Agenda packet — Livermore City Council, March 13, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

as well as perhaps what to do about it. First, it states without evidence that a growing number of workers are commuting to higher paying jobs outside Livermore. Perhaps that is true, but some evidence would be helpful to provide credibility. Second, it was automatically assumed that the solution to having more low-paid workers than housing and more high-paid residents than workers is to increase the amount of low-cost housing rather than increase the number of high-paid jobs. In fact, we should do both rather than having one-dimensional thinking. Livermore’s income growth over the past 20 years been a little below average in income in the area defined by the Tri-Valley plus Fremont, Hayward, ATTACHMENT 2
237
Castro Valley, and Tracy, so its median family income has gone from above to below average in that area. An excessive emphasis on the lowest income housing will accelerate that trend. Keep in mind that Livermore declined to include Ruby Hills within the city, so it was developed under Pleasanton. Dublin and Tracy have built lots of housing, and the ratio of house cost per median family income is the lowest in Dublin (6.7) and second lowest in Tracy (7.8). Livermore comes in third lowest (8.8), so it is actually not doing that bad for our region, but it could do better.

Table 2-13 on page 91 has a normalization error in the right-hand column. For Livermore and Alameda County, the subcategory percentages add to the category percentages, while they add to 100% for the Bay Area. I sent an email about this error on February 2, and it may have been corrected already, but the letter at the end of the agenda says this was version was submitted February 6.

I found this description of poverty in Livermore on page 130 not very insightful and quite misleading:

Despite the decrease in poverty, the Urban Displacement Project has identified the last area as “Low income/Susceptible to Displacement” and it has been identified by TCAC and HCD as a “low res ource” area. In contrast, the area near Portola Avenue has been identified as an area experiencing “Advanced Gentrification” by the Urban Displacement Project, and by TCAC and HCD as a “moderate resource” area. Several programs to help reduce displacement risk associated with this are identified in Table 2-54 at the end of this AFH. The Big Trees Park neighborhood contains the highest percentage of children in a female -headed household and designated by TCAC and HCD as a “moderate resource” area.

First, there are two housing projects near the corner of East Avenue and Vasco Road (see Figure 2-5) that probably skew the statistics considerably. Second, the largest number of apartments in the city may well be along East Avenue, and those residents probably have lower incomes and more children. The older houses to the north have lots of retired lab people who probably have no mortgage, and using income without actual housing costs for retired people is not accurate. I also know of one senior care home in that area. Also, one member of the planning commission lives in this area, and I certainly would not classify him as uneducated and poor. Consequently, this paragraph needs some rewording to give a proper assessment.

That leads me to another aspect in this section I consider rather insulting, apparently written by someone ignorant of Livermore history. Most of the growth of Livermore between 1950 and 1990 came from expansion of LLNL and Sandia. Many of these employees came from other parts of the country and were more highly educated than average for Livermore at the time and probably the Bay Area as a whole. (The same thing has happened in Dublin recently, with the dominant influx being Asian— specifically Indian. It has nothing to do with color. It has to do with job skills and resultant income.) The Valley East housing project mentioned as a hotbed of poverty was one of those built to house the new LLNL employees. Because of this influx of highly educated people, Livermore has a symphony orchestra, an opera, and most recently the Bankhead Theater. Redlining and other discriminatory practices certainly occurred in the closer to the Bay (read The Color of Law), but that had nothing to do with the way Livermore demographics developed. This section is written from perspective of guilty until proven innocent. Having this kind of accusatory language in the housing plan is the kind of thing that drives moderates to vote for demagogues like Donald Trump. What does need to be addressed is to make sure that affordable housing projects are distributed across all the city independent of the average income of ATTACHMENT 2
238
that region. That means doing things like putting largely low-income housing in wealthier neighborhoods such as on open lands near the intersection of Holmes and Concannon. That could include working with owners such as St. Charles Catholic Church to build affordable housing and blunt the opposition by vocal wealthy neighbors. The same would be true for projects such as the tiny homes project being considered by Asbury Methodist Church. The biggest problem here is the assumption by some that all homeless people are basically ne’er-do-well criminals. I am glad to see the proactive words on page 308, Program 3.4.3 (C).

Page 133 ends

states that the population is predominantly White, non-Hispanic. 55% is certainly a majority but it certainly not predominant (mainly; for the most part). The document gives Asian or Pacific Islander as 12% of the population, while the 2020 Census gives that portion as 14.8% (14.6+0.2), and if one considers two races including Asian, the total is 18.0%. This is still lower than Pleasanton and Dublin, but it is likely that Asians will pass Hispanics as the second largest race-ethnicity in the next decade, due to both greater non-White influx and Whites being older and dying faster.

Page 134 ends

people. In fact, compared to Pleasanton-Dublin-San Ramon, Livermore is the whitest and has the lowest median income. Income is fundamentally related to education, not race or ethnicity. Livermore has only 44% of its population having a Batchelor’s degree or higher, while the 680 cities from Pleasanton to Danville average 67%. There is an inverse correlation between Hispanics and income, but that simply reflects the more recent immigration of poorly educated Hispanics, which is further complicated by language issues. However, the solution to that issue is education, not the political mumbo-jumbo given in this section. The question then becomes one of the fairness of the State’s school funding formula, ways to get kids from lower-income families enthusiastically engaged in education, and support for those aspiring to higher education. Unfortunately, as described in the Education section, test scores correlate inversely with disadvantaged indicators and absenteeism. Money spent on education is not the only issue involved, but housing per se seems not to be a primary factor.

I generally agree with the education section starting on page 140, but neighborhood income by itself is not a clean issue, in that it is the income of parents with school kids that affects their ability to supplement the district funding for enrichment. A retired couple with an income of $100k living in a paid-for house with low property taxes is financially better off than a young family with an income of $150k paying $4000 per month for housing plus various child-raising expenses. Consequently, the neighborhood income statistics need to be adjusted for the average age in some manner. This again gets back to the issue of having viable alternative living spaces for older people so they can downsize and make family homes available without horrendous financial penalties of taxes and moving expenses, and in the case of a retirement home, outrageous monthly fees.

The Employment Opportunities section on page 144 was quite interesting, but several aspects were unclear. The commute distances were clear. However, it was not clear to me how to interpret the 39% of jobs being lower wages. Lower than what? Lower than average or median for what areas? Concerning where they commute to, I was surprised that more commuted to San Joaquin county than to Santa Clara County. That seems to be in conflict with the notion portrayed earlier about the influence of Silicon Valley. The high level of commuting to Pleasanton and Contra Costa County makes sense with Hacienda and Bishop Ranch business parks. However, next comes the paragraph saying that 20.4% of Livermore workers also live there. After reading it a couple times, I deduced that it meant 20.4% of those employed in Livermore are Livermore residents. It could be clearer.

ATTACHMENT 2
239

Figure 2-8 on page 145 is entirely opaque to me. The solid background seems to be job density smoothed by some algorithm, while the dots are the job sites. The problem I see is that the jobs seem to be mostly in residential neighborhoods, and the biggest job sites (LLNL and Sandia) are not represented at all. There are no jobs in the industrial park bounded by Vasco-Greenville-Patterson Pass-the railroads.

I think this graph is completely bogus and should be deleted. The various words trying to explain commuting based on it are meaningless.

Table 2-50 is interesting. My first question is how the changes were merely a reflection of the funding levels at LLNL, which is the City’s largest employer. There were layoffs at LLNL in 2008 and low moral due to limited funding through 2010. Around 2018, funding at LLNL picked up dramatically, and LLNL was having trouble hiring enough employees to do the work. That is when I was called back out of retirement. A very large fraction of the current employees has worked there less than 5 years. Lack of affordable housing even for PhD-level salaries is a significant problem. However, the current funding levels may or may not be sustained over the next decade, so caution is warranted. Similarly, bringing in Gillig and others west of Isabel must have been a major jobs pulse around then, but has that pulse already been diluted now by 2023? Relevant here would be the Jobs-Housing Ratio for Dublin, which had built lots of houses but doesn’t have the large employment centers of Hacienda or LLNL. Given the job mobilities of today, expecting commute distances of a few miles are not realistic, and a 15-mile counter-commute from Dublin is actually quite good.

I am quite concerned about the Environmental Health section and the means by which the scores were determined. I live in one of the worst scoring neighborhoods for unknown reasons. This neighborhood is significantly above average in cost. I thought it might be because of some older housing stock, but some of the housing developments in this census tract are quite new. Was there some arbitrary score that said we were close to vineyards using pesticides? Did the scorer look only at a couple apartments in the corner of the census block. I am further concerned that there is no apparent correlation of the score with housing ages or proximity to the freeway for diesel emissions. The sites near the largest gasoline plumes in downtown scored in the next-best category. I certainly agree that the housing in the northern addition, which is largely Hispanic, is older than most houses, but it isn’t much older than the well- scoring Jensen tracts or South downtown area. Calling out that ethnic issue is biased political activism and should be deleted. The current wording about drinking water and diesel particulates are of no help whatsoever in understanding what might be in the quoted OEHHA source. And while calling on diesel particulates as a health risk, there is no mention of the current in-vogue notion of transit-oriented development along the freeway due to parallel BART and Valley Link routes. Logic seems to be in short supply in this section. At the moment, it seems that this figure is mostly someone’s imagination and should either be justified or deleted.

Starting on page 153, there is clear evidence that someone who does not understand Livermore wrote the Overpayment or Cost Burden section, imprinting Berkeley political activism onto statistics that probably have a completely different explanation. What should have been clearly evident is that older people who bought into the housing market 30-50 years ago are well off compared to those who bought in during the last 20 years. Mortgages do get paid off, unless someone wants to keep moving into a larger house. 30-50 years ago, Livermore’s population was predominantly white, so simple age demographics explain why whites spend a smaller portion of their income on housing. Of course, a sophisticated statistical analysis could separate the effects of race and ethnicity from age and years since ownership, but that concept seems completely foreign to the writer of this section. This section deserves a spot in the “how to lie with statistics” journal.

ATTACHMENT 2
240

On page 158, there is again evidence that the writer is clueless about the Tri-Valley perspective. The sentence “the proportion of unsheltered homeless persons in Livermore was lower than other communities in the county” is a meaningless comparison. What is relevant is the comparison to our neighbors Pleasanton and Dublin, and their numbers are far less. (In fact, this the origin of the urban legend that Pleasanton buses their homeless to Livermore.) That more appropriate comparison should be given.

The Race and Ethnicity section on page 172 also shows the political bias of the writer. There is no doubt that there are some racists in Livermore and even more classists, but don’t confuse the two. Some people don’t want low-income people of any race living in their neighborhood, and some don’t want black people regardless of the income. The reality is that the primary reason for race/ethnicity segregation in Livermore is income, and a secondary factor is years of residency. Neighborhoods built and populated 25-50 years ago that have low turnover will reflect the demographics of that time. To imply otherwise is bigotry. Also, the northern addition has many of the smallest and oldest homes in the Tri-Valley, so it is logical that they will be the preferred location for the lowest income group. Another factor may be the proximity of jobs or a related ethnic community. The large Asian community in the NE Corner may be a combination of both. The homes there are much newer than average, reflecting the demographics of more recent residents, and Dublin has the largest Asian concentration in the Tr-Valley.

A large fraction of the professionals working in Pleasanton, Dublin, and San Ramon are Asian, and that location is a better commute than in other parts of Livermore. Similarly, the largest concentration of Hispanics is in the lowest-cost home area in the city simply because they have the lowest family incomes. As discussed earlier, that is related primarily to the lower levels of education. While it is possible that there are biases in income for the same level of skill, it should not be implied without evidence, and I’m sure that it is a small fraction of the primary driving forces of education and language.

Section 3.1-Market Constraints was very interesting and is the real issue. Single-family detached houses are a third cheaper because of the shorter development time! It is probably also because part of the labor cost for a larger development is absorbed by the builder or owner of the house directly, which is a form of sweat equity. That said, the obvious question is what can be done to reduce the overhead costs of building larger projects. This largely comes down to not allowing opposition forces the opportunity to delay projects and kill them by a thousand cuts. It is for this reason that the State has formed the builder’s remedy, which means that if a City is incapable of enabling builders, there is a way of simply bypassing them. Livermore has not been a big problem that I know of, but maybe builders disagree. I do know that citizen opposition has increased some project costs and discouraged building others.

On page 203, the document states that the Arroyo Vista developer will be submitting plans by the end of 2022. Did they?

On page 226, Table 3-5, the terms Transect Zone and Non-Transect Zone are used, but they are never defined in the document. They are also used in the summary housing acreage availability zoning figures, again without definition. It would seem to be an important concept, but it is not clear exactly how it is used in Livermore zoning.

ATTACHMENT 2
241
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 February 28, 2023
DRAFT

PLANNING COMMISSION

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - DRAFT
February 28, 2023

1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daniel Leary at 7:08 p.m.,.

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

Also present were: Planning Manager Steve Stewart, Senior Assistant City Attorney Kim Cilley, Senior Planner Tricia Pontau, and Administrative Technician Fanny Ludwig.

3. SPECIAL MEETING ITEM

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING

COMMISSION

REGARDING THE SPECIAL MEETING ITEM WILL BE
PROVIDED BY THE CHAIR.

Alan Burnham voiced concern that the Housing Element has too many undefined terms, outdated or incorrect statistics, occasional contradictory assertions, and political dogma. He submitted a 6-page document detailing specific concerns and recommended returning the document for revisions to fix numerous data and analysis errors.

3.1 Hearing to consider recommending adoption of the 2023-2031 Housing Element
Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the 2023- 2031 Housing Element (GPA23-002) and adopt resolutions recommending the City Council adopt resolutions:

1. Finding the 2023 -2031 Housing Element is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) common sense exemption; and

2. Adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

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

ATTACHMENT 3
242

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 February 28, 2023
DRAFT

Senior Planner Tricia Pontau said before the Planning Commission tonight is the revised Housing Element and she provided a background of the Commission’s last review in May, submission to the State in July for a few rounds of review, and receipt of HCD’s February 23, 2023, letter, stating the revised draft complies with State Housing Element law. She introduced Amy Sinsheimer from PlaceWorks to provide a presentation.

Amy Sinsheimer, PlaceWorks, Inc. , gave a PowerPoint presentation, background, and overview of what the Housing Element is, what it includes, the RHNA which has been assigned to the City and analyzed as part of the update, and the schedule for the update process. She described requirements for a diversity of housing types, zoning in place to accommodate the RHNA for a total of 4,570 units broken into various income categories, the new AFFH section and revisions made to add more information, details added to the opportunities and constraints section, housing resources, update of the Climate Action Plan programs and actions, and the plan to go before the City Council on March 13th and then submit to HCD for its 60-day final certification review period. She reported a letter of conditional compliance was received from HCD for the City’s Housing Element.

Ms. Pontau said staff is recommending the Planning Commission consider the Housing Element and adopt resolutions recom mending that the City Council adopt resolutions finding the project exempt from CEQA and adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

CM Dunbar said given the timeline discussed and the compliance letter, he asked and confirmed with Ms. Pontau that some corrections and non-substantive changes can be made; however, if too many changes are made the City may need to go through more thorough review. Any future changes to the Housing Element would need to be brought back to HCD.

CM Dunbar said staff has received Mr. Bur nham’s comments in his letter and he asked how staff is addressing them.

Ms. Sinsheimer replied Table 2.13 was something brought to their attention over a week ago and they are planning to make edits to correct the math in th e table for the adopted plan.

Planning Manager Steve Stewart added there are cleanup comments that can be revised.

For example, the plans for the Arroyo Vista development were submitted and the City is plan-checking them now, so that language may be updated. Regarding some questions around the data sources, staff needs to work with the data given to them by ABAG that was pre-approved by HCD. Otherwise, they will risk being out of compliance for an extended time period, risk receiving grant funding for capital projects , as well as applications coming in with developers seeking to skirt around the City’s zoning and General Plan requirements.

CM Dunbar referred to Item 5.2.1.G; Public Improvements for Residential Retrofits. He commented that the quantified objective states, “ Adopt the Climate Action Plan” which ATTACHMENT 3
243

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 February 28, 2023
DRAFT

the City has done. He read his other comments into the record relating to his review of other City Housing Elements, guidance documents, fair housing, etc. and said he is very happy the City has received a conditional approval letter. He believes Livermore intends to do its share of work to address housing needs and accomplish goals. He voiced concerns with tax revenue imbalances from non-residential service costs which is unfair, acknowledged Mr. Burnham’s comments and thinks these can be addressed by the time the document goes to the City Council. He was glad to see changes made regarding the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan and trade-offs, and voiced support of the draft Housing Element.

CM Anderson asked for the following corrections:
• Page 3-2, under the list of percentages; 8.5 is missing a percentage after it. • Under the heading Neighborhood Plans on page 3-8 a sentence states, “The plans are intended to facilitate early growth and the creation of a livable neighborhood that includes community amenities and is compatible with surrounding uses.” He asked that the word “is” be changed to “are.”
• He referred to his request for changes to his comments regarding Junction Avenue and Marilyn as being adequate, but asked to remove the sentence under 2-62 which states, “While most schools in Livermore offer strong educational opportunities for students, residents of areas that are predominantly non -white have disproportionately limited access to high quality schools.” This sentence can be misconstrued that the schools of Junction and Maryland are not providing high quality education, and Commissioners concurred.
• He thanked Mr. Burnham for his letter and suggested staff meet with him to review requested revisions.

