Livermore City Council
June 27, 2022

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840

MEMORANDUM
To:

From:

Date:

Tri-Valley Transportation Council Technical Advisory Committee (TVTC TAC) Michael Schmitt, AICP CTP, PTP, RSP1
Elizabeth Chau, P.E.

May 5, 2022
Subject: TVTC SEP 2021 Update – AB 602 Supplemental Analysis As the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study was adopted in August of 2021, prior to the implementation of Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602), the Nexus Study and its resultant fee program is not subject to its requirements. However, TVTC has undertaken this supplemental analysis to guide future analysis requirements and to help inform the TVTC how AB 602 may impact the program when the next Nexus Study update1 is completed. This analysis was approved by TVTC Board on April 18, 2022.

Background
Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602)
Assembly Bill 602 was approved and signed into law on September 28, 2021. Among other things, this bill requires that impact fee nexus studies adopted on and after January 1, 2022 must, as appropriate, identify the existing level of service, the new level of service, and include an explanation as to why the new level of service is necessary for each public facility included in an impact fee program. It should be noted that the basis for the required level of service analyses is not specifically defined in AB 602 and that as a practical matter, level of service methods applied to various public facilities need to vary depending on the type of facility being analyzed and the information available.

AB 602 also requires that studies adopted after July 1, 2022 either calculate a fee levied or imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units, or make specified findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate the fee.
2020 Nexus Study
The performance analysis conducted in support of the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study analyzed the benefits of proposed projects in the aggregate based on specific improvement categories. This aggregate approach is an industry-accepted method when evaluating project impacts on a regional, system- wide basis. This method is especially appropriate where a fee program is targeted to regional improvements, as is the case with TVTC’s fee program. These categories included roadway capacity, transit, safety, pedestrian/bicycle, intersection, and technology. Since these improvement 1 The next nexus study is required to be completed within 8 years (2029).

EXHIBIT B
667

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 categories improve different aspects of the transportation system, differing methodologies and measures of effectiveness (MOEs) were necessary to appropriately evaluate their anticipated benefit to the transportation system. It should be noted that some projects have multiple beneficial project elements and thus could be analyzed using more than one analysis technique (i.e., a project can have both a congestion benefit and a safety benefit). However, for the purposes of this analysis, project analysis was limited to the basis which best reflects the primary benefit and/or purpose of the project.

Level of Service Analysis
Methodology
Table 1 summarizes the methodology and measure of effectiveness (MOE) that was used to evaluate existing and future conditions for public facilities included within the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study. As described in the prior section, the methodology and MOE selected were dependent on the type of public facility being analyzed and the data available.

Table 1: Methodology and Measure of Effectiveness
Improvement
Type Facility Type Methodology Measure of Effectiveness Roadway Capacity
Freeway HCM Freeway LOS (Density)
State Route HCM Highway LOS (Density)
Arterial ACTC Roadway Segment LOS (V/C)
Interchanges HCM Intersection LOS (Delay)
Transit All Facility Type TCQSM Service Frequency LOS
Safety All Facility Type HSM Safety Performance
Functions Crash Rate
Pedestrian/
Bicycle All Facility Type Montgomery County Level of
Traffic Stress Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
Intersection - HCM Intersection LOS (Delay)
Technology All Facility Type Qualitative Assessment Resultant Delay/Congestion Reduction
Note: HCM = Highway Capacity Manual, ACTC = Alameda County Transportation Commission, LOS = Level of Service, TCQSM = Transit Quality of Service Manual, HSM = Highway Safety Manual Roadway Capacity
Analysis of roadway capacity projects was completed based on the HCM concept of Level of Service (LOS). The HCM LOS for a roadway facility is a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions. LOS ranges from LOS A (free flow traffic with minimal delay) to LOS F (heavy congestion operating near or over capacity). As discussed in the following sections, Freeway, State Route, and Interchange projects were evaluated using methodologies defined in the HCM 6th Edition, while arterial roadway analyses were completed based on a volume/capacity (V/C) methodology commonly applied for project analyses undertaken by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC).

EXHIBIT B
668

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 For existing conditions, AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) peak period traffic volumes were obtained from the Caltrans Traffic Census Program2 or recent publicly accessible traffic studies conducted within the Tri-Valley area. These traffic counts were then evaluated to determine the highest AM and PM peak hours of traffic which is the basis of the analysis contained herein. Future 2040 No Build and 2040 Build peak hour volumes were developed using post-processed data from a version of the CCTA travel demand model updated to reflect input from the TVTC member jurisdictions. Further information on the travel demand model’s development is provided within the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study. Generally speaking, forecast volumes were developed using the “difference method”, which involves adding forecasted traffic growth (future minus existing estimated traffic volumes from the travel demand model) to an existing count.

In cases where a project is proposing a new roadway segment (C-4 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extension and C-5 El Charro Road Widening), a parallel roadway segment was used as the basis for evaluating project need.

A minimum level of service standard of LOS F was used for roadway analyses.

Freeway
Freeway facilities were analyzed using the HCM 6th edition methodology for basic freeway segments.

As shown in Table 2, LOS is determined based on the density of traffic flow.

Table 2: Freeway Facility Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS) Density (pc/mi/ln)
A ≤ 11
B > 11 – 18
C > 18 – 26
D > 26 – 35
E > 35 – 45
F > 45 or v/c > 1.0
pc/mi/ln = passenger car per mile per lane; v/c = volume-to-capacity Source: Highway Capacity Manual , 6th Edition
State Route
State Route facilities were analyzed using the HCM 6th edition methodology for multi-lane roadway segments. As shown in Table 3, LOS is determined based on density of traffic flow. 2 Caltrans, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census, Accessed March 2022.

EXHIBIT B
669

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Table 3: Multilane Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS)
Density (pc/mi/ln)
FFS: 45 mph FFS: 50 mph FFS: 55 mph FFS: 60 mph
A ≤ 11 ≤ 11 ≤ 11 ≤ 11
B > 11 – 18 > 11 – 18 > 11 – 18 > 11 – 18
C > 18 – 26 > 18 – 26 > 18 – 26 > 18 – 26
D > 26 – 35 > 26 – 35 > 26 – 35 > 26 – 35
E > 35 – 45 > 35 – 43 > 35 – 41 > 35 – 40
F > 45 > 43 > 41 > 40
Source: Highway Capacity Manual , 6th Edition
Arterial
Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) evaluate arterials using different methodologies. ACTC’s methodology is based on volume- to-capacity (v/c) ratios while CCTA evaluates arterials based on intersection level of service. This analysis was evaluated based on the ACTC methodology given the nature of the analysis requirements. During the design phase of a project, it is anticipated that more detailed operational analysis will be completed.

Arterial level of service analysis assumed a per-lane capacity of 800 vehicles per hour. The LOS criteria shown in Table 4.

Table 4: ACTC Rodway Segment Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS) V/C
A 0.35
B 0.58
C 0.75
D 0.90
E 1.00
F > 1.00
Source: Alameda Congestion Management Program 2019
Interchange
Interchanges were analyzed based on HCM intersection methodologies. The basis of the LOS criteria is shown in Table 5.

EXHIBIT B
670

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Table 5: Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS)
Signalized Unsignalized1
Delay (sec/veh) Delay (sec/veh)
A ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B > 10.0 – 20.0 > 10.0 – 15.0
C > 20.0 – 35.0 > 15.0 – 25.0
D > 35.0 – 55.0 > 25.0 – 35.0
E > 55.0 – 80.0 > 35.0 – 50.0
F > 80.0 > 50.0
1 For All-way stop-control intersection (AWSC), LOS is defined based on average intersection delay. For side-street stop- controlled intersections (SSSC), LOS is defined based on the worst movement delay.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual , 6th Edition
Transit
Transit projects were evaluated based on service frequency LOS from theTransit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM) under which LOS criteria varies depending on the type of transit service. As shown in Table 6, LOS for urban scheduled transit service3 is determined on headway or the time between buses/trains. For intercity schedule transit services, commuter or express buses, LOS is determined on the number of trips provided each day.

For this analysis, all transit projects were evaluated on the basis of the urban scheduled transit service LOS criterion as the projects are anticipated to operate throughout the day on a fixed schedule. A level of service standard of LOS F was used for this analysis. In addition, other benefits such as increases in ridership, as well as resultant system-wide VMT reductions may also be evaluated.

Safety
The number of crashes per million vehicle miles travelled (crash/M-VMT) were calculated for the project segment based on the observed number of crashes within 5 years. The number of crashes for the future no build conditions were estimated based on the Safety Performance Functions (SPF) described in Highway Safety Manual (HSM) 2010. SPFs are regression equations that estimate the average crash frequency for a specific site type as a function of annual average daily traffic and the segment length. The reduction in crashes in the Future 2040 Build scenario were calculated by applying Crash Modification Factors (CMF) based on proposed safety improvements for each project.

For the purposes of this study and based on the observed data reviewed, a threshold designation was established for crashes per million-VMT of more than 1. 3 Urban schedule transit service includes all scheduled service within a city, as well as service between cities within a larger metropolitan area.

EXHIBIT B
671

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Table 6: Transit Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS)
Urban Scheduled Transit Service Intercity Scheduled Transit Service
Headway (min) Veh/hr Trips/Day
A < 10 > 6 > 15
B 10-14 5-6 12-15
C 15-20 3-4 8-11
D 21-30 2 4-7
E 31-60 1 2-3
F > 60 < 1 0-1
Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual
Pedestrian / Bicycle
Pedestrian / Bicycle improvements were evaluated using the modified level of traffic stress (LTS) methodology used in the Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan4 in Maryland. This methodology is based on the original LTS methodology developed in 2012 by the Mineta Transportation Institute and San Jose State University5. Both methodologies assign a traffic stress level base on street/traffic attributes (e.g. traffic speed, traffic volume, number of lanes, etc.). As shown inTable 7, the original LTS has four stress levels, while the Montgomery County methodology provides three additional stress levels. The Montgomery County methodology also includes criteria for separated bikeways, two-lane roads, and industrial streets. For the purpose of this analysis, a threshold of LTS 4 was used.

Table 7: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) categories
Original LTS Montgomery County LTS
LTS 1 – Very Low LTS 0 – None
LTS 1 – Very Low
LTS 2 – Low LTS 2 – Low
LTS 3 – Moderate LTS 2.5 – Moderate Low
LTS 3 – Moderate High
LTS 4- High LTS 4 – High
LTS 5 – Very High
Source: Montgomery County, MD. The Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D , 2018 4 Montgomery County, MD The Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D, 2018 5 Mekuria, Maaza, Peter G. Furth, and Hilary Nixon, Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute, 2012

EXHIBIT B
672

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Crossings were evaluated based on the criteria summarized inTable 8, which is based on posted speed limit, if there is a median refuge, and the number of lanes of the street being crossed.

Table 8: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria - Crossing
Posted Speed
Limit on Street
being Crossed
(mph)
# Lanes of Street Being Crossed
No Median Refuge Median Refuge (≥ 6 ft wide)
2-3 4-5 6+ 2-3 4-5 6+
≤ 25 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
30 LTS 2 LTS 2.5 LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2.5
35 LTS 2.5 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 2.5 LTS 3
≥ 40 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 2 LTS 2.5 LTS 4
Source: Montgomery County, MD. The Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D , 2018 Segments were evaluated based on criteria summarized inTable 9, which is based on posted speed limit and the type of buffer between the shared path and adjacent roadways.

Table 9: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria - Segment
Posted
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Shared Use Path
Side path w/ Buffer < 5ft
(and no railing OR many
driveways)
Side path w/ Buffer ≥ 5ft
(and no railing OR many
driveways)
Independent Right-of-
Way
≤ 25 LTS 1A or LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 0
30 LTS 1A or LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 0
35 LTS 1A or LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 0
40 LTS 2 LTS 1B or LTS 2 LTS 0
≥ 45 LTS 2 LTS 1B or LTS 2 LTS 0
Note:

A LTS 1 is given if the road is residential and buffer is at last 5 feet wide.

B LTS 1 is given if the buffer is wide.

Source: Montgomery County, MD. The Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D , 2018 Intersection
Intersection improvements were evaluated using the HCM intersection methodology. As shown in Table 5, intersection LOS is based on delay. Existing AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) traffic volumes were obtained from recent publicly accessible traffic studies. Future 2040 No Build and 2040 Build volumes were developed based on the “difference method” previously described. A level of service standard of LOS F was used for this analysis.

Technology
Technology projects included in the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study include studies to evaluate and identify potential technology-based solutions. Since these are studies and not public facilities, no MOE or

EXHIBIT B
673

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 thresholds were established at this time. AB 602 acknowledges that level of service analysis is not possible for certain types of projects. However, a qualitative assessment was conducted to determine how the technology being studies may result in delay or congestion reduction to offset the impacts related to future growth.

Results
This section presents a summary of results for each project.

Roadway Capacity
Freeway
Freeway analysis was used to evaluate the following projects:
· B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (westbound to southbound) · C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extensions · C-7 I-680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to Alcosta
Project B-1 evaluated multiple segments along I-580 and I-680. In the existing conditions, these segments operated at LOS D or LOS F. Even though some segments continue to operate at LOS F with the Project in 2040, there will be a reduction in volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c).

Even though Project C-3 is a local roadway, the I-580 segment between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard was analyzed because the Dublin Boulevard-North Canyon Parkway extension would divert local traffic from this freeway segment. In existing condition, the I-580 segment between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard operates at an unacceptable LOS F. Even though some segments continue to operate at LOS F with the Project in 2040, there will be a reduction in v/c.

For Project C-7, future development will increase congestion along I-680 and will improve with the construction of the project.

State Route
State Route analysis was used to evaluate the state route portion (SR-84/Isabella Avenue) of Projects A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange. Future development will change the LOS from LOS B or better in existing condition to LOS C through LOS E in 2040 No Build condition. Project A-2b will improve LOS to LOS B or better.

Arterial
Arterial analysis was used to evaluate the following projects:
· A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange
· B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension
· C-5 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive)
· Roadway capacity portion of Project B-8 El Charro Road Widening

EXHIBIT B
674

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Project A-2b evaluated Portola Avenue along the I-580 overpass. This segment operates at LOS F in existing and 2040 No Build conditions. Project A-2b will improve operations to acceptable levels of service.

Project B-6 evaluated Jack London Boulevard, east of El Charro Road. This segment operates at LOS F in the existing and 2040 No Build conditions. With the project, Jack London Boulevard may continue to operate at LOS F; however, there will be a reduction in v/c.

For Project B-8, future development will increase congestion along Camino Tassajara and will cause the roadway to operation at LOS F in 2040 No Build conditions. Project B-8 will improve operations to acceptable levels.

Since Project C-5 will extend El Charro Road south of Stoneridge Road/Jack London Boulevard, a parallel route along Santa Rita Road was analyzed. Future development will increase congestion along Santa Rita Road and will cause the roadway to operate at LOS F. Project C-5 will improve operations to acceptable levels.

Interchange
Interchange analysis was used to evaluate the following projects:
· B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification
· B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification
· B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification
· C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements
· C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange
· C-12 Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements
· C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange Improvements
For Project B-3, the I-580/First Street interchange operates at LOS C or better in the existing condition. Future development will increase the delay at the interchange. Project B-3 will reduce delay compared to 2040 No Build conditions.

For Project B-4, the I-580/Vasco Road interchange operates at LOS E or better in the existing condition. Future development will cause this interchange to operation at LOS F in the PM peak.

Project B-4 will improve operations to acceptable levels of LOS C or better.

For Project B-5, the I-580/Greenville Road interchangeoperates at LOS E or better in the existing condition. Future development will cause this interchange to operate at LOS F in PM peak. Project B- 5 will improve operations to acceptable levels of LOS E or better.

For Project C-6, the I-680/Sunol Boulevard interchange operate at LOS F in the existing and 2040 No Build conditions. Project C-6 will improve operations to acceptable levels of LOS B or better.

EXHIBIT B
675

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 For Project C-9, the I-680/Stoneridge Drive interchange operates at LOS B in the existing condition.

Future development will increase delay at the interchange. Project C-9 will reduce delay compared to 2040 No Build conditions.

For Project C-12, the I-580/Hacienda Drive interchange operates at LOS C or better in the existing condition. Future development will increase delay at the interchange. Project C-12 will improve operations compared to 2040 No Build conditions.

For Project C-13, the I-580/Fallon Road interchange operates at LOS A or better in the existing condition. Future development will increase delay at the interchange. Project C-13 will improve operations compared to 2040 No Build conditions.

Transit
Transit projects include the following projects:
· A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Phase 2
· C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1
· C-16 I-680 Express Bus Service
For Project A-11, both 10R and 30R routes have 15-minute headways (LOS C) in the existing condition. Without the improvements proposed in Project A-11, congestion from future development may increase the headway for these routes. Improvements proposed in Project A-11, such as transit signal priority, queue jumps, dedicated travel lanes may allow 10R and 30R to operate more quickly and efficiently.

Project C-14 would construct new stations and a transit line, so there is no LOS for existing or 2040 No Project conditions. It is anticipated that Valley Link would operate on similar headways as BART which is 15 minutes in the AM peak and 20 minutes in the PM peak, which equates to LOS C. In addition, the Valley Link EIR reports a 0.3% reduction in average weekday VMT between No Build and Build condition.

Project C-16 would establish a new express bus service, so there is no LOS for existing or 2040 No Project conditions. It is currently proposed that the bus would run on 20-minute headways during the peak period, which equates to LOS C.

Safety
Safety analysis evaluate the following projects:
· A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1
· A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2
· A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1
· A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2
· C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements
· C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement

EXHIBIT B
676

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 · Safety component for Project B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive)
Project A-9a and A-9b were analyzed together because both projects are difference project phases within the same project limits. In existing conditions, the project segment along Crow Canyon has a crash rate of 0.59 and future development is anticipated to increase the crash rate to 0.62. It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed in Projects A-9a and A-9b will reduce the crash rate to 0.06.

Project A-10a and A-10b were analyzed together because both projects are difference project phases within the same project limits. In existing conditions, the project segment along Vasco Road has a crash rate of 0.68 and future development is anticipated to increase the crash rate to 0.98. It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed in Projects A-10a and A-10b will reduce the crash rate to 0.53.

For Project B-8, the project segment along Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road has a crash rate of

0.83 in the existing condition and future development is anticipated to increase the crash rate over the threshold to 1.04. It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed in Projects C-1 will reduce the crash rate to 0.76.

For Project C-1, the project segment along Tesla Road has a crash rate of 0.86 in the existing condition and future development is anticipated increase the crash rate over the threshold to 1.11. It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed in Projects C-1 will reduce the crash rate to

0.62. For Project C-2, the project segment along Norris Canyon Road exceeds the crash rate threshold in the existing condition with a rate of 1.20. Future development is anticipated to increase the rate to

1.63. It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed in Projects C-2 will reduce the crash rate to 0.20.

Pedestrian / Bicycle
Pedestrian / Bicycle analysis was conducted for all of the Iron Horse Trail projects which include the following:
· C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road · C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Crow Canyon Road · C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin
· C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore
· C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs
· C-11f Iron House Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita Road · C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing – Sycamore Valley Road · C-11h Iron Horse Trail System-wide Improvements

EXHIBIT B
677

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 The crossing at Bollinger Canyon Road (Project C-11a) has a LTS of 4 in the existing condition . The crossing will continue to have a LTS of 4 in the future conditions. Project C-11a will construct an overcrossing which will improve the LTS to LTS 0.

The crossing at Crow Canyon Road (Project C-11b) has a LTS of 4 in the existing condition. The crossing will continue to have a LTS of 4 in the future conditions. Project C-11b will construct an overcrossing which will improve the LTS to LTS 0.

The crossing at Dublin Road (Project C-11c) has a LTS of 4 in the existing condition. The crossing will continue to have a LTS of 4 in the future conditions. Project C-11c will construct an bicycle/pedestrian bridge which will improve the LTS to LTS 0.

Project C-11d will construct new trail segments, so there are no LTS for existing or 2040 No project conditions. Project C-11d will construct LTS 1 trail segment.

Project C-11e will construct new trail segments, so there are no LTS for existing or 2040 No project conditions. Project C-11e will construct LTS 1 trail segment.

Project C-11f will construct new trail segments, so there are no LTS for existing or 2040 No project conditions. Project C-11e will construct LTS 1 trail segment.

The crossing at Sycamore Valley Road (Project C-11g) has a LTS of 4 in the existing condition. The crossing will continue to have a LTS of 4 in the future conditions. Project C-11g will construct an overcrossing which will improve the LTS to LTS 0.

Project C-11h will provide system-wide improvements, such as closing existing gaps in the trail system, therefore it was assumed that there is no LTS for existing or 2040 No project conditions.

Project C-11h will construct LTS 1 trail segment to fill in existing gaps and other improvements.

Intersection
Intersection analysis evaluate the following projects:
· C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements · C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange
Project C-4 evaluated Vasco Road and Dalton Avenue intersection. This intersection operates at LOS F in existing and 2040 No Build conditions. Project C-4 will improve operations to acceptable levels.

Project C-8 evaluated Santa Rita Road and I-580 EB Ramps/Pimilico Drive intersection. This intersection operated at LOS D or better in existing conditions. Future development will increase congestion at this intersection. The project will improve operation compared to 2040 No Build conditions.

EXHIBIT B
678

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Technology
There are two technology projects: C-10 Innovate 680 and C-15 Technology Enhancements. Since these are studies and not public facilities, no MOE or thresholds were established at this time. However, a qualitative assessment was conducted to determine how the technology being studied may result in delay or congestion reductions or other benefits.

Project C-10 Innovate 680 consists of multiple components including transit infrastructure and service improvements, roadway improvements, and technology enhancement, this project has been categorized as a technology improvement because TVTDF funding is being requested only for the Advance Technology component of the project. Other project components are expected to be funded through alternative sources. The Advance Technology component consists of implementing three technology-related strategies to improve operation along the I-680 corridor. Strategies include providing an enhanced 511 mobile app and implementing a shared autonomous vehicles (SAV) program for first and last mile connectivity and access at Mobility Hubs, to shift travel away from single occupant vehicles by providing travelers with better information about mode choice opportunities, resultant travel time, cost per trip, and the availability of transit. Other technology strategies include integrating adaptive ramp metering and/or corridor/incident management systems which can help improve the efficiency and safety of the transportation system.

Project C-15 Technology Enhancements proposes to provide connectivity for transit and vehicles between local arterials and regional facilities. The project is expected to be completed in three phases - Feasibility, Design & Construction. The TVTDF will help fund the feasibility study phase of the study, since the details of the design and construction phase are unknown at this time. The feasibility study will focus on the first and last mile connectivity opportunities at key transit hubs and along major transit routes in the Tri-Valley area. Leveraging existing and emerging technology, such as connected and autonomous vehicles, may help increase safety and mobility for all modes. These technologies may also help with increasing transit ridership or expanding transit service to less-served areas, especially for communities that currently lack service. Given that the resultant projects are intended to offset the impacts of future development, the feasibility study is appropriate to include in the TVTC project list.

AB 602 Proportional Allocation
Future development is responsible for paying for its proportional use of public facilities, rather than the full unfunded cost of projects. Under AB 602s project-specific analysis methods , the proportional allocation of costs for certain projects under the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study would be lower. ܤܣ602݊݋݅ݐܽܿ݋݈݈ܣ݈ܽ݊݋݅ݐݎ݋݌݋ݎܲ 2040ℎݐݓ݋ݎܩ݈݀݅ݑܤ݋ܰ
݁݉ݑ݈݋ܸ݃݊݅ݐݏ݅ݔܧ
AB 602 proportional allocation calculations are included inAttachment A.

AB 602 Analysis Maximum Fee Rate
Table 10 presents the AB 602 maximum fee. Historically, TVTC jurisdictions have not applied the maximum fee schedule, therefore Table 10 also presents the rate being proposed as part of the 2022

EXHIBIT B
679

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 SEP update. As shown, in Table 11, the proposed 2022 SEP rates are less than the adjusted maximum fee rate under the AB 602 analysis methods. Maximum rate adjustmentcalculations are included in Attachment B.

Table 10: 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study Maximum Fee
Land Use
AB 602
Maximum Fee
Rate
2022 SEP
Proposed
Rates
Single Family (DU) $18,752 $6,596.40
Multi-Family (DU) $11,056 $3,889.20
Retail (SF) $36.04 $5.92
Office (SF) $25.04 $8.81
Industrial (SF) $14.42 $4.97
Other (avg AM/PM trips) $21,679 $6,100.68
DU = Dwelling Units; SF = Square Feet
Attachment A – AB 602 Proportional Allocation Calculations Attachment B – AB 602 Maximum Rate Adjustment Calculations

EXHIBIT B
680
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Attachment A – AB 602 Proportional Allocation Calculations

EXHIBIT B
681
Project Methodology Existing
Volume
Future
Volume Growth
AB 602
Proportion
Allocation%
A-1 Interstate 580 (I-580)/Interstate 680 (I-680) Interchange (southbound to eastbound) - - - - A-2a State Route 84 (SR 84) Expressway (I-580 to I-680) - - - - A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange Roadway Capacity – State Route Roadway Capacity - Arterial 12,800 22,100 9,300 73%
A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Segment 2) - - - -
A-4 West Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station - - - - A-5a I-580 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane - - - -
A-5b I-580 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Westbound - - - - A-6 I-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade - - - - A-7 I-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications - - - - A-8 I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange - - - -
A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 Safety - - - 100% A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 Safety - - - 100% A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 Safety - - - 100% A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 Safety - - - 100% A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Phase 2 Transit - - - 100% B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (westbound to southbound) Roadway Capacity - Freeway 54,000 55,500 1,500 3% B-2 Fifth Eastbound Lane on I-580 from Santa Rita Road to Vasco Road - B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification Roadway Capacity - Interchange - - - 100% B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification Roadway Capacity - Interchange - - - 100% B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification Roadway Capacity - Interchange - - - 100% B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension Roadway Capacity - Arterial 3,300 7,600 4,300 100% B-7 El Charro Road Extension (Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard to Stanley Boulevard) - - - - B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive) Roadway Capacity - Arterial Safety - - - 100%
B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Interchange Improvements - - - - B-10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main Street to Rudgear Road) - - - - B-11a I-680 HOV Direct Access Ramps - - - -
B-11b I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements - - - -
C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements Safety - - - 100%
C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement Safety - - - 99% C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extensions Roadway Capacity - Freeway 28,400 37,700 9,300 33% C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements Intersection 4,400 5,500 1,100 25% C-5 El Charro Road Widening Roadway Capacity - Arterial - - - 100% C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements Roadway Capacity - Interchange 9,400 11,100 1,700 18% C-7 I-680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to Alcosta Roadway Capacity - Freeway - - - 100% C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange Intersection - - - 100% C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange Roadway Capacity - Interchange - - - 100% C-10 Innovate 680 Technology - - - 100%
C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road Pedestrian/Bicycle 5,500 6,000 500 9% C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Crow Canyon Road Pedestrian/Bicycle 5,600 6,400 800 14% C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin Pedestrian/Bicycle 7,600 8,300 700 9% C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore Pedestrian/Bicycle - - - 100% Project Completed
Project Fully Funded
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Removed
Project Removed - Incorporated into
Project C-10
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Removed - Incorporated into
Project C-5
Project Completed

EXHIBIT B
682
Project Methodology Existing
Volume
Future
Volume Growth
AB 602
Proportion
Allocation%
C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs Pedestrian/Bicycle - - - 100% C-11f Iron House Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita Road Pedestrian/Bicycle - - - 100% C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing – Sycamore Valley Road Pedestrian/Bicycle 4,000 6,000 2,000 50% C-11h Iron Horse Trail System-wide Improvements Pedestrian/Bicycle - - - 100% C-12 Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements Roadway Capacity - Interchange - - - 100% C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange Improvements Roadway Capacity - Interchange - - - 100% C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1) Transit - - - 100%
C-15 Technology Enhancements Technology - - - 100%
C-16 I-680 Express Bus Service Transit - - - 100%
Project C-2: Growth is based on the percentages of TVTC road users along project corridor.

Note
Project B-6: Growth exceed 100%, therefore AB 602 proportion allocation was assumed to be 100%

EXHIBIT B
683
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Attachment B – AB 602 Maximum Rate Adjustment Calculations

EXHIBIT B
684
Project Total Cost
(2021$ Million)
AB 602
Proportion
Allocation%
AB 602 TVTDF
Eligible Cost
(2021$ Million)*
A-1 Interstate 580 (I-580)/Interstate 680 (I-680) Interchange (southbound to eastbound) - - - A-2a State Route 84 (SR 84) Expressway (I-580 to I-680) $325.40 - - A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange $22.70 73% $4.58
A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Segment 2) - - -
A-4 West Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station - - - A-5a I-580 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane - - -
A-5b I-580 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Westbound - - - A-6 I-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade - - -
A-7 I-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications - - - A-8 I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange - - -
A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 $10.87 100% $8.42 A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 $58.77 100% $57.08 A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 $40.57 100% $11.14 A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 $31.20 100% $28.62 A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Phase 2 $22.35 100% $21.21 B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (westbound to southbound) $1,785.65 3% $34.69 B-2 Fifth Eastbound Lane on I-580 from Santa Rita Road to Vasco Road - - - B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification $61.00 100% $7.93 B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification $85.65 100% $16.61 B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification $86.00 100% $18.92 B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension $28.16 100% $10.08
B-7 El Charro Road Extension (Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard to Stanley Boulevard) $72.48 - - B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive) $88.08 100% $54.55 B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Interchange Improvements - - - B-10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main Street to Rudgear Road) - - - B-11a I-680 HOV Direct Access Ramps - - -
B-11b I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements $277.85 - -
C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements $13.19 100% $13.19
C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement $24.49 99% $24.24 C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extensions $160.39 33% $35.72 C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements $3.39 25% $0.85 C-5 El Charro Road Widening $68.09 100% $38.09
C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements $16.60 18% $1.37 C-7 I-680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to Alcosta $527.57 100% $300.72

EXHIBIT B
685
Project Total Cost
(2021$ Million)
AB 602
Proportion
Allocation%
AB 602 TVTDF
Eligible Cost
(2021$ Million)*
C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange $10.33 100% $2.63
C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange $11.98 100% $4.08
C-10 Innovate 680 $57.21 100% $54.66
C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road $22.88 9% $0.78 C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Crow Canyon Road $19.69 14% $2.81 C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin $11.60 9% $0.00
C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore $26.99 100% $26.99
C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs $1.65 100% $0.30 C-11f Iron House Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita Road $0.87 100% $0.48 C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing – Sycamore Valley Road $19.78 50% $9.89 C-11h Iron Horse Trail System-wide Improvements $85.60 100% $85.60 C-12 Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements $39.13 100% $34.50 C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange Improvements $34.51 100% $19.96 C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1) $258.25 100% $258.25
C-15 Technology Enhancements $0.33 100% $0.33
C-16 I-680 Express Bus Service $59.35 100% $59.35
TOTAL $4,470.60 $1,248.62
*AB 602 TVTDF Eligible Cost also includes reduction in cost to account for external "cut-through" trips that is generated by growth outside the Tri-Valley area.

EXHIBIT B
686

Tri‐Valley Transportation Council
2022 Strategic Expenditure Plan
Approved Funding Plan

April 18, 2022

Total
$17,000,000 $22,469,002 $13,981,855 $6,057,276 $2,042,094 $5,064,310 $1,473,440 $7,628,993 $8,024,183 $22,944,751 $14,577,263 $16,331,555 $14,584,716 $13,862,627 $14,130,377 $12,945,760 $15,598,510 $12,953,043 $33,769,769 $13,979,792 $162,733,410 $2,915,453 $3,266,311 $2,916,943 $2,772,525 $2,826,075 $2,589,152 $3,119,702 $2,590,609 $6,753,954 $2,795,958 $32,546,682 $116,618 $130,652 $116,678 $110,901 $113,043 $103,566 $124,788 $103,624 $270,158 $111,838 $1,301,867 $28,545,192 $35,403,594 $25,532,950 $17,036,476 $13,233,353 $15,317,352 $13,827,460 $17,887,802 $34,769,840 $34,016,746 $128,884,861 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 22-32 Total Disbursed $6,076,190 $21,421,738 $19,475,674 $14,994,382 $8,169,043 $13,843,912 $6,198,467 $9,863,619 $11,825,089 $10,419,955 $122,288,069 Remainder $22,469,002 $13,981,855 $6,057,276 $2,042,094 $5,064,310 $1,473,440 $7,628,993 $8,024,183 $22,944,751 $23,596,791 $23,596,791 A-2b $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,650,000 $5,150,000
A-9a $1,550,000 $1,550,000
A-9b $1,690,000 $1,690,000
A-10a $500,000 $2,820,000 $3,320,000
A-10b $2,580,000 $2,580,000
A-11 $800,000 $800,000
B-4 $5,139,000 $3,426,000 $8,565,000
B-5 $5,160,000 $3,440,000 $8,600,000
B-8a $4,380,000 $2,000,000 $6,380,000
B-8b $1,450,000 $1,450,000
C-2 $538,561 $538,561
C-3 $16,039,300 $16,039,300
C-6 $2,650,000 $2,650,000
C-7b $3,298,382 $5,298,382 $5,298,382 $7,298,382 $21,193,529 C-8 $1,033,378 $1,033,378
C-10 $3,432,438 $2,288,292 $5,720,730
C-11a $2,287,629 $2,287,629
C-11c $600,000 $600,000
C-11d $2,698,530 $2,698,530
C-11e $164,866 $164,866
C-13 $2,070,661 $1,380,440 $3,451,101
C-14 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $25,825,445 Revenue Forecast ($)
Return to Local Source - 20% ($)
Admin Fee -0.8% ($)
Revenue for TVTDF Allocation ($)
ID
Project
July 1st FY Balance ($)
I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification
Projected Disbursement - 2022 SEP Update
SR 84 / I-580 Interchange - Phase 2
Crow Canyon Improvements Phase 1
Crow Canyon Improvements Phase 2
Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1
Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2
Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - Phase 2
Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange
I-580/Greenville Rd Interchange Modification
Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Rd Widening Project (Contra Costa County Segment)
Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Rd Widening Project (Dublin Segment) Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement - Segment 1
Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension
Sunol/680 Widening
I-680 Express Lanes - Hwy 84 to Alcosta (Northbound)
Valley Link Rail (Phase 1)
Innov ate 680
Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail – Dublin
Iron Horse Trail – Livermore
Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs
Fallon/El Charro Interchange

EXHIBIT C
687

TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL

STRATEGIC EXPENDITURE PLAN
2022 UPDATE
For the Tri-Valley Transportation Development
Fee

TVTC MEMBER AGENCIES

IN ASSOCIATION WITH
DRAFT FINAL REPORT | APRIL 29, 2022
Prepared By:

EXHIBIT C
688
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update │ Table Contents Draft Final Report │ April 29, 2022 i
Contents
Acronym List ............................................................................................................................... ii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 Background and History .............................................................................................................. 1 Recent Actions and Current SEP Update .................................................................................... 2 Chapter 2: Project Descriptions ................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 3: Project Prioritization ................................................................................................... 5 Prioritization Criteria .................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 4 : Revenue Forecasting................................................................................................ 6 Development Forecast ................................................................................................................ 6 TVTDF Rate Adjustments ........................................................................................................... 6 Estimation of Developer Fee Revenues ....................................................................................... 7 Chapter 5: Project Funding ......................................................................................................... 9 Appendix ................................................................................................................................... 15 Tables
Table 1: Project Prioritization ......................................................................................................5 Table 2: FY 2022/2023 Rate Adjustment.....................................................................................7 Table 3: FY 2023/2024 Rate Adjustment.....................................................................................7 Table 4: Estimate of Development Fee Revenue ........................................................................8 Table 5: List of A Projects in TVTC 2022 SEP...........................................................................10 Table 6: List of B Projects in TVTC 2022 SEP...........................................................................11 Table 7: List of C Projects in TVTC 2022 SEP ..........................................................................12 Table 8: 2022 TVTDF Funding Plan ..........................................................................................14

EXHIBIT C
689
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Acronym List Draft Final Report │ April 29, 2022 ii

ACRONYM LIST
ACE Altamont Corridor Express
Alameda CTC Alameda County Transportation Commission
AMT Arroyo Mocho Trail
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
CCI Construction Cost Index
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CHP California Highway Patrol
CTP Countywide Transportation Plan
EIR Environmental Impact Report
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
I-580 Interstate 580
I-680 Interstate 680
IHT Iron Horse Trail
JEPA Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
JPA Joint Power Agreement
LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
PM Post Mile
PA&ED Project Approval and Environmental Documents
PS&E Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
PSR Project Study Report
PSR-PDS Project Study Report-Project Development Support ROW Right of Way
RRS Routes of Regional Significance
SAV Shared Autonomous Vehicles
SEP Strategic Expenditure Plan
SOV Single Occupant Vehicles
SR 84 State Route 84
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWAT Southwest Area Transportation
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TEP Transportation Expenditure Plan
TIF Transportation Improvement Fee
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership and Cooperation
TSP Transit Signal Priority
TVTC Tri-Valley Transportation Council
TVTDF Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee
TVTP/AP Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan

EXHIBIT C
690
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Acronym List Draft Final Report │ April 29, 2022 iii
V2X Vehicle to Everything
V2I Vehicle to Infrastructure
VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

EXHIBIT C
691
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update │ Chapter 1: Introduction Draft Final Report │ April 29, 2022 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
In 1991, the seven jurisdictions of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, Danville, and San Ramon signed a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) that established the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC). The purpose of the JPA was for the joint preparation of a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (TVTP/AP) for Routes of Regional Significance (RRS) and cost sharing of recommended improvements. The TVTP/AP was prepared and presented to all member jurisdictions in April 1995, and updated in 2000. The TVTP/AP created a common understanding and agreement on the Tri-Valley’s transportation concerns regarding prioritizing projects for funding and implementation.

In addition to the project priorities, the TVTP/AP also recommended the development of a Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (Fee or TVTDF) to allocate a fair share of regional infrastructure cost to go towards new development. The first nexus study for the fee program was completed in 1995 and justified allocating the unfunded cost needed to complete all of the 11 projects identified in the TVTP/AP to new development. The TVTC, however, recommended scaling back by roughly two-thirds the total the maximum fee allowed under the nexus study. The TVTC and its member jurisdictions subsequently created and adopted the TVTDF in 1998 through a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA). The original Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP) was adopted in 1999.

The JEPA called for a periodic update of the fee program to reflect any significant changes in population growth, project status, and other conditions that would require revisions to the fee program. The TVTP/AP was again updated in 2000 to reflect projects that were completed, project schedules and/or funding plans shifted, traffic patterns changed; and new regional transportation projects were identified through various traffic studies. The TVTC responded to these changes by directing the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to conduct a new fee nexus study to update the fee, and potentially the project list.

Completed and adopted in early 2008, the next TVTC nexus study, identified 22 new projects that the TVTC elected for eligibility to receive funding from the TVTDF. The first 11 projects were adopted into the original program in 1995. The second set of 11, were new projects that were included in the 2008 Nexus Study. A revised fee structure was released by TVTC for consideration by each member agency in late 2008. While each member agency communicated support for the revised fee structure, it was not approved by all member agencies pending preparation and approval of a corresponding SEP. A TVTC SEP Subcommittee was therefore formed to commence an update to the SEP.

To facilitate the progress of existing projects while an update to the SEP was underway, an Interim Funding Plan was approved by TVTC in April 2010. The Interim Funding Plan matched the programmed amounts and priorities established in the 2004 SEP Update. It also included a revised disbursement timeline to reflect the current Joint TVTDF account balance and projected fee collections over the next five years—which reaffirmed TVTC’s commitment to high priority projects.

In 2011, an update to the SEP incorporated estimated TVTDF revenues over a 10-year horizon. The SEP 2011 Update recommended allocating funding to all of projects on List A and several projects on List B, at an approximate total of $60 million between FY10/11 and FY 19/20. The TVTC SEP 2011 Update was adopted on February 10, 2011.

In October 2013, TVTC signed a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to establish the TVTC as a separate agency that is responsible for planning, coordinating, and receiving disbursement of traffic

EXHIBIT C
692
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update │ Chapter 1: Introduction Draft Final Report │ April 29, 2022 2
impact fee revenues from member agencies to help implement transportation improvement projects within the Tri-Valley Area. One of the primary duties of the TVTC is the preparation of a TVTP/AP and cost sharing of recommended improvements. As previously noted, the TVTP/AP was originally prepared and presented to all member jurisdictions in April 1995. The TVTP/AP has been subsequently updated in 2004, 2009, 2013, and 2017.

In January 2015, the TVTC adopted Resolution No. 2015-01 – Adopting the updated Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Schedule as a two-year phase-in plan, with no change during the initial year (FY 14/15), an increase to 25% of the maximum allowable rate by the fee nexus study in the second year (FY 15/16) and a final increase to 35% of the maximum allowable rate by the third year (FY 16/17).

The new fee was based on the Fee Nexus Study adopted in 2008.

In November 2015 a review of the 2008 Nexus Study was conducted to determine if a reasonable relationship between the unexpended fees and the purpose for which those fees were collected remain valid. This comparison analyzed the 2008 Nexus Study Fee Update in consideration of then current traffic conditions, forecasted growth, and project updates and found that the unexpended fees and the purpose of which those fees were collected remained valid1.

In January 2017, the TVTC approved the 2008 TVTC Nexus Study Validation Review and adopted the 2017 SEP Update. At that time the TVTC elected to maintain the current fee rate, with exception of the annual Construction Cost Index (CCI) adjustment. The 2017 SEP Update incorporated estimated TVTDF revenues over a 10-year horizon. The SEP 2017 Update recommended allocating funding to all of projects on List A and several projects on List B, at an approximate total of $50 million between FY16/17 and FY 25/26. The TVTC SEP 2017 Update was adopted on January 23, 2017.

RECENT ACTIONS AND CURRENT SEP UPDATE
With half of the current project list no longer being eligible for funding as a result of projects being completed or changes to the program, TVTC reviewed and selected additional projects to be considered for funding from the TVTDF. This selection process resulted in a new list of projects to mitigate the impacts of new development based on feasibility and stakeholder support. From this process, 16 projects (“List C”) were identified to be consider for receive funding from the TVTDF.

In 2020, the 2020 TVTC Nexus Fee Update Study evaluated the remaining projects from List A and List B, as well as the addition of 16 projects from List C. The analysis found that these projects would reduce the congestion created by new development. The 2020 Nexus Study also determined the new maximum fee needed to fund the improvement projects. The study was adopted on August 16, 2021.

This report constitutes the 2022 SEP Update and incorporates and builds upon the updated project descriptions, funding programs, and progression of the TVTDF over the last six years, as well as the project description of the new selected List C projects. As such, this report summarizes the status of the 38 projects listed in the 2022 Nexus Study, project prioritization, estimates revenues from the TVTDF over a 10-year horizon, and provides a funding plan for the priority projects. The proposed 10-year funding allocations and project disbursements were approved by the SEP Finance Subcommittee in April 4, 2022 prior to full review and adoption by the TVTC Board in April 18, 2022. 1 Kimley-Horn. Validation Review of the 2008 Nexus Study. Nov 2015.

EXHIBIT C
693
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Chapter 2: Project Description Draft Final Report │ April 29, 2022 3
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
This section includes project summaries for each of the 38 projects included in the 2022 Nexus Study.

The summaries are based on information provided by member agencies who act as project sponsors and include a project description, phasing details, funding sources, schedule, and status. The 38 projects are presented in order based on their original list identifier, “A”, “B”, and “C”, representing the original 11 projects, the 11 projects included in the 2008 Nexus Study, and the 16 projects included in the 2020 Nexus Study, respectively. Detailed project descriptions are provided inAppendix A.

LIST A
· A-1 Interstate 580 (I-580)/Interstate 680 (I-680) Interchange (southbound to eastbound) o Completed, therefore not considered for further funding · A-2a State Route 84 (SR 84) Expressway (I-580 to I-680) · A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange
· A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Segment 2)
o Completed, therefore not considered for further funding · A-4 West Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station o Completed, therefore not considered for further funding · A-5a I-580 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane
o Completed, therefore not considered for further funding · A-5b I-580 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Westbound o Completed, therefore not considered for further funding · A-6 I-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade
o Southbound completed, northbound not considered for funding · A-7 I-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications o Completed, therefore not considered for further funding · A-8 I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange
o Completed, therefore not considered for further funding · A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1
· A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2
· A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1
· A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2
· A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Phase 2
LIST B
· B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (westbound to southbound) · B-2 Fifth Eastbound Lane on I-580 from Santa Rita Road to Vasco Road o Completed, therefore not considered for further funding · B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification
· B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification
· B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification
· B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension
· B-7 El Charro Road Extension (Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard to Stanley Boulevard) o Project incorporated into Project C-5 El Charro Widening and removed from project list and no longer considered for funding

EXHIBIT C
694
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Chapter 2: Project Description Draft Final Report │ April 29, 2022 4
· B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive)
· B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Interchange Improvements o Removed from project list and no longer considered for funding · B-10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main Street to Rudgear Road) o Completed, therefore not considered for further funding · B-11a I-680 HOV Direct Access Ramps
o Removed from project list and no longer considered for funding · B-11b I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements
o Project incorporated into Project C-10 Innovate 680 and removed from project list and no longer considered for funding
LIST C
· C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements
· C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement
· C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyon Parkway Extension · C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements · C-5 El Charro Road Widening
· C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements
· C-7 I-680 Express Lanes - Hwy 84 to Alcosta
· C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange
· C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange
· C-10 Innovate 680
· C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road · C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Crow Canyon Road · C-11c Iron Horse Trail Crossing at Dublin Boulevard
· C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore
· C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs Connection
· C-11f Iron Horse Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita Road · C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Sycamore Valley Road · C-11h Iron Horse Trail System-wide improvements
· C-12 Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements
· C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange Improvements
· C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1)
· C-15 Technology Enhancements
· C-16 I-680 Express Bus Service

EXHIBIT C
695
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Chapter 3: Project Prioritization Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022 5
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Historically, the TAC and TVTC have prioritized the use of TVTDF funding to leverage other federal or state funds in order to advance a project to its next stage, rather than to fully fund any single project in its entirety. For example, the funds could be used as the local match for other grant money. Or, the money could be used to fund the next project development phase, such as a PSR, which is typically assumed to cost 5% of the total project cost, or the PS&E, which is typically assumed to cost about 10% of the total project cost.

Forecasted revenue generated by the TVTDF for the 10-year SEP horizon period is not sufficient to providing funding for all eligible projects, therefore projects are ranked to determine funding priority based on the criteria presented in the following section.

PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
All projects (List A, List B, and List C) were prioritized using the following five criteria: 1) Project Urgency, 2) TVTDF Allocation, 3) Project Readiness, 4) Project Funding, and 5) Project Effectiveness. Each criterion was given a score between 0 and 3 points based on the scoring criteria presented inTable 1.

Table 1: Project Prioritization
Funding
Criteria Description Scoring Criteria
Project
Urgency
How urgent is the project?
Is the project expected to move forward in
the ten-year SEP horizon?
Low Urgency = 1
Medium Urgency = 2
High Urgency = 3
TVTDF
Allocation
What is the % TVTDF allocation does the
project currently have?
>30% = 0
>20%-30% = 1
>10%-20% = 2
≤ 10% = 3
Project
Readiness
How ready is a project is to expend capital
funds?
What stage the project is in?
Score 0.5 – 3 based on what current stage
(e.g. PSR = 1, Construction = 3)
Project
Funding
How much total funding is committed for
the project?
Score = (Total Funding Committed / Total
Cost) x3
Project
Effectiveness
How well does the Project aligns with Lead
Agency Policy/Goals
Well aligned with agency policy (e.g. In
General Plan) = 3
Aligned with agency policy = 2
Not well aligned with agency policy = 1
The score for each funding criteria was the totaled and normalized to a 10-point scale to calculate the project’s priority score. Projects eligible to receive funding were then ranked base on their resultant priority score. It should be noted that this priority ranking was provided to help the TVTC TAC and SEP Subcommittee make informed decision on how to prioritize project funding and are provided to facilitate the decision-making process. The ultimate prioritization is determined by the TVTC board.

The results of the project prioritization are included asAppendix B.

EXHIBIT C
696
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Chapter 4: Revenue Forecasting Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022 6
CHAPTER 4 : REVENUE FORECASTING
The revenue forecast estimate for the next 10-year is calculated based on the development forecast and TVTDF rate schedule.

DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
To best understand the available revenue to fund the 38 projects identified in the Nexus Study, fee estimates were developed based on 10-year land use projections as provided by TVTC member agencies. The development forecast which resulted from this process is provided inAppendix C.

TVTDF RATE ADJUSTMENTS
The 2020 Nexus Study update determined the maximum fee to fund the improvement projects evaluated.

Similar to prior efforts, it was recommended that only a percentage of the maximum fee be collected to provide a regional transportation funding source to offset development related impacts.

RATE ADJUSTMENT SCENARIO ANALSYIS
To determine how the TVTDF rate should be adjusted as part of the update, several potential rate adjustment scenarios were considered by the SEP subcommittee. The resultant scenario analysis included the following considerations:
· Revenue should fund at least 10% of the total project costs (approximately $106,000,000) for the projects ranked 1 through 15 (Top 15).
· In addition to funding the Top 15, the total revenue brought in must also account for 20% that is returned to local source, as well as a 0.8% Admin Fee.
· Scenarios considered various numbers of adjustments increases, and included a two-step increase scenario similar to the previous iteration, as well as having a one-step, four-step, and annual increase variations.
· Scenarios considered capping the rate between 15% and 20% of the maximum fee rate · Some of the scenarios also assumed a reduction for retail · Projects included in the prior SEP funding plan, that had yet to be funded, would be carried over to the funding plan.

Based on the SEP Subcommittees review of these draft scenarios, a recommended approach to rate adjustments and allocation was identified for consideration and subsequently adopted by the TVTC Board.

RATE ADJUSTMENT
The adopted rate adjustments are presented in Tables 2 and 3. As shown in Table 2, only an initial rate adjustment for funding year FY 22/23 at approximately 15% of the maximum fee rate is planned for the duration of the SEP for all uses except retail and “other” land uses. Note that in subsequent years, the rates will still be adjusted to reflect changes in the CCI.

Similar to the prior SEP, it is recommended that retail continue to have a lower percentage of the maximum fee rate to help encourage retail growth, especially since local serving retail has been greatly impacted by the global pandemic. Retail is recommended to initially be established at 6% and then

EXHIBIT C
697
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Chapter 4: Revenue Forecasting Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022 7
increase to 7% of the maximum fee rate in funding year FY 23/34 with no additional increases, beyond the CCI, currently planned.

It is also proposed that a lower increase be made for “other” land use category. “Other” land uses consist of developments that do not fall into the other five land use categories such as theaters, motel/hotels, day care facilities, and gas stations. Given the unique nature of these uses, it was recommended that the rate be to held at 12% of the maximum fee rate for the duration of the SEP.

As noted, it was also recommended that the TVTDF rate continue to increase on an annual basis based on the annual CCI adjustment to reflect changes in regional construction costs. Similarly, to how the SEP has been implemented in the past, the CCI adjustment will not be applied for years when there is a prescribed rate increase. Essentially this means that the CCI adjustment would not be applied for any use in funding year FY 22/23 and also not to retail in funding year FY 23/24.

Table 2: FY 2022/2023 Rate Adjustment
Land Use Current
2021 Rate
% of
Maximum
FY 2022/23
Rates
Change
from 2021
Rates
% Change
Single Family (DU) $5,057 15% $6,596.40 $1,539.40 30.4% Multi-Family (DU) $3,484 15% $3,889.20 $405.20 11.6%
Retail (SF) $3.74 6% $5.07 $1.33 35.6%
Office (SF) $8.59 15% $8.81 $0.22 2.5%
Industrial (SF) $5.00 15% $4.97 -$0.03 -0.6%
Other (avg AM/PM trips) $5,620 12% $6,100.68 $480.68 8.6% DU = Dwelling Units; SF = Square Feet
Table 3: FY 2023/2024 Rate Adjustment
Land Use Current
2021 Rate
% of
Maximum
FY 2023/24
Rates
Change
from 2021
Rates
% Change
Single Family (DU) $5,057 15% $6,596.40* $1,539.40 30.4% Multi-Family (DU) $3,484 15% $3,889.20* $405.20 11.6%
Retail (SF) $3.74 7% $5.92 $2.18 58.2%
Office (SF) $8.59 15% $8.81* $0.22 2.5%
Industrial (SF) $5.00 15% $4.97* -$0.03 -0.6%
Other (avg AM/PM trips) $5,620 12% $6,100.68* $480.68 8.6% DU = Dwelling Units; SF = Square Feet
*CCI adjustment will be applied

ESTIMATION OF DEVELOPER FEE REVENUES
The potential developer fee revenue was estimated based on development forecast and the rates shown in Table 2 and Table 3. Table 4 summarizes the estimated developer fee revenues between FY 22/23 and FY 31/32. Between FY 22/23 and FY 31/32, it is forecasted that there will be $128.88 million available to fund projects. As of June 30, 2016, there was a SEP fund balance of $17.00 million, resulting in a maximum estimate of $145.88 million being available for allocation to projects.

EXHIBIT C
698
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Chapter 4: Revenue Forecasting Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022 8
Table 4: Estimate of Development Fee Revenue
Fiscal Year 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 Total Sub-Total of
Revenue $14.58 $16.33 $14.58 $13.86 $14.13 $12.95 $15.60 $12.95 $33.77 $13.98 $162.73 Return to Source
(20%) $2.92 $3.27 $2.92 $2.77 $2.83 $2.59 $3.12 $2.59 $6.75 $2.80 $32.55 Administrative
Costs (0.8%) $0.12 $0.13 $0.12 $0.11 $0.11 $0.10 $0.12 $0.10 $0.27 $0.11 $1.30 Revenue for
TVTDF Allocation $11.55 $12.93 $11.55 $10.98 $11.19 $10.25 $12.35 $10.26 $26.75 $11.07 $128.88 All revenue calculations shown in Millions of dollars and rounded to the nearest hundredth decimal point. Rounding may result in some values not calculating accurately in Table 4.

EXHIBIT C
699
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Chapter 5: Project Funding Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022 9
CHAPTER 5: PROJECT FUNDING
For this funding plan, the funds over the next 10-years are planned to be distributed towards 21 projects.

Out of the $145.88 million available to program to projects, $20.67 million was identified as committed to project in the 2017 SEP, but not yet disbursed. These projects include:
· A-2b: SR 84/I-580 Interchange
· A-9a: Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1
· A-9b: Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2
· A-10a: Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1
· A-10b: Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2
· B-8a: Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (Contra Costa Segment) Approximately $101.62 million is programed for the top priority projects. The projects with priority rank 1 through 15 (Top 15) were selected for funding within this 10-year horizon and programed to receive approximately 10% of their total project cost except for Project B-8 and Project C-11c. Following are the Top 15 projects:
· B-4: I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification
· B-5: I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification
· B-8a: Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (Contra Costa Segment) · B-8b: Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (Dublin Segment) · C-2: Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement
· C-3: Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extensions · C-6: Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements
· C-7b: I-680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to Alcosta (Northbound) · C-8: Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange
· C-10: Innovate 680
· C-11a: Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road · C-11c: Iron Horse Trail – Dublin
· C-11d: Iron Horse Trail – Livermore
· C-11e: Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs
Additionally, the SEP subcommittee recommended that $800,000 be allocated to Project A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - Phase 2 in conjecture with Project C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extensions.

