
➢ location and proposed uses of Improvement areas to include estimated dimensions and square footages;
➢ location and dimensions of required setbacks;
➢ number and location of vehicle parking areas based on building square footage estimates; ➢ designation and classification of any right of way, turning or acceleration and/or deceleration lanes, areas to be vacated, access points, etc.;
➢ fencing and security gates;
➢ topographic map depicting existing and proposed contours; ➢ preliminary utilities plan depicting existing and proposed location of all utilities; ➢ internal site circulation and designation of public and private streets; ➢ designated open space;
➢ proposed schedule for completion of the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2).

5.2. Development Plan
The Development Plan shall include a complete set of plans and specifications that fully define the proposed land use as described in the listed in the City’s Plan Set Requirements for Planning Applications handout.

The Development Plan shall address the function, right(s) -of-way, and widths of road ways within and adjacent to the site. The Development Plan shall identify the location, type, and extent of access to/from Airport roadways and the necessary traffic controls (if any) for each of the development’s access points.

The City will not accept incomplete submittals. One original and four copies of the Development Plan shall be organized into five self-contained packets. An electronic copy of the Development Plan shall also be provided.

To be accepted by the City, the Development Plan shall include the documents listed in the City’s Plan Set Requirements for Planning Applications handout and the following items and requirements:

Letter of Intent – This letter shall describe the proposed development and convey the anticipated construction schedule for the proposed development.

Letter from Water and Sewer Providers – Based on written notification to the providers from the Applicant of the intent to develop the site which includes an estimated total number of gallons per day of water requirements and an estimated number of gallons per day of sewage to be treated, both based on total building square footage and use, letters from the proposed water and sewer providers shall include proof that the provider has the ability to fully serve the development according to the requirements identified by the Applicant.

In the case of a proposal for utilization of individual wells and/or septic tanks, the Development Plan shall clearly state that wells are proposed . The City will refer the entire submittal to the appropriate Agency having jurisdiction to obtain an opinion on the adequacy of the proposal.

EXHIBIT A
775

PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL

Leasing and Development Policy 24
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
Letter from Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) – This letter shall identify the impacts of the proposed development on the LPFD (in general) and the LPFD’s capabilities of servicing the proposed development (in particular).

Engineer Stamp – All plans and drawings shall be stamped by an engineer certified or licensed in the State of California.

Waiver Request Letter – This letter, which requests a waiver to the submittal process shall identify each item for which a waiver is requested and provide detailed justification for the request . This is a separate letter and it shall not be combined with or substituted for the Letter of Intent.

Review Fee – Checks shall be made payable to the City for the total amount of fees required as stipulated by the City.

Entitlement Fees – Checks shall be made payable to the City for the total amount of fees required as stipulated in the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

Financial Plan – The Financial Plan shall include a statement of financial capacity from a qualified financial institution, a three -year historical income statement and balance sheet, a three -year historical statement of cash flows, a five -year projected income statement (or pro forma) for the proposed development, and a five-year projected statement of cash flows for the proposed development.

Development Agreement – Copy of executed Development Agreement.

Completed FAA Form 7460-1 – Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration.

5.3. Requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration Non-Aeronautical Uses – FAA approval may be required for any project involving non-aeronautical uses.

Possible Obstructions in the Navigable Airspace – 14 CFR Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace establishes the maximum allowable heights of objects on or in the vicinity of Airport. These regulations define “imaginary surface s” which, if penetrated by an object, would be considered an obstruction. Any planned development that would penetrate these imaginary surfaces would, most likely, not be approved by the FAA in which case, it is unlikely that the City would approve the project as well.

Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration – Once the Development Plan has the support of the City and once FAA Form 7460 -1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration has been completed by the Applicant, the City will submit the form to the FAA.
➢ FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration is the official notification to the FAA of the proposed construction or alteration.
➢ The Applicant shall complete FAA Form 7460 -1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, and provide any additional or supplemental information requested by the FAA or the City to facilitate the approval process.

EXHIBIT A
776

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Leasing and Development Policy 25
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

6. CONSTRUCTION PHASE

6.1. Pre-Construction Meeting
Prior to initiating construction, the City shall arrange a pre-construction meeting with the Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable), developers, contractors, subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, and any other entities involved with the development at the Airport to review the City’s safety, security, efficiency, operational, and coordination requirements including any limitations, restrictions, and/or prohibitions relating to same.

6.2. Permits, Licenses, Inspections, and Certifications Lessees (Sublessee, if applicable), developers, contractors, subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, or any other entity involved with the development shall obtain and incur the expense of all required permits, licenses, inspections, certifications, and approvals/authorizations associated with the development.

No construction shall be undertaken without first receiving a building permit.

6.3. Bonds
Contractor Construction Bond – Prior to the issuance of notice to proceed, Lessee’s (Sublessee’s, if applicable) contractor shall deliver to the City and shall maintain in full force and effect throughout the entire construction period a contractor construction bond and a labor and material payment bond, each in a sum not less than 100% of the construction contract amount. These bonds shall guarantee prompt and faithful payment by contractor to all persons supplying labor, materials, sustenance, provisions, supplies, rental machinery, tools , and equipment used directly or indirectly by the contractor, subcontractor s, vendors, and suppliers in the prosecution of th e work provided for in the construction contract and shall indemnify, hold harmless, protect, and defend the City from any liability, loss, or damage associated with the project. These bonds shall name the Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) as the obligee with the City being named on the dual obligee rider.

Tenant Payment Bond – Prior to the issuance of notice to proceed, the Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) shall provide the City with a tenant payment bond in a sum not less than 100% of the construction contract amount. The tenant payment bond shall guarantee prompt and faithful payment to the contractor by the Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) for the work performed by the contractor under the construction contract.

Surety Company’s Financial Rating Requirement – All bonds shall be issued by a surety company certified or licensed to transact business in the State and satisfactory to the City. If a bond is executed by an attorney-in-fact of the surety, a power of attorney shall be attached to the bond.

The surety company shall have a Best rating of A or better or be approved in advance and in writing by the City.

6.4. Insurance
Contractor shall procure, maintain, and pay all premiums throughout the entire construction period for the insurance coverages and amounts set forth in Appendix 7.8 and as may be required by Legal Requirements.

EXHIBIT A
777

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Leasing and Development Policy 26
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

6.5. Clean-Up During Construction
The construction site and other associated areas shall be kept free of accumulated waste materials, dirt, and surplus materials. Waste materials, dirt, and surplus materials shall not be permitted to (a) create a safety, security, health, or welfare hazard to persons; (b) harm Property; (c) interfere with any activity normally occurring on the Airport; and (d) shall be disposed of in a prompt and appropriate manner, consistent with best practices. Barriers shall be used to ensure debris does not leave the construction area. ➢ The construction site shall be maintained in a clean, neat, orderly, safe, secure, efficient, and functional condition, consistent with best practices.
➢ Failure to properly maintain the construction site may result in the City conducting or contracting the clean-up at the Lessee’s (Sublessee, if applicable) or contractor’s sole risk, cost, and expense.
➢ This is not to be construed as a duty or obligation of the City to provide or arrange for such clean up services.

6.6. Damages During Construction
Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) shall be fully responsible for and shall replace, or in the City’s sole discretion, shall reimburse the City for all damages to land, Improvements, vehicles, aircraft, equipment, tools, and any other Property and related appurtenances at the Airport caused by Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) or its employees, agents, customers, visitors, vendors, contractors, and suppliers.

6.7. Erosion Prevention During Construction
To prevent loss of soil by water and wind erosion and to minimize the generation of dust, best practices combinations of the following approaches shall be used during construction. ➢ A dust mitigation plan shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the start of construction.
➢ Only the smallest possible area of cleared land shall be exposed. ➢ Provisions shall be made to effectively accommodate increased runoff caused by changes to soil and/or surface conditions.
➢ Permanent surfacing and landscaping shall be installed as soon as practical. ➢ Temporary mulching shall be used for imported fill that may be subject to erosion. ➢ Cleared land shall be watered down at frequent intervals to minimize the creation of dust.

6.8. Inspections
The City or its designated representative may observe the activities and/or inspect the work being performed by the Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable), developers, contractors, subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, or any other entities associated with the development to determine whether or not the requirements of the approved plans, specifications, drawings, and related documents (as submitted in the Development Plan outlined in Section 5.2 and approved by the City) are being met (and the work is being accomplished) in a safe, secure, efficient, and prompt manner and in accordance with the Airport’s operational and coordination requirements.
➢ This would include, but not be limited to, construction methods, techniques, processes, and procedures; materials and finishes; vehicles, equipment, and tools; and personnel.

EXHIBIT A
778

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Leasing and Development Policy 27
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable), developers, contractors, subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, or any other entities associated with the development shall provide these inspectors and any other inspectors from Agencies having jurisdiction with unlimited access and provide the means for accessing any area of the construction site. Such inspections shall not relieve the Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable), developers, contractors, subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, or any other entities associated with the development of any responsibilities, obligations, and/or other requirements.

6.9. Protection of Property and Work in Progress
Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable), developers, contractors, subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, and any other entities associated with the development shall take all reasonable precautions to protect and ensure the safety, security, health, and welfare of persons on or near the construction site and shall take all reasonable measures to prevent injury to persons or damage to Property on or near the construction site including:
➢ all work and materials, vehicles, equipment, tools, fixtures, and furnishings at the site, whether in storage on or off the site, under the care, custody, or control of the contractor, subcontractors, or any other entities associated with the development; and ➢ all other Property at the site or adjacent to the site , including , but not limited to , lawns, vegetation, pavements, walkways, roadways, driveways, buildings, and utilities not designated for removal, relocation, or replacement.

6.10. As-Built Drawings
Within thirty (30) calendar days of project completion, the Applicant shall submit reproducible as-built 11” x 17” CAD drawings of all Improvements including existing and constructed underground utilities. Vertical and horizontal locations shall be referenced to the Airport’s benchmark using the station/offset system. The as-built drawings shall be signed by an engineer or land surveyor certified or licensed in the State.

EXHIBIT A
779

APPENDIX

Leasing and Development Policy 28
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

7. APPENDIX

7.1. Airport Development Priorities

EXHIBIT A
780

APPENDIX

Leasing and Development Policy 29
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

EXHIBIT A
781

APPENDIX

Leasing and Development Policy 30
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

EXHIBIT A
782

APPENDIX

Leasing and Development Policy 31
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

7.2. Definitions
Agency – Any federal, state, or local governmental
entity, unit, organization, or authority.

Air Operations Area (AOA) – A portion of an airport
which includes aircraft Movement Areas, Ramps, and
safety areas, and any adjacent areas that are not
separated by adequate security systems, measures, or
procedures.