CM Anderson recognized the amount of work on the Housing Element done over the last year and he asked staff to summarize the process and cause of delay. Mr. Stewart provided a summary, including new legislation giving HCD 70 more days on their end for review, the timeline, HCD capacity/staffing, complexity of the new fair housing law, tasks and requirements cities must go through and wait for HCD to respond to, and emphasized the importance of receiving the HCD conditional approval letter.

Vice Chairperson Stein thanked City staff and PlaceWorks staff fo r the achievement in having an HCD-compliant Housing Element, recognized time constraints, voiced support of the staff recommendation and CEQA requirements , stated that state impositions like the builder’s remedy have reached the point of diminishing retur ns and will result in expensive legal challenges and non-productive outcomes, and the state’s position is that no planning is better than local planning.

He had the following revisions/suggestions:
• Asked to correct the staff report and change “February 23, 2022 letter” to read as “February 23, 2023 letter.”
• He recommended not changing any major portion of the document; ATTACHMENT 3
244

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 February 28, 2023
DRAFT

• He supported eliminating the one sentence as mentioned previously regarding schools;
• He suggesting looking at the Mills Act for historical preservation to create a sense of place and continuity in the downtown;
• He recommended making universal design standards mandatory rather than suggested which would increase the number of units that are accessible to those with disabilities, and perhaps selectively doing the ones that do not involve major cost;
• Lastly he spoke generally about Proposition 13 and the problems associated with it, various legislative bills that have distorted the system and implied a statewide standard, COVID and inflation impacts, and interest rate hikes; and • He recommended the City Council adopt the Housing Element and revisit it in a year or so

Chairperson Leary thanked PlaceWorks and City staff for their presentation and remarkable accomplishments on the Housing Element. He referred to the October 2022 letter from HCD regarding the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan which is 75% of the City’s low and very low-income categories and asked staff how this got resolved.

Ms. Pontau explained when they submitted the first draft they had the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan units groups in sub -areas. The plan has number of units estimated for each sub-area, and different land use categories within those sub-areas which do not match with the parcel lines that exist there today , and many parcels will be redrawn as projects are developed.

HCD said they wanted more information about how many units will be assigned to parcels as they exist today and wh ether that is realistic capacity for that parcel. They had to go through and estimate the amount of land in each parcel in a certain sub-area in a certain land use designation, given there are different densities allowed. Staff had to prepare a more refined parcel by parcel analysis of how many units could be on a parcel and how much of the parcel could have low-income units based on the density allowed.

She explained if permits are issued for deed restricted low-income unit that is on a parcel zoned for less than 30 du/acre, they can still count it towards their RHNA progress but cannot count it in the Housing Element when they are demonstrating that they have land adequately zoned. Those can only be on parcels zoned to allow 30 du/acre. Based on inclusionary requirements, there will be low-income units in other areas but they just cannot show them as low income in the Housing Element Sites Inventory.

Lastly, HCD wanted additional analysis regarding the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan and how it will be a complete neighborhood, a high resource area, as well as additional information about the process projects must go through to get entitled.

ATTACHMENT 3
245

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 February 28, 2023
DRAFT

Ms. Sinsheimer commented that quite a bit of information was added about the process in addition to projects that have already been going through the entitlement process in that area.

Mr. Stewart added that some of those sample projects were before the PC last year so having some concrete examples of timelines and the process in general helped HCD understand it was not a layer of constraint but added certainty to the process, as well as provide an explanation of the specific plan process. He said the annual progress repo rt will be presented to the City Council on March 27
th which will track the annual permits
issued towards RHNA. The City will start to get credit for the Isabel development as building permits are issued and reported.

Chairperson Leary then referred to the public comment letter on demographics received in the supplemental materials as part of the PC’s packet. He agrees with Commissioners Dunbar and Anderson on how to handle that and referred to page 2, Table 2-5 and Figure 2-1 on page 2-6 regarding race and ethnicity trends in Livermore which link the source s from the “U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey ABAG Data Packet” and the “U.S. Census Bureau Department of Finance .” He stated that the document is clear on its sources and it’s not worth our time to keep researching data sources because we don’t have the resources to do that. Staff has worked hard to reach 15 milestones in 10 months, and he would like to see the City focus on meeting the deadline, getting income levels sorted out and the housing inventory.

Regarding ADUs, he was pleased to see on page 3 -42 there is a statement about new City handouts which will be prepared and available to residents to explain streamlining of ADUs and SB 9. Also, Program 1.3.1 describes the ADU Program in place by December 2023 as the goal, and he asked and confirmed the PC will be reviewing this as part of the three-phase development code update.

Chairperson Leary said page 5 -14 describe how the City is sending mailers to homeowners in high resource areas beginning January 2024 which is valuable.

Regarding findings, he believes the City meets the RHNA for the 8 year period 2023 to 2031 and is not relying on rezoning to meet this goal. Lastly, regarding CEQA, he finds the plan is exempt from CEQA because th ere is no rezoning or changes to the physical environment.

CM Dunbar commented that the analysis he previously referred to on the Isabel neighborhood is found on page 2 -94. It goes into discussion of that complete neighborhood and concepts behind it, amen ities provided, and access to the rest of the city that makes it cohesive. It is because of the planning on the Isabel Neighborhood Plan and other plans that allows the PC to make the finding they are not currently changing any zoning because they have been proactive in planning for it.

Vice Chairperson Stein lastly commented on reduced transit ridership and voiced concerns with the state/federal government’s focus on infrastructure which will result in ATTACHMENT 3
246

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 February 28, 2023
DRAFT

transit subsidies and increased bridge tolls, sale s tax measures, toll lanes, TOD without transit, and which will particularly affect the Isabel neighborhood plan.

Chairperson Leary suggested a motion.

MOTION BY DUNBAR, SECONDED BY STEIN, TO FIND THE 2023-2031 HOUSING

ELEMENT IS EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(3) COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION; AND ADOPT RESOLUTIONS RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTIONS APPROVING THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT, WITH RECOMMENDED REVISIONS PER THE COMMISSION’S DISCUSSION.

AYES: ANDERSON, DUNBAR, LEARY, STEIN.

NOES: NONE.

ABSENT: NONE.

Mr. Stewart commented that staff will provide a supplemental summary of responses and recommended revisions for the City Council meeting.

CM Anderson reported this is Vice Chairperson Stein’s last meeting and he and Commissioners thanked him for his service on the Planning Commission.

5. ADJOURNMENT – 8:01 p.m. to a regular Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Meeting Hall, City Council Chambers, 1016 S. Livermore Avenue.

Minutes prepared by:

Lisa Harper Consulting

ATTACHMENT 3
247
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263
-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
*******COR REC
TED*COPY******
October 20, 2022
Paul Spence, Director
Community Development
City of Livermore
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94086
Dear Paul Spence:

RE: City of Livermore’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Livermore’s (City) draft housing element update received for review on July 19, 2022, with revisions received on October 7, 2022.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on September 1, 2022 with Tricia Pontau, Senior Planner; Grace Streltzov, Management Analyst; Steve Stewart, Project Manager; Andy Ross, Senior Planner, Stephen Riley and your consultants, Jennifer Gastelum, Joanna Jansen and Lucy Rollins. In addition, HCD considered comments from YIMBY Law and the Greenbelt Alliance, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill ATTACHMENT 4
248
(SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

HCD apprec
iates the hard work and dedication Tricia Pontau, Senior Planner; Grace Streltzov, Management Analyst; Steve Stewart, Project Manager; Andy Ross, Senior Planner, Stephen Riley and your consultants, Jennifer Gastelum, Joanna Jansen and Lucy Rollins, provided in preparation of the City’s housing element and looks forward to receiving the City’s adopted housing element. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Shawn Danino, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerel
y,
Paul Mc
Dougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
ATTACHMENT 4
249
APP
ENDIX

CITY OF LIVERMORE

The followi
ng changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://ww
w.hcd.ca.gov/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-blocks and inc ludes the
Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirm
atively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Sites Inventory: While the el
ement provides some analysis of the identified sites and socio-economic concentrations, including lower-income households in northern planning areas (p. 2-94), the element must analyze the concentration of lower-income units in the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. This is critical as the element identifies 1,570 units of its 2,075-unit lower income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to be accommodated in this specific plan. A complete analysis should fully assess how the site inventory is expected to improve and/or exacerbate fair housing conditions. This analysis should address the location, number of units by income group, magnitude of the impact, and could consider topics such housing choice in other areas of the City, existing or proposed anti-displacement policies, place-based investments, and how such strategies will improve fair housing conditions when paired with the identified sites.

Based on the outcomes of this analysis, the element should add or modify programs as appropriate.

Goals, Priorities, Metrics, Actions & Milestones: While t he element provides some
metrics and identifies contributing factors to fair housing issues, it does not include sufficient action to overcome patterns of segregation, foster inclusive communities, and methods for increasing housing opportunity in higher opportunity areas. For example, Program 5.2.1, Action K was revised to “address racial homeownership gaps and produce more missing middle housing through the City’s inclusionary housing program,” but it does not explain how it will do so or by when this action will be completed. As a result, programs must be revised as appropriate to sufficiently respond to contributing factors to fair housing issues. The element may, for example, commit to a firm date by which it will establish development standards for smaller housing types, including bungalow courts. In addition, all actions related to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) must contain specific commitment, timing, geographic targeting and metrics or numerical targets. Please see HCD’s AFFH memo for more information:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/
affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-
2021.pdf#page=23.

ATTACHMENT 4
250

2. An i
nventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Isabel Specific Plan: The element
describes a realistic capacity of 3,323 units as part of the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan, 1,570 of which will be available to lower-income households on multifamily sites within that specific plan (Table A). However, to demonstrate the adequacy of these sites to accommodate the RHNA for lower-income households, additional information is necessary to show development potential within the planning period. First it is not clear how multifamily is to be accommodated (e.g. land capacity) within each specific plan. The element should provide indication of where the multifamily is to be located (e.g. map or other description of the specific plan), how much land is available for multifamily development (e.g. acreage), descriptions of any existing parcels, and describe additional entitlements or steps needed to build multifamily housing (e.g. subdivision map, lot splits, site plan review, design review, etc.).In addition, the element must indicate if there is any phasing requirements, and indicate capacity on a parcel basis, including allowed minimum and maximum densities.

Finally
, the element identifies several large sites in the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Area (Table A). Sites larger than ten acres in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless it is demonstrated, with sufficient evidence, that sites are suitable to accommodate housing for lower-income households. While the element provided a table of representative approved or completed projects (Table 4-2), no examples provided were over ten acres and therefore, recent trends do not appear to relate to identified sites. Specifically, the element must describe how these large sites within the specific plan are expected to be developed. For example, the element should describe if parcels are expected to be subdivided or if other mechanisms will be required make the sites available and suitable for development affordable to lower-income households.

Small Sites: The ele
ment identifies several very small sites of less than 0.1 acres including several smaller than 0.05 acres in Table A. The element must demonstrate the potential for these sites to accommodate new residential development given development standards. While some sites in the inventory indicate potential for consolidation, these sites were are omitted from this analysis. The analysis could describe the City’s role or track record in facilitating small-lot development and could describe consolidation potential on these parcels, and policies or incentives offered or proposed to encourage and facilitate lot consolidation.

Realistic Capacity: The element must analyze the likelihood that the identified units will be developed as noted in the inventory in zones that allow nonresidential uses (e.g., Downtown Specific Plan Area). This analysis should consider the likelihood of nonresidential development, performance standards, and development trends supporting residential development.

ATTACHMENT 4
251

Sui
tability of Nonvacant Sites: While th e element includes some analysis of the potential for additional development on nonvacant sites for lower-income units, it must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of all nonvacant sites. To address this requirement, the element describes in general the existing use of each nonvacant site for example “low density residential” or “strip mall”. This alone is not adequate to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment in the planning period. A complete analysis should describe the methodology used to determine the additional development potential within the planning period. The methodology must consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may impede additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites. (Gov.

Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g).) For sites with residential uses, the inventory could also describe structural conditions or other circumstances and trends demonstrating the redevelopment potential to more intense residential uses. For nonresidential sites, the inventory could also describe whether the use is operating, marginal or discontinued, and the condition of the structure or could describe any expressed interest in redevelopment.

Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD.

Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and- community-development/housing-elements for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.

3. An analys
is of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Fees & Exactions: Purs
uant to comments received during your public participation related to the variety of multifamily housing types available (including missing middle housing types such as bungalow courts etc.), some fees may significantly impact housing types that are undertaken by non-traditional builders such as smaller builders, homeowners. The element should include a careful evaluation of how fees impact a variety of housing types. For example, the $15,693 design review fee should be analyzed fees for how it may cumulatively constrain housing types. As part of this analysis, the City could also discuss total fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs). As Program 1.4.1 includes a commitment to analyze fees by June of 2025, the City should modify this program to reflect the results of the analysis.

Processing and Permi
t Procedures: While the element provides a description of the types of permits required for housing developments (p. 3-39), it must describe the City’s design review process and analyze the permits’ processes, identify what is reviewed, ATTACHMENT 4
252
ty
pical findings and approval procedures by zone and housing type. The analysis must specifically address the threshold for design review for projects fewer than five units.

The analysis must evaluate impacts on housing supply (number of units), costs, timing, feasibility and approval certainty.

Persons with Disabilities: The el ement describes the City’s Reasonable Accommodation (RA) process and provides its approval findings (p. 3-49). However, certain approval criteria, including evaluation of “whether there are alternatives to the requested waiver” and a decision “based on the physical attributes of the property and structure” appear discretionary in nature. It is unclear how this provision would be applied to a request for RA. The City should also revise the findings so that requests are based on “whether the requested RA would impose an undue financial and administrative burden to the City,” per guidance from US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

In addition
, the element should analyze how non-licensed group homes are permitted.

Finally, the element excludes group homes for seven or more persons from most residential zones and subjects the use to a conditional use permit (p. 3-35), unlike other similar uses. The element should specifically analyze these constraints for impacts on housing supply and choices and approval certainty and objectivity for housing for persons with disabilities and include programs (for example, Program 1.5.2) as appropriate.

B. Housing Prog
rams

1. Include a pr
ogram which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
Programs must demonstrate that they will have a beneficial impact within the planning period. Beneficial impact means specific commitment to deliverables, measurable metrics or objectives, definitive deadlines, dates, or benchmarks for implementation.

Deliverables should occur early in the planning period to ensure actual housing outcomes. Several programs and actions have timelines that could be moved earlier in the planning period to ensure a beneficial impact. Examples include Programs 3.1.2 (Density Bonuses and Incentives), Program 3.2.2, Action A (RFPs for City Owned Sites), and Program 5.2.1 (Fair Housing Policies and Programs).

Additional
ly, programs must have specific commitment to clear outcomes or deliverables. Several programs include actions with no description of how those actions will be implemented (e.g., “support”, “study”, “explore”, “evaluate”, etc.,). Programs should be amended, to include specific commitment to a housing related outcome.

Examples include Programs 1.3.1 (Development Code Amendments), 1.4.1 (Reduce Governmental Constraints), 1.5.3 (Special Housing Needs), 3.1.2 (Density Bonuses and Incentives), 3.2.1 (Affordable Housing Fund), 3.2.3 (Partner with Affordable Housing ATTACHMENT 4
253
Se
rvices), 3.4.1 (Support for Low- and Moderate-Income Homeowners), 3.4.3 (Homelessness Intervention), and 4.1.1 (Residential Codes and Design Standards).

2. Identi
fy actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types.

Publicly-Owned Sites: The element identified City-owned si tes to accommodate a
portion of the RHNA. The element should amend program 3.2.2 (Support Acquisition and Development of New Sites for Affordable Housing) with numerical objectives that ensures compliance with the Surplus Land Act, provides incentives and actions along with a schedule to facilitate development of City-owned sites.

3. Address
and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Finding A3, the el
ement requires a complete analysis of potential
governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding A1, the element must include a complete assessment of fair housing. Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs. Programs to AFFH should go beyond status quo actions, include specific commitment, timing, geographic targeting and metrics or numerical targets and should, ATTACHMENT 4
254
as ap
propriate, address housing mobility; encourage new housing choices in higher resource areas, improve place-based strategies toward community revitalization and protect existing residents from displacement.

C. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation oof all segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) While the Ci
ty made extensive efforts to reach the public, including hosting events and meeting with key stakeholders and summarizing community feedback, it should also discuss how input was incorporated into the housing element. In addition, HCD received and reviewed comments with many meaningful and valuable suggestions related to the housing element and HCD strongly encourages the City to consider and address these comments, including revising the document as appropriate.

ATTACHMENT 4
255
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT IS EXEMPT

FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-002)
The City of Livermore (City) initiated an application for General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-002 to prepare the 2023-2031 Housing Element (“Project”), pursuant to State Housing Element Law.