The remaining $23.60 million forecasted over the 10-year horizon was set aside for reserves.

A more detailed description of the funding allocation by project are shown inTable 5 through 7. Note that these tables only include those projects that have TVTDF funds programmed in the 2022 SEP Update’s 10-year horizon (FY 22/23 – FY 31/32).

Table 8 provides a summary of estimated TVTDF revenues throughout the 10-year SEP horizon, project funding allocations, and the overall ongoing fund balance.

EXHIBIT C
700
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Chapter 5: Project Funding Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022 10
Table 5: List of A Projects in TVTC 2022 SEP
Project
Recommended Funding Funding Strategy
A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange
$2.00 Million in FY 29/30
$1.50 Million in FY 30/31
$1.65 Million in FY 31/32
Funding is programmed for project development
activities including environmental assessment and
design.

A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements
Phase 1
$1.55 Million in FY 24/25
Funding is programmed for the estimated cost to
prepare the PSR and implement short-term
improvements.

A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements
Phase 2
$1.69 Million in FY 25/26
Funding is programmed for the estimated cost to
prepare the PSR.

A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements
Phase 1
$0.50 Million in FY 23/24
$2.82 Million in FY 24/25
Funding is programmed for the construction phase.

A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements
Phase 2
$2.58 Million in FY 25/26
Funding is programmed for the estimated costs to
prepare the PS&E.

A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) - Phase 2
$0.80 Million in FY 26/27
Funding is programmed for transit improvements in
conjuncture Project C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North
Canyon Parkway Extension.

Table 5 only includes projects that have TVTDF funds programmed in the 2022 SEP Update 10-year horizon (FY 22/23 – FY 31/32)

EXHIBIT C
701
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Chapter 5: Project Funding Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022 11
Table 6: List of B Projects in TVTC 2022 SEP
Project
Recommended Funding Funding Strategy
B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange
Modification
$5.14 Million in FY 24/25
$3.43 Million in FY 25/26
Funding is programmed for project development
activities including environmental assessment and
design.

B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road
Widening Project (East of
Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin
Ranch Drive)
(Contra Costa Segment)
$4.38 Million in FY 24/25
$2.00 Million in FY 25/26
Funding is programmed for the estimated costs for the
PS&E and Construction.

B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road
Widening Project (East of
Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin
Ranch Drive)
(Dublin Segment)
$1.45 Million in FY 23/24
Funding is programmed for the estimated costs for the
PS&E and Construction.

Table 6 only includes projects that have TVTDF funds programmed in the 2022 SEP Update 10-year horizon (FY 22/23 – FY 31/32)

EXHIBIT C
702
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Chapter 5: Project Funding Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022 12
Table 7: List of C Projects in TVTC 2022 SEP
Project
Recommended Funding Funding Strategy
C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety
Improvement
$0.54 Million in FY 22/23
Funding is programmed for project development
activities including environmental assessment and
design.

C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyon
Parkway Extension
$16.04 Million in FY 23/24
Funding is programmed for PS&E and ROW
certification.

C-6 Sunol/680 Widening
$2.65 Million in FY 23/24
Funding is programmed for project development
activities including environmental assessment and
design.

C-7 I-680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to
Alcosta
$3.30 Million in FY 24/25
$5.30 Million in FY 25/26
$5.30 Million in FY 26/27
$7.30 Million in FY 27/28
Funding is programmed for project development
activities including environmental assessment and
design for Phase 2.

C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange
$1.03 Million in FY 28/29
Funding is programmed for project development
activities including environmental assessment and
design.

C-10 Innovate 680
$3.43 Million in FY 23/24
$2.29 Million in FY 24/25
Funding is programmed for project development
activities associated with Advanced Technologies
portion.

C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle Pedestrian
Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon
Road
$2.29 Million in FY 22/23
Funding is programmed for the estimated costs for the
PS&E and Construction.

C-11c Iron Horse Trail Crossing at Dublin
Boulevard
$0.60 Million in FY 22/23
Funding is programmed for the estimated costs for the
PS&E and Construction.

C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore
$2.70 Million in FY 29/30
Funding is programmed for the estimated costs for the
PS&E and Construction.

C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs
$0.16 Million in FY 31/32
Funding is programmed for project development
activities including environmental assessment and
design.

C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange
$2.07 Million in FY 26/27
$1.38 Million in FY 27/28
Funding is programmed for project development
activities including environmental assessment and
design.

EXHIBIT C
703
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Chapter 5: Project Funding Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022 13
Project
Recommended Funding Funding Strategy
C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1)
$5.17 Million in FY 27/28
$5.17 Million in FY 28/29
$5.17 Million in FY 29/30
$5.17 Million in FY 30/31
Funding is programmed towards construction cost and
access improvement for three stations in Tri-Valley
Area.

Table 7 only includes projects that have TVTDF funds programmed in the 2022 SEP Update 10-year horizon (FY 22/23 – FY 31/32)

EXHIBIT C
704
Table 8: 2022 TVTDF Funding Plan
T otal
$17,000,000 $22,469,002 $13,981,855 $6,057,276 $2,042,094 $5,064,310 $1,473,440 $7,628,993 $8,024,183 $22,944,751 $14,577,263 $16,331,555 $14,584,716 $13,862,627 $14,130,377 $12,945,760 $15,598,510 $12,953,043 $33,769,769 $13,979,792 $162,733,410 $2,915,453 $3,266,311 $2,916,943 $2,772,525 $2,826,075 $2,589,152 $3,119,702 $2,590,609 $6,753,954 $2,795,958 $32,546,682 $116,618 $130,652 $116,678 $110,901 $113,043 $103,566 $124,788 $103,624 $270,158 $111,838 $1,301,867 $28,545,192 $35,403,594 $25,532,950 $17,036,476 $13,233,353 $15,317,352 $13,827,460 $17,887,802 $34,769,840 $34,016,746 $128,884,861 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 22-32 T otal Disbursed $6,076,190 $21,421,738 $19,475,674 $14,994,382 $8,169,043 $13,843,912 $6,198,467 $9,863,619 $11,825,089 $10,419,955 $122,288,069 Remainder $22,469,002 $13,981,855 $6,057,276 $2,042,094 $5,064,310 $1,473,440 $7,628,993 $8,024,183 $22,944,751 $23,596,791 $23,596,791 A-2b $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,650,000 $5,150,000
A-9a $1,550,000 $1,550,000
A-9b $1,690,000 $1,690,000
A-10a $500,000 $2,820,000 $3,320,000
A-10b $2,580,000 $2,580,000
A-11 $800,000 $800,000
B-4 $5,139,000 $3,426,000 $8,565,000
B-5 $5,160,000 $3,440,000 $8,600,000
B-8a $4,380,000 $2,000,000 $6,380,000
B-8b $1,450,000 $1,450,000
C-2 $538,561 $538,561
C-3 $16,039,300 $16,039,300
C-6 $2,650,000 $2,650,000
C-7b $3,298,382 $5,298,382 $5,298,382 $7,298,382 $21,193,529 C-8 $1,033,378 $1,033,378
C-10 $3,432,438 $2,288,292 $5,720,730
C-11a $2,287,629 $2,287,629
C-11c $600,000 $600,000
C-11d $2,698,530 $2,698,530
C-11e $164,866 $164,866
C-13 $2,070,661 $1,380,440 $3,451,101
C-14 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $25,825,445 Rev enue Forecast ($)
Return to Local Source - 20% ($)
Admin Fee -0.8% ($)
Rev enue for T VT DF Allocation ($)
ID
Proj ect
July 1st FY Balance ($)
I-580/Vasco Road Interchange M odification
Proj ected Disbursement - 2022 SEP Update
Crow Canyon Improvements Phase 1
Crow Canyon Improvements Phase 2
Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1
Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2
Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - Phase 2
SR 84 / I-580 Interchange - Phase 2
Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange
I-580/Greenville Rd Interchange M odification
Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Rd Widening Project (Contra Costa County Segment)
Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Rd Widening Project (Dublin Segment) Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement - Segment 1
Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension
Sunol/680 Widening
I-680 Express Lanes - Hwy 84 to Alcosta (Northbound)
Valley Link Rail (Phase 1)
Innovate 680
Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail – Dublin
Iron Horse Trail – Livermore
Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs
Fallon/El Charro Interchange
Note: Only Projects reciving funding within SEP 10-year horizon are shown.

EXHIBIT C
705
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022

APPENDIX

EXHIBIT C
706
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
Appendix A – Project Description

EXHIBIT C
707
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
A-1. I-580/I-680 INTERCHANGE (SOUTHBOUND TO EASTBOUND)

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
Alameda County

LEAD AGENCY
Caltrans

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project A-1 was located at the I-580 and I-680 interchange. The project constructed the southbound to eastbound flyover, northbound to eastbound direct connector, southbound on- and off- loop ramps, and a northbound on-ramp.

The project was needed to improve safety and reduce congestion on southbound and northbound I-680 near I-580, and mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment. This project was approved by the voters of Alameda County, as a portion of the Measure B sales tax program.

STATUS
This project has been completed.

EXHIBIT C
708
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
A-2A. SR 84 EXPRESSWAY (I-580 TO I-680)

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project A-2a is located along SR 84 between I-580 and I-680 in Livermore and Pleasanton. The project will widen and reconstruct SR 84 to expressway standards. The ultimate configuration is expected to consist of six lanes from I-580 to Stanley Boulevard and four lanes from Stanley Boulevard to I-680.

The project has been segmented into five primary sections:
· Segment 1 (I-580 to Jack London Boulevard) – widening and Phase I of the I-580/SR 84 Interchange project (Project A-2b).
· Segment 2 (Jack London Boulevard to a point roughly halfway between Concannon Boulevard and Stanley Boulevard) – widening existing configuration from two lanes to four lanes and from four lanes to six lanes.
· Segment 3 (Halfway between Concannon Boulevard and Stanley Boulevard to Ruby Hill Drive) – widening from two lanes to four lanes.
· Segment 4 (Ruby Hill Drive to Pigeon Pass) – straightening the roadway alignments and adding truck climbing lanes.
· Segment 5 (Pigeon Pass to I-680) – widening the roadway from two lanes to four lanes and improvements at the SR 84/I-680 interchange.

EXHIBIT C
709
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
STATUS
Project A-2a will be constructed in five segments. Segments 1, 2, 3, and 4 are completed and open to the public. For Segment 5, final design and right-of-way acquisition was completed in September 2020 and construction began in May 2021. It is anticipated that completion of construction in Spring 2024.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
Project A-2a will be constructed in five segments. Below is the schedule for each segment. · Segment 1 – Completed and opened to traffic in March 2012 · Segment 2 – Completed and opened to traffic in June 2014. · Segment 3 – Completed and open to traffic 2017.
· Segment 4 – Completed and opened to traffic in October 2008. · Segment 5 – Final design and right-of-way acquisition was completed in September 2020.

Construction began in May 2021 and anticipated to be completed in Spring 2024.

COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING SOURCES
Segment 5:

Cost (Millions) $244.10
Funding (Millions)
Measure B $1.05
Measure BB $123.40
State (SB 1 LPP) $8.60
Regional Improvement Program (RIP) $11.11
Regional Measure 3 (RM 3) $85.00
TVTDF $14.94
Total Funding (Millions) $244.10
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.00

EXHIBIT C
710
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
A-2B. SR 84/I-580 INTERCHANGE

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Livermore

LEAD AGENCY
Caltrans, City of Livermore

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED
SUMMARY 2021)
Project A-2b is located in Livermore, at
the intersection of I-580 and Isabel
Avenue including Portal Avenue.

The project consists of two phases:
· Phase 1 – The Isabel Avenue Interchange project which included replacing the I-580/Portola Avenue interchange with the I-580/Isabel Avenue-SR 84 interchange. Phase I also included realignment of Isabel Avenue and the realignment and extension of Portola Avenue from East Airway Boulevard to Isabel Avenue.
· Phase 2 – The ultimate improvements at the I-580/Isabel Avenue-SR 84 Interchange are to provide six lanes over I-580 at the Isabel Avenue-SR 84 Interchange and four lanes over I-580 at the Portola Avenue overcrossing.

STATUS
A programmatic environmental assessment and right-of-way acquisition is complete.

Phase 1
Construction of Phase I of the project was completed in March 2012.

Phase 2
Conceptual design is approved. Project development activities are anticipated to begin in 2023.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The project is expected to be constructed in the following stages:
· Phase 1 – Completed and opened to traffic in March 2012. · Phase 2 – Project development to begin in 2023.

EXHIBIT C
711
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022

COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING SOURCES
Phase 2:

Cost (Millions) $22.00
Funding (Millions)
Livermore Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) $16.28
TVTDF $5.15
Total Funding (Millions) $21.43
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.57

EXHIBIT C
712
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
A-3. I-680 AUXILIARY LANES (SEGMENT 2)

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
Town of Danville

LEAD AGENCY
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project A-3 was located along I-680 in Danville and constructed auxiliary lanes in both directions between Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon and Sycamore Valley Road in Danville. The project was the last segment of auxiliary lanes in both directions of I-680 between Bollinger Canyon Road in San Ramon and Diablo Road in Danville.

STATUS
This project has been completed.

EXHIBIT C
713
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
A-4. WEST DUBLIN/PLEASANTON BART STATION

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
BART

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project A-4 was located in Dublin and Pleasanton and constructed the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and related transit improvements. The project was a joint public and private venture to build a station on the active BART line in the median of I-580. The related transit improvements were located on both the north (Dublin) and south (Pleasanton) sides of the freeway on property owned by BART and included patron parking garages, passenger pick-up and drop-offs, and bus drop-offs.

STATUS
This project has been completed.

EXHIBIT C
714
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
A-5A. I-580 EASTBOUND AUXILIARY LANE

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
Alameda CTC

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project A-5a was located along eastbound I-580 from Hacienda Drive in Pleasanton and Greenville Road in Livermore. The project constructed eastbound auxiliary lanes between Isabel Avenue and North Livermore Avenue and between North Livermore Avenue and First Street in Livermore. In addition, the project included widening two eastbound bridges at Arroyo-Los Positas Road and adding final asphalt concrete pavement across all lanes in the eastbound direction from Hacienda Drive to Greenville Road.

STATUS
This project has been completed.

EXHIBIT C
715
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
A-5B. I-580 HOV LANE WESTBOUND

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
Alameda CTC

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project A-5b was located along westbound I-580 from Greenville Road in Livermore to Foothill Road overcrossing in Dublin and Pleasanton. The project constructed westbound HOV lanes and rehabilitated existing pavement.

The project increased capacity, safety, and efficiency for commuters and freight along the primary trade corridor connecting the Bay Area with the Central Valley.

The project was completed in two segments:
· East Segment – Greenville Road overcrossing to Isabel Avenue in Livermore · West Segment – Isabel Avenue to Foothill Road overcrossing STATUS
This project has been completed.

EXHIBIT C
716
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
A-6. I-680 HOV LANES, SR 84 TO TOP OF SUNOL GRADE

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
Caltrans and Alameda CTC

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project A-6 was located along southbound I-680 between SR-84 and the top of the Sunol Grade. The project constructed HOV lanes along approximately a 3.5-mile segment of I-680.

STATUS
This project has been completed.

EXHIBIT C
717
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
A-7. I-580/FOOTHILL ROAD/SAN RAMON ROAD INTERCHANGE

MODIFICATIONS

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
Caltrans

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project A-7 was located at the intersection of the I-580 ramps and Foothill Road in Pleasanton. The project constructed improvements to improve intersection operations and safety. The project modified the intersection to remove the direct eastbound to southbound connection and eastbound to northbound loop connection so that it terminates into a “T” style signalized intersection at Foothill Road just south of the Foothill Road Bridge.

STATUS
This project has been completed.

EXHIBIT C
718
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
A-8. I-680/ALCOSTA BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of San Ramon

LEAD AGENCY
Caltrans

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project A-8 was located at the I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange in San Ramon. The project reconstructed the southbound off-ramp and added a new on-ramp to improve operations at the interchange. This project closed the southbound off-ramp and built new on- and off-ramps north of Alcosta Boulevard.

STATUS
This project has been completed.

EXHIBIT C
719
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
A-9A. CROW CANYON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
Alameda County

LEAD AGENCY
Alameda County

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMARY 2021)
Project A-9a is located along Crow Canyon
Road between E. Castro Valley Boulevard
and the Alameda/Contra Costa County line.

Project A-9a is Phase 1 of a two-phase
safety improvement project along Crow
Canyon Road. Please refer to Project A-9b
for details on Phase 2.

Phase 1 safety improvements include speed
feedback signs, shoulder widening,
California Highway Patrol (CHP)
enforcement areas, and guard rail
modifications.

Overall, the short-term safety improvements will facilitate traffic safety and operations, while reducing congestion for residents traveling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.

STATUS
The project is currently in the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Studies stage.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
Construction of Phase 1 is to be determined.

COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $18.87
Funding (Millions)
CMA TIP $0.45
Local Alameda County $0.45
TVTDF $1.55
Total Funding (Millions) $2.45
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $8.42

EXHIBIT C
720
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
A-9B. CROW CANYON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
Alameda County

LEAD AGENCY
Alameda County

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project A-9b is located along Crow
Canyon Road between E. Castro Valley
Boulevard and the Alameda/Contra
Costa County Line.

Project A-9b is Phase 2 of the two-phase
safety improvement project along Crow
Canyon Road. Please refer to Project
A-9a for details on Phase 1.

Phase 2 safety improvements include
roadway realignment, shoulder widening,
roundabouts, two-way left turn lanes (as
needed), and tunnels at post mile (PM)

2.15. This project will increase safety for motorists traveling along this major arterial roadway between Castro Valley in Alameda County and San Ramon in Contra Costa County. The realignment of various curves, shoulder widening, and tunnels at PM 2.15 will facilitate improved traffic operations and reduce congestion for residents traveling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.

STATUS
This project is in the scoping stage. Construction is expected to begin after completion of Phase 1 (Project A-9a).

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
Phasing and schedule have not yet been determined.

COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $58.77
Funding (Millions)
TVTDF $1.69
Total Funding (Millions) $1.69
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $57.08

EXHIBIT C
721
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
A-10A. VASCO ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
Alameda County

LEAD AGENCY
Alameda County

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project A-10a is located along
Vasco Road in Alameda County.

Project A-10a is Phase 1 of the
Vasco Road Safety
Improvements, a two-phase
safety improvement project along
Vasco Road. The project includes
roadway realignment, shoulder
widening, and installment of
median barriers along Vasco Road. Please refer to Project A-10b for details on Phase 2.

Roadway realignments have been completed and consisted of straightening the alignment of Vasco Road at about 1.8-miles north of the Livermore city limits to the Alameda/Contra Costa county line. A median barrier has been installed between the Contra Costa County line and about 1.8-miles north of the Livermore city limits. The installation of median barriers eliminates crossover-type collisions that resulted in fatalities in the past. The realignment of tight curves facilitates Tri Delta bus services between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.

The remaining components of Phase 1 includes sub-standard shoulder modifications.

STATUS
The utility relocation phase of this project has been completed. Construction of the realignment project was completed in November 2009. Installation of the median barriers was also completed.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The Vasco Road Safety Improvement Project is scheduled to be constructed in two stages. Shoulder improvements for Phase 1 are expected to be completed by 2020.

EXHIBIT C
722
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022

COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $40.57
Funding (Millions)
Measure B $1.50
STIP $4.60
TCRP $6.50
Local Alameda County $2.81
STP/CMAQ $3.90
Prop 1-B $6.00
Fed demo $0.80
TVTDF $3.32
Total Funding (Millions) $29.43
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $11.14

EXHIBIT C
723
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
A-10B. VASCO ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
Alameda County

LEAD AGENCY
Alameda County

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project A-10b is located along Vasco
Road in Alameda County.

Project A-10b is Phase 2 of the Vasco
Road Safety Improvements, a two-
phase safety improvement project
along Vasco Road. Please refer to
Project A-10a for details on Phase 1.

Phase 2 includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, and installation of median barriers. This phase of the project will install median barriers along Vasco Road within Alameda County on portions of the roadway not covered by Phase 1. In addition, this phase will include shoulder widening and curve modifications, as needed. Phase 2 of Vasco Road will provide continuous median barrier protection between Contra Costa County and the City of Livermore. The installation of median barriers will eliminate crossover-type collisions that resulted in fatalities in the past.

STATUS
The Phase 2 project is in the scoping stage.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The Phase 2 project is expected to begin Project Study Report (PSR) in 2016. Alameda County is in progress to retain consultant services.

COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $31.20
Funding (Millions)
TVTDF $2.58
Total Funding (Millions) $2.58
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions, 2015) $28.62

EXHIBIT C
724
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
A-11. EXPRESS BUS/BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) – PHASE 2

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Dublin

LEAD AGENCY
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA)

OTHER INVOLVED PARTIES
City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMARY 2021)
Project A-11 is Phase 2 of the Express Bus/BRT, which consists of two phases. The express bus route associated with Phase 1 of the project has been operating since January 2011.

Phase 2 includes upgrades to and expansion of the initial Rapid Project, as well as some project refinements, updates, and maintenance/replacement of original project elements and equipment based on evaluation of the existing components and conditions at the time of funding. The transit system priorities include the following elements:
· A technologically advanced transit system
· A multi-modal transportation system that supports the local economy · Prioritized regional transfers and connections
· Reliability and efficiency that maximizes value to taxpayers and the community Phase 2 will consist of five key potential elements (based upon conditions at time of funding):

1. Advanced Technology – Design and installation of advanced technologies and road features allowing rapid transit to operate quickly and efficiently, and help to mitigate delay in dwell times, boardings, and travel times. Some of the advanced technologies and road features that LAVTA is considering for Phase 2 are: transit signal priority, enhanced stations, queue jumps, environmentally friendly coaches and advanced onboard technology, advanced fare collection systems, level boarding, dedicated travel lanes, and better integrated park and ride facilities and transit centers. Element 1 is currently budgeted at $2 Million.

2. North/South Express Bus/Rapid Service – In keeping with the Alameda Countywide Transit Plan, and in order to provide a strong foundation for LAVTA’s System, I-680 service expansion, North/South Express Bus/BRT service, and other Express/Rapid service options, will be explored and considered. Element 2 is currently budgeted at $6.5 Million.

EXHIBIT C
725
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022

3. Dublin Extension – Continued study and planning will be done on how best to integrate the planned extension of Dublin Boulevard and the planned Livermore BART Extension into LAVTA’s Express Bus/BRT service. Element 3 is currently budgeted at $6.5 Million.

4. Pleasanton Alignment – Complete “Rapidization,” of the Livermore to Pleasanton alignment will be evaluated, with advanced technology and improved service elements planned for the south side of I-580, and possible connection to the existing Rapid service. Element 4 is currently budgeted at $1.5 Million.

5. Park and Ride Lots – In working with local cities and Alameda County, LAVTA will consider improved park and ride elements to support bus, biking, and walking access in the Tri-Valley, and to improve the accessibility of transportation alternatives that would ease congestion on I-580.

These options might include: construction of new lots, smart signage, improved bicycle storage, increased pedestrian accessibility and safety, enhanced multi-modal elements on coaches, and increased or revised bus service to rail stations and regional transit connections. Element 5 is currently budgeted at $2 Million.

STATUS
Phase 1 is fully completed and operational, as of January 2011.

Phase 2 is in the research, design, and planning stage. In August 2016, LAVTA realigned the Express Bus/BRT Route (Route 30R) to serve Las Positas College, and transformed existing Route 10 into an Express Bus/BRT (Route 10R) operating through Pleasanton to BART. The transformation of Route 10 into Route 10R was the first step in implementation of the Phase 2 Pleasanton Alignment. LAVTA intends to implement additional items from Phase 2 (Advanced Technology) to both Routes 10R and 30R in 2017, which includes upgrading the traffic signal priority onboard the buses and at key intersections along both Rapid routes.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
Costs for Phase 2 have been updated to reflect current pricing for the project elements listed above.

Phase 2 Scope of work, schedule, and full funding parameters are not known at this time.

COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING SOURCES
Phase 2:

Cost (Millions) $22.35
Funding (Millions)
TVTDF $1.94
Total Funding (Millions) $1.94
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $20.41

EXHIBIT C
726
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
B-1. I-580/I-680 INTERCHANGE (WESTBOUND TO SOUTHBOUND)

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Dublin

LEAD AGENCY
Alameda CTC

OTHER INVOLVED PARTIES
Caltrans and City of Pleasanton

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project B-1 is located at the
I-580/I-680 Interchange in
Alameda County. The proposed
project limits are from 1,700 feet east of the Hacienda Drive Overcrossing to 2,000 feet west of the San Ramon Road Overcrossing along I-580, and from the Amador Valley Boulevard Undercrossing to 3,400 feet south of the Stoneridge Drive Overcrossing along I-680.

STATUS
A Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) was completed and approved by Caltrans in 2009.

The next steps in project development will be to:
· Review the existing PSR-PDS to validate the information · Identify the need for updates/revisions to identify financially feasible improvements to address the latest safety, operational, and congestion issues
The Alameda CTC’s 2014 Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP), approved as part of Measure BB, includes $20 Million in funding for I-580/I-680 Interchange improvements. Further project development is being explored. Alameda CTC is working with local, regional, and state agencies in identifying funding.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The Alameda CTC’s 2020 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) split this project into two phases. Phase 1 is part of the County’s 10-year priory project list, while Phase 2 is listed under 30-Year project list.

EXHIBIT C
727
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022

COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $1,785.65
Funding (Millions)
Measure BB $20.00
TVTDF $1.00
Total Funding (Millions) $21.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $1,764.65

EXHIBIT C
728
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
B-2. FIFTH EASTBOUND LANE ON I-580 (SANTA RITA ROAD TO VASCO ROAD)

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Pleasanton, City of Livermore

LEAD AGENCY
Alameda CTC

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project B-2 is located along eastbound I-580 between Santa Rita Road and Vasco Road. The project would construct a fifth eastbound mixed flow lane and would eliminate the lane drop at Santa Rita Road.

STATUS
This project has been completed

EXHIBIT C
729
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
B-3. I-580/FIRST STREET INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Livermore

LEAD AGENCY
Caltrans
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project B-3 is located at the I-580/First Street interchange in Livermore. The project would modify the interchange by
widening the overcrossing to six lanes and reconstructing the ramps to achieve a partial cloverleaf interchange design.

STATUS
A PSR has been completed.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The project schedule and phasing are not available at this time.

COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $61.00
Funding (Millions)
Livermore TIF $53.07
Total Funding (Millions) $53.07
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $7.93

EXHIBIT C
730
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
B-4. I-580/VASCO ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Livermore

LEAD AGENCY
Caltrans

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project B-4 is located at the
I-580/Vasco Road interchange in
Livermore. The project would modify
the interchange by widening the
overcrossing to eight lanes and reconstructing the ramps to achieve a modified partial cloverleaf interchange design.

STATUS:

A PSR and programmatic environmental impact report (EIR) for right-of-way protection has been completed. Right-of-way acquisition is underway.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE:

A PSR and programmatic environmental impact report (EIR) for right-of-way protection has been completed. Right-of-way acquisition is underway.

COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING SOURCES:

Cost (Millions) $85.65
Funding (Millions)
Livermore TIF $67.66
Measure BB $1.38
TVTDF $8.57
Total Funding (Millions) $77.61
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $8.07

EXHIBIT C
731
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
B-5. I-580/GREENVILLE ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Livermore

LEAD AGENCY
Caltrans

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project B-5 is located at the I-580/Greenville Road
interchange in Livermore. The project would modify the
interchange by widening the undercrossing to six lanes
and reconstructing the ramps to achieve a modified
partial cloverleaf interchange design. The project would also construct segments of auxiliary lanes in the vicinity of the interchange.

STATUS
A PSR and programmatic Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for right-of-way protection has been completed.

Right-of-way acquisition is underway.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The project phasing and schedule is unavailable.

COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $86.00
Funding (Millions)
Livermore TIF $67.08
Total Funding (Millions) $67.08
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $18.92

EXHIBIT C
732
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
B-6. JACK LONDON BOULEVARD EXTENSION

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Livermore

LEAD AGENCY
City of Livermore

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project B-6 is located along Jack
London Boulevard in Livermore. The
project would widen Jack London
Boulevard to El Charro Road as a
four-lane arterial roadway.

The project will be constructed in two phases.
· Phase 1 - two lane extension
· Phase 2 – relocate a portion of the roadway south of the Livermore Airport to its ultimate alignment STATUS
An EIR, design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the two-lane extension (Phase 1) has been completed.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The project is expected to be constructed in two phases. · Phase 1 – Completed 2009.
· Phase 2 - Will not commence until after the quarries have completed mining operations.

COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING SOURCES
Phase 2:

Cost (Millions) $28.16
Funding (Millions)
Livermore TIF $18.08
Total Funding (Millions) $18.08
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $10.08

EXHIBIT C
733
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
B-7. EL CHARRO ROAD EXTENSION (STONERIDGE DRIVE/JACK LONDON

BOULEVARD TO STANLEY BOULEVARD)

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
City of Pleasanton

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project B-7 is located along El
Charro Road in Pleasanton. The
project would extend El Charro Road
south from its current terminus at Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard to connect with Stanley Boulevard. Currently, this section of El Charro Road is a private roadway, but the El Charro extension will be open for public use.

The El Charro Road Extension project consists of two phases. · Phase 1 – between I-580 and Stoneridge Drive-Jack London Boulevard · Phase 2 – between Stoneridge Drive-Jack London Boulevard and Stanley Boulevard, approximately 1.7 miles
STATUS
Phase 1 was completed and open for public use in 2012 with the construction of the Livermore Outlets.

Phase 2 has been incorporated into Project C-5 EL Charro Widening, therefore Project B-7 has been removed from the project list and is no longer considered for funding.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The project has been removed from the project list and is no longer considered for funding.

EXHIBIT C
734
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
B-8. CAMINO TASSAJARA/TASSAJARA ROAD WIDENING PROJECT (EAST

OF BLACKHAWK DRIVE TO NORTH DUBLIN RANCH DRIVE)

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
Contra Costa County, City of Dublin

LEAD AGENCY
Contra Costa County, City of Dublin

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project B-8 is located along Camino
Tassajara-Tassajara Road. This project
consists of two project phases:
· Safety Improvement Project – Blackhawk
Drive in Contra Costa County to Moller Ranch
(Palisades Drive) in the City of Dublin
· Roadway Widening Project – Windemere
Parkway to County Line (Contra Costa County)
and Quarry Lane School/Wallis Ranch Drive to
North Dublin Ranch Drive (City of Dublin)
Safety Improvement Project
The safety improvement project will widen Camino Tassajara from two to four lanes from East of Blackhawk Drive to Moller Ranch (Palisades Drive) in the City of Dublin. The project may also include realignment of various horizontal curves along the roadway. Interim improvements may include roadway widening to meet two-lane rural road standards with sufficient lane width and shoulder width to improve safety and allow for future bike lanes. The project will improve safety for motorists and create bicycle facilities consistent with the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The ultimate improvements will increase capacity along Camino Tassajara to help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley.

Roadway Widening Project
The roadway widening project consist of two segments:
· Segment A – Windemere Parkway to County line
· Segment B – Quarry Lane School/ Wallis Ranch Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive Segment A will widen and realign Camino Tassajara from two to four lanes. The horizontal curves at the Contra Costa/Alameda County Line will be realigned to increase safety along the roadway. Roadway shoulders will be widened to create bicycle facilities consistent with the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The ultimate improvements will increase capacity along Camino

EXHIBIT C
735
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
Tassajara/Tassajara Road to help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley.

Segment B will widen Tassajara Road from two to four lanes and will improve safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, by providing sidewalks, bike lanes, and widening from two to four lanes.

Roadway improvements will be consistent with the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

The ultimate improvements will increase capacity along Tassajara Road to help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley.

STATUS
Safety Improvement Project
The PSR for the project has been completed. The City of Dublin and Contra Costa County are coordinating on various aspects of the Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road safety improvements near the Contra Costa/Alameda County line.

Roadway Widening Project
The PSR for the project has been completed.The City of Dublin and Contra Costa County are coordinating on various aspects of the Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road widening phase.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
Safety Improvement Project
Contra Costa County and the City of Dublin are beginning design of Phase 1 improvements of the safety project limits from Windermere Parkway to Moller Ranch (Palisades Drive).

Roadway Widening Project
Contra Costa County and the City of Dublin are conducting initial preliminary engineering for the Segment A and B roadway widening project within their respective jurisdictions.

COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING SOURCES
Contra Costa County:

Cost (Millions) $38.19
Funding (Millions)
Contra Costa Traffic Mitigation Fees $18.73
TVTDF $6.38
Total Funding (Millions) $25.11
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $13.08

EXHIBIT C
736
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
City of Dublin:

Cost (Millions) $49.89
Funding (Millions, 2015)
Dublin EDTIF $2.49
Dublin Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF) Program $1.00 Dublin Dougherty Valley Contributions $2.13
TVTD (City of Dublin 20% Local Funding) $2.80
TVTDF $1.45
Total Funding (Millions) $9.87
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $40.02

EXHIBIT C
737
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
B-10. I-680 SOUTHBOUND HOV LANE GAP CLOSURE (NORTH MAIN STREET

TO RUDGEAR ROAD)

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of San Ramon

LEAD AGENCY
CCTA

OTHER INVOLVED PARTIES
Caltrans

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project B-10 is located along southbound I-680 between North Main Street and Rudgear Road. The project would close the HOV lane gap along this segment of I-680 and provide a continuous HOV lane from the Benicia-Martinez Bridge to the Contra Costa/Alameda County line.

The project is necessary to encourage carpooling, vanpooling, and transit; while providing the necessary infrastructure for express buses in the corridor. When completed, the HOV lane is planned to be converted to an Express Lane as part of the I-680 Express Lanes Project.

STATUS
This project has been completed.

EXHIBIT C
738
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
B-11A. I-680 HOV DIRECT ACCESS RAMPS

TVTC PROJECT

SPONSOR
City of San Ramon

LEAD AGENCY
CCTA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER 2016)
Project B-11a is located along I-680 in San Ramon. The project would construct dedicated HOV on- and off-ramps in the median of I-680, in both the northbound and southbound directions at Norris Canyon Road or at Executive Parkway in San Ramon. The project received a high level of community interest, with a number of local residents voicing strong oppositions about the direct HOV ramps at Norris Canyon.

An alternative location for the direct ramps is also being evaluated at Executive Parkway.

STATUS
March 2016, a letter from the City of San Ramon to CCTA was submitted and stated that the City of San Ramon withdrew support for the project. Subsequently, the CCTA has suspended work on the project.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The project has been removed from the project list and is no longer considered for funding.

EXHIBIT C
739
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
B-11B. I-680 TRANSIT CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of San Ramon

LEAD AGENCY
CCTA

OTHER INVOLVED PARTIES
Caltrans, Southwest Area Transportation
(SWAT) Committee, Transportation
Partnership and Cooperation (TRANSPAC)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project 11-B is located along I-680 in San
Ramon. The project would fund a corridor
express lane and operational improvements
to facilitate carpools and increase transit use
in the corridors as an alternative to single
occupant vehicle travel. Funding may also
be used to implement high capacity transit
improvements along I-680. These
improvements may include an express lane,
relevant transit projects, advanced traffic
management programs, and/or autonomous or connected vehicles.

STATUS
A Project Study “I-680 Transit Investment Congestion Relief Study” was completed in 2015 with Measure J funds. Specific details for this project will be further developed when additional funding is identified.

Project 11b has been incorporated into Project C-10 Innovate 680 and therefore has been removed from the project list and is no longer considered for funding.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The project has been removed from the project list and is no longer considered for funding.

EXHIBIT C
740
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-1. TESLA ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
Alameda County

LEAD AGENCY
Alameda County

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED
SUMMER 2021)
Project C-1 is along Tesla Road from
Greenville Road to South Livermore Avenue
in rural Unincorporated Alameda County
includes shoulder widening, turn lanes to
access wineries and residences, pavement
rehabilitation, and utilities undergrounding.

This safety improvements project will
address rear end type collisions, improve
access to wineries, and improve goods movements as well as commute traffic issues. Proposed improvements will reduce queues along this congested rural roadway connecting Unincorporated areas of Alameda County to City of Livermore.

STATUS
The project is currently in the scoping phase.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The scoping phase is expected to be completed by 2024.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $13.19
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $13.19

EXHIBIT C
741
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-2. NORRIS CANYON ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT

TVTC PROJECT SPONSORS
Contra Costa County, Alameda County

LEAD AGENCY
Contra Costa County, Alameda County

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project C-2 includes countermeasures that will increase safety on a Norris Canyon Road, a regional route that
connects San Ramon to Alameda County. The proposed
project includes the following road segments:
· Segment 1 (Norris Canyon Road from San Ramon City Limits to 300 feet west of Ashbourne Drive) – this segment has experienced an increase in run off the road collisions and is slated for countermeasures such as guardrails and other safety countermeasures. · Segment 2 (Norris Canyon Road from 300 feet west of Ashbourne Drive to Alameda County limits) – this segment currently has a 20’ pavement width and no road shoulders. This segment has also experienced an increase in run off the road collisions. Countermeasures include shoulder widening, installation of a retaining wall, and installation of a guardrail. · Segment 3 (Norris Canyon Road from the Alameda County limit line to Crow Canyon Road) – the narrow rural road continues west into Alameda County where the road pavement continues to be narrow with approximately 20’ existing pavement width and no road shoulders. The proposed project would include shoulder widening and guardrail installation to reduce serious injury collisions.

STATUS
The Project is in the preliminary engineering phase for Segments 1 and 2 as other funding is sought in order to continue planning studies and further design efforts.

EXHIBIT C
742
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
For each phase of this project, there will be a project scope and cost estimate, environmental documentation, preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), Right of Way (ROW) Acquisition, Construction, and Construction Inspection.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Contra Costa County (Segment 1 & 2):

Cost (Millions) $8.00*
Funding (Millions)
TVTDF $0.00**
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $8.00
*Segment 1: $2 million, Segment 2: $6 million
Alameda County (Segment 3):

Cost (Millions) $16.49
Funding (Millions)
TVTDF $0.00**
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $16.49
**2022 SEP programed $0.54 Million for Project C-2, but the share between Contra Costa and Alameda County is to be
determined.

EXHIBIT C
743
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-3. DUBLIN BOULEVARD – NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY EXTENSION

TVTC PROJECT SPONSORS
City of Dublin, City of Livermore

LEAD AGENCY
City of Dublin, City of Livermore, LAVTA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project C-3 will construct the street extension to connect Dublin Boulevard at Fallon Road in Dublin with North Canyons Parkway in Livermore at Doolan Road. The preliminary phase (currently underway) of this planned project will update the project by incorporating multimodal travel, and the current State, regional, and local priorities.

Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension project would extend Dublin Boulevard in Dublin at its current terminus at Fallon Road to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore. The new extended street is planned to have 4 to 6 travel lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, curb and gutter, traffic signals/roundabouts, a raised median, bus stops, and all street utilities. This project will consider the provision of dedicated transit lanes in addition to the mixed flow travel lanes for higher level of transit service with 10 to 20-minute headways during appropriate peak demand periods. This project will also require enhanced multimodal connectivity to various land uses along its stretch and at its terminus, including connectivity to 5 PDAs.

While addressing Sustainable Communities Strategies, circulation inside and outside the PDAs will be incorporated as part of the design. This project is currently in Preliminary Design Phase (funded by local monies) including the environmental analysis for the project. It will require design and construction funding.

EXHIBIT C
744
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
STATUS
This project is currently in Preliminary Design Phase including the environmental analysis for the project.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The environmental approval was completed in December 2019. Currently the PS&E and ROW certification is in progress and in anticipated to be completed in 2023. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2023.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $160.39
Funding (Millions)
Measure BB $7.75
Federal $0.54
Local $17.20
Total Funding (Millions) $25.49
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $134.91

EXHIBIT C
745
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-4. VASCO ROAD AT DALTON AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

TVTC PROJECT SPONSORS
Alameda County, City of Livermore

LEAD AGENCY
Alameda County, City of Livermore

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
The project along Vasco Road at Dalton
Avenue includes the addition of a traffic
lane, traffic signal modification, shoulder
widening, and utility adjustments as needed.

This project is a continuation of the safety
improvements project along Vasco Road that included a roadway realignment and other safety improvements north of the Livermore city limits to the Alameda/Contra Costa county line.

STATUS
The project is in the scoping phase.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The scoping phase is expected to be completed by 2023.

Cost and Funding Sources:

Cost (Millions) $3.39
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $3.39

EXHIBIT C
746
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-5. EL CHARRO ROAD WIDENING

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
City of Pleasanton

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project C-5 will construct El Charro 1.7
miles south of its current terminus at
Stoneridge Drive/ Jack London
Boulevard. This segment will consist of 4-lane divided road with Class I and Class IV bike facilities, including a bridge over the Arroyo Mocho and a grade separation.

STATUS
This project has not been started.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
Phasing and schedule are unavailable at this time.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $68.09
Funding (Millions)
Pleasanton TIF $30.00
Total Funding (Millions) $30.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $38.09

EXHIBIT C
747
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-6. SUNOL/680 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
City of Pleasanton
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project C-6 will fund the design of the I-680 at Sunol Boulevard interchange improvement. This will include a PSR to establish a project scope and cost estimate, environmental documentation, and the preparation of PS&E.

STATUS
Currently in PSR-PDS phase.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
Currently the project is in the PSR-PDS. Scheduling for future phases is to be determined.

EXHIBIT C
748
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $16.60
Funding (Millions)
Pleasanton TIF $2.00
TVTDF $2.65
Total Funding (Millions) $4.65
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $11.95

EXHIBIT C
749
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-7. I-680 EXPRESS LANES – HWY 84 TO ALCOSTA

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
Alameda CTC, City of Pleasanton

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER
2021)
Project C-7 will close the gap between existing and
in-progress HOV/express lane projects to the north
and south. The project extends for approximately
nine miles on northbound I-680 through Sunol,
Pleasanton, Dublin, and San Ramon.

Design and construction of this project is being rolled out in two phases: southbound (Phase 1) and
northbound (Phase 2).

STATUS
Environmental and preliminary engineering studies
are complete. Phase 1 final design work was
initiated in February 2020 and construction for Phase 1 is anticipated to start in 2022.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The project is expected to be constructed in several stages. · Phase 1 (Southbound) – Environmental and preliminary engineering studies are complete. Phase 1 final design work was initiated in February 2020 and construction for Phase 1 is anticipated to start in 2022.
· Phase 2 (Northbound) - Schedule is undetermined at this time.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $527.57
Funding (Millions)
Measures BB $20.00
TVTDF $21.20
Total Funding (Millions) $41.20
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $486.37

EXHIBIT C
750
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-8. SANTA RITA/I-580 INTERCHANGE

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
City of Pleasanton
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project C-9 will construct a second southbound left turn lane from Santa Rita onto Pimilico Drive. The left turn vehicle queue length exceeds the length of the left turn pocket and blocks the #1 southbound lane, thus reducing the Level of Service.

STATUS
This project has not been started.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
Phasing and schedule have not yet been determined.

EXHIBIT C
751
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $10.33
Funding (Millions)
Pleasanton TIF $7.70
TVTDF $1.03
Total Funding (Millions) $8.73
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $1.60

EXHIBIT C
752
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-9. STONERIDGE/I-680 INTERCHANGE

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
City of Pleasanton
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project C-9 will make modifications to the Stoneridge Drive Interchange to allow four westbound through lanes. This project will modify the northbound I-680 on ramp by one lane to provide two northbound ramp lanes. The widening will include the widening of the bridge structure as well as widening on Stoneridge Drive and safety improvements on the pedestrian and bicycle crossing.

STATUS
PS&E is currently in progress.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
Phasing and schedule have not yet been determined.

EXHIBIT C
753
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $11.98
Funding (Millions)
2014 MBB (TEPO – 26) from Alameda CTC $5.20
Developer $2.70
Total Funding (Millions) $7.70
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $2.63

EXHIBIT C
754
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-10. INNOVATE 680

TVTC PROJECT SPONSORS
Town of Danville, City of San Ramon,
Contra Costa County

LEAD AGENCY
CCTA, Town of Danville, City of San
Ramon, Contra Costa County, CCTA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Innovate 680 will implement the following strategies in the I-680 corridor:

Strategy No. 1: Complete HOV/Express Lanes
Eliminate the gap in existing carpool lanes in the NB direction and convert to an express lane to increase efficiency.

Strategy No. 2: Cool Corridor “Hot Spots”
Improve congestion “hot spots” caused by high-volume weaving areas around N. Main Street, Lawrence Way, Treat Blvd, and other locations south of SR 24 (Livorna Road, etc.). This strategy will be completed with Strategy 1 since they are interdependent.

Strategy No. 3: Increase Efficiency of Bus Service
Increase bus service efficiency by improving express bus service, implementing bus operations on shoulder (BOS), and increasing technology-based intermodal transit centers/managed park and ride lots.

Strategy No. 4: Enhance TDM Strategies
Provide enhanced 511 mobile app providing options to make informed decisions about mode choice, travel time, and cost per trip.

Strategy No. 5: Provide First Mile/Last Mile Connections Implement Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs) to improve transit connectivity and to shift travelers from Single Occupant Vehicles (SOVs).

Strategy No. 6: Innovative Operational Strategies
Deploy a suite of technology-based solutions to maximize the efficiency of the roadway system integrating adaptive ramp metering, integrated corridor management, incident management, and decision support systems.

Strategy No. 7: Prepare Corridor for the Future
Prepare corridor to accommodate the evolution of CV applications and AV technologies for improved traffic flow by building new and upgraded vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-vehicle communications.

TVTDF would go towards Advance Technology portions of the project.

EXHIBIT C
755
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
STATUS
Currently in planning and project approval & environmental documents (PA&ED) phase.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
It is anticipated that by 2024, Advance technology portion of the project will finalize and adopt a concept of operations document and begin implementation, conduct environmental studies, and begin the design phase.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Advance Technologies:

Cost (Millions) $57.21
Funding (Millions)
Measure J $0.55
STMP $2.00
TVTDF $5.72
Total Funding (Millions) $8.27
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $48.94

EXHIBIT C
756
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-11A. IRON HORSE TRAIL BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING –

BOLLINGER CANYON ROAD

TVTC PROJECT SPONSORS
City of San Ramon, Contra Costa County

LEAD AGENCY
CCTA, City of San Ramon, Contra Costa County
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
The Iron Horse Trail (IHT) is an 18-mile regional non-motorized trail that runs north/south through the San Ramon Valley providing critical access to adjacent land uses. The construction of overcrossings at key locations will develop attractive travel alternatives for congestion relief for commute trips as well as better facilities for school, shopping, and recreations trips. Project C-11a will construct an overcrossing at Bollinger Canyon Road. At this location, the overcrossing will provide substantial benefits including:

1. Improve safety by eliminating conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists;

2. Improve motor vehicle circulation by removing the at-grade crossings;

3. Reduce and eliminate unsafe crossing maneuvers by pedestrians and bicyclists;

4. Enhance safety by providing an environment that encourages walking and bicycling along the Iron Horse Regional Trail; and

5. Increase trail usage by improving the connectivity at the Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow Canyon Road crossings.

EXHIBIT C
757
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
STATUS
Currently in PA&ED phase.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The CEQA phase has been completed and the PA &ED has begun.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $22.88
Funding (Millions)
OBAG2 $4.80
Measure J (Transportation for Livable Communities) $2.51 Measure J (TLC future year pre-commitment) $4.98
San Ramon General Fund $2.00
TVTDF $2.29
Total Funding (Millions) $16.58
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $6.30

EXHIBIT C
758
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-11B. IRON HORSE TRAIL BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING –

CROW CANYON ROAD

TVTC PROJECT SPONSORS
City of San Ramon, Contra Costa County

LEAD AGENCY
CCTA, City of San Ramon, Contra Costa County
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
The IHT is an 18-mile regional non-motorized trail that runs north/south through the San Ramon Valley providing critical access to adjacent land uses. The construction of overcrossings at key locations will develop attractive travel alternatives for congestion relief for commute trips as well as better facilities for school, shopping, and recreations trips. Project C-11a will construct an overcrossing at Crow Canyon Road.

At this location, the overcrossing will provide substantial benefits including:

Improve safety by eliminating conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists;

1. Improve motor vehicle circulation by removing the at-grade crossings;

2. Reduce and eliminate unsafe crossing maneuvers by pedestrians and bicyclists;

3. Enhance safety by providing an environment that encourages walking and bicycling along the Iron Horse Regional Trail; and

4. Increase trail usage by improving the connectivity at the Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow Canyon Road crossings.

EXHIBIT C
759
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
STATUS
Currently in PA&ED phase.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The CEQA phase has been completed and the PA &ED has begun.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $19.69
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $19.69

EXHIBIT C
760
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-11C. IRON HORSE TRAIL CROSSING AT DUBLIN BOULEVARD

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Dublin

LEAD AGENCY
City of Dublin

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Project C-11c will build a bicycle
and pedestrian bridge over
Dublin Boulevard in order to
connect two segments of the Iron
Horse Trail. This bridge will
create a total separation between vehicles and bicyclists/pedestrians. This will eliminate the possibility of motorized vehicles and pedestrians having a collision, making this segment of the road safer for all users.

Along with this, congestion will be reduced as cars will no longer have to wait for pedestrians. This reduction of congestion will also allow for the transit to operate more efficiently. Pedestrians and bicyclists will also not have to wait for a walk signal since they will be able to continue their walk or ride without stopping.

The bridge will follow ADA requirements so that disabled people will be able to use it as well. This bridge will also be aesthetically pleasing in order to attract users and improve the user’s experience. The bridge will also connect BART to Dublin in a safe manner, encouraging recreational user of the Iron Horse Trail and the opening of local businesses. This safe and fast route of crossing the Iron Horse Trail will promote walking and bicycling for both recreational and commuting purposes in Dublin, this encouraging the shift from motorized vehicles to alternative forms of transportation.

STATUS
The project is currently in the final design phase. Additionally, environmental analysis of the project is currently in-progress.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
Environmental approval was complete in December 2019. PS&E began in June 2018.

EXHIBIT C
761
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $11.60
Funding (Millions)
2014 MBB $6.05
TFCA $0.86
Local $1.59
Private $1.00
Safe Route to BART Grant $1.50
TVTDF $0.60
Total Funding (Millions) $11.60
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) -

EXHIBIT C
762
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-11D. IRON HORSE TRAIL - LIVERMORE

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Livermore

LEAD AGENCY
City of Livermore

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED
SUMMER 2021)
This project will extend existing trail and
provide gap closures.

STATUS
Feasibility Study/Environmental has been completed.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
Feasibility Study/Environmental has been completed. Schedule for design has yet to be determined.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $26.99
Funding (Millions)
TVTDF $2.70
Total Funding (Millions) $2.70
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $24.29

EXHIBIT C
763
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-11E. IRON HORSE TRAIL TO SHADOW CLIFFS CONNECTION

TVTC PROJECT SPONSORS
City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
City of Pleasanton

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED
SUMMER 2021)
Currently, the Iron Horse Trail ends as a
narrow-paved path to the overcrossing
bridge of the regional railway on the east
side of Valley Avenue, where there is a flat,
paved spaced under the railroad bridge that could accommodate the trail.

Project C-11e would construct a continuous Class I trail, at least 10 feet wide, and would include protected intersection improvements and additional crossing improvements of Valley/Bernal and Stanley to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

STATUS
This project has not started.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The phasing and schedule for this project have not been defined.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $1.65
Funding (Millions)
Pleasanton TIF $0.60
Direct Developer Fee $0.75
TVTDF $0.16
Total Funding (Millions) $1.51
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.14

EXHIBIT C
764
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-11F. IRON HORSE TRAIL CONNECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT SANTA RITA ROAD

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
City of Pleasanton

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED
SUMMER 2021)
The Iron Horse Trail (IHT) is a major north-
south regional route for bicyclists and
cyclists. The Arroyo Mocho Trail (AMT) is
an important east-west route for bicyclists
and pedestrians extending to Livermore that bypasses many busy streets.

This project would improve connections from the IHT on Santa Rita Road to the AMT. The AMT would receive an improved Class I Pathway. A new pedestrian bridge would be constructed over the Arroyo Mocho to connect the southern Arroyo Mocho Class I pathway to the IHT to the north. The IHT then connects to the north and provides access to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.

STATUS
This project has not started.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The phasing and schedule for this project have not been defined.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $0.87
Funding (Millions)
Pleasanton TIF $0.40
Total Funding (Millions) $0.40
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.48

EXHIBIT C
765
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-11G. IRON HORSE TRAIL BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING –

SYCAMORE VALLEY ROAD

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
Town of Danville, Contra Costa County

LEAD AGENCY
Town of Danville, Contra Costa County, CCTA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
The Iron Horse Trail is an 18-mile regional non-motorized trail that runs north/south through the San Ramon Valley providing critical access to adjacent land uses. The construction of overcrossings at key locations will develop attractive travel alternatives for congestion relief for commute trips as well as better facilities for school, shopping, and recreations trips. Project C-11g will construct an overcrossing at Sycamore Valley Road. At this location, the overcrossing will provide substantial benefits including:

1. Improve safety by eliminating conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists;

2. Improve motor vehicle circulation by removing the at-grade crossings;

3. Reduce and eliminate unsafe crossing maneuvers by pedestrians and bicyclists;

4. Enhance safety by providing an environment that encourages walking and bicycling along the Iron Horse Regional Trail; and

5. Increase trail usage by improving the connectivity at the Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow Canyon Road crossings.

EXHIBIT C
766
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
STATUS
PSR (Feasibility Study) is completed. Project will require coordination, permitting, and agreements with Contra Costa County. East Bay Regional Parks Direct and various utilities.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
PSR (Feasibility Study) is completed.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $19.78
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $19.78

EXHIBIT C
767
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-11H. IRON HORSE TRAIL SYSTEM-WIDE IMPROVEMENTS

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
Contra Costa County, Town of Danville, City of San Ramon Alameda County, City of Dublin, City of Livermore, and City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
Contra Costa County, Town of Danville, City of San Ramon Alameda County, City of Dublin, City of Livermore, and City of Pleasanton
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
As the primary regional multi-modal corridor between Contra Costa and Alameda County, the Iron Horse Trail is the spine for active modes of travel in the East Bay. The proposed project for the Iron Horse Trail includes safety, operational, and capacity improvements within the TVTC boundary from Alamo to Livermore. The proposed project and associated cost estimate includes safety improvements at roadway crossings, a proposed parallel path to separate users according to speed, and a buffer between users traveling at high or low speed. The improvements would include features such as passive detection at road crossings, actuated flashers or warning signals at roadway crossings, high visibility markings, minor grading, construction of a new 10 foot wide parallel asphalt path with shoulders, and a buffer between high and low speed corridors which may include vegetation or fencing to maintain safe separation. Other safety improvements may be necessary to fit site conditions and as determined through additional study.

Separated grade crossings or bridges that have already been identified as critical for improved vehicle traffic flow at current at grade crossings and to improve safety for trail users are listed as separate projects within the TVTC program. The cost and context for each bridge site warrants a specific project identification rather than to be included within the system-wide improvements under this project.

STATUS
A phasing plan has not yet been developed.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The phasing and schedule for this project have not been defined.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $85.60
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $85.60

EXHIBIT C
768
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-12. HACIENDA/I-580 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton

LEAD AGENCY
City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Implement I-580 Hacienda Drive
Interchange Improvements, which
includes reconstructing the
overcrossing to add lanes.