Airport – All land, Improvements, and appurtenances
within the legal boundaries as it now exists on the
Airport Layout Plan (or Exhibit A of the most recent
FAA grant) and as it may hereinafter be modified at
Livermore Municipal Airport (LVK).

Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) – A local
Agency responsible for ensuring compatibility between
airports and the surrounding land uses
Airport Layout Plan (ALP) – The FAA approved
drawing, as may be amended from time to time, which
reflects an agreement between the FAA and City
depicting the physical layout of an airport and
identifying the location and configuration of current
and proposed Runways, Taxiways, bui ldings,
roadways, utilities, navaids, etc.

Airport Manager – That person (or designated
representative thereof), appointed by the City,
responsible for the administration and day -to-day
operation and management of the Airport, all City
owned Property, vehi cles, equipment, material,
financial assets, and Employees at the Airport, and all employees assigned to the Airport.

Airport Sponsor Assurances – Those contractual
obligations that are described by law in 49 U.S.C.
47107 and are undertaken by a public ai rport sponsor
as a condition of receipt of federal airport development grants or federal surplus Property.

Applicant – An entity desiring to use land and/or
Improvements at the Airport to engage in an
Aeronautical Activity and who shall apply in writing
and in the manner or form prescribed herein for
authorization to engage in such Activities at the
Airport.

Certificates of Insurance – A certificate provided by and executed by an insurance company to the City
providing evidence of the insurance coverages an d
policy limits.

Commercial – For the purpose of securing earnings,
income, Compensation (including exchange or barter
of goods and services), and/or profit.

Competitive Proposal Process – A process that is used
to seek competitive proposals from qualified entities
when land and/or Improvements are or become
available at the Airport for occupancy or use.

Confidential Information – Any information or data,
regardless of whether it is in a tangible form, that is not generally available to the public and is clearly market and identified as “confidential”.

Development Agreement – A written contract (e.g.,
lease agreement, license agreement, permit, etc.),
enforceable by law, executed by both parties, between
the City and entity transferring rights or interest in land and/or Improvements and/or otherwise authorizing the
conduct of certain activities.

Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) – A
written contract (e.g., lease agreement, license
agreement, permit, etc.), enforceable by law, executed
by both parties, between the City and entity transferring rights or interest in land and/or Improvements and/or
otherwise authorizing the conduct of certain activities.

Emergency Vehicle – Vehicle of any Agency providing
law enforcement, fire protection, rescue, emergency
medical or ambulatory transportation, or any vehicle
conveying an Airport official or an Airport employee
in response to an emergency call.

Equipment – All Property and machinery, together with
the necessary supplies, tools, and apparatus necessary
for the proper conduct of the Activity being performed.

Fixed Based Operator (FBO) – A Commercial Operator
engaged in the sale of produ cts and services and the
renting or subleasing of facilities consistent with the Minimum Standards.

General Aviation – All aviation with exception of Air
Carriers and the military.

Hangar – Any fully or partially enclosed storage facility for an aircraft.

EXHIBIT A
783

APPENDIX

Leasing and Development Policy 32
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
Immediately – The ability to occupy Leased Premises
and offer products, services, and/or facilities (to the public) on the effective date of the Agreement. When
construction and/or alteration of facilities are involved, immediately shall mean the ability t o obtain a
certificate of occupancy from the authorizing Agency
for the proposed facilities within 18 months following
the possession of the Leased Premises.

Improvements – All buildings, structures, additions,
and facilities including pavement, fencing, a nd
landscaping constructed, installed, or placed on, under, or above any land on the Airport.

Legal Requirements – All applicable federal, state,
City, and local laws, codes, ordinances, executive
orders, policies, and regulations.

Leased Premises – The land and/or Improvements used
exclusively under Agreement by a Tenant.

Lessee – An entity that has entered into an Agreement
to occupy, use, and/or develop land and/or
Improvements.

Master Plan – An assembly of documents and drawings
(which have been approved by the FAA and adopted by
the City) covering the development of the Airport from
a physical, economic, social, and political jurisdictional perspective. The Airport Layout Plan is part of the
Master Plan.

Minimum Standards – Primary Management and
Compliance Document that sets forth those
qualifications, standards, and criteria set forth as the minimum requirements to be met as a condition for the
right to engage in Activities at the Airport, as may be amended from time to time.

Movement Area – The Runways, Taxiways, and other
areas of the Airport which are utilized for taxiing, hover taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft (exclusive of aircraft parking , loading, unloading, fueling , and
servicing areas) where aircraft are moved with radio
contact with ATC or other aircraft. The Movement
Area includes all areas under the direct and positive
control of ATC. Specific approval for entry onto the
movement area must be obtained from ATC.

Non-Commercial – Not for the purpose of securing
earnings, income, Compensation (including exchange
or barter of goods and services), and/or profit.

Non-Movement Area – Those portions of the Airport
where aircraft taxi or are moved without radio contact
with ATC or other aircraft.

Operator – An entity that has entered into an
Agreement with the City to engage in Commercial
Aeronautical Activities at the Airport.

Paved – Covered with asphalt or concrete that forms a
firm level surface.

Property – Any tangible or intangible possession that is owned by an entity or a person.

Ramp – Those paved areas of the Airport within the
AOA designated by the City for parking, loading,
unloading, fueling, or servicing of aircraft.

Refueling Vehicle – Any vehicle used for transporting,
handling, or dispensing of fuels and lubricants.

Runway – An area of the Airport developed and
improved for the purpose of accommodating the
landing and takeoff of aircraft.

Specialized Aviation Service Operator (SASO) – A
Commercial Operator that provides any one or a
combination of the following Activities: Aircraft
Maintenance, avionics or instrument maintenance,
aircraft rental or flight training, aircraft charter or aircraft management, aircraft sales, and other
Commercial Aeronautical Activities.

Sublease – An agreement entered into by an entity with
an Operator or Lessee that transfers rights or interests in the Operator’s or Lessee’s Leased Premises and for
which, the City has given proper consent.

Sublessee – An entity that has entered into a Sublease
with an Operator or Lessee who is authorized (by the
City) to engage in Commercial Aeronautical Activities
at the Airport.

Taxilane – The portion of the Ramp used for access
between Taxiways and Ramps. Taxilanes are always
outside the Movement Area and differentiated from a
Taxiway by the required Object Free Area
requirements stipulated by the FAA.

EXHIBIT A
784

APPENDIX

Leasing and Development Policy 33
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
Taxiway – A defined path, usually paved, over which
aircraft can taxi from one part of an airport to another (excluding the Runway). ATC must have a clear line of
sight to all Tax iway centerlines. Additionally, a
Taxiway is further differentiated from a Taxilane by the required Object Free Area requirements stipulated by
the FAA.

Tenant – A person, Association, or entity that has
entered into an agreement with either the City or
Operator to occupy land and/or Improvements at the
Airport for commercial or non-commercial purposes.

Transient Aircraft – Any aircraft utilizing the Airport for occasional or temporary purposes which is not
stationed at the Airport.

EXHIBIT A
785

APPENDIX

Leasing and Development Policy 34
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

7.3. Acronyms
AC Advisory Circular
ALP Airport Layout Plan
ATC Air Traffic Control
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AOA Air Operations Area
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Certificate of Occupancy
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FBO Fixed Base Operator
IDSRT Inter-Departmental Staff Review Team
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NEPA National Environmental Protection Act
SASO Specialized Aviation Service Operator
SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
U.S.C. United States Code

EXHIBIT A
786

APPENDIX

Leasing and Development Policy 35
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

7.4. Leasing Practices Flowchart

EXHIBIT A
787

APPENDIX

Leasing and Development Policy 36
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

EXHIBIT A
788

APPENDIX

Leasing and Development Policy 37
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

EXHIBIT A
789

APPENDIX

Leasing and Development Policy 38
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

EXHIBIT A
790

APPENDIX

Leasing and Development Policy 39
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

7.5. Lease / Development Proposal Evaluation Form
It is the goal of the City to ensure Airport property is leased and developed in a high-quality manner consistent with sound fiscal management and best operational practices while ensuring the provision of essential infrastructure, Improvements, and amenities that support the overall operation of the Airport. The City has established the following objectives to help achieve this goal.

Please provide a detailed description as to how the proposed development/redevelopment meets the following objectives:
➢ Environmental – Establish sustainable development practices t o conserve natural resources and minimize adverse impacts on the environment.
➢ Social – Maintain and enhance a compatible relationship between the Airport and the surrounding community, including noise.
➢ Function – Encourage imaginative and innovative development of land and Improvements consistent with the Airport’s Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities (Minimum Standards) and the existing development of the Airport. ➢ Visual – Establish high -quality standards for architectural and landscape design and construction.
➢ Economic – Preserve property values, enhance investments, and ensure the Airport is as self- sustaining as possible consistent with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Sponsor Assurances.

General Requirements
All development, i mprovement, renovation, or landscaping shall comply with the Airport Layout Plan, Minimum Standards, 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace, and/or other Legal Requirements. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Policy, land and/or Improvements shall not be developed or used in such a manner as to:
➢ interfere with aircraft communication or navigation equipment, ➢ adversely impacts the visibility of airport lighting and/or signage, ➢ impairs the visibility of aircraft crew members or Air Traffic Control (ATC) personnel; or ➢ otherwise endangers or adversely impacts the arrival, departure, or maneuvering of aircraft.

Please provide a detailed description as to how the proposed development/redevelopment meets the above general requirements.

EXHIBIT A
791

APPENDIX

Leasing and Development Policy 40
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport

7.6. RFI, RFQ, and/or RFP Document Guidelines
The content that may be included in each type of document is identified in the table that follows:

Item RFI RFQ RFP
Objectives with respect to the opportunity • • •
Responsibility for compliance with Legal Requirements • • Overview of the community, the Airport, and the marketplace • • • Location (and approximate size) of the subject property • • • Complete and thorough description of the subject property • • Anticipated use of the subject property • • •
If Commercial, outline the desires with regard to the: (a) entity’s qualifications and experience and (b) the range, level, and quality of General Aviation products, services, and facilities (and/or Improvements) to be developed • •
Anticipated lease term (duration) •
Minimum rent for the subject property •
If Commercial, identify the minimum fees and/or other charges for engaging in Activities at the Airport •
Schedule that identifies key dates for the process • • • If necessary, the location, date, time, and requirement for attendance at a pre - proposal conference • • •
Specific instructions regarding the content and format of the submission • • • Require a proposal bond or personal guarantee (that shall remain in effect for 180 calendar days), in the amount equal to the total rents, fees, and other charges proposed to be paid in the first month of the Agreement or $1,000 (whichever is greater)
•
Place, date, time, and any additional instructions for submission • • • Grounds for denial or disqualification and withdrawal • Evaluation and/or selection criteria to be utilized • • Required forms, statements, and affidavits to be completed for submission • Draft of proposed Agreement and/or Permit •
Minimum Standards and Rules and Regulations •

7.7. Advertising Guidelines
The RFI/RFQ/RFP advertisement should:
➢ provide a description of the RFI/RFQ/RFP opportunity including identification of the Airport land and/or Improvements that are and/or may be available for lease (subject property) and the General Aviation products, services, and/or facilities that are and/or may be desired by the City; ➢ provide instructions to proposers for obtaining the RFI/RFQ/RFP document; and ➢ identify the date, time, and method for submittals.