State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period, 2023-2031 to accommodate the City of Livermore’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA).

State Housing Element Law requires that the Housing Element contain: (i) an assessment of the City’s housing needs and an analysis of the resources and constraints, both governmental and non-governmental, relevant to the meeting of those needs; (ii) an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development and an analysis of the development potential of such sites; (iii) a statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing; and (iv) programs that set forth a schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives in the Housing Element.

State Housing Element Law requires that the City take meaningful steps to promote and affirmatively further fair housing.

On February 23, 2023, the City received a letter from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) stating that the Housing Element meets the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law, and will comply with State Housing Element Law when it is adopted by City Council and submitted to and approved by HCD.

On February 28, 2023, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the Project, made the necessary findings, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 03-23, recommending the City Council find the Project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). 256
RESOLUTION NO. ________
On March 13, 2023, 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. 03-23, 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 finds that the Project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) in that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

1. Finding. The 2023-2031 Housing Element creates a roadmap for the City to achieve its State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) goals through identification of suitable sites that are currently designated for housing development, and identifying programs and actions that could remove constraints and promote affordable housing development. Because the City does not have to rezone any sites or make any physical improvements to adopt the Housing Element, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Housing Element would have a significant effect on the environment. Thus, the 2023-2031 Housing Element is exempt from CEQA under the common-sense exemption. It should be noted that the current General Plan and Specific Plans have been analyzed under separate environmental review documents pursuant to CEQA, and open applications for housing development are currently undergoing their own appropriate environmental review. Additional analysis in support of the finding is included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element CEQA Exemption Technical Memorandum, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B.

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

The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, in Livermore, California. This resolution shall be effective upon adoption by the City Council. 257
RESOLUTION NO. ________
On motion of Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council Member _______________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on March 13, 2023, 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. 03-23
Exhibit B – 2023-2031 Housing Element CEQA Exemption Technical Memorandum 258

IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING FINDING THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT

IS EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-002
Location: Citywide
The City initiated an application for General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-002 to prepare the 2023-2031 Housing Element update (Project), pursuant to State Housing Element Law.

The City does not have to rezone any sites or make any physical improvements to adopt the Housing Element.

State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City of Livermore's Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA).

State Housing Element Law requires that the Housing Element contain: (i) an assessment of the City's housing needs and an analysis of the resources and constraints, both governmental and non-governmental, relevant to the meeting of those needs; (ii) an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development and an analysis of the development potential of such sites; (iii) a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing; and (iv) programs that set forth a schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives in the Housing Element.

State Housing Element Law requires that the City take meaningful steps to promote and affirmatively further fair housing.

EXHIBIT A
259
Housing Element Law when it is adopted by City Council and submitted to and approved by HCD.

On February 28, 2023, at a duly noticed public hearing, Planning Commission considered the Project, staff recommendations, and all public comments and testimony, and findings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Livermore that prior to taking action on the Project, and at a properly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission's determination is based on the Record Evidence, which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Livermore makes the findings set forth below. Based upon the Planning Commission's own independent review of the Record Evidence and considerations, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find that the Project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) in that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

1. Finding: The 2023-2031 Housing Element creates a roadmap for the City to achieve its State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) goals through identification of suitable sites that are currently designated for housing development, and identifying programs and actions that could remove constraints and promote affordable housing development. Because the City does not have to rezone any sites or make any physical improvements to adopt the Housing Element, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Housing Element would have a significant effect on the environment. Thus, the 2023-2031 Housing Element is exempt from CEQA under the common sense exemption. It should be noted that the current General Plan and Specific Plans have been analyzed under separate environmental review documents pursuant to CEQA, and open applications for housing development are currently undergoing their own appropriate environmental review. Additional analysis in support of the finding is included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element CEQA Exemption Technical Memorandum, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Livermore recommends that the City Council direct the Planning Manager to file a Notice of Exemption with the Alameda County Clerk if the Project is approved. 2 Resolution No. 03-23

EXHIBIT A
260
The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be found in the Community Development Department, 1052 S.

Livermore Avenue, in Livermore, California.

On the motion by Commissioner Dunbar, seconded by Commissioner Stein, the foregoing Resolution was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of February 28, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ANDERSON, DUNDAR, LEARY, STEIN.

NONE.

Daniel Leary, Chairperson
�� by Steve Stewart, Planning Manager
Secretary to the Planning Commission
Exhibit A-2023-2031 Housing Element CEQA Exemption Technical Memorandum 3 Resolution No. 03-23

EXHIBIT A
261
2023-2031 Housing Element
CEQA Exemption
Technical Memorandum
City of Livermore
Final Draft
Prepared for:

City of Livermore
Contact: Paul Spence, Community Development Director
City of Livermore | Community Development Department
1052 S. Livermore Avenue | Livermore, CA 94550
Pr
epared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Joanna Jansen, Principal
2040 Bancroft, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
(510) 848-3815
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
Febr
uary 2023

EXHIBIT B
262
Section Page

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

1.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................ 3

1.2 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS .................................................................. 3

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 4

2.1 REGIONAL LOCATION ......................................................................................................... 4

2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................................................ 4

3. FINDINGS CONCERNING CEQA EXEMPTION ........................................................................... 11

3.1 SECTION 15061(B)(3): COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION ...................................................... 11

3.2 ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS ................................................................................. 11

Figures
Figure 2-1 Housing Sites Inventory (Northwest) ................................................................................. 6 Figure 2-2 Housing Sites Inventory (Northeast) ................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-3 Housing Sites Inventory (Southwest) ................................................................................. 8 Figure 2-4 Housing Sites Inventory (Southeast) .................................................................................. 9

EXHIBIT B
263

1. Introduction

1.1 PURPOSE
This Technical Memorandum serves as an evaluation of the City of Livermore 2023-2031 Housing Element (proposed p roject) for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. This Technical Memorandum was prepared to present: 1) the findings resulting from the CEQA compliance review, as described below; and 2) the recommendations concerning the appropriate CEQA compliance documentation.

1.2 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS
Once it is determined that an activity is a project subject to CEQA, it is then determined whether the project is exempt from CEQA. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b) outlines the ways in which a project may be exempt as follows:

A project is exempt from CEQA if:
1) The project is exempt by statute (see, e.g. Article 18, commencing with Section 15260). 2) The project is exempt pursuant to a categorical exemption (see Article 19, commencing with Section 15300) and the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Section 15300.2.
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. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
4) The project will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency. (See Section 15270(b)). 5) The project is exempt pursuant to the provisions of Article 12.5 of Chapter 3.

The proposed project would be exempt as a “common sense” exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because implementation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element would not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment, as further discussed below in Section 3, Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption.

EXHIBIT B
264

2. Project Description

2.1 REGIONAL LOCATION
Livermore is in the north eastern portion of Alameda County. It is mainly bordered by unincorporated Alameda County with Pleasanton to the west and Dublin to the northwest . Livermore is roughly 15 miles southeast of Oakland, 8 miles northeast of Fremont, and 15 miles north of San Jose. Interstate 580 and State Route 84 provide regional transportation connections.

2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT

2.2.1 Project Background
The City of Livermore is preparing a comprehensive update to its existing Housing Element. The update is expected to be completed in early 2023 and will guide the City’s housing development from January 2023 through January 2031.

The Housing Element is a State-mandated eight-year policy document that is a component of the Livermore General Plan. The overall purpose of the Housing Element is to identify current and projected housing needs, show locations where housing can be built, and set goals, policies, and programs to meet the community’s housing needs. The foundation of the Housing Element is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which begins with a determination of housing need issued by the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) and allocated by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). A jurisdiction is required to demonstrate whether or not it has sufficient capacity to achieve its RHNA. However, identification of a site’s capacity does not guarantee that construction will occur on that site, as the actual construction of units would occur as a result of a development application from a private or non -profit developer . The RHNA for Livermore for th e 2023-2031 Housing Element is 4,570 units, including 1,317 Very Low income units, 758 L ow income units, 696 M oderate income units, and 1, 799 Above Moderate income units.

2.2.2 Proposed Sites and Zoning
State law requires that the Housing Element identify adequate sites for housing by including an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and non-vacant sites having potential for redevelopment, with an analysis of the development capacity that can realistically be achieved for each site.

The purpose of the Sites Inventory is to evaluate whether there are sufficient sites with appropriate zoning density to meet the RHNA. It is based on the City’s current land use designations and zoning requirements.

The City of Livermore’s Sites Inventory for future housing identifies housing sites spread throughout the city that could be developed with up to 5,40 2 new housing units , exceeding the RHNA assigned to the City .

EXHIBIT B
265
Figures 2-1 through 2 -4 shows map s of where each site is located within the city and the housing opportunity areas. The development capacity of each of the identified housing sites is based on existing land use and zoning densities currently in place. No redesignations or rezoning are necessary and no redesignation or rezoning would occur as part of the adoption of the proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Most of the identified sites are currently vac ant and some are planned developments . Based on market trends observed in the city , property owner and developer interests, and the characteristics of new development approved in recent years, the City has developed a sites inventory that includes properties most likely to be developed to provide new housing over the next eight years. The presumed capacity and affordability of anticipated units is based on the density range in the underlying General Plan or Specific Plan designation, unless a specific site had an applicable site proposal or development application underway. In these cases, capacity and affordability is based on the number of proposed units. It should be noted that the current General Plan and Specific Plans have been analyzed under separate environmental review documents pursuant to CEQA, and for open applications, those sites are currently undergoing their own environmental review.

2.2.3 Proposed Housing Plan
The City has identified six goals to guide the 2023-2031 Housing Element’s policies and programs: diverse housing choices, well -managed growth, affordable housing production and preservation, healthy and resilient housing and neighborhoods, affirmatively further fair housing, and regional cooperation to address housing needs.

Goal 1 of the Housing Element is to address the diverse housing needs of all community members and foster economic, social, and racial integration by allowing for a range of housing types, price levels, and densities.

This can be achieved through the development and maintenance of a sites inventory with adequate densities and development standards to meet the RHNA in all income categories and through an update to the Development Code to simplify standards, expand opportunities for greater variety of housing types, and maintain consistency with State law. The City should also facilitate the development of a range of housing types as well as the development of housing for individuals with special needs. Permit streamlining, reasonable and proportional development fees, and transparent and accessible information would reduce governmental constraints on housing development and contribute diverse housing choices.

Goal 2 is to manage residential growth to promote (1) the production of housing to meet local and regional housing needs; (2) a growth rate balanced with the provision of infrastructure capacity and public services; (3) a balanced relationship between residential and nonresidential development; (4) the highest quality design for all residential units and neighborhoods; (5) economic, social, and racial integration; and (6) open space preservation. Facilitation of the provision of affordable housing, infill development, and mixed -use projects in locations served by existing infrastructure, particularly transit services, would help to achieve this goal.

EXHIBIT B
266
Arroyo Mocho
Arroyo LasPositas
Cayeta
no Cr eek
Arroyo
Seco
Pine St
N M St
E Jack London Bl
Railroad Av
Fifth St
Sunset Dr
Pestana Wy
Spruce St
Daisyfield Dr
AlamedaDr
W Jack London Bl
W Jack London Bl
Hagem
ann
Dr
Elm St
Isabel Av
Amber Wy
WellinghamDr
Sonoma Av
Selby La
Nissen Dr
Clubhouse Dr
N M
ines Rd
Discovery Dr
Isabel
Av
Lindbergh Av
Independence D
r
Murrieta Blvd
S L St
E Airway
Blvd
N
Murrieta Blvd
First St
College Ave
Portola Ave
ElCharro Rd
El C
harro Rd
Hol
mesSt
First St
N
Livermore
Ave
Las Positas RdLiverm
ore Ave
S Livermore Ave
Stanley Blvd
Isabel
Ave
East Ave
580
580
84 Housing Sites Inventory (Northwest)
Source: City of Livermore, 2021; Esri, 2021; PlaceWorks, 2022. 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

CITY OF LIVERMORE
Zoning Designations
Low Density Residential
Suburban Residential
Suburban Multiple
Family R
esidential
Downtown Specific Plan
Commercial Office
Isabel Neighborhood
Specific Plan
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Transect Zone - T3
Neighborhood
Transect Zone - T4
Neighborhood
Education and
Institutions
Planned Development
Planned Unit
Dev
elopment/
Amendment Permit
Planned Development
Residen
tial
Planned Development
South Livermor
e Valley
Specific Plan
Figure 2-1
0 0.750.38
Miles
City Limits
Sphere Of Influence
Urban Growth Boundary
Downtown Specific Plan
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan

EXHIBIT B
267
Arroyo Las Positas
Arroyo Seco
Naylor Av
Bluebell
Dr
Blueb
ellDr
National Dr
Scenic Av
Village Dr
Crestmont Av
Aster La
Bu
cksk
in Rd Idlewild Av
Preston Av
Owl Wy
Spring
Valley
Cm
Preston Av
Brisa St
Brisa St
Lawren
ceDr
1st St
Exit 54
Ames St
N G
reenv
ille Rd
N Vasco
Rd
Dagnino Rd
Dalton Ave
S Vasco Rd
First St
Greenville Rd
May School Rd
Raymond Rd
Las Posita
sRd
N Vasco Rd
Patterson Pass Rd
580
580
Housing Sites Inventory (Northeast)
Source: City of Livermore, 2021; Esri, 2021; PlaceW
orks, 2022.
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

CITY OF LIVERMORE
Zoning Designations
Low Density Residential
Suburban Residential
Suburban Multiple Family
Residential
Downtown Specific Plan
Commercial Office
Isabel Neighborhood Specific
Plan
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Transect Zone - T3 Neighborhood
Transect Zone - T4 Neighborhood
Education and Institutions
Planned Development
Planned Unit Development/
Amendment Permit
Planned Development
Residential
Planned Development South
Livermore Valle
y Specific Plan
0 0.750.38
Miles
City Limits
Sphere Of Influence
Urban Growth Boundary
Downtown Specific Plan
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
Figure 2-2

EXHIBIT B
268
Dry Creek
Arroyo Mo
cho
Arroyo Valle
Holmes St
Kalthoff Cm
Catalina Dr
E Vi
neyard Av
Regent Rd
San Felice Dr
ElCamini
to Hudson Wy
Concannon Bl Concannon Bl
ConcannonBl
Altair Av
Caldeira Dr
Santorina Dr
Alden La
Reed Av
Rock
yRidge
Marina Ave
Wente St
Valleci
tos Rd
Holmes St
Holmes St
Wetmore Rd
Arroyo Rd
Arroyo Rd
Tesla Rd
S Livermore Ave
84 84
Housing Sites Inventory (Southwest)
Source: City of Livermor
e, 2021; Esri, 2021; PlaceWorks, 2022.
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

CITY OF LIVERMORE
0 0.750.38
Miles
Zoning Designations
Low Density Residential
Suburban Residential
Suburban Multiple Family
Residential
Downtown Specific Plan
Commercial Office
Isabel Neighborhood Specific
Plan
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Transect Zone - T3 Neighborhood
Transect Zone - T4 Neighborhood
Education and Institutions
Planned Development
Planned Unit Development/
Amendment Permit
Planned Development
Residential
Planned Development South
Livermore V
alley Specific Plan
City Limits
Sphere Of Influence
Urban Growth Boundary
Downtown Specific Plan
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
Figure 2-3

EXHIBIT B
269
Arroyo Mocho
Arroyo Seco
Buena Vista Av
Hillcrest Av
Madeira Wy
Lupin Wy
Caldeira Dr
WestgateDr
Pacific Av
Ninth St
Charlotte Wy
CharlotteWy
Eleventh St
Second St
Marina Ave
Wente St
Portola Ave
Mines Rd
Mines
Rd
First St
Greenville Rd
Greenville Rd
S Vasco Rd
S Vasco Rd
Patterson Pass Rd
Tesla Rd
S Livermore Ave
Tesla Rd
East Ave
Housing Sites Inventory (Southeast)
Source: City of Livermor
e, 2021; Esri, 2021; PlaceWorks, 2022.
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

CITY OF LIVERMORE
0 0.750.38
Miles
Zoning Designations
Low Density Residential
Suburban Residential
Suburban Multiple Family
Residential
Downtown Specific Plan
Commercial Office
Isabel Neighborhood Specific
Plan
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Transect Zone - T3
Neighborhood
Transect Zone - T4
Neighborhood
Education and Institutions
Planned Development
Planned Unit Development/
Amendment Permit
Planned Development
Residential
Planned Development South
Livermore V
alley Specific Plan
City Limits
Sphere Of Influence
Urban Growth Boundary
Downtown Specific Plan
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
FFiigguur ree 2-4

EXHIBIT B
270
Goal 3 is to encourage the provision and lon g-term availability of affordable housing to foster economic, social, and racial integration. This can be achieved by facilitating the production of affordable housing through the regulation of and incentives to new development and preserving affordable housing that is at risk of converting to market rate housing. The City should also pursue and utilize a variety of funding resources and partnerships to develop housing that is affordable to lower - and moderate -income households, families, and seniors, and provide linguistically and digitally accessible and culturally relevant housing assistance to such households. Regular communication with the community to increase awareness of affordable housing policies and programs would also contribute to affordabl e housing production and preservation.

