Agenda packet — Livermore City Council, July 27, 2026 (part 8 of 8)

ORDER NO. : 0227023750

EXHIBIT A
The land referred to is situated in the County of Alameda, City of Livermore, State of California, and is described as follows:

Beginning at the Northwest corner of Plot F of the Rancho Las Positas, running thence North 89° 49 East, 24.65 chains; thence South 74° 15’ East, 16.10 chains; thence South 68° 55’ East

12.90 chains; thence South 38° 14’ East, 13.84 chains; thence South 83° 7’ West, 21.76 chains; thence South 4° 40’ West 8.18 chains; thence North 57° 04’ West, 7.68 chains; thence North 65° 44’ West, 5.885 chains; thence South 83° 18’ West, 25.80 chains; thence North 2° 11’ West, 27.02 chains to the point of beginning.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM, that portion conveyed to the State of California in the Grant Deed recorded September 30, 1952, Book 6837, Page 111, Official Records.

APN: 902-0008-001
DOCUMENT NO.: 97239605
EXHIBIT "A"
PAGE 1 OF 2

EXHIBIT B
849
N89°49'00"E 1626.90'
(24.65 CH) S74°15'00"E 1062.60' (16.10 CH)
S68°55'00"E 851.40' (12.90 CH) S38°14'00"E (13.84 CH) 913.44' S83°07'00"W 1436.16' (21.76 CH) S4°40'00"W 539.88' (8.18 CH) N57°04'00"W 506.88' (7.68 CH) S83°18'00"W 1702.80' (25.80 CH) N2°11'00"W 1783.32' (27.02 CH) N65°44'00"W
388.41'
(5.885 CH)
S2°26'15"W

10.11'
N83°27'10"E 684.28'

10.03'
1035.76' 1773.29' ADVENTUS PROPERTY
122.503±AC
P.O.B.

IBM 1"=600' 29201.000
DRAWN DATE SCALE JOB NO.

PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION

LIVERMORE

ADVENTUS PROPERTY

CALIFORNIA
LEGEND

BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION

EXISTING PARCEL

CH CHAINS
P.O.B POINT OF BEGINNING
EXHIBIT "A"
PAGE 2 OF 2
JUNE 2026

EXHIBIT B
850
I-580TRAIL TRAIL REDWOOD ROAD SPRINGTOWN BLVD. LAS COLINAS ROAD PARK HDR1 DEVELOPMENT AREA 211-274 DU CONNECTION ROADCONNECTION ROAD MDR2 / MDR3 DEVELOPMENT AREA 258-370 DU MDR2 / MDR3 DEVELOPMENT AREA 136-238 DU CONSTRAINTS LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY (APPROX.) DEVELOPMENT AREAS 100-YEAR FLOOD FLOODWAY DEVELOPEMENT LEGEND MDR2 / MDR3 DEVELOPMENT AREA PARK TRAIL NOTE: THIS EXHIBIT IS INCLUDES A CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN'S GOALS AND POLICIES. THE ACTUAL CONFIGURATION, DENSITY, AND FOOTPRINT OF DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS/LOTS/BUILDINGS, ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE DESIGNATED MDR-2, MDR-3, AND HDR-1 AREAS, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO DETERMINATION IF AND WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER SEEKS ADOPTION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING, AND OTHER SUBSEQUENT APPROVALS, AT WHICH TIME APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF SITE-SPECIFIC REVIEW AND PLANNING WILL OCCUR. HDR1 DEVELOPMENT AREA

EXHIBIT
B
851

EXHIBIT B
852
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 7.5
DATE: July 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brandon Cardwell, Innovation and Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Hearing to introduce an ordinance and waive the first reading authorizing the first amendment to Development Agreement 08-002 (“Agreement”) with McGrath RentCorp (DAA 26-002). The Agreement term would be extended 30 years to 2059, the Agreement boundary would be adjusted, and the Property Owner Obligations would be modified to:
1) effectuate a commercial land transfer to a high-value commercial user; and 2) secure support for 2045 General Plan and Midtown Area planning objectives.

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

1. Adopt a Resolution finding that the first amendment to Development Agreement 08-002 with McGrath RentCorp is exempt under CEQA; and

2. Introduce an Ordinance, and waive the first reading, authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to Development Agreement 08-002 with McGrath RentCorp (DAA 26-002).

SUMMARY
McGrath RentCorp (McGrath) owns approximately 130 acres within the proposed Midtown Specific Plan Area (Midtown), is party to an existing Development Agreement with the City, and initially opposed aspects of the Midtown planning effort during preparation of the 2045 General Plan Update. At the City Council’s direction, staff worked with McGrath to develop a solution that would allow McGrath’s existing industrial operations to continue while supporting the City’s long-term Midtown planning objectives. Staff proposes amending McGrath's existing agreement (Amended Agreement) to provide a framework for future planning, support future residential development opportunities, facilitate conveyance of the northern portion of the site to a high-value commercial user, extend the Development Agreement term, and adjust the agreement boundary to allow McGrath's continued operations. Related General Plan and Zoning Map changes would designate the northern parcel as Service Commercial to facilitate high-value commercial user operations. The Amended Agreement is exempt from CEQA because it does not approve a development project or authorize construction. The Amended Agreement is expected to provide fiscal benefits to the City, supports the City's Strategic Plan goals, and is consistent with General Plan goals and policies. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended City Council approval. 853

DISCUSSION
Background
Since 2021, at the direction of the City Council, staff has been preparing the 2045 General Plan Update, which identifies the Midtown Specific Plan Area (Midtown) as a future mixed-use area that would include a balance of housing, commercial, office, and industrial uses. McGrath RentCorp (McGrath) is the largest single property owner within Midtown, owning approximately 130 acres generally located between Southfront Road and Las Positas Road as identified in Attachment 1. McGrath operates a mobile modular commercial-industrial business on the property and is party to an existing Development Agreement with the City, originally approved in 2008, that vests McGrath’s commercial and industrial land use rights through 2029 (Attachment 2).

During the General Plan outreach process, McGrath expressed opposition to aspects of the Midtown planning effort, including inclusion of its property in Midtown Specific Plan Area and the potential future mix of uses and residential densities. On February 24, 2025, the City Council directed staff to work with McGrath and return with a solution that could advance the goals of both parties. Staff has since negotiated with McGrath and now proposes an amendment to the existing Development Agreement (Amended Agreement). McGrath has agreed to the proposed terms, and the signed Amended Agreement is included as Attachment 9.

Purpose and Effect of the Amended Agreement
The proposed Amended Agreement would establish a framework for future planning and development of the McGrath property in relation to Midtown while allowing McGrath’s existing industrial use to continue.

The Amended Agreement does not approve a development project, and no changes are proposed to the original agreement’s definition of “Project.” Future development proposals would continue to require applicable design review, entitlements, environmental review, and other regulatory approvals.

The Amended Agreement supports implementation of the 2045 General Plan by securing McGrath’s support for future residential planning on the property and facilitating a related General Plan land use map and zoning map change to support a high-value commercial user on the northern portion of the site.

Together, these provisions resolve McGrath’s principal concerns while allowing the City to continue advancing its long-term vision for Midtown.

Principal Terms
The Amended Agreement includes several principal terms that balance McGrath’s need for operational flexibility with the City’s goals for future Midtown planning, housing opportunities, and economic development. The major terms and related City benefits are summarized below:

Support for future residential planning. McGrath would not oppose future residential densities of MDR 4 (18-22 dwelling units per acre) and HDR 1 (23-30 dwelling units per acre) on the property. These densities would not be applied through the Amended Agreement, but could be considered through the future Midtown Specific Plan or another zoning action. This support benefits the City by advancing the long-term Midtown mixed-use vision and providing additional Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) flexibility, including potential use of the site for Net 854
Loss units in the Sixth RHNA Cycle or as a Housing Inventory site in future RHNA cycles.

Conveyance of the northern approximately 40 acres. McGrath would be required to convey the northern approximately 40 acres of the property to a high-value commercial user, subject to City Manager approval. The conveyance must occur by January 15, 2027, unless extended by mutual agreement, and the Amended Agreement would not become operative unless and until the property is conveyed to an approved high-value commercial user. This term benefits the City by facilitating a major commercial employment and revenue-generating use adjacent to Midtown. If completed, the prospective user is expected to generate approximately $900,000 to $1 million in annual tax revenue, provide approximately 400 to 600 jobs, and become one of the City’s top ten tax generators.

Development Agreement term extension. In consideration of McGrath’s obligations, the City would extend the Development Agreement term by 30 years, through 2059, continuing to vest the industrial land uses described in the original agreement. This extension provides McGrath with operational certainty, which is necessary to secure McGrath’s support for future residential planning and the commercial property conveyance. The extension does not preclude future cessation of the existing use, establishment of a new use consistent with the 2045 General Plan, adoption of a Midtown Specific Plan, or consideration of the property for RHNA purposes.

Development Agreement boundary adjustment. The Amended Agreement would remove the northern approximately 40-acre commercial parcel from the Development Agreement area and add property under McGrath ownership south of Las Positas Road to support McGrath’s continuing operations. This adjustment benefits the City by aligning the Development Agreement boundary with the contemplated commercial conveyance while maintaining sufficient area for McGrath’s ongoing business operations, allowing the City to advance the agreement without immediately displacing an existing employer.

General Plan and Zoning Map Change
The Amended Agreement is related to a proposed 2045 General Plan land use map change and Livermore Zoning Map change for the McGrath property. The map previously reviewed by the City Council designated all approximately 130 acres of the McGrath property as Midtown Specific Plan Area.

The revised map would retain the southern approximately 90 acres within Midtown and designate the northern approximately 40-acre parcel as Service Commercial.

The Service Commercial designation would provide compatible land use and zoning for the future highvalue commercial user, support the contemplated property conveyance, and preserve the balance of the McGrath property for future Midtown planning. The City Council will consider the proposed map change as part of the General Plan adoption item at the July 27 meeting, in advance of this item.

General Plan Consistency and Public Benefit
Livermore Development Code Section 9.04.050(D) requires the City Council to find that a development agreement is consistent with the General Plan and provides benefit to the City. The Amended Agreement satisfies these requirements because it supports implementation of the 2045 General Plan, advances the City’s long-term Midtown planning objectives, secures McGrath’s support for future housing opportunities, and facilitates a high-value commercial use expected to generate substantial jobs 855
and long-term City revenues. The formal findings are found in Attachment 7.

The complete findings supporting approval of the Amended Agreement are included in the attached Development Agreement ordinance.

PLANNING COMMISSION
On July 7, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Amended Agreement, related California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination, public testimony, and required findings. The Planning Commission unanimously adopted resolutions recommending that the City Council find the Amended Agreement exempt from CEQA and approve the Amended Agreement. A complete discussion of the project background, negotiations, General Plan consistency, public benefits, and environmental determination is included in the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 3) and meeting minutes (Attachment 4).

PILLAR

2. Economy That Prospers
GOAL

5. Facilitate the development of commercial and industrial projects that provide high-quality local jobs and support a diverse local economy.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
The Development Agreement application fees paid by McGrath are intended to recover the City’s costs associated with processing the application, including staff time for negotiation, analysis, public hearing preparation, and preparation of the Development Agreement amendment and related resolutions and ordinance.

Approval of the Amended Agreement would not itself approve a development project or authorize construction. Therefore, there are no direct fiscal impacts associated with physical development at this time. However, if the northern approximately 40-acre parcel is conveyed to an approved high-value commercial user and the user locates in Livermore, the business is expected to generate approximately $900,000 to $1 million in annual tax revenue and provide approximately 400 to 600 jobs. Future development proposals would be subject to separate review, applicable fees, and any required fiscal or environmental analysis at the time they are proposed.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Development Agreement Amendment does not approve a development project. Instead, it extends existing vested land use rights and allows an existing business to continue its current operations. For these reasons, the Development Agreement Amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). The complete CEQA analysis is included in the attached CEQA resolution (Attachment 5).

ATTACHMENTS
856

1. Location Map

2. Original Development Agreement

3. Planning Commission Staff Report

4. Planning Commission Minutes

5. Resolution - CEQA

6. Exhibit A - Planning Commission CEQA Resolution

7. Ordinance - Development Agreement

8. Exhibit A - Planning Commission Development Agreement Resolution

9. Exhibit B - Amended Agreement
Prepared by: Jake Potter
Economic Development Manager
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna A. Burch
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Kristen Hilton
Acting Administrative Services Director
857
³
Livermore City Limits
Alameda County
RGB
Red: Band_1
Green: Band_2
Blue: Band_3

ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
LEGEND

CITY OF
Path: /Web Map
Location Map
Date: 6/30/2026
0 542 1,083
ft
1" = 1,083'
ATTACHMENT 1
858
ATTACHMENT 2
859
ATTACHMENT 2
860
ATTACHMENT 2
861
ATTACHMENT 2
862
ATTACHMENT 2
863
ATTACHMENT 2
864
ATTACHMENT 2
865
ATTACHMENT 2
866
ATTACHMENT 2
867
ATTACHMENT 2
868
ATTACHMENT 2
869
ATTACHMENT 2
870
ATTACHMENT 2
871
ATTACHMENT 2
872
ATTACHMENT 2
873
ATTACHMENT 2
874
ATTACHMENT 2
875
ATTACHMENT 2
876
ATTACHMENT 2
877
ATTACHMENT 2
878
ATTACHMENT 2
879
ATTACHMENT 2
880
ATTACHMENT 2
881
ATTACHMENT 2
882
ATTACHMENT 2
883
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 5.3
DATE: July 7, 2026
TO: Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brandon Cardwell, Innovation and Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Hearing to consider a request for the first amendment to Development Agreement 08- 002 (“Agreement”) with McGrath RentCorp (DAA 26-002). The Agreement term would be extended 30 years to 2059, the Agreement boundary would be adjusted, and the Property Owner obligations would be modified to: 1) effectuate a commercial land transfer to a high-revenue commercial user; and 2) secure support for 2045 General Plan and Midtown Area planning objectives.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following resolutions, recommending the City Council:

1. Find that the first amendment to Development Agreement 08-002 with McGrath RentCorp is exempt under CEQA; and

2. Adopt an Ordinance to approve the first amendment to Development Agreement 08-002 with McGrath RentCorp (DAA 26-002).

SUMMARY
Since 2021, the City has been preparing the General Plan 2045 update, including the Midtown Specific Plan Area, which is envisioned as a future mixed-use area that balances housing, commercial, office, and industrial uses. McGrath RentCorp owns approximately 130 acres within Midtown and is the largest single property owner in the area. McGrath operates an existing mobile modular commercial-industrial business on the property and is party to a 2008 Development Agreement with the City that vests commercial and industrial land use rights through 2029.

The 130-acre project site is made up of numerous parcels located at 5605 and 5327 Southfront Road and 5700, 5699 and 5698 Las Positas Road with the following APNs: 99-40-72, 99-40-73, 99-40-74, 99- 40-75, 99-40-76, 99-40-77, 99-40-78, 99-40,79 and 99-40-80. See Attachment 1 - Location Map.

Following property owner outreach and McGrath’s stated opposition to aspects of the Midtown planning effort, the City Council directed staff to negotiate a compromise that could advance the City’s long-term ATTACHMENT 3
884
planning objectives while addressing the Property Owner’s interests. The proposed Development Agreement Amendment would not approve a new development project, but would establish a framework for future planning, allow McGrath’s existing operations to continue, secure McGrath’s support for future residential planning, and facilitate conveyance of the northern approximately 40 acres to a high-value commercial user. The term of the Development Agreement would be extended to 2059.

The related General Plan 2045 land use map change would retain approximately 90 acres within the Midtown Specific Plan Area and designate the northern parcel as Service Commercial. Staff finds that the amendment is consistent with General Plan 2045 and provides public benefits by supporting future housing opportunities, advancing Midtown implementation, and facilitating commercial development expected to generate long-term fiscal and employment benefits for the City.

DISCUSSION
Background and General Plan Context
Since 2021, at the direction of the City Council, City staff has been preparing the General Plan 2045 update. As part of that effort, the City Council, Planning Commission, and the council-appointed General Plan Advisory Committee have reviewed draft land use maps, policies, and Focus Areas where land use changes are anticipated over the planning horizon.

The largest Focus Area is the Midtown Specific Plan Area (Midtown), which is primarily composed of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Southfront Priority Development Area (PDA). Midtown also includes existing developed areas, including local shopping districts and the Arroyo Vista Neighborhood Plan area.

The General Plan 2045 envisions Midtown as a future mixed-use area that balances housing, commercial, office, and industrial uses and functions as a complete community, regardless of whether or when a future transit station is developed (e.g. Valley Link). Following General Plan adoption, the City would prepare a specific plan to establish land uses, circulation improvements, development standards, design requirements, infrastructure and service needs, and other implementing provisions for Midtown.

McGrath Property and Existing Development Agreement
McGrath RentCorp (McGrath or the Property Owner) is the largest single property owner within Midtown.

McGrath owns approximately 130 acres generally located between Southfront Road and Las Positas Road, as shown in Attachment 1. McGrath is a publicly traded mobile modular commercial-industrial business that fabricates and sells modular structures on-site.

McGrath and the City are also parties to an existing Development Agreement, originally approved in 2008, that vests McGrath’s commercial and industrial land use rights through 2029. The Original Agreement was approved to secure dedication of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) right-of-way, as shown in Attachment 2. The Original Agreement did not approve a specific development project; instead, the “Project” consisted of vesting the land uses in effect at the time of adoption. Future development projects remained subject to all applicable regulations, permits, entitlements, and approvals.