7.8. Insurance
Contractor shall procure, maintain, and pay all premiums throughout the entire construction period for the insurance coverages and amounts set forth in this Section and as may be required by Legal Requirements.

The insurance company or companies underwriting the required policies shall be authorized to write such insurance in the State with a Best rating of A or better or be approved in advance and in writing by the City. ➢ Commercial General Liability – Coverage in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit (CSL) bodily injury and Property damage each occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate, including personal injury, broad form Property damage, products/completed operations, explosion, collapse, underground, broad form blanket contractual, and $100,0 00 fire legal liability.

EXHIBIT A
792

APPENDIX

Leasing and Development Policy 41
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
➢ Commercial or Business Automobile Liability – Coverage in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 CSL bodily injury and Property damage for all vehicles arising out of the use, loading, and unloading of owned, non-owned, or hired vehicles. ➢ Personal Vehicle Liability – Coverage in the amounts of $250,000 per person and $500,000 each Accident Bodily Injury and $100,000 each Accident Property Damage for each vehicle to be operated in association with the contract that is not insured under Com mercial vehicle Liability.
➢ Workers’ Compensation (WC) – Coverage, in full compliance with California’s statutory requirements, for all employees of contractor and Employer’s Liability in the minimum amount of $1,000,000.
➢ Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Engineers and Architects – Coverage in the minimum amount of $500,000 each occurrence and $1,000,000 aggregate. ➢ Property Coverage – Course of Construction (Builder’s Risk) Insurance covering all materials and equipment at the job site, with limi ts of not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the total estimated cost of construction, against all perils including flood until the project is completed and accepted by the City. Should the work being constructed be damaged by fire or any other causes during construction, contractor shall replace it in accordance with the requirements of the plans and specifications without additional cost or expense to the City.

All insurance required will be primary coverage and any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City shall be excess of contractor’s insurance coverage and shall not contribute to it.

The City shall be notified immediately if any aggregate insurance limit is exceeded. Additional coverage shall be purchased to meet requirements.

All insurance, which contractor is required to carry and keep in full force and effect, shall name the City and the City Council, individually and collectivity, and its representatives, officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insured.

Contractor agrees to waive all rights of subrogation against the City and the City Council, individually and collectively, and its representatives, officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers for losses arising directly or indirectly from the activities and/or work performed by contractor (applies only to Commercial General Liability and Workers’ Compensation).

Policies shall not be suspended, voided, or canceled by either party or reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice, fourteen (14) calendar days prior written notice for cancelation for non-payment of premium, by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.

Contractor agrees to provide the City with the following insura nce documents before the start of construction:
➢ Certificates of Insurance for all required coverages; ➢ additional insured endorsements;
➢ waiver of subrogation endorsements (e.g., waiver of transfer rights of recovery against others, waiver of our right to recover from others, etc.); and
➢ sixty (60) calendar days’ notice cancellation clause endorsements.

It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that any and all subcontractors comply with all terms and conditions of the insurance provisions stipulated herein.

EXHIBIT A
793

APPENDIX

Leasing and Development Policy 42
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
Insurance coverage in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve contractor for liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it preclude the City from taking such other actions as are available to it under the law.

Claims Made Insurance – If the Professional Liability coverage is “claims made”, contractor shall, for a period of three years after the date when contract is terminated, completed, or non -renewed, maintain insurance with a retroactive date that is on or before the start date of contract services or purchase an extended reporting period endorsement (tail coverage).

Contamination and Pollution – Contractor, at its own cost and expense, shall provide clean-up of the site, any other Proper ty, or any natural resources that are contaminated or polluted as a result of contractor’s activities. Any fines, penalties, punitive or exemplary damages assigned due to contaminating or polluting activities of the contractor shall be borne entirely by the contractor.

EXHIBIT A
794

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 7.2

DATE:

June 26, 2023
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Marianna Marysheva, City Manager
SUBJECT:

Appointment of Council Members to the City Council Subcommittee on Advisory Bodies for the period of July 1 - December 31, 2023.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the Mayor appoint two Council Members to serve on the City Council Subcommittee on Advisory Bodies for the period of July 1 - December 31, 2023, with the City Council's approval.

SUMMARY
Applicants for vacancies on Livermore’s advisory bodies are interviewed by a two-member subcommittee of the City Council before being recommended for appointment by the full City Council. Two Council Members are needed to serve on the interview subcommittee for the period of July 1 - December 31, 2023.

DISCUSSION
The City Council has established nine standing advisory bodies comprised of more than seventy volunteers. To serve on an advisory body, community members apply for vacancies and are interviewed by a subcommittee of the City Council. The City Council Subcommittee on Advisory Bodies (“Subcommittee”) is a two-member subcommittee of the City Council appointed by the Mayor with the City Council's approval, and which is tasked with interviewing applicants for Livermore’s advisory boards, commissions, and committees. Membership on this standing City Council subcommittee rotates among Council Members who are appointed for staggered terms, if possible, to ensure that at least one member has prior experience on the subcommittee. Recruitment for advisory body vacancies is managed by the City Clerk’s Office and interview nights are scheduled quarterly for known vacancies and as needed to fill unanticipated vacancies throughout the year.

Serving in six-month increments, the Subcommittee conducts interviews and recommends appointments for confirmation by the full City Council. The exception to this policy are applicants for the Planning Commission who are interviewed by the full City Council. When interviewing applicants for the Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission (LAYAC), the Subcommittee is joined by a member of the 795
Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Board of Directors and a current LAYAC youth member.

Two Council Members are needed to serve on the Subcommittee for the period of July 1 - December
31, 2023. Previous appointments are listed below:

Year
January 1 - June 30
July 1 - December 31
2023
CM Carling

CM Branning

2022
CM Kiick
Mayor Woerner

VM Bonanno
VM Bonanno
2021
CM Carling
VM Munro

VM Munro
CM Kiick
2020
CM Munro
Mayor Marchand

CM Coomber
CM Carling
2019
Mayor Marchand
CM Woerner

CM Woerner
CM Munro

Upon appointment by the Mayor, the City Clerk’s Office will coordinate with the Subcommittee members to reserve several evenings to facilitate upcoming interview sessions.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

None.

PILLAR
4: A city that works.

GOAL
2: Engage effectively with the City's advisory bodies.

ATTACHMENTS

Prepared by: Marie Weber
Deputy City Manager/City Clerk

Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
796

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 10.1

DATE:

June 26, 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.

6.2 Hearing to receive and consider all evidence and reports regarding the adoption of a Master Fee Schedule. The Master Fee Schedule Resolution establishes fees for City services. The fee resolution and accompanying justification includes new, increased, and decreased fees into one document..

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

7.1 Discussion and recommended approval of the Airport Leasing and Development Policy.

Material: Public Comment Received, Supplemental Memo, Revised Airport Development Policy, Letter from City of Pleasanton, and PowerPoint Presentation

7.2 Appointment of Council Members to the City Council Subcommittee on Advisory Bodies for the period of July 1 - December 31, 2023.

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
797

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
798
1 Master Fee Schedule
June 26, 2023
Presented by Tina Olson, Administrative Services Director Overview and Fee Methodology
Overview:
• Annual update of fees for all City services to the public • Most fees are adjusted by the annual change in CPI (February 2023 – 5.3%)
• The Master Fee Schedule does not include development
impact fees, landscape maintenance district assessments, or franchise fees.

Fee Methodology:
• Fees established by external fee study
• Staff reviews and performs fee analyses annually
• Fees are intended to recover the actual cost of providing the service
1 2
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
799
2 New Fees
Administrative Services - Finance - Credit/Debit Card Fee • Reduce cost to City associated with processing credit/debit cards by $300,000 annually.
• Other payment options available to customers: Cash, Check, EFT (ACH)
Community Development - Building – 2% Technology Fee
• Added to the cost of each building permit issued
• Provide funds to recover permit and plan review software licensing, archiving, and additional technology costs associated with permitting, plan review, and inspections.

New Fees Continued
Community Development Housing & Human Services – Affordable Housing Program
• New Unit Sales Administrative Fee – 1.5% of Below Market Rate (BMR) Sale Price
• Document Recording (per document) - $40.00
• Annual Below Market Rate (BMR) Rental Monitoring Fee
10 to 50 BMR units $1,950
51 to 100 BMR units $2,600
101+ BMR units $3,250
First time follow-up compliance $650
Additional follow-up compliance (billed as time and materials) Water Resources
• Lost Hydrant Wrench Fee - $54
3 4
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
800
3 Fee Increases Beyond CPI
Community Development - Building
• Siding Permits
Unit size change from 400 sq ft to 1,000 sq ft
Fee change from $397 to $835
Administrative Services - Finance
• Replacement dog tag
Correction of fee in Master Fee Schedule to $0.50
Police Department
• Addition of $12 per report to existing $0.30 / page for duplication Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the City’s master fee schedule, incorporating certain fee changes and superseding resolution 2022-115.

Recommendation
5 6
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
801
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Lori Sanborn
John Marchand; Brittni Kiick; Barrientos, Ben; Evan Branning; Robert Carling Livermore City Council; Scott Lanphier; Michael Musca; City Clerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Pleasanton Weekly Editor; [email protected]; LVK airport citizens group; Angela Hescher
Protecting Livermore
Wednesday, June 21, 2023 9:07:13 AM
Dear Livermore Community,
I have lived in Livermore for 39 years. My husband and I raised our children, I volunteered and worked in and for Livermore. When we bought our house 39 years ago, the Livermore Airport was a charming airport where small personal light aircraft flew in and out. There was even a much anticipated annual flying airshow where neighbors sat on their roofs to watch.

The airshow included wing walkers, air races, hot air balloon rides, helicopter rides, sky divers, trick maneuvers and military fly-overs. The airport was a benefit to the community. In the past 20 years things have changed. There are more jets that fly in and out of the airport and noise has become a major issue for the Livermore and Pleasanton neighboring communities.

Just as Livermore wants to protect agriculture and open space with its urban growth boundary, it should protect Livermore citizens from pollution, decline in air quality and negative environmental impacts by airport expansion.