I-580/Hacienda Drive interchange Improvements will include; reconstruction of overcrossing to provide additional northbound lane; widening of the eastbound off-ramp to include an additional lane to be used as a combined left and right turn lane; modifying signal and striping, modifying the westbound loop on-ramp; and widening of the westbound off-ramp to include a third left-turn lane.

STATUS
The project is currently in preliminary engineering phase and an EIR is currently underway.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
It is anticipated that environmental approval will be completed in late 2022 and PS&E begin in early 2023.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $39.13
Funding (Millions)
Dublin TIF $4.95
Pleasanton TIF $0.04
Total Funding (Millions) $4.63
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $34.50

EXHIBIT C
769
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-13. FALLON/EL CHARRO INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Pleasanton, City of Dublin, City of
Livermore

LEAD AGENCY
City of Pleasanton, City of Dublin, City of
Livermore

PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED
SUMMER 2021)
I-580/El Charro Road Interchange
Improvements (Phase 2): reconstruction of
overcrossing to provide four-lanes in each
direction with bike lanes; reconstruction of
the southbound to eastbound loop on-ramp; widening of the eastbound off-ramp to provide two exit lanes with two left turn and two right tum lanes; widening of the eastbound on-ramp; widening of the westbound off-ramp to provide two left tum and two right tum lanes; and widening of the westbound on-ramp.

STATUS
The project is currently not yet started.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The phasing and schedule for this project have not been defined.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $34.51
Funding (Millions)
Dublin TIF $4.05
Pleasanton TIF $4.10
Livermore TIF $6.40
TVTDF $3.45
Total Funding (Millions) $18.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $16.51

EXHIBIT C
770
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-14. VALLEY LINK RAIL (PHASE 1)

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Pleasanton, City of Dublin, City of Livermore, Alameda County

LEAD AGENCY
City of Pleasanton, City of Dublin, City of Livermore, Alameda County PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Valley Link Rail project will connect Northern San Joaquin County communities to the Tri-Valley and BART through 41 miles of rail and 7 stations. The project will extend from the planned Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) N Lathrop Station in the San Joaquin Valley through the Altamont Pass, then readily connect with the Dublin/Pleasanton BART terminus.

The TVTDF would go towards construction cost and access improvement for three stations in Tri-Valley Area (Dublin/Pleasanton, Isabel, and Southfront).

STATUS
The EIR was completed in 2021.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The project will be completed in multiple phases:
· 2018-2020 Design/Environmental
· 2019-2023 Procurement
· 2020-2026 Design/Construction.

EXHIBIT C
771
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $258.25
Funding (Millions)
TVTDF $20.68
Total Funding (Millions) $20.68
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $237.57

EXHIBIT C
772
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-15. TECHNOLOGY ENHANCEMENTS

TVTC PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Pleasanton, City of Dublin, City of Livermore

LEAD AGENCY
City of Pleasanton, City of Dublin, City of Livermore, LAVTA PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
Provide connectivity for transit and vehicles between local arterials and regional facilities. This project will also focus on the first and last mile connectivity at key transit hubs and alone major transit routes.

A. Support expansion and facilitate interoperability among partner agencies of existing and future intelligent transportation system deployments, including connected/autonomous vehicles, integrated corridor management, transit vehicle operations, and emergency vehicle operations, among other uses.

B. Plan and implement connected and autonomous vehicle access in a seamless manner across Tri- Valley jurisdictions’ boundaries including arterial access to freeways. This requires a continues emphasis on sharing communication infrastructure, field equipment at jurisdictional boundaries, and data.

C. Update the existing communication links and enhance the existing connectivity of all Tri-Valley Traffic Operations Centers for on-going data and communication sharing.

D. Prepare corridors around transit centers and BART stations to implement SAVs to improve transit connectivity to shift travelers from SOVs to transit.

E. Prepare intersections around transit center and BART stations to accommodate the evolution of Connected Vehicle applications and Autonomous Vehicle technologies for improved traffic flow by building new and upgraded vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-vehicle communications.

F. Test and develop standard/protocol at the intersections, through existing and new Vehicle-to- Everything (V2X) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) technologies as a regional standard to be adopted by the local agencies among the Tri-Valley Jurisdictions. These technologies will allow a vehicle to communicate in real time with its surroundings.

G. Work with regional agencies in incorporating signal and vehicle communications in day-to-day operations. This would include sharing of equipment and data for seamless integration of connected and autonomous vehicle access across Tri-Valley Jurisdictions and freeway infrastructure including express lanes.

The project will be implemented in phases. Phase 1 of the proposed project will comprise of a feasibility study to identify potential locations, improvements, and develop cost estimates at key transit hubs, along major transit routes, and at freeway access locations in tri-valley area. Phase 2 of the project will further the development of the project with completion of design and Phase 3 will compete the construction/implementation and operation of the proposed project.

STATUS
The project is currently not yet started.

EXHIBIT C
773
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The phasing and schedule for this project have not been defined.

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $0.33
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.33

EXHIBIT C
774
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
C-16. I-680 EXPRESS BUS SERVICE

TVTC PROJECT SPONSORS
Alameda CTC, CCTA

LEAD AGENCY
Alameda CTC, CCTA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPDATED SUMMER 2021)
This project proposes to construct capital improvements and purchase buses in order to establish an express bus service on I-680. This project requires the construction of the I-680 Express Lane Gap Closure project, closing the gap in the express lanes between Alcosta Blvd and State Route 84, in order to utilize the express lanes to avoid congestion, reduce travel time, and improve reliably, as part of an express bus service between the Tri-Valley communities and Silicon Valley. This express bus service would likely be combined with and become part of similar efforts by CCTA and their Innovate 680 program, with the intent to serve the entire I-680 corridor extending from Martinez to San Jose, utilizing buses to provide access to additional commute options, including BART, Amtrak, Caltrain, VTA light rail, local bus service, and Greyhound, for those living along the corridor.

The service would operate weekdays only, with proposed 20-minute headways during peak periods and one-hour headways during off-peak hours. The service would be bi-directional to avoid substantial deadhead time and to maintain a high level of service. New electric buses would be purchased as part of this project.

The project proposes to place express bus stops in the Tri-Valley area at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and at a future park and ride to be constructed at the Bernal Avenue interchange in Pleasanton.

Understanding that the express buses must merge across all lanes of traffic to access the express lane, these stop locations are spaced to efficiently serve the Tri-Valley area while also maximizing the express lane distance the bus is able to utilize in-between bus stops.

The estimated costs below assume that at each bus stop location there would be construction of roadway and bus stop improvements, including installation of transit amenities such as shelters, bike lockers, lighting, and real time information signs.

STATUS
A project schedule has not yet been developed.

PHASING AND SCHEDULE
The phasing and schedule for this project have not been defined.

EXHIBIT C
775
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022

COST AND FUNDING SOURCES
Cost (Millions) $59.35
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $59.35

EXHIBIT C
776
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
Appendix B – Project Prioritization

EXHIBIT C
777
A-2a SR 84 Expressway (I-580 to I-680) - Seg ment 3
A-2a SR 84 Expressway (I-580 to I-680) - Seg ment 5
A-2b SR 84 / I-580 Interchange - Phase 1
A-2b SR 84 / I-580 Interchange - Phase 2
A-9a Crow Canyon Improvements Phase 1
A-9b Crow Canyon Improvements Phase 2
A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1
A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2
A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - Phase 2
B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (Westbound to Southbound)
B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification
B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification
B-5 I-580/Greenville Rd Interchange Modification
B-6 Jack London Blvd. Extension
B-7 El Charro Rd Extension (Stoneridge Dr/Jack London Blvd to Stanley Boulevard)
B-8a Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Rd Widening Project (Contra Costa County Seg ment)
B-8b Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Rd Widening Project (Dublin Seg ment) B-10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main St to Rudgear Rd) B-11b I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements
C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements
C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement - Seg ment 1
C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement - Seg ment 3
C-3 Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension
C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements C-5 El Charro Widening
C-6 Sunol/680 Widening
C-7a I-680 Express Lanes - Hwy 84 to Alcosta (Southbound) C-7b I-680 Express Lanes - Hwy 84 to Alcosta (Northbound) C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange
C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange
C-10 Innovate 680
C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road
C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Crow Canyon Road C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin
C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore
C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs
C-11f Iron House Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita Road C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing – Sycamore Valley Road C-11h Iron Horse Trail Safety Improvements
ID Proj ect

A B C D E F G
1 23% 1 PRE-PID 0.5 2.92 1 6.42 4.28 35
1 14% 2 PRE-PID 0.5 0.68 2 6.18 4.12 36
1 3% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 0.09 2 6.59 4.39 34
1 8% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 2.18 2 8.68 5.78 24
1 8% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 0.25 2 6.75 4.50 32
1 5% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 0.15 2 6.65 4.44 33
2 0% 3 PSR 1.0 0.04 3 9.04 6.02 23
1 0% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 2.61 1 8.11 5.41 28
2 8% 3 PSR 1.0 2.66 2 10.66 7.10 13
2 0% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 2.34 3 10.84 7.23 10
1 0% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 1.93 1 7.43 4.95 31
3 14% 2 PA/ED 1.5 1.30 3 10.80 7.20 11
2 0% 3 PS&E 2.0 1.37 3 11.37 7.58 6
3 0% 3 PSR 1.0 0.00 3 10.00 6.67 18
3 0% 3 PA/ED 1.5 0.97 3 11.47 7.65 5
1 0% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 0.00 1 5.50 3.67 37
3 0% 3 PS&E 2.0 0.48 3 11.48 7.65 4
2 0% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 0.00 2 7.50 5.00 29
2 0% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 1.32 3 9.82 6.55 20
3 0% 3 PA/ED 1.5 1.02 3 11.52 7.68 3
3 0% 3 PS&E 2.0 0.28 3 11.28 7.52 7
2 0% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 2.24 3 10.74 7.16 12
2 0% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 1.98 3 10.48 6.99 17
3 0% 3 PA/ED 1.5 0.13 3 10.63 7.09 14
3 0% 3 PS&E 2.0 1.88 3 12.88 8.58 1
2 0% 3 PA/ED 1.5 0.00 3 9.50 6.33 21
2 0% 3 PS&E 2.0 2.84 3 12.84 8.56 2
3 0% 3 PA/ED 1.5 0.00 3 10.50 7.00 15
2 0% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 2.46 3 10.96 7.30 9
2 0% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 1.36 3 9.86 6.58 19
1 0% 3 PA/ED 1.5 0.00 2 7.50 5.00 29
2 0% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 0.00 3 8.50 5.67 25
Prioritization
Proj ect
Urgency
1 TVTDF Allocation2 Proj ect Readiness3 Proj ect
Funding
4 Proj ect
Effectiv eness5
Urgency
Score
% TVTDF
Allocation
TVTDF
Allocation
Score
Current
Proj ect Stage
Readiness
Score
Funding
Score
Effectiveness
Score
Phase Fully Funded
Phase Fully Funded
Score Total
Sum of
Columns A, C,
E, F & G;
M aximum of 15
Priority Score
Score total on
10-pt scale
Priority Score
Rank
Rank 1 through
37 Phase Fully Funded
Project Removed - Incorporated into Project C-10
Project Completed
Project Removed - Incorporated into Project C-5
Project Completed

EXHIBIT C
778
ID Proj ect
C-12 I-580 Interchange Improvements at Hacienda Drive
C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange
C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1)
C-15
Feasibility Study of Technology Enhancements to Connect Transit with Arterials and Arterials with Freeways for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Technologies
C-16 680 Express Bus Service
Note
allocated toward the Project Total Cost
ity, and similar)
icy/Goals: 1 - Low, 2 - Medium, or 3- High

A B C D E F G
Prioritization
Proj ect
Urgency
1 TVTDF Allocation2 Proj ect Readiness3 Proj ect
Funding
4 Proj ect
Effectiv eness5
Urgency
Score
% TVTDF
Allocation
TVTDF
Allocation
Score
Current
Proj ect Stage
Readiness
Score
Funding
Score
Effectiveness
Score
Score Total
Sum of
Columns A, C,
E, F & G;
M aximum of 15
Priority Score
Score total on
10-pt scale
Priority Score
Rank
Rank 1 through
37 2 0% 3 PSR 1.0 0.35 2 8.35 5.57 27
3 0% 3 PSR 1.0 1.26 3 11.26 7.51 8
3 0% 3 PA/ED 1.5 0.00 3 10.50 7.00 15
2 0% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 0.00 3 8.50 5.67 25
3 0% 3 PRE-PID 0.5 0.00 3 9.50 6.33 21
1 2
Project Urgency scored based on: 1 - Low, 2 - Medium, or 3- High Urgency TVTDF Allocation is based on percentage of identified TVTDF funding that is allocated toward the Project Total Cost TVTDF Allocation Score:
≤ 10% =3,
10%-20% = 2
20%-30% = 1
30%> 0
3 Project Readiness is based on current stage of the project PRE-PID (Score: 0.5) - Activities preceding formal PID (scoping, feasibility, and similar) PSR (Score: 1.0) - Project Study Report
PA/ED (Score: 1.5) - Project Approval/Environmental Document PS&E (Score 2.0) - Plans, Specifications, and Estimates R/W (Score:2.5) - Right-of-Way Acquisitions Complete or Not Required CON (Score: 3.0) - Construction
4 Project Funding considers all funding for the Project 5 ݐݏ݋ܥ݈ܽݐ݋ܶ
Project Effectiveness reflects how well the project aligns with Lead Ag ency Policy/Goals: 1 - Low, 2 - Medium, or 3- High % TVTDF Allocation = ் ௏் ஽ி ி ௨௡ௗ ௜ ௡௚
்௢௧௔௟ ஼௢௦௧
݁ݎ݋ܿܵ݃݊݅݀݊ݑܨݐ݆ܿ݁݋ݎܲ݀݁ݐݐ݅݉݉݋ܥ݃݊݅݀݊ݑܨ݈ܽݐ݋ܶ × 3

EXHIBIT C
779
TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update│ Appendix
Draft Final Report │ Adopted: April 29, 2022
Appendix C – Land Use Projections

EXHIBIT C
780
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 Single Family (DU) 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 1,464 2,928 50% Multi-Family (DU) 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 2,235 4,469 50% Retail (KSF) 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 1,300 356 366% Office (KSF) 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 2,800 1,131 248% Industrial (KSF) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 250 961 26% Other (KSF) 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 113 1,129 2,257 50% Single Family (DU) 25 30 1,159 1,214 3,513 35%
Multi-Family (DU) 305 486 2,115 2,906 2,804 104%
Retail (KSF) 11 845 855 1,932 44%
Office (KSF) 100 281 381 3,200 12%
Industrial (KSF) 0 2,527 0%
Other (KSF) 0 4,171 0%
Single Family (DU) 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 3,410 5,460 62% Multi-Family (DU) 228 228 228 228 228 228 228 228 228 228 2,280 3,614 63% Retail (KSF) 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 1,310 1,734 76% Office (KSF) 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 220 1,170 19% Industrial (KSF) 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 3,620 5,642 64% Other (KSF) 0 4,250 0%
Single Family (DU) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 80 186 43%
Multi-Family (DU) 0 68 0%
Retail (KSF) 0 43 0%
Office (KSF) 0 81 0%
Industrial (KSF) 0 31 0%
Other (KSF) 0 95 0%
Fiscal Years 2022-2032
Total
20 Yr
Growth
Percent of
20 Yr
Growth
Dublin
Pleasanton
Livermore
Unincorporated
Alameda
County

EXHIBIT C
781
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 Fiscal Years 2022-2032
Total
20 Yr
Growth
Percent of
20 Yr
Growth
Single Family (DU) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 250 536 47% Multi-Family (DU) 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 480 457 105% Retail (KSF) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 30 83 36%
Office (KSF) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%
Industrial (KSF) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Other (KSF) 0 77 0%
Single Family (DU) 32 60 103 80 77 352 3,117 11%
Multi-Family (DU) 103 460 498 213 184 250 282 261 248 525 3,024 5,897 51% Retail (KSF) 6 61 6 15 88 909 10%
Office (KSF) 110 110 1,187 9%
Industrial (KSF) 8 8 139 6%
Other (KSF) 118 45 25 8 196 1,513 13%
Single Family (DU) 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 340 117 291% Multi-Family (DU) 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 140 147 95% Retail (KSF) 0 62 0%
Office (KSF) 0 27 0%
Industrial (KSF) 0 7 0%
Other (KSF) 0 78 0%
Single Family (DU) 586 639 657 664 631 554 554 554 1,713 554 7,110 15,857 45% Multi-Family (DU) 921 1,459 1,011 726 697 763 795 774 2,876 1,038 11,065 17,456 63% Retail (KSF) 264 281 264 325 264 270 279 264 1,109 264 3,583 5,118 70% Office (KSF) 402 302 302 302 412 302 583 302 302 302 3,511 6,797 52% Industrial (KSF) 395 387 387 387 387 387 387 387 387 387 3,878 9,306 42% Other (KSF) 231 158 138 121 113 113 113 113 113 113 1,325 12,441 11% Total
Contra
Costa
Danville
San Ramon
Unincorporated
Total

EXHIBIT C
782

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 6.3

DATE:

June 27, 2022
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Tina Olson, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT:

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

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the City's Master Fee Schedule, incorporating certain fee changes and superseding resolution 2021-113.

SUMMARY
The Master Fee Schedule reflects fees charged by all City departments for certain services provided.

The fees are intended to recover the actual cost of providing services, which includes direct labor costs, administration or “overhead” costs, and the cost of materials and supplies.

DISCUSSION
The intent of a Master Fee Schedule is to set forth, in a single document, the fees for all city-related services and activities (i.e., zoning & building permits application fees, inspection fees, fees for services provided by the enterprise fund, utility rates, and so forth) that are approved by City Council and/or regulated by State or Federal agencies. It is an industry best practice to review and update the Master Fee Schedule annually, allowing easy access to view fees for services, charges and providing a better understanding to the public of all fees charged by the City of Livermore. This Schedule covers only departmental/divisional fees for services, not property development-related fees (development Impact fees or infrastructure fees).

Updating and amending the Master Fee Schedule annually will allow for:

1 .

A centralized location to guide City staff and the public in quickly locating the appropriate fees for services by department and activities.
2 .

Fees to be added, revised, or deleted periodically in conjunction with the biennial budget 783
preparation process or annual budget update.

It is the staff’s intention to have a process to review the comprehensive Master Fee Schedule as part of the biennial budget development process or annual update to determine that the fees listed are current.

Effective July 1, 2022, most fees will adjust by the annual change of CPI (February 2022 – 5.2%), unless indicated otherwise.

This Master Fee Schedule is a compilation of all fees previously approved by the Council, except for the items noted below.

The tables included in Attachment 1 identify the proposed new fees added to the Master Fee Schedule or fees modified, as requested by a City department.

Administrative Services - Finance

Table 1 – Business Fees – Tobacco Retailer License

This item corrects how a tobacco retailer's initial license registration fee is displayed. The previous amount combined the initial license registration and renewal fees.

Community Development - Building

Table 2 – Building Permit Fees – Mechanical, Plumbing, & Electrical

These items are added to include more specific descriptions of certain devices and make the description of charges clear for customers when reviewing their receipts. The heat pump water heater is a new technology that mirrors the tankless water heater fee. The electrical backup generator fee of $396 is a combination of the City’s existing one-hour charge for plumbing ($198) and the one-hour charge for electrical ($198).

Community Development – Planning

Table 3 – Land Use and Entitlements and Permits

The department is adding two new Policy Proposal[1] fees based on the actual charge and correcting the amount of the CEQA Environmental Impact Report deposit. The deposit amount should be based on the actual cost instead of a specific dollar amount.

Fire

Table 4 – Fire Prevention

The fire alarm communication modification fee is a new item, and the fee is the same as other hourly rates charged by the department. The hazardous waste generator and treatment fees are adjusted down to cover the actual inspection costs as calculated by Fire Department staff.

Department of Public Works - Water Resources

784
Table 5 – Water Rates

The two items under the Temporary Hydrant Meter Fee category are new fees recently approved in resolution 2022-052 that established new water rates to be effective on January 1, 2023. The Temporary Hydrant Meter Fees are effective immediately and are thus added to the Master Fee Schedule.

Library

Table 6 – Library Fees

The Higher Value Library Item fees are reduced to the FY 2020-21 level as requested by Library staff as the proposed amounts are the actual replacement costs for the items in this fee range.

Department of Public Works - Airport

Table 7 – Airport Fees

The fees in the table are the existing items charged to the customers but were not in the previous Master Fee Schedule. The Hangar Key Purchase and Re-core fees are based on actual costs. The Hangar Wait List Deposits are the current charge listed on the Hangar Waiting List Application and Deposit form.

Fees Removed from the Master Fee Schedule

The following fees are no longer applicable and will therefore be removed from the Master Fee Schedule:

Table 8 – Land Use Entitlements and Permits

Table 9 – Fire Prevention - Construction Services

Table 10 – Police Department Fees

Table 11 – Water Meter Rates

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
The approval of this Master Fee Schedule will have a minimal fiscal and administrative impact. These fees are either the existing charges to the public or included in the FY 2022-23 budget by the respective departments.

[1]
Policy proposal fees are charged to those seeking to adopt or amend a document that is not standard such as the Development Code, Municipal or Zoning Map. For example, adopting or amending a conservation easement, the City’s Active Transportation Plan, or the City’s Street Naming Policy.

ATTACHMENTS
785

1. Tables 1-11

2. Resolution

3. Exhibit A - Master Fee Schedule

Prepared by: Ki Lam
Management Analyst

Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
786
ATTACHMENT 1
1 Table 1

Business Fees
Description Unit Fe e Note s
Tobacco Retailer License

Initial License Registration Fee

Each

$ 36.00
Ordinance 2088;
Correction
Table 2

Building Permit Fees - Mechanical, Plumbing, & Electrical Fee Types - Mechanical Permit Fees Fee Notes
Electrical heat pump water heater $ 298.00 New Fee
Electrical backup generator, natural gas 396.00 New Fee

Table 3

Policy Proposal

Land Use Entitlements and Permits
Description Fe e Note s
Policy Proposal Actual Cost New Fee
Policy Proposal Amendament Actual Cost New Fee
Environmental Fees
CEQA Environmental Impact Report – Deposit
20% of contract amount to City
Actual Cost
Modified
Table 4

Fire Prevention
Description Fe e Note s
Fire Alarm communication modifications (hourly) $ 259.00 New Fee Haz Waste Generator: Lrg Quantity 380.00 Modified
Haz Waste Treatment: CE only 200.00 Modified
Haz Waste Treatment: CA, PBR 400.00 Modified
787
ATTACHMENT 1
2 Table 5

Water Meter Prices

Description
Wate r
Meter
Sale s Tax

10.25%
Total
Price

Note s
Displacement Meter

1.5" (unit) $ 605.61 $ 62.08 $ 667.69 New Fee
2" (unit) 757.30 77.62 834.92 New Fee

Water Rates
Description Unit Rates Notes
Temporary Hydrant Meter Fee
1" or smaller Monthly $ 14.17 New Fee
3" Monthly 20.36 New Fee
Reconnection Fee
Master Lock Replacement Per Lock 15.00 New Fee
Best Lock Replacement Per Lock 50.00 New Fee
Table 6

Library Fees
Description Unit Fe e Note s
Higher Value Library Items Per item $ 103.00 - 309.00 Modified Table 7

Airport Fees
Description Fe e Note s
Hangar Key Purchase $ 5.00 New Fee
Hangar Re-core 87.00 New Fee
Hangar Wait List Deposit for T-Hangars 204.00 New Fee
Hangar Wait List Deposit for Box Hangars 365.00 New Fee Table 8

Land Use Entitlements and Permits
Description Fe e Note s
Housing Implementation
Housing Implementation Program $ 14,243.00 Remove
Housing Implementation Program Amendment 9,597.00 Remove Miscellaneous Fees
Secondary Dwelling Unit 660.00 Remove
788
ATTACHMENT 1
3 Table 9

Fire Prevention - Construction Services
Description Fe e Note s
UST - Removal each additional tank over 2 $ 259.00 Remove Fire M onitoring System Only (Water flow, associated
equipment, Central Station)

25.00 Remove
Table 10

Police Department Fees
Description Fe e Note s
Property & Evidence Fees (Subpoena required)
911 Dispatch Cassette Recording $ 36.00 Remove
Table 11

Water Meter Prices

Description
Wate r
Meter
Sale s Tax

10.25%
Total
Price

Note s
Registers

1.5" thru 2" SR TR/PL electronic (each) $ 75.00 $ 7.69 $ 82.69 Remove

789
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

INCORPORATING CERTAIN FEE CHANGES FOR SERVICES
PROVDED AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 2021-113
The Livermore Municipal Code and the California Government Code provide that the City Council may establish fees for various city services by resolution. These fees may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services.

On June 27, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing at which oral and written presentations were made regarding adopting the master fee schedule and change to fees for Finance, Building, Engineering, Fire, Planning, Police, Public Works, Library services, and Airport. The proposed fee schedule does not exceed the reasonable cost of providing services to the public.

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

1. The City Council adopts the Master Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. The City Council authorizes fees adopted in the Master Fee Schedule to supersede fees previously effectuated by Resolution No. 2021-113.

On motion of Council Member ______________________, seconded by Council Member ______________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on June 27, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ /s/ Kelly Trujillo
Marie Weber Kelly Trujillo
City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – Master Fee Schedule
790

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

INTRODUCTION

The City Council has the authority to establish and change certain fees or serv ice charges subject to legal requirements within California State law.

The Master Fee Schedule compiles various fees the City charges for its services and products to assist Cit y staff and the public in locating the appropriate fees. The last Master Fee Schedule was adopted in June 2021.

Since that time, there were a few resolutions added/ modified individual fees for services, which are incorporated in this Schedule.

Although most City fees, service costs such as administrative, licenses, permits, rental, inspection, and utility rates are included in this consolidated master fee schedule. This schedule does not show development impact fees, landscape maintenance district, or fees required by a City contract such as franchise fee.

The intention for the Master Fee Schedule is for it to be updated annually as part of the budget process. At that time, the Council may consider fee increases to bring the fees closer in line with the actual costs of providing a particular service. The increase could be based on a cost-of-living adjustment calculated since the fee was last set (using CPI or an other inflationary index). The City applies the annual change in February CPI (5.2 percent), San Francisco area to update the new fees.

The Administrative Services Department is charged with the general maintenance of the Schedule. This responsibility includes reviewing requests to modify the document, periodic review of fees to assure that they are equitable and reflect the cost of services, and preparation of transmittals to the Council for recommended changes to fees.

In addition, all City Departments have a role in fee schedule policies and maintenance. All Departments that levy fees are responsible for:

1. Including all fees that are levied in the Master Fee Schedule;

2. Keeping updated copies of the Schedule available and in clear display;

3. Proposing fees which reflect the cost of services provided by the City; and

4. Providing for the annual revision of fees or proposing changes in fees consistent with the intent of the Master Fee Schedule.

Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of data presented in this Schedule. However, if any discrepancies are noted, please call Finance at (925) 960-4300. Fees shown in the Master Fee S chedule are those in effect as of July 1, 2022, unless otherwise noted.

EXHIBIT A
791

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

EXHIBIT A
792

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Every reference in this Fee Schedule to the “Actual Cost” refers to the billing of staff time and materials incurred in order to provide the particular service. The staff time cost is the number of hours by position times the “Fully Burdened Hourly Rates” which consists of salary, benefits, and overhead expenses.

Description Unit Fee Source
The City may bill for special services, such as support for special events, cleanup of hazardous material spills, protection of public property, and public safety due to unusual events.

Based on total actual direct and
indirect costs Resolution 2021-113
Overhead Rate (1) Based on applicable Overhead Rate Resolution 2021-113 Vehicle and Equipment Rental (2)
Per latest Caltrans "Labor Surcharge
and Equipment Rental Rates"
Publication
Resolution 2021-113
Returned Check Fee Each 11.01$ Resolution 2021-113 Credit Card Convenience Fee Per Transaction 2.9% of transaction amount See Staff Report Copying
Miscellaneous copying (except for copying done pursuant to subpoena duces tecum.)
Standard 8-1/2 x14 or less (black/white) Per Page 0.22 Resolution 2021-113 Standard 8-1/2 x14 or less (color) Per Page 0.28 Resolution 2021-113 11x17 documents Per Page 0.55 Resolution 2021-113 Oversized documents Actual Cost Resolution 2021-113
Copying pursuant to Subpoena duces tecum (Evidence code §1563) Documents 8 1/2 x 14 or less Per Page 0.11 Resolution 2021-113 Documents on microfilm/laser fiche Per Page 0.22 Resolution 2021-113 Clerical costs incurred in locating and making records available Per Hour or Fraction Thereof 17.59 Resolution 2021-113 Copying pursuant to Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81008)
Copies of reports and filings Per Page 0.11 Resolution 2021-113 Retrieval fee for reports/statements older > 5 years old Per Request 5.49 Resolution 2021-113 CD/DVD/Cassette
CD/DVD 2.75 Resolution 2021-113 Cassette Tape 2.20 Resolution 2021-113 USB Drive Actual Cost Resolution 2021-113
Posting/Mailing
M ailing Envelope For CD/DVD/Cassette Tape 1.65 Resolution 2021-113 Postage Charges Actual Cost Resolution 2021-113
Passports (2)
Execution fee - as determined by the Department of State Actual Cost Resolution 2021-113 Passport photo 11.01 Resolution 2021-113 Civ il Marriage Ceremony
Administrative Fee 82.49 Resolution 2021-113 Witness Fee 11.01 Resolution 2021-113 W itness Fees:

City employee appearing in litigation in which the City is not a party (Government Code §68096.1)
Actual Cost plus travel and expenses
($275 deposit required per day of
attendance)
Resolution 2021-113
Police Officer or firefighter appearing in civil actions (Government code §68097.2, Criminal actions
(Government code §68098 & Penal code §1329
Actual Cost plus travel and expenses
($275 deposit required per day of
attendance)
Resolution 2021-113
Criminal actions (Government code §68098, Penal code §1329 & §1329.1) Each Day $12 plus mileage Resolution 2021-113 (1) When billing for services not specifically set forth in this fee schedule (e.g. a hazardous material cleanup) (2) Passport services fees are determined by the United States Department of State. The execution fee is payable directly to the City.

General Administration

EXHIBIT A
793

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Unit Fee So urce
Business License
Additional branch fee Each 15.40$ Resolution 2021-113 Duplicate license fee Each 9.90 Resolution 2021-113 Change of location fee Each 15.40 Resolution 2021-113 Registration fee Each 28.59 Resolution 2021-113 Tobacco Retailer L icense
Initial license registration fee Each 36.00 Ordinance 2088; See staff report License fee Each 969.00 Ordinance 2088
Business Fees

Description Unit Fee So urce
Dog L icense*
Dog License for a spayed or neutered dog
1 Year Each 16.03 $ Resolution 2021-113
3 Years Each 32.06 Resolution 2021-113
Dog license for a non-spayed or non-neutered dog
1 Year Each 58.79 Resolution 2021-113
3 Years Each 83.37 Resolution 2021-113
Lost tag replacement Each 0.53 Ordinance 311
Penalty Fee for delinquent payments* Each 16.03 Resolution 2021-113 Senior Discount on dog license (62 and up older) Each 50% Resolution 2021-113 Other Animals Permit Fees
Animal Fancier ** Each Per Year 106.88 Resolution 2021-113 Pet Shop Each Per Year 106.88 Resolution 2021-113 Exot ic Each Per Year 106.88 Resolution 2021-113
* Dog licenses are to be renewed quarterly throughout the year for one- or three-year periods depending on owner License Expiration Date
Jul
y thru Sept.

Oct. thru Dec.

Jan. thru March
April thru June
**Animals that require a permit include:

Doves, pigeons, ducks, geese, swans, chickens, honeybees, domestic dogs (4 or more dogs), cat, horses, donkey, burro, cows, sheep, goats, rabbits, pot bellied pigs, and reptiles Animal License Fee
choice and the effective life of the rabies vaccine. The calendar quarter when the rabies certificate is issued establishes the renewal period as follows:

Delinquent Date
November 1st
February 1st
M ay 1st
August 1st

EXHIBIT A
794

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Base Cost@
Threshold
Si
ze ^

each
Add
i ti onal
100 s.f. ^
Base Cost@
Threshold
Si
ze ^

each
Ad
di ti onal
100 s.f. ^
5,000 20,489. 00$ 56.33$ 16,744.00$ 43.87$ 10,000 23,307.00 61.47 18,937.00 49.61 20,000 29,453.00 49.47 23,898.00 39.53 30,000 34,399.00 52.67 27,851.00 41.94 50,000 44,934.00 22.03 36,238.00 17.66 100,000 55,951.00 55.95 45,068.00 45.07 1,000 14,488.00 55.99 12,630.00 46.32 5,000 16,727.00 89.78 14,484.00 77.12 10,000 21,217.00 37.01 18,341.00 31.44 20,000 24,917.00 26.54 21,484.00 22.46 50,000 32,878.00 16.38 28,220.00 13.96 100,000 41,065.00 41.07 35,198.00 35.19 1,000 18,263.00 61.56 15,651.00 50.78 5,000 20,724.00 109.01 17,682.00 92.52 10,000 26,176.00 43.69 22,308.00 36.78 20,000 30,543.00 30.97 25,985.00 26.00 50,000 39,834.00 19.49 33,786.00 16.44 100,000 49,577.00 49.58 42,008.00 42.00 500 15,231.00 105.22 13,226.00 87.24 2,500 17,336.00 183.02 14,970.00 157.03 5,000 21,911.00 73.70 18,896.00 62.62 10,000 25,595.00 52.36 22,028.00 44.33 25,000 33,450.00 32.83 28,678.00 27.98 50,000 41,658.00 83.31 35,673.00 71.35 1,000 12,491.00 44.74 10,945.00 36.31 5,000 14,282.00 92.06 12,397.00 81.34 10,000 18,884.00 25.61 16,463.00 20 .85 20,000 21,444.00 21.68 18,549.00 18.17 50,000 27,947.00 12.77 24,000.00 10.70 100,000 34,332.00 34.34 29,352.00 29.35 500 13,035.00 85.35 11,432.00 71.24 2,500 14,743.00 154.47 12,856.00 133.83 5,000 18,604.00 61.51 16,203.00 52.76 10,000 21,680.00 43.52 18,841.00 37.19 25,000 28,207.00 27.51 24,419.00 23.66 50,000 35,082.00 70.17 30,332.00 60.67 1,000 15,074.00 64.69 13,032.00 52.78 5,000 17,662.00 107.39 15,142.00 93.51 10,000 23,031.00 31.35 19,819.00 25.59 20,000 26,167.00 31.07 22,378.00 25.52 50,000 35,487.00 17.50 30,032.00 14.45 100,000 44,237.00 44.24 37,256.00 37.25 ^ = S ource: Resolution 2021-113
F Factory and industrial uses that
include the fabrication or
ma
nufacturing of Moderate and Low
Hazard materials
E Buildings or rooms used by more
than 6 persons for educational
pur
poses up to the 12th grade.

Day care for 6 or more children
older than 2-1/2 years of age
B Buildings or spaces for office
professional or service type
tr
ansactions, including storage of
records and accounts; restaurants
w ith less than 50 occupants
B Dental/Medical
A-3, A-4 Assembly uses intended for worship;
Assembly uses int ended for viewing
of ou
tdoor sporting events and
activities with spectator seating
A-2 Assembly uses int ended for food
and/or drink consumption
A-1
Greater
Tha
n 50
Occupants
Assembly uses, usually wit h fixed
seating, intended for the production
and
view ing of the performing arts
or motion picutres
New Construction Fees (All Construction Types)
IBC Class IBC Occupancy Type
2006/07
Data:

Pr
oject
Size
Construction Types
I, II, Ill, V- A rated
Construction Types
I, II, Ill, IV, V- B rated

EXHIBIT A
795

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Base Cost@
Threshold
Siz
e ^

each
Addi
ti onal
100 s.f. ^
Base Cost@
Threshold
Siz
e ^

each
Addi
ti onal
100 s.f. ^
1,000 22,087.00$ 91.23$ 17,940.00$ 70.44$ 5,000 25,736.00 139.55 20,757.00 111.67 10,000 32,714.00 58.36 26,341.00 46.19 20,000 38,548.00 42.07 30,959.00 33.17 50,000 51,168.00 25.71 40,910.00 20.41 100,000 64,024.00 64.02 51,118.00 51.12 1,000 12,687.00 42.72 10,766.00 33.87 5,000 14,395.00 75.71 12,121.00 63.16 10,000 18,180.00 30.33 15,280.00 24.96 20,000 21,214.00 21.50 17,776.00 17.60 50,000 27,664.00 13.53 23,056.00 11.17 100,000 34,428.00 34.42 28,643.00 28.64 1,000 21,046.00 79.07 17,036.00 61.14 5,000 24,209.00 129.37 19,482.00 103.42 10,000 30,677.00 53.00 24,653.00 41.96 20,000 35,978.00 37.93 28,849.00 29.92 50,000 47,358.00 23.50 37,824.00 18.65 100,000 59,109.00 59.10 47,153.00 47.15 1,000 12,103.00 42.98 10,330.00 34.07 5,000 13,824.00 73.26 11,692.00 61.33 10,000 17,486.00 29.66 14,759.00 24.46 20,000 20,452.00 21.13 17,205.00 17.31 50,000 26,790.00 13.21 22,399.00 10.93 100,000 33,395.00 33.39 27,867.00 27.87 1,000 15,414.00 57.36 13,436.00 47.51 5,000 17,708.00 94.51 15,337.00 81.24 10,000 22,434.00 38.63 19,399.00 32. 85 20,000 26,297.00 27.64 22,684.00 23.42 50,000 34,589.00 17.14 29,707.00 14.62 100,000 43,154.00 43.16 37,015.00 37.02 5,000 25,374.00 81.53 20,406.00 64.01 10,000 29,452.00 46.15 23,606.00 36.39 20,000 34,066.00 22.63 27,247.00 17.82 50,000 40,857.00 28.29 32,590.00 22.11 100,000 55,000.00 15.24 43,644.00 11.93 200,000 70,244.00 35.12 55,577.00 27.79 1,000 6,620.00 109.10 5,520.00 87.28 2,000 7,710.00 119.01 6,393.00 95.21 3,000 8,901.00 178.54 7,344.00 142.82 4,000 10,686.00 391.77 8,772.00 313.42 5,000 14,604.00 83.31 11,907.00 66.65 10,000 18,770.00 187.70 15,239.00 152.39 ^ = S ource: Resolution 2021-113
R-3, R-3.1,
R-4
One and tw o-family homes;
Residentially based 24-hour facility
for
6 or fewer clients of any age;
Residential care/assisted living for
more than 6 ambulatory clients
R-1, R-2 Transient and nontransient lodging
including hotels, motels apartments,
and
boarding houses
M Display and sale of merchandise
accessible to the public
1-4 Day care operations of more than 6
people of any age where the care is
for l
ess than 24-hours a day
1-1 Housing of clients on a 24-hour
basis in a supervised residential
envir
onment providing personal
care services
1-2,1-3 Medical, surgical, psychiatric,
nursing or custodial care on a 24-
hour b
asis for more than 6 persons;
facilities where persons are
restrained
H-1, H-2,
H-3, H-4,
H-5
High Hazard: Detonation hazard,
Deflagration hazard or hazard from
accel
erated burning; Materials that
readily support combustion;
Materials that are health hazards
New Construction Fees (All Construction Types)
IBC Class IBC Occupancy Type
2006/07
Data:

Pro
ject
Size
Construction Types
I, II, Ill, V- A rated
Construction Types
I, II, Ill, IV, V- B rated

EXHIBIT A
796

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Base Cost@
Threshold
Siz
e ^
Cost for
each
Addi
ti onal
100 s.f. ^
Base Cost@
Threshold
Siz
e ^
Cost for
each
Addi
ti onal
100 s.f. ^
1,000 4,3 88.00$ 57.31$ 3,653.00$ 47.33$ 2,000 4,960.00 67.71 4,126.00 56.01 3,000 5,638.00 97.49 4,686.00 80.57 4,000 6,612.00 190.57 5,491.00 157.07 5,000 8,519.00 41.67 7,062.00 34.37 10,000 10,603.00 106.02 8,781.00 87.81 500 13,960.00 95.89 11,720.00 75.60 2,500 15,879.00 167.49 13,233.00 138.38 5,000 20,065.00 67.38 16,693.00 54.95 10,000 23,433.00 47.84 19,440.00 38.82 25,000 30,609.00 30.04 25,264.00 24.58 50,000 38,118.00 76.24 31,410.00 62.82 500 13,802.00 95.43 11,564.00 75.14 2,500 15,711.00 165.88 13,067.00 136.76 5,000 19,858.00 66.81 16,486.00 54.39 10,000 23,199.00 47.47 19,204.00 38.45 25,000 30,319.00 29.77 24,974.00 24.33 50,000 37,763.00 75.53 31,055.00 62.11 1,000 9,830.00 31.81 8,834.00 26.87 5,000 11,103.00 58.07 9,908.00 51.41 10,000 14,006.00 23.07 12,479.00 20.17 20,000 16,313.00 16.30 14,496.00 14.19 50,000 21,204.00 10.32 18,751.00 9.05 100,000 26,363.00 26.36 23,277.00 23.27

TEN A N T IMP R O V EMEN TS
1,000 1,069.00 7,469.00 39.00 6,197.09 5,000 5,344.00 9,028.42 50.00 7,457.24 10,000 10,688.00 11,573.31 22.00 9, 560.70 20,000 21,377.00 13,814.65 17.00 11,381.99 50,000 53,442.00 18,744.11 9.00 15,404.01 100,000 106,883.00 23,617.98 23.00 19,393.96 1,000 1,069.00 6,562.63 32.00 5,440.35 5,000 5,344.00 7,804.61 40.00 6,453.61 10,000 10,688.00 9,799.05 17.00 80,913.79 20,000 21,377.00 11,443.98 15.00 9,444.20 50,000 53,442.00 15,804.82 8.00 13,002.34 100,000 106,883.00 20,024.57 20.00 16,461.08 1,000 1,069.00 6,549.80 27.00 5,461.73 5,000 5,344.00 7,628.25 41.00 6,338.17 10,000 10,688.00 9,695.38 17.00 8,048.30 20,000 21,377.00 11,423.68 13.00 9,470.92 50,000 53,442.00 15,157.11 7.00 12,536.33 100,000 106,883.00 18,964.29 19.00 15,673.35 ^ = S ource: Resolution 2021-113
B Medical Office
A-2 Restaurant, more than 50 occupants
B Office Building
U Accessory and miscellaneous
structures not specifically classified
S- 1 Moderate hazard storage
S- 2 Low hazard storage
R-3 One and tw o-family homes
New Construction Fees (All Construction Types)
IBC Class IBC Occupancy Type
2006/07
Data:

Pro
ject
Size
Construction Types
I, II, Ill, V- A rated
Construction Types
I, II, Ill, IV, V- B rated

EXHIBIT A
797

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Base Cost@
Threshold
Siz
e ^
Cost for
each
Addi
ti onal
100 s.f. ^
Base Cost@
Threshold
Siz
e ^
Cost for
each
Addi
ti onal
100 s.f. ^

TEN A N T IMP R O V EMEN TS
2,000 9, 199.00$ 18.24$ 7,696.00$ 14.84$ 10,000 10,657.00 28.71 8,883.00 23.82 20,000 13,527.00 11.90 11,266.00 9.86 40,000 15,905.00 8.55 13,229.00 7.03 100,000 21,032.00 5.26 17,447.00 4.34 200,000 26,292.00 13.14 21,795.00 10.90 1,000 6,625.00 26.53 5,487.00 21.50 5,000 7,686.00 41.49 6,347.00 34.14 10,000 9,760.00 17.22 8,054.00 14.11 20,000 11,484.00 12.38 9,466.00 10.13 50,000 15,199.00 7.61 12,504.00 6.25 100,000 19,004.00 19.01 15,626.00 15.63

SHELL BUILDINGS
5,000 13,893.00 14.28 11,766.00 11.10 25,000 16,748.00 18.83 13,985.00 15.50 50,000 21,456.00 8.27 17,860.00 6.68 100,000 25,590.00 6.06 21,198.00 4.86 250,000 34,672.00 3.60 28,485.00 2.91 500,000 43,653.00 8.73 35,776.00 7.16 ^ = S ource: Resolution 2021-113
M St o r e
B,M,S All Shell Buildings
B/H Lab/R&D
New Construction Fees (All Construction Types)
IBC Class IBC Occupancy Type
2006/07
Data:

Pro
ject
Size
Construction Types
I, II, Ill, V- A rated
Construction Types
I, II, Ill, IV, V- B rated

EXHIBIT A
798

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Unit Fee Source
Antenna
Equipment Container each $ 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 0-30 ft each 397.00 Resolution 2021-113
31+ ft each 495.00 Resolution 2021-113
Cellular/Mobile Phone, free-standing each 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cellular/Mobile Phone, co-location each 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 Application Meeting - First Hour each hour 198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Application Meeting - Each Add't Hour each hour 198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Balcony addition each 793.00 Resolution 2021-113 Carport MINOR(< or = 200 sq ft.) each 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Carport MAJOR(> 200 sq ft.) each 793.00 Resolution 2021-113 Change of Occupancy each 793.00 Resolution 2021-113 Close Existing Openings
Interior wall each 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 Exterior wall each 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Commercial Coach (per unit) each unit 693.00 Resolution 2021-113 Compliance lnspections/Reinspections each 693.00 Resolution 2021-113 Deck (wood) - up to 200 sq ft. each 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each additional 100 sq ft. each 100 sf 99.00 Resolution 2021-113 Deck Railing - up to 200 sq ft. each 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 Deck (wood) (with calcs) - up to 200 sq ft. each 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Deck (wood) (with calcs) - each add;. 100 sq ft each 100 sf 99.00 Resolution 2021-113 Demolition - Single Family Dwelling each 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Demolition - M ulti Family/ Commercial each 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Door
New door (residential) each 198.00 Resolution 2021-113 New door (Structural shear wall/Masonry) each 793.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fence or Freestanding Wall (non-masonry)
6 - 8 feet in height, first 100 If up to 100 If 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 8 - 10 feet in height, first 100 If up to 100 If 495.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each additional 100 If each 100 If 198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Over 10 feet in height up to 100 If 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Over 10 feet in height (with calcs) up to 100 If 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each additional 100 If each 100 If 198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fence or Freestanding Wall (masonry)
Masonry, (6-8 feet high), pre-engineered up to 100 If 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each additional 100 If each 100 If 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Masonry, Special Design (6-10' high) up to 100 If 793.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each additional 100 If each 100 If 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Masonry, Special Design (over 10' high) up to 100 If 992.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each additional 100 If each 100 If 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fireplace
Masonry each 447.00 Resolution 2021-113
Masonry (with calcs) each 495.00 Resolution 2021-113 Pre-Fabricated I M etal each 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 Flag pole (over 30 feet in height) each 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Commercial/Residential Permit Fees - Misc. Items

EXHIBIT A
799

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Unit Fee So urce
Chimney repair each $ 198.00 Res olution 2021-113 Garage (detached)
Wood frame up to 1,000 sf each 793.00 Res olution 2021-113 Masonry up to 1,000 sf each 793.00 Res olution 2021-113 Grading (cut and fill)
0 - 100 C.Y. 397.00 Res olution 2021-113
101 - 1,000 C.Y. 595.00 Res olution 2021-113 1,001 - 10,000 C.Y. 693.00 Res olution 2021-113

10.001 - 100,000 C.Y. 793.00 Res olution 2021-113 100,001 - 200.000 C.Y. 1,091.00 Res olution 2021-113 Each add'l 10,000 C.Y. or portion thereof 148.00 Res olution 2021-113 Greenhouse (non-commercial) each 595.00 Res olution 2021-113 Greenhouse (non-commercial) (with calcs) each 595.00 Res olution 2021-113 Lighting Pole each 397.00 Res olution 2021-113 Each Add'l Pole each 397.00 Res olution 2021-113 Partition - Commercial, Interior (up to 30 lf) up to 30 lf 397.00 Res olution 2021-113 Additional partition up to 30 lf 397.00 Res olution 2021-113 Partition - Residential, Interior (up to 30 lf) up to 30 lf 397.00 Res olution 2021-113 Additional partition each 30 lf 397.00 Res olution 2021-113 Patio Cover, Awning, Canopy, Trellis and Arbors
Wood frame up to 300 sf 397.00 Res olution 2021-113 Wood frame (with calcs) up to 300 sf 495.00 Res olution 2021-113 Other frame up to 300 sf 495.00 Res olution 2021-113 Additional Patio up to 300 sf 99.00 Res olution 2021-113 Enclosed, all frames up to 300 sf 595.00 Res olution 2021-113 Photovoltaic System
Residential each 397.00 Res olution 2021-113 Commercial, up to 10 kilowatts 397.00 Res olution 2021-113 Commerical, 11 to 20 KW 693.00 Res olution 2021-113 Commerical, 21 to 30 KW 693.00 Res olution 2021-113 Commerical, 31 to 40 KW 893.00 Res olution 2021-113 Commerical, 41 to 52 KW 1,190.00 Res olution 2021-113 Commerical, 51 to 250 KW 7.00 Res olution 2021-113 Commerical, over 250 KW 5.00 Res olution 2021-113 Pile Foundation
Cast in Place / Drive (steel, pre-stressed concrete) up to 10 397.00 Res olution 2021-113 Additional piles (increments of 10) each 10 298.00 Res olution 2021-113 Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry)
Standard up to 50 lf 595.00 Res olution 2021-113 Additional retaining wall each 50 lf 298.00 Res olution 2021-113 Special Design, 3-10' high up to 50 lf 693.00 Res olution 2021-113 Additional retaining wall each 50 lf 298.00 Res olution 2021-113 Special Design, over 10' high up to 50 If 992.00 Res olution 2021-113 Additional retaining wall each 50 lf 298.00 Res olution 2021-113 Remodel - Residential
500 s.f. Single Story up to 500 sf 793.00 Res olution 2021-113 501- 1,000 s.f. 501 to 1,000 sf 992.00 Res olution 2021-113 Commercial/Residential Permit Fees - Misc Items (Con't)

EXHIBIT A
800

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Unit Fee Source
Additional remodel each 300 sf $ 128.00 Resolution 2021-113 Bathroom remodel each 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Minor bathroom remodel each 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Minor kitchen remodel each 248.00 Resolution 2021-113 Repairs (For Fire, Water, Decay & Pests) <$10,000 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Repairs (For Fire, Water, Decay & Pests) $10,000 - $25,000 495.00 Resolution 2021-113 Repairs (For Fire, Water, Decay & Pests) $25,001 - $100,000 893.00 Resolution 2021-113 Repairs (For Fire, Water, Decay & Pests) > $100,000 1,091.00 Resolution 2021-113 Re-roof
Remove / replace (roof covering only) up to 200 sf 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Remove / replace (with existing plywood)) 201 to 3,000 sf 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Minor Repair up to 200 sf 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 201 - 3,000 sq ft 495.00 Resolution 2021-113 > 3,001 sq ft 693.00 Resolution 2021-113
10,001 + sq ft 793.00 Resolution 2021-113 Residential Additions
One Story up to 500 sf 1,091.00 Resolution 2021-113 One Story 501 - 1,000 sf 1,390.00 Resolution 2021-113 One Story > 1,000 sf 1,685.00 Resolution 2021-113 Multi-Story up to 500 sf 1,190.00 Resolution 2021-113 Multi-Story 501 - 1,000 sf 1,538.00 Resolution 2021-113 Multi-Story > 1,000 sf 1,785.00 Resolution 2021-113 Roof structure replacement up to 100 sf 893.00 Resolution 2021-113 Additional roof structure replacement each 100 sf 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Sauna - steam each 992.00 Resolution 2021-113 Shed (up to 200 sf) 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each additional 100 sf 148.00 Resolution 2021-113 Siding
Exterior wall covering, siding, stucco up to 400 sf 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 Additional siding each 400 sf 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 Signs
Monument each 495.00 Resolution 2021-113
Wall Mounted Fixture each 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Free-standing each 793.00 Resolution 2021-113 Repairs/ Replacement each 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Skylight
Less than 10 sf each 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Greater than 10 sf or structural each 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 Spa or Hot Tub
Above Ground each 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 In-ground Private each 495.00 Resolution 2021-113 In-ground Public each 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Storage Racks
0-8' high (up to 100 If) first 100 If 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 each additional 100 If each 100 If 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 over 8' high (up to 100 If) first 100 If 693.00 Resolution 2021-113 each additional 100 If each 100 If 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Commercial/Residential Permit Fees - Misc Items (Con't)

EXHIBIT A
801

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Unit Fee Source
Swimming Pool/ Spa
Private < 800 sf $ 992.00 Resolution 2021-113 Private > 800 sf 1,091.00 Resolution 2021-113 Public < 800 sf 1,091.00 Resolution 2021-113 Public > 800 sf 1,190.00 Resolution 2021-113 Pool - Solar Panels each 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 Window or Sliding Glass Door
Residential Replacement qty. 1-4 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Residential Replacement qty. 5 or more 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 New Window (non structural) each 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 New / Bay Window (structural shear) each 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 Additional Services
Service Required in Excess of Standard per hour 198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Re-inspection per hour 198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Additional Plan Review per hour 198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Research per hour 198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Additional inspection per hour 198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Residential Building Reports each 99.00 Resolution 2021-113 Off-hours inspection (min 3 hours) each 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Banner (Building Fee)
Banner install Fourth Street (First install) each 793.00 Resolution 2021-113 Banner Install Fourth Street each 793.00 Resolution 2021-113 Banner Install N. Livermore Ave (First Install) each 793.00 Resolution 2021-113 Banner Install N. Livermore Ave each 793.00 Resolution 2021-113 Pole-Banner Permit (up to 3 banners where hardware each 522.00 Resolution 2021-113 Pole-Banner Permit (each additional banner where
hardware exists) each 86.00 Resolution 2021-113 Commercial/Residential Permit Fees - Misc Items (Con't)

EXHIBIT A
802

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Fee Ty pes - Mecha nica l Per m it Fees Fee Source
Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check (hourly rate) $198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Unit Fees
Installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner (including ducts and vents) up to and including 100,000 248.00 Resolution 2021-113 Installation or relocatton of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner (including ducts and vents) over 100,000 Btu/h 248.00 Resolution 2021-113 Installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor mounted unit heater 248.00 Resolution 2021-113
Installation or relocation or replacement of each applicance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit 248.00 Resolution 2021-113
Absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption, or each evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and including 3 HP or absorption system up to and including 100,000 Btu/h (each) 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor, over 3 HP and up to and including 15 HP,or absorption system over 100,000 Btu/h and up to and including 500,000 Btu/h 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor, over 15 HP and up to and including 30 HP,or absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h and up to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor, over 30 HP and up to and including 50 HP,or absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h and up to and including 1,750,000 347.00 Resolution 2021-113 Installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor, over 50 HP or absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h (each) 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each air-handling umt, including ducts attached ducts. (Note: The fee shall not apply to an air-handling unit that is a portion of a factory-assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere.) 347.00 Resolution 2021-113
Air-handling unit over 10,000 CFM (each) 347.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each evaporative cooler other than portable type 248.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each ventilation fan connected to a single duct 248.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system authorized by a permit 347.00 Resolution 2021-113 Installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood 495.00 Resolution 2021-113
New or relocated Furnace and AC includes Ducts, Elec, and Gas 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 Installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial-type incinerator 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each appliance or piece of equipment not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed 198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Process piping - Non-hazardous 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Process piping - Hazardous 495.00 Resolution 2021-113 Other Fees
Other Mechanical Inspections (per hour) 198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Building Permit Fees - Mechanical, Plumbing, & Electrical