Property Owner Engagement and Direction from City Council ATTACHMENT 3
885
From 2021 to 2022, City staff conducted outreach to property owners within Midtown, consistent with the City’s standard practice when considering land use changes in a specific planning area. Through those discussions, McGrath and the City did not reach agreement regarding the inclusion of McGrath’s property in Midtown, the appropriate future mix of uses and residential densities, or an approach that addressed both the City’s long-term planning objectives and the Property Owner’s interests. McGrath subsequently submitted written correspondence to the City Council expressing opposition to aspects of the concept plan being developed for the Midtown focus area.

On February 24, 2025, the City Council directed staff to work with McGrath, seek a compromise, and return with a solution that would advance the goals of both parties. Staff has since negotiated with McGrath and now proposes an amendment to the existing Development Agreement (Amended Agreement). McGrath has agreed to the proposed terms, and the signed Amended Agreement is included as Exhibit A.

Purpose and Effect of the Amended Agreement
The proposed Amended Agreement would establish a framework for future planning and development of the McGrath property in relation to Midtown, while allowing McGrath’s existing industrial use to continue.

The Amended Agreement does not approve a development project, and no changes are proposed to the Original Agreement’s definition of “Project.” However, the Amended Agreement would clarify and expand the subsequent approvals provisions to confirm that any future development project remains subject to all applicable design review, entitlement, and environmental review requirements.

The Amended Agreement also supports implementation of General Plan 2045 by securing McGrath’s support for future residential planning on the property and by facilitating a related land use map change that would support a high-value commercial user on the northern portion of the site. Together, these provisions help resolve McGrath’s concerns while allowing the City to continue advancing its long-term vision for Midtown.

Principal Terms of the Amended Agreement
The Amended Agreement includes obligations for both McGrath and the City.

McGrath Obligations
McGrath would support future residential densities of MDR 4 (18-22 dwelling units per acre) and HDR 1 (23-30 dwelling units per acre) on the property. These densities would not be applied through the Amended Agreement itself, but could be considered through the future Midtown Specific Plan or another zoning action. This support is important to the City’s long-term Midtown objectives and provides additional Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) flexibility, including the potential use of the site for Net Loss units in the Sixth RHNA Cycle or as a Housing Inventory site in the Seventh or Eighth RHNA Cycle.

McGrath would also be required to convey the northern approximately 40 acres of the property to a highvalue commercial user, subject to approval by the City Manager. The conveyance must occur by January 15, 2027, unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties. The City may request information necessary to evaluate the proposed user, including employment and fiscal impact data. The Amended Agreement would not become operative unless and until the property is conveyed to an approved highATTACHMENT 3 886
value commercial user.

As of publication of this report, McGrath is engaged with a prospective high-value commercial user and is processing a purchase and sale agreement. Due to the confidential nature of ongoing real estate negotiations, City staff cannot publicly identify the user at this time. However, staff supports the prospective business because it would meet the Amended Agreement’s high-value commercial objective. If the transaction is completed and the user locates in Livermore, the business is expected to generate approximately $900,000 to $1 million in annual tax revenue and provide approximately 400 to 600 jobs. The business would also be expected to become one of the City’s top ten tax generators.

City Obligations
In consideration of McGrath’s obligations, the City would extend the term of the Development Agreement by 30 years, through 2059. This extension would continue to vest the industrial land uses described in the Original Agreement and provide McGrath with long-term operational flexibility. The extension would not preclude future cessation of the existing use, establishment of a new use consistent with General Plan 2045, adoption of a Midtown Specific Plan, or consideration of the property for RHNA purposes.

The Amended Agreement would also adjust the Development Agreement boundary. The northern approximately 40-acre commercial parcel would be removed from the Development Agreement area because it would be conveyed to a separate high-value commercial user that is not a party to the agreement. Property under McGrath ownership south of Las Positas Road would be added to the Development Agreement area to maintain sufficient space for McGrath’s ongoing mobile modular fabrication, storage, and sales operations.

General Plan 2045 Land Use Map Change
The proposed Amended Agreement resulted in one related modification to the General Plan 2045 land use map and the Livermore Zoning Map. The Planning Commission will consider those map changes as part of the General Plan 2045 item at its July 7 meeting before considering the McGrath Development Agreement Amendment.

The land use map previously reviewed by the Planning Commission designated all approximately 130 acres of the McGrath property as Midtown Specific Plan Area. The revised land use map would retain the southern approximately 90 acres within the Midtown Specific Plan Area and designate the northern approximately 40-acre parcel as Service Commercial. This designation would allow the future commercial user to operate by right, providing certainty necessary to support the contemplated property conveyance.

General Plan Consistency and Public Benefit
Livermore Development Code Section 9.04.050(D) requires the Planning Commission and City Council to find that a development agreement is consistent with the General Plan and provides benefit to the City. Because the General Plan 2045 will be considered before the McGrath Development Agreement Amendment, it is appropriate to evaluate the Amended Agreement for consistency with General Plan 2045 rather than the 2003 General Plan.

ATTACHMENT 3
887
The proposed Amended Agreement implements and is consistent with General Plan 2045 because it supports the formation of Midtown, secures Property Owner support for future housing opportunities, and facilitates commercial development that would generate stable long-term City revenues. More specifically, the Amended Agreement supports the following General Plan 2045 policies:

Policy LU-15.1: Midtown Neighborhood — Create a complete, mixed-use, transit-supportive environment that balances housing, commercial, office, and industrial uses.

Policy LU-15.5: Midtown Job Opportunities — Create job opportunities through industrial/office uses including research and development facilities, manufacturing capabilities, and laboratory spaces.

Policy ED-4.1: Balanced Development — Balance a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial development to support local employment opportunities, a diverse economy, and a sustainable tax base.

Policy ED-5.1: Capacity for Economic Growth — Designate land uses to provide sufficient capacity for economic growth and vitality in Livermore. Maintain capacity for a variety of land development opportunities in commercial and industrial sectors as well as other desired land uses.

Policy ED-5.2: Fiscal Sustainability Through Land Use — Provide a land use mix that generates stable, long-term revenues to fund City services, and ensure that fiscal impacts and long-term sustainability are key considerations in land use and development decision making.

The Amended Agreement would provide several public benefits. It would support a viable path for future housing on the McGrath property through the Midtown Specific Plan or another future zoning action, while providing RHNA flexibility for the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth RHNA Cycles. It would allow the City to move forward with mixed-use Midtown policies and land use designations in General Plan 2045. It would also facilitate conveyance of the northern commercial parcel to a high-value commercial user expected to generate approximately $900,000 to $1 million in annual tax revenue and approximately 400 to 600 jobs.

A complete list of findings required under Livermore Development Code Section 9.04.050(D) is included in the attached development agreement resolution, Attachment 4.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Development Agreement Amendment does not approve a development project. Instead, it extends existing vested land use rights and allows an existing business to continue its current operations. For these reasons, the Development Agreement Amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). The complete CEQA findings are included in the CEQA Resolution, Attachment 3.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Location Map

2. Original Development Agreement

3. Resolution CEQA

4. Resolution Development Agreement

5. Exhibit A - Amended Agreement
ATTACHMENT 3
888
Prepared by: Jake Potter
Economic Development Manager
ATTACHMENT 3
889
JULY 7, 2026 Draft Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION

DRAFT MINUTES

PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 7, 2026
________________________________________________________________

REGULAR MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER – The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Tracy Kronzak at 7:00 pm, held in person at 1016 S. Livermore Avenue.

ROLL CALL – Present: Chairperson Tracy Kronzak, Vice Chairperson Charity Steele, Commissioner Jacob Anderson, Commissioner Yolanda Fintschenko, Commissioner Nadine Horner.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Kronzak led the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. OPEN FORUM
Chairperson Kronzak opened the public comment period.

Greg Scott addressed the Commission regarding the inclusion of UC Berkley and UC Davis in the Land Grant Colleges; water crisis; and growth predictions in the General Plan update.

There were no more speakers, and the public comment period was closed.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR

ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER FINTSCHENKO, AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE (WITH

COMMISSIONER HORNER ABSTAINING), THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3.1:

3.1 Approval of the June 16, 2026 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes Chairperson Kronzak opened the public comment period.

There were no speakers, and the public comment period was closed.

4. PROJECT REVIEW - NONE
ATTACHMENT 4
890
PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 7, 2026

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.1 Hearing to consider a resolution recommending certification of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, approval of the Livermore General Plan 2045, and approval of conforming Zoning Map Amendments establishing a long-term vision, goals, policies, implementation actions and land use designations to guide future decision-making related to growth, development, and resource conservation through 2045.

Recommendation:

Staff recommend the Planning Commission adopt separate resolutions recommending the City Council:
• Certify the General Plan 2045 Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) • Adopt Livermore General Plan 2045, subject to the revisions identified in the Errata Sheet dated July 7, 2026 (GPA 21-003)
• Adopt an ordinance making conforming amendments to the Livermore Zoning Map (ZMA 26-001)
• Retain Existing General Plan Scenic Corridor Policy (under separate cover) until new Scenic Resources policies are considered at a future date (POL 26-002).

Andy Ross, Principal Planner, presented the staff report.

Chairperson Kronzak clarified the difference between a programmatic EIR and mitigation measures established in a project specific EIR; purpose of a neighborhood plan; and contemplated update for the Climate Action Plan.

Chairperson Kronzak opened the public comment period.

There were no speakers, and the public comment period was closed.

Commissioner Anderson commended staff for their work on the update; highlighted the theme of making housing changes while updating the framework to accommodate those changes, therefore establishing less than significant impacts; and expressed enthusiasm and appreciation.

Commissioner Horner echoed appreciation to staff and the community and noted that plans worked.

Commissioner Fintschenko echoed the gratitude expressed by the other Commissioners.

Vice Chair Steele thanked staff for the thorough review and clear presentation; and the community for its input.

Chairperson Kronzak expressed gratitude to staff and the community; and acknowledged the compassionate, visionary, adaptive and inclusionary outcome.

ATTACHMENT 4
891
JULY 7, 2026 Draft Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION

ON THE MOTION OF CHAIRPERSON KRONZAK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS:

Resolution 11-26 Recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2045 and Zoning Map Amendment and Adopt California Environmental Quality Act Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Resolution 12-26 Recommending that the City Council approve Livermore General Plan 2045.

Resolution 13-26 Recommending that the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Approving Zoning Map Amendment 26-001 to conform with the General Plan 2045.

Resolution 14-26 Recommending approval of Policy Proposal (POL) 26-002 for the Scenic Resources Policy to implement the General Plan 2045 Community Identity Element.

5.2 Hearing to consider an ordinance authorizing Development Agreement 24- 004 to establish a framework and secure vested rights for a future residential project on approximately 50 developable acres within a 122-acre property at 3658 Las Colinas Road (Assessor Parcel Number 902-8-1). The Development Agreement does not propose or authorize a specific development project or physical development, and future implementation actions would be subject to subsequent approvals.

Recommendation:

Staff recommend the Planning Commission adopt the following resolutions recommending the City Council:

1. Find that the Development Agreement is within the scope of the certified General Plan 2045 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183 and that the Agreement itself has no potential to cause a significant environmental effect and is therefore exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). No additional environmental review is required;

2. Adopt an Ordinance authorizing Development Agreement (DA) 24-004.

Shannon Pagan, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.

Chairperson Kronzak opened the public comment period.

Paul Bongiovanni, Adventus, congratulated the City on the General Plan; thanked the Commission for its consideration of the Development Agreement; and explained the significant infill property, and proceeds from the sale as part of planned reorganization to the Diocese.

ATTACHMENT 4
892
PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 7, 2026
Chairperson Kronzak confirmed that the project would be covered by a future scenic overlay; and an Neighborhood Plan with Planned Development Zoning to ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood.

Greg Scott expressed concern with destroying the last remaining scenic corridor and impacting sacred ground; the need to rebuild the Las Collinas overpass; and housing crisis.

William Vidalin, 3680 Las Colinas Road, expressed concern about the impact to their family ranch due to traffic; misaligned overpass; and need for two bridges.

Ian Vidalin, 3680 Las Colinas Road, expressed concern with encroachment and traffic with adjacent developments and the need for County officials to inspect the County parcel and conduct a rigorous traffic study; and provided copies of the property boundaries survey to the Planning Commission clerk.

Robert Downs, East Bay Residents for Responsible Development, representing the building trades organizations, referenced their July 6, 2026, letter; indicated support for the development; and requested inclusion of workforce standards in the Development Agreement.

There were no additional speakers, and the public comment period was closed.

Commissioner Anderson confirmed that neighborhood compatibility and technical studies would be considered during site plan and design review; that the Development Agreement was part of an exchange and would provide better connectivity for Springtown, trail completions, contributions to the Community Benefit Fund; and discussed the use of workforce labor.

Commissioner Horner thanked staff and Diocese; discussed the give and take in the agreement; desire for the Diocese to build the high school on an alternate site in Livermore; and belief that the future project would consider the concerns of community.

Commissioner Fintschenko thanked staff and the applicant; and discussed the neighbors’ concerns. Senior Planner Pagan explained that, before any development could occur on the subject property, the parcel would first need to be sold, and a development proposal submitted by a future developer. The proposal would then be reviewed through the entitlement process, including preparation of a Neighborhood Plan with Planned Development zoning, subdivision mapping, and site plan design review. In addition, the necessary technical studies and site-specific environmental analysis would also be completed concurrently with these entitlement steps. Commissioner Fintschenko reviewed the requested actions before the Planning Commission and opportunities for community input.

Vice Chair Steele expressed appreciation for staff’s presentation and acknowledged the public’s concerns.

ATTACHMENT 4
893
JULY 7, 2026 Draft Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION
In response to Chairperson Kronzak, Senior Planner Pagan and Principal Planner Ross explained the requirements under CEQA to notify the Tribe and comments received; and the neighborhood notification and outreach process.

In response to Commissioner Fintschenko, Principal Planner Ross explained the use of Community Benefit Funds.

ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER HORNER, SECONDED BY VICE
CHAIRPERSON STEELE AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS:

Resolution 15-26 Recommending the City Council find that the Development Agreement 24-004 for the Adventus Las Colinas Road Property is within the scope of the General Plan 2045 Environmental Impact Report pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(B)(3).

Resolution 16-26 Recommending that the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Approving Development Agreement 24-004 for the Adventus Las Colinas Road Property.

RECESS
Chairperson Kronzak called a recess at 8:25 pm. The meeting was reconvened at 8:30 pm with all Commissioners present.

5.3 Hearing to consider a request for the first amendment to Development Agreement 08-002 (“Agreement”) with McGrath RentCorp (DAA 26-002).

The Agreement term would be extended 30 years to 2059, the Agreement boundary would be adjusted, and the Property Owner obligations would be modified to: 1) effectuate a commercial land transfer to a high-revenue commercial user; and 2) secure support for 2045 General Plan and Midtown Area planning objectives.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following resolutions recommending the City Council:

1. Find that the first amendment to Development Agreement 08-002 with McGrath RentCorp is exempt under CEQA; and

2. Adopt an Ordinance to approve the first amendment to Development Agreement 08-002 with McGrath RentCorp (DAA 26-002).

Jake Potter, Economic Development Manager, presented the staff report.

Mike Bray, McGrath RentCorp, discussed the existing property and use and requested amendment to allow continued operations.

Chairperson Kronzak opened the public comment period.

ATTACHMENT 4
894
PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 7, 2026
There were no speakers, and the public comment period was closed.

Commissioner Anderson suggested the proposed amendment is the best outcome considering the circumstances.

Commissioner Horner thanked the owners for coming and acknowledged that housing would be ideal but the business had been in operation for decades.

Commissioner Fintschenko thanked staff and the applicant and indicated the findings could be made.

Vice Chair Steele thanked the City and applicant for coming to the compromise and indicated support for the recommendations.

Chairperson Kronzak expressed appreciation and indicated the findings could be made.

ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER HORNER, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER FINTSCHENKO AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:

Resolution 17-26 Recommending the City Council find that the First Amendment to Development Agreement 08-002 (DAA 26-002) with Mcgrath RentCorp is Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 And 15061(B)(3).

Resolution 18-26 Recommending that the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Approving the First Amendment to Development Agreement 08-002 (DAA 26-002) with McGrath RentCorp.

6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION - NONE

7. MATTERS INITIATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF - NONE

8. ADJOURNMENT – at 8:47 pm to a Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, July 21, 2026 at 7:00 pm, Civic Center Meeting Hall, City Council Chambers, 1016 S. Livermore Avenue.

ATTACHMENT 4
895
1 RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 08-002 (DAA 26-002) WITH MCGRATH RENTCORP IS EXEMPT

UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15301 (EXISTING FACILITIES) AND 15061(B)(3) (COMMON SENSE) In 2021, the City Council directed City staff to begin preparing a comprehensive update to Livermore’s 2003 General Plan. The updated General Plan is known as General Plan 2045.

General Plan 2045 identifies several Focus Areas where future land use changes are anticipated, including the Midtown Specific Plan Area (“Midtown”), which is envisioned as a future mixed-use area that balances housing, commercial, office, and industrial uses.