The city has proposed a Livermore
Airport Development Plan where the voice of its citizens are not heard nor considered. Noisy jets that wake you from sleep after 11:00 pm and fly too low over residential neighborhoods make it impossible to enjoy a conversation in your backyard.

How can the city hear us? Not
only does Livermore want to keep a “small town” feel with a thriving downtown and an active yet relaxing wine growing region but it’s a difficult balancing act to keep things energetic and profitable and at the same time pleasant and restful.

Allowing a new Airport Development
Policy that does not address noise and pollution impacts along with ignoring what future expansion to Livermore will portend is irresponsible. Not something I ever thought the city council would be guilty of.

I always thought the council would put the needs of the town and the citizens above financial gain.

Lori Sanborn
Livermore, CA
Item 7.1
Public Comment Received
802
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Frank Doljack
City Clerk
Airport Leasing and Development Policy, June 26 Livermore Council Meeting Wednesday, June 21, 2023 6:55:52 PM
As a former tenant of LVK my interest is to provide factual information with respect to claims being made criticizing the Airport Leasing and Development Policy. The comment presented by LACG in the Comments section of the Agenda for the June 26 meeting contains a statement taken from the CRS found at
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46920
that is highly misleading and therefore misinforms since it is taken out of context.

That statement is "airports may implement noise-related restrictions on aircraft operations".

The complete statement is:
"Under Part 161, airports may implement noise-related
restrictions on aircraft operations, such as limiting certain types of planes, based on a voluntary agreement with aircraft operators or by obtaining FAA approval of mandatory noise-based restrictions. Airports are required to demonstrate substantial evidence that proposed mandatory restrictions would satisfy six statutory requirements. FAA has never approved such restrictions requested by an airport." No one should be misled by the LACG statement.

LACG left out the important part!!! No
one has yet surmounted this obstacle.

But let us not stop here. LACG's recommendation to impose some kind of training restriction upon airport tenants would clearly violate at least one of the six statutory requirements (if not more): "1. be reasonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscriminatory". All transient operators of aircraft using LVK could not practicably be imposed this requirement. Therefore, only tenants of LVK would be subjected to a discriminatory requirement while everyone else not. And the requirement is noise-based.

Item 7.1
Public Comment Received
803
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Trish Fuzesy
John Marchand; Brittni Kiick; Barrientos, Ben; Evan Branning; Robert Carling Livermore City Council; Scott Lanphier; Michael Musca; City Clerk; Mayor and City Council; Karla Brown; Valerie Arkin; Gerry Beaudin; Becky Hopkins; [email protected]; LA CG; Angela Hescher My Comments for June 26 Council Meeting re: Airport Development Policy Thursday, June 22, 2023 8:08:15 PM
Dear City of Livermore Leaders,
I urge you to reject the draft airport development policy at the June 26 Livermore City Council meeting and send it back to staff with instructions they resume working on it.

Mr. Musca’s June 5th presentation to the meeting of the Airport Commission succinctly summarized the public’s main concerns as: “Noise, public input, conformance with Resolution 2010-058, environmental review”. However, the revised airport development policy sent to the Council falls far short of adequately addressing any of those public concerns.

Many public comments provided specific recommendations, changed language, and cited sections where needed; however, the public’s comments were overwhelmingly rejected by airport staff as “Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided.” Airport staff chose to ignore the overwhelming majority of public input rather than to incorporate our feedback.

This airport development policy still does not incorporate the Specific Requirements as outlined in Resolution 2010-058, nor does the policy clearly cite each of the 2010-058 Requirements where relevant in the specific policy sections, in order to provide clear and unambiguous guidance. The global reference to Resolution 2010-058 and its incorporation only as an appendix is inadequate and creates ambiguity and uncertainty as to Resolution 2010-058 intent; it falls well short of providing clear and actionable guidance for future airport development.

Livermore airport noise is a regional issue and affects all residents living in the larger Tri- Valley area; this area continues to grow in population and size, with more housing being planned. This LVK airport development plan does not do enough to involve all Tri-Valley stakeholders, to preserve the entire region’s quality of life.

As a 20+ year City of Pleasanton resident, I am especially alarmed with how airport noise is growing and is increasingly eroding our quality of life. We live 4 miles from LVK, yet we can no longer sit in our backyards or leave our windows open (day and night) without being disturbed and interrupted and stressed by the noise from small planes and luxury business jets flying in/out of LVK for hours, at times coming every 5-6 minutes, often flying under 1,000 feet overhead. Weekends are usually worse.

That’s why I urge you to reject the draft airport development policy and send it back to staff. It does not protect residents. It is not a good neighbor policy.

Thank you,
Trish Fuzesy
Pleasanton
Item 7.1
Public Comment Received
804
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

JEAN MORAN
Evan Branning; John Marchand; Brittni Kiick; Barrientos, Ben; Robert Carling City Clerk
airport policy
Friday, June 23, 2023 9:41:42 AM
Hello,
Thank you for your service on the Livermore City Council. We have lived in Livermore since 1997 and generally love it here, and appreciate efforts and spending that have made Livermore a nice place to raise a family and spend time recreating.

One thing I don't like about Livermore is how noisy it is, with most of the noise created by 580 and the airport. 580 is used by most/all of us, while the airport is used by very, very few. The noise pollution and greenhouse gas pollution degrade our quality of life.

Please, reject the airport development policy and work to decrease the negative effects of the airport on our community.

Jean Moran
Item 7.1
Public Comment Received
805
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Jon Krueger
John Marchand; Brittni Kiick; Barrientos, Ben; Evan Branning; Robert Carling Livermore City Council; City Clerk; Mayor and City Council; Michael Musca City Council Meeting, item 7.1: please reject the proposed Airport Development Policy Saturday, June 24, 2023 7:34:01 PM
I'm writing to urge you to reject the proposed Airport Development Policy.

Now you might ask: give me three good reasons why I should.

OK: three good reasons to reject the proposed Airport Development Policy:

1. It doesn't implement the 2010 Livermore City Council resolution.

2. It ignores public comment

3. It doesn't protect residents
Let's break that down.

1.The policy mentions the City Council resolution, but
implements almost nothing it says.The resolution says
development will occur only for existing demand, based on tangible evidence.Try finding that in the Policy.It
isn't there.

The resolution says no extending runways, no large cargo operators, and aggressive action to reduce noise. You look at the policy, section after section where these goals are relevant, and they're not there.Section 2.9 has 12
different grounds for rejecting a proposal -- not one of them is a goal from the resolution.

2. The draft Policy got hundreds of public comments.

The review was incredibly dismissive, ignoring almost
all of them.

The airport manager's own summary:
the public wanted the policy to address noise, public input, conformance with the Resolution.

What did we get? Noise got two brief mentions,
both vague and inconsequential.The
policy has more to say about acceptable garbage containers.

Public input: some plan later, no timelines, all vague, and no actual requirement for public input: the policy
mentions only presentation to the public, not public input.

Conformance with the resolution, we've covered that; it doesn't.

In short the Policy ignored public comment.

3. The policy doesn't protect residents. It's got no real protection on noise, on leaded fuels, on increased traffic.

Yet these things impact our quality of life every day. I understand the airport has needs. Three hundred thousand of us on the ground have needs too.

That's why I join the Livermore Independent, and Pleasanton City Council, in asking you to reject this policy, send it back for revision that implements City goals, respects
public input, and protects residents.

Thank you.

Jonathan Krueger
Item 7.1
Public Comment Received
806
From: Rahn and Pat Becker
To: City Clerk
Subject: Copy of Letter to Mayor Marchand Regarding Airport Resolution On Agenda Date: Sunday, June 25, 2023 5:16:27 PM
Attachments: Copy of email sent to Mayor Marchand on June 25.pdf We emailed the attached to Mayor Marchand on Sunday. We asked if he could include our comments in the official record for this item. In the event, he is too busy to see this, We have attached a copy for you to include in the record.

Thanks for your help.

Rahn and Patricia Becker
Item 7.1
Public Comment Received
807
Copy of email sent to Mayor Marchand on June 25, 2023
We would like the following comments made a part of the record for this Council Item on June 26.

1. We are opposed to any expansion of the current airport operation. We believe the existing vacant land should be sold for non-airport related commercial development that would benefit city revenues.

2. Present airport operations are already a source of noise and pollution. Not a day goes by without buzzing aircraft moving over our property. These flights may well conform to regulations, but the noise is not mitigated. Further, Livermore Airport aircraft still use leaded gasoline, causing lead pollution to descend on residents.

3. Airport approaches and departure lanes contain a heavy concentration of residential properties in both Pleasanton and Livermore. Since we moved here, one plane has already crashed on Isabel Avenue. Expansion of the airport would increase the possibility of such crashes.

We believe the more appropriate long-term strategy should be to develop a plan for closure of the airport and use the land for commercial revenue generating activities that would benefit city coffers. As an example of an airport that will close because of noise and pollution is Santa Monica Municipal Airport, which will shut down in 2028. Now is the time to begin this conversation. Livermore is a much different place now than when the airport began operations.

Respectfully Yours,
Rahn and Patricia Becker

Item 7.1
Public Comment Received
808

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Date: June 26, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Marianna Mary Sheva, City Manager
Via: Scott Lanphier, Public Works Director
Subject: Agenda Item 7.1
A letter was received from the City of Pleasanton City Manager on June 21, 2023, with comments on the proposed Livermore Airport Leasing and Development Policy (Policy). The comments have been reviewed by Livermore City staff and addressed as appropriate in a red-lined version of the Policy which will be included in a supplemental packet on Monday, June 26, 2023.

