Agenda packet — Livermore City Council, May 23, 2022 (part 1 of 3)

CITY COUNCIL

REVISED AGENDA
AGENDA
MONDAY, MAY 23, 2022
*Due to a Declaration of Local Emergency this meeting will be held VIRTUALLY ONLY. *Item 2.1 has been revised and Item 6.4 has been added to the agenda.

REGULAR HYBRID MEETING – 7:00 PM

MEETING PARTICIPATION INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND AT THE END OF THE AGENDA
IN PERSON INFORMATION:

CIVIC CENTER MEETING HALL

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1016 S. LIVERMORE AVENUE
TELECONFERENCE INFORMATION:

CITY OF LIVERMORE YOUTUBE CHANNEL:
https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofLivermoreCalifornia
ZOOM WEBINAR:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82412447966
Zoom dial in phone number:
1 669 900 6833
Meeting ID: 824 1244 7966
TELECONFERENCE LOCATION:

Notice is hereby given that Council Member Kiick will be participating in the meeting via teleconference at 1052 S. Livermore Avenue.

Bob Woerner, Mayor
Regina Bonanno, Vice Mayor
Robert W Carling, Council Member
Brittni Kiick, Council Member
Trish Munro, Council Member
Livermore City Council Agenda May 23, 2022
1 1.

CALL TO ORDER

2. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

2.1 Confirmation of Advisory Body Appointments to the Beautification Committee, Historic Preservation Commission, Library Board of Trustees, Livermore Housing Authority, and the Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission.

Recommendation:

The City Council Subcommittee on Advisory Bodies recommends the City Council confirm the advisory body appointments for the Beautification Committee, Historic Preservation Commission, Library Board of Trustees, Livermore Housing Authority, and the Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission and direct the City Clerk
to schedule individual meetings with all
new members to administer the oath of office.

Staff Report

3. CITIZENS FORUM

In conformance with the Brown Act, no City Council action can occur on items presented during Citizens Forum.

To provide public comment in person, please submit a speaker card. When your name is called, walk to the lectern to address City Council.

To provide public comment virtually, please log into Zoom and use the 'raise hand' feature.

Comments are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person, per item. The Mayor may reduce the amount of time based on the number of persons wishing to speak.

Citizens Forum will conclude after 30 minutes; however, if there are additional speakers, Citizens Forum will reconvene before the meeting adjourns.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

Consent Calendar items are considered routine and are acted upon by the City Council with a single action. Members of the audience wishing to provide public input must submit a speaker
card if in person or
use the 'raise hand' feature if participating using Zoom.

4.1 Approval of draft minutes - April 25, 2022 Regular Meeting.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council approve the draft minutes.

ROLL CALL

Council Member Robert W. Carling
Council Member Brittni Kiick
Council Member Trish Munro
Vice Mayor Regina Bonanno
Mayor Bob Woerner

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Livermore City Council Agenda
May 23, 2022

2 Staff Report

Attachments:

1. 2022-04-25 Draft Minutes

4.2 Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to the On-Call Engineering Services Agreement with Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, increasing the contract not-to- exceed amount to $1,200,000 and extending the term of the Agreement for one year.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to the Engineering Services Agreement with Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar for on- call engineering services. The First Amendment extends the term of the agreement until December 31, 2023, and increases the not-to-exceed contract maximum from $600,000 to a total not-to-exceed of $1,200,000.

Staff Report

Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A - First Amendment to Engineering Services Agreement

4.3 Resolution authorizing a Third Amendment to the Agreement for the Development of the Rodeo Grounds and Sunken Garden Area as a Civic Center and Parks and Recreation Area with the Livermore Stockmen’s Rodeo Association.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Third Amendment to the Agreement for the Development of the Rodeo Grounds and Sunken Garden Area as a Civic Center and Parks and Recreation Area with the Livermore Stockmen’s Rodeo Association.

Staff Report

Attachments:

1. Downtown Plan

2. Resolution

3. Exhibit A- Third Amendment - Rodeo Grounds and Sunken Garden Area

4.4 Resolution authorizing an appropriation of $2,400,000 of City Affordable Housing Trust Funds for the acquisition, predevelopment, feasibility, and redevelopment of the property located at 2346 Walnut Street for use as a substance abuse disorder and medication treatment facility and execution of funding agreements and related documents between the City of Livermore the Housing Consortium of the East Bay (HCEB).

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution:
1 .

Appropriating up to $2,400,000 of City Affordable Housing Trust Funds to Housing Consortium of the East Bay (HCEB) for acquisition expenses, predevelopment costs and feasibility analysis associated with the purchase and redevelopment of the property

Livermore City Council Agenda
May 23, 2022

3 located at 2346 Walnut Street.
2 .

Authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the Bridge Loan Agreement and all other related documents authorized and described in that agreement.

Staff Report

Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A - 2346 Walnut Loan Agreement

4.5 Resolution adopting the City of Livermore Salary Plan as of June 2022, in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving the City of Livermore Salary Plan as of June 2022, in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5.

Staff Report

Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A - Salary Plan

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.1 Hearing to authorize a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Shakespeare’s Associates, Inc., including sale of City property for development of a Black Box theater, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the DDA and all related documents necessary to implement the DDA.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt resolutions and direct the following:
1 .

Declaring that Pa
rcel A of Parcel Map 11239
is exempt from the Surplus Land Act as
defined in Government Code Section 54234(a)(1); an
d
2 .

Finding that the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Shakespeare's Associates Inc., attached hereto as Exhibit A, is within the scope of the 2004 Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and the 2009 Downtown Specific Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and the addendums adopted by City Council on September 10, 2018 by Resolution 2018-153, May 13, 2019 by Resolution 2019- 064, and October 26, 2020 by Resolution 2020-178, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the DDA and all documents necessary to implement the DDA.

Staff Report

Attachments:

1. Resolution
- Surplus Land

2. Resolution
- CEQA and Agreement

2. Exhibit A - Disposition and Development Agreement

6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Livermore City Council Agenda
May 23, 2022

4 6.1
Discussion and direction regarding Tri-Valley Conservancy's request for the City of Livermore to sponsor a ballot initiative to protect water quality and agriculture in the South Livermore Valley

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council discuss and direct staff to prepare final language for a ballot initiative to protect water quality and agriculture in the South Livermore Valley.

Staff Report

Attachments:

1. Draft Initiative

6.2 Discussion and direction regarding the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council provide feedback on the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Staff Report

Attachments:

1. Draft Livermore 2023-2031 Housing Element - May 2022

6.3 Resolution authorizing execution of an Amended and Restated Disposition, Development and Loan Agreement ("DDLA") with Eden Housing, Inc. for development of the Downtown Multi- family Housing Site, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the documents, agreements and specific authorities described in the DDLA.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends City Council adopt resolutions:
1 .

Declaring that Parcel 1 of Tract Map 8574 (APN 098- 0289-22) is exempt from the Surplus Land Act as defined in Government Code Section54234(a)(1); 2 .

Finding the Amended and Restated Disposition, Development and Loan Agreement with Eden Housing, Inc. for Development of the Downtown Multi-family Housing Site (a portion of APN 098-0289-022-0) is within the scope of the Specific Plan EIR, dated February 9, 2004 (SCH No.: 2003032038), the Specific Plan Subsequent EIR, dated March 30, 2009 (SCH No.: 2008092085), and the Specific Plan Subsequent EIR Addenda adopted by City Council on September 10, 2018 by Resolution 2018-153, May 13, 2019 by Resolution 2019-064, and October 26, 2020 by Resolution 2020-178; and 3 .

Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Amended and Restated Disposition, Development and Loan Agreement, and granting the authority to execute the final documents and agreements referenced in the DDLA, as well as the specific delegations of authority set forth in the DDLA.

Staff Report

Attachments:

1. Resolution - Surplus Land

2. Resolution - CEQA and Agreement

3. Exhibit A - Amended and Restated Disposition, Development, and Loan Agreement

Livermore City Council Agenda
May 23, 2022

5 6.4
Declaration of Local Emergency
and reauthorizing remote teleconference meetings for City of Livermore'
s legislative bodies
in accordance with Assembly Bill 361

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution ratifying the City Manager's Proclamation finding the existence of a Local Emergency and reauthorizing remote
teleconference meetings for City of Livermore'
s legislative bodies
in accordance with
Assembly Bill 361.

Staff Report

Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A to the Resolution

7. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MATTERS INITIATED BY CITY

MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, STAFF, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

8. CLOSED SESSION

Roll Call
Opportunity for the the Public to Address City Council Regarding Closed Session Items Adjourn to Closed Session

8.1 Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation. To meet with legal counsel pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1) to discuss litigation that has been formally initiated. (One case)

D.L. Falk Construction Inc. v. City of Livermore, Alameda County Superior Court Case No.

RG20079788

8.2 Conference with Labor Negotiator, Conference Joint Powers Agency Confidential Information.

To meet with Senior Human Resources Analyst Kristen Hilton and Art Hartinger, the City’s and the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department's negotiators, pursuant to Government Code sections 54957.6 and 54956.96, regarding the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department Joint Powers Authority’s negotiations, as well as the impasse and factfinding hearing, with The International Association of Firefighters, Local 1974, AFL-CIO-CLC.

9. ADJOURNMENT

To a Regular City Council meeting on Monday, June 13, 2022 at 7:00 pm, Civic Center
Meeting Hall, City Council Chambers, 1016 S. Livermore Avenue and held virtually using
Zoom.

10. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS

10.1 Supplemental materials received prior to the meeting.

Staff Report

REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION

Livermore City Council Agenda
May 23, 2022

6 Attachments:

1. Supplemental Materials

11. HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

You can participate in the meeting in a number of ways:

Citizens Forum
is an opportunity for the public to speak regarding items not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person.

To address the City
Council in person, you must submit a speaker card to the City Clerk prior to the start of that item.

To submit a comment using Zoom, you may use the 'raise hand' feature when the item begins. Please note that the City Council is prohibited by State law from taking action on any items that are not listed on the agenda. However, if your item requires action, the City Council may place it on a future agenda or direct staff to work with you and/or report to the City Council on the issue.

Public Hearings -
The topic of the hearing is typically summarized by staff, followed by a presentation by the applicant, and questions from the City Council. The Mayor will then open the hearing to the public and offer an opportunity for public comments. Speakers are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person.

To address the City Council in person, you must submit
a speaker card to the City Clerk prior to the start of the presentation of the item . To submit a
comment using Zoom, you may use the 'raise hand' feature as soon as the item begins.

Other Agenda Items
are also open for public input including Consent Calendar or Matters for Consideration items. These comments are also subject to the 3-minute limit.

Special Meetings, Workshops -
The public will have the opportunity to address the City Council regarding the item that is the subject of the special meeting or workshop. Public comments are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person.

Platforms to Participate in Meetings:

Submission of Comments Prior to the Meeting:

Email Comments
may be submitted by the public to the City Clerk’s Office (
[email protected]
). Items received no later than 12:00 pm on the day of the meeting will be provided to the City Council and available on the City website prior to the meeting. These items will NOT be read into the record.

eComments
may be submitted by the public using the eComment link
here
. Comments may
be up to 1000 characters in length and will be accepted up until 4:00 pm the day of the meeting. These items will NOT be read into the record and are viewable by the City Council and the public upon submittal.

Submission of Comments During the Meeting:

Speakers are limited to a maximum of 3 minutes per person.

To submit a comment in person,
you must complete a speaker card for each item. Speaker cards are available in the Civic Center Meeting Hall lobby. Indicate on the card the item number you wish to comment on and

Livermore City Council Agenda
May 23, 2022

7 submit the card directly to the City Clerk prior to the start of the item.

To submit a comment
using Zoom, you may use the 'raise hand' feature. Please note that the City Council is prohibited by State law from taking action on any items that are not listed on the agenda.

However, if your item requires action, the City Council may place it on a future agenda or direct staff to work with you and/or report to the City Council on the issue.

The City will be using YouTube and TV29 as two tools to provide the public access to view City Council meetings. No public comment will be accepted via YouTube.

TV29:
tv29live.org
YouTube:
http://youtube.com/c/CityofLivermoreCalifornia

Zoom Webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82412447966

Zoom dial in phone number: 1 669 900 6833
Meeting ID: 824 1244 7966

If you would like to deliver written materials to the City Council as part of your public comments, and are
commenting in person, please provide 10 copies to the City Clerk with your speaker card. If you are
commenting using Zoom, the speaker must identify that intent in his or her comment and immediately email the materials to the City Clerk at [email protected]
.

The
City Council Agenda and Agenda Reports
are prepared by City staff and are available
for public review on Tuesday evening, six days prior to the City Council meeting in the Civic Center Library, 1188 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, and at the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore. The Agenda is also available on the City’s website, http://cityoflivermore.net/agenda
.

Under Government Code §54957.5, any
supplemental material
distributed to the members
of the City Council after the posting of this agenda will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore, and included in the agenda packet available on the City’s web site at
http://cityoflivermore.net/agenda
.

PURSUANT TO TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (CODIFIED AT 42 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 12101 AND 28 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PART 35), AND SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, THE CITY OF

LIVERMORE DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION,

NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, SEX, DISABILITY, AGE OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE PROVISION OF ANY SERVICES, PROGRAMS, OR ACTIVITIES. TO ARRANGE AN

ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PUBLIC MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE ADA COORDINATOR AT [email protected] OR CALL (925) 960-4170 (VOICE) OR (925) 960- 4104 (TDD) AT LEAST THREE (3) BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.

Livermore City Council Agenda
May 23, 2022

8 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 2.1

DATE:

May 23, 2022
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Tina Olson, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT:

Confirmation of Advisory Body Appointments to the Beautification Committee, Historic Preservation Commission, Library Board of Trustees, Livermore Housing Authority, and the Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

SUMMARY
On May 4, 2022, the City Council Subcommittee on Advisory Bodies interviewed applicants for vacancies on the Beautification Committee, Historic Preservation Commission, Library Board of Trustees, Livermore Housing Authority, and the Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission, and have submitted their recommendation for City Council consideration and appointment.

DISCUSSION
On May 4, 2022, the City Council Subcommittee on Advisory Bodies interviewed applicants for vacancies on the Beautification Committee, Historic Preservation Commission, Library Board of Trustees, Livermore Housing Authority and the Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission and recommends confirmation of the following appointments:

Beautification Committee
Appointment of the following individual to an unexpired term ending June 1, 2023

Karen Jefferson

Historic Preservation Commission
Appointment of the following individual to an unexpired term ending May 1, 2025 9 Donald Smith

Appointment of the following individual to a regular term ending May 1, 2026

Rick Hanan

Library Board of Trustees
Reappointment of the following individual to a regular term ending June 1, 2025

Lainie Pascall

Appointment of the following individual to a regular term ending June 1, 2025

Mariana Guzzardo

Livermore Housing Authority
Appointment of the following individual to an unexpired term ending January 1, 2024

Marvin Evans

Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission (LAYAC)
Reappointment of the following individual to a regular term ending September 1, 2024

Heather Mackey (Adult)

Appointment of the following individuals to a regular term ending September 1, 2024

Randolph Pico (Youth)
Samaira Grover (Youth)
Gurprem Singh (Adult)

Upon the City Council’s confirmation of the appointments by motion, the City Clerk will administer the oath of office to new appointees.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

No material fiscal or administrative impacts result from confirmation of these appointments.

ATTACHMENTS

Prepared by: Debbie Elam
Deputy City Clerk

10 Approved by:
____________________________________
Marc Roberts
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
11 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 4.1

DATE:

May 23, 2022
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Tina Olson, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT:

Approval of draft minutes - April 25, 2022 Regular Meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council approve the draft minutes.

SUMMARY

DISCUSSION

ATTACHMENTS

1. 2022-04-25 Draft Minutes

Prepared by: Marie Weber
City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 25, 2022
________________________________________________________________

CLOSED SESSION

CALL TO ORDER – The Closed Session of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Bob Woerner at 6:30 pm, held in-person at 1016 S Liver more Avenue and virtually using Zoom and YouTube.

ROLL CALL – Present: Mayor Bob Woerner , Vice Mayor Regina Bonanno, and Council Members, Robert W. Carling, Brittni Kiick and Trish Munro.

OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING CLOSED SESSION ITEMS.

Mayor Woerner opened the public comment period.

There were no speakers and the hearing was closed.

1. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

1.1 Conference with Real Property Negotiator. To meet with Paul Spence and Steve Stewart, the City’s negotiators pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8, regarding the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property at Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 098- 0289-024-00 and 098- 0289-025-00. The City negotiators may negotiate with Lisa Tromovitch on behalf of the Shakespeare’s Associates, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation. The instructions will concern price and terms of payment in furtherance of the exclusive negotiation rights agreement first authorized by the City Council on June 18, 2018.

_______________________________________________________________

REGULAR MEETING

2. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Bob Woerner at 7:00 pm, held in-person at 1016 S Livermore Avenue and virtually using Zoom and YouTube.

ROLL CALL – Present: Mayor Bob Woerner, Vice Mayor Regina Bonanno and Council Members Robert W. Carling, Brittni Kiick and Trish Munro

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
13 ATTACHMENT 1
CM/75/22 Minutes APRIL 25, 2022

REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION

City Attorney Jason Alcala said there was no reportable action.

3. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

3.1 Proclamation declaring May 2022 as Drinking Water Awareness Month presented to representatives from Zone 7 Water Agency, California Water Service (Cal Water), and Livermore Municipal Water.

Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council declare May 2022 as Drinking Water Awareness Month, recognizing the joint efforts of Livermore Municipal Water, Zone 7 Water Agency, and California Water Service (Cal Water) to provide this vital service to our community.

MAYOR WOERNER AND VICE MAYOR BONANNO PRESENTED THE
PROCLAMATION.

3.2 Presentation of the 2022 Livermore Water Conservation Art Contest awards

Recommendation: Staff recommended City Council present awards to the winners of this year’s Livermore Water Conservation Art Contest.

MAYOR WOERNER AND VICE MAYOR BO NANNO PRESENTED THE
AWARDS.

3.3 Livermore Area Youth Advisory Commission annual update presented by Commission Chair Evelyn Arroyo

Recommendation: Staff recommended City Council accept the Li vermore Area Youth Advisory Commission annual update.

THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVED THE PRESENTATION.

3.4 Proclamation declaring May as Affordable Housing Month presented to East Bay Housing Organizations.

Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council declare May as Affordable Housing Month.

MAYOR WOERNER AND VICE MAYOR BONANNO PRESENTED THE
PROCLAMATION.

4. CITIZENS FORUM

Mayor Woerner opened the public comment period.
14 ATTACHMENT 1
APRIL 25, 2022 Minutes CM/75/23

Alan provided a comment.

Joseph McThorn provided a comment.

Stacey Kenison provided a comment.

Gabriela Gonzalez provided a comment.

Amber provided a comment.

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

5. CONSENT CALENDAR

Mayor Woerner opened the public comment period.

Item 5.7 John Marchand provided a comment.

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

ON THE MOTION OF CM MUNRO, SECONDED BY MAYOR WOERNER, AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

5.1 Adoption of O rdinance 2134 adding sect ion 2.36.200 to the Livermore Municipal Code in compliance with the requirements of Assembly Bill 481 (an act to add sections 7070 through 7075 to the Government Code, relating to military equipment).

Recommendation: Staff recommended City Council adopt an ordinance adding section 2.36.200 to the Livermore Municipal Code in compliance with the requirements of Assembly Bill 481 (an act to add sections 7070 through 7075 to the Government Code, relating to military equipment).

5.2 Adoption of Ordinance 2135 amending Title 5 and adding Chapter 5.60 Outdoor Dining Permit to the Livermore Municipal Code.

Recommendation: The Planning Commission and staff recommended the City Council adopt an ordinance adding section 5.60 to the Livermore Municipal Code. The purpose of the Ordinance is to codify an Outdoor Dining Permit and facilitate enforcement through administrative due process.

5.3 Resolution 2022-057 authorized amendments to contracts C9801130 and C9802006 with the State Department of Parks and Recreation for grant funds allocated to the Arroyo Road Trail (T-13, Segment B), Project No. 2019-55.

15 ATTACHMENT 1
CM/75/24 Minutes APRIL 25, 2022

Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council adopt a resolution:

1. Approving the Amendments to Contract No. C9801130 and C9802006 with the State of California under the Per Capita Grant Program in the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018; and

2. Authorizing the City Manager or designee to sign all grant documents for the Per Capita Grant Funds.

5.4 Resolution 2022-058 approved and appropriated the allocation of Community Development Block Grant, Home Investment Partnership Program, Social Opportunity Endowment, In- Lieu Housing, Human Services Facility Fee and General Funds in the total amount of $1,000,200 for FY 2022-23.

Recommendation: Staff recommend ed the City Council adopt a resolution appropriating $1,000,200 as listed below and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute all related documents, grant agreements, and modifications.

1. Community Development Block Grant Funds (Fund 613) in the amount of $432,000

2. HOME Investment Partnership Program Funds (Fund 671) in the amount of $139,500

3. Social Opportunity Endowment Funds (Fund 620) in the amount of $80,000

4. Human Service Facility Fee Funds (Fund 333) in the amount of $119,700

5. In-Lieu Housing Funds (Fund 611) in the amount of $209,000

6. General Funds (Fund 001) in the amount of $20,000

5.5 Resolution 2022-059 authorized execution of an Affordable Housing Loan Agreement, A ffordable Housing Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants and related documents with Tri -Valley REACH, Inc. for repairs and updates to an affordable group home located at 4355 Colgate Avenue

Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council adopt a resolution:

1. Authorizing a loan to Tri -Valley REACH, Inc. in the amount of $91,768 in State Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) to assist with the rehabilitation of 4355 Colgate Avenue; and

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execut e the Affordable Housing Loan Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution and the Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants attached as Exhibit B to the Resolution, between the City of Livermore and Tri -Valley REACH, Inc. for 4355 Colgate Avenue and all other related documents authorized and described in those agreements.

5.6 Resolution 2022-060 authorized execution of an agreement with DarkTrace Holding Limited for cybersecurity services in an amount not -to-exceed $437,000

16 ATTACHMENT 1
APRIL 25, 2022 Minutes CM/75/25

Recommendation: Staff recommended City Council authorize execution of the agreement with DarkTrace Holding Limited for cybersecurity services in an amount not-to-exceed $437,000.

5.7 Resolution 2022-061 endorsed the Alameda County Home Toget her 2026 Implementation Plan to address homelessness and acknowledging receipt of future homeless services funding must be consistent with the plan

Recommendation: Staff recommended City Council adopt a resolution:

1. Endorsing the Alameda County Home Together 2026 Implementation Plan to address homelessness.

2. Acknowledging that to receive future homeless services funding made available through the County, grants, programs, and services must be consistent with the Home Together 2026 Plan.

ITEM 5.8 WAS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA

5.8 Resolution appropriating $156,667 in additional funds in FY 2021- 22 for the Joint Use Residential Recycled Water Fill Station.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution appropriating $156,667 in additional funds in FY 2021- 22 for the Joint Use Residential Recycled Water Fill Station.

5.9 Resolution 2022-062 designated the Administrative Services Director as the City Treasurer

Recommendation: Staff recommend ed City Council adopt a resolution designating the Administrative Services Director as the City Treasurer.

MAYOR WOERNER REORDERED THE AGENDA TO HEAR ITEM 7.3
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

7.3 Resolution appointing and approving an employment contract with a new City Manager

Recommendation: Mayor Woerner recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution appointing Marianna Marysheva as City Manager and approving the employment contract.

Human Resources Manager Nancy Dias presented the staff report.

Mayor Woerner opened the public comment period.

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

ON THE MOTION OF CM KIICK, SECONDED BY CM CARLING AND
CARRIED ON A 5 -0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING 17 ATTACHMENT 1
CM/75/26 Minutes APRIL 25, 2022

RESOLUTION:

Resolution 2022-063 appointed and approved an employment contract with the City Manager.

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

6.1 Hearing to consider the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program's Annual Action Plan for FY 2022-23 and authorizing submittal to the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Recommendation: The Human Services Commission and staff recommend ed the City Council adopt a resolution:

1. Approving the FY 2022- 23 Annual Action Plan for the HOME Investment Partnership and Community Development Block Grant Programs and authorizing its submittal to Alameda County for inclusion with the Alameda County HOME Consortium report and submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and

2. Authorizing the City Manager, or his desig nee, to sign all related documents, and to make adjustments to the Action Plan as needed based on the HUD allocation.

Management Analyst I Amy Walker presented the staff report.

Mayor Woerner opened the public hearing.

There were no speakers and the hearing was closed.

ON THE MOTION OF CM CARLING , SECONDED BY CM MUNRO AND CARRIED ON A 5 -0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:

Resolution 2022-064 approving the FY 2022- 23 annual action plan and authorizing submittal to the U.S. Depart ment of Housing and Urban Development.

6.2 Hearing to introduce an ordinance amending Livermore Municipal Code (LMC) Chapter 8.14 Public Nuisances to add Safe Storage of Firearm provisions to effectively regulate the safe storage of a firearm in a residence.

Recommendation: Staff recommend ed the City Council introduce an ordinance amending Livermore Municipal Code (LMC) Chapter 8.14 Public Nuisances and adding “Unsafe Storage of Firearms" provisions to Chapter

8.14 to effectively regulate the safe storage of a firearm in a residence.

Captain Matthew Sarsfield presented the staff report.
18 ATTACHMENT 1
APRIL 25, 2022 Minutes CM/75/27

Mayor Woerner opened the public hearing.

Anne Everton provided a comment.

Janie Dobbs provided a comment.

Cynthia Shon provided a comment.

Laurie Herbert provided a comment.

Kyoko provided a comment.

Mary Perner provided a comment.

Marilyn Dykstra provided a comment.

There were no more speakers and the hearing was closed.

ON THE MOTION OF MAYOR WOERNER, SECONDED BY CM MUNRO AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL INTRODUCED THE
FOLLOWING ORDINANCE:

Ordinance introduced amending Livermore Municipal Code Chapter 8.14 to add Safe Storage of Firearm provisions to the Public Nuisances Ordinance.

6.3 Hearing to receive and consider protests and direct staff to proceed with field abatement work on non-compliant properties under the 2022 Fire Hazard Abatement Program.

Recommendation: Staff recommended City Council consider all protests, and if Council finds appropriate, adopt a resolution overruling protests, and direct staff to proceed with necessary weed abatement on all parcels requiring abatement.

Fire Marshall Ryan Rucker presented the staff report.

Mayor Woerner opened the public hearing.

There were no speakers and the hearing was closed.

ON THE MOTION OF CM KIICK, SECONDED BY VM BONANNO AND
CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:

Resolution 2022-065 overruled protests and ordered the abatement of a public nuisance.

7. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
19 ATTACHMENT 1
CM/75/28 Minutes APRIL 25, 2022

7.1 Resolution approving the 2022 City of Livermore State and Federal Legislative Platform

Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council adopt a resolution approving the 2022 City of Livermore State and Federal Legislative Platform.

Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council xxxx

Assistant City Manager Christine Martin presented the staff report.

Mayor Woerner opened the public comment period.

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

THE CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED ADDITIONAL BRIEFINGS ON THIS TOPIC

IN THE FUTURE SO THEY COULD MORE FULLY UNDERSTAND THE
FUTURE LEGISLATION IMPACTED BY THESE DECISIONS.

ON THE MOTION OF CM MUNRO, SECONDED BY CM KIICK AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING
RESOLUTION:

Resolution 2022-066 adopting the 2022 State and Federal Legislative Platform for the City of Livermore

7.2 Update on the FY 2021 -23 City Council Goals and Priorities and Equity and Inclusion workplan.

Recommendation: Staff recommended City Council receive an update on the FY 2021-23 Goals and Priorities and Equity and Inclusion workplan.

Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council xxxx

Assistant City Manager Christine Martin presented the staff report.

City Manager Marc Roberts presented an update on the City Council Goals and Priorities.

Mayor Woerner opened the public comment period.

Kyoko provided a comment.

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

THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVED THE UPDATE AND VM BONANNO

REQUESTED A METRIC TO SHOW HOW SUCCESSFUL ADVISORY BODY RECRUITMENT OUTREACH IS.
20 ATTACHMENT 1
APRIL 25, 2022 Minutes CM/75/29

8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MATTERS INITIATED BY CITY

MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, STAFF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority Council Member Kiick noted her attendance at the April 13, 2022 meeting.

Tri-Valley Transportation Council Council Member Kiick noted her attendance at the May 9, 2022 meeting.

Vineyard 2.0 Vice Mayor Bonanno and Council Member Carling noted their attendance at the groundbreaking.

East Bay Community Ene rgy Council Member Munro noted her attendance at the April 20, 2022 meeting.

Knights of Columbus Vice Mayor Bonanno noted her attendance at the banquet.

Quest Science Center Vice Mayor Bonanno noted her attendance at the event on April 23, 2022.

Ambulance Service Mayor Woerner requested that staff provide information regarding next steps to achieving better ambulance service in Livermore.

8. ADJOURNMENT – at 10:05 pm in memory of James Doggett to a Regular City Council meeting on Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:00 pm, Civic Center Meeting Hall, City Council Chambers, 1016 S. Livermore Avenue and virtually using Zoom.

APPROVED:

BOB WOERNER, MAYOR

ATTEST:

MARIE WEBER, CITY CLERK
21 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 4.2

DATE:

May 23, 2022
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Paul Spence, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:

Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to the On-Call Engineering Services Agreement with Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, increasing the contract not- to-exceed amount to $1,200,000 and extending the term of the Agreement for one year.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to the Engineering Services Agreement with Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar for on-call engineering services. The First Amendment extends the term of the agreement until December 31, 2023, and increases the not-to-exceed contract maximum from $600,000 to a total not-to-exceed of $1,200,000.

SUMMARY
The Engineering Division requires an on-call engineering consultant to provide services for civil engineering design, structural analysis, potholing and locating existing utilities, surveying existing topography, property, right-of-way and construction staking, right-of-way appraisals and negotiations, as well as preparation of civil engineering survey maps, legal descriptions, storm water pollution prevention plans, and assorted general drafting services in connection with a variety of City capital improvement projects and miscellaneous development projects. This First Amendment increases the not-to-exceed contract maximum from $600,000 to $1,200,000 and extends the term of the agreement to December 31, 2023.

DISCUSSION
On January 14, 2021, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an Engineering Design Service Agreement with Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar (Consultant) in the amount of $600,000 to provide on-call engineering services for a two-year term.

Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar has been instrumental in providing engineering support in a wide variety of tasks.

These tasks include, but are not limited to: forming assessment districts for Trevarno Road, joint trench 22 design for Livermore Village, Foley Road realignment design, Caltrans permitting for the 2020 Street Resurfacing project, preparing civil design for the recycled water filling station, and preparing various maps for downtown development.

Staff is requesting to extend the original agreement through December 31, 2023, and increase the not- to-exceed amount stated in the original agreement from $600,000 to $1,200,000.

This amendment provides for on-call engineering design services for various projects in the Capital Improvement Plan. Potential projects include, but are not limited to: Springtown Boulevard traffic signal modifications, mapping revisions for Black Box Theater and Stockmen’s Park, potholing and scanning for utilities and buried tanks in the downtown, completing bid documents for the Livermore Village Joint Trench Project, designing surface lot improvements in the downtown, and various surveys for capital improvement projects.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

Funding for services rendered under this agreement will be derived from the various capital improvement projects in the approved Capital Improvement Program, developer fees for various development projects for which consultant services are required, and engineering operating budget for miscellaneous consultant services. Therefore, no additional appropriation is necessary.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A - First Amendment to Engineering Services Agreement

Prepared by: Saurabh Nijhawan
Associate Engineer

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIRST

AMENDMENT TO THE ON-CALL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH

RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR INCREASING THE NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT TO $1,200,000 AND EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT
On January 14, 2021, the City of Livermore (“City”) and Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar (“Consultant”) entered into an agreement for Consultant to provide civil engineering design, structural analysis, potholing and locating existing utilities, surveying existing topography, property, right- of-way and construction staking, right-of-way appraisals and negotiations, as well as preparation of civil engineering survey maps, legal descriptions, stormwater pollution prevention plans, and assorted general drafting services in connection with a variety of City capital improvement projects and miscellaneous development projects (“Original Agreement”).

The City and Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar now desire to amend the Original Agreement to increase the not-to-exceed amount from $600,000 to $1,200,000. This proposed increase is required to provide services for an additional year. Additionally, the demand has increased for civil engineering services including plan and specification preparation, engineering analysis, stormwater plan preparation, surveying, mapping, structural evaluation, utility location, and right-of-way assistance. City and Consultant also now desire to amend the Original Agreement to extend the term of the agreement to December 31, 2023.

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

1. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Engineering Services Agreement with Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, attached hereto as Exhibit A, to increase the not-to-exceed amount to $1,200,000, and to extend the term of the Agreement to December 31, 2023, for on-call engineering services.

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

On motion of Council Member ______________________, seconded by Council Member ______________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on May 23, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
24 RESOLUTION NO. ________
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ _______________________________ Marie Weber Tara Mazzanti
City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – On-Call Engineering Services Agreement
25 EXHIBIT A
26 EXHIBIT A
27 EXHIBIT A
28 EXHIBIT A
29 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 4.3

DATE:

May 23, 2022
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Paul Spence, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:

Resolution authorizing a Third Amendment to the Agreement for the Development of the Rodeo Grounds and Sunken Garden Area as a Civic Center and Parks and Recreation Area with the Livermore Stockmen’s Rodeo Association.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

SUMMARY
In 1962, the City and the Livermore Stockmen’s Rodeo Association (Stockmen’s Association) entered into an agreement for the Development of the Rodeo Grounds and Sunken Garden Area as a Civic Center and Parks and Recreation Area (Agreement), which authorized the City’s acquisition of an approximately 33-acre property located south of Pacific Avenue and to the north and east of Livermore Avenue known as the Civic Center property. The Agreement required the completion and dedication of a public park commemorating the contributions of the Stockmen and those who served in the armed forces of the United States.

On January 30, 2018, as part of the Downtown Planning process, the City and the Stockmen’s Association amended the Agreement to include a public park called Stockmen’s Park in the Downtown Plan to fulfill the City’s obligation to construct a park dedicated to the Stockmen’s Association ("First Amendment"). The parties recorded a park easement with certain portions to be designated as a “Cultural Facility Area” for the development of cultural facilities such as a black box theater, a science and society center, and open space support, and other portions to be designated as “Commercial Use Areas” for the development of commercial uses, with all uses to integrate with the park in an appealing manner but not overshadow the park or the memorial. In addition, the First Amendment authorized portions of the Civic Center property on Pacific Avenue to allow 140 or more units for seniors and/or veterans.

30 On September 27, 2019, the City and the Stockmen’s Association approved a Second Amendment to the Agreement to adjust the edges of the Cultural Facility Use Area and the Commercial Use Areas in the park easement. In exchange for the adjustments, the City was required to obtain Association approval for the design and location of the cultural facility uses and the commercial uses to ensure that said uses do not overshadow the Park or the Memorial and integrate with the Park Area in an appealing manner. The parties also agreed to a revised Exhibit D which identified an adjusted Cultural Facility Use Area and Commercial Use Area within the park easement to ensure the vision and the terms of the Agreement, as amended, are implemented.

Staff recommends Council authorize a Third Amendment to the Agreement to authorize minor adjustments to the Stockmen’s Park Easement boundaries in conformance with slight parcel boundary modifications needed to facilitate the development of the Downtown Plan and its commercial and cultural uses.

DISCUSSION

BACKGROUND

On January 8, 1962, the City acquired 33 acres of property south of Pacific Avenue and to the north and east of Livermore Avenue (Civic Center Property) from the Stockmen’s Association. The purchase agreement authorizing the acquisition expressly stated the City was only allowed to use the property for public purposes in the best interest of the community. Specifically, the property was provided to the City for the development of the Civic Center and for parks and recreation facilities. The park on the property was to be designated as a permanent memorial by the Stockmen for the residents of the Murray and Pleasanton Townships who served in the armed forces of the United States. The existing Civic Center property includes the Library, City Hall, Police Station, Multi-Service Center, Tri-Valley Haven, and a photovoltaic field. The park and memorial were not constructed on the Civic Center property.

On October 26, 2020, the City Council approved Tract Map 8574 which subdivided the Downtown Plan area to facilitate the layout, placement, and development of the various cultural, commercial, and open space uses identified in the Stockmen’s Agreement and Downtown Plan. On December 23, 2020, this map was formally recorded.

DISCUSSION

The Downtown Plan includes cultural and commercial uses integrated into the design of Stockmen’s Park. The placement of these uses is intended to activate and complement the space, but not overshadow Stockmen’s Park as stated in the Agreement.

Currently, the City is working with developers for the cultural and commercial use parcels to lock down building footprints and other required on-site improvements. This has created a need to make minor modifications to the parcel boundaries and the Park Easement through a Third Amendment to the Stockmen's Agreement. Modifications to the parcel boundaries are being completed through a Parcel Map Waiver, which requires the City to make minor adjustments to the Stockmen’s Park Easement.

An amendment to the Park Easement is necessary to maintain consistency between uses and the new parcel boundaries. An Amendment to the Grant of Easement is identified as Exhibit D. Because the park easement is an exhibit to the Agreement, a Third Amendment to the Agreement with the Stockmen’s 31 Rodeo Association is required. Staff has met with representatives from the Stockmen's Association, and they are in agreement with the proposed amendment.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

The Third Amendment would not result in additional fiscal or administrative impacts and would help facilitate implementation of the Downtown Plan.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Downtown Plan

2. Resolution

3. Exhibit A- Third Amendment - Rodeo Grounds and Sunken Garden Area

Prepared by: Mike Pato
Engineering Specialist

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE LIVERMORE STOCKMEN’S

RODEO ASSOCIATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RODEO GROUNDS

AND SUNKEN GARDEN AREA AS A CIVIC CENTER

AND PARKS AND RECREATION AREA
On January 8, 1962, the City of Livermore (“City”) and the Livermore Stockmen’s Rodeo Association (“Stockmen’s Association”) entered into an agreement for the transfer of approximately 33 acres of real property (“Civic Center Property”) from the Stockmen’s Association to the City to be developed as a civic center and a park and recreation facility (“Original Agreement”).

Under the terms of the Original Agreement, the City agreed to set aside a portion of the Civic Center Property and develop a park, to be designated as a memorial to the residents of Murray and Pleasanton Townships who served in the armed forces of the United States (“Memorial”).

On January 30, 2018, as part of the Downtown Planning process, the City and Stockmen’s Association amended the Original Agreement to include a public park named Stockmen’s Park in the Downtown Plan to fulfil the City’s obligation. In exchange, the amended Agreement authorized portions of the Civic Center Property to allow affordable housing for seniors and veterans (“First Amendment”).

On September 23, 2019, the City Council and the Stockmen’s Association amended the Agreement to adjust the edges of the Cultural Facility Use Area and the Commercial Use Areas in the park easement. In exchange for the adjustments, the City was required to obtain Association approval for the design and location of the cultural facility uses and the commercial uses to ensure that said uses do not overshadow the Park and the Memorial and integrate with the Park Area in an appealing manner (“Second Amendment”). The parties agreed to a revised Exhibit D to the Second Amendment which identified an adjusted Cultural Facility Use Area and Commercial Use Area within the park easement.

On October 26, 2020, the City Council approved Tract Map 8574, which subdivided the Downtown Plan area to facilitate the layout, placement, and development of the various cultural, commercial, and open space uses identified in the Stockmen’s Agreement and Downtown Plan. These parcels have been modified through a Parcel Map Waiver, which requires the City to make minor adjustments to the Stockmen’s Park Easement.

A Third Amendment to the Original Agreement is required to revise the Park Easement as set forth in Exhibit D to the Third Amendment. 34 RESOLUTION NO. ________
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to do the following:

1. Execute the Third Amendment to the Agreement for the Development of the Rodeo Grounds and Sunken Garden Area as a Civic Center and Parks and Recreation Area, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and

2. Execute any and all documents or agreements necessary to implement the Third Amendment.

On motion of Council Member ____________________, seconded by Council Member ____________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on May 23, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ /s/ Kimberly Cilley
Marie Weber Kimberly Cilley
City Clerk Senior Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A - Third Amendment to the Agreement for the Development of the Rodeo Grounds and Sunken Garden Area as a Civic Center and Parks and Recreation Area
35 EXHIBIT A
36 EXHIBIT A
37 EXHIBIT A
38 EXHIBIT A
39 EXHIBIT A
40 EXHIBIT A
41 EXHIBIT A
42 EXHIBIT A
43 EXHIBIT A
44 EXHIBIT A
45 EXHIBIT A
46 EXHIBIT A
47 EXHIBIT A
48 EXHIBIT A
49 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 4.4

DATE:

May 23, 2022
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Paul Spence, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:

Resolution authorizing an appropriation of $2,400,000 of City Affordable Housing Trust Funds for the acquisition, predevelopment, feasibility, and redevelopment of the property located at 2346 Walnut Street for use as a substance abuse disorder and medication treatment facility and execution of funding agreements and related documents between the City of Livermore the Housing Consortium of the East Bay (HCEB).

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution:
1 .

Authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the Bridge Loan Agreement and all other related documents authorized and described in that agreement.

SUMMARY
In January 2022, the City Council’s Subcommittee on Homelessness (SOH) met to discuss medium and long-term strategies within the Homeless Strategy Framework. Included in this meeting was a discussion regarding Substance Use Disorder (SUD) and Medication Assistance Treatment (MAT) services for those who are unhoused.

As a result of the meeting, the SOH recommended staff continue to engage Alameda County Behavioral Health to address the gap in SUD and MAT services in the Tri-Valley. Staff has identified the lack of inpatient drug and alcohol treatment services in the Tri-Valley as a major barrier to providing unsheltered residents the services they need.

Currently, there are no inpatient drug and alcohol treatment services for the unsheltered in the Tri-Valley.

The closest sober/detox inpatient facility, Cherry Hill, which is a 50-bed sobering and 32-bed detox facility, is located in San Leandro. Often, the City's Homeless Liaison Officers and/or nonprofit partners transport the unsheltered to the facility only to find there is no longer space available. 50 Currently, the only drug treatment services available to low income residents in the Tri-Valley are through Axis Community Health and Bay Area Community Health. These nonprofit organizations provide outpatient MAT services which treat patients through the administration of Buprenorphine and Naloxone.

Their counselors also provide additional services on a one-on-one basis for teens and adults. Currently, both programs are at capacity, with a waitlist of approximately 50 people.

Staff recommends providing Housing Consortium of the East Bay (HCEB) up to $2,400,000 in short-term financing from the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund to cover acquisition costs ($2,100,000) and predevelopment expenses ($300,000) associated with the purchase of property located at 2346 Walnut Street. Activities funded through the loan include testing, development feasibility analysis, architectural design costs, and administration expenses. HCEB has negotiated a purchase agreement with the owner and will act as the site holder until the City can identify a well-qualified nonprofit service provider with experience in providing SUD and MAT services for low-income and unhoused residents. Once a provider is identified the site will be transferred from HCEB to the service provider who will develop, own and manage the site.

DISCUSSION
The subject site is located at 2346 Walnut Street (the corner of Walnut Street and Junction Avenue) and was most recently occupied by Victory Baptist Church. It is composed of two buildings, a main sanctuary and a modular office situated on a 16,552 square foot triangular block in a residential neighborhood, surrounded by streets with no immediate adjacent neighbors.

The modular building includes a full kitchen, bath and shower. The larger sanctuary building includes classroom and office space. There are 20 striped parking spots onsite. Staff finds the property and location characteristics make the site a good candidate for a treatment center.

Alameda County has begun looking at expanding behavioral health and substance abuse services to parts of the County that don't have existing facilities and services. The Behavioral Health Department has identified East County as one of their priority areas to expand services. Staff has discussed this site with Alameda County Behavioral Health staff and Supervisor Haubert’s Office. Both support the acquisition and use of this site to provide these services to the Tri-Valley.

If approved, staff will work with Alameda County Behavioral Health (Behavioral Health) and Supervisor David Haubert’s office to obtain permanent acquisition and rehabilitation funds as well as funding for operating expenses through the State Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP) grant. This State grant will provide $2.2 billion in funding to Counties and Cities throughout California with Behavioral Health Departments to construct, acquire, and rehabilitate real estate assets, or to invest in mobile crisis infrastructure to expand the community continuum of behavioral health treatment resources. Although this funding is competitive, Behavioral Health and Supervisor, Haubert, support the project and have indicated it stands a strong chance of receiving a funding award.

In order to secure the site, staff worked with HCEB to successfully negotiate a purchase and sale agreement with the property owner. Terms of the purchase agreement include a $2,100,000 acquisition price and a 90-day escrow period. Included in the accepted offer is a $63,000 deposit toward the purchase price, portions of which would become non-refundable at key decision points. HCEB also requests up to an additional $300,000 of funds be made available to HCEB to cover predevelopment 51 expenses. Predevelopment costs include escrow and title insurance expenses, appraisals, testing and inspections as well as funds to conduct a project feasibility analysis, preliminary design development, preparation of construction/rehabilitation cost estimates, and administrative expenses.

Staff recommends Council authorize the funding of a bridge loan to HCEB from the City’s Housing Trust Fund to enable HCEB to purchase the property and act as a holder of the site until the City can identify an appropriate nonprofit service provider with experience operating drug treatment facilities. The City has begun to work with Behavioral Health staff to identify possible nonprofit SUD/MAT service providers to partner with the County on this project and expects to have a provider identified prior to the close of escrow.

City Housing Trust Fund dollars are expected to be replaced by the State BHCIP Grant funding for this project. If the funding application is successful, the City funds will be paid back in full by year end, and the property will be transferred to the identified nonprofit service provider. If HCEB and the County are unable to secure the necessary funds to acquire the site, rehabilitate the buildings and operate SUD inpatient services, HCEB will pursue the development of an affordable housing project on the property instead, and the City’s Housing funds would remain in the project.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

If approved by City Council, up to $2,400,000 of City Affordable Housing Trust Funds (Fund 611) would be appropriated through the loan agreement with Housing Consortium of the East Bay. Funds would be accessed by HCEB to acquire the site and cover predevelopment expenses including deposits, inspections and administration costs for the 2346 Walnut Street property. A deposit of $63,000 would become non-refundable upon completion of various milestones. The amount and terms of the deposit are commensurate with common commercial real estate purchase practices, and it allows HCEB to have an extended escrow period of up to 90 days to complete any necessary public review processes.

HCEB will work with Alameda County and a nonprofit SUD/MAT service provider to secure funding from the State's BHCIP grant program. Once the site receives its funding award from the State, the site will be transferred to the SUD/MAT service provider who will develop, own and manage the facility. HCEB will be reimbursed through the BHCIP grant, which would cover the project's acquisition, development and operating expenses, and the City funds would be repaid in full.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A - 2346 Walnut Loan Agreement

Prepared by: Josh Thurman
Human Services Program Manager

52 Approved by:
____________________________________
Marc Roberts
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
53 RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATION OF $2,400,000

FROM THE CITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND FOR THE

ACQUISITION, PRE-DEVELOPMENT, FEASABILITY, AND
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2346 WALNUT

STREET AND EXECUTION OF FUNDING AGREEMENTS AND

RELATED DOCUMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AND

HOUSING CONSORTIUM OF THE EAST BAY
In January 2022, the City Council’s Subcommittee on Homelessness (SOH) met to discuss medium and long-term strategies within the Homeless Strategy Framework.

Included in this meeting was a discussion regarding Substance Use Disorder (SUD) and Medication Assistance Treatment (MAT) services for those who are unhoused.

The Council’s Subcommittee on Homelessness recommended staff to engage Alameda County Behavioral Health to address the gap in SUD and MAT services in the Tri-Valley. City staff has identified the lack of inpatient drug and alcohol treatment services in the Tri-Valley as a major barrier to providing our most challenging unsheltered residents the services they need.

The Housing Consortium of the East Bay (HCEB) seeks to acquire property located at 2346 Walnut Street in Livermore for the future development of Substance Use Disorder (SUD) services facility. If within the time specified in the Agreement, the City, at its sole discretion, determines that the use of the site as a SUD services facility is financially infeasible, HCEB, or another City designated nonprofit developer, will work with the City to develop the site as an affordable housing development.

HCEB requests up to $2,400,000 in short-term financing for the acquisition and pre-development expenses associated for the purchase of the property located at 2346 Walnut Street. Activities funded through the loan include testing, development feasibility analysis, architectural design costs, and administration expenses. HCEB has negotiated a purchase agreement with the property owner and will act as the site holder until HCEB, the City, and the County can identify a qualified nonprofit service provider with experience in providing SUD and MAT services for low-income and unhoused residents. At that time, the site will be transferred from HCEB to the SUD service provider who will develop, own and manage the site.

The City and HCEB now wish to enter into the Agreement attached to this Resolution to execute these funding requests.

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

1. Appropriate up to $2,400,000 of City Affordable Housing Trust Funds (Fund 611) to HCEB for acquisition expenses, predevelopment costs, and feasibility analysis 54 RESOLUTION NO. ________
associated with the purchase and redevelopment of the property located at 2346 Walnut Street.

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the Bridge Loan Agreement, and all other related documents authorized and described in that Agreement in substantially the same form as the copies attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference.

3. Authorizes the City Manager to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of this resolution, including approving minor changes to the proposed Agreement and all other related documents.

On motion of Council Member , seconded by
Council Member , the foregoing resolution was passed
and adopted on May 23, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Tara Mazzanti
Marie Weber Tara Mazzanti
City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – Loan Agreement
55 Substance Use Disorder Site Development
LOAN AGREEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2346

WALNUT DRIVE IN LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA
by and between

THE CITY OF LIVERMORE
and

HOUSING CONSORTIDM OF THE EAST BAY
, 2022 -------
2022-210 JLH/TMM

EXHIBIT A
56 EXHIBIT A
57 EXHIBIT A
58 EXHIBIT A
59 EXHIBIT A
60 EXHIBIT A
61 EXHIBIT A
62 EXHIBIT A
63 EXHIBIT A
64 EXHIBIT A
65 EXHIBIT A
66 EXHIBIT A
67 EXHIBIT A
68 EXHIBIT A
69 EXHIBIT A
70 EXHIBIT A
71 EXHIBIT A
72 EXHIBIT A
73 EXHIBIT A
74 EXHIBIT A
75 EXHIBIT A
76 EXHIBIT A
77 EXHIBIT A
78 EXHIBIT A
79 EXHIBIT A
80 EXHIBIT A
81 EXHIBIT A
82 EXHIBIT A
83 EXHIBIT A
84 EXHIBIT A
85 EXHIBIT A
86 EXHIBIT A
87 EXHIBIT A
88 EXHIBIT A
89 EXHIBIT A
90 EXHIBIT A
91 EXHIBIT A
92 EXHIBIT A
93 EXHIBIT A
94 EXHIBIT A
95 EXHIBIT A
96 EXHIBIT A
97 EXHIBIT A
98 EXHIBIT A
99 EXHIBIT A
100

EXHIBIT A
101

EXHIBIT A
102

EXHIBIT A
103

EXHIBIT A
104

EXHIBIT A
105

EXHIBIT A
106

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 4.5

DATE:

May 23, 2022
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Tina Olson, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT:

Resolution adopting the City of Livermore Salary Plan as of June 2022, in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving the City of Livermore Salary Plan as of June 2022, in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5.

SUMMARY
The proposed City of Livermore Salary Plan, attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution, is intended to make the following amendments:

1 .

Retitle Administrative Account Technician (Class Code 223) to Junior Accountant. 2 .

Salary Increase of 7% for the retitled Junior Accountant effective June 6, 2022. 3 .

Salary Increase of 5.19% for Water Resources Division Manager effective June 6, 2022.

DISCUSSION
Administrative Account Technician
The classification of Administrative Account Technician (Class Code 223) currently works in the Finance division of the Administrative Services department and is responsible for performing detailed accounting and analysis for special assessment districts, banking services, lighting and landscape districts, grant administration, budget preparation, and fixed assts. This position has been difficult to recruit for in the past because people with accounting experience interpret this job as non-technical and administrative in nature and are reluctant to apply. The revised title of Junior Accountant more closely matches the duties, is a more common job title, and should serve to help attract the best qualified candidates.

Junior Accountant Salary
To meet the robust needs of the Finance division, responsibilities have been added to the classification of Junior Accountant. In recognition of the additional duties and responsibilities, staff recommends a 7% salary adjustment increasing the salary range to $80,350.30 - $97,666.29. The new salary range will 107
place this position within market for total compensation and should provide a more robust qualified applicant pool.

Water Resources Division Manager Salary
The classification of Water Resources Division Manager is a single incumbent class assigned to the Water Resources division of the Public Works department. This classification is required to plan, organize, direct, and manage the activities of the wastewater treatment plant operation, recycled water production, reclamation, laboratory, source control, wastewater and storm water collection systems, facility maintenance, and water distribution function. Incumbents are required to ensure compliance with all federal, state, and local regulatory requirements and provide highly technical and administrative assistance to the Public Works Director. This position currently resides on the salary schedule below the salary range for positions such as Planning Manager and Maintenance and Golf Operations Manager. To ensure appropriate internal alignment and, in the interest of attracting the best qualified applicant pool to fill this vacant position, staff recommends increasing the salary range for this position. The recommendation is to increase this salary range by 5.19%, to $12,240.66 - $15,300.83.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

The fiscal impact of all these changes is $22,350. The FY 2022-23 budget can absorb the $22,350 increase through attrition savings.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A - Salary Plan

Prepared by: Nancy Dias
Human Resource Manager

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF LIVERMORE SALARY
PLAN DATED JUNE 2022, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 2, SECTION 570.5
The proposed City of Livermore Salary Plan, attached as Exhibit A, is intended to make the following amendments:
 Retitle Administrative Account Technician (Class Code 223) to Junior Accountant and increase the salary by 7%; and
 Increase the salary of the Water Resources Division Manager (Class Code 449) by 5.19%.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that the amended Salary Plan attached as Exhibit A, is hereby approved in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5, effective June 6, 2022.

