Livermore City Council
November 28, 2022

Climate Action Finance Map September 2021
Pathways to Capital for Projects in Livermore’s 2021 Climate Action Plan brought to you by
pathways highlighted in darker gray are particularly applicable and/or accessible to Livermore

BUILDINGS
Measure B-2-3
Tariff On-Bill Financing,
Green Bank, and/or
Revolving Loan Fund (RLV)
Government and Foundation Grants Baltimore, MD
Local Economic Development Corporation
Partnership
Office of Innovation and
Economic Development
NYC RLF (eg. of PPP,
but for development)
GRANT

PARTNER
Building Decarb Coalition
Program Related Investment or Endowments Coalition for Green Capital CT Green Bank + MacArthur LOAN
Private Investment or Bank Loan Coalition for Green Capital Colorado Clean Energy Fund LOAN
Green or Revenue Bonds California iBank CT Green Bank - Green Liberty Bond BOND
Ratepayer Surcharge PG&E, East Bay Community
Energy FEE CT Green Bank
Partner with stakeholders to develop
funding pathways for electrification
upgrades

BUILDINGS
Measure B-4
Residential and/or Commercial
Solar and Battery
PARTNER Community-Owned Solar Partnership Solar in Your Community Challenge Yale University
On-Bill Financing (Tariff) PG&E, East Bay Community
Energy Fort Collins Utilities
Green Bank or Revolving Loan Fund Coalition For Green Capital PosiGen - Solar Lease CA State Loan Program CAEATFA - REEL
PACE or C-PACE Financing CaliforniaFIRST
PARTNER Utility Rebates and Incentives California PUC via PG&E PG&E Solar Incentives Federal Loan Guarantee DOE Loans Program DOE Project Portfolio HomeStyle Energy Mortgage Fannie Mae Portland, OR
GoGreen Financing
LOAN
LOAN
LOAN
LOAN
LOAN
LOAN
Increase generation and storage
of local renewable energy
Ratepayer Surcharge or Utility Fee PG&E, East Bay Community Energy FEE CT Green Bank
Saratoga, CA
PARTNER State-Led Utility Incentive Program Solar on Multifamily Affordable Housing - SOMAH Eligible Properties

EXHIBIT B
833
Livermore Climate Action Measures Capital Types Top Funding and Finance Pathways Programs and Partners Case Examples

BUILDINGS
Measure B-4-1
Community Solar and Storage
GRANT State Grants via CA Public Utilities Commission or CA Energy Commission CPUC - SGIP, EPIC Grant Fremont, CA PARTNER Power Purchasing Agreement ENGIE, Ameresco Enovity EE in CA LOAN Tax-Exempt Lease Purchase Agreement GS $mart DGS Building Retrofits BOND General Obligation Bond (Green) California iBank Lakeport, CA LOAN On-Bill Financing PG&E, East Bay Community
Energy
EESI Case Studies
Grand Valley, CO
LOAN Green Bank or Revolving Loan Fund Coalition For Green Capital San Antonio, TX LOAN Federal or State Loan Program NREL Orange County Library PARTNER Collaborative Purchasing R-REP Bay Area SV-REP
LOAN Private Investment Firm Loan NYC Hudson,
Hillsborough, FL Generate Capital
PARTNER Collaborative Community Ownership Clean Energy Co. Boardman Hill, VT Coordinate with stakeholders to
provide local energy generation
and storage support and
incentives. This could include a
co-located community solar and
storage facility.

GRANT Federal Grant via FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) St. Croix, U.S.

Utility Rebates and Incentives PG&E Community Microgrid Enablement Program PARTNER Redwood Coast, CA
Ratepayer Surcharge or Utility Fee PG&E, East Bay Community Energy FEE Hawaii Microgrid Tariff
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Office of Innovation and Economic Development TAX New Orleans, LA

PARTNER Community Choice Aggregation East Bay Community Energy Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE)
Climate Action Finance Map September 2021
Pathways to Capital for Projects in Livermore’s 2021 Climate Action Plan brought to you by
pathways highlighted in darker gray are particularly applicable and/or accessible to Livermore

EXHIBIT B
834
Livermore Climate Action Measures Capital Type Top Funding and Finance Pathways Programs and Partners Case Examples

TRANSPORTATION
Measure T-3
Public Transportation Infrastructure
Federal or State Grants CalTrans Transit + Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) SamTrans + more
PPP or Sponsorship Livermore Chamber Of
Commerce
San Diego, CA
Metro Transit System
Federal or State Loan Programs TIFIA Loan San Luis Obispo, CA Green Bond or Revenue Bond CAEATFA, CA Transportation
Finance Authority Ventura County, CA
PPP with Transportation Operator Los Angeles Transportation Electrification Partnership
Transportation Fee Livermore Amador Valley
Transit Authority Chicago, IL
GRANT

PARTNER
LOAN
BOND
FEE

PARTNER
Improve shared mobility programs and
transit infrastructure to reduce passenger
VMT 2% by 2030, and 4% by 2045
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Office of Innovation and Economic Development TAX Los Angeles County

Livermore Amador Valley
Transit Authority
Climate Action Finance Map September 2021
Pathways to Capital for Projects in Livermore’s 2021 Climate Action Plan brought to you by
pathways highlighted in darker gray are particularly applicable and/or accessible to Livermore

TRANSPORTATION
Measure T-1
Bike and Pedestrian Improvements
State Grant via Caltrans Active Transportation Program Santa Barbara, CA PPP or Sponsorship (ex: Adopt-a-Roadway) Livermore Chamber of Commerce
Google and
Mountain View, CA
Federal Government Loan Program TIFIA Loan State of Maryland General Obligation Bond CA Transportation Finance
Authority San Diego County, CA
State Government Loan Program ISRF Loan Program Santa Cruz, CA Transportation Fee Dept. of Transportation Chicago, IL
GRANT

PARTNER
LOAN
BOND
LOAN
FEE
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Office of Innovation and Economic Development TAX Santa Rosa, CA
GRANT Foundation Grants People for Bikes, Outride
Improve active transportation
infrastructure to achieve greater than
7% mode shift away from passenger
vehicles by 2030 and maintain that
through 2045
Active Transportation Funding Resource:
https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/pr
ograms/atp/2020/funding-programs-that-fund-activetransportation-a11y.pdf Santa Cruz, CA
FEE Developer Impact Fee Dept. of Transportation Santa Monica, CA GRANT State Grant via CA Natural Resources Agency Urban Greening Program 2020 Awardees State Grant via CA Strategic Growth Council Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) GRANT Ontario, CA

TRANSPORTATION
Measure T-2
Privately-Owned EV
Charging Infrastructure
Government Grants
see this federal incentives list Santa Clara, CA
Utility Incentives or Rebates PG&E EV Charge Network
Public Private Partnership Blink, ChargePoint Laguna Beach, CA GRANT

PARTNER

PARTNER
CEC CTP, Federal Transit
Administration
Improve electric vehicle infrastructure
to achieve passenger vehicle shift to
zero emission vehicles greater than 25%
by 2030 and 50% by 2045, and
commercial vehicle shift greater than
10% by 2030 and 50% by 2045
LOAN State Loan (with Loan Loss Reserve) CalCAP (current lender list) Los Angeles + Noodoe PARTNER State Infrastructure Incentive Program CALeVIP Current Projects

EXHIBIT B
835
Climate Action Finance Map September 2021
Pathways to Capital for Projects in Livermore’s 2021 Climate Action Plan Livermore Climate Action Measures Capital Types Top Funding and Finance Pathways Programs and Partners Case Examples Urban and Community
Forestry Program
SEQUESTRATION + RESTORATION
Measure S-1
Urban Forestry
GRANT Federal Grant via National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF)
PARTNER Federal Partnership with Department of
Agriculture Forest Service (USDA) 2020 Awardees
LOAN Federal Loan via Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
Clean Water State Revolving
Fund Yurok Tribe, CA
BOND Environmental Impact Bond (defined here) Quantified Ventures SW Colorado Resilient Communities
Program 2020 Awardees
Maximize local carbon sequestration by
increasing urban canopy cover by at least
10% by 2030, preserving existing open
spaces, and developing carbon farming
projects
GRANT Federal Grant via National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF)
Five Star and Urban Waters
Restoration 2020 Awardees
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Office of Innovation and Economic Development
West Carson, LA
(consideration) TAX
FEE Developer Impact Fee or Stormwater Utility Fee TreePAC Portland, OR GRANT State Grant via California Natural Resources
Agency Urban Greening Program 2020 Awardees
GRANT State Grant via CAL FIRE Urban and Community
Forestry Program 2020 Awardees
GRANT State Grant via California Strategic Growth
Council
Transformative Climate
Communities (TCC) San Fernando, CA

brought to you by
LOAN Federal Loan via Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
Clean Water State Revolving
Fund Brookhaven, GA
BOND Environmental Impact Bond (defined here) Quantified Ventures Washington DC Water Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Office of Innovation and Economic Development TAX Chicago, IL
Developer Impact Fee or Stormwater Utility Fee California Stormwater Quality Association FEE Los Altos, CA

FLOODING
Measure F-2
Stormwater Management
Improve stormwater management to
reduce flood risk
GRANT Federal Grant via National Park Service River, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program Los Angeles, CA
pathways highlighted in darker gray are particularly applicable and/or accessible to Livermore

EXHIBIT B
836
Livermore Climate Action Measures Capital Types Top Funding and Finance Pathways Programs and Partners Case Examples

MUNICIPAL
Measure M-1
Municipal Energy Efficiency
GRANT State and Foundation Grants EPIC Grant, CPUC-SGIP Fremont, CA PARTNER Energy Savings Performance Contracts ENGIE, Ameresco Enovity EE LOAN Tax-Exempt Lease Purchase Agreement GS $mart DGS Building Retrofits BOND General Obligation Bond (Green) California iBank Lakeport, CA LOAN On-Bill Financing PG&E, East Bay Community
Energy Mass Saves
LOAN Green Bank or Revolving Loan Fund Coalition For Green Capital San Antonio, TX LOAN Government Loan Program CA CLEEN Huntington Beach, CA PARTNER Collaborative Purchasing Sourcewell
LOAN Investment Firm Generate Capital Hillsborough, FL
MAPC
PARTNER Utility Energy Services Contract (UESC) PG&E Sustainable Solutions Turnkey Program Cal Poly University

Electrify municipal facilities and
operations, while increasing
energy efficiency and renewable
energy
Climate Action Finance Map September 2021
Pathways to Capital for Projects in Livermore’s 2021 Climate Action Plan brought to you by
pathways highlighted in darker gray are particularly applicable and/or accessible to Livermore

MUNICIPAL
Measure M-2
City-Owned EV
Charging Infrastructure
Utility Incentive PG&E EV Fleet Program Pittsburg Unified School District, CA
PARTNER Public Private Partnership Charge Point Alameda, CA LOAN State Loan Program CA CLEEN Loans Fresno, CA Airport BOND General Obligation or Conduit Bond (Green) California iBank Westchester, NY PARTNER Collaborative Purchasing Sourcewell Chula Vista, CA, and Encinitas, CA

PARTNER
Electrify the City’s vehicle fleet,
and encourage City employees to
utilize alternative transportation
and teleworking opportunities
PARTNER State Infrastructure Incentives Program CaleVIP - Inland Counties Current Project List

EXHIBIT B
837
Appendix D - Measure Quantification
and Substantial Evidence
Appendix D - Measure Quantification
and Substantial Evidence
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
prepared for
City of Livermore
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
September 2022

EXHIBIT B
838
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Emission Reduction Summary ........................................................................................................ 5 3 Buildings and Energy ....................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 2030 Objectives................................................................................................................... 7 4 Transportation and Land Use .......................................................................................................18

4.1 2030 Objectives.................................................................................................................18 5 Waste and Materials .....................................................................................................................32

5.1 2030 Objectives.................................................................................................................32 6 Carbon Sequestration ...................................................................................................................37

6.1 2030 Objectives.................................................................................................................37 Tables
Table 1 Guiding Principles ...............................................................................................................3 Table 2 Estimated Emission Reduction Potential of CAP Strategies ...............................................6 Table 3 Action B-1.1 Calculations....................................................................................................9 Table 4 Strategy E-2 Calculations ................................................................................................. 12 Table 5 Action B-2.1 Calculations................................................................................................. 17 Table 6 Strategy T-2 Calculations ................................................................................................. 23 Table 7 EV Charger Count for Passenger Vehicles Calculations ................................................... 24 Table 8 Strategy T-2 Calculations ................................................................................................. 27 Table 9 Strategy T-3 Calculations ................................................................................................. 31 Table 10 Strategy W-1 Calculations ................................................................................................ 35 Table 11 Strategy S- 1 Tree Planting Calculations .......................................................................... 39 Table 12 Strategy S-1 Compost Application Calculations ............................................................... 39 Figures
Figure 1 Estimated GHG Emissions Reduction .................................................................................. 5

EXHIBIT B
839
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 1
1 Introduction
This document presents the technical quantification and evidence supporting the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction potential of the City of Livermore’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update.

Section 15183.5(b)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines establishes several criteria which must be met in order to allow for CEQA streamlining and to be considered a “qualified GHG reduction plan”. This document provides the information substantiating the GHG reductions identified for the CAP strategies pursuant to Subsection (D) which states, “strategies or a group of strategies, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level.” As part of the CAP Update process, the City of Livermore – in coordination with Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon), the Livermore Climate Action Plan Advisory Committee and the community of Livermore – has developed a comprehensive strategy for reducing community-wide GHG emissions over time. The strategies, actions, and steps in this appendix are consistent with the Climate Action Plan. In addition, steps are also identified in this document. These implementation steps will directly drive GHG emission reductions and direct day to day implementation of the CAP.

The Climate Action Plan’s claimed GHG emission reductions are organized around three levels which include:

1. Sectors. Sectors define the category in which the GHG reductions will take place and include Energy, Transportation, Waste, Carbon Sequestration, Municipal, Implementation and Outreach, and Carbon Restoration.

2. Strategies. Strategies define core strategies within each sector that will result in substantial reductions in GHG emissions

3. Actions. Each strategy is driven by sets of actions that together support the GHG emissions reduction necessary to achieve the City’s targets

4. Steps. This document also identifies steps which are specific policies, ordinances, and other approaches that will directly drive GHG emission reductions.

Strategies and steps can be either quantitative or supportive and are defined as follows:
▪ Quantitative. These strategies and steps are supported by case studies, scientific articles, calculations, or other third-party substantial evidence that demonstrate that the implementation of said strategy/action will achieve the identified measurable GHG reduction.

Quantitative strategies/steps can be summed to quantify how the City of Livermore will meets its 2030 target and show substantial progress towards the 2045 emission target. These targets exceed the state goal set by Senate Bill 32 (SB32) of 40% below 1990 by 2030, and carbon neutrality by 2045 as set by Executive Order B-55-18.
1 The GHG reductions were calculated
using published evidence provided through adequately controlled investigations, studies, and articles carried out by qualified experts that establish the effectiveness of the reduction 1 The Association of Environmental Professionals recommends limiting CEQA GHG Analysis to the State GHG Planning Horizon based on a State Legislatively Mandated Target (i.e., SB 32). Therefore, at this time, it is recommended that cities demonstrate quantitatively how they plan to achieve GHG reductions that align with SB 32, but are not required to do the same for the 2045 carbon neutrality goal established by EO-B-55-18, as this goal has not yet been adopted by the State Legislature. Rather, it is recommended that cities demonstrate “substantial progress” towards the 2045 carbon neutrality goal. See Final White Paper Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California (Association of Environmental Professionals, 2016).

EXHIBIT B
840
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 2
strategies and steps. Further, the strategies and steps were developed to achieve the 2030 target established by the City of Livermore and make substantial progress towards the 2045 target. The estimates and underlying calculations, provided in this report, include substantial evidence and a transparent approach to achieving the City’s shot term GHG emissions reduction target and substantial progress towards achieving the long-term target. ▪ Supportive. These strategies and steps may also be quantifiable and have substantial evidence to support their overall contribution to GHG reduction. However, due to one of several factors – including a low/no direct GHG reduction benefit, indirect GHG reduction benefit, potential for double-counting, or simply a high level of difficulty in quantifying accurate GHG reductions – they have not been quantified and do not contribute directly to the expected GHG reduction target and consistency with the state goals. Despite not being quantified, supportive strategies/steps are nevertheless critical to the implementation of other strategies and action and generally the overall success of the CAP.

Together, the quantitative and supportive strategies and steps listed herein provide Livermore with the GHG emissions reduction necessary to achieve the identified target of reducing per capita emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to an estimated 3.17 MT CO2e per person. Based on current population projections this per capita target translates to a 67% reduction below 1990 GHG emission reduction levels by 2030, exceeding the requirements of SB32.2 Per capita emission targets were identified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and explained in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update provided .3 The City has also established a target consistent with Executive Order (EO) B-55- 18 to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.4 The strategies identified in this CAP will lead to a substantial progress in GHG emissions by 2045, providing a foundation for achieving net carbon neutrality. However, the strategies reasonably available to the city and included in this CAP do not provide enough GHG emissions reduction to meet the long term 2045 GHG emissions goal.

Achieving carbon neutrality will require significant changes to the technology and systems currently in place. This CAP aims to establish new systems that are resilient and equitable in the face of change that will allow for a transition to carbon neutrality in the future. This includes carbon neutral electricity (which will also lower water and wastewater emissions from local electricity use), electrification of building and transportation systems and increased shift to shared and active mobility, waste reduction and diversion, and carbon sequestration. As the current strategies and steps are implemented, the City will gain more information, new technologies will emerge, and identified pilot projects and programs will scale to the size needed to reach carbon neutrality.

Furthermore, the State is expected to continue providing updated regulations and support once the 2030 target is achieved. Future CAP updates will make necessary adjustments and outline new strategies needed to reach Livermore’s long-term target of carbon neutrality.5 The quantification in this report is intended to illustrate one of several viable paths to pursue as the strategies and steps of the CAP are implemented at full scale. As required in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(e), mechanisms to monitor the CAP’s progress toward achieving the GHG emission reductions provided in this report have been established through the CAP development 2 The percent reduction target is calculated as a reduction in projected absolute emissions from 1990 levels. However, total projected emissions, emission targets, and emission reductions in 2030 and 2045 are dependent on population levels and the targets established in this CAP are efficiency targets. Therefore, while absolute emissions in 2030 and 2045 may differ due to differences between the projected population and actual population, per capita emission targets and per capita emissions reductions will remain stable. 3 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf 4 The goal of carbon neutrality is also consistent with the Paris Agreement and the International Panel on Climate Change’s target of carbon neutrality by mid-century.
5 Association of Environmental Professionals, 2016.

EXHIBIT B
841
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 3
process. If, based on the tracking of community GHG emissions, the City is found to not be on target to reach the GHG reduction levels specified here for meeting SB 32 targets, the CAP as a whole or specific strategies and steps will be required to be amended and a CAP update will be prepared that includes altered or additional strategies and steps and evidence that upon implementation can achieve the City’s targets.

Avoiding interference with and making substantial progress toward the state’s 2030 and long-term goals is important as these have been set at levels that achieve California’s fair share of international emissions reduction targets established by the Paris Agreement and the International Panel on Climate Change that will stabilize global climate change effects and avoid the adverse environmental consequences described under EO B-55-18 Section 3.1.3, Potential Effects of Climate Change.

The strategies and steps laid out in the CAP were driven by a development framework that considered the costs and benefits of each action (Appendix C). In addition, a set of guiding principles were developed that reflected the City’s and the community’s values. Each strategy and action was developed by carefully considering these guiding principles. The guiding principles are highlighted below in Table 1.

Table 1 Guiding Principles
Principles Description
Mitigation and/or adaptation benefit Strategies should achieve measurable reductions in GHG and/or improvements in resilience.

Structural change Strategies should establish institutional and policy framework to facilitate longterm change.

Education Strategies should include community engagement and empower residents and stakeholders to take action.

Equity Strategies should promote inclusive participation in decision making and equitable access to benefits.

Partnerships Strategies should utilize partnerships with outside agencies and community organizations to leverage expertise and resources and maximize the City’s capacity.

Economics Strategies should strive to be cost-effective for the City and the community.

EXHIBIT B
842
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 4
2 CEQA Qualified CAP
Livermore’s CAP aligns with the requirements set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) for development of a qualified GHG reduction plan. This includes setting GHG emissions reduction targets which align with those set by the State of California (described above). As a qualified GHG Reduction Plan, development projects that are consistent with the strategies in the CAP can streamline their GHG analysis under CEQA by presuming that the project’s GHG emissions are not significant. The requirements set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) are as outlined below:
• Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; (Chapter 2) • Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; (Chapter 2)
• Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area; (Chapter 2) • Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; (Chapter 3) • Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; (Chapter 4) • Be adopted in a public process following environmental review. (Associated CEQA Analysis) • A qualified CAP allows Livermore to streamline new development that meets our climate goals, decreasing costs, and incentivizing climate smart development.

EXHIBIT B
843
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 5
3 Emission Reduction Summary
The strategies, actions, and steps established by Livermore’s CAP Update are expected to reduce per capita emissions below 1990 levels by 68% in 2030 and 85% by 2045. The reductions expected in 2030 exceed the requirements of SB32, but reductions expected in 2045 fall short of the carbon neutrality goal established by EO B-55-18 (
Figure 1). However, as described above, this Climate Action Plan puts Livermore on the pathway to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.

Figure 1 Estimated GHG Emissions Reduction
A breakdown of the GHG emissions reduction calculated for each strategy is included in Table 2. A complete description of each strategy and its contributing actions and steps is included in the sections that follow.

MT CO2e
0 MT CO2e
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Historical Actuals 2017 Baseline
Business-As-Usual Forecast Adjusted Emissions Forecast
Emissions After Reductions Target Goal Pathway
SB 32 Target EO B-55-18 Target
Gap to
Target:
184,16
7 MT

EXHIBIT B
844
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 6
Table 2 Estimated Emission Reduction Potential of CAP Strategies Strategy
Number Strategy
2030 Emissions
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
2045 Emissions
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
Buildings and Energy
B-1 Require new buildings to be all-electric and incentivize electrification retrofits of existing buildings
27,383 121,493
B-2 Decarbonize electricity from the grid and increase local renewable energy generation
25,505 0
Transportation and Land Use
T-1 Facilitate a transition to electric vehicles 49,494 93,458 T-2 Facilitate a transition to transit and shared mobility services 3,033 4,656 T-3 Improve and expand active transportation infrastructure 2,127 2,111 T-4 Support sustainable land use practices Not quantified Not quantified Waste and Materials
W-1 Reduce the amount of waste that is landfilled 19,379 22,646 W-2 Expand use of low-carbon and recycled building materials Not quantified Not quantified Carbon Sequestration
S-1 Maximize local carbon sequestration 2,008 2,434
Overall Reductions
Emissions Reduction Needed to Achieve State Targets 128,238 430,965 Estimated Reduction Achieved by Full Implementation of Strategies 128,929 246,798 Absolute Emissions Reduction from 1990 (%)1, 2 (40%) (66%) Per Capita Emissions Reduction from 1990 (%) (68%) (85%) Gap to SB 32 Target (692)3 184,167
MT CO2e = metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent
1 Emissions reductions go to zero by 2045 due to Senate Bill 100 and the Renewable Portfolio Standard. 2 Absolute emissions reduction values are estimated based on current population projections and are for reference. Actual progress toward the 2030 target will be determined by comparison to the per capita GHG emissions target of 3.08 MT of CO2e per person pursuant to guidance in the 2017 Scoping Plan.
3 Parentheses denote a negative number or an exceedance of the target.

Note: Quantitative GHG emissions reduction values were rounded to the nearest tenth to reflect the level of estimation involved in calculations.

As shown in Table 2, the strategies adopted in Livermore’s CAP Update have the ability when fully implemented to reduce GHG emissions below the City of Livermore’s 2030 GHG reduction target and make substantial progress towards a 2045 carbon neutrality target. However, a gap still remains to reach the goal of carbon neutrality in 2045. As new technologies develop, and the state consolidates around the 2045 carbon neutrality goal, the City of Livermore will monitor progress and adopt new strategies to achieve this long-term goal. Furthermore, the strategies, actions, and steps in this CAP will create the basis for long-term carbon neutrality when implemented, including electrified buildings and vehicles coupled with decarbonized electricity, improved active transportation, decreased waste generation, and increased carbon sequestration.

The following sections contain the substantial evidence and quantification methodology intended to provide reasonable assurance that the GHG reduction strategies adopted in the City of Livermore’s CAP Update will lead to the GHG emissions reduction necessary to achieve the City’s ambitious 2030 emission target.

EXHIBIT B
845
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 7
4 Buildings and Energy

4.1 2030 Objectives
▪ Provide 100 percent renewable electricity by 2024
▪ Require all-electric new construction by 2023
▪ Incentivize electric retrofits in 12% of existing buildings by 2030 ▪ Develop equitable funding and financing for building electrification ▪ Incentivize local on-site energy generation and storage Strategy B-1 Require New Buildings to be All-electric and Incentivize Electrification Retrofits of Existing Buildings
Livermore’s building stock currently relies heavily on natural gas and retrofitting existing buildings to be all-electric will be a substantial task. To ensure new buildings won’t need to be retrofitted later, Action B-1.1 will require new buildings and major retrofits be built to utilize only electricity as an energy source through an electrification ordinance. Meanwhile, Action B-1.2 and B-1.3 will provide a framework of updated regulations, incentives, rebates, and outreach to drive the electrification of existing buildings. The details of each action, including their implementation steps and evidence of their GHG reduction potential, are included below.
▪ Action B-1.1: Require new construction to be all-electric ▪ Action B-1.2: Incentivize electric retrofits in existing buildings ▪ Action B-1.3: Conduct a cost analysis and feasibility study for existing building electrification requirements
▪ Action B-1.4: Partner with stakeholders to conduct electrification outreach, promotion, and education

EXHIBIT B
846
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 8
Action B-1.1 Require New Construction to be All-electric by 2023 Step
Number Guiding Principles Implementation Steps
Anticipated
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
1 GHG Reductions/
Structural Change
Require new construction to be all-electric: Adopt an electrification reach code by 2023 which bans the use of natural gas in all new construction where electrification is cost effective. Additionally, require major retrofits to be electric ready (i.e., install a 200-amp electric panel and prewire for electric vehicles and appliances). 2030: 10,891
2045: 28,056
2 Economical Minimize the number of exemptions associated with the ordinance to limit the number of stranded assets in the City. Allow case by case allowances for certain site development standards when an applicant can demonstrate infeasibility.
3 Equity Conduct a cost effectiveness study to ensure no cost increases for low/medium income housing
4 Education Conduct outreach and engagement around new building electrification with the community and key stakeholders prior to adopting an electrification ordinance. A strong understanding of the benefits of electrification will be key to avoiding exceptions. 5 Connectivity Establish a partnership with the Building Decarbonization Coalition, or a similar organization, to engage with local building industry stakeholders in development of an Electrification Reach Code.

Continuing to allow natural gas in new buildings would result in an increase in GHG emissions through 2045, due to increases in the population and residential construction in the City projected through 2045 (see adjusted forecast in Appendix A). Conversely, GHG emissions from electricity generation are expected to decrease to almost zero by 2025 due to Action B-2 (emissions from electricity would otherwise decrease to zero in 2045, due to SB 100). Requiring new construction to be all-electric would lead to a mandatory reduction in natural gas consumption compared to adjusted forecast projections by replacing natural gas with electricity.

Emission reductions for Action 1 were calculated separately for residential and commercial construction. It was assumed that with full implementation of the ordinance, no increases in residential and commercial natural gas demand would occur after 2022. Natural gas saved after ordinance implementation was converted to electricity usage (i.e., therms converted to kWh), with the assumption that a modern electric heat pump is on average three time more efficient than natural gas heater.6 The emission factor for electricity was calculated based on the assumption that Action B-2 would be fully implemented by 2025 (more details on how this emission factor was calculated are included in the section for Strategy E-3). Total emissions saved are equivalent to emissions saved from eliminating natural gas in new construction, minus emissions from increased electricity usage.

Population forecast data based upon MTC projections reflect a steady increase in population between 2017 and 2045 (see Appendix A). The forecast for natural gas usage mirrors this pattern, along with projections for new housing units, which is expected to increase in Livermore through 2045. Residential natural gas from new construction was therefore, calculated based on housing estimates from MTC. Commercial gas usage avoided by electrification was calculated based on the 6 https://help.leonardo-energy.org/hc/en-us/articles/203047881-How-efficient-is-a-heat-pumpEXHIBIT B 847
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 9
therms projections from commercial buildings in the adjusted forecast which considers the jobs growth over time. Minimizing the number of exemptions will be a key factor in the success of the ordinance and the reductions claimed as part of the Climate Action Plan. More exemptions, especially for a specific appliance like gas stoves would result in the same amount of natural gas infrastructure being deployed. Under this worst case scenario, the cost of natural gas infrastructure would remain the same, but the amount of natural gas consumed would decrease, significantly increasing the cost of each therm.7 Therefore, the City will undergo a robust outreach campaign prior to adoption to ensure the community understands the importance of electrification and the long term cost increases expected for natural gas. Emission reduction calculation for Action B-1.1 are shown below in Table 3.

Table 3 Action B-1.1 Calculations
Year 2030 2045
Residential Reductions
Housing units1 37,573 44,026
NG usage (therms)2 14,394,143 17,352,806
NG usage per housing unit (therms per house) 383 394
Additional housing units since implementation year1 4,853 11,306 NG usage avoided (therms) 1,859,101 4,456,315
Emissions from NG usage avoided (MT CO2e)3 9,873 23,665 Electricity usage from converting to electric (kWh)4 18,157,278 43,523,493 Electricity EF (MT CO2e/kWh)5 0.0000026 0
Emissions from converted electricity usage (MT CO2e) 47 0 Emission reductions (MT CO2e) 9,826 23,665
Commercial Reductions
NG usage (therms)1 11,081,548 11,707,129
NG usage avoided (therms) 201,276 826,856
Emissions from NG usage avoided (MT CO2e)3 1,069 4,391
Electricity usage from converting to electric (kWh)4 1,965,799 8,075,656 Electricity EF (MT CO2e/kWh)5 0.0000021 0
Emissions from converted electricity usage (MT CO2e) 4 0 Emission reductions (MT CO2e) 1,065 4,391
Total reductions (MT CO2e) 10,891 28,056
1 MTC Plan Bay Area Projections 2040 long-term growth forecasts (2018), adjusted for population growth in Livermore observed from 2015-2017.
2 Values from GHG Emissions Forecast. See Appendix A.
3 Based on an emission factor of 0.00531051 MT CO2e/therms, as established in Appendix A. 4 Based on a conversion factor of 29.3001 kWh/therms and the assumption that electric appliances are generally three time more efficient than gas appliances. https://help.leonardo-energy.org/hc/en-us/articles/203047881-How-efficient-is-a-heat-pump5 The residential and commercial electricity emission factors were calculated based on opt-out rates for different CCA customers. See Strategy E-3 for further details on this calculation.
7 https://gridworks.org/initiatives/cagas-system-transition/

EXHIBIT B
848
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 10
Action B-1.2 Incentivize electric retrofits in existing buildings to Reduce Natural Gas Consumption 12% by 2030 and 61% by 2045
Step
Number Guiding Principles Implementation Step
Anticipated
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
1 Economics Perform an electrification feasibility study/existing building analysis in order to understand the potential for, and associated costs of, electrification retrofitting in the City of Livermore and establish a plan for eliminating natural gas from existing buildings. This would include an analysis for implementing requirements for newly permitted HVAC/hot water heaters and other appliances to be electric. At minimum, the plan would identify a pathway to reduce natural gas use by 12% by 2030.
2030: 16,492
2045: 93,437
2 Partnerships Identify and partner with stakeholders to develop resident-level funding pathways for implementing electrification ordinance:

Leverage partnerships with stakeholders and establish funding pathways to ease community members’ costs when complying with the electrification ordinance, including:
▪ Partner with East Bay Community Energy and other stakeholders such as PG&E to create or expand electrification/retrofit programs and incentives (e.g., PACE program), especially for low-income residents to support the electrification ordinances. These could include on-bill financing, metered energy efficiency, providing rebates for residential replacement of natural gas-powered air and water heating appliances with electric-powered models, or providing rebates for replacement of antiquated wiring and windows in historic homes and buildings.
3 Structural Change Develop a permit tracking program for existing building electrification to track annual progress in achieving the targeted electrification goal(s), possibly through the City's existing Accela platform. 4 Equity Develop a suite of Equity Guardrails with input from the community to ensure existing building electrification improves equity in the community by limiting displacement and promoting equitable distribution of electrification benefits like resiliency, improved health outcomes, and reduced energy burden.
5 Education Identify and partner with stakeholders to conduct electrification outreach, promotion, and education: Leverage partnerships with stakeholders to conduct outreach, promotion, and education around new and existing building electrification, including:
▪ Induction/electric stove cooking competition to demonstrate the competitiveness of electric stoves for replacing gas stoves. ▪ Information sessions/events that educate the public on safety concerns around gas stoves and health benefits of replacing with electric, as well as potential cost benefits.
▪ Promote water heater, space heating, and appliance (electric stove/dryers) replacement programs and incentives (residential) at time of construction permit.
▪ Work with partners to develop financial and technical resources, including hosting workforce development trainings for installers and building owners/operators to discuss benefits and technical requirements of electrification and move towards all-electric requirements.

EXHIBIT B
849
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 11
Step
Number Guiding Principles Implementation Step
Anticipated
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
▪ Conduct internal trainings with planners and building officials on state decarbonization goals and incentives available for electric homes.
▪ Work with partners and stakeholders to establish a
comprehensive, coordinated education campaign for property owners and occupants for reducing the use of natural gas in homes and businesses. This could include keeping an updated list of rebates and incentives available for residents who would like to electrify their buildings, and providing multilingual education on the potential savings and benefits of electric heat pumps for water heating and space heating.