McGrath RentCorp (“McGrath” or the “Property Owner”) owns approximately 130 acres generally located between Southfront Road and Las Positas Road and operates an existing mobile modular commercial-industrial business on the property.

The 130-acre site is made up of numerous parcels located at 5605 and 5327 Southfront Road and 5700, 5699 and 5698 Las Positas Road with the following APNs:
99-40-72, 99-40-73, 99-40-74, 99-40-75, 99-40-76, 99-40-77, 99-40-78, 99-40,79 and 99- 40-80.

Following City Council direction on February 24, 2025, City staff negotiated with McGrath regarding a proposed amendment to the Original Agreement. McGrath has agreed to the proposed terms of the First Amendment to Development Agreement 08- 002 (“Amended Agreement” or “Project”) (DAA 26-002).

The proposed Amended Agreement would establish a framework for future planning and development of the McGrath property in relation to Midtown, allow McGrath’s existing industrial use to continue, extend the Development Agreement term through 2059, adjust the Development Agreement boundary, secure McGrath’s support for future residential planning, and require conveyance of the northern approximately 40 acres to a high-value commercial user, subject to City approval.

The Amended Agreement does not approve a development project, authorize construction, approve site-specific development plans, or allow physical changes to the property. Future development projects would remain subject to applicable discretionary approvals, development standards, and environmental review. 896
2 RESOLUTION NO. ________
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires public agencies to evaluate the potential environmental effects of discretionary projects before approving or carrying out such projects, unless the activity is not a project or is otherwise exempt from CEQA.

City staff reviewed the proposed Amended Agreement and determined that it is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, Existing Facilities, and 15061(b)(3), Common Sense, because the Amended Agreement would allow continuation of an existing use and would not authorize any physical development or activity that could result in a significant effect on the environment.

On July 7, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Amended Agreement, the CEQA determination, staff recommendations, all public comments and testimony, and findings, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-26, attached hereto as Exhibit A, recommending the City Council find the Amended Agreement exempt from CEQA.

On July 27, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Amended Agreement, Planning Commission and staff recommendations, all public comments and testimony, and findings.

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore has considered the findings made in Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-26, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the City Council hereby adopts the same findings by this reference and incorporates them as their own findings as part of this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, based upon the City Council’s own independent review of the Record Evidence and considerations, the City Council hereby determines that the Amended Agreement is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15061(b)(3).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore directs the Planning Manager to file a Notice of Exemption with the Alameda County Clerk if the Project is approved.

The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, in Livermore, California. This resolution shall be effective upon adoption by the City Council. 897
3 RESOLUTION NO. ________
On motion of Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council Member _______________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on July 27, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ /s/ Katherine Mirassou
Helena Graves Katherine Mirassou
Acting City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-26
898

EXHIBIT A
899

EXHIBIT A
900

EXHIBIT A
901

EXHIBIT A
902

EXHIBIT A
903
1 ORDINANCE NO. ___

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 08-002 WITH MCGRATH RENTCORP
(Development Agreement Amendment 26-002)
In 2021, the City Council directed City staff to begin preparing a comprehensive update to Livermore’s 2003 General Plan. The updated General Plan is known as General Plan 2045.

McGrath RentCorp (“McGrath” or the “Property Owner”) is the largest single property owner within Midtown. McGrath owns approximately 130 acres generally located between Southfront Road and Las Positas Road and operates a mobile modular commercial-industrial business on the property.

The 130-acre project site is made up of numerous parcels located at 5605 and 5327 Southfront Road and 5700, 5699 and 5698 Las Positas Road with the following APNs: 99-40-72, 99-40-73, 99-40-74, 99-40-75, 99-40-76, 99-40-77, 99-40-78, 99-40,79 and 99-40-80.

McGrath and the City are parties to Development Agreement 08-002, originally approved in 2008 (“Original Agreement”), which vested McGrath’s commercial and industrial land use rights through 2029 in exchange for dedication of Bay Area Rapid Transit right-of-way. The Original Agreement did not approve a specific development project; instead, it vested the commercial and industrial land uses in effect at the time of adoption, with future development projects remaining subject to applicable permits, entitlements, and approvals.

From 2021 to 2022, City staff conducted outreach to property owners within Midtown, consistent with the City’s standard practice when considering land use changes in a defined planning area.

Through those discussions, McGrath and the City did not reach agreement regarding inclusion of the McGrath property in Midtown, the appropriate future mix of uses and residential densities, or an approach that addressed both the City’s long-term planning objectives and the Property Owner’s interests. McGrath subsequently submitted written correspondence to the City Council expressing opposition to the Midtown plan. 904
2 ORDINANCE NO. ___
On February 24, 2025, the City Council directed City staff to work with McGrath, seek a compromise, and return with a solution that would advance the goals of both parties.

Following that direction, City staff negotiated with McGrath regarding a proposed amendment to the Original Agreement. McGrath has agreed to the proposed terms of the First Amendment to Development Agreement 08-002 (“Amended Agreement” or “Project”). The Amended Agreement is attached as Exhibit B.

The proposed Amended Agreement would establish a framework for future planning and development of the McGrath property in relation to Midtown; allow McGrath’s existing industrial use to continue; clarify that future development projects remain subject to applicable design review, entitlement, environmental review, and other regulatory requirements; secure McGrath’s support for future residential planning on the property; require conveyance of the northern approximately 40 acres to a high-value commercial user, subject to City approval; extend the Development Agreement term through 2059; and adjust the Development Agreement boundary to remove the northern commercial parcel and add property under McGrath ownership south of Las Positas Road.

The proposed Amended Agreement is related to a proposed General Plan 2045 land use map change that would retain the southern approximately 90 acres of the McGrath property within Midtown and designate the northern approximately 40-acre parcel as Service Commercial to support the contemplated conveyance to a high-value commercial user and facilitate establishment of a commercial employment center adjacent to Midtown.

The City received an application from McGrath to amend Development Agreement 08-002 (DAA 26-002) in accordance with Livermore Development Code Chapter 9.04.

California Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5, as implemented by Livermore Development Code Chapter 9.04, authorize local agencies and private property owners to enter into development agreements to vest certain development rights and achieve local public purpose objectives.

On July 7, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Amended Agreement, the CEQA determination, staff recommendations, all public comments and testimony, and findings, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-26, attached hereto as Exhibit A, recommending the City Council approve the Amended Agreement. The Planning Commission additionally adopted Resolution No. 17-26 recommending the City Council find the Amended Agreement exempt from CEQA.

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

Section 1. Authority. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq., the City Council considers that certain document under City Application No. Development Agreement Amendment 26-002 and entitled “The First Amendment to Development Agreement 08-002 (DAA 26-002) with McGrath RentCorp” (“Amended Agreement”). The Amended Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

Section 2. Record Evidence. Prior to taking action on the Project, and at a properly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Livermore reviewed written and oral staff reports, conducted a public hearing on the Project and took testimony; and received into the record all pertinent documents related to the Project (collectively, the “Record Evidence”). The City Council’s determination is based on the Record Evidence, which is incorporated into this Ordinance by reference.

Section 3. Environmental. The City Council has adopted Resolution No. ___ finding that the Amended Agreement is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15061(b)(3).

Section 4. Findings. The City Council has considered the findings made in Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-26, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and hereby adopts the same findings by this reference and incorporates them herein as their own.

Section 5. Approval. Based upon the City Council’s own independent review of the Record Evidence and considerations, it hereby adopts this Ordinance approving the Amended Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit B.

Section 6. Signing Authority. The City Manager is hereby authorized to sign the Amended Agreement on behalf of the City of Livermore.

Section 7. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Livermore within fifteen days after its adoption.

Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption.

Section 9. Recording. The City Clerk is directed to record the Amended Agreement within 10 days after the effective date of the Amended Agreement.

Section 10. Documents. The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based on can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore, California.

Section 11. Severability. If any part of this Ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid by a court, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any remaining parts.
906
4 ORDINANCE NO. ___
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Livermore held on July 27, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Mayor, City of Livermore
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ /s/ Katherine Mirassou
Helena Graves Katherine Mirassou
Acting City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – Planning Commission Resolution 18-26
Exhibit B – Amended Agreement
907

EXHIBIT A
908

EXHIBIT A
909

EXHIBIT A
910

EXHIBIT A
911

EXHIBIT A
912

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
913

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
914

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
915

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
916

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
917

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
918

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
919

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
920

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
921

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
922

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
923

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
924

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
925

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
926
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 12.1

3.1 Recognition of General Plan Advisory Committee Members for their dedication and contributions to the 2045 General Plan Update.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

5.0 Open Forum
Material: Public Comment

6.4 Resolution authorizing execution of an Easement Purchase Agreement with Adventus, acceptance of an Emergency Vehicle Access Easement from LD-Fund III Livermore Land, LLC, approval of related development agreement amendments, and related escrow transactions associated with the Springtown Trunkline Replacement Project WW201414 and Las Colinas Trail Project TB201945.

Material: Public Comment

6.5 Resolution adding the Pavement Maintenance Management Plan Project AR202718, Perimeter Fencing and Security Upgrades Project AR202719, and Airport Layout Plan and Technical Studies Project AR202720 to the 2025–2030 Capital Improvement Plan and authorizing appropriations of Airport Fund 600 and Federal and State Grants to fund these projects.

Material: Public Comment
DATE: July 27, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marianna A. Burch, 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.
927

7.1 Hearing to place delinquent sewer accounts on the Property Tax Roll.

Materials: Memo, Revised Exhibit A, PowerPoint Presentation

7.2 Hearing to adopt FY 2026-27 Sewer Service and Use Charges Report and authorize Residential Charges to be collected in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, the City’s General Taxes.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

7.3 Hearing to consider resolutions to certify the General Plan Environmental Impact Report and approve Livermore General Plan 2045 establishing a long-term vision, goals, policies, implementation actions and land use designations to guide future decision-making related to growth, development, and resource conservation through 2045, and introduce an ordinance and waive the first reading to adopt conforming Zoning Map Amendments ensuring consistency with the General Plan Land Use Map.

Materials: PowerPoint Presentation and Public Comment

7.4 Hearing to introduce an ordinance and waive the first reading authorizing Development Agreement 24-004 to establish a framework and secure vested rights for a future residential project on approximately 50 developable acres within a 122-acre property at 3658 Las Colinas Road (Assessor Parcel Number 902-8-1). The Development Agreement does not propose or authorize a specific development project or physical development, and future implementation actions would be subject to subsequent approvals.

Materials: PowerPoint Presentation and Public Comment

7.5 Hearing to introduce an ordinance and waive the first reading authorizing the first amendment to Development Agreement 08-002 (“Agreement”) with McGrath RentCorp (DAA 26-002). The Agreement term would be extended 30 years to 2059, the Agreement boundary would be adjusted, and the Property Owner Obligations would be modified to: 1) effectuate a commercial land transfer to a high-value commercial user; and 2) secure support for 2045 General Plan and Midtown Area planning objectives.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

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

Material: Council Reports

DISCUSSION

ATTACHMENTS

1. Supplemental Materials
Prepared by: Helena Graves
Acting City Clerk
928
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna A. Burch
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Kristen Hilton
Acting Administrative Services Director
929
1 General Plan Advisory Committee
October 2021 – July 2026
• Stephanie Shang, Chairperson
• Jeremy Troupe-Masi, Vice Chair • Krista Alexy
• Arun Bhatia
• Alan Burnham
• Carmelita (Mel) Chiong
• Paul Halvorsen
• David Kent • Timothy Kingsbury
• Alana Laudone
• Ellen Peete
• Heriberto Revuelta
• Asa Strout
Thank you for your lasting contribution
to our community
1 Item 3.1
PowerPoint Presentation
930
1 Helena Graves
From: Elaine Cortez Schroth <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 2:26 PM
To: City Clerk; Livermore City Council
Subject: City Council Public Comment - Great Elephant Migration Attachments: GEM x Impacts.pdf; Livermore Great Elephant Migration Exhibit - Sponsorship Form_ 071426.pdf; Great Elephant Migration x Livermore, CA_Sponsor & Partner Deck_ 071426.pdf
Categories: Public Comment
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

For Public Comment July 27, 2026
Dear Livermore City Council:

We are thrilled to announce the Elephants are coming to the Tri-Valley in October. We appreciate the support from the City of Livermore and look forward to showcasing your bountiful city.

The Great Elephant Migration is a public art exhibition of life-size Indian elephants, a global fundraising adventure to amplify Indigenous knowledge and inspire the human race to share space.

Each elephant is modeled on a real animal in southern India’s Nilgiri Hills. Around 200 Indigenous artisans of the Coexistence Collective built them by hand from lantana camara, an invasive weed that crowds elephants out of the forests they depend on.

In collaboration with Livermore Valley Arts and Three Thirty-Three Arts, we appreciate the City Council's expertise in amplifying awareness and encouraging community participation through business sponsorships and community donations within Livermore and the neighboring Tri-Valley communities.  The Great Elephant Migration arrives in downtown Livermore with proposed dates of October 10–December 6, 2026 as the only West Coast stop, featuring 30 life-size elephant sculptures handcrafted by Indigenous artisans in South India. The exhibit is expected to draw visitors from across California, creating tourism and economic benefits that extend well beyond Livermore.  Livermore and neighboring Tri-valley communities will benefit as visitors explore the broader Bay Area—staying in hotels, dining, shopping, and visiting nearby attractions before and after experiencing the exhibit. Previous U.S. installations have generated millions of visitor interactions while increasing downtown foot traffic by 52% and retail sales by 20%.  We invite the Livermore City Council to help make this a regional success by sharing the exhibit with your community, exploring sponsorship opportunities, and partnering on crosscultural promotional efforts that showcase Livermore and the Bay Area as a destination for arts, culture, and conservation. Learn more at www.333arts.org/gem.

Thank you for your time and feel free to reach out anytime with questions. The impact deck and sponsorship information is attached for your review.

Item 5.0
Public Comment
931
2 --
Elaine Cortez Schroth
510.604.0621
Partnerships & Community Relations
Three Thirty Three Arts
www.333arts.org
Intro Deck
To help p otect you p v acy M c osoft Off ce p evented automat c download of th s pictu e f om the Inte net To help p otect you p vacy M c osoft Off ce p evented automat c download of th s pictu e f om the Inte net Item 5.0
Public Comment
932

IMPACTS
Every elephant displayed in Livermore creates lasting impact for India's people, forests and wildlife.

The Great Elephant Migration is more than a public art exhibition, it is a circular conservation model that transforms an invasive weed into opportunity. Every elephant is handcrafted in South India by Indigenous artisans, creating sustainable livelihoods, restoring forests and funding conservation.

Creating India's Largest Sustainable Indigenous Enterprise For thousands of years, Indigenous communities have been the guardians of nature. Although they make up just 6% of the world's population, Indigenous peoples protect around 80% of the planet's remaining biodiversity.

The Great Elephant Migration celebrates this extraordinary stewardship by showcasing the artistry and craftsmanship of India's Indigenous communities on the world stage.

Today, the project provides meaningful employment, financial stability, status and pride to members of the Soligas, Bettakurumbas, Kattunayakan and Paniyas tribes, communities that have lived alongside wild elephants for generations.

Impact to date:
• Over $1.5 million collectively earned through the creation of sculptures for exhibitions in USA • Employment created for 300+ Indigenous artisans, with workshops operating across 15+ villages. • Long-term ambition to create up to 1,000 Indigenous jobs by 2030, building India's largest sustainable Indigenous enterprise.

Restoring India's Forests
Every elephant is woven from Lantana camara, one of the world's most destructive invasive plant species.

Lantana has invaded an estimated 300,000 km² of India's Protected Areas, reducing habitat for elephants, tigers and countless other native species. By harvesting lantana and transforming it into art, the project removes this invasive weed while creating income for local communities.

Item 5.0
Public Comment
933
Impact to date:
• 200+ hectares of lantana-infested forest restored since 2024. • Native vegetation and wildlife habitat are being reclaimed across South India's protected landscapes.

Climate Action
The project also supports a large-scale biochar initiative.

Harvested lantana is converted into biochar, permanently storing carbon while improving soil health.

Goals include:
• Sequestering 50,000 tons of carbon by 2030.
• Creating up to 1,000 green jobs across India's protected landscapes. • By the end of 2025, an estimated 2,625 tons of carbon will have been sequestered—far exceeding the carbon footprint of creating and transporting the exhibition.

Supporting Conservation
The impact extends well beyond the exhibition itself.

Sales of the sculptures generate funding for human-wildlife coexistence projects in India and around the world. • More than $1 million in grants has already been distributed to conservation partners. • Each elephant is paired with a conservation organization working to help people and wildlife thrive together.