On motion of Council Member ______________________, seconded by Council Member ______________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on May 23, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ _/s/Jason Alcala______________ Marie Weber Jason Alcala
City Clerk City Attorney
Exhibit A – Salary Plan dated June 2022
109
Sal
ary
Plan
J
une 2022

EXHIBIT A
110
CLASS SALARY RANGE @ ANNUAL, MONTHLY, WEEKLY, HRLY RATES

CODE RANGE CLASSIFICATION STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E 221 01 ACCOUNT CLERK 61,523.80 64,573.17 67,765.55 71,117.56 74,637.17 Sch=M22 5,126.98 5,381.10 5,647.13 5,926.46 6,219.76
1,183.15 1,241.79 1,303.18 1,367.65 1,435.33

29.57875 31.04479 32.57959 34.19113 35.88325
225 02 ACCOUNT CLERK, JUNIOR 55,638.30 58,383.95 61,266.88 64,293.95 67,472.37 Sch=M22 4,636.53 4,865.33 5,105.57 5,357.83 5,622.70
1,069.97 1,122.77 1,178.21 1,236.42 1,297.55

26.74918 28.06921 29.45523 30.91055 32.43864
222 03 ACCOUNT CLERK, SENIOR 67,045.67 70,361.68 73,843.49 77,499.39 81,338.09 Sch=M22 5,587.14 5,863.47 6,153.62 6,458.28 6,778.17
1,289.34 1,353.11 1,420.07 1,490.37 1,564.19

32.23350 33.82773 35.50168 37.25932 39.10485
223 05 ACCOUNTANT, JUNIOR* 80,350.30 84,367.81 88,586.20 93,015.51 97,666.29 Sch=M22 6,695.86 7,030.65 7,382.18 7,751.29 8,138.86
1,545.20 1,622.46 1,703.58 1,788.76 1,878.20

38.62995 40.56145 42.58952 44.71900 46.95495
224 04 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 71,281.49 74,809.30 78,513.49 82,402.89 86,486.77 Sch=M22 5,940.12 6,234.11 6,542.79 6,866.91 7,207.23
1,370.80 1,438.64 1,509.87 1,584.67 1,663.21

34.26995 35.96601 37.74687 39.61677 41.58018
213 14 ADMINISTRATIVE 74,741.38 78,442.18 82,328.02 86,408.15 90,692.29 Sch=M22 ASSISTANT 6,228.45 6,536.85 6,860.67 7,200.68 7,557.69 1,437.33 1,508.50 1,583.23 1,661.70 1,744.08

35.93336 37.71259 39.58078 41.54238 43.60206
206 06 ADMINISTRATIVE 74,741.38 78,442.18 82,328.02 86,408.15 90,692.29 Sch=M22 TECHNICIAN 6,228.45 6,536.85 6,860.67 7,200.68 7,557.69 1,437.33 1,508.50 1,583.23 1,661.70 1,744.08

35.93336 37.71259 39.58078 41.54238 43.60206
471 01 AIRPORT SERVICE 65,218.11 68,442.75 71,828.62 75,383.78 79,116.70 Sch=PS1 ATTENDANT 5,434.84 5,703.56 5,985.72 6,281.98 6,593.06 1,254.19 1,316.21 1,381.32 1,449.69 1,521.48

31.35486 32.90517 34.53299 36.24220 38.03688
473 02 AIRPORT SERVICE 70,060.11 73,526.85 77,166.92 80,989.00 85,002.18 Sch=PS1 ATTENDANT SENIOR 5,838.34 6,127.24 6,430.58 6,749.08 7,083.52 1,347.31 1,413.98 1,483.98 1,557.48 1,634.66

33.68275 35.34945 37.09948 38.93702 40.86643
290 07 ANIMAL CONTROL 74,142.55 77,813.41 81,667.81 85,714.92 89,964.39 Sch=M22 OFFICER 6,178.55 6,484.45 6,805.65 7,142.91 7,497.03 1,425.82 1,496.41 1,570.53 1,648.36 1,730.08

35.64546 37.41029 39.26337 41.20910 43.25211
465 66 ASSET MANAGEMENT 100,357.68 105,339.30 110,570.00 116,062.23 121,829.06 Sch=M22 SPECIALIST 8,363.14 8,778.28 9,214.17 9,671.85 10,152.42 1,929.96 2,025.76 2,126.35 2,231.97 2,342.87

48.24888 50.64389 53.15865 55.79915 58.57166

CITY OF LIVERMORE

ASSOCIATION OF LIVERMORE EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 10/11/2021

EXHIBIT A
111
CLASS SALARY RANGE @ ANNUAL, MONTHLY, WEEKLY, HRLY RATES

CODE RANGE CLASSIFICATION STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E

CITY OF LIVERMORE

ASSOCIATION OF LIVERMORE EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 10/11/2021
281 08 BUILDING INSPECTOR I 88,085.42 92,453.42 97,039.82 101,855.54 106,912.05 Sch=M22 7,340.45 7,704.45 8,086.65 8,487.96 8,909.34
1,693.95 1,777.95 1,866.15 1,958.76 2,056.00

42.34876 44.44876 46.65376 48.96901 51.40002
282 09 BUILDING INSPECTOR II 94,758.27 99,459.91 104,396.64 109,580.20 115,022.94 Sch=M22 7,896.52 8,288.33 8,699.72 9,131.68 9,585.25
1,822.27 1,912.69 2,007.63 2,107.31 2,211.98

45.55686 47.81726 50.19069 52.68279 55.29949
277 56 BUILDING INSPECTOR III 97,572.81 102,415.18 107,499.66 112,838.37 118,444.02 Sch=M22 8,131.07 8,534.60 8,958.31 9,403.20 9,870.34
1,876.40 1,969.52 2,067.30 2,169.97 2,277.77

46.91000 49.23807 51.68253 54.24922 56.94424
288 10 BUILDING INSPECTOR, 102,415.18 107,499.66 112,838.37 118,444.02 124,329.95 Sch=M22 SENIOR 8,534.60 8,958.31 9,403.20 9,870.34 10,360.83 1,969.52 2,067.30 2,169.97 2,277.77 2,390.96

49.23807 51.68253 54.24922 56.94424 59.77401
249 11 CIVIL ENGINEER, 105,318.22 110,547.86 116,038.98 121,804.66 127,858.63 Sch=M22 ASSISTANT 8,776.52 9,212.32 9,669.92 10,150.39 10,654.89 2,025.35 2,125.92 2,231.52 2,342.40 2,458.82

50.63376 53.14801 55.78797 58.55993 61.47050
254 12 CIVIL ENGINEER, 114,167.48 119,839.59 125,795.30 132,048.80 138,614.98 Sch=M22 ASSOCIATE 9,513.96 9,986.63 10,482.94 11,004.07 11,551.25 2,195.53 2,304.61 2,419.14 2,539.40 2,665.67

54.88821 57.61519 60.47851 63.48500 66.64182
247 13 CIVIL ENGINEER, JUNIOR 92,469.59 97,056.79 101,873.36 106,930.76 112,241.03 Sch=M22 7,705.80 8,088.07 8,489.45 8,910.90 9,353.42
1,778.26 1,866.48 1,959.10 2,056.36 2,158.48

44.45653 46.66192 48.97758 51.40902 53.96203
292 17 COMMUNITY 65,298.88 68,527.55 71,917.67 75,477.28 79,214.88 Sch=M22 SERVICE SPECIALIST 5,441.57 5,710.63 5,993.14 6,289.77 6,601.24 1,255.75 1,317.84 1,383.03 1,451.49 1,523.36

31.39369 32.94594 34.57580 36.28715 38.08408
294 19 CRIME ANALYST 85,396.72 89,630.29 94,075.53 98,743.04 103,643.92 Sch=M22 7,116.39 7,469.19 7,839.63 8,228.59 8,636.99
1,642.24 1,723.66 1,809.14 1,898.90 1,993.15

41.05612 43.09149 45.22862 47.47262 49.82881
296 62 CRIME PREVENTION 70,572.45 74,064.81 77,731.78 81,582.10 85,624.93 Sch=M22 SPECIALIST 5,881.04 6,172.07 6,477.65 6,798.51 7,135.41 1,357.16 1,424.32 1,494.84 1,568.89 1,646.63

33.92906 35.60808 37.37105 39.22216 41.16583
208 21 DIVISION CLERK 63,023.02 66,137.91 69,408.54 72,842.69 76,448.57 Sch=M22 5,251.92 5,511.49 5,784.05 6,070.22 6,370.71
1,211.98 1,271.88 1,334.78 1,400.82 1,470.16

30.29953 31.79707 33.36949 35.02052 36.75412

EXHIBIT A
112
CLASS SALARY RANGE @ ANNUAL, MONTHLY, WEEKLY, HRLY RATES

CODE RANGE CLASSIFICATION STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E

CITY OF LIVERMORE

ASSOCIATION OF LIVERMORE EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 10/11/2021
234 64 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 82,142.93 86,213.81 90,488.24 94,976.38 99,688.92 Sch=M22 SPECIALIST 6,845.24 7,184.48 7,540.69 7,914.70 8,307.41 1,579.67 1,657.96 1,740.16 1,826.47 1,917.09

39.49179 41.44895 43.50396 45.66172 47.92737
467 38 ELECTRICIAN 81,809.70 85,863.91 90,120.84 94,590.61 99,283.88 Sch=PS1 6,817.48 7,155.33 7,510.07 7,882.55 8,273.66
1,573.26 1,651.23 1,733.09 1,819.05 1,909.31

39.33159 41.28073 43.32733 45.47625 47.73263
255 23 ENGINEER, ASSISTANT 100,357.67 105,339.29 110,569.99 116,062.22 121,829.05 Sch=M22 8,363.14 8,778.27 9,214.17 9,671.85 10,152.42
1,929.96 2,025.76 2,126.35 2,231.97 2,342.87

48.24888 50.64389 53.15865 55.79914 58.57166
256 24 ENGINEER, JUNIOR 88,100.82 92,469.60 97,056.80 101,873.37 106,930.77 Sch=M22 7,341.74 7,705.80 8,088.07 8,489.45 8,910.90
1,694.25 1,778.26 1,866.48 1,959.10 2,056.36

42.35616 44.45654 46.66192 48.97758 51.40902
273 63 ENGINEERING SPECIALIST 100,357.67 105,339.29 110,569.99 116,062.22 121,829.05 Sch=M22 8,363.14 8,778.27 9,214.17 9,671.85 10,152.42
1,929.96 2,025.76 2,126.35 2,231.97 2,342.87

48.24888 50.64389 53.15865 55.79914 58.57166
284 25 ENGINEERING 86,151.86 90,423.18 94,908.07 99,617.21 104,561.80 Sch=M22 TECHNICIAN, ASSIST 7,179.32 7,535.27 7,909.01 8,301.43 8,713.48 1,656.77 1,738.91 1,825.16 1,915.72 2,010.80

41.41916 43.47268 45.62888 47.89289 50.27010
275 26 ENGINEERING 92,469.59 97,056.79 101,873.36 106,930.76 112,241.03 Sch=M22 TECHNICIAN, ASSOC 7,705.80 8,088.07 8,489.45 8,910.90 9,353.42 1,778.26 1,866.48 1,959.10 2,056.36 2,158.48

44.45653 46.66192 48.97758 51.40902 53.96203
279 28 ENGINEERING 96,108.21 100,877.35 105,884.95 111,142.93 116,663.81 Sch=M22 TECHNICIAN, SENIOR 8,009.02 8,406.45 8,823.75 9,261.91 9,721.98 1,848.23 1,939.95 2,036.25 2,137.36 2,243.53

46.20587 48.49873 50.90623 53.43410 56.08837
410 40 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 55,328.92 58,059.09 60,925.78 63,935.80 67,096.32 Sch=PS1 TRAINEE 4,610.74 4,838.26 5,077.15 5,327.98 5,591.36 1,064.02 1,116.52 1,171.65 1,229.53 1,290.31

26.60044 27.91302 29.29124 30.73837 32.25785
411 41 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 62,099.06 65,167.74 68,389.85 71,773.07 75,325.46 Sch=PS1 WORKER I 5,174.92 5,430.65 5,699.15 5,981.09 6,277.12 1,194.21 1,253.23 1,315.19 1,380.25 1,448.57

29.85532 31.33064 32.87974 34.50628 36.21416
412 42 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 66,679.23 69,976.92 73,439.50 77,075.21 80,892.70 Sch=PS1 WORKER II 5,556.60 5,831.41 6,119.96 6,422.93 6,741.06 1,282.29 1,345.71 1,412.30 1,482.22 1,555.63

32.05732 33.64275 35.30745 37.05539 38.89072

EXHIBIT A
113
CLASS SALARY RANGE @ ANNUAL, MONTHLY, WEEKLY, HRLY RATES

CODE RANGE CLASSIFICATION STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E

CITY OF LIVERMORE

ASSOCIATION OF LIVERMORE EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 10/11/2021
413 43 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 70,060.11 73,526.85 77,166.92 80,989.00 85,002.18 Sch=PS1 WORKER, SENIOR 5,838.34 6,127.24 6,430.58 6,749.08 7,083.52 1,347.31 1,413.98 1,483.98 1,557.48 1,634.66

33.68275 35.34945 37.09948 38.93702 40.86643
414 20 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 78,989.99 82,903.22 87,012.11 91,326.44 95,856.50 Sch=PS1 WORKER, SUPERVISING 6,582.50 6,908.60 7,251.01 7,610.54 7,988.04 1,519.04 1,594.29 1,673.31 1,756.28 1,843.39

37.97596 39.85732 41.83275 43.90694 46.08486
950 18 FAMILY THERAPIST 86,677.76 90,975.38 95,487.88 100,226.00 105,201.03 Sch=M22 7,223.15 7,581.28 7,957.32 8,352.17 8,766.75
1,666.88 1,749.53 1,836.31 1,927.42 2,023.10

41.67200 43.73816 45.90763 48.18558 50.57742
444 51 FLEET SERVICES WORKER 55,328.96 58,059.14 60,925.83 63,935.85 67,096.37 Sch=PS1 4,610.75 4,838.26 5,077.15 5,327.99 5,591.36
1,064.02 1,116.52 1,171.65 1,229.54 1,290.31

26.60046 27.91305 29.29126 30.73839 32.25787
274 59 GIS SPECIALIST 100,357.67 105,339.28 110,569.98 116,062.21 121,829.04 Sch=M22 8,363.14 8,778.27 9,214.17 9,671.85 10,152.42
1,929.96 2,025.76 2,126.35 2,231.97 2,342.87

48.24888 50.64388 53.15864 55.79914 58.57165
420 11 GROUNDSKEEPER 55,328.92 58,059.09 60,925.77 63,935.79 67,096.31 Sch=PS1 TRAINEE 4,610.74 4,838.26 5,077.15 5,327.98 5,591.36 1,064.02 1,116.52 1,171.65 1,229.53 1,290.31

26.60044 27.91302 29.29124 30.73836 32.25784
421 12 GROUNDSKEEPER I 62,099.06 65,167.74 68,389.85 71,773.07 75,325.46 Sch=PS1 5,174.92 5,430.65 5,699.15 5,981.09 6,277.12
1,194.21 1,253.23 1,315.19 1,380.25 1,448.57

29.85532 31.33064 32.87974 34.50628 36.21416
422 13 GROUNDSKEEPER II 66,679.23 69,976.93 73,439.50 77,075.21 80,892.70 Sch=PS1 5,556.60 5,831.41 6,119.96 6,422.93 6,741.06
1,282.29 1,345.71 1,412.30 1,482.22 1,555.63

32.05732 33.64275 35.30745 37.05539 38.89072
423 14 GROUNDSKEEPER III 70,060.11 73,526.85 77,166.92 80,989.00 85,002.18 Sch=PS1 5,838.34 6,127.24 6,430.58 6,749.08 7,083.52
1,347.31 1,413.98 1,483.98 1,557.48 1,634.66

33.68275 35.34945 37.09948 38.93702 40.86643
424 04 GROUNDSKEEPER, 78,989.99 82,903.22 87,012.11 91,326.44 95,856.50 Sch=PS1 SUPERVISING 6,582.50 6,908.60 7,251.01 7,610.54 7,988.04 1,519.04 1,594.29 1,673.31 1,756.28 1,843.39

37.97596 39.85732 41.83275 43.90694 46.08486
228 16 INFORMATION 72,521.65 76,111.46 79,880.77 83,838.54 87,994.19 Sch=M22 TECHNOLOGY TECHNICIAN 6,043.47 6,342.62 6,656.73 6,986.55 7,332.85 1,394.65 1,463.68 1,536.17 1,612.28 1,692.20

34.86618 36.59205 38.40422 40.30699 42.30490

EXHIBIT A
114
CLASS SALARY RANGE @ ANNUAL, MONTHLY, WEEKLY, HRLY RATES

CODE RANGE CLASSIFICATION STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E

CITY OF LIVERMORE

ASSOCIATION OF LIVERMORE EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 10/11/2021
271 57 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 79,701.28 83,650.07 87,796.30 92,149.85 96,721.07 Sch=M22 TECHNICIAN, SENIOR 6,641.77 6,970.84 7,316.36 7,679.15 8,060.09 1,532.72 1,608.66 1,688.39 1,772.11 1,860.02

38.31792 40.21638 42.20976 44.30281 46.50051
426 52 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 74,996.75 78,710.32 82,609.56 86,703.77 91,002.68 Sch=PS1 SPECIALIST 6,249.73 6,559.19 6,884.13 7,225.31 7,583.56 1,442.25 1,513.66 1,588.65 1,667.38 1,750.05

36.05613 37.84150 39.71613 41.68450 43.75129
263 29 LIBRARIAN I 67,433.64 70,769.06 74,271.24 77,948.53 81,809.68 Sch=M22 5,619.47 5,897.42 6,189.27 6,495.71 6,817.47
1,296.80 1,360.94 1,428.29 1,499.01 1,573.26

32.42002 34.02359 35.70733 37.47525 39.33158
260 30 LIBRARIAN II 74,888.88 78,597.05 82,490.63 86,578.89 90,871.56 Sch=M22 6,240.74 6,549.75 6,874.22 7,214.91 7,572.63
1,440.17 1,511.48 1,586.36 1,664.98 1,747.53

36.00427 37.78704 39.65896 41.62447 43.68825
242 32 LIBRARY ASSISTANT 63,417.44 66,552.04 69,843.37 73,299.28 76,927.97 Sch=M22 5,284.79 5,546.00 5,820.28 6,108.27 6,410.66
1,219.57 1,279.85 1,343.14 1,409.60 1,479.38

30.48915 31.99617 33.57854 35.24004 36.98460
243 33 LIBRARY ASSISTANT, 71,281.49 74,809.30 78,513.49 82,402.89 86,486.77 Sch=M22 SUPERVISING 5,940.12 6,234.11 6,542.79 6,866.91 7,207.23 1,370.80 1,438.64 1,509.87 1,584.67 1,663.21

34.26995 35.96601 37.74687 39.61677 41.58018
241 34 LIBRARY CLERK 55,638.34 58,383.99 61,266.92 64,293.99 67,472.42 Sch=M22 4,636.53 4,865.33 5,105.58 5,357.83 5,622.70
1,069.97 1,122.77 1,178.21 1,236.42 1,297.55

26.74920 28.06923 29.45525 30.91057 32.43866
400 16 MAINTENANCE 55,328.92 58,059.09 60,925.77 63,935.79 67,096.31 Sch=PS1 TRAINEE 4,610.74 4,838.26 5,077.15 5,327.98 5,591.36 1,064.02 1,116.52 1,171.65 1,229.53 1,290.31

26.60044 27.91302 29.29124 30.73836 32.25784
401 17 MAINTENANCE 62,099.06 65,167.74 68,389.85 71,773.07 75,325.46 Sch=PS1 WORKER I 5,174.92 5,430.65 5,699.15 5,981.09 6,277.12 1,194.21 1,253.23 1,315.19 1,380.25 1,448.57

29.85532 31.33064 32.87974 34.50628 36.21416
402 18 MAINTENANCE 66,679.23 69,976.92 73,439.50 77,075.21 80,892.70 Sch=PS1 WORKER II 5,556.60 5,831.41 6,119.96 6,422.93 6,741.06 1,282.29 1,345.71 1,412.30 1,482.22 1,555.63

32.05732 33.64275 35.30745 37.05539 38.89072
403 19 MAINTENANCE 70,060.11 73,526.85 77,166.92 80,989.00 85,002.18 Sch=PS1 WORKER III 5,838.34 6,127.24 6,430.58 6,749.08 7,083.52 1,347.31 1,413.98 1,483.98 1,557.48 1,634.66

33.68275 35.34945 37.09948 38.93702 40.86643

EXHIBIT A
115
CLASS SALARY RANGE @ ANNUAL, MONTHLY, WEEKLY, HRLY RATES

CODE RANGE CLASSIFICATION STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E

CITY OF LIVERMORE

ASSOCIATION OF LIVERMORE EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 10/11/2021
442 22 MECHANIC 77,413.31 81,247.71 85,273.82 89,501.24 93,940.04 Sch=PS1 6,451.11 6,770.64 7,106.15 7,458.44 7,828.34
1,488.72 1,562.46 1,639.88 1,721.18 1,806.54

37.21794 39.06140 40.99703 43.02944 45.16348
440 23 MECHANIC SENIOR 84,168.63 88,340.79 92,721.56 97,321.37 102,151.17 Sch=PS1 7,014.05 7,361.73 7,726.80 8,110.11 8,512.60
1,618.63 1,698.86 1,783.11 1,871.56 1,964.45

40.46569 42.47153 44.57767 46.78912 49.11114
251 15 NEIGHBORHOOD 92,469.59 97,056.79 101,873.36 106,930.76 112,241.03 Sch=M22 PRESERVATION OFFICER 7,705.80 8,088.07 8,489.45 8,910.90 9,353.42 1,778.26 1,866.48 1,959.10 2,056.36 2,158.48

44.45653 46.66192 48.97758 51.40902 53.96203
407 03 PARTS AND INVENTORY 65,049.31 68,265.51 71,642.51 75,188.37 78,911.52 Sch=PS1 CONTROL WORKER 5,420.78 5,688.79 5,970.21 6,265.70 6,575.96 1,250.95 1,312.80 1,377.74 1,445.93 1,517.53

31.27371 32.81996 34.44351 36.14825 37.93823
287 37 PERMIT TECHNICIAN 66,268.87 69,546.04 72,987.08 76,600.16 80,393.90 Sch=M22 5,522.41 5,795.50 6,082.26 6,383.35 6,699.49
1,274.40 1,337.42 1,403.60 1,473.08 1,546.04

31.86003 33.43560 35.08994 36.82700 38.65091
291 60 PERMIT TECHNICIAN II 70,856.89 74,363.46 78,045.37 81,911.36 85,970.66 Sch=M22 5,904.74 6,196.96 6,503.78 6,825.95 7,164.22
1,362.63 1,430.07 1,500.87 1,575.22 1,653.28

34.06581 35.75166 37.52181 39.38046 41.33205
252 38 PLAN CHECK ENGINEER 114,070.49 119,737.75 125,688.36 131,936.52 138,497.08 Sch=M22 9,505.87 9,978.15 10,474.03 10,994.71 11,541.42 2,193.66 2,302.65 2,417.08 2,537.24 2,663.41

54.84158 57.56623 60.42710 63.43102 66.58513
258 41 PLANNER, ASSISTANT 92,185.78 96,758.80 101,560.47 106,602.23 111,896.07 Sch=M22 7,682.15 8,063.23 8,463.37 8,883.52 9,324.67
1,772.80 1,860.75 1,953.09 2,050.04 2,151.85

44.32009 46.51865 48.82715 51.25107 53.79619
257 42 PLANNER, ASSOCIATE 106,602.23 111,896.07 117,454.60 123,291.06 129,419.34 Sch=M22 8,883.52 9,324.67 9,787.88 10,274.26 10,784.95
2,050.04 2,151.85 2,258.74 2,370.98 2,488.83

51.25107 53.79619 56.46856 59.27455 62.22084
261 22 PLANNER, SENIOR 111,896.09 117,454.62 123,291.08 129,419.36 135,854.06 Sch=M22 9,324.67 9,787.89 10,274.26 10,784.95 11,321.17 2,151.85 2,258.74 2,370.98 2,488.83 2,612.58

53.79620 56.46857 59.27456 62.22085 65.31445
231 43 POLICE CLERK 61,288.28 64,316.42 67,495.98 70,834.51 74,339.96 Sch=M22 5,107.36 5,359.70 5,624.67 5,902.88 6,195.00
1,178.62 1,236.85 1,298.00 1,362.20 1,429.61

29.46552 30.92136 32.44999 34.05505 35.74037

EXHIBIT A
116
CLASS SALARY RANGE @ ANNUAL, MONTHLY, WEEKLY, HRLY RATES

CODE RANGE CLASSIFICATION STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E

CITY OF LIVERMORE

ASSOCIATION OF LIVERMORE EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 10/11/2021
229 20 POLICE CLERK, 64,316.49 67,496.05 70,834.58 74,340.03 78,020.77 Sch=M22 SENIOR 5,359.71 5,624.67 5,902.88 6,195.00 6,501.73 1,236.86 1,298.00 1,362.20 1,429.62 1,500.40

30.92139 32.45002 34.05509 35.74040 37.50999
230 52 POLICE CLERK, 76,197.57 79,971.18 83,933.47 88,093.88 92,462.30 Sch=M22 SUPERVISING 6,349.80 6,664.27 6,994.46 7,341.16 7,705.19 1,465.34 1,537.91 1,614.11 1,694.11 1,778.12

36.63345 38.44768 40.35263 42.35283 44.45303
237 55 POLICE IDENTIFICATION 77,663.04 81,509.92 85,549.15 89,790.34 94,243.59 Sch=M22 TECHNICIAN 6,471.92 6,792.49 7,129.10 7,482.53 7,853.63 1,493.52 1,567.50 1,645.18 1,726.74 1,812.38

37.33800 39.18746 41.12940 43.16843 45.30942
215 36 PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE 65,298.88 68,527.55 71,917.67 75,477.28 79,214.88 Sch=M22 SPECIALIST 5,441.57 5,710.63 5,993.14 6,289.77 6,601.24 1,255.75 1,317.84 1,383.03 1,451.49 1,523.36

31.39369 32.94594 34.57580 36.28715 38.08408
236 54 PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE 73,999.36 77,663.06 81,509.94 85,549.17 89,790.36 Sch=M22 SPECIALIST, SUPERVISING 6,166.61 6,471.92 6,792.50 7,129.10 7,482.53 1,423.06 1,493.52 1,567.50 1,645.18 1,726.74

35.57662 37.33801 39.18747 41.12941 43.16844
235 44 PUBLIC SAFETY 76,197.57 79,971.18 83,933.47 88,093.88 92,462.30 Sch=M22 DISPATCHER 6,349.80 6,664.27 6,994.46 7,341.16 7,705.19 1,465.34 1,537.91 1,614.11 1,694.11 1,778.12

36.63345 38.44768 40.35263 42.35283 44.45303
245 31 PUBLIC SAFETY 79,971.14 83,933.43 88,093.84 92,462.26 97,049.11 Sch=M22 DISPATCHER, SENIOR 6,664.26 6,994.45 7,341.15 7,705.19 8,087.43 1,537.91 1,614.10 1,694.11 1,778.12 1,866.33

38.44766 40.35261 42.35281 44.45301 46.65823
238 45 PUBLIC SAFETY 88,144.14 92,515.08 97,104.56 101,923.52 106,983.42 Sch=M22 DISPATCHER, SUPERVISING 7,345.35 7,709.59 8,092.05 8,493.63 8,915.29 1,695.08 1,779.14 1,867.40 1,960.07 2,057.37

42.37699 44.47840 46.68488 49.00169 51.43434
220 46 PURCHASING SPECIALIST 72,095.96 75,664.49 79,411.44 83,345.75 87,476.77 Sch=M22 6,008.00 6,305.37 6,617.62 6,945.48 7,289.73
1,386.46 1,455.09 1,527.14 1,602.80 1,682.25

34.66152 36.37716 38.17858 40.07007 42.05614
233 65 RECYCLING SPECIALIST 82,142.92 86,213.79 90,488.22 94,976.36 99,688.90 Sch=M22 6,845.24 7,184.48 7,540.69 7,914.70 8,307.41
1,579.67 1,657.96 1,740.16 1,826.47 1,917.09

39.49179 41.44894 43.50395 45.66171 47.92736
214 49 SENIOR CLERK 59,737.92 62,688.54 65,786.70 69,039.77 72,455.48 Sch=M22 4,978.16 5,224.05 5,482.23 5,753.31 6,037.96
1,148.81 1,205.55 1,265.13 1,327.69 1,393.37

28.72015 30.13872 31.62822 33.19220 34.83437

EXHIBIT A
117
CLASS SALARY RANGE @ ANNUAL, MONTHLY, WEEKLY, HRLY RATES

CODE RANGE CLASSIFICATION STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E

CITY OF LIVERMORE

ASSOCIATION OF LIVERMORE EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 10/11/2021
405 39 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 67,468.14 70,805.28 74,309.27 77,988.46 81,851.62 Sch=PS1 TECHNICIAN TRAINEE 5,622.35 5,900.44 6,192.44 6,499.04 6,820.97 1,297.46 1,361.64 1,429.02 1,499.78 1,574.07

32.43661 34.04100 35.72561 37.49445 39.35174
406 24 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 72,140.14 75,710.87 79,460.15 83,396.89 87,530.47 Sch=PS1 TECHNICIAN 6,011.68 6,309.24 6,621.68 6,949.74 7,294.21 1,387.31 1,455.98 1,528.08 1,603.79 1,683.28

34.68276 36.39946 38.20200 40.09466 42.08196
408 53 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 75,710.99 79,460.26 83,397.00 87,530.58 91,870.85 Sch=PS1 TECHNICIAN, SENIOR 6,309.25 6,621.69 6,949.75 7,294.22 7,655.90 1,455.98 1,528.08 1,603.79 1,683.28 1,766.75

36.39951 38.20205 40.09471 42.08201 44.16868
248 53 TRANSPORTATION 114,167.48 119,839.59 125,795.30 132,048.80 138,614.98 Sch=M22 ENGINEER, ASSOCIATE 9,513.96 9,986.63 10,482.94 11,004.07 11,551.25 2,195.53 2,304.61 2,419.14 2,539.40 2,665.67

54.88821 57.61519 60.47851 63.48500 66.64182
211 50 TYPIST CLERK 55,638.34 58,383.99 61,266.92 64,293.99 67,472.42 Sch=M22 4,636.53 4,865.33 5,105.58 5,357.83 5,622.70
1,069.97 1,122.77 1,178.21 1,236.42 1,297.55

26.74920 28.06923 29.45525 30.91057 32.43866
396 44 WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS 55,328.92 58,059.09 60,925.77 63,935.79 67,096.31 Sch=PS1 SYSTEMS TRAINEE 4,610.74 4,838.26 5,077.15 5,327.98 5,591.36 1,064.02 1,116.52 1,171.65 1,229.53 1,290.31

26.60044 27.91302 29.29124 30.73836 32.25784
397 45 WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS 62,099.06 65,167.74 68,389.85 71,773.07 75,325.46 Sch=PS1 SYSTEMS WORKER I 5,174.92 5,430.65 5,699.15 5,981.09 6,277.12 1,194.21 1,253.23 1,315.19 1,380.25 1,448.57

29.85532 31.33064 32.87974 34.50628 36.21416
398 46 WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS 66,679.23 69,976.92 73,439.50 77,075.21 80,892.70 Sch=PS1 SYSTEMS WORKER II 5,556.60 5,831.41 6,119.96 6,422.93 6,741.06 1,282.29 1,345.71 1,412.30 1,482.22 1,555.63

32.05732 33.64275 35.30745 37.05539 38.89072
399 47 WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS 70,060.11 73,526.85 77,166.92 80,989.00 85,002.18 Sch=PS1 SYSTEMS WORKER III 5,838.34 6,127.24 6,430.58 6,749.08 7,083.52 1,347.31 1,413.98 1,483.98 1,557.48 1,634.66

33.68275 35.34945 37.09948 38.93702 40.86643
445 15 WATER DISTRIBUTION 59,151.14 62,072.43 65,139.79 68,360.51 71,742.27 Sch=PS1 OPERATOR TRAINEE 4,929.26 5,172.70 5,428.32 5,696.71 5,978.52 1,137.52 1,193.70 1,252.69 1,314.63 1,379.66

28.43805 29.84251 31.31721 32.86563 34.49148
446 32 WATER DISTRIBUTION 66,395.96 69,679.48 73,127.18 76,747.28 80,548.37 Sch=PS1 OPERATOR I 5,533.00 5,806.62 6,093.93 6,395.61 6,712.36 1,276.85 1,339.99 1,406.29 1,475.91 1,549.01

31.92113 33.49975 35.15730 36.89773 38.72518

EXHIBIT A
118
CLASS SALARY RANGE @ ANNUAL, MONTHLY, WEEKLY, HRLY RATES

CODE RANGE CLASSIFICATION STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E

CITY OF LIVERMORE

ASSOCIATION OF LIVERMORE EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 10/11/2021
447 33 WATER DISTRIBUTION 76,246.53 80,022.59 83,987.45 88,150.55 92,521.80 Sch=PS1 OPERATOR II 6,353.88 6,668.55 6,998.95 7,345.88 7,710.15 1,466.28 1,538.90 1,615.14 1,695.20 1,779.27

36.65699 38.47240 40.37858 42.38007 44.48163
448 34 WATER DISTRIBUTION 82,288.20 86,366.34 90,648.40 95,144.55 99,865.50 Sch=PS1 OPERATOR III 6,857.35 7,197.20 7,554.03 7,928.71 8,322.13 1,582.47 1,660.89 1,743.24 1,829.70 1,920.49

39.56163 41.52228 43.58096 45.74257 48.01226
470 05 WATER DISTRIBUTION 86,366.36 90,648.42 95,144.57 99,865.52 104,822.53 Sch=PS1 SENIOR OPERATOR 7,197.20 7,554.04 7,928.71 8,322.13 8,735.21 1,660.89 1,743.24 1,829.70 1,920.49 2,015.82

41.52229 43.58097 45.74258 48.01227 50.39545
469 06 WATER DISTRIBUTION 94,930.46 99,640.72 104,586.48 109,779.54 115,232.25 Sch=PS1 SUPERVISING OPERATOR 7,910.87 8,303.39 8,715.54 9,148.30 9,602.69 1,825.59 1,916.17 2,011.28 2,111.15 2,216.00

45.63964 47.90419 50.28196 52.77863 55.40012
456 37 WATER RESOURCES 87,483.43 91,821.32 96,376.12 101,158.66 106,180.32 Sch=PS1 COORDINATOR 7,290.29 7,651.78 8,031.34 8,429.89 8,848.36 1,682.37 1,765.79 1,853.39 1,945.36 2,041.93

42.05934 44.14487 46.33467 48.63397 51.04823
463 25 WR INSTRUMENT 81,809.70 85,863.91 90,120.84 94,590.61 99,283.88 Sch=PS1 CONTROL TECHNICIAN 6,817.48 7,155.33 7,510.07 7,882.55 8,273.66 1,573.26 1,651.23 1,733.09 1,819.05 1,909.31

39.33159 41.28073 43.32733 45.47625 47.73263
462 26 WR LABORATORY 72,333.59 75,914.01 79,673.44 83,620.84 87,765.62 Sch=PS1 TECHNICIAN 6,027.80 6,326.17 6,639.45 6,968.40 7,313.80 1,391.03 1,459.88 1,532.18 1,608.09 1,687.80

34.77576 36.49712 38.30454 40.20233 42.19501
458 27 WR MECHANIC I 74,481.86 78,169.68 82,041.89 86,107.71 90,376.83 Sch=PS1 6,206.82 6,514.14 6,836.82 7,175.64 7,531.40
1,432.34 1,503.26 1,577.73 1,655.92 1,738.02

35.80859 37.58158 39.44322 41.39794 43.45040
459 28 WR MECHANIC II 83,740.44 87,891.18 92,249.47 96,825.67 101,630.67 Sch=PS1 6,978.37 7,324.27 7,687.46 8,068.81 8,469.22
1,610.39 1,690.22 1,774.03 1,862.03 1,954.44

40.25983 42.25538 44.35071 46.55080 48.86090
451 29 WR OPERATOR - GRADE I 75,733.92 79,484.34 83,422.29 87,557.13 91,898.71 Sch=PS1 6,311.16 6,623.70 6,951.86 7,296.43 7,658.23
1,456.42 1,528.55 1,604.27 1,683.79 1,767.28

36.41054 38.21363 40.10687 42.09477 44.18207
453 48 WR OPERATOR - GRADE II 79,474.28 83,411.72 87,546.04 91,887.06 96,445.15 Sch=PS1 6,622.86 6,950.98 7,295.50 7,657.26 8,037.10
1,528.35 1,604.07 1,683.58 1,767.06 1,854.71

38.20879 40.10179 42.08944 44.17647 46.36786

EXHIBIT A
119
CLASS SALARY RANGE @ ANNUAL, MONTHLY, WEEKLY, HRLY RATES

CODE RANGE CLASSIFICATION STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E

CITY OF LIVERMORE

ASSOCIATION OF LIVERMORE EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 10/11/2021
452 30 WR OPERATOR - GRADE III 85,884.42 90,142.37 94,613.22 99,307.60 104,236.71 Sch=PS1 7,157.04 7,511.86 7,884.44 8,275.63 8,686.39
1,651.62 1,733.51 1,819.49 1,909.76 2,004.55

41.29059 43.33768 45.48713 47.74404 50.11380
455 31 WR OPERATOR - TRAINEE 63,782.37 66,935.22 70,245.71 73,721.73 77,371.55 Sch=PS1 5,315.20 5,577.94 5,853.81 6,143.48 6,447.63
1,226.58 1,287.22 1,350.88 1,417.73 1,487.91

30.66460 32.18039 33.77198 35.44314 37.19786
457 49 WR SENIOR OPERATOR 90,155.51 94,627.02 99,322.10 104,251.93 109,428.26 Sch=PS1 7,512.96 7,885.59 8,276.84 8,687.66 9,119.02
1,733.76 1,819.75 1,910.04 2,004.84 2,104.39

43.34400 45.49376 47.75101 50.12112 52.60974
461 35 WR SOURCE CONTROL 83,352.07 87,483.41 91,821.30 96,376.10 101,158.64 Sch=PS1 INSPECTOR 6,946.01 7,290.28 7,651.78 8,031.34 8,429.89 1,602.92 1,682.37 1,765.79 1,853.39 1,945.36

40.07311 42.05933 44.14486 46.33466 48.63396
460 36 WR SOURCE CONTROL 79,448.03 83,384.16 87,517.10 91,856.68 96,413.24 Sch=PS1 TECHNICIAN 6,620.67 6,948.68 7,293.09 7,654.72 8,034.44 1,527.85 1,603.54 1,683.02 1,766.47 1,854.10

38.19617 40.08854 42.07553 44.16187 46.35252
464 50 WR SUPERVISING 99,091.95 104,010.27 109,174.51 114,596.97 120,290.54 Sch=PS1 OPERATOR 8,257.66 8,667.52 9,097.88 9,549.75 10,024.21 1,905.61 2,000.20 2,099.51 2,203.79 2,313.28

47.64036 50.00494 52.48775 55.09470 57.83199
952 51 YOUTH SERVICES CASE 79,051.78 82,968.10 87,080.24 91,397.98 95,931.62 Sch=M22 COORDINATOR 6,587.65 6,914.01 7,256.69 7,616.50 7,994.30 1,520.23 1,595.54 1,674.62 1,757.65 1,844.84

38.00566 39.88851 41.86550 43.94134 46.12097
*Position Retitled and Adjusted 5/23/2022

EXHIBIT A
120
Schedule = P14

CLASS SALARY RANGE @ ANNUAL, MONTHLY, WEEKLY, HRLY RATES

CODE RANGE CLASSIFICATION STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E 604 01 POLICE OFFICER 102,065.14 107,168.40 112,526.82 118,153.16 124,060.82 8,505.43 8,930.70 9,377.24 9,846.10 10,338.40
1962.79 2060.93 2163.98 2272.18 2385.79

49.06978 51.52327 54.09943 56.80440 59.64463
603 02 POLICE SERGEANT 127,003.32 133,353.49 140,021.16 147,022.22 154,373.33 10,583.61 11,112.79 11,668.43 12,251.85 12,864.44
2442.37 2564.49 2692.71 2827.35 2968.72

61.05929 64.11225 67.31787 70.68376 74.21795
606 03 POLICE TRAINEE 35.75003 - - - -
(Non-Sworn)

CITY OF LIVERMORE

POLICE OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION
EFFECTIVE 05/09/2022

2. LPOA May 9, 2022
3/25/2022 Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT A
121

MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE
$7,216 - $16,449/month
Effective July 5, 2021
Class
Code Classification Monthly Salary Range
$13,158.43 - $16,448.04
119 Assistant Administrative Services Director*
100 Assistant City Attorney
132 Assistant Community Development Director
129 Assistant Public Works Director
124 City Engineer
$12,240.66 - $15,300.83
250 Assistant City Engineer
289 Building Official
218 Finance Manager
125 Maintenance and Golf Operations Manager
118 Planning Manager
449 Water Resources Division Manager***
$11,636.56 - $14,545.70
123 Housing & Human Services Manager
$11,515.30 - $14,394.13
246 Senior Transportation Engineer
$11,049.86 - $13,812.33
283 Permit Center Manager
$11,027.64 - $13,784.55
253 Senior Civil Engineer
$10,895.92 - $13,619.89
269 Cyber Security Manager*
268 Information Technology Manager*
$10,717.20 - $13,396.50
127 Risk Manager
$10,578.56 - $13,223.20
472 Airport Manager
136 City Clerk
134 Housing Programs Manager
135 Human Services Programs Manager
297 Police Support Services Manager
259 Principal Planner
951 Youth and Family Services Manager - Clinical
$9,987.64 - $12,484.55
137 Assistant Finance Manager**
130 Assistant Library Director*
120 Economic Development Manager*
278 Inspection & Neighborhood Preservation Manager
450 Water Resources Operations Manager
474 Water Resources Technical Programs Manager
953 Youth and Family Services Manager - Programs

CITY OF LIVERMORE

EXHIBIT A
122

MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE
$7,216 - $16,449/month
Effective July 5, 2021
Class
Code Classification Monthly Salary Range

CITY OF LIVERMORE
$9,494.17 - $11,867.71
232 Information Technology Coordinator
148 Management Analyst, Senior
133 Public Works Manager
270 Systems Administrator
468 Water Distribution Operations Manager
$9,393.40 - $11,741.75
272 Construction Inspection Manager
$9,350.52 - $11,688.15
128 Deputy City Attorney
295 Police Business Services Manager
293 Police Facility & Equipment Manager
$8,873.51 - $11,091.89
217 Accounting Supervisor
131 Assistant City Clerk
150 Management Analyst II
298 Police Media & Community Relations Analyst*
126 Public Works Supervisor
$7,216.24 - $9,020.30
207 Deputy City Clerk
152 Management Analyst I
264 Supervising Librarian
466 Water Resources Communications Representative
*Added/Changed 8/2/2021
**Added 4/11/2022
***Adjusted 5/23/2022

EXHIBIT A
123
Class
Code Classification
113 Assistant City Attorney, Senior (Confidential) $14,186.62 - $17,733.27 104 Assistant to the City Manager (Confidential) $11,636.56 - $14,545.70 122 Human Resources Manager (Confidential) $12,240.66 - $15,300.83 154 Human Resources Analyst, Senior (Confidential) $9,494.17 - $11,867.71 155 Human Resources Analyst II (Confidential) $8,873.51 - $11,091.89 156 Human Resources Analyst I (Confidential) $7,216.24 - $9,020.30 149 Management Analyst, Senior (Confidential) $9,494.17 - $11,867.71 151 Management Analyst II (Confidential) $8,873.51 - $11,091.89 153 Management Analyst I (Confidential) $7,216.24 - $9,020.30

CITY OF LIVERMORE
Monthly Salary Range
Effective July 5, 2021
$7,216 - $17,734/month

MANAGEMENT CONFIDENTIAL SALARY SCHEDULE

EXHIBIT A
124

CITY OF LIVERMORE

POLICE MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE
$12,830 - $19,891/month
Effective July 5, 2021
Class
Code Classification Salary Range
605 Police Captain $15,912.39 - $19,890.48
602 Police Lieutenant $12,831.06 - $16,038.83

EXHIBIT A
125
Class
Code Classifications
216 Administrative Receptionist $4,779.70 - $5,974.62
203 Administrative Specialist I $5,532.36 - $6,915.45
227 Administrative Specialist II $6,222.13 - $7,777.66
200 Executive Assistant $7,965.27 - $9,956.59
226 Human Resources Clerk I $5,532.36 - $6,915.45
212 Human Resources Clerk II $6,086.22 - $7,607.77
219 Human Resources Technician $6,678.18 - $8,347.72
201 Law Office Supervisor $7,965.27 - $9,956.59
204 Legal Assistant $6,614.70 - $8,268.38
Monthly Salary Range

CITY OF LIVERMORE

CONFIDENTIAL SALARY SCHEDULE
$4,663 - $9,714/month
Effective July 5, 2021

EXHIBIT A
126
Class
Code Classification Monthly Salary Range
109 Administrative Services Director $15,343.01 - $19,178.76 103 Assistant City Manager $16,550.85 - $20,688.56
105 Community Development Director $15,343.01 - $19,178.76 106 Deputy City Manager** $12,837.50 - $16,448.04
114 Innovation and Economic Development Director $15,343.01 - $19,178.76 121 Library Services Director* $15,343.01 - $19,178.76
107 Police Chief $17,990.95 - $22,488.69
111 Public Works Director $15,343.01 - $19,178.76

CITY OF LIVERMORE

EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE
$12,837.50 - $22,488.69/month
Effective December 6, 2021

EXHIBIT A
127

CITY OF LIVERMORE

APPOINTED MANAGEMENT
Class
Code Classification Annual Salary Effective
102 City Manager $296,851 12/6/2021
112 City Attorney $279,010 12/6/2021

EXHIBIT A
128

CITY OF LIVERMORE

UNCLASSIFIED AND HOURLY SALARY SCHEDULE
Class
Code Classification Salary Range Effective Date
210 Department Assistant $15.00 - $25.25 Hourly 12/20/21 438 Field/Maintenance Aide $15.00 - $25.25 Hourly 12/20/21 240 Law Clerk $15.00 - $25.00 Hourly 07/05/99
915 Temporary Librarian $19.00 - $23.50 Hourly 05/11/07 916 Temporary Library Assistant $17.00 - $22.50 Hourly 05/11/07 917 Temporary Library Clerk $15.75 - $19.00 Hourly 05/11/07 920 Library Aide $15.00 Hour 12/20/21
961 Police Cadet $15.00 - $19.00 Hourly 12/20/21
963 Reserve Police Officer Hourly equivalent to Police Officer Step A 956 Special Projects Coordinator $20.00 - $100.00 Hourly 12/20/21

EXHIBIT A
129

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 5.1

DATE:

May 23, 2022
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Christine Martin, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT:

Hearing to authorize a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Shakespeare’s Associates, Inc., including sale of City property for development of a Black Box theater, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the DDA and all related documents necessary to implement the DDA.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council adopt resolutions and direct the following:
1 .

Declaring that Pa
rcel A of Parcel Map 11239
is exempt from the Surplus Land Act as defined in
Government Code Section 54234(a)(1); an
d
2 .

Finding that the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Shakespeare's Associates Inc., attached hereto as Exhibit A, is within the scope of the 2004 Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and the 2009 Downtown Specific Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and the addendums adopted by City Council on September 10, 2018 by Resolution 2018-153, May 13, 2019 by Resolution 2019-064, and October 26, 2020 by Resolution 2020-178, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the DDA and all documents necessary to implement the DDA.

SUMMARY
The proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) establishes the terms for the sale of city- owned property to Shakespeare's Associates, Inc. (Developer). Under the DDA, the Developer will purchase a 14,223 square foot parcel of land owned by the City (Parcel A of Parcel Map 11239) located in the Downtown core area for the development of a black box theater, consistent with the City Council's approved Downtown Plan. The DDA secures additional public benefits and improvements, including contributions to Stockmen's Park maintenance. This staff report summarizes the terms of the DDA.

DISCUSSION

BACKGROUND
On January 29, 2018, at the conclusion of a yearlong public engagement process, the City Council approved a plan for the Downtown Core site, including the location of two cultural amenities, a black box 130
theater and a science and society center, to be located within Stockmen's Park. These facilities will help activate Stockmen's Park and provide a place for residents and visitors to experience indoor and outdoor performances and explore the ways that science influences daily life.

On July 24, 2018, after reviewing responses to the City's Request for Qualifications (RFQ), Council directed staff to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENRA) with Shakespeare's Associates, Inc. (Developer) to negotiate the terms and conditions for the disposition of City property for the development of a black box theater. Since that time, extensions have been granted allowing sufficient time for the parties to complete the necessary steps to finalize negotiations. Based on Council direction, the City and Developer have negotiated the terms of a Disposition and Development Agreement, which address the sale and development of the property and the responsibilities of each party.

PROJECT
The black box theater will be located on a 14,223 square foot par cel at t
he southwest portion of the
Stockmen's Park easement, west of Blacksmith Square and north of Veterans Way, which the City will sell to Shakespeare's Associates Inc. based on the the terms outlined in the DDA. The Stockmen's Park easement permits cultural uses, such as the black box theater, and includes provisions to ensure the uses developed will integrate with the design of the park.

The black box theater is contemplated to be a two-story structure with a flexible performance space and the ability to accommodate between 100 and 200 seats. The structure will also include accessory spaces to support arts and cultural uses, including a
food service kitchen designed to serve both indoor and
outdoor events and a roof deck with outdoor seating. Final plan components and square footages will be reviewed by the City in more detail when the Developer submits a Site Plan and Design Review permit application.

Pursuant to the terms of the DDA, the City will sell the the Downtown parcel to Shakespeare's Associates Inc. for $10,000. The Downtown Specific Plan and Stockmen's Park easement limit the uses of the property to cultural facilities, which impacts the revenue generation potential and underlying valuation of the property. The DDA also includes a number of conditions relating to the sale and development of the property which further restrict the value of the land.

Among these conditions is the requirement that the Developer participate in a Community Facility Maintenance District for Downtown Improvements (CFMD), which will help to fund the ongoing maintenance of Stockm
en's Park. The Developer will make yearly contributions to the CFMD starting at $10,000 for the first year and increasing in subsequent years based on increases in the Consumer Price Index. The Developer will also lease the property back to the City at no cost for use as a temporary parking lot until such time as the black box theater is prepared to develop.

The DDA's Schedule of Performance allows the Developer to proceed with construction after specific milestones have been achieved. Key milestones identified in the DDA include (but are not limited to):
completion of the L Street Parking Garage, or identification of adequate parking and provision of a Business and Operations Plan that identifies sources and uses of funds for the development of the improvements, ongoing operations and an endowment.

The term of the DDA is fifty years, with the option to extend by written agreement of both parties. The DDA acknowledges that the intent of the black box theater is to activate Stockmen's Park and the 131
downtown area through a range of activities throughout the course of the year. As such, the DDA encourages the theater to be as actively programmed as possible, but at a minimum the theater is required to provide at least 100 indoor and/or outdoor performances, rehearsals, meetings, cultural events, or related activities on the surrounding grounds of Stockmen's Park in the first year of operation and increasing to a minimum of 150 events in subsequent years.

The approval of the DDA will allow the black box theater identified in the Downtown Plan to move forward and be developed in a manner that is consistent and compatible with Blacksmith Square, the Livermore Stockmen's Rodeo Association Easement, and the approved Downtown Plan. This cultural facility is a critical element in the activation and successful operation of Stockmen's Park and the City's overall vision for a vibrant Downtown with a variety of cultural amenities.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is within the scope of the 2004 Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and the 2009 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and the addendums adopted by the City Council adopted by City Council
on September 10, 2018 by Resolution 2018-153, May 13, 2019 by Resolution 2019-064, and October 26, 2020 by Resolution 2020-178 and is subject to applicable mitigation measures.

No substantial
changes are proposed which would require revisions to the 2004 Final EIR and 2009 SEIR, or addenda.

No new or more severe significant impacts were identified for the downtown plan that were not identified in the 2004 Final EIR and 2009 Subsequent EIR and addenda, and no new mitigation measures would be required for the downtown plan. There have been no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2004 Final EIR and 2009 Subsequent EIR. The project is also exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines 15332 (infill projects).

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
Implementing the terms of the Disposition and Development Agreement outlined above will enable development of the City Council approved Downtown Plan, contributing to the economic vitality of Downtown Livermore. The proposed project will sell the land for $10,000. The Developer will contribute $10,000 annually to the Stockmen's Park Community Facility Maintenance District. This contribution will adjust annually consistent with the Consumer Price Index, plus one percent.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution
- Surplus Land

2. Resolution
- CEQA and Agreement

2. Exhibit A - Disposition and Development Agreement

Prepared by: Christine Martin
Assistant City Manager

132
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marc Roberts
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
133

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT A CITY-OWNED PARCEL IS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54234(a)(1) The City of Livermore (“City”) is the owner in fee simple of a parcel of land; Parcel A of Parcel Map 11239 (APN 098- 0289-24), hereinafter “the Property”.

On January 30, 2018, the City Council approved a plan for the Downtown Core, which included a black box theater on the Property as part of the development of Stockmen’s Park.

On July 24, 2018, the City entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (“ENRA”) with Shakespeare’s Associates, Inc. to establish procedures and standards to negotiate a purchase and sale agreement for the disposition and development of the Property, for the purpose of building a black box theater. The ENRA was extended, based on City Council authorization, on May 14, 2019; January 14, 2020; May 19, 2020; November 30, 2020 July 13, 2021; and December 13, 2021, and has remained in effect since its original execution.

On August 7, 2018, the Livermore Planning Commission considered the disposition of approximately 3.8 acres of real property located generally between North L Street, Railroad Avenue, First Street, and the Bankhead Theater, known as the Downtown Core Catalyst site for the purposes of implementing the Downtown Core Concept and found the disposition to be consistent with the General Plan in accordance with Government Code section 65402 (Resolution 28-18). The 3.8 acre property evaluated for this finding included the Property for the Black Box Theater.

Section 54234(a)(1) of the Surplus Land Act, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Surplus Land Act Guidelines, state that if a local agency, as of September 30, 2019, has entered into an agreement to dispose of property, and the disposition of the property is completed by December 31, 2022, the local agency is exempt from the Surplus Land Act.

The City entered into an agreement, the ENRA, with Shakespeare’s Associates Inc., to dispose of the Property, on July 24, 2018, and that agreement has remained in effect, through several extensions, since the time of the initial agreement. The City is now entering into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) to dispose of the Property by August 31, 2022, which is in advance of the December 31, 2022 deadline established by Government Code section 54234(a)(1).
134
For the reasons stated above, the conveyance of the Property is exempt from the Surplus Land Act pursuant to Government Code section 54234(a)(1).

On May 11, 2022, the City notified the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) that it determined that the Property (Parcel A of Parcel Map 11239, APN 098- 0289-24) was exempt from the Surplus Land Act and supported such determination with written findings.

On May 23, 2022, the City Council of the City of Livermore adopted a resolution finding that the Disposition and Development Agreement with Shakespeare’s Associates, Inc., including the conveyance of the Property (Parcel A of Parcel Map 11239, APN 098- 0289-24), from the City to Shakespeare’s Associates, Inc., is within the scope of the 2004 Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and the Downtown Specific Plan 2009 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and the addendums adopted by City Council on September 10, 2018, by Resolution 2018-153, May 13, 2019 by Resolution 2019-064, and October 26, 2020 by Resolution 2020-178, and is subject to applicable mitigation measures. The Project is also exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines 15332 (infill projects).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLIVED that the conveyance of the Property, identified as Parcel A of Parcel Map 11239 (APN 098- 0289-24) is exempt under the Surplus Land Act pursuant to Government Code section 54234(a)(1). The City and Shakespeare’s Associates, Inc. entered into a legally binding agreement to dispose of the Property prior to September 30, 2019, and the sale will be completed prior to December 31, 2022.

On motion of Council Member ______________, seconded by Council Member_________ , the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on May 23, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ /s/ Kimberly Cilley
Marie Weber Kimberly Cilley
City Clerk Sr. Asst. City Attorney
135
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH SHAKESPEARE’S ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR

THE DISPOSITION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT OF A

BLACK BOX THEATER
(APN 098-0289-24)
On February 9, 2004, the City Council certified the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (“Specific Plan EIR”) (SCH No.: 2003032038).

On March 30, 2009, the City Council certified the Downtown Specific Plan Amendments and Regional Performing Arts Theater Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“Specific Plan Subsequent EIR”) (SCH No.: 2008092085).

On January 30, 2018, the City Council approved the Downtown Plan, which provides for cultural uses on the Livermore Village site on the southwest corner of Railroad Avenue and South Livermore Avenue.

On July 24, 2018, the City of Livermore (“City”) entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (“ENRA”) with Shakespeare’s Associates, Inc., to establish procedures and standards to negotiate a lease agreement for the disposition and development of certain property for the purpose of developing a black box theater. The ENRA has remained in effect through a series of extensions that have occurred since its initial execution.

On September 10, 2018, May 13, 2019, and October 26, 2020, the City Council adopted addenda to the Downtown Specific Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report by Resolution Nos: 2018-153, 2019-064, and 2020-178.

The City and Shakespeare’s Associates, Inc. now desire to enter into a Disposition and Development Agreement for the disposition of a City owned 14,223 square foot parcel (Parcel A of Parcel Map 11239) to Shakespeare’s Associates, Inc. for the development of a black box theater. The Disposition and Development Agreement includes a schedule of performance and the steps that must be taken by each party pursuant to the terms of the agreement. The Disposition and Development Agreement supports the development of an important use (the black box theater) in the Downtown Core area that will activate Stockmen’s Park and support the Council’s goals related to downtown revitalization and completion of the approved Downtown Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that the Disposition and Development Agreement with Shakespeare's Associates, Inc., attached hereto as Exhibit A, is within the scope of the 2004 Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, the Downtown Specific Plan 2009 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, and the addendums adopted by City Council 136
RESOLUTION NO. ________
on September 10, 2018, by Resolution 2018-153, May 13, 2019 by Resolution 2019-064, and October 26, 2020 by Resolution 2020-178, and is subject to applicable mitigation measures.

No new or more severe significant impacts were identified for the project that were not identified in the 2004 Final EIR and 2009 Subsequent EIR, and no new mitigation measures would be required for the downtown plan. For all environmental topics addressed in the addendums, there were no substantial changes in environmental circumstances that would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than were identified and evaluated in the 2004 Final EIR and 2009 Subsequent EIR. The project is also exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines 15332 (infill projects).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes the City Manager to execute the Disposition and Development Agreement with Shakespeare’s Associates, Inc.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes the City Manager to execute any documents, with prior approval as to form by the City Attorney, required to implement the Disposition and Development Agreement.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore directs the Planning Manager to file a Notice of Determination and a Notice of Exemption with the Alameda County Clerk.