Natural gas usage from existing buildings accounted for about 23% of emissions in Livermore in 2017. The City of Livermore will begin by promoting electrification through education, outreach, and incentives. Performing an electrification feasibility study will support implementation of Action B-1.2 contributing to achieving the GHG reduction benefits of those steps. The feasibility study will help determine which buildings in Livermore can be electrified, how to make electrification cost effective in specific cases, clarify the timeline on which electrification will happen, and investigate more concretely how to implement electrification equitably. The feasibility study will further determine if mandatory actions will need to be take and the cost effectiveness of those actions. While the City will begin implementation of Action B-1.2 through voluntary actions a mandatory requirement may be required in the future based on the results of the electrification study and the community progress. The impacts associated with promotional and educational outreach for electrification have not been well documented due to the cutting-edge nature of the strategy. Electrification as a GHG reduction strategy has only begun to gain traction in California mostly due to the implementation of SB 100 and the expansion of community choice aggregations.

While it is not clear how the community will respond to electrification, energy efficiency outreach has been conducted since as early as the 1970’s and some research has been conducted on the effects of outreach and education on energy. One study in New York showed that out of the 8,991 people who participated in informational programs, 69% implemented the recommended practices.8 Another research meta-analysis reviewed dozens of papers covering various energy efficiency, water efficiency, and waste outreach and found that education-only campaigns could produce between 10-12% energy savings.9
Electrification is a new idea and not well understood by the community. The education associated with this action as well as the Climate Action Plan itself will facilitate adoption of all-electric technologies. The City will conduct a CAP update after 5 years to check progress and adopt more voluntary or potentially mandatory strategies if necessary.

Approximately 34% of residential natural gas usage is used for water heaters, while 40% is used for space heating.10 The average life-span for water heaters and HVAC systems is 10 years and 18 years, respectively, and the ordinance would be fully implemented by 2025.11 As a backstop to voluntary steps and pending the results of the electrification study the City of Livermore could no longer 8 https://www.joe.org/joe/2009december/pdf/JOE_v47_6a6.pdf 9 https://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2000/data/papers/SS00_Panel8_Paper10.pdf 10 https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/Decarbonization-Heating-CA-Buildings-17-092-1.pdf 11 https://www.lowes.com/n/how-to/when-to-replace-a-water-heater, https://www.thisoldhouse.com/ideas/how-long-things-last

EXHIBIT B
850
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 12
accept permits to replace natural gas HVAC and hot water heaters starting in 2025, especially if voluntary efforts have not been successful. These units have been selected due to their large contribution to natural gas use and their cost effectiveness.12 Based on a 2025 implementation date and the assumed life span of the covered equipment natural gas usage in existing buildings should decrease 12% by 2030, and 61% by 2045. This timeline would be expedited along the way by Action 3, which updates the Green Building Standards Code to encourage electrification at time-ofretrofit or at time-of-sale, including the installation of new 200-amp panels or requiring demonstration of electrification feasibility with an existing panel.

Similar to calculations used for Strategy B-1, avoided natural gas usage was assumed to be replaced by additional electricity usage, and electric appliances were assumed to be three times more efficient than their natural gas counterparts. The emission factor for electricity is assumed to be consistent with Strategy B-3. Emission reduction calculations for Strategy B-2 are shown below in Table 4.

Table 4 Strategy B-2 Calculations
Year 2030 2045
Residential Buildings
Residential NG usage (therms)1 14,394,143 17,352,806
Residential NG usage after new building electrification is implemented (therms)2 12,535,042 12,896,491 Percentage of homes with replaced water heaters3 18% 100% NG reduction from water heater replacement (%)4 6% 34%
NG saved from water heater replacement (therms) 767,145 4,384,807 Percentage of homes with replaced HVAC5 18% 100%
NG reduction from HVAC replacement (%)6 7% 40%
NG saved from HVAC replacement (therms) 902,523 5,158,596 Total NG saved (therms) 1,669,668 9,543,403
Emissions from total NG saved (MT CO2e)7 8,867 50,680
Electricity usage from converting to electric (kWh)8 16,307,143 93,207,557 Electricity EF (MT CO2e/kWh)9 0.0000026 0
Emissions from converted electricity usage (MT CO2e) 42 0 Commercial Buildings
Commercial NG usage (therms) 11,081,548 11,707,129
Commercial NG usage after new building electrification is implemented (therms) 10,880,273 10,880,273 Percentage of commercial with replaced water heaters 18% 100% NG reduction from water heater replacement (%) 6% 34%
NG saved from water heater replacement (therms) 665,873 3,699,293 Percentage of commercial with replaced HVAC 18% 100%
NG reduction from HVAC replacement (%) 7% 40%
NG saved from HVAC replacement (therms) 783,380 4,352,109 Total NG saved (therms) 1,449,252 8,051,402
Emissions from total NG saved (MT CO2e) 7,696 42,757
12 https://www.ethree.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf

EXHIBIT B
851
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 13
Year 2030 2045
Electricity usage from converting to electric (kWh) 14,154,413 78,635,625 Electricity EF (MT CO2e/kWh) 0.0000021 0
Emissions from converted electricity usage (MT CO2e) 29 0 Total reductions (MT CO2e) 16,492 93,437
1 Values from forecast. See Appendix A.
2 Forecasted natural gas minus natural gas lost to new building electrification 3 Assumes 100% of homes replace their water heaters incrementally over 10 years after ordinance is first passed. Based on average water heater lifetime of 10 years. https://www.lowes.com/n/how-to/when-to-replace-a-water-heater. 4 Assume 34% of natural gas usage goes to water heaters. https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/DecarbonizationHeating-CA-Buildings-17-092-1.pdf. Multiply by percentage of homes with replaced water heaters to derive total percentage of natural gas reduction from water heater replacement.
5 Assume 100% of homes replace their HVAC 18 years after ordinance is first passed. Based on average HVAC lifetime of 18 years. https://www.thisoldhouse.com/ideas/how-long-things-last. 6 Assume 40% of natural gas usage goes to heating/cooling. https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/DecarbonizationHeating-CA-Buildings-17-092-1.pdf. Multiply by percentage of homes with replaced water heaters to derive total percentage of natural gas reduction from HVAC replacement.
7 Based on an emission factor of 0.00531051 MT CO2e/therm, as established in Appendix A. 8 Based on a conversion factor of 29.3001 kWh/therm and the assumption that electric appliances are generally three time more efficient than gas appliances. https://help.leonardo-energy.org/hc/en-us/articles/203047881-How-efficient-is-a-heat-pump9 The residential electricity emission factor was calculated based on opt-out rates for different CCA customers. See Strategy E-3 for further details on this calculation.

This action would also focus on building the funding pathway to make existing building electrification possible, particularly for low-income residents of Livermore. The largest barrier to existing building electrification is higher up-front capital costs compared to natural gas. 13 Utilityoffered incentives to offset these costs for the end-user are therefore among the most promising opportunities for updating this technology.14 Once up-front costs are financed, long term savings can be used to achieve cash flow positive retrofits and/or acceptable ROI’s. Demonstrating cost effective pathways for existing building electrification will be a key step before mandatory requirements can be set. Examples of funding/financing strategies include:

Low-income Electrification/Retrofit Programs
Electrification programs that target low-income residents are the most cost-effective and potentially successful approach for equitable decarbonization to combat climate change.15 For example, the Low-Income Weatherization Program (LIWP) is the state’s first energy efficiency program that targets low-income Californians and has reduced energy bills in participating multifamily buildings by 30% and overall energy usage by an average of 40%.16 A case study on a major energy retrofit in a Lancaster 100-unit low income multifamily complex resulted in a one-third reduction in natural gas use (approximately 145 therms per apartment).17 The study also showed that such retrofits can 13 California Center for Sustainable Energy. 2009. Solar Water Heating Pilot Program: Interim Evaluation Report. https://www.ethree.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf 14 https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/Decarbonization-Heating-CA-Buildings-17-092-1.pdf 15 http://greenlining.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Greenlining_EquitableElectrification_Report_2019_WEB.pdf 16 California Housing Partnership Corporation and Association for Energy Affordability (2018). California’s Cap-and-Trade-Funded Low Income Weatherization Program Multifamily: Impact Report, 3. 17 https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-500-2019-021/CEC-500-2019-021.pdf

EXHIBIT B
852
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 14
result in increased tenant retention, improved health and comfort, and better ability to afford necessities like food, medicine, health care, and rent.

On-bill Financing
A case study from affordable multi-family residential complexes in Santa Monica showed that electricity savings from the program ranged from 1,811-17,712 kWh and natural gas savings ranged from 914-2,567 therms, with overall energy improvement ranging from 10-35%.18 Energy Efficiency Retrofit Programs (e.g., PACE, PG&E’s Low-income Weatherization Program, Million Watt Challenge, Metered Energy Efficiency) While the use of carbon neutral electricity by 2045 due to SB100 ensures all-electric buildings have zero energy emissions, there is still a need to reduce energy consumption within Livermore.

Reducing energy consumption will reduce stress on the electricity grid, require less renewable energy generation to meet needs thereby saving resources, and help reduce energy bills within the community.

The best mechanism the City will have for tracking electrification progress – and accurately measuring its GHG reduction benefit as it happens – is through a permit tracking program. Tracking electrification progress on a yearly schedule will allow the City to adjust its electrification approach and respond to potential obstacles as they occur and as new information about electrification becomes available. Utilizing the already existing Accela platform to do this would help to further increase effectiveness and integrate into City efforts.

One of the best ways the City can ensure that electrification has a positive impact on equity in the community is by developing a suite of equity guardrails. These would help to establish what equitable implementation would look like in Livermore, with input from the community. Goals of these guardrails include limiting displacement and promoting the equitable distribution of benefits like resiliency, improved health outcomes, and reduced energy burden.

Strategy B-2 Decarbonize Electricity from the Grid and Increase Local Renewable Energy Generation
In order for Livermore to reach its 2030 reduction target and 2045 carbon-neutrality target, the majority of energy utilized in the City will need to be carbon-free. Renewable electricity procurement is essential for decarbonizing the City’s emissions from electricity and will create the foundation for a carbon-free future. The focus of Livermore’s energy strategy is procuring 100 percent carbon-free electricity for both residents and businesses as soon as possible. Decarbonizing electricity works hand-in-hand with building electrification and EVs to achieve carbon neutrality in both the building and transportation sectors in Livermore. To reach this objective, the City of Livermore has developed the following actions:
▪ Action B-2.1: Opt-up community EBCE accounts to 100 percent renewable electricity ▪ Action B-2.2: Coordinate with stakeholders to provide local energy generation and storage incentives
▪ Action B-2.3: Establish renewable energy facility standards and permitting requirements ▪ Action B-2.4: Explore hydrogen and renewable fuel opportunities 18 https://1p08d91kd0c03rlxhmhtydpr-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Santa-Monica-Test-Web.pdf

EXHIBIT B
853
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 15
Action B-2.1 Opt-up community EBCE accounts to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2024
Step
Number Guiding Principles Implementation Steps
Anticipated
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
1 GHG Reductions/
Structural Change/
Economical
Provide carbon neutral electricity to the community: Opt-up East Bay Community Energy community accounts in Livermore to 100% carbon-free/renewable electricity by 2024 with an opt-out option 2030: 25,505
2045: 0
2 Education Conduct outreach to lower the community opt-out rate: Maximize the usage of renewable power within the community after all accounts are opted-up, by continuing to achieve an opt-out rate lower than 5% for EBCE 100% renewable power. Monitor progress and perform public outreach and education campaigns highlighting the benefits of 100% renewable energy, including:
▪ Monitoring opt-out rates on an annual basis
▪ Tabling at community events
▪ Establishing a multilingual informational resource page on the City website
▪ Regular social media posts in multiple languages
▪ Energy bill inserts
Supportive
3 Equity/Connectivity Partner with community organizations to ensure low/medium income households are aware of EBCE’s CARE program to receive decreased electricity rates and provide technical assistance as needed.

Supportive
Electricity in Livermore is currently supplied by PG&E, which provides a power mix with 39% renewable resources, and 89% GHG free overall (including nuclear and large hydro).19 While the portion of renewables in PG&E’s grid mix is relatively high compared to other utility providers in the state, the emission factor associated with its electricity is not expected to decrease to zero until the state-mandated year of 2045. In order to reduce GHG emissions in the short-term, the City will provide 100% carbon free electricity to the community through EBCE, Livermore’s CCA energy provider by 2024. In general, CCAs use the purchasing power of the community to procure electricity directly from electricity generators. This allows the community to choose its own grid mix, with an option to procure electricity from 100% carbon free renewable generation sources. PG&E will continue to deliver power, maintain lines and infrastructure, and coordinate billing. EBCE currently provides three power mix options20 for residents to choose from:
▪ Bright Choice: Base option with 60% eligible renewable energy, with prices one percent below PG&E rates
▪ Brilliant 100: 100% carbon-free option that includes hydroelectric power. Same price as PG&E ▪ Renewable 100: 100% renewable option. Price is one cent per kilowatt hour above PG&E rates To maximize the GHG reduction opportunity this presents, the City will automatically enroll all community accounts in a 100% carbon free option, as many cities in California have already done 19 https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energysolutions.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_cleanenergy 20 https://ebce.org/compare-plans-residential/

EXHIBIT B
854
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 16
today.21 Customers will have the option to opt-out of the CCA back to PG&E or opt-down to another grid mix option. Currently, about 11% of Livermore residential customers and 4% of commercial customers currently choose to opt-out.22 Livermore’s residential opt-out rate is relatively high compared to other cities, and Action 2 will focus on conducting outreach and educating citizens about the benefits of opting in to EBCE electricity. Based on the added outreach the opt-out rate was assumed to be 5% for residential and 4% for commercial which is more in line with other EBCE communities. The GHG reduction quantification below is based on the forecasted electricity consumption under the adjusted forecast as well as the forecasted electricity emission factor in each year. The increases in electrification and comensurate reduction from a near zero emission factor resulting from other steps are not included in this strategy. It is assumed in all other electrification strategies that the City completes this strategy by 2025.

These actions also have the benefit of making all municipal electricity 100% emission-free, as municipal accounts will have 0% op-out. This includes local electricity usage from the water and wastewater sector from distribution, processing, and transportation. These water/wastewater emission reductions were estimated to be approximately 389 MT CO2e in 2030. However, this reduction is a subset of the community emissions (municipal electricity use is included in the overall community electricity use), and was not added to the community reductions to avoid double counting. The finding of this calculation is included here only for supportive purposes. Calculations for quantified emission reductions from Strategy E-3 are shown below in Table 5.

Purchasing 100% carbon free electricity through EBCE is one of the most cost-effective actions the City can take to meaningfully reduce GHG emissions within the City. The cost of opting up into carbon free electricity with EBCE is approximately the same as the PG&E rate and 100% renewable rates with both PG&E and EBCE are only a few dollars a month extra for most residential rate schedules.23 However, even a small increase on monthly bills can make a big difference for the most vulnerable populations. Both PG&E and EBCE provides a CARE rate schedule for low-income households. As part of this outreach, the City would partner with community partners to ensure that qualifying community members know about and are able to enroll in CARE to further reduce their energy burden on a monthly basis.
21 https://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/2019/09/04/50-cities-are-quietly-leading-the-nations-100-clean-energy-wave/ 22 Opt-out rates based on data received directly via email from Gabrielle Ruxin at EBCE. February 8th, 2021. 23 https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/customer-service/other-services/alternative-energy-providers/community-choiceaggregation/ebce_rateclasscomparison.pdf

EXHIBIT B
855
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 17
Table 5 Action B-2.1 Calculations
Year 2030 2045
Residential electricity usage (kWh)1 222,591,232 247,321,911 Commercial electricity usage (kWh)1 294,346,152 306,917,819 PG&E Electricity EF (MT CO2e/kWh)3 0.0000516 0
Emissions from electricity usage before CCA (MT CO2e) 26,684 0 CCA Electricity EF (MT CO2e/kWh)4 0 0
Weighted residential electricity EF after accounting for opt-out (MT CO2e/kWh)5 0.0000026 0 Weighted commercial electricity EF after accounting for opt-out (MT CO2e/kWh)6 0.0000021 0 Emissions from electricity usage after CCA (MT CO2e) 1,178 0 Total reductions (MT CO2e) 25,505 0
1 Values from forecast. See Appendix A. Additional electricity load expected from Strategies E-1 and E-2 not included here due to CCA reductions for the added electricity being accounted for in each strategy’s respective quantification. Municipal electricity usage subtracted from total commercial electricity usage for independent modelling. See note 2 for details on municipal electricity usage data.
2 Based on electricity data provided by PG&E. Municipal usage not expected to change substantially between 2020 and 2045. 3 Values from forecast. See Appendix A.
4 All community accounts to be automatically enrolled in 100% renewable electricity package with an opt-out option. 5 Assume 11% residential account opt-out such that 11% of accounts continue to have a PG&E emission factor, while 89% of accounts continue with the CCA-provided emission factor of 0 MT CO2e/kWh. Opt-out rate provided by Gabrielle Ruxin at EBCE via email on February 8th, 2021.
6 Assume 4% commercial account opt-out. Opt-out rate provided by Gabrielle Ruxin at EBCE via email on February 8th, 2021.

EXHIBIT B
856
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 18
5 Transportation and Land Use

5.1 2030 Objectives
▪ Add 1,284 publicly accessible electric vehicle chargers by 2030 ▪ Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by 2.3%
▪ Achieve 10% bike mode share
▪ Support sustainable land use practices
Strategy T-1 Facilitate a Transition to Electric Vehicles On-road transportation accounts for almost 59% of total GHG emissions in Livermore, with 58% of those emissions coming from passenger vehicles, and 42% coming from commercial vehicles (see Appendix A). It is important to electrify the transportation sector so it can benefit from increasingly clean electricity as a result of SB 100.

While the City cannot require its residents to buy ZEVs and electrify remaining passenger vehicle trips, Strategy T-1 will ensure the infrastructure and support is present in the City to begin to remove present barriers to ZEV adoption. All of the actions and steps in Strategy T-1 support the overall goal and therefore, have been quantified together below.

Action T-1.1 Expand EV Infrastructure to Support 28% Passenger and 16% Commercial EV Adoption by 2030
Step
Number Guiding Principles Implementation Steps
Anticipated
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
1 Education Develop an EV1 Readiness Plan: Develop an EV Readiness Plan that is consistent with the Alameda County EV Readiness Guide and Livermore 2003-2025 General Plan transportation policies and actions.

This plan should establish a path forward to increase EV infrastructure within the City, promote equitable mode shift to EVs, and identify funding for implementation of public charging infrastructure in key locations. In conjunction with an EV Readiness Plan, conduct a community EV Feasibility Study to assess infrastructure needs and challenges, particularly in frontline communities.
2030: 49,494
2045: 93,458
2 Partnerships Increase privately owned EV charging infrastructure: Work with public and private partners to increase publicly accessible DCFC and Level 2 EV chargers around the City, with a focus on providing access to low-income households and affordable housing by 2030. 3 Structural Change Require EV capable charging spaces: Amend the Livermore Development and Municipal Code to promote EV chargers in both existing and new development, requiring Cal Green Tier 2 EV Charging levels or equivalent.
4 Structural Change Streamline EV charger permitting: Streamlining the permitting process for EV infrastructure and alternative fuel stations, including allowing independent charging stations to be erected in the right-ofway or any zoning district or land use type.

EXHIBIT B
857
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 19
Step
Number Guiding Principles Implementation Steps
Anticipated
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
5 Partnerships Identify and partner with stakeholders to develop EV-related rebates: Investigate partnerships with public and private partners for rebates on at-home electric circuits, panel upgrades, and Level 2 chargers, with a focus on supporting EV purchases for low-income households in frontline communities.
6 Equity
Education
Encourage EV adoption amongst residents: Providing multi-lingual education and outreach to the community on new and existing rebates, incentives, and programs for installation of Level 2 chargers on private property and availability of public charging, through the use of City events, social media, and the City website.
7 Partnerships Increase business EV adoption: Working with major employers (e.g., Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Kaiser Permanente, GILLIG, Topcon) to encourage EV adoption and improvements to EV infrastructure. 8 Structural Change Establish electrical and technical standards for EVSE2: Establish electrical and technical standards for Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE), including construction of equipment, wiring methods, and safety protection consistent with the California Electrical Code and the Underwriter's Laboratories guidance on EVSE.

The EVSE inspection process should be streamlined by:
▪ Removing the need for inspection or conducting spot inspections for simpler installations.
▪ Condensing inspections for more complex installations that do not include panel upgrades or underground conduit.
▪ Establish a 24-hour, flexible inspection request program online or with voicemail
▪ Providing shorter inspection windows.
▪ Remolding requirement for electricity to be present during inspection to decrease consumer costs.
9 Education Promote the use of electric construction equipment: Requiring construction projects to comply with BAAQMD best management practices, including alternative-fueled vehicles and equipment 10 Education Establish universal EV signage: Establish universal, accessible, and multi-lingual EV signage and marking requirements for EV parking spaces.
11 Structural Change Establish preferential EV parking: Introduce preferential parking for EVs throughout the City, with a focus on downtown and other busy locations identified around the City.
12 Structural Change Require EV charging infrastructure at new gas stations: Pass an ordinance to require all new gas stations and major remodels to install electric vehicle charging as space allows.
13 Economics
Structural Change
Electrify retail delivery vehicles: Charging licensing fees for UPS, FEDEX, and USPS trucks making online retail deliveries to provide funding for new active transportation and EV charging infrastructure, and/or provide discount licensing fees for delivery companies which utilize electric vehicles.

EXHIBIT B
858
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 20
Step
Number Guiding Principles Implementation Steps
Anticipated
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
14 Structural Change Adopt an ordinance: limiting new drive thru businesses and other sources of idling emissions.
1 EV = electric vehicle
2 EVSE = electric vehicle supply equipment
Together the actions and steps within Strategy T-1 will encourage electric vehicle (EV) adoption within the community. The state has established a goal of putting 5 million EVs on the road by 2030.24 However, the recent passing of executive order N-79-20 calls for 100% of passenger vehicles sold to be all electric by 2035.25 This new executive order puts the total number of EV’s on the road by 2035 at approximately 15 million.26 Based on the current number of vehicles registered in California and a 2% growth rate per year, 15 million EV’s accounts for 35% of total vehicles in 2035.

Interpolating between todays EV percentage (5%) gives us an expected EV adoption rate of 25%. As a part of this strategy, the City has established its own goal in line with this and aims to reach 28% passenger EV adoption by 2030 and 50% by 2045. Livermore currently has 1,026 electric vehicles and 766 plug-in hybrid vehicles out of 84,243 vehicles currently registered, together accounting for

2.1% of the vehicles registered within the City.27
The City has also adopted commercial EV adoption goals, with 16% by 2030 and 50% by 2045. This is backed by new regulations that CARB adopted in June 2020, requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024, and establishing a target for every new truck sold in California to be zero-emission by 2045.28 Companies in the commercial sector are already moving to electrify their fleets, with Amazon planning to have 100,000 electric delivery vehicles on the road by 2030.29 If both passenger and commercial EV adoption rates are outpacing EV charging infrastructure, adjustments can be made over time to reflect total EVs as well as charging technologies and consumer behaviors.

While the City cannot require residents or businesses to buy and use EVs rather than gas-powered vehicles, the City will take actions to incentivize this behavior change and support this level of EV adoption. As a part of this strategy, the City’s primary target will be to provide one public EV charger for every 20 EV’s and ensure as many privately owned chargers are installed in new development as practicable, in line with the leading Cities in California (San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Jose) and recent charging infrastructure studies. Since the City of Livermore already has 82 existing public charging stations, there is currently one public EV charger for every 22 EVs, and the City will need to have 1,138 new public chargers installed to meet the forecasted demand from passenger vehicles by 2030. The actual number and ideal locations for these EV charging stations would need to be further investigated through an EV Readiness Plan and Feasibility Study, including analysis of greater fast charging infrastructure needed to power the 19 zero-emission commercial truck models set to 24 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/zev/
25 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/governor-newsoms-zero-emission-2035-executive-order-n-79-20 26 https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/transportation/2020/10/05/what-it-will-take-to-sell-100--evs-in-california 27 https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/uploads/2020/09/MotorVehicleFuelTypes_City_01012020.pdf 28 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-takes-bold-step-reduce-truckpollution#:~:text=SACRAMENTO%20%E2%80%93%20Today%2C%20the%20California%20Air,California%20will%20be%20zero%2Demissio n.
29 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-creating-fleet-of-electric-delivery-vehicles-rivian-2020-2

EXHIBIT B
859
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 21
come to the North American market over the next three years (Action 1).30 Increasing the amount of EV charging infrastructure overall will support these vehicles operating in Livermore. As the need for charging infrastructure changes over time depending on new technologies such as smart chargers, megawatt-scale charging systems tailored specifically to medium- and heavy-duty electric trucks, and trends in personal EV adoption, it will be important for the City to continue updating its long-term goals as necessary.31
Steps 2-4 will account for the majority of the targeted number of EV chargers in 2025 and 2030. A 2015 report by Idaho National Laboratory, Plugged In: How Americans Charge Their Electric Vehicles, found that nearly 98% of all EV charging events occurred at home or work.32 In support of these findings, and to address the challenges faced by those who may not be able to install their own home chargers, adoption of an EV Readiness Reach Code would support increased infrastructure at new and existing commercial and multi-family residential developments. EV-ready building codes are one of the most effective and low-cost strategies for states and local governments to encourage consumers to buy or lease electric vehicles and can save consumers thousands of dollars in installation costs.33
The City of Livermore currently has EV charging stations installed at City Hall, the Livermore Municipal Airport, and the Maintenance Service Center, both for electric City Trucks and employees with electric cars.34 Public charging stations in the City are clustered north of I-580 near Las Positas College and Costco Wholesale, as well as high-power chargers (eight 150 kW and two 350 kW charging stations) at San Francisco Premium Outlets. There are also a number of chargers along Discovery Drive to the west of Isabel Avenue, including two stations near the Tesla Warehouse.

Other locations in Livermore are scattered throughout central and eastern parts of the City, mainly along Las Positas Road and south of I-580.35 City-owned EV charging units currently cost a fee to charge per kilowatt hour, which are used to maintain the charging units and to cover electricity costs. While not directly quantifiable, EV charging fees increase turnover at charging stations, helping to promote equitable access to EV charging infrastructure and encourage widespread EV adoption across a greater demographic range.

Title 24, Part 11, Chapter 5 of the California Green Building Standards Code requires all new construction to provide parking spaces and electrical infrastructure sufficient to support future installation of EVSE.36 Relevant standards can be found in the California Electrical Code and the Underwriter’s Laboratories guidance on EVSE, including the construction of equipment, wiring methods, and safety protection. This strategy ensures that Livermore will have clear guidelines and standards in place for installing EVSE infrastructure. It also calls for creating a streamlined permitting and inspection procedure for EVSE ensures reduced wait times and costs for new EV owners. Applying for a permit and waiting for an inspector can be time intensive and costly – as many as three separate visits by the installer may be required to apply for the permit, perform the work, and complete the inspection, and a fourth visit may be needed if the utility requires a separate inspection. To avoid this, the City will streamline the EVSE permitting and inspection process to further ease the burden on new EV owners and support the goals of the strategy. 30 https://www.greenbiz.com/article/we-should-be-talking-about-charging-infrastructure-heavy-duty-trucks 31 https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/medium-heavy-duty-vehicle-charging.html 32 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1369632-plugged-how-americans-charge-electric-vehicles 33 https://www.swenergy.org/cracking-the-code-on-ev-ready-building-codes 34 https://www.cityoflivermore.net/citygov/cdd/planning/cap/default.htm 35 https://www.plugshare.com/directory/us/california/livermore 36 https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBSC2016/chapter-5-nonresidential-mandatory-strategys

EXHIBIT B
860
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 22
Requiring new gas stations in the City to install EV charging stations will help support steps 2-4, and further promote increased EV adoption. Germany announced in 2020 that all of its gas stations would soon be required to provide EV charging, to help remove recharging concerns and boost consumer demand for the vehicles.37
The next phase for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) expansion will provide additional publicly accessible charging. Emission reductions from the actions and steps in Strategy T-1 were calculated together as emissions saved by meeting EV adoption goals in 2030 and 2045. Emission reduction calculations are shown below in Table 6.

Promoting the use of electric vehicles for retail deliveries will also help support steps 2-4, and decrease emissions from the commercial transportation sector. This would provide additional funding for the City to install additional EV charging infrastructure. The retail delivery sector is already trending in this direction, with Amazon revealing its first electric vehicle delivery van in 2020, which began making deliveries in 2021. The company has ordered 100,000 electric delivery vehicles already from electric vehicle maker Rivian.38
37 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-autos/germany-will-require-all-petrol-stations-to-provide-electriccar-charging-idUSKBN23B1WU 38 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-creating-fleet-of-electric-delivery-vehicles-rivian-2020-2

EXHIBIT B
861
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 23
Table 6 Action T-1.1 Calculations
Year 2030 2045
Passenger Vehicles
Passenger VMT after mode shift to bikes and transit 1 577,613,999.81 602,887,641.34 Passenger Vehicle Emission Factor (MTCO2e/mile) (EMFAC)3 0.00022828 0.00019801 Emissions from Passenger VMT (MT CO2e) 131,859.42 119,376.32 EV adoption2 28% 50%
Emissions reduced from EV adoption (MT CO2e) 34,115.75 57,148.81 Additional EV miles from new EV adoption (VMT) 149,445,032.16 288,619,317.11 Additional kWh from new EV miles 53,800,211.58 103,902,954.16 Electricity EF (MT CO2e/kWh)4 0.000002581 0
Emissions from electricity usage for EVs 138.85 0
Commercial Vehicles
Commercial VMT after mode shift to bikes and transit (VMT)1 91,769,379.83 78,282,003.56 Commercial Vehicle Emission Factor (MTCO2e/mile) (EMFAC)3 0.00105757 0.00092764 Emissions from Commercial VMT (MT CO2e) 97,052.48 72,617.62 EV adoption 16% 50%
Emissions reduced from EV adoption (MT CO2e) 15,528.40 36,308.81 Additional EV miles from new EV adoption (VMT) 14,683,100.77 39,141,001.78 Additional kWh from new EV miles 5,285,916.28 14,090,760.64 Electricity EF (MT CO2e/kWh)4 0.000002052 0
Emissions from electricity usage for EVs 10.85 0
Total reductions (MT CO2e) 49,494.45 93,457.62
1 VMT from forecast (see Appendix A) minus VMT avoided from mode shift to bikes in Strategy T-1 2 Based on executive order N-79-20 100% of passenger vehicle sales will electric by 2035. Assuming 15 million EV’s by 2035 due to N79-20 and a 2% growth rate from current vehicle registrations (32,000,000) and a 5% current share of EV’s California would be projected to have 25% EV’s by 2030. 25% is in line with State goals. (https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/lawest/transportation/2020/10/05/what-it-will-take-to-sell-100--evs-in-california) 3 Derived from EMFAC model output for Alameda County 2030 and 2045 4 The residential electricity emission factor was calculated based on opt-out rates for Livermore as according to EBCE. See Strategy E-3 for further details on this calculation.

The number of new public chargers needed to support Livermore’s passenger EV adoption goals were also calculated, shown below in Table 7. This was based on 2020 vehicle registration data from the DMV and the assumption that one public charger should be available for every 20 EVs. The 82 publicly-available EV charging stations already availble in the City were also taken into account.

Commercial EVs were not included in this calculation due to the lack of data on current heavy duty trucks registered in the Livermore area. Total registered vehicles were forecasted based on the 2020 ratio of registered vehicles to population.

EXHIBIT B
862
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 24
Table 7 EV Charger Count for Passenger Vehicles Calculations Year 2030 2045
Population1 105,967 129,158
Total registered vehicles2 97,590 118,948
Registered EV goal3 24,398 59,474
EV’s per charger4 20 20
New publicly available EV chargers needed5 1,138 2,892
1 Values from forecast. See Appendix A.
2 Based on a calculated value for cars for capita (0.921) derived by dividing the total number of registered vehicles in Livermore in 2020 (https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/uploads/2020/09/MotorVehicleFuelTypes_City_01012020.pdf) by the 2020 population of Livermore as established in Appendix A.
3 Calculated as total registered vehicles multiplied by EV adoption percentage in above table 4 https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/US_charging_Gap_20190124.pdf 5 Based on the assumption that approximately one public EV charger is needed per 20 EVs, taking into account the existing 82 EV chargers already in Livermore. This assumption may change over time due to better technology, changes to consumer behavior, or both. The total number of chargers especially in 2045 will need to be revisited to ensure the numbers reflect the current EV landscape39
Strategy T-2 Facilitate a transition to transit and shared mobility services Improving shared mobility and transit programs and infrastructure through Strategy T-2 will help to shift mode share to public transit. To do this the City must work with regional stakeholders, including the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), to expand service lines and increase the convenience of transit by reducing the time it takes to reach a destination via transit as well as reducing wait times (headways) for transit. Working with the recently created Tri-Valley – San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority will also be key to implement Strategy T-2, specifically on the proposed Valley Link project which would connect the existing BART station in Dublin/Pleasanton to the approved ACE North Lathrop Station in San Joaquin County.40 By making transit more convenient and making decisions to prioritize transit over single occupancy vehicles, Livermore will begin to shift towards shared transit. Like Strategy T-1 the actions and steps within Strategy T-2 have been quantified together.
39 https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/US_charging_Gap_20190124.pdf 40 https://www.valleylinkrail.com/valleylink-project

EXHIBIT B
863
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 25
Action T-2.1 Improve Transit and Shared Mobility Services to Reduce Passenger VMT 2% by 2030, and 4% by 2045
Step
Number Guiding Principles Implementation Steps
Anticipated
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
1 Partnerships Partner with Valley Link, ABAG, LAVTA, BART, and ACE to improve and expand transit within the City. This could include:
▪ Expanded transit service, especially along transit priority corridors surrounding the downtown core
▪ More frequent and reliable transit service
▪ Improved and/or more efficient technology
▪ Improved service/communication through multi-lingual
interactive service maps, app
▪ payments, and real time arrival info
▪ Increase active transportation access to transit stops ▪ Provide enhanced, comfortable stops and stations
▪ Provide multi-lingual education and outreach to the
community on new and existing shared transit options
▪ Subsidized transit passes
▪ Provide transit service within ½ mile of all residents in the city where and when the gross density surrounding or adjacent to feasible transit routes meets or exceeds 10-12 units/acre 2030: 3,033
2045: 4,656
2 Mitigation/Adaptation
Benefit Partnerships
Promote Tri-Valley Wheels: Promote the use of Tri-Valley Wheels, particularly for downtown transit. This could include bus open houses and promoting use of the Transit app
3 Education Prepare for shared bike programs: Conduct a bike share (e.g., bike-share, scooter-share) feasibility study, in accordance with the Active Transportation Plan and possibly in coordination with Pleasanton and Dublin.
4 Structural Change Adopt a shared-ride services ordinance: Adopt an ordinance to allow shared-ride services (car/bike/scooter share) to operate in Livermore, possibly in coordination with Pleasanton and Dublin.