EXHIBIT A
803

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Fee Types - Plumbing/Gas Permit Fees Fee Source
Stand Alone Plumbing Plan Check (hourly rate) $198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Unit Fees
Each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on trap, including water, drainage piping, and backflow protection therefor) 148.00 Resolution 2021-113 Rainwater systems per drain (inside building) 148.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each private sewage disposal system 148.00 Resolution 2021-113 Water heater and/or vent (each) 82.00 Resolution 2021-113 Electrical heat pump water heater 298.00 See Staff Report Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor, including its trap and vent, excepting kitchen- type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps (each) 545.00 Resolution 2021-113 Installation, alteration, or repair of water piping and/or water-treating equipment (each) 248.00 Resolution 2021-113 Repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping (each fixture) 248.00 Resolution 2021-113 Lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including backflow protection devices therefore (each) 198.00 Resolution 2021-113
Backflow devices not included in other fee services, e.g., building/trailer park sewer (each) 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in other fee servies, e.g., building/trailer park sewer ( 1-5 units) 298.00 Resolution 2021-113
Atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in other fee servies, e.g., building/trailer park sewer ( each unit over 5 units) 99.00 Resolution 2021-113 Tankless water heater w/gas and electric 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Tankless water heater w/o gas and electric 248.00 Resolution 2021-113 Curbside cleanout 248.00 Resolution 2021-113
Gas Piping Residential 198.00 Resolution 2021-113
Gas Piping Commercial 298.00 Resolution 2021-113
Other Fees
Other Plumbing and Gas Inspections (per hour) 198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Building Permit Fees - Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical (Continued)

EXHIBIT A
804

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Fee Types - Electrical Fee Source
Stand Alone Electrical Plan Check (hourly rate) $198.00 Resolution 2021-113 System Fees
Private, Residential, In-ground Swimming Pools (each new) Includes a complete system of necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding, grounding, underwater lighting, water pumping, and other similar electrical equipment directly related to the operation of a swimming pool
397.00 Resolution 2021-113
For all other types of swimming pools, therapeutic whirlpools, spas, and alteratons to existing swimming pools 298.00 Resolution 2021-113
Outdoor Events
Carnivals, circuses, or other travelling shows or exhibitions utilizing transportable-type rides, booths, displays, and 495.00 Resolution 2021-113 Electric generator and electrically-driven rides (each) 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 Electrical backup generator, natural gas 396.00 See Staff Report Mechanically-driven rides and walk-through attractions or displays having electric lighting 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 System of area and booth lighting (each) 248.00 Resolution 2021-113 For permanently installed rides, booths, displays and 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Residential Electric Charging station EV 248.00 Resolution 2021-113 Commercial Electric Charging station EV 447.00 Resolution 2021-113 Temporary Power Service Resolution 2021-113
Temporary service power pole or pedestal, inclduing all pole or pedestal-mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances 248.00 Resolution 2021-113 Temporary distribution system and temporary lighting and receptacle outlets for constructions sites, decorative light, Christmas tree sales lots, firework stands, etc. 248.00 Resolution 2021-113 Unit Fees
Receptacle, Switch, and Light Outlets up to 20 198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each additional 20 outlets 99.00 Resolution 2021-113 Lighting Fixtures up to 10 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each additional 10 uutlet 99.00 Resolution 2021-113 Pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures (each) 148.00 Resolution 2021-113 Theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies (each) 198.00 Resolution 2021-113 Residential Appliances
Fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including wall-mounted electric ovens; counter-mounted cooking tops; electrical ranges, self- contained room, console, or through-wall air conditioners; space heaters; food waste grinders; dishwashers; washing machines; water heaters; clothes dryers or other motor-operated appliances (each) not exceeding 1 horsepower (HP) in rating, each
248.00 Resolution 2021-113
For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven appliances having large electrical rating, see POWER APPARATUS 495.00 Resolution 2021-113 Non-Residential Appliances
Residential appliances and selt-contained factory-wired, non-residential appliances including medical and dental devices; food, beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment, each.
298.00 Resolution 2021-113
Non-residential appliances not exceeding 1 horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or kilovolt- ampere (KVA) in rating, including medical and dental devices; food, beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment, each.
495.00 Resolution 2021-113
Appliances having large electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus 495.00 Resolution 2021-113 Building Permit Fees - Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical (Continued)

EXHIBIT A
805

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Fee Types - Electrical Fee Sour ce
Stand Alone Electrical Plan Check (hourly rate) $198.00 Res olution 2021-113 System Fees
Private, Residential, In-ground Swimming Pools (each new) Includes a complete system of necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding, grounding, underwater lighting, water pumping, and other similar electrical equipment directly related to t
he operation of a swimming pool 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 For all other types of swimming pools, therapeutic whirlpools, spas, and alteratons to existing swimming pools 298.00 Resolution 2021-113
Outdoor Events
Carnivals, circuses, or other travelling shows or exhibitions utilizing transportable-type rides, booths, displays, and 495.00 Resolution 2021-113 Electric generator and electrically-driven rides (each) 397.00 Res olution 2021-113 Electrical backup generator, natural gas 396.00 Se e Staff Report Mechanically-driven rides and walk-through attractions or displays having electric lighting 397.00 Resolution 2021-113 System of area and booth lighting (each) 248.00 Res olution 2021-113 For permanently installed rides, booths, displays and 298.00 Res olution 2021-113 Residential Electric Charging station EV 248.00 Res olution 2021-113 Commercial Electric Charging station EV 447.00 Res olution 2021-113 Temporary Power Service Resolution 2021-113
Temporary service power pole or pedestal, inclduing all pole or pedestal-mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances 248.00 Resolution 2021-113 Temporary distribution system and temporary lighting and receptacle outlets for constructions sites, decorative light, Christmas tree sales lots, firework stands, etc. 248.00 Resolution 2021-113 Unit Fees
Receptacle, Switch, and Light Outlets up to 20 198.00 Res olution 2021-113 Each additional 20 outlets 99.00 Res olution 2021-113 Lighting Fixtures up to 10 298.00 Res olution 2021-113 Each additional 10 uutlet 99.00 Res olution 2021-113 Pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures (each) 148.00 Res olution 2021-113 Theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies (each) 198.00 Res olution 2021-113 Residential Appliances
Fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including wall-mounted electric ovens; counter-mounted cooking tops; electrical ranges, self- contained room, console, or throug
h-wall air conditioners; space heaters; food waste grinders; dishwashers; washing machines; water heaters; clothes dryers or other motor-operated appliances (each) not exceeding 1 horsepower (HP) in rating, each
248.00 Resolution 2021-113
For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven appliances having large electrical rating, see POWER APPARATUS 495.00 Resolution 2021-113 Non-Residential Appliances
Residential appliances and selt-contained factory-wired, non-residential appliances including medical and dental devices; food, beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show
cases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment, each. 298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Non-residential appliances not exceeding 1 horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or kilovolt- ampere (KVA) in rating, including medical and dental devices; food, beverage, and ice cre
am cabinets; illuminated show cases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment, each. 495.00 Resolution 2021-113 Appliances having large electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus 495.00 Res olution 2021-113 Building Permit Fees - Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical (Continued)

EXHIBIT A
806

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Fee Source
Annexation / Pre-Zoning $ 29,030.00 Resolution 2021-113 Appeal 3,956.00 Resolution 2021-113
Downtown Design Rev iew
Staff Level - Resolution 2021-113
Administrative Staff Level 1,520.00 Resolution 2021-113 Small Addition 4,749.00 Resolution 2021-113
Large Addition 8,231.00 Resolution 2021-113
Planning Commission Review 11,483.00 Resolution 2021-113 Amendment - Planning Commission Review 9,999.00 Resolution 2021-113 Site Plan Design Rev iew*
Construction of new nonresidential development or residential development containing 5 or more units (Planning Commision Review) 28,296.00 Resolution 2021-113 Construction of a nw condominium, duplex, or a multi-family residence containing 2, 3 or 4 units (Staff Level Review) 15,963.00 Resolution 2021-113 Major additions to non-residential development or additions of 5 or more units to a residential development (Planning Commision Review) 20,847.00 Resolution 2021-113 Minor non-residential additions or additions to a condomium, duplex, or a multi-family residence containing 2, 3, or 4 units (Staff Level Review) 10,051.00 Resolution 2021-113 Major exterior building, landscaping, or parking modifications (Staff Level Review) 2,690.00 Resolution 2021-113
Minor exterior building, landscaping such as new awnings, windows, doors and trim (Staff Level Review) 993.00 Resolution 2021-113 New or Amended Master Sign Program (Planning Commission Review) 2,261.00 Resolution 2021-113 New or replacement sign if not subject to a Master Sign Program (Staff Level Review) 561.00 Resolution 2021-113
Master Sign Approval - new sign conforming to an approved Master Sign Program (Staff Level Review) - Resolution 2021-113 Temporary Sign Registration 63.00 Resolution 2021-113 Temporary Use Permit
Seasonal & Carnivals 550.00 Resolution 2021-113 Model Home Complex / Construction Trailer 3,464.00 Resolution 2021-113 Non-Profit Temporary Uses 67.00 Resolution 2021-113 Home Occupation Permit 99.00 Resolution 2021-113 Variance
General 11,899.00 Resolution 2021-113
Minor General 5,114.00 Resolution 2021-113
Developed Residential 1,731.00 Resolution 2021-113 Minor for Developed Residential 893.00 Resolution 2021-113 Conditional Use Permit
Residential / Minor Non-residential 5,698.00 Resolution 2021-113 Conditional Use Permit* 11,740.00 Resolution 2021-113 Conditional use Permit Modification* 9,133.00 Resolution 2021-113 Z oning Use Permit
Zoning Use Permit 476.00 Resolution 2021-113
Zoning Use Permit – Large Family Daycare 404.00 Resolution 2021-113 Rezoning – Via Development Code or Map Amendment 11,007.00 Resolution 2021-113 Land Use Entitlements and Permits
* For new construction or additions, Conditional Use Permit must be combined with applicable site Plan Design Review fee. Applications involving both Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Design Review can be reduced by 10%.

EXHIBIT A
807

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Fee Source
Planning Dev elopment
Planned Development District $ 12,759.00 Resolution 2021-113 Planned Development District Amendment – Via LDC or Zoning Map Amendment 11,525.00 Resolution 2021-113
Planned Unit Development (South Livermore Valley Only) 12,759.00 Resolution 2021-113 Planned Unit Development Amendment 11,525.00 Resolution 2021-113 General / Specific Plan Fees
General / Specific Plan Amendment 19,080.00 Resolution 2021-113 Housing Implementation
Housing Implementation Program 14,243.00 Res. 2021-113; See staff report
Housing Implementation Program Amendment 9,597.00 Res. 2021-113; See staff report
Policy Proposal
Policy Proposal Actual Cost See staff report
Policy Proposal Am endm ent Actual Cost See staff report Municipal Code Amendment 27,670.00 Resolution 2021-113 Tentative Tract Map
Base fee 20,028.00 Resolution 2021-113
Plus per unit or per lot fee 104.00 Resolution 2021-113 Tentative Tract M ap Amendment – Public Hearing 13,252.00 Resolution 2021-113 Tentative Tract M ap Amendment/Extension – Staff Level 7,298.00 Resolution 2021-113 Tentative Parcel M ap – Public Hearing 15,326.00 Resolution 2021-113 Tentative Parcel M ap Amendment – Public Hearing 12,696.00 Resolution 2021-113 Tentative Parcel M ap Amendment/Extension - Staff Level 3,002.00 Resolution 2021-113 Miscellaneous Fees
Development Agreement - No Policy Change 17,254.00 Resolution 2021-113 Development Agreement - Policy Change (per policy) 23,163.00 Resolution 2021-113 Development Agreement - Minor Staff Level 9,809.00 Resolution 2021-113 Open Space/Agricultural Easements 8,722.00 Resolution 2021-113 Lot Line Adjustment/Certificate of Compliance 3,536.00 Resolution 2021-113 Certificate of Appropriateness – Historic Preservation Commission 550.00 Resolution 2021-113 Certificate of Appropriateness – Staff 110.00 Resolution 2021-113 City Wide General Plan - cost recovery $0.39/sf Resolution 2021-113 Downtown Specific Plan - cost recovery $0.31/sf Resolution 2021-113 Parcel M ap Waiver – Staff Level 5,525.00 Resolution 2021-113 Out of Area Service Agreement 23,170.00 Resolution 2021-113 Consistency Determination – Planning Commission 8,537.00 Resolution 2021-113 Tree Removal Permit - Commercial 807.00 Resolution 2021-113 Secondary Dwelling Unit 660.00 See Staff Report Reasonable Accommodations 190.00 Resolution 2021-113 Zoning Clearance (e.g. exterior building modificaitons including awnings, window,s doors and trim - all zones) 465.00 Resolution 2021-113 Zoning Clearance - New single family residence or significant remodel of existing single family residence in Transect zones 724.00 Resolution 2021-113 E nv ironmental Fees
CEQA Filing Fee – Alameda County Recorder/City Admin Actual Cost Resolution 2021-113 CEQA Environmental Impact Report – Set-Up, RFP 9,265.00 Resolution 2021-113 CEQA Environmental Impact Report – Deposit 20% of contract amount to City Actual Cost
Res. 2021-113; see staff
report
Land Use Entitlements and Permits (Continued)
*Users pay for maintenance costs on an annual basis based on relative waste volume: user’s volume of bins divided by total volume of bins in trash enclosure.

EXHIBIT A
808

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Fee Sourc e
CEQA Negative Declaration $ 6,374.00 Resol ution 2021-113 CEQA Negative Declaration – Fish & Wildlife Fee * Actual Cost Resol ution 2021-113 CEQA Environmental Impact Report – Fish & Wildlife Fee * Actual Cost Resol ution 2021-113 CEQA Notice of Exemption 190.00 Resol ution 2021-113 W illiamson Act
Williamson Act Contract Creation 8,548.00 Resol ution 2021-113 Williamson Act Contract Cancellation 11,365.00 Resol ution 2021-113 Research
Staff Time Per Hour 190.00 Resolution 2021-113 * This is not a City fee. Fee is charged by California Fish and Wildlife Department.

Land Use Entitlements and Permits (Continued)

Description Fee Source
Encroachment Permit
Simple Plan Check / Processing Fee 173.00 $ Resolution 2021-113 Simple - Inspection 463.93 Resolution 2021-113 Major - Inspection 714.00 Resolution 2021-113 Telecom Encroachment Permit - Basic Project
Permit Processing Fee 541.00 Resolution 2021-113 Simple Plan Check Fee 760.00 Resolution 2021-113 Simple Inspection Fee (up to 2 days of work) 173.00 Resolution 2021-113 Telecom Encroachment Permit - Major Project (1)
Plan Check Fee Up to $250,000 Project Valuation 8.35% Resolution 2021-113 Plan Check Fee $250,000 - $1,000,000 Project Valuation 4.22% Resolution 2021-113 Plan Check Fee $1,000.001 + Project Valuation 3.34% Resolution 2021-113 Project Inspection Fee Up to $5,000 Project Valuation 25.42% Resolution 2021-113 Project Inspection Fee $5,001 - $25,000 Project Valuation 9.11% Resolution 2021-113 Project Inspection Fee $25,001 + Project Valuation 5.08% Resolution 2021-113 Inspection Fee per day (beyond 2 days of work) = one hour per day or T&M
371.00 Resolution 2021-113
Grading (Cut and Fill)
0 - 100 Cubic Yards (Cut and Fill) 258.00 Resol ution 2021-113 101 - 1,000 CY 343.00 Resolution 2021-113
1,000 - 10,000 CY 515.00 Resol ution 2021-113 10,001 - 100,000 CY 1,116.00 Resol ution 2021-113 100,001 - 200,000 CY 1,459.00 Resol ution 2021-113 Each Add'l 10,000 CY or portion thereof 85.00 Resol ution 2021-113 Transportation (Engineering - Fee set by the State)
Transportation Permit Single Trip (2) 16.00 Resolution 2021-113 Transportation Permit Annual (2) 90.00 Resolution 2021-113 Transportation Permit Repetitive (2) 90.00 Resolution 2021-113 (1) These fees are cumulative over the various project value ranges. (2) Transportation Permit fees are set by State of California and are not adjusted annually by City of Livermore Encroachment and Miscellaneous Permit Fees

EXHIBIT A
809

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Fee Source
Maps (Deposits)
Tract/Parcel Map Check (up to 10 lots) 10,155.00$ Resolution 2021-113 Each additional lot over 10 128.00 Resolution 2021-113 Parcel M ap Waiver M ap Check 6,416.00 Resolution 2021-113 Improvement Plan Check - Project Evaluation (1)
Improvement Plan Check - Project Val. Up to $250,000 8.35% Res. 2021-113; no change Improvement Plan Check - Project Val. $250,000 - $1,000,000 4.22% Res. 2021-113; no change Improvement Plan Check - Project Val. Over $1,000.001 3.34% Res. 2021-113; no change Private In-Tract & Public Improvements
Each Add'l Plan Check after 3 reviews (collected prior to 4th and each subsequent review) 861.00 Resolution 2021-113 Subdivision Agreement Amendment / Extention 859.00 Resolution 2021-113 Subdivision Inspection - Project Valuation (1)
Subdivision Inspection - Project Val. Up to $250,000 9.71% Res. 2021-113; no change Subdivision Inspection - Project Val. $250,000 - $1,000,000 8.95% Res. 2021-113; no change Subdivision Inspection - Project Val. Over $1,000,001 6.57% Res. 2021-113; no change Certificate of Compliance
Certificate of Compliance (Engineering fee only, see planning appication fee)
760.00 Resolution 2021-113
Miscellaneous Fess
FEM A LOM R 343.00 Resolution 2021-113
FEM A LOM A 3,435.00 Resolution 2021-113
Lot Line Adjustment 5,850.00 Resolution 2021-113 Abandonment / Vacation 13,711.00 Resolution 2021-113 Floodplan Determination 104.00 Resolution 2021-113 O & M Agreement/Stormwater Plan Check Fee 10,992.00 Resolution 2021-113 Stormwater Inspection Fee 1,767.00 Resolution 2021-113 (1) These fees are cumulative over the various project value ranges.

Maps and Improvement Plans

EXHIBIT A
810

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Fee Sour ce
Fire Sprinkler - New Systems:1-20 appl 776.00$ Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - New Systems:21-100 appl 1,294.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - New Systems:101-200 appl 1,812.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - New Systems:201-350 appl 2,071.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - New Syst: 351-1,000 appl 2,329.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - New each add'l 50 appl above 351 up to 999 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - New Syst: 1,000+ appl 4,141.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - New each add'l 100 appl above 1000 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - Tl: 1-4 appl 519.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - Tl: 5-20 appl 776.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - Tl: 21-100 appl 1,034.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - Tl: 101-200 appl 1,423.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - Tl: 201-350 appl 1,682.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - Tl: 351-1,000 appl 1,812.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - Tl: each add'I 25 appl above 351 up to 999 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - Tl: 1,000+ appl 3,106.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - Tl: each add'l 100 appl above 1000 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - R3 up to 3,600 sq ft 1,553.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - R3 each add'l 1,800 sq ft 776.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - Antifreeze Syst. - in addition to fire sprinkler system cost 647.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - Dry Pipe Valve - in addition to fire sprinkler system cost 453.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - Deluge/ Preaction - in addition to fire sprinkler system cost 907.00 Resolution 2021-113 Pre-engineered Fire Protection System (kitchen suppression, etc) 647.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - Clean Agent Gas Syst. 1,165.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - Dry Chem Syst. 1,165.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Sprinkler - Foam Syst. - in addition to fire sprinkler system cost 1,034.00 Resolution 2021-113 Underground Syst: 1-3 devices 1,229.00 Resolution 2021-113 Underground Syst: each add'l device a 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Pump, Each 4,141.00 Resolution 2021-113
Fire Pump: Haz Mat Review (fuel) 1,034.00 Resolution 2021-113 Water Storage Tank - Gravity 1,034.00 Resolution 2021-113 Water Storage Tank - Pressure 1,074.00 Resolution 2021-113 Other Pre-Engineered Suppr System (building, full room system) 1,294.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Standpipe System 1,294.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Alarm Syst: 1-15 Initiation devices 1,034.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Alarm Syst: 16-50 initiation devices 1,553.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Alarm Syst: 51-100 initiation devices 1,941.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Alarm Syst: 101-1000 initiation devices 2,200.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Alarm Syst: each add'l group of 50 devices over 1,000 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Spray Paint Booth (up to 2) 1,423.00 Resolution 2021-113 Spray Paint Booth: each add'l over 2 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Propane Tank (LPG) 1,034.00 Resolution 2021-113 Above Ground Tank Removal (over 400 gal): First two tanks 1,294.00 Resolution 2021-113 Above Ground Tank Removal (over 400 gal): each additional tank 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 a Fire hydrants, standpipe inlets/outlets, backflow preventors, fire department connections, etc.

Fire Prevention - Construction Services

EXHIBIT A
811

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Fee Source
Compressed Gas System High Hazard - installation, modification, closure (hourly) 259.00$ Resolution 2021-113 Compressed Gas Syst - non high haz (hourly) 776.00 Resolution 2021-113 Medical Gas - Level 1(lg) 2,407.00 Resolution 2021-113 Medical Gas - Level 3 1,034.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cryogenic Tank 1,034.00 Resolution 2021-113
Emergency Generator w/ Fuel Tank 1,294.00 Resolution 2021-113 Propane Exchange Rack 519.00 Resolution 2021-113 Vehicle Access Gate, not part of a building permit 431.00 Resolution 2021-113 Refrigerant System 1,034.00 Resolution 2021-113 High piled storage of combustibles - Class I-IV 2,500 sq ft - 12,000 sq. ft. 776.00 Resolution 2021-113 High piled storage of combustibles - Class I-IV 12,001 sq ft - 500,000 sq ft 1,034.00 Resolution 2021-113 High piled storage of combustibles - High Hazard 1,553.00 Resolution 2021-113 Smoke Control System 2,200.00 Resolution 2021-113 SPAs, CUP, PUD 195.00 Resolution 2021-113 Each site inspection after twice failed inspection (hourly) 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 UST - Removal (hourly) 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 UST - Removal: each additional tank over 2 259.00 Res. 2021-113; See staff report
UST tank top, monitoring system etc. (hourly) 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 High-Rise (hourly) 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Alarm Monitoring Equipment change/replacement - Other b (hourly) 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Monitoring System Only (Water flow, associated equipment, Central Station)

25.00 Res. 2021-113; See staff
report
Fire Alarm communication modifications (hourly) 259.00 See Staff Report Underground storage tank installation (UST) - includes 2 tanks 6,212.00 Resolution 2021-113 Underground storage tank installation - each additional tank 519.00 Resolution 2021-113 b Like-for-like replacement of panels, initiating devices and/or notification appliances, etc Fire Prevention - Construction Services (Con't)

EXHIBIT A
812

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Fee Sour ce
Program Base Fees
Base Permit - Level 1 1,553.00$ Resolution 2021-113 Base Permit - Level 2 907.00 Resolution 2021-113 Base Permit - Level 3 647.00 Resolution 2021-113 Base Permit - Level 4 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Hot Work Operations
<551 cu ft 129.00 Resolution 2021-113
551 - 2,250 cu ft 195.00 Resolution 2021-113 2,251 - 10k cu ft 388.00 Resolution 2021-113 10k - 100k cu ft 519.00 Resolution 2021-113 100k - 200k cu ft 647.00 Resolution 2021-113 200k + cu ft 776.00 Resolution 2021-113 Liq Petroleum Gas: <226 gal 65.00 Resolution 2021-113 Liq Petroleum Gas: 226 - 500 gal 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Liq Petroleum Gas: 501 - 2k gal 195.00 Resolution 2021-113 Liq Petroleum Gas: 2k - 4k gal 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Liq Petroleum Gas: 4 - 6k gal 324.00 Resolution 2021-113 Liq Petroleum Gas: 6 + k gal 388.00 Resolution 2021-113 Liq/Gas Vehicles in Assembly 324.00 Resolution 2021-113 Lumber Yard or Woodworking Plant 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 M agnesium 259.00 Resolution 2021-113
Mall, Covered 2,329.00 Resolution 2021-113 Motor Vehicle Fuel Disp Station - no bulk 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Ovens, Industrial 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 POA: A-2 52.00 Resolution 2021-113
POA: A-1 78.00 Resolution 2021-113
POA: A-3 104.00 Resolution 2021-113
POA: A-4 129.00 Resolution 2021-113
POA: A-5 182.00 Resolution 2021-113
Pyrotech SpclEffects M aterial 519.00 Resolution 2021-113 Refrigeration Equipment 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Repair Garages 519.00 Resolution 2021-113 Rooftop Heliport 168.00 Resolution 2021-113 Spraying or Dipping 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Tires - Rebuilding Plant 168.00 Resolution 2021-113 Tire - Storage of Scrap 168.00 Resolution 2021-113 UST - 1 tank 2,071.00 Resolution 2021-113 UST - 2 tanks 3,106.00 Resolution 2021-113 UST - 3 tanks 3,818.00 Resolution 2021-113 UST - 4 tanks 4,583.00 Resolution 2021-113 UST - 5 tanks 5,340.00 Resolution 2021-113 UST - 6 tanks 5,824.00 Resolution 2021-113 Waste Handling 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Wood Products 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Pump 259.00 Resolution 2021-113
Hotel, Motel, Apartment - Level 4 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Hotel, Motel, Apartment - Level 3 583.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Prevention - Annual Fire Code & Unified Program Activity Fees

EXHIBIT A
813

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Fee Source
School - Private 1,127.00$ Resolution 2021-113 Highrise 1,488.00 Resolution 2021-113
Care Facility - Non Family Daycare 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Aerosol Products: < 55 gal 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Aerosol Products: 55 - 225 gal 149.00 Resolution 2021-113 Aerosol Products: 225 - 1,000 gal 195.00 Resolution 2021-113 Aerosol Products: 1k - 10k gal 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Aerosol Products: 10k - 20k gal 324.00 Resolution 2021-113 Aerosol Products: 20k + gal 388.00 Resolution 2021-113 Amusement Building 1,229.00 Resolution 2021-113 Aviation Facilities 388.00 Resolution 2021-113 Energy Storage System 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Candles in a Public Assembly 52.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cellulose Nitrate Film 195.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cellulose Nitrate Storage 195.00 Resolution 2021-113 Combustible Fibers 195.00 Resolution 2021-113 Combustible Dust-Producing Ops 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Combustible Material Storage - Misc 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Compressed Gas: High Haz < 200 cu ft 491.00 Resolution 2021-113 Compressed Gas: High Haz 200 - 500 cu ft 583.00 Resolution 2021-113 Compressed Gas: High Haz 501 - 1k cu ft 730.00 Resolution 2021-113 Compressed Gas: High Haz 1k - 2k cu ft 972.00 Resolution 2021-113 Compressed Gas: High Haz 2k - 3k cu ft 1,229.00 Resolution 2021-113 Compressed Gas: High Haz 3+ cu ft 1,488.00 Resolution 2021-113 Compressed Gas: Low Haz < 501 cu ft 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Compressed Gas: Low Haz 501 - 2250 cu ft 168.00 Resolution 2021-113 Compressed Gas: Low Haz 2,250 - 10k cu ft 206.00 Resolution 2021-113 Compressed Gas: Low Haz 10k - 100k cu ft 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Compressed Gas: Low Haz 100k - 200k cu ft 362.00 Resolution 2021-113 Compressed Gas: Low Haz 200k + cu ft 431.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cryogenics: High Haz <200 cu ft 712.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cryogenics: High Haz 201 - 500 cu ft 863.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cryogenics: High Haz 501 - 1k cu ft 1,078.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cryogenics: High Haz 1k - 2k cu ft 1,439.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cryogenics: High Haz 2k - 3k cu ft 1,812.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cryogenics: High Haz 3k+ cu ft 2,136.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cryogenics: Low Haz < 55 gal 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cryogenics: Low Haz 55 - 225 gal 162.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cryogenics: Low Haz 225 -1k gal 195.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cryogenics: Low Haz 1k - 10k gal 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cryogenics: Low Haz 10k - 20k gal 337.00 Resolution 2021-113 Cryogenics: Low Haz 20k + gal 414.00 Resolution 2021-113 Dry Cleaning Plant 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire Prevention - Annual Fire Code & Unified Program Activity Fees (Con't)

EXHIBIT A
814

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Fee Source
Explosives: 550 lbs 697.00$ Resolution 2021-113 Explosives: 551 - 2,250 lbs 842.00 Resolution 2021-113 Explosives: 2,251 - 10k lbs 1,049.00 Resolution 2021-113 Explosives: 10k - 100k lbs 1,398.00 Resolution 2021-113 Explosives: 100k - 200k lbs 1,747.00 Resolution 2021-113 Explosives: 200k + lbs 2,096.00 Resolution 2021-113 Flam/Comb Liq: Above Ground < 55 gal 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Flam/Comb Liq: Above Ground 55 - 225 gal 195.00 Resolution 2021-113 Flam/Comb Liq: Above Ground 225 - 1k gal 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Flam/Comb Liq: Above Ground 1k - 10k gal 337.00 Resolution 2021-113 Flam/Comb Liq: Above Ground 10k - 20k gal 404.00 Resolution 2021-113 Flam/Comb Liq: Above Ground 20k + gal 539.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fruit Ripening 155.00 Resolution 2021-113 HazMat Above Ground: < 55 gal 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 HazMat Above Ground: 55 - 225 gal 162.00 Resolution 2021-113 HazMat Above Ground: 225 -1k gal 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 HazMat Above Ground: 1k -10k gal 337.00 Resolution 2021-113 HazMat Above Ground: 10k - 20k gal 414.00 Resolution 2021-113 HazMat Above Ground: 20k + gal 441.00 Resolution 2021-113 Haz Waste Generator: CESQG 182.00 Resolution 2021-113 Haz Waste Generator: Lrg Quantity* 380.00 Res. 2021-113; see staff report
Haz Waste Generator: SQG 337.00 Resolution 2021-113 Haz Waste Treatment: CE only* 200.00 Res. 2021-113; see staff report
Haz Waste Treatment: CA, PBR* 400.00 Res. 2021-113; see staff report
Universal Waste Collection Site 1,034.00 Resolution 2021-113 High-Piled Combust Storage 466.00 Resolution 2021-113 * Fee determined by the department for the reasonable cost and not adjusted per annual CPI of 5.2% in February 2022.

Fire Prevention - Annual Fire Code & Unified Program Activity Fees (Con't)

EXHIBIT A
815

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Unit Fee Source
Candles and Open Flame in Assembly Per Event 129.00 $ Resolution 2021-113 Carnivals and Fairs Per Event 519.00 Resolution 2021-113 Exhibits and Trade Shows Per Event 725.00 Resolution 2021-113 Pyrotechnical Special Effects show Per Show 1,553.00 Resolution 2021-113 Temporary Membrane Structures Per Event 324.00 Resolution 2021-113 Seasonal Lots (Xmas, Pumpkin, etc.) Each Lot 324.00 Resolution 2021-113 Open Burning Per Application 129.00 Resolution 2021-113 Alternate Method Application - Hourly, not part of regular permit Per Hour 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Hydrant Flow Test, per area tested Per Area 519.00 Resolution 2021-113 Licensed Care Facilities - Fire Clearance (other than Single Family Home Residential Care) Each 595.00 Resolution 2021-113 Dump Houses Per Hour 259.00 Resolution 2021-113
Excessive False Alarms Each Occurance 776.00 Resolution 2021-113 Other Plan Checks and Inspections (such as but not limited to emergency repair/modification to fire protection system) Per Hour 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Off hours inspections (2 hour minimum charge) Hourly @ time and a half Per Hour 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Asbestos abatement Per Hour 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Fire code assessment/approval change of occupancy/use/equipment/access Per Hour 259.00 Resolution 2021-113 Service Required in Excess of Standard (due to size, occupancy uses or other than local regulations)
Per Hour 259.00 Resolution 2021-113
Fire Prevention - Miscellaneous Fees

EXHIBIT A
816

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Fee Sour ce
Police Permit
Bingo 330.00$ Resolution 2021-113 Card Room - License 289.00 Resolution 2021-113 Card Room - Renewal 225.00 Resolution 2021-113 Card Room - Employee Work Permit 225.00 Resolution 2021-113 Card Room - Employee Wk Permit Renewal 225.00 Resolution 2021-113 Dance Application 275.00 Resolution 2021-113 Food Vehicle Permit 225.00 Resolution 2021-113 Food Vehicle Renewal 225.00 Resolution 2021-113 M assage Establishment Permit 550.00 Resolution 2021-113 M assage Establishment Permit Renewal 225.00 Resolution 2021-113 M asseuse Permit 330.00 Resolution 2021-113 M asseuse Renewal 194.00 Resolution 2021-113 Taxicab Driver Permit 225.00 Resolution 2021-113 Renewal Taxicab Driver Permit 225.00 Resolution 2021-113 Taxicab Company Permit 550.00 Resolution 2021-113 Renewal Taxicab Company Permit 258.00 Resolution 2021-113 Vendor/Solicitor Permit 275.00 Resolution 2021-113 Vendor/Solicitor Permit Renewal 225.00 Resolution 2021-113 Property & E v idence Fees (Subpoena required)
911 Dispatch Cassette Recording 36.00 Resolution 2021-113; See staff report
Property Storage (per item) 84.00 Resolution 2021-113 Evidence Recording (CD) 35.00 Resolution 2021-113 Duplication of Video Tapes (including digital video) 67.00 Resolution 2021-113 Digital Photos per Sheet 12.00 Resolution 2021-113 CD-ROM Copy 22.00 Resolution 2021-113 Prints From Video 141.00 Resolution 2021-113 Multiple Photos (plus developing) 11.00 Res olution 2021-113 Gun Safekeeping/Stoarage (per weapon) 87.00 Resolution 2021-113 Sale of Police Reports
Police Report 11.00 Resolution 2021-113 Evidence Recording (per incident) 35.00 Resolution 2021-113 Background Check (SCIA) 32.00 Resolution 2021-113 Handicapped Citation Sign-Off 31.00 Resolution 2021-113 Clearance Letter 78.00 Resolution 2021-113 ABC Clearance Letter 63.00 Resolution 2021-113 ABC One Day Permits 191.00 Res olution 2021-113 Animal Control Fees
Deceased Pet Pick Up 128.00 Resolution 2021-113 Vehicle Fees
Stored Vehicle Release * 282.00 Resolution 2021-113 Impounded Vehicle * 282.00 Resolution 2021-113 Repossessed Vehicle Fee (Receipt) 16.00 Resolution 2021-113 Others
Citation Sign-off 11.00 Resolution 2021-113 Special Event Staff Charges
Per hour with overhead Actual costs + overhead Resolution 2021-113 * Not subject to the annual CPI increase as it is more than other area agencies' charges Police Department Fees

EXHIBIT A
817

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Unit Fee Source
Room Rental Fee varies by the group
Group - Livermore Public Library, Friends of the Livermore Public Library, City of Livermore, Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD), Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD), Las Positas College
Hourly fees Per hour per room None Resolution 2021-113 Daily fees Per day per room None Resolution 2021-113
Group - All others
Hourly Fees Per hour per room 21.00$ Res. 2021-113; no change Daily fees Per day per room 105.00 Res. 2021-113; no change Equipment Usage
Digital Projector Per day 27.00 Resolution 2021-113 Conference Phone Per day 27.00 Resolution 2021-113 Flip Chart/Dry Erase board with paper and pens Per day 16.00 Resolution 2021-113 Microphones Per day 11.00 Resolution 2021-113 Printing from computers / microfilm machine
Black & white Per page 0.10 Resolution 2021-113 Color Per page 0.25 Resolution 2021-113 Photocopying Per page 0.15 Resolution 2021-113 L ibrary Material Replacement Fees
Magazines and Paperback Books per item 5.00 Res. 2021-113; no change Music CDs per item 21.00 Res. 2021-113; no change Children's Books per item 21.00 Res. 2021-113; no change Educational Games per item 21.00 Res. 2021-113; no change DVDs per item 31.00 Res. 2021-113; no change M edia Kits per kit 31.00 Res. 2021-113; no change Adult / Teen Books per item 31.00 Res. 2021-113; no change Educational Toys per item 31.00 Res. 2021-113; no change Talking Books per item 52.00 Res. 2021-113; no change Console Games / Technology Items per item 52.00 Res. 2021-113; no change Higher Value Library Items per item 103.00-309.00 Res. 2021-113; see staff report M aterials Recovery Service Fee per referral 10.00 Res. 2021-113; no change Easy Access Keycard per card 5.00 Res. 2021-113; no change Link + M aterials * per item up to $115 Res. 2021-113; no change * A Link+ system-wide fee payable to the library that owns the borrowed item. The cost is set by the owning library.

Library Fees

EXHIBIT A
818

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Billing Unit Rate s Sour ce
Residential
Single Family Per Dwelling Unit Per Month 64.98$ Ordinance 2095 M ulti-family Per Dwelling Unit Per Month 53.17 Ordinance 2095 Commercial
All Non-Residential/Institutional Per Account Per Month 29.40 Ordinance 2095 Bakeries Per 100 cubic feet 11.05 Ordinance 2095 Commercial Laundries Per 100 cubic feet 6.88 Ordinance 2095 Markets w/ disposals Per 100 cubic feet 11.08 Ordinance 2095 Mortuaries Per 100 cubic feet 11.08 Ordinance 2095 Restaurants Per 100 cubic feet 11.05 Ordinance 2095 All Other Per 100 cubic feet 4.91 Ordinance 2095 Institutional
Institutional Per account Per Month 29.40 Ordinance 2095 Schools Per 100 cubic feet 4.78 Ordinance 2095 All Other Per 100 cubic feet 4.78 Ordinance 2095 Description Billing Unit Rate s Sour ce
Annual Loading Charges a
Volume M illion Gallons 966.52$ Ordinance 2095 BOD 1 1000 lbs 250.68 Ordinance 2095
SS 2 1000 lbs 203.75 Ordinance 2095
Peak Month Loading Charges b
Volume M illion Gallons/day 199,486.90 Ordinance 2095 BOD 1 lbs/day 13.06 Ordinance 2095
SS 2 lbs/day 7.18 Ordinance 2095
Connection each 2.87 Ordinance 2095
a Annual Loading Charges - These annual charges are billed monthly. b Peak Month Loading Charges - These charges are based on the peak month's characteristics for the previous fiscal year. 1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
2 Suspended Solids (SS)
Sewer Rates
Industrial and Miscellaneous Customers - Unit Charges

EXHIBIT A
819

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Rate s Sour ce
Weekly (4 per month) 13,124.61$ Ordinance 2095
Monthly 3,281.15 Ordinance 2095
Quarterly 1,093.72 Ordinance 2095
Semi-annually 546.85 Ordinance 2095
Annually 273.42 Ordinance 2095
Description Rate s Sour ce
Sampling (BOD, COD, SS, pH, oil grease)*
Composite Sample 709.11$ Ordinance 2095
Grab Sample 283.65 Ordinance 2095
Violation Follow-up
Composite Sample 1,418.23 Ordinance 2095
Grab Sample 567.30 Ordinance 2095
** Biochemical Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Suspended Solids (SS) Description Rate s Source
New Permits:

Rev iew Application and Inspection
Significant User 1,808.96$ Ordinance 2095
Intermediate User 904.47 Ordinance 2095
Permit Issuance
Significant User 339.18 Ordinance 2095
Intermediate User 169.60 Ordinance 2095
Renewal of Permits:

Rev iew Application and Inspection
Sig
nificant User 904.47 Ordinance 2095
Intermediate User 452.23 Ordinance 2095
Renewal Permit Issuance
Significant User 226.12 Ordinance 2095
Intermediate User 113.07 Ordinance 2095
Routine or Compliance Inspection
Significant User 339.18 Ordinance 2095
Intermediate User 226.12 Ordinance 2095
Permit Amendment
Significant User 113.07 Ordinance 2095
Intermediate User 56.53 Ordinance 2095
Hearings
Show Cause Hearing 760.70 Ordinance 2095
Enforcement Hearing 1,014.27 Ordinance 2095
Monitoring Fees
Permit Review, Issuance and Other Special Tasks
Source Control Annual User Charges

EXHIBIT A
820

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Billing Wate r Sale s Tax Total
Description Unit Meter 10.25% Price Source
Piston S R II Meters
5/8" Each $ 147.00 $ 15.07 $ 162.07 Resolution 2021-113 3/4" Each 180.00 18.45 198.45 Resolution 2021-113 1" Each 244.00 25.01 269.01 Resolution 2021-113 Displacement Meters

1.5" Each 605.61 62.08 667.69 See Staff Report 2" Each 757.30 77.62 834.92 See Staff Report
Omni C2 Meters

1.5" 2 Each 1,269.00 130.07 1,399.07 Resolution 2021-113 2" 2 Each 1,462.00 149.86 1,611.86 Resolution 2021-113 3" Each 1,854.00 190.04 2,044.04 Resolution 2021-113 4" Each 3,220.00 330.05 3,550.05 Resolution 2021-113 6" Each 5,562.00 570.11 6,132.11 Resolution 2021-113 8" Each 9,063.00 928.96 9,991.96 Resolution 2021-113 10" Each 11,711.00 1,200.38 12,911.38 Resolution 2021-113 Omni F2 Meters
4" Fireline M eter Each 7,648.00 783.92 8,431.92 Resolution 2021-113 6" Fireline M eter Each 10,194.00 1,044.89 11,238.89 Resolution 2021-113 8" Fireline M eter Each 15,238.00 1,561.90 16,799.90 Resolution 2021-113 10" Fireline M eter Each 21,797.00 2,234.19 24,031.19 Resolution 2021-113 Omni R2 Meters Resolution 2021-113

1.5" 2 Each 571.00 58.53 629.53 Resolution 2021-113 2" 2 Each 798.00 81.80 879.80 Resolution 2021-113 Omni T2 Meters

1.5" 2 Each 916.00 93.89 1,009.89 Resolution 2021-113 2" 2 Each 1,090.00 111.73 1,201.73 Resolution 2021-113 3" Each 1,360.00 139.40 1,499.40 Resolution 2021-113 4" Each 2,644.00 271.01 2,915.01 Resolution 2021-113 6" Each 4,761.00 488.00 5,249.00 Resolution 2021-113 8" Each 8,079.00 828.10 8,907.10 Resolution 2021-113 10" Each 10,534.00 1,079.74 11,613.74 Resolution 2021-113 Registers

1.5" thru 2" SR TR/PL electronic Each 75.00 7.69 82.69 Res. 2021-113; See Staff Report
5/8" thru 1" SRII TR/PL electronic Each 147.00 15.07 162.07 Resolution 2021-113 Endpoints
520M Flex Net MTX unit Single port Each 161.00 16.50 177.50 Resolution 2021-113 Misc Parts
Meter Adaptor (A47) Each 198.84 20.38 219.22 Resolution 2021-113 Meter Adaptor (A34) Each 26.40 2.71 29.11 Resolution 2021-113 Tail Piece 5/8, 3/4 Each 12.90 1.32 14.22 Resolution 2021-113 Tail Piece 1" Each 18.55 1.90 20.45 Resolution 2021-113

1.5" flange Each 56.48 5.79 62.27 Resolution 2021-113 2" Flange Each 73.74 7.56 81.30 Resolution 2021-113 Brass Bolts Each 9.44 0.97 10.41 Resolution 2021-113 Brass Nut Each 2.25 0.23 2.48 Resolution 2021-113 * = Rate is the cost per the 3rd party, final rate will be based on the current price from the 3rd party and subject to change Water Meter Purchase Prices *

EXHIBIT A
821

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Unit Ra tes Source
Meter Serv ice Charges:
5/8" Meter - D Monthly 22.85$ Resolution 2021-113 3/4" Meter - D Monthly 30.46 Resolution 2021-113
1 " M eter w/Fire Line Monthly 22.85 Resolution 2021-113 1" Meter - D Monthly 45.66 Resolution 2021-113
1-1/2" Meter - D Monthly 83.68 Resolution 2021-113
1-1/2" Meter - T Monthly 98.89 Resolution 2021-113
2" Meter - D Monthly 129.31 Resolution 2021-113
2" Meter - T Monthly 152.12 Resolution 2021-113
3" Meter - T Monthly 338.42 Resolution 2021-113
4" Meter - T Monthly 577.95 Resolution 2021-113
6" Meter - T Monthly 1,224.29 Resolution 2021-113
8" Meter - T Monthly 2,136.79 Resolution 2021-113
10" Meter - T Monthly 3,201.35 Resolution 2021-113
1" Fire-Line M eter Monthly 2.82 Resolution 2021-113
1-1/2" Fire-Line Meter Monthly 4.23 Resolution 2021-113 2" Fire-Line M eter Monthly 5.63 Resolution 2021-113
3" Fire-Line M eter Monthly 8.44 Resolution 2021-113
4" Fire-Line M eter Monthly 11.25 Resolution 2021-113
6" Fire-Line M eter Monthly 16.86 Resolution 2021-113
8" Fire-Line M eter Monthly 22.48 Resolution 2021-113
10" Fire-Line M eter Monthly 28.08 Resolution 2021-113
Temporary Hydrant Meter Fee
1" or smaller Monthly 14.17 See Staff Report
3" Monthly 20.36 See Staff Report
Deposits
Residential
5/8" M eter Per M eter 100.00 Resolution 2021-113
1" M eter Per M eter 100.00 Resolution 2021-113
Other than residential
5/8" or 3/4" Meter Per M eter 100.00 Resolution 2021-113 1" or 1-1/2" Meter Per M eter 100.00 Resolution 2021-113 2" or 3" Meter Per M eter 200.00 Resolution 2021-113
4" or larger Meter Per M eter 400.00 Resolution 2021-113 Construction Meter Deposit
5/8", 3/4", and 1" Meter Per M eter 300.00 Resolution 2022-052 3" or larger Meter Per M eter 1,500.00 Resolution 2022-052 Meter Testing Fees
Meters up to 2" in size 100.00 Resolution 2021-113
Meters larger than 2" 200.00 Resolution 2021-113
Reconnection Fee **
First time restoration 60.00 Resolution 2021-113
Subsequent restoration in a 12-month period 80.00 Resolution 2021-113 Reconnection if the water meter is removed 100.00 Resolution 2021-113 Reconnection between hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. 250.00 Resolution 2021-113 M aster Lock Replacement Per Lock 15.00 See Staff Report Best Lock Replacement Per Lock 50.00 See Staff Report
** The City is in compliance with SB-998 Discontinuation of residential water service. If your household income is below 200% of the federal poverty line, and it is applicable to you, please contact (925) 960-4351.

Water Rates - effective July 1 to December 31, 2022

EXHIBIT A
822

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Unit Rates (b)
Source
Water Rates (a)
Normal Supply Voluntary Conservation
Single Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF (1) 1.25$ Resolution 2021-113 Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 1.74 Resolution 2021-113
M ulti-Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 HCF Per CCF 1.25 Resolution 2021-113
Tier II over 7 HCF Per CCF 1.74 Resolution 2021-113
Commercial, Institutional & Public Agency
Uniform Per CCF 1.35 Resolution 2021-113
Irrigation
Uniform Per CCF 1.74 Resolution 2021-113
Recycled 2
All per CCF Per CCF 3.30 Resolution 2021-113
Stage I - Voluntary 10% Water Conservation
Single Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 1.38 Resolution 2021-113
Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 1.92 Resolution 2021-113
M ulti-Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 1.38 Resolution 2021-113
Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 1.92 Resolution 2021-113
Commercial, Institutional & Public Agency
Uniform Per CCF 1.50 Resolution 2021-113
Irrigation
Uniform Per CCF 1.92 Resolution 2021-113
Stage II - Voluntary/Mandatory 20% Water Conservation
Single Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 1.53 Resolution 2021-113
Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 2.14 Resolution 2021-113
M ulti-Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 1.53 Resolution 2021-113
Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 2.14 Resolution 2021-113
Commercial, Institutional & Public Agency
Uniform Per CCF 1.65 Resolution 2021-113
Irrigation
Uniform Per CCF 2.14 Resolution 2021-113
(a) Water rates will be charged based upon the water conservation level in effect. (b) The rates shown here are the City charges only. Non-recycled ratepayers must pay the City service charge, the City variable charges, as well as the Zone 7 fixed and variable charges. (1) 1 CCF = 100 Cubic Feet of water or 1 "unit" of water (2) Recycled - "Normal" recycled water rates remain in effect in all stages of conservation Water Rates - effective July 1 to December 31, 2022 (Continued)

EXHIBIT A
823

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Unit Rates (b)
Source
Water Rates (a)
Stage III - Mandatory 35% Water Conservation
Single Family Residential
Ti
er I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF (1) 1.85$ Resolution 2021-113 Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 2.58 Resolution 2021-113 M ulti-Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 1.85 Resolution 2021-113 Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 2.58 Resolution 2021-113 Commercial, Institutional & Public Agency
Uniform Per CCF 2.00 Resolution 2021-113 Irrigation
Uniform Per CCF 2.58 Resolution 2021-113 Stage IV - Mandatory 50% Water Conservation
Single Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 2.36 Resolution 2021-113 Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 3.31 Resolution 2021-113 M ulti-Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 2.36 Resolution 2021-113 Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 3.31 Resolution 2021-113 Commercial, Institutional & Public Agency
Uniform Per CCF 2.56 Resolution 2021-113 Irrigation
Uniform Per CCF 3.31 Resolution 2021-113 (a) Water rates will be charged based upon the water conservation level in effect. (b) The rates shown here are the City charges only. Non-recycled ratepayers must pay the City service charge, the City variable charges, as well as the Zone 7 fixed and variable charges. (1) 1 CCF = 100 Cubic Feet of water or 1 "unit" of water Water Rates - effective July 1 to December 31, 2022 (Continued)

EXHIBIT A
824

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Unit Rates Source
Meter Service Charges:
5/8" Meter - D Monthly 22.92$ Resolution 2022-052
3/4" Meter - D Monthly 30.22 Resolution 2022-052
1 " Meter w/Fire Line Monthly 22.92 Resolution 2022-052 1" Meter - D Monthly 44.81 Resolution 2022-052
1-1/2" Meter - D Monthly 82.28 Resolution 2022-052
1-1/2" Meter - T Monthly 95.87 Resolution 2022-052
2" Meter - D Monthly 125.05 Resolution 2022-052
2" Meter - T Monthly 146.94 Resolution 2022-052
3" Meter - T Monthly 325.67 Resolution 2022-052
4" Meter - T Monthly 555.46 Resolution 2022-052
6" Meter - T Monthly 1,175.53 Resolution 2022-052
8" Meter - T Monthly 2,050.93 Resolution 2022-052
10" Meter - T Monthly 3,072.23 Resolution 2022-052
12" Meter - T Monthly 3,874.68 Resolution 2022-052
5/8" Fire-line Meter Monthly 1.27 Resolution 2022-052
3/4" Fire-line Meter Monthly 1.52 Resolution 2022-052
1" Fire-Line Meter Monthly 2.02 Resolution 2022-052
1-1/2" Fire-Line Meter Monthly 3.03 Resolution 2022-052 2" Fire-Line Meter Monthly 4.04 Resolution 2022-052
3" Fire-Line Meter Monthly 6.06 Resolution 2022-052
4" Fire-Line Meter Monthly 8.08 Resolution 2022-052
6" Fire-Line Meter Monthly 12.12 Resolution 2022-052
8" Fire-Line Meter Monthly 16.16 Resolution 2022-052
10" Fire-Line Meter Monthly 20.20 Resolution 2022-052
12" Fire-Line Meter Monthly 24.24 Resolution 2022-073
Temporary Hydrant Meter Fee
1" or smaller Monthly 14.17 See Staff Report
3" Monthly 20.36 See Staff Report
Deposits
Residential
5/8" Meter Per Meter 100.00 Resolution 2022-052
1" Meter Per Meter 100.00 Resolution 2022-052
Other than residential
5/8" or 3/4" Meter Per Meter 100.00 Resolution 2022-052 1" or 1-1/2" Meter Per Meter 100.00 Resolution 2022-052 2" or 3" Meter Per Meter 200.00 Resolution 2022-052
4" or larger Meter Per Meter 400.00 Resolution 2022-052 Construction Meter Deposit
5/8", 3/4", and 1" Meter Per Meter 300.00 Resolution 2022-052 3" or larger Meter Per Meter 1,500.00 Resolution 2022-052 Meter Testing Fees
Meters up to 2" in size 100.00 Resolution 2022-052
Meters larger than 2" 200.00 Resolution 2022-052
Reconnection Fee **
First time restoration 60.00 Resolution 2022-052
Subsequent restoration in a 12-month period 80.00 Resolution 2022-052 Reconnection if the water meter is removed 100.00 Resolution 2022-052 Reconnection between hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. 250.00 Resolution 2022-052 Master Lock Per Lock 15.00 See Staff Report
Best Lock Replacement Per Lock 50.00 See Staff Report
** The City is in compliance with SB-998 Discontinuation of residential water service. If your household income is below 200% of the federal poverty line, and it is applicable to you, please contact (925) 960-4351.