On motion of Council Member __________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________, the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted on May 23, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ /s/ Kimberly Cilley
Marie Weber Kimberly Cilley
City Clerk Sr. Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – Disposition and Development Agreement
137

EXHIBIT A
138

EXHIBIT A
139

EXHIBIT A
140

EXHIBIT A
141

EXHIBIT A
142

EXHIBIT A
143

EXHIBIT A
144

EXHIBIT A
145

EXHIBIT A
146

EXHIBIT A
147

EXHIBIT A
148

EXHIBIT A
149

EXHIBIT A
150

EXHIBIT A
151

EXHIBIT A
152

EXHIBIT A
153

EXHIBIT A
154

EXHIBIT A
155

EXHIBIT A
156

EXHIBIT A
157

EXHIBIT A
158

EXHIBIT A
159

EXHIBIT A
160

EXHIBIT A
161

EXHIBIT A
162

EXHIBIT A
163

EXHIBIT A
164

EXHIBIT A
165

EXHIBIT A
166

EXHIBIT A
167

EXHIBIT A
168

EXHIBIT A
169

EXHIBIT A
170

EXHIBIT A
171

EXHIBIT A
172

EXHIBIT A
173

EXHIBIT A
174

EXHIBIT A
175

EXHIBIT A
176

EXHIBIT A
177

EXHIBIT A
178

EXHIBIT A
179

EXHIBIT A
180

EXHIBIT A
181

EXHIBIT A
182

EXHIBIT A
183

EXHIBIT A
184

EXHIBIT A
185

EXHIBIT A
186

EXHIBIT A
187

EXHIBIT A
188

EXHIBIT A
189

EXHIBIT A
190

EXHIBIT A
191

EXHIBIT A
192

EXHIBIT A
193

EXHIBIT A
194

EXHIBIT A
195

EXHIBIT A
196

EXHIBIT A
197

EXHIBIT A
198

EXHIBIT A
199

EXHIBIT A
200

EXHIBIT A
201

EXHIBIT A
202

EXHIBIT A
203

EXHIBIT A
204

EXHIBIT A
205

EXHIBIT A
206

EXHIBIT A
207

EXHIBIT A
208

EXHIBIT A
209

EXHIBIT A
210

EXHIBIT A
211

EXHIBIT A
212

EXHIBIT A
213

EXHIBIT A
214

EXHIBIT A
215

EXHIBIT A
216

EXHIBIT A
217

EXHIBIT A
218

EXHIBIT A
219

EXHIBIT A
220

EXHIBIT A
221

EXHIBIT A
222

EXHIBIT A
223

EXHIBIT A
224

EXHIBIT A
225

EXHIBIT A
226

EXHIBIT A
227

EXHIBIT A
228

EXHIBIT A
229

EXHIBIT A
230

EXHIBIT A
231

EXHIBIT A
232

EXHIBIT A
233

EXHIBIT A
234

EXHIBIT A
235

EXHIBIT A
236

EXHIBIT A
237

EXHIBIT A
238

EXHIBIT A
239

EXHIBIT A
240

EXHIBIT A
241

EXHIBIT A
242

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 6.1

DATE:

May 23, 2022
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Steve Stewart, Planning Manager
SUBJECT:

Discussion and direction regarding Tri-Valley Conservancy's request for the City of Livermore to sponsor a ballot initiative to protect water quality and agriculture in the South Livermore Valley

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council discuss and direct staff to prepare final language for a ballot initiative to protect water quality and agriculture in the South Livermore Valley.

SUMMARY
The Tri-Valley Conservancy (Conservancy) requested the City of Livermore sponsor a ballot initiative to protect water quality and agriculture in the South Livermore Valley. On November 22, 2021, City Council directed staff to update the ballot initiative (Initiative) language (Attachment 1).

The Initiative would amend language in the South Livermore Valley Urban Growth Boundary and General Plan. The amendments would allow the City to extend sanitary sewer service beyond the Urban Growth Boundary to serve wine country uses envisioned in the City’s South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, Alameda County’s South Livermore Valley Area Plan, and in conformance with Alameda County Measure D. The proposal would not change the location of the Urban Growth Boundary.

Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to finalize the Initiative language in preparation for the November 2022 ballot. Staff has prepared environmental review documents for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff will return at a future meeting with environmental documents and final ballot language for Council certification and authorization.

DISCUSSION

BACKGROUND

From the 1960s through the early 1990s, development pressure threatened the South Livermore Valley wine region and its resources. In the early 1900s, the South Livermore Valley had nearly 5,000 acres of 243
vineyards and 50 wineries. By the 1980s, there were less than 1,500 acres of vineyards and six wineries in operation. In response, Alameda County and the City of Livermore initiated comprehensive planning programs to protect agriculture and open space within the Valley and balance that preservation with limited urban development.

In 1993, Alameda County adopted the South Livermore Valley Area Plan (“Area Plan”) with the intent of preserving and re-establishing the traditional viticulture and wine making uses through agricultural mitigation. The Area Plan authorizes the development of wine country and visitor serving uses on building sites if 90% of the parcel is planted with orchards or vineyards and preserved under a permanent conservation easement held by an independent Agricultural Land Trust.

In 1997, the City adopted the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”). The Specific Plan complements the Area Plan, establishes land use regulations to guide development within designated subareas suitable for urban development, protects viticulture resources, and promotes wine production through agricultural mitigation and planting requirements.

In November 2000, Alameda County voters passed Measure D. The purpose of Measure D is to preserve agricultural lands and to protect open space, watersheds, and wildlife habitat. Measure D set a county urban growth boundary that restricts subdivisions of the farms and ranches in eastern Alameda County, including North Livermore and the South Livermore Valley. Measure D did not supersede or change the provisions of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan. However, Measure D did amend the County’s East County Area Plan programs and policies, which placed limits on density, development standards, and the geographical extents of the Area Plan.

In March 2000, Livermore voters passed Measure K, establishing the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (Urban Growth Boundary) with goals of limiting urbanization and preserving open space, habitat, and agriculture. In February 2004, Measure K was incorporated into the Livermore General Plan.

The success of these combined programs helped re-establish the South Livermore Valley as a viable wine region. However, the operation of wineries and improvement of wine country uses, consistent with the Area Plan, has been stymied by restrictive state and regional ground water regulations. As a result, the City continues to receive inquiries from South Livermore stakeholders regarding the possibility of connecting to the City’s municipal sewer system. Connecting to a municipal system would be a significant step forward in addressing complex groundwater management regulations that are jeopardizing the near and long-term viability of the wine industry.

In August 2020, the Conservancy and other South Livermore Valley Stakeholders made a request for the City of Livermore to ask Alameda County to reserve funding for possible extension of sewer service to address groundwater quality issues in South Livermore. They also asked the Council to direct staff to explore actions necessary to advance the extension of the sewer system to serve the South Livermore Valley Area. On September 28, 2020, the City Council directed staff to make a request to Alameda County to reserve the funding and to explore actions necessary to extend sewer service. On December 8, 2020, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved the use of $6.5 million to help support the connection of underground utilities for unincorporated Livermore.

On November 22, 2021, the City Council reviewed Tri Valley’s Conservancy’s proposed ballot language.

Council directed staff to modify the language and return with an updated version prior. In addition, Council appropriated funds to study and evaluate sewer alignments, technical aspects of a potential sewer extension, and potential impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 244

INITIATIVE LANGUAGE

The Initiative would amend policies pertaining to the South Livermore Valley Urban Growth Boundary.

The amendments would allow the City to extend sanitary sewer service beyond the Urban Growth Boundary to serve wine country uses envisioned in Alameda County’s South Livermore Valley Area Plan, the City’s South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, and in conformance with Alameda County Measure D. The proposal would not change the location of the Urban Growth Boundary.

Specifically, the Initiative would amend Livermore General Plan Goal LU Goal 18, Objective LU 18.1 and policies LU P1-P7. The current General Plan polices are derived from the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary initiative (2000) and allow extension of sewer services under special circumstances if a property meets specific criteria. This criterion includes consistency with the South Livermore Valley Area Plan, adjacency to the Urban Growth and Livermore Municipal boundaries, and recordation of a conservation easement (or similar instrument), which would limit future division of land and development.

Essentially, the Initiative modifies the existing criteria to allow the City to provide sewer service to parcels in the South Livermore Valley, including those properties not immediately adjacent to the Urban Growth and Livermore Municipal boundaries. Fundamentally, the provision of sewer service would be limited to uses consistent with the Area Plan and Specific Plan to support the on-going viability of the South Livermore wine region.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Consistent with Council direction, staff evaluated the technical and financial aspects of extending sewer service to the South Livermore Valley. Specifically, staff conducted hydraulic and organic loading analyses and assessed pipeline alignments, potential improvements to existing infrastructure, and costs and funding mechanisms.

Staff prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to identify and analyze potential impacts of the extension of sewer service to South Livermore Valley. The Draft SEIR was made public on May 6th and is currently available for public comment on the City’s website:

https://www.cityoflivermore.net/government/community-development/planning/environmental-documents

In addition to written public comments, staff anticipates receiving public testimony at a meeting of the Planning Commission before staff returns to Council for formal review and adoption.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

Council directing staff to prepare final initiative language would require staff resources. On November 22, 2021, Council appropriated $212,502 to evaluate the technical, financial, and environmental aspects of the initiative and extending sewer service. Preliminary construction cost estimates are approximately $11.5 million for the entire extension project. Staff anticipates constructing the project in phases, as funding becomes available. If authorized by Council and subsequently approved by Livermore voters, staff recommends using approximately $6.5 million in Alameda County funding to leverage state and Federal infrastructure funds and groundwater management grant opportunities. Staff further 245
recommends that fees currently collected from Livermore residents for sewer service not be used to fund the sewer expansion and/or construction activities.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Initiative

Prepared by: Andy Ross
Senior Planner

Notes:

1. The question cannot be an argument or create prejudice for-or-against the measure.

Just the facts. Persuasive reasoning can be added to the “purpose” section in the measure, and argument should be reserved for the “primary” and “rebuttal” arguments.

2. The question cannot exceed 75 words
Recommendation: keep it short and play it straight
Measure __: Shall the ordinance amending the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary policies in the City of Livermore’s General Plan to allow the City to extend sewer service to permitted uses within the South Livermore Valley Area Plan Planning Area be adopted? Yes__ No __.
247
ATTACHMENT 1
Measure
Full Text of Measure
Measure _____

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

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

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

Section 1. Purpose and Findings.

The purpose of this initiative is to protect water quality and agriculture by updating the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (South Livermore UGB) policies to allow full implementation of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan. If this initiative measure were to be adopted by the Livermore voters, the South Livermore UGB policies would be amended to allow the City to extend sewer service beyond the South Livermore UGB to a limited portion of the South Livermore Valley in order to protect water quality, support agriculture, and enable limited compatible commercial uses.

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

A. Findings:

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

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

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

3. The South Livermore UGB was intended to protect and enhance agriculture and open space in the South Livermore Valley. It has created a thriving agricultural economy in the region by supporting the goals of the Area Plan, providing regulatory stability, and removing speculative acquisition of farmland by urban developers.
248
ATTACHMENT 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 2. General Plan Amendments.

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

Goal LU-18 It is the goal of the City to establish a coherent and logical pattern of urban uses that protects and enhances open space and agricultural uses by providing a clear 249
ATTACHMENT 1
and permanent boundary for urban uses within the City's planning area. The provisions of GOAL LU-18, as readopted by the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative and amended by this initiative, shall be amended only by a vote of the people.

Objective LU-18.1 Maintain a permanent Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) on the City’s southern edge (as indicated Figure LU 3-6 and the City’s Land Use Map) beyond which urban development shall not be permitted. Non-urban uses, such as agriculture, parks, and open space may be permitted within and beyond the South Livermore UGB. (Relevant provisions of that the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative are found in Appendix 3 of Appendix A B of the General Plan.)
Policies
P1 For the purposes of this section, “urban uses” and “urban development” include any use that is not permitted on lands with a general plan land use designation of Limited Agriculture; General Agriculture; Viticulture; Agriculture/Viticulture; Parks, Trailway and Recreation, Corridor, and Protected Areas; or Range and Grassland as those uses existed on December 6, 1999. (South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative, 3-7- 2000).

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

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

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

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

P46 Extend urban services only to areas within the UGB, except that the City may provide:
(i) sewage treatment and disposal services to the Veterans Administration Hospital for hospital uses;
(ii) urban services for residences on parcels outside of the South Livermore UGB which parcels were existing as of October 27, 1997, provided the property receiving such services shall record a binding agreement between the property owner and the City disallowing further division of the property and any provision of urban services to non-residential uses upon the property; (iii) sewage treatment and disposal services for residences on parcels outside of the South Livermore UGB provided the property receiving such services 250
ATTACHMENT 1
shall record a binding agreement between the property owner and the City disallowing further division of the property and any provision of urban services to non-residential uses upon the property,and subject to the following:
(a) The property receiving the services is designated under the South Livermore Valley Area Plan or South Livermore Valley Specific Plan for residential uses, and in conformance with Alameda County Measure D; or
(b) The property receiving the services was also a residential use on the date of this initiative.
(iii iv) urban services for commercial uses on parcels outside of the South Livermore UGB, which parcels were existing as of October 27, 1997, subject to the following:
(a) the subject property is designated under the South Livermore Valley Area Plan or South Livermore Valley Specific Plan for agricultural uses, with associated allowable commercial uses;
(b) the service(s) will be utilized for allowable commercial uses consistent with the provisions of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, or South Livermore Valley Area Plan as they exist now or are amended in the future, in conformance with Alameda County Measure D; (c) the subject property is located adjacent to the Livermore municipal boundaries as of the date of the adoption of the SLVSP and, is located adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary;
(d) if required by City or LAFCO policy, the property will annex to the City; (e) the service(s) can be provided to the subject property without any potential growth inducing impacts associated with potential provision of urban services to areas not otherwise allowed to receive such services under the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan or South Livermore Valley Area Plan; and
(f) before receiving such service(s), the property owner will record a conservation easement over the subject property with a land trust accredited by a national land trust accreditation organization in a form acceptable to the City and subject to an endowment requirement or other financial assurance in an amount that is reasonable and customary for the type of easement used to satisfy this requirement.

The conservation easement restricts use of the subject property to agricultural and open space uses, except as to within a delineated commercial use area, not to exceed 10% of the property within which allowable commercial uses and intensity of such uses shall be delineated permitted and described in the conservation easement. The City may only extend such services to permitted commercial uses 251
ATTACHMENT 1
described in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, or the permitted commercial uses described in the South Livermore Valley Area Plan and in conformance with Alameda County Measure D as applicable;
(v) sewage treatment and disposal services for commercial uses on parcels outside of the South Livermore UGB, subject to the following:
(a) the subject property is designated under the South Livermore Valley Area Plan or South Livermore Valley Specific Plan for agricultural uses, with associated allowable commercial uses;
(b) the service(s) will be utilized for allowable commercial uses consistent with the provisions of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, or South Livermore Valley Area Plan as they exist now or are amended in the future, in conformance with Alameda County Measure D;
(c) if required by City or LAFCO policy, the property will annex to the City;
(d) the service(s) can be provided to the subject property without any potential growth inducing impacts associated with potential provision of urban services to areas not otherwise allowed to receive such services under the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan or South Livermore Valley Area Plan;
(e) Alameda County has not permitted more than 180,000 square feet of commercial use within the area covered by the South Livermore Valley Area Plan, including commercial use existing as of the submittal date. If Alameda County permits 180,000 square feet or more of commercial use, then existing sewage treatment and disposal service may continue, but no new sewage treatment and disposal service shall be permitted pursuant to this subsection (iv); and
(f) before receiving such service(s), the property owner will record a conservation easement over the subject property with a land trust accredited by a national land trust accreditation organization in a form acceptable to the City and subject to an endowment requirement or other financial assurance in an amount that is reasonable and customary for the type of easement used to satisfy this requirement. The conservation easement restricts use of the subject property to agricultural and open space uses, except as to within a delineated commercial use area, not to exceed 10% of the property within which allowable commercial uses and intensity of such uses shall be delineated permitted and described in the conservation easement. The City may only extend such services to permitted commercial uses described in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, or the permitted commercial uses described in the 252
ATTACHMENT 1
South Livermore Valley Area Plan and in conformance with Alameda County Measure D as applicable;
(ivi) for sewer service in unincorporated areas, the connections (residential and commercial) pursuant to any of the subsections above shall allow no more wastewater flow than the equivalent of ten residential units as required by the LAVWMA Joint Powers Agreement. This requirement shall apply cumulatively to all contiguous uses within the unincorporated geographic area. Larger scale sewer service to unincorporated areas requires the unanimous approval of the LAVWMA Board of Directors. If areas are annexed, this restriction will not apply.

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

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

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

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

Section 3. Adoption, Effective Date, and Implementation.

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

Upon the effective date of this initiative, any provisions of the City Code or of any other City of Livermore ordinance or resolution that are inconsistent with the General Plan amendments adopted by this Initiative shall not be enforced in a manner inconsistent with this Initiative.

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

D. Interim Amendments. The date that the notice of intention to circulate this initiative was submitted to the elections official of the City of Livermore is referred to in this initiative as the “submittal date.” The City of Livermore General Plan in effect on the submittal date as amended by this initiative comprises an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies for the City of Livermore. In order to ensure that nothing in this initiative would prevent the 253
ATTACHMENT 1
General Plan from being an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of the policies of the City of Livermore, as required by State law, and to ensure that the actions of the voters in enacting this Initiative are given effect, any amendment or update to the General Plan that is adopted between the submittal date and the date that the General Plan is amended by this initiative measure shall, to the extent that such interim-enacted provision is inconsistent with the General Plan provisions adopted by this initiative, be amended as soon as possible to ensure consistency between the provisions adopted by this initiative and other provisions of the General Plan. Likewise, any amendment to the City Code that is adopted between the submittal date and the date that the City Code is amended by this initiative shall, to the extent that such interim- enacted provision is inconsistent with the City Code provisions adopted by this initiative, be amended as soon as possible to ensure consistency between the provisions adopted by this Initiative and other provisions of the City Code.

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

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

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

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

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

J. Project Approvals: Upon the effective date of this initiative, the City of Livermore and its departments, boards, commissions, officers and employees, shall not grant, or by inaction allow to be approved by operation of law, any general plan amendment, rezoning, specific plan, subdivision map, use permit, amended use permit, building permit, or any other entitlement, that is inconsistent with this Initiative.
254
ATTACHMENT 1
Section 4. Severability and Interpretation.

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

Section 4. Exemptions for Certain Projects.

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

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

Attachments
Attachment 1 – Diagram showing the location of the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as approved by the voters. The UGB boundaries are not changed by this initiative. This diagram is provided for informational purposes only.
255
ATTACHMENT 1
10 Attachment 1
This diagram shows the location of the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as approved by the voters on [date] and depicted in the City of Livermore General Plan as Figure 3-

6. The UGB location is not changed by this initiative. This diagram is provided for informational purposes only.
256

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 6.2

DATE:

May 23, 2022
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Paul Spence, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:

Discussion and direction regarding the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council provide feedback on the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element.

SUMMARY
The Housing Element is a required element, or "chapter" of Livermore’s General Plan. The purpose of a Housing Element is to identify current and projected housing needs and establish goals, policies, and programs to address those needs. Unlike other elements of the General Plan, the City must update the Housing Element on a mandated schedule, or “cycle.” Staff and the City’s consultant, PlaceWorks (Consultant), are currently updating the Housing Element for the 2023-2031 planning period.

During fall and winter 2021, the project team gathered community input about housing issues and opportunities in Livermore. Feedback from the community, General Plan Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council informed the Draft Housing Element. The City released the Draft Housing Element on May 4, 2022, for a 30-day public review period.

The Draft Housing Element demonstrates that the City has capacity to accommodate its 4,570-unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) through a combination of existing residentially zoned sites and projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The City does not need to rezone land to accommodate its RHNA for the 2023-2031 planning period. In addition, the Draft Housing Element outlines 29 programs the City will implement throughout the planning period to foster diverse housing choices, produce and preserve affordable housing, address fair housing issues, facilitate healthy and safe housing, and collaborate regionally to meet housing needs.

After 30 days, staff and the Consultant will incorporate public comment and feedback from the General Plan Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council into a revised Draft Housing Element.

Staff will submit the revised Draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its first 90-day review.
257
Staff expects to receive and incorporate HCD feedback on the draft Housing Element during summer and fall 2022 before returning to the Planning Commission and City Council with the final Housing Element. The Planning Commission decision will be a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council is required to adopt the Housing Element so that it can be submitted to HCD by January 31, 2023.

DISCUSSION
Background

Since 1969, California has required that all cities and counties adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. This is accomplished through a Housing Element, which is a required component of a local government’s General Plan. The General Plan is a long-term planning document that helps craft the vision of the city. The purpose of a Housing Element is to identify current and projected housing needs and set goals, policies, and programs to address those needs. City staff and the consultant team are preparing the updated Housing Element as part of the overall Imagine Livermore 2045 General Plan Update that is currently underway.

Unlike other elements of the General Plan, the City must update the Housing Element on a mandated schedule, or “cycle.” The City's current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council in 2015 and covers the period from 2015 to 2023. To comply with State law, the City’s Housing Element must be updated to ensure the City’s policies and programs can accommodate estimated housing growth needs identified in the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2023-2031 planning period. This period will be the “6th cycle.” In addition, the Housing Element must be reviewed and approved, or “certified” by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

The city released a public draft of the Housing Element on May 4, 2022, for a 30-day review period. The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Housing Element at public meetings on May 11, 2022, and May 17, 2022, respectively. A verbal summary of feedback from the GPAC and Planning Commission will be provided at the City Council meeting.

Housing Element Outreach

The Draft Housing Element was developed based on substantial community input. Housing was a topic at each General Plan Update community outreach event held to date, including pop-up events throughout the city in the fall of 2021 that reached approximately 500 people.

The community-wide survey conducted for the General Plan Update in September 2021 also included several questions about housing issues. The survey reached 450 Livermore residents aged 18 and over and was conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents identified affordable housing and homelessness as issues of top concern.

From September through December 2021, staff and the consultant team conducted nine consultations with local nonprofits and housing stakeholders to receive one-on-one, targeted input from those who provide services to residents most in need of housing or with special housing needs. The stakeholders included staff from City partners such as Tri Valley Haven, the Pedrozzi Foundation, the Livermore 258
Housing Authority, La Familia, ECHO Housing, Regional Center of the East Bay, and Centro Legal de la Raza. In addition, staff held a Housing Solutions open house in Springtown and administered an additional bilingual survey specifically targeting members of protected classes for the Assessment of Fair Housing, including low-income renters, Spanish-speaking community members, and people with disabilities.

Overwhelmingly, the outreach process revealed that Livermore, like many other Bay Area jurisdictions, currently has an insufficient stock of affordable housing. The largest housing need identified by stakeholders is for more affordable rental housing like the Chestnut Family and Chestnut Senior development, which is walkable to key services and amenities and close to public transportation. This finding was echoed by the Fair Housing survey, where 64 percent of the survey's 378 respondents identified adding more affordable housing as a top issue the City should address in the Housing Element.

At the November 10, 2021, GPAC meeting, staff and the consultant team presented an overview of the Housing Element update process, provided information on state housing law, and received input and questions. On January 20, 2022, staff and the consultant team attended a study session with the Planning Commission and City Council to introduce the Housing Element process and receive input, direction, and questions for the update.

The Draft Housing Element includes a detailed summary of outreach efforts and feedback received from the community.

Housing Element Contents

The components of the Draft Housing Element include:

Executive Summary
- Purpose of the Housing Element, summaries of Housing Needs, Constraints, and Resources, and a summary table of Goals and Policies from the Housing Plan.

Chapter 1. Introduction
- An overview of the role of the Housing Element, data sources, outreach and public participation, and General Plan consistency.

Chapter 2. Housing Needs Assessment
- Demographic information, including population trends, ethnicity, age, household composition, income, employment, housing characteristics, and more.

This section also includes an assessment of fair housing, which is a new requirement for the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031).

Chapter 3. Housing Opportunities and Constraints
- An analysis of governmental and
nongovernmental constraints to housing development.

Chapter 4. Housing Resources
- An evaluation of the City’s housing resources, housing stock, and potential areas for future development. The housing sites inventory is analyzed in this section.

Chapter 5. Housing Plan
- This chapter includes an overview of the City’s progress implementing the goals of the 5th Cycle Housing Element (2015-2023) and outlines updated goals, policies, and programs to address current housing needs in the community. This section identifies the actions the City will take to achieve local housing goals and meet applicable quantified objectives. 259
Appendix A
– Contains the inventory of housing sites available to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Appendix B
- Contains a matrix evaluating the City’s progress implementing programs in the 5th Cycle Housing Element.

Data Sources

The Housing Element relies on multiple federal, state, and local data sources. The Housing Needs Assessment in Chapter 2 includes substantial demographic data from two main data source tools:

1 .

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) data package - ABAG provides a data package
that has been pre-approved by HCD and serves as the primary data source for population and household characteristics. Primary sources used in the packet include the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census. Dates for data included in the ABAG data package may vary depending on the selection of data that was made by ABAG to provide the best data on a particular topic.
2 .

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data Viewer mapping tool - All data presented
in the Assessment of Fair Housing section of the Housing Needs Assessment chapter were collected through the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data Viewer mapping tool, a tool developed and approved by HCD for use in assessment of fair housing analyses as the most current and accurate data available.

This approach was developed to standardize state-wide datasets for fair housing analyses. Relying on data sources that have been vetted and approved by HCD, the State agency responsible for certifying Livermore’s Housing Element, will streamline the certification process and increase the likelihood that HCD will support the information presented as a valid basis for Housing Element programs.

Meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)

Table 1 lists the RHNA assigned to Livermore to meet its fair share of the State’s housing needs.

Livermore was assigned a total of 4,570 units, 2,075 of which are lower income units (1,317 very low- income units and 758 low-income units). State housing law does not require the city to construct the allocated units within the planning period, but does require the city to maintain an inventory of land that is adequately zoned to accommodate the RHNA allocation. HCD recommends an additional 15 percent buffer beyond the required RHNA to account for any sites that develop with fewer units than the city anticipated. Livermore’s RHNA, plus a 15 percent buffer is 5,256 units.

Table 1. City of Livermore Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031 Income Category
RHNA
Very Low Income
1,317
Low Income
758
Moderate Income
696
Above Moderate Income
1,799
Total
4,570

260
Chapter 4 of the Draft Housing Element presents an analysis of the city's ability to accommodate the RHNA. Through a combination of existing residentially zoned sites and projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs), the city has capacity to accommodate the 4,570-unit RHNA with a 15 percent buffer. A list of sites and maps of the sites can be found in Appendix A of the Draft Housing Element.

Vacant and non-vacant sites with suitable zoning can accommodate 5,153 units across the income categories. HCD's approved "safe harbor" methodology allows Livermore to assume 325 ADUs over the planning period. This number is based on ABAG's ADU affordability analysis for the region, local fair housing analysis related to ADUs, and the number of ADUs that Livermore has permitted over the past several years. The total capacity of 5,478 exceeds the 5,256 unit goal described above. Table 2 below provides a summary of the approach to meeting the RHNA provided in Chapter 4 of the Draft Housing Element. The city will submit Annual Progress Reports to HCD throughout the planning period to demonstrate progress issuing permits and meeting RHNA.

All sites identified in the inventory are currently designated for residential uses. As a result, the city does not need to designate or rezone new residential sites to satisfy the 6th RHNA cycle. The city is exploring land uses alternatives through the horizon year 2045 as part of the General Plan Update. The land use alternatives will respond to the General Plan Vision, market forecasts, population growth, and economic projections to achieve a balanced land use pattern. Some of the land use alternatives may include new residential designations that could also help meet required residential units in the future 7th (anticipated 2031 through 2039) and 8th (anticipated 2039 through 2047) RHNA cycles.

Table 2. Comparison of Site Capacity and the RHNA
Income
Category
Total RHNA
Projected
Accessory
Dwelling
Units
Units on
Vacant
Sites with
Suitable
Zoning*
Units on
Non-Vacant
Sites with
Suitable
Zoning*
INSP**
Units
Total Unit
Capacity
Surplus
RHNA
Very Low
Income

1,317

97 Included in low
income total
below
Included in low
income total
below
Included in low
income total
below
Included in low
income total
below
Included in low
income total
below
Low Income
758
98 756
11 1,570
2,532
457
Moderate
Income
696
97 569
189
0 855
159
Above
Moderate
Income
1,799
33 281
24 1,753
2,091
292
Total
4,570
325
1,606
224
3,323
5,478
908
*Per State law, units for the lower-income categories can only be allocated on sites with zoning that allows at least 30 dwelling units per acre.
**Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
Draft Goals, Policies, and Programs
Chapter 4 of the Draft Housing Element outlines the city’s goals and policies for the 2023-2031 planning period and identifies 29 programs the city will implement to achieve the goals. Most of the programs continue efforts from the 2015-2023 Housing Element, such as producing affordable housing and reducing governmental constraints on housing development. However, the programs were updated and reorganized to better reflect current needs in the community and resources available to meet those 261
needs. Notable changes to the housing programs include new efforts to meet fair housing requirements and expanded efforts related to healthy and resilient homes and neighborhoods. In addition, many of the programs contain actions that address state goals in addition to local goals. Programs driven by state law are required to be included in the Housing Element.

Next Steps

After the 30-day public review period, staff and the consultant will incorporate public comment and feedback from the General Plan Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council into a revised Draft Housing Element. Staff will submit the revised Draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its first 90-day review.

Staff expects to receive and incorporate HCD feedback on the Draft Housing Element during summer and fall 2022 before returning to the Planning Commission and City Council with the environmental document and Final Housing Element. Staff anticipates review of the Final Housing Element by the Planning Commission and City Council in December 2022 and January 2023, respectively. The adopted Housing Element must be submitted to HCD by January 31, 2023.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

The City’s 2021-2023 Operating Budget includes General Fund appropriations necessary to cover the General Plan Update including staff time and consultant contract costs of $2.8 million through the end of Fiscal Year 2022-23. The scope of work for the General Plan Update includes the Housing Element Update.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Livermore 2023-2031 Housing Element - May 2022

Prepared by: Tricia Pontau
Associate Planner

Approved by:
____________________________________
Marc Roberts
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
262
May 2022
Public Dra�
City of Livermore
2023-2031 Housing Element
ATTACHMENT 1
263
ATTACHMENT 1
264
May 2022
Public Draft
City of Livermore
2023-2031 Housing Element
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE www.placeworks.com
Prepared by: PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
t 510.848.3815
ATTACHMENT 1
265
This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 1
266
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................... ES-1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................... ES-1 Housing Needs Assessment .................................................................................................. ES-1 Housing Opportunities and Constraints .............................................................................. ES-4 Housing Resources ................................................................................................................ ES-5 Housing Plan ........................................................................................................................... ES-5

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Role of Housing Element ............................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Data Sources .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Outreach and Public Participation ............................................................................. 1-2

1.4 Relationship to the General Plan ................................................................................. 1-9

2. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Regional Population and Economic Context ............................................................ 2-1

2.2 Population Characteristics ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Household Characteristics ............................................................................................ 2-7

2.4 Special Need Groups .................................................................................................. 2-10

2.5 Housing Stock Characteristics .................................................................................... 2-21

2.6 Housing Costs and Affordability ................................................................................. 2-24

2.7 Regional Housing Need .............................................................................................. 2-33

2.8 Affordable Housing ...................................................................................................... 2-33

2.9 Assessment of Fair Housing ......................................................................................... 2-44

3. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS......................................... 3-1

3.1 Market Constraints ......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Governmental Opportunities and Constraints ........................................................... 3-3

4. HOUSING RESOURCES ................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Availability of Sites for Housing ..................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Housing Resources ......................................................................................................... 4-8

4.3 Financial Resources ....................................................................................................... 4-9

4.4 Programs ....................................................................................................................... 4-15

4.5 Opportunities for Energy Conservation ..................................................................... 4-15

5. HOUSING PLAN ........................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Accomplishments under the 2015-2022 Housing Element ........................................ 5-1

5.2 Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs ....................................................................... 5-6

ATTACHMENT 1
267

ii
FIGURE
Figure 2-1: Home Sale Prices 2001 to 2020 ............................................................ 2-26 Figure 2-2: TCAC Opportunity Area Designations ................................................ 2-48 Figure 2-3: Median Income ..................................................................................... 2-51 Figure 2-4: Predominant Population....................................................................... 2-54 Figure 2-5: Disability Rate ......................................................................................... 2-57 Figure 2-6: TCAC Educational Score ...................................................................... 2-59 Figure 2-7: Concentration of Jobs by Jurisdiction ................................................ 2-63 Figure 2-8: Environmental Health Scores ............................................................... 2-67 Figure 2-9: Rate of Overcrowded Households...................................................... 2-70 Figure 2-10: Percent of Cost Burdened Renter Households, 2019 ........................ 2-72 Figure 2-11: Percent of Cost Burdened Owner Households, 2019........................ 2-73 Figure 2-12: Units by TCAC Resource Area Designation ........................................ 2-86 Figure 2-13: Units by Median Income ....................................................................... 2-87 Figure 2-14: Units by Predominant Population ........................................................ 2-88 Figure 2-15: Units by Disability Rate .......................................................................... 2-89 Figure 2-16: Units by Jobs Proximity Index Score ..................................................... 2-90 Figure 2-17: Units by TCAC Educational Score ....................................................... 2-91 Figure 2-18: Units by Rate of Cost Burdened Homeowners................................... 2-92 Figure 2-19: Units by Rate of Cost Burdened Renters ............................................. 2-93

TABLES
Table ES-1: Summary of Housing Element Goals and Policies .............................ES-6 Table 1-1: Livermore Housing Needs Survey Respondent Characteristics ......... 1-5 Table 2-1: Population Growth 2020–2040 ............................................................... 2-2 Table 2-2: Livermore Projected Population Growth, 2020–2040 .......................... 2-2 Table 2-3: Median Age: Livermore and Alameda County, 2010 and 2020 ....... 2-3 Table 2-4: Age Distribution: Livermore and Alameda County, 2010–2020......... 2-3 Table 2-5: Race & Ethnicity Trends: Livermore and Alameda County, 2010–2019 ................................................................................................. 2-4 Table 2-6: Educational Attainment (Population 25 years and over), 2019 ........ 2-4 Table 2-7: Livermore Largest Employers .................................................................. 2-5 Table 2-8: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence ............................................................................................ 2-5 Table 2-9: Jobs by Industry, 2019 ............................................................................. 2-6 Table 2-10: Job Projections: Livermore and Alameda County .............................. 2-6 Table 2-11: Jobs-Household Ratio, 2018 ................................................................... 2-7 Table 2-12: Livermore Projected Household Growth, 2020-2040 ........................... 2-7 Table 2-13: Household Characteristics, 2019 ........................................................... 2-8 Table 2-14: Housing Tenure, 2019............................................................................... 2-8 Table 2-15: Household Income by Tenure, 2017 ...................................................... 2-9 Table 2-16: Households by Household Income Level, 2017 ................................. 2-10 ATTACHMENT 1
268
iii
Table 2-17: State-Identified Special Needs Groups, Livermore ........................... 2-10 Table 2-18: Senior Households by Income and Tenure, 2017 .............................. 2-11 Table 2-19: Households by Poverty Status .............................................................. 2-12 Table 2-20: Household Size, 2019 ............................................................................. 2-13 Table 2-21: Bedroom Mix by Tenure, 2019 .............................................................. 2-13 Table 2-22: Persons with Disabilities, Ages 18 to 64 by Workforce Participation, 2019 ......................................................................................................... 2-14 Table 2-23: Reported Disabilities by Disability Type, Ages 18 to 64, 2019 ........... 2-15 Table 2-24: Livermore Licensed Community Care Facilities, 2014 ...................... 2-15 Table 2-25: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age, 2020 ............... 2-16 Table 2-26: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence .............. 2-16 Table 2-27: Homeless Facilities and Services in Livermore, 2022 .......................... 2-18 Table 2-28: Summary of Available Beds Reported by Continuum of Care, 2020 ......................................................................................................... 2-20 Table 2-29: Farm Operations and Farm Labor, Alameda County ...................... 2-21 Table 2-30: Housing Stock, 2010–2020 ..................................................................... 2-22 Table 2-31: Tenure and Vacancy, 2019 .................................................................. 2-22 Table 2-32: Vacant Units by Type, 2019 .................................................................. 2-23 Table 2-33: Housing Unit Growth, 2010 to 2020 ...................................................... 2-23 Table 2-34: Housing Units by Tenure and Age, 2019 ............................................. 2-24 Table 2-35: Livermore Home Sale Prices, January 2021–January 2022............... 2-25 Table 2-36: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units, 2019 .................................. 2-26 Table 2-37: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units, 2019 .............................. 2-27 Table 2-38: Average Rental Prices in Livermore, 2022 .......................................... 2-27 Table 2-39: Housing Affordability Matrix (2020) ...................................................... 2-29 Table 2-40: Cost Burden by Income Classification and Tenure for Livermore, 2018 ......................................................................................................... 2-31 Table 2-41: Overcrowding Severity, 2017 ............................................................... 2-32 Table 2-42: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity in Livermore, 2017 ............... 2-32 Table 2-43: Housing Problems for All Households .................................................. 2-33 Table 2-44: Regional Housing Need Allocation by Income Group, January 2023 to January 2031 ............................................................................ 2-33 Table 2-45: Affordable Housing Inventory .............................................................. 2-35 Table 2-46: Projects At-Risk ....................................................................................... 2-42 Table 2-47: Potential Rent Subsidies ........................................................................ 2-43 Table 2-48: School Performance Scores, 2019 ....................................................... 2-60 Table 2-49: School District Demographic Characteristics .................................... 2-61 Table 2-50: Jobs-Housing Ratio ................................................................................ 2-64 Table 2-51: Unemployment Rate ............................................................................. 2-64 Table 2-52: Percentage of Cost Burden Residents by Tenure, Race, and Ethnicity ................................................................................................... 2-75 Table 2-53: Home Loan Applications ...................................................................... 2-82 Table 2-54: Contributing Factors .............................................................................. 2-94 Table 3-1: Home Loan Application Status Disclosure in Berkeley/Oakland/ Livermore Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2020 ..................................... 3-3 ATTACHMENT 1
269

iv
Table 3-2: General Plan Land Use Categories ....................................................... 3-5 Table 3-3: Zoning Districts That Allow Residential Uses and Development Standards ................................................................................................ 3-15 Table 3-4: Parking Requirements ........................................................................... 3-22 Table 3-5: Housing Types Permitted by Development Code Zone ................... 3-30 Table 3-6: Housing Types Permitted by Specific Plan Zone ................................ 3-32 Table 3-7: Development Review Time Frames: General Plan Areas (outside Downtown Specific Plan) ..................................................................... 3-39 Table 3-8: Development Review Time Frames: Downtown Specific Plan Areas ....................................................................................................... 3-40 Table 3-9: Planning and Development Fees ........................................................ 3-43 Table 3-10: Fee Comparison: Single Family vs. Multifamily Rental Units ............. 3-45 Table 3-11: Proportion of Fees of Total Development Cost ................................. 3-46 Table 3-12: Public Improvement Standards ........................................................... 3-51 Table 4-1: Livermore’s RHNA, 2022 – 2030 .............................................................. 4-1 Table 4-2: Representative Projects .......................................................................... 4-6 Table 4-3: Comparison of Site Capacity and RHNA ............................................. 4-7 Table 4-4: Financial Resources for Housing Activities .......................................... 4-10 Table 5-1: Summary of Quantified Objectives: 2023–2031 ................................... 5-7

ATTACHMENT 1
270
ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE
The Housing Element addresses one of the most basic human needs for shelter. It also provides a critical link between land use and transportation policies, which define the location, layout, and movement of people and goods. For a region to have a strong and balanced economy, its workers must also have places to live within their economic means. From the perspective of human needs, housing should be high on the hierarchy of policy priorities.

The City of Livermore Housing Element is part of the City’s General Plan, which is a comprehensive policy framework guiding the physical, economic, and social development of the City. This update to the Housing Element supersedes the Livermore Housing Element adopted in 20 15. The Housing Element is intended to assist the City of Livermore in identifying housing needs for residents of all income levels and developing an action program to meet those needs. The Housing Element should be used in conjunction with the Land Use Element to identify appropriate sites and land use designations for the development of quality, affordable housing. The Housing Element must be internally consistent with other General Plan elements and address State mandates that can restrict the ability of the City to designate certain sites for housing.

The Housing Element consists of five chapters: Introduction, Housing Needs Assessment, Housing Opportunities and Constraints, Housing Resources, and the Housing Plan. The Introduction explains the role of the Housing Element, the data sources used to conduct the housing needs assessment, the public involvement process, and the relationship of the Housing Element to the General Plan.

The remainder of this executive summary highlights the key findings and considerations of the other chapters.

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Data in this summary section comes from the Housing Needs Assessment chapter later in this document. Subsection 1.2 Data Sources at the beginning of the Introduction chapter explains the data sources used for the Housing Element.

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
• From 2010 to 2020, the population of Livermore increased at an average annual rate of 1.1 percent, about the same as Alameda County’s rate of 1.2 percent. • The median age for Livermore was 39.8 years of age in 20 20, slightly older than Alameda County’s median age of 37.6.
• Residents aged 15 to 24 decreased in number and proportion from 2010 to 2020 in both Livermore and Alameda County. In Livermore and the county, this decrease was countered by a large increase in ad ults ages 65 to 74 over the same time period.
• The ethnic makeup of Livermore in 2019 was nearly 65 percent white. Nearly 21 percent of the population identified as Hispanic or Latino, and 8 percent of residents were Asian. Smaller percentages of residents fell into other racial and ethnic groups.
• In 2019, 3.0 percent of Livermore’s residents and 5.9 percent of Alameda County residents had less than a high school degree. Both figures represent an increase from 2010 statistics.

ATTACHMENT 1
271

ES-2
• Livermore’s average unemployment rate in 2019 was 3.1 percent, lower than the County’s unemployment rate of 3.9 percent.
• There were 46,110 employed residents in Livermore in 20 20, compared to a local employment base of 48,136 jobs.

HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
• According to the Department of Finance, Livermore had 32,390 households in 2020, an 11.2 percent increase in households from 2010.
• Livermore had a higher percentage of family households in 2019 (74.4 percent), compared to Alameda County (66.6 percent).
• A total of 2 8.7 percent of Livermore households had incomes defined as either extremely low, very low, or low (up to 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI).

Livermore had a lower proportion of extremely and very low- income households, accounting for approximately 1 7.2 percent, compared to 2 6.7 percent countywide.

SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS
• State Housing Element Law defines “special needs” groups to include the following:
senior households, female -headed households, large families , persons with disabilities (including those with developmental disabilities), homeless persons, and agricultural workers.

Seniors
• In 2020, 13.3 percent of Livermore residents were seniors, defined as 65 years of age or older.
• As of 2017, 45.7 percent of senior households were lower income (up to 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI)).

Female-Headed Households
• In 2019, Livermore had 2,657 female-headed households, approximately 8 percent of all households. About 9.3 percent of female-headed families with children under 18 lived in poverty.

Large Households
• In 2019, there were 3,248 large households ( five or more persons) in Livermore, representing approximately 1 0.2 percent of all households. Alameda County’s population was very similar, with 10.0 percent of all households considered large. • A large household generally requires a home with at least three bedrooms.

According to 2019 estimates, approximately 74. 3 percent of Livermore’s total housing units (both owned and rented) had three or more bedrooms, significantly more than Alameda County’s proportion of large units. However, only 36.5 percent of the rental stock in Livermore had three or more bedrooms.

Disabled
• In 2017, approximately 8. 2 percent of the Livermore population ages 5 to 64 classified themselves as disabled.

ATTACHMENT 1
272
ES-3
• There are 43 licensed community care facilities in Livermore. These facilities provide a supportive environment to persons with special needs. • There are ten affordable housing developments and shared housing projects built specifically for adults with developmental or psychiatric disabilities in Livermore. • Many of the projects in Livermore’s affordable housing inventory and development pipeline have both accessible units and services to support residents with disabilities
Homeless Persons
• In January 2019, the EveryOne Home community organization conducted an Alameda Countywide Homeless Point -in-Time Homeless Count and Survey. This survey found that about 8,022 people in Alameda County are homeless at any given point in time.
• The point-in-time count found that there were 264 homeless people in Livermore at that time.
• The City of Livermore partners with local non-profit organizations to offer safety net services for persons who are experiencing homelessness or fleeing domestic violence.

Farm Workers
• It is estimated that there were 314 people in the Agriculture and Natural Resources industry in 2019.

HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
• The majority (68.9 percent) of the housing stock in Livermore consists of single-family detached homes, whereas Alameda County’s proportion is slightly over half (5 2.2 percent). Multifamily units make up 19 .0 percent of the housing stock in Livermore and 38.6 percent of the stock of Alameda County.
• The proportion of owner -occupied housing in Livermore ( 75.9 percent) is greater than that of Alameda County (50.8 percent).
• Livermore experienced an increase of approximately 2,386 housing units from 2010 to 2020, averaging 238 new homes per year and accounting for approximately 7.9 percent of total housing production in the county.

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
• The median home sale price of 20 10 ($522,00) increased by 65.7 percent to $865,106 in 2020. This trend has be en part of the overall housing affordability crisis in the Bay Area and the state.
• Due to the continued increase in home sale prices, only above moderate-income households can afford the typical median price for a home in Livermore. In other words, homes i n Livermore remain unaffordable to even moderate -income households without down payment assistance.
• Rental housing in Livermore has similar trends to rental prices of Alameda County.

One-bedrooms averaged approximately $ 2,206 per month in Livermore in 2022.

Rents for two- bedroom units averaged $2,565, three -bedroom units averaged $3,262, and the average for four-bedroom units was $3,636.

ATTACHMENT 1
273

ES-4
• In general, extremely low- and very low-income households cannot afford market rental or owner-occupied housing.
• In 2018, overall 17.7 percent of occupied households were paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Renters have a higher cost burden than homeowners, with 25.2 percent of renters and 10.6 percent of owners paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing.
• There is a higher incidence of overcrowding among renter -occupied households than owner-occupied households in Livermore. Livermore has a larger percentage of renter-occupied households with 1.0 to 1.5 occupants per room ( 5.6 percent) than o wner-occupied units (1.0 percent). This rate of renter overcrowding has increased significantly since adoption of the last Housing Element.

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
Data in this summary section comes from the Housing Opportunities and Constraints chapter later in this document and the Assessment of Fair Housing section.

MARKET CONSTRAINTS
• As of January 2022, residential properties in Livermore had prices ranging from as low as 37 cents per square foot of floor area to $10 per square foot. This range can be attributed to varying locations of the land, existing infrastructure, and other parcel-specific factors such as environmental conditions and topography. • A typical single -family detached unit of 2,000 square feet would co st approximately $415,545 per unit to build, including land. Based on recent multifamily developments in the city, a multifamily apartment complex would cost approximately $213,931 per 856-square-foot unit.
• It is difficult for low - and moderate -income firs t-time homebuyers to enter the market. The City offers a down payment assistance program to facilitate additional access to financial resources for lower - and moderate -income households to attain homeownership, as well as home improvement assistance for lo w- and moderate-income households.
• White and Asian applicants are overrepresented in originated loans in Livermore, while Latinx, Black, and applicants of other races (e.g., American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, two or more race, or other) were underrepresented. Asian applicants seem have to the highest success rate for securing a mortgage loan. The City has Program s 3.4.1 and 5.2.1 to address these disproportionalities by implementing targeted and multilingual outreach strategies and programs and removing barriers to homeownership.

GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
• In 2010, the City adopted the Livermore Development Code , which describes zoning districts and regulations. It also provides a clear roadmap for the entitlement of development projects. The Development Code ensures consistency with the General Plan, existing policies and procedures, and applicable state regulations.

The code includes form -based regulations, revisions of outdated development regulations and zoning districts, and an update of its parking regulations for tandem parking and smaller units (studios and one bedrooms). The code has been periodically updated since 2010. The City’s comprehensive General Plan Update ATTACHMENT 1
274
ES-5
is currently underway and will update land uses and policies as needed to address the City’s vision through 2045. The Housing Element will be adopted prior to the other General Plan elements, however, all elements will align in the final General Plan.
• An analysis of the City’s existing land use controls, growth management policies, and development review process indicates that the City is not unreasonably restrictive but facilitates development through its zoning and other standards. • The City complies with the most recent provisions of State density bonus law. • Projects involving multiple planning applications can have fees reduced by 10 percent. Planning fees are based on anticipated staff processing and review time and are charged at the time an application for development is received. Other development fees are collected as part of the building permit issuance process. • The City provides R easonable Accommodation to persons requesting modifications to their homes for accessibility improvements. Requests for flexibility in development standards in order to accommodate accessibility improvements have been codified in the City’s Development Code and are reviewed and approved at the staff level.

HOUSING RESOURCES
• The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for developing the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City of Livermore. The current RHNA plans for an eight-year period, from June 30
th, 2023, through December 15th,
2030. For the current projection period, ABAG has determined that City ’s share of the RHNA is 4,570 new housing units.
• Based on residential capacity in the General Plan and Specific Plan areas, the sites identified in the land inventory would accommodate a total of 5,538 units, which exceeds the RHNA of 4,570.
• The City of Livermore has access to a variety of existing and potential funding sources available for affordable housing activities, including affordable housing fees, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), HOME funds, and Section 8 vouchers. The City actively works with neighboring cities, County agencies, and numerous non -profit organizations to provide affordable housing and human service programs.
• The City has a number of policies and programs to encourage energy conservation and green building. In 2022, the City will adopt an updated Climate Action Plan with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving resilience within the community.

HOUSING PLAN
This Housing Element contains goals, policies, and programs outlined in Table ES -1 and discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, Housing Plan. Since adoption of its existing Housing Element in 20 15, the City has proactively worked to implement the goals, policies, and programs aimed at conserving, improving, and expanding the City’s affordable housing stock. The City has advanced goals for accommodating special needs groups and increas ing the energy efficiency of residential buildings.

ATTACHMENT 1
275

ES-6
Table ES-1: Summary of Housing Element Goals and Policies Goals Policies
G-1 Diverse Housing
Choices
P 1.1: Develop and maintain a sites inventory with adequate densities and development standards to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) in all income categories.

P 1.2 Facilitate the development of a range of housing types through area planning efforts.

P 1.3: Update the Development Code to simplify standards, expand opportunities for a greater variety of housing types, and maintain consistency with State law.

P 1.4: Reduce governmental constraints on housing development through permit streamlining, reasonable development fees, and transparent and accessible information.

P 1.5: Encourage the development of housing for individuals with special needs, including those with disabilities, large families, seniors, and people experiencing homelessness.

G-2 Well-Managed
Growth
P 2.1: Encourage the provision of affordable housing, infill development, and mixed-use projects in locations served by existing infrastructure, particularly transit services.

G-3 Affordable Housing
Production and
Preservation
P 3.1: Facilitate the production of affordable housing through the regulation of and incentives to new development.

P 3.2: Pursue and utilize a variety of funding resources and partnerships to develop housing that is affordable to lower- and moderate-income households, families, and seniors.

P 3.3: Communicate regularly with the community to increase awareness of affordable housing policies and programs.

P 3.4: Provide linguistically accessible and culturally relevant housing assistance to lower and moderate-income households and other households with special needs.

P 3.5: Preserve affordable housing that is at risk of converting to market rate housing.

G-4 Healthy and Resilient
Housing and
Neighborhoods
P 4.1: Promote housing design features that improve public health, safety, and resilience in new residential structures and retrofits to existing residential units.

P 4.2: Improve physical conditions, services, and accessibility in residential neighborhoods.

G-5 Affirmatively Further
Fair Housing
P 5.1: Prevent housing discrimination through outreach, education, and engagement with landlords, tenant services providers, and renters.

P 5.2: Develop programs and policies that remove fair housing barriers and prevent displacement.

G-6 Regional
Cooperation to Address
Housing Needs
P 6.1: Foster regional cooperation and partnerships to address regional housing issues related to affordability, homelessness, racial and economic segregation, and special housing needs.

ATTACHMENT 1
276

1-1

1. INTRODUCTION
Housing is a basic human necessity and the need for adequate housing is shared by all residents.

People want living spaces where they have dignity, can express their individuality, and are comfortable and healthy. Safe, well- maintained housing is a basic n ecessity for everyone .

Therefore, the City of Livermore strives to provide a diversity of housing types, costs, and locations to serve the variety of needs and wants of residents.

1.1 ROLE OF HOUSING ELEMENT
The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every citizen as the State’s major housing goal. Recognizing the important role of local planning programs in the pursuit of this goal, the Legislature has mandated that all cities and counties prepare a Housing Element as part of the comprehensive General Plan. Section 65583 of the Government Code sets forth the specific components to be contained in a Housing Element.

In the ABAG region state law requires Housing Elements be updated at least every eight years to reflect the changing housing needs of a community. Livermore’s Housing Element was last updated in 2015. This Housing Element update is for the 2023-2031 planning period.

The Housing Element consists of the following major components:
• An analysis of Livermore’s demographic profile, housing characteristics, existing and future housing needs, and a fair housing assessment (Chapter 2). • A review of potential market, governmental, and environmental constraints to housing development (Chapter 3).
• An evaluation of the land, financial, and organizational resources available to address the identified housing needs (Chapter 4).
• A housing plan to address the identified housing needs, including a s tatement of goals, policies, and programs (Chapter 5).

1.2 DATA SOURCES
Various sources of information contribute to the Housing Element. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) provides a data package that has been pre -approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and serves as the primary data source for population and household characteristics. Dates for data included in the ABAG data package may vary depending on the selection of data that was made to provide the best da ta on the topic. Several additional data sources were used to supplement the 20 21 ABAG Data Package:
• Population and demographic estimates and projections by ABAG and the California Department of Finance.
• Housing market information, such as home sales, construction costs, and rents, updated via online surveys and City records.
• Data on special needs groups, the services available, and gaps in the service delivery system provided via service provider stakeholder interviews.

Lending patterns for home purchase and home improvement loans through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) database.

ATTACHMENT 1
277

1-2

1.3 OUTREACH AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

OUTREACH
Opportunities for input on Livermore’s 2023–2031 Housing Element were provided through various forums. One significant method was via outreach for the General Plan Update currently underway. A main venue for sharing information with the public was through posting information about the Housing Element Update on the General Plan Update page on the City’s website.

The City sought participation and input from people who represent the full range of demographics, perspectives, and experiences in the Livermore community, , including existing residents, local workers, the residential development community, nonprofit housing developers, housing advocates, historically underrepresented community members, and community organizations representing special needs groups such as older adults, youth and students, immigrants, people experiencing homelessness and people with disabilities. Details of the outreach efforts follow.

Outreach as Part of General Plan Update
The City participated in three pop-up outreach events for the General Plan Update and Housing Element Update in Fall 2021 on October 10
th at the Rincon Library, October 14 th at the Farmers
Market, and October 30 th at a Dia de los Muertos event. The team engaged with 50 people at the Rincon Library event, 60 people at the Farmers Market, and 40 people at the Dia de los Muertos event. The City used two outreach boards, both of which were in English and Spanish.

The first outreach board asked participants, “What is important for Livermore over the next 20 years?” Participants placed dots on a matrix of issues according to whether the issue was “not important,” “somewhat important,” or “very important.” At the Rincon Library pop-up and Dia de los Muertos event, the three issues that received the most dots were “ensuring diversity and equity,” “making housing affordable,” and “preventing and respo nding to the effects of climate change.” At the farmers market event, the top three issues were “making housing affordable,” “supporting agriculture, quality open space, and recreation,” and “being prepared for emergencies and safety.”
The second outreach board asked participants for their input on housing issues. Similar to the first activity, participants ranked their answers “no need,” “mild need,” or “huge need.” Every issue received votes at all three events. The top four issues were: “providing housing services for people experiencing homelessness”, “decreasing housing costs” and “providing housing for families and young people”. At all events, both boards had the website link to ImagineLivermore2045.org and a QR code to ensure community members could stay connected and involved throughout the planning process.

The City also released a survey through the firm FM3 as part of the General Plan Update that incorporated questions about housing issues. The survey was made available from September 9 th
to 30th, 2021. The population that participated in this survey were Livermore residents ages 18 and older. The contact methods were telephone calls, postcard invitations, text invitations, and email invitations. Data were collected through telephone interviews and online interviews. The majority of respondents were ages 40 to 49 (22 percent) and 50 to 64 (24 percent). Most were white (60 percent), and the other 40 percent was divided between Latino/Hispanic (17 percent), Black/African American (2 percent), and Asian/Pacific Islander (8 percent), and 13 percent chose “other” or declined to state their ethnicity. Respondents’ educational background included high school or less (15 percent), some college (34 percent), four- year degree education (29 percent), postgraduate (18 percent), and four percent refused to answer the question. The survey identified ATTACHMENT 1
278

1-3
affordable housing (21 percent) and homelessness (19 percent) as issues of top concern for residents.

Stakeholder Meetings
In September through December 2021, nine consultations were conducted with local nonprofits and housing stakeholders to receive one-on-one, targeted input from those who provide services for those most in need of housing or with special housing needs. Representatives from the following organizations were interviewed:
• Regional Center of the East Bay (RCEB) on September 22 nd
• Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) on October 4th • EveryOneHome/Alameda Continuum of Care (CoC) on October 12th • Livermore Housing Authority on October 13th
• Eden Housing on October 19th
• Centro Legal de la Raza on October 22nd
• Pedrozzi Foundation on November 30th
• Tri Valley Haven on December 2nd
• La Familia on December 17th
In each of the consultations, stakeholders were asked some or all of the following questions, depending on the type of organization they represented:
• Opportunities and concerns: What three top opportunities do you see for the future of housing in Livermore? What are your three top concerns for the future of housing in Livermore?
• Housing Preferences: What types of housing do your clients prefer? Is there adequate rental housing in the county? Are there opportunities for home ownership? Are there accessible rental units for seniors and persons with disabilities? • Housing barriers/needs: What are the biggest barriers to finding affordable, decent housing? Are there specific unmet housing needs in the community? • Housing conditions: How do you feel about the physical condition of housing in Livermore? What opportunities do you see to improve housing in the future? • Unhoused Persons: How many unhoused persons are in Livermore? • Housing Equity: What factors limit or deny civil rights, fair housing choice, or equitable access to opportunity? What actions can be taken to transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity (without displacement)? What actions can be taken to make living patterns more integrated and balanced? • How has COVID-19 affected the housing situation?
Overwhelmingly, the consultation process revealed that the Livermore (and many other Bay Area jurisdictions) currently has an insufficient stock of affordable housing. In addition, there is insufficient funding for programs that provide rent or “shallow” subsidies for those in need. The City was applauded by a stakeholder for its awareness and proactivity in accessing available State and federal funds dedicated to housing projects. The top housing need is for more affordable rental housing like the Chestnut Family and Chestnut Senior development, which is close and walkable to key services and amenities and close to public transportation.