Attachments:
 Supplemental Airport Leasing and Development Policy
 Letter from City of Pleasanton to Mayor Marchand and Livermore City Counc il,
dated 6/21/2023
Item 7.1
Supplemental Memo
809
June 5, 2023
City of Livermore
680 Terminal Circle
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 960-8220
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore
Livermore Municipal Airport (LVK)
June 2023
Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
810

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
i

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 3

1.1. Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2. Goal, Objectives, and Development Priorities .......................................................................... 3

1.3. Definitions and Acronyms ........................................................................................................ 3

1.4. Compliance................................................................................................................................ 3

1.5. Applicability............................................................................................................................... 3

1.6. General Requirements .............................................................................................................. 4

1.7. Public Engagement Requirements ........................................................................................... 4

1.8. Environmental Review .............................................................................................................. 4

1.9. Airport Land Use Commission Review .................................................................................... 5

2. LEASING PRACTICES .................................................................................................................... 7

2.1. Expression of Interest ............................................................................................................... 7

2.2. Application for Leasing Land and/or Improvements ............................................................... 8

2.3. Approval Process....................................................................................................................... 9

2.4. Approved Application Processing ............................................................................................. 9

2.5. Demonstrating Immediate Need ............................................................................................. 11

2.6. Public Disclosure .................................................................................................................... 11

2.7. Reversion of Improvements .................................................................................................... 11

2.8. Term of Agreement ................................................................................................................. 11

2.9. Possible Grounds for Rejecting an Application or Proposal ................................................. 11

3. LEASEHOLD DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 13

3.1. General .................................................................................................................................... 13

3.2. Environmental Quality ........................................................................................................... 13

3.3. Provision of Necessary Airport Land and/or Improvements ................................................. 13

3.4. Manmade and Natural Hazards ............................................................................................. 13

3.5. Reuse of Resources ................................................................................................................. 14

3.6. Restricted Improvements ......................................................................................................... 14

4. DESIGN CRITERIA ........................................................................................................................ 15

4.1. Accessory Buildings ................................................................................................................ 15

4.2. Changes, Additions, and Deletions ......................................................................................... 15

4.3. Aircraft Accesses ..................................................................................................................... 15

4.4. Antennae ................................................................................................................................. 15

4.5. Ramps ...................................................................................................................................... 16

4.6. Improvement Height ............................................................................................................... 16

4.7. Doors ....................................................................................................................................... 16

4.8. Exterior Lighting and Security ............................................................................................... 16

4.9. Exterior Materials ................................................................................................................... 16

4.10. Exterior Storage ...................................................................................................................... 17

4.11. Fences, Gates, and Buffers ..................................................................................................... 17

4.12. Garbage and Recycling Containers ........................................................................................ 17

4.13. Flagpoles ................................................................................................................................. 17

4.14. Grading and Drainage ............................................................................................................ 18

4.15. Landscaping ............................................................................................................................ 18

4.16. Loading and Service Areas ..................................................................................................... 19

4.17. Open Sided Buildings ............................................................................................................. 19

4.18. Pedestrian Circulation ............................................................................................................ 19

4.19. Residence ................................................................................................................................. 20

4.20. Setbacks ................................................................................................................................... 20 Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
811

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
ii

4.21. Signage .................................................................................................................................... 20

4.22. Buildings ................................................................................................................................. 21

4.23. Utilities .................................................................................................................................... 21

4.24. Vehicle Parking ...................................................................................................................... 21

5. PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT APPROVAL ............................................ 23

5.1. Concept Plan ........................................................................................................................... 23

5.2. Development Plan ................................................................................................................... 23

5.3. Requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration .......................................................... 24

6. CONSTRUCTION PHASE ............................................................................................................. 25

6.1. Pre-Construction Meeting ...................................................................................................... 25

6.2. Permits, Licenses, Inspections, and Certifications................................................................. 25

6.3. Bonds ....................................................................................................................................... 25

6.4. Insurance ................................................................................................................................ 25

6.5. Clean-Up During Construction .............................................................................................. 26

6.6. Damages During Construction ............................................................................................... 26

6.7. Erosion Prevention During Construction .............................................................................. 26

6.8. Inspections .............................................................................................................................. 26

6.9. Protection of Property and Work in Progress ........................................................................ 27

6.10. As-Built Drawings................................................................................................................... 27

7. APPENDIX........................................................................................................................................ 28

7.1. Airport Development Priorities ............................................................................................... 28

7.2. Definitions ............................................................................................................................... 31

7.3. Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. 34

7.4. Leasing Practices Flowchart .................................................................................................. 35

7.5. Lease / Development Proposal Evaluation Form .................................................................. 39

7.6. RFI, RFQ, and/or RFP Document Guidelines ...................................................................... 40

7.7. Advertising Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 40

7.8. Insurance ................................................................................................................................ 40 Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
812

LEASING PRACTICES
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
3 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose
The purpose of the City of Livermore (City) Leasing and Development Policy (Policy) is to set forth processes and procedures to evaluate and approve or reject proposals related to the leasing and/or development (including construction, modification, and/or renovation) of aer onautical and non - aeronautical land and/or Improvements within the legal boundaries of the current Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for the Livermore Municipal Airport (Airport). This Policy establishes leasing protocols and requirements for compatible and sustainable development that protects persons and Property.

1.2. Goal, Objectives, and Development Priorities
It is the goal of the City to ensure Airport property is leased and developed in a high-quality manner consistent with sound fiscal management and best operational practices while ensuring the provision of essential infrastructure, Improvements, and amenities that support the overall operation of the Airport. The City has established the following objectives to help achieve this goal. ➢ Environmental –Employ sustainable development practices to conserve natural resources and minimize adverse impacts such as noise, air, and water pollution, on the environment. Actions to reduce impact of noise pollution should be employed such as aggressively fostering the reduction of aircraft noise through the voluntary noise reduction efforts especially during night hours. Action to reduce air pollution should be taken by supporting the transition from leaded to unleaded fuel as it becomes feasible. Action to prevent PFAS or other contamination into the water system should be undertaken such as monitoring the use of f ire foam or other chemicals containing PFAS and report such any usage in monthly report to the Airpo rt 11 Advisory Commission.
➢ Social – Maintain and enhance a compatible relationship between the Airport and the surrounding community through public engagement efforts that will include information regarding the scope and scale of proposed projects and provide opportunities activities that will allow for public input and inquiry. Public engagement should must address potential impacts to residents and surrounding surrounding communitiesy such as increased aircraft activity, vehicle traffic, and noise, to the surrounding community and including how these impacts may will be mitigated.
➢ Function – Encourage development of Airport land and Improvements to occur in response to existing aviation demand, which is to be evaluated by the Airport Advisory Commission and based upon tangible evidence, such as the existence of a hangar waiting list, letters of interest or proposals to provide essential aeronautical services to avoid the need for based aircraft flying to other airports to receive those services, or services determined to be supportive of the local community, such as law enforcement or emergency medical transpor1t. Redevelopment at the Airport shall only occur if the Airport Advisory Commission determines that existing facilities need significant rehabilitation, improvement, or replacement . All development and redevelopment must be that meet the needs of the Airport and be consistent with the Airport’s Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities (Minimum Standards) and the existing development of the Airport.
➢ Visual – Establish high -quality standards for architectural and landscape design and construction.
➢ Economic – Support the local economy and ensure economic vitality through supporting small- parcel air cargo services that serve only businesses and residence s in the Tri -Valley region.

Preserve property values, enhance investments, and ensure the Airport is as self- sustaining as Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
813

LEASING PRACTICES
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
4 possible consistent with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Sponsor Assurances.

1.3. Definitions and Acronyms
The terms defined in Appendix 7.2 or acronyms outlined in Appendix 7.3 and identified by use of a capital letter, whenever used in this Policy, shall be construed as defined therein unless (from the context) a different meaning is intended or unless a different meaning is specifically defined. Words or phrases that are not defined shall be construed consistent with common meaning or as generally understood.

1.4. Compliance
Entities who desire to lease, construct, modify, and/or renovate aeronautical or non-aeronautical land and/or Improvements at the Airport shall comply with this Policy, Resolution 2010-058, and any federal, State of California (State), Alameda County, or City laws, codes, ordinances, and other applicable Legal Requirements.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
814

LEASING PRACTICES
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
5 ➢ No entity may deviate from this Policy unless a written exemption or waiver has been granted in advance by the City, subject to approval of a Waiver Request Letter specified in Section 5.2. ➢ Existing Lessees may be subject to this Policy upon modification of any existing Agreement.

1.6. General Requirements
All development, improvement, renovation, or landscaping shall comply with the Airport Layout Plan, Minimum Standards, 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace , and/or other Legal Requirements. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Policy, land and/or Improvements shall not be developed or used in such a manner as to:
➢ interfere with aircraft communication or navigation equipment, ➢ adversely impact the visibility of airport lighting and/or signage, ➢ impair the visibility of aircraft crew members or Air Traffic Control (ATC) personnel; or ➢ otherwise endanger or adversely impact the arrival, departure, or maneuvering of aircraft.

1.8. Environmental Review
All proposed projects will be initially evaluated to determine impacts to the existing Airport Layout Plan (ALP) or if an environmental review is necessary. Additionally, all proposed projects must undergo a formal FAA determination whether FAA approval is required under Section 163.

Any project proposing new development or a change in land use may be subject to environmental review.

This review will be conducted in coordination with the Community Development Department at the time of project entitlement. Developer is required to cover the cost of environmental processing.

LEASING PRACTICES
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
6 project commences, and it must also receive all required approvals from the City’s Community Development Department.

FAA Section 163 Determination – Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 and FAA’s implementing policies require a determination as to whether any Airport project requires FAA approval.

LEASING PRACTICES
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
7 determined by the type and size of the airport. The AIA typically extends beyond the airport property, and the commission's authority covers all land use decisions within this area.

It is the City’s role, in conjunction with Airport Land Use Commission, to review and determine if the proposed project and associated development are compliant with the Livermore Land Use Compatibility Plan. If a proposed project is determined to be subject to ALUC review and approval, the applicant shall develop required documentation for review by the City and ALUC.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
817

LEASING PRACTICES
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
8 2. LEASING PRACTICES
The leasing practices set forth in this section are summarized in Appendix 7.4. Note: procedures and timelines stated herein are recommended and may be adjusted by the City Manager who has the capacity to recommend alternate timelines to meet demands of the project based on complexity and good faith effort of the Developer.

At the IDSRT’s discretion, additional meetings may be requested with the interested party to further discuss the proposal concept, along with additional supporting information or documentation.

The IDSRT will evaluate all proposals based on the Goal, Objectives, and Development Prio rities established in Section 1.2, including Resolution 2010 -058, and in conformance with the General Requirements set forth in Section 1.6. An evaluation form is included in Appendix 7.5.

Following the initial meeting(s) with the interested party and submission of any supporting information, the IDSRT, through the Airport Manager will , within sixty (60) calendar days, provide written rejection of the unsolicited proposal concept in conformance with Section 2.9, or request the entity submit a formal Commercial Operator and Lessee Application (Application) as discussed in Section 2.2. In the alternative, the City reserves the right to proceed with a Competitive Proposal Process as described in this Section (City Initiative).

City Initiative – If Airport land and/or Improvements exist or become available, in the City’s sole discretion, the City may issue a Request for Interest (RFI), Request for Qualifications (RFQ), and/or a Request for Proposal (RFP).
➢ Guidelines for development of the RFI/RFQ/RFP document are provided in Appendix 7.6. ➢ The City may advertise the RFI/RFQ/RFP opportunity. Advertising Guidelines are provided in Appendix 7.7.
➢ The RFI/RFQ/RFP will specifically include as evaluation criteria the Goal, Objectives, and Development Priorities established in Section 1.2, including Resolution 2010-058, and General Requirements set forth in Section 1.6.