Water Rates - Effective January 1, 2023

EXHIBIT A
825

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Unit Rates (b)
Source *
Water Rates (a)
Recycled 1
Recycled Water Per CCF 2.74$ Resolution 2022-052 Normal Supply Conditions
Single Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF (2) 1.35 Resolution 2022-052 Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 1.95 Resolution 2022-052
M ulti-Family Residential
Uniform Per CCF 1.58 Resolution 2022-052
Non-residential
Uniform Per CCF 1.55 Resolution 2022-052
Irrigation
Uniform Per CCF 1.76 Resolution 2022-052
Stage I Shortage
Single Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 1.54 Resolution 2022-052
Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 2.14 Resolution 2022-052
M ulti-Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 1.77 Resolution 2022-052
Commercial, Institutional & Public Agency
Uniform Per CCF 1.74 Resolution 2022-052
Irrigation
Uniform Per CCF 1.95 Resolution 2022-052
Stage II - Voluntary/Mandatory 20% Water Conservation
Single Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 1.76 Resolution 2022-052
Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 2.36 Resolution 2022-052
M ulti-Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 1.99 Resolution 2022-052
Non-residential
Uniform Per CCF 1.96 Resolution 2022-052
Irrigation Resolution 2022-052
Uniform Per CCF 2.17 Resolution 2022-052
(a) Water rates will be charged based upon the water conservation level in effect. (b) The rates shown here are the City charges only. Non-recycled ratepayers must pay the City service charge, the City variable charges, as well as the Zone 7 fixed and variable charges. (1) Recycled - "Normal" recycled water rates remain in effect in all stages of conservation (2) 1 CCF = 100 Cubic Feet of water or 1 "unit" of water Water Rates - Effective January 1, 2023 (Continued)

EXHIBIT A
826

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Unit Rates (b)
Source
Water Rates (a)
Stage III Shortage
Single Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF (1) 2.05$ Resolution 2022-052 Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 2.65 Resolution 2022-052 M ulti-Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 2.28 Resolution 2022-052 Non-residential
Uniform Per CCF 2.25 Resolution 2022-052 Irrigation
Uniform Per CCF 2.46 Resolution 2022-052 Stage IV Shortage
Single Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 2.44 Resolution 2022-052 Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 3.04 Resolution 2022-052 M ulti-Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 2.67 Resolution 2022-052 Non-residential
Uniform Per CCF 2.64 Resolution 2022-052 Irrigation Resolution 2022-052
Uniform Per CCF 2.85 Resolution 2022-052 Stage V Shortage
Single Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 2.99 Resolution 2022-052 Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 3.59 Resolution 2022-052 M ulti-Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 3.22 Resolution 2022-052 Non-residential
Uniform Per CCF 3.19 Resolution 2022-052 Irrigation Resolution 2022-052
Uniform Per CCF 3.40 Resolution 2022-052 Stage VI Shortage
Single Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 3.75 Resolution 2022-052 Tier II over 7 CCF Per CCF 4.35 Resolution 2022-052 M ulti-Family Residential
Tier I 0 - 7 CCF Per CCF 3.98 Resolution 2022-052 Non-residential
Uniform Per CCF 3.95 Resolution 2022-052 Irrigation Resolution 2022-052
Uniform Per CCF 4.16 Resolution 2022-052 (a) Water rates will be charged based upon the water conservation level in effect. (b) The rates shown here are the City charges only. Non-recycled ratepayers must pay the City service charge, the City variable charges, as well as the Zone 7 fixed and variable charges. (1) 1 HCF = 100 Cubic Feet of water or 1 "unit" of water Water Rates - Effective January 1, 2023 (Continued)

EXHIBIT A
827

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Unit Fee Source
Facility
Paved, Open Aircraft Tie-Down
0 - 3,500 pounds (Certified max. gross take-off weight) Monthly $ 76.00 No change; Note 1 3,501 - 6,250 pounds Monthly 87.00 No change; Note 1 6,215 - 12,500 pounds Monthly 105.00 No change; Note 1 12,501 - 25,000 pounds Monthly 126.00 No change; Note 1 25,001 - 50,000 pounds Monthly 157.00 No change; Note 1 50,001 pounds and above Monthly 205.00 No change; Note 1 Small T-Hangar Rental Monthly 408.00 Res olution 2021-113 Medium T- Hangar Rental Monthly 441.00 Res olution 2021-113 Large T-Hangar Rental Monthly 542.00 Res olution 2021-113 Hangar No. 272* Rental Monthly 486.00 Res olution 2021-113 Hangar No. 191* Rental Monthly 729.00 Res olution 2021-113 Rectangular Hangar (45' door) Rental Monthly 717.00 Res olution 2021-113 Rectangular Hangar (48' door) Rental Monthly 770.00 Res olution 2021-113 Executive Hangar, Small Hangar Rental** Monthly 1,744.00 Res olution 2021-113 Executive Hangar, Large Hangar Rental ** Monthly 1,897.00 Res olution 2021-113 Shelter Rental Monthly 244.00 Res olution 2021-113 T-Combo, North (Small) Monthly 651.00 Res olution 2021-113 T-Combo, North (Medium) Monthly 693.00 Res olution 2021-113 T-Combo, South (Small) Monthly 661.00 Res olution 2021-113 T-Combo, South (Medium) Monthly 693.00 Res olution 2021-113 T-Combo, South (Large) Monthly 822.00 Res olution 2021-113 Landing Fees: Commercial Aircraft Operations (shall include landings of all non-based general aviation aircraft that conduct air taxi, charter, or cargo operations under FAR Part 121 or Part 135) based on ma
ximum certificated gross landing weight:

Per Landing 3.00 No change; Note 2
Daily 6.00 No change; Note 2
Monthly 14.00 No change; Note 2
Per Landing 6.00 No change; Note 2
Daily 12.00 No change; Note 2
Monthly 28.00 No change; Note 2
Per Landing 12.00 No change; Note 2
Daily 24.00 No change; Note 2
Monthly 56.00 No change; Note 2
Per Landing 24.00 No change; Note 2
Daily 48.00 No change; Note 2
Monthly 112.00 No change; Note 2
Per Landing 48.00 No change; Note 2
Daily 96.00 No change; Note 2
Monthly 224.00 No change; Note 2
Per Landing 96.00 No change; Note 2
Daily 192.00 No change; Note 2
Monthly 448.00 No change; Note 2
* These Hangars are odd-sized and contain additional space. electrical charges.

Airport Fees
0 - 3,500 pounds
3,501 - 6,250 pounds
6,251 - 12,500 pounds
12,501 - 25,000 pounds
25,001 - 50,000 pounds
50,001 pounds and above
** The City may separately invoice Executive Hangar tenants with a month-to-month lease for any amount over $100 in Note 1: Rate is reasonable, and the occupancy rate is only at 9% capacity.

Note 2: Rate is reasonable; airport staff compared with the rates charged by other area airports.

EXHIBIT A
828

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Description Unit Fee Source
Transient Aircraft Parking Fees (8 to 24 hours, and any 24-hour period thereafter)
0 - 3,500 pounds (Gross Weight) $ 6.00 Resolution 2021-113 3,501 - 6,250 pounds 8.00 Resolution 2021-113 6,215 - 12,500 pounds 16.00 Resolution 2021-113 12,501 - 25,000 pounds 21.00 Resolution 2021-113 25,001 - 50,000 pounds 32.00 Resolution 2021-113 50,001 pounds and above (designated apron only) 43.00 Resolution 2021-113 Long-Term Vehicle Parking Monthly 50.00 No change; Note 2 Annual Commercial Aviation Permit Fee Yearly 150.00 No change; Note 2 Gate Card Replacement Fee 20.00 No change; Note 2 Hangar Key Purchase - additional key Per key 5.00 See staff report Hangar Re-core 87.00 See staff report
Hangar Wait List Deposit for T-Hangars 204.00 See staff report Hangar Wait List Deposit for Box Hangars 365.00 See staff report Fuel Flowage Fees - per gallon delivered 0.11 Resolution 2021-113 Commercial Filming Fees (up to 8 hours, plus $500 per hour thereafter. Staff assistance charges are separate)
On Airport operations area 2,500.00 No change; Note 2 On Landside public area 1,000.00 No change; Note 2 Beyond eight (8) hours Hour 500.00 No change; Note 2 Filming assistance
Airport safety staff Hour 125.00 No change; Note 2 Airport management staff Hour 163.00 No change; Note 2 Hangar Administration Fee 50.00 No change; Note 2 Late Charges and Interest***
Late Charges if monthly rent not paid by the 10th day of each month 5% of Monthly
Rent Resolution 2021-113
Interest on late payments Monthly 0.5% Resolution 2021-113 *** If all charges are not paid within 30 days from the due date, the City may terminate the lease.

Note 2: Rate is reasonable; airport staff compared with the rates charged by other area airports.

Airport Fees

EXHIBIT A
829

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 7.2

DATE:

June 27, 2022
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Paul Spence, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:

Receive Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission 20-Year Report on Measure D and discussion and direction regarding amendments to Alameda County’s East County Area Plan, South Livermore Valley Area Plan, and Alameda County Zoning Code

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff Recommends the City Council:

1 .

Receive the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission’s 20-Year Report on Measure D and LAFCo staff presentation; and
2 .

Provide discussion and direction on the proposed amendments to Alameda County’s East County Area Plan, South Livermore Valley Area Plan, and Alameda County Zoning Code.

SUMMARY
The South Livermore Valley is well suited for viticulture. After decades of vineyard loss, Pleasanton, Livermore, and Alameda County enacted a series of planning reforms (including Measure D) that stabilized the wine country. Today, however, the South Livermore Valley’s agricultural economy is largely stagnant. For that reason, Alameda County is considering a November ballot initiative to amend Measure D (this is separate and distinct from the City’s South Livermore sewer extension ballot initiative).

The Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) has prepared an impartial 20-Year report that analyzed Measure D’s effectiveness at balancing open space preservation and agriculture.

Based on the report and recommendations they received from the Tri-Valley Conservancy and various stakeholders, including Measure D’s co-author Dick Schneider, LAFCo is recommending text changes to Alameda County’s planning documents to continue to protect and enhance agricultural and open space land, but allow more flexibility for the size and location of buildings and expand the permitted wine country visitor serving uses.

City staff finds the LAFCo recommendations support Livermore’s General Plan goals to protect and 830
enhance agricultural land and promote South Livermore as a premier wine producing region but recommends small revisions and clarifications to ensure compatibility and continued coordination.

DISCUSSION
Background

South Livermore Valley

The Livermore Valley is located approximately 30 miles east of San Francisco, is oriented in an east- west direction, and has gravelly well-drained soils. The valley’s orientation, geography, and geology promote ideal conditions for viticulture. As such, commercial vineyards began here in the 1880s. By 1900, the region gained international notoriety and hosted over 50 wineries and 5,000 acres of vineyards, including winemakers like Wente, Concannon, and Wetmore.

However, the strength of the valley’s wine industry weakened during the early-to-mid 20th century due to the depression, prohibition, infestation and urban conversion. By the late 1960s, only six wineries and 1,500 planted acres remained.

The stark reduction in planted area prompted the City of Livermore, the City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, and members of the public to take action to stop the decline. The effort culminated in the County’s 1993 South Livermore Valley Area Plan (Area Plan), Livermore’s 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (Specific Plan), and the Measure D ballot initiative passed by Alameda County voters in 2000. All three planning tools work together to balance development and protect open space and agriculture in the South Livermore Valley. In addition, the City of Livermore adopted its own South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 2000 to further the Area Plan goals, protect and promote the wine country, and facilitate the City’s South Livermore Valley Specific Plan

However, due to weaker market demand, land costs, and the financial risks of small-scale wine-country commercial uses (e.g. inn, bed and breakfast, winery, tasting room, restaurant), commercial site development has not been as strong as anticipated. Of the City's 17 Specific Plan commercial sites, only three have been developed (Cuda Ridge, Dante Robere, and Las Positas wineries). In addition, the east county agricultural economy is largely stagnant. Although revenue may be sufficient to cover annual operating expenses, it is often not sufficient to cover the amortized expenses of establishing a vineyard or to generate a return on the investment in the vineyard.

For these reasons, the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission proposes the planning document changes discussed in the
LAFCo and Alameda County Review and Next Steps
section of this
report to make the South Livermore Valley more economically sustainable for cultivated agriculture.

Measure D

In November 2000, the Alameda County electorate approved the Save Agriculture and Open Space Lands Initiative (Measure D). The Initiative amended portions of the County General Plan, including the East County Area Plan (ECAP).

The primary components of Measure D include amending the County’s Urban Growth Boundary (Attachment 4); increasing restrictions on building intensity, minimum parcel sizes and permitted uses in 831
rural areas of the County; establishing that all County planning policies and zoning regulations must be consistent with provisions of Measure D; and mandating that any changes to the land use designations, building intensity or minimum parcel sizes as established by Measure D be subject to a new vote of the County electorate. By May of 2002, Alameda County completed and adopted its corresponding amendments to the applicable Alameda County General Plan (the East County Area Plan), effectively eliminating new urban development within unincorporated east County.

LAFCo and Alameda County Review and Next Steps

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors has considered at least two amendments to the East County Area Plan since Measure D was adopted, none of which have been implemented. In 2020, Alameda County convened a stakeholder group to discuss potential Measure D modifications that would protect and enhance open space land but allow more flexibility for wine country and agricultural uses. Members of the group included wineries, equestrian facility operators, agricultural property owners, open space advocates including the Tri-Valley Conservancy, and Measure D’s co-author, Dick Schneider.

In 2021, the Alameda County Agricultural Advisory Committee, the Board of Supervisors’ Transportation and Planning Committee, and other advisory bodies considered draft language to amend Measure D to better balance multiple stakeholders’ interests. Implementation of such amendments could occur through technical modifications or a ballot measure during the November 2022 elections. Any proposed initiative is distinct and separate from the City-Council-sponsored ballot measure to extend sewer service beyond Livermore’s South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary.

To help inform deliberations and potential future decisions on the upcoming modifications to Alameda County’s planning documents, LAFCo has conducted a 20-year review of Measure D to provide objective data and is presenting proposed text amendments prepared by stakeholders. As a state-mandated agency that acts on boundary matters, LAFCo is an independent agency and is empowered to seek a balance between competing land use interests, like those in the South Livermore Valley. LAFCo is seeking local jurisdiction comments on the proposed text changes and will be available at the June 27th City Council meeting for discussion. City comments are requested by July 5th, and will be provided to the LAFCo board on July 14th. Mayor Woerner currently serves as a City member on the Alameda County LAFCo board. LAFCo recommendations will ultimately be presented to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors for consideration.

Findings

A summary of LAFCo’s findings can be found below. For a complete discussion of findings, please review LAFCo’s 20-Year Report (Attachment 3).

Measure D has been highly effective at creating infill development within existing east Alameda County cities (i.e. Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore).

The east County area has lost several thousand acres of Prime farmland since 1984, but most loss occurred within the established Measure D Urban Growth Boundary and due to state reclassification of Prime Farmland to Statewide Important or Unique Farmland.

Revenue of east County agricultural operators remains stagnant.

Of related counties studied, Alameda County has the most permissive standards regarding winery- related and equine uses.

Of related counties studied, Alameda County has the most restrictive development standards 832
regarding development standards Building Size (measured with Floor Area Ratio metric) and Building Envelopes.

Recommendations

A summary of LAFCo’s recommendations can be found below. For a complete discussion of recommendations, please review LAFCo’s Proposed Amendments (Attachment 2).

Amend East County Area Plan to add new definitions for “Subordinate,” “Agricultural Building” and “Promote.”
Clarifications that wineries are permitted agricultural uses, but tasting rooms are visitor serving uses.

Acknowledging that sewer connection is an option along with septic systems for waste water treatment.

Amend the South Livermore Valley Area Plan to increase Floor Area Ratios to allow larger agricultural buildings and allow for clustering of development. Approximately 90% of each parcel would be planted with agriculture.

Prohibit Industrial Hemp and Cannabis cultivation in the South Livermore Valley Area Plan.

Amend Alameda County Zoning Code to allow for development clustering and to increase the types of visitor-serving uses in the Cultivated Agriculture Combining District. Proposed conditional uses include hot air balloon operations, day spas, artisan furniture workshops, boutique cannabis dispensaries, and a 140-room resort hotel.

A boutique cannabis dispensary includes educational or informational features or activities, or other features or activities designed to enhance customer experience or highlight attractions or characteristics of the local region.

City Staff Review

General Plan Consistency

Staff has reviewed the recommended changes to Alameda County’s planning documents and has found that they support Livermore’s General Plan policies that seek to enhance the viability and strength of wine country, as follows:

Goal LU-13: Promote the South Livermore Valley as a unique and historic wine region.

Objective LU-13.1 Develop additional wineries with a range of sizes, and other wine-country uses that promote the area as a premier wine-producing area.

Goal LU-14 Take a proactive approach to protect, enhance, and increase viticulture and other cultivated agriculture.

Goal LU-17: Coordinate land use planning of the area between Alameda County and the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton so as to increase certainty over future land uses and to reduce speculation.

Recommendations

Staff had previously reviewed and supported LAFCo's 20-Year Review via comment letter (Attachment 5). Further, staff is generally supportive of the recently proposed text amendments and finds them consistent with Livermore's General Plan and beneficial to the agricultural viability of the South Livermore 833
Valley, but does have the following recommendations:

Clarify with LAFCo the number and type of cannabis dispensaries that would be permitted in the South Livermore Valley.

Commercial cannabis sales are currently prohibited within Livermore’s city limits. Current County policy would allow for up to three dispensaries in the east county area, one of which would be required to include a boutique component or components.

Staff recommends that any dispensaries permitted in the South Livermore Valley area retain the County's boutique designation or be required to have a substantial connection to agriculture and the South Livermore Valley wine country. Substantial connection could mean that items sold would include, or be combined with, products that were grown, made, harvested, or otherwise produced in the greater south Livermore Valley or Tri-Valley area.

Substantial connection does not include hemp or cannabis cultivation activities.

Staff further recommends that the County retain a limit on the number of dispensaries permitted in east county and South Livermore.

Clarify with LAFCO the requirements of Program CCC (prohibition of commercial cultivation and production of cannabis and hemp) and its intent.

How does the County define "commercial cultivation and production?" Would non-commercial (e.g. agricultural) cultivation and production be allowed? Request that final text amendments include provisions about airport compatibility.

The proposed “hot air balloon rides and operations” use shall be reviewed for compatibility with the Livermore Municipal Airport consistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Request continued involvement with LAFCo and Alameda County regarding the proposed text amendments to Alameda County planning documents and Measure D ballot initiative language.

Request coordination with LAFCo and Alameda County regarding the proposed City-sponsored ballot initiative to extend sewer service beyond Livermore’s South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

Interagency coordination and review of proposed text amendments is not considered a “project” under California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. A project is defined as: the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Alameda County would be required to conduct a CEQA review as the lead agency if text amendments are proposed.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS

None.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Findings and Conclusions

2. Proposed Amendments

3. 20 Year Review of Measure D

4. Alameda County Urban Growth Boundary
834

5. City Letter

Prepared by: Jake Potter
Associate Planner

Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
835

LAFCO
Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission

Administrative Office
Rachel Jones, Executive Officer
224 West Winton Avenue, Suite 110
Hayward, California 94544
T: 510.670.6267
www.alamedalafco.org
Bob Woerner, Regular
City of Livermore
Melissa Hernandez, Reg
City of Dublin
Karla Brown, Alternate
City of Pleasanton
Ralph Johnson, Regular
Castro Valley Sanitary District
Ayn Wieskamp, Regular
East Bay Regional Park District
Georgean Vonheeder-Leopold, Alternate
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Sblend Sblendorio, Chair
Public Member
John Marchand, Alternate
Public Member

Nate Miley, Regular
County of Alameda
David Haubert, Regular
County of Alameda
Dave Brown, Alternate
County of Alameda

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE
May 25, 2022
SUBJECT: MEASURE D REPORT | FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The report has been commissioned to provide objective information and data that may better inform deliberations and potential future policy decisions pertaining to Measure D and Alameda County’s East County Area Plan (ECAP). The purpose of the report is to review whether Measure D’s land use policies and regulations may be contributing or suppressing agriculture and open space needs in the region.

A summary of key conclusions and findings follows:

Effective Containing Urbanization within UGBs
Measure D and its subsequent amendments to the County’s ECAP have been highly effective in directing that urbanization occur in the East County cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore, and not on prime agricultural land or important open spaces outside of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).

No amendments to the UGB have been made, and no expansion of existing Spheres of Influence to support urbanization has occurred since the year 2000. Alameda LAFCO has worked with each of the East County cities to ensure that annexations of land into those cities retain the land use restrictions as established by Measure D.

Effective Protecting Agricultural and Open Space Lands
Establishment of ECAP’s UGB has reciprocally been highly effective in protecting and preserving those agricultural and open space lands that are located on the outside of the UGB. Since 2000, no changes to the UGB have occurred and no urban development has displaced agricultural or open space lands on the outside of the UGB.

Urbanized Land Increases Prior to Measure D
Of the total increase of approximately 14,570 acres of urbanized lands in East County that has occurred over the past 34 years, approximately two -thirds of this increase in urban land occurred in the nearly 20 years prior to Measure D. Only one-third of this increase in urban land occurred in the nearly 20 years post -Measure D. This smaller increase in urbanized land accommodated a relatively similar increase in population, as occurred pre-Measure D.

ATTACHMENT 1
836
Alameda LAFCO
May 25, 2022
Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meeting
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 | P a g e

Farmland Lost within UGB
According to the Department of Conservations’ GIS database, more than 3,570 net acres of East County farmlands were lost or converted to other land use categories between the years 1984 to 2018.

Nearly all of this net loss in farmland occurred after year 2000 (or post-Measure D). However, about 84% of this total loss in farmlands occurred in areas immediately adjacent to and within East County cities, in areas within the established UGB.

Redesignation of Prime Farmland
Although the Department of Conservation’s GIS database shows that the East County lost nearly 4,430 acres of Prime farmland over the 34 -year period from 1984 to 2018, there was a concurrent increase of 1,854 acres in Farmland of Statewide Importance and Unique farmland. Much of this change can be attributed to the Department of Conservation’s re -designation of certain properties in the South Livermore Valley from Prime, to Statewide Important or Unique farmland. These re -designations do not indicate a lesser valued farmland, but rather a recognit ion that vineyards (where most of this re - designation occurred) represent sustained production of a specific high-quality and high-yield crop of economic importance to California” (i.e., Statewide Important or Unique farmland).

Significant Loss of Farm-based Employment but Wine Industry Revenue Growth Despite significant losses in farm -based employment, the revenue from East County agricultural operations appears to remain stable, but not growing. The stability of overall agricultural revenue is driven by continued strong revenue growth in sales in wine grapes. The wine industry’s revenue growth (in sales, but not a reflection of profit margin or increased acreage) eclipses the relatively sizeable decline in sales revenue and productive agricultural use of other agricultural activities (e.g., pasture and dry farming, ranching and horse boarding) within East County.

Growth Within Boundaries
The East County has grown by nearly 70,000 people and 22,300 new housing units since 2000, nearly all of which has occurred within city boundaries, and nearly all (with the exception of certain incorporated city lands in Dublin) within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as established by Measure D.

Effective in Preservation
Establishment of ECAP’s UGB has recip rocally been highly effective in protecting and preserving those agricultural and open space lands that are located on the outside of the UGB. Since 2000, no changes to the UGB have occurred, and no urban development has displaced agricultural or open space lands on the outside of the UGB.

Permissive Winery-Related Uses
Of the counties studied, Alameda County zoning regulations appear to have the broadest definition of permitted winery-related uses and activities than other counties (e.g. wine processing, wine production, and tasting rooms). These more permissive definitions result in a less restrictive permitting process for

ATTACHMENT 1
837
Alameda LAFCO
May 25, 2022
Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meeting
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 | P a g e
winery-related uses, whereby nearly all defined winery activities and uses are permitted by right and/or through administrative review, as opposed to a discretionary use permitting process.

Permissive Equine Uses
Similarly, of those counties studied, Alameda County zoning regulations appears to have the broadest definition of permitted equine uses, including more types of uses and activities than other counties (e.g., commercial stables, horse training and riding academies). These more permissive definitions result in a less restrictive permitting process for equestrian-related uses, whereby nearly all equestrian activities and uses are permitted by right and/or through administrative review, as opposed to a discretionary use permit processes.

Restrictive Maximum Building Intensity
However, of the nine different counties studied, only four counties (Alameda, Sonom a, Marin, and Monterey) have regulations that restrict the maximum building intensity , or floor-to-area-ratio requirements (FAR), for non-residential uses in agriculturally designated or zoned lands. Of those other four counties that do have applicable FAR regulations, Alameda County ’s 1% FAR regulations are substantially more restrictive on the size of non-residential buildings. In comparison, Sonoma, Marin, and Monterrey County’s regulations allow the potential for up to a maximum 5% FAR, and the other four counties included in this study have no FAR restriction at all.

Proposed Recommendation: Support County’s ballot amendment t o allow for the potential of up to 2% maximum FAR in ECAP and 3.5% FAR in the South Livermore Valley Area Plan.

Maximum Building Envelope
Similarly, Alameda County appears to be the only one of the counties studied in this report to define a maximum building envelope (generally, all agricultur al land uses must be located on a contiguous development envelope not to exceed 2 acres). Instead, the other counties reviewed for this report approach building sites in a more individual and discretionar y process, whereby development proposals are required, through a discretionary process, to limit development on agricultural soils and other natural resource values, and to ensure that these uses are secondary and incidental to agricultural production activities.

Proposed Recommendation: Support a discretionary review of maximum building envelopes.

Stagnant Agricultural Economy
Despite significant losses in farm -based emplo yment, the revenue from Easy County agricultural operations appears to remain stable, but not growing. The stability of overall agricultural business revenue is driven by continued strong growth in sales in wine grapes. The wine industry’s revenue growth (i n sales, but not a reflection of profit margin or increased acreage) eclipses the relatively sizable decline in sales revenue and productive agricultural use of other agricultural activities (e.g., crop harvesting and horse boarding) within East County.

ATTACHMENT 1
838
Alameda LAFCO
May 25, 2022
Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meeting
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 | P a g e
While revenue may be sufficient to cover annual operating expenses, in many cases the amount of annual revenue above annual operating expenses is not sufficient to cover the amortized expenses of establishing a vineyard or to generate a return on the investment in the vineyard.

Proposed Recommendation: Work with Alameda County Ag Advisory Board to develop policies on how to enhance agricultural business going forward.

Proposed Recommendation: Encourage the County of Alameda to approve proposed amendments to Alameda County’s ECAP, South Livermore Valley Area Plan, and Zoning Code as specified in Attachment 1 and supported by the Tri-Valley Conservancy and other stakeholders.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Amendments to ECAP, SLVAP, and Zoning Code by Tri-Valley Conservancy

2. Final Report on Alameda LAFCO's 20 Year Review of Measure D ATTACHMENT 1
839
ATTACHMENT 2
840
ATTACHMENT 2
841
ATTACHMENT 2
842
ATTACHMENT 2
843
ATTACHMENT 2
844
ATTACHMENT 2
845
ATTACHMENT 2
846
ATTACHMENT 2
847
ATTACHMENT 2
848
20-Year Review of Measure D
“Save Agriculture and Open Space Lands” Initiative
Figure 3-1
East County Area Plan Urban Growth Boundary
Source: Alameda County, East County Area Plan, Figure 3, as amended October 2016
Fremont
Union City
580
84 680
580
880
680
East County Area Plan
Open Space
Diagram
Legend
Urban Growth Boundary
ECAP Boundary
Parklands
Resource Management
Large Parcel Agriculture
Water Management
Non-Open Space Lands
Wind Resource Area
Lands Within Urban
Growth Boundary
Incorporated Land Outside
Urban Growth Boundary
0 1 2 30.5
Miles
Fig. 4
Alameda County Community
Development Agency, October 2016
Highway
Major Roads
May 2022
Prepared by:

Lamphier-Gregory and
Economic and Planning
Systems, Inc.

Prepared for:

Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (Alameda LAFCO) ATTACHMENT 3
849
ATTACHMENT 3
This page intentionally left blank.
850
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page i
Table of Contents
20-Year Review of Measure D – the “Save Agriculture and Open Space Lands” Initiative Chapter 1: Introduction, Purpose and Executive Summary ....................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Overview of Measure D

2.1: Measure D – the “Save Agriculture and Open Space Lands” Initiative ........................................... 7

2.2: Generalized ECAP Land Use Strategy ............................................................................................. 8

2.3: South Livermore Valley Area Plan/Specific Plan ........................................................................... 13 Chapter 3: Measure D Effectiveness

3.1: Supporting City-Centered Growth ................................................................................................ 19

3.2: Protecting Important Open Space and Agricultural Lands ........................................................... 31

3.3: On-Going Efforts to Protect Agricultural Lands ............................................................................. 48

3.4: Supporting Viable Agricultural Operations ................................................................................... 45 Chapter 4: Comparison to Agricultural Land Use Regulations of Other Selected Bay Area Counties

4.1: Sonoma County ............................................................................................................................ 57

4.2: Napa County ................................................................................................................................. 62

4.3: Solano County ............................................................................................................................... 65

4.4: Contra Costa County ..................................................................................................................... 69

4.5: Comparative Land Use Regulations .............................................................................................. 73 List of Tables
3-1 East County Population Growth, 1980 through Projected 2030 Needs ......................................... 30 3-2 Changes in Farmland and Grazing Land Soils, 1984 to 2000 (pre-Measure D) .............................. 36 3-3 Changes in Farmland and Grazing Land Soils, 2000 to 2018 (post-Measure D) ............................. 39 3-4 Changes in Farmland and Grazing Land Soils, 1984 to 2018 ........................................................... 42 3-5 Changes in Harvested Pasture and Livestock Production, 2000 to 2019 ....................................... 46 3-6 Changes in Wine Grape Production and Sales, 2000 to 2019 ........................................................ 49 3-7 Changes in Countywide Agricultural Product Values, 2000 to 2019 .............................................. 53 4-1 Comparative Building Intensity (e.g., FAR) Regulations ................................................................. 76 4-2 Comparison of Permitted Residential Land Uses and Types .......................................................... 78 4-3 Comparison of Permitted Winery and Winery-Related Uses ......................................................... 80 4-4 Comparison of Overnight Accommodation Uses ........................................................................... 82 4-5 Comparison of Equestrian Facility Permitting Requirements ........................................................ 84 4-6 Comparison of Cannabis-Related Permitted Uses ......................................................................... 85 List of Figures
2-1 East County Area Plan Land Use Diagram ...................................................................................... 12 2-2 South Livermore Valley Area Plan Planning Area and Development Concepts ............................. 14 ATTACHMENT 3
851
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page ii
2-3 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, Planning Sub-Areas ............................................................ 17 3-1 East County Area Plan Urban Growth Boundary ............................................................................ 20 3-2 City of Livermore General Plan and Urban Growth Boundary ....................................................... 22 3-3 City of Pleasanton General Plan and Urban Growth Boundary ...................................................... 24 3-4 City of Dublin General Plan and Urban Growth Boundary ............................................................. 26 3-5 City of Hayward General Plan and Urban Growth Boundary ......................................................... 28 3-6 Important Farmland within East County - Year 1984 ..................................................................... 33 3-7 Important Farmland within East County - Year 2000 ..................................................................... 35 3-8 Important Farmland within East County - Year 2018 ..................................................................... 37 3-9 Changes in Urban and Built-Up Lands, 1984 through 2018 ........................................................... 41 4-1 Sonoma County General Plan Land Use Diagram ............................................................................ 59 4-2 Napa County General Plan Land Use Diagram ............................................................................... 64 4-3 Solano County General Plan Land Use Diagram ............................................................................. 68 4-4 Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Diagram ................................................................... 72 ATTACHMENT 3
852
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Measure D (known as the Save Agriculture and Open Space Lands Initiative) was placed on the Alameda countywide ballot in November of 2000. The primary components of the Measure D initiative included:
 amending the County’s Urban Growth Boundary
 increasing restrictions on building intensity, minimum parcel sizes and permitted uses in rural areas of the County
 establishing that all County planning policies and zoning regulations must be consistent with provisions of Measure D, and
 mandating that any changes to the land use designations, building intensity or minimum parcel sizes as established by Measure D be subject to a new vote of the County electorate Measure D passed with a 57% majority of Alameda County voters, and became effective as of December 22, 2000. By May of 2002, Alameda County completed and adopted its corresponding amendments to the applicable Alameda County General Plan (the East County Area Plan, or ECAP), effectively eliminating new urban development within unincorporated East County.

Purpose of this Study
Now, approximately 20 years since the passage of Measure D and the incorporation of Measure D provisions into ECAP, the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (Alameda County LAFCO) has requested preparation of a special independent study. The purposes of this study are to review how Measure D has affected agricultural and open space lands and the surrounding communities, and to consider how implementation of Measure D has or has not met its own LAFCO policies pertaining to agriculture and open space. These Alameda LAFCO policies principally include:
 Supporting urbanization in cities, not on prime agricultural land or important open space (Alameda LAFCO Policies 4.3 and 4.4)
 Identifying important agricultural lands and open space included in annexation and Sphere of Influence proposals, and protecting adjacent agricultural lands (Alameda LAFCO Policy 4.9)  Conditioning approvals of annexations and Sphere of Influence changes on the retention of Measure D restrictions, as applicable (Alameda LAFCO Policy 4.11),  Including only those territories within existing Spheres of Influence for urbanization needed within 10-15 years (Alameda LAFCO Policy 13.13), and
 Establishing incentives to support agricultural and open space viability (Alameda LAFCO Policy

4.10)
Alameda LAFCO understands and appreciates that it does not have land use regulatory authority, and has no means to affect direct action on any potential changes in Alameda County land use policy.

However, as a State-mandated agency that acts on boundary matters as an independent agency, it is empowered to adopt and consider changes to its own policies to reflect local conditions, and to assist in seeking a balance between competing interests. Accordingly, this special study report makes no recommendations about whether any of the Measure D policies as fully incorporated into ECAP should or should not be made. Nor does this study weigh-in on the question of whether any policy or regulatory changes to ECAP that might be considered, would need to be processed pursuant to a new countywide ATTACHMENT 3
853
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 2
ballot measure or could be implemented by technical amendments to Measure D made by the Board of Supervisors.

Rather, this special study is intended to provide Alameda LAFCO with objective information and data to in an effort to provide a better understanding of the economic and open space needs of the area, and to assess whether the current ECAP policies, as directed by Measure D, support or constrain these needs.

Specifically, this report reviews the effectiveness of current ECAP policies related to the following key indicators:
 Have the current ECAP policies supported urbanization in cities and not on prime agricultural land or important open space, and have they focused new growth and development only in those territories within existing Spheres of Influence as needed for population growth and urbanization?
 Have the current ECAP policies identified and protected important agricultural lands and open spaces, especially as related to LAFCO considerations of annexations and Sphere of Influence change proposals?
 Have the current ECAP policies supported and established incentives for viable open space preservation and agricultural operations?
Additionally, this report provides objective comparative information as to:
 Are Alameda County’s ECAP and its corresponding County zoning regulations that specifically pertain to agricultural uses more or less restrictive as compared to comparable regulations of other Bay Area and relevant counties?
 Do the policies of ECAP and its corresponding zoning regulations disadvantage Alameda County's agricultural businesses to a greater degree than the agricultural rules and regulation of other locations?
Background
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors has considered at least two amendments to ECAP since Measure D was adopted. In 2013, the Supervisors considered an amendment to increase the floor-to- area ratio (FAR) allowed for horse breeding and training facilities, 1 and in 2020, the Supervisors
considered an amendment to increase the permitted FAR for defined “agricultural buildings”, in addition to the FAR allowed for “non-residential” buildings.2 Alameda County convened a stakeholder group consisting of members of the public that represent differing and potentially competing interests on these matters, to discuss issues related to Measure D and to identify potential approaches for addressing these issues. Among the interests that were represented in the stakeholder’s group include:
 those interests of the drafters and supporters of the original Measure D language, who view Measure D, as written, as being critical to the preservation of agricultural and open space lands, 1 Alameda County Community Development Agency, Staff Report to the Board of Supervisors, “Proposed Amendments to East County Area Plan and Castro Valley General Plan to Increase the Floor Area Ratio Allowed for Equine Facilities”, December 2012
2 Alameda County Community Development Agency, Staff Report to the Board of Supervisors, “Update on Proposed Amendments to Measure D to Increase the Floor Area Ratio Allowed for Agricultural Buildings”, December 7, 2020
ATTACHMENT 3
854
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 3
and who do believe that any changes to Measure D cannot be initiated without a countywide vote of the people, and
 those interests of certain Alameda County agricultural property owners, local wineries and equestrian facility operators that seek remedies to what they see as restrictions that are too prohibitive and that do not support the county’s agricultural businesses At that time, these stakeholder groups did not reach agreement on these issues, nor did they find agreement on means by which these issues might be resolved (i.e., via a new ballot measure, or by technical amendments to Measure D). Until recently, the Alameda County Supervisors had similarly not reached agreement, and had not taken action on either of these two amendments.

However, in 2021, the County Agricultural Advisory Committee, the Board of Supervisors’ Transportation and Planning Committee and other County advisory bodies considered draft language that was offered by a stakeholder group seeking to find consensus on these issues. Based on these reviews, the County Board of Supervisors directed Planning staff to draft language for a ballot measure that would amend certain provisions of Measure D, to conduct public outreach on these proposed amendments, and to prepare environmental review of such amendments. The County Supervisors now intend to place a ballot measure on the November 2022 elections that, if passed, would amend Measure D to provide, in addition to the floor-area ratio (FAR) currently allowed for non-residential buildings:
 (1) a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .025 for agricultural buildings (including greenhouses) in areas designated under the General Plan as Large Parcel Agriculture, and  (2) a maximum FAR of .025, with at least 20,000 square feet allowed on smaller parcels, up to a maximum of 60,000 square feet on larger parcels, for covered equestrian riding arenas in areas designated under the General Plan as Large Parcel Agriculture and Resource Management As a State-mandated agency that acts on boundary matters, LAFCO is an independent agency and is empowered to seek a balance between competing land use interests. In an effort to seek such a balance, Alameda LAFCO has commissioned this report to provide objective information and data that may help inform deliberations and potential future decisions on this anticipated upcoming ballot measure. Important policy matters addressed in this report pertain to Measure D/ECAP and its effects on city-centered growth, open space and agricultural land preservation, and the viability of agricultural- based industry and land use.

Summary of Findings
As discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of this report, the findings pertaining to the questions posed by Alameda LAFCO related to the effectiveness of Measure D can be summarized as follows:
 Measure D and its subsequent amendments to the County’s ECAP have been highly effective in directing that urbanization occur in the East County cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore, and not on prime agricultural land or important open spaces outside of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). No amendments to the UGB have been made, and no expansion of existing Spheres of Influence to support urbanization has occurred since the year 2000. Alameda LAFCO has worked with each of the East County cities to ensure that annexations of land into those cities retain the land use restrictions as established by Measure D.  The East County has grown by nearly 70,000 people and 22,300 new housing units since 2000, nearly all of which has occurred within City boundaries, and nearly all (with the exception of certain incorporated City lands in Dublin) within the UGB as established by Measure D.

ATTACHMENT 3
855
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 4
 Establishment of ECAP’s UGB has reciprocally been highly effective in protecting and preserving those agricultural and open space lands that are located on the outside of the UGB. Since 2000, no changes to the UGB have occurred and no urban development has displaced agricultural or open space lands on the outside of the UGB.
 Of the total increase of approximately 14,570 acres of urbanized lands in East County that has occurred over the past 34 years, approximately two-thirds of this increase in urban land occurred in the nearly 20 years prior to Measure D. Only one-third of this increase in urban land occurred in the nearly 20 years post-Measure D. This smaller increase in urbanized land accommodated a relatively similar increase in population, as occurred pre-Measure D.  According to the Department of Conservations’ GIS database, more than 3,570 net acres of East County farmlands were lost or converted to other land use categories between the years 1984 to 2018. Nearly all of this net loss in farmland occurred after year 2000 (or post-Measure D).

However, about 84% of this total loss in farmlands occurred in areas immediately adjacent to and within East County cities, in areas within the established UGB.  Although the Department of Conservation’s GIS database shows that the East County lost nearly 4,430 acres of Prime farmland over the 34-year period from 1984 to 2018, there was a concurrent increase of 1,854 acres in Farmland of Statewide Importance and Unique farmland.

Much of this change can be attributed to the Department of Conservation’s re-designation of certain properties in the South Livermore Valley from Prime, to Statewide Important or Unique farmland. These re-designations do not indicate a lesser valued farmland, but rather a recognition that vineyards (where most of this re-designation occurred) represent sustained production of a specific high-quality and high-yield crop of economic importance to California” (i.e., Statewide Important or Unique farmland).
 Despite significant losses in farm-based employment, the revenue from East County agricultural operations appears to remain stable, but not growing. The stability of overall agricultural revenue is driven by continued strong revenue growth in sales in wine grapes. The wine industry’s revenue growth (in sales, but not a reflection of profit margin or increased acreage) eclipses the relatively sizeable decline in sales revenue and productive agricultural use of other agricultural activities (e.g., pasture and dry farming, ranching and horse boarding) within East County.
 The relative economic viability of agriculture in East County is a function of multiple variables including macro-economic trends, micro-economic decisions and capabilities of local agricultural operators, climate, water availability, labor availability and other costs. An assessment of how these variables have affected East County agricultural operations is generally beyond the scope of this report, but is informed by several economic studies and statistics that have been prepared by others, including a recent University of California, Davis study titled, “Realizing the Heritage”.
3 This report provides an impartial assessment of the economic viability of wine production in the Livermore Valley, and includes the important finding that, “many of Livermore’s independent vineyards have not been profitable. While revenue may be sufficient to cover annual operating expenses, in many cases the amount of annual revenue above annual operating expenses is not sufficient to cover the amortized expenses of establishing a vineyard or to generate a return on the investment in the vineyard”. 3 Lapsley, James T. and Sumner, Daniel A., UC Davis report, “Realizing the Heritage, Grape Growing and Winemaking in the Livermore Valley”, 2022
ATTACHMENT 3
856
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 5
 LAFCO staff has also made preliminary drafts of this report available to numerous stakeholders, including owners of winery, equestrian and other agricultural businesses within the County.

These owners have also reported that the sales revenue from agricultural business is not keeping pace with rising costs, and that regulatory provisions are contributing factors that prevent business growth necessary to maintain profitability.

Conclusions
The purpose of this report is to review whether Measure D’s land use policies and regulations may be a contributing factor in the lack of growth in East County’s agricultural industry, especially as compared to the regulations of other relative counties (see Chapter 4). These conclusions can be summarized as follows:
 Of those counties studied, Alameda County zoning regulations appear to have the broadest definition of permitted winery-related uses, including more types of uses and activities than other counties (e.g., wine processing, wine production and tasting rooms). These more permissive definitions result in a less restrictive permitting process for winery-related uses, whereby nearly all defined winery activities and uses are permitted by right and/or through administrative review, as opposed to a discretionary use permit processes.  Similarly, of those counties studied, Alameda County zoning regulations appears to have the broadest definition of permitted equine uses, including more types of uses and activities than other counties (e.g., commercial stables, horse training and riding academies). These more permissive definitions result in a less restrictive permitting process for equestrian-related uses, whereby nearly all equestrian activities and uses are permitted by right and/or through administrative review, as opposed to a discretionary use permit processes.  However, of the nine different counties studied, only four counties (Alameda, Sonoma, Marin and Monterrey) have regulations that restrict the maximum building intensity (or FAR) for non- residential uses in agriculturally designated or zoned lands. Of those other four counties that do have applicable FAR regulations, Alameda County 1% FAR regulations are substantially more restrictive on the size of non-residential buildings. In comparison, Sonoma, Marin and Monterrey County’s regulations allow the potential for up to a maximum 5% FAR, and the other four counties included in this study have no FAR restriction at all.  Alameda County appears to be the only county studied in this report that defines a maximum building envelope. The other counties reviewed for this report approach building sites in a more individual and discretionary process, whereby development proposal are required to limit development on agricultural soils and other natural resource values, and to ensure that these uses are secondary and incidental to agricultural production activities.

These differences in regulatory provisions between Alameda County and other relevant counties can be generally regarded as providing Alameda County applicants with a more certainty outcome in the approval process, but only if proposed agricultural development can fully comply with the more restrictive Alameda County standards, which generally permit smaller-scaled agricultural development.

Conversely, the other counties included in this study generally provide more flexibility and greater development potential for larger-scaled agricultural-related uses, but these land use approvals are subject to a more rigorous discretionary approval processes (including CEQA), and with less certain outcomes.

ATTACHMENT 3
857
ATTACHMENT 3
This page intentionally left blank.
858
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 7
Chapter 2: Overview of Measure D

2.1: Measure D – the “Save Agriculture and Open Space Lands” Initiative Measure D (known as the Save Agriculture and Open Space Lands Initiative) was placed on the November 2000 countywide ballot by citizens' groups. The question that was posed to the voters of Alameda County was straightforward:
“Shall an ordinance amending the Alameda County General Plan to, among other things, revise the urban growth boundary in the East County to reserve less land for urban growth and more land for agriculture and open space, apply similar policies to rural Castro Valley, require new housing to be located primarily within existing cities, modify land use restrictions applicable to rural areas, and require a County-wide vote on changes to these policies, be adopted?” 1 Measure D passed with a 57% majority of Alameda County voters, and became effective as of December 22, 2000.

By May of 2002, Alameda County completed and adopted its corresponding amendments to the applicable Alameda County General Plan (the East County Area Plan, or ECAP).2 As noted in the Preface to the Goals, Policies and Programs of the 2002 amended ECAP, the purposes of these amendments (per the Initiative) were to, “preserve and enhance agriculture and agricultural lands, and to protect the natural qualities, the wildlife habitats, the watersheds and the beautiful open space of Alameda County from excessive, badly located and harmful development. The measure establishes a County Urban Growth Boundary which will focus urban-type development in and near existing cities where it will be efficiently served by public facilities, thereby avoiding high costs to taxpayers and users as well as to the environment. The ordinance is designed to remove the County government from urban development outside the Urban Growth Boundary.”
The Initiative also resulted in the addition, deletion and revision of more than 60 policies and programs of the previously applicable ECAP, as well as establishment of and changes to the Urban Growth Boundary and the Land Use Diagram. Major changes made in the 2002 ECAP in response to Measure D included the following:
 The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) was redrawn to remove North Livermore from urban development, and the County withdrew from a joint planning Settlement Agreement with the City of Livermore and North Livermore landowners. North Livermore west of Dagnino Road was delineated as an Intensive Agriculture area, with the potential for 20-acre enhanced agricultural parcels upon demonstration of available water (among other requirements).  The South Livermore Valley Area Plan was amended to place absolute limits on density and its geographical extent.
 Lands previously designated for Urban Reserve were re-designated as Large Parcel Agriculture.

Land use policies for the Large Parcel Agriculture, Resource Management and Rural Residential designations became more restrictive, including changes related to standards for subdivisions and Site Development Review for Agricultural parcels.
1 League of Women Voters, accessed at: http://www.smartvoter.org/2000/11/07/ca/alm/meas/D/ 2 Alameda County, East County Area Plan, as adopted by the Board May 2002 ATTACHMENT 3
859
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 8
 Lands in the Castro Valley and Palomares Canyonlands were re-designated as Resource Management.
 The County was directed to meet State housing obligations for the East County area within the new County Urban Growth Boundary “to the maximum extent feasible”. If State-imposed housing obligations made it necessary to go beyond the UGB, the voters of the county may approve an extension of the boundary, and the Board of Supervisors may approve housing outside the UGB for the purpose of meeting housing obligations if, subject to the requirements of the State housing law, criteria specified by the Initiative can be met.  The County was prohibited from providing or authorizing expansion of public facilities or other infrastructure that would create more capacity than needed to meet the development allowed by the Initiative. The Initiative does not prohibit public facilities or other infrastructure that has no excessive growth-inducing effect on the East County area, with permit conditions to ensure that no service can be provided beyond that consistent with development allowed by the Initiative.
 No new quarry or open-pit mine may be approved outside the East County Urban Growth Boundary unless approved by the voters. Excavation not adjacent to an existing quarry site and on the same or adjoining parcel is regarded as a new quarry.  While new regulations pursuant to Measure D do not affect existing parcels, development, structures or uses that were legal at the time they became effective, structures may not be enlarged or altered and uses expanded or changed inconsistent with the new ECAP policies, programs and regulations, except as authorized by State law.  The portions of ECAP that were revised or enacted under the Initiative may not be amended except by voter approval, with the exception that the Board of Supervisors can impose restrictions on development and land use that are more stringent.

2.2: Generalized ECAP Land Use Strategy
As amended by Measure D, the ECAP clearly delineates areas suitable for urban development and open space areas for long-term protection of natural resources, agriculture, and public safety. It establishes a County Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that divides areas inside the UGB and next to existing cities as generally suitable for urban development, and areas outside of the UGB as suitable for long-term protection of natural resources, agriculture, public health and safety, and buffers between communities.

ECAP’s Land Use Diagram identifies urban designations (inclusive of incorporated and unincorporated areas of East County) that are expected to be sufficient to accommodate projected growth. The urban land use designations in unincorporated areas are contained within the UGB, and are not to be expanded to accommodate lower than planned densities. ECAP requires that urban development be phased according to the availability of infrastructure and public services, to achieve a balanced sub- region featuring compact communities, a diverse economic base, affordable housing and a full complement of public facilities and amenities. Accordingly, ECAP supports phased development in East Dublin to provide for efficient planning of infrastructure and prevent urban sprawl in the Dublin Hills.

ECAP requires the County to work with cities and service districts to plan for adequate infrastructure capacity to accommodate new urban development within the UGB, but also limits the level of new development based on adequacy of transportation and infrastructure improvements and the extent to ATTACHMENT 3
860
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 9
which these improvements can be funded. ECAP prohibits the County from providing or authorizing public facilities or other infrastructure in excess of that needed for permissible development.3 ECAP’s residential goal is to provide an adequate supply of housing in a range of densities to meet State requirements, to accommodate projected housing growth, and to respond to the needs of all income groups.

ECAP’s Land Use Diagram also identifies non-urban land use designations intended to protect regionally significant open space and agricultural land from further development. It calls on the County to work with East County cities to preserve a continuous open space system outside the Urban Growth Boundary, with priority given to the permanent protection of the Resource Management area between Dublin and North Livermore and the area north of the Urban Growth Boundary in North Livermore. The preserved open space areas are intended for the protection of public health and safety, the provision of recreational opportunities, production of natural resources (e.g., agriculture, wind power and mineral extraction), protection of sensitive viewsheds, preservation of biological resources, and the physical separation between neighboring communities. This open space system is to include a continuous band of various plant communities and wildlife habitats that provide for comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, habitat conservation. The open space for habitat conservation is to be located outside of the UGB and contiguous to large open space areas in neighboring Contra Costa, Santa Clara and San Joaquin Counties. To maintain this open space system, ECAP policies call for the following implementation strategies:
 Approve only open space, park, recreational, agricultural, limited infrastructure, public facilities (e.g., limited infrastructure, hospitals, research facilities, landfill sites, jails, etc.) and other similar and compatible uses outside the UGB
 Use zoning and other mechanisms such as purchase or dedication of easements through density transfer or density bonuses and fee purchase to preserve open space outside the UGB  Require that all new developments dedicate or acquire land for open space and/or pay equivalent in-lieu fees to be committed to open space land acquisition and management, and to encourage the East County cities to impose similar open space requirements on development in incorporated areas
 Encourage the Alameda County Open Space Land Trust to acquire fee title or easements on strategic parcels that would permanently secure the UGB and complete the continuous open space system surrounding Eastern Dublin, North Livermore, South Livermore and the existing cities of Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore.

To maximize the long-term productivity of East County's agricultural resources, ECAP calls for the conservation of prime agricultural soils, and Farmland of Statewide Importance and Unique Farmland outside the Urban Growth Boundary. It also calls for the preservation of the Mountain House area near the San Joaquin County boundary for intensive agricultural use.

ECAP also seeks to protect unique visual resources and sensitive viewsheds by preserving the following major visually sensitive ridgelines largely in open space use:
 The ridgelines of Pleasanton, Main, and Sunol Ridges west of Pleasanton 3 “Infrastructure” is defined as including public facilities, community facilities and all structures and development that is necessary for the provision of public services and utilities.

ATTACHMENT 3
861
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 10
 The ridgelines of Schafer, Shell, Skyline, Oak and Divide Ridges west of Dublin, and the ridgelines above Doolan Canyon east of Dublin
 The ridgelines above Collier Canyon and Vasco Road, and the ridgelines surrounding Brushy Peak north of Livermore
 The ridgelines above the vineyards south of Livermore, and  The ridgelines above Happy Valley south of Pleasanton In the southerly portion of East County, ECAP seeks to protect important watershed land from the direct and indirect effects of development. To achieve this goal, ECAP encourages public water management agencies (e.g., the SFPUC) to explore recreational opportunities on watershed lands, particularly at reclaimed quarries, and to provide limited public access on trails that pass through the watershed lands surrounding San Antonio and Calaveras Reservoirs, Sunol Watershed, and the Arroyo de la Laguna.

Agricultural Land Use Designations
In general, the ECAP identifies three primary agricultural and/or open space-related land use designations on its Land Use Diagram (see Figure 2-1):
 Large Parcel Agriculture (LPA): This land use designation generally applies to the majority of the easterly portions of unincorporated East County. The LPA designation is primarily intended to provide for low-intensity agricultural and grazing uses, and also permits agricultural processing facilities (e.g., wineries and olive presses), limited agricultural support service uses (e.g., animal feed facilities, silos, stables and feed stores), secondary residential units, visitor-serving commercial facilities (e.g., tasting rooms, fruit stands, bed and breakfast inns), recreational uses, public and quasi-public uses, solid waste landfills and related waste management facilities, quarries, windfarms, utility corridors, and similar uses compatible with agriculture. Specific policy limitations that apply within the Large parcel Agriculture land use include:
o A minimum parcel size of 100 acres (with exceptions for smaller existing parcels) o A maximum building intensity for non-residential buildings of a .01 FAR (floor area ratio) but not less than 20,000 square feet, but where permitted, greenhouses shall have a maximum intensity of .025
o One single-family home per parcel is allowed provided that all other County standards are met for adequate road access, sewer and water facilities, building envelope location, visual protection, and public services
o Residential and residential accessory buildings shall have a maximum floor space of 12,000 square feet. Additional residential units may be allowed if they are occupied by farm employees required to reside on-site.
o Apart from infrastructure, all buildings shall be located on a contiguous development envelope not to exceed 2 acres, except they may be located outside the envelope if necessary for security reasons or, if structures for agricultural use, necessary for agricultural use
 Resource Management (RM): This land use designation applies to lands that surround Watershed Management lands, the area between Dublin and North Livermore, and the area north of the Urban Growth Boundary in North Livermore. This designation is intended mainly for ATTACHMENT 3
862
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 11
land designated for long-term preservation as open space, but may include low intensity agriculture, grazing and very low-density residential use. The purpose of this land use designation is to permit agricultural uses, recreational uses, habitat protection, watershed management, public and quasi-public uses in areas typically unsuitable for human occupation.

This includes areas subject to due to public health and safety hazards such as earthquake faults, floodways, unstable soils, or areas containing wildlife habitat and other environmentally sensitive features. This land use classification generally requires a minimum parcel size of 100 acres , and 1 single family home per parcel is allowed (provided all other County standards are met for adequate road access, sewer and water facilities, building envelope location, visual protection, and public services). This designation is intended mainly for land designated for long- term preservation as open space, but may include low intensity agriculture, grazing and very low-density residential use.
 Water Management (WM): This land use designation generally applies to the lands owned by the San Francisco Water Department and watershed lands surrounding San Antonio and Calaveras Reservoirs, the Sunol Watershed and the Arroyo de la Laguna. This land use designation is intended to provide for the protection of watershed land from the direct and indirect effects of development. The minimum parcel size is generally 100 acres, one single family home per parcel is allowed (provided all other County standards are met for adequate road access, sewer and water facilities, building location, visual protection, and public services).

This designation also provides for sand and gravel quarries, reclaimed quarry lakes, watershed lands, arroyos and similar and compatible uses.

ATTACHMENT 3
863
Figure 2-1
East County Area Plan (ECAP), Open Space Diagram and Urban Growth Boundary Fremont
Union City
580
84 680
580
880
680
East County Area Plan
Open Space
Diagram
Legend
Urban Growth Boundary
ECAP Boundary
Parklands
Resource Management
Large Parcel Agriculture
Water Management
Non-Open Space Lands
Wind Resource Area
Lands Within Urban
Growth Boundary
Incorporated Land Outside
Urban Growth Boundary
0 1 2 30.5
Miles
Fig. 4
Alameda County Community
Development Agency, October 2016
Highway
Major Roads
Source: Alameda County, East County Area Plan, Figure 4, as amended October 2016
ATTACHMENT 3
864
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 13

2.3: South Livermore Valley Area Plan/Specific Plan
South Livermore Valley Area Plan – Unincorporated Alameda County In 1987, in an effort to halt the gradual erosion of vineyards, the County of Alameda and the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton undertook a multi-year planning process aimed at protecting and rejuvenating the South Livermore Valley as a premium wine-producing region. Working with a wide range of interest groups and citizens, the County and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore reached a consensus on a set of goals and objectives to guide future land use in the South Livermore Valley. This process resulted in the preparation of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan, which was approved by the County Board of Supervisors in 1993.
4 The South Livermore Valley Area Plan (SLVAP) area includes approximately 14,000 acres of unincorporated land that extends in a broad crescent around the southern edge of the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, and encompasses the majority of the most suitable agricultural and viticulture land between Livermore’ city limits and the ridgelands to the south, east and west (see Figure 2-2).