Item 5.0
Public Comment
934
The Great Elephant Migration - Livermore, CA

SPONSORSHIP LEVELS & BENEFITS
Presenting - $50,000
• Recognition as Presenting Sponsor in all communications, signage, and promotional materials
• Recognition in the exhibit press release
• Option to receive an elephant for temporary public display at your business location during the exhibition (conditions apply)
• Livermore Valley Arts Annual Membership - Impresario
• 2026 Livermore ArtWalk - Table & booth
• Name displayed with an elephant at the exhibit
• 6 tickets to any Bankhead Presents show
• 6 tickets to the exhibit’s VIP Reception
• Recognition in exhibit materials, the Livermore exhibit webpage, and social media
Champion - $25,000
• Recognition in the exhibit press release
• Livermore Valley Arts Annual Membership - Virtuoso
• 2026 Livermore ArtWalk - Table
• Name displayed with an elephant
• 4 tickets to any Bankhead Presents show
• 4 tickets to the exhibit’s VIP Reception
• Recognition in exhibit materials, the Livermore exhibit webpage, and social media
Partner - $10,000
• Livermore Valley Arts Annual Membership - Maestro
• 2026 Livermore ArtWalk - Table or booth
• Name displayed with an elephant at the exhibit
• 2 tickets to any Bankhead Presents show
• 2 tickets to the exhibit’s VIP Reception
• Recognition in exhibit materials, the Livermore exhibit webpage, and social media
Patron - $5,000
• Livermore Valley Arts Annual Membership - Artiste
• 2026 Livermore ArtWalk - Collateral at LVA booth
• Name displayed with an elephant at the exhibit
• 2 tickets to the exhibit’s VIP Reception
• Recognition in exhibit materials, Livermore exhibit webpage, and social media
Item 5.0
Public Comment
935

SPONSOR COMMITMENT FORM
Name: ______________________________________________
Company/Organization: _____________________________
Address: ___________________________________________
Phone: _____________________________________________
Email: _____________________________________________
I would like to sponsor the Livermore Great Elephant
Migration exhibition:
$50,000 Presenting Level
$25,000 Champion Level
$10,000 Partner Level
$5,000 Patron Level
Payment Information:

Please contact me (us) to arrange payment
I will send a check payable to Livermore Valley Arts
Mail check to:
2400 First Street
Livermore, CA 94550
On the memo line, include: Sponsorship for GEM Exhibit
All contributions to Livermore Valley Performing Arts
Center, a 501(c)(3) organization, are tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. Sponsorship of The Livermore Great Elephant Migration exhibit will fund exhibition costs and associated programming. Funds raised beyond exhibition
expenses will support future public art programming.

Sponsor payment and logo must be received no later than 9/01/26 for recognition in printed materials and press release For Sponsorship inquiries, please contact:

Elaine Cortez Schroth
Partnerships & Community Relations
Three Thirty-Three Arts
(510) 604-0621
[email protected]
Anne Giancola
Visual Arts & Education Manager
Livermore Valley Arts
[email protected]
Signature: __________________________
Date: _____________________________
The Livermore Great Elephant Migration Exhibit is
facilitated by Livermore Valley Arts and Three ThirtyThree Arts, in collaboration with Elephant Family USA.

Scan the QR code to
learn more, or visit
www.333Arts.org/gem
Item 5.0
Public Comment
936
Item 5.0
Public Comment
937
“The Great Elephant Migration is more than an art installation, it’s a powerful sign of unity, connecting us to the stories of wildlife and reminding us of our joint responsibility to protect our planet and wildlife. We’re proud to host this meaningful exhibition that illuminates our city’s values of environmental stewardship, cultural appreciation, and community connection. It will bring wonder, awareness, and a sense of meaning to our city.”
Sharona Nazarian, Mayor, Beverly Hills
Item 5.0
Public Comment
938

THE GREAT ELEPHANT MIGRATION

THE GREAT ELEPHANT

MIGRATION
The Great Elephant Migration is a large-scale
environmentally positive art exhibition featuring a
herd of life-size elephants, undertaking a global
journey to amplify Indigenous knowledge and
inspire the human race,
to share space.

In 2024 and 2025, the 100-strong herd migrated across the US with installations in Newport, Rhode Island; Meatpacking District, NYC; Miami Beach, Art Basel; Houston, Texas;
Jackson Hole, Wyoming; and Beverly Hills, CA.

Their journey is raising millions to support human-wildlife coexistence projects and protect migratory animals
making spectacular journeys across land, rivers,
skies and oceans
Item 5.0
Public Comment
939

THE MISSION

ART AS A CATALYST FOR COEXISTENCE
The Migration is a platform dedicated to:
• Preserving Coexistence - In d i ge no us-l ed ent erp rise a n d circular sy s te m s.

Our partnership with The Real Elephant Collective is an enterprise model that ties livelihoods, culture and ecological restoration together – from elephant-making workshops to large-scale lantana removal and, in time, biochar and carbon sequestration.
• Promoting Coexistence -Ani mist ic worldvi ew – r econ n ect in g p e op l e to a living world.

Drawing on Indigenous traditions that see rivers, forests, animals and even the wind as relatives, not resources. The Great Elephant Migration is a reminder that other beings have agency, personality and wisdom. Humans are part of, not apart from, nature.
• Powering Coexistence - S t or y-p owe r ed co ex i st e n ce i mpa ct.

The Migration raises significant funds for coexistence projects around the world – supporting successful programs that allow people to live alongside lions, bears, buffalo, jaguars, tigers and more. But the deeper impact is narrative: making coexistence emotionally understandable and aspirational to millions of people who encounter the elephants in cities, in the media and online.

Created in partnership with local communities and global voices, the exhibition transforms city streets, parks and public spaces into powerful spaces for dialogue, empathy and action. It inspires connection between urban audiences and the wildlife with which we share our planet.

Item 5.0
Public Comment
940

PROMOTING COEXISTENCE

PROMOTING COEXISTENCE
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE U.S. MIGRATION
From Newport to NYC, Miami, Houston and Beverly Hills,
the herd has attracted millions of visitors from far and wide, driving record-breaking footfall, boosting tourism, uplifting local businesses and inspiring meaningful public engagement at every stop.

IMPACTS:
• 4 million people engaged at street level
• Average footfall increased by 52% in exhibition
locations during elephant exhibition period
• 20%uplift in sales for surrounding businesses.
• Weekly school and youth group visits to the herd
• 250+ students participated in online classrooms in
partnership with Think Elephants International
Item 5.0
Public Comment
941

ROMOTING COEXISTENCE

PROMOTING COEXISTENCE

PUBLICITY& CULTURAL REACH
Since launching in July 2024, The Great Elephant
Migration has garnered over 700 features across
broadcast, print and online media.

Media reach to date:7billion+
HIGHLIGHTS: • 2xNew York Times front pages • Broadcast coverage on major national news networks: - CNN - ABC7 - MSNBC
• Full feature stories in high-profile publications
including: - Forbes - Vogue US
• Featured on Kelly Clarkson Show
Item 5.0
Public Comment
942

POWERING COEXISTENCE

POWERING COEXISTENCE
The Great Elephant Migration supports remarkable
people around the world who have found ways to live
alongside lions, leopards, elephants, and some of the
planet’s most challenging animals, in their back yards.

Each elephant is paired with a different conservation
NGO from across many different geographies and
species. (Insert amount given in grants in 2024/25)
The exhibit also encourages conservation groups to
incorporate Indigenous knowledge and evolve to be
Indigenous led.

Item 5.0
Public Comment
943
NGO Partnerships
NGO Partnerships
Item 5.0
Public Comment
944
HM Que en Camilla
IG reach - 1.6m
Che r
IG reach - 3m
Kristin Davis
IG reach - 1.4m
Chris Martin
IG reach - 29m
Kris Tompkins
IG reach - 65k
Wallis Anne nberg
IG reach - 100k

NOTABLE SUPPORTERS

NOTABLE SUPPORTERS
122 million combined Instagram followers.

Supporters include:

Martha Stewart Am y Jackson Neil Patrick Harris Dr Jane Goodall Carolina Herrera Pa dm a Lakshmi Joy Crookes IG reach - 5.4m IG reach - 13.6m IG reach - 9m IG reach - 1.3m IG reach - 7.6m IG reach - 1.8m IG reach - 33 0k Le onardo DiCaprio
IG reach - 60m
Item 5.0
Public Comment
945
Newport, RI
Item 5.0
Public Comment
946
Meatpacking, NYC
Item 5.0
Public Comment
947
Miami Beach, FL
Item 5.0
Public Comment
948
Beverly Hills, CA
Item 5.0
Public Comment
949
The Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing, CA
Item 5.0
Public Comment
950
Item 5.0
Public Comment
951

THE GREAT ELEPHANT MIGRATION

REACHES LIVERMORE, CA
Item 5.0
Public Comment
952
Its only stop on the West Coast in 2026
30 elephants from the spectacular Great Elephant Migration exhibit will arrive in Downtown Livermore this Fall!
WHEN:

October through November 2026
WHERE:

Downtown Livermore
Item 5.0
Public Comment
953

LIVERMORE EXHIBIT ORGANIZERS
Livermore Valley Arts is an
independent 501(c)(3), non-profit
organization that operates two
spaces: the Bankhead Theater
and the Bothwell Arts Center.

The Mission of Livermore Valley
Arts is to offer a broad range of
arts opportunities and
experiences to engage, enrich,
and inspire our diverse
community.

Local Edition Creative is a
strategic arts agency with a focus
on public art consulting, program
development & management,
and engaging experiences. Their
team is passionate about
developing projects that engage
audiences in inspiring and
insightful ways - utilizing the
power of art to build bridges and
understanding.

Three Thirty-Three Arts is a San
Francisco Bay Area 501(c)(3)
non-profit affiliated with Local
Edition Creative that specializes
in community murals, public art
education, participatory arts
programming, and arts advocacy.

The mission of Three Thirty-Three
Arts is to brighten communities
through creative collaborations
and inclusive arts experiences.

Item 5.0
Public Comment
954

SUPPORTERS OF THE EXHIBIT
(and the herd is quickly growing!)
✴ City of Livermore
✴ Livermore Commission for the Arts
✴ Visit Tri-Valley / Tracy Farhad
✴ Livermore Downtown, Inc.
✴ District 1 Supervisor / David Haubert
✴ Office of District 16 Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan ✴ Tri-Valley Nonprofit Association
✴ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory / Senior Advisor Scott Wilson ✴ Quest Science Center / CEO Monya Lane
✴ Livermore Winegrowers Association
✴ Livermore Lion’s Club
✴ Rotary Club of Livermore
✴ Rotary Club of Livermore Valley
✴ Three Valleys Community Foundation
✴ Pedrozzi Scholarship Foundation / Maggie Tufts
✴ Tri-Valley Innovation / Katie Marcel
✴ I-GATE / Yolanda Fintschenko
✴ Livermore Valley Chamber / Sherri Souza
✴ Community Advocate Mony Nop
“SO EXCITING!” “This will be fun to see in Downtown”
“Please let me know how we
can support this event”
“I would love to visit with our Fall interns”
“OMG!!! This is so cool!”
“This will be HUGE!”
Item 5.0
Public Comment
955
EXHIBIT DISPLAY AREAS*
Bankhead Plaza
Corner of the Bankhead Theater @ Railroad Ave.

Stockmen’s Park
Livermorium
* Exhibit display areas within Downtown Livermore are coordinated with and approved by the City of Livermore and may be subject to change The elephants will be
displayed across 4 areas,
within close proximity
and walkable distance of
each location
Item 5.0
Public Comment
956
‣ Introduces Livermore, CA to the exhibit’s high-profile national and global following ‣ Strong potential to draw tourism across the entire Bay Area and beyond ‣ Creates a meaningful and highly memorable economic impact for the community ‣ Engagement opportunity with local schools and youth for educational field trips ‣ Showcases conservation efforts around the world and the importance of storytelling through public art
‣ The exhibit will be free and accessible to all!
WHY THIS PUBLIC ART EXHIBIT?
“OMG!!! This is so cool!! I was in Beverly Hills last year as a drive by in the area and it was spectacular just what I saw from the car. This will be HUGE!!” - Michelle Henry, District Director AD 16 Item 5.0
Public Comment
957
Thank You for your Support!
For Sponsorship inquiries, contact:

Elaine Cortez Schroth
Partnerships & Community Relations
Three Thirty-Three Arts
[email protected]
Anne Giancola
Visual Arts & Education Manager
Livermore Valley Arts
[email protected]
Item 5.0
Public Comment
958
1 Helena Graves
From: Brianna Morales <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 5:21 PM
To: John Marchand; Kristie Wang; Barrientos, Ben; Evan Branning; Steven Dunbar Cc: City Clerk; Witt Turner
Subject: Letter of Support re: Item 6.4, Development Agreement 24-004 Attachments: 3658 Las Colinas Road - HAC Letter of Support.pdf Categories: Public Comment, Helena
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Mayor Marchand and Members of the Livermore City Council, The Housing Action Coalition (HAC) is a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for creating more housing for residents of all income levels to help alleviate California’s housing shortage, displacement, and affordability crisis.

On behalf of HAC, please find our attached letter of support for the Development Agreement 24-004 concerning the property at 3658 Las Colinas Road. Please reach out if you have any questions regarding our letter or the project.

Thank you for your work and consideration in bringing more homes to Livermore for its residents and communities.
--
In support,
Brianna Morales | Pronouns: She/Her
Political Organizing & Programs Manager | Housing Action Coalition 555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111
Cell: (619) 535-6182 | Email: [email protected] To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all".

Item 6.4
Public Comment
959
July 24, 2026
Livermore City Council
City of Livermore
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
Dear Mayor Marchand and Members of the Council,
The Housing Action Coalition (HAC) writes in support of Development Agreement 24-004 for the property at 3658 Las Colinas Road, brought forward by Adventus. This project has not yet gone through HAC's formal Project Review Committee process for a full endorsement, but given Adventus’ support for HAC's mission of building more homes at all income levels, we wanted to convey our support for the Agreement now, based on its merits.

The Agreement is consistent with the site's General Plan 2045 designations and would allow 605-900 homes on roughly 50 of the property's 122 acres, at densities of 8 to 30 units per acre, while permanently preserving the rest of the site - including its hillside and creek corridor areas - as protected open space. It is a well-calibrated way to bring meaningful housing production to land that has sat undeveloped since a previously entitled high school project fell through.

The project will also comply with Livermore's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, with flexibility to deliver affordable units on-site, through in-lieu fees, land dedication, or another approved alternative.

While the site sits outside the City's current Housing Element Sites Inventory, it will still add meaningfully to Livermore's housing supply and help the City meet its regional housing needs.

The Agreement further secures a strong community benefits package: a $6 million contribution to the City's Community Benefit Fund, a new roadway connection between Las Colinas Road and Redwood Road, new trail extensions, and a roughly 3-acre public park.

We were glad to see the Planning Commission recommend approval of DA 24-004 on July 7, and we urge the Council to do the same.

Sincerely,
Corey Smith, Executive Director
Housing Action Coalition (HAC)
Brianna Morales, Political Organizing & Programs Manager Housing Action Coalition (HAC)
Item 6.4
Public Comment
960
1 Helena Graves
From: Brian Swanson
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 11:57 AM
To: City Clerk; Livermore City Council
Subject: Public Comment: Agenda Item 6.5: Pavement Maintenance Management Plan Project AR202718, Perimeter Fencing and Security Upgrades Project AR202719, and Airport Layout Plan and Technical Studies Project AR202720 - Agenda for City Council on Monday, July 2...

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

PUBLIC COMMENT — LIVERMORE CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Item 6.5 — Airport Layout Plan and Technical Studies Project AR202720 Must Precede and Control Further Airport Innovation Center Work
Meeting Date: July 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 6.5
Subject: Airport Layout Plan and Technical Studies Must Precede Further Airport Innovation Center Design, Tenanting, Expansion, Utility, Advanced Air Mobility, or Construction-Support Assumptions Submitted by: Brian C. Swanson, AICP
Requested Record Treatment: Please distribute this written comment to the City Council, include it in the supplemental packet or equivalent public-comment record, post it with or adjacent to Agenda Item 6.5, preserve it as part of the public record, and confirm receipt.

Mayor Marchand and Councilmembers:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written public comment on Agenda Item 6.5, which concerns adding the Pavement Maintenance Management Plan Project AR202718, Perimeter Fencing and Security Upgrades Project AR202719, and Airport Layout Plan and Technical Studies Project AR202720 to the City's 2025–2030 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and authorizing appropriations from Airport Fund 600 and federal and state grants.

I support adding these airport-core projects to the CIP. But the most important point is this:

The Airport Layout Plan and Technical Studies Project AR202720 must come first.

The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and Technical Studies should precede, inform, and constrain every further substantive step under the previously approved Airport Innovation Center Project AR202628 design contract. The City should not allow the Airport Innovation Center to proceed ahead of the very ALP, aviation forecasts, airfield and landside facility analysis, Airport Geographic Information System obstruction survey, Electric Master Utility Plan, environmental baseline studies, PFAS review, safety review, airspace review, and Federal Aviation Administration coordination needed to determine whether the Airport Innovation Center is airport-compatible at all.

Item 6.5
Public Comment
961
2 For clarity, this comment uses the following acronyms: LVK means Livermore Municipal Airport; FAA means Federal Aviation Administration; ACIP means Airport Capital Improvement Program; CIP means Capital Improvement Plan; ALP means Airport Layout Plan; PMMP means Pavement Maintenance Management Plan; PCI means Pavement Condition Index; AGIS means Airport Geographic Information System; EMUP means Electric Master Utility Plan; AAM means Advanced Air Mobility; eVTOL means electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft; PFAS means per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances; AFFF means aqueous film-forming foam; PFOA means perfluorooctanoic acid; PFOS means perfluorooctanesulfonic acid; PFHxS means perfluorohexanesulfonic acid; PFNA means perfluorononanoic acid; ESL means Environmental Screening Level; MCL means Maximum Contaminant Level; EPA means U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CEQA means California Environmental Quality Act; CAL FIRE means California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; and FBO means fixed-base operator.