The City may, in its sole discretion, hold a pre -proposal meeting with interested parties to: (a) discuss t he RFI/RFQ/RFP opportunity, document, and/or related processes, (b) conduct a tour of the Airport and/or the Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
818

LEASING PRACTICES
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
9 subject land and Improvements with the IDSRT, and (c) provide prospective respondents with the opportunity to ask questions.

After the stated deadline, the City shall review the submittals for compliance with the RFI/RFQ/RFP specifications and criteria and shall rank the submittals. ➢ Submittals received after the stated deadline may not be considered and may be returne d unopened.
➢ The City may, in its sole discretion, interview respondents. ➢ The City has the right, with or without cause, to reject any or all submittals, to advertise for new submittals, and/or to modify any or all RFI/RFQ/RFP processes. The City will notif y respondents of any changes to the process or submittal requirements. ➢ The City shall be under no obligation to make an award or to make an award to the respondent specifying the highest level of compensation to the City.

Upon completion of an RFI process (if utilized), the City may, or may not, in its sole discretion, invite respondents to respond to an RFQ or RFP. Upon completion of an RFQ process (if utilized), the City may, in its sole discretion, invite the most qualified respondents to respond to an RFP. ➢ If only one respondent expresses interest or is considered qualified by the City, the City may, in its sole discretion, negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with the qualified respondent without issuing an RFQ/RFP.

Upon completion of an RFP process (if utilized), the City may select the best respondent in the City’s sole discretion.

Initiative of Other s – If, during an Application process occurring outside of an RFI/RFQ/RFP process, another qualified entity expresses interest in leasing and demonstrates an immediate need for the subject land or Improvements (as outlined in Section 2.5), the City may, in its sole discretion, negotiate with the entity(ies) and/or issue an RFQ/RFP in which case, the Competitive Proposal Process described in this Section shall be followed.

2.2. Application for Leasing Land and/or Improvements
If desirous of leasing Airport land and/or Improvements on a long -term basis (i.e., greater than one year), entities with or without a current Development Agreement shall complete all relevant and applicable sections of the Application and submit to the Airport Manager for consideration by the IDSRT.

New Agreements shall be subject to all applicable Legal Requirements; Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, obligations, and guidance; the Airport’s policies, standards, rules, regulations, and directives; the City’s zoning, building, fire, and safety codes; Goal, Objectives, and Development Priorities, established in Section 1.2, including Resolution 2010 -058 (Appendix 7.1), and General Requirements set forth in Section 1.6; and all other Legal Requirements of any Agency having jurisdiction.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
819

LEASING PRACTICES
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
10 A non-refundable application fee shall be submitted with the Application, as stipulated in the Airport’s Rents and Fees Schedule.

2.3. Approval Process
Once Applicant has submitted a completed Application to lease Airport land and/or Improvements on a long-term basis, Applicant shall submit any additional information, data, and/or documentation that may be required or requested by the IDSRT or City to eva luate the Application. Incomplete Applications will not be accepted. Applications that do not comply with this Policy shall be rejected in accordance with Section

2.9. The City will convey the reason(s) for rejecting the Application in writing to the Applicant.

2.4. Approved Application Processing
Within ninety (90) calendar days of the Airport Manager receiving a completed Application, the following processes should be completed:
➢ The IDSRT shall conduct an initial review to ensure the Application is compliant w ith the qualifications, standards, and requirements established by the City including the Minimum Standards and Airport Rules and Regulations, located at:
https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5677/637238462369030000

Within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the key terms and conditions from the Airport Manager, the Applicant shall indicate if the key terms an d conditions established by the City are acceptable to the Applicant.
➢ If the key terms and conditions established by the City are not acceptable to the Applicant, the Applicant shall present to the IDSRT, through the Airport Manager revised key terms and conditions that are acceptable to the Applicant within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the information from the City.
➢ The City, through the IDSRT, may negotiate the revised key terms and conditions with the Applicant and/or initiate the Competitive Proposal Process described in Section 2.1. ➢ If the City and the Applicant are unable to reach agreement on the revised key terms and conditions within thirty (30) calendar days of the time the information is presented to the City by the Applican t, the City is not obligated to lease Airport land and/or Improvements to the Applicant and may cease further negotiations.

LEASING PRACTICES
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
11 is greater – as evidence of the Applicant’s good faith to enter into a Development Agreement with the City.

The Planning Entitlements and a copy of the DDA executed by the Applicant shall be reviewed and approved or denied by the City Council.

Following approval of all applicable Planning Entitlements and prior to applying for a building permit, the Applicant shall deliver to the City within one-hundred twenty (120) calendar days:
➢ Complete set(s) of final construction drawings, signed by an architect or engineer certifie d or licensed in the State; and
➢ One complete as-built drawings including plan map set following completion of the project.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
821

LEASING PRACTICES
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
12 Failure to Comply - Applicants’ failure to comply with specified response time periods, or any provision of the Development Agreement, may result in the termination of the Development Agreement. All negotiations may cease, and the earnest money and/or security deposit may be forfeited to the City.

2.5. Demonstrating Immediate Need
An entity seeking to lease Airport land and/or Improvements must demonstrate the entire land area(s) and/or the entire Improvement(s) seeking to be leased will be Immediately utilized. At the City’s sole option, a phased development of Airport land may be considered which should inc lude specific development milestones within the Agreement.

2.6. Public Disclosure
Applicants and RFI/RFQ/RFP respondents should be aware that the City is subject to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code section 7920.000 et. seq.), which may give the public the right to examine documents in possession of a California Agency unless an applicable legal exemption applies.

If an Applicant or respondent clearly identifies any proprietary and/or Confidential Information submitted to the City and the City rec eives a request from the public for release of such information, the City shall comply with State law regarding notification to Applicant. Applicant or respondent understands that City may be required to disclose Confidential Information pursuant to judicial action, governmental regulations or investigation, or other requirements.

2.7. Reversion of Improvements
Unless otherwise stated in an Agreement, upon expiration or earlier termination of the Agreement, at City’s option, the ownership of all Improvements made to the leasehold shall revert (transfer) and become the sole property of the City. If the City elects not to claim the Improvements, the Lessee shall remove and/or demolish any and/or all Improvements (as designated by the City) and retur n the Leased Premises to its original condition and character, ordinary and reasonable wear and tear excepted.

2.8. Term of Agreement
The term of an Agreement shall be commensurate with the dollar amount of Capital Investment made by the Lessee in the Leasehold Premises and/or Airport infrastructure, consistent with the capital investment formula as adopted by the City from time to time. In any event, the maximum term of an Agreement, including option periods, may not exceed forty (40) years. When no Capital Inv estment is made, the term of the Agreement shall be at the discretion of the City but may not be greater than 20% of the term of the previous Agreement (if an existing Lessee) or 5 years, whichever is less.

The City at its sole discretion may reject any proposal or applica tion in conformance with Legal Requirements including, but not limited to, any one or more of the following reasons (as determined in the sole discretion of the City):
➢ The entity, for any reason, does not fully meet the qualifications, standards, and requirements established by the City. This includes objectives referenced in Section 1.2 and Resolution 20 I 0-058 and include but are not limited to:

o No tangible evidence of existing demand
o Implies or requires extension of runways
Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
822

LEASING PRACTICES
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
13 o Is a large cargo operator or caters to large cargo operators ➢ The burden of proof shall be on the entity and the standard of proof shall be by clear and convincing evidence.The City or the FAA has determined that the contemplated activity and/or Improvements would create a safety or security risk at th e Airport or constitute a Hazard, obstruction, or danger to air navigation.
➢ The City would be required to expend funds and/or supply labor and/or materials in connection with the proposed activities and/or Improvements that the City is unwilling and/or una ble to expend or supply.
➢ The financial plan associated with the proposed activities and/or Improvements is not demonstrated to be realistic and attainable and/or will result in a financial operating loss or hardship for the entity.
➢ No appropriate, adequate , or available land and/or Improvement exists at the Airport to accommodate the proposed activity or Improvements at the time the proposal or application is submitted, nor is such availability contemplated within a reasonable period of time. ➢ The proposed activities and/or Improvements do not comply with the ALP currently in effect or anticipated to be in effect.
➢ The entity’s occupancy, use, or development of Airport land and/or Improvements could be detrimental to the public, result in congestion of aircraft, and/or negatively impact the safety and/or efficiency of the Airport, Operators, Tenants, or users of the Airport. ➢ The entity intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented or failed to disclose material fact in a proposal, in an application, and/or in supporting documentation. ➢ The entity or any officer, director, agent, representative, shareholder, or key employee thereof has a record of v iolating the Legal Requirements of the City, any other airport sponsor, the State, the FAA, or any other Legal Requirement applicable to the Airport and/or the entity’s proposed activity.
➢ The entity or any officer, director, agent, representative, shareholder, or key employee thereof has defaulted in the performance of any Agreement or Sublease at the Airport or at any other airport.
➢ The entity does not exhibit adequate financial capability, capacity, or responsibility to undertake, sustain, and maintain the proposed activity and/or Improvements. ➢ The entity cannot obtain a bond or insurance in the type and amounts required by the City for the proposed activity and/or improvements.
➢ The entity seeks terms and conditions which are inconsistent with the Minimum Standards, Airport Rules and Regulations, this Policy, and/or any request for qualifications and/or proposals (or any other document) issued by the City.
➢ The entity’s interests and/or the proposed activity, Improvements, or use, is inconsistent wit h the mission, vision, values, goals, or objectives of the Airport; the best interest of the City; or any Airport Sponsor Assurances.
➢ The entity has been a party to vexatious or frivolous litigation, including, without limitation, administrative litigation, against the City.
➢ The proposed activity is determined not to be the highest and best use of the property.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
823

LEASEHOLD DEVELOPMENT
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
14 3. LEASEHOLD DEVELOPMENT

5.2) is acceptable to the City.

3.2. Environmental Quality
The City encourages: (a) orientation of Improvements to take advantage of natural sunlight and preve nt Improvements from blocking direct sunlight to other Improvements, (b) the use of barriers as a defense against wind, (c) the use of landscaping to maximize cooling in the summer, and (d) design features and the use of construction methods, techniques, a nd/or industry best practices that focus on sustainability, conserves energy, and reduces impacts on natural resources.

3.3. Provision of Necessary Airport Land and/or Improvements The City encourages development that fully utilizes, but does not overburden, existing land and/or Improvements. In cases where existing land and/or Improvements are not fully utilized, the City encourages development that complies with objectives outlines in Section 2.1 and Resolution 2010-058 and that:
:
➢ minimizes aircraft, vehicle, and pedestrian congestion and promotes safety, security, and efficiency;
➢ includes facilities to collect, treat, and dispose of the types and quantities of stormwater runoff anticipated and ensures that such facilities have the capacity, quality of discharge, point of discharge, and reliability to support the intended use; ➢ has a water supply of the quality, quantity, pressure, and reliability that is required to support the intended use;
➢ has paved road access for Emergency Services; and
➢ consists of Improvements that make highest and best use of the land area with reasonable land to Improvement ratios.