The SLVAP created no new entitlement for urban or other development, but rather created a framework for the consideration of future development, based on whether such development would further the agricultural preservation strategies of the Area Plan. The SLVAP recognized that agriculture could not compete on an economic basis, on its own, with urban development. Therefore, the policies and implementation programs of the SLVAP direct new residential development to appropriate locations adjacent to cities. It requires that new urbanization provide much of the economic resources necessary to preserve and expand viticulture and other cultivated agriculture on the most important agricultural lands in the area.

The County's SLVAP includes land use policies intended to preserve existing vineyards and wineries. The SLVAP seeks to enhance recognition and the image of the area as an important premium wine- producing region, to create incentives for investment and expansion of vineyards and other cultivated agriculture, and to preserve the area's unique rural, scenic and historic qualities. Among its goals, the South Livermore Valley Area Plan specifically calls for the expansion of cultivated agricultural acreage, particularly viticulture, from approximately 2,100 acres to a minimum of 5,000 acres. To achieve these goals, the SLVAP includes the following land use strategies:
 It creates a density bonus system that provides economic incentives to encourage landowners to expand viticulture acreage. It permits property owners with a reduction in the minimum parcel size, provided the landowner plants wine grapes and places the land under a permanent agricultural easement.
 It establishes an agricultural land trust that is capable of accepting donations or purchasing conservation easements to protect productive agricultural lands in perpetuity.  It also requires all new urban development in the area to contribute to preservation, promotion and expansion of viticulture in the Valley. Contributions can include development of new vineyards, dedication of agricultural easements, financial contributions to the land trust, refurbishment of existing wineries, and the inclusion of wine country amenities such as golf courses, conference centers, and a wine museum.
4 Alameda County, South Livermore Valley Area Plan, 1993 ATTACHMENT 3
865
Figure 2-2
South Livermore Valley Area Plan Planning Area and Development Concepts
Source: Alameda County, SLVAP , pages 13 and 14,
February 1993
ATTACHMENT 3
866
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 15
The SLVAP encourages development of new wineries and other tourist-related projects that will attract tourists and increase recognition of the South Livermore Valley as a premium wine-producing region.

The SLVAP suggests that such uses could include a wine museum, a culinary institute, conference center, or a resort hotel. These destination-type uses would be complemented by tourist-serving retail uses, such as restaurants, bicycle rentals, art galleries, or other small-scale uses that would contribute to the creation of an attractive, full-service destination for visitors to the wine country. Retail use and "for- profit" major attractions are subject to an agricultural mitigation fee, rather than the acre-for-acre mitigation required of residential development.

The SLVAP also recognizes that the City of Livermore will have primary responsibility for overseeing and implementing the urban component of the Area Plan, since the majority of the urban development that can occur must be annexed into and served by the City.

South Livermore Valley Specific Plan – City of Livermore Following the County's adoption of the SLVAP, the City of Livermore amended its General Plan in 1993 to incorporate relevant policies from the County’s SLVAP. Livermore’s amended General Plan provided a policy framework for the South Valley area that is consistent with the policies adopted by the County, and established a City Urban Growth Boundary. The policy direction is intended to result in development of up to 1,600 new residential units within the South Livermore Valley’s Urban Growth Boundary as a means of achieving expanded viticulture acreage via implementation of an agricultural mitigation program. The City’s amended General Plan policies for the South Valley acknowledged the pressure for additional urban development, but specified that no new urban development would be permitted unless it met a number of specific criteria, including that the development:
 does not displace or destroy a significant amount of any actively farmed vineyards  is contiguous to the existing boundaries of the City of Livermore, and is limited to areas under City jurisdiction
 can be serviced by all necessary public services and utilities  contributes to the creation of a permanent boundary and open space buffer between the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, and
 contributes substantially to the expansion of viticulture and mitigates for the loss of land suitable for vineyards
To ensure that new development will make a direct contribution to the expansion of viticulture in the South Valley, the General Plan amendment included a mitigation program. That program requires new urban development to plant one acre of new vineyard (or other appropriate cultivated agriculture, such as orchards) for every acre of urbanized land, and to plant one acre of new vineyard (or other appropriate crop) for every new home constructed. All new agricultural acreage planted under this mitigation program must be located within the SLVAP planning area, and must be placed under permanent agricultural easement. Developers are also required to provide evidence of a long-term (8 years or more) maintenance contract for care of the vineyards. Thus, the mitigation program uses the increased economic value associated with new residential development to contribute to the expansion of viticulture in the South Valley.

The City’s amended General Plan also indicated Livermore’s intention to establish a more detailed Specific Plan, needed to establish the exact location of new urban development in the South Livermore Valley.

ATTACHMENT 3
867
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 16
South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
In 1997, the City of Livermore adopted the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP).5 The land use concept for the SLVSP is intended to protect and enhance open space and agricultural uses, as well as to create a logical and coherent pattern of new urban uses. Accordingly, lands that are critical to the Valley's future as a major wine-producing region are to be placed under permanent agricultural easements and planted with vineyards or other intensive agricultural crops. The easement-protected lands establish a permanent boundary to prevent future urban expansion, and an agricultural mitigation program secures under permanent agricultural easement, approximately 1,920 acres of newly planted vineyards and other intensive agriculture. New development within the SLVSP is intended to establish a permanent edge to the urban area, providing a gradual transition from urban to rural that allows agriculture to blend with developed areas, and integrate new development within an agricultural setting.

The SLVSP focuses on providing a relatively compact development pattern divided into a number of distinct “clusters”, or sub-areas (see Figure 2-3) that allow for creation of well defined, pedestrian- scaled neighborhoods. Development in these clustered sub-areas is intended to have a rural character consistent with the area's scenic natural setting and the Valley's historic wine country character. Seven distinct and non-contiguous sub-areas are distributed along Livermore’s southern boundary, within which 487 acres (or 26% of the total 1,891-acre SLVSP area) are designated for the development of up to 1,221 dwelling units. All of the units are to be single-family detached residences, with densities ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 units per acre. The SLVSP also designates 16 sites (nearly 60 acres) for possible commercial development that is intended to provide amenities that enhance the experience of visitors to the South Livermore Valley wine country, and only those commercial uses that support wine-related tourism are permitted.

In order to offset the impacts of development permitted under the Specific Plan, land that is critical to the Valley's future as a major wine producing region will be placed under permanent agricultural easements, and planted with vineyards or other intensive agricultural crops. By siting new development and directing the location of agricultural easements, the SLVSP establishes a permanent boundary that will prevent future urban expansion from threatening the viability of the South Livermore Valley wine region. In total, the agricultural mitigation program set forth in the SLVSP is intended to secure, under permanent agricultural easement, approximately 1,920 acres of newly planted vineyards and other intensive agriculture.

The SLVSP also seeks to preserve and manage the planning area's open space lands and natural resources for long-term benefits to residents, the Livermore community, the South Valley wine industry, visitors and the environment itself. The resources to be protected include agricultural lands, public parklands, sensitive habitat areas, scenic areas and areas with significant cultural/historic resources. The Specific Plan not only seeks to protect sensitive natural resources and valuable agricultural land, but also to incorporate open space resources that enhance community character and contribute to the wine- country character of the area. This includes protection of important visual and recreational assets that improve the quality of life for area residents and enhance enjoyment of the area by visitors. 5 City of Livermore, South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP), 1997 ATTACHMENT 3
868
Figure 2-3
South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, Planning Sub-Areas Source: City of Livermore, SLVSP, Figure 2-1, as
amended February 2004
City of Livermore South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Amended February 2004 2.0 Planning Area Description
2- 2
City of Livermore South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Amended February 2004 2.0 Planning Area Description
2- 2
1 2
3 7
6 5
4 ATTACHMENT 3
869
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis  page 18
The permanent open space buffer along the southern edge of the City of Livermore also eliminates the potential for future urban expansion and preserves the area's scenic rural character.

SLVAP Policies Incorporated into ECAP
When the County’s ECAP was amended in 2002 to ensure consistency with the provisions of Measure D, the County’s SLVAP was incorporated into the amended ECAP, in its entirety. The SLVAP’s goals, policies and programs that apply primarily to the unincorporated Vineyard Area of the South Livermore Valley provide for certain exceptions or differences in land use policies that apply elsewhere in County‐ designated Agricultural and/or Resource Management areas. Within the South Livermore Valley Area Plan’s Vineyard area, the County established a "Cultivated Agriculture Overlay District. The Overlay District provides for a base density of 100 acres per home site, but also allows a density bonus of up to 4 additional home sites per 100 acres (or fraction thereof). The density bonus must demonstrate that the development will contribute substantially to the goal of promoting viticulture or other cultivated agriculture, and if the land meets certain criteria, including the following:
 adequate water supplies must be available to the proposed parcels for both domestic and irrigation needs, and all proposed home sites must be able to be served by individual septic systems
 the applicant must guarantee that a minimum of 90% of the parcel will be permanently set aside for viticulture or other cultivated agriculture, that the set‐aside acreage will be planted in wine grapes or other cultivated agriculture, and that provisions (such as agricultural conservation easements) are in place to ensure its continued cultivated agricultural use  the applicant must provide evidence that cultivated agriculture will be maintained for a minimum of eight years
 building site envelopes for homes and ancillary uses shall be designated on the 10%‐portion of the parcel outside the required 90% set aside for agricultural areas, and no building site envelope may exceed a 25% slope
New commercial uses within the Cultivated Agricultural Overlay District must be appropriate, small‐scale uses that promote the area's image as a wine region, and are subject to issuance of a conditional use permit. New commercial uses proposed as part of a bonus density application are limited to the 10% maximum area of each parcel not dedicated to cultivated agriculture, and should be sited to maximize efficient use of cultivated lands. Wineries and small bed‐and‐breakfast establishments are examples of appropriate commercial uses. In May of 2019, the Board of Supervisors adopted a technical amendment to the SLVA Plan that allows standalone B&B’s or small inns up to 14 rooms, including small restaurants with seating up to 49 patrons. Proponents of new commercial development must show that development can be adequately served by a septic system, and that adequate water supplies are available for commercial needs.

The amended ECAP did not address the City of Livermore’s SLVSP, as the ECAP only applies to lands within unincorporated East Alameda County.

ATTACHMENT 3
870
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 19
Chapter 3: Measure D Effectiveness
As identified by Alameda LAFCO, one of the purposes of this study is to provide an overview of the relative effectiveness of Measure D and the amended East County Area Plan (ECAP) in achieving Measure D’s primary goals as well as the complimentary policies of Alameda LAFCO related to the following:
 Supporting urbanization in cities and not on prime agricultural land or important open space (per LAFCO Policies 4.3 and 4.4), including only those territories within existing Spheres of Influence for needed urbanization (per LAFCO Policy 13.13), and conditioning approvals of annexations and Sphere of Influence changes on the retention of Measure D restrictions (per LAFCO Policy 4.11)
 Identifying and protecting important agricultural lands and open spaces when considering annexations and sphere of influence proposals (per LAFCO Policies 4.5 through 4.8), and  Supporting and establishing incentives for viable open space preservation and agricultural operations (per LAFCO Policy 4.10)
The following section of this study provides a brief review of measurable performance indicators related to each of these Measure D goals and Alameda LAFCO policies.

3.1: Supporting City-Centered Growth
Measure D established an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for the East County, which is now fully incorporated into Alameda County’s East County Area Plan (ECAP) and incorporated into each of the General Plans of the four cities within the East County, including Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin and portions of Hayward (see Figure 3.1). The UGB is intended to focus urban-type development within these existing cities, where it will be efficiently served by public facilities.

Alameda County has land use jurisdiction over those unincorporated portions of East County outside the boundaries of an incorporated city. The UGB and supporting ECAP policies specifically preclude urban development within these unincorporated lands. Conversely, each of the four cities within the East County has land use jurisdiction within its own boundaries, and each has prepared its own General Plan, with maps and policies pertaining to urban growth and development, as well as open space and agricultural preservation. The planning efforts for each of these East County cities involve three different boundaries:
 The current City limits, which encompass the incorporated area, and where land use is controlled by each City
 Each City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), which includes both incorporated and unincorporated areas, and where Alameda LAFCO has determined is each City's probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area, and
 Each City's planning area boundary, which encompasses the area covered by each City's General Plan, and which may extend beyond the City's SOI
1 11 Although the unincorporated areas within a city's SOI and Planning Area may be of special interest to a City, the County retains control of land use in these areas unless or until they are annexed to a City.

ATTACHMENT 3
871
Figure 3-1
East County Area Plan Urban Growth Boundary
Source: Alameda County, East County Area Plan, Figure 3, as amended October 2016
ATTACHMENT 3
872
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 21
Measure D and ECAP policies support City annexation and incorporation of existing and proposed urban development within the UGB, and encourages the East County cities to achieve consistency with ECAP policies regarding the UGB, as well as open space protection and acquisition.

Whereas Alameda LAFCO is charged with determining the SOI for each City within the County and reviews these adopted SOl boundaries on a regular basis, LAFCO’s periodic SOI reviews provide a good indication of whether each City's probable ultimate physical boundaries and service areas achieve consistency with the UGB and city-centered growth patterns. The following is a short summary of Alameda County LAFCO’s SOI reviews for the years 2007 and 2017 (those review periods following implementation of Measure D), as well as an overview of the growth patterns and development that has occurred within each of the cities within East County.
2 City of Livermore
The City of Livermore's SOl was established by LAFCO in 1979 and was amended in 1981, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 1999, and once in 2005. Through the year 2007, Livermore had accepted as many as 83 annexations into the City boundary, and all but one of those annexations involved territory in their SOl.

In 2000, Livermore voters approved a City of Livermore Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that limits urban development in the southern portion of the City, and in 2002, the City of Livermore adopted a North Livermore UGB (see Figure 3.2). The City's UGBs are co-terminus with the UGB established pursuant to Measure D, and only permit non-urban uses beyond the UGB line (both inside and outside of the incorporated City boundary), thereby promoting city-centered infill development and preservation of open space.
 As part of LAFCO’s 2007 SOI review and update, the existing SOI for the City of Livermore was retained, with no expansions proposed or considered.
 As part of LAFCO’s 2017 review and update, the existing SOl for the City of Livermore was reaffirmed, with no changes. Alameda LAFCO determined that present and planned land uses in Livermore are adequate for existing residents as well as future growth, as demonstrated in the 2005 Livermore General Plan.

Whereas Livermore’s SOI does extend beyond (outside of) the Measure D UGB, all lands outside of the UGB (but within the City’s SOI) have General Plan land use designations of Large Parcel Agriculture, Agriculture/Viticulture, Sand and Gravel, or special South Livermore Valley Specific Plan designations, which preclude urban development.

Since the year 2000, the City of Livermore’s population and housing supply has increased by approximately 23 percent, from approximately 73,200 people and 26,100 housing units in 2000, to approximately 90,200 people and 31,800 housing units in 2020. 3 2 Alameda LAFCO - Cities MSR/SOI Updates, accessed at: https://pwainsp.acgov.org/LAFCO/municipal.htm 3 United States Census Bureau, Quickfacts, accessed at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/livermorecitycalifornia,pleasantoncitycalifornia,dublincitycali fornia/PST045219
ATTACHMENT 3
873
Figure 3-2
City of Livermore General Plan and Measure D UGB
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
®ÀR
BCP
OSP
LII/UM
HII
DA
LDAG
LDAG
HLCN
HLCN
HLCN
HLCN
HII
HII
HII
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
DA
DA
CSGC
NC
CSGC
CSGC
CSGC
CF-E
CF-E
CF-FS
CF-E
UMH
CF-H
CF-S
CF-H
CF-H
CF-E
CF-FS
CF-E
CF-E
CF-E
CF-R&D
CF-R&D
CF-R&D
CF-S
CF-S
CF
CF-E
CF-E
CF
CF-H
CFCF
CF-I
CF-E
CF-CE
CF-FS
CF-E
CF
CF-E
BCP
CF-JC

CF-AIR CF-AIR
BCP
BCP
BCP
BART
BCP
BCP
BART
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
NMH
OSP
OSP
LPA
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSPOSP
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
UH-2
NMM
NML
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
HII
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LII
LII

LII/ULM
LII/UH-3
LII
HII
HII
HII
HII
LII
LII
LII
LII
LII
LII
LII
LII
LII
LIILII
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC/UH-2
SC
RR
RR
RR
RR
RR
RR
RR
RMG
RMG
RMG
RMG
RMG
RMG
RMG
RMG
RMG

OSP/S&G

OSP/S&G
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP

OSP OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
UL-1
UH-4
UH-1
UH-1
UH-1
UH-2
UH-1
UH-1
UH-2
UH-1
UH-2
UH-1
UH-1
UH-2
UH-4
UH-1
ULM
NC
BCP/

CF-HOSP
LOC/

CF-HOSP
OC
UM
UM
ULM
AGVT
UH-1
UH-3
UH-2
UH-1
UH-1
UH-3
UH-3
UH-2UH-2
UH-2
UH-4
UH-4
UH-2
UH-2
UH-2
AGVT
UL-2
UL-2
UL-2
UH-3
UH-2
UH-1
UH-2
UH-2
UH-2
UH-2
UH-2 UH-2 UH-2 UH-2
UH-2
UH-2
UM
OSP
UM
UM
CF-IUM
UM
UM UM
UM
ULM/
UH-2
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULMULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
OSP
OSP
OSP
ULM
UH-2
RR
UL-2
UL-2
SC
SC
UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH

UMH UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH/UH-2
UMH
UM
UM
ULM
UM
UM
UM
UM
UM
UM
UM

OSP/S&G

OSP/S&G
UM
UM
UM
ULM
RR/UM
UMH
UMH
UM
UM
UM
BCP
BCP
RR
OSP
UH-3
HII/UH-3
UMH
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
LDAG
ULM
UL-1
UL-1
UL-2
CF-I
CF-E
CF-I
CF-CC
CF-CE
CF-FS
LII
OC
OC
NC/UH-3
OSP
OSP
OSP
UH-1
UH-3
UH-2
OC
UH-2/OC
UH-1
UH-2
UM
OSP
OSP
NMH
LII/UH-3
SV-7
AGVT
(SV7-TDR)
SV-3 SV-AP
SV-5
SV-AP
SV-1
SV-VC
SV-
VC
SV-VC
SV-
VC
SV-VC
SV-6
SV-VC
SV-5
SV-VC
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-6
SV-VC
SV-4
SV-VC
SV-4
SV-VC
SV-4
SV-VC
SV-5
SV-VC
SV-4
SV-ROS
SV-1
SV-RDA
SV-2
SV-RDA
SV-3
SV-RDA
SV-4
SV-RDA
SV-1
SV-AP
SV-2
SV-AP
SV-2
SV-AP
SV-
AP
SV-7
SV-AP
SV-3
SV-AP
SV-1
SV-AP
SV-6
SV-AP
SV-4
SV-AP
SV-5
SV-RDA
SV-4
SV-RDA
SV-4
SV-AP
SV-5
SV-AP
SV-1
SV-RDA
SV-2
SV-AP
SV-1
SV-AP
SV-2
SV-AP
SV-2
SV-AP

CF-AIR UM
UM
UM
UM
UM
UL-2
OSP
SV-5
SV-VC
SV-5
SV-VC
SV-4
SV-AP
AGVT
UM
UM
SV-2
SV-AP
AGVT
UMH
UMH
UM
UM
UL-2
SV-2
SV-VC
HII
OSP
BARTUM
UM
OSP
SV-2
SV-AP
SV-1
SV-AP
SV-1
SV-AP
SC
SC
UL-2
OSP
OSP
UH-2
ULM
OSP
RR
CSGC
OSP
OSP
DADA
ULM
ULM
ULM
UM
UM
OSP
OSP
OSP
OC
ULM
UL-2
UMH
UMH
UH-3
ULM
ULM
LPA
HII/
UH-5b
ULM
LII
LII/UH-5b
UH-3
SC
SC
UH-2
LOC
UH-2
UMH
BCP
SC
BCP/
UH-4
CSGC

C O U N T YC O U N T Y

C O U N T YC O U N T Y
§¨¦580
§¨¦580
§¨¦
580
§¨¦
580
§¨¦
580
§¨¦
580
§¨¦
580
§¨¦
580

RINCON AV

WISTERIA WY

JUNCTION AV

OLIVINA AV

SUNF LOWER CT

PINE ST
LAS

COLINAS RD

COLLEGE AV

SUPERIOR DR

SCENIC AV

DAPHNE DR

HILLCREST AV
M
URDELL
LN
S L ST
S L ST
S P ST
HAGEM
ANN
DR

ENCINO DR

MURDELL LN

OLIVINA AV

LEXINGTON WY

MADEIRA WY

ARROYO RD

VANCOUVER WY

NATIONAL DR

SCENIC AV

CHESTNUT ST

PRESTON AV

HILLCREST AV

BUSCHRD

GALLOWAYST

JUNCTION AV

PRESTONAV

BUSCH RD

CENTRAL AV

BRANSON
WY

LEXINGTON WY

REDWOODRD

LAUGHLIN RD

MAPLE ST

MAPLE ST

CHESTNUT ST

SOUTHFRONT RD

BRISA ST

N MINES RD

ALDEN LN

WETMORE RD

RUBY HILL BL
S L ST
S P ST
NO

RTHFRONT
RD

FRANKLIN LN

INDEPENDENCE DR
N P ST

KITTY HAWK RD
N L ST

ARROYO RD

CATALINA DR
ERUB

Y HILLDR

BLUEBELLDR

JENSEN ST
W
RUBY

HILL DR

W RUBYHILLDR

BROADMOOR ST

EL CAMINITO

EL CAMINITO

SPRINGTOWNBL

SPRINGTOWN BL

WALL ST
W
ALLST

ARLENE WY
ARLENE
W
Y

CHARLOTTE WY

CHARLOTTE
W
Y

GARAVENTA
RANCH
RD

HERMAN AV

CHARLOTTE WY

OLDFIRSTST

SOUTHFRONT RD

INDEPENDENCE
DR

HOLMES ST

PATTERSON PASS RD

ALTAMONT
PASSRD

N MINES RD

FIRST ST

S LIVERMORE AV

LAS POSITAS RD

FOURTH ST

CONCANNON BL

VINEYARDAV

INMAN ST
NOR

THFRONT RD

AIRWAY BL

E STANLEY BL

EL CHARRO RD

FIRST ST

PORTOLAAV

E VALLECITOS RD

GREENVILLE RD
MINES
RD
N

GREENVILLE
RD

E AIRWAYBL

RAILROAD AV

CEDAR MOUNTAIN RD
M
INES
RD

EAST AV

GREENVILLE RD

RAYMOND RD

E JACK LONDON BL

NORTH CANYONS PW

TESLA RD

MARINA AV

LORRAINE RD

MURRIETA BL

STANLEY BL

DOOLAN RD

ARROYO RD

E VINEYARD AV

STONERIDGEDR

DAGNINO RD
N
VASCO
RD

DUBLINBL

CROAK RD

HARTFORD AV
N
LIV
ERM
ORE
AV

N LIVERMORE AV

S VASCO RD
S
VASCO
RD
N
M

URRIETA
BL

NMURRIETABL

COLLIER
CANYO
N
RD

ISABEL AV

N VASCO RD

MINES RD
MINES
RD

WENTE ST

TESLA RD
CF
AGVT
OSP
OSP
SV-7
SV-ROS
SV-6
SV-VC
SV-5
SV-VC
SV-VC
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-6
SV-VC
SV-4
SV-VC
SV-7
SV-VC
SV-7
SV-AP
SV-7
SV-AP
SV-6
SV-AP
SV-4
SV-APSV-5
SV-VC
SV-5
SV-VC
AGVT
OSP
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles
Ü
City of Livermore General Plan Map
Legend
1-5 Acre Site
#1 = 1.0-1.5 du/acre
#2 = 1.5-2.0 du/acre

2.0-3.0 du/acre

3.0-4.5 du/acre

4.5-6.0 du/acre
Residential
Rural Residential (RR)
Urban Low Residential (UL)
Urban Low Medium Residential (ULM)
Urban Medium Residential (UM)
Urban Medium High Residential (UMH)
Urban High Residential (UH)
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
Mixed Use
Neighborhood Mixed Low Density (NML)
Neighborhood Mixed Medium Density (NMM)
Neighborhood Mixed High Density (NMH)
Industrial
BCP
LII
High Intensity Industrial (HII)
Community Facility
Elementary School (CF-E)
Fire Station (CF-FS)
Intermediate School (CF-I)
High School (CF-H)
Community College (CF-JC)
School General (CF-S)
Research and Development (CF-R&D)
Hospital (CF-HOSP)
Civic Center (CF-CC)
Cemetery (CF-CE)
Government Services (CF)
Airport (CF-AIR)
Bart Station Parking (BART)
Open Space
Parks, Trailways, Recreation Areas
(OSP)
Limited Agriculture (LDAG)
Agriculture/Viticulture (AGVT)
Hillside Conservation (HLCN)
Large Parcel Agriculture (LPA)
Resource Management (RMG)
Sand and Gravel (S&G)
Water Management Lands (WML)
South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Residential Development Area (SV-RDA)
Agricultural Preserve (SV-AP)
Regional Open Space (SV-ROS)
Vineyard Commercial (SV-VC)
Other
Downtown Area Specific Plan (DA)
#1 = 6-8 du/acre
#2 = 8-14 du/acre
#3 = 14-18 du/acre
#4 = 18-22 du/acre
#5 = 22-38 du/acre
#5a = 22-30 du/acre
#5b = 30-38 du/acre
#6 = 38-55 du/acre
®ÀR Transfer Development Credits Receiver
Site
I-580 Adopted Plan Lines
Urban Growth Boundary
City Limits
CF-E
CF-I
CF-H
CF-JC
CF-S
CF-R&D
CF-FS
CF-CC
CF-CE
CF
CF-AIR
BART
Floating Potential Future Park Site
Floating Potential Future School Site
CF-S
OSP
P l e a s a n t o nP l e a s a n t o n
P l e a s a n t o nP l e a s a n t o n
D u b l i nD u b l i n
Updated: May 31,2018

CF-HOSP
C o u n t yC o u n t y C o u n t yC o u n t y
Railroad
Railroad
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Service Commercial (SC)
Highway Commercial (HC)
Office Commercial (OC)
Large Office Commercial (LOC)
Community Serving General
Commercial (CSGC)
.30 FAR max
.30 FAR max
.30 FAR max
.30 FAR max
.30 FAR max
.60 FAR max
Site coverage
varies
.45 Max
site coverage
.60 Max
site coverage
C o u n t yC o u n t y
C o u n t yC o u n t y
Urban Growth Boundary
Urban Growth Boundary
Urban Growth Boundary
Source: City of Livermore General Plan, accessed at:
https://www.cityoflivermore.net/government/community-development/planning/2003-2025-general-plan ATTACHMENT 3
874
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 23
All of this growth has been accommodated within Livermore’s established UGB. According to Livermore’s last Housing Element, the City of Livermore’s land inventory showed a capacity for approximately 2,733 additional housing units within the General Plan Area and approximately 1,692 units within the Downtown Specific Plan Area. In total, the identified potential housing sites would provide approximately 4,425 units, exceeding that period’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) by 1,696 units, including the required number of housing units in each household income category. 4 The City of Livermore is currently in process toward preparation of a General Plan update, including a new State-mandated Housing Element. According to the 2021 ABAG Final RHNA Methodology and Draft Allocations, the City of Livermore has been assigned a draft allocation of an additional 4,570 housing units across all household income levels.
5 City of Pleasanton
The City of Pleasanton's SOl was established by LAFCO in 1976 and was amended in 1981, 1984, 1988, 1991, and in 1992 with the annexation of the Ruby Hill/Vineyard Avenue Corridor. Through 2007, Pleasanton accepted as many as 66 annexations into the City boundary, and all but one of those annexations involved territory in their SOl.

The orderly growth and development of Pleasanton, together with the preservation of an open-space greenbelt, has been a high priority for the Pleasanton community. The City has used several tools to attain this goal including the adoption of an Urban Growth Boundary and a Growth Management Program. As early as 1996, Pleasanton voters ratified a City Urban Growth Boundary to distinguish areas generally suitable for urban development and areas where urban public facilities and services are provided, from those areas not suitable for urban development. Areas outside the Urban Growth Boundary are generally suitable for the long-term protection of natural resources, large lot agriculture and grazing, parks and recreation, public health and safety, wildlands, buffers between communities and scenic ridgeline views. The Pleasanton UGB permanently defines the line beyond which urban development will not occur. The UGB established in year 2000 (pursuant to Measure D) is co-terminus with the City of Pleasanton’s already existing UGB (see Figure 3-3).  As part of LAFCO’s 2007 SOI review and update, the existing SOI for the City of Pleasanton was retained, with no expansions proposed or considered.
 As part of LAFCO’s 2017/18 SOI review and update, the existing SOl for the City of Pleasanton was reaffirmed, with no changes. Alameda LAFCO determined that present and planned land uses in Livermore are adequate for existing residents as well as future growth, as demonstrated in the 2009 Pleasanton General Plan.

The City of Pleasanton’s SOI encompasses a substantially larger area than either the City boundaries or the City’s UGB. The Pleasanton General Plan indicates that, “annexation of remaining contiguous parcels of unincorporated County land to the City is crucial to completing an efficient system of municipal services at General Plan buildout”.
4 City of Livermore General Plan, 2015 to 2022 Housing Element Update Initial Study for the City of Livermore, January 2015
5 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, May 2021
ATTACHMENT 3
875
Figure 3-3
City of Pleasanton General Plan and Measure D UGB
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
ÃÆÃ
ÃÆÃ
Pleasanton
Ridge
Regional
Park
Hayward Area
Rec. District
Happy Valley Rd
Castlewood
Country Club
Augustin
Bernal
Park
Pleasanton
Ridge
Regional
Park
ES
ES
HS ES
MS
HS
ES
CIVIC
CENTER
ES
MS ES
ES
ES ES
BART
BART
Planning Area Boundary
Planning Area Boundary
Planning Area Boundary
Planning Area Boundary
Foothill Rd
Bernal Av.

Stoneridge Dr
W. Las Positas Dr
Stoneridge Dr
Busch Rd
Valley Av.

Stanley Blvd
Vineyard Av.

Vineyard Av.

Main St
Bernal Av
Sunol Blvd
Fairgrounds
84 84
580
680
680
580
Residential
RURAL DENSITY 1 dwelling unit per 5 gross acres
**Oak Grove max 51 units
LOW DENSITY Less than 2 dwelling units per gross acres
*Austin Property 8 units max

LOW DENSITY
Happy Valley Specific Plan
1 dwelling unit per 2 gross acres, with
1 unit per 1.5 gross acres when developed
in conjunction with major open space land
or agriculture/open-space easement dedication
MEDIUM DENSITY 2 to 8 dwelling units per gross acre
HIGH DENSITY Greater than 8 dwelling units per gross acres Industrial, Commercial & Offices

RETAIL /HIGHWAY /SERVICE COMMERCIAL

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES

GENERAL AND LIMITED INDUSTRIAL

LAKE-SAND AND GRAVEL HARVESTING
BUSINESS PARK (Industrial/Commercial and Office)
Community Facilities

ES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

MS MIDDLE SCHOOL

HS HIGH SCHOOL

OTHER PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL
Mixed Use

MIXED USE
Open Space

PARKS AND RECREATION

AGRICULTURE AND GRAZING

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

WILDLAND OVERLAY

WATER MANAGEMENT & RECREATION
Circulation

BART STAION

FREEWAY

ARTERIAL

LOCAL/COLLECTOR STREETS

RAILROAD

TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Special Planning Areas

SPECIFIC PLAN AREA

URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
Pleasanton General Plan
Land Use Map
2005-2025
(Adopted July 21, 2009)
BART
General Plan Amendment
Resolution No. 12-494 - Jan 4th, 2012
Urban Growth Boundary
Urban Growth Boundary
Urban Growth
Boundary
Source: City of Pleasanton General Plan, Land Use Map
2005-2025, as amended January 2012
ATTACHMENT 3
876
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 25
Many of the areas within Pleasanton’s SOI but outside of the UGB include sand and gravel quarries, and associated lakes on both sides of Stanly Boulevard. These areas also include the Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park and its adjacent agricultural lands to the west (protected since 1993, when Pleasanton voters approved Measure F), and large areas of agriculture and open space south of Pleasanton and north of SR 84. All of those lands that are outside of the UGB but within Pleasanton’s SOI have General Plan land use designations that provide for sand and gravel operation, agriculture and open space, and public health and safety, but that preclude any urban land uses.

Since the year 2000, the City of Pleasanton’s population and housing supply has increased by approximately 28 percent and 25 percent respectively, from approximately 63,700 people and 23,300 housing units in 2000, to approximately 81,800 people and 29,000 housing units in 2020. 6 All of this
growth has been accommodated within Pleasanton’s established UGB. According to Pleasanton’s latest adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element, the City of Pleasanton’s actions to facilitate the provision of newly constructed, rehabilitated or conserved housing was adequate to meet a total need of 2,112 new housing units across all income levels. 7
Like all jurisdictions in the Bay Area, Pleasanton is required to update its Housing Element by January 31, 2023. According to the 2021 ABAG Final RHNA Methodology and Draft Allocations, the City of Pleasanton has been assigned a draft allocation of an additional 5,965 housing units across all household income levels.8
City of Dublin
The City of Dublin's SOl was established by LAFCO in 1984 and amended only once (to detach the upper portion of Doolan Road from Dublin's boundary and SOl). Measure D established an Urban Growth Boundary at the eastern end of Dublin's planning area, which limits development outside that boundary, and Dublin's growth is expected to occur primarily in eastern Dublin.  As part of LAFCO’s 2007 SOI review and update, the existing SOI for the City of Dublin was retained, with no expansions proposed or considered.
 As part of LAFCO’s 2017/18 SOI review and update, the existing SOl for the City of Dublin was reaffirmed, with no changes. Alameda LAFCO determined that present and planned land uses in Dublin are adequate for existing residents as well as future growth, as demonstrated in the Dublin General Plan (2015).

In 2000, the City of Dublin established an Urban Limit Line (ULL) along a portion of its Western Extended Planning Area that is coterminous with the City limit line and the Measure D UGB. In 2014, the City further adopted the Dublin Open Space Initiative, which established non-urban land use designations to protect open spaces and agricultural lands of its Western Extended Planning Area that are outside of the western ULL (see Figure 3.4).
6 U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts, accessed at: United States Census Bureau, Quickfacts, accessed at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/livermorecitycalifornia,pleasantoncitycalifornia,dublincitycali fornia/PST045219
7 City of Pleasanton General Plan, 2015-2023 Housing Element, accessed at:
http://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/gov/depts/cd/planning/new/housing.asp 8 ABAG, May 2021
ATTACHMENT 3
877
Figure 3-4
City of Dublin General Plan and Measure D UGB
1–17 City of Dublin General Plan | Background
Western Extended Planning Area

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y

C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y

A L A M E D A C O U N T Y

C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area
(Camp Parks)
U.S. Department
of Justice
County of Alameda

WESTERN EXTENDED

PLANNING AREA

CITY LIMIT AND URBAN LIMIT LINE

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

PRIMARY PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY

EASTERN

EXTENDED PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY

CITY LIMITS AND URBAN LIMIT LINE

CITY LIMITS AND URBAN LIMIT LINE

CITY LIMITS

CITY LIMITS

EASTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY

EASTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY

DUBLIN CROSSING PLANNING AREA
B
O
UN
D
ARY

AND URBAN LIMIT LINE
§¨¦
580
San Ra mon Ro ad
Dubli n B lvd
Amado r Val ley Blv d
Villa ge Pa rk wa y
Dubli n B lvd
Central Pk wy
Glea so n Drive
Ha cienda Drive
Tassaja ra Roa d
Gleason Drive
Fa llo n R oad
Fallon Road
Dubli n B lvd
Central P kwy
Arno ld Roa d
§¨¦
580
§¨¦
680
æ
æ
k
k
(1)
USA
City of Livermore
Cit y o f San Ramon
C ity o
f Pleasanton
Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District
Airport Protection Area (APA)
Airport Safety Zone 6
Western Extended Planning Area Boundary
Primary Planning Area Boundary
Eastern Extended Planning Area Boundary
Dublin Crossing Planning Area Boundary
City of Dublin
Sphere of Influence
City of Livermore
City of Pleasanton
City of San Ramon

DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
K
0 10.5
Miles

LAND USE
(Figure 1-1)
N o v e m b e r 21 , 2 0 1 7
Commercial/Industrial
General Commercial
Retail/Office
Retail/Office and Automotive
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial/Campus Office
Campus Office
Industrial Park
Business Park/Industrial
Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage
Medical Campus
Medical Campus / Commercial
Mixed Use
Mixed Use 2/Campus Office
Medium/High-Density Residential and Retail Office
Public/Semi-Public/Open Space
Regional Park
Parks/ Public Recreation
Open Space
Stream Corridor
Public Lands
Public / Semi-Public
Semi-Public
Specific Plan Districts
Downtown Dublin - Village Parkway District
Downtown Dublin - Transit-Oriented District
Downtown Dublin - Retail District
Dublin Crossing
Residential
Rural Residential/Agriculture (1 Unit per 100 Gross Residential Acres) Estate Residential (0.01 - 0.8 du/ac)
Low-Density Single Family (0.5 - 3.8 du/ac)
Single Family Residential (0.9 - 6.0 du/ac)
Medium-Density Residential (6.1 - 14.0 du/ac)
Medium/High-Density Residential (14.1 - 25.0 du/ac)
High-Density Residential (25.1+ du/ac)
The location of Semi-Public sites on the Chen,
and Croak properties of Fallon Village will be
determined at the time of the Stage 2 Development
Plan approval. The respective sizes of t he sites will
be 2.5 net acres, and 2.0 net acres on the Chen and
Croak Properties.
50% of the units within the Medium Density land
use designation on the Croak and Jordan prope rties
shall have private, flat yards.

General Plan Land Use Map should be used in
combination with the General Plan and applicable
Specific Plans that contain policies and
development standards for specific planning areas.

While the General Plan Land Use Map shows
existing development and layout, only the land use
designations for the land on which such
development exists are part of the General Plan.
(1) Underlying Land Use – Public / Semi Public
(ORD. 09-15 and RESO. 166-15)
æ
k
Urban Growth Boundary
Urban Growth Boundary
Source: City of Dublin General Plan Land Use Element,
Figure 1-1, as amended December 2016
ATTACHMENT 3
878
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 27
The 2014 Dublin Open Space Initiative also established an additional ULL along the eastern edge of the City’s Eastern Extended Planning Area. The eastern ULL was established to primarily to protect approximately 3,800 acres of lands known as the Doolan-Collier Canyons (located outside the City Limits and Dublin SOI) from development. The eastern ULL is co-terminus with the City boundary, but portions of this ULL occur outside of Measure D’s UGB. In these areas, a Development Elevation Cap is established at the 770-foot elevation contour, where orderly and logical growth can occur without major impacts to visually sensitive ridgelands, biologically sensitive habitat areas, public services or infrastructure. Areas beyond the Development Elevation Cap are designated as open space and rural residential.

Since the year 2000, the City of Dublin’s population and housing supply has more than doubled (116% growth), from approximately 30,000 people and 9,300 housing units in 2000, to approximately 64,800 people and 20,200 housing units in 2020.9 Much of this growth and development has occurred as transit-oriented development clustered around the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station (established in 1997), and as redevelopment of the former Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area pursuant to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan.

The City is currently in the process of updating its General Plan Housing Element for the 2023-2031 planning period. According to the 2021 ABAG Final RHNA Methodology and Draft Allocations, the City of Dublin has been assigned a draft allocation of an additional 3,719 housing units across all household income levels.
10 City of Hayward
The City of Hayward’s SOl was established by LAFCO in 1978 and amended only once (to remove the Five Canyons development area north of the City from Hayward's SOl). Through 2007, the City of Hayward accepted as many as 53 annexations into the City boundary, all involving territory in the Hayward SOl. In 2004, the City filed an application to annex three of five islands in the Mt. Eden area to provide City services and infrastructure improvements.
 As part of LAFCO’s 2007 SOI review and update, the existing SOI for the City of Hayward was retained, with no expansions proposed or considered.
 As part of LAFCO’s 2017/18 SOI review and update, the existing SOl for the City of Hayward was reaffirmed, with no changes. Alameda LAFCO determined that present and planned land uses in Hayward are adequate for existing residents as well as future growth, as demonstrated in the Hayward General Plan.

Whereas the City of Hayward is primarily a West County city, it was included in the Measure D amendments to the East County Area Plan because its easterly boundary along the Pleasanton Ridge and Main Ridge (which generally separate East and West County areas) serves as a community separator/open space separating Hayward and Pleasanton(see Figure 3.5). 9 U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts, accessed at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/dublincitycalifornia 10 ABAG, May 2021
ATTACHMENT 3
879
Figure 3-5
City of Hayward General Plan and Urban Limit Line
County
San Leandro
Cherryland
Ashland
San Lorenzo
Hayward
Castro Valley
Union City
Fairview
Hayward
Acres
§¨¦
880
§¨¦
880
§¨¦
238
§¨¦
580
!(92
Orchard Ave
C St
Arf Ave
Mission Blvd
Mission Blvd
Golf Course Rd
Hayward Blvd
Main St
Grove Way
Fairview Ave
Kelly StGrove Way
Soto Rd
E St
Huntwood Ave
Meek Ave
Bockman Rd East Ave
W Tennyson Rd
Hathaway Ave
Highland Blvd
Redwood Rd
Enterprise Ave
Harder Rd
Dixon St
Longwood Av
Eden Ave
Winton Ave
Folsom Ave
Gading Rd
Maud Ave
Revere Ave
Saklan Rd
Santa Clara St
Bailey Ranch Rd
Baumberg Ave
A St
2nd St
Center St
Hesperian Blvd
W Jackson St
Industrial Pkwy W
6th St
Jackson St
E 14th St
I-880
Grand St
Route 92
Manor Blvd
Clawiter Rd
Dyer St
Carlos Bee Blvd
Grant Ave
Five Canyons Pkwy
Cabot Blvd
Oakes Dr
Palomares Rd
Garin Ave
B St
Meekland Ave
W A St
Montgomery St
Depot Rd
D St
Western Bl
I-880
Fairway St
W Winton Av
Castro Valley Blvd
Skywest Dr
Lewelling Blvd
Mission Blvd
Foothill Blvd
Whitman St
Industrial Pkwy
Union City Blvd
Whipple Rd
Industrial Blvd
San Clemente St
Ruus Rd
Sabre St
Investment Blvd
Arden Rd
Whipple Rd
I-580
I-238
Huntwood Ave
Tennyson Rd
I-580
I-880
Mission Blvd
Mission Blvd
Hesperian Blvd
Hesperian Blvd
I-880
I
0 ½ 1¼
Miles
September, 2013
Data source: City of Hayward
Figure LU-1
Land Use Diagram
County
San Leandro
Cherryland
Ashland
San Lorenzo
Hayward
Castro Valley
Union City
Fairview
Hayward
Acres
§¨¦
880
§¨¦
880
§¨¦
238
§¨¦
580
!(92
Orchard Ave
C St
Arf Ave
Mission Blvd
Mission Blvd
Golf Course Rd
Hayward Blvd
Main St
Grove Way
Fairview Ave
Kelly StGrove Way
Soto Rd
E St
Huntwood Ave
Meek Ave
Bockman Rd East Ave
W Tennyson Rd
Hathaway Ave
Highland Blvd
Redwood Rd
Enterprise Ave
Harder Rd
Dixon St
Longwood Av
Eden Ave
Winton Ave
Folsom Ave
Gading Rd
Maud Ave
Revere Ave
Saklan Rd
Santa Clara St
Bailey Ranch Rd
Baumberg Ave
A St
2nd St
Center St
Hesperian Blvd
W Jackson St
Industrial Pkwy W
6th St
Jackson St
E 14th St
I-880
Grand St
Route 92
Manor Blvd
Clawiter Rd
Dyer St
Carlos Bee Blvd
Grant Ave
Five Canyons Pkwy
Cabot Blvd
Oakes Dr
Palomares Rd
Garin Ave
B St
Meekland Ave
W A St
Montgomery St
Depot Rd
D St
Western Bl
I-880
Fairway St
W Winton Av
Castro Valley Blvd
Skywest Dr
Lewelling Blvd
Mission Blvd
Foothill Blvd
Whitman St
Industrial Pkwy
Union City Blvd
Whipple Rd
Industrial Blvd
San Clemente St
Ruus Rd
Sabre St
Investment Blvd
Arden Rd
Whipple Rd
I-580
I-238
Huntwood Ave
Tennyson Rd
I-580
I-880
Mission Blvd
Mission Blvd
Hesperian Blvd
Hesperian Blvd
I-880
I
0 ½ 1¼
Miles
September, 2013
Data source: City of Hayward
Figure LU-1
Land Use Diagram
Approx. East County Area
Plan Boundary
Source: City of Hayward General Plan, Land Use Diagram, Figure LU-1, July 2014
ATTACHMENT 3
880
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 29
ECAP (Policy 65) calls for the County to work cooperatively with the cities of Pleasanton and Hayward, the Castro Valley community, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), and landowners to retain Pleasanton Ridge as permanent open space, and to oppose any City SOI expansions or annexations outside the UGB in this area for purposes of urban development.

The City of Hayward General Plan does include policies to maintain its established Urban Limit Line to protect the Hayward hillsides as natural open space and recreational resources. Hayward policies also consider de-annexing properties outside of the City’s SOI (e.g., Pleasanton Ridgeline) if cooperative agreements with Alameda County, Pleasanton, and the East Bay Regional Park District are in place to permanently preserve the properties as open space or regional parkland. 11 Conclusions
Measure D and is subsequent amendments to the County’s East County Area Plan have been highly effective in directing that urbanization occur in the East County cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore, and not on the prime agricultural land or important open spaces outside of the UGB. No amendments to the UGB have been made, and no changes to existing SOIs for expansion of City boundaries to support urbanization have occurred since the year 2000. Alameda LAFCO has worked with each of the East County cities to ensure that annexations of land into those cities retain the land use restrictions established by Measure D.

As shown on Table 3-1, the East County has grown by nearly 70,000 people and 22,300 new housing units since 2000, nearly all of which has occurred within the City boundaries, and nearly all (with the exception of certain incorporated City lands in Dublin) within the UGB as established by Measure D. 11 City of Hayward General Plan, Land Use Element, accessed at:
https://www.hayward2040generalplan.com/goal/LU1
ATTACHMENT 3
881
0 50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
Livermore Pleasanton Dublin East County Cities
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 RHNA
Table 3-1
Changes in East County Population by City, between 1990 and 2020 (plus Projected Year 2030 Share of Regional Housing Needs)
Sources: US Census Bureau and General Plan Housing Elements of Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin
97,000
240,000
167,000
+ 70,000
+ 73,400
ATTACHMENT 3
882
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 31

3.2: Protecting Important Open Space and Agricultural Lands Maintaining the Open Space Greenbelt
Establishment of ECAP’s UGB has reciprocally been highly effective in protecting and preserving those agricultural and open space lands that are located on the outside of the UGB. Since 2000, no changes to the UGB have occurred, and no urban development has displaced agricultural or open space lands on the outside of the UGB. Important open space areas that have remained as part of the continuous greenbelt outside the UGB include:
 the Pleasanton Ridgelands (with the cooperative efforts of Pleasanton, Hayward, the Castro Valley community, the East Bay Regional Park District, and private landowners)  the upper portions of the Doolan and Collier Canyon Hills  Brushy Peak Regional Preserve
 The North Livermore area
 Bethany Reservoir and State Recreation Area
 Sycamore Grove Regional Park,
 SFPUC properties and other properties in the watersheds surrounding of the San Antonio Reservoir and Lake del Valle, including the Del Valle Regional Park and Sunol Regional Wilderness, and
 the South Livermore Valley area (including the Ruby Hill Area, the Vineyard Avenue Area, the Alden Lane Area, and the Vineyard Area) crossing between the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore, and unincorporated County
Protecting Agricultural Lands/Agricultural Soils
The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) provides data pertaining to California's agricultural land resources. 12 This data is an inventory of
agricultural soil resources, updated every two years. The vast majority of agricultural lands within Alameda County that are tracked by the FMMP fall within the categories of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland and Grazing Land. Other land use categories (primarily the Urban and Other Lands categories) are used for reporting changes in agricultural land use as required for FMMP's biennial farmland conversion report. These land use categories are more specifically described below:
13  Prime Farmland: Farmland that is best suited for producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops, with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production, and also available for these uses. This land has the soil quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been 12 California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, accessed at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/
13 California Department of Conservation, at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important- Farmland-Categories.aspx
ATTACHMENT 3
883
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 32
used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date, to be considered “Prime”.
 Farmland of Statewide Importance: Farmland of Statewide Importance has a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, and fiber and oilseed crops, and is available for these uses. Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date, to be considered of Statewide Importance.  Unique Farmland: Unique Farmland is land other than Prime and Farmland of Statewide Importance that is currently used for the production of specific high value food and fiber crops.

It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality and/or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to modern farming methods. These lands are currently producing crops of high economic importance to California (e.g., vineyards). They are usually irrigated but they may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards, as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date, to qualify as being Unique Farmland.
 Grazing Land: Grazing Lands are those lands on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen's Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.
 Urban and Built-up Land: Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures and other developed purposes.
 Other Land: Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments (at densities of less than 1 unit to 1.5 acres); brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits and quarries; and water bodies smaller than forty acres.

Vacant and non-agricultural land greater than 40 acres and surrounded on all sides by urban development is mapped as Other Land.

The FMMP provides detailed Geographic Information System (GIS) data that pertains to Alameda County, starting in year 1984 (17 years prior to adoption of Measure D) through year 2018 (17 years after adoption of Measure D). This data enables a comparison of changes in farmland and agricultural soils that have occurred in East County, both pre- and post-Measure D. As in important note, the changes in farmland and other agricultural soils designations throughout the East County that occurred during the period from 2000 to 2018 are a function of many variables, and not necessarily attributable to Measure D.

Changes in East County Agricultural Lands Prior to 2000 Based on the detailed GIS data from the Department of Conservation for the year 1984 (see Figure 3-6), Alameda County’s East County Area had:

ATTACHMENT 3
884
San Joaquin County GIS/Planning, San Joaquin County Public Works, Bureau of Land Manageme +
–
4mi
-121.526 37.654 Degrees
ArcGIS World Geocoding Service
Data Viewer
DOCMaps
Layer List
Operational layers

County Boundaries
City Boundaries
California Important Farmland: Most Recent
California Important Farmland: 1984
California Important Farmland: 1986
California Important Farmland: 1988
California Important Farmland: 1990
California Important Farmland: 1992
California Important Farmland: 1994
California Important Farmland: 1996
California Important Farmland: 1998
California Important Farmland: 2000
California Important Farmland: 2002
California Important Farmland: 2004
California Important Farmland: 2006
California Important Farmland: 2008
California Important Farmland: 2010
California Important Farmland: 2012
California Important Farmland: 2014
Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS | Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Prog 4mi
+
–
ArcGIS World Geocoding Service
-120.983 37.873 Degrees
Data Viewer
DOCMaps
Legend
Cities
BOECities
Counties
Counties
California Important Farmland: Most Recent
Most Recent
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Unique Farmland
Grazing Land
Farmland of Local Importance
Farmland of Local Potential
Other Land
Confined Animal Agriculture
Nonagricultural or Natural Vegetation
Vacant or Disturbed Land
Rural Residential Land
Semi-agricultural and Rural Commercial
Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
Water Area
Irrigated Farmland
Nonirrigated Farmland
California Important Farmland: 2000
2000
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Unique Farmland
Grazing Land
Farmland of Local Importance
Farmland of Local Potential
Other Land
Confined Animal Agriculture
Nonagricultural or Natural Vegetation
Vacant or Disturbed Land
Rural Residential Land
Semi-agricultural and Rural Commercial
Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
Urban Growth
Boundary by
year 2020
Urban Growth Boundary by
year 2002
Urban Growth Boundary by
year 2020
Urban Growth Boundary by
year 2020
Figure 3-6
Important Farmland within East County - Year 1984
Source: California Dept. of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, accessed at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/ ATTACHMENT 3
885
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 34
 Approximately 9,780 acres of land falling within the farmland soils categories of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance and Unique Farmland, comprising only approximately 3.7% of the entire 267,500-acre (or 418 square mile) East County area  Approximately 226,210 acres (or nearly 85% of the East County) was identified as Grazing Land  Approximately 18,770 acres (or about 7% of the East County) was Urban/Built-Up Lands, and  Approximately 12,760 acres (or nearly 5% of East County) was represented as Other Lands As shown in Table 3-2, the characteristics of East County’s farmlands and other soils categories had changed substantially by year 2000 (see Figure 3-7). In year 2000, Alameda County’s East County Area had:
 Approximately 9,470 acres of land are within the soils categories of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance and Unique Farmland, comprising approximately 3.5% of the East County area. In total, the East County lost only about 310 net acres (or about 3%) of its total farmland soils during this period. However, these numbers reflected two significant and off- setting conditions:
o The East County lost approximately 1,975 acres (or 23%) of its farmland as a result of new urban land uses, developed primarily on former Prime Farmlands adjacent to and within the cities of Pleasant, Livermore and Dublin (within those areas that would become Measure D’s Urban Growth Boundary). Additional losses of Farmland of Statewide Importance and Unique Farmland occurred along the edges of these existing cities.
o Conversely, the East County saw in increase of approximately 1,670 acres of lands, mostly within the category of Unique Farmland. Most of the increase in this farmland category resulted from the FMMP’s recognition of growth in actively irrigated and managed viticulture production areas in the South Livermore Valley. The FMMP re- designated these lands as Unique Farmlands because of their conversion to sustained production of a specific high quality and high yield crop of economic importance to California (i.e., vineyards) (compare Figures 2-6 and 2-7).  Approximately 208,370 acres (or nearly 80% of the East County) was identified as Grazing Land, representing a loss of 17,810 acres (or a 3% decrease) since 1984  Approximately 28,340 acres (or nearly 11% of East County) was Urban/Built-Up lands, representing an increase of as much a 9,570 acres (or a 51% increase) in Urban Lands since 1984.
 Approximately 21,310 acres (or 8% of East County) was identified as Other Lands, representing an increase of 8,550 acres (or a 67% increase) in the Other Lands category since 1984.