ATTACHMENT 1
279

1-4
Additional barriers include language, especially lack of language accessibility from other organizations and institutions; transportation; finances; and the necessity to share housing with other families. Families are working three or more jobs to make ends meet.

Support is also greatly needed for housing navigation, especially support with accessing affordable housing opportunities. Linguistically and digitally accessible communication methods are essential.

Other identified housing opportunities to pursue include tiny houses, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and shared h ousing and p roducing more housing in g eneral for single adults (studios, scattered sites, single room occupancies, etc.).

To facilitate more affordable housing developments in Livermore, th e stakeholders suggested expanding the toolbox of incentives and mechanisms offered to affordable housing developers (e.g., expedited review of affordable housing projects, review priority for affordable housing projects). Regularly, affordable housing dev elopers are funded by a variety of state and federal funding sources that have strict deadlines for project completion—a “use it or lose it" situation. If the affordable housing project is not complete within that time frame, the affordable housing project falls through and the units are lost. The stakeholders felt that most market -rate projects likely have the financial padding to absorb these scheduling pressures, but many affordable housing developers struggle financially to keep projects afloat.

The City could take the initiative to adopt new ordinances to protect its renting community, such as just -cause protections, rent control ordinances, and other housing and tenant -centric protections to help keep people housed. According to a stakeholder, the City of Oakland has the most defensible tenant protection laws in the Bay Area and should be used as a blueprint for the City of Livermore to adopt its own tenant protection laws.

Open House at Owl’s Landing
City staff held a Housing Solutions Open House at Owl’s Landing Apartments in Springtown on December 17
th, 2021. This multilingual, family-friendly event had activities and gifts for children and solicited input from community members on housing needs and solutions. The event was conducted in English and Spanish. Of the 17 people who attended, most were Spanish speakers.

The following points capture the main themes of the input received at the open house:
• Immigration status is a huge barrier for community members’ access to affordable housing. Accepting individual taxpayer identification number ( ITINs) in affordable housing programs, especially for the City’s existing below market -rate housing program, would help expand access.
• Economic stability
o Credit scores are another major barrier for accessing affor dable housing .

Community members need support establishing credit and accessing economic opportunity to strengthen credit.
o Gig workers and those who are self -employed struggle to document income in order to purchase or rent.
• Property management and housing condition needs
o Surveillance and lighting.
o More maintenance of play structures and playgrounds for kids. o Spanish language services.

ATTACHMENT 1
280

1-5
o More activities and services for adults, such as classes and community building events.
o Property management customer service and conflict resolution. • Affordable housing renters are interested in accessing homeownership opportunities but need the ability to save for homeownership without losing their existing housing. • Language access for both housing navigation and affordable housing property management.
• Key access barriers: language, housing navigation, need for social security numbers, income documentation for gig workers and entrepreneurs. • Most participants agreed with the existing Housing Element goals. The top goals were:
o Build more affordable housing.
o Energy efficiency.
o Safe, family-friendly housing for low-income households.

Livermore Housing Needs Survey
In order to solicit input from members of protected classes for the Assessment of Fair Housing, the City administered a survey on housing needs and barriers in English and Spanish that was distributed to the affordable housing interest list and at the Housing Solutions Open House. A total of 378 responses were collected between December 7
th and December 17 th, 2021. The majority
of respondents were low -income renters of color living in Livermore. A substantial number of respondents were also local workers and people who want to live in Livermore.

Table 1-1: Livermore Housing Needs Survey Respondent Characteristics Respondent Characteristic Total Proportion
Livermore Residents 220 58%
Livermore Workers 147 39%
Prospective Livermore Residents 135 36%
Respondents of Color 238 63%
Latinx 105 28%
Experiencing Homelessness 21 6%
Families with Children 198 52%
Have a disability 90 24%
Renters 218 58%
Living in or near poverty (earning less than $30,000 per year) 72 19% Lower Income (earning less than $80,000 per year) 255 67% Results
The top three housing issues that respondents feel the City should address are:

1. Adding more affordable housing (64 percent of respondents identified this as a top issue)

2. Decreasing housing costs

3. Creating more homeownership opportunities
ATTACHMENT 1
281

1-6
These three issues were regularly ranked as the top housing issues when results were disaggregated by respondent characteristics and demographics.

Other housing issues that a significant number of respondents identified as priorities for the Housing Element include:
• Providing housing and services for people experiencing homelessness • Ensuring housing is safe and in good condition
• Preventing housing discrimination
Housing costs were identified as the primary barrier for living in Livermore. Other barriers identified by respondents include:
• Economic insecurity and/or access to quality jobs
• Housing search
• Racial segregation and/or discrimination
• Credit score, i ncome documentation, and i ncome requirements (e.g. , being required to earn three or more times the monthly rate)
• Economic segregation and/or discrimination
• Housing voucher access
• Prior records and legal status, such as not having a social security number, having a prior eviction on one’s housing record, or being formerly incarcerated • Local preference given to those who live/work in Livermore for affordable housing vacancies can be a barrier for those who don’t already live or work in Livermore Additional housing needs and issues identified by survey respondents include:
• Family housing
• Transportation and congestion
• Senior housing
• Housing for single adults
• Affordable housing opportunities for middle -income community members and aspiring homeowners
• Backyards and green space
• Housing for people with disabilities
• Emergency housing

GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) received a presentation on the Housing Element Update at their virtual meeting on November 10 th, 2021. The GPAC is made up of a group of citizens who represent a variety of backgrounds and community perspectives. GPAC meetings are open to the public. The purpose of the meeting was to provide an overview of the Housing Element, identify the City’s draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, describe the need to comply with State Housing Element law, and summarize recent State legislation governing housing element updates. Following a brief presentation on this topic, the GPAC asked clarifying questions.

ATTACHMENT 1
282

1-7

1. Do the Regional Housing Needs Allocation units carry over from housing cycle to housing cycle if the sites are not developed?

2. Did the City of Livermore accept the Regional Housing Needs Allocation? There are other cities who are contesting their housing allocations.

3. Are the housing sites in the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan already accounted for in the 5th Housing Element Cycle?

4. What happens if the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan develops with fewer housing units than identified in the housing sites inventory?

5. Can you please clarify the relationship between Senate Bill 166 and the housing sites inventory?

6. Can a parcel be identified as a housing site if it is not currently zoned for housing?

7. Will parks and open space areas be considered for potential housing sites?

8. How do the Association of Bay Area Government’s Priority Development Areas factor into the identification of the housing sites inventory?

9. The 6th Housing Element Cycle doesn’t cover the General Plan horizon of 2045. How will the General Plan account for future housing element cycles?

10. What is the overall scope of the Housing Element?

11. When will the draft of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing programs and policies be ready?

12. How can the GPAC help make it so the Housing Element includes policies that actually help get the housing sites developed?

13. In addition to low -income housing, will the Housing Element look at the housing needs of seniors, people with disabilities, etc.?

14. What policies and programs can be considered as part of the Housing Elem ent Update versus what is covered by the General Plan and Zoning Code? For example, cutting back on allowing in-lieu fees?

15. Can the Housing Element identify barriers to realizing mixed-use developments?

16. Can the City provide subsidies for accessory dwelling units?

17. The Housing Element should have a section that explains the State housing law requirements.

18. What is the community outreach process for the Housing Element?

19. Can the GPAC review the results of the stakeholder interviews?

20. What aspects of the Housing E lement will go to the City Council while the GPAC is still meeting?

21. What is the schedule for the Housing Element Update?

22. Is it possible to make the Housing Element background data available on ImagineLivermore2040.org?

23. Are housing developers allowed to pay an in -lieu fee instead of providing low -income housing on-site?

24. Is there a City policy that requires housing developers to provide affordable housing on - site? If not, how often are developers allowed to pay an in -lieu fee instead of providing affordable housing on-site?

25. What price house can a low-income household afford?

26. What is the City’s current jobs-to-housing ratio?

27. Does the State require nearby cities like Dublin, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Danville to also provide affordable housing at a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre? ATTACHMENT 1
283

1-8

28. What is the distribution of residential project sizes in Livermore so we can get a better perspective on the size of projects being built and where housing opportunities come from so we can understand apportioning of affordable units?

29. We need a figure that shows the vacant and underdeveloped parcels in Livermore.

City staff and the consultant team responded to questions during the meeting , as was possible.

No public comments were received at the meeting. The presentation provided at the meeting was posted on the City’s General Plan Update website.

PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
As part of the community outreach on the Livermore Housing Element Update, the City held a joint Planning Commission/City Council Study Session on January 20 th, 2021. The City’s consultant provided a presentation that included overview of the Housing Element, discussion of the City’s draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and a summary of recent State legislation governing housing element updates. Public comment was received , and the Planning Commission and Council asked questions and discussed housing issues in the city.

Public comments focused on:
• Looking for Housing Element sites in areas already planned for housing but also possibly considering suitable sites for rezoning to allow housing. • City should require that affordable units be built under the City’s Inclusionary Regulations rather than allowing an option to pay a fee. • Some of the new state housing laws are being challenged. • Shouldn’t plan for beyond 2031 and shouldn’t expand the North Livermore urban growth boundary. Plan for Housing Element sites inside the existing city limit. • Would like to see a map of areas suitable for housing inside the city. • Would like the updated housing element to have more maps. The existing housing element doesn’t have enough maps.

Commission and Council discussion and questions are:
• Why was there such a large increase in the RHNA?
• On the RHNA, there is a difference between jurisdictions based on the characteristics of each jurisdiction.
• Concerned about the issue of underhousing/overcrowding. Noted that this issue has been considered in the RHNA allocation process for the first time. • There are many challenges to the new state housing laws. • Thinks the City has sites available to meet its RHNA. • Explain what “Metropolitan” means in the definition of the City’s default density category.
• Describe the concept of a “no net loss” buffer.
• Discuss additional analysis needed for nonvacant sites. • Provide information about how the Housing Element timeline and the rest of the General Plan timeline work together.

ATTACHMENT 1
284

1-9
• Hoping the Housing Element will include strategies for how to actually get housing built.
• Has the City looked into utilizing Senate Bill 10?
• Is the City planning to rely on ADU projections for the Housing Element? • Would like to see programs to support homeowners who build ADUs. • What options is the City looking at to accommodate residential need? • Can we state that there is no need to go beyond the urban growth boundary? • Will the public draft Housing Element have alternatives for different places to locate housing?
• Will there be any opportunity for additional Planning Commission input before the final draft Housing Element?
• Public input is important but with the understanding that this is a very complex set of requirements that goes into the Housing Element, some of which isn’t very flexible.
• What are the consequences of noncompliance and benefits of compliance for the Housing Element?
• A Council Member mentioned they have met with the Terner Center and they may be able to do some education locally.
• Important to speak clearly to the community.
• In the field of Planning the past used to predict the future. How does water availability, transit, and other factors affect housing? This changes over time. • How do we know the City will end up with a land use map with a ba lance of important allowed uses?
• Will the City have the information from the General Plan process available to inform Housing Element decisions?
• Concerned about service businesses.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
[to be completed in later drafts once public hearings occur]

1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN
The 2023-2031 Housing Element is a key component of the Livermore General Plan, which was last comprehensively updated and adopted in 2004 and for which a new comprehensive update is in progress. The comprehensive General Plan Update will be completed soon after the Housing Element is updated. To the extent possible, the City will coordinate consistency with the other element updates prior to Housing Element adoption. Final consistency between all other elements and the Housing Element will be confirmed before adoption of the General Plan Update.

ATTACHMENT 1
285
This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 1
286

2-1

2. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Housing Needs Assessment serves as the foundation for developing the City’s housing goals, policies, and programs outlined in the Housing Plan (Chapter 5 of this Housing Element). This chapter analyzes relevant population and housing characteristics to determine the specific housing needs of Livermore residents. Important characteristics include: demographics, household characteristics, special housing needs, and housing stock characteristics. This chapter also includes the fair housing assessment.

This c
hapter references the most recently updated official government data as well as private market data. The decennial census is the primary source, along with the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a mandatory, ongoing statistical survey that samples a small percentage of the population every year. This survey, conducted by the Census Bureau, produces population and housing information every year but, unlike the decennial census, only samples a small portion of households.1 Additional data sources are referenced when appropriate.

2.1 REGIONAL POPULATION AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT
Livermore is in eastern Alameda County, part of the nine counties that make up the San Francisco Bay Area, which had a total population of 7.7 million people in 2020. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the regional economy employed approximately 2.3 million people in 20 20.2 The Health, Education, and Social occupational sector employs the most residents; other significant sectors include Professional and Waste Management, Manufacturing, and Retail.

Alameda County has a population of approximately 1.7 million people, making it the second most populous county in the region and the seventh most populous county in the state. Economic growth has increased slightly overall from 2010 to 2020. According to the ABAG data package, the number of employed residents in the county increased 20.4 percent between 2010 and 2020.

Strong residential growth has also continued to be a common trend in Alameda County. Between 2010 and 2020, the county ’s total population increased 10.6 percent. Livermore ’s population increased 13.5 percent during the same time.

2.2 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
The type and amount of housing needed in Livermore is in part determined by the characteristics of th e population. Characteristics such as age, household makeup, cultural background, employment location, and population growth trends influence the type of housing a community needs. These characteristics also affect residents’ ability to afford housing. For example, housing needs and preferences, as well as income -earning ability, change as people age. This section outlines these characteristics as they impact housing need.

POPULATION TRENDS
Beginning in the mid -1950s, Livermore evolved from a small agricu ltural town into a bedroom community for the region. By the 1980s, Livermore had expanded additional industries, including commercial, light industrial, warehouse, and office development, adding to its residential base.

1 The Census Bureau combines the data from the samples to generate three- and five-year estimates. This means that a given figure from the 2013-19 five-year estimates represents the average from 2013 through 2019. 2 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. May 2020 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_41860.htm ATTACHMENT 1
287

2-2
The continued population growth in the Bay Area has maintained consistent demand for housing in Livermore, spurring more residential development.

As shown in Table 2-1, the average annual growth rate in Livermore between 2020 and 2040 is predicted to be 0.7 percent, which is slightly less than the average annual growth rate expected for Alameda County overall. Based on that growth rate, the city is expected to grow by 12,439 people between 2020 and 2040.

Table 2-1: Population Growth 2020–2040
Geography 2020 2040 Average Annual
Growth Rate
Livermore 91,861 104,300 0.7%
Alameda 80,884 95,500 0.9%
Albany 17,055 22,500 1.6%
Berkeley 116,761 140,100 1.0%
Dublin 64,695 73,800 0.7%
Emeryville 12,586 21,000 3.3%
Fremont 234,239 275,500 0.9%
Hayward 158,089 188,000 0.9%
Newark 48,859 57,600 0.9%
Oakland 435,514 551,100 1.3%
Piedmont 11,296 11,300 <0.1%
Pleasanton 78,371 91,800 0.9%
San Leandro 87,289 107,600 1.2%
Union City 72,779 82,500 0.7%
Alameda County 1,670,834 1,987,900 0.9%
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 Series; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

Table 2-2 shows that although there is a projected increase in population between 2020 and 2040, there is a projected decrease in the average household size in Livermore.

Table 2-2: Livermore Projected Population Growth, 2020–2040 2020 2040
Average Annual
Growth Rate,
2020–2040
Population 91,861 104,300 0 .7%
Persons per Household 2.87 2.66 ---
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 Series; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

AGE
Table 2-3 shows that the median age for Livermore residents was 39.8 years of age in 2020, slightly older than Alameda County’s median age of 37.6. As a result of an aging population, both geographies experienced an increase in the median age between the years 2010 and 2020 , continuing this existing trend.

ATTACHMENT 1
288

2-3
Table 2-3: Median Age: Livermore and Alameda County, 2010 and 2020 2010 2020
Livermore 38.3 39.8
Alameda County 36.6 37.6
Source: U.S. Census Table S0101 2010 & 2019 5-Year Estimates.

As shown in Table 2-4, those aged 45 to 54 composed the largest age group in Livermore (15.5 percent). However, adults aged 45 to 54 decreased in absolute number and proportion of the population between 2010 and 2020, reflecting the increase in median age in both Livermore and Alameda County during that time. Those aged 55 to 64 were the second largest age group in the city and accounted for 14.2 percent of the population. The largest percentage increase between 2010 and 2020 was in the 65 to 74 age group (4.7 percent increase). Additionally, there was a 1.2 percent decrease in the 15 to 24 age group. The numbers in this age group for the county also decreased but by a slightly smaller percentage of 0.4 percent.

Population age affects housing needs because each demographic age group, or cohort, has distinctive preferences. This follows national trends as the large Baby Boom age cohort (persons born from 1945 to 1965) continue to age and the smaller Generation X age cohort ( persons born from 1965 to 1980) forms families that are smaller in size than the previous generation. Young families with children often prefer single-family homes. While some seniors choose to live in single - family homes, their preferences may start to lean toward condominiums and other living arrangements.

Table 2-4: Age Distribution: Livermore and Alameda County, 2010–2020 Livermore Alameda County
2010 2020 2010–
2020 2010 2020 2010–
2020
Age
Group Number Share Number Share Percent
Change Number Share Number Share Percent
Change
Under 5 5,360 6.6% 6,424 7.2% 1.9% 97,546 6.6% 96,849 5.8% -0.1% 5–14 11,519 14.2% 11,663 13.0% 0.1%% 183,269 12.4% 192,050 11.6% 0.5% 15–24 9,933 12.3% 8,667 9.7% -1.2% 202,483 13.7% 195,193 11.8% -0.4% 25–34 9,972 12.3% 12,276 13.7% 2.3% 224,161 15.2% 276,019 16.7% 2.3% 35–44 12,558 15.5% 11,992 13.4% -0.4% 229,087 15.5% 248,230 15.0% 0.8% 45–54 14,347 17.7% 13,949 15.5% -0.3% 218,249 14.8% 223,026 13.5% 0.2% 55–64 8,937 11.1% 12,712 14.2% 4.2% 162,086 10.9% 201,361 12.2% 2.4% 65–74 4,704 5.8% 6,944 7.7% 4.7% 84,245 5.7% 131,979 7.9% 5.7% 75–84 2,563 3.2% 3,633 4.0% 4.2% 53,207 3.6% 63,249 3.8% 1.9% 85+ 1,075 1.3% 1,509 1.6% 4.0% 23,647 1.6% 28,798 1.7% 2.2% Total 80,968 100.0% 89,699 100.0% 1.1% 1,477,980 100.0% 1,656,754 100.0% 1.2% Source: U.S. Census Table S0101 2010 & 2019 5-Year Estimates. ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1
289

2-4

RACE AND ETHNICITY
Like many other communities throughout Alameda County, the racial and ethnic composition of Livermore’s population has been gradually changing. As shown in Table 2 -5, Livermore is less racially and ethnically diverse than Alameda County. Approximately 64.7 percent of Livermore’s population identified as White in 2020, and only 31.0 percent of Alameda County’s population was White. However, the ethnicity of Livermore residents has become more diverse than it was in 2010. The White population decreased, and Asian or Pacific Islander and the “other” and “two or more ethnicities” categories’ populations increased. Asian or Pacific Islanders represent a significant portion of the city and county population. The Hispanic and Latino population is the second largest ethnic group in Livermore, while in Alameda County, the Asian or Pacific Islander ethnic group and the Hispanic or Latino ethnic group are both the second largest groups.

Table 2-5: Race & Ethnicity Trends: Livermore and Alameda County, 2010–2019 Racial and Ethnic Group
Livermore Alameda County
2010 2019 2010 2019
White 64.7% 62.0% 34.1% 31.0%
Black 1.9% 1.8% 12.2% 10.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3%
Asian or Pacific Islander 8.5% 12.0% 26.6% 31.0%
Other and Two or more ethnicities 3.6% 5.0% 4.3% 5.0%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 20.9% 20.0% 22.5% 22.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002. ABAG Data Packet, 2021

EDUCATION
Educational attainment is often positively correlated with type of employment and level of income, which drives the type of housing residents can afford. As shown in Table 2 -6, only three percent of Livermore residents aged 25 years or over had less than a high school diploma, compared to 5.9 percent in Alameda County. Approximately 50 percent of adult residents earned a bachelor’s degree or higher in both the city and the county.

Table 2-6: Educational Attainment (Population 25 years and over), 2019 Education Level
Livermore Alameda County
Number Percent Number Percent
Less than high school 1,889 3.0% 69,534 5.9%
Some high school, no diploma 2,062 3.3% 65,990 5.6%
High school graduate 10,547 16.7% 205,980 17.6%
Some college, no degree 14,391 22.9% 201,377 17.2%
Associate's degree 6,352 10.1% 73,676 6.3%
Bachelor's degree 17,492 27.8% 320,319 27.3%
Graduate degree 10,212 16.2% 235,786 20.1%
Total 62,945 100.0% 1,172,662 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey ACS 5-year Estimates, 2015- 2019 Table S1501 ATTACHMENT 1
290

2-5

EMPLOYMENT
ABAG estimates that there are 46,110 employed Livermore residents as of 2020. The ACS 2015-2019 Survey estimates the unemployment rate for Livermore as 3.1 percent, lower than the county’s unemployment rate of 3.9 percent. Part of the lower unemployment rate may be attributed to Livermore’s greater percentage of residents with at least a high school diploma. Also reflecting relatively high educational attainment levels, a large share of both Livermore and Alameda County residents are employed in the Financial and Professional Services and Health and Educational Services (Table 2-7). In Livermore, the sector with the highest share of working residents was the Financial and Professional sector, employing approximately 27.9 percent of residents.

Other sectors that employed a significant number of residents was the Health and Educational Sector, employing 25.8 percent of employed residents. The Manufacturing, Wholesale, and Transportation sector employed 17.5 percent of residents.

Table 2-7: Livermore Largest Employers
Employer Name Industry Employee Size Class
Lawrence Livermore National Lab University-College Department/ Facility/Office 5,000–9,999 Employees
Valley Care Health System Health Services 1,000–4,999 Employees Source: State of California Employment Development Department – Major Employers in California, 2022 https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/majorer/countymajorer.asp?CountyCode=000001.

Table 2-8 shows a breakdown of workers by earnings, by jurisdiction as place of work and place of residence. The table shows that, of people who work in Livermore, more commute from outside of the city than live there. Additionally, both groups tend to make more than $75,000.

Table 2-8: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence Earnings Group Place of Residence Place of Work
Less than $9,999 3,747 4,724
$10,000 to $24,999 6,379 7,177
$25,000 to $49,999 8,789 12,564
$50,000 to $74,999 6,944 8,603
$75,000 or more 21,135 19,380
Total 46,994 52,448
Note: Workers 16 years and over with earnings.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519. ABAG Data Packet, 2021
According to the City’s 2019 Housing Affordability and Displacement report, a substantial proportion of Livermore jobs are for lower wage workers, and many industries experiencing job growth in Livermore and Alameda County include businesses with lower wage jobs, increasing the demand for housing affordable to low -income households. Livermore has an increasing number of higher income households, with a growing number of workers who are commuting to higher paying jobs outside of Livermore, which is intensifying local housing demand and displacement pressures.

ATTACHMENT 1
291

2-6

FUTURE JOB GROWTH
Table 2-9 shows that there were 48,136 jobs in Livermore in 2019 and shows the numbers of jobs by industry according to ACS data for the 2019 5- Year Estimate . Compared to Alameda Coun ty, Livermore has a larger share of jobs within Financial and Professional Services, and Retail industries.

Table 2-9: Jobs by Industry, 2019
Industry
Livermore Alameda County
Jobs Percent Jobs Percent
Agriculture and Natural Resources 314 0.65% 3,129 0.36% Construction 3,210 6.6% 45,984 5.3%
Financial and Professional Services 13,436 27.9% 223,957 25.9% Health and Educational Services 12,446 25.8% 259,953 30.4% Information 1,240 2.5% 30,599 3.5%
Manufacturing, Wholesale, and Transportation 8,438 17.5% 150,214 17.4% Retail 5,419 11.5% 76,483 8.8%
Other 3,633 7.5% 72,130 8.3%
Total 48,136 100% 862,449 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030, ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

As shown in Table 2-10, ABAG projects the number of jobs in Livermore to increase 0.85 percent annually between 2020 and 2040, similar to Alameda County.

Table 2-10: Job Projections: Livermore and Alameda County 2010 2020 2040 Projected Average Annual Growth
Rate Between 2020 and 2040
Livermore 38,230 46,110 53,910 0.85%
Alameda County 669,770 792,510 947,650 0.98%
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series, ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

JOBS-HOUSING BALANCE
Ideally, a community would have enough jobs for those who reside there. A numeric balance between jobs and housing (or more acc urately, b etween employed residents and housing ) indicates the potential for reduced commute distances, which translates to decreased congestion and greenhouse gas emissions as well as improved quality of life. According to ABAG, Livermore had a ratio of 1.71 jobs to households as of 2018. The city’s ratio is higher than Alameda County’s ratio of 1.43 jobs to households (Table 2 -11). According to the ABAG data packet, the jobs-household ratio in Livermore increased from 1.56 in 2002 to 1.71 j obs per household in 2018.

For workers earning l ess than $1,250 per month, the jobs -household ratio had a similar rate of growth from 2022 to 2018, but the ratio was consisten tly lower at 0.91 jobs per household in 2002 and 1.10 in 2018. New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work .

ATTACHMENT 1
292

2-7
Table 2-11: J obs-Household Ratio, 2018
Category Livermore Alameda County
Ratio 1.71 1.43
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households), ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

2.3 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
This section outlines how household characteristics impact housing needs. Understanding household characteristics such as type, size, and income levels helps to determine the type of housing needed and desired by residents. For example, households with children typically have less flexibility in their housing needs and require larger units. In addition , income is a critical characteristic in determining residents’ housing opportunities and affordability. Income affects a household’s decision when it comes to tenure, type, and location of housing. Table 2 -12 shows that Livermore will have a projected increase of 6,550 households between 2020 and 2040, with an average annual growth rate of 1.01 percent.

Table 2-12: Livermore Projected Household Growth, 2020-2040 2020 2040 Average Annual Growth Rate,
2020- 2040
Households 32,390 38,940 1.01%
Persons Per Household 2.87 2.66 ---
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 Series; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

HOUSEHOLD TYPE
According to the California Department of Finance , Livermore had 32,390 households in 2020, a

1.5 percent increase from 2010. As shown in Table 2-13, Livermore has a higher percentage of family households (74.4 percent) than Alameda County (66.6 percent). The majority of family households in both Livermore and Alameda County consisted of married coupl es, of which Livermore also has a larger percentage. In both the city and county, singles make up the majority of nonfamily households.

ATTACHMENT 1
293

2-8
Table 2-13: Household Characteristics, 2019
Household Type1
Livermore Alameda County Bay Area
Estimate Percent
of Total Estimate Percent
of Total Estimate Percent
of Total
Total Family Households 23,624 74.4% 384,676 66.6% 1,814,589 66.4% Married-couples 19,897 62.6% 292,079 50.6% 1,399,714 77.1% Male householder, no
wife present 1,070 3.4% 28,432 4.9% 131,105 7.2%
Female householder, no
husband present 2,657 8.4% 64,165 11.1% 283,770 15.6%
Total Nonfamily Households 8,123 25.6% 192,501 33.4% 916,845 33.6% Singles 6,580 20.7% 141,077 24.4% 674,587 73.6%
Other 1,543 4.9% 51,424 9.0% 242,258 26.4%
Total Households 31,747 100.0% 577,177 100.0% 2,731,434 100% Average Household Size 2.87 2.80
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001. ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

Note: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Nonfamily households” are households of one person living alone as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

Table 2-14 shows that 14,243 more residents own the units they occupy than rent them in Livermore. In Alameda County, 40,605 more people own their unit than rent. In the Bay Area, 332,476 more people own their unit than rent.

Table 2-14: Housing Tenure, 2019
Geography Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total Ratio of Owner vs Renter Occupied
Livermore 22,995 72.4% 8,752 27.6% 31,747 2.63
Alameda County 308,891 53.5% 268,286 46.5% 577,177 1.15 Bay Area 1,531,955 56. 1% 1,199,479 43.9% 2,731,434 1.28 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003. ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

HOUSEHOLD INCOME
The State requires jurisdictions to address the housing needs of residents in the following income categories:
• Extremely low income, defined as annual household incomes of 30 percent or less of Area Median Income (AMI).
• Very-low income, defined as annual household incomes of 31 to 50 percent or lower of AMI.
• Low income, defined as annual household incomes 51 to 80 percent of AMI .

ATTACHMENT 1
294

2-9
• Moderate income, defined as annual household incomes 81 to 120 percent of AMI. • Above-moderate income, defined as annual household incomes above 120 percent of AMI.

The income categories listed above help focus federal, state , and local housing programs and subsidies to those people most in need. These income categories, combined with household size, are used to qualify people seeking subsidized housing options. It is also used to allocate housing production need to local jurisdictions as part of the Housing Element update process to promote balanced communities. Table 2 -15 shows household income by tenure based on the above income categories. As the table shows, 21.5 percent of renters in Livermore are classified as low income and 17.7 percent of renters are classified as very -low income. Comparing renters to owners, only 7.4 percent of owners in Livermore are classified as low income, and 6.3 percent are classified as very-low income.

Table 2-15: Household Income by Tenure, 2017
Group Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Extremely-Low Income (0%–30% of AMI) 965 1,409
Very-Low Income (31%–50% of AMI) 1,409 1,604
Low Income (51%–80% of AMI) 1,655 1,945
Moderate Income (81%–100% of AMI) 1,630 959
Above-Moderate Income (>100% of AMI) 16,654 3,130
Totals 22,313 9,047
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for area median income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine-county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the Oakland-Fremont Metro Area, where Livermore is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

Table 2 -16 displays the 201 3-2017 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) household income distribution for Livermore and Alameda County. HUD uses a Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) to evaluate housing affordability by income group. Livermore has a higher proportion of above-moderate-income households than the county (63.1 percent compared to

40.4 percent). A total of 19.7 percent of Livermore households have incomes defined as either low (from 51 percent to 80 percent of AMI) or moderate (from 81 percent to 120 percent of AMI).

Extremely low -income households, a subset of very -low income, earn 30 percent or less of the median household income. According to CHAS datasets, as of 2017, approximately 2,374 households had extremely low incomes. Furthermore, Livermore has a smaller proportion of extremely low-income households, accounting for approximately 7.6 percent compared to 15.5 percent countywide.

ATTACHMENT 1
295

2-10
Table 2-16: Households by Household Income Level, 2017
Income Group
Livermore Alameda County
Households Percent Households Percent
Extremely Low 2,374 7.6% 88,383 15.5%
Very Low 3,013 9.6% 63,850 11.2%
Low 3,600 11.5% 66,130 11.6%
Moderate and Above Moderate 22,373 71.3% 350,735 61.6%
Total 31,360 100.0% 569,098 100.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

2.4 SPECIAL NEED GROUPS
The groups described below with special needs often find it difficult to find affordable housing that can meet their unique requirements. For example, persons with physical disabilities often require accessible ground-floor units, and seniors sometimes need on -site care. Homeless persons may need transitional housing and supportive services such as intensive case management before placement in more stable, permanent housing. The Housing Element is required to analyze the special needs populations and provide policies that assist in meeting their needs.

State Housing Element law defines “special needs” groups to include senior households, female - headed households, large families, persons with disabilities, persons experiencing homelessness, and agricultural workers. This section describes the housing needs of each of these groups in Livermore. Table 2-17 provides an overview of State-identified special needs groups in Livermore.

Table 2-17: State-Identified Special Needs Groups, Livermore Special Needs Groups
Livermore Alameda County
Residents Households Residents Households
Seniors (65 years and
older) 12,086 7,653 316,073 156,177
Female Householder Not Applicable1 2,657 Not Applicable 64,165 Large Households
(5+ person) Not Applicable 3,248 Not Applicable 58,586
Disabled 7,5352 Not Applicable 151,368 Not Applicable
Persons Experiencing
Homelessness 2643 No Data Available 8,022 No Data Available Farm Workers 1525 Not Applicable 5934 Not Applicable
1 “Not Applicable” is listed if data is not reported by the unit heading. For example, persons with disabilities are reported by the number of residents that are disabled, not the number of households where a person with a disability lives.
2 The number of disabled residents for the Livermore and Alameda County includes the total civilian noninstitutionalized population aged 5 and over.
3 Data on homeless persons in the Livermore and Alameda County was provided by the 2019 Alameda County Point- in-Time Count report.
4 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hired Farm Labor by County, Table 7 of Census of Farmworkers, 2002, 2007, 2012, 2017.
5 U.S. Census Bureau, Industry Employed Population 16 Years and Over, Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting, Table S2404 of American Community Survey 5-Year Data, 2015-2019.

Sources: U.S. Census 2019; ABAG Data Packet, 2021; Alameda Countywide Homeless Count and Survey Report, 2019.

ATTACHMENT 1
296

2-11

SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS
The special needs of senior households , defined as 65 years of age or older, derive from three concerns: seniors generally live on a fixed income, have higher health care costs, and have higher disability rates. According to the ACS, 12, 086 Livermore residents were seniors in 2017 (13.5 percent). The senior population increased significantly by 36.7 percent between 2010 and 2020, reflecting an aging population in Livermore (see Table 2-4). Of the 32,390 households in Livermore, 7,653 (23.6 percent) were headed by a senior (see Table 2-17). Of all senior-headed households, 5,718 (74.7 percent) were owner occupied and 1,935 (25.3 percent) were renter occupied (Table 2-18). Table 2-18 also shows the breakdown of senior -headed households by income. As of 2017,

36.7 percent of senior households that rent are classified as extremely low income, and 28.9 percent are classified as very-low income. Of senior households that own their home, 14.9 percent are classified as low income, and 11.7 percent are classified as very-low income.

Housing expenses coupled with medical costs can cause a financial burden on seniors, especially for those with incomes below the poverty level.

Project design can assist in addressing a senior’s special housing needs. Some examples include:
• Accessibility. A common challenge is the ability to move around (mobility) and access basic needs (accessib ility), both within homes and the community. The design and siting of housing can help address these challenges. • Independence. Senior citizens generally prefer to be autonomous and maintain independent living styles while being a part of a community and not isolated. In order to support this lifestyle choice, seniors need convenient access to public transportation and destinations such as shopping, health care facilities, social services, and activity centers.
• Affordability. Senior citizens are often on fixed incomes and require stable housing arrangements without the risk of significant increases in rent. • Security. Senior citizens are concerned about physical and psychological security, more so than younger age groups.

The City has several programs that assist seniors. The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) operates a comprehensive senior services program that includes social services and recreation opportunities such as classes, special programs, daily lunch, information, referrals, classes, and trips. The Meals on Wheels Program delivers hot meals to seniors with limited mobility as well as to disabled individuals. Residents also have access to the Open Heart Kitchen free meal program, the Senior Support program of the Tri -Valley, which provides services that promote Table 2-18: Senior Households by Income and Tenure, 2017 Income Group Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Extremely Low Income (0%–30% of AMI) 420 710
Very Low Income (31%–50% of AMI) 669 560
Low Income (51%–80% of AMI) 855 285
Moderate Income (81%–100% of AMI) 555 95
Above Moderate Income (>100% of AMI) 3,219 285
Totals 5,718 1,935
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1
297

2-12
seniors’ ability to live independently in their homes, free legal and healthcare enrollment services from Legal Assistance for Seniors
Livermore has several senior housing complexes providing both market -rate and below -market- rate units: Arbor Vista, Chestnut Square Senior Apartments, Heritage Park, Heritage Estates, Hillcrest Gardens, Vandenburgh Villa, and Vineyard Village. Rosewood Gardens is a market -rate senior housing complex. In addition to providing independent senior rental apartments, Heritage Estates also provides assisted living care. When complete, the Pacific Avenue Senior Apartments will provide 140 affordable homes for low -income seniors , and the Livermore Assisted Living and Memory Care project will provide 87 assisted living beds and 46 memory care suites, for a total of 133 beds.

FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Generally, female-headed households, particularly those of color, have lower incomes than male- headed households, limiting their opportunities for finding affordable and quality housing. Female- headed families with children are a particularly vulnerable group because they have higher living expenses associated with childcare and must balance the needs of their children with work responsibilities. Female-headed households require special consideration and assistance to accommodate their housing needs. In addition to affordable housing, these needs often include accessible day care, health care, and other support services. National research has also found that Black women and Latinas are more likely to be discriminated against in their housing search for being single mothers to young children compared to female rental housing applicants of other races.

Based on U.S. Census data provided by ABAG, there were 2,657 female-headed households in Livermore in 2020, representing approximately 8.2 percent of all households (see Table 2-17), and 1,200 were female-headed families with children (see Table 2-19).

The 2015-2019 ACS reports that while three percent of families living in Livermore were below the poverty level, 26.5 percent of femal e-headed families with children under 18 lived in poverty (Table 2-19).

Table 2-19: Households by Poverty Status
Group Above Poverty Level Below Poverty Level
Families 22,255 688
Female Headed Households with Children 952 248
Female Headed Households with No Children 1,387 70
Totals 24,594 1,006
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012. ABAG Data Packet, 2021
As described in Chapter 5, the City has a variety of programs that support affordable housing for very low-income families, which often have a single earner. In addition, the City encourages the development of housing that provides enriched on -site services such as affordable childcare and/or youth activities coordination. The City’s Multi-Service Center provides a central, accessible location for residents to obtain social services, healthcare, and benefits counseling from a number of community -based organizations such as Axis Community Health Care Clinic, Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL), and Cityserve of the Tri Valley.

ATTACHMENT 1
298

2-13

LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Large househo lds are family households with five or more people. Large households are considered a special needs group because there is typically a limited supply of adequate and appropriately sized housing that is also affordable.

Table 2 -20 shows the distribution of household sizes for both Livermore and Alameda County.

According to the 2019 ACS, Livermore had about 3,248 large households, representing approximately 10.2 percent of all households. Alameda County’s distribution of household size was similar, with 10.0 percent of all households considered large.

Table 2-20: Household Size, 2019
Household
Livermore Alameda County
Owner
Occupied
Renter
Occupied Total Total
Percent
Owner
Occupied
Renter
Occupied Total Total
Percent
1–2 Person
Households 12,340 4,727 17,067 53.8% 160,913 170,678 331,591 56.6% 3–4 Person
Households 8,539 2,893 11,432 36.0% 118,627 76,828 195,455 33.4% 5+ Person
Household 2,116 1,132 3,248 10.2% 30,986 27,600 58,586 10.0% Total
Households 22,995 8,752 31,747 100% 310,526 275,106 585,632 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

Based on ACS estimates for 2015 to 2019, approximately 74.3 percent of Livermore’s total housing units (both owned and rent ed) had three or more bedrooms, significantly more than Alameda County’s portion of large units (see Table 2 -21). Though only 36.5 percent of the rental stock in Livermore had 3 or more bedrooms, 88.7 percent of the owned units had 3 or more bedrooms.

Large households made up 9.2 percent of owner -occupied units and 12.9 percent of renter - occupied units.

Table 2-21: Bedroom Mix by Tenure, 2019
Bedrooms
Livermore Alameda County
Owned
Units
Rental
Units
Total Units
by Bedroom
Percent
of Total
Owned
Units
Rental
Units
Total Units
by
Bedroom
Percent
of Total
0–1 354 2,305 2,659 8.4% 12,137 104,031 116,168 20.7%
2 2,252 3,247 5,499 17.3% 59,604 102,628 162,232 28.1%
3 10,221 2,530 12,751 40.2% 131,807 46,701 178,508 30.4% 4+ 10,168 670 10,838 34.1% 105,343 14,926 120,269 20.8% Total 22,995 8,752 31,747 100% 308,891 268,286 577,177 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042.

ATTACHMENT 1
299

2-14

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
A broad range of conditions are considered disabilities, and housing needs can vary by disability type. Persons with disabilities may have special housing needs for several reasons, such as living on a fixed income, the lack of housing choices that are both affordable and accessible, an d higher health care costs or limited access to health care. Many persons with disabilities are still able to live at home independently or with friends or family members, and others need in-home services or to reside in a special care facility. In order to maintain an independent lifestyle, a home may need to be modified to increase accessibility through universal design features. The objective is to improve the accessibility of homes, not only for residents of all ages and abilities, but for visitors as well.

The six disability types covered by the ACS are:
• Hearing Difficulty: Deaf or having serious difficulty hearing (DEAR). • Vision Difficulty: Blind or having serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses (DEYE). • Cognitive Difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions (DREM). • Ambulatory Difficulty: Having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs (DPHY). • Self-Care Difficulty: Having difficulty bathing or dressing (DDRS). • Independent Living Difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping (DOUT).

According to the ACS, 8.4 percent of Livermore’s population aged 5 and over had a disability between 2015 and 2019. In Alameda County, 9.2 percent of residents aged 5 and over had a disability.

The ACS estimates that about 5.8 percent of Livermore’s civilian, noninstitutionalized population ages 18 to 64 had a disability in 2019. This estimate does not include seniors and accordingly does not reflect the total percent of Livermore residents with a disability. Therefore, this percentage likely underestimates the true number of accessible housing units needed in the city. O f this population, 51.6 percent were not in the workforce, and 8.2 percent were in the workforce but unemployed (Table 2-22).

Table 2-22: Persons with Disabilities, Ages 18 to 64 by Workforce Participation, 2019

Livermore Alameda County
Number Percent of Total Number Percent of Total
In Workforce: Employed 1,316 40.2% 27,804 39.0%
In Workforce: Unemployed 269 8.2% 3,665 5.1%
Not in Workforce 1,693 51.6% 39,885 55.9%
Total 3,278 100% 71,354 100%
Note: Total includes the civilian, noninstitutionalized population ages 18 to 64 years.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C18120; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

Cognitive difficulty was the most common disability for city and county residents (Table 2-23). The second most common disability for Livermore residents is independent living difficulty, and ambulatory difficulty was the second most common disability for county residents.

ATTACHMENT 1
300

2-15
Table 2-23: Reported Disabilities by Disability Type, Ages 18 to 64, 2019 Disability Type
Livermore Alameda County
Number Number
Hearing difficulty 657 11,507
Vision difficulty 489 12,659
Cognitive difficulty 1,436 31,308
Ambulatory difficulty 1,223 31,247
Self-care difficulty 556 14,024
Independent living difficulty 1,234 27,827
Note: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability so these counts should not be summed to 100%.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

As shown in Table 2 -24, Livermore has 43 licensed community care facilities , which provide a supportive environment in a group situation to persons with special needs. Most of the facilities allow full-time residency. Livermore also has one adult daycare program —GARDEN Tri-Valley run by Futures Explored, Inc. The GARDEN program provides educational opportunities and activities to adults with cognitive and physical disabilities.

Table 2-24: Livermore Licensed Community Care Facilities, 2014 Type of Facility Number of Facilities Combined Capacity Group Homes 8 42
Adult Day Care 1 20
Elderly Residential 34 469
Total 43 531
Source: CA Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division, 2022.

In addition, the city has seven affordable housing developments and shared housing projects built specifically for developmentally disabled adults: Lily House (6 units), Corte Cava (2 units), Creekside (2 units), Gillette (7 units), Locomotive (2 units), Chestnut Square (8 units), and Arroyo Commons Apartments (12 units). It also has three housing projects specifically for individuals with mental-health-related disabilities: McLeod Apartments (5 units), Dogwood House (3 units), and Kennedy House (6 units). Avance Apartments (44 units), which will provide homes for those with developmental disabilities, is currently under construction. These housing units are supported by independent living services agencies, including East Bay Innovations, Bay Area Communit y Services (BACS), and Tri-Valley REACH.

Developmental Disabilities
According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, a “developmental disability” means a disability that originates before an individual reaches 18 years of age, continues or can be expected to continue indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. The term generally includes mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. It also include s disabling conditions found to be closely related to mental retardation or to require similar treatment, but does not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.

ATTACHMENT 1
301

2-16
The State Department of Developmental Services currently provides community- based services to approximately 329,0 02 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, 4 developmental centers, and 2 community-based facilities. The Regional Center of the East Bay (RCEB) provides a point of entry to services for people residing in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. RCEB is a private, nonprofit agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. RCEB served approximately 670 people in the Livermore area in 2017.3 Of these, 364 (54.3 percent) are under 18 years of age, and 306 (45.7 percent) are over 18.

Table 2-25 shows the 2020 age profile of people with developmental disabilities in Livermore. Of the 611 residents with developmental disabilities, 323 are under 18 years of age, and 288 are over the age of 18.

Table 2-25: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age, 2020 Age Group Number of People with Developmental Disabilities Age Under 18 323
Age 18+ 288
Totals 611
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020); ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

Regarding housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities, many can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. Individuals with more severe developmental disabilities require a group living environment that provides supervision. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment that also provides medical attention and physical therapy. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for persons with developmental disabilities is transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult. Table 2-26 breaks down the types of residences and the number of people with developmental disabilities in Livermore.

Table 2-26: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Types Number of Residence
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 509
Independent /Supported Living 55
Community Care Facility 34
Foster /Family Home 10
Other 5
Intermediate Care Facility 5
Total 618
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020); ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

3 RCEB provides information for the 94551 and 94550 zip codes, which include areas outside of the City of Livermore.

ATTACHMENT 1
302

2-17
Therefore, housing types appropriate for people living with a development disability include: rent- subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single -family homes, inclusionary housing, homes accepting Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and SB 962 homes. The design of accessibility modifications, proximity to services and transit, and availability of group-living opportunities represent the types of considerations important in serving this need group. Incorporating ‘barrier-free’ design in all new multifamily housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents. Special consideration should also be given to affordability of housing, because people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.

HOMELESS PERSONS
In January 2019 and February 2022, a community -based organization called EveryOne Home conducted point-in-time homeless counts and surveys for Alameda County. While the data from the 2022 count has not been released at the time of this report, based on EveryOne Home’s findings from the 2019 count, 8,022 people in Alameda County were homeless at the time of the count. Since the survey was conducted at a single point in time, the report assumes the number of homeless persons counted represents the typical number of homeless persons living in the county. Many factors may affect the total count, including weather, time of year, and time of day.

The 2019 survey report found the following demographic distribution of the community-defined homeless population in Alameda County:
4 • Families. Seven percent were in a family with children. • Gender. About 61 percent of the countywide homeless population was male and 35 percent was female. The remaining four percent identified as either transgendered or gender nonbinary.
• Race and ethnicity. Blacks/African Americans, American Indians, and Alaska Natives were overrepresented when compared to Alameda County’s population. • Seniors. Approximately 14 percent of A lameda County ’s homeless p opulation reported being 61 or older when they first experienced homelessness .5 About 73 percent were between the ages 25 and 59 when they first experienced homelessness, implying that the percentage of homeless people aged 61 and older could grow as the population ages.
• Special Needs. The report stated that 46 percent of the homeless population in Alameda County had a disabling condition, which is defined by HUD as developmental disability, HIV/AIDS, or long -term physical or mental impairment that impacts a person’s ability to live independently, but could be improved with stable housing.

4 The community definition of homelessness includes people staying in emergency shelters or transitional housing, living on the street or in a car, and people who will lose their housing within a month and have nowhere to go. 5 As part of the Alameda County 2019 Point-in-Time Count of 8,022 homeless persons, an in-depth survey was administered to a sample of 1,681 unsheltered and sheltered individuals and families experiencing homelessness. With a randomized survey sampling process, the statistics presented are based on this sample, which represents a 95% confidence level when generalizing the results of the survey for the entire estimated population of individuals experiencing homelessness in Alameda County.

ATTACHMENT 1
303

2-18
• Living situation. About 21 percent of the homeless population was sheltered in transitional housing or emergency s helters, and the remaining people were unsheltered.

This report indicated that there were 264 homeless people living in Livermore, which was an 8.6 percent increase from the 2017 point-in-time count. Of the 264 homeless persons, 85 of them were unsheltered (32.2 percent) and 179 were sheltered (67.8).

EXISTING FACILITIES
Table 2-27 provides a list of the homeless facilities and services in Livermore. There are three types of facilities that provide shelter for homeless individuals and families:
• Emergency (Temporary) Shelter. Provides overnight shelter and meets a person’s basic needs, either on-site or through off-site services. The length of stay varies with the shelter and can range from one day to several months. • Transitional Housing. Provides housing fo r up to two years. The residents at these shelters are typically connected to a rehabilitation program, including substance abuse and mental health interventions, employment services, individual and group counseling, and life skills training.
• Permanent (Supportive) Housing. Provides permanent housing that is affordable, linked with ongoing supportive services, and gives formerly homeless residents the opportunity to live in the facility on an indefinite basis.

Table 2-27: Homeless Facilities and Services in Livermore, 2022 Facility Name Beds Clients Type
Sojourner House 16 Families with children/teens Emergency Shelter Shiloh House 30 Domestic violence victims Emergency Shelter Shepherd's Gate 70 Women and children Emergency Shelter Cityserve Not Applicable All Support Services
Abode Services Not Applicable All Support services and
Rapid Rehousing
Bluebell Apartments 7 All Transitional Housing
Tri-Valley Haven Food
Pantry Not Applicable All Food Pantry
Open Heart Kitchen Not Applicable All Food and Meal
Distribution
Goodness Village 28 Chronically homeless Transitional Housing Source: ShelterListings.org, accessed 1/12/22.

Table 2-28 summarizes the available beds reported by the Continuum of Care in 2020.

In addition to the services listed in Table 2 -27, the City of Livermore also works with homeless services providers to provide rental assistance to people experiencing or at risk of becoming homelessness.

While continuing to support existing emergency (temporary) shelters, the City is focused on long- term solutions to homelessness and placing more individuals in permanent housing. When ATTACHMENT 1
304

2-19
complete, Housing Consortium of the East Bay’s Vineyard 2.0 development will provide twenty- four units of permanent supportive rental housing for persons who were formerly homeless as well as over 9,000 square feet of space for essential services such as food, showers and laundry, winter shelter, and housing counseling.

The City established the Subcommittee on Homelessness Team to develop recommendations to the City Council for a Homeless Strategy Framework by gathering information on homelessness, the service types that are available to people experiencing homelessness, and the current and future funding resources available for homelessness response.

ATTACHMENT 1
305

2-20
Table 2-28: Summary of Available Beds Reported by Continuum of Care, 2020 Family
Units
Family
Beds
Adult-Only
Beds
Child-Only
Beds
Total Year-
Round
Beds
Seasonal Overflow/
Voucher
Subset of Total Bed Inventory
Chronic
Beds
Veteran
Beds
Youth
Beds
Emergency, Safe Haven,
and Transitional Housing 159 554 1460 18 2032 160 33 n/a 215 169 Emergency Shelter 109 391 974 18 1,383 160 33 n/a 95 66 Safe Haven 0 0 32 0 32 n/a n/a n/a 32 0
Transitional Housing 50 163 454 0 617 n/a n/a n/a 88 103 Permanent Housing 543 1,558 2,603 17 4,178 n/a n/a 602 724 167 Permanent Housing 441 1205 2,325 15 3,545 n/a n/a 602 699 80 Rapid Rehousing 102 353 278 2 633 n/a n/a n/a 25 87
Grand Total 702 2,112 4,063 35 6,210 160 33 602 939 336 Source: HUD 2020 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Housing Inventory Count Report, https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_HIC_CoC_CA-502-2020_CA_2020.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 1
306

2-21

FARM LABOR
Though Livermore is no longer the small agricultural town it once was, farming is still part of Livermore’s economy and identity —particularly viticulture. It is difficult to estimate the extent of the farm labor population in the city because government agencies do not consistently define farm labor, length of employment, or place of work. Nevertheless, farm workers are considered by the State of California to have special housing needs due to their limited income, the seasonality of housing needs, and an increased likelihood of overcrowding and substandard housing conditions.

The USDA Census of Agriculture identified 305 permanent farm workers and 288 seasonal farmworkers in Alameda County in 2017 (Table 2-29).

Table 2-29: Farm Operations and Farm Labor, Alameda County 2002 2007 2012 2017
Permanent 577 465 355 305
Seasonal 369 737 449 288
Total 946 1,202 804 593
Note: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year; farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered permanent workers for that farm.

Source: Department of Agriculture, Hired Farm Labor, Table 7 of Census of Farmworkers 2002, 2007, 2012, 2017; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

The Livermore Development Code provides standards to allow farm worker housing. It allows for a caretaker’s residence (conditional use permit required) within the Planned Development/Agriculture District (PD-AG) or within the South Livermore Valley Agricultural Zone (SLV -AG). The code defines a caretaker’s residence as a temporary dwelling for people and their families employed in the agricultural use of the property. The size of this residence type is restricted to 1,200 square feet in the SLV -AG. Farm labor housing is also permitted with conditional use permit approval within two Open Space Districts:

Agricultural and Rural Preservation (OS-A and OS-R).

2.5 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
Ideally, a city’s housing stock should align with the needs of its population, provide both small and large units in a variety of forms, and offer housing affordable to its workforce and special needs populations. Market realities often result in housing supply outcomes that do not meet the needs of all members of the local population. This section describes housing stock characteristics in Livermore and Alameda County. The Constraints Chapter describes current market conditions.

HOUSING STOCK
As shown in Table 2 -30, Livermore has a significantly greater share of single -family detached houses compared to Alameda County (68.8 percent v. 52.2 percent).

Conversely, multifamily units make up 19.9 percent of Livermore’s stock and 38.6 percent of Alameda County’s stock.

ATTACHMENT 1
307

2-22
Table 2-30: Housing Stock, 2010–2020

Livermore Alameda County
2010 Units 2020 Units Percent
Change 2010 Units 2020 Units Percent
Change
Single Family:

Detached 21,490 22,519 4.7% 309,306 319,353 3.2%
Attached 2,555 3,154 23.4% 44,280 48,130 8.7%
Single Family Total 24,045 25,673 6.7% 353,586 367,483 3.9% Multifamily:
2–4 Units 1,466 1,604 9.4% 65,326 66,731 2.2%
5+ Units 4,291 4,909 14.4% 154,629 169,679 9.7%
Multifamily Total 5,757 6,513 13.1% 219,955 236,410 7.5% Mobile Homes 540 542 0.3% 7,831 7,859 0.4%
Total 30,342 32,728 7.8% 581,372 611,752 5.2%
Vacancy Rate 4.0% 3.4% 6.4% 5.2%
Source: Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2020; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

Housing Type Definitions:

Single Family Detached: 1-unit structure detached from any other house, with open space on all four sides.

Single Family Attached:1-unit structure that has one or more walls extending from ground to roof separating it from adjoining structures.

Multifamily: structures containing 2 or more housing units.

Mobile homes: a dwelling that sits on wheels and may be moved.

TENURE AND OCCUPANCY
As shown in Table 2-31, the percentage of occupied housing units and owner -occupied units is greater in Livermore than in Alameda County. Conversely, the proportion of renter- occupied housing units is greater in Alameda County (44.1 percent) than Livermore (28.9 percent).

Table 2-31: Tenure and Vacancy, 2019
Housing Units
Livermore Alameda County
Estimate Percent Estimate Percent
Owner-occupied housing units 22,995 75.9% 308,891 50.8% Renter-occupied housing units 8,752 28.9% 268,286 44.1% Occupied housing units 29,134 96.2% 577,177 94.9%
Vacant housing units 1,136 3.8% 30,919 5.1%
Total housing units 30,270 100.0% 608,096 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 and Table B25004; ABAG Data Packet, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1
308

2-23
Table 2-32 provides an overview of the number of vacant units and unit types in Livermore, Alameda County, and the Bay Area. The majority of vacant units in Livermore are classified as “other vacant,” which is the same for Alameda County and the Bay Area. Alameda County and the Bay Area also have a lot of units for rent that are vacant. In Livermore, units that have been sold but are not yet occupied comprise the next biggest group of vacant units.

Table 2-32: Vacant Units by Type, 2019
Geography For
Rent For Sale
For Seasonal,
Recreational, or
Occasional Use
Other
Vacant
Rented, Not
Occupied
Sold, Not
Occupied
Livermore 205 104 140 460 21 206
Alameda County 7,998 1,961 3,892 13,569 1,517 1,982
Bay Area 41,117 10,057 37,301 61,722 10,647 11,816
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

HOUSING GROWTH
According to the Department of Finance, 36,043 new housing units were built in Alameda County from 2010 to 2021. In Livermore, 2,662 new units were built between 2010 and 2021.

A higher proportion of single -family units was built in Livermore than in the county overall (63.2 percent v. 58.2 percent ). Table 2-33 compares housing estimates for Livermore and Alameda County.