I. Public Comment Procedures, Written Comment Submission, and eComment Limits
This comment is submitted for the July 27, 2026 City Council meeting. The City's current City Council participation page states that, starting with the July 13, 2026 City Council meeting, meetings are hybrid, with access in person and through Zoom, YouTube, and TV29. It further states that written comments may be emailed to the City Clerk's Office at [email protected]; comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be provided to the City Council and made available on the City website before the meeting. Those emailed comments are not read into the record. The same page separately states that online eComments may be up to 1,000 characters, are accepted until 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting, are not read into the record, and are viewable by the City Council and the public upon submittal. (Livermore) For an item involving the ALP, aviation forecasts, airfield and landside facility needs, airport security, pavement safety, PFAS, emergency response, airspace competition, hangar demand, Airport Fund 600, federal and state grants, and the previously approved Airport Innovation Center design contract, a 1,000-character eComment box is not a meaningful substitute for full written public comment.

Accordingly, I request that this written comment be distributed to the City Council, posted with or adjacent to Agenda Item 6.5, included in the supplemental packet or equivalent written-comment record, preserved as part of the public record, and considered in connection with Agenda Item 6.5 and any future Airport Commission or City Council item concerning the Airport Innovation Center.

The City should also clearly state that the 1,000-character eComment limit applies only to the optional eComment portal and does not limit longer written comments timely submitted by email under the City's written-comment instructions.

This request is consistent with Government Code section 54957.5, which provides that agendas and qualifying writings related to open-session agenda items are disclosable public records and must be made available under the statute's procedures, including for late-distributed agenda-related materials. (LegiInfo) It is also consistent with Government Code section 54954.3, which requires regular meeting agendas to provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body on items within its subject-matter jurisdiction and permits only reasonable regulations to carry out that purpose. (LegiInfo)
II. Top Comment: ALP First; Airport Innovation Center Later Agenda Item 6.5 should be treated as the City's ALP pivot.

Item 6.5
Public Comment
962
3 The City Council should not treat the ALP as one of three routine capital projects. The ALP and Technical Studies Project is the controlling framework for future airport development. It is the airport's planning foundation. It should determine whether future airport development is safe, compatible, fundable, operationally appropriate, environmentally informed, consistent with FAA expectations, and credible to state and federal partners.

The staff report states that the proposed ALP and Technical Studies Project will update the ALP to establish a long-term vision for Airport development, position the Airport for future FAA funding, prepare aviation forecasts, evaluate future airfield and landside facility needs, develop a phased CIP, and complete an FAA-approved ALP drawing set.

The ALP attachment is even more specific. It states that the ALP update will inventory existing airport conditions, prepare 20-year aviation demand forecasts for aircraft operations, based aircraft, and the airport's critical design aircraft, evaluate airfield and landside facility needs, develop alternatives to satisfy future development potential, recommend capital improvement projects with cost estimates, prepare an ALP drawing set, and coordinate with the FAA's San Francisco Airports District Office for review and approval.

That is exactly the analysis that must occur before the City allows the Airport Innovation Center design contract to move beyond non-irreversible existing-conditions review, record review, agency coordination, and information gathering.

The correct sequence is simple:

Airport Layout Plan first. Airport Innovation Center later — only if the ALP, safety record, airspace record, hangar record, environmental record, PFAS record, demand record, and fiscal record support it.

III. Agenda Item 6.5 Confirms That Core Airport Planning Has Lagged Behind Development Ambition
The staff report states that three airport projects were approved through the FAA's ACIP process on May 28, 2026, after the City's 2025–2030 CIP was adopted, and that the projects need separate CIP project numbers so the City can accept and administer FAA grant funding and maintain compliance with applicable financial requirements.

More importantly, the staff report states that, until earlier this year, the FAA had advised the Airport that funding for new projects would be limited until the Airport addressed identified airfield geometry and related issues. After coordination with the FAA's San Francisco Airports District Office and Regional Office, the Airport received approval to proceed with the PMMP and ALP/Technical Studies projects because those planning efforts were recognized as essential to addressing identified deficiencies and supporting future airport improvements.

That finding should control the City's sequencing. If FAA-related airport planning and geometry issues were significant enough to limit new project funding, then the City should not let an innovationbranded building project outrun the foundational ALP and Technical Studies needed to address deficiencies and support future improvements.

The ALP and Technical Studies Project is funded at an estimated total cost of $1,130,640, including $107,680 from Airport Fund 600 and $1,022,960 from federal grants. That is not a minor Item 6.5
Public Comment
963
4 paperwork exercise. It is the central planning investment that should guide LVK's next decade of development decisions.

IV. The City Should Not Design First and Reconcile Later The previously approved Airport Innovation Center design contract should not move ahead of the ALP.

The City's Aviation Innovation Center project page describes the project as renovation of the existing building at 180 Airway Boulevard to create an Aviation Innovation Center at LVK, including tenant improvements and potential expansion of the existing building, including a potential second floor. The same page states that conceptual designs have been developed, that the consultant has signed the design agreement, and that the design agreement and funds were allocated at the April 13, 2026 City Council meeting. It also still identifies Airport Operating Fund — $150,000 and total estimated cost of $150,000, which appears incomplete or stale compared with the April 13 Council action. (Livermore)
The April 13, 2026 City Council agenda identified Airport Innovation Center Project AR202628 as a consent-calendar item authorizing supplemental appropriations of $360,000 in Fiscal Year 2025–26 and $622,000 in Fiscal Year 2026–27 from the Airport Operating Fund to support completion of the design phase. It also authorized a professional services agreement with Barry & Wynn Architects, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $661,600, with a term ending December 31, 2030, to provide final design, preparation of plans and specifications, bidding support, and engineering services during construction. (Granicus Production Attachments)
That is not merely conceptual sketching. It is design and construction-support authority. It therefore should not outrun the ALP, aviation forecasts, AGIS obstruction survey, EMUP, environmental baseline studies, PMMP, perimeter-security work, and PFAS review.

At most, any ongoing Airport Innovation Center work should be limited to non-irreversible existingconditions review, record review, agency coordination, and information gathering until the ALP and Technical Studies provide the controlling airport framework.

V. The City's Own Airport Development Materials Support an ALP-First Sequence The City's Airport Land Use Analysis and Development Study page states that the City studied development opportunities at LVK to ensure alignment with airport needs and community interests. It also states that it is important to complete the Airport Land Development Framework before moving forward with individual development projects to maintain a holistic and comprehensive approach to airport development. (Livermore)
That principle applies here. The Airport Innovation Center should not be allowed to move forward as an individual development project before the updated ALP and Technical Studies provide the airportwide framework.

The City's Airport Development Strategy also states that its airport-development strategy elements are in preliminary planning stages and require additional feasibility assessment, scoping, budgeting, planning, and zoning approvals, permitting, and building-code compliance before construction. That same strategy identifies the Aviation Innovation Center as a hub to foster aviation technologies and related sectors, including program development, building renovation, and recruiting/tenanting efforts; it separately identifies AAM/eVTOL concepts requiring needs assessment, market analysis, operator Item 6.5
Public Comment
964
5 engagement, community engagement, and compliance with airport policies and regulations. (Livermore)
That means the City's own materials do not support design lock-in first and planning later. They support feasibility first, airport planning first, market analysis first, airport-policy compliance first, and then only later project implementation.

VI. LVK Is an Airport First, Not an Economic-Development Blank Slate LVK is a City-owned General Aviation Reliever Airport serving private, business, and corporate tenants and customers, primarily serving the Tri-Valley region, with most of its approximately 460 tenants being Livermore and Pleasanton residents. (Livermore) The City's Airport Leasing and Development Policy states that leasing and development proposals, including construction, modification, and renovation of aeronautical and non-aeronautical land or improvements, are to be evaluated within the legal boundaries of the current ALP and that the policy establishes requirements for compatible and sustainable development that protects persons and property. (Livermore) Those standards should control. LVK is not vacant land. It is not a generic economic-development site. It is not a blank canvas for politically attractive innovation branding. It is an active airport with existing users, federal obligations, operational constraints, safety risks, hangar demand, noise concerns, environmental constraints, and FAA coordination requirements.

The Airport Commission's stated responsibilities further reinforce this point. The Commission advises the City Council on demand determinations in support of future airport development and redevelopment of existing airport facilities. It also advises staff on airport safety and security, operational policies and regulations, the airport noise monitoring and reduction program, planning for public and private development on the airport, and the draft 20-year CIP budget. (Livermore) The Airport Innovation Center should therefore return as a standalone Airport Commission item after the ALP and Technical Studies have meaningfully progressed. It should not proceed primarily through project webpages, consultant design work, consent-calendar appropriations, or economicdevelopment messaging.

VII. The Airport Innovation Center Reads as a Politically Attractive, Pie-in-the-Sky Concept Unless the City Produces the Missing Evidence
The concern is not innovation in the abstract. The concern is premature, politically attractive, unsupported innovation branding.

The City's February 2025 announcement framed the Aviation Innovation Center as a program dedicated to quiet and clean aviation technology, advanced air mobility, economic development, job creation, and Livermore's role as a regional innovation leader. The City stated that the proposed center would provide startups and established companies with resources and infrastructure to develop, test, and deploy clean and quiet aviation solutions, including eVTOL aircraft. (Livermore) That broader rhetoric matters. If the project is merely a building renovation, the City should stop using aviation-innovation, AAM, eVTOL, clean-aviation, and future-mobility language to justify it. If the project is truly an aviation innovation project, it needs airport-grade review before design lock-in.

As currently documented, the Airport Innovation Center reads as a foolhardy, politically attractive, pie-in-the-sky project: a concept looking for markets, rather than a market-supported airport Item 6.5
Public Comment
965
6 priority. It appears to be a building project wearing aviation branding unless and until the City produces a complete record showing actual demand, airport compatibility, airspace feasibility, emergency-response coordination, PFAS feasibility, fiscal prudence, and operational benefit.

Livermore should not chase or manufacture aviation markets that have not been demonstrated. It should not imply winery routes, laboratory routes, defense-technology routes, Sacramento routes, San Joaquin Valley routes, cargo markets, air-taxi demand, emergency-response benefits, or Interstate 580 congestion-relief narratives unless those claims are supported by actual demand analysis, airport-compatibility review, safety analysis, airspace review, environmental review, PFAS review, public-safety coordination, and fiscal analysis.

VIII. AAM Is Emerging, but Federal Activity Does Not Establish a Livermore Market AAM is real enough to monitor and plan for carefully. The FAA states that it has updated regulations to allow powered-lift aircraft to operate safely in the National Airspace System and that it issued a final rule for powered-lift operations in October 2024 addressing pilot and instructor certification requirements and operational rules. The FAA also states that it is working with government and industry partners on human-in-the-loop simulations to explore how eVTOL aircraft can share airspace and airport facilities with traditional aircraft. (Federal Aviation Administration) But federal readiness to study and regulate AAM does not establish a Livermore-specific market.

The U.S. Department of Transportation and FAA announced eight selected proposals for the Advanced Air Mobility and eVTOL Integration Pilot Program in March 2026. The selected projects include the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Texas Department of Transportation, Utah Department of Transportation, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Louisiana, Florida Department of Transportation, North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the City of Albuquerque. Livermore is not identified as a selected pilot-project jurisdiction. (Department of Transportation)
That does not mean Livermore should ignore AAM forever. It means Livermore should not pretend that national AAM momentum equals a near-term LVK market.

Before advancing the Airport Innovation Center further, the City should disclose whether it has actual evidence of identified aviation or AAM operators interested in LVK; signed or proposed letters of interest; tenant commitments; route assumptions; passenger, cargo, business-travel, emergencyresponse, laboratory, winery, or regional-mobility demand; willingness-to-pay assumptions; required vertiport, charging, maintenance, fire-suppression, or aircraft-storage infrastructure; insurance and liability assumptions; noise assumptions; community-acceptance assumptions; and impacts to existing airport tenants and users.

Without that evidence, the Airport Innovation Center remains a concept in search of a market.

IX. LVK Already Has Safety and Airspace Competition Issues That the ALP Must Evaluate
The ALP and Technical Studies must directly evaluate airport safety, airspace competition, and operational conflicts before the City allows any further substantive Airport Innovation Center work.

The FAA identifies LVK as a primarily general-aviation airport with numerous flight schools, maintenance facilities, FBOs, and based airplanes. The FAA identifies LVK's airspace as Class D Item 6.5
Public Comment
966
7 and states that the airport configuration consists of parallel runways 7L/25R and 7R/25L. (Federal Aviation Administration)
The FAA also identifies multiple runway-incursion hot spots at LVK, including repeated situations where pilots instructed to hold short at taxiways sometimes fail to comply, and a wrong-surface landing risk due to closely spaced parallel runways and the risk of aircraft landing or attempting to land on Taxiway A. (Federal Aviation Administration)
The FAA's LVK guidance further states that, due to closely spaced parallel runways, jet aircraft often receive Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) resolution advisories because of aircraft on final, upwind, base, or crosswind for the parallel runway. The same FAA page warns that pilots must not overshoot final because the runways are only 500 feet apart and traffic for the other parallel runway is highly probable. (Federal Aviation Administration) That record matters. LVK already has operational complexity, runway-safety issues, close parallelrunway interactions, training traffic, jet traffic, instrument-flight/visual-flight interactions, taxiway confusion, wrong-surface landing risk, and airspace-management constraints.

The City should therefore direct the ALP to evaluate whether the Airport Innovation Center would create or intensify conflicts involving flight schools and training traffic; jet operations; Instrument Flight Rules and Visual Flight Rules operations; parallel runway operations; existing runway-incursion hot spots; wrong-surface landing risk; taxiway confusion; helipad operations; airport security and access control; emergency-response aviation; public-safety staging; and any future AAM/eVTOL operations, prototype flights, demonstration flights, test operations, low-altitude routes, or increased landside traffic and parking.

The City should not allow an innovation-branded building project to move ahead of LVK's own safety and airspace analysis.

X. The AGIS Obstruction Survey Should Be a Gate for Any AAM/eVTOL or New Aviation-Activity Assumptions
The ALP and Technical Studies Project includes an Airport Geographic Information System (AGIS) obstruction survey. The ALP attachment states that the AGIS survey will collect on-airport mapping and surrounding-area data to support development of the ALP drawing set and help protect airport arrivals and departures.

That survey should not be treated as a background technical task. It should be a gating item for any Airport Innovation Center assumptions involving AAM, eVTOL aircraft, low-altitude operations, demonstration flights, testing, prototype operations, vertiports, helicopter-style operations, or new operational concepts.

The City should not make airspace assumptions first and then ask the AGIS survey to catch up. The AGIS obstruction survey, arrival/departure-surface analysis, FAA coordination, and ALP drawing set should come first.

XI. The EMUP Must Precede Any Electric Aircraft, Charging, Utility, or Expansion Assumptions
The ALP and Technical Studies Project includes an Electric Master Utility Plan (EMUP). The staff report states that the EMUP will evaluate LVK's existing electrical infrastructure, forecast future Item 6.5
Public Comment
967
8 electrical demand over the next 10 years, identify improvements needed to support anticipated airport growth, and include a phased implementation strategy, capital improvement recommendations, funding considerations, and an assessment of opportunities and risks.

The ALP attachment similarly states that the EMUP will assess existing electrical infrastructure, project future demand based on development considerations and operational changes, identify needed improvements, provide a 10-year strategy, identify when utility improvements should occur and how they may be funded, include an opportunity and risk assessment, and recommend capital improvement projects.

This directly affects the Airport Innovation Center. If the City is using clean aviation, aviation technology, eVTOL, AAM, charging, or electric-aircraft language to justify the project, then electrical infrastructure is not a side issue. It is central.

The City should not proceed with Airport Innovation Center utility design, charging assumptions, tenant-improvement assumptions, building expansion assumptions, electrical-load assumptions, or new utility corridors before the EMUP establishes airport electrical capacity, constraints, risks, phasing, costs, and funding strategy.

XII. Hangar Space, Existing Tenants, and Aeronautical Priority Must Be Evaluated Before Innovation Center Tenanting
The ALP must also evaluate hangar space, tenant priority, aeronautical use, and whether the Airport Innovation Center would compete with existing airport users or distort airport land-use priorities.

Livermore's hangar page confirms that hangar demand and aeronautical-use controls are active airport-management issues. The City maintains waiting lists for T-hangars, shelters, large box hangars, and small box hangars. It states that the waiting time can be approximately 8–12 months for a small T-hangar and one year or longer for a larger hangar. The City also states that box-hangar policy reflects the airport's intent to provide those hangars for corporate or business-type aircraft or aviation support services that benefit the airport community, and that box-hangar applicants are ordered based on intended use of hangar space, including aeronautical versus non-aeronautical use. (Livermore)
The City further states that it intends to lease hangars solely for storage of aircraft owned or partowned by the lessee, that subleasing of T-hangars is not allowed, and that hangar inspections may be conducted for fire-code and lease compliance. (Livermore) That is directly relevant to the Airport Innovation Center. If existing airport users face hangar waiting lists, aeronautical-use controls, aircraft-storage rules, fire-code inspections, limited box-hangar capacity, and real aviation-support needs, the City should not create a new innovation-branded tenanting program unless the ALP first determines whether that use is compatible with airport priorities.

The ALP should determine whether the Airport Innovation Center is an aeronautical use, a nonaeronautical use, a mixed use, or an economic-development use placed at the airport because the airport has available land and political branding value. That classification matters before tenant recruitment, building design, utility assumptions, access assumptions, construction support, or Airport Fund 600 expenditures proceed further.