Goal 4 is to improve health, accessibility, safety, comfort, and resilience in residential buildings while reducing energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as to upgrade infrastructure, facilities, and amenities in residential neighborhoods, with an emphasis on low -income communities and affordable housing developments. This can be achieved through promotion of cost -effective housing design features that improve public health, safety, and resilience in new residential structures, and retrofits to existing residential units. Improvement of physical conditions, services, and accessibility in residential neighborhoods would also foster healthy and resilient housing and neighborhoods.

Goal 5 is to address harms f rom past and present racial, ethnic, and social discrimination by promoting equal opportunity to dignified and affordable housing for all persons in the community regardless of race/ethnicity, religion, gender, marital status, ancestry, national origin, disability, or any other protected characteristic covered by state and federal law. Prevention of housing discrimination through outreach, education, and engagement with landlords, tenant services providers, and renters would help achieve this goal. This Cit y will also develop programs and policies that remove fair housing barriers and prevent displacement.

Goal 6 is to participate in and/or initiate coordinated efforts with communities in the region to effectively address affordable housing needs. Fostering regional cooperation and partnerships to address regional housing issues related to affordability, homelessness, racial and economic segregation, and special housing needs would help achieve this goal.

EXHIBIT B
271

3. Findings Concerning CEQA
Exemption

3.1 SECTION 15061(B)(3): COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION
The proposed project is exempt as a “ common sense” exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the project involves policies, programs, and actions to meet the City’s RHNA and AFFH goals. As described above, the 2023-2031 Housing Element creates a roadmap on how to achieve its RHNA and AFFH goals through identification of suitable sites that are currently designated for housing development, and identifying programs and actions that could remove constraints and promote affordable housing development. Because the City does not have to rezone any sites or make any physical improvements to adopt the Housing Element, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Housing Element would have a significant effect on the environment. Thus, the 2023-2031 Housing Element is exempt from CEQA under the common sense exemption. It should be noted that the current General Plan and Specific Plans have been analyzed under separate environmental review documents pursuant to CEQA, and for open applications, those sites are currently undergoing their own environmental review.

3.2 ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
The proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element is strictly a policy document that does not provide entitlements to any specific development projects and would not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. As discussed in Section 2.2.2, Proposed Sites and Zoning, the Housing Sites Inventory utilizes existing land use and zoning densities and does not require redesignation or rezoning to meet the City’s RHNA. The proposed Housing Element does not propose any changes to the City of Livermore General Plan land use map and would not modify any General Plan land use designations or zoning designations. Future implementation actions would include amendments to zoning and other regulations to facilitate housing development consistent with State housing law. These future amendments are discussed in detail below.

Policies, programs, and actions included in the proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element encourage housing production and outline steps for the future implementation of certain actions. As discussed in Section 2.2.3, Proposed Housing Plan, the proposed Housing Element includes goa ls for diverse housing choices and affordable housing production. Under Goal 1, Policy P1.2 facilitates the development of a range of housing types through area planning efforts. Policy P1.3 requires the City to update the Development Code to simplify standards, expand opportunities for a greater variety of housing types, and maintain consistency with State law. Policy P1.4 encourages a reduction of governmental constraints on housing development through permit streamlining, reasonable and p roportional development fees, and transparent and

EXHIBIT B
272
accessible information. Under Goal 3, Policy P3.1 facilitates the production of affordable housing through the regulation of and incentives to new development. The se policies encourage and promote housing production under existing land use regulations but do not increase the amount of allowable development allowed in the city when compared to existing land use regulations.

As discussed above, the policies in the proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element would not involve any land use or zoning changes that could increase the amount of housing allowed in the city or otherwise create physical impacts on the environment . T he proposed Housing Element does not include specific amendments to any land use regulations at this time but rather provides a timeline for future amendments.

Subsequent amendments to the City’s land use or zoning regulations would be subject to separate CEQA review at the time those amendments are prepared, if required . Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the City of Livermore 2023-2031 Housing Element would not have a significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from CEQA review.

EXHIBIT B
273
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN ADMENDMENT (GPA) 23-002 AND ADOPTING THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
The City of Livermore (City) initiated General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-002 to prepare the 2023-2031 Housing Element update (“Project”), pursuant to State Housing Element Law. The 2023-2031 Housing Element is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580, et seq.) requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City of Livermore’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA).

State Housing Element Law requires that the City take meaningful steps to promote and affirmatively further fair housing.

At a duly noticed public hearing on February 28, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the Project and staff recommendation, heard public testimony, made the necessary findings and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-23, attached hereto as Exhibit C, containing the Planning Commission’s actions and/or recommendations.
274
RESOLUTION NO. ________
On March 13, 2023, 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.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore has considered the Record Evidence and adopted a resolution finding the project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore has considered the findings made in Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-23, attached hereto as Exhibit C, 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, in accordance with State Housing Element Law, the City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-002 and adopts the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Livermore authorizes staff to make non-substantive changes to the 2023-2031 Housing Element to respond to any comments received during the adoption process or from HCD to achieve certification.

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

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 March 13, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
275
RESOLUTION NO. ________
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Kimberly Cilley
Marie Weber Kimberly Cilley
City Clerk Senior Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit B – February 2023 Letter from HCD
Exhibit C – Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-23
276
December 2022
Revised Draft
City of Livermore
2023-2031 Housing Element
Revised January 2023

EXHIBIT A
277

EXHIBIT A
278
December 2022
Revised Draft
City of Livermore
2023-2031 Housing Element
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE www.placeworks.com
Prepared by: PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
t 510.848.3815

EXHIBIT A
279

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

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

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

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

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

1.4 Relationship to the General Plan ............................................................................... 1-26

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

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

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

2.3 Household Characteristics ............................................................................................ 2-9

2.4 Special Need Groups .................................................................................................. 2-12

2.5 Housing Stock Characteristics .................................................................................... 2-24

2.6 Housing Costs and Affordability ................................................................................. 2-27

2.7 Regional Housing Need .............................................................................................. 2-36

2.8 Affordable Housing ...................................................................................................... 2-36

2.9 Assessment of Fair Housing ......................................................................................... 2-43

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

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

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

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

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

4.2 Housing Resources ....................................................................................................... 4-14

4.3 Financial Resources ..................................................................................................... 4-15

4.4 Programs ....................................................................................................................... 4-21

4.5 Opportunities for Energy Conservation ..................................................................... 4-21

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

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

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

EXHIBIT A
280
FIGURE
Figure ES-1: Sites Inventory Maps ...............................................................................ES-6 Figure ES-2: Sites Inventory Maps ...............................................................................ES-7 Figure ES-3: Sites Inventory Maps ...............................................................................ES-8 Figure ES-4: Sites Inventory Maps ...............................................................................ES-9 Figure ES-5: Sites Inventory Maps ............................................................................ ES-10 Figure 2-1: Race/ethnic composition: Alameda County, CA; 2000-2050 ........... 2-6 Figure 2-2: Home Sale Prices 2001 to 2020 ............................................................ 2-29 Figure 2-3: TCAC Opportunity Area Designations ................................................ 2-48 Figure 2-4: Median Income ..................................................................................... 2-51 Figure 2-5: Predominant Population....................................................................... 2-54 Figure 2-6: Disability Rate ......................................................................................... 2-57 Figure 2-7: TCAC Educational Score ...................................................................... 2-59 Figure 2-8: Concentration of Jobs by Jurisdiction ................................................ 2-63 Figure 2-9: Environmental Health Scores ............................................................... 2-67 Figure 2-10: Rate of Overcrowded Households...................................................... 2-70 Figure 2-11: Percent of Cost Burdened Renter Households, 2019 ........................ 2-72 Figure 2-12: Percent of Cost Burdened Owner Households, 2019........................ 2-73 Figure 2-13: Units by TCAC Resource Area Designation ........................................ 2-89 Figure 2-14: Units by Median Income ....................................................................... 2-90 Figure 2-15: Units by Predominant Population ........................................................ 2-91 Figure 2-16: U nits by Disability Rate .......................................................................... 2-92 Figure 2-17: Units by Jobs Proximity Index Score ..................................................... 2-93 Figure 2-18: Units by TCAC Educational Score ....................................................... 2-94 Figure 2-19: Units by Rate of Cost Burdened Homeowners................................... 2-95 Figure 2-20: Units by Rate of Cost Burdened Renters ............................................. 2-96

TABLES
Table ES-1: Summary of Housing Element Goals and Policies .......................... ES-11 Table 1-1: Livermore Housing Needs Survey Respondent Characteristics ......... 1-5 Table 2-1: Population Growth 2020–2040 ............................................................... 2-2 Table 2-2: Livermore Projected Population Growth, 2020–2040 .......................... 2-2 Table 2-3: Median Age: Livermore and Alameda County, 2010 and 2020 ....... 2-3 Table 2-4: Age Distribution: Livermore and Alameda County, 2010–2020......... 2-3 Table 2-5: Race & Ethnicity Trends: Livermore and Alameda County, 2010–2019 ................................................................................................. 2-4 Table 2-5a: Race & Ethnicity Trends: Livermore and Alameda County, 2020 ..... 2-4 Table 2-6: Educational Attainment (Population 25 years and over), 2019 ........ 2-6 Table 2-7: Livermore Largest Employers .................................................................. 2-7 Table 2-8: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence ................................................................................................. 2-7 Table 2-9: Jobs by Industry, 2019 ............................................................................. 2-8

EXHIBIT A
281
Table 2-10: Job Projections: Livermore and Alameda County .............................. 2-8 Table 2-11: Jobs-Household Ratio, 2018 ................................................................... 2-9 Table 2-12: Livermore Projected Household Growth, 2020-2040 ........................... 2-9 Table 2-13: Household Characteristics, 2019 ......................................................... 2-10 Table 2-14: Housing Tenure, 2019............................................................................. 2-10 Table 2-15: Household Income by Tenure, 2017 .................................................... 2-11 Table 2-16: Households by Household Income Level, 2017 ................................. 2-12 Table 2-17: State-Identified Special Needs Groups, Livermore ........................... 2-12 Table 2-18: Senior Households by Income and Tenure, 2017 .............................. 2-13 Table 2-19: Households by Poverty Status .............................................................. 2-14 Table 2-20: Household Size, 2019 ............................................................................. 2-15 Table 2-21: Bedroom Mix by Tenure, 2019 .............................................................. 2-15 Table 2-22: Persons with Disabilities, Ages 18 to 64 by Workforce Participation, 2019 ................................................................................. 2-16 Table 2-23: Reported Disabilities by Disability Type, Ages 18 to 64, 2019 ........... 2-17 Table 2-24: Livermore Licensed Community Care Facilities, 2014 ...................... 2-17 Table 2-25: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age, 2020 ............... 2-18 Table 2-26: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence .............. 2-18 Table 2-27: Homeless Facilities and Services in Livermore, 2022 .......................... 2-20 Table 2-28: Summary of Available Beds Reported by Continuum of Care, 2020 ......................................................................................................... 2-22 Table 2-29: Farm Operations and Farm Labor, Alameda County ...................... 2-23 Table 2-30: Housing Stock, 2010–2020 ..................................................................... 2-24 Table 2-31: Tenure and Vacancy, 2019 .................................................................. 2-25 Table 2-32: Vacant Units by Type, 2019 .................................................................. 2-25 Table 2-33: Housing Unit Growth, 2010 to 2020 ...................................................... 2-25 Table 2-34: Housing Units by Tenure and Age, 2019 ............................................. 2-26 Table 2-35: Livermore Home Sale Prices, January 2021–January 2022............... 2-28 Table 2-36: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units, 2019 .................................. 2-30 Table 2-37: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units, 2019 .............................. 2-30 Table 2-38: Average Rental Prices in Livermore, 2022 .......................................... 2-30 Table 2-39: Housing Affordability Matrix (2020) ...................................................... 2-32 Table 2-40: Cost Burden by Income Classification and Tenure for Livermore, 2018 ......................................................................................................... 2-34 Table 2-41: Overcrowding Severity, 2017 ............................................................... 2-35 Table 2-42: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity in Livermore, 2017 ............... 2-35 Table 2-43: Housing Problems for All Households .................................................. 2-36 Table 2-44: Regional Housing Need Allocation by Income Group, January 2023 to January 2031 ............................................................................ 2-36 Table 2-45: Affordable Housing Inventory .............................................................. 2-38 Table 2-46: Projects At-Risk ....................................................................................... 2-41 Table 2-47: Potential Rent Subsidies ........................................................................ 2-42 Table 2-48: School Performance Scores, 2019 ....................................................... 2-60 Table 2-49: School District Demographic Characteristics .................................... 2-61

EXHIBIT A
282
Table 2-50: Jobs-Housing Ratio ................................................................................ 2-64 Table 2-51: Unemployment Rate ............................................................................. 2-64 Table 2-52: Percentage of Cost Burden Residents by Tenure, Race, and Ethnicity ................................................................................................... 2-75 Table 2-53: Home Loan Applications ...................................................................... 2-82 Table 2-54: Contributing Factors .............................................................................. 2-97 Table 2-55: Summary of Housing Programs and Actions Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ........................................................................ 2-100 Table 3-1: Home Loan Application Status Disclosure in Berkeley/Oakland/ Livermore Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2020 ..................................... 3-3 Table 3-2: General Plan Land Use Categories ....................................................... 3-5 Table 3-3: Zoning Districts That Allow Residential Uses and Development Standards ................................................................................................ 3-16 Table 3-4: Parking Requirements ........................................................................... 3-23 Table 3-5: Housing Types Permitted by Development Code Zone ................... 3-32 Table 3-6: Housing Types Permitted by Specific Plan Zone ................................ 3-34 Table 3-7: Development Review Time Frames: General Plan Areas (outside Downtown Specific Plan) ...................................................... 3-41 Table 3-8: Development Review Time Frames: Downtown Specific Plan Areas ....................................................................................................... 3-42 Table 3-9: Planning and Development Fees ........................................................ 3-45 Table 3-10: Fee Comparison: Single Family vs. Multifamily Rental Units ............. 3-48 Table 3-11: Proportion of Fees of Total Development Cost ................................. 3-49 Table 3-12: Public Improvement Standards ........................................................... 3-54 Table 4-1: Livermore’s RHNA, 2022 – 2030 Projection Period ............................... 4-1 Table 4-2: Representative Approved or Completed Projects ............................. 4-8 Table 4-3: Comparison of Site Capacity and RHNA ........................................... 4-13 Table 4-4: Financial Resources for Housing Activities .......................................... 4-16 Table 5-1. Summary of Quantified Objectives: 2023–2031 ................................... 5-6

EXHIBIT A
283

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE
The Housing Element is intended to assist the City of Livermore in identifying housing needs for residents of all income levels and developing an action program to meet those needs per Government Code 65583.2. The Housing Element is part of the Livermore General Plan, which is a comprehensive policy framework guiding the physical, economic, and social development of the City. This update to the Housing Element supersedes the Livermore Housing Element adopted in 2015.

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

The Housing Element should be used in conjunction with the Land Use Element to identify appropriate sites and land use designations for the development of quality, affordable housing.

The Housing Element must be internally consistent with other General Plan elements and address State mandates that can restrict the ability of the City to designate certain si tes for housing.

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

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

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

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
• From 2010 to 2020, the population of Livermore increased at an average annual rate of

1.1 percent, about the same as Alameda County’s rate of 1.2 percent. • The median age for Livermore was 39.8 years of age in 2020, slightly older than Alameda County’s median age of 37.6.
• Residents aged 15 to 24 decreased in number and proportion from 2010 to 2020 in both Livermore and Alameda County. In Livermore and the county, this decrease was countered by a large increase in adults ages 65 to 74 over the same time period. • The ethnic makeup of Livermore in 2019 was nearly 65 percent white. Nearly 21 percent of the population identified as Hispanic or Latino, and 8 percent of residents were Asian.

Smaller percentages of residents fell into other racial and ethnic groups. • In 2019, 3.0 percent of Livermore’s residents and 5.9 percent of Alameda County residents had less than a high school degree. Both figures represent an increase from 2010 statistics. • Livermore’s average unemployment rate in 2019 was 3.1 percent, lower than the County’s unemployment rate of 3.9 percent.

EXHIBIT A
284
• Th
ere were 46,110 employed residents in Livermore in 2020, compared to a local employment base of 48,136 jobs.

HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
• According to the Department of Finance, Livermore had 32,390 households in 2020, an

11.2 percent increase in households from 2010.
• Livermore had a higher percentage of family households in 2019 (74.4 percent), compared to Alameda County (66.6 percent).
• A total of 28.7 percent of Livermore households had incomes defined as either extremely low, very low, or low (up to 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). Livermore had a lower proportion of extremely and very low- income households, accounting for approximately 17.2 percent, compared to 26.7 percent countywide.