Table 2-33: Housing Unit Growth, 2010 to 2020

Livermore Alameda County
New Units Percent
Average
Annual
Growth
New Units Percent
Average
Annual
Growth
Single Family1 1,629 68.3% 0.67% 13,897 45.7% 0.4%
Multifamily 756 31.7% 1.3% 16,455 54.3% 0.7%
Mobile Homes 2 0.08% 0.03% 28 0.09% 0.03%
Total 2,386 100.0% 0.8% 30,380 100.0% 0.5%

1. Single family includes both detached and attached units.

Sources: California Department of Finance, E-5 Series; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

HOUSING AGE
The age of a housing unit can be an indicator of its condition. As units age, they require maintenance and modernization, without which, homes will deteriorate and can negatively impact the values of surrounding properties. Generally, houses older than 30 years begin to show signs of deterioration and require reinvestment to maintain the ir quality, and homes older than 50 years begin to require major renovations.

ATTACHMENT 1
309

2-24
As of 2019, approximately 65.4 percent of the housing stock in Livermore was built before 1990 (and is approximately 30 years of age). Approximately 34.1 percent of Livermore’s housing stock was built before 1970 (and is approximately 50 years of age). Ala meda County’s housing stock is older than Livermore’s, with approximately 80.6 percent of its housing stock built before 1990 and 52.7 percent built before 1970 (see Table 2 -34).

Table 2-34: Housing Units by Tenure and Age, 2019

Livermore Alameda County
Number Percent Number Percent
Built 2010 or later 1,341 4.1% 19,340 3.2%
Built 2000 to 2009 4,378 13.3% 44,854 7.4%
Built 1990 to 1999 5,629 17.1% 53,513 8.8%
Built 1980 to 1989 3,557 10.8% 75,783 12.5%
Built 1970 to 1979 6,740 20.5% 93,408 15.4%
Built 1960 to 1969 6,129 18.6% 82,967 13.6%
Built 1950 to 1959 3,476 10.6% 77,947 12.8%
Built 1940 to 1949 634 1.9% 41,622 6.8%
Built 1939 or earlier 999 3% 118,662 19.5%
Total 32,883 100.0% 608,096 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

HOUSING IN NEED OF REPAIR/REPLACEMENT
The overall number of substandard resident ial units in need of either rehabilitation or replacement is approximately 100. This is based on the number of complaints to the City’s Neighborhood Preservation Division, who responds to complaints regarding substandard buildings and development code violations. They estimate that they receive approximately 10 complaint calls per year related to substandard or dilapidated housing.

They also work to identify existing housing problems related to blight, abandoned properties, and tenant/landlord issues.

2.6 HOUSING COSTS AND AFFORDABILITY
The cost of housing relative to the income of residents indicates the affordability of housing in a community. For example, if housing costs are high compared to the median household income, families with lower income levels may find it difficult to afford housing.

Overcrowding or longer commutes may result. Setting the stage to provide housing choice for all segments of the community is an important part of the housing element.

HOME SALES TRENDS
As shown in Table 2-35, a point-in-time survey conducted on RedFin.com shows that the median price of homes ranged from $767,500 for houses with two bedrooms to $1,765,000 for houses with five bedrooms.

ATTACHMENT 1
310

2-25
Table 2-35: Livermore Home Sale Prices, January 2021–January 2022 Bedrooms Sales Median Price Average Price
Homes
2 10 $767,500 $737,200
3 123 $990,000 $1,031,269
4 103 $1,270,000 $1,310,941
5 + 34 $1,765,000 $1,759,374
Homes Total 270 $1,198,125 $1,209,696
Condominiums
1 7 $364,900 $354,129
2 29 $660,000 $633,638
3 19 $845,000 $858,251
4 5 $909,000 $894,600
Condos Total 60 $694,725 $685,155
Townhomes
2 2 $632,500 $632,500
3 15 $815,000 $784,667
4 2 $910,000 $910,000
Townhomes Total 19 $785,833 $775,722
Source: Redfin, 1/4/22.

Between the economic downturn and present day, home prices in Livermore, Alameda County, and the Bay Area increased (Figure 2-1). Home prices have continued to rise, and most of the homes in Livermore are only affordable to above -moderate-income households.

ATTACHMENT 1
311

2-26
Figure 2-1: Home Sale Prices 2001 to 2020
Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI); ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

Housing prices decreased dramatically during the economic downtown; however, this decrease did not result in home ownership among low - and moderate -income households. Stricter underwriting standards contributed to barriers to homeownership for those without a substantial down payment and good credit history. Because housing prices have climbed , many homes remain unattainable to low - and moderate -income households.

Table 2 -36 shows that the majority of owner- occupied units in Livermore are valued at $500,000 to $750,000 (38.9 percent). The second largest group falls under the value range of $750,000 to 1 million (30.6 percent). This trend of home value is reflected in Alameda County and the Bay Area.

Table 2-36: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units, 2019
Geography
Units
Valued
Less than
$250k
Units
Valued
$250k–
$500k
Units
Valued
$500k–
$750k
Units
Valued
$750k–
$1M
Units
Valued
$1M–
$1.5M
Units
Valued
$1M–
$2M
Units
Valued
$2M+
Livermore 3.3% 8.7% 38.9% 30.6% 14.7% 2.4% 1.4%
Alameda
County 5.2% 14.5% 28.4% 25.5% 17.7% 5.0% 3.8%
Bay Area 6.1% 16.3% 22.5% 20.1% 17.9% 7.9% 9.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.
$100,000
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Bay Area Alameda County Livermore
ATTACHMENT 1
312

2-27

RENTAL HOUSING COSTS
Table 2 -37 shows the contract rent for renter -occupied units in 2019. In Livermore, approximately 26.2 percent of renters pay $1,500 to $2,000 per month in rent. In Alameda County and the Bay Area, most renters also pay $1,500 to $2,000 per month in rent (24.9 percent and 22.8 percent, respecti vely). The second most common rent range in Livermore is $2,000 to $2,500 per month (22.2 percent).

Table 2-37: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units, 2019 Geography
Rent less
than
$500
Rent
$500–
$1000
Rent
$1000–
$1500
Rent
$1500–
$2000
Rent
$2000–
$2500
Rent
$2500–
$3000
Rent
$3000
or more
Livermore 5.3% 7.4% 16.2% 26.2% 22.2% 14.8% 7.9%
Alameda
County 6.4% 11.8% 22.0% 24.9% 17.1% 10.6% 7.2%
Bay Area 6.1% 10.2% 18.9% 22.8% 17.3% 11.7% 13.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056; ABAG Data Packet, 2021
Based on an online survey conducted in January 2022, the average rent in Livermore for a 1 -bedroom apartment was $2,206 ( Table 2 -38). The average rent for a 3 -bedroom apartment was $3,262 and the average rent across the number of bedrooms in a unit in Livermore was $2,657.

Table 2-38: Average Rental Prices in Livermore, 2022
Bedrooms Average Price of Rent
Studio $1,618
1 Bedroom $2,206
2 Bedroom $2,565
3 Bedroom $3,262
4 Bedroom $3,636
Average $2,657
Source: RealPage.com and Zillow.com Survey, 1/4/2022.

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
A community’s housing affordability is measured by evaluating market rate prices for buying and renting homes compared to the ability of residents to afford these market rates. For purposes of the Housing Element, a home is considered affordable if it is suitably sized and costs the household 30 percent or less of its gross monthly income . Households that pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing ( i.e., rent or mortgage and ATTACHMENT 1
313

2-28
utilities) are considered “cost burdened .” Housing that is not suitably sized can result in overcrowding, which occurs when a household has more than one person per room.6 Housing affordability varies by income group. E xtremely low -income households hav e greater challenges in accessing housing that is affordable than above-moderate-income households, who can spend significantly more on housing. Accordingly, the following analysis evaluates housing affordability by income group (i.e. , extremely low-, very-low-, low-, moderate-, and above-moderate-income groups). The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) determines the income groups, which are then adopted by the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). 7 This housing affordability analysis does not consider home maintenance costs. Since landlords of rental housing typically pay maintenance costs, which can be considerable, homeownership is inherently more expensive than rental housing. The discussion also does not consider transportation costs, the second highest household expense , which are strongly influenced by housing location and context (availability of transit, parking prices, etc.).

Table 2-39 shows the maximum amount that a household can pay for housing each month without exceeding the 30 percent threshold and without overcrowding. As noted in the table, the income figures are based on the 2021 HCD AMI for Alameda County of $125,600 for a family of four, and calculation of affordable home sales prices are based on an annual interest rate of 5.007 percent for a mortgage. Interest rates have increased substantially in the last year and are expected to rise more as of Spring 2022.

Comparing this table to the housing cost information described in the previous section reveals that extremely low - and very-low-income households in Livermore cannot afford market rental or owner- occupied housing. Based on prevailing rents, some low -income households could afford market -rate rental units. Only above -moderate-income households can afford the typical median price for a home in Livermore.

The following sections describe in more detail housing affordability by income group.

6 Rooms include living rooms, dining rooms, bedrooms, study, and other rooms, but do not include kitchens, hallways, or bathrooms.
7 HCD and HUD apply the 30 percent of gross income standard to set affordable rents for income -restricted units.

ATTACHMENT 1
314

2-29
Table 2-39: Housing Affordability Matrix (2020)
Income Group
Income Levels Monthly Housing Costs Maximum Affordable
Price
Annual
Income
Affordable
Payment
Utilities/Monthly
Debts
Taxes &
Insurance1 Ownership2 Rental3
Extremely Low
One Person $28,800 $720 $150 $1,595 $10 1,908 $720
Small Family4 $37,000 $925 $225 $1,806 $12 8,923 $925 Large Family $44,400 $1,110 $300 $1,987 $15 2,204 $1,110 Very Low
One Person $47,950 $1,199 $150 $2,252 $18 6,186 $1,199 Small Family $61,650 $1,541 $225 $2,652 $23 7,467 $1,541 Large Family $74,000 $1,850 $300 $3,004 $28 2,614 $1,850 Low
One Person $76,750 $1,919 $150 $3,273 $31 7,042 $1,919 Small Family $98,650 $2,466 $225 $3,964 $40 5,581 $2,466 Large Family $118,400 $2,960 $300 $4,578 $48 4,351 $2,960 Moderate
One Person $105,500 $2,638 $150 $4,292 $44 7,671 $2,638 Small Family $135,650 $3,391 $225 $5,275 $57 3,694 $3,391 Large Family $162,750 $4,069 $300 $6,150 $68 5,860 $4,069 Notes: Maximum affordable home prices are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be used for determining specific program eligibility.

1. Property taxes are based on the average rate for Alameda County of 0.78%, and insurance is based on Zillow Affordability Calculator assumptions.

2. Affordable home price is based on down payment of 20% of annual household income, annual interest of

5.007%, a 30-year mortgage, and monthly payment of 30% of gross household income.

3. Monthly affordable rent based upon rental payments of no more than 30% of household income.

4. Small Family = 3 persons; Large Families = 5 or more persons.

Sources: https://www.zillow.com/mortgage-calculator/house-affordability/; Average property taxes for Livermore, CA, https://smartasset.com/taxes/
california-property-tax-calculator#yYQmplVSUe; Homeowners insurance, http://www.baysano.com/contra- costa-county-ca-average-home-insurance
-cost-74/ OR https://vhomeinsurance.com/contra-costa-county-ca-home-insurance-hi7812/ OR use Zillow.

Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income households in Livermore have incomes that are 30 percent or less of the AMI. The maximum affordable home rental price for an extremely low -income household ranges from $720 for a one -person household to $1,110 for a five -person household. The maximum qualifying home price for a n extremely low-income household ranges from $108,679 for a one-person household to $160,823 for a five -person household (Table 2 -39). With lower end studios renting for $1,618/month, market rents exceed the affordable housing payment for an extremely low -income household. In practical terms, ATTACHMENT 1
315

2-30
this means that a one-person household cannot afford an average priced studio or one - bedroom unit without assuming a cost burden . The problem is exacerbated for larger households with extremely low incomes.

Very Low-Income Households
Very low-income households in the city earn between 31 and 50 percent of the AMI. The maximum qualifying home price for a very low -income household ra nges from $210,623 for a one -person household to $318,396 for a five -person household (Table 2 -39). With median home sale prices starting at $767,500 for two-bedroom homes, market-rate homes in Livermore are not attainable for very low-income households.

A very low-income household can afford to pay $1,199 to $1,850 in rent per month, depending on the household size. With the average rents in Livermore starting at $2,206 for a one-bedroom unit, a very low-income household cannot afford to pay the average rental price without facing overcrowding or cost burden issues. Rental prices for one - bedrooms in Livermore currently range from about $1,099 to $2,903, indicating that a two- person, very low-income household earns less than the amou nt necessary to afford a typical lower-priced one-bedroom in Livermore. In practical terms, this means that very low-income households cannot afford an average market-rate rental without assuming a cost burden.

Low-Income Households
Low-income households earn between 51 and 80 percent of the AMI. The maximum qualifying home price for a low-income household ranges from $363,937 for a one-person household to $554,756 for a five-person household (Table 2-39). Compared to the median selling price of homes in Livermore, low-income households cannot afford homeownership in the city, regardless of household size.

A low-income household can afford to pay $1,919 to $2,960 in rent per month, depending on the household size. With the average rents in Livermore ranging from $2,206 for a one- bedroom to $3,096 for a three-bedroom unit, some low-income households can afford to pay the average rental price in Livermore, depending on household size. Larger low - income households could not afford market -rate rentals, as three -bedroom units exceed their maximum affordable rental price.

Moderate-Income Households
Moderate-income households earn between 81 and 120 percent of the AMI. The maximum qualifying home price for a moderate-income household ranges from $516,985 for a one-person household to $790,850 for a five-person household (Table 2-39). Based on the median housing prices in Livermore, moderate -income households cannot afford to purchase a home in Livermore without a sizeable down payment. To assist households out of reach from homeownership, the City offers a down payment assistance program for first-time homebuyers. This program offers a loan of up to $60,000 at three percent interest for first-time homebuyers, making a one-bedroom home affordable to a family of two and a two-bedroom home affordable to a family of three.

A moderate-income household can afford to pay $ 2,638 to $ 4,069 in rent per month, depending on the household size. With the average rents in Livermore ranging from $2,206 for a one -bedroom to $3,096 for a three-bedroom unit , some moderate- income ATTACHMENT 1
316

2-31
households can afford to pay the average rental price in Livermore, depending on household size.

COST BURDEN
HUD uses a Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) to evaluate housing cost burden. According to CHAS data for 2011 to 2017, renters in Livermore were more cost burdened than owners, with 25.2 percent of all renter households and 14.9 percent of all owner households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing.

Table 2 -40 shows cost burden by income group and tenure. Lower -income renter households (those earning less than 50% of the area median family income, or AMFI) are more likely to be cost burdened, with approximately 21.6 percent of very low -income renters cost burdened compared to only 6.1 percent of low income homeowners.

Large families (five or more related individuals) and elderly households tend to experience greater cost burden for housing. Elderly residents on fixed incomes sometimes overpay for housing, and rental increases are particularly difficult for this group. For large families to avoid overcrowding, owning or renting a large home is required, which costs more and is more likely to stretch the household budget for housing. Conversely, families may increase the number of people living in the housing unit to avoid being cost -burdened, causing overcrowding. The prevalence of overcrowding in Livermore is discussed in the following section.

Table 2-40: Cost Burden by Income Classification and Tenure for Livermore, 2018 Cost Burdened
Totals
Renters Owners Total
Numb
er
Percent of
Renters
Percent
of Total Number Percent of
Owners
Percent
of Total Number Percent
of Total
Total Occupied
Units 8,965 100% 28.4% 22,570 100% 71.6% 31,535 100%
Cost Burdened
>30% 2,255 25.2% 7.2% 3,355 14.9% 10.6% 5,610 17.7%
Cost Burdened
>50% 1,940 21.6% 6.2% 1,925 8.5% 6.1% 3,865 12.2%
Cost Burden by Household Income Group
Very Low
Income <=50%
AMFI
1,415 15.8% 4.5% 1,230 5.4% 3.9% 2,645 8.4%
Low Income
>50 to <=80%
AMFI
1,540 17.2% 4.9% 1,590 7% 5% 3,130 9.9%
Moderate
Income >80% to
<=120% AMFI
1,030 11.5% 3.3% 1,525 6.7% 4.8% 2,555 8.1%
Above
Moderate
Income >120%
AMFI
3,580 39.9% 11.3% 17,340 76.8% 54.9% 20,920 66.3%
AMFI= Area Median Family Income
Sources: CHAS data based on ACS 2014–2018 5-year estimates.

ATTACHMENT 1
317

2-32

OVERCROWDING
In response to high housing costs and a limited supply of affordable housing, lower income families are sometimes forced to choose a smaller home to save money to pay for other necessities, including transportation, food, and clothing. Another strategy is to increase the number of people living together. In extreme cases, two families choose to share one home. For these reasons, large families and low -income households are more at risk of living in overcrowded conditions. HCD defines overcrowding as more than one occupant per room, and severe overcrowding as more than 1.5 occupants per room. Table 2-41 shows overcrowding severity in Livermore, Alameda County, and the Bay Area. The CHAS data shows that approximately one percent of owner -occupied units and 5.6 percent of rental units in Livermore are considered overcrowded, with some lower-resource neighborhoods experiencing overcrowding at higher rates. Approximately 0.1 percent of owner-occupied units and 1.7 percent of rental units are considered severely overcrowded in Livermore (Table 2-42)
Table 2-41: Overcrowding Severity, 2017
Geography 1.00 Occupant per
Room or Less

1.01 to 1.50
Occupants per Room

1.50 Occupants per
Room or More
Livermore 30,867 715 165
Alameda County 531,752 29,007 16,418
Bay Area 2,543,056 115,696 72,682
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

Table 2-42: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity in Livermore, 2017 Tenure 1.01 to 1.50
Occupants per Room
More than 1.5
Occupants per Room
Owner Occupied 1.0% 0.1%
Renter Occupied 5.6% 1.7%
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

HOUSING PROBLEMS FOR ALL HOUSEHOLDS
Table 2 -43 shows the number of households by tenure that has any housing problems according to the 2013- 2017 ACS -based CHAS database. A housing problem includes conditions such as lack of kitchen or plumbing, more than one person per room, or a cost burden greater than 30 percent of the AMI by income category. As shown in Table 2 -43, 3,405 of very low- and extremely low-income households reported a housing problem.

ATTACHMENT 1
318

2-33
Table 2-43: Housing Problems for All Households
Total Renters Total Owners Total Households
Households Income <30% MFI with any
Housing Problem 1,040 640 1,680
Household Income >30% to <50% MFI
with any Housing Problem 1,045 680 1,725
Totals 2,085 1,320 3,405
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.

2.7 REGIONAL HOUSING NEED
State law requires all regional councils of governments to determine the existing and projected housing need for their region and to allocate a portion of the regional housing need to each jurisdiction. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the agency responsible for determining the City of Livermore’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA).

As shown in Table 2 -44, based on ABAG’s allocation, the City should plan for 4,570 new housing units between January 31 st, 2023, and January 31 st, 2031. Approximately 28.8 percent of these units should be for very low -income households, 16.6 percent for low- income households, 15.2 percent for moderate -income households, and 39.4 percent for upper-income households. The RHNA estimate for very low -income housing need in Livermore is 1,317 housing units. Based on HCD standards, 50 percent of these should be planned for extremely low -income households. Therefore, there is a projected need for 658 units affordable to extremely low-income households and 658 units affordable to very low-income households in Livermore.

Table 2-44: Regional Housing Need Allocation by Income Group, January 20 23 to January 2031
Geography Very-Low-
Income Units
Low-Income
Units
Moderate-
Income Units
Above-
Moderate-
Income Units
Total Units
Livermore 1,317 758 696 1,799 4,570
ABAG Region 114,442 65,892 72,712 188,130 441,176
Source: ABAG, December 2021.

2.8 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Housing that receives public funding or is created through governmental policies is often a significant source of affordable housing in many communities. This section identifies the affordable housing in Livermore, evaluates the potential for conversion to market -rate within 10 years of the beginning of the Housin g Element planning period, or 2033 , and analyzes the cost to preserve the units. Resources for preservation , replacement, and construction of new units are described in Chapter 4. Housing programs to address preservation of these units are described in Chapter 5.

ATTACHMENT 1
319

2-34

INVENTORY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Livermore has produced a large supply of affordable housing through the use of federal, state, and local policies and assistance programs. The City has created both affordable homeownership opportunities as well as rental housing for families, seniors, people experiencing homelessness, and people with disabilities, through the use of in-lieu fees and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Table 2 -45 provides an inventory of affordable housing in Livermore.

ATTACHMENT 1
320

2-35
Table 2-45: Affordable Housing Inventory
Development Total
Units
Affordable Units Total
Affordable
Units
Funding Source Expiration of
Affordability Very Low Low Moderate
Ageno Apartments 171 35 35 LIHTC 2070
Arbors 162 81 81 162 Tax-Exempt Bonds 2050
Arbor Vista 80 39 41 79 HUD 2039
Dogwood House (Crane Ave) 3 3 3 CalHFA 2071
Avance 45 44 44 LIHTC 2074
Arroyo Del Valle Commons 12 11 11 HUD 2038
Bluebell Apartments 27 9 6 15 HUD; City 2025/2028
Carmen Ave. 30 29 29 LIHTC; HCD 2062
Chestnut Apartments 6 2 4 6 City; HCD 2061
Chestnut Square Senior Housing 72 72 72 LIHTC 2071
Chestnut Square Family Housing 42 42 42 LIHTC 2072
Colgate (Lily House) 6 6 6 HUD; City 2057
Corte Cava 2 2 2 HUD 2037
Vandenburg Villa (formerly Gardella
Gardens) Senior Housing 39 39 39 HUD; City 2044
Heritage Estates (Assisted living) 250 100 100 LIHTC 2058 Heritage Estates (Senior Apartments) 130 23 32 55 LIHTC 2061 Heritage Park 167 33 33 Bond 2085
Hillcrest Gardens 55 43 11 54 HUD N/A
Las Posadas 9 9 9 City; HUD 2059
Leahy Square 125 125 125 HUD N/A
ATTACHMENT 1
321

2-36
Table 2-45: Affordable Housing Inventory
Development Total
Units
Affordable Units Total
Affordable
Units
Funding Source Expiration of
Affordability Very Low Low Moderate
Marilisa Meadows 50 31 31 N/A 2027
McLeod Apartments 5 2 3 5 CalHFA 2070
Oak Street Apartments 8 2 2 N/A 2056
Outrigger Apartments 42 18 10 28 City 2034
Owl’s Landing 72 71 71 LIHTC; HUD; CalHFA 2052
Railroad Ave 6 6 6 City 2074
Stoney Creek Apartments 70 69 69 LIHTC; HCD 2070
Vineyard Village 75 75 75 HUD 2022
Totals 1,761 876 205 128 1,208
Source: California Housing Partnership Corporation, 2021 and City records, 2022 ATTACHMENT 1
322

2-41

AT-RISK HOUSING
Affordable housing options for most lower -income households are limited primarily to rental housing. Therefore, preserving the existing affordable rental housing stock is an important goal for Livermore. Most affordable rental housing units in the city were achieved through subsidy contracts and deed restrictions/affordability covenants in exchange for construction and mortgage assistance. From time to time, restricted units lose the ir affordability controls and revert to market-rate units. For instance, development projects are typically considered at -risk due to: (1) the prepayment provisions of HUD-insured mortgage loans; (2) expiration of Section 8 and Section 236 contracts; and (3) expiration of restrictions on mortgage revenue bonds. The following describes in detail these conditions.
• Prepayment of HUD loans. In the mid -1960s, the federal government provided low- interest financing or mortgage insurance to housing developers in return for guaranteeing that rents remain affordable to lower-income households. After 20 years, the owners could prepay the mortgages and lift their rent restrictions or maintain the affordability controls until their mortgages were paid. • Section 8 Program. In the mid-1970s, the federal government provided two approaches to encour aging the production of affordable rental housing. Under the Section 8 program, HUD provided a 15- or 20- year agreement to provide rental subsidies to property owners in return for making the units affordable to very -low-income households. The income is typically the difference between 30 percent of the household’s income and a negotiated fair market rent for the area. Due to expiring Section 8 contracts and uncertainty of future Section 8 funds, the future of an affordable complex receiving Section 8 funding is uncertain. • Section 236 Program. The other federal program, Section 236, provided rent subsidies in the form of interest reduction, by which multifamily housing could be produced. Two rent schedules were utilized: market rent, based on a market rate mortgage; and basic rent, based on a 1 percent mortgage. Tenants were required to pay the basic rent of 25 percent of their income, with rent payments never to exceed the market rents. Units were restricted to households that met the low- and moderate-income limits established for the program. The subsidized housing moratorium imposed by President Nixon in January 1973 brought an end to additional Section 236 construction. • Bond Financed Projects. State, county, and local governments have the authority to issue tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds to provide below market-rate financing for rental housing construction. State and federal law require that multifamily projects built with tax -exempt bond proceeds set aside a portion of units as affordable to lower - income households for a specified period of time. The typical contractual period is 10 to 15 years. After the term expires, the property owners may rent the units at market rates.
• In many communities, bond -financed projects typically convert to market rate s. Over time, rent levels increase in the community, and the difference between market versus restricted rents increases to the point that , unless additional financial benefits are offered, property owners have no incentive to maintain the units as affordable.

ATTACHMENT 1
323

2-42

AT-RISK AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS IN LIVERMORE
State law requires that the City assess the risk of losing affordable rental housing over a ten-year planning period. “At-risk” housing is defined as multifamily rental housing that is at risk of losing its status as housing affordable for low- and moderate-income tenants due to the expiration of federal, state, or local agreements. For this Housing Element, the at-risk analysis covers units in any subsidized projects at risk before 2033, or 10 years from the beginning of the 6 th Round Housing Element planning period in January of 2023.

As shown in Table 2-46, there are three at-risk housing projects within Livermore: Bluebell Drive, Bluebell Transitional, and Vineyard Village. These projects are all scheduled to expire before 2033.

Table 2-46: Projects At-Risk
Project Name Type of Units Type of Subsidy Earliest Conversion Date Units at Risk Bluebell Drive Very Low &
Moderate HUD 2028 5
Bluebell
Transitional
Very Low &
Moderate HUD 2025 10
Vineyard Village Low HUD 2022 75
Total 90
Source: City of Livermore, 2022

PRESERVATION OPTIONS
Transfer of Ownership
Aside from offering the current owner of an at -risk rental housing project modest financial incentives to maintain the property’s affordability status, a transfer of ownership of an at -risk project to a nonprofit housing provider is generally one of the le ast costly ways to ensure that the at- risk units remain affordable. By transferring property ownership to a nonprofit organization, low -income restrictions can be secured indefinitely, and the project becomes eligible for a greater range of governmental assistance. A nonprofit organization could purchase an existing multi- family complex, rather than build a new one, lowering the per -unit cost significantly. Multi-family units in Livermore (primarily condominiums and townhomes) have been selling for an avera ge of $ 730,439 from January 2021 to January 2022. Assuming an average sales price, acquisition of 90 units would equate to $65,739,510.

Purchase of Affordability Covenant
Another option to preserve the affordability of at -risk projects is to provide an incentive package to owners to maintain the projects as low -income housing. Incentives could include writing down the interest rate on the remaining loan balance in the form of a payment to the project lender and/or supplementing the fair market rent to market levels, if market rents are substantially more than the HUD -allowed fair market rent. It is difficult to estimate the cost of purchasing affordability covenants due to the number of variables in such a purchase.

ATTACHMENT 1
324

2-43
Rental Subsidy
Another way to preserve units as affordable is to provide rental assistance to existing residents.

Rental assistance to the projects could be structured in a similar fashion to Section 8. The feasibility of this alternative is highly dependent on the availability of funding sources necessary to provide the rental subsidies and the willingness of the owners to accept the subsidies if they are provided.

Table 2-47 shows the rental subsidies required to preserve at-risk units. The calculations assume that extremely low-income households would be the likeliest recipients of rental subsidies. The total cost for r ental subsidies would range from $ 1,007 to $ 1,412 per unit per month, which equates to $1,239,480 annually.

Table 2-47: Potential Rent Subsidies
Per Unit Affordable Rent + Utilities 1 Bedroom1 2 Bedroom2 3 Bedroom3 Very Low Income (50% AMI) (A) $1,199 $1,541 $1,850
Per Unit Fair Market Rent (B) $2,206 $2,565 $3,262
Monthly Per Unit Subsidy (C=B-A) $1,007 $1,024 $1,412 Annual Subsidy/Unit (C * 12) $12,087 $12,285 $16,944
Average Annual Subsidy $13,772
Total "At Risk" Units 90
Total Annual Subsidy $1,239,480

1. Assumes 1-person household paying 30 percent of household income on rent and utilities.

2. Assumes 3-person household (i.e., a small family) paying 30 percent of household income on rent and utilities.

3. Assumes 5-person household (i.e., a large family) paying 30 percent of household income on rent and utilities.

Note: Assumes an even distribution among bedroom sizes.

Construction of Replacement Units
Constructing new low -income housing units is another means of replacing at -risk units that convert to market rate. The cost of developing the new housing depends upon a variety of factors, including density, unit size, location, land costs, and type of construction. Construction costs for recent multifamily developments averaged $237 per square foot, with an average unit costing $213,931 when accounting for land cost, government fees, and other costs. Based on this average, construction of replacement units would cost approximately $ 19,253,790, assuming an average unit size of 856 square feet. The cost of constructing replacement units far exceeds the cost of the rental subsidy alternative.

Cost Comparisons
Based on the calculations, providing rental subsidies offers the least costly alternative for preserving the units while the transfer of ownership is the most costly. Both the construction of new units and the transfer of ownership to a nonprofit entity ensure long -term affordability of the units. Though rental subsidies are the least costly alternative, the subsidies do not necessarily ensure the long-term affordability of the units.

ATTACHMENT 1
325

2-44
The cost estimating scenarios find the relative preservation costs to be:
• Acquisition of at-risk units – $65,739,510
• Rent subsidy – $1,239,480 annually or $ 14,209,249 over 10 years, assuming a three percent inflation rate per year.
• Replacement through new construction – $19,253,790
Replacing or preserving the 9 0 at-risk units is costly, regardless of the method. Providing a rent subsidy program appears to be the least costly option. However, many federal and state funding programs are available for new construction of affordable housing, which may greatly reduce the cost to the City.

Resources for Preservation
The Government Code requires the City to identify local nonprofit corporations which have the “legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage” the at -risk units or the apartment complexes containing the at-risk units. The City is also required to identify the federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs that may be considered to preserve these units. These are listed in the Resources section. HCD maintains a list of qualified organizations, and there are several located in Livermore and Alameda County , including Housing Authority of the City of Livermore and Christian Church Homes of Northern California.

2.9 ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1st, 2021, must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16th, 2015.

Under California law, AFFH means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” To comply with AB 686, the City of Livermore (City) has completed the following outreach and assessment of fair housing issues. The maps and analysis included in this assessment rely on data collected from several sources, including, but not limited to, the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Opportunity Areas,
8 2010 Census, 9 2010- 2014 and 2015- 2019 American Community Survey (ACS), 10 2019 Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEHD), 11 2014-2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS),12 California Department of Education,13

8 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and Housing and Community Development Department, 2020. 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/tcac-opportunity-map-2020. 9 U.S. Census Bureau, 2020. 2010 Decennial Census. https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/. 10 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. 2010-2014 American Community Survey. https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/. 11 U.S. Census Bureau, 2019. 2015-2019 American Community Survey. https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/. 12 Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). 2021, December 20 th (accessed). “Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy cost burden data for the City of Livermore.” Huduser.gov. https://www.huduser.gov/PORTAL/datasets/cp.html
13 School Dashboard, State of California. 2019 data, City of Livermore. 2021, December 20 th (accessed). “California School Dashboard for Livermore Valley Unified School District.”caschooldashboard.org.

ATTACHMENT 1
326

2-45
California Department of Social Services, 14 CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 15 and Zillow Home Value Index.16 All data presented in the maps included in this assessment was collected through the AFFH Data Viewer mapping tool, a tool developed and approved by HCD for use in assessment of fair housing analyses as the most current and accurate data available. This approach was developed in consultation with HCD and in conjunction with efforts to develop standardized state-wide datasets for fair housing analyses.

OUTREACH
As identified in the Outreach and Public Participation section of this Housing Element, the City met with several stakeholders and community organizations throughout the update process.

These efforts included an interview with a fair housing provider serving residents of Livermore and other local Bay Area jurisdictions. During this consultation, the stakeholder expressed a need for proactive and “protective” tenant protections, such as rent control, just -cause protections, and other housing protection laws to keep more individuals housed. They also stated that the Tri -Valley area contains concentrations of low -income, non -White residents, who face harassment and discrimination without the same protection, resources, and services as those same groups in more urban communities, where there are often a range of resources and services that serve people of color and linguistically isolated populations. The fair housing provider pointed to the City of Alameda’s rent petition program as an example of a useful tool to empower tenants to advocate for themselves. They expressed a need for a tool such as this to be developed for Livermore residents.

However, stakeholders emphasized that a singular rental adjustment program is not enough to protect tenants from a hostile living environment, which can stem from circumstances beyond the landlords’ control, such as harassment from neighbors, particularly against low -income tenants or persons struggling with their mental health. In situations such as this, tenants require access to additional legal assistance to prevent displacement due to harassment or wrongful eviction. In the creation of additional tools, stakeholde rs expressed that enforcement mechanisms must also be included to ensure effectiveness and accountability. The fair housing provider recommended reviewing protections adopted by the City of Oakland, including a Just Cause ordinance for evictions, a Rent Adjustment program to manage rent increases, and Tenant Harassment ordinance. The City has identified similar programs and ordinances to be adopted to protect Livermore renters from displacement due to discriminatory actions (Program 5.1.1).

According to sta keholder feedback, residents living with one or more mental disorders (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder, mental health issues, depression, etc.) typically need more time to pay rent on time because of their mental difficulties. Therefore, stakeholders felt that it would be beneficial to provide training for housing providers to understand the effects of mental illness on paying rent on time and the value of payment plans or other options. Additionally, they felt that a variety of fiscal incentives, such as a shallow subsidy, would provide ongoing support for

14 Community Care Licensing Division, California Department of Social Services. 2021, December 2020 (accessed). “Adults Residential Facility Search.” Ccld.dss.ca.gov.
https://www.ccld.dss.ca.gov/carefacilitysearch/Search/AdultResidentialAndDaycare 15 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, State of California. 2021, October 20 th. 2021, December 12 th (accessed). “Map of CalEnviroScreen 4.0.” oehha.ca.gov. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. 16 Home Value Index, Zillow. 2021, December 20th (accessed). “Home Values.” Zillow.com. https://www.zillow.com/research/data/.

ATTACHMENT 1
327

2-46
these residents. In conjunction, supportive services (e.g., case management, in-unit care, etc.) should have more dedicated funding streams to ensure that tenants receive the resources they need to remain in their home.

Consultations identified a need for workshops on fair housing laws for residents and housing providers. The goal of these would be to inform housing providers on their rights and responsibilities under fair housing laws, and provide education on discrimination, aiming to reduce the number of instances that result in fair housing complaints in Livermore. A tenant workshop counterpart can be conducted to inform residents on their tenant rights. Lastly, fulfilling reasonable accommodation requests have been an identified issue in Livermore.

As described in Section 1.3, the City also conducted a survey in English and Spanish on housing needs and barriers in order to solicit input from community members with protected characteristics. The majority of respondents were low-income renters of color living in Livermore.

Through the survey, the City was also able to hear from people experiencing homelessness, people with disabilities, families living in or near poverty, and low wage workers employ ed in Livermore.

Housing costs were identified as the primary barrier for living in Livermore. Other barriers identified by survey respondents include:
• Economic insecurity and/or access to quality jobs
• Housing search
• Racial segregation and/or discrimination
• Credit score, income documentation, and income requirements (e.g., being required to earn three or more times the monthly rate)
• Economic segregation and/or discrimination
• Housing voucher access
• Prior records and legal status, such as not having a social security number, having a prior eviction on one’s housing record, or being formerly incarcerated • Local preference given to those who live/work in Livermore for affordable housing vacancies
Additional housing access barriers identified at the City’s Housing Solutions Open House, held at an affordable rental housing development in December 2021, include language access (particularly Spanish), housing navigation, social security number requirements, and income documentation for gig workers and entrepreneurs. The City has identified a variety of actions under Goals 3 and 5 in Section 5.2 of this Housing Element, to address the barriers raised by respondents.

INDICATORS OF FAIR HOUSING
The California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires the City to analyze racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. Since 2017, t he TCAC and HCD have developed annual maps of access to resources, such as high- paying job opportunities; proficient schools; safe and clean neighborhoods; and other healthy economic, social, and environmental indicators to provide evidence -based research for policy recommendations.

ATTACHMENT 1
328

2-47
This effort has been dubbed “opportunity mapping” and is available to all jurisdictions to assess access to opportunities within their community.

The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps can help to identify areas within the community that provide strong access to opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low access to opportunity.

The information from the opportunity maps can help to highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low -resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty and to encourage better access for lower -income households and communities of color to housing in high -resource areas. TCAC/HCD categorized census tracts into high, moderate, or low resour ce areas based on a composite score of economic, educational, and environmental factors that can perpetuate poverty and segregation, such as school proficiency, median income, and median housing prices. The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps use a regional index score to determine categorization as high, moderate, and low resource. Livermore falls within the Bay Area TCAC region, which includes all the Bay Area counties. Within the Bay Area, the top 40 percent of census tracts are either Highest or High resource and the remaining 60 percent of census tracts are evenly divided into Moderate and Low resource.

Areas designated as “highest resource” are the top 20-percent highest-scoring census tracts in the region. Residents in these census tracts are expected to have access to the best outcomes in terms of health, economic attainment, and education attainment. Census tracts designated “high resource” score in the 21st to 40th percentile compared to the region. Residents of these census tracts have access to highly positive outcomes for health, economic, and education attainment. Moderate resource areas are in the top 30 percent of the remaining census tracts in the region. Areas that are designated as “moderate resource (rapidly changing)” are those that have experienced rapid increases in key indicators of opportunity, such as increasing median income, home values, and an increase in job opportunities. Residents in these census tracts have access to either somewhat positive outcomes in terms of health, economic attainment, and education; or positive outcomes in a certain area (e.g., score high for health, education) but not all areas (e.g., may score poorly for economic attainment). Low resource areas are those that score in the bottom 30 percent of census tracts and ind icate a lack of access to positive outcomes and poor access to opportunities. The final designation are those areas identified as having “high segregation and poverty;” these are census tracts that have an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the county as a whole, and at least 30 percent of the population in these areas is below the federal poverty line ($26,500 annually for a family of four in 2021).

According to the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas map, the southwestern portion of Livermore is considered high resource, northern and central Livermore are predominantly moderate resource, and eastern Livermore, one central census tract, and the southernmost portions are low resource (see Figure 2-2). There are no areas identified as high segregation and poverty or moderate resource (rapidly changing). However, the eastern low resource area encompasses the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and industrial and commercial areas, with limited to no residential development.

ATTACHMENT 1
329

2-48
Figure 2-2: TCAC Opportunity Area Designations
ATTACHMENT 1
330

2-49
Patterns of Integration and Segregation
Income Distribution
As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment of this Housing Element, a lower -income four- person household in Livermore is any that earns less than $125,600 annually. While the median income in Livermore ranges from $60,000 to $168,542 dependi ng on the neighborhood, those areas where the median income is greater than $125,000 are concentrated outside of the core of the city. The area in the center of Livermore has a median income ranging from approximately $60,000 to $81,786 (see Figure 2- 3). The patterns of income distribution income in Livermore follow generally lower incomes in the center of the city to highest incomes along the edges, with few areas that break this pattern. Though the median income overall is higher in Pleasanton, a similar pattern exists as in Livermore, with higher median incomes outside of the city center. This contrasts with Tracy, which has a higher concentration of households with lower household median income groups than Livermore and Pleasanton. The patterns found in Livermore reflect those throughout the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) region, where household median income tends to be higher in less dense neighborhoods, such as the predominantly suburban communities along and east of Interstate 680. Western portions of the Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, including the cities of Oakland, Emeryville, and Berkeley, have higher concentrations of poverty in high -density neighborhoods than are found in suburban communities.

In 2014, there were three areas of co ncentrated poverty in Livermore: the neighborhood encompassing Big Trees Park bounded by East Avenue to the south, S. Vasco Road to the east, Charlotte Way to the north, and N. Mines Road to the east (14.0 percent), the area bounded by Portola Avenue to the south, Interstate 580 to the north, and First Street to the east (10.6 percent), and the city center between N. Murrieta Boulevard and Junction Avenue (10.7 percent). However, by 2019, the rate of poverty in each of these areas had dropped below 10 percent. Despite the decrease in poverty, the Urban Displacement Project has identified the last area as “Low -income/Susceptible to Displacement” and it has been identified by TCAC and HCD as a “low resource” area. In contrast, the area near Portola Avenue has been identified as an area experiencing “Advanced Gentrification” by the Urban Displacement Project, and by TCAC and HCD as a “moderate resource” area. Several programs to help reduce displacement risk associated with this are identified in Table 2-54 at the end of this AFH.

The Big Trees Park neighborhood contains the highest percentage of children in a female - headed household and designated by TCAC and HCD as a “moderate resource” area.

According to the UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and Association of Bay A rea Government/Metropolitan Transportation Council (ABAG/MTC)’s AFFH Segregation Report, above moderate-income residents across the San Francisco Bay Area are significantly more segregated from other income groups. This is also true in Livermore, where abo ve moderate- income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups. Above moderate-income residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups. In 2015, the income segregation in Livermore between lower- income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions. Livermore has a lower share of very low-income residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of low- income residents, a lower share of moderate - income residents, and a higher share of above moderate-income residents. Among all income groups, the very low- income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.

ATTACHMENT 1
331

2-50
ABAG/MTC found that a variety of historic practices and policies resulted in past and present patterns of segregation. For example, nationwide practices of racially restrictive covenants, redlining, and mortgage lending discrimination presented overt barriers to homeownership, and housing options in general, for people of color. Locally, land use decisions, such as prioritizing single-family development, did not target minority groups but may have established development patterns that prevented access to lower -income households. Local, state, and federal policies have, both directly and indirectly, influenced access to services, amenities, and opportunities for lower-income and non-White households.

In order to address historic discrepancies in access to opportunities lower -income households and people of color, the City will conduct racial equity impact assessments, strengthen requirements for linguistically accessible services, pursue funding to help remove economic barriers for people with protected characteristics, and work with community partners to provide accessible housing search assistance (Program 5.2.1).

ATTACHMENT 1
332

2-51
Figure 2-3: Median Income
ATTACHMENT 1
333

2-52
Racial and Ethnic Characteristics
As presented in the Housing Needs Assessment of this Housing Element, the population of the Livermore is predominantly White, Non -Hispanic, though diversity has increased in the last 10 years (see Table 2-5 in the Housing Needs Assessment). Approximately 62.0 percent of Livermore residents identified as White in 2019, a decrease from 64.7 percent in 2010.

The Black, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Hispanic or Latinx populations have remained relatively stable during this time, while the Asian or Pacific Islander population increased from 8.5 percent to 12.0 percent of the population. There are two areas in Livermore where the population does not predominantly identify as White (see Figure 2-4).

The northwest corner of the city (north of Constitution Drive and west of Collier Canyon Road) is predominantly Asian. The neighborhood containing May Nissan Community Park and Maylin Avenue Elementary School (bounded by the Altamont Corridor Express tracks to the south, N. Murrieta Boulevard to the west, Pine Street to the north, and Junction Avenue to the east), is predominantly Hispanic or Latinx.

Across the San Francisco Bay Area, White residents are significantly more segregated from other racial groups. The analysis for the AFFH Segregation Report complete d by UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC staff found that as of 2020, White residents are the most segregated compared to other racial groups in Livermore, as measured by the isolation index, meaning that White residents live in neighborhoods where the y are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups. Among all racial groups, the White population’s isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020, likely as a result of increasing diversity citywide. Further, the 2020 Alameda County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (County AI) found there are greater levels of socioeconomic integration in Alameda County jurisdictions than at the regional and national levels. The County AI used the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Dissimilarity Index (DI) to measure the division of various racial and ethnic groups across a defined geographic area. The index is broken down into three scored categories: 0 to 39, 40 to 54, and 55 to 100. A higher score indicates a higher intensity of division across racial and ethnic groups. To understand the scores for various ethnic and racial groups, the DI measured four groups: Non -White and White, Black and White, Hispanic and White, and Asian or Pacific Islander and White. Livermore scored between 8.2 and 11.8 in 1990 and between

18.9 and 31.8, in 2017, indicating that division of various racial and ethnic groups within the city has grown since 2002, though it remains lower than scores in other jurisdictions in the region. This indicates that, while there has been an increase in diversity and reduced isolation of White residents as a result, that integration has not occurred in all neighborhoods. As such, neighborhoods remain predominantly White even as diversity has increased in select areas, such as north of the railroad in the center of the city. The highest DI score for Livermore, 31.8, was the division between the Black and White population, meaning that 31.8 percent of Black residents would have to a move to a new track to increase integration. In comparison, Pleasanton’s 2018 DI score for the Black and White population was 28.6. These scores are supported by ABAG/MTC’s finding that Livermore has a higher share of White residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a lower share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents. Overall, jurisdictions in the Alameda County Consortium, which includes the urban county and entitlement cities (all cities in the county excluding Berkeley and Oakland), scored between 36.9 and 49.2 in 2017, indicating less racial and ATTACHMENT 1
334

2-53
ethnic division in Livermore than the greater region (scores 45.9 to 63.5). Similarly high racial and ethnic division was found in Oakland, which scored between 51.4 and 67.9 in 2017.

While there are concentrations of populations of color throughout Livermore, none qualify as racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs). A R/ECAP, as defined by HUD, is an area in which 50 percent or more of the population identifies as non -White and 40 percent or more of individuals are living below the poverty line. The closest R/ECAP is in Hayward and one adjacent to Hayward (San Lorenzo area). While no areas in Livermore can be categorized as a R/ECAP, in the predominantly Hispanic and Latinx population in the center of the city mentioned previously, the median income is approximately $73,000 to $119,000. Additional analysis regarding characteristics that may have resulted in this concentration of lower - and moderate-income and Hispanic/Latinx residents in this area is included throughout this assessment, including discussion of housing types, access to opportunities, and more.

In contrast to R/ECAPs, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA) have persisted due to decades of focused investment, appreciated value of real estate, and wealth generation resulting from redlining practices and racially restrictive covenants. While RCAAs have not been officially defined by HUD, for the purposes of this analysis, if the percentage of a population in a census tract that identifies as White is 1.5 times the percentage that identifies as White in ABAG as a whole, and the median income is at least

1.25 times greater than the State AMI ($90,100), or $112,625, the tract is considered a RCAA. By these criteria, most of Livermore qualifies as a RCAA, indicating possible barriers to entry for non -White and lower -income households in most neighborhoods. The areas that do not meet the criteria to be considered a RCAA include the Sunset Park neighborhood and the area north of Downtown extending northeast to the Springtown neighborhood. As stated previously, the UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff identified in the AFFH Segregation Report: Livermore found that White residents of Livermore are the most isolated. Livermore’s isolation index of 0.568 for White residents means that the average White resident lives in a neighborhood in which 56.8 percent of the population is White. To reduce barriers to housing that may result in the persistence of RCAAs in Livermore, the City has identified Program 5.1.1 to partner with fair hous ing providers to educate housing providers on fair housing laws regarding discrimination, Program 5.2.1 to provide targeted assistance for underrepresented populations, and Programs 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 to increase the supply of housing affordable to lower- and moderate-income households to increase housing mobility opportunities.

ATTACHMENT 1
335

2-54
Figure 2-4: Predominant Population
ATTACHMENT 1
336

2-55
Familial Status
According to the 2015- 2019 ACS, there is a concentration of female -headed households (without spouse or partner) near Big Trees Park in the southeast corner of the city.

Approximately 20 to 40 percent of the households in this area identify as this household type. Due to structural forces like gender wage disparities, the State of California has identified female-headed households as a population that is more likely to be vulnerable to poverty, displacement, or other negative impacts. While there is not a high rate of poverty in the Big Trees Park neighborhood, the median income is approximately $63,636, significantly lower than many other neighborhoods, and all adjacent neighborhoods, in Livermore. In this area, there is a concentration of apartments within walking distance of the Arroyo Seco Elementary School.

For comparison, there are no areas in Pleasanton with a concentration of female-headed households greater than 20 percent, while Tracy contains two areas. Across the ABAG region, there are many more jurisdictions with a higher concentration of this family type than Livermore. The concentrations of married couples with children are predominantly around the perimeter of Livermore, while the center of Livermore contains households with more mixed group family types. The cities of Tracy, Livermore, and Pleasanton all share a relatively similar concentration of largely married couples with children located around the perimeter of their respective city, where there are typically larger single -family home types that are suitable for families. Additionally, home prices are often higher in single - family neighborhoods and are unattainable for many single -income households, thus resulting in a higher rate of married couple and other dual- income households. Married couples with children is the dominant familial type in T racy, Livermore, and Pleasanton.

Across the ABAG region, more urban communities have more balanced mixes of family types while more suburban communities have higher concentrations of largely married couples with children. To ensure there is housing available to all family types, the City will encourage affordable housing in a range of sizes (Program 1.5.3).

Persons with Disabilities
As stated in the Housing Needs Assessment of this Housing Element, the 2015 -2019 ACS estimated that approximately 8.4 percent of residents in Livermore had a disability. As shown in Table 2 -23 in the Housing Needs Assessment, cognitive difficulty was the most common disability type for Livermore residents. Approximately 30 percent of Livermore senior residents (people 65 years and older) live with a disability. Disability rates and patterns have shifted since 2014, when there were two census tracts where more than 10 percent of the residents identified as living with a disability (see Figure 2 -5). However, by 2019, this concentration has decreased as a larger portion of the city now have a rate of disability greater than 10 percent. An increasing disability rate may be a result of an aging population, as the senior population in Livermore has increased from 9.8 percent of the total population in 2010 to 13.4 percent in 2019 according to the ACS. While there are several assisted living facilities and residential care facilities in Livermore, the City has included Programs 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 to facilitate this type of housing and encour age universal design in new developments, so the growing populations of seniors and persons with disabilities are able to find housing options to remain in their community.

ATTACHMENT 1
337

2-56
While the percentage of the population with a disability varies slightly throughout the city, there is one significant concentration of this population between First Street to the north, Lomitas Avenue to the south, Arroyo Road/L Street to the east, and Holmes Street to the west, where approximately 16.3 percent of the population has a disability. Milan Villa Senior Living, Tuscany Villa Senior Living, and A Home of Our Own, with a combined capacity for 61 residents, are within this census tract, supporting a concentration of seniors who are more likely than younger residents to have vision, hearing, or ambulatory difficulties. The proximity of this tract to downtown may further support the concentration of this population due to proximity to services, transit, and smaller units often preferred by senior households.

Pleasanton shares a si milar rate of disability as Livermore, while Tracy has a higher rate in the center and east side of the city. While the disability rate is slightly lower in Livermore than in the region, the patterns of concentration are similar. Typically, urban areas wit h higher population density, often along the bay and in downtown areas, have slightly higher rates of disability in both the Bay Area and the county. This trend may be due to a concentration of accessible housing, proximity to transit, and the availability of resources in these areas. Livermore largely reflects disability patterns found throughout the region with higher rates of disability in denser areas. The City has identified several programs in Table 2-54 at the end of this AFH to improve housing mobility and access to resources and services for persons with disabilities, to alleviate the concentrations of persons with disabilities identified and to address concerns about shortages of accessible housing an d services identified by stakeholders.

ATTACHMENT 1
338

2-57
Figure 2-5: Disability Rate
ATTACHMENT 1
339

2-58
Access to Opportunity
Educational Opportunities
School quality is often tied to housing, with neighborhoods with higher median incomes and home values often having access to higher performing schools than lower -income neighborhoods. Income distribution influences home values and property taxes, and therefore funding for public schools. As such, school districts with higher concentrations of lower-cost housing typically have lower standardized test scores, creating a cyclical problem of not offering these students equal educational opportunities afforded to students in affluent neighborhoods. Therefore, disparities in access to strong school opportunities serves as an indicator of fair housing and equal access to opportunities.

Livermore residents are served by a variety of schooling opportunities through the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD), Del Valle Continuation School, and Livermore Adult Education. Between these schools, there are nine elementary schools, three middle schools, three high schools, and two kindergarten through 12th grade schools in Livermore. The anticipated educational outcome, according to TCAC/HCD opportunity maps (see Figure 2 -6), is lowest in central areas of Livermore, between N. Murrieta Boulevard and Interstate 580 north of First Street, and between S. Livermore Avenue and S. Vasco Road south of First Street. The TCAC/HCD Educational Score is based on access to educational attainment on fourth grade reading and math proficiency from the 2018 - 2019 school year, high school graduation rate, and prevalence of student poverty. The highest educational outcomes are expected in areas outside of the Livermore core, where neighborhoods have higher median incomes (see Figure 2-3). For comparison, Pleasanton, in its entirety, has a much higher overall anticipated educational outcome than Livermore, which correlates with the generally higher median income found in Pleasanton. In contrast, Tracy shares a similar anticipated educational outcome as Livermore, where central and northern parts of Tracy with lower median incomes have the lowest anticipated educational outcome. Like in Livermore, areas in Tracy with higher median incomes have higher educational scores.

Each year, the California Department of Education (DOE) publishes performance metrics for each school in the state, including student assessment results for English Language Arts and Mathematics as they compare to the state on meeting grade -level standards.

Performance scores were available for the nine elementary schools, three middle schools, three high schools, and two kindergarten through 12th gr ade schools (see Table 2 -48).

Performance scores were not available for Vineyard Alternative School, Del Valle Continuation High, and Livermore Valley Adult Education; however, it is worth noting that continuation and alternative schools typically serve students who struggle with traditional school environments and present a valuable opportunity for students who may otherwise not complete high school or are seeking additional education.

ATTACHMENT 1
340

2-59
Figure 2-6: TCAC Educational Score
ATTACHMENT 1
341

2-60
Of the ranked Livermore schools, in 2019, the DOE reported that only Junction K -8 and Marylin Avenue Elementary fell below statewide grade standards in both English Language Arts and Mathematics. Approximately 5.8 and 8.0 percent of students in Junction K -8 and Marylin Avenue Elementary were chronically absent, respectively (see Table 2 -48). Moreover, approximately 63.8 percent and 78.6 percent of Junction K -8 and Marylin Avenue Elementary were considered socially disadvantaged. Both schools are in the area that is predominantly Hispanic, Latino, Latina, and Latinx according to the 2015 -2019 ACS (N. Murrieta Boulevard to the west, Pine Street to the north, Union Pacific Railroad to the south, and Junction Avenue to the east). At the block group level, the median income for the neighborhood surrounding Junction K -8 is $72,949, while the median income in the neighborhood surrounding Marylin Avenue Elementary is $119,688, indicating that school quality is not necessarily reflective of neighborhood median income in this case. All other schools in Livermore have performance scores at or higher than the State standard.

Table 2-48: School Performance Scores, 2019
School
English
Language
Arts Score
Mathematics
Score
Rate of
Chronic
Absenteeism1
Socially
Disadvantaged
Population2
Leo R. Croce Elementary +3.4 +7 5.4% 25.5%
Junction K-8 -11.8 -54.6 5.8% 63.8%
East Avenue Middle +18 -24.3 0% 30.8%
Sunset Elementary +66.4 +40.5 3.4% 6.7%
Marylin Avenue Elementary -25.2 -17.8 8% 78.6%
Rancho Las Positas Elementary +12.3 +3.9 4.8% 24%
Granada High +41 +16.7 n/a 21.5%
Livermore High +24 -36.9 n/a 26%
Jackson Avenue Elementary +19.6 +5.5 5.1% 39.7%
Andrew N. Christensen Middle +41.2 -2.6 - 19.7%
Altamont Creek Elementary +38 +16 2.3% 17.4%
William Mendenhall Middle +52.5 +26 3.5% 9%
Arroyo Seco Elementary +16.6 +5.1 4.1% 24%
Emma C. Smith Elementary +47.9 +42.5 2.2% 7.6%
Joe Michell K-8 +23.9 -10.7 3% 20.1%
Lawrence Elementary +21.6 +21.3 5.4% 13.4%
Source: California Department of Education, 2019
1 The percentage of students who are absent 10 percent or more of the instructional days they were enrolled.

Applies to elementary and middle schools.
2 Percentage of students who are eligible for free or reduced priced meals; or have parents/guardians who did not receive a high school diploma.

In the 2019 school year, approximately 25.7 percent of Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) s tudents qualified as socially disadvantaged, measured by the number of students who are eligible for free or reduced- priced meals or have parents or guardians who did not receive a high school diploma. Approximately 10.6 percent of students were English ATTACHMENT 1
342

2-61
learners, measured by students who are learning to communicate effectively in English, which usually requires instruction in the English language in addition to the typical course load, and approximately 0.1 percent of LVJUSD students are in foster care. Add itionally, approximately

54.4 percent of the class of 2019 were ranked by the DOE as “prepared” for college or career.

In comparison, in the neighboring Tracy Joint Unified School District (TJUSD), the percent of the student population that is considered socially disadvantaged more doubles, more than a quarter of students are English learners, and the college preparedness rate is significantly lower (see Table 2-49). While to the west, in the Pleasanton Unified School District, the rates of all of these demographic characteristics are significantly lower than in LVJUSD and the college preparedness rate significantly higher.