XIII. The PMMP and Perimeter-Security Projects Support the ALP-First Argument Item 6.5
Public Comment
968
9 The PMMP and Perimeter Fencing/Security projects are important, but they should support — not displace — the ALP-first framing.

The PMMP project will identify existing pavement sections and underlying subgrade soils, assess surface deterioration, calculate the PCI, conduct non-destructive load testing to evaluate deep-seated distress, estimate remaining pavement life, provide maintenance and reconstruction strategies, provide implementation schedules and costs, and support safe pavement operating conditions. The PMMP attachment also states that FAA requires the sponsor to prepare and maintain an updated PMMP to remain eligible for federal funding and that a PMMP is necessary to justify and plan airport pavement rehabilitation or maintenance projects.

The Perimeter Fencing and Security Upgrades Project responds to a rising number of Vehicle/Pedestrian Deviations (VPDs) and unauthorized-access concerns. The project attachment states that the FAA Airport District Office and FAA Regional Compliance Office have strongly encouraged LVK to increase security measures and strengthen controls over authorized access to airport property. The same attachment describes the project as modernizing airport security through perimeter protection, access control, video surveillance, emergency-response capabilities, electronic gates, multi-factor access control, license-plate recognition cameras, remote access approval, video retention, panic buttons, and facility lockdown options.

These projects confirm that LVK has real, immediate airport-first needs: pavement condition, safe operations, federal funding eligibility, perimeter control, access control, FAA security expectations, and emergency-response coordination.

Those needs should not be subordinated to innovation branding.

XIV. PFAS Must Be Integrated Into the ALP, Environmental Baseline Studies, Hangar Planning, EMUP, and Innovation Center Sequencing
The ALP and Technical Studies Project includes environmental baseline surveys for biological resources, federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species, designated critical habitat, jurisdictional waters, other sensitive resources, and cultural resources, including the built environment. The staff report similarly states that environmental baseline studies will identify biological and cultural resources that may affect future development and environmental permitting.

That environmental baseline work should not ignore the City's separate PFAS investigation record.

The October 2025 Geosyntec PFAS Investigation Report excerpts state that the investigation's objective was to evaluate PFAS in site soil and groundwater. The report states that surficial soil PFAS detections were higher in the south hangar area, that the highest reported concentrations of PFOS and PFOA in surface soil were at MW-03, DPT-05, and DPT-08 in the south hangar area, and that PFOA was detected above Regional Water Board ESLs for construction-worker direct exposure in surficial soil samples and 3-foot-bgs soil samples. The report also notes that several surficial soil samples were collected below asphalt and concrete slabs, which currently provide a barrier to human exposure.

The groundwater findings are also material. Geosyntec states that PFAS were detected in all groundwater samples collected at DPT sample locations and groundwater monitoring wells; that the highest PFAS concentrations in groundwater were generally observed at DPT-07, hydraulically Item 6.5
Public Comment
969
10 downgradient of the south hangar area; and that PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and PFNA exceeded individual EPA MCLs, with the hazard-index MCL also exceeded.

The report further states that groundwater samples collected near the south hangars, Hangar S-1, and the waste storage area in the southeast area of the site were above upgradient concentrations, and that a known AFFF release at Hangar S-1 in 1990 may have contributed to PFAS concentrations observed in groundwater in that area.

Geosyntec recommended further evaluation, including additional groundwater samples at MW-01 through MW-04; soil and grab groundwater samples upgradient of DPT-01; soil and grab groundwater samples near MW-04; soil and grab groundwater samples along the eastern side of Hangar S-1 where AFFF for the Hangar S-1 fire-suppression system was historically located; and installation and sampling of groundwater monitoring wells near DPT-05 and DPT-07 to further assess PFAS concentrations in groundwater upgradient and downgradient of the waste storage area, south hangars, and Hangar S-1.

That record makes it premature to advance Airport Innovation Center design, utility, staging, grading, trenching, drainage, slab, pavement, demolition, access-route, or expansion assumptions until PFAS conditions are integrated into the ALP, environmental baseline studies, EMUP, PMMP, hangar planning, and any project-specific construction planning.

PFAS is not an afterthought. It may affect construction-worker exposure, soil handling, groundwater handling, dewatering, utility corridors, pavement disturbance, slab removal, staging, access routes, disposal costs, schedule, and Airport Fund 600 exposure.

XV. The Consultant Record Reinforces the Concern That This Is a Building Project Wearing Aviation Branding
The Airport Innovation Center is being publicly framed as an aviation innovation project, yet the design contract appears to have been awarded as a conventional architectural/building design assignment.

Barry & Wynn's public-facing website identifies portfolio categories such as residential, commercial, public works, mid-century post-modern, accessory dwelling units, Boulder Ridge Golf Course, and projects on the boards. (Barry & Wynn Site) Its public works page identifies the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant Water Resources Building and the Livermore Police Station Real Time Awareness Center; it does not identify FAA-regulated airport projects, airfield design, airside construction phasing, airspace analysis, airport-safety planning, airport operations, PFAS investigation/remediation, or airport-specific environmental compliance in the public-facing portfolio I located. (Barry & Wynn Site)
I am not claiming that Barry & Wynn has no such experience in internal proposal materials that are not publicly visible. I am stating that the public-facing record does not identify it.

That matters. If the Airport Innovation Center is truly an airport innovation project, the consultant team should look like an airport-capable project team. If the consultant team is structured primarily around building renovation, then the City should stop using airport innovation, AAM, eVTOL, clean aviation, and future-mobility language to justify the project until the required airport-specific expertise and analysis are added to the public record.

The City should disclose whether the Airport Innovation Center team includes an airport planner, airport engineer, airspace or aviation-safety specialist, airport-operations specialist, hangar-planning Item 6.5
Public Comment
970
11 specialist, fire/life-safety specialist familiar with airport facilities, PFAS consultant, soil and groundwater consultant, hazardous-materials and soil-management specialist, dewatering and groundwater-handling specialist, CEQA consultant, and consultants responsible for FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics, Regional Water Board, emergency-response, and airport-user coordination.

XVI. Noise, Leaded Fuel, and "Clean and Quiet Aviation" Claims Must Be Tested The City has framed the Aviation Innovation Center around quiet and clean aviation technology and community concerns about noise and leaded fuel. (Livermore) Those concerns are real, but they do not automatically support the Airport Innovation Center.

The City's LVK noise page states that federal law prohibits the City from restricting or regulating airport access by aircraft that can safely use the airport, and that Livermore Airport noise abatement efforts are voluntary. The same page identifies voluntary restraint from night flying between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. It identifies noise-sensitive areas east of the airport and west/northwest of the airport in Pleasanton and Dublin. (Livermore)
The City's unleaded-fuel page states that 100LL leaded avgas and Swift UL94 unleaded avgas are currently sold at LVK, that UL94 became available at LVK on July 1, 2024, that certified aircraft owners must obtain a Supplemental Type Certificate before using UL94, and that LVK does not currently have infrastructure to introduce a fourth fuel type. It also states that LVK is positioned to transition to Swift's forthcoming 100R unleaded fuel once it receives appropriate approvals and achieves broader fleet compatibility. (Livermore)
Those are actual airport-operational issues. If the City wants to address clean and quiet aviation, it should show how the Airport Innovation Center directly advances actual fuel-transition, noisereduction, airport-user, or community-benefit goals. The City should not use clean-and-quiet language as branding while failing to explain how the project compares with more direct investments in unleaded-fuel transition, noise monitoring, airport operations, hangar modernization, pavement preservation, lighting, guidance signs, runway safety, perimeter security, and FAA-required planning.

XVII. Speculative Uses Must Not Crowd Regional Emergency Airspace and Public-Safety Aviation
The City should evaluate regional emergency-response airspace before advancing any Airport Innovation Center concept connected to AAM, eVTOL aircraft, prototype testing, demonstration flights, commuter shuttles, air taxis, cargo service, or emergency-response branding.

Eden Medical Center in Castro Valley is listed by the California Department of Health Care Access and Information as a Level II Trauma Center, and Sutter describes Eden as the regional Level II trauma center for Southern Alameda County. (LFIS) Caltrans Aeronautics maintains "Heliplates" for permitted hospital heliports, providing permitted approach paths and other information for emergency planners, helicopter operators, and other users. (Caltrans) That regional trauma and helicopter-access context matters. The City should not allow speculative low-altitude aviation concepts to compete with emergency medical access, trauma-center helicopter operations, wildfire-response aviation, law-enforcement aviation, or existing general-aviation operations without an airspace and public-safety analysis.

The same is true for wildfire aviation. CAL FIRE states that its S-2T airtankers are used for rapid initial attack delivery of fire retardant and are strategically located throughout California to respond to Item 6.5
Public Comment
971
12 State Responsibility Areas within approximately 20 minutes. (CAL FIRE) If the City intends to rely on wildfire-response, public-safety aviation, emergency staging, resilience, or disaster-response benefits as part of the Airport Innovation Center narrative, that claim must be supported by written coordination with CAL FIRE, Alameda County emergency management, Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department, emergency medical service providers, FAA airspace staff, Caltrans Aeronautics, and existing airport users.

The City should not use public-safety language as branding while failing to analyze whether the Airport Innovation Center would compete with public-safety aviation, emergency access, disasterresponse needs, or existing airport operations.

XVIII.Valley Link and Regional Mobility Should Not Be Used to Justify Speculative Aviation Markets
The City should not imply that the Airport Innovation Center is an Interstate 580 mobility solution.

Valley Link is a defined regional rail proposal. Valley Link describes Phase 1A as extending from the Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit station to the Vasco Road Altamont Corridor Express station in Livermore, with alignment in the I-580 median and related stations and facilities; Valley Link also describes the project as intended to connect Northern San Joaquin Valley commuters with the Bay Area transit system and address the highly congested I-580 corridor. (Valley Link Rail) This comment does not endorse Valley Link as cost-effective, guaranteed, or problem-free. Valley Link has serious cost, ridership, funding, governance, phasing, and land-use questions.

But Valley Link is at least a defined regional transportation project aimed at a documented corridor problem. By contrast, the Airport Innovation Center is a building renovation and airport/economicdevelopment concept that the City has linked to aviation innovation, clean and quiet aviation, tenanting, and possible AAM/eVTOL concepts.

The City should not blur these issues. It should not imply that a speculative aviation incubator is an I580 mobility strategy. It should not use AAM language to distract from the hard work of corridor planning, safety improvements, transit integration, airport compatibility, and transparent capital planning.

Credibility matters. Livermore cannot ask regional, state, and federal partners to take its transportation and airport priorities seriously if it advances aviation concepts faster than the supporting public record.

XIX. The City Should Not Manufacture Markets Around Wineries, Laboratories, Defense Technology, Sacramento, or the San Joaquin Valley
The City should be especially careful not to justify the Airport Innovation Center by assembling speculative "sounds good on paper" markets after the fact.

Potential talking points may include winery connections, laboratory partnerships, defense technology, Sacramento-area business travel, San Joaquin Valley linkages, regional commuting, cargo, emergency response, or technology incubation. Some of those ideas may be interesting in the abstract. None should be used to justify public investment unless supported by actual evidence.

Item 6.5
Public Comment
972
13 The public record should not assume that Livermore-to-Napa, Livermore-to-Sonoma, Livermore-toPaso Robles, or other winery-cluster routes are viable; that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or Sandia National Laboratories create a routine aviation commute market; that defense, technology, or laboratory partnerships overcome security, access, cost, scheduling, and airspace constraints; that Sacramento, Stockton, Tracy, Mountain House, or broader San Joaquin Valley connections create an aviation market rather than a ground-transportation and rail-planning issue; that AAM/eVTOL operations will materially relieve I-580 congestion; or that the word "innovation" is enough to show aviation demand.

If the City believes any of these markets are real, it should produce the analysis. If the City does not yet have that analysis, it should not rely on those markets to justify Airport Fund 600 expenditures, design lock-in, tenant recruitment, construction support, or airport-development commitments.

XX. Credibility With FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics, CAL FIRE, Emergency Agencies, and Transportation Funders Is at Risk
The City's own staff report states that FAA funding for new projects had been limited until LVK addressed identified airfield geometry and related issues, and that the PMMP and ALP/Technical Studies were recognized as essential to addressing identified deficiencies and supporting future improvements.

That should be a warning.

The City should not risk credibility with FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics, CAL FIRE, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the California Transportation Commission, the California State Transportation Agency, the Regional Water Board, emergency-response agencies, airport tenants, and regional transportation partners by advancing a politically attractive aviationinnovation concept before the core airport record exists.

Speculative aviation branding without demand studies, safety analysis, airspace review, PFAS review, environmental review, emergency-response coordination, hangar-demand analysis, utility planning, and transparent funding reconciliation creates exactly the wrong impression: that Livermore is trying to make the airport fit a political and economic-development narrative rather than letting airport facts, safety needs, environmental constraints, and federal aviation standards lead the process.

XXI. CEQA, Airport Policy, Environmental Review, and Funding Review Should Not Be Segmented
The public record should clearly distinguish among renovation of an existing building; expansion of that building; tenant improvements; economic-development programming; recruitment of aviation startups or established aviation companies; AAM operations; eVTOL testing or deployment; vertiport, charging, or maintenance infrastructure; airport security changes; changes to airport operations; construction staging; utility work; access work; drainage work; pavement disturbance; PFAS investigation, management, remediation, and disposal; and any future Public Safety Complex or related airport-development actions.

Those may not all be the same project for every legal, environmental, airport-policy, funding, or design purpose. But they also should not be artificially separated if they are reasonably foreseeable pieces of the same program.

Item 6.5
Public Comment
973
14 The City should not first present a building renovation, then later add tenanting, AAM, eVTOL, charging, testing, maintenance, air-taxi, cargo, or public-safety functions after the public has lost the opportunity to review the full project context.

Any future staff report should identify the City's position on environmental review, ALP consistency, airport compatibility, funding source restrictions, federal obligations, tenanting authority, PFAS, utility demands, airspace safety, and whether the Airport Commission is being asked to provide advisory input, approve a recommendation, receive information, or endorse a policy direction.

XXII. Requested Direction
I respectfully request that the City Council approve Agenda Item 6.5 only with clear direction that Airport Layout Plan and Technical Studies Project AR202720 shall precede, inform, and constrain any further substantive work under Airport Innovation Center Project AR202628.

Specifically, the City Council should direct staff to:

1. Treat the ALP and Technical Studies Project AR202720 as the controlling framework for LVK's future development decisions.

2. Prohibit Airport Innovation Center design lock-in, building expansion assumptions, tenantimprovement assumptions, access design, utility design, electrical-load assumptions, staging assumptions, construction-support assumptions, tenant recruitment, AAM assumptions, eVTOL assumptions, prototype/testing assumptions, or environmental determinations until the ALP and Technical Studies have meaningfully evaluated those issues.

3. Limit any ongoing Airport Innovation Center work to non-irreversible existing-conditions review, records review, agency coordination, and information gathering until the ALP, AGIS obstruction survey, EMUP, environmental baseline studies, PMMP, perimeter-security work, and PFAS review have advanced far enough to provide the controlling airport framework.

4. Require the ALP to expressly evaluate whether the Airport Innovation Center is compatible with LVK's aviation forecasts, critical design aircraft, airfield needs, landside needs, airport development alternatives, capital priorities, electrical infrastructure, environmental constraints, airport security, emergency access, tenant needs, hangar demand, existing aviation users, and FAA review requirements.

5. Require the AGIS obstruction survey to evaluate airspace protection, arrival and departure surfaces, runway-safety implications, wrong-surface landing risk, runway-incursion hot spots, parallel-runway conflicts, Instrument Flight Rules/Visual Flight Rules conflicts, helicopter operations, and any potential AAM/eVTOL conflicts.

6. Require the EMUP to be completed or meaningfully advanced before any Airport Innovation Center design assumptions involving electric aircraft, charging, aviation technology, building expansion, tenant improvements, increased electrical load, or new utility corridors.

7. Require the ALP to evaluate hangar demand, hangar waiting lists, box-hangar needs, aeronautical versus non-aeronautical use, aircraft-storage requirements, aviation support services, existing tenant needs, and whether the Airport Innovation Center would compete with or displace airport-priority uses.

8. Require the ALP and environmental baseline studies to integrate PFAS conditions, including the Geosyntec findings regarding south hangar soil detections, PFOA exceedances of construction-worker ESLs, groundwater MCL exceedances, the historic Hangar S-1 AFFF release, and recommended further investigation near MW-04, DPT-05, DPT-07, Hangar S-1, the south hangars, and the waste storage area.

Item 6.5
Public Comment
974
15 9. Require a PFAS footprint and disturbance-area analysis before any Airport Innovation Center assumptions involving grading, trenching, utilities, drainage, slab removal, pavement disturbance, staging, access routes, building renovation, or building expansion.

10. Require a construction-worker exposure and health-and-safety plan, soil and groundwater management plan, and dewatering/groundwater-handling plan before any construction-related disturbance.

11. Require written coordination with FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics, the Regional Water Board, Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department, Alameda County emergency-management agencies, emergency medical services representatives, CAL FIRE, hospital heliport/trauma-system stakeholders as appropriate, existing LVK tenants, flight schools, maintenance providers, and FBOs before the City advances any Airport Innovation Center concept tied to airspace, public safety, emergency response, eVTOL, AAM, or aviation technology.