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

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

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

Large Households
• In 2019, there were 3,248 large households (five or more persons) in Livermore, representing approximately 10.2 percent of all households. Alameda County’s population was very similar, with 10.0 percent of all households considered large. • A large household generally requires a home with at least three bedrooms. According to 2019 estimates, approximately 74.3 percent of Livermore’s total housing units (both owned and rented) had three or more bedrooms, significantly more than Alameda County’s proportion of large units. However, only 36.5 percent of the rental stock in Livermore had three or more bedrooms.

Disabled
• In 2017, approximately 8.2 percent of the Livermore population ages 5 to 64 classified themselves as disabled.
• There are 43 licensed community care facilities in Livermore. These facilities provide a supportive environment to persons with special needs.
• There are ten affordable housing developments and shared housing projects built specifically for adults with developmental or psychiatric disabilities in Livermore.

EXHIBIT A
285
• Many of the projects in Livermore ’s affordable housing inventory and development pipeline have both accessible units and services to support residents with disabilities Homeless Persons
• In January 2019, the EveryOne Home community organi zation conducted an Alameda Countywide Homeless Point -in-Time Homeless Count and Survey. This survey found that about 8,022 people in Alameda County are homeless at any given point in time. • The point-in-time count found that there were 264 homeless people in Livermore at that time.
• The City of Livermore partners with local non-profit organizations to offer safety net services for persons who are experiencing homelessness or fleeing domestic violence.

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

HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
• The majority (68.9 percent) of the housing stock in Livermore consists of single -family detached homes, whereas Alameda County’s proportion is slightly over half (52 .2 percent). Multifamily units make up 19.0 percent of the housing stock in Livermore and 38.6 percent of the stock of Alameda County.
• The proportion of owner-occupied housing in Livermore (75.9 percent) is greater than that of Alameda County (50.8 percent).
• Livermore experienced an increase of approximately 2,386 housing units from 2010 to 2020, averaging 238 new homes per year and accounting for approximately 7.9 percent of total housing production in the county.

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
• The median home s ale price of 2010 ($522,00) increased by 65.7 percent to $865,106 in 2020. This trend has been part of the overall housing affordability crisis in the Bay Area and the state.
• Due to the continued increase in home sale prices, only above moderate -income households can afford the typical median price for a home in Livermore. In other words, homes in Livermore remain unaffordable to even moderate -income households without down payment assistance.
• Rental housing in Livermore has similar trends to rental prices of Alameda County. One - bedrooms averaged approximately $2,206 per month in Livermore in 2022. Rents for two - bedroom units averaged $2,565, three-bedroom units averaged $3,262, and the average for four-bedroom units was $3,636.
• In general, extremely low - and very low- income households cannot afford market rental or owner-occupied housing.
• In 2018, overall 17.7 percent of occupied households were paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Renters have a higher cost burden than homeowners, with

25.2 percent of renters and 10.6 percent of owners paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing.
• There is a higher incidence of overcrowding among renter -occupied households than owner-occupied households in Livermore. Livermore has a larger perc entage of renter -

EXHIBIT A
286
oc
cupied households with 1.0 to 1.5 occupants per room (5.6 percent) than owner - occupied units (1.0 percent). This rate of renter overcrowding has increased significantly since adoption of the last Housing Element.

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

MARKET CONSTRAINTS
• As of January 2022, residential properties in Livermore had prices ranging from as low as $22 per square foot of floor area to $ 67 per square foot. This range can be attributed to varying locations of the land, existing infrastructure, and other parcel-specific factors such as environmental conditions and topography.
• A typical single -family detached unit of 2,000 square feet would cost approximately $684,545 per unit to build, including land. Based on recent multifamily developments in the city, a multifamily apartment complex would cost approximately $467,423 per unit. • It is difficult for low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers to enter the market. The City offers a down payment assistance program to facilitate additional access to financial resources for lower- and moderate-income households to attain homeownership, as well as home improvement assistance for low- and moderate-income households. • White and Asian applicants are overrepresented in originated loans in Livermore, while Latinx, Black, and applicants of other races (e.g., American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, two or more race, or other) were underrepresented.

Asian applicants seem have to the highest success rate for securing a mortgage loan. The City ha s Programs 3.4.1 and 5.2.1 to address these disproportionalities by implementing targeted and multilingual outreach strategies and programs and removing barriers to homeownership.

GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
• In 2010, the City adopted the Livermore Development Code, which describes zoning districts and regulations. It also provides a clear roadmap for the entitlement of development projects. The Development Code ensures consistency with the General Plan, existing policies and procedures, and applicable state regulations. The code includes form-based regulations, revisions of outdated development regulations and zoning districts, and an update of its parking regulations for tandem parking and smaller units (studios and one bedrooms). The code has been periodically updated since 2010. The City’s comprehensive General Plan Update is currently underway and will update land uses and policies as needed to address the City’s vision through 2045. The Housing Element will be adopted prior to the other General Plan elements, however, all elements will align in the final General Plan.
• An analysis of the City’s existing land use controls, growth management policies, and development review process indicates that the City is not unreasonably restrictive but facilitates development through its zoning and other standards. • The City complies with the most recent provisions of State density bonus law.

EXHIBIT A
287
• Projects involving multiple planning applications can have fees reduced by 10 percent.

Planning fees are based on anticipated staff processing and review time and are charged at the time an application for development is received. Other development fees are collected as part of the building permit issuance process. • The City provides Reasonable Accommodation to persons requesting modifications to their homes for accessibility improvements. Requests for flexibility in development standards in order to accommodate accessibility improvements have been codified in the City’s Development Code and are reviewed and approved at the staff level.

HOUSING RESOURCES
• The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for developing the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City of Livermore. The current RHNA plans for an eight-year period, from June 30th, 2023, through December 15th, 2030. For the current projection period, ABAG has determined that City’s share of the RHNA is 4,570 new housing units.
• Based on residential capacity in the General Plan and Specific Plan areas, the sites identified in the land inventory would accommodate a total of 5,077 units, which exceeds the RHNA of 4,570. Maps of the proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA are included Appendix A and are also included in this Executive Summary starting on the next page. • The City of Livermore has access to a variety of existing and potential funding sources available for affordable housing activities, including affordable housing fees, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), HOME funds, and Section 8 vouchers. The City actively works with neighboring cities, County agencies, and numerous non-profit organizations to provide affordable housing and human service programs.
• The City has a number of policies and programs to encourage energy conservation and green building. In 2022, the City will adopt an updated Climate Action Plan with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving resilience within the community.

HOUSING PLAN
This Housing Element contains goals, policies, and programs outlined in Table ES -1 and discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, Housing Plan. Since adoption of its existing Housing Element in 2015, the City has proactively worked to implement the goals, policies, and programs aimed at conserving, improving, and expanding the City’s affordable housing stock. The City has advanced goals for accommodating special needs groups and increasing the energy efficiency of residential buildings.

EXHIBIT A
288
Figure ES-1: Sites Inventory Maps

EXHIBIT A
289
Figure ES-2: Sites Inventory Maps

EXHIBIT A
290
Figure ES-3: Sites Inventory Maps

EXHIBIT A
291
Figure ES-4: Sites Inventory Maps

EXHIBIT A
292
Figure ES-5: Sites Inventory Maps

EXHIBIT A
293
Table ES-1: Summary of Housing Element Goals and Policies Goals Policies
G-1 Diverse Housing
Choices
P 1.1: Develop and maintain a sites inventory with adequate densities and development standards to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) in all income categories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT A
294

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

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

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

1.1 ROLE OF HOUSING ELEMENT
The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every citizen as the State’s major housing goal. Recognizing the important role of local planning programs in the pursuit of this goal, the Legislature has mandated that all cities and counties prepare a Housing Element as part of the comprehensive General Plan. Achieving housing goals requires work at the state and local level. The Housing Element is part of the process and so is actually building housing. Funding to support building the amount of housing called for in the RHNA is not guaranteed . Cities will need support from the state including funding for affordable housing projects in addition to funding for and provision of infrastructure that supports housing development, such as water and power infrastructure. Section 65583 of the Government Code sets forth the specific components to be contained in a Housing Element. In the ABAG region state law requires Housing Elements be updated at least every eight years to reflect the changing housing needs of a community. Livermore’s Housing Element was last updated in 2015.

This Housing Element update is for the 2023-2031 planning period.

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

1.2 DATA SOURCES
Various sources of information contribute to the Housing Element. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) provides a data package that has been pre -approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Developmen t (HCD) and serves as the primary data source for population and household characteristics. Dates for data included in the ABAG data package may vary depending on the selection of data that was made to provide the best data on the topic. Several additional data sources were used to supplement the 2021 ABAG Data Package:
• Population and demographic estimates and projections by ABAG and the California Department of Finance.
• Housing market information, such as home sales, construction costs, and rents, updated via online surveys and City records.

EXHIBIT A
295
• Da
ta on special needs groups, the services available, and gaps in the service delivery system provided via service provider stakeholder interviews.

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

1.3 OUTREACH AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

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

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

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

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

The City also released a survey through the firm FM3 as part of the General Plan Update that incorporated questions about housing issues. The survey was made available from September 9 th
to 30th, 2021. The population that participated in this survey were Livermore residents ages 18 and older. The contact methods were telephone calls, postcard invitations, text invitations, and email invitations. Data were collected through telephone interviews and online interviews. The majority of respondents were ages 40 to 49 (22 percent) and 50 to 64 (24 percent). Most were white (60 percent), and the other 40 percent was divided between Latino/Hispanic (17 percent),

EXHIBIT A
296
Black/African American (2 percent), and Asian/Pacific Islander (8 percent), and 13 percent chose “other” or declined to state their ethnicity. Respondents’ educational background included high school or less (15 percent), some college (34 percent), four- year degree education (29 percent), postgraduate (18 percent), and four percent refused to answer the question. The survey identified affordable housing (21 percent) and homelessness (19 percent) as issues of top concern for residents.

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

EXHIBIT A
297
wa
s applauded by a stakeholder for its awareness and proactivity in accessing available State and federal funds dedicated to housing projects. The top housing need is for more affordable rental housing like the Chestnut Family and Chestnut Senior development, which is close and walkable to key services and amenities and close to public transportation.

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

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

Other identified housing opportunities to pursue include tiny houses, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and shared housing and producing more housing in general for single adults (studios, scattered sites, single room occupancies, etc.).

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

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

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

The following points capture the main themes of the input received at the open house:
• Immigration status is a huge barrier for community members’ access to affordable housing.

Accepting individual taxpayer identification number (ITINs) in affordable housing programs, especially for the City’s existing below market-rate housing program, would help expand access.
• Economic stability
o Credit scores are another major barrier for accessing affordable housing.

Community members need support establishing credit and accessing economic opportunity to strengthen credit.
o Gig workers and those who are self -employed struggle to document income in order to purchase or rent.

EXHIBIT A
298
• Property management and housing condition needs
o Surveillance and lighting.
o More maintenance of play structures and playgrounds for kids. o Spanish language services.
o More activities and services for adults, such as classes and community building events.
o Property management customer service and conflict resolution. • Affordable housing renters are interested in accessing homeownership opportunities but need the ability to save for homeownership without losing their existing housing. • Language access for both ho using navigation and affordable housing property management.
• Key access barriers: language, housing navigation, need for social security numbers, income documentation for gig workers and entrepreneurs. • Most participants agreed with the existing Housing Element goals. The top goals were:
o Build more affordable housing.
o Energy efficiency.
o Safe, family-friendly housing for low-income households.

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

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

EXHIBIT A
299
Th
e top three housing issues that respondents feel the City should address are:

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

2. Decreasing housing costs

3. Creating more homeownership opportunities
These three issues were regularly ranked as the top housing issues when results were disaggregated by respondent characteristics and demographics.

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

GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) is made up of citizens who represent a variety of backgrounds and community perspectives. GPAC meetings are open to the public.

EXHIBIT A
300
November 10, 2021
The GPAC received a presentation on the Housing Element Update at their virtual meeting on November 10 th, 2021. The purpose of the meeting was to provide an overview of the Housing Element, identify the City’s draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, describe the need to comply with State Housing Element law, and summarize recent State legislation governing housing element updates. Following a brief presentation on this topic, the GPAC asked clarifying questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT A
301

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 11, 2022
The GPAC received a presentation on the Housing Element Update at their in-person meeting on May 11th, 2022. The purpose of the meeting was to present and receive feedback on the Public Draft Housing Element. Questions and comments at the GPAC meeting are discussed in the Public Draft Housing Element section below.

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

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

Commission and Council discussion and questions are:
• Why was there such a large increase in the RHNA?
• On the RHNA, there is a difference between jurisdictions based o n the characteristics of each jurisdiction.
• Concerned about the issue of underhousing/overcrowding. Noted that this issue has been considered in the RHNA allocation process for the first time. • There are many challenges to the new state housing laws.

EXHIBIT A
302
• Thinks the City has sites available to meet its RHNA. • Explain what “Metropolitan” means in the definition of the City’s default density category. • Describe the concept of a “no net loss” buffer.
• Discuss additional analysis needed for nonvacant sites. • Provide information about how the Housing Element timeline and the rest of the General Plan timeline work together.
• Hoping the Housing Element will include strategies for how to actually get housing built. • Has the City looked into utilizing Senate Bill 10?
• Is the City planning to rely on ADU projections for the Housing Element? • Would like to see programs to support homeowners who build ADUs. • What options is the City looking at to accommodate residential need? • Can we state that there is no need to go beyond the urban growth boundary? • Will the public draft Housing Element have alternatives for different places to locate housing?
• Will there be any opportunity for additional Planning Commission input before the final draft Housing Element?
• Public input is important but with the understanding that this is a very complex set of requirements that goes into the Housing Element, some of which isn’t very flexible. • What are the consequences of noncompliance and benefits of compliance for the Housing Element?
• A Council Member mentio ned they have met with the Terner Center and they may be able to do some education locally.
• Important to speak clearly to the community.
• In the field of Planning the past used to predict the future. How does water availability, transit, and other factors affect housing? This changes over time. • How do we know the City will end up with a land use map with a balance of important allowed uses?
• Will the City have the information from the General Plan process available to inform Housing Element decisions?
• Concerned about service businesses.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Commission
May 17, 2022
The Planning Commission received a presentation on the Housing Element Update at their meeting on May 17, 2022. The purpose of the meeting was to present and receive feed back on the Public Draft Housing Element. Following a brief presentation on this topic, questions and comments from the Commission were received . Questions and comments at the Planning Commission meeting are discussed in the Public Draft Housing Element section below.

EXHIBIT A
303

City Council
May 23, 2022
The City Council received a presentation on the Housing Element Update at their meeting on May 23, 2022. The purpose of the meeting was to present and receive feedback on the Public Draft Housing Element. Following a brief presentation on this topic, questions and comments from the Council were received. Questions and comments at the City Council meeting are discussed in the Public Draft Housing Element section below.

PUBLIC DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT - COMMENTS AND REVISIONS
The City released the Public Draft Housing Element on May 4, 2022 for a 30- day public review period. The comments received during the public review period are listed below, along with revisions that were made to the Draft Housing Element to address the comment, if applicable.

Comments at May 11, 2022 GPAC Meeting
The Arroyo Vista neighborhood hasn't built out. What have we learned? Are those lessons reflected in the INSP other 500 lower income units on light industrial sites in this draft? • Revisions: No revisions were made to address this comment.

Last month the GPAC talked about residual land value. It seems largely driven by density. How does this relate to Arroyo Vista?
• Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

It is important to get this right as we want the units in the INSP to materialize. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

How can actual building of residential units be encouraged in the INSP? • Revisions: No revisions were made to address this comment.

Did the INSP include economic feasibility analysis?
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

The cost of vacant land assumption for Table 3-11 should be more than $70,000. • Revisions: Table 3-11 was revised to address this comment.

The Housing Element doesn't mention the failure of the State to provide infrastructure. Livermore cut water by 40% in 2015. Now the City is being asked to do more. Electrical infrastructure browns out. The State is asking us to grow while we don’t have necessary infrastructure. Water and power are big concerns and beyond ability of City to provide. People are getting more and more angry.

People fear reduction in quality of life. Biggest governmental constraint is the City. • Revisions:

Revisions were made on Page 1-1 to address this comment.

Demographics sections should use 2020 rather than 2019 data. • Revisions: S ome 2020 Census data was added to the Housing Needs Assessment to address this comment.

EXHIBIT A
304
Is there anything we should bear in mind for General Plan land use alternatives so that organizations can provide services in the same spot?
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Can we add a program to provide assistance to homeowners (more specific to ADUs than actions under Program 1.4.1?)
• Revisions: Ad
ditional revisions have been made to Program 3.2.2 to address this comment.

Would like a rental inventory maintained by the City.
• Revisions: As sessing the feasibility and costs of a rental inventory was added as a new action under Program 5.2.1.

Would like to see inclusion of sustainable green building, energy efficiency, greywater recapture, and
low water yards for new construction and rehabilitation work • Revisions: Re visions made to Program 4.1.1 to add more language about water . Green building and energy efficiency was already included in the draft.