Seek to establish a pilot bike sharing program downtown, ideally with e-bikes. Ensure access to frontline communities.
5 Equity Improve local transportation equity: Facilitate transportation equity through multi-lingual programs that identify local equity issues and seek to remove barriers for people of color, lowincome, people experiencing homelessness, and senior populations to take transit, walk, bike, use rideshare, or carshare. 6 Economics Conduct a local transportation survey: Include multi-lingual National Citizens Survey questions related to transportation to better understand the community’s needs and motivation for travelling by car versus other alternatives such as by bike, light rail, or bus. Use survey results to inform transit expansion and improvement projects.
7 Structural Change Reduce idling emissions from drive thru restaurants: Adopt an ordinance banning new drive thru restaurants within in the City to reduce idling emissions.

EXHIBIT B
864
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 26
In general, increases and improvements to public transportation systems reduce a city’s dependence on fossil fuels and reduce VMT. The best ways to improve a transit system and reduce driving is to expand its geographical reach and increase the frequency and reliability of transit service. Approximately 1% increase in transit frequency saves 0.5% in VMT.41 Bus Rapid Transit can also yield a corridor-level VMT reduction of 1-2%.42 Mode shift of 2% to transit in Livermore by 2030 and 4% by 2045 was calculated based on new construction being largely transit-oriented development, supported by the two new Valley Link transit stops other actions included in this strategy including lower parking requirements for new developments (see Action 3 below).

In addition, effective communication, especially communication that takes advantage of new and emerging technologies to accurately and easily disseminate trip planning and real-time status information, is a strong factor in helping customers decide to use transit for business or leisure trips.43 Further, improving transit access has the potential to shift trips from cars to transit, which may reduce vehicle trips, VMT, and GHG emissions, with time spent getting to a transit stop being the key indicator of transit access.44
By working with regional stakeholders and partners, Livermore will see significant expansion of transit usage by 2030, which will result in decreases in VMT from passenger vehicles. Most important is the proposed Valley Link rail project, which is a new 42-mile, 7-station passenger rail project that will connect the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station to the approved ACE North Lathrop Station in San Joaquin County. This project will loosely follow I-580, and includes two stations in Livermore, at Isabel and Greenville. The Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority, which was established in 2018 through the enactment of Assembly Bill 758, adopted the proposed project plan in October 2019, and is currently undergoing further design and environmental review. The project is scheduled to be finalized by 2025, with the Livermore segment of the project being a part of Phase I construction. Overall VMT reduction from the project is estimated at 99.4 million per year by 2040.45 As a member agency, along with ACE, BART, and LAVTA (Tri-Valley Wheels), the City of Livermore will continue to work with regional transportation stakeholders to ensure that the new Valley Link rail project is supported by local transit-oriented development through 2030.

A 2019 report from the City of Santa Monica found that 49% of shared rideable trips replaced vehicle trips based on answers to survey questions.46 A 2014 study from Utrecht University suggests that the car substitution rate of shared rideables is dependent on what proportion of trips are already taken by car in a city. 47 In the study, Minneapolis and Melbourne had between 70% and 76% vehicle mode share in 2014 and showed high rates of car mode substitution (19% to 21%) after shared rideables were introduced. On the other hand, London and Washington DC had between 36% and 46% vehicle mode share in 2014 and showed much lower rates of car mode substitution where shared rideables were introduced (2% to 7%). Sacramento and Santa Monica both had high vehicle mode share (83% and 72% respectively) before shared rideables were introduced, suggesting that the City of Livermore would see a similar if not higher car substitution rate of shared 41 https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/smartgrowthclimatepolicies.pdf 42 https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/smartgrowthclimatepolicies.pdf 43 https://transitleadership.org/docs/TLS-WP-Improving-the-Customer-Experience.pdf 44 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/transitaccess/transit_access_brief120313.pdf 45 https://adobeindd.com/view/publications/434ac81e-84bf-4f0a-868d-a386dce975d2/1/publication-webresources/pdf/Valley_Link_Project_Over_View_202102.pdf 46 https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Transportation/SantaMonicaSharedMobilityEvaluation_Final_110419.pdf 47 http://mobility-workspace.eu/wp-content/uploads/Bike-shares-impact-on-car-use-3.pdf

EXHIBIT B
865
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 27
rideables as Santa Monica and Sacramento. Both studies previously mentioned suggest that average trip duration of shared rideable trips is about 2 miles (this is seen consistently across the six diverse cities mentioned above) and appears to be largely independent of other city metrics. An e-bike ride share program has the potential to see the most successful, as e-bike riders can go longer distances and are more accessible to non-riders. A study in Portland, OR found that a 15% e-bike mode share could result in a 12% reduction in transportation-related emissions.48 Performing a bike share feasibility study would assess whether or not Livermore has the density and demand required to support a bike share program, which are an increasingly popular means of transportation in the United States. Bike share programs allow people to rent both traditional and electric bicycles for short periods of time. This study would support Transportation Strategy 3 and implement Livermore’s Active Transportation Plan which recommended the City research bike share program options. Conducting this study in collaboration with Dublin and Pleasanton could increase the value of the study overall, and possibly enable the City to enter into a joint bike share program agreement with these two other cities.

Based on the inclusion of shared rideables and the extension of the Valley Link as well as the other coordination and transit improvements listed above, Livermore conservatively assumes a 2% VMT reduction through 2030. The GHG emissions savings associated with this transition is calculated in Table 8.

Table 8 Action T-2.1 Calculations
Year 2030 2045
Passenger miles after mode shift to bikes (VMT) 577,613,999.81 602,887,641.34 Emissions from passenger VMT (MT CO2e) 131,859.42 119,376.32 Decrease in VMT from measure 2% 4%
Adjusted VMT 564,328,878 579,375,023
Emission reductions from VMT avoided (MT CO2e) 3,033 4,656 1 VMT from forecast (see Appendix A) minus VMT avoided from mode shift to bikes Strategy T-3 Improve Active Transportation Infrastructure Tailpipe emissions are a major source of Livermore’s GHG emissions. Reducing the number of miles driven by fossil fuel-powered vehicles, particularly when replaced with public-health boosting active modes of transportation, provides a critical way to reduce GHG reductions while connecting communities and keeping Livermore residents healthy. As part of the CAP strategy, Livermore will prioritize active transportation by expanding access to safe, low-stress, and convenient biking and pedestrian infrastructure. Expanding active transportation infrastructure will increase quality of life and public health through increased exercise and increased community connectivity. Like the other transportation and land use strategies the actions and steps within Strategy T-2 have been quantified together.
48 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920920306696

EXHIBIT B
866
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 28
Action T-3.1 Accelerate implementation of the Livermore ATP to Achieve Greater than 10% Mode Shift Away from Passenger Vehicles by 2030, and Maintain that Percentage through 2045
Step
Number
Guiding
Principles Implementation Steps
Anticipated
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
1 Structural
Change
Implement Livermore Active Transportation Plan: Fully implement the Livermore Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Active Transportation Plan adopted in 2018 by 2030 in accordance with the Plan’s goals, objectives, and policies so that the City adds approximately 154 miles to the active transportation network. Implementation of the Plan will prioritize frontline communities and:
▪ Improve existing crossings for on-road vehicles, and provide for future crossings of creeks, railroads, and roadways.
▪ Require new facilities be built in conjunction with road reconstruction or re-striping projects, subdivision development, and related off-site improvements, unless a significant cost/feasibility issue is shown. ▪ Construct Class I or Class 4 bikeways in undeveloped areas prior to or concurrent with the development of these areas.
▪ Provide for, and maintain, shaded routes where possible. ▪ Connect neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, transit facilities, and other destinations with on-street facilities and/or separated trails. ▪ Support and participate in Federal, State, Regional, and Local programs, such as countywide Safe Routes to School efforts.
▪ Coordinate with other agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, and regional partners to plan and implement projects that improve Livermore’s network and connections to the region.
▪ Continue to provide convenient bicycle parking in the downtown core, either on the street or in public or private parking lots. If demand exists, remove vehicle parking in favor of bicycle parking. Provide adequate bicycle parking facilities at local recreation areas.
▪ Regularly update the City’s Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Map and share throughout City and stakeholder partnership platforms, ensuring that the maps are accessible for people with disabilities and speakers of nonEnglish languages. 2030: 2,127
2045: 2,111
2 Economics Perform a nexus study: Conduct a nexus study, and develop an ordinance requiring payment of fees from development projects to implement safe active transportation routes and infrastructure citywide.

Supportive
3 Partnerships Identify and partner with stakeholders on active transportation education:

Support and promote local bike community organizations in hosting workshops and classes on bike riding, safety, and maintenance by certified instructors for all ages and skill levels. Also, subsidize safety equipment, such as headlights and helmets, for low-income residents.

Supportive
4 Economics
Education
Structural
Change
Establish car-free days downtown: Institute car-free days downtown potentially coupled with the Farmer's Market or other large and regular events.

Supportive
5 Education Promote active transportation: Establish multilingual Citywide events, outreach, educational programs, or platforms to promote active transportation in the community.

Supportive

EXHIBIT B
867
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 29
Step
Number
Guiding
Principles Implementation Steps
Anticipated
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
6 Structural
Change
Incorporate outreach into prioritization of active transportation projects:

Continually improve methods for engaging the community, gathering their input, and utilizing it to help prioritize the implementation of projects and actions in the Active Transportation Plan.

Supportive
7 Economics Explore new funding opportunities: Explore new opportunities to generate funding for active transportation projects, such as by implementing a local gas tax used to fund bike and pedestrian improvement projects, prioritizing those in frontline communities.

Supportive
The overall goal of the Livermore Active Transportation Plan is to provide a long-term vision for improving the active transportation network in Livermore and enhance connections to transit facilities, employment, retail and commercial centers, and public facilities. Implementing the Livermore Active Transportation Plan will consist of coordinating City departments with stakeholders (e.g., Bike East Bay, Las Positas College, National Laboratories, other Tri-Valley cities, Alameda County, and frontline communities) to accomplish the following:
▪ Adding approximately 77 miles to the bikeway network based on a list of prioritized infrastructure and citywide projects developed through a community outreach process with the goal of improving school access, downtown access, I-580 crossings, and other connectivity issues throughout Livermore
▪ Developing and implementing an effective network-wide wayfinding system that reflects the character of Livermore
▪ Adding streetscape amenities in the downtown core, along major corridors, and near transit stops, including providing additional waste receptacles near pathways ▪ Improving safety on bike paths with improved pedestrian-scale lighting, developing e-bike regulations with the Livermore Police Department and Alameda County, and requiring adequate temporary traffic control that considers bicyclists and pedestrians during construction or maintenance activities
▪ Seek opportunities to include bicycle infrastructure at the time of major road upgrades or major development projects, as this significantly decreases the cost of installation. This action is included as a best practice to decrease the cost burden on the City and further facilitate timely implementation of the Active Transportation Plan
▪ Improving comfort on bike paths by providing for and maintaining shaded routes where possible ▪ Improve and increase end-of-trip facilities such as secure, shaded, and well-lit bicycle parking by working with partners/stakeholders and using the permitting process for new development.

This includes short term and long-term bicycle parking, including bike racks, bike lockers, and secure parking areas
▪ Working with ACE, BART, LAVTA, and Tri-Valley – San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority to integrate with transit and other transport modes to address the first/last mile challenge ▪ Partnering with stakeholders (e.g., Bike East Bay, Las Positas College, National Laboratories) to promote and encourage biking in Livermore.

EXHIBIT B
868
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 30
▪ Identifying and competing for available funding sources for bicycle projects, including from the California Active Transportation Program, Caltrans Transportation Planning Grants, and Highway Safety Improvement Program
A complete description of the goals, strategy, policy, and implementation framework for expanding and improving Livermore’s bikeway network is included in the Livermore Active Transportation Plan as adopted in 2018. The Plan will be updated every five years to identify new projects for implementation, and ensure that improvement projects are correctly prioritized and meet the plan’s guiding principles.

Accelerating implementation of the Active Transportation Plan is expected to increase pedestrian and bicycle mode share from 2.3% in 2018 to 10% in 2030. Full implementation of the Active Transportation Plan would increase the length of Livermore’s active transportation network by

22.9%. In order to estimate the mode shift potential associated with implementing the Active Transportation Plan, other cities with similar buildouts were compared. Currently the City of Davis has a bike network similar to what Livermore would have at full implementation. Davis currently has a 20% mode share.49 Similar to Livermore’s Active Transportation Plan, the City of Santa Cruz’s 2017 Active Transportation Plan establishes a set of projects and programs to increase the mode share of active transportation, from 19.6% in 2014 to 27% in 2030.50 Therefore, an increase in mode share from 2.3% to 10% is considered conservative. Emission reduction calculations assumed the average bike trip length was 1.5 miles51 and used model results from EMFAC to characterize VMT in Livermore.

Improving active transportation networks is an important part of building Complete Streets – streets that accommodate bikes, cars, shared transit, and pedestrians in an accessible way. Livermore’s Active Transportation Plan implements the City’s Complete Streets Policy.52 Nationally, 48% of all vehicle trips were three mile or less in 2019, a distance easily travelled by foot, bicycle, or other micro mobility platforms.
53 An improved and expanded pedestrian network is the most effective and direct approach for shifting those shorter vehicle trips to walking, and studies show that distance to destinations is one of the strongest predictors of walking as a mode choice. However, not much research has been conducted to determine quantitatively how improving the pedestrian network translates to increased pedestrian mode share. This is further complicated by the fact that while improved pedestrian networks almost always have a positive correlation with increased walking, that does not always translate to decreased VMT. In other words, increased walking does not mean that walking trips are replacing driving trips. Therefore, although Livermore’s Active Transportation Plan calls for projects that would increase its active transportation network by

22.9%, the mode shift associated with this was estimated more conservatively. Emission reduction calculations are shown below in Table 9.
49 https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/03/davis-california-the-american-city-which-fell-in-love-with-the-bicycle 50 https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument?id=60966 51 Caltrans California Household Travel Survey (2013)/CARB Bike Path Reductions Technical Documentation (2019) 52 Livermore Active Transportation Plan (2018), Page 4. https://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/18254 53 https://inrix.com/blog/2019/09/managing-micromobilty-to-success/

EXHIBIT B
869
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 31
Table 9 Action T-3.1 Calculations
Year 2030 2045
Mode share shift1 2% 10%
Passenger Vehicle VMT3 586,932,289 613,546,706
Estimated trips/passenger vehicle mile (EMFAC)2 0.13746 0.15041 Estimated passenger vehicle trips 80,677,829 92,286,277 New bike trips substituted for vehicle trips4 6,212,193 7,106,043 New bike miles substituted for passenger vehicles (miles) 9,318,289 10,659,065 Passenger Vehicle Emission Factor (MTCO2e/mile) (EMFAC) 0.00022828 0.00019801 Total reductions (MT CO2e) 2,127 2,111
1 Livermore Active Transportation Plan Update (2018) proposes projects that will increase total active transportation network length by

22.9% assuming the fully implemented. As Livermore is currently at 2.3% bicycle mode share, the remaining mode share shift in 2030 and 2045 is expected to be 10%.
2 Derived from EMFAC model output for Alameda County 2030 and 2045 3 Values from forecast. See Appendix A.
4 Assume the average bicycle trip is 1.5 miles. Caltrans California Household Travel Survey (2013)/CARB Bike Path Reductions Technical Documentation (2019)
Additional steps such as performing a nexus study will provide the necessary information to develop an active transportation in lieu fee on new development projects to fund additional active transportation infrastructure projects in the future. This study would meet the requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act for local agencies to charge development impact fees, and could be similar to those conducted by other cities for active transportation purposes, including the City of Oakland and City of San Diego.54 55
Providing education on the benefits of active transportation as well as technical information such as trip planning, safety best practices, incentives and other programs will help generate momentum around active transportation and support the overall strategy. The City has collaborated with Bike East Bay, the National Laboratories, and Wheels bus service to hold Bike to Work Day activities to promote commuting to work by bicycle.56 The additional promotional activities identified under this action, including establishing car free days downtown and holding bike safety workshops, will continue to build an active transportation community and culture in Livermore.

Finding new funding sources to fund additional active transportation projects are an important part of implementing priority projects identified in Livermore’s Active transportation Plan. By exploring new avenues to generate funding, such as by establishing a local gas tax that goes directly to new active transportation efforts, Livermore can increase its ability to implement a wide array of projects.
54 http://www2.oaklandnet.com/government/o/PBN/OurOrganization/PlanningZoning/s/ImpactFee/index.htm 55 https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/6_mobility_choices_nexus_study.pdf 56 https://www.llnl.gov/news/labs-promote-pedal-power-bike-work-day

EXHIBIT B
870
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 32
6 Waste and Materials

6.1 2030 Objectives
▪ Reduce the amount of organic waste that is landfilled 75% from 2014 levels by 2025 ▪ Maintain or exceed 75% solid waste diversion each year ▪ Improve local re-use and repair programs
▪ Expand the use of low-carbon and recycled building materials Strategy W-1 Reduce the Amount of Waste that is Landfilled Emission reductions in the waste sector are driven by compliance with SB 1383, which requires all jurisdictions in California to reduce organic waste disposal 75% and increase edible food recovery 20% relative to 2014 levels by 2025. CalRecycle has provided a suite of recommendations and requirements for complying with SB 1383, including the following:
▪ Conduct capacity planning and ensure there is adequate capacity and collection services to comply with SB 1383 requirements
▪ Increase organic waste collection services for all residents and businesses ▪ Implement an edible food recovery program for commercial edible food generators, with compliance beginning between 2022 and 2024.
▪ Adopt enforceable ordinances prior to 2022 to ensure that all organics generators and edible food generators are compliant
▪ Procure organic waste to meet or exceed organic waste product procurement targets for the City, as notified by CalRecycle by 2022
▪ Conduct education and outreach to all businesses, residents, and commercial edible food generators by 2022
▪ Monitor compliance beginning in 2022, conduct enforcement beginning in 2024, and maintain records of implementation
The main mechanism through which Livermore will comply with SB 1383 is by updating waste hauler contracts and identifying and partnering with appropriate stakeholders to ensure requirements for organic waste reduction and edible food recovery are met (Strategy W-1). The details of the strategy, including its supporting steps and evidence of its GHG reduction potential, are included below.

EXHIBIT B
871
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 33
Action W-1.1 Implement the Requirements of SB 1383 and Achieve 75% Reduction (from 2014 levels) in Organic Waste by 2025
Step
Number
Guiding
Principles Implementation Steps
Anticipated
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
1 Structural
Change
Require residential and commercial organic waste collection through updated waste hauler contracts: Update waste hauler contracts to include expanded organic waste collection that meets the requirements of SB 1383. Conduct multilingual outreach and education regarding these changes throughout the community.
2030: 19,379
2045: 22,646
2 Equity Require edible food recovery: Adopt an edible food recovery ordinance or similarly enforceable mechanism to ensure edible food generators, food recovery services, and food recovery organizations comply with requirements to increase recovery rates. Work with local food security groups on ordinance design and implementation.

Supportive
3 Structural
Change
Increase the City’s recycled product procurement: Procure and use compost to meet California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) requirement for incorporating compost into new and renovated permitted landscapes (at least four cubic yards per 1,000 sq. ft. to a depth of six inches of compost).

Supportive
4 Structural
Change
Conduct capacity planning for organic waste collection: Engage in organic waste collection capacity planning by executing the following:
▪ Estimate Livermore's disposal of organic waste in tons ▪ Identify and verify amount of available organic waste recycling infrastructure
▪ Estimate the amount of new or expanded capacity needed to process organic waste
▪ Develop and submit an implementation schedule highlighting planning effort to provide enough new or expanded organics capacity, including timelines and relevant milestones by the end of the report period ▪ Identify proposed new or expanded facilities that could be used for additional capacity
Supportive
5 Structural
Change
Equity
Conduct capacity planning for edible food recovery: Engage in edible food recovery capacity planning by executing the following actions:
▪ Estimate the amount of edible food that will be disposed by organics generators in Livermore
▪ Work with commercial food generators to reduce excess edible food generation
▪ Work regionally to establish a full list of food recovery organizations that can receive edible food from Livermore businesses • Identify proposed new or expanded food recovery capacity
▪ Identify the minimum capacity required to recover 20% of edible food that is estimated to be disposed, through a Feasibility Study if necessary
▪ If existing and planned capacity is insufficient based on the above process, the City of Livermore must develop and submit an implementation schedule highlighting the planning effort to provide enough new or expanded capacity for increasing edible food donations and identify proposed new or expanded facilities to be used to for additional capacity
Supportive

EXHIBIT B
872
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 34
Step
Number
Guiding
Principles Implementation Steps
Anticipated
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
6 Education
Partnerships
Develop and implement a partnered education and outreach program:

Develop and implement a multi-lingual education and outreach program that provides compliance assistance to organics and edible food generators, including:
▪ Identify percentage of organics generators who are “limited EnglishSpeaking households” or “linguistically isolated.” If more than five percent (5%) of Livermore's organics generators are defined as “limited English-speaking households” or linguistically isolated,” provide education and outreach in a language or languages that will assure the information is understood by that community
▪ Prior to February 2022 and annually thereafter, provide organics generators with information regarding requirements to properly separate materials, organic waste prevention and on-site recycling, and implementing organic waste collection services.
▪ Provide edible food generators with information about methane reduction benefits and information related to edible food donation. ▪ Consider providing in-person technical assistance to generators to set up donation programs and donate appropriate types of edible food Supportive
7 Education Educate the community: Conduct multi-lingual outreach and education at schools on composting, recycling, waste reduction, nutrition education, and the importance of edible food recovery. Partner with StopWaste on outreach programs if possible.

Supportive
8 Structural
Change
Develop and implement an inspection and compliance program:

Implement an equitable inspection and compliance program for the edible food recovery program and organics procurement program with equitable and clearly defined enforcement mechanisms and penalties, as required by Article 16 in SB 1383.

Supportive
9 Structural
Change
Keep SB 1383 compliance records: Maintain records, including an initial compliance report, annual report, and implementation record as required by Articles 3, 14, and 16 of SB 1383 for (1) the organic waste collection program, (2) the edible food recovery program, and (3) the organics procurement program.

Supportive
10 Structural
Change
Require organics collection programs: Pass an ordinance with equitable enforcement mechanisms requiring organics generators to subscribe to organics collection programs or alternatively report organics self-hauling and/or backhauling.

Supportive
11 Structural
Change
Require composting services at businesses: Pass an ordinance, with equitable enforcement mechanisms and technical assistance for lowincome entrepreneurs, that requires composting services at businesses, including front-of-house (FOH) composting collection at most food service businesses.

Supportive
Requiring residential and commercial organic waste generators to subscribe to an organics collection program (provided through updated waste hauler contracts) is expected to provide the level of composting required to reduce Livermore’s organic waste disposal 75% below 2014 levels by 2025, one of the primary goals of SB 1383. StopWaste and Livermore Sanitation have been preparing for implementation of SB 1383, and are in the process of assessing local composting

EXHIBIT B
873
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 35
capacity and facilities. This action will capitalize on those efforts and expand them to meet the necessary composting capacity.

Livermore is projected to produce 82,313 tons of waste in 2030, with the majority if not all emissions from this waste coming from organics. Calculations assumed that emission reductions would come from diverting that waste to compost, decreasing the disposal emission factor to zero.

In fact, the emission factor for composting those materials is negative, due to the carbon sequestration potential of compost, but these negative emissions were not credited to the City of Livermore as carbon sequestration of the compost would occur at the location of procurement. For the purposes of emission calculations, landfill emissions were assumed to come entirely from organic materials so that a 75% reduction in organics results in a 75% reduction in waste emissions.57 Emission reduction calculations are shown below in Table 10.

Table 10 Action W-1.1 Calculations
Year 2030 2045
Waste Emissions 25,839 30,194
Organics reduction from SB 13831 75% 75%
Total reductions (MT CO2e) 19,379 22,646
1 SB 1383 requires 75% reduction in organic waste from 2014 levels by 2025.

Other steps like the edible food recovery ordinance will provide an enforceable mechanism through which the City can help organics generators meet the edible food recovery requirements of SB 1383.

Jurisdictions are responsible for implementing an edible food recovery program for commercial edible food generators. This means ensuring that there are edible food recovery organizations that have enough capacity and collection services, which will be accomplished through implementation of Action 5. Commercial edible food generators must recover for human consumption the maximum amount of their edible food that they would otherwise dispose of in landfills by making written agreements with food recovery organizations or services to accept this food instead. “Tier One” food generators — supermarkets and large grocery stores, food services providers, food distributors and wholesale food vendors — must comply beginning January 1, 2022. “Tier Two” food generators — large restaurants, hotels with an on-site food facility and 200 or more rooms, health facilities with an on-site food facility and 100 or more beds, large venues and large events, state agencies with large cafeterias and local educations agencies with on-site food facilities — have until January 1, 2024 to comply.

CalRecycle currently does not have an estimate for what percentage of the California waste stream is edible, therefore the effects of this action have not been quantified but characterized as supportive. However, CalRecycle estimates that every 2 ½ tons of edible food recovered is the equivalent of taking one car off the road for a year.58 Increasing recycled product procurement will lower the City’s consumption-based emissions – emissions attributed to the production of materials brought into the City – and provide a local market for recycled products, including recycled paper and compost. 57 Method for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Diversion of Organic Waste from Landfills to Compost Facilities (CARB, 2017)
58 https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/blogs/in-the-loop/in-the-loop/2020/03/02/yolo-county-edible-food-recovery-kick-off

EXHIBIT B
874
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 36
▪ Recycled Paper. Over 30 years, recycled paper can deliver 1.1 to 1.95 gigatons of carbon dioxide emission reductions.59 This is because recycled paper produces about 25% fewer total emissions than conventional paper. A particular piece of paper can be reprocessed roughly five to seven times, before fibers are no longer viable, avoiding methane emissions from landfilling each time.

Recycling paper has the added benefit of saving trees and reducing water waste. ▪ Compost. Composting avoids methane production in landfills, with the added benefit of carbon sequestration ability, which actively removes carbon from the atmosphere. Additional benefits to using compost are improved soil health, reduced soil loss, increased water filtration and storage, and reduction of other inputs.60
SB 1383 requires jurisdictions to conduct capacity planning around SB 1383 to ensure organics recovery and edible food recovery targets can be reasonably met. Conducting capacity planning will help the City develop an implementation plan for SB 1383 and provide information for discussions with waste haulers and other stakeholders, providing support for the GHG reductions expected from overall strategy implementation.

Conducting inspection and compliance activities around the requirements of SB 1383 will help ensure the community is doing its best to achieve the desired organics waste reduction and edible food recovery targets, thereby supporting the GHG emission reductions inherent to Steps 1 and 2. 59 https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/recycled-paper
60 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=198

EXHIBIT B
875
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 37
7 Carbon Sequestration

7.1 2030 Objectives
▪ Maximize local carbon sequestration
▪ Plant 200 trees by 2025 and 1,000 trees by 2030
▪ Update City landscaping standards to expand shade tree requirements for new development ▪ Provide free or reduced cost-trees to residents in Livermore ▪ Preserve open spaces
▪ Implement carbon-farming projects
▪ Explore technology-based carbon capture and storage opportunities Strategy S-1 Maximize Local Carbon Sequestration
A carbon neutral future includes carbon sequestration mechanisms which take carbon out of the atmosphere. The best technology cities have for achieving higher rates of carbon sequestration is through increasing the urban tree canopy by planting more trees and greenscaping. The CAP strategy supporting this goal will do just that – increase carbon sequestration through greenscaping programs. The primary action under this strategy is implementing an Urban Forest Revitalization Program, which would establish tree planting goals for the future. The details of each action supporting the carbon sequestration strategy, and evidence of their GHG reduction potential, are included below.

EXHIBIT B
876
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 38
Action S-1.1 and S-1.2 Increase Carbon Sequestration by Planting 1,000 New Trees and Meeting the Procurement Requirements of SB 1383
Action
Number Action
Anticipated
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
1 Implement an Urban Forest Revitalization Program: Implement an Urban Forest Revitalization Program to plant 200 trees by 2025 and 1000 trees by 2030. Focus on areas of City with low tree canopy cover and the highest socioeconomic need based on the development of a canopy map. Identify opportunities for green walls and green roofs in priority locations.
2030: 58
2045: 58
2 Meet the procurement requirements of SB 1383: Procure and apply compost to promote carbon sequestration and other benefits.
2030: 1,950
2045: 2,367
3 Preserve open spaces: Avoid conversion of open lands to urban areas - achieve carbon and other benefits by keeping the landscape as conservation land or working land.

Supportive
4 Conduct a carbon farming study and pilot project: Work with agricultural stakeholders to find a partner for a carbon farming study and pilot project.

Supportive
5 Improve urban forest management to maximize carbon sequestration: Prepare and adopt an Urban Forest Management Plan for the City that includes an inventory of existing trees, and the identification of both future tree planting opportunities and a climate-ready tree palette, as well as ongoing operations and maintenance needs.

Supportive
6 Adopt a Greenscaping Ordinance: Adopt a Greenscaping Ordinance that has a street tree requirement for all zoning districts, has a shade tree requirement for new development, requires greening of parking lots, and increases permeable surfaces in new development.

Supportive
7 Establish urban canopy and vegetative barrier best practices: Adopt a standard policy and set of practices for expanding urban tree canopy and placing vegetative barriers between busy roadways and developments to reduce exposure to air pollutants from traffic.

Supportive
Livermore should develop and implement an Urban Forest Revitalization Program that identifies the goal of planting 200 trees by 2025 and 1000 trees by 2030, prioritizing low-income communities with low tree canopy cover. As of December 2016, the City had approximately 2,500 trees under its management.61 As a part of the Urban Forest Revitalization Program, the total number of planting locations in the City’s Right-of-Way should be identified, to inform a higher tree planting goal that could be set for 2045. Emission reduction calculations associated with this action assume that both the 2025 and 2030 tree planting goals will be met, and that the carbon sequestration potential for seedlings averaged over 40 years is about 0.058 MT CO2e per tree per year. This number is an average of the 40-year carbon sequestration potential for four common tree species already being planted in Livermore: red oak, black tupelo, valley/white oak, and red maple.62 Emission reduction calculations are shown below in Table 11.
61 https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/12/16/livermore-assesses-ways-to-keep-tree-stands-alive/ 62 https://planting.itreetools.org/app/report/

EXHIBIT B
877
City of Livermore
Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 39
Table 11 Action S- 1.1 Tree Planting Calculations
Year 2030 2045
Trees Planted1 1,000 1,000
Total reductions (MT CO2e)2 58 58
1 Per goals to be set in Livermore’s Urban Forest Revitalization Program 2 Assuming a carbon sequestration potential of 0.057979 MT CO2e/tree/year; an average of four common municipal tree types (red oak – 0.05268 MT CO2e/tree/year, black tupelo – 0.03816 MT CO2e/tree/year, valley/white oak – 0.08466 MT CO2e/tree/year, and red maple – 0.05641 MT CO2e/tree/year). https://planting.itreetools.org/app/report/ In addition to the concrete tree planting goals the City has established under Step 1, other steps will help create additional carbon sequestration potential for the City. However, emission reductions from these steps are not quantified, due to the difficulty in determining the exact impact these steps will have on GHG emissions in Livermore. Seeking partnerships with local agriculture stakeholders and the National Laboratories can help the city to pilot innovative carbon farming studies and pilot projects which will help further the City’s vision for carbon restoration in the future. Livermore can look to the Marin Carbon Project as a model for carbon farming projects, which has assisted in the development and implementation of over a dozen carbon farm plans in Marin County.63 A Greenscaping Ordinance which includes increased street tree requirements will help to support these steps and improve the local tree canopy. As the City moves forward in implementing these steps, an updated inventory will be developed to help quantify their impacts.

SB 1383 requires Livermore to procure approximately 7,297 tons of compost or other organic material annually. Livermore’s responsibility based on the 2022 population is 7,297 tons based on a 2022 population of 91,216 people and the reported CalRecycle procurement targets.64 Based on CARB methodologies applying one ton of compost results in carbon sequestration of 0.23 MT CO2e.65 The overall GHG emissions savings are calculated in Table 12.