12. Require the Airport Innovation Center to return as a standalone Airport Commission item only after the ALP and Technical Studies have meaningfully progressed.

13. Require the City to reconcile the Aviation Innovation Center project page, the April 13, 2026 design-contract authorization, Airport Fund 600 commitments, Barry & Wynn Architects scope, subconsultant qualifications, total authorized contract amount, future construction exposure, and any AAM/eVTOL assumptions with the ALP process.

14. Require disclosure of whether the Airport Innovation Center consultant team includes airport planning, aviation-safety, airspace, airport-operations, hangar planning, fire/life-safety, PFAS, soil/groundwater, hazardous-materials, environmental, CEQA, FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics, and Regional Water Board coordination expertise.

15. Do not rely on speculative winery, laboratory, defense-technology, Sacramento, San Joaquin Valley, cargo, air-taxi, emergency-response, or I-580 congestion-relief markets unless supported by actual demand analysis, airspace review, airport-compatibility review, safety analysis, environmental review, PFAS review, fiscal analysis, and public-safety coordination.

16. Confirm that the City's current public-comment rules allow longer written comments by email to the City Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date and that the 1,000-character limit applies only to optional eComments, not to full emailed written comments.

17. Create a single electronic project record linking Agenda Item 6.5, the ALP and Technical Studies, the PMMP, the Perimeter Fencing and Security Upgrades Project, the Airport Innovation Center design contract, the Airport Development Strategy, PFAS investigation materials, Airport Commission materials, public comments, consultant materials, and all future staff reports.

18.Pause further substantive Airport Innovation Center advancement until the Airport Commission and public have received a complete standalone record.

XXIII.Conclusion
Agenda Item 6.5 should be treated as the City's Airport Layout Plan pivot.

The Airport Innovation Center should not lead LVK's future. The ALP should.

The City's own staff report confirms that LVK needs an updated ALP, aviation forecasts, airfield and landside facility analysis, a phased CIP, an FAA-approved ALP drawing set, an AGIS obstruction survey, environmental baseline studies, and an EMUP before the airport can responsibly position itself for future development. Those studies should decide whether the Airport Innovation Center has any legitimate airport basis at all.

Item 6.5
Public Comment
975
976
977
Date: July 24, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kristen Hilton, Acting Administrative Service Director Subject: Supplemental Information for Council Item 7.1 - Hearing to place delinquent sewer accounts on the Property Tax Roll
Following publication of this agenda item, staff identified the following revisions to Exhibit A:

1. Additional customers have paid off their balance. This is to revise the number of delinquent accounts to 5 with an outstanding balance of $2,570.

All other items remain as published.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Exhibit A - City of Livermore delinquent sewer list balance as of 7-24-25 FY26-27 property tax liens
Item 7.1
Memo and Updated Exhibit A
978
Service Address APN
Assessment
Amount
109 SEDONA CM 4 903001804500 171.75
2818 TRIAD PL 905001902300 181.86
52 WRIGHT BROTHERS AVE 099134202803 232.93
297 RICKENBACKER CIR 099131602400 827.00
2011 SECOND ST 097001900500 1,156.56
Total 2,570.10

CITY OF LIVERMORE

DELINQUENT SEWER LIST
BALANCE AS OF 7/24/25
FY26-27 PROPERTY TAX LIENS
EXHIBIT A Item 7.1
Memo and Updated Exhibit A
979
1 v Collection of Delinquent
Sewer Service Charges on the
Property Tax Roll
July 27, 2026
Presented by: Martin Wong, Accounting Supervisor,
Administrative Service Department
Collection of Delinquent Sewer Service
Charges on the Property Tax Roll • City of Livermore has approximately 1,100 sewer accounts
• 19 accounts are identified as severely delinquent in
the staff report • After multiple attempts to collect, 5 accounts remain delinquent for a total of $2,570 outstanding
• Per LMC 13.36.21, delinquent sewer charges may
be placed on the property tax roll
1 2
Item 7.1
PowerPoint Presentation
980
2 Recommendation
Staff recommends City Council consider protests,
adopt a resolution overruling protests, and direct
staff to forward the delinquent list to the Alameda
County Tax Assessor.
3 Item 7.1
PowerPoint Presentation
981
1 v Hearing to adopt FY 2026-27
residential sewer service and use
charges report and authorize
charges to be collected on the
Property Tax Roll
July 27, 2026
Presented by: Martin Wong, Accounting Supervisor,
Administrative Service Department
Background Information
• Sewer Service Charges are for the collection,
treatment, and disposal of wastewater • City of Livermore collects residential sewer service charges on the Property Tax roll • City Council approved rates on June 9th, 2025, resolution no. 2025-092
• This hearing is to fulfill a Health and Safety Code
requirement to conduct a public hearing on the
report containing a description and amount of the
charge for each parcel
1 2
Item 7.2
PowerPoint Presentation
982
2 City of Livermore Sewer Service Charge
FY 2026-27 Final Tax Roll Summary
• Number of Parcels: 27,260
• Total Fiscal Year Residential Sewer Revenue:
$28,092,107
Recommendation
Staff recommends City Council consider protests,
find that protest was not made by majority of
parcels, adopt residential sewer service report, and
authorize collection of charges on the Property Tax
roll by the Alameda County Tax Assessor
3 4
Item 7.2
PowerPoint Presentation
983
1 v
Livermore General Plan 2045
City Council
July 27, 2026
Andy Ross, Principal Planner
General Plan 2045
• Establishes a community vision to guide
Livermore's future over the next 20 years
• Identifies key community issues and includes
goals and policies to address those issues
• Covers all State-required General Plan
elements and topics identified by community
• Includes supporting maps and diagrams. • Contains an Implementation Plan that identifies actions to prioritize work programs
and guide future decision-making
• On May 11, Council Directed modifications
included in Errata Sheet dated July 7, 2026.
1 2
Item 7.3
PowerPoint Presentation
984
2 Planning Commission Recommended
Land Use Adjustments
3658 Las Colinas Road
305 South Vasco Road Midtown Specific Plan Area
Camden/Cole Commons
Neighborhood Mixed Use – High
Density (NMH) to Medium
Density Residential 3 (MDR)
Midtown Designation adjusted
to Service Commercial
Medium Density Residential
(MDR) 3 to dual MDR 2/3
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
to General Industrial
Implementation Actions for Consistency
Zoning Map Amendment • Implements the Land Use Map
authorized by the City Council in
February 2025
• Ensures consistency with the
General Plan upon its adoption
Scenic Resources Policies
• Retain existing Scenic Corridor
policies until Scenic Overlay
regulations are adopted
• Balance scenic protection and
community and economic
development goals.
3 4
Item 7.3
PowerPoint Presentation
985
3 Draft EIR Impact Summary
• Less than Significant • Aesthetics
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Population and Housing
• Public Services, Parks, and
Recreation
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
• Less than Significant with
Mitigation
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources
• Significant and Unavoidable
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
Public Comments and Final EIR
• 53-day comment period from March 3 through April 24, 2026 • Received comments from following agencies and private parties • Final EIR includes: • Comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR • Responses to comments
• Changes and corrections to text of the Draft EIR
• Final EIR addresses concerns regarding population growth • Full EIR consists of Draft EIR published in March 2026, and Final EIR published in July 2026
• Significant and unavoidable impacts at the program level do not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts at the project level for future development in Livermore
5 6
Item 7.3
PowerPoint Presentation
986
4 Statement of Overriding Considerations
Identifies how the project's benefits outweigh the potential impacts: • Advances the City's planning vision through 2045 to address State requirements and community priorities
• Promotes infill and diverse housing opportunities to meet current and future RHNA requirements through 2045
• Supports sustainable growth through proactive planning of infrastructure and public services
• Creates vibrant mixed-use districts with enhanced mobility and multimodal transportation options
• Promotes long-term fiscal sustainability by encouraging development that supports public infrastructure and services
• Expands opportunities for diverse jobs and businesses to foster a resilient economy and enable more residents to work in Livermore
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission and Staff recommend the City
Council: • Certify the General Plan 2045 Environmental Impact Report (EIR); • Adopt Livermore General Plan 2045, subject to the revisions identified in the Errata Sheet dated July 7, 2026 (GPA 21-003); • Introduce an Ordinance to approve conforming amendments to the Livermore Zoning Map (ZMA 26-001); and
• Retain Existing General Plan Scenic Corridor Policy (under separate cover) until new Scenic Resources standards are considered and adopted at a future date (POL 26-002).
7 8
Item 7.3
PowerPoint Presentation
987
5 Questions?
9 Item 7.3
PowerPoint Presentation
988
1 Helena Graves
From: Traci Anderson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:47 AM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Katie Marcel; Tim Sbranti
Subject: ITV Letter of Support for the 2045 GP Meeting Today Attachments: ITV LOS.Livermore.GP2045.pdf
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Livermore City Clerk,
Please find attached a letter of support for today's City Council meeting from Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group CEO Katie Marcel and Executive Board Chair Tim Sbranti.

At your convenience, would you please confirm receipt of this email? Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,
Traci
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. innovationtrivalley.org Traci Anderson
Director of Community
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
(925) 577-6319
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

[email protected]
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
6200 Village Parkway, Dublin, CA 94568
CLICK HERE to sign up for the ITV Newsletter.

FOLLOW US on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram!
Item 7.3
Public Comment
989
6200 Village Parkway, Suite 200, Dublin, CA 94568 | Office: 925.337.2859 July 27, 2026
City of Livermore
Honorable Mayor and Livermore City Council
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
RE: Letter of Support — Certification of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report and Approval of the Livermore General Plan 2045
Dear Mayor Marchand and Livermore City Councilmembers,
On behalf of Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group (ITV), we are writing to express our strong support for the City of Livermore's consideration of the resolutions to certify the General Plan Environmental Impact Report and to approve the Livermore General Plan 2045.

Before addressing the substance of the plan, we want to extend our sincere gratitude to the members of the General Plan Advisory Committee and all who contributed to this effort. Crafting a document that will guide Livermore's growth, development, and resource conservation through 2045 is no small task.

The care, rigor, and thoughtfulness that went into getting this plan right — balancing competing priorities while keeping the community's long-term interests at the center — deserves genuine recognition. Livermore is fortunate to have residents and leaders willing to invest that level of attention into its future.

Livermore's future is closely tied to its role within the broader Tri-Valley region. As Alameda and Contra Costa County communities continue to grow and evolve, the General Plan 2045 serves as a shared vision — one that guides not only Livermore's development but also its contribution to the region's collective identity and economy. ITV appreciates that this plan recognizes Livermore's importance not just as a city unto itself, but as an anchor of the Tri-Valley.

We are especially encouraged by the plan's continued welcome of commercial and industrial development. Sustaining Livermore and the Tri-Valley as a hub of innovation requires ongoing support for emerging industries, talent, and infrastructure. The region has built a hard-earned reputation for forward-thinking research and advanced industry, and this plan positions Livermore to not simply keep pace with innovation, but to help lead it — including by remaining an attractive home for cutting-edge Item 7.3
Public Comment
990
6200 Village Parkway, Suite 200, Dublin, CA 94568 | Office: 925.337.2859 technologies such as commercial fusion and other advanced energy solutions. As the City moves forward with implementation, we encourage continued attention to the infrastructure that underpins this ambition: adequate power capacity, high-speed communications, reliable utilities, and efficient transportation.

On that last point, we want to specifically highlight one of the most consequential opportunities embedded in this plan: the connection of Livermore neighborhoods to Valley Link. Valley Link represents the best and most cost-effective opportunity in Northern California to achieve a megaregional modeshift between the San Joaquin Valley and the Bay Area — reducing greenhouse gas emissions, addressing our region's persistent jobs-housing imbalance, and accelerating the transition to zeroemission transportation, all while providing critical new connectivity between the existing ACE and BART systems. Valley Link has broad, multi-sector support and is identified in both the SJCOG 2022 RTP/SCS and the MTC Plan Bay Area 2050, with more than $654 million already committed from local and state sources, a place in MTC's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Regional Grant Strategy, and federal environmental clearance from the FTA. It is vital to the economic future of Alameda County and the TriValley — connecting tens of thousands of workers to one of the fastest-growing, most economically robust areas in California, expanding transit-oriented housing supply, strengthening ridership for our regional transit partners, and improving access to education and health care. The General Plan 2045's integration of Valley Link's station nodes into Livermore's land use and mobility framework is exactly the kind of forward planning our region needs.

The Livermore General Plan 2045 is a thoughtful, forward-looking document that reflects the character and ambition of this community. On behalf of ITV, we respectfully urge the City Council to certify the Environmental Impact Report and approve the General Plan 2045, and we ask that you please keep this plan moving forward.

Thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to share our support.

Respectfully,
Tim Sbranti
Board Chair, Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group
Katie Marcel
Chief Executive Officer, Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group Item 7.3
Public Comment
991
1 v
Las Colinas Road Property
Development Agreement 24-004
City Council
July 27, 2026
Shannon Pagan, Senior Planner
Background and Site Context
Background
• Expired Development Agreement
allowed a private high school • City Council direction to negotiate a new Development
Agreement (Feb 2025) • Revise land use designations
• Explore range of housing
densities
• Secure community benefits
Site Context • 122-acres undeveloped site near
Springtown neighborhood
• Approx. 50 developable acres
1 2
Item 7.4
PowerPoint Presentation
992
2 Development Agreement Structure
Not a specific development project
Establishes a framework for future residential development consistent with the General Plan
Secures benefits for the community
Requires subsequent approvals: Neighborhood Plan,
Planned Development Zoning, Design Review, and CEQA
Development Agreement Framework
• Mix of Housing Types
• 605-900 total units
• 8-30 dwelling units/acre
• Approx. 50 developable
acres
• Affordable Housing Strategies
• Parkland and Open Space
• Infrastructure Improvements
• Las Colinas Road Connection
• Multi-purpose Trails
• $6M in Community Benefit
Fund Contribution

CONCEPTUAL
ONLY

TO BE REFINED
3 4
Item 7.4
PowerPoint Presentation
993
3 General Plan 2045 Consistency
• Supports a range of
housing
opportunities
• Ensures contextsensitive
neighborhood
transitions
• Preserves natural
features and open
space
Recommendation
The Planning Commission and staff recommend the
City Council:

2. Introduce an Ordinance, and waive the first reading, authorizing the City Manager to execute Development
Agreement (DA) 24-004.
5 6
Item 7.4
PowerPoint Presentation
994
4 Questions?
7 Item 7.4
PowerPoint Presentation
995
1 Helena Graves
From: Jack Farrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 6:26 AM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Leora Tanjuatco Ross
Subject: Public Comment for 7/27/26 Council meeting
Attachments: 3658 Las Colinas Road support letter.pdf
Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Good morning,
Attached please find YIMBY Law's letter of support for the Development Agreement for 3658 Las Colinas Road, item 7.4 of the upcoming City Council agenda.

Sincerely,
Jack Farrell he/him
Research Attorney
267-218-1147
To help p otect you p vacy M c osoft Off ce p evented autom t c download of th s pictu e f om the Inte net
Check out everything we achieved in 2025!
Item 7.4
Public Comment
996
Item 7.4
Public Comment
997
Livermore already supports this form of development, as already identified in numerous General Plan programs. The General Plan seeks to introduce a range of housing types, maximize residential density, cultivate new neighborhoods, and provide for a diverse array of open space options. All of these needs will be served directly by new housing at the project site.

Taken together with Livermore’s statutory RHNA obligation, existing General Plan programs, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission and council staff, we are happy to support the proposed Development Agreement and the housing that it will generate.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
Item 7.4
Public Comment
998
1 Helena Graves
From: Alaura R. McGuire <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 7:17 PM
To: City Clerk; John Marchand; Kristie Wang; Barrientos, Ben; Evan Branning; [email protected]
Cc: Christina Caro; Alisha C. Pember
Subject: Livermore City Council Agenda Item 7.4: Development Agreement 24-004 (Adventus Livermore)
Attachments: 8007-008arm_Ltr to City Council re Adventus DA (7-24-26).pdf Exercise Caution: This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Good Evening,
Please find attached Comments Re City Council Agenda Item 7.4: Development Agreement 24-004 (Adventus Livermore).

A hard copy of our comments will go out via overnight delivery.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Thank you,
Alaura
Alaura R. McGuire
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 589-1660 voice, Ext. 19
[email protected]
Item 7.4
Public Comment
999
8007-008arm
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW KELILAH D. FEDERMAN RICHARD M. FRANCO TANYA A. GULESSERIAN RACHAEL E. KOSS AIDAN P. MARSHALL ALAURA R. McGUIRE Of Counsel DANIEL L. CARDOZO MARC D. JOSEPH

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION A T T O R NE Y S A T L A W 6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________ T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0 F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2
a m c g u i r e @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m
printed on recycled paper
July 24, 2026
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Mayor John Marchand
Vice Mayor Kristie Wang
City Councilmembers
c/o City Clerk
City Hall, City of Livermore
1052 S. Livermore Ave.