Table 2-49: School District Demographic Characteristics School District
Socially
Disadvantaged
Population1
English
Learners
Foster
Youth
College
Preparedness
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School
District 25.7% 10.6% 0.1% 54.4%
Tracy Joint Unified School District 57.8% 26.9% 0.4% 34.7% Pleasanton Unified School District 9.1% 11.4% 0.1% 76.2% Source: California Department of Education, 2019
1 Percentage of students who are eligible for free or reduced priced meals; or have parents/guardians who did not receive a high school diploma.

While most schools in Livermore offer strong educational opportunities for students, residents of areas that are predominantly non-White have disproportionately limited access to high-quality schools. Addressing housing instability for families with children living in substandard housing or poverty, paired with encouraging integration of affordable housing in high opportunities, may improve educational opportunities for all students. However, most Livermore schools are an excellent starting point since most schools have high ratings according to Table 2 -48. The Housing Element includes a set of housing programs to increase housing opportunity for extremely low-income households, including Program 3.4.2 to expand Section 8 voucher usage throughout the city and encourage affordable housing in high resource areas and near high - performing schools.

Transit Mobility
Livermore residents are served by the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Train and the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (aka Tri -Valley Wheels). The ACE Train has two Livermore stations, one located Downtown and the other on Vasco Road, and connects Livermore residents with areas as far northeast as Stockton and southwest as San Jose. The Downtown Ace station also serves as the location of the Livermore Transit Center, which connects to the Tri-Valley Wheels bus system. Tri-Valley Wheels connects residents across Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and unincorporated areas in Alameda County via a fixed -route bus service. Tri-Valley Wheels operates three routes within Livermore: Route 11 (suspended due to low ridership), Route 14, and Route 15. The express route (30R) was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic but is now back in service.

ATTACHMENT 1
343

2-62
Northwest of the railroad, between N. Murrieta Boulevard, Pine Street, and Junction Avenue, there is a concentration of non -White and lower -income households, The location of the Livermore Transit Center in disadvantaged communities improves transit access for these residents to connect them to opportunities both within and outside of the city. Discounted ACE Train fares are available to qualifying passengers living with disabilities, Medicare cardholders, seniors (aged 65+), and children ages 6 to 12. Additionally, the ACE Train also has a Community Assistance Program (CAP) to assist lower -income households with fare reductions based on distance traveled. Typically, fares are a flat cost for travel. In December 2021, Tri-Valley Wheels fares ranged from $1 to $2 based on the use of cash, Clipper card, and if the rider identified as a regular rider, youth ($1.60 to $2), senior ($1), living with a disability ($1), or as a Medicare cardholder ($1). Tri -Valley Wheels riders also have access to senior and disabled discounted monthly passes. The Go Tri-Valley rideshare program operated by Tri-Valley Wheels pays for half of an Uber of Lyft ride fare (up to $5) for trips starting and ending within the city limits of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, including rides between cities. This program encourages residents to travel in groups, reducing the number of vehicle trips in each city and cars on the road.

According to AllTransit, a transportation database of over 902 transit agencies created by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, Livermore received a transit score of 4.3 out of 10. This score is a result of a “low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling few people to take transit to work.” Comparatively, Pleasanton scored 4.9 and Tracy scored

3.3 for the same metric, both earning the same description as Livermore. Transit scores in the Bay Area are typically highest in dense, urban areas served by a wide range of public transportation options. In contrast, more suburban communities, suc h as Livermore, have significantly lower transit scores where there are fewer options available to residents, presenting a barrier to households that may want to live in Livermore but rely on public transit to access employment and services.

Employment Opportunities
The transportation options available to Livermore residents significantly affect access to employment opportunities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer - Household Dynamics (LEHD) measurement, in 2019, 26.9 percent of L ivermore residents lived less than 10 miles from their place of employment, 30.8 percent lived within 10 to 24 miles of their job, 26.1 percent were 20 to 50 miles from their job, and 16.3 percent were further than 50 miles from their job. While there are several employment opportunities in the city, Livermore’s position in the Bay Area facilitates access to other jobs and industries in other nearby cities.

LEHD data indicate that 39 percent of Livermore residents work in Alameda County, 16 percent work in San Joaquin County, 13.2 percent work in Contra Costa County, and 6 percent in Santa Clara County. Those that commute the furthest are largely commuting north to Napa, Petaluma, and Santa Rosa, and southeast to Turlock and Merced.

LEHD data also indicate that 20.4 percent of Livermore workers also live there. Other locations from which Livermore workers commute are the cities of Tracy (5.7 percent of Livermore workers), San Jose (3.6 percent), and Pleasanton (3.5 percent). Approximately 50 percent of Livermore workers commute from locations outside of the city that were not identified by the LEHD.

As shown in Figure 2 -7, LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data indicate that there is a greater concentration of jobs in Livermore than in nearby jurisdictions of Pleasanton, Dublin, and San Ramon. The high concentration of jobs in Livermore may be due ATTACHMENT 1
344

2-63
to the presence of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and the largest distribution center in the Tri-Valley area. However, job access across Livermore is not evenly distributed. The southwest corner of the city is identified as having the furthest proximity to jobs, according to HUD. This area is almost entirely residential and backs up to open space and vineyards, with few job opportunities. Residents of this portion of the city may have to commute north to job centers in Livermore or nearby communities.

Figure 2-7: Concentration of Jobs by Jurisdiction

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019
According to the Department of Finance E-5 estimates and Table 2-50, Livermore’s jobs-housing ratio has increased from 2002 to 2018. A jobs- housing ratio measures the number of jobs available compared to number of occupied housing units. A 1.0 ratio indicates that there is one job for every housing unit. In 2002, Livermore had a jobs- housing ratio of 1.56, while the county and Bay Area had ratios of 1.30 and 1.28, respectively. By 2018, the ratios had increased to 1.71, 1.43, and 1.47 for Livermore, the County, and the Bay Area, respectively, indicating that each of these have more jobs available than housing units. This high jobs -housing ratio may suggest that there is a shortage of housing in Livermore for workers that commute there. To address the imbalance, the City has included several programs in this Housing Element to ATTACHMENT 1
345

2-64
facilitate, incentivize, and support housing development so Livermore workers will have housing options to reside within the city.

Table 2-50: Jobs-Housing Ratio
Year Livermore Alameda County Bay Area
2002 1.56 1.30 1.28
2010 1.42 1.20 1.21
2018 1.71 1.43 1.47
Source: ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

In addition, according to Table 2-51, Livermore’s unemployment rate has historically been lower than the rates in Alameda County and the Bay Area. In January 2010, the unemployment rate was 8.1 percent, while Alameda County was 11.6 percent, and the Bay Area was 11.1 percent.

In 2014, the unemployment rate had dropped to 4.5 percent in Livermore, remaining lower than Alameda County (6.6 percent) and the Bay Area (6.1 percent). This finding follows the trend shown in Table 2-51, which indicates that Livermore r esidents may have better access to jobs, or access to more secure jobs, than in the overall county and Bay Area.

Table 2-51: Unemployment Rate
Date Livermore Alameda County Bay Area
January 2010 8.1% 11.6% 11.1%
January 2014 4.5% 6.6% 6.1%
January 2021 5.9% 7.2% 6.6%
Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS); ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

Services for Persons with Disabilities
Livermore residents are served by Dial-A Ride Paratransit, a transportation service operated by the Livermore Transit Authority to provide door-to door transit for persons with disabilities. Drivers can provide assistance from the front door of origin or destination to the vehicle. This service is available whenever fixed -route service is operating and is also available to residents of other jurisdictions in the region, including Pleasanton, Dublin, and unincorporated communities in the county. The fare is $3.75 each way and the service is reservation based – reservations must be made at least the day before the trip and can be made up to seven days prior to the trip.

Additionally, the Livermore Transit Authority also provides a Wheels Para -Taxi Program. The program offers a flexible same -day transportation option for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-certified riders. Unlike traditional Paratransit services that are ride -share vehicles and operate on a schedule, the Wheels Para-Taxi service operates by allowing riders to use any taxi service, including Lyft, Uber, or regular taxis, then submit a reimbursement form on the Wheels website for the cost of the ride. According to the Livermore Transit Authority, the final cost to the rider after the reimbursement is often less than a Dial -A-Ride ticket. These two services provide the ability for persons living with disabilities to travel independently to, from, and around the Livermore area at reduced costs.

ATTACHMENT 1
346

2-65
There are several licensed assisted living facilities available to persons living with disabilities in Livermore. In total, there are 459 beds available across 31 facilities, with the largest being The Watermark at Rosewood Gardens, with capacity for 115 residents. These facilities are largely near the downtown area in higher -density neighborhoods. Most facilities are in the two areas of concentrated disability south of First Street, therefore explaining the higher rates of disabilities in these tracts compared to other areas of the city. In addition to the assisted living facilities, there are seven adult residential care facilities with a combined capacity for 38 occupants.

These residential homes are for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who also have medical, behavioral, or age-related support needs.

The City also requires new developments to comply with Title 24 of the 2019 California Building Code to ensure that all new construction meets accessible design standards, thus ensuring that all new housing is accessible for all residents regardless of disability. Additionally, the City ensures that older housing that may not meet the same accessibility requirements can be adapted as needed through its Reasonable Accommodation process, discussed in the Governmental Constraints section of this Housing Element, and by seeking funding to assist with modifications (Program 5.1.2).

Environmental Health
A disadvantaged community or environmental justice community (EJ Community) is identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Ca l EPA) as an “area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation,” and may or may not have a concentration of low -income households, high unemployment rates, low homeownership rates, overpayment for housing, or other indicators of disproportionate housing need. In February 2021, the California Office for Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (COEHHA) released the fourth version of CalEnviroScreen, a tool that uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators to map and compare communities’ environmental scores. In the CalEnviroScreen tool, communities that have a cumulative score in the 75th percentile or above are those that have been designated as disadvantaged communities under Senate Bill (SB) 535. The cumulative score for each census tract includes an exposure score, with a low score being a positive outcome, for each of the following:
• Ozone concentrations
• PM

2.5 concentrations
• Diesel particulate matter emissions
• Drinking water contaminants
• Children’s lead risk from housing for children
• Use of certain high-hazard, high-volatility pesticides • Toxic releases from facilities
• Traffic impacts
ATTACHMENT 1
347

2-66
Communities that are identified as disadvantaged communities based on their cumulative pollution exposure score are targeted for investment through the State cap- and-trade program. However, the condition of these communities poses fair housing concerns due to disproportionate exposure to unhealthy living conditions. As shown in Figure 2 -8, there are no areas within Livermore that qualify as an EJ Community. Despite this, there are notable patterns of varying environmental conditions. For example, the highest -scoring census tract, scoring in the 39th percentile, had a predominantly Hispanic and Latinx population in 2019. This tract, shown in Figure 2-8, is in the center of the city north of First Street, where there is a concentration of high -density and intensity residential and commercial uses. The pollution burden in this neighborhood was in the 49th percentile and the population characteristic score was in the 33rd percentile, suggesting that the environmental score is more likely a result of pollution. A lower population characteristic score, similar to an exposure score, indicates a more positive outcome. This score measures biological traits that reflect health status or community characteristics:
• Asthma concentration
• Cardiovascular disease
• Low birth weight infants
• Educational attainment levels
• Housing burden cost
• Linguistic isolation concentration
• Poverty levels
• Unemployment rate
While still a lower score than found in other communities in the region, outside of Livermore, there are three pollution burden indicators that individually scored above the 75th percentile in this neighborhood: lead from housing, groundwater threats, and hazardous waste. The high lead score may be caused by the older housing stock that is concentrated in this area. Lead - based paint was used in the construction of residential homes prior to 1978. Many of the homes in this area may have been constructed before then, which may contribute to the high indicator score.
17 The high scores of the other indicators may be caused by infrastructure issues or runoff from current or adjacent uses.

17 Properties, Avr. 2017, March 22nd (posted). 2017, April 11th (updated). 2021, December 22nd (accessed). “What If My Livermore Rental Prope rty has Lead- Based Paint?” Property Management Education. Avrhomes.com. https://avrhomes.com/what-if-my -livermore-rental-property-has-lead-based-paint-property-management- education.

ATTACHMENT 1
348

2-67
Figure 2-8: Environmental Health Scores
ATTACHMENT 1
349

2-68
In Pleasanton, there are no EJ Communities. However, neighborhoods west of Sunol Boulevard and Del Valle Parkway have higher cumulative scores than the census tracts east of Sunol Boulevard. The area containing the Stoneridge Shopping Center also has a higher cumulative percentile score than most areas in Pleasanton. While these are high-income, predominantly White areas, each has high proximity to non-residential uses, which may increase pollution from vehicular traffic. In contrast to Livermore and Pleasanton, Tracy contains two disadvantaged communities, which are both on the east side of the city (east of S. Mac Arthur Drive). Of the three jurisdictions, Tracy contains the highest concentration of disadvantaged communities, which correlates with lower median incomes.

The distribution and locations of EJ Communities across Livermore, the Bay Area, and the nation are likely caused by numerous factors, including historical planning decisions, such as freeway construction that disrupted or harmed certain communities and redlining practices that resulted in disproportionate mortgage lending across the nation. In Livermore, the areas with the highest rate of environmental pollution and poverty are adjacent to major thoroughfares, including Interstate 580, and concentrated commercial uses, such as along First Street. While cities commonly have the highest-density and intensity of uses in their core, this aligns with areas of the greatest number of potential fair housing issues in Livermore. To address any discrepancies in access to healthy living conditions, the City will pursue funding to acquire land and/or facilitate development of urban parks on infill sites, particularly in low -resource areas and affordable housing developments, to promote place -based revitalization through air pollution mitigation and improved access to outdoor recreational opportunities (Program

4.2.1).

Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement Risk
Overcrowding
As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment, the U.S. Census Bureau defines an overcrowded household as a unit that is occupied by more than one person per room. A small percentage of overcrowded units is not uncommon, and often includes families with children who share rooms or multi-generational households. However, high rates of overcrowding may indicate a fair housing issue resulting from situations such as two families or households occupying one unit to reduce housing costs (sometimes referred to as “doubling up”). Situations such as these may indicate a shortage of appropriately sized and affordable housing units.

Three census tracts in Livermore have a household overcrowding rate greater than 8.2 percent, the statewide average (Figure 2 -9). Approximately 12.1 percent of households in a neighborhood in northern Livermore (bounded by N. Murrieta Boulevard to west, Portola Avenue to north and east, and the Union Pacific Railroad to south) are experiencing overcrowding. This concentration of overcrowding aligns with areas that are low -resourced according to TCAC/HCD, pollution burdened according to CalEnviroScreen, and have a disproportionate high rate of poverty, indicating possibly disproportionate housing burden and a need for more affordable large units in these areas, in addition to other areas, to affirmatively further fair housing. These neighborhoods are also predominately Hispanic and Latinx, so interventions should be linguistically accessible and culturally relevant. In the neighborhood surrounding Big Tree Park, 10.7 percent of households are overcrowded. As discussed previously, this neighborhood also has the highest rate of female -headed households and a concentration of higher-density housing, which may indicate that female-headed households with children are living in apartments or other smaller units due to housing costs or proximity to ATTACHMENT 1
350

2-69
schools, resulting in overcrowding. This census tract is bounded by N. Mines Road to the west, Charlotte Way to the north, S. Vasco Road to the east, and East Avenue to the south. While there are no concentrations of severe overcrowding in Livermore, the available data are not complete for the entirety of the city. In comparison, Tracy has a high concentration of overcrowded households in four census tracts between W. 11th Street to the south, N. Corral Hollow Road to the west, W. Clover Road and Lavelle Smith Drive to the north, and Holly Drive to the east. The percentage of overcrowded households within these four census tracts range from 9.4 to 18.5 percent. While there are no areas of concentrated overcrowding in Pleasanton, there is one area of concentrated severe overcrowding at 7.4 percent of households .

This concentration of overcrowding, similar to Livermore, aligns with areas that are Low - Income/Susceptible to Displacement according to the Urban Displacement project and contain vulnerable populations facing pollution burden according to CalEnviroScreen. The majority of residents in these neighborhoods are Hispanic and Latinx. In the ABAG region, overcrowding primarily occurs in dense, urban communities adjacent to the bay, while suburban communities have lower rates of overcrowding. Overcrowding and severe overcrowding may not be an issue for most Livermore residents; however, overcrowding increases displacement risk for those experiencing it. To address overcrowding, the City will provide regulatory waivers for developers that include affordable units for large families with three or more bedrooms in areas of concentrated overcrowding and near high -performing schools (Program 1.5.3).

ATTACHMENT 1
351

2-70
Figure 2-9: Rate of Overcrowded Households
ATTACHMENT 1
352

2-71
Overpayment or Cost Burden
A household is considered to be overpaying for housing (or cost burdened) when it spends more than 30 percent of its gross income on housing. Severe cost burden occurs when a household pays more than 50 percent of its income on housing. Approximately 31.0 percent of Livermore residents, 37.1 percent of Alameda County residents, and 36.1 percent of Bay Area residents are overpaying for housing. While both renters and homeowners face cost burden, it is a more significant problem among renters.

In 2014, renter overpayment in Livermore was concentrated in the Robertson Park neighborhood, where approximately 67 percent of renters paid more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing, and the southern portion of Livermore, where approximately 69 percent of renters were overpaying for housing. The lowest rate of overpayment, at 18.5 percent, occurred in northern Livermore near the Livermore Municipal Airport and Las Positas Golf Course. The highest rates of overpayment among homeowner s in 2014 occurred east of Downtown Livermore, predominantly between S. Livermore Avenue and S. Vasco Road, where

41.6 to 48.5 percent of homeowners have housing that costs 30 percent or more of their household income.

In 2019, the highest rate of renter overpayment was north of Interstate 580, at 62.6 percent of renters, though renter overpayment remains present throughout the city (Figure 2 -10). The lowest rate of renter overpayment is in areas predominantly south of Alden Lane and Lomitas Avenue. There i s significantly lower homeowner overpayment than in 2014, with only one remaining concentration in the Wagner Farm neighborhood (East Avenue to the south, N.

Mines Road to the west, and Charlotte Way to the north, S. Vasco Road to the east), where approximately 43.5 percent of homeowners overpay for their home (Figure 2-11).

ATTACHMENT 1
353

2-72
Figure 2-10: Percent of Cost Burdened Renter Households, 2019 ATTACHMENT 1
354

2-73
Figure 2-11: Percent of Cost Burdened Owner Households, 2019 ATTACHMENT 1
355

2-74
As shown in Table 2-52, in 2019, approximately 32.8 percent of Black Livermore renters are cost burdened; however, only 1.8 percent of Livermore residents i dentify as Black or African American. This reflects other racial disproportionalities such as wage and occupational disparities and may indicate that this population of renters is disproportionately experiencing overpayment. In addition, 100 percent (or 10 individuals) of American Indian or Alaskan Native renters are cost burdened. For reference, only 0.3 percent of Livermore residents identify as American Indian and Alaska Native. Along with Black or African American Livermore residents, Livermore American Indian and Alaska Native are disproportionately overpaying for housing.

Additionally, the majority of Pacific Islander and Multiracial renters are experiencing cost burden at disproportionally higher rates than other races.

Among homeowners, approximately 17.7 percent of Black or African American residents are severely overpaying, demonstrating a similar trend as seen among renters. Asian, American Indian, or Alaska Native homeowners experience the highest rate of cost burden, though significantly lower rates of severe cost burden. Non -White homeowners in Livermore generally experience higher rates of overpayment than White homeowners, which reflects regional and national racial disproportionalities and are caused by past and present forms of housing discrimination, occupational segregation, and barriers to accessing affordable housing options.

ATTACHMENT 1
356

2-75
Table 2-52: Percentage of Cost Burden Residents by Tenure, Race, and Ethnicity Tenure and Race
Cost Burden
Not Available
Total ≤ 30% 30% to 50% > 50%
Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share
Owners
White, alone 13,220 77.6% 2,300 13.5% 1,430 8.4% 90 0.5% 17,040 Black or African American, alone 240 77.4% 10 3.2% 55 17.7% 0 0.0% 310 Asian, alone 1610 69.0% 525 22.5% 190 8.1% 10 0.4% 2,335 American Indian or Alaska Native, alone 15 75.0% 4 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 20 Pacific Islander, alone 25 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 25 Other, multiple 455 72.8% 110 17.6% 60 9.6% 0 0.0% 625
Hispanic 1,600 72.4% 405 18.3% 185 8.4% 20 0.9% 2,210
Renters
White, alone 2,805 52.2% 1,365 25.4% 1,170 21.8% 30 0.6% 5,375 Black or African American, alone 165 54.1% 100 32.8% 45 14.8% 0 0.0% 305 Asian, alone 420 56.0% 145 19.3% 170 22.7% 15 2.0% 750
American Indian or Alaska Native, alone 0 0.0% 10 100.0% 4 40.0% 0 0.0% 10 Pacific Islander, alone 15 33.3% 10 22.2% 20 44.4% 0 0.0% 45 Other, multiple 40 23.5% 40 23.5% 80 47.1% 10 5.9% 170
Hispanic 1,225 53.0% 590 25.5% 450 19.5% 40 1.7% 2,310
Source: CHAS, 2014-2018.

ATTACHMENT 1
357

2-76
Substandard Housing
Housing condition presents another issue that may increase displacement risk for residents due to safety and exposure concerns. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, approximately 65 percent of units in the city are older than 30 years, indicating that the housing stock in Livermore is relatively new. However, for those units older than 30 years, it is not uncommon to need at least minor repairs. According to Section 2.5, Housing in Need of Repair/Replacement of the Housing Needs Assessment, approximately 100 residential units are estimated to need either rehabilitation or replacement. To ensure that all residents are able to maintain their homes regardless of income, the City will seek funding to provide housing rehabilitation funding to lower -income residents to reduce displacement risk due to housing conditions (Programs 4.1.3).

Homelessness
In 2019 and 2022, EveryOne Home conducted the Point in Time (PIT) count for Alameda County to assess the extent of homelessness in the county. While the data from the 2022 count has not been released at the time of this report, based on EveryOne Home’s findings from the 2019 count, at least 264 (or 3.2 percent of the total county) Livermore community members experienced homelessness. Of these, 179 were unsheltered at the tim e of the count. This overall number has grown since the 2017 PIT count, when Livermore had a total of 243 (4.3 percent of the total county) homeless community members; 141 of whom were unsheltered at the time of the 2017 PIT count. This finding indicates that from 2017 to 2019, the gap of unsheltered and sheltered unhoused Livermore community members has increased, which may be due to rising home costs that increase displacement risk.

However, the number of unsheltered homeless persons in Livermore compared to the city’s population was proportionally lower than other communities in the county. EveryOne Home also conducted a survey to 1,681 unsheltered and sheltered homeless individuals in the county and found the following statistics at the county-level 1819
• 63 percent of homeless people have been homeless for more than one year. • The topmost cited reason for becoming homeless is loss of a job, followed by mental health issues, then substance abuse issues.
• 78 percent of homeless residents resided in a home in the county before becoming homeless; 57 percent of homeless residents have been in Alameda County for more than 10 years.
• 95 percent of families are sheltered, and 84 percent of single adults are unsheltered.
• Blacks/African Americans, American Indians, and Alaska Natives were overrepresented when compared to Alameda County’s population.

19 Alameda, County of. 2020, January. “County of Alameda Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.” (pp. V -104 and V -105). Acgov.org.
https://www.acgov.org/cda/hcd/documents/FinalAI_Combined_1-10-19.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 1
358

2-77
• A bout 61 percent of the countywide homeless population was male and 35 percent was female. The remaining 4 percent identified as either transgendered or gender nonbinary.
• Alameda County had 168 homeless people aged 61 or older (14 percent of the total).

About 73 percent were between the ages 25 and 59, implying that the percentage of homeless people aged 61 and older could grow as the population ages.

• 46 percent of the homeless population in Alameda County had a disabling condition, which is defined by HUD as developmental disability, HIV/AIDS, or long-term physical or mental impairment that impacts a person’s ability to live independently, but could be improved with stable housing.

Reports gathered at community engagement meetings held by EveryOne Home suggest that the county’s PIT may have undercounted by up to 40 percent due to a variety of factors, such as the challenge of identifying unhoused individuals that live in vehicles or within non-residential buildings/structures or those that are temporarily staying in a person’s home. Persons experiencing homelessness, or those at risk of becoming homeless, are typically extremely low -income and are often displaced from housing due to inability to pay or other issues.

Five housing projects and three programs have been recently completed or are underway in Livermore to support the unhoused population. The five housing projects are:
• Chestnut Square Senior. A 72- unit affordable studio and 1 -bedroom apartments complex that opened in September 2019 as part of a two -phase project with Chestnut Family Square (below). Five affordable housing units are set aside for previously unhoused senior residents.
• Chestnut Square Family. Built in 2021, this project includes 42 affordable rental apartments. Supportive services are provided for 10 of the 42 units at Chestnut Family Square that are set aside for formerly homeless households. • Goodness Village. 28 tiny homes constr ucted in 2021. This development also provides services and resources to the local Livermore community experiencing homelessness.
• Vineyard 2.0. 24 units of affordable, accessible studios, 1 -bedroom units, and one 2-bedroom unit. This development will inclu de a 10,000-square-foot kitchen to be operated by Open Heart Kitchen, serving hot meals for Livermore’s homeless and low-income neighbors. Additionally, this development also includes a Homeless Resource Center, which provides showers, laundry machines, a health clinic, mailboxes, mental health services, and case management, and is a five -minute walk from downtown Livermore.
• Pacific Avenue Senior Apartments. A 140- unit affordable rental housing project, currently in the development phase, will include both one- and two-bedroom units for seniors. A limited number of units will be dedicated for seniors experiencing homelessness.

ATTACHMENT 1
359

2-78
• Downtown Apartments. This development will provide 130 new affordable homes to low-income families in Livermore. A limited number of the units will be set aside for previously unhoused community members to meet County funding requirements.

Examples of City programs for people experiencing homelessness include City Serve, biohazard cleanup, and laundry and shower services. City Serv e is a Tri -Valley program that provides crisis stabilization services for unsheltered neighbors living in Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. In partnership with Block by Block, the City provides biohazard cleanup services throughout the city, including cleanup of backpacks, sleeping bags, bags with items inside, urine/fecal matter, and needle/drug paraphernalia that may not be safe for individuals to handle. The Asbury Methodist Church offers laundry and shower services to unhoused community members three d ays per week. More information on supportive services for the unhoused community can be found on the City’s website. The City has included Programs 1.5.3 and 6.1.2 to address homelessness in Livermore.

Displacement Risk
The annual rate of increase in average home value or rental prices compared with annual changes in the average income in the city indicates an increased risk of displacement due to housing costs outpacing wage increases, a trend that is felt throughout the region, state, and nation. According to the Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), a seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type, from 2010 to 2020, Livermore home values have nearly doubled from $432,664 to $865,106. Bay Area and Alameda County home values have increased even more rapidly. During this period, the average annual change in home values in Livermore, Alameda County, and the Bay Area was 5.0, 5.6, and 5.2 percent, respectively. Peak periods of change for the city includes 2003-2005, 2006-2008, and 2011-2013.

While housing costs have increased rapidly, wages have not kept pace. The average income in Livermore has increased approximately 3.5 percent annually, from $93,988 in 2010 to $127,452 in 2019, according to the ACS. The increasing gap between household median income and average housing cost over the last decade indicates growing unaffordability of home ownership in Livermore. To address affordability challenges, Livermore included several programs to connect lower -income residents with affordable housing rental and ownership opportunities and will incentivize construction of affordable units (see Table 2-54).

Livermore’s annual percentage change for median contract rent was similar to the change in home values. Across a period of 10 years, from 2009 to 2019, median rent increased from $1,172 to $1,902, resulting in a 6.2- percent average annual increase each year. As with homeownership units, income has not kept pace with housing cost for rental units in Livermore. The Bay Area’s median rent increased from $1,196 to $1,849 (5.5 percent annual increase), while Alameda County’s median rent increased from $1,083 to $1,692 (5.6 percent) during this period. This indicates that rents and median household income have grown at disproportionate rates across the city and region.

According to the Urban Displacement Project, the census tract north of Downtown Livermore is designated “low -income/susceptible to displacement.” As discussed throughout this assessment, the area, which includes the Rincon neighborhood, includes the area bounded by N. Murrieta Boulevard to the west, Portola Avenue to the north and ATTACHMENT 1
360

2-79
east, and the Union Pacific Railroad to the south that is predominantly Hispanic and Latinx, has a lower median income than most other areas of the city, and is subject to pollution burden. The area to the east, bounded to the southwest by Junction and Portola avenues, to the southeast by First Street, and to the north by I -580, is designated as an area of “advanced gentrification, ” meaning this area has seen rapid increases in housing costs and rising median income in the last decade. South of First Street, there are neighborhoods considered “at risk of becoming exclusive,” which the Urban Displacement Project defines as areas wher e incomes and housing prices are similar to those areas experiencing gentrification, though with housing cost increases rising at a more marginal rate. If this pattern continues in Livermore, housing in these neighborhoods will become increasingly inaccessible for lower - and moderate -income households. The remainder of the city is predominantly considered “stable moderate/mixed income,” meaning this area has not seen significant changes in socioeconomic conditions in recent years. Livermore is one of the on ly suburban Bay Area communities along the Interstate 580 corridor that is not already “stable/advanced exclusive.” However, the designations listed above indicate that much of Livermore is moving in that direction.

Other Relevant Factors
History of Development Trends
Beginning in the mid -1950s, Livermore evolved from a small agricultural town into a bedroom community for the region. By the 1980s, Livermore expanded additional industries, including commercial, light industrial, warehouse, and office develo pment, adding to its residential base. The continued population growth in the Bay Area has maintained consistent demand for housing in Livermore, spurring more residential development.

According to the 2015- 2019 ACS, the greatest period of residential grow th in Livermore occurred between 1960 and 1979, during which, 39 percent of the city’s current occupied housing stock was constructed – 38 percent of the current owner- occupied units and 43 percent of current renter-occupied units. The second-largest period of growth occurred in the following two decades, between 1980 and 1999, resulting in an addition of 29 percent of the city’s housing stock, for a total of 68 percent between 1960 and 1999. Less than 20 percent of the housing stock has been built since 2000, indicating a rapid decline in residential growth in Livermore in recent years. However, approximately 5,300 units built since 2000 have been constructed in the limited remaining vacant residential land. In an effort to manage recent growth, the City im plemented growth-management policies to ensure high -quality residential design and adequate provision of infrastructure, public facilities, and services. Though discontinued in 2019, the Housing Implementation Program (HIP) guided the allocation of housing units over a three -year period during the previous planning cycle. The HIP scored residential developments of five or more units using criteria (e.g., provision of very low- or low-income housing, use of universal design features, and other considerations) that were used as part of the approval process of developmental projects. A higher score indicated a more competitive project usually with more community benefits. Since there was a cap on how many units could be built in a year, the HIP was a competitiv e process to direct growth with as much community benefit as possible. Through the HIP Program, the City encouraged infill development, mixed -use projects, and lot consolidation for larger projects and influenced the production of affordable housing by geographic area and unit type. Upon review of the 2014 -2016 and ATTACHMENT 1
361

2-80
2017-2019 HIP cycles, the City confirmed that the program managed growth but did not limit or constrain residential development. While no longer used, the lasting effects of the HIP include a mor e balanced development pattern to promote infill, unit variety, and housing development where need is greatest.

Investment Patterns
Public and private investment typically includes construction, maintenance, and improvements to public facilities, including infrastructure; acquisition of land; and major equipment. Historically, investment in Livermore has been prioritized based on need, which has prevented disinvestment in any particular area of the city. Projects identified for public investment are considered based on the following factors:
• Consistency with the General Plan
• Consistency with City Council-adopted master plans
• Consistency with other formal long-range plans adopted by City Council • Recommendations of the Council and Commissions
• Input from residents and business owners
• Consistency with the City’s Consolidated Plan for federal funds like Community Development Block grants
• Supporting neighborhoods with the highest need
• State, federal, or other legal mandates
• Potential impact to the operating budget
• Benefit to the community
• The need to mitigate health or safety issues
Priority is based on projects that will result in the greatest community benefit, mitigate existing issues, and address public demand and need, therefore, ensuring that projects occur throughout the city. Recent target areas for investment include, but are not limited to:
• Downtown Revitalization Projects. These include projects that will enhance downtown economically and aesthetically through transportation projects, land acquisition, and renovation of existing structures to facilitate place -based revitalization and improve access to resources, services, and amenities in this area of the city.
• Infrastructure Rehabilitation. Historically, infrastructure maintenance has been underfunded and, though public infrastructure remains operational, it does require additional investment. Therefore, the City has begun setting aside general fund monies for rehabilitation and replacement in areas of greatest need, identified in a conditions assessm ent that resulted in a risk- based approach to prioritizing rehabilitation need.

ATTACHMENT 1
362

2-81
• Street Maintenance. Investment in streets includes annual preventative street slurry seal and micro surfacing, annual sidewalk repair, ADA access ramp installations, and more that result in preservation of existing transportation and pedestrian infrastructure at a fraction of the cost of what full replacement would cost if streets were not adequately maintained.
• Trail, Bike, and Miscellaneous Street Projects . These projects are intended to provide trail and bike route connections to commercial activity, transit routes, schools, parks, and residential areas, as well as recreational opportunities.

Increased transit mobility increases access to resources across the city for all residents.
• North of Dow ntown Neighborhoods. The City has targeted federal and local resources for services and public infrastructure in low-income communities north of Downtown where there is the greatest need for place -based investment that is stabilizing for community members. Examples a multilingual food pantry at the local elementary school and May Nissen park, which is a 12.2-acre community park that was recently renovated and includes a swim center, playgrounds, group picnic areas, basketball courts, restrooms, horseshoe pits, sports fields, tennis courts, dog park and a preschool.

These project areas, among others, improve connections between neighborhoods, to necessary services, and improve environmental health through reduced reliance on vehicular transportation and improved infrastructure system conditions. The City will continue public investment throughout the city, and will encourage the same from private investment, so all residents have access to improved transportation, safer streets , additional recreational amenities, and other outcomes of public and private investment.

Mortgage Loan Denial Rate
Data related to home loan applications are made available annually through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Home Mortgage Disclosu re Act (HMDA). The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau provides mortgage data specific to census tracts as opposed to jurisdiction boundaries, so data for Livermore includes small portions of unincorporated Alameda County in tracts that expand beyond city limits.

In 2020, White applicants accounted for 27.7 percent of all mortgage loan applications for home purchase and 38.5 percent of all originated loans in Livermore. While Hispanic and Latinx residents make up 20.0 percent of Livermore’s ethnic composition, Hispanic and Latinx applicants made up only 3.4 percent of loan applications and 4.7 percent of originated loans. Black residents represented 1.8 percent of the Livermore’s racial composition; however, Black applicants made up less than 1 percent of total loan applications and 1.3 percent of all originated loans. While Asian residents represented 11.6 percent of Livermore’s racial composition, Asian applicants made up 18.0 percent of loan applicants and 24.9 percent of originated loans. Other applicants (e.g., American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, two or more race, and other) represented a total of approximately 50.0 percent of loan applications and 30.6 percent of originated loans. The City hopes to address some of these disproportionalities, particularly for Latinx and Black residents, by implementing targeted and multilingual outreach strategies and programs described in Program 3.4.1 and removing barriers to homeownership identified in the fair housing assessment public outreach process.

ATTACHMENT 1
363

2-82
In 2020, applicants applied for four types of loans for home purchase: conventional, Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Veterans Administration (VA) loans, and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Denial rates, shown in Table 2-53, indicate that Hispanic or Latinx residents are denied conventional and Veterans Administration loans at a higher rate than other racial and ethnic groups. Asian applicants seem have to the highest success rate for securing a mortgage loan.

Table 2-53: Home Loan Applications
Loan Type White Black Asian Native
American Latino Total
Conventional
Total Applications 62 19 468 0 83 1,191
Denial Rate 3.7% 5.3% 5.3% 0.0% 7.2% 4.6%
Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
Total Applications 25 5 9 0 9 48
Denial Rate 12.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 11.1% 10.4%
Veterans Administration (VA)
Total Applications 26 1 4 0 3 34
Denial Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 2.9%
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Total Applications 1 0 0 0 0 1
Denial Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC), Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HDMA), 2020
The low participation rate by residents of color and barriers to building capital necessary to pursue homeownership may be a result of both past policies like redlining that prevented particular communities of color from building generational wealth, curre nt inequities like occupational segregation, and existing barriers like language access and documentation requirements. Actions described in Programs 3.4.1 and 5.2.1, including targeted and multilingual homebuyer education and outreach strategies and finan cial empowerment services, are just some of the ways the City hopes to address these disparities. The City will also work with legal service providers to ensure all residents have access to legal counseling and representation in cases of discriminatory lending practices and other fair housing issues (Program 5.1.1).

Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Compliance with Fair Housing Laws
Fair housing laws at the federal, state, and local level protect certain characteristics from housing discrimination. These protected characteristics include race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, veteran or military status, source of income, genetic information, familial status, and disability. Fair housing laws in practice may be tenant protections, immigration rights, and other protective laws as required by the jurisdiction. Livermore enforces and complies with fair housing laws and regulation through a multilateral process: regular review of City ATTACHMENT 1
364

2-83
programs and impediments to fair housing choice and compliance with state and federal law and referring fair housi ng complaints to Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Housing.

In addition, the City demonstrates compliance or intention to comply with fair housing laws through the following:
• The City demonstrates compliance with Density Bonus Law (Gov ernment Code, Section65915 - 65918.), which currently allows for an increase up to 35 percent over the maximum allowable residential density requires local governments to grant additional incentives and/or concessions, and grant bonuses for land donation.

Assembly Bills 2753, 2372, 1763, 1227, and 2345 were passed in 2018, 2019, and 2020 and revised density bonus law to provide additional benefits for qualifying projects.

The City has included Program 3.1.2 to update the density bonus ordinance to be consistent with recent State law.
• The City intends to comply with No -Net-Loss (Government Code Section65863) through identifying a surplus of sites available to meet the County’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. In total, the city’s surplus unit capacity is 908, composed of 457 lower-income units, 159 moderate-income units, and 292 above moderate-income units.
• The City complies with the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code, Section 65589.5) by allowing emergency shelters by right in all trans ect and non- transect zones (see Table 3-6 of this Housing Element).
• The City will comply with SB 35 (Government Code Section 65913.4) by establishing a written policy or procedure, as well as other guidance as appropriate, to streamline the approval process and standards for eligible projects by 2022 (Program 1.4.1).
• The City will comply with SB 330 (Gov ernment Code Section 65589.5), relying on regulations set forth in the law for processing preliminary application for housing development projects, conducting no more than five hearings for housing projects that comply with objective general plan and development standards, and making a decision on a residential project within 90 days after certification of an environmental impact report or 60 days after adoption of a mitigated negative declaration or an environment report for an affordable housing project.

Fair Housing Complaints
As part of enforcement efforts, Livermore residents are served by multiple fair housing service providers, including ECHO and Centro Legal de la Raza. The Livermore Housing Authority refers tenants to ECHO on their website. ECHO provides housing counseling services, tenant/landlord services, conducts fair housing investigations, and operates periodic fair housing audits throughout Alam eda County, Contra Costa County, and Monterey County. Additionally, ECHO provides counseling and assistance for first -time homebuyers and lower -income households seeking housing. Centro Legal de la Raza provides similar fair -housing services, including immigrants’ rights, tenant rights, workers’ rights, litigation, and a youth law academy. Centro Legal de la Raza receives issues from tenants with problems with landlords entering without legal entry, and other housing - ATTACHMENT 1
365

2-84
related issues and conduct proactive out reach to Livermore renters to identify and respond to tenant legal, habitability, and harassment issues.

Fair housing providers identified that concentrations of low -income and non -English speaking populations are particularly vulnerable to displacement, isolation, and discrimination as they have more limited resources when securing housing. Suburban communities in particular, Livermore included, typically offer fewer services and resources for non-English-speaking households, according to providers and com munity members, further limiting housing mobility. Centro Legal de la Raza also identified fear or retaliation as a concern among tenants with limited resources at their disposal. The experiences reported by fair housing providers, though not isolated to Livermore residents, indicate a need for greater tenant protections, assistance with finding and securing housing, and education for landlords, property managers, and tenants regarding fair housing rights and responsibilities. The City currently contracts with ECHO for fair housing services and Centro Legal for multilingual tenant legal services and will meet with staff there to implement strategies to improve conditions for low -income, immigrant, and linguistically isolated populations. These will include actions such as audits of housing providers for discriminatory behavior, multilingual community workshops, and increasing awareness of available services (Programs 3.4.1 and 5.1.1).

During consultations, ECHO staff asserted that the lack of affordable housi ng is one of the greatest problems their clients face and identified the largest number of discrimination cases are related to disability. This includes failure to meet reasonable accommodation requests or unit repairs. ECHO identified that lower-income residents are more likely to be burdened by unhealthy or unsafe housing conditions than higher-income residents due to the shortage of affordable housing in Livermore. The City’s goal of producing more affordable housing for residents with special housing needs, including people with disabilities and low-income families, will help address this need (Programs 1.5.3 and 3.4.1).

The City will also pursue funding to provide low-income community members with financial assistance for repairs and accessibility improvements (Program 4.1.3) In its 2019 Annual Report , the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) reported that it received 44 housing complaints from residents of Alameda County, approximately 4.7 percent of the total number of cases in the state that year (934). As part of the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP), DFEH dual-files some fair housing cases with HUD’s Region IX Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). HUD FHEO reported that 10 cases were filed by residents of Livermore between January 1 st, 2013, and April 25th,
2021. Of the 10 cases, three resulted in no -cause determination and six were closed through conciliation or settlement. One case was withdrawn after resolution. Five cases alleged discrimination based on disability, two alleged discriminations due to retaliation, one alleged discrimination based on race, one based on religion, one based on sex, and one based on familial status. One case alleged discrimination based on disability and race, three based on disability, one based on race, and five based on familial status. Of the 10 cases, one alleged discrimination on more than one protected class. In addition to these cases, 14 inquiries about discrimination were sent to HUD to determine whether a case would be valid. Eight of these inquiries did not report which protected class the discriminatory behavior was against, two identified discriminations based on disability, one identified discrimination based on color, and three based on race. Of these inquiries, seven inquirers failed to respond to HUD’s follow up, one inquiry failed to file a claim in a ATTACHMENT 1
366

2-85
timely manner, and six resulted in a finding that there was no valid basis or issue. No inquiries or cases were made against the City or public housing authority.

SITES INVENTORY ANALYSIS
The location of housing in relation to resources and opportunities is integral to addressing disparities in housing needs and opportunity and to fostering inclusive communities where all residents have access to opportunity. This is particularly important for lower -income households. AB 686 and AB 1304 added a new requirement for housing elements to analyze the location of lower-income sites in relation to areas of high opportunity. Figures 2-2 through 2- 11 show the distribution of projected units by income category of the following indicators compared to citywide patterns to understand how the projected locations of units will affirmatively further fair housing: TCAC opportunity areas, median income, predominant population, disability rates, educational score, environmental health, and overpayment. The following sites inventory discussion includes an analysis of the number of projected units by income category, total RHNA capacity, and city acreage by income category to further assess the potential impacts of the sites inventory to affirmatively further fair housing.

Potential Effect on Patterns of Integration and Segregation Figure 2 -12 presents the breakdown of unit capacity in Livermore by resource area designation and income category. Approximately 83 percent of the total unit capacity identified to meet the RHNA is in moderate resource areas, which, as shown in Figure 2 -2, account for the majority of land area in the city. While there are large portions of the city, particularly along the eastern border, that are considered low resource, most of these are not available for residential development. As such, most of the four percent of the RHNA that is in low resource areas has been identified in the central portion of the city, wh ere there is a high rate of poverty and overcrowding, and where the majority of households are Hispanic and Latinx households, as discussed in this Assessment of Fair Housing. There is a concentrated need for more affordable housing in this area to alleviate the likely cause of overcrowding and overpayment, which will be met with the inclusion of new lower-income units. However, to encourage housing mobility opportunities for lower - income households from this neighborhood and others, the City has identified 11 percent of lower-income units in high- and highest-resource areas. The distribution of sites shown in Figure 2 -2 reflects an intention to promote mixed -income neighborhoods, which will facilitate equitable access to resources and opportunities regardle ss of socioeconomic status.

ATTACHMENT 1
367

2-86
Figure 2-12: Units by TCAC Resource Area Designation

Source: TCAC/HCD, 2021; City of Livermore, 2022
Income
Figure 2 -3 shows that most of Livermore has a relatively high median income with the exception of the central portion of the city north of the railroad. In this area, the median income is less than $80,000. Approximately 27 percent of moderate -income, 6 percent of lower-income, and 2 percent of above moderate-income units are projected for this area of the city. The lower- and moderate-income units will help to alleviate overpayment in this area while the above moderate-income units will facilitate a mixed-income neighborhood without encouraging gentrification. Overall, the distribution of units planned for lower - income households and moderate -income households will create more mixed -income communities throughout the city. The City will introduce the most lo wer-income units (68 percent) in areas earning over $125,000 annually, creating mixed -income communities in historically exclusively wealthy neighborhoods. In areas of relatively lower and moderate median income for Livermore (between $98,000 to $124,999), the City projects 30 percent of the above moderate -income units. Introducing affordable housing and more varied housing types in the downtown area is another key strategy in reducing displacement risk and facilitating integration in the city. The second-largest location of lower-income units is in the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (INSP), integrated with above moderate-income units and in a high resource area that will continue to have further access to services and amenities as the specific plan builds out. The City is committed to facilitating housing mobility for all income groups through several programs, as identified in Table 2 -54. 8%
5%
14%
5%
6%
14%
1%
83%
87%
73%
81%
5%
2%
13%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
Highest Resource High Resource Moderate Resource Low Resource ATTACHMENT 1
368

2-87
Figure 2-13: Units by Median Income

Source: 2015-2019 ACS; City of Livermore, 2022
Race and Ethnicity
As discussed previously in this assessment, Livermore is predominantly White in most areas, with a dominance of Asian residents in the northwest corner and two concentrations of Hispanic and Latins residents in the central area north of the railroad and at the intersection of East Avenue and S. Vasco Road. The central portion of the city, with a concentration of Hispanic and Latinx residents, also has the lowest median income in Livermore, while the median income in the predominantly Asian area is greater than $125,000. The predominantly White areas in the remainder also have high median incomes and are considered higher resource areas than the central neighborhood. This indicates a possible disparity in access to resources and opportunity based on race and ethnicity in Livermore. Targeted and multilingual outreach strategies for the City’s affordable housing programs, particularly for the inclusionary program, as well as culturally relevant housing navigation services, will help address some of these disparities (Progra ms 3.1.1, 3.3.1, and

5.2.1).

As shown in Figure 2-14, 94 percent of lower-income and 87 percent of moderate-income units are identified on sites in areas that are currently predominantly White and an additional 5 percent of lower-income units in areas that are currently predominantly Asian.

Continuing to increase housing opportunities for non -White lower- and moderate-income households to access opportunities and resources in these areas of greater affluence and resources access will help to affirmatively further fair housing. 7%
6%
27%
2%
32%
25%
60%
30%
60%
68%
13%
68%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
<$30,000 $50,000 to $87,099 $87,100 to $124,999 >$125,000 ATTACHMENT 1
369

2-88
Figure 2-14: Units by Predominant Population

Source: 2015-2019 ACS; City of Livermore, 2022
A mixture of indirectly exclusionary private practices, such as dominance of single -family development and loan inequities, paired with high costs of housing and limited housing types (i.e., p redominantly single -family housing) historically forced lower -income and households of color to locate in the areas of highest density in Livermore, posing a barrier to access for diverse populations. Construction of additional lower- and moderate-income units throughout the city, will improve housing mobility opportunities for residents who would otherwise be priced out or concentrated based on housing types.

Disability
Approximately 8.4 percent of Livermore’s population lives with at least one disability, a rate that is relatively low compared to the region. As shown in Figure 2 -14, approximately 87 percent of the total RHNA capacity identified in the sites inventory is in areas in which 5.0 to 9.9 percent of residents have a disability, closely reflecting the disability rate in Livermore. Most sites are on major transportation corridors, as shown in Figure 2- 5, improving accessibility to services and amenities through transit, Dial-A- Ride, and other means of transportation regardless of disability status. The sites identified to meet the RHNA are distributed across both the areas with the highest rates of disabilities, and areas with lower rates, at a range of incomes, with several sites near the downtown. Locating units affordable to lower- and moderate-income residents in and around the downtown area will help to improve access for and accommodate the needs of persons living with disabilities, who benefit from close access to services and amenities as well as proximity to transit. Additionally, mixed -use housing types viable in the downtown area can help accommodate the needs of residents living with disabilities by integrating services or amenities on-site.
8%
5%
14%
3%
1%
13%
1%
90%
94%
87%
85%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
Predominantly Asian Predominantly Latinx Predominantly White ATTACHMENT 1
370

2-89
Figure 2-15: Units by Disability Rate

Source: 2015-2019 ACS; City of Alameda, 2022
Potential Effect on Access to Opportunity
Jobs and Transit Proximity
As previously discussed in the analysis of access to opportunities, jobs proximity index scores in Livermore range from less than the 15th percentile in the southwestern corner of the city to higher than the 95th percentile in the northeast corner, with moderate job proximity in the core of the city. The lower jobs proximity around downtown may be a result of a concentration of jobs in the eastern portion of the city. Approximately 86 percent of lower-income units are projected in areas with scores between the 40th and 59th percentile (Figure 2 -16), suggesting equitable access to jobs for occupants of future affordable housing in Livermore compared to other income groups. While 11 percent of moderate-income units are projected in areas with the furthest proximity to jobs, these are high resource and affluent areas and will therefore promote mixed -income communities through expanded housing mobility opportunities for moderate-income households. 8%
5%
14%
87%
89%
85%
84%
4%
6%
4%
2%
2%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
<5% 5.0% to 9.9% 10.0% to 14.9% ≥15.0%
ATTACHMENT 1
371

2-90
Figure 2-16: Units by Jobs Proximity Index Score

Source: 2014-2017 HUD; City of Livermore, 2022
Additionally, incorporating units at all income levels near downtown and near transit stations will improve access to employment opportunities for occupants of these units.

When considering where to locate future housing for all income levels, and particularly lower-income units, central Livermore offers the most convenient access to jobs available within the city and transit to nearby jurisdictions.

Educational Opportunity
Approximately 10 percent of the City’s total capacity to meet the RHNA is on sites in areas that score above the 75th percentile in expected educational outcome (Figure 2 -17).

These units include 5 percent of lower-income units, 11 percent of moderate-income units, and 15 percent of above moderate- income units. While this will provide h ousing opportunities for new households, including lower-income households, near good schools, and provide housing mobility opportunities for some existing residents that may currently have more limited access to schools to move closer to good schools, it still disproportionately locates above moderate-income units in areas with the best expected educational outcome. Additionally, 62 percent of moderate -income units are projected in areas with the lowest educational scores in Livermore. To improve access for lower- and moderate-income households to neighborhoods with high -performing schools, the City has included the following programs:
• Provide financial resources to nonprofit organizations to increase the existing affordable housing stock through market rat e conversions and adaptive reuse (Program 3.2.2).
• Increase the inventory of properties for future development of affordable housing, particularly in opportunity-rich areas (Program 3.2.2). • Promote construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) (Program 1.4.1). 2%
11%
1%
9%
12%
17%
2%
87%
86%
72%
95%
2%
2%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
<20 (Furthest Proximity) 20-39 40-59 60-79 ≥80 (Closest Proximity) ATTACHMENT 1
372

2-91
• Continue to implement the inclusionary housing ordinance, encouraging construction of these units in moderate- and high-resource areas (Program 3.1.1).

Figure 2-17: Units by TCAC Educational Score

Source: TCAC/HCD, 2021; City of Livermore, 2022
Potential Effect on Displacement Risk
Overcrowding
Two areas in Livermore have overcrowding rates that exceed the state average of 8.2 percent (see Figure 2-9). Most sites fall in the areas with low overcrowding rates. However, 136 units have been identified in areas in which the overcrowding rate is greater than 8.2 percent, or specifically, 12.1 percent. Of these units, 11 are projected to be lower-income, 105 moderate -income, and 20 above moderate -income, which accounts for approximately 2.6 percent of the total capacity to meet the RHNA. New lower - and moderate-income units in this area may alleviate overcrowding by increasing housing supply for households live in units that are too small or share a unit with another household.

The modera te-income households ensure that lower -income units are not overly concentrated while also increasing the supply of housing in general.

Overpayment
Homeowners and renters throughout Livermore, and the greater Bay Area, are overpaying for housing due to rapidly increasing housing costs that outpace wage increases.

Increasing the supply of lower- and moderate-income households throughout the city will help alleviate conditions that contribute to overpayment by reducing the gap between supply and demand for this type of housing. Cost burden is typically lower among homeowners than renters, which is reflected in the distribution of units to meet the RHNA.

Approximately 55 percent of the total RHNA units are in areas in which 20 to 29 percent of 26%
26%
62%
12%
65%
69%
27%
73%
10%
5%
11%
15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
<0.25 0.25-0.49 0.50-0.74 ≥0.75
ATTACHMENT 1
373

2-92
homeowners are cost burdened, compared to 21 percent of units in a similar cost burden rate among renters (Figures 2-18 and 2-19). Similarly, the majority of lower-income units are in areas in which 20 to 29 percent of homeowners are cost burdened, but 40 to 59 percent of renters are cost burdened. Locating lower- and moderate-income units in areas with high rates of renter overpayment will help to reduce displacement risk for these households by providing additional affordable housing where there is greatest demand. Typically, above moderate -income units are unaffordable to cost -burdened households, while lower- and moderate-income housing units can help alleviate overpayment.

Figure 2-18: Units by Rate of Cost Burdened Homeowners

Source: 2015-2019 ACS; City of Livermore, 2022
55%
76%
6%
50%
45%
24%
94%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
<20% 20% to 29% 30% to 39% ≥40%
ATTACHMENT 1
374

2-93
Figure 2-19: Units by Rate of Cost Burdened Renters

Source: 2015-2019 ACS; City of Livermore, 2022
Figures 2-10 and 2-11 demonstrate that while most sites are in areas of high overpayment, they are not concentrated in these areas. Lower - and moderate -income units near downtown will ease pressure on limited affordable housing stock by increasing the supply of total housing units in this area and locating sites for all income levels in other areas of the city will facilitate housing mobility opportunities that will not increase cost burden rates.

Introducing low- and moderate-income units in highest resource areas of the city will also help to encourage a mixed-income community.

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Through discussions with stakeholders and fair housing advocates, input from the public outreach process, and the assessment of fair housing issues, the City identified several factors that contribute to fair housing issues in Livermore, as shown in Table 2 -54.

Additionally, this fair housing assessment identified the area north of downtown between N. Murrieta Boulevard and Junction Avenue as a priority focus area. This area, where the majority of residents are Hispanic or Latinx, has a low median income compared to the rest of the city and a high percentage of residents living in overcrowded situations. The City will target this area for the fair housing programs identified in Table 2-54 to address the culmination of fair housing issues. The priority factors that have contributed to this concentration of fair housing issues are listed in bold and associated priority actions are shown in bold and italics.
1%
21%
7%
44%
75%
93%
76%
55%
4%
24%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
<20% 20% to 39% 40% to 59% 60% to 79% ≥80%
ATTACHMENT 1
375

2-94
Table 2-54: Contributing Factors
AFH Identified Fair
Housing Issues Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Concentration of
communities of color in
TCAC-designated low
resource areas
Shortage of affordable housing options in
moderate and high-resource areas.

Housing Navigation Barriers
Housing Discrimination
Concentration of renter-occupied
households in low-resource areas.

Lack of acceptance of Housing
Choice/Section 8 Voucher holders in
moderate and high resource areas
Availability of higher-density housing
options in these areas.

Maintain a list of vacant residential land appropriate for affordable housing in the city, including sites in moderate and high resource areas (Program 1.1.1).

Update the Downtown Specific Plan to facilitate revitalization, affordable housing development, and mixed-use development (Program 1.2.1).

Encourage construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (Program 1.4.1).

Encourage the construction of affordable units with three or more bedrooms (Program 1.5.3).

Produce affordable rental housing in opportunity-rich locations near transit, services, and key amenities (Programs 3.2.1 and 3.2.2).

Implement multilingual communication and outreach strategies for City-funded affordable housing developments (Program 3.3.1).

Provide mortgage assistance for low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers, prioritizing advertising to persons with disabilities and limited English proficiency (Program 3.4.1).

Encourage landlords and property managers in high resource areas to advertise their units to Section 8 voucher holders (Program 3.4.2).

Provide education to landlords and property managers on fair housing rights and requirements/discrimination (Program 5.1.1).

Work with trusted community partners to provide linguistically and digitally accessible and culturally relevant housing search assistance (Program 5.2.1).

Conduct racial equity impact assessments of City policies for potential unintended fair housing impacts on people of color and work with stakeholders to address those impacts (Program 5.2.1).

Pursue funding for culturally relevant financial empowerment services to help community members of color remove economic barriers to accessing housing like credit scores and income documentation (Program 5.2.1).