The City could see 1,000 ADUs built over the next 12 years. Why is the projected ADU number so low?
They are a good way of getting low -income units into high -cost areas and to allow access to better schools.
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Could there be a category of ADUs for the elderly? Maybe seniors could build an ADU in their yard and live in it and rent the house to a family?
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Can we add or subtract programs and actions?
• Revisions: A large number of edits have been made to programs and actions since this comment was made as shown in tracked changes and via yellow and green highlighting in Section 5.2 Housing Goals, Policies and Programs.

Quantified objectives for Programs 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 seem low. • Revisions: Quantified objectives were increased under Programs 3.41 and 3.4.2.

What percentage of sites are in a commercial overlay? If the market favors commercial and that land gets consumed, it will eat up our sites buffer.
• Revisions: Re
visions were made to the realistic capacity analysis in Section 4.1 to state that the majority of recent development on Housing Element sites that allow non -residential uses has been residential.

Can we come up with ideas for the General Plan too?
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

What about business relocation on Housing Element sites that get redeveloped? • Revisions: A d iscussion of business relocation was added to Section 4.1 Availability of Sites for Housing.

Could allow for more creative Neighborhood MU/T- 4 al lowing 80 percent coverage. As infill land becomes scarce, we should look at underutilized sites. City should do more to make Mixed Use development happen.

EXHIBIT A
305
• Revisions: R evisions were made in the Density and Realistic Capacity section in Section 4.1 to address this comment.

Notes juxtaposition of 6 percent of INSP versus percent of infill opportunities scattered throughout the
City.
• Revisions: Ad ditional information about why the INSP is well-suited for housing opportunities was added to Section 4.1.

How does the Valley Link station influence the Housing Element? • Revisions: N o revisions were made to specifically address this question. However, additional information about the INSP which is related to the station has been added to Section 4.1.

We probably won't have a lot of changes to this Draft Housing Element, but we can do a lot to tee
up the next two Housing Elements and make sure there is capacity. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

The plan does not indicate priorities. There are so many factors, including funding. How can we be helpful?
• Revisions:

No revisions were made to address this comment. However, priorities are indicated through the dates in the programs and action in Section 5.2 Housing Goals, Policies and Programs.

Consider explicit statement as to whether or not eminent domain is on the table. • Revisions:

Revisions were made on Page ES-4 to address this comment.

The governor is expanding the Homekey program. New lodging is being built along the highway.

When these new hotel rooms come online, old motels will be emptier , for example the ones around Costco.
• Revisions: Ad
ditional information about existing and future projects for households experiencing homelessness was added to Page 2-80.

Would like to see a prioritization of the City working with nonprofits. Should ramp up responsiveness to l
aw changes like SB 9 and state ADU law.
• Revisions: R evisions were made to Programs 1.3.1 and 3.2.2 to address this comment.

Could properties be added to the sites inventory and what is the procedure for that? • Revisions: No revisions were made to address this comment.

Is frustrated that the Housing Element doesn't plan for infrastructure. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Comments at May 17, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting
Move the sentence starting with “The Housing Element is intended to…” to the beginning of the Purpose section so that it’s clearer upfront.
• Revisions: R evisions were made on page ES-1 to address this comment.

In the Executive summary on page 4 is there a typo related to cost per square feet for vacant land?

EXHIBIT A
306
• Revisions: Revisions were made on page ES-4 to address this comment.

Would like to know if prices shown in Figure 2 -1 Home Sale Prices are median or average prices? [Editorial note: this figure has changed to Figure 2-2 in this revised draft Housing Element] • Revisions: Th e definition of the Zillow Home Value Index averages used in the table has been added as a footnote on Figure 2-2.

Would like to see income categories added to Table 2-8
• Revisions: Th e income categories that correlate with the incomes in Table 2-8 were added to the table.

Please include information about student housing at Las Po sitas Community College • Revisions: A College Students section was added to Section 2.4 Special Needs Groups underneath the Farm Labor subsection. College students were also added as a group to be addressed in Program 1.5.3.A.

Table 3-11 needs a calculation cleanup including cost per units for multi- fa mily and single-family projects.
• Revisions: Tables 3-10 and 3-11 were revised.

Programs should be reworded from encourage to facilitate. • Revisions: P rogram 1.3.1. G, Program 1.5.1.C, Program 3.1.1.A, Program 3.2.1. C, Program

3.2.2. B, Program 3.5.1. A, and Program 4.1.1.D were revised to remove words like encourage and consider.

Page 260 ends

same area.
• Revisions: Th e language in the Assessment of Fair Housing section was revised to address this comment.

Doesn’t want this to be a “check the box” document – we want to achieve these goals. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Market data is less helpful because it’s from 2019, costs and rates have increased a lot since then. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Interested to see the impacts that SB 9 and SB 330 will have on housing supply and affordability. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Government constraints have a small impact on housing supply and affordability. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

State budget surplus could help solve affordable housing and homelessness. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

We should think about relocation of businesses out of downtown, although the Housing Element may not be the appropriate place to do that.
• Revisions: A d iscussion of business relocation was added to Section 4.1 Availability of Sites for Housing.

We should be thoughtful about community character, livability, and universal design in our res
idential design standards.

EXHIBIT A
307
• Revisions: Th e City is starting on a comprehensive Development Code Update in January 2023 as detailed in multiple programs in Section 5.2 Housing Goals, Policies and Programs.

How do we keep people in Livermore? There are 25,000 people working in Livermore that make les
s than $50k – they can’t live in Livermore.
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

How do we target other languages in addition to Spanish? • Revisions: R evisions were made to Programs 3.3.1 and 5.1.1 to include languages in addition to Spanish, which was already included.

How do we focus on the area north of d owntown for improvements? • Revisions: Re visions were made to Programs 4.1.2, 4.1.3, and 4.2.1 to target investments in neighborhoods north of downtown.

Explain the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TC AC)
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

How do we codify State laws in our code?
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment. However, multiple programs and actions in Section 5.2 address codifying state law in the City’s Development Code.

Jobs-housing balance: High wage r es idents don’t commute that far , worried about low -income workers who have to drive long distances to get here – we should worry about housing them. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

How reasonable are our objective standards?
• Revisions: No revisions were made to address this comment. However, the City will be drafting objective standards in 2023 as described in Program 1.3.1 in Section 5.2.

Do we have enough water for this housing?
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Make the sites inventory map available online.
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment. However, Program 1.1.1 calls for the city to maintain an online map of the sites inventory on the City website.

Redeveloping the Rincon and Pine site could lift up the community. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

We should find ways to streamline the development process. Pre -meetings with developers and allowing concurrent review could reduce risk for developers. We could make accommodations for long lead time utility work before the final map is done. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment. However, the City will be drafting objective standards to in 2023 that are intended to streamline the development process as described in Program 1.3.1 in Section 5.2.

Appreciate the outreach with service providers.
• Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

Likes to see regional cooperation in the goals – we are not the bad actor.

EXHIBIT A
308
• Revisions: No revisions were made to address this comment.

Appreciate prior City Council adopting the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Remove constraints for way buildings are developed – laminated wood and other materials. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Emeryville matches affordability requirements with RHNA numbers – is this something we should consider?
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Do we locate affordable housing in low-income areas or in high resource areas? • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Springtown area is cost-burdened – can we provide more affordable housing there? • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Make sure people know the benefits of in-lieu fees – they make projects like Avance happen. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Revise Policy 1.4 to say, “reasonable and proportional development fees”. • Revisions: P olicy 1.4 was revised to add the word proportional.

Policies 1.5 and 2.1 – remove the word “encourage”
• Revisions: Policies 1.5 and 2.1 were revised to change encourage to facilitate.

Policy 3.4 – “linguistically accessible and culturally relevant” language is overly complex. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Policy 4.1 – add word “cost-effective”
• Revisions: P olicy 4.1 was revised to add the word cost-effective.

Policy 5.1 – add word “buyers”
• Revisions: Policy 5.1 was revised to include h omebuyers.

Look at requirements for needing 2 staircases in apartments. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Make sure new development around Chestnut does not displace current residents. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Provide jobs for low -income workers and provide jobs for higher income workers so they don’t have to drive out.
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Student and senior housing are similar – studio to 1-bedroom units with amenities. We should put this in the INSP.
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Add a reference to the City's electronic application submittal process and how it streamlines the review process.

EXHIBIT A
309
• Revisions: Re visions to describe the upcoming electronic submittal system have been included in Program 1.4.1.

Is there is a typo related to cost per square feet for vacant land? • Revisions: Revisions were made on page ES-4 to address this comment.

Comments at May 23, 2022 City Council Meeting
Comments from the Public
In Table 3-10: Is the water connection fee, correct? Is “1” fire service needed? Shouldn't the Zone 7 fee be included?
• Revisions: Table 3-10 was revised.

What about vehement NIMBYism because of the state failing to provide enough w ater and power? City is under current state mandated water conservation measures. • Revisions: Revisions were made on Page 1-1 to address this comment.

There are weaknesses in demographics presented. Mentioned lack of comparison to Tri- Valley neighbor jurisdictions.
• Revisions: R evisions were made in the Assessment of Fair Housing using Tri- Valley data analysis.

Should use 2020 data instead of 2019 regardless of whether the 2019 data was pre -appro ved by the State for use in the Housing Element.
• Revisions: Some 2020 Census data were added to the Housing Needs Assessment to address this comment.

The housing crisis won't be solved until housing is de-commo dified. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Blackrock owns a lot of California real estate.
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

The Baby Boomer generation owns $12 trillion in real estate, Generation X owns $7 trillion, and Millennials own $ 2 trillion.
• Revisions: No revisions were made to address this comment.

More citizens lived and worked in Livermore 12 years ago. The commenter has employees who are managers at his businesses who live in Modesto because they can't find a place to live in Livermore.
• Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

The focus for the Housing Element should be on sites that are more likely to be built. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

City should replace the existing uses on light industrial sites if using as housing sites. • Revisions: R evisions were made in the Density and Realistic Capacity section in Section 4.1 to address this comment.

EXHIBIT A
310
There is the legal definition of affordable housing and housing that is naturally affordable. Wants affordable housing to happen due to market forces rather than subsidies. Hopes the Housing Element effort can help bring down the overall market price of housing, especially for first -time homebuyers.
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Comments from City Council Members
Is the buffer of sites above the RHNA comfortable enough in the draft sites inventory? • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

How do we bring the community along regarding actually building housing when it is time to implement the Housing Element? How to explain to the community that this isn't optional and can be included in the Housing Element?
• Revisions: Revisions were made to the Introduction section to address this comment.

Would like data comparisons to the Bay Area as a whole, Tri -Valley and City instead of what is in document now.
• Revisions: Edits were made in the Assessment of Fair Housing using Tri-Valley data analysis.

There is an odd gap between what cities do and what the state does. • Revisions: Revisions were made to the Introduction section to address this comment.

Please include a map of the sites in the Executive Summary. The maps in Appendix A have poor resolution.
• Revisions: T
he sites maps were included in the Executive Summary. In addition, the City is preparing an interactive online map of the sites that will be made available to the public.

Is it correct that ADUs were 46% of building permits in the City in the last year? • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Doesn't think the ADUs projected in the draft will come to fruition in terms of the affordability levels included.
• Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

Have cities found ways to incentivize ADUs for actual long -term rentals or affordable long -term rentals?
• Revisions: Re visions were made to describe City efforts that address this comments including in Programs 1.5.3.E and 3.2.3.D.

The RHNA/ADU projections are what housing could happen in the city. • Revisions: No revisions were made to address this comment.

Is the City working on ensuring at-risk affordable projects stay affordable? • Revisions: A dditions were made to the At-Risk Housing section in the Housing Needs Assessment.

The goals in the Housing Element look about right.
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

EXHIBIT A
311
Th
e City definitely should address public comments received on the draft. • Revisions: Re visions h ave been made in multiple places in the document as detailed throughout this section.

The City is looking into tracking ADU affordability.
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

The plan presented in the Housing Element should be plausible. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Monitoring and analysis related to no net loss will happen over the course of the planning period • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Would like some Council briefings ahead of adoption to go over the details. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

The City is not attempting to bring down the overall market price of housing through the Housing Element process, that is not possible. The goal is to provide options that are affordable or more affordable.
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Glad to hear corrections will be made in Executive Summary related to fees and land costs . • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Written Comments
Written comments were received on the Public Draft Housing Element outside of comments during meetings. A summary of the comments is below:

Alan Burnham commented that the document is very long and not user friendly to the average citizen. The most important part is the map section near the end. Figures A1a- d are the bottom- line conclusion of the analysis and should be in the Executive Summary. One can see at a glance what land is potentially available, which makes the Ex ecutive Summary more complete and useful.
• Revisions:

The maps from Appendix A were added to the Executive Summary.

Alan Burnham noted that one of the recommendations of the General Plan update committee was to talk to landowners to understand their intentions. I realize that this may not be practical for this document, but there needs to be a disclaimer somewhere that some owners may not want to develop their land in the Housing Element time period, but there are also some parcels not currently zoned for housing that could become available. For example, did not the owner of the commercial park at the corner of Concannon and Holmes wish to have the northern portion used for senior housing?
• Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

Alan Burnham noted that the document uses 2019 estimates rather than 2020 census values for race and ethnicity. He stated that the latter have been shown to have serious errors. For example, a recent study of vaccination rates using 2019 county data indicates that more than 100% of the Asian population was vaccinated. Using 2020 actual counts gave more reasonable vaccination rates to inform a better city policy.

EXHIBIT A
312
• Revisions: Some 2020 Census data were added to the Housing Needs Assessment to address this comment.

Alan Burnham commented that using population and demographic differences over the past ten ye
ars are unreliable indicators of the next ten years. All characteristics are nonlinear to some extent, and some sufficiently so that serious errors can occur. For example, looking at 30 -year trends suggests that Hispanic population may be plateauing but the increases in “Asian” and “Other and mixed race” populations are accelerating. The Asian population may exceed the Hispanic population before the end of this Housing Element term. What, if any, are the implications of those trends on needed new housing?
• Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

Alan Burnham commented that the encouragement of ADUs was discussed at the General Plan update committ ee meeting. Program element 1.4.1.D was mentioned. It does not currently mention senior housing, but perhaps it should. The text on page 4 -2 mentions the use of ADUs for extended family units, which could be children or parents. It should be noted that this is an issue for when fee waivers or other economic incentives are granted. He noted h e is not proposing a recommendation, but the issue should be flagged for consideration. • Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

Alan Burnham noted there are some demographic comparisons to Alameda County as a whole.

He said the fact is that Tracy is closer to Livermore than the Fremont to Berkeley Corridor, so it is not clear to him that Alameda County is the only or most useful comparison. There should be at least a passing comparison to our nearest neighbors, Pleasanton and Dublin, particularly since they may indicate some trends in our future.
• Revisions: Re
visions were made in the Assessment of Fair Housing using Tri- Valley data analysis.

Alan Burnham also made comments related to data presented as part of the General Plan Upd
ate meetings and commented on the existing adopted Housing Element. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Planning Commissioner Leary noted on Page 2 -76 - fourth bullet - should be sheltered, not unsheltered.
• Revisions: This bullet was removed due to updates to bring in newer homeless count data from 2022.

Planning Commissioner Leary commented on Page 2 -90 a nd would like the document to define "good" related to schools (nice students? Winning sports? Test scores?) • Revisions: Th is section of the Fair Housing Assessment was revised to address this comment and clarify.

Planning Commissioner Leary asked about Page 3-27 – last paragraph, is there an extra comma? • Revisions: The extra comma was removed.

Planning Commissioner Leary commented on Page 2-24, Table 2-34: Housing Units by Tenure and Age, 2019. Last row in table - 19.5% of all houses built before 1939? He commented “wow”. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Planning Commissioner Leary commented on Page 2-45 – only one, unnamed source? [Comment is related to the fair housing-related outreach summary.]

EXHIBIT A
313
• Revisions: Th e list of stakeholders consulted with was added to this sec tion and text was added noting that confidentiality of who said what in the summary is maintained through aggregating the feedback.

Planning Commissioner Leary commented I see this note on the State website: "California has requ
ired that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community" https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/housingelement/index.shtml#background. Do you know what state law makes this requirement? I did not see it in the Housing Element Executive Summary. • Revisions: T he Government Code reference was added to the Introduction section.

Planning Commissioner Leary commented about Page 2 -86 of the Housing Element. He noted it says the affordable housing should be located near the low wage employment. Page 106 talks about "integrating" of affordable housing in high resource area. Which method is preferred? • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Planning Commissioner Leary commented on Page 2 -21 - Farm Operations and Farm Labor. I noticed our Farm labor workforce has decreased in half since 2007. Does the City Team know why Farm Labor has decreased? The development code allows for a Caretaker's residence (one or multiple)?.
• Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

Planning Commissioner Leary commented on Page 3-38 in the streamlining section. Does the City allow developers/builders to proceed with early, long lead construction items, like early utility construction or demolition, while the final map is being completed? • Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

Planning Commissioner Leary commented on the Review of Program 2.1.2 in Appendix B: He paraphrased: "Work with Cities water provider to ensure water supply for the Housing Needs" In general, does the City have access to water supply for the housing? • Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

Planning Commissioner Branning commented on the Social Opportunity Endow ment (SOE) :
“There is no mention of the SOE (Social Opportunity Endowment) funds in the document that I saw. The alarm on this fund running out has been raised for years and I believe this is its last year in existence. I know the complexity of the fund and some of its weird history but it is a really vital part of the Human Services ability to provide for residents. So my questions is, without overburdening the system can we replenish the SOE fund or create another fund with similar restrictions on use? • Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

Planning Commissioner Branning commented on Spanish language needs: “Are we able to meet Spanish language needs currently? What about other languages? What would it take to be able to meet those needs?
• Revisions: Re
visions were made to Programs 3.3.1 and 5.1.1 to include languages in addition to Spanish, which was already included.