3.4. Manmade and Natural Hazards
The City requires development that does not expose others to avoidable natural and manufactured hazards.

As such, the City encourages development which:

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
824

LEASEHOLD DEVELOPMENT
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
15 ➢ is designed, constructed, and located in a manner that is compatible with existing hazards and does not create any additional hazards and
➢ is not located in floodplains, geologically hazardous areas, or other natural hazard areas that could threaten the development, the Airport, or the health, safet y, security, or welfare of the public.

3.5. Reuse of Resources
The City encourages development which uses recycled materials, promotes recycling of materials used in construction, and reuses wastewater.

3.6. Restricted Improvements
Temporary Building – Portable buildings which are intended to be in place for six (6) months or less shall be deemed to be temporary. Temporary buildings including offices or storage facilities shall not be placed on the Airport without the prior written approval of the City t hrough the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) process. Temporary buildings are subject to Livermore Development Code Chapter 9.09, Temporary Use Permits, as it exists today or amended.
➢ Portable/mobile homes or recreational vehicles are prohibited from being placed on the Airport. ➢ A request for approval of any temporary building shall be submitted to the Airport Manager and Community Development Department for review and approval through the TUP entitlement process. The request must include a site plan showing the proposed location, access plan, size, construction material, purpose, and provisions for dismantling and/or removal no later than thirty (30) calendar days after development of permanent Improvements are completed.

Temporary buildings may only be utilized for construction management purposes and/or while engaging in Commercial Aeronautical Activities during development or renovation of permanent Improvements.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
825

DESIGN CRITERIA
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
16 4. DESIGN CRITERIA

4.1. Accessory Buildings
All accessory buildings shall be identified on the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2) and approved in writing by the City prior to construction. Accessory buildings include any building serving a purpose customarily incidental to the principle use of the main use, structure and/or building, and which does not change the character of the principal use. Accessory buildings include any building(s) that are intended to be in place for more than six months and not considered a temporary building (as described in Section 3.6). Accessory buildings shall match the architectural design and materials of the main Improvement and comply with Livermore Development Code Section 4.02.030, Accessory Structures, as it exists today or amended.

4.2. Changes, Additions, and Deletions
Prior to making any changes, additions, or deletions to existing land and/or Improvements, the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2) shall be submitted to the Airport Manager and Community Development Department and approved in writin g by the City. Changes, additions, or deletions shall match the architectural design and materials of the main Improvement. Changes, additions, and/or deletions shall conform to all applicable codes, ordinances, or other Legal Requirements.

4.3. Aircraft Accesses
To allow for the safe, secure, and efficient operation of aircraft and to minimize potential conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians:
➢ all aircraft access points (i.e., Taxiways and Taxilanes) shall meet the design standards stipulated in Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A Airport Design, as may be amended; ➢ a minimum of 40 feet of frontage Ramp is required between the edge of the access Taxiway or Taxilane and the closest exterior wall of any hangar;
➢ frontage Ramp shall be constructed or leased and able to accommodate the largest aircraft the hangar is designed to accommodate and shall comply with the Minimum Standards; ➢ if two hangars (excluding rows of T-hangars or Executive Hangars) access a common Taxiway or Taxilane, a minimum of at least 40 feet of access Taxilane shall be required between the two frontage Ramps, edge to edge;
➢ where a common access Taxilane is required, the Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) shall be required to lease and construct at least one-half of the required access Taxilane; ➢ a maximum of two vehicle or pedestrian access points shall be permitted to the Ramp, Taxiway, or Taxilane; and
➢ each access point must be under video surveillance with appropriate signage identifying such.

FAA Form 7460 -1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration shall be completed and all antennae, satellite dishes, and similar equipment must comply with 14 CFR Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
826

DESIGN CRITERIA
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
17 4.5. Ramps
Operators providing rotary wing aircraft parking shall adhere to the design standards described in AC 150/5390-2C Heliport Design, as may be amended. Operators providing fixed wing aircraft parking shall adhere to the design standards described in AC 150/5300-13A Airport Design, as may be amended.

4.7. Doors
Hangar doors shall be sliding, overhead, or bi -fold, consistent with industry best practices, based on the size of the hangar. Hangar doors shall be constructed of pre -finished aluminum, pre -finished steel, or flexible fabric curtain (designed specifically for hangars) and shall complement the building from a design and color perspective.
➢ Wood, plastic, corrugated fiberglass, tin, or other unfinished materials are prohibited. ➢ Translucent panels may be incorporated into pre-finished aluminum or pre-finished steel doors to provide additional lighting.
➢ Pedestrian doors shall comply with all applicable codes, ordinances, and Legal Requirements. ➢ All pedestrian doors shall be pre-finished metal construction in metal jambs and shall complement the building from a design and color perspective.

Vehicle access doors shall be overhead construction and shall complement the building from a design and color perspective.

The lighting plan shall be consistent with the City of Livermore Design Standards and Guidelines, as it exists today or amended. In addition, the lighting plan shall meet the following requirements:
➢ lights shall not be placed to cause glare, interference with Airport, aircraft, or vehicle operations, or illumi nate areas outside of the intended area including adjacent land and/or Improvements; and
➢ height of exterior light poles shall comply with 14 CFR Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
827

DESIGN CRITERIA
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
18 Samples of exterior building materials and colors shall be submitted with the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2) and approved in writing by the City prior to construction. Building exteriors shall use a neutral earth-tone color palette compatible with existing Improvements at the Airport.

No storage shed or accessory building ot her than the main Improvement shall be permitted except during construction or unless approved in writing by the City with a TUP entitlement prior to construction or installation. Objects such as water towers, storage tanks, processing equipment, cooling t owers, communications towers, vents, and other buildings or equipment shall be compatible with the main Improvement or effectively shielded from view and shall be approved in writing by the City prior to construction.

4.11. Fences, Gates, and Buffers
Required fencing, gates, and buffers shall be identified in the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2) and approved in writing by the City prior to construction. Submittal shall include identification of the (a) location of fences, gates, and buffers, (b) the type, height, and color of the materials used for construction, and (c) other unique design features or considerations. Fences must be consistent with Livermore Development Code Section 4.05.040, Fences and Screening. Fencing and gates shall be the sam e type of material and style of the existing Airport perimeter fence and gates and consistent with the City of Livermore Design Standards and Guidelines, as they exist today or amended. Fences and gates shall be properly maintained, fully functional, and in good appearance.

When possible, fences, gates, and buffers shall not be permitted directly adjacent to aircraft Movement Areas and Non-Movement Areas unless identified with markers, lights, or other devices (e.g., reflectors on all sides). Fences, gates, and buffers directly adjacent to aircraft Movement Areas and Non -Movement Areas must have a security card or key pass access control mechanism to restrict access to authorized personnel only. The height of all buffers of unsightly areas (e.g., storage area) shall be at least equal to the material being stored or screened.

4.12. Garbage and Recycling Containers
Exterior garbage and recycling containers must be consistent with Livermore Development Code Section

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
828

DESIGN CRITERIA
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
19 4.14. Grading and Drainage
A site plan indicating proposed grading and drainage (including drainage flow, contours, and elevations) shall be submitted with the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2) and approved in writing by the City prior to construction. Compatible grading and drainage between adjacent land and Improvements shall be established to control drainage and erosion and shall meet the following requirements:
➢ Grading permits shall be obtained from the Agency having jurisdiction prior to performing any grading.
➢ Grades, berms, channels, and swales shall be an integral part of the grading, drainage, and paved surface design.
➢ Paved area grades shall not exceed two percent (2.0%) slope for concrete and asphalt paving. ➢ Drainage (and all related facilities) shall be designed to prevent standing water and accommodate all storm water generated by the land in accordance with the Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the City’s SWPPP. ➢ All grading and drainage shall meet the design standards described in AC 150/5320-5C Airport Drainage Design, as may be amended.
➢ All other applicable requirements as set forth in the Livermore Development Code.

Drainage shall not adversely impact adjacent land and Improvements and shall flow into natural or developed drainage.

Unless otherwise approved by the City, the elevation of the land shall not be changed so as to materially affect the surface elevation or grade of the surrounding land.

Gutters and downspouts shall be used to facilitate drainage from roofs.

Hangar floor drainage shall flow through an oil/water separator in compliance with the Airport’s SWPPP and applicable Legal Requirements.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
829

DESIGN CRITERIA
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
20 ➢ Berm slopes shall not exceed two feet horizontal to one foot vertical (2:1) with a three foot wide flat crown.
➢ Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) shall provide shade trees indigenous to the area that conform to all applicable codes, ordinances, and Legal Requirements in all vehicle parking areas.

Landscaping shall also be used, consistent with all applicable codes, ordinances, and Legal Requirements, to screen unsightly items such as heating and air conditioning units, trash and recycling containers, loading docks, utility boxes, etc. Landscaping materials shall be indigenous to the State and may include such items as trees, shrubs, hedges or bushes, and ground cover such as grass or landscaping rocks. Small landscaping rock may b e permitted provided it does not create a hazard to persons or Property including aircraft.

Decorative bark and seed or fruit bearing trees will not be approved by the City.

All landscaped areas shall be irrigated by a permanent, underground irrigation system that can support the type and amount of landscaping installed. The landscape plan shall minimize the use of irrigation water.

4.16. Loading and Service Areas
In addition to being functional and aesthetically pleasing, loading and service areas shall meet the following requirements:
➢ Loading areas, loading docks, vehicle parking areas, and service areas shall be planned so the use of any one of these areas does not interfere with the use of any of other areas. ➢ All areas utilized for loading and service area shall be paved. ➢ Loading docks or service areas shall not be visible from the street. If necessary, to restrict visibility from the street, a landscaped buffer shall be installed. ➢ Loading areas shall be denoted by a yellow painted curb with the words “Loading Zone” in black lettering.

4.17. Open Sided Buildings
Buildings shall be fully enclosed. No open sided buildings shall be permitted with the exception of aircraft shade ports and/or wash racks.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
830

DESIGN CRITERIA
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
21 4.19. Residence
No building, vehicle, Equipment, or aircraft shall be used as a place of residence either on a temporary or permanent basis.

4.20. Setbacks
To provide sufficient space between Improvements and streets, to ensure adequate lighting, privacy, and sound control, and to allow for landscaping and access (including aircraft, vehicle, and Emergency Vehicle access), the following setbacks shall be met and maintained:

Minimum Building Setback Requirements
➢ Refer to the applicable zoning regulations set forth in the Livermore Development Code, Part 3, Specific to Zones.