Table 12 Action S-1.2 Compost Application Calculations
Year 2030 2045
Population 105,967 129,158
Estimated procurement requirement2 8,477 10,332
MT CO2e/Ton Compost1 0.23 0.23
Total Sequestration (MT CO2e) 1,950 2,376
1 METHOD FOR ESTIMATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM DIVERSION OF ORGANIC WASTE FROM LANDFILLS TO COMPOST FACILITIES DRAFT (ca.gov)
2 Estimated based on current per capita procurement requirements and projected population data. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/procurement/recoveredorganicwasteproducts/ 63 https://www.marincarbonproject.org/carbon-farming
64 https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/procurement/recoveredorganicwasteproducts/ 65 METHOD FOR ESTIMATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM DIVERSION OF ORGANIC WASTE FROM LANDFILLS TO COMPOST FACILITIES DRAFT (ca.gov)

EXHIBIT B
878
Appendix E - Appendix E - CAP Regulatory Context CAP Regulatory Context Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
prepared for
City of Livermore
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
September 2022

EXHIBIT B
879
Table of Contents
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update i
Table of Contents
Regulatory Context ................................................................................................................................. 1 International Climate Action Guidance .......................................................................................... 1 California Regulations and State GHG Targets ............................................................................... 2

EXHIBIT B
880
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix E – Regulatory Context
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 1
Regulatory Context
As the impacts of climate change are becoming clearer, strategies to address climate change are emerging at all levels of government. This section provides an overview of the regulatory context at the international, state, and local levels relative to Sacramento’s actions toward reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

International Climate Action Guidance
1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change The primary international regulatory framework for GHG reduction is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC is an international treaty adopted in 1992 with the objective of stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentrations to prevent disruptive anthropogenic climate change. The framework established non-binding limits on global GHG emissions and specified a process for negotiating future international climate-related agreements.1

1997 Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty that was adopted in 1997 to extend and operationalize the UNFCCC. The protocol commits industrialized nations to reduce GHG emissions per countryspecific targets, recognizing that they hold responsibility for existing atmospheric GHG levels. The Kyoto Protocol involves two commitment periods during which emissions reductions are to occur, the first of which took place between 2008-2012. The second commitment period set new targets and other changes but has not been entered into force (meaning it has not gone into effect).2 2015 The Paris Agreement
The Paris Agreement is the first universal, legally binding global climate agreement that was adopted in 2015 and has been ratified by 191 countries worldwide.3 The Paris Agreement establishes a roadmap to keep the world under 2 degrees Celsius (°C) of warming with a goal of limiting an increase of temperature to 1.5°C. The Paris Agreement does not dictate one specific reduction target, instead relying on individual countries to set nationally determined contributions (NDCs) or reductions based on gross domestic product and other factors. According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), limiting global warming to 1.5°C will require global emissions to reduce through 2030 and hit carbon neutrality by mid-century.4 1 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf 2 UNFCCC. What is the Kyoto Protocol? https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol 3 UNFCCC. Paris Agreement - Status of Ratification. https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-agreement/status-of-ratification 4 IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5 C. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

EXHIBIT B
881
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix E – Regulatory Context
2 California Regulations and State GHG Targets
California remains a global leader in the effort to reduce GHG emissions and combat climate change through its mitigation and adaptation strategies. By the early 2000’s, California was passing climate change bills including Senate Bill (SB) 1078 and Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 which began to require state agencies and utilities to address climate change. With the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 in 2006, California became the first state in the nation to mandate GHG emission reductions across its entire economy. To support AB 32, California has enacted legislation, regulations, and executive orders (EO) that put it on course to achieve robust emission reductions and address the impacts of a changing climate. The following is a summary of executive and legislative actions most relevant to the Climate Action Plan.
2002 Senate Bill 1078
In 2002, Senate Bill (SB) 1078 established the California Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS) Program which requires that 20 percent of retail electricity sales be composed of renewable energy sources by 2017 and was accelerated in 2006 by SB 107,5 which requires that 20 percent of retail
electricity sales be composed of renewable energy sources by 2010, instead of 2017. EO S-14-08 was signed in 2008 to further streamline California's renewable energy project approval process and increase the state's RPS to the most aggressive in the nation requiring 33 percent renewable power by 2020.6
SB 350, discussed further below, further accelerated the program which mandated a 50% RPS by 2030.
2002 Assembly Bill 1493
In 2002, AB 1493, also known as the Pavley Regulations, directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish regulations to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles to the maximum and most cost-effective extent feasible. CARB approved the first set of regulations to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles in 2004, with the regulations initially taking effect with the 2009 model year.
2005 Executive Order S-3-05
EO S-3-05 was signed in 2005, establishing statewide GHG emissions reduction targets for the years 2020 and 2050. The EO calls for the reduction of GHG emissions in California to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2050 emission reductions target would put the state’s emissions in line with the worldwide reductions needed to reach longterm climate stabilization as concluded by the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. 2006 Assembly Bill 32
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in AB 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” which was signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan 5 California Public Utilities Commission.2021. Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=6442463710
6 Executive Order S-14-08. http://www.climatestrategies.us/library/library/view/292

EXHIBIT B
882
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix E – Regulatory Context
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 3
that outlines the main state strategies for reducing GHG emissions to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions.

Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG baseline and 2020 emissions limit of 427 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMT CO2e). The Scoping Plan was approved by CARB on December 11, 2008 and included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards,7
and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted since approval of the Scoping Plan.

In May 2014, CARB approved the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The 2014 Scoping Plan update defined CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years and set the groundwork to reach post-2020 statewide goals. The update highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluated how to align the state’s longer-term GHG reduction strategies with other state policy priorities, including those for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use (CARB 2014).
2007 Executive Order S-1-07
Also known as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, EO S-1-07, issued in 2007, established a statewide goal that requires transportation fuel providers to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. EO S-1-07 was readopted and amended in 2015 to require a 20 percent reduction in carbon intensity by 2030, the most stringent requirement in the nation. The new requirement aligns with California’s overall 2030 target of reducing climate changing emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, which was set by SB 32 and signed by the governor in 2016.
2007 Senate Bill 97
Signed in August 2007, SB 97 acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. In March 2010, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHG and climate change impacts.
2008 Senate Bill 375
SB 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. In addition, SB 375 directs each of the state’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning 7 On September 19, 2019, the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a final action entitled the One National Program on Federal Preemption of State Fuel Economy Standards Rule. This action finalizes Part I of the Safer, Affordable, Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule. This rule states that federal law preempts State and local tailpipe GHG emissions standards as well as zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates. The SAFE Rule withdraws the Clean Air Act waiver it granted to California in January 2013 as it relates to California’s GHG and zero emission vehicle programs.

EXHIBIT B
883
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix E – Regulatory Context
4 Organizations (MPOs), to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy” that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan.

In March 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. Each region was assigned a target for 2020 and 2035.8 2009 California Green Building Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code or Title 24 and is the first statewide “green” building code in the nation. The purpose of CALGreen is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings. Enhancements include higher energy efficiency, better air quality, and improved daylighting. The first CALGreen Code was adopted in 2009 and has been updated in 2013, 2016, and 2019. The CALGreen Code will have subsequent, and continually more stringent, updates every three years.
2009 Senate Bill X7-7
In 2009, SB X7-7, also known as the Water Conservation Act, was signed, requiring all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency. This legislation sets an overall goal of reducing per capita urban water use by 20 percent by2020.
2011 Senate Bill 2X
In 2011, SB 2X was signed, requiring California energy providers to buy (or generate) 33 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. 2012 Assembly Bill 341
AB 341 directed the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling. As of July 2012, businesses are required to recycle, and jurisdictions must implement a program that includes education, outreach, and monitoring. AB 341 also set a statewide goal of 75 percent waste diversion from landfill by the year 2020.
2014 Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plan Update
In 2014, CARB approved the first update to the Scoping Plan. This update defines CARB’s climate change priorities and sets the groundwork to reach the post-2020 targets set forth in EO S-3-05. The update highlights California’s progress toward meeting the near-term 2020 GHG emissions reduction target, defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluates how to align California’s longer-term GHG reduction strategies with other statewide policy priorities, such as water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use. 8 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/SB375_Final_Targets_2018.pdf

EXHIBIT B
884
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix E – Regulatory Context
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 5
2014 Assembly Bill 1826
AB 1826 was signed in 2014 to increase the recycling of organic material. GHG emissions produced by the decomposition of these materials in landfills were identified as a significant source of emissions contributing to climate change. Therefore, reducing organic waste and increasing composting and mulching are goals set out by the AB 32 Scoping Plan. AB 1826 specifically requires jurisdictions to establish organic waste recycling programs by 2016, and phases in mandatory commercial organic waste recycling over time.
2015 Senate Bill 350
SB 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015, has two objectives: to increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from 33 percent to 50 percent by 2030 and to double the energy efficiency of electricity and natural gas end users through energy efficiency and conservation.
2015 Executive Order B-30-15
EO B-30-15 was signed in 2015, establishing an interim GHG emissions reduction target to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO also calls for another update to the CARB Scoping Plan to provide a pathway to achieve this goal. 2016 Senate Bill 32
In September 2016, the governor signed SB 32 into law, extending AB 32 by requiring the state to further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged).
2016 Senate Bill 1383
Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 requires CARB to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. SB 1383 requires achievement of the following reduction targets by 2030:
▪ Methane – 40 percent below 2013 levels
▪ Hydrofluorocarbons – 40 percent below 2013 levels
▪ Anthropogenic black carbon – 50 percent below 2013 levels SB 1383 also requires CalRecycle, in consultation with CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. SB 1383 further requires 20% of edible food disposed of at the time to be recovered by 2025.
2017 Scoping Plan Update
In December 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 goal set by SB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, as well as implementation of recently approved legislation, such as SB 350 and SB 1383.

EXHIBIT B
885
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix E – Regulatory Context
6 The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2014 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development.

Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with statewide per capita goals of six metric tons (MT) CO2e by 2030 and two MT CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (i.e., city, county, subregional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the state (CARB 2017).

CARB is currently developing the 2022 Scoping Plan Update, which will focus on continuing to work towards the SB 32 target and lay out a path for achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. 2018 Senate Bill 100
Adopted in September 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the state’s RPS Program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. 2018 Executive Order B-55-18
In September 2018, the governor issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100.
2022 Scoping Plan Draft
Though still in draft form the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan Update assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target, while laying out a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities. 2022 California Climate Crisis Act
This bill, the California Climate Crisis Act, declared that the policy of the state is to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 85% below the 1990 levels.

EXHIBIT B
886
City of Livermore
City Hall
1052 S. Livermore Ave.

Livermore, CA 94550
925-960-4000
livermoreca.gov

EXHIBIT B
887
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 6.4
DATE: November 28, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Hearing to receive a tracking update on the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (Specific Plan) progress and consider resolutions finding the environmental impacts of the Specific Plan amendments are within the scope of the 2018 and 2020 Environmental Impact Reports and amending the Specific Plan to include new and clarified policies, revised development and design standards, and text clarifications.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Planning Commission and staff recommend the City Council receive a tracking update on the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (Specific Plan) progress and consider Specific Plan amendments and adopt resolutions:

1. Finding the Environmental Impacts of the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan amendments are within the scope of the 2018 Environmental Impact Report and 2020 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan; and

2. Approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 22-001.

SUMMARY
Tracking Update
The Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan was re-adopted by City Council in November 2020 to reflect the change in rail transit from BART to Valley Link. Specific Plan Policy P-IMP-5 requires review of the progress of the Specific Plan every two years following adoption, including an evaluation of the public infrastructure to ensure continued public health and safety. This is the first tracking update on the progress of Specific Plan buildout.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendments
The Planning Commission and staff recommend Specific Plan amendments including new and clarified policies, revised development and design standards, and text clarifications. These amendments are 888
informed by implementing approved and proposed projects in the Isabel Neighborhood.

DISCUSSION
The Specific Plan guides development in the northwestern part of Livermore. It seeks to create a complete neighborhood with a mix of uses that is walkable, bikeable, and served by transit. The City Council certified the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and adopted the Specific Plan in November 2020.

Tracking Update
Approved projects include one non-residential entitlement for approximately 56,000 square feet of warehouse industrial space and two residential entitlements for a total of 411 units including townhomes, apartments, and garden flats. The residential projects are currently in the building permit review process.

Five additional projects in the Isabel Neighborhood are currently proposed and under review. This includes one application for an approximately 85,000 square-foot hotel with 130 rooms, three residential applications, and one mixed-use application. These five applications include a combined total of 1,999 residential units, five acres of open space, 70,000 square feet of retail space, and 51,000 square feet of office space.

Altogether, approximately 262,000 square feet of non-residential uses and approximately 2,410 residential units are approved or proposed in the Isabel Neighborhood since its adoption in 2020. The residential units include a mix of townhomes, condominiums, apartments, and garden flats.

Approximately 23 percent of the approved and proposed residential units will be offered at below-market rates. This exceeds the Specific Plan requirement that each project provide 20 percent of the total units at below-market rates and strives towards achieving Specific Plan Goal G-LU-6 for 25 percent of all new units to be offered at below-market rates. Again, these values include proposed projects and are subject to change as refinements are made to the proposed site plans.

Public Infrastructure Evaluation
Development of the Planning Area will increase demand on existing infrastructure and generate new demand for new facilities and services. Implementation of the Specific Plan requires the construction of new infrastructure and upgrades to existing infrastructure. New infrastructure consists of approximately 27,000 lineal feet of public streets; utility connections in the public right-of-way; approximately five linear miles of multi-use trails; and three new neighborhood parks totaling six and a half acres.

Upgrades to existing infrastructure include improvements to water, sanitary sewer and storm drain systems and to existing major streets for signals, crosswalks, bike lanes and striping, signage, and landscaping. Development of the Isabel Neighborhood does not directly trigger the need to expand other citywide utility and service systems, such as water distribution and wastewater treatment.

Developers will continue to be responsible for the direct costs of building new streets, utility connections, and frontage improvements at the time of construction. Most of the maintenance costs for the new public infrastructure (public streets, parks, and plazas) will be funded by the new development, except for major arterial roadway maintenance, which is funded by gas taxes and countywide sales taxes. Sewer and water infrastructure maintenance will be funded by user fees. 889
Staff is currently working on forming a Maintenance Community Facilities Districts (CFD) for the Isabel Neighborhood. This CFD will be assessed on developing properties to fund the remaining infrastructure maintenance costs, including capital replacement.

The utility infrastructure capacities and demands associated with development considered in the Isabel Neighborhood were assessed in the 2017 Water Master Plan and the 2017 Sewer Master Plan. Based on the sewer flow projections for the Isabel Neighborhood land uses, the analysis recommended additional gravity main improvements (beyond those required for buildout conditions independent of the Isabel Neighborhood) crossing Interstate 580 and along Clubhouse Drive to serve development under the Specific Plan. Subsequent refinement of the hydraulic sewer analysis in 2021 indicates that the additional gravity main improvements are not required to serve future planned development under the Specific Plan.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendments
The Planning Commission and staff recommend Specific Plan amendments including new and clarified policies, revised development and design standards, and text clarifications based on Specific Plan implementation with approved and pending projects. Recommended amendments are to the following Specific Plan chapters: Land Use; Transportation; Parks, Public Facilities, and Infrastructure; Urban Design; and Implementation and Financing Strategies. These amendments do not change current Specific Plan land use designations on any parcels. The following sections include a summary of the proposed amendments by chapter. Refer to Attachment 4 for a complete list of amendments.

Chapter 2, Land Use
This Chapter of the Specific Plan describes the framework for regulating land use development and redevelopment in the Isabel Neighborhood. The land use diagram includes four residential designations, eight non-residential land use designations, and three overlays. These land use designations are unique to the Isabel Neighborhood.

Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2, Land Use
Amendments to this chapter include figure revisions to align with existing language in the Specific Plan; clarifications to existing footnote references and the application of height limits; modified interior (side/rear) residential setback standards along alleyways to better accommodate the type of housing envisioned in the Plan; a new policy defining residential product types which reinforces the vision for a variety of housing types and designs; and clarifying text amendments to the existing inclusionary housing policy.

Chapter 3, Transportation
This chapter describes the street and trail networks serving the Isabel Neighborhood. In addition to the existing major streets, the Isabel Neighborhood includes new neighborhood, pedestrian, and bicycle oriented streets. The Specific Plan will close gaps in the trail system, which would link to regional routes and provide access to natural areas and current and future amenities likes parks, neighborhood retail and the Valley Link station.
890
Proposed Amendments to Chapter 3, Transportation
Amendments to this chapter include new language describing the Class IV bike lane along Portola Avenue between Collier Canyon Road and Isabel Avenue; new and modified bicycle parking standards; and text revisions to align with existing language in the Specific Plan. As amended, guest bicycle parking standards are required for all residential projects and must be in a publicly accessible location. In addition, if a main building entrance is relocated, then bicycle parking must be relocated to remain within 30 feet of the main building entrance.

Chapter 4, Parks, Public Facilities, and Infrastructure This chapter summarizes the Specific Plan’s future demand for parks and open space, public services (schools, library, fire, police, and solid waste), and utilities (water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity, and telecommunications) under buildout conditions.

Proposed Amendments to Chapter 4, Parks, Public Facilities and Infrastructure Amendments to this chapter include revisions to an existing policy and addition of a new policy related to natural gas prohibition that reinforces the requirement for all-electric new dwelling units and new nonresidential buildings. These amendments are consistent with the EIR documents for the Isabel Neighborhood and the City's draft Climate Action Plan policies.

Chapter 5, Urban Design
This chapter articulates Design Standards and Guidelines. Standards are requirements, while Guidelines provide more general direction on intended design features. Together, the Standards and Guidelines ensure that new development and public improvement projects are in harmony with the Specific Plan’s vision for high-quality design that are also compatible and integrated with the surrounding neighborhoods.

Proposed Amendments to Chapter 5, Urban Design
Amendments to this chapter include clarifications to existing design standards related to building orientation and pedestrian access and new design standards related to building orientation, façade treatments, parking, landscaping, retaining walls, and contemporary design.

Chapter 7, Implementation and Financing Strategies
This chapter provides an infrastructure cost assessment, financing strategy, and tools for implementing the Isabel Neighborhood. This chapter also includes policies related to monitoring and tracking the progress of the Specific Plan and the Valley Link rail project.

Proposed Amendments to Chapter 7, Implementation and Financing Strategies Amendments to this chapter include removal of policies P-IMP-6 and P-IMP-7 related to the Transferable Development Credit program and introduction of a new policy P-IMP-6 to clarify application of the Transferable Development Credit (TDC) program in the Isabel Neighborhood. The baseline density shall be zero for all residential designations within the Isabel Neighborhood, which means all the approved 891
and proposed residential units will still be subject to TDC fees, with the exception of affordable units.

PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 1, 2022, to review the project. Refer to Attachment 1 for the Planning Commission staff report. One member of the public spoke and provided a letter to the Planning Commission (Attachment 5). This member of the public is also representing an applicant for a project under review in the Isabel Neighborhood. The applicant requested the City consider incentivizing office development by permitting residential development in the Office and Office Core land use designations. In addition, the applicant expressed concern regarding the revisions made to interior setback standards, a new design standard requiring accessible pedestrian access through residential development, a new design standard requiring a transition from the public street to the private residence, and a new design standard requiring development to provide a double row of trees along Major Streets.

Staff reviewed the requests and recommended one modification to Planning Commission related to Design Standard DS-76. As originally amended and presented to Planning Commission, DS-76 requires a transition from the public street to the private residence including a change in grade between the public right-of-way and private residences. The applicant requested the provision related to the change in grade be removed to facilitate residential density consistent with the Specific Plan. Planning Commission and staff recommend that this provision be removed consistent with the applicant’s request. The other requests from the applicant are project specific and will be addressed in the applicant's Development Agreement. The remaining staff recommended design standard amendments are still proposed, including the requirement for other design cues to create a transition from the public street to the private residences such as raised stoops or open porches.

The Planning Commission discussed pedestrian access between buildings, public access to trails, bicycle parking near main building entrances, the possibility of a library and fire station in the Isabel Neighborhood, and the need for high quality telecommunication equipment in the area. In addition, the Planning Commission suggested modifications to design standards related to building materials, double row of trees along major streets, and bicycle facilities. Staff has modified design standards related to building materials and the double rows of trees consistent with Planning Commission comments. The Planning Commission also noted that the City's Active Transportation Plan (ATP) includes the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Designing for All Ages and Abilities (2017) as a reference for combining traffic calming tools and roadway design to create high-comfort bicycle facilities. Staff will continue to reference this document when evaluating mobility design and would evaluate including its provisions in the ATP more formally in the next ATP update, which will commence later next year. The revision to DS-76 and the additional revisions made between Planning Commission and City Council hearings are shown in red in Attachment 4.

The draft meeting minutes (Attachment 2) include the summarized testimony and discussion. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend finding the Specific Plan amendments are within the scope of the 2018 Environmental Impact Report and 2020 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan and approve the Specific Plan amendments, including the revisions to Design Standard DS-76 described above.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
892
As described in the CEQA resolution, the amendments are within the scope of the 2018 EIR and 2020 Supplemental EIR for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. No subsequent or supplemental EIR is required.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
There are no significant fiscal or administrative impacts associated with the project. Staff time and resources will be used to make all amendments to the Specific Plan.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Commission Staff Report

2. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11-1-22

3. Tracking Update

4. Specific Plan Amendments

5. Planning Commission Supplemental Materials

6. Resolution - CEQA

7. Exhibit A - Planning Commission Resolution 27-22, SPPA22-001; CEQA

8. Resolution - Project Approval

9. Exhibit A - Planning Commission Resolution 28-22, SPPA22-001

10. Exhibit B - Specific Plan Amendments, SPPA22-001
Prepared by: Ashley Vera
Associate Planner
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
893
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 5.2
DATE: November 1, 2022
TO: Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Steve Stewart, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Hearing to receive a tracking update on the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan progress and consider amendments to the Specific Plan including new and clarified policies, revised development and design standards, and text clarifications.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive a tracking update on the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (Specific Plan) progress and consider Specific Plan amendments and adopt resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt resolutions:

1. Finding the Specific Plan amendments are within the scope of the 2018 Environmental Impact Report and 2020 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan; and

2. Approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 22-001.

The Planning Commission's action is a recommendation to City Council.

SUMMARY
Tracking Update
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Goal G-IMP-4 states that the city will monitor and track the Specific Plan progress. Specifically, Policy P-IMP-5 requires review of the progress of the Specific Plan every two years following adoption, including an evaluation of the public infrastructure to ensure continued public health and safety.

The Specific Plan was re-adopted by City Council in November 2020 to reflect the change in rail transit from BART to Valley Link. Since Specific Plan adoption, one non-residential project and two residential projects have been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, respectively. Five additional projects in the Isabel Neighborhood are currently proposed and under review. Approximately 56,000 square feet of non-residential uses and 411 new residential units have been approved and approximately 208,000 square feet of non-residential uses and 2,002 residential units are proposed in the Isabel Neighborhood. Approximately 26 percent of the approved and proposed residential units will be offered 417
ATTACHMENT 1
894
at below-market rates. These numerical values include proposed projects and are subject to change.

Refer to Attachment 1 for a list of all approved and proposed projects by Specific Plan subarea.

Public Infrastructure Evaluation
The Isabel Neighborhood currently has significant public infrastructure in place, as it is already developed with major roadways and utilities. New public infrastructure and upgrades to existing public infrastructure will be funded by development. An updated hydraulic analysis concluded that gravity main improvements, which were initially recommended to support the Isabel Neighborhood, are no longer required.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendments
Staff recommends Specific Plan amendments including new and clarified policies, revised development and design standards, and text clarifications. These amendments are informed by implementing projects in the Isabel Neighborhood.

DISCUSSION
The Specific Plan guides development in the northwestern part of Livermore. It seeks to create a complete neighborhood with a mix of uses that is walkable, bikeable, and served by transit. The City Council certified the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and adopted the Specific Plan in November 2020.

Tracking Update
Since Specific Plan adoption, one non-residential project and two residential projects have been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, respectively. This includes one non-residential entitlement for an approximately 56,000 square feet of warehouse industrial space and two residential entitlements for a total of 411 units including townhomes, apartments, and garden flats that have been approved and are currently in the building permit review process.

Five additional projects in the Isabel Neighborhood are currently proposed and under review. This includes one application for an approximately 85,000 square-foot hotel with 130 rooms, three residential applications, and one mixed-use application. These five applications include a combined total of 2,002 residential units, five acres of open space, 70,000 square feet of retail space, and 53,000 square feet of office space.

Altogether, approximately 264,000 square feet of non-residential uses and approximately 2,413 residential units are approved or proposed in the Isabel Neighborhood since its adoption in 2020. The residential units include a mix of townhomes, condominiums, apartments, and garden flats.

Approximately 26 percent of the approved and proposed residential units will be offered at below-market rates. This exceeds the Specific Plan requirement that each project provide 20 percent of the total units at below-market rates and exceeds Specific Plan Goal G-LU-6 for 25 percent of all new units to be offered at below-market rates. Again, these values include proposed projects and are subject to change as refinements are made to the proposed site plans. Refer to Attachment 1 for a list of all approved and pending projects by Specific Plan subarea.

Public Infrastructure Evaluation
The Isabel Neighborhood currently has significant public infrastructure in place, as it is already 418
ATTACHMENT 1
895
developed with major roadways and utilities. Development of the Planning Area, however, will increase demands on existing infrastructure and generate demand for new facilities and services.

Implementation of the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan requires the construction of new infrastructure and upgrades to existing infrastructure.

New infrastructure consists of approximately 27,000 lineal feet of public streets; utility connections in the public right-of-way; approximately five linear miles of multi-use trails; and three new neighborhood parks totaling six and a half acres.

Upgrades to existing infrastructure include improvements to water, sanitary, and storm drain systems and to existing major streets, for signals, crosswalks, bike lanes and striping, signage, and landscaping.

Development of the Isabel Neighborhood does not directly trigger the need to expand other citywide utility and service systems, such as water distribution and wastewater treatment. Developers will continue to be responsible for the direct costs of building new streets, utility connections, and frontage improvements at the time of construction. Most of the maintenance costs for the new public infrastructure (public streets, parks, and plazas) will be funded by the new development, except for major arterial roadway maintenance, which is funded by gas taxes, countywide sales taxes, and sewer and water infrastructure maintenance, funded by user fees.

Staff is currently working on forming a Community Facilities Districts (CFD) that will be incorporated into the citywide CFD. This CFD will be assessed on developing properties to fund the remaining infrastructure maintenance costs, including capital replacement.

The utility infrastructure capacities and demands associated with development considered in the Isabel Neighborhood were assessed in the 2017 Water Master Plan and the 2017 Sewer Master Plan. Based on the sewer flow projections for the Isabel Neighborhood land uses, the analysis recommended additional gravity main improvements (beyond those required for buildout conditions independent of the Isabel Neighborhood) crossing Interstate 580 and along Clubhouse Drive to serve development under the Specific Plan.

Subsequent refinement of the hydraulic sewer analysis in 2021 indicates that the additional gravity main improvements are not required to serve future planned development under the Specific Plan.

Proposed Specific Plan Amendments
Staff recommends Specific Plan amendments including new and clarified policies, revised development and design standards, and text clarifications based on Specific Plan implementation with approved and pending projects.

Staff recommends amendments to the following Specific Plan chapters: Land Use; Transportation; Parks, Public Facilities, and Infrastructure; Urban Design; and Implementation and Financing Strategies.

The following sections include a summary of the proposed amendments by chapter. Refer to Attachment 2 for a complete list of amendments.

Chapter 2, Land Use
This Chapter of the Specific Plan describes the framework for regulating land use development and redevelopment in the Isabel Neighborhood. The land use diagram includes four residential designations, 419
ATTACHMENT 1
896
eight non-residential land use designations, and three overlays. These land use designations are unique to the Isabel Neighborhood.

Proposed Amendments to Chapter 2 Land Use
Amendments to this chapter include figure revisions to align with existing language in the Specific Plan; clarifications to existing footnote references and the application of height limits; modified residential setback standards to better accommodate the type of housing envisioned in the Plan; a new policy defining residential product types which reinforces the vision for a variety of housing types and designs; and clarifying text amendments to the existing inclusionary housing policy.

Chapter 3, Transportation
This chapter describes the street and trail networks serving the Isabel Neighborhood. In addition to the existing major streets, the Isabel Neighborhood includes new neighborhood, pedestrian, and bicycleoriented streets. The Specific Plan will close gaps in the trail system, which would link to regional routes and provide access to natural areas and current and future amenities likes parks, neighborhood retail the Valley Link station.

Proposed Amendments to Chapter 3, Transportation
Amendments to this chapter include new language describing the Class IV bike lane along Portola Avenue between Collier Canyon Road and Isabel Avenue; new and modified residential bicycle parking standards; and text revisions to align with existing language in the Specific Plan.

Chapter 4, Parks, Public Facilities, and Infrastructure This chapter summarizes the Specific Plan’s future demand for parks and open space, public services (schools, library, fire, police, and solid waste), and utilities (water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity, and telecommunications) under buildout conditions.

Proposed Amendments to Chapter 4, Parks, Public Facilities and Infrastructure Amendments to this chapter include revisions to an existing policy and addition of a new policy related to natural gas prohibition that reinforces the requirement for all-electric new dwelling units and new nonresidential buildings. These amendments are consistent with the EIR documents for the Isabel Neighborhood and the City's draft Climate Action Plan policies.

Chapter 5, Urban Design
This chapter articulates Design Standards and Guidelines. Standards are requirements, while Guidelines provide more general direction on intended design features. Together, the Standards and Guidelines ensure that new development and public improvement projects are in harmony with the Specific Plan’s vision for high-quality design that is also compatible and integrated with the surrounding neighborhoods.

Proposed Amendments to Chapter 5, Urban Design
Amendments to this chapter include clarifications to existing design standards related to building 420
ATTACHMENT 1
897
orientation and pedestrian access and new design standards related to building orientation, façade treatments, parking, landscaping, retaining walls, and contemporary design.

Chapter 7, Implementation and Financing Strategies
This chapter provides an infrastructure cost assessment, financing strategy, and tools for implementing the Isabel Neighborhood. This chapter also includes policies related to monitoring and tracking the progress of the Specific Plan and the Valley Link rail project.

Proposed Amendments to Chapter 7, Implementation and Financing Strategies Amendments to this chapter include removal of policies P-IMP-6 and P-IMP-7 related to the Transferable Development Credit program and introduction of a new policy P-IMP-6 to clarify application of the Transferable Development Credit program in the Isabel Neighborhood. The baseline density shall be zero for all residential designations within the Isabel Neighborhood, which means all new residential units will be subject to TDC fees (except affordable units).

REQUIRED FINDINGS
As discussed in the resolution recommending approval (Attachment 4), the required findings to authorize a Specific Plan Amendment can be made in accordance with Development Code section 9.08.090.

SUMMARY
Since adoption of the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan, the City has approved three projects and five additional projects are proposed and under review. These projects informed the development of the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments to the Specific Plan will reinforce the vision and goals for the Isabel Neighborhood. Staff will continue to monitor and track the progress of the Isabel Neighborhood and evaluate public infrastructure to ensure continued public health and safety.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
As described in the CEQA resolution (Attachment 3), the amendments are within the scope of the 2018 EIR and 2020 Supplemental EIR for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. No subsequent or supplemental EIR is required.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive a tracking update on the Specific Plan progress and consider Specific Plan amendments and adopt resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt resolutions:

1. Finding the Specific Plan amendments are within the scope of the 2018 Environmental Impact Report and 2020 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan; and

2. Approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 22-001.
421
ATTACHMENT 1
898

ATTACHMENTS

1. Tracking Update

2. Proposed Specific Plan Amendments

3. Resolution - CEQA

4. Resolution - Project Approval
Prepared by: Ashley Vera
Associate Planner
422
ATTACHMENT 1
899
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 November 1, 2022
DRAFT

PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
November 1, 2022

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

2. ROLL CALL – Present were Chairperson Steven Dunbar, Vice Chairperson Daniel Leary, CM Jacob Anderson, CM Evan Branning, and CM John Stein.

Also present were: Planning Manager Steve Stewart, Senior Assistant City Attorney Kim Cilley, Senior Planner Tricia Pontau, Associate Planner Ashley Vera, Principal Planner Stephen Riley, Senior Civil Engineer Debbie Salgado, Division Clerk Michele Donley.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Chairperson Dunbar.

2. CITIZENS FORUM – None.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR – None.

4. PROJECT REVIEW – None.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.1 Consideration of the 2022 Climate Action Plan.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the 2022 Climate Action Plan (POLI 20-1 and adopt resolutions recommending the City Council adopt resolutions:

1. Adopting the October 17, 2022, Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the Livermore Climate Action Plan Update; and

2. Adopting the 2022 Climate Action Plan
The Planning Commission's action is a recommendation to City Council.

Senior Planner Tricia Pontau gave the staff report and overview of the matter.

Chairperson Dunbar opened the public comment period.

ATTACHMENT 2
900

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 November 1, 2022
DRAFT
Alan Marling spoke about priorities for the plan in transportation and the potential for war for lithium to charge electric vehicles. Instead, he suggested prioritization of mass public transit needs, asked why the Action Plan has such a low potential for Valley Link, thinks highway lanes should be reserved for buses, promoted trains, suggested all public transportation should be free, supported expansion of safe bike paths, encourage working from home, and funding public transport like the Livermore Wine Trolley. He asked that the Commission approve the CAP with an amended prioritization on transportation.

Chairperson Dunbar suggested the Commission first review 1) the consistency in the EIR and CEQA analysis; 2) priorities; and 3) general comments.

EIR and CEQA Analysis:

Chairperson Dunbar asked and confirmed all Commissioners were supportive of the EIR and CEQA analysis.

Regarding priorities, he asked for comments and all Commissioners prefaced their comments by indicating how well the document was prepared, how refined, easy to read, and educational it is, and thanked staff.

Priorities:

CM Anderson referred to the transportation priority or action plan priority, said Commissioners had emphasized bicycling, active transportation, and he questioned why the active transportation goal shrunk down from the first draft the Commission received.

Ms. Pontau explained that the Council subcommittee were a little concerned about how realistic some of the goals for VMT shift and the percentages were, and if those were defensible. When looking at GHG reductions some of this relates to CEQA defensibility and whether the CPUC would believe that the City could achieve these reductions. The City must be clear on what it is going to do, what they have influence on, and what they do not. The City does not control the transit system so it can adopt land use policies that facilitate more transit use, but it must be careful about what it says it will be able to accomplish.