ATTACHMENT 3
886
Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS | Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Prog 4mi
+
–
ArcGIS World Geocoding Service
-121.328 37.551 Degrees
Data Viewer
DOCMaps
Layer List
Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS | Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Prog 4mi
+
–
ArcGIS World Geocoding Service
-120.983 37.873 Degrees
Data Viewer
DOCMaps
Legend
Cities
BOECities
Counties
Counties
California Important Farmland: Most Recent
Most Recent
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Unique Farmland
Grazing Land
Farmland of Local Importance
Farmland of Local Potential
Other Land
Confined Animal Agriculture
Nonagricultural or Natural Vegetation
Vacant or Disturbed Land
Rural Residential Land
Semi-agricultural and Rural Commercial
Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
Water Area
Irrigated Farmland
Nonirrigated Farmland
California Important Farmland: 2000
2000
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Unique Farmland
Grazing Land
Farmland of Local Importance
Farmland of Local Potential
Other Land
Confined Animal Agriculture
Nonagricultural or Natural Vegetation
Vacant or Disturbed Land
Rural Residential Land
Semi-agricultural and Rural Commercial
Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
Figure 3-7
Important Farmland within East County - Year 2000
Urban Growth
Boundary
Urban Growth Boundary
Urban Growth Boundary
Urban Growth Boundary
Source: California Dept. of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, accessed at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/ ATTACHMENT 3
887
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 36
Table 3-2: Changes in Farmland and Grazing Land Soils, 1984 to 2000 (pre-Measure D) Year 1984 Year 2000 Change, 1984 to 2000
Acres % Total Acres % Total Acres
Relative
Change (%)
Agricultural Lands
Prime Farmland 7,563 2.8% 5,788 2.2% (1,775) (23%)
Outside of Future UGB 4,375 4,268 (107)
Within Future UGB 3,188 1,520 (1,668)
Farmland of Statewide Importance 1,589 0.6% 2,054 0.8% +465 +29% Outside of Future UGB 1,359 2,005 +646
Within Future UGB 230 50 (180)
Unique Farmland 630 0.2% 1,633 0.6% +1.003 + 159%
Outside of Future UGB 389 1,521 +1,132
Within Future UGB 241 113 (128)
Subtotal, Farmlands: 9,782 3.7% 9,475 3.5% (307) (3%) Outside of Future UGB 6,123 7,779 +1,671 +27%
Within Future UGB 3,659 1,683 (1,976) (54%)
Grazing Land 226,206 84.6% 208,396 77.9%% (17,810) (8%) Outside of Future UGB 212,042 198,934 (13,108) (6%)
Within Future UGB 14,164 9,457 (4,707) (33%)
Other Lands 12,762 4.8% 21,312 8.0% +8,550 +67%
Outside of Future UGB 7,709 18,254 +10,545 +137%
Within Future UGB 5,053 3,061 (1,993) -39%
Urban/Built-Up Lands 18,770 7.0% 28,337 10.6% +9,567 +51% Outside of Future UGB 997 1,890 +893 +90%
Within Future UGB 17,773 26,449 +8,676 +49%
Total: 267,520 267,520 267,520
Outside of Future UGB 226,871 226,871 226,871
Within Future UGB 40,649 40,649 40,649
Source: As aggregated for Alameda County East County, from California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland: 1984-2018, accessed at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/ Changes in East County Agricultural Lands Since 2000
As of 2018, (the most current year in which data is available), the same FMMP GIS database shows that the East County area (see Table 3-3 and Figure 3-8) had:

ATTACHMENT 3
888
Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS | Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Prog 4mi
+
–
ArcGIS World Geocoding Service
-121.529 37.615 Degrees
Data Viewer
DOCMaps
Layer List
DMR All Mines
Indoor Radon Potential Study Areas
Indoor Radon Potential Zones
Fault Activity Map of California
Deep-Seated Landslide Susceptibility (CGS
Map Sheet 58)
California Important Farmland: Most Recent
California Important Farmland: 1984
California Important Farmland: 1986
California Important Farmland: 1988
California Important Farmland: 1990
California Important Farmland: 1992
California Important Farmland: 1994
California Important Farmland: 1996
California Important Farmland: 1998
California Important Farmland: 2000
California Important Farmland: 2002
California Important Farmland: 2004
California Important Farmland: 2006
California Important Farmland: 2008
California Important Farmland: 2010
California Important Farmland: 2012
California Important Farmland: 2014
California Important Farmland: 2016
Geologic Map of California
Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS | Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Prog 4mi
+
–
ArcGIS World Geocoding Service
-120.983 37.873 Degrees
Data Viewer
DOCMaps
Legend
Cities
BOECities
Counties
Counties
California Important Farmland: Most Recent
Most Recent
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Unique Farmland
Grazing Land
Farmland of Local Importance
Farmland of Local Potential
Other Land
Confined Animal Agriculture
Nonagricultural or Natural Vegetation
Vacant or Disturbed Land
Rural Residential Land
Semi-agricultural and Rural Commercial
Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
Water Area
Irrigated Farmland
Nonirrigated Farmland
California Important Farmland: 2000
2000
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Unique Farmland
Grazing Land
Farmland of Local Importance
Farmland of Local Potential
Other Land
Confined Animal Agriculture
Nonagricultural or Natural Vegetation
Vacant or Disturbed Land
Rural Residential Land
Semi-agricultural and Rural Commercial
Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
Urban Growth
Boundary
Urban Growth Boundary
Urban Growth Boundary
Urban Growth Boundary
Figure 3-8
Important Farmland within East County - Year 2018
Source: California Dept. of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, accessed at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/ ATTACHMENT 3
889
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 38
 Approximately 6,210 acres of land are within the agricultural lands categories of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance and Unique Farmland. These farmland types comprise approximately 2.3% of the entire East County area. In total, the East County lost nearly 3,270 net acres (or about 34%) of its remaining farmland soils during this period. These numbers reflect a continuation of urban development within the UGB, and a general decline in active agricultural use on lands outside of the UGB.
o About one-third of this loss in farmland (or 1,020 acres) was a result of continued planned development of urban land uses on former farmlands that were within the cities of Pleasant, Livermore and Dublin, and within Measure D’s Urban Growth Boundary.
o About two-thirds of the loss in farmland (or approximately 2,240 acres) occurred on the outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. This was partly due to conversions to the “Other Lands” category of the FMMP (which includes rural development at densities of less than one unit to 1.5 acres), but mostly consisting of open space (or vacant) lands of greater than 40 acres in size that are no longer in active agricultural use. o The East County also saw a continued trend in increased land in the Unique Farmland category. This change is primarily a result of the FMMP’s re-designation of additional actively irrigated and managed viticulture production areas in the South Livermore Valley, reflecting the continued conversion of these lands to sustained production as vineyards.
 Approximately 197,980 acres (or 74% of the East County) was identified as Grazing Land, representing a loss of 10,420 acres since year 2000.
 Approximately 33,340 acres (or 12.5% of the East County) was Urban Lands, representing an increase of just over 5,000 acres since year 2000. In comparison, the East County had seen an increase of nearly 9,570 acres in Urban Lands in the years between 1984 and 2000.  Nearly 30,000 acres (or 11% of East County) was indicted as Other Lands, representing an increase of 8,680 acres of this soils type since year 2000, or approximately the same increase in Other Lands as was seen between 1984 and 2000.

ATTACHMENT 3
890
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 39
Table 3-3: Changes in Farmland and Grazing Land Soils, 2000 to 2018 (post-Measure D) Year 2000 Year 2018 Change, 2000 to 2018
Acres % Total Acres % Total Acres
Relative
Change (%)
Agricultural Lands
Prime Farmland 5,788 2.2% 3,137 1.2% (2,651) (46%)
Outside of UGB 4,268 2,917 (1,351)
Within UGB 1,520 220 (1,300)
Farmland of Statewide Importance 2,054 0.8% 1,088 0.4% (966) (47%) Outside of UGB 2,005 1,065 (940)
Within UGB 50 24 (26)
Unique Farmland 1,633 0.6% 1,983 0.7% +351 +21%
Outside of UGB 1,521 1,568 +47
Within UGB 113 416 +303
Subtotal, Farmlands: 9,475 3.5% 6,209 2.3% (3,266) (34%) Outside of UGB 7,779 5,550 (2,244) (29%)
Within UGB 1,683 660 (1,023) (61%)
Grazing Land 208,396 77.9%% 197,979 74% (10,417) (5%)
Outside of UGB 198,934 193,579 (13,108) (3%)
Within UGB 9,457 4,400 (4,707) (53%)
Other Lands 21,312 8.0% 29,988 11.2% +8,676 +41%
Outside of UGB 18,254 25,357 +7,130 +39%
Within UGB 3,061 4,631 +1,571 +51%
Urban/Built-Up Lands 28,337 10.6% 33,345 12.5% +5,008 +18% Outside of UGB 1,890 2,386 +496 +26%
Within UGB 26,449 30,958 +4,509 +17%
Total: 267,520 267,520 267,520
Outside of Future UGB 226,871 226,871 226,871
Within Future UGB 40,649 40,649 40,649
Source: As aggregated for Alameda County East County, from California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland: 1984-2018, accessed at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/ Comparative Changes, Pre- and Post-Measure D
The Department of Conservations’ GIS database shows that between 1984 and 2018, more than 3,570 net acres of East County’s farmland soils (Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance and Unique Farmland) were lost or converted to other land use categories, and nearly all of these net losses in farmland soils occurred after year 2000, or post-Measure D (see Table 3-4). About 84% (or ATTACHMENT 3
891
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 40
approximately 3,000 acres) of this total loss in farmland soils occurred in areas adjacent to and within the cities of Pleasanton, Livermore and Dublin, in areas now identified as being within the UGB. As seen by comparing Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7, the largest individual losses of farmland soils prior to year 2000 occurred from conversion of certain farmlands that were within the area eventually defined as the Urban Growth Boundary to planned Urban/Built-Up Lands and Other Lands. Fragmentation of farmland occurred within South Livermore and the Vineyard area, with interspersed Other Lands (i.e., interspersed low-density rural developments). Similar fragmentation of farmlands also occurred in the Mountain House Road area of northeast East County.

Although the FMMP shows that the East County lost nearly 4,430 acres of Prime Farmland over the 34- year period from 1984 to 2018, there is a concurrent increase of 1,854 acres in Farmland of Statewide Importance and Unique Farmland. Much of this can be attributed to the FMMP’s re-designation of properties in the South Livermore Valley from Prime to Statewide or Unique farmland, which recognizes vineyards as being sustained production of a specific high quality and high yield crop of economic importance to California.

Of the total increase of 14,570 acres of urbanized lands that has occurred over the past 34 years, approximately two-thirds of this increase in urbanization occurred prior to Measure D (see Figure 3-9), and only one-third of the increase in urbanization occurred post-Measure D, while still accommodating a relatively similar increase in population.

These statistics do not, and cannot show how much more farmland and grazing lands might otherwise have been lost since year 2000 if urbanization patterns had not been constrained by Measure D’s Urban Growth Boundary.

ATTACHMENT 3
892
California Important Farmland: 1984-2018

Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA | Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Division of Land Resource Protection, California Depa +
−

OVERVIEW MAP

This map shows the land category as first
mapped by the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program. The year of first mapping
will vary from area to area, but will fall
between 1984 and 2006.

Overlain on the first mapped land category is
an analysis that highlights the areas that have
transitioned from some other category into
"Urban and Built-Up."
New Urban and Built-Up
New Urban or Built Up
California Important Farmland as
First Mapped
First Mapped
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide
Importance
Unique Farmland
Grazing Land
Farmland of Local
Importance
Farmland of Local Potential
Other Land
Confined Animal Agriculture
Nonagricultural or Natural
Vegetation
Vacant or Disturbed Land
Rural Residential Land
Semi-agricultural and Rural
Commercial Land
Disclaimer Overview New Urban and Built-Up Most Recent 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Urban Growth
Boundary by
year 2020
Urban Growth Boundary by
year 2002
Urban Growth Boundary by
year 2020
Urban Growth Boundary by
year 2020
Figure 3-9
Changes in Urban and Built-Up Lands, 1984 through 2018
Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS | Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Prog 4mi
+
–
ArcGIS World Geocoding Service
-121.328 37.551 Degrees
Data Viewer
DOCMaps
Layer List
Urbanized or Built-Up Lands, between 1984 and 2000
Urbanized or Built-Up Lands, between 2000 and 2018
Source: California Dept. of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, accessed at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/ ATTACHMENT 3
893
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 42
Table 3-4: Changes in Farmland and Grazing Land Soils, 1984 to 2018 1984 Acres 2000 Acres 2018 Acres
Change, 1984 to 2018
Acres
Relative
Change (%)
Agricultural Lands
Prime Farmland 7,563 5,788 3,137 (4,426) (59%)
Outside of UGB 4,375 4,268 2,917 (1,458)
Within UGB 3,188 1,520 220 (2,968)
Farmland of Statewide Importance 1,589 2,054 1,088 (501) (32%) Outside of UGB 1,359 2,005 1,065 (294)
Within UGB 230 50 24 (206)
Unique Farmland 630 1,633 1,983 1,353 + 215%
Outside of UGB 389 1,521 1,568 1,179
Within UGB 241 113 416 175
Subtotal, Farmlands: 9,782 9,475 6,209 (3,573) (37%)
Outside of UGB 6,123 7,779 5,550 (574) (9)%
Within UGB 3,659 1,683 660 (2,999) (82%)
Grazing Land 226,206 208,396 197,979 (28,227) (12%)
Outside of UGB 212,042 198,934 193,579 (18,463)
Within UGB 14,164 9,457 4,400 (9,764)
Other Lands 12,762 21,312 29,988 17,226 +135%
Outside of UGB 7,709 18,254 25,357 17,648
Within UGB 5,053 3,061 4,631 (422)
Urban/Built-Up Lands 18,770 28,337 33,345 14,575 +78%
Outside of UGB 997 1,890 2,386 1,389
Within UGB 17,773 26,449 30,958 13,185
Total: 267,520 267,520 267,520
Outside of Future UGB 226,871 226,871 226,871
Within Future UGB 40,649 40,649 40,649
Source: As aggregated for Alameda County East County, from California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland: 1984-2018, accessed at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/ ATTACHMENT 3
894
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 43

3.3: On-Going Efforts to Protect Agricultural Lands
South Livermore Valley Area Plan and the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan The South Livermore Valley Area Plan and the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan represent a coordinated strategy between the County of Alameda and the City of Livermore to preserve existing vineyards and wineries in the South Livermore region. The intent of these plans is to enhance the recognition and image of the area as an important premium wine-producing region, to create incentives for investment and expansion of vineyards and other cultivated agriculture, and to preserve the area's unique rural, scenic and historic qualities.

Alameda County’s South Livermore Valley Area Plan (Area Plan) includes three key elements of this strategy:
14  It establishes a density bonus system that provides economic incentives to encourage landowners to expand viticulture by awarding property owners with a reduction in minimum parcel sizes, provided the landowner plants wine grapes and places the land under a permanent agricultural easement.
 It establishes an agricultural land trust (see Tri-Valley Conservancy, below) capable of accepting donations or purchasing easements to permanently protect productive agricultural lands. By purchasing easements, the land trust is able to provide agricultural landowners with funds that can be used for capital improvements needed for vineyards and wineries.  It also requires that all new urban development in the area contribute to the preservation, promotion and expansion of viticulture in the South Livermore Valley through development of new vineyards, dedication of agricultural easements, financial contributions to the land trust, refurbishment of existing wineries, and the inclusion of wine country amenities The South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (Specific Plan) is part of an on-going effort by the City of Livermore, in conjunction with Alameda County and the City of Pleasanton, to halt the gradual erosion of agricultural lands, and represents the urban component of a comprehensive strategy to preserve existing vineyards and wineries. The Specific Plan permits limited development in the South Livermore Valley as a means of achieving expanded viticulture acreage south of the city, through implementation of an Agricultural Mitigation program. This Mitigation program requires preservation of one acre of agricultural land for every house built, and for every acre built on, an additional acre must be preserved (i.e. five houses built on one acre = six acres to be preserved) as the primary vehicle for providing permanent protection for agricultural lands. All new development pursuant to the Specific Plan (included within or annexed to the City of Livermore) is required to mitigate the loss of agricultural and open space lands through the dedication of agricultural or open space easements, and the planting of agricultural crops. Based on the development anticipated pursuant to the Specific Plan, the Agricultural Mitigation Program is envisioned as securing approximately 1,944 acres of agricultural vineyard land in the greater South Livermore Valley area, including approximately 860 acres of new agricultural lands to be secured and planted.
14 Alameda County, South Livermore Valley Area Plan, February 1993, page 2 ATTACHMENT 3
895
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 44
Today, nearly 8,000 acres of vineyards, orchards, farms, ranches and parks have been protected through the strategies identified in the South Livermore Valley Area Plan and the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan.15
Tri-Valley Conservancy
Originally established in 2003 as the South Livermore Valley Agricultural Land Trust and now known as the Tri-Valley Conservancy, the Tri-Valley Conservancy helps to preserve open space lands for agriculture and parks. The Tri-Valley Conservancy acquires lands with the help of Conservancy funds and grants, and acquires property development rights through the legal arrangement of a conservation easement that protects properties from future development. The Tri-Valley Conservancy has acquired more than 500 acres. It also holds conservation easements on more than 4,500 acres across more than one hundred properties in East County.
16 Williamson Act
The Williamson Act has been the state’s primary agricultural land protection program since its enactment in 1965, when the California Legislature passed the California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act to preserve agricultural and open-space lands by discouraging “premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses”. More than 16 million of the State’s 31.4 million acres of farm and ranch land have participated in the program. Of California’s 58 counties, 52 (including Alameda County) have executed contracts with landowners. The Act authorizes cities and counties to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict specific parcels of land to agricultural and open-space uses.

In return, landowners receive reduced property tax assessments based upon the land’s farming and open-space uses, as opposed to its full market value. Landowners can place prime agricultural land and non-prime agricultural land under contract, typically for 10-year terms that are automatically renewed on an annual basis. In 2014, approximately 135,647 acres of land in Alameda County, the majority of which were in East County) were enrolled in Williamson Act contracts. 17 Alameda County Resource Conservation District
The Alameda County Resource Conservation District is an independent, non-regulatory special district that works directly with local landowners and managers to implement conservation practices and to help enhance local watersheds. This District enables the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to provide Farm Bill cost-share programs and other technical assistance for local landowners and users.
15 Tri-Valley Conservancy, accessed at: https://trivalleyconservancy.org/what-we-do/protect-land/preserving- land/
16 Ibid
17 California Department of Conservation, The California Land Conservation Act, 2014 Status Report, p.34 ATTACHMENT 3
896
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 45

3.4: Supporting Viable Agricultural Operations
In accordance with the California Food and Agricultural Code, the Alameda County Community Development Agency’s Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures prepares an annual Alameda County Crop Report. These crop reports provide statistical information on acreage, yield, and gross value of all agricultural products produced in Alameda County. This statistical information also provides a comparative assessment of the relative strength of Alameda County’s agricultural operations, based on whether harvested acreage and/or agricultural product number are increasing or decreasing over time, and whether the value of the County’s agricultural products is rising or declining.

In addition to pasture, field crops and wine grapes (as reported below), Alameda County’s agricultural products include fruits and nuts, nursery products (including ornamental trees and shrubs), vegetable crops, and poultry and other farm livestock (sheep, goats, pigs, bee pollination, etc.). The following is a summary of information obtained from the Alameda County Crop Reports for the years 2000 through 2019, focused primarily on field crops, pasture and livestock, and wine grapes. 18 Field Crops, Pasture and Livestock
On an acreage basis, the County’s largest agricultural operations (by a substantial margin) are in rangeland pasture and the production of field crops (e.g., hay, alfalfa, wheat, barley, etc.). A shown on Table 3-5:
 Between the years 2000 to 2012, the County maintained between 182,000 to 200,000 acres of harvested rangeland pasture supporting an average of about 13,000 head of cattle, and another 6,000 acres of field crops.
 Starting around year 2013, the total acres of harvested rangeland pastures and field crops began to decline, with only about 135,000 acres of harvested pasture and approximately 2,000 acres of field crops by year 2019. A significant contributor to this trend has been drought, resulting in generally poorer forage conditions throughout East County.  The decline in pasture does not seem to have substantially affected cattle numbers, which have fluctuated over time but remain above the 20-year average of about 13,400 head during the past 5 years.
18 Alameda County Community Development Agency’s Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures, Annual Alameda County Crop Reports, years 2000 through 2019, accessed at:
https://www.acgov.org/cda/awm/resources/stats.htm
ATTACHMENT 3
897
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2000 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18
Acres
Pasture Lands (Harvested Acres), Change from
2000 to 2020
Pasture (acres)
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
2000 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18
Livestock Production - Number (head) of Cattle
and Calves, Change from 2000 to 2020
Cattle/Calves (head)
0 5
10 15
20 25
2000 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18
$Million
Total Value of Livestock (Cattle and Calves) Sold
Actual Livestock Product Value
Livestock Product Value in 2020 Dollars (@2.2% avg. annual inflation) Table 3-5
Changes in Harvested Pasture and Livestock Production,
2000 to 2019
Source: Alameda County Crop Reports, 2000 to 2019
Pasture Lands Harvested (acres), Changes from 2000 to 2020 Livestock Production (head of cattle and calves), Changes from 2000 to 2020 Total Value of Livestock (cattle and calves) Sold, 2000 to 2020 ATTACHMENT 3
898
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 47
Economic Value
The total value of field crops sold has declined from approximately $6.3 million (as adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars)19 in year 2000, to approximately $3.35 million in 2019, with declining rainfall as a major contributing factor.

The total numbers of livestock production in the County has generally remained steady since 2000.

However, the total value of cattle and other livestock sold has increased from about $9.87 million in 2000 (as adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars), to as high as $23.4 million (as adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars) in 2015, and then back down to about $11.8 million in 2019. A substantial factor in the yearly increase or decrease of cattle production value is the variable market price per pound of beef.

Economic Viability
Increased gross revenues do not reflect increased profit margins for ranchers. As noted in each annual Crop Report, the sales numbers presented in the Crop Reports are gross values only, and do not reflect increasing costs related to production, harvesting, marketing, transportation or herd replacement costs of the ranchers. Although we could find no similar data specific to Alameda County, the California Agricultural Statistics Review for the years 2015 to 2020, as published by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, does provide statewide information relevant to agricultural costs, and this data is presumed to be relatively comparable to the costs borne by Alameda County ranchers. According to this statewide Statistical Review:
 Annual average grazing fees (on an animal unit - or AUM basis) rose from $16.40 per month in 2010 to $21.40 per month in 2020, or a 30% increase
20  Costs for livestock feed increased from $4.05 million in 2015 to $4.70 million in 2020, or a 16% increase
 Operating expenses (e.g., repair and maintenance of capital items, storage and transportation expenses, and other miscellaneous expenses) rose from $10.87 million in 2015 to $13.06 million in 2020, or a 20% increase
 Agricultural labor costs rose from $6.10 million in 2015 to $8.35 million dollars in 2020, or a 36% increase
21 Based on the above statistical data relevant to ranchland viability, the value of livestock production in Alameda County was highly variable between the years 2000 and 2019, but with a 20-year average increase in revenue of about 20% ($11.8 million in 2019 compared to $9.87 million in 2000). During this same timeframe, the types of costs associated ranchland operations increased statewide by 16% to 36%, indicating that revenues did not keep pace with costs, and that ranchland viability is in decline. This conclusion is supported by many of the ranch-based stakeholders that have reviewed and provided input on this report.
19 Assuming a 20-year inflation factor of 1.58 ($1 in year 2000 = $1.58 in year 2020), or an average annual rate of inflation of 2.2 percent, per
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2000?amount=1#:~:text=Value%20of%20%241%20from%202 000,cumulative%20price%20increase%20of%2057.78%25.
20 California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), California Agricultural Statistics Review 2019-2020, page 94
21 CDFA 2020, page 10
ATTACHMENT 3
899
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 48
Wine Grapes
Alameda County’s viticulture businesses/wine grape growers generate, by far, the greatest total economic value among all agricultural products in the County. As shown in Table 3-6:
 Between the years 2000 and 2020, the County maintained a relatively steady average of approximately 2,500 acres of agricultural lands bearing red and white wine grapes, with the highest acreage of wine grape-bearing acreage of approximately 3,000 acres occurring in 2001, 2012 and 2018. The split between white wine grapes and red wine grapes was about even in the early 2000s, but has now shifted to about one-third of all grape-bearing acreage in white, and two-thirds in red wine grapes.
 Wine grape production throughout the County has been on a steadily increasing rate. In year 2000, the County’s harvest was approximately 5,500 tons of grapes (at between 1.8 and 2.4 tons per acre), whereas the year 2019 harvest was as high as 12,810 tons of wine-producing grapes (at an increased rate of approximately 4.8 tons of grapes per acre). As the Crop Reports clearly describes, each year’s harvest is a function of numerous variables in addition to acreage (e.g., weather, relative crop value, per-acre production capability, etc.). However, a simple comparison of total tons of grapes produced during these two periods demonstrates more than a doubling (234%) in the tons of grapes produced in year 2019, as compared to tons of grapes produced in year 2000.

Economic Value
On a similar, but even increased trajectory as compared to grape production, the total value of wine grape sales has increased from approximately $10.3 million in year 2000 (as adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars), to a peak approximately $27.2 million in 2018. These numbers show a more than doubling in the relative cash value of wine grape crops grown in Alameda County. Wine grape production levels peaked in 2018 with high yields, high prices and more acres planted.

The $27.2 million dollar gross production value of wine grapes during that peak in 2018 represented about 50 percent of the year 2018’s estimated total gross value of all of Alameda County’s agricultural production.

ATTACHMENT 3
900
Source: Alameda County Crop Reports, 2000 to 2019
Table 3-6
Changes in Wine Grape Production and Sales, 2000 to 2019 0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2000 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18
Acres in Wine
Grape
Production
Bearing Acreage of Wine Grapes, Change from
2000 to 2020
Acres, Total Wine Grapes
0 5
10 15
20 2000 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18
Tons, Wine
Grapes
Wine Grape Production, Change from 2000 to
2020
Tons, Red Wine Grapes Tons, White Wine Grapes
Tons, Total Wine Grapes
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 2000 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18
$Million
Total Value of Wine Grape Products Sold
Actual Grape Product Value
Grape Product Value in 2020 Dollars (@2.2% avg. annual inflation) Bearing Acreage of Wine Grapes, Change from 2000 to 2020 Wine Grape Production, Change from 2000 to 2020
Total Value of Wine Grape Products Sold, 2000 to 2020
ATTACHMENT 3
901
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 50
Economic Viability
As noted in each annual Crop Report, the economic production numbers represent gross values only, and do not reflect the wine grower’s costs related to production, harvesting, marketing or transportation.

Concurrent with the preparation of this Alameda County LAFCO report, the Tri-Valley Conservancy supported a report from the University of California – Davis titled “Realizing the Heritage”. This report points to several current challenges facing the Alameda County viticulture industry’s economic viability.

The purpose of this report is to provide an impartial assessment of the economic viability of wine production in the Livermore Valley, including context, background, economic reasoning, and evidence to help address the potential to maintain and perhaps expand profitable commercial wine grape and wine production in the Livermore region. “Realizing the Heritage” is a very comprehensive report, is supported by industry data and local industry surveys, and prepared by highly credentialed experts. Its analysis and methodology is far too extensive to report on this this document, but several key conclusions from this Report are critical to understanding the viability of the local viticulture industry, especially within South Livermore Valley:
 “Probably the most important finding of this study is that many of Livermore’s independent vineyards have not been profitable. While revenue may be sufficient to cover annual operating expenses, in many cases the amount of annual revenue above annual operating expenses is not sufficient to cover the amortized expenses of establishing a vineyard or to generate a return on the investment in the vineyard”. . . “Anecdotal reports indicate that some Livermore vineyards have not been profitable for decades, which is consistent with lack of new plantings in the Livermore Valley since the early 2000’s”.
 “Most independent Livermore vineyards are small, as half of all Livermore vineyards are under ten acres in size and 80 percent are 20 acres or smaller. These vineyards have higher operating costs per acre than larger vineyards, and have lower market prices than vineyards with contracts that are more suited to current market demands”.
 “Most of these small vineyards are farmed by custom-farming companies rather than by the vineyard owner”. . . “Two companies account for approximately half of Livermore’s wine grape acreage”.
 “Unprofitable small wineries are unlikely to provide incentives for Livermore’s viticulturists to expand their grape acreage or to attract outside investment in Livermore Valley wine”.  “Many of these vineyards are also relatively old and face a decision about replanting soon.

Almost 2,000 of Livermore’s 2,800 acres were planted between 1995 and 2003, and are now in or entering their third decade of production. Given the decades-long experience of low returns on investment in vineyards, and especially the difficulty in finding a profitable market for grapes, it is likely that many vineyard owners will not invest in replanting unless they have a winery contract for their production”.
 “As with its vineyards, the vast majority of Livermore’s approximately 48 wineries are also very small. Twenty-two wineries produced fewer than 2,000 cases in 2019 and collectively averaged 800 cases. Nineteen wineries produced more than 2,000 and fewer than 6,000 cases, and, as a group, averaged 3,300 cases. Five wineries produced more than 6,000 cases but fewer than 25,000 cases. Two wineries, Wente Vineyards and Concannon, produce over half of all Livermore wine”.

ATTACHMENT 3
902
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 51
 “The South Livermore Valley Area Plan assumed that it would encourage the development of wineries by increasing the supply of Livermore grapes. The SLVAP thus called for an expansion of cultivated agriculture to the maximum acreage possible, with a minimum acceptable level of 5,000 acres, and for the development of additional wineries with a range of sizes. Livermore’s grape acreage in year 2020 was about 2,800 acres, or far below the 5,000-acre minimum. The number of wineries has grown, but most of the new wineries are quite small and fulfill neither the SLVAP’s stated goal of “a range of sizes” nor the unstated goal of increasing the demand for Livermore Valley grapes”.

Equine Industry
For the first time, the 2003 Alameda County Crop Report presented data related to the equine industry.

According to that report, there were 13,634 horses in Alameda County, spread across approximately 25,300 acres of land (lands not included in the livestock category). According to the subsequent 2008 and 2010 Crop Reports, the County’s horse population had declined down to approximately 9,500 horses (including about 5,000 horses kept for recreation and pleasure, 1,500 ranch horses, 2,000 racehorses, and about 1,000 other competition horses).

According to a study conducted by the County in 2013,
22 “County records show that the number of
horse-boarding facilities with use permits increased substantially from 1985 to 2005, at an apparent rate of 5 percent increase in the number of use permits for horse-boarding facilities per year. Based on past permits and some aerial photo observations also conducted in 2013, the County identified a total of 64 horse-boarding facilities, with an estimated total capacity of 2,620 horse stalls, boarding about one- quarter of the estimated County horse population.” Based on these estimates, the County’s horse population in 2013 was therefore about 10,500 horses.

There are no other identified sources of data to provide a more current estimate of the County’s horse population, but the drop from 13,630 horses in 2003, to 9,500 horses in 2010 represents about a 30 percent decrease in Countywide horse population. Even if as many as 1,000 horses had been added back to this population by 2013, the equine industry had still had a substantial decline in total numbers from 2003 to 2013. According to anecdotal information from local horse industry experts, the horse industry in Alameda County remains in decline.

Economic Value
The equine (or horse service) industry consists of facilities that specialize in breeding, training and boarding of horses, and riding and competition, often in combination with recreational and draft horse services. Agricultural and recreational users in Alameda County have access to the products and services of these facilities as well as a large multi-use trail system. The industry supports local feed, clothing, equipment and tack retailers, veterinarians, farriers, hay growers and others. It also supports the community at large by helping to preserve rural western character, by providing recreational opportunities in the open space.

Economic Viability
As report in the “Equine CUP Streamlining Project Report” of October 2003, “the equine industry has been increasingly challenged over the years to accommodate the business and regulatory changes in the County. Although there is no definitive horse or facility census for a trend analysis, it is apparent that 22 Alameda County, Draft MND for ECAP / CVP General Plan Amendments for Equine Breeding and Training Facilities, June 13, 2012 pages 7-8
ATTACHMENT 3
903
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 52
many facilities have closed. Facilities close for many reasons, including retirement, lack of profitability, displacement by development, competition with other outdoor activities, and the costs of meeting new regulatory demands”. Although the number of horse-related facilities appear to have decreased, the demand for equine-industry products and services continues to grow, evidenced by the growing miles of equine and multi-use trails and trail plans in the Bay Area, and horse owners relate the need to travel outside the County to find boarding vacancies. Ensuring that stables remain economically viable reduces pressure for more intense development.
23 Conclusions
As to whether the policies and recommendations of Measure D have resulted in supporting viable agricultural operations throughout East County, the following statistical measures (see Table 3-7) are likely pertinent:
 Based on total acreage, Alameda County has lowered its total harvested crop acreage by approximately 26,700 acres since 2000. Harvested crop acreage changed from 209,170 acres in year 2000, to 182,488 acres in 2020 (or nearly a 13% reduction in acreage). This downward trend in harvested acreage has been relatively consistent throughout this 20-year period.  Based on agricultural product value, Alameda County’s total gross value of agricultural production has remained relatively stable, averaging at approximately $51 million dollars per year (as adjusted each year for inflation to 2020 dollars). Peak total agricultural product values occurred in the mid 2000’s (2004-2007) spurred by high sales of ornamental trees and shrubs and bedding plants, high per-acre yields of wine grapes and olives, and strong market prices for cattle and vegetable crops. The more recent (2018/2019) drop in total agricultural product values are likely attributable to a continued lack of adequate rainfall that resulted in lower per- acre yields of wine grapes and poor forage conditions, along with lower prices for cattle.  The California Employment Development Department (EDDs) Labor Market Information Division provides statistics for industry employment and labor force. According to this data, Alameda County had 1,400 total “Farm” jobs in 1990, was down to 800 total Farm jobs in year 2000, and has dropped to an average of between 500 and 700 total Farm jobs between 2010 and 2020. 24 23 Alameda County Resource Conservation District, The Equine CUP Streamlining Project, October 2003, p. 1 24 EDD Labor Market Information Division, Industry Employment & Labor Force statistics for Alameda County, accessed at: https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/employment-by-industry.html ATTACHMENT 3
904
Source: Alameda County Crop Reports, 2000 to 2019Table 3-7 Changes in Countywide Agricultural Product Values, 2000 to 2019 160,000
170,000
180,000
190,000
200,000
210,000
220,000
2000 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18
Acres
Countywide Total, Harvested Crop Acreage -
2000 to 2020
Countywide Total, Harvested Crop Acreage
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
2000 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18
Ag. Product
Value
($Millions)
Countywide Agricultural Product Value - 2000 to
2020
Actual Total County Agricultural Product Value
Total County Agricultural Product Value in 2020 Dollars (@2.2% avg. annual inflation)
Countywide Harvested Crop Acreage - 2000 to 2020
Countywide Agricultural Product Value - 2000 to 2020
Countywide Total, Harvested Crop Acreage
Actual Countywide Total Agricultural Product Value
Countywide Total Agricultural Product Value, adjusted to 2020 dollars (at 2.2% avg. annual inflation)
ATTACHMENT 3
905
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 54
Generally, despite losses in employment, revenue from East County agricultural operations appear to remain stable, but this revenue stability is primarily driven by continued strong growth in the total value of wine grape sales. The wine industry’s revenue growth eclipses the relative decline in value of most other productive agricultural use (i.e., crop harvesting and horse boarding) within the East County.

The relative viability of agriculture in East County is a function of multiple variables including macro- economic trends, micro-economic decisions and capabilities of local agricultural operators, climate, water availability, labor availability, costs, and regulations. A brief summary of the prospects of economic viability for the key agricultural businesses in the County can be summarized as follows:

Wine Grapes and Wineries
While the UC Davis “Realizing the Heritage” report cites many challenges and concerns for the local grape and wine industry, it also finds that, “with careful farm investments and effort at wine marketing, the prospects for wine grape and wine in the Livermore Valley can be favorable”. Some of the important conclusions of this report that help support a more positive outlook for this industry include the following:
 “The goal to preserve agricultural open space in the South Livermore Valley has been successful, without meeting its specific wine grape acreage objective”. Where agricultural open space has local value to the community, public policies can usefully reduce regulatory burdens on those businesses to keep them economically sustainable”.
 Grape growing and winemaking are vibrant and linked industries driven by basic supply and demand principles. An increased demand for Livermore wines would result in increased demand for Livermore grapes, and encourage more acreage under vine. Thus, industry collective action to make Livermore grapes more attractive to a broader audience, and therefore more profitable, could be an effective tool to increase or at least maintain acreage”.  Livermore’s vineyard acreage will expand if vineyards are the most profitable use of agricultural land and other scarce resources, including the investment capital of those who wish to be in the wine grape business . . . “under the right conditions, new Livermore Valley vineyards can be profitable and competitive with other coastal California regions in grape quality, price and productivity”.
 “Given Livermore’s small share of California coastal wine grape and wine production, even a small increase in demand for Livermore grapes is likely to raise Livermore grape prices and vineyard profitability”.

The land use policy implications of these recommendations can be summarizes as seeking to reduce regulatory burdens on the wine growing and wine-making industry, taking action to make Livermore grapes more attractive to a broader audience, and seeking (or generating) investment capital for those who wish to be in the wine grape business.

Equine Industry
As identified in the “Report on the Equine CUP Streamlining Project” (October 2003), “stable owners have complained that the County’s CUP application process is unnecessarily challenging, and a barrier to compliance and to the economic viability of the equine industry. Common complaints are that the process is too uncoordinated, unclear, lengthy, and costly, and that conditions of approval can be inconsistent, unreasonable, or reflect a lack of agricultural land management expertise. To compound these problems, the CUP expires after three years. This forces stable owners to repeat the application ATTACHMENT 3
906
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 55
process and, unlike other existing land uses, to be subject to changing standards for fire and traffic safety”.

Recognizing these challenges and seeking to keep and attract equine facilities, Alameda County did convert its permitting process for equine facilities from a Conditional Use Permit to Site Development Review, and created an application packet with all-inclusive application requirements, directions and process overview, and supplemental information.

However, representatives of the equine industry believe that additional implementation of remaining recommendations of the Equine CUP Streamlining Project are still pending (i.e., better guidance to applicants to facilitate the completion of applications, to coordinated interdepartmental reviews, and a liaison between the applicant and other County staff). Even with the improved SDR process, these equine industry representatives still find the regulatory requirements to be too complex and difficult, and that compliance remains a barrier to the economic viability of the equine industry.

Pasture and Grazing Lands
The economic challenges of the cattle industry are likely most influenced by larger macro-economic issues and drought, and there is little evidence to suggest that local land use policy is a significant factor in the decline of the cattle industry. It is also likely that Measure D’s Urban Growth Boundary serves to lower speculative land values outside of the UGB, helping to keep grazing fees/cost lower than they otherwise might be.

The extent to which Measure D’s land use policies and regulations may be a contributing factor in the lack of growth in East County’s agricultural industries as a whole is further reviewed in the following chapter of this Report.

ATTACHMENT 3
907
ATTACHMENT 3
This page intentionally left blank.
908
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 57
Chapter 4: Comparison to Agricultural Land Use Regulations of Other Selected Bay Area Counties
An additional purposes of this report as identified by Alameda LAFCO is to establish a benchmark of how those land use policies and zoning regulations applicable to the development and use of land in unincorporated East Alameda County compare to similar policies and zoning regulations of other Bay Area counties. This study provides a comparative assessment against four other Bay Area counties including Napa, Sonoma, Solano and Contra Costa. The following provides a brief overview of the broad land use strategies and agricultural land preservation goals of each of these other four counties. The subsequent section of this report provides an assessment of Alameda County’s rules and regulations for agricultural and open space lands, as compared to similar regulations of each of these other four counties, considering key indicators of comparable regulations related to the following:
 Minimum parcel sizes and residential densities
 Limitation on the intensity of development on agricultural lands (i.e., floor-to-area ratios, lot coverage and building envelopes)
 Types of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses within agricultural and open space land use categories (e.g., residential uses, wineries and winery-related uses, equestrian uses, overnight accommodations, and cannabis-related uses).

4.1: Sonoma County
Sonoma County is the largest of the nine Bay Area counties in land area, with a size of approximately 1,768 square miles (nearly 2.4 times larger than Alameda County), but has a population of only approximately 494,300 people (or about 30 percent as many people as Alameda County). Sonoma County has 9 incorporated cities, and approximately 73 percent of its population lives within those city boundaries.

Sonoma County is known for the Sonoma Valley wine region as well as other notable winemaking areas including Dry Creek and Alexander Valley. According to the Sonoma County Crop Report for year 2019, Sonoma County had 59,326 acres of land planted in wine grape production (reds and whites). These vineyards yielded 229,811 tons of grapes and generated a total production value of over $654 million 1 (or nearly 18 times the grape production and almost 21 times the total production value of Alameda County’s wine crop in 2019).

Generalized Countywide Land Use Strategy
The Sonoma County General Plan recognizes there are unique circumstances associated with nine planning areas of that County, and each of these planning areas have their own unique land use policies and guidance for development and preservation. Both the Land Use Element and the Housing Elements of the Sonoma County General Plan reinforce growth patterns within the County as being “city and community-centered”. The General Plan seeks to reserve residential lands within designated Urban Service Areas for affordable and higher-density housing, whereas lower density housing is primarily accommodated on residential lands within the remainder of the County, where urban services are not available. The County’s defined Urban Service Area boundaries serve as an important growth 1 Sonoma County - Department of Agriculture / Weights & Measures, 2019 Sonoma County Crop Report ATTACHMENT 3
909
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 58
management tool intended to avoid urban sprawl. The extension of sewer or water services outside of designated Urban Service Areas is precluded, and each Urban Service Area is surrounded by lands designated as Community Separators. Community Separators function to separate cities and other communities, to contain the limits of urban development, and to provide city and community identity by providing visual relief from continuous urbanization. The boundaries of Urban Service Areas for unincorporated communities cannot be amended to include lands within designated Community Separators until year 2036, unless such an amendment is approved by the voters of Sonoma County.

Land use decisions for properties within designated Community Separators must conform to a voter- approved Community Separators Protection Ordinance.
2 Lands within Community Separators have a mix of General Plan land use designations, but generally maintain maximum residential densities at one unit per ten acres. Lands outside of the Community Separators are generally reserved for Timber Production, Resources and Rural Development, Land Intensive Agriculture and Land Extensive Agriculture. Much of the lands outside of the Community Separators are also identified as Scenic Landscape Units. These Scenic Landscape Units include coastal bluffs, vineyards, the San Pablo Bay, the Laguna de Santa Rosa and other landscapes of special importance to the quality of life of County residents, as well as the tourist and agricultural economy.

These Scenic Landscapes have little capacity to absorb new development without causing significant visual impacts, and they are zoned for very low densities.

Agriculture is a major part of Sonoma County's economy, including vineyards, orchards, dairies, forage crops, specialty crops, livestock and horses. Farms are both full time and part time operations.

Agricultural production in some areas is threatened both by pressures of urban development and by creation of small residential lots in the midst of agricultural lands. Land use policy for the County’s agricultural areas seeks to consider the extent to which small residential lots should be allowed, the need for agricultural support uses in rural areas, and the extent of visitor serving uses that may be supportive of, and compatible with farming.

Policies for agricultural support activities seek to balance the need for such uses with the continued preservation of the rural character and agricultural diversity of the County. General Plan policies also support products grown in Sonoma County over those produced elsewhere. Substantial growth in Sonoma County’s wine industry has resulted in a trend towards larger processing facilities, and facilities that may appear more industrial than rural in character. The apparent increase in the reliance of County processing facilities on raw agricultural products imported from outside Sonoma County highlights the importance of, “demonstrating connection to local production in order to avoid County agricultural lands becoming de facto “industrial lands.”
3 Agricultural Land Use Categories and Zoning Districts The Sonoma County General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Diagram include three primary agricultural and/or resource-based land use categories; "Land Intensive Agriculture", "Land Extensive Agriculture", and "Resources and Rural Development" (see Figure 4-1). Each of these land categories permits a wide range of agricultural uses.
2 Sonoma County, Sonoma County General Plan 2020 Land Use Element, as amended December 2016, Policy LU-3e, page LU-34
3 Sonoma County, Sonoma County General Plan 2020 – Agricultural Resources Element, August 2016, page AR-4
ATTACHMENT 3
910
Figure 4-1
Sonoma County General Plan Land Use Map (portion)
Source: Sonoma County General Plan 2020 Land Use Element, Accessed at: https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/PRMD/Long-Range-Plans/General-Plan/Land-Use-The-Nine-Sub-County-Planning-Areas/ ATTACHMENT 3
911
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 60
Allowable residential densities on parcels in these land use categories is generally based on consideration of the amount of land that it would take to create an economically viable agricultural parcel, and other factors such as availability of infrastructure, distances from public services, access, conflicts with resource conservation and production, and topographic and environmental constraints.

These three agricultural and resource-based land use categories differ primarily by the types and intensities of agricultural support uses, visitor serving uses and residential densities permitted. In general, the Sonoma County General Plan’s agricultural land use designations include the following:
 Land Extensive Agriculture: This land use category is intended to enhance and protect lands capable of, and generally used for animal husbandry and the production of food, fiber and plant materials, but where soil and climate conditions typically result in relatively low production yield per acre of land. Primary land uses in this land use category include agricultural production, agricultural support uses and visitor serving uses, as well as farm worker, farm family and other agricultural employee housing. Permitted residential densities vary between 60 to 320 acres per unit (generally, higher densities are applied in areas with existing lots in that range, the middle range is used in the southeastern portion of the county where soil and water conditions make larger acre parcels productive, and the lowest densities are applied in the northwestern parts of the county).
 Land Intensive Agriculture: This land use category is also intended to enhance and protect lands capable of and generally used for animal husbandry and the production of food, fiber and plant materials. The soil type and climate support relatively high production yields per acre of land.

Primary land uses in this land use category include agricultural production, agricultural support uses and visitor serving uses, as well as farm worker, farm family and other agricultural employee housing. Permitted residential densities vary between 20 and 100 acres per residential unit (generally, densities between 20 and 60 acres are applied in areas with existing lots in that range and where soil and water conditions make farming highly productive, and those between 60 and 100 acres are used where soil and water necessitate larger parcels.) New parcels are limited to a minimum size of 20 acres.
 Resources and Rural Development: This land use category is primarily intended to protect timberlands, geothermal resources and aggregate resource production, protect natural resource lands including watershed, habitats and biotic areas, and to accommodate limited agricultural production activities. This land use category allows for very-low density residential development that ranges from 20 to 320 acres per dwelling unit, due to a lack of infrastructure, greater distance from public services, poor access, conflicts with resource conservation and production goals, and significant physical constraints and hazards. The intent of this land use category is for natural resources to be managed and conserved so that resource production activities avoid depletion and promote replenishment of renewable resources.

Corresponding Zoning
Development standards for agricultural and resource-based land use are included in the County Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance, as well as in Specific Plan and Area Plans and Local Area Development Guidelines.
 Those areas of Sonoma County with a General Plan land use designation of Land Extensive Agriculture generally have a corresponding zoning district of Land Extensive Agriculture (LEA )
per
Chapter 26.06 of the Sonoma Code,
ATTACHMENT 3
912
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 61
 Those areas of Sonoma County with a General Plan land use designation of Land Intensive Agriculture also have a corresponding zoning district of Land Intensive Agriculture (LIA) per Chapter 26.04 of the Sonoma Code.

Those areas of Sonoma County with a General Plan land use designation of Resources and Rural Development have a corresponding zoning district of Resources and Rural Development (RRD) or Timberland Production District (TP) per Chapter 26.14 of the Sonoma Code.

ATTACHMENT 3
913
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 62

4.2: Napa County
Napa County is approximately 789 square miles in size, just slightly larger than Alameda County (about

1.1 times larger), but has a population of only approximately 55,600 people (or less than 10 percent as many people as Alameda County). Napa County has 5 incorporated cities, and approximately 82 percent of its population lives within those city boundaries.

Napa County identifies itself as a cornerstone of the California wine industry, and the Napa Valley was the first officially designated American Viticulture Area in California, designated in 1981. According to the Napa County Crop Report for year 2019, Napa County had 44,210 acres of land in wine grape production (reds and whites). These vineyards yielded 159,722 tons of grapes, and generated a total production value of nearly $938 million, just lower than the previous year’s record-breaking numbers of over $1 billion dollars in 2018
4 (or more than 12 times the grape production and almost 38 times the total production value of Alameda County’s wine crop in 2019). The wine and vineyard sector remains Napa County's largest employer, directly and indirectly providing nearly half of the County's total employment.

Generalized Countywide Land Use Strategy
In 1968, Napa County first established an "Agricultural Preserve" zoning designation and land use policy that was guided by two complementary principles: 1) that agricultural lands should be protected, and 2) that development should occur in urban areas. Those principles remain the overall land use strategy of the current County General Plan and corresponding zoning regulations. In 1990 (ten years prior to Alameda County’s Measure D initiative), the voters of Napa County adopted Measure J, intended to protect the County's agricultural, watershed and open space lands; strengthen the local agricultural economy; and preserve the County's rural quality of life. Measure J established and maintained minimum agricultural parcel sizes, and required voter approval before agricultural property could be converted to other uses. Measure J amended the Napa County General Plan to ensure that, without a vote of the people, designated agricultural, watershed and open space lands could not be re-designated and made available for more intense development. In 2008, the voters of Napa County reaffirmed their commitment to Measure J, passing a continuation of the provisions of Measure J (now known as Measure P), intended to last for the next 50 years, or until year 2058.

The most recent update of the Napa County General Plan (adopted in 2013) reflects the prominence of agriculture in Napa County through the Agricultural Preservation and Land Use Element. As indicated in this General Plan Element, the County’s vision for the future is described as, “Napa County will be a place where agriculture is the primary land use, where a vast majority of the county is open space, and where residential and employment growth is concentrated in the incorporated cities and town and existing urbanized areas of the county. Urban centers will be livable communities with compact forms that maximize the preservation of rural landscapes, and those rural landscapes will be both productive and ecologically diverse, with abundant and healthy natural resources.” Other issues that are addressed in land use policies include affordable housing, the desire for additional high-wage employment, the need for industrial land to support the agricultural industry, and the potential for continuing annexations by the incorporated cities and towns. However, all of these issues are framed by a policy 4 Napa County - Department of Agriculture and Weights & Measures, Napa County Agricultural Crop Report for 2019
ATTACHMENT 3
914
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 63
framework that, “sets agricultural preservation as the immovable foundation for sound decision-making within Napa County.” 5
Agricultural Land Use Categories and Zoning Districts
The Napa County General Plan Land Use Map designates nine separate areas of the unincorporated County for non-agricultural uses pursuant to detailed land use policies, and three pre-existing commercial areas are designated on the Land Use Map for agricultural uses with unique policies pertaining to these locations. The Land Use Map designates the remainder of unincorporated land in Napa County as one of two primarily agricultural land use categories (see Figure 4-2):
 Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space: These areas are indicated where the predominant use is agriculturally oriented. They are generally located where watersheds are protected and enhanced, and where reservoirs, floodplain tributaries, geologic hazards, soil conditions, and other constraints make the land relatively unsuitable for urban development. These are generally where urban development would adversely affect all other uses, and where the protection of agriculture, watersheds and floodplain tributaries from fire, pollution and erosion is essential. Primary land uses in this land use category include agriculture, processing of agricultural products and single-family dwellings. The minimum parcel size in this land use classification is 160 acres, and the maximum building intensity is one dwelling per parcel.  Agricultural Resource: These areas are indicated in the fertile valley and foothill areas of the county where agriculture is, and should continue to be the predominant land use. Where other uses would be incompatible with agriculture, or where the development of urban type uses would be detrimental to the continuance of agriculture and the maintenance of open space, they are precluded. Primary land uses in this land use category include agriculture, processing of agricultural products and single-family dwellings. The minimum parcel size in this land use classification is 40 acres, and the maximum building intensity is one dwelling per parcel.

Corresponding Zoning
Development standards for agricultural and resource-based land use are included in the County Zoning Code and specific General Plan policies for different geographic locations throughout the County.  Those areas of Napa County with a General Plan land use designation of Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space generally have a corresponding zoning district (per Title 18: Zoning, of the Napa Code of Ordinances) of either Agricultural Watershed (AW) per Chapter 18.20 of the Napa Code, or Timber Preserve (TP) per Chapter 18.68 of the Napa Code.  Those areas of Napa County with a General Plan land use designation of Agricultural Resource generally have a corresponding zoning district of Agricultural Preserve (AP) per Chapter 18.16 of the Napa Code.
5 Napa County, Napa County General Plan - Agricultural Preservation and Land Use Element, June 2013, page AG/LU-8 through -11
ATTACHMENT 3
915
June 23, 2009 Napa County General Plan
AG/LU–71

AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION

AND LAND USE
FIGURE AG/LU-3.5: AR A ND AWOS LANDS NOT SUBJECT TO MEASURE J June 23, 2009 Napa County General Plan
AG/LU–69

AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION

AND LAND USE
FIGURE AG/LU-3: LAND USE MAP
Figure 4-2
Napa County General Plan Land Use
Napa County General Plan
Land Use Map
Napa County Agricultural
Reserve and Agriculture, Open
Space and Watershed Lands not
subject to Measure J
Areas Not Subject to Measure J
Major Roads
Cities
Agriculture, Watershed and Open
Space
Agricultural Resources
Source: Napa County General Plan, Agricultural Preservation and Land Use Element, June 2008 and as amended through June 2013
ATTACHMENT 3
916
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 65

4.3: Solano County
Solano County is approximately 830 square miles in size, just slightly larger than Alameda County, and has a population of only approximately 447,650 people (or about 27 percent as many people as Alameda County). Solano County has seven incorporated cities, and because of Solano County’s commitment to focus development within urban areas, about 95 percent of the county’s population lives in these cities.

Solano County has a diverse agricultural base. According to the 2018 Solano County Crop and Livestock Report, high crop diversity allows the County’s agricultural industry to remain competitive as market demands change. Ranked by gross value, the County’s agricultural products included nursery products, cattle and calves, tomatoes, alfalfa, wine grapes, sunflower seeds, almonds and walnuts, and wheat. Of the County’s total land area, nearly 60 percent was identified as being within farms, of which 43 percent was identified as cropland and 33 percent was identified as irrigated cropland. 6 Generalized Countywide Land Use Strategy
According to the Solano County General Plan, “a diverse and desirable balance of land uses can help to support the County’s fiscal viability and promote a desirable community in which people work, shop, live, visit, and recreate. A diversity of land uses also has positive effects on community livability and quality of life.” Based on this desire for diversity, Solano County’s cities contain most of the county’s urban development, and the unincorporated areas include primarily agricultural and open space land, along with some rural residential, commercial, and industrial areas. The unincorporated county is particularly well suited for uses such as agricultural-related industries that are not appropriate within more densely populated areas due to noise, odor and other effects. Maximizing benefits to county residents, taking advantage of new economic opportunities, and protecting valuable environmental resources are the driving forces behind the County’s land use plans.
7 Solano County’s General Plan also includes a clear description of the roles and purposes of municipal service areas (MSAs) pursuant to land use decisions. The MSAs define the area of a city’s current and/or future jurisdictional responsibility, within which a city must provide the necessary services to support urban land uses. The MSAs reflect the planned urban growth areas of each city, and they are based on County review of city general plans and spheres of influence established by the Solano LAFCO. Current land uses within MSAs may continue under County jurisdiction until the land is annexed to the city for conversion to urban uses. A change in land use of unincorporated lands within MSAs should be permitted only for agricultural uses which do not conflict with planned land uses until annexed for urban development. Unincorporated lands within the MSAs that are designated Agriculture will continue in agricultural use until annexed to a city for urban development. 8 In support of this overall strategy, in 1984, Solano County’s voters adopted Measure A, the provisions of Measure A were extended with the adoption of the Orderly Growth Initiative in 1994, and now represent a cornerstone principle of the current General Plan. These principles direct new urban development and growth toward municipal areas to assure the continued preservation of those lands designated Agriculture, Watershed, Marsh, Park & Recreation, or Water Bodies & Courses. These 6 Solano County Department of Agriculture, Weights & Measures, Solano County Crop and Livestock Report 2018 (as amended 2020)
7 Solano County, Solano County General Plan Land Use Element, Page LU-9 8 Ibid, page LU-12
ATTACHMENT 3
917
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 66
provisions of the General Plan shall continue to be included in the General Plan until December 31, 2028, unless earlier repealed or amended by the voters of the County.