Vehicle Parking Area Setback Requirements
➢ Parking is prohibited within a setback area.
➢ Refer to Livermore Development Code Section 4.05.30, Parking Lot Landscaping, for additional requirements within a potential setback area.

The entire setback area shall be graded and seeded, sodded, or landscaped between th e lot lines and from the Ramp to the building face in a manner that produces an acceptable lawn or landscaped area with exception of the areas which are required for Ramps, driveways, roadways, walkways, or vehicle parking areas.

4.21. Signage
Signage shall conform to applicable codes, ordinances, and Legal Requirements and be uniform and the graphics shall (a) balance identification with image; (b) communicate information in a straightforward and aesthetically pleasing manner; and (c) be compatible with surrounding Improvements, the natural environment, and the overall character of the lot. Directional signage shall improve and/or enhance the safety, security, and efficiency of aircraft, vehicle, and pedestrian movement.

A signage plan shall be submitted with the Development Plan (as outlined in Section 5.2) and approved in writing by the City prior to installation of signage.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
831

DESIGN CRITERIA
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
22 General – All existing signs, on the date of adoption of this Policy, are considered approved by the City if the signs do not create a hazard to Airport, aircraft, or vehicle operations, and/or pedestrians and if the signs comply with 14 CFR Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace.

Signage must be consistent with Livermore Development Code Chapter 4.06, Sign Standards, and City of Livermore Design Standards and Guidelines, as they exist today or are amended.

4.22. Buildings
Buildings shall be masonry, concrete, or steel frame load bearing construction.

Wood framed buildings will not be approved by the City.

4.23. Utilities
A utilities plan identifying all utilities shall be submitted with the Development Plan (as outlined in Section

5.2) and approved in writing by the City prior to construction. All utility improvements shall meet the requirements of the Agencies having jurisdiction and all applicable Legal Requirements.

Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) is responsible for the maintenance and repair of all utility lines to the site and for keeping all shutoffs readily accessible and fully functional. Lessee shall preserve existing utility easements and recognize that the potential exists to change existing easements and/or add future easements.

Utility costs and expenses for any equipment (including meters) and services (including temporary service) for the Leased Premises shall be the sole responsibility of Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) from the date of Notice to Proceed with construction.
➢ Extension of utilities to proposed facilities shall be the sole responsibility of Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable).
➢ Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) or contractor shall be responsible for returning any areas disturbed by excavation and installation of any utilities o r related equipment to the condition before construction.

All vehicle parking areas shall be paved with a weight bearing capacity that accommodates anticipated usage and the heaviest expected load.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
832

DESIGN CRITERIA
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
23 ➢ One handicapped space is required for every 25 spaces and one of every 8 handicapped accessible parking spaces, but always at least one, must be “van-accessible”.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
833

PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
24 5. PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT APPROVAL

The Development Plan shall address the function, right(s) -of-way, and widths of roadways within and adjacent to the site. The Development Plan shall identify the location, type, and extent of access to/from Airport roadways and the necessary traffic controls (if any) for each of the development’s access points.

The City will not accept incomplete submittals. One original and four copies of the Development Plan shall be organized into five self -contained packets. An electronic copy of the Development Plan shall also be provided.

To be accepted by the City, the Development Plan shall include the documents listed in the City’s Plan Set Requirements for Planning Applications handout and the following items and requirements:

Letter of Intent – This letter shall describe the proposed development and convey the anticipated construction schedule for the proposed development.

In the case of a proposal for utilization of individual wells and/or septic tanks, the Development Plan shall clearly state that wells are proposed. The City will refer the entire submittal to the appropriate Agency Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
834

PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
25 having jurisdiction to obtain an opinion on the adequacy of the proposal.

Letter from Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) – This letter shall identify the impacts of the proposed development on the LPFD (in general) and the LPFD’s capabilities of servicing the proposed development (in particular).

Engineer Stamp – All plans and drawings shall be stamped by an engineer certified or licensed in the State of California.

Waiver Request Letter – This letter, which requests a waiver to the submittal process shall identify each item for which a waiver is requested and provide detailed justification for the request. This is a separate letter and it shall not be combined with or substituted for the Letter of Intent.

Review Fee – Checks shall be made payable to the City for the total amount of fees required as stipulated by the City.

Entitlement Fees – Checks shall be made payable to the City for the total amount of fees required as stipulated in the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

Development Agreement – Copy of executed Development Agreement.

Completed FAA Form 7460-1 – Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration.

5.3. Requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration Non-Aeronautical Uses – FAA approval may be required for any project involving non-aeronautical uses.

Possible Obstructions in the Navigable Airspace – 14 CFR Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace establishes the maximum allowable heights of objects on or in the vicinity of Airport. These regulations define “imaginary surfaces” which, if penetrated by an object, would be considered an obstruction. Any planned development that would penetrate these imaginary surfaces would, most likely, not be approved by the FAA in which case, it is unlikely that the City would approve the project as well.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
835

CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
26 6. CONSTRUCTION PHASE

No construction shall be undertaken without first receiving a building permit.

6.3. Bonds
Contractor Construction Bond – Prior to the issuance of notic e to proceed, Lessee’s (Sublessee’s, if applicable) contractor shall deliver to the City and shall maintain in full force and effect throughout the entire construction period a contractor construction bond and a labor and material payment bond, each in a sum not less than 100% of the construction contract amount. These bonds shall guarantee prompt and faithful payment by contractor to all persons supplying labor, materials, sustenance, provisions, supplies, rental machinery, tools, and equipment used direc tly or indirectly by the contractor, subcontractors, vendors, and suppliers in the prosecution of the work provided for in the construction contract and shall indemnify, hold harmless, protect, and defend the City from any liability, loss, or damage associ ated with the project. These bonds shall name the Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable) as the obligee with the City being named on the dual obligee rider.

The surety company shall have a Best rating of A or better or be approved in advance and in writing by the City.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
836

CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
27 6.5. Clean-Up During Construction
The construction site and other associated areas shall be kept free of accumulated waste materials, dirt, and surplus materials. Waste materials, dirt, and surplus materials shall not be permitted to (a) create a safety, security, health, or welfare hazard to persons; (b) harm Property; (c) interfere with any activity normally occurring on the Airport; and (d) shall be disposed of in a prompt and appropriate manner, consistent with best practices. Barriers shall be used to ensure debris does not leave the construction area. ➢ The construction site shall be maintained in a clean, neat, orderly, safe, secure, efficient, and functional condition, consistent with best practices.
➢ Failure to properly maintain the construction site may result in the City conducting or contracting the clean-up at the Lessee’s (Sublessee, if applicable) or contractor’s sole risk, cost, and expense.
➢ This is not to be construed as a duty or obligation of the City to provide or arrange for such clean up services.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
837

CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
28 Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable), developers, contractors, subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, or any other entities associated with the development shall provide these inspectors and any other inspectors from Agencies having jurisdiction with unlimited access and provide the means for accessing any area of the construction site. Such inspections shall not relieve the Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable), developers, contractors, subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, or any other entities associated with the development of any responsibilities, obligations, and/or other requirements.

6.9. Protection of Property and Work in Progress
Lessee (Sublessee, if applicable), developers, contractors, subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, and any other entities associated with the development shall take all reasonable precautions to protect and ensure the safety, security, health, and welfare of persons on or near the construction site and shall take all reasonable measures to prevent injury to persons or damage to Property on or near the construction site including:
➢ all work and materials, vehicles, equipment, tools, fixtures, and furnishings at the site, whether in storage on or off the site, under the care, custody, or control of the contractor, subcontractors, or any other entities associated with the development; and ➢ all other Property at the site or adjacent to the site, including, but not limited to, lawns, vegetation, pavements, walkways, roadways, driveways, buildings, and utilities not designated for removal, relocation, or replacement.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
838

APPENDIX
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
29 7. APPENDIX

7.1. Airport Development Priorities

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
839

APPENDIX
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
30 Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
840

APPENDIX
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
31 Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
841

APPENDIX
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
32 7.2. Definitions
Agency – Any federal, state, or local governmental
entity, unit, organization, or authority.

Air Operations Area (AOA) – A portion of an airport
which includes aircraft Movement Areas, Ramps, and
safety areas, and any adjacent areas that are no t
separated by adequate security systems, measures, or
procedures.

Airport – All land, Improvements, and appurtenances
within the legal boundaries as it now exists on the
Airport Layout Plan (or Exhibit A of the most recent
FAA grant) and as it may hereina fter be modified at
Livermore Municipal Airport (LVK).

Airport Sponsor Assurances – Those contractual
obligations that are described by law in 49 U.S.C.
47107 and are undertaken by a public air port sponsor
as a condition of receipt of federal airport development grants or federal surplus Property.

Certificates of Insurance – A certificate provided by and executed by an insurance company to the City
providing evidence of the insurance coverages and
policy limits.

Commercial – For the purpose of securing earnings,
income, Compensation (including exchange or ba rter
of goods and services), and/or profit.

Equipment – All Property and machinery, together with
the necessary supplies, tools, and apparatus necessary
for the proper conduct of the Activity being performed.

Fixed Based Operator (FBO) – A Commercial Operator
engaged in the sale of products and services and the
renting or subleasing of facilities consistent with the Minimum Standards.

General Aviation – All aviation with exception of Air
Carriers and the military.

Hangar – Any fully or partially enclosed storage facility for an aircraft.

Item 7.1
Revised Leasing and Development Policy
842

APPENDIX
Leasing and Development Policy
City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport
33 Immediately – The ability to occupy Leased Premises
and offer products, services, and/or facilities (to the public) on the effective date of the Agreement. When
construction and/or alteration of facilities are involved, immediately shall mean the ability to obtain a
certificate of occupancy from the authorizing Agency
for the proposed facilities within 18 months following
the possession of the Leased Premises.

Improvements – All buildings, structures, additions,
and fa cilities including pavement, fencing, and
landscaping constructed, installed, or placed on, under, or above any land on the Airport.

Legal Requirements – All applicable federal, state,
City, and local laws, codes, ordinances, executive
orders, policies, and regulations.

Leased Premises – The land and/or Improvements used
exclusively under Agreement by a Tenant.

Lessee – An entity that has entered into an Agreement
to occupy, use, and/or develop land and/or
Improvements.

Minimum Standards – Primary Management and
Compliance Document that sets forth those
qualifications, standards, and cri teria set forth as the minimum requirements to be met as a condition for the
right to engage in Activities at the Airport, as may be amended from time to time.

Movement Area – The Runways, Taxiways, and other
areas of the Airport which are utilized for taxiing, hover taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft (exclusive of aircraft parking, loading, unloading, fueling, and
servicing areas) where aircraft are moved with radio
contact with ATC or other aircraft. The Movement
Area includes all areas under th e direct and positive
control of ATC. Specific approval for entry onto the
movement area must be obtained from ATC.