There was also some concern about having too much detail about specific active transportation actions when those may belong in the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and getting things out of sync with what they say in that plan versus this plan. So, they are coming up on another update to the ATP soon and will try to strike the right balance between what should be in this document and in other documents like the ATP or the Hazard Mitigation Plan.

ATTACHMENT 2
901
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 November 1, 2022
DRAFT
CM Anderson referred to Action T-3.1; Accelerate the Implementation of the Livermore ATP. He feels this action is doing too many things they want out of this strategy, suggested it be flushed out to three actions; 1) focusing on the short-term like things they can do for free or low cost and easy to implement; 2) one long-term and higher costs, and 3) something like grant-writing items and getting funding to implement larger scale projects. He knows these are things they already do, but he wants to make sure they can solidify this in the plan.

Chairperson Dunbar asked staff to display the priority slide.

CM Stein said he looked at priorities differently. The three priorities he saw were transportation, electricity, and water. Regarding transportation, they will be rapidly moving towards electric vehicles which have several advantages and these should be much lower maintenance and a longer lifespan which equals less consumption of resources and reduction of GHGs. He was surprised with figures of population and the ratio of electric vehicles, revealing almost one vehicle for every adult in the City which is high. He then spoke about a reliance on public transit and BART’s current and expected future ridership figures, but questioned how mass transit would be funded without ridership.

It seems it was also assumed that electrical power costs will not go up significantly and reliability will remain constant. Instead, this will require massive investments involving movement towards renewables, storage, batteries, and hydrogen. The grid will need to be enlarged, homeowners will need to transition from natural gas to electric for all uses, and the question is how to fund this and maintain reliability.

Regarding water, he thinks this was passed over. He spoke about the municipal water and sewer system adequacy, suggested lobbying for on and off stream water storage and conservation, maximizing recharge, ensuring new growth provides additional water, and looking at increased wells in the area.

Lastly, one time use will probably not be possible and they should be looking at river osmosis. The problems there are not technical but psychological and how to convince the population that the water is high quality water.

Electric vehicles and electrification of households will solve many problems. He looks at priorities as focusing on the economics of providing the money to provide power, water, and mass transit because it all costs money. As federal funds dry up, MTC tends to focus on maintaining the dense urban transit such as BART, AC Transit, Muni, and LAFTA has always been at the tail end.

CM Branning thinks water is something very important to highlight and this is covered under number 8 on the list. However, given the impact they are already seeing with drought, it is not strong enough language and action. He suggested wording it in a way that shows the City is acting on it and not just looking into it and possibly splitting out water as a specific priority.

ATTACHMENT 2
902
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 November 1, 2022
DRAFT
He also agrees with the speaker that there is not enough included about trying to get people out of cars and was not sure where promoting active transportation would fall under the nearer term implementation priorities, particularly getting improved mass transit and public transit.

He disagreed with CM Anderson about expanding on the mention of the ATP. He thinks given what they are doing with the General Plan, ATP, Housing Element, Climate Action Plan, and many others being rewritten, making sure the different plans generally are working with each other is important. On priorities, he would like to see more mention of active transportation and mass transit but does not think it needs to be defined as clearly as was mentioned.

Lastly, one of the things missing is a lot related to condos and apartments which have few incentives for an HOA to make improvements while individual condo owners and apartment renters might have reasons they want to improve. The HOA is often not incentivized to do that, and he thinks making sure they look at that as one of the priorities of the study areas going forward will be a very important part of the priorities for this plan.

Vice Chairperson Leary said many of the questions he had did not come forth until Appendix A. He liked the way the captions were used throughout the early part of the document and asked for more of this as well as having local photographs rather than stock photos.

He then referred to Chapter 3 and page 31 which gets into discussion about adaptation.

Under the section, “Wildfire” there are 5 bullets. He did not see undergrounding overhead power lines given this was the cause of some fires. In Alameda County, emergency evacuation routes are established so everybody knows where they are. He suggested some adaptation in terms of fire breaks and work with the Fire District on this.

On the same page there are bullets under Adaptation under Drought items. He suggested water-efficient landscape requirements to help get there. On Page 34, Table 3-3, he was intrigued by waste and the materials and how much that contributed to CO2. Transitioning to electric vehicles will reduce the megatons by 93,000 but reducing waste will reduce it by 22,00 and he asked if there was more to it than sorting garbage.

Ms. Pontau explained that most emission reductions associated with waste actions will be the result of SB 1383 which is aimed at getting organic waste out of the landfill, requirements for municipalities to procure a lot of compost or mulch, and applying that through many programs. It moves beyond recycling to focusing on organic waste from the landfills.

ATTACHMENT 2
903
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 November 1, 2022
DRAFT
Vice Chairperson Leary referred to page 41 and said it is a good idea to expand the deployment of microgrids and having a pilot microgrid in a vulnerable community. Those are areas where people are more affected because they are more likely to work outside or not have the same access to air conditioning, so maybe this is a possibility.

He referred to page 54 which gets into the electrification ordinance and retrofitting existing buildings. He interpreted this as being studied in the future. Ms. Pontau said yes, there will be a cost analysis and feasibility study for existing building electrification which will be something in the future.

Vice Chairperson Leary referred to SB 1383 and thinks it would be a good idea to have more information about that bill on page 67.

Lastly, in Chapter 4, page 88 talks about in 2026 they will try to establish resources having to do with retrofitting homes and a list of manufacturers and contractors with information to community members. It might be better to start this sooner because if someone gave him a list, he thinks people would do it sooner than 2026.

Chairperson Dunbar said there are three things when thinking about priorities. There are priority themes, things people care about day to day, priority actions in terms of what staff does, and there are top actions of the highest value for reductions both community facing and staff facing. It is either vehicle reductions or communications to encourage people to take those reductions. He thinks the plan covers them but delineating those three ideas in the plan earlier might be helpful because people may take it in different ways.

In terms of priorities here, those in front of the Commission are good in that all of them are laying the groundwork based on current staff resources so the list is very helpful. Even the EV part of this in 2024 is really a cost estimate and standards for EV charging that get developed after that point. So, he thinks they are at a good place for staff actions.

To CM Anderson, public comment tonight, and CM Branning’s point about active transportation, in splitting the difference here they do not want to make this inconsistent with other plans. The way he views the document is direction to the staff member they hire in the future and making it easier for that person to be accountable and hold others accountable through this document. So, the plan will not try to change any design standards of the ATP. But, what it can do if broken out a bit more is to hold the right group of people accountable to the ATP at the right time.

The breakdown in active transportation could apply to public transit, as well. It is memorializing things they are already trying to do, letting that staff person know that they need to make sure the resources available when the opportunities come up, and that the current staff be empowered to stop on a different project to work on this high priority item.

He thinks this is the kind of direction he will look to staff to implement when this goes to the City Council. It is to break both the active transportation and the transit part into both short-term and long-term steps with some sort of reference.

ATTACHMENT 2
904

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 November 1, 2022
DRAFT
One thing he did notice that is missing from transit is a reference to the Wheel’s current plans. He thinks it should be in the bibliography and having a reference that they already have a plan and he asked to make sure they are already implementing it.

Lastly, the staff report covers very well about what happens if they need to change and they are not hitting the targets. They will review the plan in 5 years, someone is held accountable, and he suggested thinking about what is the trigger that causes it to come back or how far do they need to be off before they realize they need to make a change.

Having some concept will help them re-think or review these priorities if they are behind.

General Comments:

Chairperson Dunbar then asked for more general comments from Commissioners CM Branning commented that they are going through many plans right now and making sure this and others are consistent with each other. Going forward, they do not have those general issues. When they get to working on retrofitting buildings he thinks incentives are a great starting point and it is important to get the message out and are marketing the incentives.

For the plans not budgeted currently, of concern are some of the higher dollar investments which will require a higher level of investment which almost always requires federal or State money. He is also a bit concerned with the 5-year plan update cycle in that their first major milestone is 2030. If they have a 5-year update in 2027 this will be problematic if they find issues so it might be worth shifting the 5-year update to maybe 2, 4-year updates between now and 2030, and once they hit 2030, he suggested switching to a 5- year so this adds an extra year of lead time.

Then one of the things SB 1383 legalized was the donation of food from restaurants, but because of the way it used to be implemented, most people in the restaurant industry would say it is illegal to donate prepared food after closing. It is not a common practice.

Therefore, he thinks they should focus on an education effort to restaurants and commercial kitchens. Non-profits are often looking for more food, restaurants are still throwing away a lot of food, so he thinks people do not understand the new rules around food disposal and what they can do with it.

Lastly, he is very concerned about condos and apartments and how investments can work for them. He thinks it will be very expensive to install EV charging stations because some wiring is so old and the HOA is typically not able to afford it. He again thanked staff for the document and thinks it should serve as a model for its ease of reading, use of actions, statements, and visuals.

ATTACHMENT 2
905

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 November 1, 2022
DRAFT
CM Stein thanked staff and Rincon Consultants, the subcommittee, and two Councilmembers who did the work. The plan is an easy and an enjoyable document to read. In regards to the implementation, two areas he would have liked to see more focus on were the tree canopy. One of the priorities might be to do a survey of the current status with drones or satellites, and there is a lot of information available such as the infrared temperature and canopy coverage. Some programs can identify broadly what species of trees are present. He suggested doing bulk installations or putting in smaller trees but this is very important for climate.

Overall, everyone will live in a world that is hotter and dryer and as there will be less land to grow food, changes, disease outbreaks, rising sea level, and some areas of the planet may become unlivable. Regarding implementation, for flooding they should look at upstream storage and more in-valley storage for water supply, and to try and locate structures further from the centerline of the Arroyos.

He suggested looking at building setbacks and at wider allowances for stream flows. For wildfires, a clear delineation between wildlands and urban lands is one advantage Livermore has with its growth boundary, but perhaps fire breaks and fire-resistant landscaping should be considered. They should look at passive ways to cooling versus air conditioning, submerging parts of structures and parking structures which could serve as refuges, and cleaning up the fringe basins for more water sources.

Regarding energy, they should look at recharge stations and encouraging private uses which might require legislative changes. Electricity is a utility, but he thinks private gas stations could also look to make money having EV charging stations. Also, finding funding for Valley Link is important and having automated buses which reduce operating costs.

Trails are also important especially with the increase in electric bikes and scooters.

Finally, one of the missing things is people live in nature and there should be a section on maintaining and enhancing local bio-diversity, augmenting stream flow for amphibians, revegetating areas, limiting feral cats and dogs, avoiding fragmentation of habitat of roads by providing under/overpasses, encouraging native plants to provide food, and nesting and breeding sites.

CM Anderson echoed comments about the great document, asked to look at areas where there are certain words that are somewhat vague, such as “identify, consider, explore” so he asked to go through and check there is strong supporting language around them.

Vice Chairperson Leary referred to the Purpose Statement in the beginning. He was happy it is included in the beginning of the plan. Something which is another concept in addition to the three reasons which he recited are: Promoting Livermore as a climate action leader in California to be part of the Purpose Statement, and he confirmed the logo is the City’s official branding.

ATTACHMENT 2
906

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 November 1, 2022
DRAFT
He then referred to Public Outreach on page 27. It had a question of, “How important is it to you that the City take action on climate change?” 47% say it is very important, and 15% say it is quite important. 62% of people feel strongly they want to do more, and page 28 talks about the jobs housing balance where they can improve upon this with the General Plan.

Chairperson Dunbar called out the specific things he loved about the plan which are:

Figure 4-3 which shows the steps to consider, plan, implement, evaluate, and move forward. He loves the connections to the other plans for usability, loves the finance map, the approachability of the report, and the Ven diagram which Ms. Pontau created.

Regarding trees, the City is doing a tree study and something could be added to that to address CM Stein’s comments. Ms. Pontau said the PWD did do a tree survey recently and this focused on trees in the public rights-of-way or City property. They have also talked with folks at Google Environmental Insights Explorer Team that has been working on a tree canopy coverage map, as well. Between this and the City’s recent inventory, they should have a good understanding of tree canopy coverage in the City.

Chairperson Dunbar said in addressing the public commenter he would like to see the City blow the VMT goals out of the water and this is just a question about staff resources to get there. He thinks the plan is appropriately balanced and thinks the City needs to address climate in its entirety immediately via every method available.

Lastly, regarding other agencies, Wheels is a different agency. While City Council members serve on that agency, they are not in charge of them. So, the Council should hold those agencies accountable for the plan and determine whether they are achieving the plan’s goals.

MOTION BY DUNBAR, SECONDED BY ANDERSON, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION

RECOMMENDING THE CITY RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTIONS: 1) ADOPTING THE OCTOBER 17, 2022, INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS/ND) FOR THE LIVERMORE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE; AND 2) ADOPTING THE 2022 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.

AYES: ANDERSON, BRANNING, DUNBAR, LEARY, STEIN.

NOES: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

5.2 Hearing to receive a tracking update on the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan progress and consider amendments to the Specific Plan including new and clarified policies, revised development and design standards, and text clarifications.

Recommendation:

ATTACHMENT 2
907

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 November 1, 2022
DRAFT
Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive a tracking update on the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (Specific Plan) progress and consider Specific Plan amendments and adopt resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt resolutions:

1. Finding the Specific Plan amendments are within the scope of the 2018 Environmental Impact Report and 2020 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan; and

2. Approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 22-001.

The Planning Commission's action is a recommendation to City Council.

Associate Planner Ashley Vera gave the staff report and overview of the matter.

Chairperson Dunbar opened the public comment period.

Sblend Sblendorio stated he is here for the owner of the 45-acre parcel that is the northwest quadrant of Isabel and I-580, bordered north by Portola and on the west by Lamb Research. Bill Meyers is here who is the project lead. This is a substantial project which will provide 1/3 of the dwelling units called the Neighborhood Center, a major park in the area and retail, and they have taken a strong interest and have been working with the City.

Their design team saw a few things to comment on and he provided the following ideas:
1) They hired a consultant for the office study. The market is dead so they suggested looking other ways to incentivize office development within the plan area and hope they can come up with some other ideas and possibly consider co-options; 2) Design guidelines where they suggest some of the design could be too expensive or difficult to implement. The “curing of buildings” or “the wedding cake”, especially in the interior facades where they could be more relieved in order to maximize the number of dwelling units so they can activate the retail and office better; 3) One proposal was to create a pedestrian access and, while every building would have an access, they did not understand why one is proposed every 400 feet; and 4) There is a requirement on Portola and Isabel for double rows of trees, so the Fire Marshal wants landings and not a tree where a ladder might be needed so they will work these through.

Chairperson Dunbar called on Commissioners to provide comments.

CM Anderson thanked staff for the thorough report. He is thankful for the ability for the Commission to update and add clarification to the documents. He asked staff to further explain the 400 foot question.

Ms. Vera explained that staff came to that number based on analysis for more walkable block sizes. They particularly looked at some of the block sizes of the downtown and it ranged from 300 to 400 feet.

ATTACHMENT 2
908

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10 November 1, 2022
DRAFT
CM Stein said there is a comment about “polished” metal and he suggested it be changed to “brushed” metal. Another is that “all glass buildings” seem contrary to the Climate Action Plan, as they are solar ovens. He also asked if the maximum hydrology for Collier Canyon Creek been taken care of. He thinks one of the projects is adjacent to it that needs to be set in place to accommodate maximum flows.

Ms. Vera stated there was a restoration project for Collier Canyon Creek and Ms. Salgado can talk about this.

Senior Civil Engineer Debbie Salgado stated this was a restoration project that was worked on and is in the process of being implemented, especially after the 2017 storms.

CM Stein said he really likes the architectural design features and thinks they will be more in keeping with the character of Livermore. Lastly, with all the affordable housing, child care, schools, and social services being met, he asked if there will be library services and a fire station close by with equipment suitable for fighting fires in these types of structures.

Ms. Vera said the plan has policies that talk about encouraging child care centers or providing tenant supportive services into developments, so staff is working with developers as they come in and let them know that they be conceptually integrated ahead of time.

With regards to the library services, staff conducted outreach during the Isabel Neighborhood Plan process, and the library requested a future opportunity to look at a satellite facility in the Isabel neighborhood. Currently, the demands are met so it would be something they could work with the library in the future. Similarly, this is the case with the fire department. They would look to add an additional smaller facility to support the Isabel neighborhood.

CM Stein commented that it might be good to have an integrated facility that provides all City services in one structure. His other major concern is transportation. It was designed as a transit-oriented neighborhood and parking and street designs were designed to accommodate that. It currently looks like this is developing somewhat faster than the Valley Link, and Wheels may not be able to accommodate such a large increase in service for the area. The route also does not go to many services like medical, dental, shopping, etc., so it might be worthwhile to put in temporary parking or a shuttle service.

Ms. Vera said staff has been coordinating with LAFTA with the 45-acre development alluded to earlier. They route all plans to them for their review, and they are looking at increased service surrounding the area to account for the new development coming in.

CM Stein asked about bus service to schools. Ms. Vera said this is something they are also looking into more.

CM Stein said otherwise, he thinks these are worthwhile changes and he voiced support.

ATTACHMENT 2
909

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 November 1, 2022
DRAFT
CM Branning asked what qualifies as a garden flat or apartment. Ms. Vera explained there is a courtyard space that these types of apartments surround, so it envisions the space as a central area where tenants can use as a common area. The defining characteristic is that the primary entry door of each dwelling unit opens into the common stairwell.

Under Item 5-P there is a limited number of architectural styles that are listed. One concern he has is he does not think Sage or the new Shea development would fit under those guidelines. He is worried about them standing out too much from other development going forward. Most recommended styles lend themselves to whites and tans. He did not think they wanted the entire neighborhood to be these shades and recommended a variety of colors.

He referred to infrastructure and he said one item addressed is there is no need for pumps but he has heard complaints from residents about low water pressure. He does not know the details but he wants to be sure they monitor water pressure. Telecom equipment was mentioned and he wants to make sure there are high speed telecommunications for all buildings going in. He has also heard multiple times about purple pipes going out there for irrigation, and Ms. Salgado confirmed there is currently a main in North Canyons.

CM Branning commended staff for projecting 25% affordable housing and he wanted to address the speaker’s comments about tiering of the buildings. It looked like the rules changed the tiering to be less than originally in the plan. He asked if staff has worked with the applicants to identify impacts.

Ms. Vera stated staff has worked with applicants on the tiering approach, and the first level is set at zero feet, the second at 5 feet and so forth. They have found some applicants preferred to start their initial setback at the upper level requirement so the third story and above must be set back 10 feet. The tiering itself is not the actual requirement.

It is that additional setback when getting higher to reduce the effects of massing.

CM Branning thanked staff and said he believes he can make the findings.

Vice Chairperson Leary referred to Chapter 2, Item B.3 talks about scenic corridors. He asked if this is changing the corridor in any way. Ms. Vera confirmed there are no changes to the scenic corridor. That statement is reconfirming and making developments aware there are three view corridors set forth in the General Plan, and developments cannot interfere with those corridors. She also noted this language exists in the plan in some of the other table references, so staff is adding it to one of the tables where it was previously missing.

ATTACHMENT 2
910

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12 November 1, 2022
DRAFT
Vice Chairperson Leary referred to Chapter 2, Item E.3. He asked and confirmed the change from 40 to 50 was made to make the height limits consistent in the Isabel neighborhood. What this change relates to is that the properties in the Isabel neighborhood must be consistent with a 50-foot height limit or the scenic corridor, whichever is more restrictive.

Vice Chairperson Leary referred to Chapter 2, Item I. At the top of the page is a scenic corridor phrase struck out and he asked why it was being deleted. Ms. Vera clarified this is being deleted for brevity purposes.

Vice Chairperson Leary referred to Chapter 2, Item L regarding the two product types. He asked what would happen with a smaller project and asked if there is a threshold to allow for one product type. Ms. Vera said she does not believe this is something they have considered. Most developments come in with over 100 units and above, and this has been the threshold marker.

Principal Planner Stephen Riley said the City does have a provision in the Specific Plan that allows the Community Development Director to make some limited exceptions to the plan, so there is some flexibility to look at it for a smaller project but they want a variety of unit types for all projects, even the smaller ones.

Vice Chairperson Leary referred to Chapter 5, Item L, and asked about the roofing of tile and slate and said it also allows for a flat roof with sheet metal shingles which he was concerned about, given the wide range of quality.

Mr. Riley said applicants are required to submit color and material samples. Staff ensures it is the quality level that meets objectives of the plan, and there have been changes based on those submittals.

Vice Chairperson Leary referred to Chapter 5, Item V, and said the double row of trees seemed like an old standard. Ms. Vera said the idea behind the double rows of trees along major streets was to provide that tree canopy along the street and aesthetically make that through-way nice for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. If staff finds there are conflicts with other treatments they need to incorporate into that right-of-way space like a bike lane, they would look at the new standard that allows the Director for that standard to be waived.

Chairperson Dunbar said there is reference to the 400 feet block by block, maintaining access to adjacent sidewalks and adjacent trails. He saw some examples of trails being gated by developments after the fact, and he asked if anything can be added as a standard to ensure there is still some degree of access such as a key card for residents and full access for public rights-of-way when developers are providing trails.

Ms. Vera said they want trails to be accessible. Perhaps this is something staff could look at conditioning as part of the general conditions of approval for the project.

ATTACHMENT 2
911

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 13 November 1, 2022
DRAFT
Planning Manager Stewart said there is a similar situation with the Legacy development downtown where there is along the western boundary a pedestrian accessway that connects Railroad to First Street. This will be operated by a fob or key after hours, so it is a challenge between maintaining security and public access.

He said the idea behind access for every 400 feet was to provide that access to the public trail at increments that are walkable and generally will break up any larger block.

Appropriately, reviewing those on a case-by-case project basis is probably the best way to approach it rather than a blanket standard.

Chairperson Dunbar referred to the “wedding cake” or articulation requirements the speaker talked about and reminded him there is a trade-off. He thinks the change in grade is not necessarily required and could be struck, even if it is not a legal ADA problem.

With regards to the bike parking, he was happy to see some standards related to within 30 feet of the main entrance and thinks this could be cleaned up more. The Lucky on Portola and North Livermore has bike parking within 30 feet of the prior main entrance, but now it is closed and on the other side. He asked that the standard state bike parking be at least within 50 feet of every business entrance and require it be moved if the entrance is changed. Also, the first ADA space should be as close as the first bike space for most circumstances.

Similarly, for the live/work units it states customer parking must be provided in a publicly accessible location within one block of the unit, and he suggested a standard in feet.

He then referred to Chapter 5.B and said there was a requirement about rear yard fences “shall not face or be visible from external public streets or primary entranceways”, and asked for staff to speak about this.

Ms. Vera said this was related to a previous project staff was working on in this neighborhood. The idea was to not have that blanket plain wall of a fence facing the external public streets. Chairperson Dunbar suggested cleaning this up in some way, if possible.

Chairperson Dunbar voiced support for the new design standards for base treatments.

Lastly, one concern he still has from when the project was passed was the comfort level of the Class 2 and Class 3 bike facilities within the center area of the project and throughout. The ATP refers to all ages and abilities guidelines as one standard they can use. He thinks this is more appropriate here to use rather than Class 2 or Class 3 classification because this area is going to have situations with very high parking turnover, the ATP on each street may change wildly as other projects develop, and they should ensure the comfort level is maintained for bicyclists. He recommended looking at whether those could be applied here as this goes up to the Council at a broad level, considering they are in the ATP.

ATTACHMENT 2
912

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 14 November 1, 2022
DRAFT
When a major project comes in he thinks it was either a traffic impact fee specific to this area or establish a facilities district for transportation.

Ms. Vera said they previously talked about looking at fee reductions like the traffic impact fee for this area to be like the downtown area. It could also be the transportation management authority or association, and this is an item staff is working on as a followup implementation item and still in progress.

Chairperson Dunbar suggested a pilot project for the elementary school shuttle bus and see what the costs and ridership levels are.

Lastly, he asked what is the next barrier for taking them east on purple pipe from this area. Ms. Salgado said it is most likely funding and identifying a new project. Right now, it ends at the plant and the City does not have any identified projects yet.

Mr. Stewart commented that in 2004 they reviewed an agricultural water study that looked at opportunities to expand water supply for recycled and potable water through North Livermore, and it was just not feasible at that time. Circumstances have not changed there to make it a viable option so it would need to go south and east through the existing street network which is always a challenge. Over time and as water resources become scarcer, that will be something they need to continue to look at.

Chairperson Dunbar stated he can make the findings and said it has been helpful to step back and review where they have been so far, and he asked for a motion.

CM Stein moved staff recommendation and referred to Chapter 5, Item V. He recommended where it states, “At the Director’s discretion, the Sycamore trees can be replaced.” To replace it to state, “large, long-lived trees” given climate action goals.

Mr. Stewart confirmed that the motion also includes the new recommendation by staff regarding the elevation change.

CM Branning asked and confirmed the build-out for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan is roughly 2040 which staff used in its environmental analysis.

MOTION BY STEIN, SECONDED BY ANDERSON, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION

RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTIONS: 1) FINDING THE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 2020 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ISABEL NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN; AND 2) APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPPA) 22-001.

ATTACHMENT 2
913
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 15 November 1, 2022
DRAFT
AYES: ANDERSON, BRANNING, DUNBAR, LEARY, STEIN.

NOES: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

6.1 Planning Manager Steve Stewart reported that the National Planning Conference in Philadelphia will be held April 1-4, 2023 and those interested should contact staff.

6.2 Mr. Stewart said there may not be a meeting on November 15, 2022 because there are currently no items.

7. MATTERS INITIATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF

7.1 Chairperson Dunbar referred to all three bike access behind Autumn Springs, off Portola to the north connecting to where the Chick-fil-A Trail will be extended are gated and are all locked. He also reported there is a gate going up the trail on Isabel & Vineyard, and accessing Vineyard to the west is blocked by a gate, and a gate has been installed at the access point to the trail directly across from Starbuck’s on Vineyard, as well.

8. ADJOURNMENT – 9:32 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Meeting Hall, City Council Chambers, 1016 S. Livermore Avenue.

Minutes prepared by:

Lisa Harper Consulting
ATTACHMENT 2
914
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Tracking Update
Subarea* Applicant Status Permitted Residential
Density Range
Approved and Proposed
Residential Units
Approved and Proposed
Affordable Units
Product type Additional Project Components
1c TJ Rose
Warehouse
Approved - Application for an
approximately 56,000 square foot
industrial building, in Building Permit
phase

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1d Michael Chui Proposed - Application to demolish an
existing Residence Inn Hotel and
construct an approximately 85,000
square foot Hyatt House hotel with 130
rooms

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2a Shea Homes Proposed - Pending Senate Bill 330
application resubmittal anticipated fall
2022
163-240 163* 32** For-sale townhomes** Installation of a Class IV bike lane along project frontage
2b Shea Homes Approved - Senate Bill 330 application
approved by City Council 7/25/22, in
Building Permit phase
299-422 299 60 For-sale townhomes and rental
apartments
Installation of a Class IV bike lane
along project frontage
2c - eastern half
only
DeNova Homes Proposed - Senate Bill 330 application
under review
268-386
(range includes all of
subarea 2c)
172 34 For-sale condominiums including
townhome and garden flat units
Installation of a Class IV bike lane
along project frontage
2c - western half
only
DeNova Homes Approved - Senate Bill 330 application
approved by City Council 5/9/22, in
Building Permit phase
268-386
(range includes all of
subarea 2c)
112 22 For-sale townhomes and flats Installation of a Class IV bike lane along project frontage
2d Pacific West
Communities,
Inc.

Proposed - Senate Bill 330 preliminary
application complete, awaiting complete
application submittal
200-286 248 109 For-sale townhomes and rental
apartments
Approximately 3-acres of public park
space and a new public trail along the
western property boundary with a
connection at Gateway Avenue
3b/3c Harridge
Development
Group
Proposed - Pending application
submittal anticipated fall 2022
1,236-1,717 1,416 294 For-sale townhomes, condos, and
flats; rental apartments
Approximately 70,000 square feet of
retail including a grocery store,
approximately 51,000 square feet of
office, a 1.5-acre public park, and
installation Class II, III, and IV bike
lanes within development and along
project frontages
2,166-3,051 2,410 551

22.9%
Notes:

Percent of affordable units
Total units
* Refer to Exhibit A for the INSP Subarea Diagram
** Based on preliminary discussions with applicant and aligns with minimum INSP requirements ATTACHMENT 3
915
Figure 2-3: SUBAREA DIAGRAM
5 ac.
1/2 Mile Radius
1/4 Mile Radius 0 500 1000 2000
FEET
Residential
Transition: 15-25 du/ac
Village: 25-40 du/ac
Center: 40-60 du/ac
Core: 60-100 du/ac
Non-Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Office Core
Office
Business Park
Airway Business Park
Educational/Institutional
Open Space
Ground Floor Retail/
Overlay Flex Space
K-12 School Overlay
Parking Overlay
New Neighborhood Park/Plaza
Circulation
Valley Link
Existing Street
Proposed Street
Pedestrian Streetscape
Valley Link Pedestrian Bridge
Urban Growth Boundary
Planning Area
S
Subareas

COLL EI R CANYON RD

PORTOLA AVE

ISABEL AVE

NORTH CANYONS PKWY

NORTH CANYONS PKWY

CONSTITUTION DR

INDEPENDENCE DR

AIRWAY BLVD

KITTY HAWK RD

LINDBERGH DR

NISSEN DR

ARMSTRONG ST AIRWAY BLVD
E. AIRWAY BLVD

ISABEL AVE

PORTOLA AVE
E. AIRWAY BLVD

RUTAN DR

DOOLAN RD
INTERSTATE 580
580
Las Positas
College
Valley Link to Isabel Station
A rr o y o L a s Po s i t a s
Livermore Municipal Airport
A r r o y o L a s P o s i t a s
C o l l i e r C a n y o n C r e e k
A r ro y o L a s P o s i t a s
P
I nnovation
Hub

STEALTH ST

SUTTER ST

SHEA CENTER DR
Cayetano
Park

MAIN ST
S
C a y e t a n o C r e e k
S

GATEWAY AVE
1d
2c
3f
2d
3d
3e
2b
3c
3b
3a
2a
1e
1a
4 1b
1c
1 ATTACHMENT 3

EXHIBIT A
916
Attachment 4
Staff-recommended Specific Plan Amendments
Staff recommends the following amendments to the Specific Plan. These amendments include new and clarified policies, revised development and design standards, and text clarifications.

Text additions are shown in underline and text deletions are shown in strikeout.

Chapter 2 – Land Use
a. Figure 2-2: Land Use Diagram – Change Areas (see Exhibit A) i. Revise figure to include outline of Neighborhood Core Area and corresponding symbol in map key
b. Table 2-2: Development Standards – Residential Categories i. Building Heights:
i. Maximum Stories: Add a reference to note 2 which defines the term “story”
ii. Building Setbacks:
i. Remove existing note #3 on “Front Setback facing Main Street” as it is repetitive of the existing language in the table.
ii. Create a new note #3 and add a reference to this note to the “Building Setbacks” header: Unless stated otherwise, street setbacks are measured from the property line.
iii. Create a new note #4 and add a reference to this note to the “Building Setbacks” header: Along Collier Canyon Road, Independence Drive, and Doolan Road, existing General Plan policies relating to the Collier Canyon, Triad, and Doolan scenic corridors apply as depicted in Figure 2-

4. iv. Setback facing all other Streets

1. Remove reference to note #4

2. Interior Setback (Side/Rear)
a. Transition/Village: Min. 15 ft. where abutting existing residential uses; otherwise, Min. 0 ft. setback for all stories along alleyways and for first story not along alleyways; Min. 5 ft. for first and second stories story; Min. 10 ft. for third story and above
b. Center/Core: Min. 0 ft. side setback along Main Street, alleyways, and for first story not along alleyways; otherwise Min. 5 ft. for first and second stories story; Min. 10 ft. for third story and above
iii. Remove all statements with asterisks beneath Table 2-2 as they have already been incorporated into policy text or table notes.
c. Table 2-3: Development Standards – Commercial Categories i. Building Setbacks: Front Setbacks facing Isabel Avenue and E Airway Blvd and Airway Blvd: Remove reference to note #6 as note #6 does not exist d. Table 2-4: Development Standards – Public Categories ATTACHMENT 4
917
i. Revise existing note #1: Along Collier Canyon Road, Independence Drive, and Doolan Road, existing General Plan policies relating to the Collier Canyon, Triad, and Doolan scenic corridors apply as depicted in Figure 2-4. ii. Revise existing note #3: The 6.4-acre property located at the bend of Airway Boulevard across from the Livermore Municipal Airport is within the floodplain and covered by a Zone 7 Flood Control Easement. Any development on this parcel cannot hinder the purpose, intent and use of the easement for flood control purposes. Interim uses such as surface parking and temporary sales with no permanent buildings can be considered by approval require approval by the City and Zone 7. The large oak tree shall also be preserved in good health as part of any physical change on the property.
iii. Move the text in note #4 to be note #1 and add a new note #1 reference to the “Table 2-4: Development Standards – Public Categories” header iv. Update remaining note numbers
e. Table 2-6: Performance Measures by Subarea
i. In subareas 1a through 3a and subareas 3c and 3d, revise performance measure a: Provide at least two residential product types consistent with policy P-LU-29. ii. In subareas 3b and 4, revise performance measure a: Provide at least three residential product types consistent with policy P-LU-29. iii. In subarea 3d, revise performance measure b: For sites outside of the Scenic Corridor exception area, limit building heights to 40 50 feet above existing grade (or Scenic Corridor limit, whichever is stricter).
iv. In subarea 3b, revise performance measure c: With the exception of Gateway Avenue, and Shea Center Drive, and Main Street, the exact location of the new streets is flexible.
f. Page 2-28, Scenic Corridor Policy and Amendment Areas – Remove the following references to Figure 8-2 as this figure was removed during the Draft Specific Plan process and was not included in the adopted Specific Plan document:
i. The existing view angles and exceptions are shown on Figure 8-2 in Chapter 8, Policy and Code Amendments.
ii. The Amendment Areas to the Scenic Corridor Policy, outlined on Figures 2-3 and 8-2, include the following…
g. Figure 2-4: Isabel Neighborhood Scenic Corridor Amendment Areas (see Exhibit B):
i. Revise figure to include 200-foot width of Doolan Scenic Corridor and clarify height regulations in areas outside of the Scenic Corridor Amendment areas. ii. In the map key, add the following language: Remains Subject to Scenic Corridor Policies or 50 feet, whichever is more restrictive.
iii. Add “Area” to East Airway and Portola labels
h. Page 2-34, P-LU-4: Remove bullet point #3 as Live/Work units within residential areas are only permitted on Main Street - Live/work units located within residential areas not located on Main Street must be located adjacent to a public street and may not be converted entirely to a commercial use. These units must remain in residential use, with the option to also operate a business within the unit.
i. Page 2-36, revise Policy P-LU-13: The Core, East Airway, and Portola areas, as identified on Figure 2-4, are exempt from the City’s existing Scenic Corridor policies as defined in the Community Character Element of the Livermore General Plan. Maximum building height above mean sea level for these three areas are established by Figure 2- ATTACHMENT 4
918

4. All other buildings proposed on this site remain subject to the Scenic Corridor Policy.

Any buildings outside of the exception areas remain subject to the Scenic Corridor Policy, or the prescribed height limits in the Plan area50 feet in height, whichever is more restrictive.
j. Page 2-39, Retail Commercial: update lettering list to begin with “a.” k. Page 2-43, Figure 2-7, Airway Business Park Parcels with CS Sign Standards and Figure 2-8, Airway Business Park Parcels with Access to Freeway Sign: Revise figures to remove references to former PD-17 zoning, which was replaced with adoption of the Specific Plan (see Exhibit C).
l. Page 2-48, Add new policy: Residential developments less than or equal to 500 units shall provide at least two residential product types. Residential developments greater than 500 units shall provide at least three residential product types. For the purposes of this policy, distinct residential product types include but are not limited to duplexes, multiplexes, townhomes, flats, garden apartments, condominiums, and other apartment buildings. Interior floor plan variations with the same exterior elevations do not constitute a different product type. Modifications to this requirement may be approved by the Director.
m. Page 2-48, P-LU-33: Revise Policy P-LU-33 as follows: P-LU-33: All new residential development shall comply with the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance (Section 10.06.050 of the Livermore Development Code), except that including at least 20 percent of units for each project shall be affordable (i.e., offered at below-market rates) in the Isabel Neighborhood. The affordable housing units for for-sale residential subdivisions must be sold to moderate- and median-income house- holds. Of the total number of for-sale dwelling units (20 percent) set aside, at least five percent (5%) shall be reserved for sale to median-income households with the balance set aside for moderate-income households. Whenever the inclusionary requirement results in a fractional unit(s), the fractional unit(s) shall be combined and provided as median-income units.