Planning Commissioner Branning commented on job salaries in Livermore: “On page 2 -5 in t able 2-8 I want to know if I am reading it correctly. Of the jobs available in Livermore do roughly 25,000 pay less than $50,000 a year?”
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

EXHIBIT A
314
Planning Commissioner Branning commented on targeting the area north of downtown for revitalization: “What are we doing to specifically target the area n orth of downtown for revitalization. It seemed to be disproportionately impacted in almost every measure?” • Revisions: Re visions were made to Programs 4.1.2, 4.1.3, and 4.2.1 to target investments in neighborhoods north of downtown.

Planning Commissioner Branning commented on prom oting ADUs: “How can we better promote the opportunity for people to build ADUs?”
• Revisions: R evisions were made to Programs 1.3.1 and 1.4.1 to address this comment.

Planning Commissioner Branning commented on streamlining approval for ADUs and manufactured homes: “Can we streamline the approval for ADUs and manufactured homes/tiny homes at all?”
• Revisions: R evisions were made to Action 1.4.1.C to address part of this comment.

Planning Commissioner Branning commented on streamlining the approval process: “Is there any room to streamline the approval process for projects in the pipeline? Most projects require planning approval which adds a lot of extra time and some extra costs. I do not have a specific example, but it seems to me there might be some projects that could be streamlined and not require commission approval.”
• Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

Planning Commissioner Branning commented on TCAC “ Can you explain TCAC some in the presentation, there was a lot of information on it and I could use some clarification on how it is defined. I mostly understand its use I believe.”
• Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

Nipun Gunawardena commented that they have several comments to make regarding the Livermore 2023 - 2031 housing element. Their feedback is in the subsequent comments below and organized by policies named in Table ES-1 in General Plan Housing Element PDF. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Nipun Gunawardena commented regarding Policy P1.1: Livermore should strive to not just meet its RHNA levels, but surpass them. Housing is a human right and necessary for everyone, and we shouldn’t just do the bare minimum as required by law. We should build enough to welcome everyone that would like to live in this great town.
• Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

Nipun Gunawardena commented regarding Policies P1.2/P1.3: I think it’s great that L ivermore is trying to simplify standards and increase the amount of housing types allowed. I would like to emphasize how important multifamily housing is in this process. Multifamily housing is cheaper, more environmentally friendly, and maintains our open spaces. A “greater variety of housing types” shouldn’t just include different variations on single family houses and ADUs, they should include duplex/triplex/fourplexes, bungalow courts, and apartment buildings. • Revisions:

Missing middle was added to Programs 1.2.1. A and 5.2.1.K.

Nipun Gunawardena commented regarding Policy P2.1: Mixed use development is crucial! Livermore only has a few commercial areas and families without cars would live a lot easier if small markets/grocery stores, as well as other amenities, were located throughout the town. • Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

EXHIBIT A
315
Nipu
n Gunawardena commented regarding Policy P4.1: It’s very important to promote housing features that beneficial to its residents and the society as a whole as opposed to purely aesthetic requirements. Sustainable housing requirements like solar hookups, water recycling, xeriscaping, proper insulation are much more important than “neighborhood preservation”. It is also important that while the houses should be sustainable, the requirements should not be so onerous that the house can’t be built in the first place.
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Nipun Gunawardena commented regarding Policy P6.1: This is very importan t in the fragmented Bay Area. One of the things that would help with this is public transportation. Due to the lack of a BART station, Livermore seems disconnected from the rest of the tri -valley area and the Bay Area at large. Increasing public transit options would help with regional cooperation as there will be increased movement between the areas.
• Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO) provided a Policy Menu that started with a General Comment that the Housing Element policies should include specific actions, milestones, timelines, funding sources and responsible parties. Statements such as “consider,” “study,” etc. should not be used. At a minimum, housing elements should provide a specific date by which a formal proposal will be brought before the legislative body for adoption. The letter includes a policy menu with the following topics and subtopics: Production with subtopics zoning, land use approvals and permitting; funding resources; Preservation; Tenant Protection/Anti- Displacement; and Prevent/End Homelessness. Under each topic or subtopic recommended policies are provided including some quoted language from HCD on examples of Strategies to Aff irmatively Further Fair Housing.
• Revisions: Some items on the policy menu were already addressed in the public draft.

Things that were added that address the policy menu include:
o Additions were made to the At -Ri sk Housing section in the Housing Needs Assessment to describe the City’s efforts to preserve existing subsidized affordable housing.
o Revisions were made in multiple places including in Programs 1.5.3, 3.1.1, 3.2.3,

4.1.2, and 6.1.2. to address the City's efforts regarding supportive shared housing. o Revisions were made throughout the Housing Plan to add specific information regarding affordable housing sites and milestones
o Revisions were made to Program 3.4.3 to include recommended policies o Assessing the feasibility and costs of a rental registry was added as a new action under Program 5.2.1

Housing Consortium of the East Bay (HCEB) attached a 2014 memo from HCD on Senate Bill (SB) 812 regarding persons with developmental disabilities and commented that the City should incorporate SB 812 into actions.
• Revisions: R evisions were made to Program 1.5.3 to address this comment. (HCEB) commented that the City should add more specific opportunity sites throughout: Tri Valley Housing Opportunity Center (141 N. Livermore), North M Street, Greiner, Walnut, Vineyard. • Revisions: R
eferences to opportunity sites were added in various places in programs section.

HCEB requested that the City add Vineyard Navigation Center to Program 3.4 (either as stand alon
e action or incorporate into existing actions like 3.4.2.C).

EXHIBIT A
316
• Revisions: Revisions were made to Program 3.4.3.

HCEB suggested the City explore Universal Design requirements and incentives for ADUs (Program

1.5.1A).
• Revisions: R evisions were made to Program 1.5.1.

HCEB suggested that Program 4.1.2 include properties owned and operated by organizations like HCEB and Tri Valley REACH such as Crane, and licensed group homes operated by HCEB. • Revisions: R evisions were made to Program 4.1.2.

HCEB requested the City incorporate existing work to add ADUs at supportive shared housing sites. • Revisions: R evisions were made to address City efforts in Programs 1.5.3, 3.1.1, 3.2.3, 4.1.2, and 6.1.2.

HCEB commented on Program 1.2.1.D r egarding the Southfront area. Could this area be suitable for permanent supportive housing? If so, explore adding deeply affordable housing into the masterplan. Alternatively, look at ways to incorporate existing practices of partnering with supportive housing providers and developers through the inclusionary program. • Revisions: Additional text was added to Program 3.1.1. A to address this comment.

Livermore Venture Partners submitted comments that include a description of lands within/adjacent to Las Positas College owned by Livermore Venture Partners and the process of working with the Chabot -Las Positas Community College District (CLPCCD) to potentially build student and e mployee housing. Discusses unclear property boundaries related to their property and the city limit and attached a letter from CLPCCD to the Livermore Planning Commission. • Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

Livermore Venture Partner s mentioned vacant properties within the INSP with potential projects (Shea Home and Denova) not being likely to contribute affordable units. The CLPCCD would like to plan for 400 plus affordable units. Request that the CLPCCD potential projects be emphasized in the Housing Element.
• Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

Livermore Venture Partners asked where exactly will the lower -income homes be created in the Isabel Area, since the draft Housing Element relies primarily on that area to achieve the City RHNA goals?
• Revisions: Re
visions to address this comment have been made in Section 4.1 and Appendix A.

Livermore Venture Partners asked why the Isabel Area is treated differently than the rest of Live
rmore in the Housing Inventory? Does that comply with the State Inventory law? • Revisions: Re visions to address this comment have been made in Section 4.1 and Appendix A.

Livermore Venture Partners asked where exactly will lower-inco me homes be located in the Isabel Neighborhood? The Draft Housing Element, on pages 192 and 193, presents a discussion on the "Realistic Capacity Information for the Lower -income RHNA." The lower -income RHNA goals are located primarily in sub-areas 2d, 3a, 3b, and 3c. Those four sub-areas are proposed for 1,780 low and very low-income homes, 86% of Livermore's lower-income RHNA goal. • Revisions: Re
visions to address this comment have been made in Section 4.1 and Appendix A.

EXHIBIT A
317

Livermore Venture Partners commented on what they referred to as Potential Category One - Vacant properties with proposed projects. Denova and Shea Homes vacant properties - The draft Housing Element considers the parcels on which the Shea Homes and Denova projects are located as possibilities for lower -income housing but, as mentioned earlier, their affordable housing contribution will be for -sale moderate and low -income priced townhomes. They will not help significantly in the greatest need which is affordable lower-income rental housing. • Revisions: Two
projects have received pl anning approvals in the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan but building permits have not yet been issued so no changes have occurred to the sites inventory. Text was added about the approved project s in the General Plan Areas section in Section 4.1.

Livermore Venture Partners commented on what they referred to as Potential Category Two - Va
cant properties with as yet to be disclosed or proposed projects. Sub- area 2d: The property in this sub-area is primarily owned by Cornerstone Fellowship (about 10 acres). The House Inventory does not include the total capacity that could be built but the maximum of the density range could account for about 470 homes. The draft Housing Element RHNA goal is 120 lower -income units - considerably above the Isabel Plan 15% requirement (74 homes) or 20% (98 homes). Has the planning consultant or Planning staff had a discussion with Cornerstone Fellowship to see if they agree with the Housing Element's allocation and are they willing to participate in the 120 -unit amount? How was the RHNA goal set at 120?
• Revisions: R
evisions were made in Appendix A regarding units on sites in subarea 2d.

Livermore Venture Partners commented on Sub- area 3a: The property is owned by BART (17.5 acres). The Housing Element does not include a total capacity that could be built on, but at 80% of the maximum density range, that would yield about 850 homes. The draft Housing Element RHNA goals is 332 for lower-income homes - considerably above the Isabel Plan 15% requirement (68 homes) or 20% (90 homes). H as the Consultant or Planning staff had a discussion with BART to see if they agree with the Housing Element allocation? The BART property is anticipated to be used also for parking and office/retail uses, which may be postponed until later stages. Is it realistic to expect these lower -income housing units would be built within this RHNA period? How was the RHNA goal set at 332?
• Revisions: R evisions were made in Appendix A regarding units on sites in subarea 3a.

Livermore Venture Partners commented on Sub-area 3b: The property is believed to be under the control of the development company Sun Cal, who hope to purchase it from Sutter Health (about 38 acres). The draft Housing Element does not include a total capacity that could be built on this property but, at 80% of the maximum density range, the site might be able to enable about 1,800 homes. The draft Housing Element RHNA goal is 972 lower -income homes that is considerably greater than the Isabel Plan requirement of 15% goal (494 homes). Has the planning consultant or Planning staff discussed this allocation with either Sun Cal or Sutter Health? What has been their response? Will they commit to the 972-unit amount? How was the RHNA goal set at 972 homes? • Revisions: R
evisions were made in Appendix A regarding units on sites in subarea 3b.

Livermore Venture Partners commented on Sub-area 3c: The sub-area uses are occupied by light industrial buildings. There are a number of owners of the four parcels. It is very difficult to assess residential capacity. How did the planning consultant or Planning staff apply Govt. Code 65583.2 or use the HCD Inventory Guidebook? Specifically, that Guidebook requires realistic development capacity to be determined for non-vacant and non-residential uses.” Were certain methods used to assess current development trends and market conditions and were current lease agreements

EXHIBIT A
318
evaluated to determine if lower-income units could be developed in the RHNA period? Were the current owners apprised of this designation and were they in agreement with having their properties designated for a significant number of lower -income units. How was the RHNA goal of 146 homes set?
• Revisions: R evisions were made in Appendix A regarding units on sites in subarea 3c.

Livermore Venture Partners aske d why is the Isabel Area treated differently than the rest of Livermore in the Housing Inventory and does that comply with State Inventory law? • Revisions: Re visions to address this comment have been made in Section 4.1 and Appendix A.

Livermore Venture Partne rs asked why were Housing Capacities not listed in the Housing Element Inventory as specified in the State Inventory law? Gov't Code section 65583.2(b) requires that specific characteristics be used in the "Inventory" including its size (acres), general plan designation, zoning, use, and RHNA category. It is to include also the number of units that the site can "reasonably accommodate."
• Revisions: R
evisions to address this comment were made in Appendix A.

Livermore Venture Partners commented that Table A: Housing Element Site Inventory provides the required information for all the City designated parcels except those in the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. Why not in the Isabel Plan Area? The same omission is true with the income categories - low income, moderate income and above moderate. • Revisions: R
evisions to address this comment were made in Appendix A.

Livermore Venture Partners noted that it is understood that it is impossible to project precisely eight years of exact quantities and pricing for future homes. That is why the law includes the term "reasonable". There are many factors that will go in determining the final number and type of homes built on any particular parcel. But the State is facing a severe shortage of housing - particularly lower income housing. Therefore, making reasonable efforts to create projections are part of the law.
• Revisions: N
o revisions were made to address this comment.

Livermore Venture Partners asked for an explanation why the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan area has conditions that make it impossible to treat it in the same ways as other neighborhoods in Livermore. As said before, this is critical because the Isabel Area is to provide over 85% of the lower income housing to reach the City Housing Element RHNA goals for this next period.

Revisions: Re
visions to address this comment were made in Section 4.1 and Appendix A.

Chabot-Las Positas Community College District shared that they have had several meetings with the City regarding student housing planning for Las Positas College. • Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

Chabot-Las Positas Community College District mentioned that the Draft Housing Element doesn’t refer to student housing needs and it should. They noted recent state efforts to address student housing issues, and explained current housing conditions and impacts their students, most who are the low and very low renters, face.
• Revisions:

A College Students section was added to Section 2.4 Special Needs Groups underneath the Farm Labor subsection.

Chabot-Las Positas Community College District noted that funding is available from the state cu
rrently to plan for community college housing and that they are applying for the funding.

EXHIBIT A
319
• Revisions: N o revisions were made to address this comment.

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

EXHIBIT A
320

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

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

2.1 REGIONAL POPULATION AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT
Livermore is in eastern Alameda County, part of the nine counties that make up the San Francisco Bay Area, which had a total population of 7.7 million people in 2020. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the regional economy employed approximately 2.3 million people in 2020. 2 The Health, Education, and Social occupational sector employs the most residents; other significant sectors include Professional and Waste Management, Manufacturing, and Retail.

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

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

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

POPULATION TRENDS
Beginning in the mid -1950s, Livermore evolved from a small agri cultural town into a bedroom community for the region. By the 1980s, Livermore had expanded additional industries, including commercial, light industrial, warehouse, and office development, adding to its residential base. 1 The Census Bureau combines the data from the samples to generate three- and five-year estimates. This means that a given figure from the 2013-19 five-year estimates represents the average from 2013 through 2019. 2 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. May 2020 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_41860.htm

EXHIBIT A
321
Th
e continued population growth in the Bay Area has maintained consistent demand for housing in Livermore, spurring more residential development.

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

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

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

Table 2-2: Livermore Projected Population Growth, 2020–2040 2020 2040
Average Annual
Growth Rate,
2020–2040
Population 91,861 104,300 0.7%
Persons per Household 2.87 2.66 ---
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 Series; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

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

EXHIBIT A
322
Table 2-3: Median Age: Livermore and Alameda County, 2010 and 2020 2010 2020
Livermore 38.3 39.8
Alameda County 36.6 37.6
Source: U.S. Census Table S0101 2010 & 2019 5-Year Estimates.

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

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

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

EXHIBIT A
323

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

Table 2-5: Race & Ethnicity Trends: Livermore and Alameda County, 2010–2019 Racial and Ethnic Group
Livermore Alameda County
2010 2019 2010 2019
White 64.7% 62.0% 34.1% 31.0%
Black 1.9% 1.8% 12.2% 10.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3%
Asian or Pacific Islander 8.5% 12.0% 26.6% 31.0%
Other and Two or more ethnicities 3.6% 5.0% 4.3% 5.0%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 20.9% 20.0% 22.5% 22.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002. ABAG Data Packet, 2021
An analysis of 2020 Decennial Census data shows that the proportion of Livermore residents who are Asian, Hispanic or Latino, and Multiracial continues to increase. The largest difference between 2020 census data and the findings from the 2015- 2019 American Community Survey is the proportion of non -Latino White residents, which decreased to 55.1% of the total Livermore population.