Agricultural Land Use Categories and Zoning Districts
The Solano County General Plan (see Figure 4-3) identifies two primary agricultural-related land use designations on its Land Use Diagram:
 Watershed (WS): This land use designation provides for the protection of water quality by limiting development where such development could significantly degrade surface water quality. It comprises hills and mountains in areas used primarily for grazing. Watershed areas typically feature hazardous site characteristics such as steep slopes with high soil erosion potential, fire hazards and unstable soils, and may be undevelopable. Watershed areas also provide wildlife habitat. Uses in this area are restricted to agricultural or passive open space uses, with residential densities of one dwelling unit per 160 acres.  Agriculture (AG): This land use designation provides areas for the practice of agriculture as the primary use, including areas that contribute significantly to the local agricultural economy, and allows for secondary uses that support the economic viability of agriculture. Agricultural land use designations protect these areas from intrusion by non-agricultural uses and other uses that do not directly support the economic viability of agriculture. Agricultural areas within Solano County are identified within one of 10 geographic regions. Within these regions, uses include both irrigated and dryland farming and grazing activities. Agriculture-related housing is also permitted within areas designated for agriculture to provide farm residences and necessary residences for farm labor housing. Minimum lot sizes are determined by agricultural region, and range from 20 to 160-acre parcel sizes.

The Solano County General Plan also includes three agriculture and open space overlay districts:
 Vacaville-Fairfield-Solano Greenbelt Overlay: Identifies the area of Solano County subject to the Vacaville-Fairfield-Solano Greenbelt Authority agreement to provide a permanent separation between the urban areas of Fairfield and Vacaville and to maintain the area in agriculture and open space uses consistent with the provisions of that agreement.  Agricultural Reserve Overlay: Encourages private landowners to volunteer to participate in agricultural conservation easements and establishes new methods of acquiring land conservation easements that encourage cooperation by landowners. The overlay district is established as an agricultural mitigation bank for development projects, subject to County and city agricultural mitigation programs. Projects having a significant impact on valued agricultural resources in other areas of the county or participating cities would be able to mitigate this impact by paying in-lieu fees used to purchase agricultural conservation easements from landowners in the overlay area. Conservation easements would be held by the County or relevant land trusts, and the landowner would maintain ownership and management control.  Resource Conservation Overlay: Identifies and protects areas of the county with special resource management needs. This designation recognizes the presence of certain important natural resources in the county while maintaining the validity of underlying land use designations. The overlay protects resources by requiring study of potential effects if development is proposed in these locations, and by providing mitigation to support urban development in cities. Resources to be protected through this overlay are those identified through technical studies as the highest priority areas within the habitat conservation planning process.

ATTACHMENT 3
918
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 67
Corresponding Zoning
Development standards for agricultural and resource-based land use are included in the County Zoning Code and specific General Plan policies for different geographic locations throughout the County.  Those areas of Solano County with a General Plan land use designation of Watershed generally have corresponding zoning districts of Watershed and Conservation per Chapter 28.51 of the Solano County Code, Resource Conservation per Chapter 28.50 of the Solano County Code, or Marsh Protection per Chapter 28.52 of the Solano County Code.  Those areas of Solano County with a General Plan land use designation of Agriculture generally have a corresponding zoning district of Exclusive Agricultural (A) per Chapter 28.21, which includes individual regulations for separate A-20, A-40, A-80 and A-160 zoning districts, generally corresponding to minimum parcel sizes.
 The Solano County Code also includes specialized zoning districts pertaining to Suisun Marsh (the A-SM district per Chapter 28.22), and the Suisun Valley (the A-SV-20, ATC and ATC-NC zoning districts per Chapter 28.23 of the County Code).

ATTACHMENT 3
919
Land Use Chapter
Page LU - 1 3
P
age LU - 7
Solano County General
Plan, Municipal Service
Areas (MSA’s)
Solano County General
Plan, Land Use Diagram
Figure 4-3
Solano County General Plan- MSA’s and Land Use Diagram Source: Solano County General Plan Land Use Diagram, Figure LU-1, accessed at: https://www.solanocounty.com/depts/rm/planning/ ATTACHMENT 3
920
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 69

4.4: Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County is approximately 716 square miles in size, just slightly smaller than Alameda County, and has a population of approximately 1,153,500 people (or about 70 percent as many people as Alameda County). Similar to Alameda County, Contra Costa has distinctly different regions, including West and Central County, and East County. The West and Central County regions include 10 incorporated cities plus numerous unincorporated communities along the I-880, I-680 and SR24 corridors, and accommodate approximately 75% of the County’s population. Development in the East County is primarily concentrated in four cities along the SR 4 corridor, accommodates approximately 25% of the County’s population, and surrounding land uses are predominantly residential, agricultural, recreational and open space uses.

According to the Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report for year 2019, the County’s gross agricultural production value exceeded $100 million dollars. Based on their production value, agricultural products were well diversified with about 35% in vegetable and seed crops, 22% in fruit and nut crops (including grapes), 21% as livestock, 12% as field crops and 10 % as nursery products. Over 185,500 acres within the County were considered cultivated agricultural lands, about 94% of which were in the field crop category (primarily rangeland).

Generalized Countywide Land Use Strategy
Fundamental features of the Contra Costa General Plan are the interrelationship between the County’s adopted Urban Limit Line (ULL), the County’s 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, and a Growth Management Program.
 The ULL was originally established in 1990 by county voters, through adoption of Measure C.

Measure C ensures the preservation of non‑urban agricultural, open space and other areas by establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses can be designated during the term of the General Plan. Factors which contribute to properties being located outside the ULL included properties with high agricultural soils ratings (Class I and Class II) under the National Resource Conservation System Land Capability Classification, open space, parks and other recreation areas, lands with steep slopes, wetlands and other areas not appropriate for urban growth because of physical unsuitability. Properties that are located outside the ULL may not obtain General Plan amendments that would re-designate them for an urban land use, and any General Plan amendment that seeks to expand the ULL by more than 30 acres requires voter approval following a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors. Lands outside of the ULL may be subject to various agricultural and open space preservation measures intended to preserve open space and agricultural lands, and contribute to the continued economic viability of agricultural property. Development of property within the ULL is restricted by the limitations imposed by the County's Growth Management Program.
 The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard limits urban development to no more than 35 percent of the land in the county, and requires at least 65 percent of all land in the county to be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other non-urban uses. The 65/35 Standard operates on a countywide basis and therefore includes urban and non-urban uses within cities as well as unincorporated areas. The ULL works in conjunction with the 65/35 Standard to ensure that both inside and outside the ULL, a maximum of not more than 35 percent urban development could occur in the county.

ATTACHMENT 3
921
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 70
 The Growth Management Element of the General Plan seeks to responsibly manage new development to ensure that development projects bear their appropriate share of the adverse burdens and impacts they impose on public facilities and services (primarily transportation impacts, but also impacts on public services and facilities). The timing of the potential physical development contemplated pursuant to the General Plan is partly determined by the achievement of policies and standards defined in the Growth Management Element.

The ULL and the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard work together with the Growth Management Element to ensure that growth occurs in a responsible manner, and strikes appropriate balances between many competing values and interests. Moreover, by establishing an inter-jurisdictional land supply and a program for development monitoring, the Growth Management Element coordinates implementation of the County General Plan with those of the county’s 19 cities.

Agriculture Land Use Designations
In general, the Contra Costa General Plan identifies two primary agricultural-related land use designations and two open space land use designation on its Land Use Diagram (see also Figure 4-4):
 Agricultural Lands (AL): This land use designation includes most of the privately owned rural lands in the county, excluding private lands that are composed of prime soils or lands located in or near the Delta. Most of these lands are in hilly portions of the county and are used for grazing livestock or dry grain farming, and includes non-prime agricultural lands in flat East County areas that are planted in orchards. The purpose of the Agricultural Lands designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of and generally used for the production of food, fiber, and plant materials. The maximum allowable density in this land use classification is one dwelling unit per 5 acres. Other land uses that are allowed in the Agricultural Lands designation include all land- dependent and non-land-dependent agricultural production and related activities.  Agricultural Core (AC): This designation applies to agricultural lands that are composed primarily of prime agricultural soils, mostly located in East County outside the ULL to the east and south of the City of Brentwood. Much of the land in this designation is under active cultivation of intensive row crops, orchards, and vineyards. The purpose of the Agricultural Core designation is to preserve and protect the farmlands of the county that are the most capable of, and generally used for production of food, fiber, and plant materials. Agricultural operations in the Agricultural Core require a larger (40-acre) minimum parcel size than the Agricultural Lands designation, to maintain economically viable, commercial agricultural units.  Watershed (WS): Areas designated Watershed includes much of the land owned by EBMUD and the Contra Costa Water District. In order to safeguard public water supplies, only a very limited number of uses are allowed in Watershed areas. These uses include extensive agriculture (primarily grazing of livestock), intensive agriculture that does not rely upon pesticides or other chemical fertilizers, low-intensity recreational uses such as hiking and biking, and small-scale commercial uses that support picnicking, boating and fishing activities on adjacent reservoirs.  Parks and Recreation: The Parks and Recreation designation includes publicly owned park facilities (including the Mount Diablo State Park in the center of the County), as well as golf courses, whether publicly- or privately-owned.

ATTACHMENT 3
922
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 71
Corresponding Zoning Districts
Development standards for agricultural and resource-based land use are included in the County Zoning Code. Generally, lands within the unincorporated County have been zoned with a zoning district that corresponds to the General Plan land use designation.
 Those areas of Contra Costa County with a General Plan land use designation of Agricultural Lands (AL) generally have a corresponding zoning district of Agricultural Preserve (A-80) per Chapter 84-84 of the County Zoning Ordinance.
 Those areas of Contra Costa County with a General Plan land use designation of Agricultural Core (AC) generally have a corresponding zoning district of Agricultural Preserve (A-40 or A-20) per Chapter 84-82 and 84-80 of the County Zoning Ordinance.  Those areas of Contra Costa County with a General Plan land use designation of Watershed or Parks and Recreation generally have corresponding zoning districts of either General Agriculture (A-2), Heavy Agriculture (A-3) or Agriculture Preserve (A-4) per Chapters 84-38, 84-40 and 84- 42 o
f the County Zoning Ordinance.

ATTACHMENT 3
923
Map Created on May 5th, 2014
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553
37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W
This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. The voter approved urban limit line is valid for unincorporated Contra Costa County and those cities that adopted it. Some citie s have adopted their own voter approved urban growth boundaries. Please contact the individual cities for their urban growth boundary. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered.

It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.

Prepared by the Department of Conservation and Development CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Urban Limit Line
§¨¦980
§¨¦880
}þ4
}þ24
}þ160
}þ242
§¨¦680
§¨¦80
§¨¦580
§¨¦80
567J4
}þ4
}þ4
}þ4
§¨¦680
}þ4
}þ4
§¨¦680
§¨¦80
}þ24
}þ13
§¨¦580
§¨¦580
}þ160
§¨¦680
§¨¦80
§¨¦780
Bethel

HERCULESPINOLE

RICHMOND

MARTINEZ

CONCORD

PLEASANT
HILL
WALNUT
CREEK

LAFAYETTE

CLAYTON

ANTIOCH OAKLEY

BRENTWOOD
SAN
RAMON

DANVILLE
ORINDA
MORAGA
EL

CERRITO
SAN
PABLO
Kensington
El Sobrante
Rodeo
Crockett
Alamo
Knightsen
Byron
Bay
Point
Pacheco
Blackhawk
Diablo

PITTSBURG
Canyon
Port
Costa

RICHMOND
Clyde
North
Ri
chmond
Saranap
Contra
Costa
Centre
Mt
View
Vine
Hill
Tara
Hills
Montalvin
Manor
Bayview
East
Richmond
Heights
North
Gate
Reliez
Valley
Alhambra
Valley
Rollingwood
Shell
RidgeAcalanes
Ridge
Castle
Hill
Camino
Tassajara
Norris
Canyon
Briones
Dougherty
Valley
Island

BENICIA

VALLEJO
ALBANY

BERKELEY

OAKLAND

EMERYVILLE

PIEDMONT
SAN

FRANCISCO
DUBLIN

LIVERMORE
Castro
Valley
Discovery
Bay
San
Miguel
Byron
Airport
San
Pablo
Bay
San
Francisco
Bay
Suisun
Bay
San
Pablo
Reservoir
Briones
Reservoir
Los Vaqueros
Reservoir
Clifton
Court
Forebay
Franks
Tract
Sacramento Riv
er
Honker
Bay
San
Leandro
Reservoir
Carquinez
Strait
River
Joaquin
San
Old River
Big
Break
Lafayette
Reservoir
Alameda
County
Solono
County
Sacramento
County
San
Joaquin
County
Solono
County
Alameda
County
Coney
Island
Byron
Tract
Orwood
Tract
Palm
Tract
Veale
Tract
Holland
Tract
Quimby
Island
Webb
TractBradford
Island
Jersey
Island
Winter
Island
Browns
Island
Mount
Diablo
0 3 6 91.5
Miles
6 E
S
W
N
Map includes all amendments through April 2014.

For higher detail and the most current designations
please refer to the county's Maps & GIS website:
http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/1818/Maps-GIS
for an interactive map and GIS data downloads.

Agricultural Core
Urban Limit Line
Agriculture, Open Space, Wetlands,
Parks and Other Non Urban Uses
Urban Uses (Unincorporated/City)
Incorporated AreasANTIOCH
Unincorporated AreasAlamo
Voter-approved Urban Limit Line
adopted under Measure L
November 7, 2006
Term runs through 2026
NOTE:

Map Created on December 1st, 2020
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553
37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W
This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program.

The General Plan Land Use Map categories are valid in Unincorporated Contra Costa County only.

Please contact the individual cities for their General Plan Land Uses.

This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.

Prepared by the Department of Conservation and Development CONTRA COSTA COUNTY General Plan Land Use Element
§¨¦780
§¨¦80
§¨¦680
}þ160
§¨¦580
§¨¦580 }þ13
}þ24
§¨¦80
§¨¦680
}þ4
}þ4
§¨¦680
}þ4
}þ4
}þ4
567J4
§¨¦80
§¨¦580
§¨¦80
§¨¦680
}þ242
}þ160
}þ24
}þ4
§¨¦880 §¨¦980
Bethel

HERCULESPINOLE

RICHMOND

MARTINEZ

CONCORD

PLEASANT
HILL
WALNUT
CREEK

LAFAYETTE

CLAYTON

ANTIOCH
OAKLEY

BRENTWOOD
SAN
RAMON

DANVILLE
ORINDA
MORAGA
EL

CERRITO
SAN
PABLO
Kensington
El Sobrante
Rodeo
Crockett
Alamo
Knightsen
Discovery
Bay
Byron
Bay
Point
Pacheco
Blackhawk
Diablo

PITTSBURG
Canyon
Port
Costa

RICHMOND
Clyde
North
Richmond
Saranap
Contra
Costa
Centre
Mt
View
Vine
Hill
Tara
Hills
Montalvin
Manor
Bayview
East
Richmond
Heights
North
Gate
Reliez
Valley
Alhambra
Valley
Rollingwood
Shell
RidgeAcalanes
Ridge
Castle
Hill
Camino
Tassajara
Norris
Canyon
Briones
Island

BENICIA

VALLEJO
ALBANY

BERKELEY

OAKLAND

EMERYVILLE

PIEDMONT
SAN

FRANCISCO
DUBLIN

LIVERMORE
Castro
Valley
San
Pablo
Bay
San
Francisco
Bay
Suisun
Bay
San
Pablo
Reservoir
Briones
Reservoir
Los Vaqueros
Reservoir
Clifton
Court
Forebay
Franks
Tract
Sacramento River
Honker
Bay
San
Leandro
Reservoir
Carquinez
Strait
River
Joaquin
San
Old River
Big
Break
LafayetteReservoir
Alameda
County
Solono
County
Sacramento
County
San
Joaquin
County
Mount Diablo
State Park
Briones
Regional
Park
Wildcat
Canyon
Regional
Park
Tilden
Regional
Park
Carquinez
Strait R.

S.
(Future
Regional
Park)
Keller
Black Diamond Mines
Regional Preserve
Browns
Island
Diablo
Foothills
Regional
Park
Las Trampas
Regional
Wilderness
Bishop
Ranch
Morgan Territory
Regional Park
Round Valley
Regional Preserve
Marsh Creek
State Park
Vasco
Caves
Regional
Park
Byron
Jersey
Island
Redwood
Regional
Park
Crockett
Hills
Regional
Preserve
Sibley
Volcanic
Park
Military
Ocean
Terminal
Concord
Buch
anan
Field
Bradford
Island
Webb
Tract
Holland
Tr
act
Veale
Tract
Palm
Tract
Orwood
Tract
Byron
Tract
Coney
Island
Camp
Parks
Quimby
Island
Airport
Canyon
Landfill
Chevron
Refinery
PortofRichmond
Contra Loma
Regional Park
Winter
Island
Cal
State
East
Bay
Lime
Ridge
Open
Space
Shell Ridge
Open Space
St.

Mary's
College
Shell
Tesoro
Golden
Eagle
Refinery
Phillips 66
Refinery
Point
Pinole
R.S.

Caldecott
Tunnel
Former
Concord
Naval
Weapons
Station
San
Miguel
Refinery
Agricultural
Core
0 3 6 91.5
Miles
6 E
S
W
N
Map includes all amendments through August 2020.

For higher detail and the most current designations
please refer to the county's Maps & GIS website:
http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/1818/Maps-GIS
for an interactive map and GIS data downloads.

Incorporated AreasANTIOCH
Unincorporated AreasAlamo
Urban Limit LineGeneral Plan Designations for Land Within Contra Costa County SL (Single Family Residential - Low)
SM (Single Family Residential - Medium)
SH (Single Family Residential - High)
ML (Multiple Family Residential - Low)
MV (Multiple Family Residential - Very High)
MS (Multiple Family Residential - Very High Special)
CC (Congregate Care/Senior Housing)
MO (Mobile Home)
CO (Commercial)
OF (Office)
BP (Business Park)
LI (Light Industry)
HI (Heavy Industry)
CR (Commercial Recreation)
ACO (Airport Commercial)
LF (Landfill)
PS (Public/Semi-Public)
PR (Parks and Recreation)
OS (Open Space)
AL (Agricultural Lands)
AC (Agricultural Core)
DR (Delta Recreation)
WA (Water)
WS (Watershed)
MH (Multiple Family Residential - High)
MM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium)
Incorporated Cities
M-5 (Willow Pass Road Commercial Mixed Use)
M-6 (Bay Point Residential Mixed Use)SV (Single Family Residential - Very Low) AL, OIBA (Agricultural Lands & Off Island Bonus Area)
M-2 (Downtown/Waterfront Rodeo Mixed Use)
M-3 (Pleasant Hill BART Mixed Use)
M-8 (Dougherty Valley Village Center Mixed Use)
M-9 (Montalvin Manor Mixed Use)
M-10 (Willow Pass Business Park Mixed Use)
M-1 (Parker Avenue Mixed Use)
M-4 (Willow Pass Road Mixed Use)
M-15 (Saranap Village Mixed Use)
M-13 (San Pablo Dam Road Mixed Use)
M-12 (Triangle Area Mixed Use)
M-11 (Appian Way Mixed Use)
M-14 (Heritage Point Mixed Use)
Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line (ULL)
Figure 4-4
Contra Costa County General Plan- ULL and Land Use Diagram Contra Costa County General Plan - Land Use Diagram
Source: Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Diagram, accessed at: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4732/General-Plan ATTACHMENT 3
924
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 73

4.5: Comparative Land Use Regulations
Each of the counties reviewed for purposes of this study provide land use policies and/or zoning regulations that prescribe allowable land uses and provide development standards intended to accommodate development in a manner that is protective of agricultural resources. Some counties, like Alameda County and its Measure D provisions, embed these standards into their General Plan. Other counties include these standards in their respective zoning regulations, and some counties include a mix of zoning regulations with specific citations to General Plan policies. The following provides a comparative summary of many of the more important standards and regulations of these counties as related to agricultural land use, as compared to Alameda County.

Minimum Lot Size / Maximum Residential Density / Building Site Every land use in an Agriculture (A) district within Alameda County shall be on a building site having an area not less than 100 acres. The County honors building sites on existing parcels of less than 100 acres if the parcel is consistent with zoning standards for legal building sites.

The Alameda County Cultivated Agriculture (CA) combining district is combined with the A district to implement the land use policies and standards for the vineyard area of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan. The maximum dwelling unit density in the CA combining district is one unit per 20 acres, and the minimum building site area is 17 acres, provided a number of additional criteria are met at the time of tentative map approval.
 Sonoma County’s General Plan Land Use Map defines the maximum residential densities permitted within each of its land use designations, and these vary by location. Within the Resource and Rural Development designation and RRD zone, residential densities vary between 20 and 320 acres per unit. Within the Land Extensive Agriculture designation and LEA zone, residential densities vary between 60 and 320 acres per unit. Within the Land Intensive designation and LIA zone, residential densities vary between 20 and 100 acres per unit. Within the Diverse Agriculture designation and DA zone, residential density varies between 10 and 60 acres per dwelling unit.
9  Napa County’s Agricultural Preserve zoning district has a minimum lot size of 40 acres, and the Agricultural Watershed zoning district has a minimum size of 160 acres.  Solano County has several Exclusive Agriculture zoning districts including A-20, A-40, A-80 and A- 160 zoning districts, and minimum lot sizes are established at 20 acres, 40 acres, 80 acres and 160 acres respectively.
 Contra Costa County has three Exclusive Agriculture zoning districts including A-20, A-40 and A- 80 zoning districts, and minimum lot sizes are established at 20 acres, 40 acres and 80 acres respectively.

Comparison
In general, Alameda County’s lot size and residential density regulations provide less variety in parcel size or residential density than many other counties, and does not include provisions for very large minimum lot sizes (of 160 or 320-acre minimums). By honoring building sites on existing parcels of less 9 Sonoma County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 26 (Zoning), Sec. 26-06-040. - Development standards, Table 6-2: Development Standards in Agriculture and Resource Zones ATTACHMENT 3
925
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 74
than 100 acres, the practical results of this regulation likely yields a similar variety of parcel sizes in the less than 100-acre minimum categories.

Maximum Building Intensity – Residential and Non-Residential Uses Alameda County ECAP policies provide a maximum building intensity for non-residential buildings. The permitted building intensity within the Agricultural (A) district is based on a floor: area ratio (or FAR).

The A district’s FAR is 0.01 (or 1% of the lot area), but not less than 20,000 square feet. For example, a 100-acre lot with a 1% FAR would have a maximum non-residential building limit of 43,560 square feet (1% of 100 acres). Where permitted, greenhouses have a maximum FAR of .025 (or 2.5% of the lot area).

Residential and residential accessory buildings have a maximum allowable floor space of 12,000 square feet.
 Sonoma County General Plan policies (Policy AR-5a and-5b) seek to ensure that agriculture- related support and processing uses are only allowed on agricultural lands when “demonstrated to be necessary for and proportional to agricultural production on-site or in the local area”.

Sonoma County’s Land Intensive and Land Extensive zoning districts further prescribe maximum lot coverage limitations that vary with the size of the parcel. The maximum lot coverage (residential and non-residential combined) is either 5% of the lot area or 85,000 square feet, whichever is greater, for parcels greater than 20 acres in size. 10  Napa County Zoning Ordinance, Table 18.104.010 indicates that the Agricultural Preserve and Agricultural Watershed zoning districts do not have an applicable non-residential maximum building coverage limit.
 Solano County’s Exclusive Agriculture zoning districts do not prescribe building intensity limits for non-residential buildings, or a total maximum building coverage limit. Solano County does establish a maximum size for secondary dwelling units at 1,800 square feet.  Contra Costa County’s Agriculture districts do not prescribe building intensity limits for non- residential buildings, or a total maximum building coverage limit.

Given the relative interest in this regulation, four additional counties were also reviewed for FAR limitations:
 The Marin Countywide Plan’s Agricultural Production Zones (AG1 through AG3) have non- residential FAR limitations of between 0.01 (1%) and 0.09 (9%), and the corresponding zoning districts A3 through A60 (e.g., A60 applies to 60-acre properties) provides for an FAR of 0.05 (or 5%). These regulations also note that, “the maximum non-residential and non-agricultural floor area for that portion or portions of properties with sensitive habitat or within the Ridge and Upland Greenbelt or the Baylands Corridor, and properties that lack public water or sewer systems, shall be calculated at the lowest end of the floor area ratio range as established by the governing Countywide Plan Land Use Designation, except for projects that provide significant public benefits, as determined by the Review Authority”. 11 Homes, roads, residential support
facilities, and other non-agricultural development, shall be clustered on no more than five percent (5%) of the gross acreage, to the extent feasible, with the remaining acreage retained in 10 Sonoma County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 26 (Zoning), Sec. 26-06-040: Development Standards, Table 6- 2: Development Standards in Agriculture and Resource Zones 11 Marin County Development Code, Section 22.08.040: Agricultural District Development Standards, Table 2-2 ATTACHMENT 3
926
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 75
agricultural production and/or open space.12 Agricultural and open space land use categories that have minimum lot sizes of greater than 60 acres do not have a corresponding FAR limit.  Monterrey County’s Zoning Ordinance includes three comparable agricultural-related zoning districts: Farmlands (F), Rural Grazing (RG) and Permanent Grazing (PG), each of which includes a maximum of 5% lot coverage (which is different than FAR as it does not account for building height).13
 Mendocino County’s agricultural zoning districts include Agriculture (AG), Rangeland (RL) and Forest Land (FL) – all of which include standards pertaining to setback, building height and lot sizes, but no development regulations pertaining to maximum non-resident building size.  San Luis Obispo County’s zoning regulations are disaggregated among numerous individual planning areas, communities and villages within that county, each of which contain unique regulations pertaining to allowable land uses, site planning and design. None of these regulations indicates a maximum non-residential building size within agricultural-based zoning areas.
14 Comparisons
Of those nine counties studied, four counties (Alameda, Sonoma, Marin and Monterrey) have regulations for maximum building intensities that apply to agriculturally designated or zoned lands. In comparison, Alameda County’s regulations are more protective of agricultural lands and/or more restrictive on development potential. The following Table 4-1 compares the results for comparably sized properties per Alameda County, Sonoma County and Marin County regulations:
12 Marin County Development Code, Section 22.08.040: Agricultural District Development 13 Monterrey County Code of Ordinances, Secs 21.30.060, 21.32.060 and 21.34.060 14 San Luis Obispo County Land Use Ordinance, Chapters 22-04 through 22-08 ATTACHMENT 3
927
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 76
Table 4-1: Comparative Building Intensity (e.g., FAR) Regulations Parcel Size:

Alameda
12,000 sf Residential + 20,000 sf
minimum, or 1% non-Residential FAR 1
Sonoma
5% of the lot
area, or 85,000
square feet min.

Marin
maximum 5%
FAR 2
Monterrey
maximum 5%
building site
coverage 3
40 acres 32,000
12,000 sf residential, plus 20,000
(minimum) non-residential
87,120 87,120 87,120
80 acres 46,848
12,000 sf residential, plus 1% (34,848 sf)
non-residential
174,240 NA 174,240
100 acres 55,560
12,000 sf residential, plus 1% (43,560 sf)
non-residential
217,800 NA 217,800
160 acres 81,696
12,000 sf residential, plus 1% (69,696 sf)
non-residential
348,480 NA 348,480
Notes:

1. Non -residential use permitted at the greater of either 20,000, or 1% FAR

2. Marin A3 through A60 zoning districts provide FAR requirements that apply to lots of between 3 and 60 acres, only

3. Assumes all 1-story buildings at 5% of lot coverage. Taller buildings at the same lot coverage would increase effective FAR Building Envelope
Alameda ECAP policies require that all buildings located in an Agriculture or Resource Management land use category must be located on a contiguous development envelope not to exceed 2 acres, except they may be located outside the envelope if necessary for security reasons or if structures are necessary for agricultural use.
 Sonoma County zoning regulations for Land Intensive and Land Extensive zoning districts do not provide for a maximum building envelop, but the Sonoma County General Plan (Policy AR-6d) provides guidelines for approval of visitor-serving uses in agricultural areas, which include the requirement that such uses must be compatible with, and secondary and incidental to agricultural production activities in the area. The Sonoma County zoning ordinance limits permitted agricultural support services (including incidental sales of products related to the agricultural use, but not including walk-in, over-the-counter retail sales) to not more than one employee and occupying no more than one-half acre of land. 15  Napa County, Solano County and Contra Costa County do not have regulations that establish a maximum building envelope, other than applicable building setback requirements and General Plan policies which seek to limit development on agricultural soils and other natural resource values.
15 Sonoma County Code, Sec. 26-18-050: Agricultural support services ATTACHMENT 3
928
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 77
Comparisons
Alameda County appears to be the only one of the counties studied in this report to have a defined maximum building envelope.

Permitted Residential Uses
Alameda County’s Agriculture zoning district permits one single-family dwelling or one single-family mobilehome per building site, plus one secondary dwelling unit per building site on parcels 25 acres in size or larger. Occupancy of agricultural caretaker dwellings and agricultural employee housing is subject to site development review.
 Each of the other counties included in this study have relatively similar regulations pertaining to residential uses.

The following Table 4-2 provides a comparative summary of the permitting requirements for residential use in Alameda County’s “A” district, as compared to each of the other four counties included in this study. Because each county has its own unique set of definitions for different residential use types, and different regulatory processes, the residential use types and permit types have been grouped into similar categories as best determined for this comparison.

ATTACHMENT 3
929
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 78
Table 4-2: Comparison of Permitted Residential Land Uses and Types Alameda Ag District
(A Zone)
Sonoma Ag Districts
(LIA, LEA and RRD Zones)
Napa Ag Preserve
(AP and AW Zones)
Solano Ag Districts
(A-20 thru A-160 Zones)
Contra Costa Ag. Districts
(A2, A3, A4 and A20 thru A-
80 Zones)
Single Family Dwelling P P P P P
Secondary (Accessory) Dwelling
Unit
P (25-acre min
lot, with SDR)

P P P UP
Agricultural Caretaker’s
(Farmworker) Dwelling

SDR P - - P
Agricultural/Farmworker Employee
Housing
SDR for up to
36 beds or 12
units designed
as single-
family units
C for greater
number of
beds or units
P (different
standards for
seasonal and
year-round)
P (6 emp., or
36 beds, or 12
units designed
as single-
family units
UP – greater
number of
beds or units
AP P
Farm Family Dwelling Unit - P (with
Williamson
Act or Ag
Easement)
- C -
Accessory and Jr. Accessory
Dwelling Unit
- P (not on
Williamson
Act)
- - P
P = permitted or allowed by right
SDR (Site Development Review) and AP (Administrative Permit) = permitted pursuant to an administrative use permit; C or UP = conditionally permitted pursuant to conditional use permit (CUP) or use permit (UP) as a discretionary action; - = not permitted or not an identified permitted use
Wineries
Alameda County’s zoning ordinance (17.04.010 – Definitions) defines a Winery as, “a commercial, bonded facility for the fermentation and processing of grapes or other produce into wine, or the re- fermentation of still wine into sparkling wine”. Section 17.06.030 of the zoning ordinance lists wineries ATTACHMENT 3
930
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 79
as a principal use permitted in the County’s Agriculture (A) zoning district,16 further described as including “accessory uses such as administrative offices, visitor centers, on-site tasting rooms, production and maintenance facilities, cooperage, and marketing activities”. Visitor center uses are further defined as, “winery tours and on-site tasting, retail sales of wine, olive oil and related items, the display of historical or educational items related to the wine region or art, - not to exceed 30 percent of the floor area of the production facility of the winery. Permanent kitchen facilities are not allowed, but permitted activities include, “the sale of food, complementary food service or provision of picnic facilities limited to cold foods prepared off-site (such as bread, cheese, crackers, sandwiches or salads) in conjunction with wine tasting and sales, provided such food service remains incidental and subordinate to the wine tasting and sales”. An administrative conditional use permit (ACUP) may be requested for a temporary mobile outdoor business as an accessory or incidental use to a winery.

Section 17.06.040 of the Alameda County zoning ordinance lists “winery related uses” as conditionally permitted in an A district, only if approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Winery-related uses means “various uses accessory to a winery, which must be clearly incidental and subordinate to the primary winery use”. The term also includes “various temporary, cultural and social events (catered banquets, receptions, concerts, food and wine festivals, races, etc.), that would not compromise the primary agricultural or appearance of the property. The term includes wine marketing activities that are otherwise disallowed by the definition of winery or olive oil mill. The term includes up to two overnight room accommodations for use by winery business associates”.

The following Table 4-3 provides a comparative summary of the regulations and permitting requirements for wineries in Alameda County, as compared to each of the other four counties included in this study. Because each county has its own unique set of definitions for wineries and winery-related uses, and different regulatory processes, the use types and permit types for wineries have been grouped into similar categories as best determined for this comparison. 16 Section 17.30.160 establishes a CA (Cultivated Agriculture) combining district, which is combined with the A (Agricultural) district to implement the land use policies and standards for the Vineyard Area of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan. The CA combining zone does list certain exceptions and differences between the A and CA districts, but CA regulations pertaining to wineries remain the same as the regulations in the A district.

ATTACHMENT 3
931
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 80
Table 4-3: Comparison of Permitted Winery and Winery-Related Uses Alameda Ag District
(A Zone)
Sonoma Ag Districts
(LIA, LEA and DA Zones)
Napa Ag Preserve
(AP and AW Zones)
Solano Ag Districts
(A-20 thru A-160 Zones)
Contra Costa Ag. Districts
(A2, A3, A4 and A20 thru A-
80 Zones)
Outdoor Crops (vines) P P P P P
Wineries P C 1 C2
P
C
Small wineries
Medium wineries AP
Large wineries C
Wine Processing, Production and
Storage
C Based on size (see
Wineries, above)
Tasting Rooms, Sales, Marketing C C Based on size (see
Wineries, above)
Office/Lab C Based on size (see
Wineries, above)
Winery-Related Uses C C C Based on size (see
Wineries, above)
Business Accommodations C C -
Catered and Social Events C - -
Accessory Buildings P P P - P
P = permitted or allowed by right;
AP = permitted pursuant to an administrative use permit; C = conditionally permitted pursuant to conditional use permit (CUP) or use permit (UP) as a discretionary action; * = uses included within the definition of small, medium or large winery

1. Sonoma County definition of Agricultural Processing – “Preparation of agricultural products which are not grown on site, processing of agricultural product of a type grown or produced primarily on site or in the local area, storage of agricultural products grown or processed on site, and bottling or canning of agricultural products grown or processed on site”

2. Napa County definition of Agricultural Processing - “A facility used for the fermenting and processing of grape juice into wine, or the re-fermenting of still wine into sparkling wine.” ATTACHMENT 3
932
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 81
Comparisons
Of those counties studied, Alameda County appears to have the broadest definition of a “winery”. This definition includes more types of uses and activities than as defined by other counties (e.g., wine processing, wine production and tasting rooms), and has the least restrictive permitting process for wineries. Nearly all defined winery activities and uses are permitted by right, as opposed to separate administrative or discretionary use permit processes. In comparison, Alameda County’s regulations pertaining to permitted (as opposed to conditionally permitted) wineries appear to be more supportive of the winery business (or with less regulatory process) than the regulations of those other counties included in this study.

Overnight Accommodations
The Alameda County zoning ordinance Sections 17.06.030 and 17.06.040 does not list bed and breakfasts establishments as either permitted or conditionally permitted facilities in the County’s Agriculture (A) zoning district. However, in May of 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved amendments to the East County Area Plan and the County Zoning Ordinance related to visitor accommodation and services. Within the CA combining district (which applies only to the SLVAP), bed and breakfast establishments (if conducted within an existing or permitted dwelling and with a maximum of 14 rooms available for guests) and restaurants (with seated service only, and a maximum of 49 permanent indoor seats, and that feature agricultural products of the South Livermore Valley Area) are permitted, if approved by the County Board of Zoning Adjustments.

The following Table 4-4 provides a comparative summary of the regulations and permitting requirements for overnight guest accommodations in Alameda County, as compared to each of the other four counties included in this study.

ATTACHMENT 3
933
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis  page 82
Table 4‐4: Comparison of Overnight Accommodation Uses
Alameda Ag
District
(A Zone)
Sonoma Ag
Districts
(LIA, LEA and DA
Zones)
Napa Ag Preserve
(AP and AW Zones)
Solano Ag Districts
(A‐20 thru A‐160
Zones)
Contra Costa Ag.

Districts
(A2, A3, A4 and
A20 thru A‐80
Zones)
Vacation Rentals  ‐  P (not
permitted in
LIA zone)
C (in A‐20
only)
C (A‐20
district only)
‐
Bed & Breakfast  ‐
P (CA
combining
district, only)
–14 rooms
C
(not
permitted in
LIA zone)
‐  AP (A‐20
district only) –
10 guest
rooms
‐
Lodging: Hosted Rental  P  P  ‐  AP (in A‐20
only)
‐
Lodging: Agricultural
Farmstay/Homestay/Guest Cottage
‐  P  P  A  ‐
Lodging: Agricultural Marketing
Accommodations
P  C (not
permitted in
RRD zone)
C  ‐  ‐
P = permitted or allowed by right;
AP or SDR = permitted pursuant to an administrative use permit or administrative Site Development Review; C = conditionally permitted pursuant to conditional use permit (CUP) or use permit (UP) as a discretionary action; ‐ = not permitted or not a listed use
Comparisons
Of those counties studied, Alameda County appears to have similar opportunities for agricultural tourism overnight accommodations, but bed and breakfast establishments are limited in Alameda County to the CA combining district of the South Livermore Valley, only. Most counties studied in this report (except for Contra Costa County) appear to have a similar list of permitted or conditionally permitted overnight accommodation opportunities.

Horses, Boarding Stables and Riding Academies
Pursuant to Alameda County Zoning Section 17.06.030, the grazing, breeding or training of horses are permitted uses in the Agriculture (A) zoning district. However, boarding stables and riding academies are subject to additional permit procedure and review, including the County’s Site Development Review (SDR) process specific to equine facilities, which includes the following:
 The appropriate Board of Zoning Adjustments shall decide applications for SDR under this section, an
d a public hearing is required.

ATTACHMENT 3
934
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 83
 Where the holder of an existing conditional use permit is found to be in compliance with all conditions of the existing conditional use permit, the Planning Director shall recommend to the appropriate Board of Zoning Adjustments that SDR for the facility be approved, except as allowed by the County Policy for Equine Facilities in the A (Agricultural) district.  The Planning Director may modify the standard SDR requirements, and specifically may waive the requirement that the site plan be prepared by licensed civil engineer, land surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or a registered building designer. 17 Boarding stables are subject to, and must be consistent with the provisions of the County Policy for Equine Facilities in the A (Agricultural) District (see below). Site development reviews for equine facilities do not have an expiration date, but are subject to periodic reviews for compliance with conditions of approval and with other relevant county ordinances. Any changes in the scope of the boarding stable operation shall require a modification to the SDR permit. SDR approval does not confer any exemption from any health, nuisance, or public safety ordinances or their subsequent enforcement, or confer any other unique privileges for a stable.
 In Sonoma County, the keeping of farm animals (including horses) is a permitted use, but commercial horse facilities and stables are allowed only with a Conditional Use Permit.

Commercial horse facilities and stables are defined as, “facilities for the boarding and/or training of horses not owned by the property owner or occupant of an on-site residence, related shows, group lessons and clinics, and similar activities including commercial equestrian facilities, education or instruction facilities for horsemanship, riding academies, and equestrian riding and driving clubs.”
 In Solano County’s Agricultural zoning districts, permitted uses include grazing or pastured livestock (including horses), and private stables. Public stables (with or without horse shows) are permitted upon issuance of a Use Permit. Public stables with horse shows are considered a “Public Assembly Use” (per Section 28.73.30). Such uses are subject to development standards pertaining to minimum distance from any dwelling unit, minimum distance from side and rear property lines, and minimum distance from front property lines, as well as operational standards related to parking, traffic hazards, emergency response, and nuisance or hazards due to trespass, odor, dust, noise and drainage.
 Napa County’s definition of “agriculture” as a permitted use in their Ag Preserve (AP) and Ag/Watershed (AW) zoning districts includes the breeding and raising of horses. Horse boarding and/or training stables are not permitted in the AP districts, but are permitted in all AW districts upon granting of a Use Permit.
18  In Contra Costa County, livestock production and animal breeding (including horses) are permitted uses in all of the County’s Agricultural districts. “Dude” ranches, riding academies and stables are allowed in the Ag-2, Ag-3 and A-20 Exclusive Ag District’s upon the issuance of a land use permit. “Dude” ranches, riding academies and stables are not allowed in the A-40 or A-80 Excusive Ag Districts.
17 The County’s Site Development Review process specific to equine facilities was enacted pursuant to the County’s Policy for Equine Facilities in the A District, adopted by the Board of Supervisors March 4, 2004, revising prior zoning requirements for Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) for boarding stables and riding academies
18 Per Napa County Code definitions (18.08.490), “stable” or “public stable” means a facility for the commercial boarding of horses or for the housing of horses for rental, or both.

ATTACHMENT 3
935
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 84
The following Table 4-5 provides a comparative summary of the permitting requirements for equestrian facilities in Alameda County, as compared to each of the other four counties included in this study.

Table 4-5: Comparison of Equestrian Facility Permitting Requirements Alameda Ag
District
(A Zone)
Sonoma Ag
Districts
(LIA, LEA and DA
Zones)
Napa Ag Preserve
(AP and AW Zones)
Solano Ag Districts
(A-20 thru A-160
Zones)
Contra Costa Ag.

Districts
(A2, A3, A4 and
A20 thru A-80
Zones)
Grazing and Breeding Horses
(including private stables)

P P P P P
Commercial Stables, Horse Training
and Riding Academies
SDR C AP Zone ( – )
AW Zone - C
C A2, A3, A4 and
A20 Zones – C
A40-A80
Zones ( - )
P = permitted or allowed by right;
SDR = permitted pursuant to Site Development Review;
C = conditionally permitted pursuant to conditional use permit (CUP) or use permit (UP) as a discretionary action; - = not permitted or not listed as a permitted or conditionally permitted use Comparisons
Of those counties studied, Alameda County appears to have the most permissive permitting process for commercial stables, horse training and riding academies than other counties, providing for an administrative Site Development Review process before the Zoning Adjustment Board, rather than requiring discretionary conditional use permits (CUPs) for these types of uses, as do all other counties studied in this report. Alameda County’s regulations pertaining to permitted (as opposed to conditionally permitted) uses appear to be more supportive of the equine business (or with less regulatory process) than the regulations of those other counties included in this study.

Commercial Cannabis
Alameda County’s Agriculture (A) zoning district requires a CUP approved by the County Board of Zoning Adjustments for all cannabis cultivation and associated cannabis distribution, cannabis retailers, combined cannabis operations, and testing labs (all subject to additional regulations). The following Table 4-6 provides a comparative summary of the regulations and permitting requirements for cannabis-related land uses in Alameda County, as compared to each of the other four counties included in this study.

ATTACHMENT 3
936
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis page 85
Table 4-6: Comparison of Cannabis-Related Permitted Uses Alameda Ag
District
(A Zone)
Sonoma Ag
Districts
(LIA, LEA and DA
Zones)
Napa Ag Preserve
(AP and AW Zones)
Solano Ag Districts
(A-20 thru A-160
Zones)
Contra Costa Ag.

Districts
(A2, A3, A4 and
A20 thru A-80
Zones)
Cultivation C C (10 acres
minimum lot)
- (not permitted) 1
C 2 C (not permitted
in Cannabis
Exclusion areas)
Distribution C C - - (not permitted
Retail C - - - (not permitted
outside of ULL)
Testing labs, manufacturing
and combined operations
C C (10 acres
minimum lot)
C 2 C-(not permitted
in Cannabis
Exclusion areas)
C= Conditional Use Permit, plus all other applicable regulatory requirements and associated permits; - not permitted
Notes:

1. Per Napa Code of Ordinances, Section 8.10.025, “all forms of commercial cannabis activity shall be prohibited and shall not be an allowable use in any zone of the unincorporated area of Napa County and shall not be permitted for any purpose”

2. Per Solano County Code, Section 2.2-130, “Hemp cultivation, including seed production, may only be eligible for a hemp cultivation permit within the geographical area of unincorporated Solano County bounded by: (1) The western boundary shall be a north to south line running one (1) mile east of Highway 113 between Midway Road on the north to a point three (3) miles north of Highway 12; (2) The eastern boundary shall be the eastern county boundary line; (3) The southern boundary shall be a line running west to east three (3) miles north of Highway 12 from one (1) mile east of Highway 113 and extending to the eastern county boundary line; and (4) The northern boundary line shall be Midway Road as it extends from one (1) mile east of highway 113 on the west to the eastern County boundary.

Comparisons
Of those counties studied, Alameda County appears to have the broadest list of conditionally permitted cannabis-related uses. No other county studied in this report has any provisions for cannabis sales within its agricultural zoning districts. Napa County appears to be the most restrictive, not permitting any forms of commercial cannabis activity in any zone of the unincorporated area of Napa County. Other counties included in this study appear to be similar to Alameda County as pertains to cannabis cultivation, but more restrictive as to other cannabis-related activities and uses.

ATTACHMENT 3
937
ATTACHMENT 3
This page intentionally left blank.
938
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis
Sources and References
Alameda, County of, South Livermore Valley Area Plan, 1993 ____ Alameda County, East County Area Plan (ECAP), as adopted by the Board, May 2002 ____ Alameda County, Draft MND for ECAP/Castro Valley Plan, General Plan Amendments for Equine Breeding and Training Facilities, June 13, 2012
____ Alameda County, Community Development Agency Staff Report to the Board of Supervisors, “Proposed Amendments to East County Area Plan and Castro Valley General Plan to Increase the Floor Area Ratio Allowed for Equine Facilities”, December 2012
____ Alameda County, Community Development Agency Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures, Annual Alameda County Crop Reports, years 2000 through 2019, accessed at:
https://www.acgov.org/cda/awm/resources/stats.htm
____ Alameda County , Community Development Agency Staff Report to the Board of Supervisors, “Update on Proposed Amendments to Measure D to Increase the Floor Area Ratio Allowed for Agricultural Buildings”, December 7, 2020
Alameda County Resource Conservation District, Equine CUP Streamlining Project, October 2003 Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), City Municipal Services Reviews (MSRs) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) Updates, accessed at: https://pwainsp.acgov.org/LAFCO/municipal.htm Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, May 2021
California Department of Conservation, California Land Conservation Act, 2014 Status Report, 2014 ____ Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, accessed at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/
____ Department of Conservation, Important-Farmland-Categories , accessed at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx California Employment Development Department (EDD), Labor Market Information Division, Industry Employment & Labor Force Statistics for Alameda County, accessed at:
https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/employment-by-industry.html Dublin, City of, General Plan, 2014
____ Dublin, General Plan Housing Element 2015-2023, 2015 ____ Dublin, Dublin General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 1-1), As of November 2017 Hayward, City of, General Plan, Land Use Element, accessed at:
https://www.hayward2040generalplan.com/goal/LU1
____ Hayward, 2040 General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure LU-4), 2013 Lapsley, James T. , Ph.D. and Sumner, Daniel A. Ph.D., UC Davis report, “Realizing the Heritage, Grape Growing and Winemaking in the Livermore Valley”, 2022
League of Women Voters, accessed at: http://www.smartvoter.org/2000/11/07/ca/alm/meas/D/ Livermore, City of, South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP), 1997 ____ Livermore, City of Livermore General Plan 2003 – 2023, 2004 as amended 2021 ____ Livermore, 2015 to 2022 Housing Element Update & Initial Study, January 2015 ____ Livermore, General Plan Land Use Map, 2018
Marin, County of, Marin County Development Code, Title 22, Section 22.08.040: Agricultural District Development Standards, accessed at:
https://www.marincounty.org/~/media/files/departments/cd/planning/currentplanning/development- code-amendments-2017/dev-code-final-with-tract-changes-41317/devcode2016_artii_bos-final.pdf?la=en ATTACHMENT 3
939
Alameda LAFCO Measure D Analysis
Monterrey, County of, Monterrey County Zoning Ordinances, accessed at:
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=22573 Napa, County of, Napa County General Plan - Agricultural Preservation and Land Use Element, June 2013 ____ Napa County Department of Agriculture and Weights & Measures, Napa County Agricultural Crop Report for 2019, 2019
____ Napa County Code of Ordinances, Accessed at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/napa_county/codes/code_of_ordinances Pleasanton, City of, Pleasanton General Plan 2005 – 2025, 2009 as amended 2019 ____ Pleasanton, Pleasanton General Plan Land Use Map 2005-2025, 2009 ____ Pleasanton, Pleasanton General Plan 2015-2023 Housing Element, 2015, accessed at:
http://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/gov/depts/cd/planning/new/housing.asp San Luis Obispo, County of, San Luis Obispo County Code, Inland Land Use Ordinance, Chapter 22, accessed at:
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building/Forms-Documents/Ordinances.aspx Solano, County of, Solano County General Plan Land Use Element, 2008 ____ Solano County Department of Agriculture, Weights & Measures, Solano County Crop and Livestock Report 2018 (as amended 2020)
____ Solano County Code, Chapter 28: Zoning Regulations, accessed at:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SolanoCounty/html/SolanoCounty2800/SolanoCounty2800.html Sonoma, County of, Sonoma County General Plan 2020 – Agricultural Resources Element, August 2016 ____ Sonoma County, Sonoma County General Plan 2020 Land Use Element, as amended December 2016 ____ Sonoma County, Department of Agriculture / Weights & Measures, 2019 Sonoma County Crop Report, 2019 ____ Sonoma County Code, Chapter 26 (Zoning), accessed at:
https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/PRMD/Regulations/Agricultural-Zoning-Ordinance/ Tri-Valley Conservancy, accessed at: https://trivalleyconservancy.org/what-we-do/protect-land/preserving-land/ United States Census Bureau, Quickfacts, accessed at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/livermorecitycalifornia,pleasantoncitycalifornia,dublincitycali fornia/PST045219
ATTACHMENT 3
940
ATTACHMENT 4
941
ATTACHMENT 5
942

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 10.1

DATE:

June 27, 2022
TO:

Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Tina Olson, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT:

Supplemental materials received prior to the meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

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

3.1 Community Asset Management Program (CAMP) Outreach Committee Annual Update presented by Chairperson Allen.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

6.2 Public hearing to adopt the Tri-Valley Transportation Council 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study, AB 602 Supplemental Analysis, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update, Prioritization of Projects and Funding Plan, and the 2022 Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee rates pursuant to the requirements of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

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

Materials: Supplemental Memo, Revised Exhibit A, and PowerPoint Presentation

7.2 Receive Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission 20-Year Report on Measure D and discussion and direction regarding amendments to Alameda County’s East County Area Plan, South Livermore Valley Area Plan, and Alameda County Zoning Code

Material: PowerPoint Presentation
943

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

Material: Council Reports

DISCUSSION

ATTACHMENTS

1. Supplemental Materials

Prepared by: Debbie Elam
Deputy City Clerk

Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
944
1 Community Asset Management Program (CAMP)
Outreach Committee Annual Update
June 27, 2022
Presented by Chairperson Donna Allen
Community Asset Management Program
Outreach Committee
9 Volunteers focused on
Infrastructure Public Outreach
• Branding
• Survey (over 1,100 responses)
• Social Media
• Animated educational video
• Two all-ages asset adventures
• Fact Sheets
• Community Connections Campaign
• Livermore Connect App
• www.livermoreassets.net
L’more the
Asset Hound
Fact Sheet
Example
1 2
Item 3.1
PowerPoint Presentation
945
1 Public hearing to adopt the TVTC 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study, AB 602 Supplemental Analysis, the SEP 2022 Update and Funding Plan, and the 2022 Transportation Development Fee rates
June 27, 2022
Presented by Mike Schmitt, Kimley-Horn
Agenda
• Background
• Nexus Study and SEP Process
• SEP and Recommended Rate Adjustments
• Resulting Revenue of Recommendation
• Approved Funding Plan
• Recommendation
1 2
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
946
2 Background
• TVTC formed on October 13, 2013
• List A (4 projects remaining)
– Original 11 projects identified in TVTC Action Plan
– Evaluated in 1995 Nexus Study
• List B (6 projects remaining)
– Additional 11 Projects Approved in 2003
– Evaluated along with remaining List A projects in 2008 Nexus Study
• List C (23 projects)
– Approved in 2019
– Evaluated along with remaining List A & B projects in 2020 Nexus Study
• Nexus Study
– Considers 20 years
– Updated every 8 years
– Considers all projects
– D etermines MAXIMUM
Fee
–
Complies with:
• AB 1600
• AB 602
– TVTC Adopted
August
2021
•
Strategic Expenditure Plan
– Considers 10 years
– Updated every 5 years
– Considers funded
projects
– Determines ACTUAL Fee
– Considers:
• Project prioritization
• A
nnual growth
f
orecast
– TVTC Adopted in April
2022
Nexus Study and SEP Process
3 4
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
947
3 Strategic Expenditure Plan and
Recommended Rate Adjustments
Land Use
Current
2021
Rate
% of
Maximum
Recommended
2022 Rates
Change
from 2021
Rates
%
Change
Single Family (DU) $5,057 15% $6,596.40 $1,539.40 30.4% Multi-Family (DU) $3,484 15% $3,889.20 $405.20 11.6%
Retail (SF) $3.74 6% $5.07 $1.33 35.6%
Office (SF) $8.59 15% $8.81 $0.22 2.5%
Industrial (SF) $5.00 15% $4.97 -$0.03 -0.6%
Other (avg AM/PM trips) $5,620 12% $6,100.68 $480.68 8.6% DU = Dwelling Units; SF = Square Feet
Resulting Revenue of
Recommendation
*Estimated total revenue does not account for CCI rate adjustments ** 20% must be used for SEP projects, but at local agency/sponsor discretion ***Project cost are in 2021$ and may increase over time Estimated Total Revenue* $162,733,410
Return to Local Source (20%)** $32,546,682
Admin Fee (0.8%) $1,301,867
Revenue for TVTDF Allocation $128,884,861
Top 15 Total Project Cost ( 2021 $)*** $1,058,477,852
Remaining 2017 SEP Commitments $14,290,000
5 6
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
948
4 Approved Funding Plan
The Strategic Expenditure Plan, Prioritization of Projects and Funding Plan has programmed funding for the
following city projects:
 Isabel Ave/I-580 Interchange (Phase 2), CIP 199238:
$5.15 Million (FY2029-32)
 Vasco Road/I-580 Interchange, CIP 199352: $8.57
Million (FY2024-26)
 Greenville/I 580 Interchange, CIP199149: $8.6 Million (FY2030-32)
 Iron Horse Trail (various segments): $2.7 Million
(FY2029-30)
Recommendation
To receive Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee funds for the approved city projects in the funding plan, the city has to conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution adopting:
• Tri-Valley Transportation Council 2020
Nexus Fee Update
Study,
•
AB 602 Supplemental Analysis,
• Tri-Valley Transportation Council Strategic Expenditure Plan 2022 Update,
Prioritization of Projects and Funding
Plan, and
•
2022 Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee rates and making the
required findings.
7 8
Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
949
5 Questions
9 Item 6.2
PowerPoint Presentation
950

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Date: June 27, 2022
To
: Mayor Woerner
and Members of the City Council
V
ia: Marianna Marysheva, City Manager
F
rom: Paul Spence, Community Development Director
S
ubject: City Council Item 6.3 – correction to fee schedule For Item 6.3, Public Hearing and Adoption of the Master Fee Schedule, there is a correction to the proposed Fee Schedule. Staff has added a footnote that applies only to the Land Use Entitlement Permits section (pages 17-19) of Exhibit A to the Resolution.

The correction specifies that recovery of costs can be done through a time and materials (T&M) method in certain situations, and that the multiple entitlement fee discount applies to certain applications. The attached revised Master Fee Schedule to be attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution reflects these changes.

A
ttachment:

R
evised Exhibit A to the resolution.

Item 6.3
Supplemental Memo
951

MASTER FEE SC
HEDULE