Whenever the total number of affordable units required to be constructed includes a fraction of a unit, the payment of a proportional in-lieu fee shall satisfy that partial unit requirement.

Example: Calculation of the number of inclusionary units required for a 110-unit for-sale residential development:

Required units reserved for moderate-income households
110 units x 15% = 16.5 units
Required units reserved for median-income households
110 units x 5% = 5.5 units
Combined fractional units

0.5 unit + 0.5 unit = 1 unit
Required Units to be provided
Moderate-income households = 16 units
Median-income households = 6 units
ATTACHMENT 4
919
For example, a 110- unit for-sale residential development would be required to provide 15 percent, or 16.5 units, at the moderate-income level and 5 percent, or 5.5 units, at the median-income level. Therefore, 16 units shall be provided at the moderateincome level and 6 units shall be provided at the median-income level.

Example: Calculation of the number of inclusionary units required for a 112-unit for-sale residential development:

Required units reserved for moderate-income households
112 units x 15% = 16.8 units
Required units reserved for median-income households
110 units x 5% = 5.6 units
Combined fractional units

0.8 unit + 0.6 unit = 1.4 units
Required Units to be provided
Moderate-income households = 16 units
Median-income households = 6 units
Remaining fractional unit to be paid in-lieu = 0.4 unit The affordable housing units for rental residential projects must be designated or reserved for rent to very-low-, low-, median, and moderate- income households. Of the total number of rental dwelling units (20 percent) set aside, at least six percent (6%) shall be reserved for rental to very-low-income households, seven percent (7%) shall be reserved for rental to low-income households, four percent (4%) shall be reserved for rental to median-income households, and three percent (3%) shall be reserved for rental to moderate- income households. Whenever the inclusionary requirements result in a fractional unit(s), the fractional unit(s) shall be combined and provided as very-low-income units. Whenever the total number of affordable units required to be constructed includes a fraction of a unit, the payment of a proportional in-lieu fee shall satisfy that partial unit requirement.

Example: Calculation of the number of inclusionary units required for a 110-unit rental residential development:

Required units reserved for very-low-income households
110 units x 6% = 6.6 units
Required units reserved for low-income households
110 units x 7% = 7.7 units
Required units reserved for median-income households
110 units x 4% = 4.4 units
Required units reserved for moderate-income households
110 units x 3% = 3.3 units
Combined fractional units
ATTACHMENT 4
920

0.6 unit + 0.7 unit + 0.4 unit + 0.3 unit = 2 units
Required Units to be provided
Very-low-income households = 8 units
Low-income households = 7 units
Median-income households = 4 units
Moderate-income households = 3 units
For example, a 110-unit rental residential development would be required to provide 6 percent, or 6.6 units, at the very-low income level; 7 percent, or 7.7 units, at the low-income level; 4 percent, or 4.4 units at the median-income level; and 3 percent, or 3.3 units, at the moderate-income level. The combined fractional units equates to two units that shall be provided as very-low-income units. Therefore, 8 units shall be provided at the very-low income level, 7 units shall be provided at the low-income level, 4 units shall be provided at the median-income level, and 3 units shall be provided at the moderate-income level.

Example: Calculation of the number of inclusionary units required for a 112-unit rental residential development:

Required units reserved for very-low-income households
112 units x 6% = 6.72 units
Required units reserved for low-income households
112 units x 7% = 7.84 units
Required units reserved for median-income households
112 units x 4% = 4.48 units
Required units reserved for moderate-income households
112 units x 3% = 3.36 units
Combined fractional units

0.72 unit + 0.84 unit + 0.48 unit + 0.36 unit = 2.4 units Units provided
Very-low-income households = 8 units
Low-income households = 7 units
Median-income households = 4 units
Moderate-income households = 3 units
Remaining fractional unit to be paid in-lieu = 0.4 unit Under the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance, affordable housing units shall be built on site and integrated within new residential developments unless the City Council approves an alternative method of compliance. For projects that utilize land dedication as a compliance method, the dedicated land must be located within the Isabel Neighborhood area and equivalent in actual value to the affordable units it is replacing.
m. Page 2-53, P-LU-50: Revise the policy as follows: Utilize the latest communication infrastructure in the Innovation Hub.

ATTACHMENT 4
921
n. Page 2-53, remove policies P-LU-51 through P-LU-54 as they are repeat policies already stated under P-LU-44 through P-LU-48.
o. Page 2-53, remove goal G-LU-10 as it is identical to goal G-LU-9. p. Page 2-53, remove policy P-LU-56 as it is identical to policy P-LU-50. q. Renumber all subsequent policies.

Chapter 3 – Transportation
a. Page 3-11, Major Street: Isabel Avenue will also provide… bicycle lanes and the vehicular travel lanes. Portola Avenue between Collier Canyon Road and Isabel Avenue will be reduced from 6 vehicle travel lanes to 4 vehicle travel lanes to accommodate a Class IV protected bicycle lane. The Class IV bike lane will continue west, on North Canyons Parkway between Collier Canyon Road and Doolan Road and east along Portola Avenue (see Figure 3-15). These improvements to existing Major Streets… b. Page 3-27, Table 3-3: Bicycle Parking Ratios for the Isabel Neighborhood Land Use Bicycle Parking Minimum Format/Location
Residential
Transition and
Village
(includes ADUs)
1 space per unit for resident parking;
1 visitor parking space per 20 units for
guest parking
Resident parking Mmust be secured and
covered, such as within garages for
individual units (minimum dimension of
2x6 ft. in a garage or other indoor area)
or in a common area
Visitor parking must be in a publicly
accessible location
Center and
Core
1 space per 4 bedrooms for resident
parking;
1 visitor parking space per 5 20 units for
guest parking
Resident parking must be secured and
covered; such as within garages for
individual units (minimum dimension of
2x6 ft. in a garage or other indoor area)
or in a common area
Visitor parking must be in a publicly
accessible location
Live/Work Units 1 space per unit;
Refer to Ground Floor Retail/Flex Space
Overlay for customer parking ratio
Resident/employee space must be
secured and covered;
Customer parking must be provided in a
publicly accessible location, within one
block of the unit
Non-Residential
Neighborhood
Commercial
and Ground
Floor
Retail/Flex
Space Overlay
1 space per 1,400 square feet Provided within 30 feet of the main building entrance. If the main building
entrance is relocated, then bicycle
parking shall be relocated to be
consistent with this standard.

General
Commercial
1 space per 2,800 square feet At least 25% of the bicycle parking shall be secured for employee use and at
Office-Core 1 space per 1,600 square feet least 25% shall be open for public use Office and
Business Park
1 space per 3,200 square feet
c. Page 3-28, revise Policy P-TRA-1: Create a walkable street grid within a half-mile radius of the Valley Link station (Neighborhood core area)…
ATTACHMENT 4
922
d. Page 3-30, revise Policy P-TRA-22: With the exception of business park and general commercial users outside of the Neighborhood Core Area (generally bound by I-580, Collier Canyon Road, Portola Avenue, and the seasonal drainage running south from Cayetano Park), require property owners, residents, and tenants… Chapter 4 – Parks, Public Facilities, and Infrastructure a. Revise Policy P-PF-41: Ensure that utilities (i.e., electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and cable) are available to serve new development in an environmentally responsible, aesthetically acceptable, and safe manner. However, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the utilities are available to support new development rests on the sponsor of proposed projects.
b. Add new Policy P-PF-42: All new development must install electric-only appliances and HVAC (e.g. no natural gas heating, cooling, or cooking). c. Renumber all subsequent policies.

Chapter 5 – Urban Design
a. Page 5-1, Introduction: For all topics…and Infrastructure. Deviations from any design standard in this Chapter may be authorized by the Director. b. Page 5-21, Revise Design Standard DS-26: Buildings shall be built to and oriented such that frontages and entrances are visible and accessible from the public right-of-way, onsite common areas, pedestrian pathways, parks, and/or plazas. Rear yard fences and walls, garages, and backs of buildings shall not face or be visible from external public streets or primary entryways into the development.
c. Page 5-22, Revise Design Standard DS-27: Development shall include accessible, direct, and well-lit pedestrian links between buildings, sidewalks, parking areas, trails, and any on-site or nearby public spaces such as bus stops and the Valley Link Station.

New residential development shall provide at least one accessible pedestrian access point to any adjacent public sidewalk or trail and additional access points shall be provided a minimum of every 400 linear feet.
d. Add new Design Standard: Facades facing all streets, sidewalks, and pathways shall include windows and/or doors.
e. Page 5-25, remove the following header: The Core
f. Page 5-25: Outreach revealed some concern about…For example, all but one of the blocks designated for Core or Center housing are located adjacent to a park or , open space area, or includes a pedestrian streetscape treatment which helps foster a sense of openness.
g. Page 5-28, Revise DG-25 to a Design Standard: Articulate bBuilding volumes and surfaces shall be articulated with three-dimensional elements that create a visual play of light and including eaves, plane changes, and trim elements that create shadow and reduce the apparent bulk of buildings.
a. Eaves shall extend at least 12 inches from the wall plane. b. Plane changes shall be consistent with DS-40.
c. Trim elements shall be ½-inch to 1-inch in depth.
h. Add new Design Standard: Additional architectural features shall be incorporated to create articulated facades such as architectural trim and detail, window boxes, brackets, overhangs, trellises and lattice. Trim shall be ½-inch to 1-inch in depth and applies to windows, doors, and between floors. Overhangs shall be a minimum of 18 inches. At ATTACHMENT 4
923
least 30 percent of all windows on a façade shall have a design feature including a planter box, bracket, or trellis as appropriate to the architectural style. i. Page 5-28, Revise DG-26 to a Design Standard: Employ v Variations in building and roof heights, façade plane changes, roof styles, architectural details, colors, and materials shall be incorporated into buildings. Use these elements in a mutually reinforcing manner to break up the appearance of large buildings as viewed from nearby (e.g., at the street level) and from far (e.g., from several hundred feet away). j. Add new Design Standard: Awnings, overhangs, or covered porches shall be provided on all commercial and mixed-use buildings and at all primary residential building entries to provide shelter and shade. Porches shall be consistent with Section 4.03, Frontage Standards, of the Livermore Development Code, as they exist today or are amended. k. Page 5-28, Revise Design Guideline DG-27 to a Design Standard: Avoid fFalse fronts, applied mansard forms, and other artificial rooflines are not permitted Instead consider special treatment of the upper story (e.g. in color, texture, material, and/or fenestration pattern) to provide a legible “top” to the building. All flat roof buildings shall include a defined cornice that varies in color and/or material from the adjacent wall plane. The cornice shall be at least 12 inches in height that projects at least 12 inches from the wall plane. For all buildings three stories and above, the top story shall be de-emphasized through an additional minimum 3-foot setback.
l. Add new Design Standard: For all buildings that do not include a flat roof, roofing materials shall consist of tile, slate, shingles, sheet metal shingles, and standing metal seam.
m. Add new Design Standard: Rooflines above primary entrances shall extend a minimum of 5 feet above adjacent roof heights to demarcate primary building entrances. n. Add new Design Standard: Roof overhangs shall be incorporated into the building design and include brackets, corbels, soffits, or other overhang details, consistent with the architectural style.
o. Page 5-30, Revise Design Standard DS-51: Reflective glazing is prohibited to avoid bird deaths from impacts. Applied films are prohibited in favor of other window treatments to reduce sun and light intrusion such as awnings or shades. Deep window tinting that does not allow visibility into the interior is prohibited except in limited amounts as an accent when found necessary to implement a particular building design. Light window tinting is permitted. Ground floor windows may be lightly tinted for energy efficiency purposes, but shall allow for clear visibility into the building interior. Widows on the second floor and above may use more tinting for solar efficiency. If tinted glazing is used, light tints and green, gray or blue hues shall be used. p. Page 5-30, Revise DG-32 to a Design Standard: No single architectural style is required in the Planning Area Architectural styles for residential buildings that are three stories or less in height shall be limited to traditional or contemporary variations on the following traditional architectural styles: Farmhouse, Craftsman, Folk Victorian, Spanish Eclectic, Mission and Prairie. Contemporary architectural styles are encouraged, although traditional styles are also acceptable for any building four stories or more in height. The architectural style must be defined for all projects in the Isabel Neighborhood. q. Add new Design Standard: Retaining walls may not exceed six (6) feet in height.

Retaining walls that are greater than three (3) feet in height shall maintain a minimum three (3) foot setback from public sidewalks along a project frontage and side or rear property lines. Installation and maintenance of landscaping in the ground area between ATTACHMENT 4
924
retaining walls and between retaining walls and sidewalks, structures and/or parking lots is required for retaining walls of any height. For sloped areas where multiple retaining walls are proposed, the retaining walls shall maintain a minimum separation width equal to the height of the tallest adjacent retaining wall. The ground area between the retaining walls may have a maximum slope of 3:1.
r. Add new Design Standard: Retaining walls and sound walls shall be faced with natural materials, such as natural stone or wood. Landscaping shall be incorporated to minimize adverse visual impacts, with planting in front of walls, within stepped recesses and/or overhanging the wall.
s. Page 5-33, Revise Design Standard DS-63: Fences and walls shall not exceed three feet in height in or along setbacks from streets or pedestrian-only pathways, unless a sound wall is required for noise mitigation purposes. Fences up to 6 feet tall may be allowed along the property lines of side and rear yards in Transition and Village areas. t. Page 5-35, Revise Design Standard DS-76: Primary building entries, either individual or shared, shall: be prominent, and easy to identify;, and face an external public street or pedestrian path; and incorporate a projection (porch, stoop, etc.) recess or combination.

Design cues shall create a transition from the public street to the private residence including raised stoops, open porches, and/or entrance vestibules that correspond to the vertical modules of attached building units.
u. Add new Design Standard: Open, visible parking is not permitted between the external public street and adjacent residential buildings.
v. Add new Design Standard: New development shall include broad branching double rows of trees along Major Streets. Permitted tree species include London Plane, California Sycamore, and Sawleaf Zelkova. Alternative broad branching and long-lived tree species may be approved by the Director.
w. Add new Design Standard: New development shall utilize engineered soil, root barriers, and adequate irrigation to ensure proposed trees reach full potential for height and spread. A detail of the proposed landscape treatments and specifications shall be shown on plans submitted for Building Permits.
x. Page 5-31, Revise existing Design Standard DS-53: All building facades shall include durable accent materials such as stone, brick, tile, wood, glass, and metal and other durable quality materials. Office buildings may consist of glass as a primary building material. Glass and ceramic tile may be used as an accent cladding material on all buildings.
a. Durable accent materials, as described above, must be applied at a minimum 15 percent of the total elevation surface area and 35 percent for elevations facing public streets or project entries.
b. A variety of materials shall be used to create a coordinated hierarchy of primary, secondary and accent materials, textures, and colors that support the building’s overall architecture.
c. Durable materials, as described above, shall be provided within the first floor of building façade above the ground level.
y. Add new Design Standard: Trim materials shall be stucco, ceramic tile, or polished brushed metal. Multiple trim materials may be used consistent with the architectural style.
z. Page 5-34, Revise Design Standard DS-54: Primary colors and bright colors shall be used as accent colors only. At least three colors shall be used on all building facades ATTACHMENT 4
925
consisting of a primary, secondary, and accent color. The secondary color shall be used on individual building elements for emphasis and accent colors shall be used on doors, windows, and/or trim elements. All primary and secondary colors shall be complimentary and analogous to one another consistent with the color wheel. aa. Add new Design Standard: Base treatments shall be provided to visually anchor buildings to the ground and establish a human scale for passersby. a. Base treatments shall extend around all visible sides of a building. b. A building base shall project a minimum of 3 inches from the adjacent wall plane such that it is visibly thicker compared to the area above. The building base shall be continuous and include at least one of the following:
i. A material and/or color change of the base wall relative to the building wall above. The base material shall be designed to appear heavier than portions of the building above by employing darker colors and/or bulkier materials; and/or
ii. A horizontal architectural feature at or below the first story mark, such as an intermediate cornice line or protruding horizontal band. bb. Page 5-30, Revise DG-31 to a Design Standard: For residential buildings using traditional architecture, or contemporary variations on traditional architecture, window openings shall have a height greater than or equal to their width. cc. Add new Design Standard: Window shapes shall be simple and rectangular but may have angled or arched tops if consistent with the architectural design. Round windows are prohibited.
dd. Add new Design Standard: For residential buildings using traditional architecture, windows shall be of the double- or single-hung type, casement, or sliders. ee. Page 5-35, Revise Design Standard DS-75: Where typical of an architectural style, w For buildings three stories or less in height, windows shall be recessed be recessed from the exterior wall surface to create a an inset depth of at least 2 inches. For buildings taller than three stores in height, windows may either be recessed or include a reveal, of at least two inches, from the exterior wall surface that creates a legible shadow to provide relief. This standard does not apply to plate glass windows that extend the entire length of a building façade.
ff. Page 5-36, Remove Design Standard DS-77 as Live/Work units are only permitted in Ground Floor Retail/Flex Overlay zones: For developments not located within the Ground floor Retail/Flex overlay, any Live/work units shall be located adjacent to a public street.
- Only the commercial space is required to be on the ground floor adjacent to the street; the residential space may Be located above or to the rear of the commercial space.
- Live/work units shall be designed to have direct access between the residential and commercial spaces, although the primary entries to the various spaces may be separate.
gg. Page 5-39, Combine Design Standard DS-87 and DS-88 into one new Design Standard 87 as follows: Live/work units located along Main Street shall be designed to require commercial spaces adjacent to Main Street, subject to the design standards and guidelines for the Ground floor Retail/Flex overlay and Building Code standards for retail uses.

ATTACHMENT 4
926
− Only the cCommercial space is required to be on the ground floor adjacent to the street. tThe residential space may be located above or to the rear of the commercial space.
− Live-work units must have their own individual entry. − Live/work units shall be designed to have direct access between the residential and commercial spaces.
hh. Page 5-39, Revise Design Standard DS-89: The ground floor should have a minimum of 60 percent transparency (glass) between 2.5 feet and 7 feet above the street level level.

Refer to Figure 5-18. Revise all subsequent DS numbers.

Chapter 7 – Implementation & Financing Strategies
a. Remove and replace Policy P-IMP-6 as follows:

P-IMP-6: The City shall modify the Transferable Development Credits In-Lieu Fee Program to establish new multi-family housing rates to facilitate the development of the densities and building types identified within the Specific Plan. The new rates shall apply to developments that build at or above 25 dwelling units per acre and that meet or exceed the target housing unit count by subarea shown in Table 2-6, Performance Measures by Subarea. The new multi-family housing rates shall apply to the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan area only.

P-IMP-6: Transferable Development Credit (TDC) regulations shall be applied to the Specific Plan consistent with Livermore Development Code Section 4.02.060, as it exists today or as amended in the future. The baseline density shall be zero for all residential designations within the Isabel Neighborhood. Modifications to the TDC regulations may be made through a Development Agreement on a project-specific basis as recommended by the Director and approved by City Council if such modifications are shown to be necessary to meet Specific Plan density, design policies, and/or goals. b. Remove Policy P-IMP-7: P-IMP-7: The City shall consider a Transferable Development Credits In-Lieu Fee credit program to encourage residential development to meet or exceed the target housing unit count by subarea shown in Table 2-6, Performance Measures by Subarea. The credit program shall apply to the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan area only and take effect upon compliance with Master Planned subareas consistent with P-LU-8.
c. Update subsequent policy numbering for P-IMP-8 and P-IMP-9.

Appendices

1. Create new appendix section and include the following new appendices:
a. Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Policies
b. Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Design Standards and Guidelines Exhibits:

A. Figure 2-2: Land Use Diagram – Change Areas
B. Figure 2-4: Isabel Neighborhood Scenic Corridor Amendment Areas C. Figure 2-7, Airway Business Park Parcels with CS Sign Standards and Figure 2-8, Airway Business Park Parcels with Access to Freeway Sign ATTACHMENT 4
927
Figure 2-2: LAND USE DIAGRAM — CHANGE AREAS
5 ac.
1/2 Mile Radius
1/4 Mile Radius 0 1000 2000 500
FEET
Residential
Transition: 15-25 du/ac
Village: 25-40 du/ac
Center: 40-60 du/ac
Core: 60-100 du/ac
Non-Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Office Core
Office
Business Park
Airway Business Park
Educational/Institutional
Open Space
Ground Floor Retail/
Overlay Flex Space
K-12 School Overlay
Parking Overlay
New Neighborhood Park/Plaza
Circulation
Valley Link
Existing Street
Proposed Street
Pedestrian Streetscape
Valley Link Pedestrian Bridge
Urban Growth Boundary
Planning Area
Neighborhood Core Area
S

OC LL REI NAC NOY DR

PORTOLA AVE

ISABEL AVE

NORTH CANYONS PKWY

NORTH CANYONS PKWY

CONSTITUTION DR

INDEPENDENCE DR

AIRWAY BLVD

KITTY HAWK RD

LINDBERGH DR

NISSEN DR

ARMSTRONG ST AIRWAY BLVD
E. AIRWAY BLVD

ASI EB L AVE

PORTOLA AVE
E. AIRWAY BLVD

RUTAN DR

DOOLAN RD
INTERSTATE 580
580
Las Positas
College
Valley Link to Isabel Station
A rr o y o L a s Po s i t a s
Livermore Municipal Airport
A r r o y o L a s P o s i t a s
C o l l i e r C a n y o n C r e e k
A r ro y o L a s P o s i t a s
P
I nnovation
Hub

GATEWAY AVE

ST STEALTH

ST SUTTER

DR SHEA CENTER
Cayetano
Park

MAIN ST
C a y e t a n o C er e k
ATTACHMENT 4

EXHIBIT A
928
5 ac.

East
Airway
Core
Area
Portola

OC LL REI NAC NOY DR

PORTOLA AVE

ISABEL AVE

NORTH CANYONS PKWY

NORTH CANYONS PKWY

CONSTITUTION DR

INDEPENDENCE DR

AIRWAY BLVD

KITTY HAWK RD

LINDBERGH DR

NISSEN DR

ARMSTRONG ST AIRWAY BLVD
E. AIRWAY BLVD

ASI EB L AVE

PORTOLA AVE
E. AIRWAY BLVD

RUTAN DR

DOOLAN RD
INTERSTATE 580
580
Las Positas
College
Valley Link Extension to Isabel Station
A rr o y o L a s Po s i t a s
Livermore Municipal Airport
A r r o y o L a s P o s i t a s
C o l l i e r C a n y o n C r e e k
A r ro y o L a s P o s i t a s

GATEWAY AVE

ST SREALTH

ST SUTTER

DR SHEA CENTER
Cayetano
Park
Livermore
Valley
Charter
School
0 1000 2000 500
FEET
Isabel Neighborhood
Scenic Corridor
Amendment Areas
495
430-439
440-449
450-459
460-469
470-479
480-489
490-499
500-509
Remains Subject to
Scenic Corridor Policies or
Policy P-LU-8, whichever is
more restrictive
Building + Elevation MSL
Scenic Corridor Amendment Areas
Urban Growth Boundary
Planning Area
Building Height as shown in Feet
above Mean Sea Level

NORT DOOLAN RD

TRIAD SCENIC

CORRIDOR
View elevation:

Above 15% grade
average slope
contour line
115
feet
175
feet COLLIER CANYON

SCENIC CORRIDOR
View elevation:

Above 600 foot
contour line

NOR INDEPENDENCE DR

AIRWAY BLVD
Valley Link Extension to Isabel Stati
ee
C
n:
ade
rmore
lley
arter
hool
E
DOOLAN
SCENIC

CORRIDOR
460 485
485
475
490
485495 500 500
475
475
485 490
495 505
495 490
495
495
495
490
495
495
495
485
450
455
450 465 465
460
465 475 485
465 460
460
475
465
485 475
Subject to FAR Part 77
height limits
485
455 500 480
470
490
465
480 430
430
Figure 2-4: ISABEL NEIGHBORHOOD SCENIC CORRIDOR AMENDMENT AREAS 200 feet
ATTACHMENT 4

EXHIBIT B
929
Land Use 2-43
Figure 2-7: AIRWAY BUSINESS PARK PARCELS WITH CS

SIGN STANDARDS
Figure 2-8: AIRWAY BUSINESS PARK PARCELS WITH ACCESS

TO FREEWAY SIGN

INDEPENDENCE DR

AIRWAY BLVD

KITTY HAWK RD

NISSEN DR

ARMSTRONG ST AIRWAY BLVD
Valley Link Extension to Isabel Station

NORTH CANYONS PKWY

LINDBERGH DR

CONSTITUTION DR
Parcels with CS sign standards
Remaining parcels use
I sign standards

INDEPENDENCE DR

AIRWAY BLVD

KITTY HAWK RD

NISSEN DR

ARMSTRONG ST AIRWAY BLVD
Valley Link Extension to Isabel Station

NORTH CANYONS PKWY

LINDBERGH DR

CONSTITUTION DR
Parcels with access
to freeway sign
FIGURE 2-7 AIRWAY BUSINESS PARK PARCELS WITH CS SIGN STANDARDS FIGURE 2-8 AIRWAY BUSINESS PARK PARCELS WITH ACCESS TO FREEWAY SIGN ATTACHMENT 4

EXHIBIT C
930
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 10.1
DATE: November 1, 2022
TO: Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Steve Stewart, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Supplemental materials received at the meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

SUMMARY

DISCUSSION

ATTACHMENTS

1. Items Received at the Meeting
Prepared by: Michele Donley
Division Clerk
1 ATTACHMENT 5
931
Sblend A. Sblendorio
925.460.3365
[email protected]
Jeffrey J. Crosswhite
925.460.3384
[email protected]
4886-3550-6749v2
Tri-Valley Office | 6801 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 210, Pleasanton, California 94566-7047 phone 925.224.7780 fax 925.224.7782 www.hogefenton.com
November 1, 2022
Via Electronic Mail
Planning Commission of the City of Livermore
Civic Center Meeting Hall
City Council Chambers
1016 S. Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA
[email protected]
Re: Proposed Amendments to Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan, Planning Commission Meeting, November 1, 2022
Planning Commissioners:

On behalf of Isabel Portola Owner, LLC (“Owner”), we respectfully submit these comments with regard to the City’s proposed amendments to the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (“INSP”). The Owner has applied for a Development Agreement and Large Lot Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Conceptual Master Plan for its mixed-use development project located at the Isabel / Portal site as further described in the Owner’s formal project submittal dated September 21, 2022.

The Commission has been presented proposed amendments to the INSP recommended by City Planning Staff. As Owner of the 45-acre property at Isabel and Portola, the core of the INSP, for the past year, we have worked cooperatively with City staff to develop the above-referenced Conceptual Master Plan which meets the goals and objectives of the INSP. We would like to take this opportunity to participate in the discussion to clarify aspects of the INSP as they pertain to future projects within the Planning Area.

We note the relatively brief period of time between the date we received notice of the proposed amendments on Friday, October 28, 2022, and the Commission meeting scheduled for November 1, 2022. Please consider the following our initial comments with the intent to continue discussion of the proposed INSP amendments prior to the Commission’s final review.

1. Consider Current Market Conditions to Activate “Office Core” Sub-areas.

The Owner engaged consultants to gauge the office and retail potential within the INSP in light of current market conditions and they provided City staff with its ATTACHMENT 1
2 ATTACHMENT 5
932
Proposed INSP Amendments
November 1, 2022

consultant’s (Gruen + Associates) market studies for potential office uses within the INSP (attached). Gruen concludes that the office market is, at best, poor and decades away.

In this regard we note that the INSP office use projections were based on the most aggressive growth assumptions set forth in the base studies underlying the INSP. Unfortunately, such growth patterns have not been realized.

The Owner requests that the City consider incentivizing office development by allowing residential development over office uses in the Office and Office Core land use categories. The Owner has proposed ground floor commercial uses with residential above potential office uses. We note that co-location of work and residential uses in this manner would contribute to both the attractiveness of office uses to potential users, while at the same time lessening environmental impacts.

Finally, we note that such a revision to the INSP fits the goals and objectives of the specific plan as allowing residential use within these categories are of the same general character of surrounding land uses as envisioned in the INSP (see Footnote 1, LU Page 2-18).

2. Consider the Impact of Certain Proposed Amendments to INSP Land Use and Urban Design Standards
Based upon our initial review, certain amendments to the Urban Design Standards may result in a reduction of the number of housing units that may be built by (i) introducing physical constraints that make development of the density targeted by the INSP very difficult and prohibitively expensive, and (ii) requiring facades and finishes that are not economically viable based on market conditions (e.g., requiring 35% façade coverage with durable accent materials (Page 5-31, Revise existing Design Standard DS-53)). Specific examples of our concerns follow.

While we appreciate the intent of the revisions to relax the tiered, “wedding cake” interior setback requirements (additional setbacks by floor) (see Attachment 2-Staff Recommended Specific Plan Amendments, Chapter 2-Land Use, (ii) (iv)(2)), we express our general concern that such tiered setback requirements reduce achievable density targets and substantially increase construction costs. We will continue our studies and work cooperatively with staff to assure that the INSP objectives are met in this regard.

We also do not fully understand the proposed revisions to Chapter 5 Urban Design, Page 5-22, Revise Design Standard DS-27, stated as: “New residential development shall provide at least one accessible pedestrian access point to any adjacent public sidewalk or trail and additional access points shall be provided a minimum of every 400 linear feet.” We are concerned that requiring multiple pedestrian access points in this manner may also reduce the number and/or size of ATTACHMENT 1
3 ATTACHMENT 5
933
Proposed INSP Amendments
November 1, 2022

housing units. Again, we will continue to work with City Staff to better understand this new proposed requirement.

While we also appreciate the proposed limitation of change in grade standards to “public” streets only (See proposed amendment to 5-35, Design Standard DS-76:

Primary building entries) we continue to have concern that requiring such grade separation between the public roadway and residences will make reaching the INSP’s target densities much more difficult if not impossible due to existing height limitations. This Urban Design Guideline, while arguably increasing the aesthetics of the streetscape, requires the height of the buildings to be increased, which can be only remedied by losing one floor of housing which, again, reduces resident foot traffic in retail and commercial uses.

We also appreciate the added value of a double-row of trees (Attachment 2- Staff Recommended Specific Plan Amendments, Ch. 5 – Urban Design, (v)), we note that the City Fire Marshal generally requires the placement of rescue window ladder pads. The second row of trees may interfere with the placement of rescue pads. We suggest reconciling the Fire requirements with the placement of the trees.

Thank you for your consideration of these issues. We invite a continued discussion.

Regards,
HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC.