Livermore, CA 94550
Email: [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
Re: City Council Agenda Item 7.4: Development Agreement 24-004 (Adventus Livermore)
Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Clerk:

We are writing on behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (“EBRRD”) regarding City Council Agenda Item No. 7.4, the proposed Development Agreement 24-004 for the Adventus residential project, a future residential project on approximately 50 developable acres within a 122-acre property at 3658 Las Colinas Road (Assessor Parcel Number 902-8-1) (“Project”). The Development Agreement will be considered by the City Council on July 27, 2026.1 EBRRD is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that includes the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 342, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483, their members and families, and other individuals that live and work in Livermore and throughout Alameda County. EBRRD supports sustainable development that complies with applicable laws and which supports the local workforce.
1 Livermore City Council, July 27, 2026 Agenda, available at:
https://livermore.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=1&event_id=1101.

Item 7.4
Public Comment
1000
July 24, 2026

Page 2 ends

8007-008arm
Adventus (“Applicant”) is the owner of the 3658 Las Colinas Road property (“Property”).2 In December 2024, during the City’s General Plan 2045 Update, the Applicant submitted an application for a Development Agreement to pursue a housing project of approximately 605-900 residential units at the Property.3 In February 2025, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing staff to proceed with negotiating the Development Agreement with the Applicant to secure community benefits associated with the requested land use designation changes for the Project.4 In May 2026, EBRRD asked the Applicant to consider including workforce standards for the local construction workforce as community benefits in the Development Agreement. However, the Development Agreement was subsequently negotiated without workforce standards.

On July 6, 2026, EBRRD submitted a letter to the Planning Commission requesting that the City negotiate construction workforce standards as community benefits in the Development Agreement.5 EBRRD noted that, while the Agreement proposed payment to the City’s general Community Benefit Fund, it did not include community benefits to support the City’s local construction workforce – a critical omission. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Development Agreement without incorporating the requested workforce standards.

EBRRD’s review of the City Council Staff Report confirms that Section 5 of the proposed Ordinance for adopting the Development Agreement includes a new term in which the City Council “recommends any future developer of the Las Colinas Road Property engage with relevant labor organizations, as appropriate, in connection with the planning, construction, and facilitation of site development.”6 While this workforce recommendation is laudable, it does not go far enough to ensure that the future Project developer will engage in meaningful discussions with the local construction workforce about employment of local residents, support workforce training, or create career pathway jobs that lift up the middle class. 2 City Council Staff Report (“Staff Report”), p. 1.
3 Id. at p. 2.
4 See 2/24/26 City Council packet, Item 62, available at https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/livermore/74418fc3-bbfd-11ef-ab4b-005056a89546-56f8d3ad798a-46fd-809a-185221d02021-1740544642.pdf. 5 ABJC Comments Re: Planning Commission Agenda Item 5.2: Development Agreement 24-004 (Adventus Livermore) (July 6, 2026).
6 [Proposed] City Council Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement with Adventus for the Las Colinas Road Property (Development Agreement 24-004), p. 2, available at:
https://livermore.granicus.com/services/legistar/download/pdf/4256019/7.4_Adventus_Ordinance_DA _-_Final.pdf.

Item 7.4
Public Comment
1001
July 24, 2026

Page 3 ends

8007-008arm
The construction workforce is an essential part of the City’s sustainable development goals. The City’s General Plan and Strategic Plan include citywide objectives to “lead initiatives and programs to help strengthen Livermore’s ability to attract and retain a workforce of diverse backgrounds and skill levels earning a livable wage”7 and “achieve[] a more balanced economy by attracting greater diversification of employment opportunities, particularly those which can use the local labor force.”8 It is critical that the City Council ensure that construction of residential and mixed-use projects in its jurisdiction supports local high road job creation and apprenticeship opportunities for the City and Tri-Valley’s local construction workforce.

The City also has a strong interest in ensuring that workers and residents within its borders have meaningful access to health care coverage, including the local construction workforce, who can experience high rates of injury. There are significant numbers of people living in poverty within the regional labor market.

Middle-wage, family-supporting jobs are continuing to shrink in the Tri-Valley area.

One of the highest-growth industries with potential to produce jobs that can lift TriValley area residents out of poverty is high road construction. Section 5 of the proposed Ordinance does not move the needle far enough on achieving these objectives for the Project’s construction workforce.

EBBRRD respectfully requests that the City Council amend Section 5 of the draft Ordinance to include the following recommendation [bold text]:

Section 5. Approval. Based upon the City Council’s own independent review of the Record Evidence and considerations, it hereby adopts this Ordinance approving the Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit B. As a condition of approval, any future developer of the Las Colinas Road Property shall engage with relevant labor organizations to discuss how to ensure project construction will support local high road job creation and apprenticeship opportunities and shall provide the City a report on the outcome of these discussions at least 60 days prior to the submittal of any building permit applications. This amendment would ensure that the future Project developer meaningfully engages with local construction workforce about labor standards for 7 Livermore Strategic Plan, pp. 19, 32.
8 General Plan ED Element, p. 11-10.

Item 7.4
Public Comment
1002
July 24, 2026

Page 4 ends

8007-008arm
the Project and documents those efforts to the City – a critical step in ensuring sustainable development.

A. Support for Proposed Ordinance Amendment

1. General Plan and Strategic Plan
To approve the Development Agreement, the City Council must find that the development is consistent with the General Plan and applicable specific plans.9 If the adopting Ordinance recommends that the Project developer engage directly with local construction labor organizations about workforce standards for the Project, then report the results of those discussion to the City, the Project would take meaningful steps towards implementing critical workforce policies in the General Plan and Strategic Plan.

For example, the General Plan’s Economic Development Element (“ED Element”) found that “Livermore’s economy has mismatches be-tween jobs and residents, and the City likely continues to ‘import’ workers living elsewhere, while many residents of Livermore continue to commute out to other employment centers offering higher wage jobs” and concluded that “[t]hese findings underscore the need for a better match between the economic base and housing market in Livermore.”10 To address these issues, the ED Element includes Goals ED-1 and ED-2, which are directly relevant to the proposed amendment:

Goal ED-1: Maintain and expand a diverse economy to ensure economic vitality.

Objective ED-1.1. Implement policies and actions that will encourage existing businesses to remain and grow in Livermore, and attract a range of new businesses to locate in Livermore.

Policy A4. Work with businesses and employment recruiters to establish a process to employ Livermore and other local residents for Livermore-based employment.

Policy A5. Encourage and actively attract businesses in key industries that build upon Liver-more’s competitive advantages and offer high wage jobs.11 Goal ED-2: Balance the supply of job and housing opportunities in Livermore, and match jobs and wages to housing prices.
9 LMC § 4-25-050.
10 General Plan ED Element, p. 11-5 to 11-6 (Jobs/Housing Balance and Match). 11 General Plan ED Element, pp. 11-7 to 11-8.

Item 7.4
Public Comment
1003
July 24, 2026

Page 5 ends

8007-008arm
Objective ED-2.1. Initiate strategies to attract additional higher wage jobs, leading to decreased out-commuting and a better jobs/housing match.

Policy P1. The City shall work toward achieving a more “balanced” economy by attracting greater diversification of employment opportunities, particularly those which can use the local labor force.

Policy P2. Support and encourage businesses that provide jobs that would have a positive effect on Livermore’s job/housing match.12
The City’s Strategic Plan includes similar goals to “Attract, develop, engage, and retain a diverse and highly skilled workforce” (Goal 8) and “Lead efforts, in collaboration with other City departments and outside partners, to maintain and enhance the diversity and resilience of Livermore’s economy.” (Goal 2).13 These goals implement citywide objectives to “lead initiatives and programs to help strengthen Livermore’s ability to attract and retain a workforce of diverse backgrounds and skill levels earning a livable wage.”14

2. Public Policy and Local Workforce Programs
Large construction projects that generate low-wage jobs which provide little to no benefits, and disproportionately hire out-of-area workers, contribute to local poverty and economic decline. The proposed amendment would ask the Adventus Project to be different. If adopted, the amendment would ensure that future developers will engage in discussions about ways they can help create local job opportunities for disadvantaged workers by employing apprentices and adopting local hire goals.

Apprenticeship programs are a proven pathway for providing disadvantaged local residents good-paying construction-career opportunities. Because apprentices are paid, apprenticeship programs provide career growth opportunities to persons with families that cannot afford to take time off to attend college. In addition, stateapproved apprenticeship programs are required by law to adopt an equal opportunity program with an affirmative action plan to recruit women and minority applicants.15 Over 95% of apprenticeship graduates in California are produced by joint labor-management apprenticeship programs and many participants in union apprenticeship programs are people of color.16 12 General Plan ED Element, p. 11-10. 13 Livermore Strategic Plan, pp. 19, 32.
14 Id. 15 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 215.
16 See e.g. Luke, et al. UC Berkeley, Center for Labor Research and Education, Diversity in California’s Clean Energy Workforce: Access to Jobs for Disadvantaged Workers in Renewable Energy Item 7.4
Public Comment
1004
July 24, 2026

Page 6 ends

8007-008arm
Apprenticeship programs ensure that construction workers have the skills necessary to construct buildings correctly, efficiently and safely. Apprenticeship training curricula include training on safety and on energy and water efficiency measures. This training is independently reviewed and approved by the California Division of Apprenticeship Standards.

Maximizing local hire also supports the local economy. Studies show that each dollar paid to local construction workers can produce $1.50 in economic activity.17 Local hire also reduces traffic congestion and climate impacts by reducing the number of super commuters travelling to the Tri-Valley area to take jobs that could be filled by local residents.

B. Conclusion
EBRRD respectfully requests that City amend Section 5 of the proposed Ordinance to incorporate the language proposed herein.

Sincerely,
Alaura McGuire
Christina Caro
:arm
Construction (August 2017), available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2017/Diversity-inCalifornias-Clean-Energy-Workforce.pdf (documenting “considerable ethnic and racial diversity” in enrollments in apprenticeship programs of the 16 union locals of electricians, ironworkers, and operators that have built most of the renewable energy power plants in California, including construction workers from communities that are designated as disadvantaged by Cal EPA. 17 Gin et al., "The Economic Impact of the Downtown 'Convadium' Proposal" (2016), Appendix A.

Item 7.4
Public Comment
1005
1 v McGrath RentCorp Development
Agreement Amendment
Presented by:

Jake Potter
Economic Development Manager
Innovation & Economic Development Department
July 27, 2026
Background
• McGrath
• Industrial
commercial use
• 130 acres
• Existing DA
• General Plan
• McGrath located in
Midtown Area
• 2021 – initial
engagement • Feb 2025 – Council
direction to work
with McGrath
1 2
Item 7.5
PowerPoint Presentation
1006
2 Development Agreement Terms
McGrath Obligations
• Support MDR 4 / HDR 1
residential densities: • MDR 4: 18-22 du/ac
• HDR 1: 23-30 du/ac
• Sell northern ~40 acres to a
high-value commercial user,
approved by the City.

City Obligations
• Extend DA term 30 years to
2059. • Adjust DA boundary.

Policy Consistency
• GP 2045 Policy
• Policy LU-15.5 - Create [Midtown] job opportunities through industrial/office uses. • Policy ED-4.1 - Balance a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial development to support a sustainable tax base. • Policy ED-5.2 - Provide a land use mix that generates stable, long-term revenues to fund City services. • Public Benefit • Support for future Midtown housing • Estimated $900,000 - $1 million annual tax revenue increase • Estimated 400-600 jobs
• CEQA
• No physical development • Design/ environmental approvals required for future development 3 4
Item 7.5
PowerPoint Presentation
1007
3 Recommendation
The Planning Commission and Staff recommend the City Council:

1. Adopt a Resolution finding that the first amendment to Development Agreement 08-002 with McGrath RentCorp is
exempt under CEQA; and

2. Introduce an Ordinance, and waive the first reading, authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to Development Agreement 08-002 with McGrath RentCorp
(DAA 26-002).
5 Item 7.5
PowerPoint Presentation
1008
Council Member
Date of
Meeting
or Event Committee or Organization Meeting or Event Type Summary of Meeting or Event Mayor Marchand 7/15/2026 City of Livermore Ribbon-cutting Provided comments and a certificate to
welcome Velo3D to the City.

Mayor Marchand 7/16/2026 City of Livermore TV30 Mayor's Report Provided an update on City activities.

Mayor Marchand 7/17/2026 City of Livermore 100th Birthday Presented a certificate recognizing the
100th birthday of Kate McCole.

Mayor Marchand 7/22/2026 DayBreak Labs Board meeting
Approved financials, accepted policies,
received updates.

Mayor Marchand 7/23/2026
Alameda County Transportation
Commission Commission Meeting
Heard updates and public testimony
regarding the CalTrans Interstate 580 Truck
Access Study. Ironically, neither ACTC nor
CalTrans have authority over the 580 truck
ban.

Mayor Marchand 7/23/2026 Valley Link Public outreach
Attended the information booth for Valley
Link at the Livermore Farmers Market.

Mayor Marchand 7/25/2026 City of Livermore
Celebration of Life for
former Supervisor Scott
Haggerty Heard many heart-felt remembrances.

Mayor Marchand 7/27/2026 Wheels Bus 40th Anniversary
Attended and presented a Proclamation
recognizing 40 years of service to the TriValley.

Item 10.0
Council Reports
1009
Council Member
Date of
Meeting
or Event Committee or Organization Meeting or Event Type Summary of Meeting or Event Vice Mayor Wang 7/14/2026
Asian Pacific American Public Affairs
Association (APAPA), Tri-Valley Chapter Summer Bridge Academy Presented to students on local government.

Vice Mayor Wang 7/15/2026 Velo3D
Ribbon cutting and
reception
Celebrated the opening of a 289,000-
square-foot production campus to build
metal 3D printers and parts, primarily for the
aerospace, defense, and energy sectors.

Vice Mayor Wang 7/15/2026 Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce Monthly mixer Held at The Club at Livermore.

Vice Mayor Wang 7/16/2026 Handel's Homemade Ice Cream Grand opening It's open for business! Vice Mayor Wang 7/17/2026 Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee Quarterly meeting Discussed plans for upcoming field trip to
the Committee's eastern priority areas;
received presentation on the concept of an
East-West Trail in Alameda County.

Vice Mayor Wang 7/17/2026 Sakura Winery Mah Jong Night
Taught Mah Jong to beginning players and
played games with new and experience
players.

Vice Mayor Wang 7/18/2026 Livermore Lions Club and Calafia Kitchen Summer Festival Thank you to Councilmember Barrientos,
Calafia Kitchen, DJ, participating community
members, and local vendors.

Vice Mayor Wang 7/18/2026 Alden Lane Nursery Art Under the Oaks Fun annual event with local vendors,
community members, food, wine, and
music.

Vice Mayor Wang 7/20/2026 Tri-Valley Transportation Commission Quarterly Board meeting Approved staff recommendation to adopt
two additional residential land use
categories for Transit Priority Area reduced
fees in the TVTDF Rate Schedule, pursuant
to requirements of AB 3177; staff may come
back at the October meeting with
amendments to the fees.

Item 10.0
Council Reports
1010
Council Member
Date of
Meeting
or Event Committee or Organization Meeting or Event Type Summary of Meeting or Event Vice Mayor Wang 7/20/2026 Stitch & Revel
Downtown Tree Sweater
Kickoff
Store owner Sanjani Ramkissoon and
DonnaMarie Fuller explained how to
participate in the Downtown Tree Sweater
program to new and experienced creators.

The sweaters will be on the downtown trees
from 9/6-11/29.

Vice Mayor Wang 7/22/2026
Livermore Area Recreation and Parks
District
Board of Directors Public
Meeting in the Park
The five Directors, General Manager Matt
Fuzie, and two Livermore Police officers
presented updates, received public
comment, and answered questions from
community members.

Vice Mayor Wang 7/26/2026 Goodness Village Tour
Toured with Councilmember Evan Branning
and State Senator Aisha Wahab
Vice Mayor Wang 7/27/2026 Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority 40th birthday celebration
for the Wheels Bus!
Free community celebration featuring free
ice cream tacos, tours of the historic RIDEO
bus, giveaways, Livermore Heritage Guild's
HistoryMobile, photo opportunities, and
family-friendly activities.

Item 10.0
Council Reports
1011
Council Member
Date of
Meeting
or Event Committee or Organization Meeting or Event Type Summary of Meeting or Event Council Member Barrientos 7/15/2026 Ava Board Meeting
Discussion of CEO contract, review of IRP -
Intergraded Resource Planning
Council Member Barrientos 7/18/2026 City of Livermore Vasco Summer Festival Purpose is to draw more traffic to the
Vasco area
Council Member Barrientos 7/22/2026 Stop Waste Board meeting Update on legislation explaining Bay REN
Bay Area regional energy network
Item 10.0
Council Reports
1012
Council Member
Date of
Meeting or
Event Committee or Organization Meeting or Event Type
Council Member Branning 7/15/2026 Vello3D Ribbon Cutting Council Member Branning 7/15/2026 Livermore Chamber of Commerce Chamber Mixer Council Member Branning 7/21/2026 Livermore Downtown Inc Board meeting Council Member Branning 7/23/2026 Senator McNerney Coffee with constituents Item 10.0
Council Reports
1013
Council Member
Date of
Meeting
or Event Committee or Organization Meeting or Event Type Council Member Dunbar 7/15/2026 Chamber of Commerce / Velo3D Grand Opening / Ribbon
Cutting for Velo3D
Council Member Dunbar 7/27/2026 WheelsBus
40th Anniversary
Celebration
Item 10.0
Council Reports
1014

Livermore City CouncilJuly 27, 2026

Livermore City Council
July 27, 2026