ATTACHMENT 1
376

2-95
Table 2-54: Contributing Factors
AFH Identified Fair
Housing Issues Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Disproportionate
access to resources for
lower-income and non-
White households
Concentration of renters, lower-income
households, and Hispanic and Latinx
residents near high-intensity commercial
and industrial uses, such as
neighborhoods north of Downtown.

Limited access to parks and open space
compared to other neighborhoods.

Proximity to lower performing schools.

Discriminatory lending and other barriers
to home ownership for non-White
populations, including language barriers
and documentation requirements.

Update the Downtown Specific Plan to facilitate revitalization, affordable housing development, and mixed-use development (Program 1.2.1).

Continue to implement the inclusionary housing ordinance (Program 3.1.1) Increase the inventory of properties for affordable housing in opportunity-rich locations near transit, services, and key amenities (Programs 3.2.1 and 3.2.2).

Provide financial resources to nonprofit organizations to increase the existing affordable housing stock (Program 3.2.2).

Implement targeted and multilingual communication and outreach strategies for City-funded affordable housing programs and development (Program 3.3.1).

Provide homebuyer support for low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers, prioritizing persons with disabilities, affordable housing residents, and non-English speakers (Program 3.4.1).

Align documentation and eligibility requirements for City housing programs with County programs, including the use of individual taxpayer identification numbers (Program 3.4.1)
Facilitate development of urban parks on infill sites to aid in air pollution mitigation and to provide recreation opportunities (Program 4.2.1).

Strengthen requirements for City-funded affordable housing and service providers to offer linguistically accessible services, particularly in Spanish (Program 5.2.1) Update existing community benefit and/or other land value recapture strategies such as the Human Services Facility Fee. (Program 5.2.1) ATTACHMENT 1
377

2-96
Table 2-54: Contributing Factors
AFH Identified Fair
Housing Issues Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Displacement of
residents due to
economic pressures
Rising housing costs outpacing wage
increases.

Concentration of poverty and lower-
income households north of Downtown.

Shortage of affordable housing options.

Limited range of affordable units in a
range of sizes.

Encourage construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (Program 1.4.1).

Encourage the production of units with three or more bedrooms (Program 1.5.3).

Continue to implement the inclusionary housing ordinance (Program 3.1.1).

Assist the development of affordable housing through the Affordable Housing Fund (Program 3.2.1).

Provide support for low-income renters, including multilingual tenant counseling, rental assistance, financial counseling, crisis stabilization services, and legal support (Program 3.3.1).

Work with trusted community partners to provide linguistically and digitally accessible and culturally relevant rental housing search assistance to lower income households and groups with special housing needs (Program 3.4.2).

Displacement of
tenants due to
discriminatory actions.

Landlord and property managers’ lack of
knowledge and engagement on fair
housing laws.

Limited tenant protections.

Provide financial assistance to fair housing providers to provide services such as tenant/landlord mediation (Program 5.1.1).

Continue to support the City’s Fair Housing Audit (Program 5.1.1).

Provide education to landlords and property managers on fair housing rights and requirements/discrimination (Program 5.1.1).

Assess impacts and solicit community input on new policies that prevent displacement for low- and moderate-income community members, such as a Citywide rental registry, anti-harassment ordinance, or a tenant opportunity to purchase policy. (Program 5.2.1).

ATTACHMENT 1
378

3-1

3. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
The provision of adequate and affordable housing is an important goal of the City. As a result, the City has proactively implemented a variety of programs, incentives, and development standards to encourage the development, maintenance, and improvement of affordable housing and address potential constraints to housing development. Nonetheless, a variety of factors, including environmental conditions, market mechanisms, and government regulations, can influence or constrain the development of housing. This section identifies existing constraints that inhibit the production of affordable housing in the community as well as opportunities and programs to mitigate these constraints, as appropriate.

3.1 MARKET CONSTRAINTS
Land costs, site development costs, and financing contribute to the cost of housing and can potentially hinder the production of new affordable housing. Although many constraints are driven by market conditions, jurisdictions have some leverage in instituting policies and programs to address the constraints.

LAND COST
A key component of residential development costs is the price of raw land. The diminishing supply of residential land combined with high demand generally keeps land cost high in the Bay Area. The economic downturn in 2008 caused land sales and land development to slow down, and the COVID -19 pandemic further induced economic volatility into the housing market. However, as indicated by land prices in 2022, the Livermore housing market has recovered, resulting in higher sales prices and rental rates for new housing products. According to Zillow, vacant land costs per acre range from $15,900 to $449,500. Typically, smaller parcels are valued higher per acre than larger parcels (more than 10 acres).

As of January 2022, residential land in Livermore listed through Zillow varies considerably—from as low as 37 cents per square foot to over $10 per square foot. This range can be attributed to varying locations of the land, existing infrastructure, the increasing economies of scale associated with larger parcels, and other parcel -specific factors such as environmental conditions and topography.

An Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Analysis in 2013 found that single -family detached housing continues to represent a major portion of units being developed in Livermore, but small lot, compact single-family detached and attached products are a growing part of the market.

Since 2016, about 20 percent of the new units constructed in Livermore have been single-family detached housing. Even though the cost per unit for multifamily attached housing is lower than for single-family housing, total construction costs can be about 50 percent higher due to the larger development scale, which tends to require a longer land use entitlement process and construction period. However, the entitlement timelines for multi- family housing developments and single-family subdivisions are relatively similar.

ATTACHMENT 1
379

3-2

MORTGAGE AND REHABILITATION FINANCING
The availability of financing affects a person’s ability to purchase or improve a home. Mortgage interest rates are extremely volatile. In 2008, the average 30- year fixed-rate mortgage (FRM) was approximately 6.0 percent. In 2015 rates fell to about 4.0 percent, and currently in 2022 are at about 3.0 percent.

Home Loans in Livermore
Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions must disclose information on the disposition of loan applications. Table 3-1 summarizes the disposition of loan applications submitted to financial institutions for home purchase and home improvement loans within the city.

In 2020, approximately 54,922 households applied for home purchase or improvement loans in the Berkeley/Oakland/Livermore Metropolitan Statistical Area (defined by the federal Office of Management and Budget). A large majority of loan applications (83.6 percent) were for home purchase. Of all loan products available, approximately 92.9 percent of applicants applied for conventional loans; only 7.1 percent of applicants applied for government -assisted home loans.

Approval rates for home loans vary by loan type. Conventional loans often have a higher approval rate than government -assisted loans. For all applicants, approximately 60.4 percent were approved and accepted; 9.5 percent were denied; 8.5 were purchased by a financial institution; and the remaining 21.6 percent were not accepted, withdrawn, or incomplete.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are tightening their lending practices and loaning prima rily to people with excellent credit scores who can afford at least 10 percent for a down payment, so FHA loans are the only remaining option for many homebuyers. FHA loans require the buyer to pay an upfront fee and a monthly insurance premium and ensure that the borrower has sufficient income to cover the loan, but borrowers are able to pay a down payment as low as three percent and are not required to have an excellent credit score.

ATTACHMENT 1
380

3-3
Table 3-1: Home Loan Application Status Disclosure in Berkeley/Oakland/Livermore Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2020
Number Percent
Type of Loan
Total 297,341 100.0%
Conventional 276,169 92.9%
Government assisted 21,172 7.1%
FHA-insured 11,748 4.0%
VA-guaranteed 9,331 3.1%
USDA-guaranteed 93 0.0%
Loan Purpose
Total 54,922 100.0%
Home purchase 45,923 83.6%
Home improvement 8,999 16.4%
Loan Purpose
Total 297,232 100.0%
Approved and accepted 179,509 60.4%
Denied 28,299 9.5%
Withdrawn or not accepted 49,941 16.8%
Closed/Incomplete 14,357 4.8%
Purchased by institution 25,126 8.5%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2020, confirmed in 2021.

City of Livermore Programs
In order to facilitate additional access to financial resources for lower - and moderate-income households to acquire homeownership, the City offers a down payment assistance program to first-time homebuyers. As described in Chapter 4, the program provides a three percent interest loan, fully or partially deferred, of up to $60,000.

3.2 GOVERNMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
Local policies and regulations can impact the price and availability of housing and, in particular, the provision of affordable housing. However, other governmental policies or actions are intended to reduce these barriers and/or actively encourage the development of housing that meets the diverse needs of the community. This section discusses the following possible constraints and opportunities related to the maintenance, development, and improvement of housing:
• Land use controls
• Local ordinances/regulations impacting housing supply • Provisions for a variety of housing
• Density bonus
ATTACHMENT 1
381

3-4
• Development review process
• Building codes
• Housing for persons with disabilities
• Public Improvements

LAND USE CONTROLS
Land use controls affecting housing development include: General Plan, Specific Plans, Neighborhood Plans, Municipal Code, and the Development Code. The City main tains the current Development Code with zoning and development standards along with current fees on the City website.

General Plan
The Land Use Element of the Livermore General Plan sets forth the City’s policies for guiding local development, including density ranges. These policies, together with zoning regulations, establish the amount and distribution of land for different uses, including housing. The key questions for evaluating constraints and opportunities associated with the General Plan are:
does it designate enough land available for residential development, and does it allow for a sufficient range of housing types to meet community needs? As listed in Table 3-2, the General Plan has 11 broad residential land use designations permitting a range of rural and urban residential uses. Three additional mixed -use designations permit residential units to be integrated with other types of uses. Most of the open space and agricultural land use designations permit rural residential development as well as agriculture - related employee and caretaker housing. Residential uses are also permitted in certain commercial districts subject to discretionary review.

ATTACHMENT 1
382

3-5
Table 3-2: General Plan Land Use Categories
General Plan Land Use Density (du/ac) Residential Type(s) Residential
Rural Residential (RR) 1.0-1.0/5
Designed to accommodate large-lot
residential of a rural character on urban
fringe
Urban Low Residential (UL) 1.0-2.0 Intended to accommodate residential development in areas with special land
amenities or constraints
UL-1 1.0-1.5
UL-2 1.5-2.0
Urban Low Medium
Residential (ULM) 2.0-3.0
Intended as a transition between lower
density at edges of town and higher
density residential development as one
approaches the center of the community
Urban Medium Residential
(UM) 3.0-4.5
Urban medium areas are located closer
to the center of the community and in
areas surrounding commercial
development
Urban Medium-High
Residential (UMH) 4.5-6.0
Intended to encourage cluster and
higher density residential development to
preserve urban open spaces
Urban High Residential (UH) 6.0-55.0
Intended to provide a variety of housing
opportunities for all income groups to be
located near major roads and other
public services
UH-1 6.0-8.0
UH-2 8.0-14.0
UH-3 14.0-18.0
UH-4 18.0-22.0
UH-5a 22.0-30.0
UH-5b 30.0-38.0
UH-6 38.0- 55.0
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
(NM)

12.0-38.0 Intended to help improve the pedestrian
orientation of Livermore’s neighborhoods
by providing neighborhood commercial
services within walking distance of
existing residents and integrating housing
with commercial development on a
single site
NM Low (NML) 2.0-3.0 or 12.0-15.0 w/ TDC*
NM Medium (NMM) 3.0-4.5 or 15.0-24.0 w/ TDC
NM High (NMH) 6.0-8.0 or 24.0-38.0 w/ TDC
Downtown Area (DA)
Min range 15-30
Max range 30.0-55.0
Intended to provide a unique, locally
oriented, pedestrian-friendly shopping
environment in Downtown Livermore and
to allow higher-intensity residential
development to support and revitalize
the commercial environment
ATTACHMENT 1
383

3-6
Table 3-2: General Plan Land Use Categories
General Plan Land Use Density (du/ac) Residential Type(s) Isabel Neighborhood (IN) 15.0-100.0
Intended for a range of housing choices
from attached single-family units to
multistory condominiums and apartment
buildings that will support development of
a complete neighborhood.

Commercial
Service Commercial (SC) n/a
Intended for uses such as auto sales and
service, nurseries, home maintenance
centers, and wholesale establishments in
the general vicinity of freeway
interchanges or at other locations with
significant access potential from the
community at large
Highway Commercial (HC) n/a
Intended to primarily serve the traveling
public with uses such as hotels and
motels, restaurants, and motor vehicle
and gasoline service stations
Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) n/a
Intended primarily for neighborhood
serving commercial uses such as grocery
stores, drug stores, and personal service.

Community Serving
General Commercial
(CSGC)
n/a
Intended for commercial uses in areas
outside of Downtown with significant
access potential from the region and the
community at large
Office Commercial (OC) 14.0-18.0
Intended primarily for office uses with no
impacts to and compatible with
adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Residential can be considered with a
Conditional Use Permit
Industrial
Business and Commercial
Park (BCP) n/a
Intended for a mix of uses, locating
employment-generating activities
adjacent to destination-oriented and
limited retail commercial uses
Low-Intensity Industrial (LII) n/a
Intended for uses such as manufacturing,
warehousing, research and development
facilities, fully enclosed recycling facilities,
and administrative and professional
offices
High-Intensity Industrial
(HII) n/a
Intended to provide an insulated area for
uses with objectionable noises, odors,
vibrations, glares, or hazards from uses
such as manufacturing, warehousing,
research and development facilities,
recycling facilities, and storage or
processing of raw materials
ATTACHMENT 1
384

3-7
Table 3-2: General Plan Land Use Categories
General Plan Land Use Density (du/ac) Residential Type(s) Open Space and Agriculture
Open Space (OSP) 1.0 du/
existing parcel
Permits single-family residential and farm
worker housing subject to environmental
review
Agriculture/Viticulture
(AGVT) 1.0/100 Intended for rural residential densities and farm worker housing
Limited Agriculture
(LDAG) Min 20 acres Intended for rural residential densities and farm worker housing
Hillside Conservation
(HLCN) 1.0/20 to 1.0/100 Intended for rural residential densities and farm worker housing
Large Parcel Agriculture
(LPA) Min 100 acres
Intended for uses such as agricultural,
agriculture processing facilities, limited
agricultural support, secondary
residential, visitor serving commercial
facilities, recreation, public and quasi
public, and waste management facilities
Resource Management
(RMG)

1.0 du/
parcel; Min 100 acres
Intended for a single-family home per
parcel
Water Management
Lands (WML)

1.0 du/
parcel; Min 100 acres
Intended for a single-family home per
parcel
Open Space/Sand and
Gravel (OSP/S&G) n/a
Intended primarily for open space;
secondarily for sand and gravel
extraction, processing, and related
activities
Community Facilities n/a
Intended to provide areas for public
agencies and institutions, including City,
County, State, and federal government
facilities. May be designated as any of
the following: Elementary School (CF-E),
Intermediate School (CF-I), High School
(CF-H), Community College (CF-JC), Fire
Station (FS), Civic Center (CF-CC),
Cemetery (CF-CE), Government Services
(CF), Airport (CF-AIR), Post Office (PO),
Hospital (HOSP), BART (BART),
Government Research and Development
(CF-R&D)
*TDC refers to Transferable Development Credit Program.

Source: City of Livermore Land Use Element 2002, amended 2013, confirmed 2021 Neighborhood Plans
In 2007, the City approved two Neighborhood Plans: Brisa and Arroyo Vista. These plans cover two areas that were redesignated in the 2003 General Plan to a dual designation permitting either industrial uses (base designation) or residential uses, subject t o development of a Neighborhood Plan for each area. The plans are intended to facilitate orderly growth and the creation of a livable neighborhood that includes community amenities and is compatible with ATTACHMENT 1
385

3-8
surrounding uses. The plans create important opportunities for infill development of vacant land with a mix of higher density housing types that would not otherwise be developed for residential uses.

These two Neighborhood Plans facilitate residential development by providing site layout plans that can be utilized by developers to achieve consistency with and meet the development standards of each of the plans, including providing a mix of housing types. The concept site plans for each of the sites demonstrate that a mid - to upper-density range can be achie ved on each site while still providing a minimum of three different housing types and circulation and open space requirements. The design guidelines and standards in each of the plans are straightforward and feasible for the site and encourage residential development. Potential developers can utilize site plans to reduce design time and minimize uncertainty during the development review and approval process because the site layout plans have already been determined to be consistent with provisions of the Neighborhood Plans. Although these two sites are TDC receiver sites, adoption of the residential Neighborhood Plans preclude these sites from going back to their base designation without discretionary review by City Council. As of 2022, the Brisa area has been fully built, and Arroyo Vista remains undeveloped.

Brisa Neighborhood Plan
The Brisa Neighborhood Plan has been built out. The plan area encompasses 37.5 acres and covers vacant land north and south of Brisa Street east of Vasco Road and adjacent to the ACE train station and parking area. The plan includes an approved Neighborhood Concept Site Plan for 465 units designed to create a walkable urban neighborhood and to provide pedestrian access to Livermore’s multiuse trail system and to the adjacent ACE c ommuter rail station. The plan requires a variety of housing types, a general circulation system layout consistent with the site plan, consistency with the design standards, two neighborhood parks, and a trail network with connections to the ACE train station.

The Livermore City Council approved plans for a residential development in the neighborhood plan area on January 13
th, 2014. The project includes 465 units, with courtyard and alley-loaded single-family homes, row townhouses, and apartments. This project provides 26 subsidized very- low- and low-income units. Site grading began in August 2014 and as of 2022, the homes have been built.

Arroyo Vista Neighborhood Plan
The Arroyo Vista Neighborhood Plan was approved by the Livermore City Council on July 2 nd, 2007. The plan area is approximately 28 acres and covers the vacant land south of First Street along the north side of Las Positas Road and east of existing neighborhood commercial services. The plan includes two conceptual land use plans. The conceptual plans are intended to show how one might develop the entire site at the lower end of the density range (402 dwelling units) and at the high end (495 dwelling units). The plan includes the following mandatory provisions: three variations of housing types, one neighborhood park, open space, and trails. Once a residential subdivision is approved under the Neighborhood Plan, the sites can no longer be developed as industrial without City Council approval of a major conditional use permit. Though much of the plan has been built out, some vacant sites remain available for development.

ATTACHMENT 1
386

3-9
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
The 2003 General Plan identifie d the Greenville BART TOD 20 transitional area to provide land uses appropriate for a future commuter transit statio n. The environmental impact report prepared for the 2003 General Plan assumed that 4,474 housing units would be built within the Greenville TOD area.

Subsequent analysis identified the area around the Isabel Avenue interchange of I -580 as a more immediately viable location for a BART station. The Livermore City Council directed staff to update the documents necessary to shift the TOD planning effort from the Greenville/Southfront area to the Isabel/I -580 area. In 2018, the City adopted the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan, which was contingent upon an approved BART extension to Livermore.

At its May 24 th, 2018, board meeting, the BART Board voted to certify the BART to Livermore Extension Project Final Environmental Impact Report, but to not advance the proposed conventional BART extension to Livermore. The Board recommended that the City turn to the newly formed Tri-Valley–San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority to conduct further transit planning in Livermore.

In 2020, the City adopted a revised Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan for a future Valley Link rail station. While the INSP is consistent with many General Plan goals, the plan modified existing General Plan land use designations, as well as some policies as a means of achieving the General Plan goals and implementing related policies. For projects within the Planning Area, policies and standards in the INSP will implement the General Plan policies. Where policies or standards relating to a particular subject have not been provided in the INSP, the General Plan’s policies and standards continue to apply, as they are today or amended in the future.

The plan area encompasses over 1,100 acres, or about 6.6 percent of the city. It is in the northwest part of Livermore, approximately 2.5 miles from Downtown. The plan area is entirely within the city’s urban growth boundary (UGB). It is largely within the city limits, with the exception of an approximately 21 -acre property that is currently in unincorporated Alameda County.

The INSP will guide future development of the area surrounding the Isabel Valley Link station in the I-580 median at Isabel Avenue. T he abundance of vacant land near the proposed Valley Link station is a major opportunity for shaping a new neighborhood centered around a major transit hub.

The three primary objectives of the INSP are:
• Create a safe, vibrant neighborhood that includes amenities for residents, workers, and students and that is compatible with existing development and community character.
• Support citywide goals for increased transportation options, housing choices, and economic vitality.

20 Transit-oriented development: Development in which land uses are designed and sited to maximize transit ridership and the use of alternative forms of transportation; TODs are typically also mixed-use developments.

ATTACHMENT 1
387

3-10
• Support the Valley Link rail project through development of a complete neighborhood.

Specific housing strategies for advancing the plan’s vision and objectives include: allowing for a range of housing types; encouraging a livable and accessible neighborhood with an active street life; concentrating development of the highest intensity closest to the Valley Link station to support transit ridership; promoting compatibility with existing residential uses; and advancing the City’s housing and economic development goals.

The target residential unit number for the INSP is 4,068. The minimum number of residential units required for the specific plan is 3,223. At least 25 percent of the units are required to be affordable to lower income households —or at least 830 affordable units. Twenty percent of units in each residential project approved in the specific plan area will be affordable, per the plan’s inclusionary requirements. Additionally, five percent of units will be developed in stand- alone affordable housing projects.

Downtown Specific Plan
The Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) was adopted by the City Council in February 2004 and most recently updated in 2020. Objectives of the DSP are to revitalize the Downtown and re-establish it as the center of the city and as a viable, pedestrian -oriented city neighborhood. The DSP outlines strategies for accomplishing these goals, including:
• Revising land use policies to allow housing at a range of types and densities everywhere except on the ground level in the Downtown Core.
• Encouraging construction of housing above storefronts in the Downtown Core by requiring new buildings to be mixed use.
• Identifying opportunity sites that provide immediate development prospects for new housing and that offer the potential to deliver a significant number of new u nits.

Examples include the former Livermore Village in the heart of downtown and several vacant, formerly commercial parcels to the east of Downtown. • Attract potential Downtown residents with transit opportunities that enable them to travel easily and conveniently to job centers in the region.

The DSP requires 10 percent of each project proposed in the plan area to be units affordable to low -income households. The DSP established five plan areas. Appendix A shows the boundary of the Downtown Specific Plan A rea. Plan Areas and the associated assumptions about capacity are as follows:
• The Downtown Core Plan Area
The intent of the Downtown Core is to revitalize the city’s historic core area as the center of the city. Therefore, mixed-use buildings are required for all parcels fronting First Street and are encouraged throughout the Core. In order to ensure that Downtown Core is the most densely developed part of the city, a minimum density of 30 and up to 55 dwelling units per acre is required. At this density, sites in the Core would be considered appropriate for lower-income households.

ATTACHMENT 1
388

3-11
• The Gateway Plan Areas / Boulevard and Transit
The primary intent of the two Gateway Plan Areas is the provision of land for high-quality housing adjacent to the Downtown Core . The Downtown Transit Gateway District, centered along east First Street, provides an opportunity for transit -oriented development due to the proximity of the ACE/LAVTA stations. In this Plan Area, residential development within 2,000 feet of the ACE/LAVT A/station is awarded a 25 percent density bonus.
• The Neighborhood Plan Areas / North and South Sides
The two Neighborhood Plan Areas are intended to enhance and maintain the residential character surrounding the Downtown Core. The development standards encourage residential uses compatible with the single -family neighborhoods adjacent to the Downtown.

Incentives to Facilitate Redevelopment
The DSP development standards were crafted to promote redevelopment in the Downtown, including increased, more- intense housing opportunities. The DSP encourages this through alternative open space requirements, relaxed parking standards, minimal setbacks, flexibility for National Register historic structures or historic resources, and streamlined processing f or smaller projects. Specific standards are discussed in more detail later in this section.

Since adoption of the DSP, the City has moved forward with implementation steps to further increase the viability of Downtown redevelopment. Most recently, Development Standards for the Downtown Core Plan Area were amended in May 2020, which enabled implementation of the Downtown Plan that the City Council had approved on January 29 th, 2018. The
amendments enabled the Downtown Core with various uses including 130 multi-family housing units and associated infrastructure upgrades.

Infrastructure Upgrades
A major step the City has taken to support redevelopment and accommodate intensified development in the Downtown is improving and upgrading Downtown infrastructure, particularly in the Core Plan Area where the catalyst sites are located. Following adoption of the DSP, the City began to implement numerous upgrades and improvements that included:
• Moving State Route 84 from First Street to Isabel Avenue to remove truck traffic from First Street and create a more pedestrian friendly environment for Downtown residents and the shopping community. This step was particularly crucial to foster a pedestrian friendly environment in the Downtown Core Plan Area along First Street between Maple and L Streets, where mixed-use is required in new buildings.
• Reconfiguring First Street from 4 lanes to 2 and adding diagonal parking, street trees, landscaping, and hardscape to create a more lively, walkable environment for commercial and mixed-use buildings.
• Widening Railroad Avenue to accommodate increased traffic diverted from First Street in the Downtown Core.
• Water and sewer upgrades along Railroad Avenue to accommodate estimated Downtown Specific Plan buildout.

ATTACHMENT 1
389

3-12
• New water mains and sewer l aterals to all parcels along First Street in the Downtown Core from Maple to L Streets to accommodate intensified mixed-uses.

Streamlined Project Review Process
The Downtown Specific Plan provides detailed development standards and regulations as well as purposeful goals and objectives to achieve revitalization. Due to the specificity and detail in the plan, potential developers and property owners tend to have a clear understanding regarding the use of their property, as well as development standards that must be addressed in new or redeveloped buildings. The DSP also streamlined the review process for Downtown projects by a) establishing sufficient detail on regulations and b) allowing a majority of the projects to be reviewed at an administrative level, thereby reducing the overall processing time for new projects. Most projects that are consistent with the DSP can be processed at the staff level. Only larger residential and commercial projects require discretionary review by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Development Code
The City implements the General Plan policies and regulates the type, location, and scale of residential development primarily through the Development Code. Development regulations are designed to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of residents and to preserve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods.

In February 2010, the Cit y adopted a new Development Code to replace the Zoning Code.

The City updated the standards in the code to ensure consistency with the General Plan, existing policies and procedures, and applicable state regulations, including those for “reasonable accommodations.” The City also revised outdated development regulations and older zoning districts to help reduce constraints to development caused by the City’s previous zoning law. The new code was designed to be easier for residents, developers, and staff to understand and apply, which can save time during the entitlement process. For example, residential projects with four or fewer units are subject to administrative design review by staff.

The most recent ordinance updating the code was passed on June 28 th, 2021.

Residential Zoning
The current Development Code has 12 major residential zoning districts and a Planned Development (PD) District (see Table 3 -3, below). Most of the residential zoning districts permit a range in density. In all cases, the density range permitted in each zoning district is consistent with the underlying General Plan designation. As described further below, the code establishes development standards for each zoning district, such as lot coverage, setbacks, and minimum lot sizes.

Form-Based Zoning
As part of the 2010 Development Code update, the City included form -based regulations to promote pedest rian-scaled urbanism in “Transect” zones. Unlike conventional zoning, form - based codes emphasize the built form over the segregation of land uses and parameters such as setbacks and floor area ratios. Built form involves the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. Form -based codes frequently use photos and graphics to explain the details of the requirements, making them more readily understandable by residents ATTACHMENT 1
390

3-13
and developers. Use of a form -based code can reduce the length of the project review process.

The code includes two Transect zones (T3 and T4), with placeholders for four zones not currently used. (T1 and T2 are intended to apply to Natural and Rural areas, respectively, and T5 is reserved for the Urban Center and T-6 for the Urban Core.) The development standards for the T3 and T4 zones primarily focus on mixed-use, walkable areas of the city. They range in function and density from primarily residential areas with a mix of building types (T3 -Neighborhood) to medium density neighborhoods and other commercial and retail areas (T4 -Neighborhood, T4- Neighborhood Open, T4-Main Street Open, and T4-Main Street). The City has designated much of the neighborhoods immediately north and south of the Downtown area as T3 or T4.

Mixed-Use Zoning
The NM zone was created to implement the Neighborhood Mixed-Use land use designation of the 2003 General Plan Update. The zoning district permits a mixture of neighborhood -serving businesses and residential uses and refers to the T4 development standards. Vertical mixed-use is permitted and encouraged on-site. A minimum of 20 percent of the site’s floor area shall be developed with commercial uses. The required range of the mix of Transect zones within the NMU planning sites is:
• T4 Neighborhood: Allowed to occupy 25 to 80 percent of land • T4 Neighborhood Open: Allowed to occupy up to 50 percent of land • T4 Main Street Open: Allowed to occupy 10 to 50 percent of land • T4 Main Street: Allowed to occupy 10 to 20 percent of land The Neighborhood Mixed -Use sites are also designated as Transferable Development Credit (TDC) receiver sites, meaning they have dual general plan designations.

Since the TDC program was implemented, several residential projects have been approved or constructed on a TDC site (Auburn Grove, Portola Common, Arroyo Crossings, Shea Sage, Magnolia Place, Catalina Townhomes, Brisa, and Bluebell Drive). None of t hese projects, applications, or proposals have opted, or even proposed, to utilize the baseline densities on these sites. This suggests that the higher density Neighborhood Mixed -Use option is the most economically feasible—more so than new commercial or the lower density residential option.

General Plan policy provides an exemption to participating in the TDC program for projects that provide affordable housing, and affordable units are exempt from the TDC fee. Projects that provide affordable or other ty pes of special housing may also have the baseline density increased.

The TDC Program is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

Other
Zoning
The City permits some residential uses in the Commercial Office (CO), Professional Office (CP), Planned Development/Agriculture (PD -AG), South Livermore Valley/Agriculture (SLV -AG), Education and Institution (E), and Open Space (OS -R and OS- A) zones. The City also conditionally permits additional residential uses in the nonresidential zones listed in Table 3 -3.

ATTACHMENT 1
391

3-14
Development Standards
The Development Code includes a set of development standards for each zoning district. Sites zoned as Planned Development (PD) have a unique set of development standards, although some refer to a standard zoning district under the current or previous zoning codes. This section discusses the main types of development standards.

ATTACHMENT 1
392

3-15
Table 3-3: Zoning Districts That Allow Residential Uses and Development Standards District/Purpose GP Land Use GP Density
(du/acre)
Min/Max.

Lot Area in
sq. ft
Setbacks
Coverage1 Max. Bldg. Ht.

Front Sides Rear
R-R – Residential Rural RR

1.0 per acre
to 1.0 per 5
acres
Min. 40,000 30’ 1 side: 20’
Total: 45’ 50’ 25% 35’
R-S – Suburban
Residential

UL, ULM, UM,
UMH

1.0 per 5
acres up to

6.0 Min. 6000 Min. 20’ Min 10’, and
12’ Min. 25’ FAR max.
35% Max. 35’
R-L – Residential Low
density UL-1, UL-2, 1.0 – 2.0 Min. 5,000 Min. 15’ Min. 15’ Min. 5’ – 10’ 40% Max. 35’ MFR – Multifamily
Residential UH 6.0-18.0 Min. 5,000 15’
8’ min plus
5’ for every
story above
first.
5’ min plus 5’
for every story
above first.
50%
Main building:

Max 3 stories,
45’/Accessory
structure:

Max 15’
RG – Suburban Multi-
Residential UH 4.5 - 18.0 See subcategories listed below.

RG-16 UH-3 14.0 - 18.0 6,000 Min. 20’
1 story: Min.
10’/ 2 to 3
stories: 20’
plus 5’ for
every story
above
1 story: Min.
10’/ 2 to 3
stories: 20’
plus 5’ for
every story
above
50%
Main building:

Max 3 stories,
45’/Accessory
structure: Max
15’
RG-14 UH -2
UH-3

8.0 – 14.0

14.0 -18.0 6,500 Min. 20’ ″ ″ 40% ″
RG-12 UH-2 8.0-14.0 7,500 Min. 25’ ″ ″ 35% ″
RG-10 UH-2 8.0-14.0 9,000 Min. 30’ ″ ″ 30% ″
T3N – T3
Neighborhood

ULM, UM,
UMH 2.0-6.0
Regulated
by building
type
Min.
20’/Max
30’
Min. 5’ Min. 5’ Max. 35’
2 ½ stories
NMU – Neighborhood
Mixed-Use

NML, NMM,
NMH 2.0-30.0 See T4 subcategories listed below.

ATTACHMENT 1
393

3-16
Table 3-3: Zoning Districts That Allow Residential Uses and Development Standards District/Purpose GP Land Use GP Density
(du/acre)
Min/Max.

Lot Area in
sq. ft
Setbacks
Coverage1 Max. Bldg. Ht.

Front Sides Rear
T4N – T4
Neighborhood
UH-2, UH-3,
UH-4 8.0-22.0
Regulated
by building
type
Min.
match
adjacent
property/
Max. 30’
1 story Min.
5’/ 2+ stories
Min. 7.5’
Min. 5’ Max. 35’
2 ½ stories
T4N-O –
Neighborhood Open OC 14.0-18.0
Min.
match
adjacent
property/
Max. 25’
1 story Min.
5’/ 2+ stories
Min. 7.5’
Min. 5’ Max. 35’ to ,
2 ½ stories
T4MS-O – Main Street
Open NML, NMM 2.0 – 24.0 with
TDC 0’ Min. 0’ Min. 0’
Max. 35’ to
eave/parapet,
3 stories
T4MS – Main Street NML, NMM 2.0 – 24.0 with
TDC 0’ Min. 0’ Min. 0’ Max. 35’
3 stories
CO – Commercial
Office OC
n/a,
regulated by
FAR
Min. 5,000
Min. 5’ /
adj R zone
15’
Min. 0’ / adj
R zone 10’
Min. 0’ / adj R
zone 10’
FAR max.
30% 35’
CP – Professional
Office OC
Min. 5,000
/ Max.
10,000
Min. 15’ Min. 5’ Min. 5’ FAR max.
30%
Max 26’,
2 stories
E – Education and
Institution CF Min 20,000 Min. 25’ Min. 15’ Min. 15’ 50% 35’ OS – Open Space OS
OS-A: min.
871,200 /
OS-R: min.
43,560/
OS-F 0
Min. 20’
Lots < 10,000
sf: 10’ min. /
Lots > 10,000
12’ min.

Min. 25’ FAR max.
35% 35’
ATTACHMENT 1
394

3-17
Table 3-3: Zoning Districts That Allow Residential Uses and Development Standards District/Purpose GP Land Use GP Density
(du/acre)
Min/Max.

Lot Area in
sq. ft
Setbacks
Coverage1 Max. Bldg. Ht.

Front Sides Rear
PD-AG – Planned
Development/Agricult
ure
Limited
Agriculture,
Large Parcel
Agriculture

100 acres
min. or 18
acres min.
with
Reduced
Lot Option
Min. 30' Min. 50' Min. 20' No max. 40'
SLV-AG – South
Livermore
Valley/Agriculture
Agriculture/V
iticulture

1.0 per 100
acres
100 acres
min. Min. 30' Min. 50' Min. 20' FAR max.
20% 40'
DSP – Downtown
Specific Plan4 DA See subcategories listed below.

Downtown Core DA Min. 30.0
Max. 55.03
No
min./Max.
20’
Min. 0
Max. 10’ None N/A
Min. 2 floors/
20’Max.
3 floors/
45’4 floors/
55’ on
designated
sites
Gateway Plan
Areas (Transit &
Boulevard)
DA
Min. 15.0
Max. 30.0
Along First St.
up to 50
w/ CUP
Min. 5,000;
Max 10,000
for SF in
Residential
Transition
Areas
Min. 15’-20'
Min. 5’
Increased 5’
for every
story above
first (except
for
detached
SF).

Min. 15’
(except for
detached SF
with public
alley)
Increased 5’
for every story
above first
N/A 3-floors/45’
Neighborhood-
North and South
Side
DA
No min. for
detached SF
Min. 15.0 for
all other uses
Min. 5,000;
Max 10,000
for
detached
SF
Min. 15’
Min. 5’
Increased 5’
for every
story above
first.

Min. 15’ N/A 3-floors/45’
ATTACHMENT 1
395

3-18
Table 3-3: Zoning Districts That Allow Residential Uses and Development Standards District/Purpose GP Land Use GP Density
(du/acre)
Min/Max.

Lot Area in
sq. ft
Setbacks
Coverage1 Max. Bldg. Ht.

Front Sides Rear
IN – Isabel
Neighborhood IN See subcategories listed below.

Transition IN 15.0-25.0 Min. 0'-20'
Min. 15' where abutting
existing residential uses;
otherwise, Min. 5' for first and
second stories;
Min. 10' for third story and
above
3 5
Village IN 25.0-40.0 Min. 0'-20' 4 5
Center IN 40.0-60.0 Min. 0'-20'
Max. 12'
along non
Main or
Major
Streets
Min. 10' for
3rd story
and
above
0' side setback along Main
Street; otherwise, Min 5' for
first and second stories; Min.
10' for third story and
above
5 5
Core IN 60.0-100.0 6 5
1 Coverage” is the floor area of the largest story of a building divided by the total site area. 2 Residential uses at an RM density are conditionally permitted. 3 No minimum density in mixed-use developments for units above first floor where nonresidential uses are on ground floor. 4 Refer to DSP for exceptions.
5 Refer to the INSP for height limits in the Scenic Corridor exception areas. For all other areas, building heights shall be regulated by Policy P-LU-8 and Table 2-6, Performance Measures by Subarea, in the INSP or by the General Plan Scenic Corridor Policy, whichever is more restrictive.

Source: City of Livermore Development Code, 2010, confirmed 2021 ATTACHMENT 1
396

3-19
Density
The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in each residential project is calculated by multiplying the gross acreage times the maximum allowable density under the General Plan residential land use designation, rounding down to the nearest whole number. General Plan policy defines gross acreage to include all the land within the boundaries of the property as well as all or a portion of adjacent street frontage.
21 The 2003-2025 General Plan includes five mixed -use land designations to encourage infill and higher density residential development close to transit, existing services, and infrastructure.

These include: Downtown Core (30- 55 du/acre), Downtown Gate way Plan Areas (15- 30 du/acre; up to 50 du/acre with CUP), Downtown Neighborhood (0- 15 du/acre), Isabel Neighborhood (15 -100 du/acre), Neighborhood Mixed Low (12- 15 du/acre), Neighborhood Mixed Medium (15 -24 du/acre), and Neighborhood Mixed High (24 -38 du/ acre). These designations, along with the Urban High (UH) categories, provide a wider range of densities and allow for a variety of housing types compared to the other residential designations.

Height Limits and Setbacks
Maximum height and lot coverage regulations are designed to preserve the quality and ensure the compatibility of residential development in neighborhoods. The typical height limit in lower density residential zones is 35 feet. This allows for a two -story home with additional room to incorporate a variety of roof designs. Medium and higher density residential districts permit varied heights and number of stories depending on the number of units constructed and/or the setback.

In 2011, the City amended the Development Code to simplify the RG zone height limits, which was previously dependent on the size of the setback. The RG zone height limits are three stories or 45 feet, and proposed development above 45 feet is subject to a conditional use permit.

Though market conditions may affect development of multifamily housing, the City cannot control market conditions and can only ensure development standards do not constrain development. The City has reduced development constraints to multifamily housing by allowing a greater maximum height.

The Core Area of the Downtown Specific Plan, which allows the most intense residential development (up to 55 dwelling units per acre), permits up to three stories or 45 feet in most areas. Select sites may have a height up to four stories or 55 feet with City Council approval.

The City Council has considered requests to exceed the maximum height permitted in the Downtown Core. Two examples of actual projects are the Bankhead Theater and the Legacy project. The Bankhead Theater is a 500-seat local performing arts theater. The maximum height permitted for the small performing arts theater is 75 feet. The highest point of the proposed building, the fly- space tower, is 65½ feet. Legacy is a mixed -use project with 222 rental apartments with about 14,000 square feet of retail. The project has two buildings. One is ground- floor retail with two stories of apartments above it. The building is 3 floors and 45 feet adjacent to First Street. The maximum height of the project is 54 feet at the ridges and stair towers, and 49 feet for the main roof. Adjacent to First Street the building is three stories and 43 feet.

21 For the purpose of calculating density, properties with more than one street frontage may only use the longest street frontage, which is considered the area between the street right-of-way boundary and the midline of the adjacent fronting streets (except freeways and highways).

ATTACHMENT 1
397

3-20
Small Lot Development
The Downtown Specific Plan Area has a number of small vacant and underdeveloped sites, particularly in the Downtown Core and Downtown Gateway Plan Areas. Potential constraints to creating new residential units on small lots in the Downtown, and in the Downtown Core area in particular, include the existing character and historic nature of buildings, which may make renovation or new construction more difficult. In the Core area along First Street, buildings are constructed along property lines, which limits new construction to additional stories to add square footage. The Downtown also includes several brownfield sites that are redevelopment opportunities with site remediation.

To offset the above constraints, the City utilizes a variety of measures and tools, including regulatory incentives, financial subsidies, negotiation/mediation, and business relocation assistance.

Regulatory Incentives
To accomplish the goal of creating new housing in the Downtown through small- lot redevelopment or lot consolidation where possible, the DSP allows densities of a min imum 30 dwelling units per acre in the Downtown Core. It also allows taller building heights, especially in the Downtown Core and Transit and Boulevard Plan Areas, which permit up to three floors/45 feet. The DSP specifically allows greater height (up to f our floors and 55 feet) on the Livermore Village and Groth Brothers catalyst sites in the Core as further incentive for redevelopment.

Development regulations intended to encourage revitalization and increase opportunities to create housing include:
• Alternative Open Space Requirements. The DSP offers flexibility to smaller sites to meet their Open Space requirements in the Downtown. Residential or mixed-use sites of less than one acre may meet their requirement on-site, off-site, by in-lieu payment, or through a combination of any of these options. • Relaxed Parking Standards. Parking standards in the Downtown have been developed to address its more urban nature. They are intended to encourage redevelopment and shared parking opportunities via existing or new parking structures (in the Core Area).
o Parking requirements for renovation, enlargement, or use changes apply only to net new floor area and/or the incremental increase in parking demand that accompanies a higher intensity use.
o Smaller residential units and multifamily (apartments, flats, lofts) require less parking: 1-bedroom units require only 1 space, and apartments and flats require only 1.75 spaces.

Throughout the Downtown, no additional parking spaces are required for the conversion of existing commercial/office/retail space to mixed -use where residential units are provided above (second floor and up).
• Minimal Setbacks. In the Core Plan Area there are no minimum building setback requirements.

ATTACHMENT 1
398

3-21
• Flexibility for National Historic Structures or Historic R esources. To allow use conversions of historic structures that will promote rehabilitation (including relocation), the Specific Plan allows modifications to development standards, subject to review by the Historic Preservation Commission. • Streamlined Processing for Smaller Projects . Residential projects providing less than 40 dwelling units can be reviewed and approved administratively at a staff level.
• Density Incentives . A 25 percent density bonus is permitted in the Transit Gateway Plan Area for project s within 2,000 feet of the LAVTA/ACE station (or other planned transit station). Also, along First Street near the transit center, up to 50 du/acre projects are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit.

Parking Requirements
In general, parking requirements are intended to provide adequate on -site parking without causing parking deficiencies. Requiring too much parking, however, can add costs to development, which in turn creates a constraint.

The City’s parking requirements for residential districts vary by housing type, the number of bedrooms, and parking needs (see Table 3-4). Detached and attached residences and mobile home parks are required to provide two on -site spaces per unit for units with two bedrooms or more. Guest parking must also be provided at a ratio of one additional space for every four units in multifamily projects.

As part of the Development Code update in 2010, the City investigated reduced parking standards for senior housing and smaller units (studios and one-bedrooms). As a result, the Code now has reduced parking requirements for studio and one -bedroom units at one space per unit, which reduces the land costs and improves the feasibility of these housing types. The City also updated its parking regulations to clarify that tandem parking is allowed in all residential and mixed-use zones when both spaces are for the same residential unit. Accessory dwelling units (ADU) require a similarly reduced amount of parking with circumstantial exemptions allowed, and junior accessory dwelling units (JADU) do not require additional parking.

In the Downtown Specific Plan, parking requirements for detached and attached residential uses are the same as for the rest of the city but vary for multifamily and senior housing. For example, parking for senior housing is required at 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit, and parking for multifamily units with two or more bedrooms is required at 1.75 spaces.

ATTACHMENT 1
399

3-22
Table 3-4: Parking Requirements
Residential Type Required Spaces
Detached and Attached Units
Studio and 1-bedroom 1 space per unit (No covered space required) 2 or more bedrooms 2 spaces per unit (No covered space required) Guest spaces (multiple families) 1 space per 4 units (No covered space required) Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) 1 space per unit, with some exceptions.1 Mobile Home Parks
Each mobile home 2 spaces per unit
Use in common 0.5 space per unit (Within 200’ of each lot) Guest spaces 0 spaces per unit if on-street parking is provided within project or on an adjacent street;
1 space per 5 units if one side of street has
parking;
2 spaces per 5 units if no on-street parking exists;
(Determined by street adjacent lot. If corner lot,
can use either street, or both, to determine.)
Downtown Specific Plan
Single-family, detached/attached
Studio and 1-bedroom 1 space per unit (1 covered space required) 2 or more bedrooms 2 spaces per unit (1 covered space required) Multifamily
Studio and 1-bedroom 1 space per dwelling unit (1 covered space required)
2 or more bedroom 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit (1 covered space required)
Guest spaces
1 space per 10 units (or portion thereof) provided
on-site or off-site within 600’ of the project, or
waived with payment of in-lieu fees if public
parking is identified within 600’ of the project
Senior housing

1.25 spaces per unit (1 covered space required)
In-lieu fee payment also possible for on-site or off-
site parking.

Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
Transition and Village Districts
Studio and 1-bedroom 1 to 1.25 spaces per unit
2-bedrooms 1.5 to 2 spaces per unit
3 or more bedroom 2 to 2.5 spaces per unit
ATTACHMENT 1
400

3-23
Table 3-4: Parking Requirements
Residential Type Required Spaces
Center and Core Districts
Studio and single room occupancy (SRO) 0.75 to 1 space per unit 1-bedroom 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit
2 or more bedrooms 1.25 to 2 spaces per unit
Guest spaces 1 space per 4 to 8 units
Source: Livermore Development Code, 2010; Livermore Downtown Specific Plan, amended in 2020; City of Livermore ADU and JADU Criteria Checklist, July 2020; Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan, 2020. Confirmed 2021. 1 No parking for ADUs within: one-half mile walking distance of transit (including local bus stops or ACE Train station); a historic district; an existing primary residence or existing accessory structure; where on street parking permit is required but not offered to the inhabitant of the ADU; where a documented carshare vehicle is located within one block. Where the ADU is a garage, carport, or parking structure conversion, no replacement parking is required.

LOCAL ORDINANCES/REGULATIONS IMPACTING HOUSING SUPPLY
Urban Growth Boundary
The intent of Livermore’s urban growth boundary (UGB) is to protect existing agricultural uses and natural resources outside the city from urban development while promoting infill development near available services. The UGB was completed in two phases. The South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was passed by local voters in March 2000 and established the boundary along the southern edge of the city. The North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was passed in December 2002 and completed the UGB around the northern edge of the city. The Land Use Element of the General Plan includes the policies associated with both initiatives, while the exact language of each Initiative is contained in the General Plan appendix.

While the UGB limits urban development to within city limits, the North Livermore UGB Initiative contains a “State Housing Requirement” provision that would permit the development of affordable housing outside the UGB to meet State housing requirements, so long as there is no land available within the city boundary to meet the requirement through new development, more intensive development, or redevelopment.

The City’s UGB is not considered a constraint to housing development because it does not affect the total number of units permitted in Livermore, only the location of units.

Transferable Development Credits Program
The Transferable Development Credits (TDC) Program was developed as part of the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative, adopted in December 2002. The program implements the UGB as another way to preserve agricultural land outside the City’s UGB, curtail sprawl, and provide opportunities for higher density infill residential development near existing infrastructure and transportation services within the UGB. The program reduces the pressure to develop on property outside the UGB in North Livermore by enabling rural property owners to sell credits to builders seeking residential density within the city boundary.

ATTACHMENT 1
401

3-24
General Plan policy outlines the basic objectives and parameters of the program, while the TDC Ordinance outlines the implementation details of the program. The program assigns development credits to properties beyond the UGB as well as residential receiver sites within the UGB. Developers may purchase development credits from willing sellers beyond the UGB to achieve greater residential density on the receiver sites within the UGB. Existing TDC receiver sites were established during the 2003 General Plan update and were selected based on their suitability for higher density, infill residential development. In most cases, the developer and/or property owner requested the change.

Each receiver site has a dual general plan designation. The baseline density is achievable without the need to comply with the City’s TDC Ordinance. Applicants who wish to exceed the baseline density must comply with the City’s TDC Ordinance by purchasing TDCs from owners in North Livermore or by paying an in- lieu fee to the City. Development on the receiver site is limited to the maximum density allowed under the General Plan designation and is subject to the development standards of the corresponding, underlying zoning district. Projects may also utilize the Planned Development District for greater flexibility in achieving higher density. An example of a receiver site is the 28+ -acre Arroyo Vista Neighborhood Plan site, which has a base general plan land use designation of light industrial and a dual designation of Urban High – 3 Residential (which permits 14 to 18 du/acre).
22 Participation in the program is voluntary; participants may purchase TDCs and achieve the higher density. However, the TDC In-Lieu Fee Ordinance provides an alternative to purchasing TDCs and provides exemptions for certain projects.

The TDC Ordinance establishes exemptions from the TDC or in -lieu fee requirement to support the provision of afforda ble units and use of density bonus incentives. Projects exempt from purchasing TDCs or paying an in-lieu fee include residential projects in the Downtown Specific Plan Area; housing units covered by an affordable housing agreement provided through density bonus for affordable or senior housing consistent with the State law; and units provided consistent with the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.

The TDC program provides an alternative to achieving more intense residential development on certain sites. It does not preclude or constrain higher density residential development on receiver sites and has no demonstrable impact on accommodating the City’s RHNA.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Since 1987, the City has been setting inclusionary housing policies, which require residential development projects to contribute to the production of affordable housing units for low - income and moderate-income households. By requiring developers to set aside a portion of a market rate housing project’s units as affordable, the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, which was codified in 2000 and is also referred to as its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, has produced over 180 homes for low- and moderate -income first -time homebuy ers.

Approximately 25% of the units produced have been purchased by Livermore schoolteachers.

The program has also contributed to the City’s inventory of affordable rental units through City Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee funding and implementation of the on-site requirement.

22 Under the approved Neighborhood Plan, the site can be developed with approximately 495 multifamily residential units. Neighborhood plans are not typically required for the development of TDC receiver sites.

ATTACHMENT 1
402

3-25
The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that at least 15 percent of all units in a residential development within General Plan areas be set aside as affordable (excluding Downtown and Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Areas which have their own specific inclusionary requirements). Developments in General Plan areas with for -sale units must set aside at least 7.5 percent of affordable units for low -income households, with the balance set aside for moderate-income households. For rental developments in General Plan areas, at least

7.5 percent of affordable units must be set aside for very -low-income households, with the balance set aside for low-income households. Wherever inclusionary set-asides result in an odd number of units, the majority of units must be provided to the lower income group.

Residential projects of 10 units or less are not required to construct affordable housing units, but must pay the affordable housing fee.

As noted earlier in this chapter, in the Downtown Specific Plan Area, at least 10 percent of units in each project must be affordable to low -income households. In the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Area, at least 20 percent of units throughout the plan area must be affordable to extremely low-, very-low-, low-, or moderate-income households. Each project must contribute some inclusionary units towards that overall 20 percent.

This ordinance effectively helps to overcome market constraints to the provision of affordable housing by requiring developers to build a percentage of affordable units as part of their projects. The City will continue to implement the ordinance to facilitate the production of affordable housing (Program 3.1.1). The remainder of this section provides a detailed description of the ordinance and an analysis of its effects on housing production and costs.

On-Site Requirement
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has a “must build” requirement that affordable units be constructed on-site. The on-site requirement is implemented because it:
• Helps offset past market trends that constructed more expensive, low -density homes on available land.
• Augments the City’s affordable housing stock. (Almost all residential properties in Livermore are under private ownership, and even with the inclusionary housing fees, the City and nonprofit agencies have difficulty competing in the private market for land on which to develop affordable housing.) • Provides opportunity for lower -income and moderate -income households to enter the homeownership market.
• Promotes economic residential integration by producing mixed-income housing throughout the city.
• Provides residents within affordable housing units with the same access to public services, such as parks, transit, and schools, that are available in or near market- rate subdivisions.

Alternate Means of Compliance with On-Site Requirement
State housing law mandates alternate means for complying with local inclusionary provisions.

Accordingly, the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance provides options for complying with all or a portion of the on-site requirement, pending approval by City Council (see “Approval Process for Alternative Compliance Requests,” below). These options are described in Section ATTACHMENT 1
403

3-26

10.06.050 of the Development Code and must be economically equivalent to producing affordable units on-site. The five alternative methods include:
• Accessory Dwelling Units . In a project of more than 50 dwelling units, up to 20 percent of the requirement for reserved units may be satisfied by including accessory dwelling units accessory to the market -priced units. Each accessory dwelling unit provides a credit of 20 percent of a required affordable unit without regard to unit size or other minimum standards specified in Section

10.06.050(D)7.
• Off-Site Construction . A dev eloper may satisfy the affordable housing requirement by constructing or making provisions to construct reserved housing units on a site other than the primary project site. The off-site units are subject to the standards in the Development Code. A developer may not satisfy the affordable housing requirement by applying credits from reserved units on previously constructed projects. Other existing units in projects already completed may not be substituted to satisfy the affordable housing requirement.
• In-Lieu Fee. A developer may satisfy the affordable housing requirement by paying an in-lieu fee that is economically equivalent to producing the required number of affordable units. The method of calculating the in -lieu fee is in Chapter 3.26.050 of the Municipal Code. Projects of 10 or fewer units are subject to the In -Lieu fee adopted by City Council annually and specified in the City Development Fee Schedule. Projects with 11 or more units which have been approved for a portion of on -site units to be sa tisfied in fee are subject to the fee methodology based on the actual development cost of the market rate units subject to the requirement, as described in the Code. • Dedication of Land. A developer may satisfy the affordable housing requirement by dedicating to the City a parcel of land suitable for development of housing units equal to or exceeding the number of affordable units required to be provided in compliance with this section. The General Plan designation and zoning designation on the land proposed for dedication shall be consistent with the intended use of the property for affordable housing at the appropriate density, and there shall be direct access to improved streets and utilities.

Approval Process for Alternative Compliance Requests
Residential projects of 11 units or more within the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan and Isabel Neighborhood Plan Area are subject to the on -site requirement, and alternative compliance requests require City Council approval. Projects of 10 or fewer units may pay the in-lieu fee without an alternative compliance request. Projects within the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan are exempt from the on-site requirement, but must pay the affordable housing in- lieu fee.

Alternative compliance requests are processed and approved as part of the City’s residential entitlement process., Staff work extensively with developers to implement City Council Affordable Housing priorities and identify alternatives that are economically equivalent to building required units on-site, address the City’s affordable housing needs, and are feasible for ATTACHMENT 1
404

3-27
the development project. The requirements are designed to maximize the impact of each residential development and allow the City to respond to emerging opportunities.

Comparability of Units
Affordable units must be constructed concurrently with market -rate units and must be “comparable” units to the market -rate units —in type, bedroom mix, amenities, exterior appearance, and interior fixtures and finishes. Specific requirements to further this end include:
• The affordable units cannot be distinguishable from other units in the project from the street.
• The average number of bedrooms must equal the average number of bedrooms for all other units in the project, up to a limit of three bedrooms per unit.
• Minimum unit sizes.
• The number of bathrooms in affordable units must equal the proportion of bathrooms in the market-priced units.
• Units must have air conditioning, enclosed garages, and laundry facilities to the extent market-priced units have those amenities.
• The mix of product types of reserved units shall reflect the overall mix of market- rate product types provided in the project.
• Affordable units must be dispersed throughout the project site rather than concentrated in one portion of the development. The comparability requirements for the required inclusionary units are consistent with design requirements applied to market -rate units. Developers are not required to provide additional external or internal design features or upgrades or amenities in the inclusionary units that exceed the City’s standard design requirements for adequate housing. The “average number of bedrooms requirement” (up to a limit of 3 bedrooms) is intended to provide affordable housing to meet the demographic needs of the city while limiting developer cost to provide excessively large comparable units. For example, about 46 percent of households in Livermore have three or more people.

Consistent with a variety of State initiatives regarding smart growth and climate change, the comparability requirements are intended to ensure that affordable housing units are not segregated within residential neighborhoods or congregated in areas isolated from existing community services. Combined with the on-site requirement, the comparability requirement gives residents living in affordable housing units the same access to amenities, such as community parks, as market -rate units in the development. The City does allow variation in housing types, provided that the project does not compromise the intent of the ordinance—to blend, not segregate affordable units within neighborhoods and to provide affordable housing comparable in quality to market -rate housing. A potential construction impact of the comparability requirement is cost, when compared to the reduced cost of providing smaller affordable units with less amenities than market-rate units.

Affordability Terms/Restrictions
ATTACHMENT 1
405

3-28
The Inclusionary Ordinance contains affordability restrictions to ensure that the affordable units remain as such. These restrictions are implemented through a Low-Income Housing Agreement, which identifies the specific units that will be affordable and the sales price of the units. It also reiterates the provisions and stipulations of the ordinance. Developers cannot proceed until an agreement is reached. Specific affordability restrictions in the Inclusionary Ordinance and implemented by the Low-Income Housing Agreement include:

• 55-year Restriction: The ordinance ensures the affordability of the reserved units by requiring a 55 -year deed restriction for either rental or for -sale housing. The 55-year restriction, however, is a minimum requirement of the ordinance and, in an effort to preserve affordability to the greatest extent possible, the City strives to apply deed restrictions for more than the minimum (up to 99 years for rental projects). However, the City may negotiate a reduction in the minimum requirement if some of the for -sale units are rese rved for very -low-income households.