Sblend Sblendorio
Attorney
SAS:JJC
ATTACHMENT 1
4 ATTACHMENT 5
934

EVALUATION OF THE TRI-VALLEY OFFICE SPACE MARKET AND THE

POTENTIAL DEMAND FOR OFFICE SPACE IN LIVERMORE AND OFFICE

SPACE DEVELOPMENT AT THE PORTOLA AND ISABEL SITE IN LIVERMORE To

HARRIDGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP
From
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES
Urban Economists, Market Strategists & Land Use/Public Policy Analysts October 2022
C1607.1
ATTACHMENT 1
5 ATTACHMENT 5
935

EVALUATION OF THE TRI-VALLEY OFFICE SPACE MARKET AND THE

POTENTIAL DEMAND FOR OFFICE SPACE IN LIVERMORE AND OFFICE

SPACE DEVELOPMENT AT THE PORTOLA AND ISABEL SITE IN LIVERMORE To

HARRIDGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP
From
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES
Urban Economists, Market Strategists & Land Use/Public Policy Analysts October 2022
C1607.1

APPLYING KNOWLEDGE

CREATING RESULTS

ADDING VALUE
©2022 Gruen Gruen + Associates. Do not reproduce without written permission from Gruen Gruen + Associates.

ATTACHMENT 1
6 ATTACHMENT 5
936
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………1
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………2

TRADITIONAL PROFESSIONAL AND CORPORATE OFFICE SPACE MAY NOT

BE MARKET RESPONSIVE OR FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE BECAUSE THE SITE

LACKS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL OFFICE SPACE

DEVELOPMENTS, AMPLE OFFICE SPACE ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE, AND OFFICE SPACE RENTS ARE LOW………………………………………………………2
Characteristics of Successful Office Space Developments………………………………………….2 Evaluation of Site Characteristics…………………………………………………………………..3 Office Rents and Occupancy Rates Are Too Low to Support New Speculative Office Space Development………………………………………………………………………………………3
Tri-Valley Office Space Market Conditions……………………………………………………….. 4 East Bay Office Space Market Conditions.…………………………………………………………6 Office Space Development Financially Infeasible…………………………………………………...7 Ample High Quality Office Supply Alternatives are Available Within the Tri-Valley Market………..7 HISTORICAL LIVERMORE EMPLOYMENT BY ECONOMIC SECTOR..……………… …10 EMPLOYMENT FORECAST AND OFFICE SPACE DEMAND IMPLICATIONS…………...11 Alameda County Employment Growth Rates……………………………………………………...11 Forecast of Office Space Demand in Livermore..………………………………………………… 12

COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL OFFICE SPACE DEMAND TO
SUPPLY OF VACANT OFFICE SPACE IN LIVERMORE…………………………………….13 ATTACHMENT 1
7 ATTACHMENT 5
937
ii

LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page No.
1 Tri-Valley Office Market Conditions: 2022……………………………………………………… . 4 2 Oakland/East Bay Office Market Conditions: 2022……………………………………. . .6 3 Feasibility Gap of Office Space Development…………………………………………… .7 4 City of Livermore Employment by Industry Sector, 2009-2019……………………….10 5 Alameda County Employment Forecast…………………………………………………...11 6 Livermore Office Employment Forecast and Office Space Demand: 2022-2032………….12 7 Relationship Between Potential Office Space and Demand and Vacant Office Space in Livermore…………………………………………………….13 ATTACHMENT 1
8 ATTACHMENT 5
938
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES 1

MEMORANDUM REPORT
Date: October 10, 2022
To Harridge Development Group
From: Gruen Gruen + Associates
Subject: C1607.1 Evaluation of the Tri-Valley Office Space Market and the Potential Demand for Office Space in Livermore and Office Space Development at the Isabel and Portola Site in Livermore

INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the research and analysis Gruen Gruen + Associates (GG+A) completed to evaluate the Tri-Valley office space market conditions and trends and the potential demand for office space in Livermore. The assessment of the potential demand for office space at the Isabel and Portola site reflected consideration of:
• the broader office space market conditions;
• the existing office vacant office space in Livermore (and the vacancy rates in the broader TriValley and East Bay markets); • Livermore and the Isabel and Portola site’s comparative advantages and disadvantages as a location for office space;
• the potential employment growth in office space using economic sectors in Livermore; and • the relationship between forecast potential office space demand in Livermore and the supply of existing vacant office space in Livermore.

This report also presents an identification of the real estate economics of office space development.

ATTACHMENT 1
9 ATTACHMENT 5
939
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES 2

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

TRADITIONAL PROFESSIONAL AND CORPORATE OFFICE SPACE MAY NOT

BE MARKET RESPONSIVE OR FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE BECAUSE THE SITE

LACKS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL OFFICE SPACE

DEVELOPMENTS, AMPLE OFFICE SPACE ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE,

AND OFFICE SPACE RENTS ARE LOW
Characteristics of Successful Office Space Developments To succeed office projects must be located and built with or near other activities that will enhance productivity and attract and hold talented labor. Successful corporate and professional office space developments typically must meet the following criteria:
• A central or highly accessible location to major transportation nodes and other activity centers in the region. GG+A’s past survey research and review of the literature on locational factors and corporate site selection clearly suggests for offices devoted to administrative, corporate control and research and development functions or professional service industries (e.g., advertising, accounting and auditing, management consulting, public relations and legal services) that most intensively sell to customers outside their local area, access to commercial air service and other key transportation links is critical; • A large commute shed providing access to a significant concentration of a highly skilled and well educated workforce;
• Proximity to a diverse set of housing uses;
• Proximity to retail, lodging, and other support services and amenities, including eating and drinking establishments and day-care and fitness facilities; • Market responsive product types with appropriate technology capabilities; and as indicated above, most important,
• Locations within agglomerations or a “critical mass cluster” that help businesses attract and retain labor and operate cost effectively and productively. Spatially concentrated development gives cost and revenue advantages to a geographic area’s expanding and new firms. These advantages related to knowledge spillover, labor exchange, and specialized support services and amenities are “external to the firm”. They benefit all the companies within a particular place, without firms having to shell out extra dollars for these advantages.

ATTACHMENT 1
10 ATTACHMENT 5
940
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES 3
Evaluation of Site Characteristics
The Site is not part of a well-established preferred corporate and professional office concentration.

The area around the Site does not contain a critical mass of office space users, contemporary high quality office space inventory, and proximate amenities and services.

Livermore’s location at the eastern edge of the East Bay results in the Site not being as centrally located to other activity centers and as conveniently located to the San Francisco Airport1(the major airport serving business travelers) as other established office concentrations.

According to a technical memorandum “Valley Link Ridership, Revenue, and Benefits” dated July 2, 2020
(https://www.valleylinkrail.com/_files/ugd/95df9a_f84d07557d7c4d93963cddbcd83afc70.pdf) prepared by AECOM, only 454 riders commuting to the Isabel Valley Link station for work are expected in the initial years. By 2040 only 1,000 riders commuting to the Isabel Valley Link station for work are forecast. The ridership forecasts do not suggest that the enhanced transportation service will significantly impact the demand for office space near the Valley Link station.

Office Rents and Occupancy Rates Are Too Low to Support New Speculative Office Space Development
The local and regional office market is characterized by increasing vacancy rates, negative space absorption, and stagnant or declining office space rents. As reviewed below, obtainable rents for office space are not high enough to feasibly support new speculative office development at the site. 1 The Site is approximately 25 miles to the closer Oakland Airport.

ATTACHMENT 1
11 ATTACHMENT 5
941
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES 4
Tri-Valley Office Space Market Conditions
Table 1 summarizes current office space market conditions for the Tri-Valley office market, including Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon, and Livermore.

TABLE 1
Tri-Valley Office Market Conditions: 2022
Total Space in
Square Feet
#
Total
Availability
%
Asking Rental Rate
Monthly Per Square Foot
$
Net Absorption in Square
Feet Year to Date
#
Pleasanton
Class A 6,798,072 19.0 3.08 24,823
Class B 2,874,983 16.7 2.56 (31,793)
Flex 2,972,429 5.4 2.77 13,734
Total 12,645,484 15.3 2.91 6,764
Dublin
Class A 1,670,792 9.8 3.27 121,982
Class B 347,447 35.5 1.92 3,366
Flex 806,717 6.0 2.32 (11,948)
Total 2,824,956 11.9 2.21 113,400
San Ramon
Class A 7,179,306 20.9 3.18 (137,054)
Class B 888,329 14.2 2.50 (12,564)
Flex 707,371 7.5 1.60 840
Total 8,775,006 19.1 3.12 (148,778)
Livermore
Class A 0 - - -
Class B 963,502 29.6 2.21 (26,315)
Flex 2,047,031 10.9 1.83 2,540
Total 3,010,533 16.9 2.02 (23,775)
Total Tri-Valley
Class A 15,648,170 18.9 3.14 9,751
Class B 5,074,261 20.0 2.37 (67,306)
Flex 6,533,548 7.4 2.21 5,166
Total 27,255,979 16.3 2.83 (52,389)
Sources: Colliers Second Quarter 2022 I-680/Tri-Valley Office Market Statistics; Gruen Gruen + Associates.

Including flex space, the Tri-Valley office market includes nearly 27.3 million square feet of office space and over 16 percent of the space is vacant. Excluding flex space, the Tri-Valley market includes

20.7 million square feet of Class A and Class B office space of which an extremely high 19.2 percent is vacant. Including flex space, space absorption in 2022 has been negative at over 52,000 square feet.

Excluding flex space, space absorption has been worse at a negative 115,110 square feet of space.

ATTACHMENT 1
12 ATTACHMENT 5
942
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES 5
Livermore is not a well-established office submarket. Livermore contains no Class A office space. It contains only approximately 963,500 square feet of traditional (Class B) office space or less than four percent of the total Tri-Valley office market inventory. Nearly 30 percent of the Class B office space is vacant. Only the even smaller Dublin office submarket has a higher vacancy rate. The nearly 347,500 square feet of office space in Dublin is 35.5 percent vacant. Unlike Livermore, Dublin has a small inventory of Class A office space of almost 1,671,000 square feet with a vacancy rate of nearly 10 percent; the lowest of any submarket. The Dublin Class A vacancy declined by 6.5 percentage points due to the expansion of a local software company leasing 113,000 square feet at the Dublin Corporate Center.

Average rent for Livermore office space is the lowest of any Tri-Valley submarket at $2.21 per square foot per month for Class B space. Average rent for flex space in Livermore is the second lowest in the Tri-Valley market at $1.83 per square foot per month. Absorption of Class B office space year to date in Livermore has been negative at over 26,300 square feet.

Class A office space in Pleasanton comprises over 43 percent of the total Class A space in the TriValley market. The vacancy rate for that space is extremely high at 19 percent. The nearly 2,875,000 square feet of Class B space in Pleasanton is nearly 17 percent vacant. Absorption of Class B space has been negative in Pleasanton.

Class A office space in San Ramon comprises nearly 46 percent of the total Class A space in the TriValley market. The vacancy rate is extremely high at nearly 21 percent. Space absorption year to date in San Ramon has been highly negative at nearly 149,000 square feet of space.

ATTACHMENT 1
13 ATTACHMENT 5
943
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES 6
East Bay Office Space Market Conditions
Table 2 summarizes current office space market conditions for the Oakland/East Bay market.

TABLE 2
Oakland/East Bay Office Market Conditions: 2022
Total Space in
Square Feet
#
Total
Availability
%
Asking Rental Rate
Monthly Per Square Foot
$
Net Absorption in Square
Feet Year to Date
#
Alameda 3,447,731 9.7 2.61 77,192
Berkeley 3,472,553 14.5 3.53 7,309
Emeryville 4,496,875 23.2 6.44 108,726
Oakland 14,606,941 26.2 4.19 -323,431
Greater
Oakland
27,912,945 18.1 4.56 -91,199
Source: Newmark Greater Oakland Office Report Second Quarter 2022 The Newmark Greater Oakland Office Report for the Second Quarter 2002 indicates that net absorption of space year to date has been negative. The largest submarket, Oakland has a vacancy rate of over 26 percent. Emeryville, the next largest submarket, has a vacancy rate of over 23 percent.

Vacancy rates continue to increase. As leases expire space has been returned to the market and companies have frequency reduced the amount of space renewed or to which they relocate. The shift to life sciences space accounts for higher asking rents for Emeryville.

The review of broader office market conditions indicate ample supply of vacant office space in many markets. Businesses requiring a large amount of space have many locations to consider including those with more of the characteristics associated with beneficial office space locations.

ATTACHMENT 1
14 ATTACHMENT 5
944
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES 7
Office Space Development Financially Infeasible
Table 3 summarizes the real estate economics of office space development.

TABLE 3
Feasibility Gap of Office Space Development
Per Square Foot
of Space
Annual Rent Per Square Foot at Top of Market $39.24
Capitalization Rate 6%
Capitalized Development Value $654
Development Costs @ $600 Per Foot Excluding Land $600
Tenant Improvements, Leasing Commissions, and Return on Cost, Excluding Land
$90
Total Cost Before Land Costs and Excluding Carrying Costs, Lease Turnover, Reserves
$690
Feasibility Gap (Value Minus Cost) Before Land and Other Costs -$36 Sources: Colliers, Gensler; Gruen Gruen + Associates.

The analysis assumes a top of the Tri-Valley market office space rent that would be higher than the rent obtainable in the Livermore submarket at over $39 per square foot per annum. The capitalization rate or yield on investment is estimated at six percent. Given the assumed rent of $39 per square foot and the six percent capitalization rate, the value of the space is estimated at $654 per square foot.

Excluding land costs, office space development costs are at least $600 per square foot and could range up to $800 per square foot. Tenant improvements, leasing commission fees, and a required margin on cost or profit are estimated to total at least $90 per square foot. Excluding land costs, development costs are estimated to total $690 per square foot. The estimated costs exceed the estimated value by $36 per square foot. Therefore, the development would not be financially feasible, even before considering land costs or carrying costs.

Ample High Quality Office Supply Alternatives are Available Within the Tri-Valley Market The intensely competitive office space market conditions and downward shifts in the Tri-Valley market is illustrated by the 585-acre Bishop Ranch office park in San Ramon. Bishop Ranch has large concentration of companies and office space previously totaling 10 million square feet of space before recently demolishing office buildings and replacing the office space with multi-family and single-family housing units (6,000 housing units are planned). This office park has added a major shopping, dining, and entertainment venue (City Center), a conference center and food court (itself an adaptive reuse of ATTACHMENT 1
15 ATTACHMENT 5
945
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES 8
a former office building for ATT), and an on-site hotel, and other shopping options. Because of its large scale, the development offers complimentary shuttle service to and from the Walnut Creek and Pleasanton Bart stations.

Even with the advantages of a large base of office space and office space users, a full array of amenities and services, and transportation access, based on a search of office space listings for the development, Bishop Ranch includes approximately 140 available office spaces ranging from 210 square feet to three vacant offices spaces over 100,000 square feet.

Adjoining the Bishop Ranch office park is the 92-acre San Ramon corporate headquarters of Chevron, which has announced plans to sell the facility and relocate from the 13 buildings containing 1.4 million square feet of office space accommodating more than
2,000 workers. The availability of this former corporate headquarters adds more space to the competitive Tri-Valley market office space inventory than the total amount of office space built in Livermore.

The 833-acre Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton served by the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station has also shifted to a mixed-use development including housing, retail, and hotel uses. According to the Hacienda Owners Association, the development includes 5,484,875 square feet of built office space which is nearly 15 percent vacant. An additional 153,000 square feet of office space is approved for development. The Hacienda Business Park includes 2,299 residential units with an additional 304 residential units approved. According to a search of office listings, over 801,000 square feet of office space is available ranging in size from 466 square feet to over 64,000 square feet. A build-to-suit building for an existing owner-occupant which required expansion was completed in 2015. No office space has been built since 2015 in the Hacienda Business Park. A review of records and interview with the General Manager of the Hacienda Business Park suggest no new multi-tenant speculative office space has been built at the Hacienda Business Park for 20 or more years. While the presence of the BART station is an advantage and extends the labor draw area, and the Hacienda Business Park has advantages related to a critical mass of building space, space users (including many owner-occupants), amenities and services, as noted above, speculative multi-tenant office space has not been built in over two decades.

According to the General Manager of the Hacienda Business Park, the presence of the BART station may be a more significant advantage for residential uses. Ten residential projects have been built and another residential development is in the pipeline. According to the General Manager, two owners of major Class A office buildings are considering putting the buildings or sites to uses other than office space. Given the oversupply of office space and the behavioral changes causing a reduction in workspace demand due to the effects of the Covid 19 pandemic, residential, light manufacturing and logistics space, and lab space are replacing traditional office spaces uses at Hacienda Business Park.

ATTACHMENT 1
16 ATTACHMENT 5
946
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES 9
Consistent with the large amount of Class A and Class B office space available in well-established locations for office space using businesses, no office space development is underway in the Tri-Valley market. According to the real estate market data vendor CoStar, since 2010, only 4.5 million square feet of office space has been added in the entire East Bay market.

ATTACHMENT 1
17 ATTACHMENT 5
947
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES 10

HISTORICAL LIVERMORE EMPLOYMENT BY ECONOMIC SECTOR
Table 4 summarizes wage and salary employment for the city of Livermore for the period 2009 to 2019. The data is drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics.

TABLE 4
City of Livermore Employment by Industry Sector, 2009-2019 Industry Sector
2009
#
2019
#
Change
2009-2019
#
Average Annual
Growth Rate
2009-2019
%
Agriculture & Natural Resources 12 73 61 19.7
Utilities 132 43 (89) (10.6)
Construction 4,335 6,841 2,506 4.7
Manufacturing 3,344 6,229 2,885 6.4
Wholesale Trade 3,187 3,411 224 0.7
Retail Trade 3,400 6,196 2,796 6.2
Transportation & Warehousing 686 1,033 347 4.2
Information 1,964 1,413 (551) (3.2)
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 989 1,533 544 4.5
Professional & Business Services1 12,055 15,639 3,584 2.6 Education & Healthcare 5,516 5,362 (154) (0.3)
Leisure & Hospitality 3,307 5,121 1,814 4.5
Other Services 996 1,099 103 1.0
Public Administration 600 578 (22) (0.4)
TOTAL2 40,523 54,571 14,048 3.0
1 Professional services include scientific and technical services. 2 Total includes unclassified jobs
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics; Gruen Gruen + Associates.

From 2009 to 2019, total employment in the city of Livermore increased by an estimated 14,000 jobs, from about 40,500 jobs in 2009 to approximately 54,600 jobs in 2019. This equates to a healthy average annual growth rate of 3.0 percent. All industry sectors except for Utilities and Public Administration have added employment within Livermore over the past 10 years. Manufacturing is estimated to have added nearly 2,900 jobs and expanded rapidly at an annual rate of 6.4 percent. The Retail Trade sector is estimated to have added approximately 2,800 jobs over the period and expanded rapidly at an annual rate of 6.2 percent. The Construction sector added about 2,500 jobs and accounted for the third largest source of job growth over the period. The Leisure & Hospitality sectors added about 1,800 jobs, accounting for the fourth largest source of job growth.

Livermore’s largest industry sectors, Professional & Business Services, added the largest number of jobs of approximately 3,600 jobs over the 2009-2019 period, albeit at a slower annual growth rate of

2.6 percent. According to the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2020- ATTACHMENT 1
18 ATTACHMENT 5
948
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES 11
21, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia National Lab, and LAM Research are in the top four of the city’s employers and collectively employ about 11,500 workers in Livermore, or nearly three-quarters of the 2019 employment in the Professional & Business Services sectors (which includes scientific and technical services). Excluding employment from these largest employers in the professional & business services sectors suggests Livermore’s employment in these sectors approximated about 4,100 jobs in 2019.

The traditional office space using sectors of the local economy - including Finance, Insurance & Real Estate - although a much smaller sector, added 544 jobs over the 10-year period, growing at a high rate of 4.5 percent annually.

EMPLOYMENT FORECAST AND OFFICE SPACE DEMAND IMPLICATIONS Alameda County Employment Growth Rates
To quantify the potential scale of future office space demand within Livermore, GG+A relied on a 2021 County-Level Economic Forecast prepared by Caltrans for Alameda County summarized in Table 5.

TABLE 5
Alameda County Employment Forecast
2022 Jobs
#
2032 Jobs
#
Jobs Added
#
Annual Rate of Growth
%
Information 20,500 24,400 3,900 1.8
Financial Activities 27,600 28,700 1,100 0.4
Professional Services 139,500 168,300 28,800 1.9
Total Office Sectors 187,600 221,400 33,800 1.7
Sources: Caltrans; Gruen Gruen + Associates.

Caltrans forecasts countywide modest employment growth in the traditional office space-using sector financial activities including finance, real estate and insurance, of less than one percent annual growth.

As indicated above, employment in financial activities Livermore experienced a higher rate of growth off a very low base from 2009 to 2019. Information employment in Alameda County is forecast to increase at an annual rate of 1.8 percent. As indicated above, the information sector in Livermore experienced a decline in employment from 2009 through 2019.

These sectors in Livermore employment currently represents just under four percent of countywide employment in these sectors; these sectors comprise over 23 percent of total Alameda County employment. The underweighting in employment in office space prone sectors in Livermore is consistent with the limited office space development since 2003. The total deliveries of office space in Livermore since 2003 of 142,000 square feet equates to average annual growth of office space supply less than 9,000 square feet per year.

ATTACHMENT 1
19 ATTACHMENT 5
949
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES 12
Forecast of Office Space Demand in Livermore
Table 6 presents a forecast of office space demand in Livermore assuming growth of employment in office space prone sectors consistent with growth rates forecast for Alameda County and based on estimates of those jobs being housed in traditional office space as opposed to flex space, lab space or offices in industrial buildings, educational and healthcare facilities etc.

TABLE 6
Livermore Office Employment Forecast and Office Space Demand: 2022-2032 2022 2032 Increase 2022-2032
Employment:

Jobs
#
Jobs
#
Jobs
#
Information 1,489 1,772 283
Financial Activities 1,551 1,613 62
Professional Services14,379 5,283 904
Total Employment 7,419 8,668 1,249
Office Space Demand
Office Space
# Square Feet
Demand for Office Space Assuming:
100% of Financial Jobs, 20% of Jobs in Information
& Professional Services in Traditional Office Space274,816 1 Professional services estimate excludes employment estimate for Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia National Lab, and LAM Research.
2Assumes space demand of 250 square feet per job.

Source: Gruen Gruen + Associates
Employment growth in the information, financial activities, and professional services sectors is forecast to increase by 1,249 jobs, from 7,419 jobs in 2022 to 8,668 jobs in 2032. We estimate that Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia National Lab, and LAM Research make up a high share of employment in the Professional & Business Services sector in Livermore. If 100 percent of financial activities jobs are housed in traditional office space and 20 percent of jobs in the information and professional services are housed in office space and each job is associated with the consumption of office space, the employment growth forecast translates into potential demand of nearly 75,000 square feet of office space.

ATTACHMENT 1
20 ATTACHMENT 5
950
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES 13

COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL OFFICE SPACE DEMAND TO SUPPLY OF VACANT

OFFICE SPACE IN LIVERMORE
Table 7 presents a comparison of the forecast office space demand in Livermore to the supply of vacant office space (excluding flex space) in Livermore.

TABLE 7
Relationship Between Potential Office Space
Demand and Vacant Office Space in Livermore
Office Space
# Square feet
Office Space Demand 74,816
Vacant Office Space Excluding Flex Space 285,197
Excess Supply of Vacant Space Relative to Potential Demand (210,381) Source: Gruen Gruen + Associates
The potential office space demand of nearly 75,000 square feet is estimated to be approximately 210,000 square feet less than the supply of over 285,000 square feet of vacant office space. Even with the net positive absorption of 75,000 square feet, the vacancy rate would be over 21 percent.

The relationship between potential demand and supply of office space suggest even if office space demand is much higher than forecast, the Livermore submarket and entire Tri-Valley office space market can be expected to be intensely competitive for the foreseeable future. Obtainable rents will be constrained by the ample availability of existing office space. Given the constraints on rents rising and the high costs of construction, and the continuing effects of the Covid 19 pandemic, it is unlikely that speculative multi-tenant office space development at the Isabel and Portola site will be supported by demand and financially feasible in the foreseeable future.

ATTACHMENT 1
21 ATTACHMENT 5
951
Gruen Gruen + Associates (GG+A) is a firm of economists, sociologists, statisticians and market, financial and fiscal analysts. Developers, public agencies, attorneys and others involved in real estate asset management utilize GG+A research and consulting to make and implement investment, marketing, product, pricing and legal support decisions. The firm's staff has extensive experience and special training in the use of demographic analysis, survey research, econometrics, psychometrics and financial analysis to describe and forecast markets for a wide variety of real estate projects and economic activities.

Since its founding in 1970, GG+A has pioneered the integration of behavioral research and economic analysis to provide a sound foundation for successful land use policy and economic development actions. GG+A has also pioneered the use of economic, social and fiscal impact analysis. GG+A impact studies accurately and comprehensively portray the effects of public and private real estate developments, land use plans, regulations, annexations and assessments on the affected treasuries, taxpayers, consumers, other residents and property owners.

SAN FRANCISCO: CHICAGO: DENVER:
(415) 433-7598 (847) 317-0634 (720) 583-2056

www.ggassoc.com
ATTACHMENT 1
22 ATTACHMENT 5
952
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
Tracking Update (PT22-004)
Specific Plan Amendments (SPAA22-001)
Planning Commission
November 1, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1
33 ATTACHMENT 5
953
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
Planning Area
Valley Link
Isabel Avenue
Station
ATTACHMENT 1
34 ATTACHMENT 5
954
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
Land Use Planning Area Total
Residential 4,095 housing units
Office1 1,730,500 sf
Business Park 180,390 sf
Neighborhood Commercial2 167,185 sf
General Commercial 159,700 sf
General Industrial3 (270,175 sf)
Total 1,967,600 sf
Jobs 9,200 jobs

1. Includes existing Lam Research property

2. Includes Ground Floor Retail/Flex Space

3. As build out of the Planning Area occurs, General Industrial uses will be replaced with Office, Business Park, Neighborhood Commercial, and General Commercial uses.

ATTACHMENT 1
35 ATTACHMENT 5
955
Tracking Update
P-IMP-5: The City shall review the progress of the Specific Plan every two years, starting from the date of its adoption.

This review shall include an evaluation of the public
infrastructure to ensure continued public health and safety.

ATTACHMENT 1
36 ATTACHMENT 5
956
Tracking Update Approved
Proposed
Note: Subareas 3b and 3c are being processed under one application.

ATTACHMENT 1
37 ATTACHMENT 5
957
Tracking Update
Land Use Approved Proposed Combined Total
Residential1 411 units 2,002 units 2,413 units
Affordable
residential 82 units 555 units 637 units
Nonresidential 56,000 sf 208,000 sf 264,000 sf

1. Includes affordable residential units
ATTACHMENT 1
38 ATTACHMENT 5
958
Public Infrastructure
New infrastructure consists of:
• 27,000 lineal feet of public streets
• Utility connections in the public right-of-way
• Approximately five linear miles of multi-use trails
• Three neighborhood parks totaling six and a half acres Upgrades to existing infrastructure consist of:
• Water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain systems
• Major streets - signals, crosswalks, bike lanes, striping, signage, and landscaping
No changes to:
• Other citywide utility and service systems (e.g. water distribution or wastewater treatment)
ATTACHMENT 1
39 ATTACHMENT 5
959
Public Infrastructure
• Developers responsible for the direct costs of building new streets, utility connections, and frontage improvements at the time of construction
• Most of the maintenance costs for the new public
infrastructure (public streets, parks, and plazas) will be funded by new development
• Major arterial roadway maintenance will be funded by gas taxes, countywide sales taxes
• Sewer and water infrastructure maintenance will be funded by user fees
• Maintenance Community Facilities District in progress to fund the remaining infrastructure maintenance costs,
including capital replacement
ATTACHMENT 1
40 ATTACHMENT 5
960
Public Infrastructure
• Hydraulic sewer analysis prepared in 2017
recommended additional gravity main improvements for
the Isabel Neighborhood
• Further analysis in 2021 determined that additional
gravity main improvements are no longer required for the Isabel Neighborhood
ATTACHMENT 1
41 ATTACHMENT 5
961
Proposed Amendments
Land Use
Amendments to this chapter include:
• Figure revisions to align with existing language in the Specific Plan
• Clarifications to existing footnote references and the application of height limits
• Modified residential setback standards to better accommodate the type of housing envisioned in the Plan
• A new policy defining residential product types; and
• Clarifying text amendments to the existing inclusionary housing policy
ATTACHMENT 1
42 ATTACHMENT 5
962
Proposed Amendments
Transportation
Amendments to this chapter include:
• New language describing the Class IV bike lane along
Portola Avenue between Collier Canyon Road and Isabel
Avenue;
• New and modified residential bicycle parking standards; and
• Text revisions to align with existing language in the Specific Plan
ATTACHMENT 1
43 ATTACHMENT 5
963
Proposed Amendments
Parks, Public Services, and Infrastructure
Amendments to this chapter include:
• Revisions to an existing policy and addition of a new policy related to natural gas prohibition
ATTACHMENT 1
44 ATTACHMENT 5
964
Proposed Amendments
Urban Design
Amendments to this chapter include:

Clarifications to existing design standards related to:
• Building orientation
• Pedestrian access
New design standards related to:
• Architecture
• Building orientation
• Parking
• Landscaping
• Retaining walls
ATTACHMENT 1
45 ATTACHMENT 5
965
Proposed Amendments
Urban Design: DS-76
Original recommendation:

DS-76: Primary building entries, either individual or shared, shall be prominent, easy to identify, and face an external public street or pedestrian path.; and incorporate a projection (porch, stoop, etc.), recess, or combination.

Design cues shall create a transition from the public street to the private residence including:

1. Raised stoops, open porches, and/or entrance vestibules that correspond to the vertical modules of attached building units.

2. A change in grade (of two to three feet) from the public roadway to the residence
ATTACHMENT 1
46 ATTACHMENT 5
966
Proposed Amendments
Urban Design: DS-76
Revised recommendation:

DS-76: Primary building entries, either individual or shared, shall be prominent, easy to identify, and face an external public street or pedestrian path.; and incorporate a projection (porch, stoop, etc.), recess, or combination.

Design cues shall create a transition from the public street to the private residence including:

1. Raised stoops, open porches, and/or entrance vestibules that correspond to the vertical modules of attached building units.

2. A change in grade (of two to three feet) from the public roadway to the residence
ATTACHMENT 1
47 ATTACHMENT 5
967
Proposed Amendments
Implementation and Financing Strategies
Amendments to this chapter include:
• Removal of policies P-IMP-6 and P-IMP-7 related to the Transferable Development Credit program
• Introduction of a new policy P-IMP-6 to clarify application of the Transferable Development Credit program in the
Isabel Neighborhood
ATTACHMENT 1
48 ATTACHMENT 5
968
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive a
tracking update on the Specific Plan progress and consider Specific Plan amendments and adopt resolutions
recommending that the City Council adopt resolutions:

1. Finding the Specific Plan amendments are within the
scope of the 2018 Environmental Impact Report and 2020
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan; and

2. Approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 22-001.

ATTACHMENT 1
49 ATTACHMENT 5
969
RESOLUTION NO.

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE ISABEL

NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 2020 SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ISABEL NEIGHBORHOOD

SPECIFIC PLAN
On May 18, 2018, the City of Livermore certified the 2018 Environmental Impact Report for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (State Clearing House No. 2016042039). On November 9, 2020, the City of Livermore certified the 2020 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan.

On November 9, 2020, the City of Livermore adopted the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan.

The City initiated an application for a Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 22-001 (“Project”).

On November 1, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project and staff recommendation, heard public testimony, made the necessary findings, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 27-22 recommending the City Council find the environmental impacts of the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Amendments within the scope of the 2018 Environmental Impact Report (“2018 EIR”) and 2020 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“2020 Supplemental EIR”) for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan.

On November 28, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, Planning Commission and staff recommendations, and all public comments and testimony, and findings.

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore, has considered the findings made in Planning Commission Resolution No. 27-22, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and hereby adopts the same findings by this reference and incorporates them as their own findings as part of this resolution. Based upon the City Council’s own independent review of the Record Evidence and considerations, the City Council finds the environmental impacts of the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Amendments are within the scope of the 2018 EIR and 2020 Supplemental EIR for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
970
RESOLUTION NO.

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

The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, in Livermore, California. This resolution shall be effective upon adoption by the City Council.

On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council
Member , the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on November 28, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ /s/ Kimberly Cilley
Marie Weber Kimberly Cilley
City Clerk Senior Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – Planning Commission Resolution No. 27-22
971

EXHIBIT A
972

EXHIBIT A
973
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPAA) 22-001 FOR

THE ISABEL NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN
The City initiated an application Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 22-001 for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. The amendments to the Specific Plan further clarify the regulatory framework through new and clarified policies, revised development and design standards, and text clarifications based on Specific Plan implementation with approved and pending projects. (“Project”).

At a duly noticed public hearing on November 1, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the Project and staff recommendation, heard public testimony, made the necessary findings and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 28-22, attached hereto as Exhibit A, containing the Planning Commission’s actions and/or recommendations thereon.

On November 28, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, Planning Commission and staff recommendations, all public comments and testimony, and findings.

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore has considered the Record Evidence and adopted a resolution finding the environmental impacts of the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Amendments are within the scope of the 2018 Environmental Impact Report and 2020 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore has considered the findings made in Planning Commission Resolution No. 28-22, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the City Council hereby adopts the same findings by this reference and incorporates them as their own findings as part of this resolution. Based upon the City Council’s own independent review of the Record Evidence and considerations, the City Council hereby approves SPPA 22-001, attached hereto as Exhibit B, for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore directs the Planning Manager to file a Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk. 974
RESOLUTION NO. ________
The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, in Livermore California.

On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council
Member , the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on November 28, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ /s/ Kimberly Cilley
Marie Weber Kimberly Cilley
City Clerk Senior Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – Planning Commission Resolution No. 28-22
Exhibit B – Specific Plan Amendments
975

EXHIBIT A
976

EXHIBIT A
977
Staff-recommended Specific Plan Amendments
Staff recommends the following amendments to the Specific Plan. These amendments include new and clarified policies, revised development and design standards, and text clarifications.

Text additions are shown in underline and text deletions are shown in strikeout.

Chapter 2 – Land Use
a. Figure 2-2: Land Use Diagram – Change Areas (see Exhibit A) i. Revise figure to include outline of Neighborhood Core Area and corresponding symbol in map key
b. Table 2-2: Development Standards – Residential Categories i. Building Heights:
i. Maximum Stories: Add a reference to note 2 which defines the term “story”
ii. Building Setbacks:
i. Remove existing note #3 on “Front Setback facing Main Street” as it is repetitive of the existing language in the table.
ii. Create a new note #3 and add a reference to this note to the “Building Setbacks” header: Unless stated otherwise, street setbacks are measured from the property line.
iii. Create a new note #4 and add a reference to this note to the “Building Setbacks” header: Along Collier Canyon Road, Independence Drive, and Doolan Road, existing General Plan policies relating to the Collier Canyon, Triad, and Doolan scenic corridors apply as depicted in Figure 2-

4. iv. Setback facing all other Streets

1. Remove reference to note #4

2. Interior Setback (Side/Rear)
a. Transition/Village: Min. 15 ft. where abutting existing residential uses; otherwise, Min. 0 ft. setback for all stories along alleyways and for first story not along alleyways; Min. 5 ft. for first and second stories story; Min. 10 ft. for third story and above
b. Center/Core: Min. 0 ft. side setback along Main Street, alleyways, and for first story not along alleyways; otherwise Min. 5 ft. for first and second stories story; Min. 10 ft. for third story and above
iii. Remove all statements with asterisks beneath Table 2-2 as they have already been incorporated into policy text or table notes.
c. Table 2-3: Development Standards – Commercial Categories i. Building Setbacks: Front Setbacks facing Isabel Avenue and E Airway Blvd and Airway Blvd: Remove reference to note #6 as note #6 does not exist d. Table 2-4: Development Standards – Public Categories i. Revise existing note #1: Along Collier Canyon Road, Independence Drive, and Doolan Road, existing General Plan policies relating to the Collier Canyon, Triad, and Doolan scenic corridors apply as depicted in Figure 2-4.

EXHIBIT B
978
ii. Revise existing note #3: The 6.4-acre property located at the bend of Airway Boulevard across from the Livermore Municipal Airport is within the floodplain and covered by a Zone 7 Flood Control Easement. Any development on this parcel cannot hinder the purpose, intent and use of the easement for flood control purposes. Interim uses such as surface parking and temporary sales with no permanent buildings can be considered by approval require approval by the City and Zone 7. The large oak tree shall also be preserved in good health as part of any physical change on the property.
iii. Move the text in note #4 to be note #1 and add a new note #1 reference to the “Table 2-4: Development Standards – Public Categories” header iv. Update remaining note numbers
e. Table 2-6: Performance Measures by Subarea
i. In subareas 1a through 3a and subareas 3c and 3d, revise performance measure a: Provide at least two residential product types consistent with policy P-LU-29. ii. In subareas 3b and 4, revise performance measure a: Provide at least three residential product types consistent with policy P-LU-29. iii. In subarea 3d, revise performance measure b: For sites outside of the Scenic Corridor exception area, limit building heights to 40 50 feet above existing grade (or Scenic Corridor limit, whichever is stricter).
iv. In subarea 3b, revise performance measure c: With the exception of Gateway Avenue, and Shea Center Drive, and Main Street, the exact location of the new streets is flexible.
f. Page 2-28, Scenic Corridor Policy and Amendment Areas – Remove the following references to Figure 8-2 as this figure was removed during the Draft Specific Plan process and was not included in the adopted Specific Plan document:
i. The existing view angles and exceptions are shown on Figure 8-2 in Chapter 8, Policy and Code Amendments.
ii. The Amendment Areas to the Scenic Corridor Policy, outlined on Figures 2-3 and 8-2, include the following…
g. Figure 2-4: Isabel Neighborhood Scenic Corridor Amendment Areas (see Exhibit B):
i. Revise figure to include 200-foot width of Doolan Scenic Corridor and clarify height regulations in areas outside of the Scenic Corridor Amendment areas. ii. In the map key, add the following language: Remains Subject to Scenic Corridor Policies or 50 feet, whichever is more restrictive.
iii. Add “Area” to East Airway and Portola labels
h. Page 2-34, P-LU-4: Remove bullet point #3 as Live/Work units within residential areas are only permitted on Main Street - Live/work units located within residential areas not located on Main Street must be located adjacent to a public street and may not be converted entirely to a commercial use. These units must remain in residential use, with the option to also operate a business within the unit.
i. Page 2-36, revise Policy P-LU-13: The Core, East Airway, and Portola areas, as identified on Figure 2-4, are exempt from the City’s existing Scenic Corridor policies as defined in the Community Character Element of the Livermore General Plan. Maximum building height above mean sea level for these three areas are established by Figure 2-

4. All other buildings proposed on this site remain subject to the Scenic Corridor Policy.

Any buildings outside of the exception areas remain subject to the Scenic Corridor

EXHIBIT B
979
Policy, or the prescribed height limits in the Plan area50 feet in height, whichever is more restrictive.
j. Page 2-39, Retail Commercial: update lettering list to begin with “a.” k. Page 2-43, Figure 2-7, Airway Business Park Parcels with CS Sign Standards and Figure 2-8, Airway Business Park Parcels with Access to Freeway Sign: Revise figures to remove references to former PD-17 zoning, which was replaced with adoption of the Specific Plan (see Exhibit C).
l. Page 2-48, Add new policy: Residential developments less than or equal to 500 units shall provide at least two residential product types. Residential developments greater than 500 units shall provide at least three residential product types. For the purposes of this policy, distinct residential product types include but are not limited to duplexes, multiplexes, townhomes, flats, garden apartments, condominiums, and other apartment buildings. Interior floor plan variations with the same exterior elevations do not constitute a different product type. Modifications to this requirement may be approved by the Director.
m. Page 2-48, P-LU-33: Revise Policy P-LU-33 as follows: P-LU-33: All new residential development shall comply with the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance (Section 10.06.050 of the Livermore Development Code), except that including at least 20 percent of units for each project shall be affordable (i.e., offered at below-market rates) in the Isabel Neighborhood. The affordable housing units for for-sale residential subdivisions must be sold to moderate- and median-income house- holds. Of the total number of for-sale dwelling units (20 percent) set aside, at least five percent (5%) shall be reserved for sale to median-income households with the balance set aside for moderate-income households. Whenever the inclusionary requirement results in a fractional unit(s), the fractional unit(s) shall be combined and provided as median-income units.

Whenever the total number of affordable units required to be constructed includes a fraction of a unit, the payment of a proportional in-lieu fee shall satisfy that partial unit requirement.

Example: Calculation of the number of inclusionary units required for a 110-unit for-sale residential development:

Required units reserved for moderate-income households
110 units x 15% = 16.5 units
Required units reserved for median-income households
110 units x 5% = 5.5 units
Combined fractional units

0.5 unit + 0.5 unit = 1 unit
Required Units to be provided
Moderate-income households = 16 units
Median-income households = 6 units
For example, a 110- unit for-sale residential development would be required to provide 15 percent, or 16.5 units, at the moderate-income level and 5 percent, or 5.5 units,

EXHIBIT B
980
at the median-income level. Therefore, 16 units shall be provided at the moderateincome level and 6 units shall be provided at the median-income level.

Example: Calculation of the number of inclusionary units required for a 112-unit for-sale residential development:

Required units reserved for moderate-income households
112 units x 15% = 16.8 units
Required units reserved for median-income households
110 units x 5% = 5.6 units
Combined fractional units

0.8 unit + 0.6 unit = 1.4 units
Required Units to be provided
Moderate-income households = 16 units
Median-income households = 6 units
Remaining fractional unit to be paid in-lieu = 0.4 unit The affordable housing units for rental residential projects must be designated or reserved for rent to very-low-, low-, median, and moderate- income households. Of the total number of rental dwelling units (20 percent) set aside, at least six percent (6%) shall be reserved for rental to very-low-income households, seven percent (7%) shall be reserved for rental to low-income households, four percent (4%) shall be reserved for rental to median-income households, and three percent (3%) shall be reserved for rental to moderate- income households. Whenever the inclusionary requirements result in a fractional unit(s), the fractional unit(s) shall be combined and provided as very-low-income units. Whenever the total number of affordable units required to be constructed includes a fraction of a unit, the payment of a proportional in-lieu fee shall satisfy that partial unit requirement.

Example: Calculation of the number of inclusionary units required for a 110-unit rental residential development:

Required units reserved for very-low-income households
110 units x 6% = 6.6 units
Required units reserved for low-income households
110 units x 7% = 7.7 units
Required units reserved for median-income households
110 units x 4% = 4.4 units
Required units reserved for moderate-income households
110 units x 3% = 3.3 units
Combined fractional units

0.6 unit + 0.7 unit + 0.4 unit + 0.3 unit = 2 units

EXHIBIT B
981
Required Units to be provided
Very-low-income households = 8 units
Low-income households = 7 units
Median-income households = 4 units
Moderate-income households = 3 units
For example, a 110-unit rental residential development would be required to provide 6 percent, or 6.6 units, at the very-low income level; 7 percent, or 7.7 units, at the low-income level; 4 percent, or 4.4 units at the median-income level; and 3 percent, or 3.3 units, at the moderate-income level. The combined fractional units equates to two units that shall be provided as very-low-income units. Therefore, 8 units shall be provided at the very-low income level, 7 units shall be provided at the low-income level, 4 units shall be provided at the median-income level, and 3 units shall be provided at the moderate-income level.

Example: Calculation of the number of inclusionary units required for a 112-unit rental residential development:

Required units reserved for very-low-income households
112 units x 6% = 6.72 units
Required units reserved for low-income households
112 units x 7% = 7.84 units
Required units reserved for median-income households
112 units x 4% = 4.48 units
Required units reserved for moderate-income households
112 units x 3% = 3.36 units
Combined fractional units

0.72 unit + 0.84 unit + 0.48 unit + 0.36 unit = 2.4 units Units provided
Very-low-income households = 8 units
Low-income households = 7 units
Median-income households = 4 units
Moderate-income households = 3 units
Remaining fractional unit to be paid in-lieu = 0.4 unit Under the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance, affordable housing units shall be built on site and integrated within new residential developments unless the City Council approves an alternative method of compliance. For projects that utilize land dedication as a compliance method, the dedicated land must be located within the Isabel Neighborhood area and equivalent in actual value to the affordable units it is replacing.
m. Page 2-53, P-LU-50: Revise the policy as follows: Utilize the latest communication infrastructure in the Innovation Hub.
n. Page 2-53, remove policies P-LU-51 through P-LU-54 as they are repeat policies already stated under P-LU-44 through P-LU-48.

EXHIBIT B
982
o. Page 2-53, remove goal G-LU-10 as it is identical to goal G-LU-9. p. Page 2-53, remove policy P-LU-56 as it is identical to policy P-LU-50. q. Renumber all subsequent policies.

Chapter 3 – Transportation
a. Page 3-11, Major Street: Isabel Avenue will also provide… bicycle lanes and the vehicular travel lanes. Portola Avenue between Collier Canyon Road and Isabel Avenue will be reduced from 6 vehicle travel lanes to 4 vehicle travel lanes to accommodate a Class IV protected bicycle lane. The Class IV bike lane will continue west, on North Canyons Parkway between Collier Canyon Road and Doolan Road and east along Portola Avenue (see Figure 3-15). These improvements to existing Major Streets… b. Page 3-27, Table 3-3: Bicycle Parking Ratios for the Isabel Neighborhood Land Use Bicycle Parking Minimum Format/Location
Residential
Transition and
Village
(includes ADUs)
1 space per unit for resident parking;
1 visitor parking space per 20 units for
guest parking
Resident parking Mmust be secured and
covered, such as within garages for
individual units (minimum dimension of
2x6 ft. in a garage or other indoor area)
or in a common area
Visitor parking must be in a publicly
accessible location
Center and
Core
1 space per 4 bedrooms for resident
parking;
1 visitor parking space per 5 20 units for
guest parking
Resident parking must be secured and
covered; such as within garages for
individual units (minimum dimension of
2x6 ft. in a garage or other indoor area)
or in a common area
Visitor parking must be in a publicly
accessible location
Live/Work Units 1 space per unit;
Refer to Ground Floor Retail/Flex Space
Overlay for customer parking ratio
Resident/employee space must be
secured and covered;
Customer parking must be provided in a
publicly accessible location, within one
block of the unit
Non-Residential
Neighborhood
Commercial
and Ground
Floor
Retail/Flex
Space Overlay
1 space per 1,400 square feet Provided within 30 feet of the main building entrance. If the main building
entrance is relocated, then bicycle
parking shall be relocated to be
consistent with this standard.

General
Commercial
1 space per 2,800 square feet At least 25% of the bicycle parking shall be secured for employee use and at
Office-Core 1 space per 1,600 square feet least 25% shall be open for public use Office and
Business Park
1 space per 3,200 square feet
c. Page 3-28, revise Policy P-TRA-1: Create a walkable street grid within a half-mile radius of the Valley Link station (Neighborhood core area)…
d. Page 3-30, revise Policy P-TRA-22: With the exception of business park and general commercial users outside of the Neighborhood Core Area (generally bound by I-580,

EXHIBIT B
983
Collier Canyon Road, Portola Avenue, and the seasonal drainage running south from Cayetano Park), require property owners, residents, and tenants… Chapter 4 – Parks, Public Facilities, and Infrastructure a. Revise Policy P-PF-41: Ensure that utilities (i.e., electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and cable) are available to serve new development in an environmentally responsible, aesthetically acceptable, and safe manner. However, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the utilities are available to support new development rests on the sponsor of proposed projects.
b. Add new Policy P-PF-42: All new development must install electric-only appliances and HVAC (e.g. no natural gas heating, cooling, or cooking). c. Renumber all subsequent policies.

Chapter 5 – Urban Design
a. Page 5-1, Introduction: For all topics…and Infrastructure. Deviations from any design standard in this Chapter may be authorized by the Director. b. Page 5-21, Revise Design Standard DS-26: Buildings shall be built to and oriented such that frontages and entrances are visible and accessible from the public right-of-way, onsite common areas, pedestrian pathways, parks, and/or plazas. Rear yard fences and walls, garages, and backs of buildings shall not face or be visible from external public streets or primary entryways into the development.
c. Page 5-22, Revise Design Standard DS-27: Development shall include accessible, direct, and well-lit pedestrian links between buildings, sidewalks, parking areas, trails, and any on-site or nearby public spaces such as bus stops and the Valley Link Station.

New residential development shall provide at least one accessible pedestrian access point to any adjacent public sidewalk or trail and additional access points shall be provided a minimum of every 400 linear feet.
d. Add new Design Standard: Facades facing all streets, sidewalks, and pathways shall include windows and/or doors.
e. Page 5-25, remove the following header: The Core
f. Page 5-25: Outreach revealed some concern about…For example, all but one of the blocks designated for Core or Center housing are located adjacent to a park or , open space area, or includes a pedestrian streetscape treatment which helps foster a sense of openness.
g. Page 5-28, Revise DG-25 to a Design Standard: Articulate bBuilding volumes and surfaces shall be articulated with three-dimensional elements that create a visual play of light and including eaves, plane changes, and trim elements that create shadow and reduce the apparent bulk of buildings.
a. Eaves shall extend at least 12 inches from the wall plane. b. Plane changes shall be consistent with DS-40.
c. Trim elements shall be ½-inch to 1-inch in depth.
h. Add new Design Standard: Additional architectural features shall be incorporated to create articulated facades such as architectural trim and detail, window boxes, brackets, overhangs, trellises and lattice. Trim shall be ½-inch to 1-inch in depth and applies to windows, doors, and between floors. Overhangs shall be a minimum of 18 inches. At least 30 percent of all windows on a façade shall have a design feature including a planter box, bracket, or trellis as appropriate to the architectural style.

EXHIBIT B
984
i. Page 5-28, Revise DG-26 to a Design Standard: Employ v Variations in building and roof heights, façade plane changes, roof styles, architectural details, colors, and materials shall be incorporated into buildings. Use these elements in a mutually reinforcing manner to break up the appearance of large buildings as viewed from nearby (e.g., at the street level) and from far (e.g., from several hundred feet away). j. Add new Design Standard: Awnings, overhangs, or covered porches shall be provided on all commercial and mixed-use buildings and at all primary residential building entries to provide shelter and shade. Porches shall be consistent with Section 4.03, Frontage Standards, of the Livermore Development Code, as they exist today or are amended. k. Page 5-28, Revise Design Guideline DG-27 to a Design Standard: Avoid fFalse fronts, applied mansard forms, and other artificial rooflines are not permitted Instead consider special treatment of the upper story (e.g. in color, texture, material, and/or fenestration pattern) to provide a legible “top” to the building. All flat roof buildings shall include a defined cornice that varies in color and/or material from the adjacent wall plane. The cornice shall be at least 12 inches in height that projects at least 12 inches from the wall plane. For all buildings three stories and above, the top story shall be de-emphasized through an additional minimum 3-foot setback.
l. Add new Design Standard: For all buildings that do not include a flat roof, roofing materials shall consist of tile, slate, shingles, sheet metal shingles, and standing metal seam.
m. Add new Design Standard: Rooflines above primary entrances shall extend a minimum of 5 feet above adjacent roof heights to demarcate primary building entrances. n. Add new Design Standard: Roof overhangs shall be incorporated into the building design and include brackets, corbels, soffits, or other overhang details, consistent with the architectural style.
o. Page 5-30, Revise Design Standard DS-51: Reflective glazing is prohibited to avoid bird deaths from impacts. Applied films are prohibited in favor of other window treatments to reduce sun and light intrusion such as awnings or shades. Deep window tinting that does not allow visibility into the interior is prohibited except in limited amounts as an accent when found necessary to implement a particular building design. Light window tinting is permitted. Ground floor windows may be lightly tinted for energy efficiency purposes, but shall allow for clear visibility into the building interior. Widows on the second floor and above may use more tinting for solar efficiency. If tinted glazing is used, light tints and green, gray or blue hues shall be used. p. Page 5-30, Revise DG-32 to a Design Standard: No single architectural style is required in the Planning Area Architectural styles for residential buildings that are three stories or less in height shall be limited to traditional or contemporary variations on the following traditional architectural styles: Farmhouse, Craftsman, Folk Victorian, Spanish Eclectic, Mission and Prairie. Contemporary architectural styles are encouraged, although traditional styles are also acceptable for any building four stories or more in height. The architectural style must be defined for all projects in the Isabel Neighborhood. q. Add new Design Standard: Retaining walls may not exceed six (6) feet in height.

Retaining walls that are greater than three (3) feet in height shall maintain a minimum three (3) foot setback from public sidewalks along a project frontage and side or rear property lines. Installation and maintenance of landscaping in the ground area between retaining walls and between retaining walls and sidewalks, structures and/or parking lots is required for retaining walls of any height. For sloped areas where multiple retaining

EXHIBIT B
985
walls are proposed, the retaining walls shall maintain a minimum separation width equal to the height of the tallest adjacent retaining wall. The ground area between the retaining walls may have a maximum slope of 3:1.
r. Add new Design Standard: Retaining walls and sound walls shall be faced with natural materials, such as natural stone or wood. Landscaping shall be incorporated to minimize adverse visual impacts, with planting in front of walls, within stepped recesses and/or overhanging the wall.
s. Page 5-33, Revise Design Standard DS-63: Fences and walls shall not exceed three feet in height in or along setbacks from streets or pedestrian-only pathways, unless a sound wall is required for noise mitigation purposes. Fences up to 6 feet tall may be allowed along the property lines of side and rear yards in Transition and Village areas. t. Page 5-35, Revise Design Standard DS-76: Primary building entries, either individual or shared, shall: be prominent, and easy to identify;, and face an external public street or pedestrian path; and incorporate a projection (porch, stoop, etc.) recess or combination.

Design cues shall create a transition from the public street to the private residence including raised stoops, open porches, and/or entrance vestibules that correspond to the vertical modules of attached building units.
u. Add new Design Standard: Open, visible parking is not permitted between the external public street and adjacent residential buildings.
v. Add new Design Standard: New development shall include broad branching double rows of trees along Major Streets. Permitted tree species include London Plane, California Sycamore, and Sawleaf Zelkova. Alternative broad branching and long-lived tree species may be approved by the Director.
w. Add new Design Standard: New development shall utilize engineered soil, root barriers, and adequate irrigation to ensure proposed trees reach full potential for height and spread. A detail of the proposed landscape treatments and specifications shall be shown on plans submitted for Building Permits.
x. Page 5-31, Revise existing Design Standard DS-53: All building facades shall include durable accent materials such as stone, brick, tile, wood, glass, and metal and other durable quality materials. Office buildings may consist of glass as a primary building material. Glass and ceramic tile may be used as an accent cladding material on all buildings.
a. Durable accent materials, as described above, must be applied at a minimum 15 percent of the total elevation surface area and 35 percent for elevations facing public streets or project entries.
b. A variety of materials shall be used to create a coordinated hierarchy of primary, secondary and accent materials, textures, and colors that support the building’s overall architecture.
c. Durable materials, as described above, shall be provided within the first floor of building façade above the ground level.
y. Add new Design Standard: Trim materials shall be stucco, ceramic tile, or polished brushed metal. Multiple trim materials may be used consistent with the architectural style.
z. Page 5-34, Revise Design Standard DS-54: Primary colors and bright colors shall be used as accent colors only. At least three colors shall be used on all building facades consisting of a primary, secondary, and accent color. The secondary color shall be used on individual building elements for emphasis and accent colors shall be used on doors,

EXHIBIT B
986
windows, and/or trim elements. All primary and secondary colors shall be complimentary and analogous to one another consistent with the color wheel. aa. Add new Design Standard: Base treatments shall be provided to visually anchor buildings to the ground and establish a human scale for passersby. a. Base treatments shall extend around all visible sides of a building. b. A building base shall project a minimum of 3 inches from the adjacent wall plane such that it is visibly thicker compared to the area above. The building base shall be continuous and include at least one of the following:
i. A material and/or color change of the base wall relative to the building wall above. The base material shall be designed to appear heavier than portions of the building above by employing darker colors and/or bulkier materials; and/or
ii. A horizontal architectural feature at or below the first story mark, such as an intermediate cornice line or protruding horizontal band. bb. Page 5-30, Revise DG-31 to a Design Standard: For residential buildings using traditional architecture, or contemporary variations on traditional architecture, window openings shall have a height greater than or equal to their width. cc. Add new Design Standard: Window shapes shall be simple and rectangular but may have angled or arched tops if consistent with the architectural design. Round windows are prohibited.
dd. Add new Design Standard: For residential buildings using traditional architecture, windows shall be of the double- or single-hung type, casement, or sliders. ee. Page 5-35, Revise Design Standard DS-75: Where typical of an architectural style, w For buildings three stories or less in height, windows shall be recessed be recessed from the exterior wall surface to create a an inset depth of at least 2 inches. For buildings taller than three stores in height, windows may either be recessed or include a reveal, of at least two inches, from the exterior wall surface that creates a legible shadow to provide relief. This standard does not apply to plate glass windows that extend the entire length of a building façade.
ff. Page 5-36, Remove Design Standard DS-77 as Live/Work units are only permitted in Ground Floor Retail/Flex Overlay zones: For developments not located within the Ground floor Retail/Flex overlay, any Live/work units shall be located adjacent to a public street.
- Only the commercial space is required to be on the ground floor adjacent to the street; the residential space may Be located above or to the rear of the commercial space.
- Live/work units shall be designed to have direct access between the residential and commercial spaces, although the primary entries to the various spaces may be separate.
gg. Page 5-39, Combine Design Standard DS-87 and DS-88 into one new Design Standard 87 as follows: Live/work units located along Main Street shall be designed to require commercial spaces adjacent to Main Street, subject to the design standards and guidelines for the Ground floor Retail/Flex overlay and Building Code standards for retail uses.
− Only the cCommercial space is required to be on the ground floor adjacent to the street. tThe residential space may be located above or to the rear of the commercial space.

EXHIBIT B
987
− Live-work units must have their own individual entry. − Live/work units shall be designed to have direct access between the residential and commercial spaces.
hh. Page 5-39, Revise Design Standard DS-89: The ground floor should have a minimum of 60 percent transparency (glass) between 2.5 feet and 7 feet above the street level level.

Refer to Figure 5-18. Revise all subsequent DS numbers.

Chapter 7 – Implementation & Financing Strategies
a. Remove and replace Policy P-IMP-6 as follows:

P-IMP-6: The City shall modify the Transferable Development Credits In-Lieu Fee Program to establish new multi-family housing rates to facilitate the development of the densities and building types identified within the Specific Plan. The new rates shall apply to developments that build at or above 25 dwelling units per acre and that meet or exceed the target housing unit count by subarea shown in Table 2-6, Performance Measures by Subarea. The new multi-family housing rates shall apply to the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan area only.

P-IMP-6: Transferable Development Credit (TDC) regulations shall be applied to the Specific Plan consistent with Livermore Development Code Section 4.02.060, as it exists today or as amended in the future. The baseline density shall be zero for all residential designations within the Isabel Neighborhood. Modifications to the TDC regulations may be made through a Development Agreement on a project-specific basis as recommended by the Director and approved by City Council if such modifications are shown to be necessary to meet Specific Plan density, design policies, and/or goals. b. Remove Policy P-IMP-7: P-IMP-7: The City shall consider a Transferable Development Credits In-Lieu Fee credit program to encourage residential development to meet or exceed the target housing unit count by subarea shown in Table 2-6, Performance Measures by Subarea. The credit program shall apply to the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan area only and take effect upon compliance with Master Planned subareas consistent with P-LU-8.
c. Update subsequent policy numbering for P-IMP-8 and P-IMP-9.

Appendices

1. Create new appendix section and include the following new appendices:
a. Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Policies
b. Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Design Standards and Guidelines Exhibits:

A. Figure 2-2: Land Use Diagram – Change Areas
B. Figure 2-4: Isabel Neighborhood Scenic Corridor Amendment Areas C. Figure 2-7, Airway Business Park Parcels with CS Sign Standards and Figure 2-8, Airway Business Park Parcels with Access to Freeway Sign

EXHIBIT B
988
Figure 2-2: LAND USE DIAGRAM — CHANGE AREAS
5 ac.
1/2 Mile Radius
1/4 Mile Radius 0 1000 2000 500
FEET
Residential
Transition: 15-25 du/ac
Village: 25-40 du/ac
Center: 40-60 du/ac
Core: 60-100 du/ac
Non-Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Office Core
Office
Business Park
Airway Business Park
Educational/Institutional
Open Space
Ground Floor Retail/
Overlay Flex Space
K-12 School Overlay
Parking Overlay
New Neighborhood Park/Plaza
Circulation
Valley Link
Existing Street
Proposed Street
Pedestrian Streetscape
Valley Link Pedestrian Bridge
Urban Growth Boundary
Planning Area
Neighborhood Core Area
S

OC LL REI NAC NOY DR

PORTOLA AVE

ISABEL AVE

NORTH CANYONS PKWY

NORTH CANYONS PKWY

CONSTITUTION DR

INDEPENDENCE DR

AIRWAY BLVD

KITTY HAWK RD

LINDBERGH DR

NISSEN DR

ARMSTRONG ST AIRWAY BLVD
E. AIRWAY BLVD

ASI EB L AVE

PORTOLA AVE
E. AIRWAY BLVD

RUTAN DR

DOOLAN RD
INTERSTATE 580
580
Las Positas
College
Valley Link to Isabel Station
A rr o y o L a s Po s i t a s
Livermore Municipal Airport
A r r o y o L a s P o s i t a s
C o l l i e r C a n y o n C r e e k
A r ro y o L a s P o s i t a s
P
I nnovation
Hub

GATEWAY AVE

ST STEALTH

ST SUTTER

DR SHEA CENTER
Cayetano
Park

MAIN ST
C a y e t a n o C er e k

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT A
989
5 ac.

East
Airway
Core
Area
Portola

OC LL REI NAC NOY DR

PORTOLA AVE

ISABEL AVE

NORTH CANYONS PKWY

NORTH CANYONS PKWY

CONSTITUTION DR

INDEPENDENCE DR

AIRWAY BLVD

KITTY HAWK RD

LINDBERGH DR

NISSEN DR

ARMSTRONG ST AIRWAY BLVD
E. AIRWAY BLVD

ASI EB L AVE

PORTOLA AVE
E. AIRWAY BLVD

RUTAN DR

DOOLAN RD
INTERSTATE 580
580
Las Positas
College
Valley Link Extension to Isabel Station
A rr o y o L a s Po s i t a s
Livermore Municipal Airport
A r r o y o L a s P o s i t a s
C o l l i e r C a n y o n C r e e k
A r ro y o L a s P o s i t a s

GATEWAY AVE

ST SREALTH

ST SUTTER

DR SHEA CENTER
Cayetano
Park
Livermore
Valley
Charter
School
0 1000 2000 500
FEET
Isabel Neighborhood
Scenic Corridor
Amendment Areas
495
430-439
440-449
450-459
460-469
470-479
480-489
490-499
500-509
Remains Subject to
Scenic Corridor Policies or
Policy P-LU-8, whichever is
more restrictive
Building + Elevation MSL
Scenic Corridor Amendment Areas
Urban Growth Boundary
Planning Area
Building Height as shown in Feet
above Mean Sea Level

NORT DOOLAN RD

TRIAD SCENIC

CORRIDOR
View elevation:

Above 15% grade
average slope
contour line
115
feet
175
feet COLLIER CANYON

SCENIC CORRIDOR
View elevation:

Above 600 foot
contour line

NOR INDEPENDENCE DR

AIRWAY BLVD
Valley Link Extension to Isabel Stati
ee
C
n:
ade
rmore
lley
arter
hool
E
DOOLAN
SCENIC

CORRIDOR
460 485
485
475
490
485495 500 500
475
475
485 490
495 505
495 490
495
495
495
490
495
495
495
485
450
455
450 465 465
460
465 475 485
465 460
460
475
465
485 475
Subject to FAR Part 77
height limits
485
455 500 480
470
490
465
480 430
430
Figure 2-4: ISABEL NEIGHBORHOOD SCENIC CORRIDOR AMENDMENT AREAS 200 feet

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT B
990
Land Use 2-43
Figure 2-7: AIRWAY BUSINESS PARK PARCELS WITH CS

SIGN STANDARDS
Figure 2-8: AIRWAY BUSINESS PARK PARCELS WITH ACCESS

TO FREEWAY SIGN

INDEPENDENCE DR

AIRWAY BLVD

KITTY HAWK RD

NISSEN DR

ARMSTRONG ST AIRWAY BLVD
Valley Link Extension to Isabel Station

NORTH CANYONS PKWY

LINDBERGH DR

CONSTITUTION DR
Parcels with CS sign standards
Remaining parcels use
I sign standards

INDEPENDENCE DR

AIRWAY BLVD

KITTY HAWK RD

NISSEN DR

ARMSTRONG ST AIRWAY BLVD
Valley Link Extension to Isabel Station

NORTH CANYONS PKWY

LINDBERGH DR

CONSTITUTION DR
Parcels with access
to freeway sign
FIGURE 2-7 AIRWAY BUSINESS PARK PARCELS WITH CS SIGN STANDARDS FIGURE 2-8 AIRWAY BUSINESS PARK PARCELS WITH ACCESS TO FREEWAY SIGN

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C
991
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 6.5
DATE: November 28, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 14, 2022. Hearing to consider amending the Livermore Development Code regarding temporary signs, including Section 4.06.140, to update regulations relating commercial and non-commercial temporary signs in all zoning districts.

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

SUMMARY
Council Direction:

The City Council and staff have received complaints that campaign signs were being vandalized, stolen, installed inconsistent with the City’s existing sign regulations and that components of the signs are littering the cityscape. On October 24, 2022, the City Council discussed the matter and directed staff to return with the development code amendments for temporary signs previously recommended for approval in 2020 by the Planning Commission. On that date, the City Council reaffirmed the 60 day time period for the display of noncommercial temporary signs in the public right-of-way, but directed staff to clarify how the date of an event is determined for the display of a noncommercial temporary sign in the public right-of-way. Lastly, on that date the City Council reaffirmed that temporary signs placed in the 992
public right-of-way in violation of the ordinance are subject to removal and confiscation.

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

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

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

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

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

Mayor Alternative:

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

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

DISCUSSION
Council Direction:

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

Noncommercial temporary signs are currently permitted in the designated public right-of-way, but not in the street, street median, or sidewalk, subject to the following:
a. The signs must relate to an event scheduled for a specific date and shall not be displayed sooner than 60 days before that event;
b. Signs must be stake signs with a maximum size of four square feet; 993
c. No two signs with the same copy shall be placed closer than 50 feet from each other per street frontage;
d. Corner properties may have two of the same sign at the corner; and, e. All noncommercial temporary signs shall be removed within five days after the event to which they pertain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayor Alternative:
994
At the regular City Council meeting on October 24, 2022, I joined a majority of the City Council that directed staff prepare amendments to the temporary sign ordinance to restrict the placement of temporary signs on the public right-of-way to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in commercial, industrial, and residential zoning districts. However, I believe a better course of action is to prohibit the placement of all temporary signs in the public right-of-way for those zoning districts.

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

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

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. July 27 2020 Staff Report

2. Council Direction LDC - Redline Edits

3. Council Direction Ordinance, DCA 22-003

4. Mayor Alternative LDC - Redline Edits

5. Mayor Alternative Ordinance, DCA 22-003
Prepared by: Steve Stewart
Planning Manager
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
995
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM 5.01
DATE: July 27, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Paul Spence, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Development Code Amendment 20-003, Temporary Signs

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

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

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

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

The proposed amendments respect that jurisprudence and are intended to further the City’s existing interests for sign regulations and its new interests to add additional 223
ATTACHMENT 1
996