• For-Sale Units: For-sale units are encumbered with a silent second mortgage for the difference in value between the affordable price and the initial market rate sales price for comparable units. If a buyer resells the reserved unit within the restricted time period for a price in excess of the current affordable purchase price, the second mortgage must be repaid to the City for use in affordable housing programs. Additionally, the owner must live in the affordable unit.

• Rental Units: The affordability of rental units in a complex is preserved through a deed restriction, as outlined above, as well as a regulatory agreement that outlines the terms and conditions placed on the reserved units, such as term of affordability and maximum affordable rents to be charged based on the established household income limits. Additionally, the complex must be managed by a management company experienced in affordable housing and market available units through accessible and inclusive processes approved by the City.
• Enforcement: Through the various agreements, the City ensures that parties in violation of the affordable housing restrictions —such as by selling or renting an affordable unit at a price or rent exceeding the maximum allowed or t o an ineligible household—are subject to various penalties, which may include fines, payment of rents, or exercise of options to purchase the affordable units by the City.

Available Resources to Offset Potential Costs
The City offers programs to assist developers of affordable or special needs housing pay impact fees. The City regularly defers city sewer, storm drain, and water connection fees. In addition, Tri-Valley Transportation Council elected to waive its impact fees for affordable housing altogether in 2015. As part of this program, the City will also work with other local and regional agencies, for which the City collects fees , to explore similar deferral programs for their development impact fees (see Program 3.2.3, Partner with Affordable Housing a nd Service Providers).

ATTACHMENT 1
406

3-29
Existing regulatory incentives that the City utilizes to offset development costs include:
• Waiving the Tri- Valley Transportation Development fee for affordable and/or inclusionary housing projects.
• Waiving impact fees for accessory dwelling units less than 750 square feet in size. • Waiving Parks Facility Fee for accessory dwelling units as well as certain health facilities, such as assisted living, convalescent care, and skilled nursing facilities. • Allowing the payment of some development fees until occupancy or over time. • Providing fee credits for existing conditions to residential developers who are building on existing sites.
• Waiving the Art in Public Places Fee for affordable housing projects To further offset potential constraints, developers may use affordable units achieved via the Inclusionary Ordinance provisions toward meeting State density bonus provisions and City incentives.

Short-Term Rental Regulations
The City updated its short-term rental (STR) regulations in 2020 in Chapter 5.90 of the Municipal Code. Short-term rentals are allowed in residential districts and are not allowed in accessory dwelling units. No more than one short -term rental may be operated at a single location. The property owner is required to obtain an STR license from the City. Only one permit may be held per owner at a time. Short-term rental permits do not run with the land. The updates to the STR regulations are recent and balance the housing needs of long -term residents with options for property owners to have a short- term rental. The City will continue to monitor the impacts of STRs on long-term housing options.

PROVISIONS FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING
Housing element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites, to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards, to encourage the development of various types of housing for all economic segments of the population. This includes single-family housing, multifamily housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for the disabled, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and others. Table 3 -5 summarizes housing types permitted in the Development Code with a required permit. The following Table 3-6 summarizes housing types permitted in the Specific Plans with a required permit.

Livermore offers a diversity of housing types for all economic segments of the community as well as the more vu lnerable members of the community, including those earning lower incomes, seniors, disabled persons, students, the homeless, and others.

ATTACHMENT 1
407

3-30
Table 3-5: Housing Types Permitted by Development Code Zone Land Use
Transect Zones Non-Transect Zones
T3N T4N T4N
-O
T4MS
-O
T4
MS NMU RR RS RL MFR RG CS CNB CO CP I-1 I-2 E PD-
AG
SLV-
AG
OS-A/
OS-R
OS-
F
Residential Uses
Dwelling: Carriage House P - - - -
Regulated by a mix of the other Transect Zones5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dwelling: Accessory
Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P - - - C C - - P - C P - Dwelling: Junior
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P - - - C C - - P - - P - Dwelling: Single Room
Occupancy P P P P P P P P P P - - C C - - - - - - -
Dwelling: Single family P P1 P1 - - P P P - P - - C C - - P2 P P P C Dwelling: Mobile
home/manufactured
housing
P P1 P1 - - P P P - P - - C C - - P2
- -
P C
Dwelling: Duplex P1 P P - - - C
1 P
1 P P - - C C - - - - -
Townhouse - P P - - - C
1 - - - - - C C - - - - - -
Bungalow Court/
Fourplex/Sixplex/
Courtyard Apt
- P P - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
- -
Multi-family - - - - - - - P
1 P P - - C C - - - - - - -
Mixed-Use, residential
component - - P P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mobile home parks - - - - - - - - C C - - C C - - - - - - - Home Occupation H H H H H H H H H H - - - - - - - - - - - Residential Accessory
Use or Structure P P P P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Child Day Care Facility
(small) P P P P P P P P P P - - - - - - - - - - -
Child Day Care Facility
(large) Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z - - - - - - - - - - -
Child Day Care Facility
(family) C C C C C C C C C C C P P P P P P - - - -
ATTACHMENT 1
408

3-31
Table 3-5: Housing Types Permitted by Development Code Zone Land Use
Transect Zones Non-Transect Zones
T3N T4N T4N
-O
T4MS
-O
T4
MS NMU RR RS RL MFR RG CS CNB CO CP I-1 I-2 E PD-
AG
SLV-
AG
OS-A/
OS-R
OS-
F
Live/Work - - P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Caretaker Residence - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C C - - Special Needs Housing
Health Facility (≤6 beds) P P P P P
Regulated by a mix of the
other Transect Zones5 P P P P P - - - P - - - - - P -
Health Facility (>6 beds) C C C C C - C C P C C - C C C - - C - Emergency Shelters3 P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P - - P P Transitional/ Supportive
Housing4 P P P P P P P P P P - - C C - - - - - - -
Farm worker (Employee)
Housing - - - - - P - - - - - - - P - - - P - C -
Low Barrier Navigation
Center - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Notes:

1. Permitted only if legally existing at time of Code adoption, 5/01/10.

2. Accessory to a permitted use.

3. Subject to the provisions of Livermore Development Code Section 6.03.060.

4. Pursuant to SB 2, the City’s updated Development Code allows transitional and supportive housing as a residential use in all Transect zones subject to the same permit requirements of a residential use in the same zone. Definition of transitional housing includes supportive housing, shelter housing, and single room occupancy hotels and shelter housing.

5. The NMU zone is regulated by using a required mix of the T4 Main Street, T4 Main Street-Open, T4 Neighborhood, and T4 Neighborhood-Open transect zones. The T4 Neighborhood zone must comprise between 25 to 80 percent of a planning site; the T4 Neighborhood-Open zone may comprise up to 50 percent of the planning site; the T4 Main Street Open zone must comprise between 10 to 50 percent of the planning site; and the T4 Main Street zone must comprise between 10 to 20 percent of the planning site.

ATTACHMENT 1
409

3-32
Table 3-6: Housing Types Permitted by Specific Plan Zone Land Use
Downtown Specific Plan Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Core
Subarea 1
Core
Subarea 2
Core
Subarea 3
Core
Subarea 1,4 DTG DBG DNSS DNNS Transition Village Center Core Residential Uses
Accessory Dwelling
Unit P2 P P - P P P P P P P P
Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit
P2 P P - P P P P P P P P
Single Room
Occupancy
P2 P P - P P P P P P P P
Detached Single-
Family - - - - CUP CUP3 P P - - - -
Attached Single-
Family P2 P P - P P P P P P P P
Mobile home/
manufactured
housing
P2 P P - P P P P P P P P
Multi-family P2 P P P P P P P P P P P
Mixed-Use, residential
component P2 P P P P P P P P P P P
Mobile home parks - - - - - - - - - - - -
Home Occupation - - - - - - - - P P P P
Residential Accessory
Use or Structure
- - - - - - - - P P P P
Child Day Care
Facility (small)
- CUP CUP - - - - - P P P P
Child Day Care
Facility (large)
- CUP CUP - - - - - Z - - -
Live/Work - P P - CUP CUP P4 P5 P P P P
ATTACHMENT 1
410

3-33
Table 3-6: Housing Types Permitted by Specific Plan Zone Land Use
Downtown Specific Plan Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Core
Subarea 1
Core
Subarea 2
Core
Subarea 3
Core
Subarea 1,4 DTG DBG DNSS DNNS Transition Village Center Core Special Needs Housing
Health Facility (≤6
beds) - CUP CUP - CUP CUP CUP CUP P P P P
Health Facility (>6
beds)
- CUP CUP - CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Emergency Shelters - - - - - - - - P P P P
Transitional/
Supportive Housing
6 P2 P P - P P P P P P P P
Farm worker
(Employee) Housing
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Low Barrier
Navigation Center
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Notes: P = Permitted, Z = Zoning Use Permit, CUP = Conditional Use Permit

1. Special Condition Subdistrict

2. Allowed on upper floors.

3. No CUP required in Transition Zone.

4. Allowed west of Livermore Avenue if pre-existing upon adoption of the Specific Plan. This use requires a CUP if not already existing.

5. Allowed when related to arts, crafts and artisan type uses, including walk-in trade in the area bounded by Railroad Avenue (south), L Street (west), Railroad Right of Way (north) and South Livermore Avenue (east). If these conditions don't apply, a CUP is required.

6. Pursuant to SB 2, the City’s updated Development Code allows transitional and supportive housing as a residential use in all Transect zones subject to the same permit requirements of a residential use in the same zone.

ATTACHMENT 1
411

3-34
Multifamily Units
The Development Code permits multifamily housing in the Multiple Family Residential (MFR) and Suburban Multiple Residential (RG) zones by right. Additionally, duplexes and townhouses are permitted by right in T4N and T4N -O Neighborhood Transect zones. In these districts, densities range from 6 units per acre to 22 units per acre. All five plan areas in the Downtown Specific Plan permit multifamily at density ranges starting at 15 units per acre up to 55 units per acre.

Approximately 20 percent of the Livermore housing stock consists of multifamily residences (see Table 2-30). Due to the residential infill policies adopted as part of the 2003 General Plan, as well as the focus to revitalize the Downtown Area and provide higher density residential there to support revitalization, the development trend has continued to be away from single -family development. Livermore has seen more applications and approvals for multifamily attached housing on infill sites and in the Downtown area. Most of these infill projects have resulted from the policy changes and increased residential densities permitted with adoption of the 2003 General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.

Licensed Care Facilities
The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 5115 and 5116) declares that persons with mental and physical disabilities are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings. The use of property for the care of six or fewer persons with disabilities is a residential use for the purpose of zoning. State-authorized, -certified, or -licensed family care home, foster home, or group home serving six or fewer persons with disabilities or dependent and neglected children on a 24-hour-a-day basis is considered a residential use that is permitted in all residential zones. No local agency can impose stricter zoning or building and safety standards on these homes than otherwise required for homes in the same district.

Per State law , the Livermore Development Code permits licensed residential or community care facilities with six or fewer beds in all residential zones. They are defined as health facilities in Livermore.
23 Community care facilities for seven or more residents are permitted in the MFR zone by right and permitted with a conditional use approval in an additional 23 zones (see Tables 3-5 and 3-6, above). A total of 43 care facilities are in Livermore (see Table 2-24).

Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory dwelling units (ADU s) provide an affordable rental housing opportunity for low - income and special needs population groups, such as the elderly, because they are small.

Housing costs typically increase with square footage, so smaller units are considered “affordable by design.” JADUs, or junior accessory dwelling units, are accessory units entirely enclosed within the primary structure.

The Livermore Development Code allows ADUs in every residential zoning district and in most nonresidential districts that allow single-family or multifamily dwellings. Unit size is dependent on the size of the lot and primary dwelling as well as the underlying zoning standards on lot coverage and floor area ratio (FAR), up to a maximum of 1,200 square feet. ADUs cannot be sold but may be rented. For these reasons, ADUs provide an opportunity for the development

23 The Development Code defines “health facility” as residential and community care facilities for the elderly, alcoholism recovery, and homes for mentally disordered, handicapped, or dependent and neglected children.

ATTACHMENT 1
412

3-35
of relatively small and affordable rental units for low - and moderate-income individuals and families, seniors, and disabled persons.

Many of the ADU units are garage conversions, which limits maximum size. The City waives some fees for ADUs and regularly responds to inquiries from homeowners interested in building ADUs.

Program 1.2.4 is proposed to allow ADUs in all zones that allow single -family or multifamily residential uses, to continue to update the City’s ADU regulations when state law changes, and to promote ADUs as a housing option to homeowners.

Mobile/Manufactured Homes
Mobile homes and manufactured homes offer an affordable housing option to many low- and moderate-income households. Mobile homes and manufactured housing are defined in the Development Code as single-family dwellings and are permitted in all residential zoning districts in Livermore. In addition, the Development Code permits mobile home parks in the MFR and RG, subject to a Conditional Use Permit, as well as in some PD districts.

Manufactured homes are reviewed for building permit issuance in the same manner as single - family homes; the City does not impose any additional design standards or requirements.

According to the California Department of Finance, 542 manufactured or mobile homes were located in the city in 2020 (see Table 2 -30). The City has not processed any c onversions of mobile home parks over the last two Housing Element cycles. The City’s Building Division has not issued a permit for manufactured single-family units since 2016 when two units were approved.

The City receives one or two permits for manufactured ADUs annually.

Farmworker Housing
The City’s agricultural uses, especially vineyards, may use seasonal labor. ABAG estimates that there were 314 agriculture jobs in Livermore in 2019 (see Table 2-9). Although ABAG indicates a low number of agricultural jobs in Livermore, there is potential demand for seasonal farm worker housing because Livermore is surrounded by agricultural land. By the nature of the profession, it is difficult to determine the number of seasonal farm laborers that may be working in the agricultural areas surrounding the city.

In anticipation of this potential need, the Livermore Development Code makes provisions to allow farm labor housing in districts that permit agricultural uses, such as the Rural Residential (R-R) and Open Space (OS-A & OS-R) Districts, and in the South Livermore Specific Plan areas.

The Planned Development - Agricultural District (PD -AG), the Planned Development – South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Area (PD -SLVSP), and the South Livermore Valley – Agricultural Zone (SLV- AG) all permit the provision of caretakers’ residences, which are defined as temporary modular dwellings for persons employed in the agricultural use of the property and the families of those persons, and/or living quarters for farm workers when necessary for on-site farming operations. Program 1.3.4 is proposed to review and revise the City’s Development Code for full compliance with the Employee Housing Act, which addresses farmworker and other employee housing.

ATTACHMENT 1
413

3-36
Emergency Shelters, SROs, and Transitional and Supportive Housing State law requires that a jurisdiction specify the zoning district(s) where emergency shelters for the homeless (including lower barrier navigation centers), single -room occupancy units (SRO), and transitional and supportive housing facilities are permitted. The definition of “transitional housing” in Chapter 11 of the City’s Development Code includes supportive housing, SRO hotels, and shelter housing.

Transitional and supportive housing is permitted in residential non -Transect zoning districts (R-R, R-S, R-L, R-G. and MFR) by right, and similar to other residential uses, with a conditional use permit in the CO and CP districts. In the Transect zones, a variety of residential use types are allowed by right. Pursuant to SB 2, the City’s Development Code allows transitional and supportive housing as a residential use in all Transect zones subject to the same permit requirements of a residential use in the same zone.

Consistent with State law, the City has identified at least one zoning district where emergency shelters are explicitly permitted. Emergency shelters are permitted by right in any non -Transect zoning district subject to the provisions of Section 6.03.060 of the Development Code (see Table 3-5). All non -Transect zoning districts include residential and nonresidential zones. Together, non-Transect zones include approximately 129 acres of vacant land (not including vacant land part of a Planned Development or a Neighborhood Plan) on nine sites that range from 7,000 square feet to greater than 5,000,000 square feet.

The emergency shelter standards in Section 6.03.060 are:
• On-site management and on -site security shall be provided during hours when the emergency shelter is in operation.
• Adequate external lighting shall be provided for security purposes. The lighting shall be stationary, directed downward, and shielded so as not to produce off - site glare.
• The development may provide one or more of the following specific common facilities for the exclusive use of the residents and staff:
o Central cooking and dining room(s)
o Recreation room
o Counseling center
o Child day care facilities
o Other support services
• Parking and outdoor facilities shall be designed to provide security for residents, visitors, employees, and the surrounding area.
• The agency or organization operating the shelter shall comply with the following requirements:
o Temporary shelter shall be available to residents for no more than six months. o Staff and services shall be provided to assist residents in obtaining permanent shelter and income.

ATTACHMENT 1
414

3-37
o The provider shall have a written management plan including, as applicable, provisions for staff training; neighborhood outreach; security; screening of residents to ensure compatibility with services provided at the facility; and training, counseling, and treatment programs for residents. • No emergency shelter shall be located within 300 feet of another emergency shelter site.
• The facility shall be in, and shall maintain at all times, good standing with City and/or State licenses, if required by these agencies for the owner(s), operator(s), and/or staff of the proposed facility.
• Emergency shelters in residential districts, when not developed in an individual dwelling unit format, shall not be subject to the underlying zone’s maximum unit density standard, but the number of beds shall be limited to three times the maximum number of dwelling units which would otherwise be permitted.

Program 3.3.3 is proposed to review the above standards for compliance with current state law and amend the standards if needed to comply with current state law.

The Alameda Countywide Homeless Count and Survey Report 24 estimates there were 8,022
persons in 7,661 households experiencing homelessness in Alameda County. There was an estimated homeless population of 264 people in the Livermore in 2019. Homeless services available in Livermore are outlined in Table 2 -27 and include transitional housing; permanent supportive housing; and three permanent, year -round, shelters —Tri-Valley Haven Sojourner House, Shiloh House, and Sheph erd’s Gate. The City also has a temporary emergency shelter, the Livermore Homeless Refuge, which operates under a temporary use permit (nondiscretionary) in the winter months. Existing shelters provide approximately 146 beds for the homeless.
25 While many shelters target families and women with children, the Livermore Homeless Refuge has an established winter shelter program that serves single males.

To address homelessness in Livermore, the City has included Program 3.3.2 (Rental Assistance), which seeks additional Section 8 vouchers and funding for rental housing, and Program 3.3.3 (Homelessness Prevention), which includes the AC Impact program that assists homeless persons not traditionally served by emergency or transitional shelters. While continuing to support existing emergency (temporary) shelters, the City is focused on long -term solutions to homelessness and reducing overall need for these types of shelters. By working with local groups and identifying funds for rental assistance, the goal is to place more individuals in permanent housing instead of temporary shelters.

DENSITY BONUS
In accordance with State law, the City provides density bonuses to qualified new housing projects as detailed in 6.02.030 of the Development Code. The State's density bonus law (Government Code sections 65915– 65918) offers a maximum bonus of up to 50 percent and requires local governments to grant additional incentives and/or concessions and grant bonuses for land donation. The City’s Density Bonus regulations were last updated in 2019.

24 Focus Strategies, Alameda Countywide Homeless Count and Survey Report, 2019. 25 City of Livermore, Council Minutes, Feb 10, 2014.

ATTACHMENT 1
415

3-38
Program 3.1.2 is included to update the City’s Density Bonus regulations for consistency with current state law.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
The City ’s Community Development Department is responsible for performing development review to implement policies that direct the physical development of the city. Policy implementation and project analysis include establishing conformance to local goals for development, adopted growth management goals, open space and agricultural preservation, and identifying environmental consequences.

The development review process has potential to add time and uncertainty to projects, which can increase costs above direct expenses related to design and construction. However, the City has added certainty to the development review process by providing: opportunities for comprehensive pre-application meetings, adopted Design Standards and Guidelines, and in some cases, simultaneous development review and review of construction permits. Project applicants may request and attend Advance Team meetings that provide real time, comprehensive feedback from all City departments before submitting formal development applications. The City’s adopted Design Standards and Guidelines provide clear written and illustrative examples of site design components and architectural features that are required and/or recommended. Increasing certainty in the Development Review process often results in shorter review times and lower indirect costs for applicants. The City has reviewed and issued grading p ermits in advance of final subdivision map approval in order to accommodate aggressive construction schedules. The following sections describe the process.

Streamlined Development Review
The City has worked to streamline the development review process to minimize costs associated with delay (initially borne by developers but ultimately consumers); ensure development complies with City goals and standards; and provide enough time for the public and decision-makers to provide input.

Tables 3 -7 and 3 -8 summarize approximate time frames for various approval processes that apply to residential projects of varying sizes and types. Environmental analysis, including environmental impact reports and negative declarations, is processed concurrently with other development applications.

The estimated time frame to process projects of five or more units and/or that require tentative map review (either parcel or tract) can range from 6 to 18 months (including final map review and building permit plan check), depending on the complexity and size of the project. Smaller projects (4 units or less) are processed the most expeditiously, typically in under six months. They usually can be reviewed administratively by staff, reducing the planning entitlement time frame by three to four months compared to larger projects. If proposed in a developed area with existing infrastructure, they can also be processed with a parcel map waiver, further reducing the processing time. Applications for building permits are usually submitted within one year after a project is fully entitled. The City has not received any requests to develop below identified minimum densities for sites o n the existing sites inventory. However, the City has had projects that developed with fewer overall units than identified in the sites inventory. The City went through a no net loss review process with HCD in 2020 and they determined the City still had plenty of sites to accommodate RHNA.

ATTACHMENT 1
416

3-39
The Design Review process established for the Downtown Area permits l arger projects (up to and including 39 units) to be reviewed administratively by staff, provided they are not proposing a new parcel or tract map.

Table 3-7: Development Review Time Frames: General Plan Areas (outside Downtown Specific Plan)
Permit/Approval Type Application Review Planning1 Final Map Review
Building
Permits Total2
1 single-family unit/1 lot n/a n/a n/a 4-6 wks. 4-6 wks. 2-4 units, single- or
multifamily Up to 30 days 2-3 mos. n/a 4-6 wks. 3-4½ mos. w/ parcel map
waiver Up to 30 days 2-3 mos. n/a 4-6 wks. 3-4½ mos.
w/ parcel map Up to 30 days 2½-3 mos. 3-5 mos. 4-6 wks. 6½-9½ mos. 5+ units, single- or
multifamily Up to 30 days 5-7 mos. n/a 4-6 wks. 6-8½ mos. w/ parcel map
waiver Up to 30 days 5-7 mos. n/a 4-6 wks. 6-8½ mos.
w/ parcel map Up to 30 days 6½-8 mos. 3-5 mos. 4-6 wks. 10½-14½ mos. w/ tract map Up to 30 days 8½-11 mos. 4-6 mos. 6-8 wks. 14-19 mos.

1. The Design Review/ Site Plan process is part of the Planning review and integrated into this timeline.

2. Estimated planning entitlement time frames are best case scenario based upon a deemed “complete” application/submittal package during the application review period as well as consistency with city development regulations. Incomplete, inconsistent and/or complex residential projects may warrant additional processing time.

Source: City of Livermore, 2014. Confirmed 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1
417

3-40
Table 3-8: Development Review Time Frames: Downtown Specific Plan Areas Permit/Approval
Type
Application
Review Planning1 Final Map
Review
Building
Permits Total
1 single-family unit/1
lot n/a 2-6 wks. n/a 4-6 wks. 1½-3 mos.
39 or less units Up to 30 days 2-3½ mos. n/a 4-6 wks. 3-5 mos. w/ parcel map
waiver Up to 30 days 2-3½ mos. n/a 4-6 wks. 3-5 mos.
w/ parcel map Up to 30 days 2½-4 mos. 3-5 mos. 4-6 wks. 6½-10½ mos. w/ tract map Up to 30 days 5-7 mos. 4-6 mos. 4-6 wks. 10-14½ mos. 40 or more units Up to 30 days 3½-4 mos. n/a 6-8 wks. 5-6 mos. parcel map waiver Up to 30 days 3½-4 mos. n/a 6-8 wks. 5-6 mos. w/ parcel map Up to 30 days 3½-4 mos. 3-5 mos. 6-8 wks. 8-11 mos. w/ tract map Up to 30 days 5½-7 mos. 4-6 mos. 6-8 wks. 11-15 mos.

1. The Design Review/ Site Plan process is part of the Planning review and integrated into this timeline.

Source: City of Livermore, 2014. Confirmed 2021.

The City will comply with SB 330 (Government Code Section 65589.5), relying on regulations for processing preliminary applications for housing development projects, conducting no more than five hearings for housing projects that comply with objective General Plan and development standards, and making a decision on a residential project within 90 days after certification of an environmental impact report or 60 days after adoption of a mitigated negative declaration or an environment report for an affordable housing project. The City is proposing Program 3.2.3 to establish a process in compliance with SB 35 to streamline review of eligible affordable housing projects.

Design Standards and Guidelines
City staff evaluates proposed residential development projects against Residential Design Standards and Guidelines (2004). The Design Guidelines are used to promote high quality architecture and encourage the compatibility of residential development with the surroundings. The Design Guidelines are flexible and encourage housing that uses a variety of materials, drought tolerant plants, and energy efficient designs. The guidelines also emphasize pedestrian-oriented environments.

The City’s implementation of the Design Guidelines has worked to mitigate the visual impacts of higher density affordable projects, which has led to greater community support for affordable housing than in many other cities. The Design Guidelines do not require specific architecture, site design, or materials that add substantial cost or hinder the production of affordable housing.

Fees and Exactions
The City collects fees and exactions from developments to cover the costs of processing permits and providing the necessary services and infrastructure related t o new development (see discussion on Public Improvements below). The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, which capped property tax revenue, along with subsequent tax revenue shifts away from cities during the early 1990’s, have eroded the ability of local government entities to finance public improvements to accommodate new development with general funds. Development impact ATTACHMENT 1
418

3-41
fees related to public improvements (such as storm drainage, sewer, water, parks, and traffic) ensure that infrastructure has adequate capacity to accommodate new residential development, as discussed further under “S ite Improvements” below. Similarly, the City’s affordable housing fees contribute to the production of affordable housing and its long -term availability, despite fluctuating economic and market conditions.

Planning fees are calculated based on the average cost of processing a particular type of case and are charged at the time an application for development is received. Development impact fees are collected as part of the building permit issuance process and are typically based on the project type and square footage. Table 3-9 lists the planning, development, and other fees charged for residential development.

There are some fees associated with residential development listed in Table 3 -9 that the City does not control. For example, the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee is used to finance transportation improvement projects needed to accommodate new development and reduce traffic-related impacts in the Tri-Valley Development Area, including Livermore. The Tri- Valley Transportation Commission (TVTC) is a Joint Powers Agreement consisting of one representative of each of the following entities: Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville. The TVTC periodically evaluates the impacts of projected land uses on regional transportation infrastructure in the Tri- Valley area and establishes a cost nexus between land use projections and impacts to the regional transportation infrastructure.

Potential Impacts on Cost and Supply of Housing
The potential impact of development fees on the overall cost and supply of housing, particularly of affordable housing, rests on a variety of factors. As described in “Market Constraints,” in addition to fees, other factors contributing to housing cost and produ ction include the cost of land, labor, materials, and financing as well as the availability of financing.

While impact fees add to the overall cost to produce housing, it has not been shown that a reduction in impact fees decreases the cost to the home purchaser or increases the production of affordable housing in a community. In other words, a reduction in fees would reduce costs to developers, but it does not guarantee that this cost savings would be passed on to the consumer.

The City uses various pract ices and procedures to offset the potential negative effects that development impact fees may have on housing development and cost. These include:
• Residential development projects involving multiple planning applications can have their planning fees reduced by 10 percent.
• The City also provides incentives and planning assistance for developers of affordable or special needs housing, including reduced fees, exemption from growth management programs, shorter review timelines, and pre -application meetings. Fees for affordable housing projects are often paid with City affordable housing funds.
• The City waives the Transferable Development Credit Fee for affordable housing units identified in residential developments.
• Developers may amortize the payment of development fees over time to meet affordable housing goals.

ATTACHMENT 1
419

3-42
• The City provides fee credits to residential developers who are building on existing infill sites. The amount of credit given to a particular fee is based upon existing conditions and improvements on or to the site, such as utility connections and building square footage. The previous use of the site is also considered in determining whether traffic impact fee credits are warranted. • Below market rate housing is exempt from the Art in Public Place Fee ATTACHMENT 1
420

3-43
Table 3-9: Planning and Development Fees
Development Fees Fee Charged
Planning Entitlements1
Site Plan Design Review – Public Hearing (non-res + res. of 5+ units) $26,897
Site Plan Design Review – Staff Level (res. < 4 units) $15,174 Downtown Design Review – Planning Commission $9,505 - $10,915 Downtown Design Review – Staff Level $944 - $7,824
Parcel Map Waiver $6,099 ($5,252 staff level)
Parcel Map Check $9,653 up to 10 lots + $122/add. lot
Tentative Tract Map2 $19,038 + $99 per unit/lot
Planned Development Fee $10,955-$12,128
Environmental Review Fees
CEQA Negative Declaration $6,059
CEQA EIR – Set-up, RFP $8,807
CEQA EIR – Deposit 20% contract amount to City $123,726 Building Permits Fees Vary According to Valuation
Public Services/Public Works Single Family Multifamily
Water Connection (City Fee)3 $4,839/unit depends on required meter size Storm Drainage (City Fee) $0.49/sq ft impervious surface $0.49/sq impervious surface Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (Regional Fee)4 $5,057/unit $3,484/unit In-lieu Low Income Housing Fee5 $39.34/SF for all residential housing developments 10 units or less. Projects more than 10 units are subject to must-build requirement of ordinance.6 Social and Human Service Facility Fee $1,415 – 1,677/unit $1,298/unit Art in Public Places7 0.33% total project valuation 0.33% total project valuation Single Family
Multi-Family
Studio 1
bdrm
2 bdrm
3 bdrm
4 bdrm
Park Facilities Fee $21,155/unit $11,215
/unit
$12,552
/unit
$16,221
/unit
$18,406
/unit
$21,155
/unit
Wastewater Connection Fee $7,219/unit $3,810
/unit
$4,292
/unit
$5,535
/unit
$6,297
/unit
$7,220
/unit
Traffic Impact Fee (Downtown only) n/a $3,017
/unit
$3,378
/unit
$4,365
/unit
$5,104
/unit
$5,104
/unit
Traffic Impact Fee (Citywide except Downtown) $10,546/unit $4,915 /unit
$5,502
/unit
$7,110
/unit
$8,314
/unit
$8,314
/unit
ATTACHMENT 1
421

3-44
Table 3-9: Planning and Development Fees
Development Fees Fee Charged
General Plan Cost Recovery $0.39/sq ft
DSP Cost Recovery (only if located in downtown) $0.31/sq ft

1. Applications involving multiple entitlements can be reduced by 10%.

2. Base fee plus $99 per unit/lot.

3. Areas within Cal Water Service Area, Greenville/Vasco Assessment District, or Triad Park do not pay a City water connection fee.

4. Affordable and/or inclusionary housing exempt from Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee. The TVTD Fee is a fee collected to fund regional transportation improvements, while the City’s Traffic Impact Fee is to fund transportation projects within Livermore.

5. See discussion of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and alternative compliance.

6. Rental projects 10 units or less are exempt from In-Lieu. Effective 7/28/21, on-site requirement applies for 11+ unit projects. 7 Residential projects of 4 or more units.

Source: Community Development Department Development Fees, City of Livermore, Effective July 1st, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1
422

3-45
Impacts by Housing Type
Table 3-10 provides a hypothetical comparison between fees charged to develop a single - family detached dwelling and an 8-unit rental apartment building. Fees for multi-family for-sale projects are lower than single -family attached or detached projects, with the grea test difference in fees issued at a “per unit” or “per square foot” rate, such as the storm drainage fee. Table 3 -11 compares the fees for each example project to the total development cost.

Programs 3.2.1 and 3.2.5 are proposed to reduce governmental constraints to projects with an affordable component by: exploring additional funding sources for affordable housing, providing subsidies to affordable housing projects, allowing developers to amortize payment of fees over time, and meeting with developers to discuss other incentives for the provision of affordable housing.

It should be noted that the per-unit totals shown by housing type do not include fees charged by other government agencies such as the school district or county or state fees. Other agency fees can add approximately $15,000 to $30,000 dollars to the per- unit cost, depending on the type and size of the proposed units and the amount of existing or added impervious surface area. In addition, the per unit costs shown for each development scenari o do not reflect fee credits that may be applicable to the site or project based upon existing improvements such as existing utility connections and/or existing impervious surface area (i.e. existing paving and buildings).

Table 3-10: Fee Comparison: Single Family vs. Multifamily Rental Units Type of City Fees 1 Single-Family Dwelling 8-Unit Apartment Building Building $4,778 $16,500
City Storm1 $1,715 $5,336
Sanitary Sewer $7,220 $5,535
Park Fee (add footnote that assumes
multifamily units are 2-bedroom) $21,155 $16,221
City Water Connection 2 $4,839 $24,196
Traffic Impact (add footnote that assumes
multifamily units are 2-bedroom) $10,546 $7,110
In-Lieu Low Income Housing3 $79,880 $0
Tri-Valley Transportation Fee (add footnote
that $.39/sf and assumes 2,000 sf home) $5,057 $3,484
General Plan Cost Recovery Fee (add
footnote that fee is $.39/sf and assumes
2,000 sf home)
$780
$312
Art in Public Place Fee $0 Doesn’t apply to below
market rate housing
Social & Human Services Facility Fee $1,677 $1,298
Total Fee per Unit $137,647 $79,992
1 $0.49 per sq. ft. of imperious surface @ 50% lot coverage: Single Family 7,000 sq. ft. lot, Multi-Family. 5 acre.

Assumes multi-family units are 2-bedroom.
2 Single Family home = 5/8” meter, Townhome = 1-1/2” meter, Apartment = 2” meter 3 $39.94 per sq. ft. Assumed single family dwelling is 2,000 sq. ft. Rental projects with 10 or less units currently exempt from Fee. Assumed Apartments are rentals
Source: City of Livermore Development Fee Sheet, January 1st, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 1
423

3-46
Table 3-11: Proportion of Fees of Total Development Cost Single-Family Multi-Family
Total Estimated Fees Per Unit $137,647 $9,999
Estimated Development Cost per Unit $415,545 $213,931
Estimated Proportion of Fee Cost to Overall Development Cost Per Unit 33.1% 4.7%
Assumptions: Single-family - 2,000 sq. ft. home with 2 car attached garage, and wood frame construction.

References a median vacant lot price of $70,000 ($10/sf for a 7,000 sf lot) and assumes a single-family construction cost of $334,545. Multi-family - Average of information from recent multi-family development projects in Livermore.

Assumes 8-unit development on 0.5 acres. Includes land costs and construction costs (land cost of $88, 812 and construction cost of $1,622, 639). Units in the multifamily example project are average of 856 square feet in size.

Source: Craftsman Book Company (www.building-cost.net)and City of Livermore, 2021

BUILDING CODES AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT
Building standards are essential to ensure safe housing, though excessive standards can constrain the development of housing. Building standards in Livermore are regulated under Title 24, the California Building Standards Code, which establishes basic stan dards and requires inspections at various stages of construction of buildings and homes to ensure code compliance and progress toward “energy conservation, green design, construction and maintenance, fire and life safety, and accessibility.” The City most recently adopted the 2019 California Building Standards Code with a small number of additional amendments, as listed in

15.02.030 of the Livermore Municipal Code. The amendments are minor, as is allowed by the state code, and cover building and safety, wor k exempt from permit, floor and roof design loads, fees, lath and gypsum board inspections, energy efficiency inspections, fire protection systems, fire classification roof coverings, and concrete construction. The City’s building code also requires new residential construction to comply with the federal American with Disabilities Act, which regulates accessibility for persons with disabilities. The intent of the codes is to provide structurally sound, safe, and energy-efficient housing and to address housing needs of all residents in the community.

The City’s Neighborhood Preservation staff is responsible for enforcing both State and City regulations governing maintenance of all buildings and property. Neighborhood Preservation staff primarily address code enforcement and property maintenance issues, and implement the Neighborhood Nuisance Abatement Program. To facilitate the correction of code violations or deficiencies, Neighborhood Preservation staff refers owners to rehabilitation loan and grant programs offered through the City’s Housing and Human Services Division.

The City also coordinates internally between staff from various departments and divisions — including Neighborhood Preservation, Building, the Police Department, and Housing and Human Services—to identify areas with building problems, code enforcement, and other issues and to focus strategies and resources into targeted neighborhood revitalization efforts.

The adopted building codes and code enforcement ensure the safety and welfare of residents and do not hinder residential development.

ATTACHMENT 1
424

3-47

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
The City actively promotes the development of housing that meets the needs of persons with disabilities, including physical, mental, and cognitive disabilities. The following sections provide an evaluation of the potential for City processes to impede housing opportunities for persons with disabilities.

Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
Pursuant to the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City shall provide individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, and procedures. A reasonable accommodation is typically an adjustment to physical design standards (e.g. setbacks) to accommodate the placement of wheelchair ramps or other exterior modifications to a dwelling in response to the needs of a disabled resident. Requests for reasonable accommodation in development standards are reviewed and approved at the staff level (Development Code Chapter 9.06). Findings required to grant a reasonable accommodation are:

Findings. The written decision to approve or deny a request for Reasonable Accommodation that will be consistent with the Acts shall be based on consideration of all of the following factors:
• Whether the housing, which is the subject of the request, will be used by an individual defined as disabled under the Acts;
• Whether the request for Reasonable Accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Acts; • Whether the requested Reasonable Accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City;
• Whether the requested Reasonable Accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning;
• Whether there are alternatives to the requested waiver or exception that could provide similar benefits to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or to the general public; • Physical attributes of the property and structures; and • Other Reasonable Accommodations that may provide an equivalent level of benefit.

The Community Development Department regularly responds to requests for reasonable accommodation in existing residences through the building permit process and in new residential construction through the development review process (Program 5.1.2). For example, the City approved and participated in the development of the Carmen Avenue apartments, which includes universal design features for accessibility in the units. ECHO Housing has also completed fair housing tests for reasonable accommodations in multifamily rental properties and provides regular training for all landlords on this requirement.

ATTACHMENT 1
425

3-48
Building Code
The City has adopted the California Building Code, as amended. Chapter 11 of the Building Code provides guidance for accessibility improvements. The City has not adopted any amendments that would impede a person with a disability from improving their home to make it more accessible.

In order to maintain an independent lifestyle, a home may need to be modified to increase accessibility through universal design features. Universal design is also known as “design for all” and “lifespan design.” The objective is to improve the accessibility of homes not only for residents of all ages and abilities, but visitors as well. Examples of universal design features include wheelchair ramps.

The City has not adopted an ordinance governing the construction or modificatio n of houses to incorporate universal design, which is intended to allow individuals to remain in their homes as their physical needs and capabilities change. However, the City does encourage the use of universal design, as listed in Program 1.3.2 in Chapter 5.

Zoning and Land-Use Policies and Practices
The City has not identified any zoning or other land -use regulatory practices that could discriminate against persons with disabilities and impede the availability of such housing for these individuals. Examples of the ways in which the City facilitates housing for persons with disabilities through its regulatory and permitting processes are:
• As previously discussed under “Licensed Care Facilities,” the City’s Development Code provides for the development of group care facilities for persons with disabilities. Program 1.3.1 is proposed to update regulations for care facilities. • The City does not restrict occupancy of unrelated individuals in group homes and does not have a restrictive or narrow definition of family in its Development Code. Occupancy restrictions are limited to provisions deemed necessary to ensure public health, safety, and welfare, and do not conflict with regulations of the California Building Code, the Fair Housing Act, or the California F air Employment and Housing Act.
• The City permits housing for special needs groups, including individuals with disabilities, without regard to distances between such uses or the number of uses in any part of the City.
• The City actively works with nonprofit developers to secure financing for special needs housing, including Prop 63, Mental Health Services Act funding opportunities.
• The City has included a program (Program 5.1.1) to ensure ongoing compliance with Fair Housing Laws.

Based on this review, the City did not identify any governmental constraints that may impede the development and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities, as the main challenge is the high cost of housing. To offset this constraint and encourage development of housing for persons with special needs, the City offers the following incentives (Program 1.3.3).

ATTACHMENT 1
426

3-49
• Monetary Subsidies. The City uses its Affordable Housing Fund and other available sources to provide monetary assistance to developers and nonprofits to create special needs housing and make accessibility modifications to existing properties. The City has provided subsidies to developers for the payment of fees, project construction, and land costs.
• Flexibility in Development Standards. The City has allowed variations in parking, open space, and setback standards to facilitate special needs housing. • Value Engineering. The City provides “value engineering” during the plan check process by allowing for different construction materials that achieve cost savings while still meeting minimum code requirements.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Public improvements for new residential development are integral to the planning and development process. The City requires developers to provide public improvements to ensure the health, welfare, an d safety of the community and future residents of new developments, consistent with General Plan policies.

The City applies minimum improvement standards to ensure that public improvements are adequate to serve new development. The City also has specific construction standards and details regarding how improvements are built. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance requires specific improvements and design standards as part of every subdivision approval, in accordance with established engineering standard specifications and construction details.

Required improvements include: storm drainage, sanitary sewer, water supply, utilities, undergrounding utilities, street, access, and frontage improvements such as street lighting, fire hydrants, signs, street trees, and landscaping.

As part of each subdivision approval, the City also requires improvement plans that demonstrate conformance with the standard engineering specifications and details as well as a signed subdivision improvement agreement ensuring the completion of improvements within a specified time and payment for them.

The City updates and amends its engineering standard specifications and details every two to three years to address changes in existing conditions, new legislation, environmental and conservation issues, technological advancement, and/or other improvements related to health, safety, cost, or efficiency.

While the cost of providing public improvements and meeting City requirements may influence the cost of housing, they are necessary components of providing quality and sustainable residential development. The City ’s Engineering Standard Specifications and Construction Details for each of these improvement areas are consistent with and no more onerous than public improvement specifications of other jurisdictions in Alameda County. In many instances, the standards are governed by state or f ederal regulations, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for accessibility, the Clean Water Act for stormwater treatment measures, and Caltrans for highway design specifications. Table 3-12 provides detail on the specific public improvement standards and the regulating ordinance or legislation.

ATTACHMENT 1
427

3-50
Street Improvements
The City requires basic street and access improvements for new residential development.

R
equirements include curbs, gutters, and sidewalks at a minimum width of five feet. Street right- of-way and travel lane widths vary depending on the proposed street classification. Table 3-12 depicts the required widths based on each street classification. Private residential streets and local streets vary in minimum width from 15 feet to 40 feet (t ravel way, not total right -of-way), depending on the presence and location of street parking. As would be expected due to their larger traffic volume, major and collector streets are considerably wider; collector streets are 52 feet wide, and major streets vary between 34 and 46 feet in each direction, as their width is based on the number of travel lanes. Sidewalks and other pedestrian paths have a minimum paved width requirement of 5 feet.

Storm Drainage and Sanitary Sewer
T
he City requires residential developers to provide a hydrology/hydraulic study in accordance with the City’s Facilities Planning Guidelines and also consistency of the proposed system with the City’s storm drain master plan. The City also requires residential developers to provide a sewer study based on the City’s Facilities Planning Guidelines and consistent with the City’s Sewer Master Plan.

Water Supply
The proposed water system of any new residential development must be consistent with the City’s Water Master Plan. Additionally, comments from the City’s Water Resources Division regarding the design and sizing of the system must be incorporated into the site design, with comments from the Fire Marshall concerning the location of fire hydrants and minimum fire flow requirements to address fire suppression. New projects that are in Cal Water’s service area must be approved by that agency.

ATTACHMENT 1
428

3-51
Table 3-12: Public Improvement Standards
Required Improvement(s) Development Guidelines Comments Governing Legislation Streets Travel Way
Total ROW
(including curb
and sidewalk)
Approved Tentative Map determines actual
street widths. The following street dimensions are
intended as guidelines only.

City Engineering Standard
Details
Major 34’ to 46’ 104’ to 140’
Dimensions are provided for comparison; Final
widths depend on no. of lanes. No new major
streets are planned in conjunction with new
residential.

City Engineering Standard
Details
Collector 52’ 72’ Total ROW includes 5’ bike lane each way City Engineering Standard Details
Local 40’ 60’ Serving 50+ units each direction City Engineering Standard Details
Local Street/
Parking One Side 32’ 52’ No homes fronting on one side of street City Engineering Standard Details
Minor Local Street,
Cul-De-Sac, and Loops 36’ 56’ Serving 20 to 50 units each direction City Engineering Standard Details
Short Cul-De-Sac 32’ 52’ Serving less than 20 units City Engineering Standard Details
Curb, Gutters, Sidewalks Min. 5’ wide
paved sidewalk
10’ each side of
street Sidewalks can be monolithic or separated. City Engineering Standard Details
Curb Ramps/Return Caltrans and Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Bus Turnouts Provided on collector or major street when required by the local transit authority
Livermore Valley Transit
Authority (LAVTA)
Private Residential Streets
Private street dimensions are commonly used in
Residential Planned Developments to allow
flexibility to address site constraints on residential
infill properties/projects.

Parking both sides Min. width 36’ City Engineering Standard Details
Parking one side Min. width 33’
City Engineering Standard
Details; Livermore
Development Code
No street parking Min. width, 24’
City Engineering Standard
Details; Livermore
Development Code
ATTACHMENT 1
429

3-52
Table 3-12: Public Improvement Standards
Required Improvement(s) Development Guidelines Comments Governing Legislation No street Parking
(Private Alley) Min. width, 20’
City Engineering Standard
Details; Livermore
Development Code
Private sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways Minimum width 5’
City Engineering Standard
Details; Livermore
Development Code
Public Landscaping
One tree per single frontage lot Min. street tree size 24” box; Min. shrub size 5 gal. City Engineering Standard Details
No written standard for multifamily
development projects.

Typically, these are zoned as Planned
Developments and the location and number of
street trees would be determined based on the
proposed site layout and final street width
determinations.

Signs/Striping
Street name signs at all intersections Caltrans/City of Livermore Speed limit signs where appropriate Caltrans/City of Livermore One-way signs shown in median
and streets where appropriate Caltrans/City of Livermore Stop signs provided where required
by City Engineer Caltrans/City of Livermore
Centerline striping where
appropriate Caltrans/City of Livermore
Sanitary Sewer
Min./typical new line size: 8”
Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be
served by an approved sanitary sewer system,
designed for ultimate development of the area

All lines must have min. 5’ of cover
from grade
Sewer laterals/residential – 4” one-
way cast iron cleanout behind curb City Engineering Standard Details
No curved sewers
All lines end at maintenance hole;
holes spaced max. 400’ apart
Sewer lines extended to all tract
boundaries
System can be easily extended to
serve future development
ATTACHMENT 1
430

3-53
Table 3-12: Public Improvement Standards
Required Improvement(s) Development Guidelines Comments Governing Legislation Water Supply
Water service and meter provided
to all lots, medians and other public
or private landscaped areas; All
new construction requires sprinklers

Single family units
Min. 5/8” line for domestic service;
Typical size implemented is 1” to
include adequate water for fire
suppression.

Multi-family
development
Size is determined in coordination with Water
Resources Department and Fire Marshall to
ensure adequate water supply for domestic and
fire suppression uses.

Stormwater Drainage
Minimum pipe size: 12”
Maximum distance between storm
maintenance holes or inlets 500’
Storm lines extended to all tract
boundaries
System can be easily extended to
serve future development
Stormwater Treatment
Measures
Soil based (bio-swales, bio-retention
areas, or landscaped areas) or
mechanical
NPDES Permit requires permanent, post-
construction stormwater quality control measures
as part of development projects. Measures can
be natural (soil or landscape based) or
mechanical.

Federal Clean Water Act
– Regional Water Quality
Control Board
requirements consistent
with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) State
Permit requirements for
Alameda County
jurisdictions.

ATTACHMENT 1
431

3-54
Table 3-12: Public Improvement Standards
Required Improvement(s) Development Guidelines Comments Governing Legislation Utilities
Each unit or lot within a subdivision
shall be served by gas, electric,
telephone, and cable

Livermore Municipal
Code, Subdivision
Ordinance
All existing and proposed utilities
within the subdivision shall be
placed underground except those
exempted by City Council adopted
ordinance or resolution. Each
subdivider is responsible for making
the necessary arrangements with
each utility company for installation
of the facilities
Exemptions to undergrounding:

Livermore Development
Code.

Single-family subdivisions of 4 lots or less or single- family development projects of 4 units or less
Multiple-family residential developments of 4
units or less
Partial reconstruction of existing buildings where
the addition is less than 50% of the floor area of
the existing building or the addition amounts to
less than 10,000 sq. ft.

Parkland Dedication 5.0 acres for each 1,000 persons.

Applicable to residential subdivisions of more
than 50 parcels. Does not apply to industrial and
commercial.

Livermore Development
Code, Subdivision
Ordinance
Source: City of Livermore, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1
432

4-1

4. HOUSING RESOURCES
This chapter analyzes the physical, administrative, and financial resources available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in Livermore. Section 4.1 evaluates the availability of residential land (vacant and underdeveloped) with in Livermore, as well as progress to date in meeting the City’s share of regional housing. The remainder of the chapter discusses the resources available to assist in implementing the Housing Plan discussed in Chapter 5, including programs related to energy conservation. The resources build upon the opportunities for reducing barriers to residential development identified in Chapter 3.

4.1 AVAILABILITY OF SITES FOR HOUSING
State law requires communities to demonstrate that an adequate amount of developable land is available to accommodate their share of the projected regional need. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for developing the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) (see Chapter 2). The RHNA assigns a share of the region’s pr ojected future housing unit production need to each community in the ABAG region. The current RHNA plans for an 8.5- year housing unit production period, from June 30 th, 2022, through December 15 th,
2030. For the current planning period, ABAG has determined that Livermore’s share of the RHNA is 4,570 new housing units (see Table 4-1).

Table 4-1: Livermore’s RHNA, 2022 – 2030
Income Group Housing Units
Very Low 1,317
Low 758
Moderate 696
Above Moderate 1,799
Total 4,570

HOUSING UNITS BUILT SINCE JULY 2022
[Information will be added to this section after June 30th, 2022]

ATTACHMENT 1
433

4-2

RESIDENTIAL SITE INVENTORY
The State Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583.2) requires cities to develop an inventory of available land suitable for residential development. In accordance with State law, the sites must have the capacity to accommodate a range of housing types to meet the RHNA. The land inventory must identify the capacity of each property. This land inventory assumes that sites allowing single -family uses at lower densities are suitable for above moderate-income households. Sites allowing single -family attached and multifamily uses at medium densities are considered suitable for moderate-income households. In addition, some sites listed in the inventory are subject to zoning as a Planned Development (PD), which sets out specific requirements for residential development potential on that site. Sites that allow higher-density housing types at 30 units per acre and above are considered suitable for lower- income households in Livermore per state set default densities. However, sites that allow higher- density housing types at 30 units per acre and above on small lots (lots less than 0.5 acres in size) are considered suitable for moderate- income households. In addition to identifying vacant or underutilized land resources, local governments can address a portion of their adequate sites requirement through the provision of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Program

1.2.4 is included in Chapter 5, Housing Plan, to commit the City to providing adequate sites and to support ADU development.

Accessory Dwelling Unit Potential
In 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, City permit records indicate that an average of 38 ADUs received building permits per year.
• 2018 - 18 ADUs received building permits
• 2019 - 36 ADUs received building permits
• 2020 - 39 ADUs received building permits
• 2021 – 60 ADUs received building permits
Based on the average of 38 ADUs per year, an additional 3 25 ADUs can be projected for the 2022-2030 6th cycle projection period. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) prepared a Draft Affordability of Accesso ry Dwelling Units report for the entire ABAG region in early 2022. The analysis made findings for affordability of ADUs based on data gathered on current rents and occupancy of ADUs in addition to industry research about affordability levels of ADUs, including those that do not reach the rental market. In addition, ADU research conducted by the University of California, Berkeley’s (UC Berkeley’s) Center for Community Innovation (Chapple et al. 2017) indicates that 40 percent of ADUs are typically rented to family members or friends at either no cost or below-market rental rates. Table 4-3 shows the projected 325 ADUs broken into income categories based on the ABAG analysis. The Livermore ADU regulations encourage this housing type and allow flexibility in their development. Based on the fair housing assessment, to ensure ADU opportunities are available to underrepresented groups, Program 1.4.1 Action D has been included.

ATTACHMENT 1
434

4-3
Sites Inventory
The City’s land inventory for the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element timeframe is included in Appendix A. It includes vacant and underutilized sites in the Downtown Specific Plan Area, Arroyo Vista Neighborhood Plan, and Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan, as well as sites in other areas of the city outside of specific plan areas. All the areas with sites included in the inventory are discussed in more detail as follows.

GENERAL PLAN AREAS
The analysis of General Plan residential site inventory includes the following categories:
• Vacant Sites – The table in Appendix A include s parcels that are vacant and have General Plan and zoning designations that permit residential development. Only parcels that meet the minimum standards for development in the applicable zoning district and that have no significant environmental or governmental constraints, which would preclude residential development, were calculated as having additional unit capacity.
• Non-Vacant Sites – The table in Appendix A includes a small number of parcels that are non -vacant, underutilized, and have General Plan and zoning designations that permit residential development. Only parcels that meet the minimum standards for development in the applicable zoning district and that have no significant environmental or governmental constraints, which would preclude resident ial development, were calculated as having additional unit capacity.
• Sites with approved Neighborhood Plans – The table in Appendix A includes the residential development assumptions in the Arroyo Vista Neighborhood Plan and Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan, which were adopted by City Council in 2007 (Arroyo Vista) and 2020 (Isabel). Areas within both plans included in the sites inventory are also shown on maps in Appendix A. The Arroyo Vista Neighborhood Plan allows for residential uses in areas otherwis e zoned for industrial use; addresses compatibility with surrounding uses; and establishes a basic framework for circulation, land use, building, signage, and landscaping that will permit orderly growth. The Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan allows for higher-density residential development and other uses in an area surrounding future regional transit. The City is reviewing several residential development applications in the Isabel Neighborhood but no projects have been entitled at the time of this report. Phasing is not a requirement in the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. Projects will be reviewed and considered for approval as they come in. As part of the adoption of the plans, both areas were analyzed to identify potential deficiencies in infrastructure and site improvements and potential environmental impacts. As noted in the general infrastructure analysis discussion in this chapter, both areas are in urbanized areas and have adequate water and sewer availability.
• Sites with Entitled Projects – The table in Appendix A includes sites or parcels that are designated and zoned for residential use, and where residential development entitlements are in place that will allow them to proceed with building permits and construction. No building permits have yet been issued for ATTACHMENT 1
435

4-4
these sites. Projects include, but are not limited to, Eden Housing, Lassen Road Townhomes, and Pacific Avenue Senior Apartments.

These sites are all in urbanized areas within the city, have utilities adjacent or nearby, and have no environmental constraints that would preclude development within the Housing Element timeframe.

DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (DSP) AREA
The zoning in the Downtown area of the city is governed by the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP).

All of the Plan Areas within the DSP permit residential development at differing minimum densities. The DSP area suitability for residential development is supported by the DSP strategies and policies, which encourage residential development as a vital part of revitalization.

Detailed discussion of DSP density, allowed residential uses, and affordability estimates used to determine the land inventory to accommodate RHNA is provided in Chapter 3. Sites in multiple areas of the DSP area are included in the table in Appendix A, including City-owned sites slated for affordable housing development.

DENSITY AND REALISTIC CAPACITY
To estimate reasonable additional residential potential on individual parcels in the land inventory that could accommodate more than one unit per parcel, a realistic assumption of 80 percent of maximum allowed density was used to estimate a realistic number of dwelling units that would likely develop on each parcel. This is based on the development standards and historic development trends on vacant sites in these zoning districts. It should also be noted that some of the sites in the table in Appendix A are in zoning districts that allow only one unit per parcel or are a size that can only accommodate one unit per parcel based on the size of the parcel when the allowed density is applied, and as such have only been able to accommodate a maximum of one unit per parcel until the recent adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 9, which allows development of an additional primary unit on single -family parcels statewide.

Accordingly, realistic capacity on those sites has been considered to be 100 percent (one unit).

Representative approved and built projects in Table 4 -2 support the realistic capacity assumptions of 80, and in a few cases, 90 percent. The average built density for projects in Table 4-2 is 97 percent of maximum allowed density. The higher realistic capacity percentage of 90 percent has been applied to a small number or sites that are zoned at a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre.

Additional Realistic Capacity Information for the Lower-Income RHNA Consistent with State housing provisions, areas with zoning that allow a density of 30 dwelling units per acre or higher are considered adequate for meeting the low -, very low- , and extremely low-income level need. The General Plan designations and zoning districts that will encourage housing for lower-income households include primarily the:
• Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Area
• Downtown Specific Plan Areas
• Urban High 4 to 6 Residential Designations
The Urban High 4 to 6 General Plan designation and Downtown Core Plan Area both specify density at or above a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, they have already been deemed appropriate to accommodate low -income households (Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)).

Livermore City CouncilMay 23, 2022

Livermore City Council
May 23, 2022