Table 2-5a: Race & Ethnicity Trends: Livermore and Alameda County, 2020 Racial and Ethnic Group Number of Livermore
Residents in 2020
Share of Livermore
Population in 2020
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 203 0.2%
Asian alone 12,633 14.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 209 0.2% Black or African American alone 1,604 1.8%
Latino, Latina, or Latinx (or any race) 18,978 21.6%
Multiracial 5,379 6.1%
Some Other Race alone 500 0.6%
White alone 48,449 55.1%
Total 87,955 100%

EXHIBIT A
324
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census
The Bay Area Equity Atlas, which is a partnership between The San Francisco Foundation, PolicyLink, USC Equity Research Institute, conducted an analysis of race and ethnicity trends in Alameda County between 2000 and 2019 as well as projected out for the next 30 years. They found that like Livermore, the Latinx, Asian and Pacific Islander populations are increasing. The Black population in the Bay Area has been steadily declining over time, though the statewide Black population is stable, which suggests displacement pressures. The region's aging White population is expect ed to modestly decline for the foreseeable future due to deaths, low immigration levels, and low birth rates.

EXHIBIT A
325
Figure 2-1: Race/ethnic composition: Alameda County, CA; 2000-2050

Asian or Pacific
Islander
Black

Latino

Mixed/other

Native
American
White

Data source: U.S. Census Bureau; California Department of Finance; Geolytics, Inc. | Bay Area Equity Atlas

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

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

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

EXHIBIT A
326
was the Financial and Professional sector, employing approximately 27.9 percent of residents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT A
327
Table 2-9: Jobs by Industry, 2019
Industry
Livermore Alameda County
Jobs Percent Jobs Percent
Agriculture and Natural Resources 314 0.65% 3,129 0.36% Construction 3,210 6.6% 45,984 5.3%
Financial and Professional Services 13,436 27.9% 223,957 25.9% Health and Educational Services 12,446 25.8% 259,953 30.4% Information 1,240 2.5% 30,599 3.5%
Manufacturing, Wholesale, and Transportation 8,438 17.5% 150,214 17.4% Retail 5,419 11.5% 76,483 8.8%
Other 3,633 7.5% 72,130 8.3%
Total 48,136 100% 862,449 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030, ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT A
328
Table 2-11: Jobs-Household Ratio, 2018
Category Livermore Alameda County
Ratio 1.71 1.43
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households), ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT A
329
Table 2-13: Household Characteristics, 2019
Household Type1
Livermore Alameda County Bay Area
Estimate Percent
of Total Estimate Percent
of Total Estimate Percent
of Total
Total Family Households 23,624 74.4% 384,676 66.6% 1,814,589 66.4% Married-couples 19,897 62.6% 292,079 50.6% 1,399,714 77.1% Male householder, no
wife present 1,070 3.4% 28,432 4.9% 131,105 7.2%
Female householder, no
husband present 2,657 8.4% 64,165 11.1% 283,770 15.6%
Total Nonfamily Households 8,123 25.6% 192,501 33.4% 916,845 33.6% Singles 6,580 20.7% 141,077 24.4% 674,587 73.6%
Other 1,543 4.9% 51,424 9.0% 242,258 26.4%
Total Households 31,747 100.0% 577,177 100.0% 2,731,434 100% Average Household Size 2.87 2.80
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001. ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

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

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

Table 2-14: Housing Tenure, 2019
Geography Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total Ratio of Owner vs Renter Occupied
Livermore 22,995 72.4% 8,752 27.6% 31,747 2.63
Alameda County 308,891 53.5% 268,286 46.5% 577,177 1.15 Bay Area 1,531,955 56.1% 1,1 99,479 43.9% 2,731,434 1.28 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003. ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

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

EXHIBIT A
330
• Moderate income, defined as annual household incomes 81 to 120 percent of AMI. • Above-moderate income, defined as annual household incomes above 120 percent of AMI.

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

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

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

Table 2 -16 displays the 2013- 2017 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) household income distribution for Livermore and Alameda County. HUD uses a Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) to evaluate housing affordability by income group. Livermore has a higher proportion of above-moderate-income households than the county (63.1 percent compared to

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

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

EXHIBIT A
331
Table 2-16: Households by Household Income Level, 2017
Income Group
Livermore Alameda County
Households Percent Households Percent
Extremely Low 2,374 7.6% 88,383 15.5%
Very Low 3,013 9.6% 63,850 11.2%
Low 3,600 11.5% 66,130 11.6%
Moderate and Above Moderate 22,373 71.3% 350,735 61.6%
Total 31,360 100.0% 569,098 100.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release. ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT A
332

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

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT A
333
se
niors’ ability to live independently in their homes, free legal and healthcare enrollment services from Legal Assistance for Seniors
Livermore has several senior housing complexes providing both market -rate and below -market- rate units: Arbor Vista, Chestnut Square Senior Apartments, Heritage Park, Heritage Estates, Hillcrest Gardens, Vandenburgh Villa, and Vineyard Village. Rosewood Gardens is a market -rate senior housing complex. In addition to providing independent senior rental apartments, Heritage Estates also provides assisted living care. When complete, the Pacific Avenue Senior Apartments will provide 140 affordable homes for l ow-income seniors, and the Livermore Assisted Living and Memory Care project will provide 87 assisted living beds and 46 memory care suites, for a total of 133 beds.

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

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT A
334

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT A
335

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT A
336
Table 2-23: Reported Disabilities by Disability Type, Ages 18 to 64, 2019 Disability Type
Livermore Alameda County
Number Number
Hearing difficulty 657 11,507
Vision difficulty 489 12,659
Cognitive difficulty 1,436 31,308
Ambulatory difficulty 1,223 31,247
Self-care difficulty 556 14,024
Independent living difficulty 1,234 27,827
Note: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability so these counts should not be summed to 100%.

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

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

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

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

In 2021, the City of Livermore launched the Supportive Shared Housing Rehabilitation and Expansion Program, which provides State of California Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding to nonprofit operators of residential shared housing sites to make major repairs and/or expand the number of units at their properties through construction of additional bedrooms or Accessory Dwelling Units. Tri Valley REACH and Housing Consortium of the East Bay (HCEB) are assessing the feasibility of constructing ADUs on existing sites described above.

EXHIBIT A
337
De
velopmental Disabilities
According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, a “developmental disability” means a disability that originates before an individual reaches 18 years of age, continues or can be expected to continue indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. The term generally includes mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. It also includes disabling conditions found to be closely related to mental retardation or to require similar treatment, but does not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.

The State Department of Developm ental Services currently provides community- based services to approximately 329,002 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, 4 developmental centers, and 2 community- based facilities. The Regional Center of the East Bay (RCEB) provides a point of entry to services for people residing in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. RCEB is a private, nonprofit agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. RCEB served approximately 670 people in the Livermore area in 2017. 3 Of these, 364 (54.3 percent) are under 18 years of age, and 306 (45.7 percent) are over 18.

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

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

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

Table 2-26: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Types Number of Residence
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 509
Independent /Supported Living 55
Community Care Facility 34
Foster /Family Home 10
3 RCEB provides information for the 94551 and 94550 zip codes, which include areas outside of the City of Livermore.

EXHIBIT A
338
Other 5
Intermediate Care Facility 5
Total 618
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020); ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

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

HOMELESS PERSONS
In February 2022, a community-based organization called EveryOne Home conducted a point-in- time homeless count and survey for Alameda County. The count found there were 9,747 people in Alameda County were homeless at the time of the count. Of this population, 242 were counted in Livermore, an 8 percent decrease since 2019. Since the survey was conducted at a single point in time, the report assumes the number of homeless persons counted represents the typical number of homeless persons living in the county and city. Many factors may affect the total count, including weather, time of year, and time of day.

The 2022 survey report found the following demographic distribution of the community-defined homeless population in Livermore:4
• Gender. About 27 percent of the citywide homeless population was male and 73 percent was female.
• Race and ethnicity. Black/African American, Asian , and Hispanic/Latinx residents were overrepresented when compared to the City of Livermore’s population. • Special Needs. The report stated that 19 percent of the homeless population in the City of Livermore had a disabling condition, which is defined by HUD as developmental disability, HIV/AIDS, or long-term physical or mental impairment that impacts a person’s ability to live independently, but could be improved with stable housing. • Living situation. Approximately 28 percent of the homeless population in Livermore is sheltered and 72 percent are unsheltered. Of the sheltered population in Livermore, about 27 percent were sheltered in transitional housing and 73 percent in emergency shelters. Of the unsheltered population, about 22 percent live in tents, 31 percent live in a car or van, 16 percent live in an RV, 30 percent live on the streets or outside, and 1 percent live in abandoned buildings.
4 The community definition of homelessness includes people staying in emergency shelters or transitional housing, living on the street or in a car, and people who will lose their housing within a month and have nowhere to go.

EXHIBIT A
339

EXISTING FACILITIES
Table 2-27 provides a list of the homeless facilities and services in Livermore. There are three types of facilities that provide shelter for homeless individuals and families:
• Emergency (Temporary) Shelter. Provides overnight shelter and meets a person’s basic needs, either on -site or through off -site services. The length of stay varies with the shelter and can range from one day to several months.
• Transitional Housing. Provides housing for up to two years. The residents at these shelters are typically connected to a rehabilitation program, including substance abuse and mental health interventions, employment services, individual and group counseling, and life skills training.
• Permanent (Supportive) Housing. Provides permanent housing that is affordable, linked with ongoing supportive services, and gives formerly homeless residents the opportunity to live in the facility on an indefinite basis.

Table 2-27: Homeless Facilities and Services in Livermore, 2022 Facility Name Beds Clients Type
Sojourner House 16 Families with children/teens Emergency Shelter Shiloh House 30 Domestic violence victims Emergency Shelter Shepherd's Gate 70 Women and children Emergency Shelter Cityserve Not Applicable All Support Services
Abode Services Not Applicable All Support services and
Rapid Rehousing
Bluebell Apartments 7 All Transitional Housing
Tri-Valley Haven Food
Pantry Not Applicable All Food Pantry
Open Heart Kitchen Not Applicable All Food and Meal
Distribution
Goodness Village 28 Chronically homeless Transitional Housing Chestnut Senior 5 Seniors Permanent Supportive
Housing
Chestnut Family 10 Families Permanent Supportive
Housing
Stoney Creek 7 All Permanent Housing
Source: ShelterListings.org, accessed 1/12/22.

Table 2-28 summarizes the available beds reported by the Continuum of Care in 2020.

In addition to the services listed in Table 2 -27, the City of Livermore also works with homeless services providers to provide rental assistance to people experiencing or at risk of becoming homelessness.

While continuing to support existing emergency (temporary) shelters, the City is focused on long- term solutions to homelessness and placing more individuals in permanent housing. When complete, Housing Consortium of the East Bay’s Vineyard 2.0 development will provide twenty -

EXHIBIT A
340
four units of permanent supportive rental housing for persons who were formerly homeless as well as over 9,000 square feet of space for essential services such as food, showers and laundry, winter shelter, and housing counseling.

The City established the Subcommittee on Homelessness T eam to develop recommendations to the City Council for a Homeless Strategy Framework by gathering information on homelessness, the service types that are available to people experiencing homelessness, and the current and future funding resources available for homelessness response.

EXHIBIT A
341
Table 2-28: Summary of Available Beds Reported by Continuum of Care, 2020 Family
Units
Family
Beds
Adult-Only
Beds
Child-Only
Beds
Total Year-
Round
Beds
Seasonal Overflow/
Voucher
Subset of Total Bed Inventory
Chronic
Beds
Veteran
Beds
Youth
Beds
Emergency, Safe Haven,
and Transitional Housing 159 554 1460 18 2032 160 33 n/a 215 169 Emergency Shelter 109 391 974 18 1,383 160 33 n/a 95 66 Safe Haven 0 0 32 0 32 n/a n/a n/a 32 0
Transitional Housing 50 163 454 0 617 n/a n/a n/a 88 103 Permanent Housing 543 1,558 2,603 17 4,178 n/a n/a 602 724 167 Permanent Housing 441 1205 2,325 15 3,545 n/a n/a 602 699 80 Rapid Rehousing 102 353 278 2 633 n/a n/a n/a 25 87
Grand Total 702 2,112 4,063 35 6,210 160 33 602 939 336 Source: HUD 2020 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Housing Inventory Count Report, https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_HIC_CoC_CA-502-2020_CA_2020.pdf.

EXHIBIT A
342

FARM LABOR
Though Livermore is no longer the small agricultural town it once was, farming is still part of Livermore’s economy and identity —particularly viticulture. It is difficult to estimate the extent of the farm labor population in the city because government agencies do not consistently define farm labor, length of employment, or place of work. Nevertheless, farm workers are considered by the State of California to have special housing needs due to their limited income, the seasonality of housing needs, and an increased likelihood of overcrowding and substandard housing conditions.

The USDA Census of Agric ulture identified 305 permanent farm workers and 288 seasonal farmworkers in Alameda County in 2017 (Table 2 -29). Farmworker numbers across Alameda County have been decreasing overall since the beginning of the century. City staff spoke with staff from com munity based organizations who serve farmworkers, and they’ve seen the number of farmworkers served go down significantly in Livermore due to economic trends. There are more jobs in the Central Valley and families have relocated to cities like Fresno or Coalinga. Community partners shared that housing specifically for farmworkers is less needed than affordable multifamily projects like Chestnut that serve a variety of low wage occupations with outreach to help farmworkers and their families access these aff ordable housing opportunities. Multiple programs are included in the Housing Plan to preserve affordable multifamily housing and to work towards more affordable multifamily projects in the City (See Programs 1.2.1,1.5.3, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.4.2,

3.5.1).

Table 2-29: Farm Operations and Farm Labor, Alameda County 2002 2007 2012 2017
Permanent 577 465 355 305
Seasonal 369 737 449 288
Total 946 1,202 804 593
Note: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year; farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered permanent workers for that farm.

Source: Department of Agriculture, Hired Farm Labor, Table 7 of Census of Farmworkers 2002, 2007, 2012, 2017; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

The Livermore De velopment Code provides standards to allow farm worker housing. It allows for a caretaker’s residence (conditional use permit required) within the Planned Development/Agriculture District (PD-AG) or within the South Livermore Valley Agricultural Zone (SLV -AG). The code defines a caretaker’s residence as a temporary dwelling for people and their families employed in the agricultural use of the property. The size of this residence type is restricted to 1,200 square feet in the SLV -AG. Farm labor housing is also permitted with conditional use permit approval within two Open Space Districts:

Agricultural and Rural Preservation (OS-A and OS-R).

COLLEGE STUDENTS
Las Positas College is a community college in Livermore that began as an extension center of Chabot College in 1963. Currently, the college enrolls nearly 8,500 day and evening students. The college offers

EXHIBIT A
343
curriculum for students seeking career preparation, transfer to a four -year college or university, or personal enrichment. Chabot -Las Positas Community College District is actively working on plans to build student and lower income District Employee affordable rental housing near and adjacent to Las Positas College. The City will continue to coordinate with the College on these efforts.

2.5 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
Ideally, a city’s housing stock should align with the needs of its population, provide both small and large units in a variety of forms, and offer housing affordable to its workforce and special needs populations. Market realities often result in housing supply outcomes that do not meet the needs of all members of the local population. This section describes housing stock characteristics in Livermore and Alameda County. The Constraints Chapter describes current market conditions.

HOUSING STOCK
As shown in Table 2 -30, Livermore has a significantly greater share of single -family detached houses compared to Alameda County (68.8 percent v. 52.2 percent).

Conversely, multifamily units make up 19.9 percent of Livermore’s stock and 38.6 percent of Alameda County’s stock.

Table 2-30: Housing Stock, 2010–2020

Livermore Alameda County
2010 Units 2020 Units Percent
Change 2010 Units 2020 Units Percent
Change
Single Family:

Detached 21,490 22,519 4.7% 309,306 319,353 3.2%
Attached 2,555 3,154 23.4% 44,280 48,130 8.7%
Single Family Total 24,045 25,673 6.7% 353,586 367,483 3.9% Multifamily:
2–4 Units 1,466 1,604 9.4% 65,326 66,731 2.2%
5+ Units 4,291 4,909 14.4% 154,629 169,679 9.7%
Multifamily Total 5,757 6,513 13.1% 219,955 236,410 7.5% Mobile Homes 540 542 0.3% 7,831 7,859 0.4%
Total 30,342 32,728 7.8% 581,372 611,752 5.2%
Vacancy Rate 4.0% 3.4% 6.4% 5.2%
Source: Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series, 2020; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

Housing Type Definitions:

Single Family Detached: 1-unit structure detached from any other house, with open space on all four sides.

Single Family Attached: 1-unit structure that has one or more walls extending from ground to roof separating it from adjoining structures.

Multifamily: structures containing 2 or more housing units.

Mobile homes: a dwelling that sits on wheels and may be moved.

EXHIBIT A
344

TENURE AND OCCUPANCY
As shown in Table 2 -31, the percentage of occupied housing units and owner -occupied units is greater in Livermore than in Alameda County. Conversely, the proportion of renter- occupied housing units is greater in Alameda County (44.1 percent) than Livermore (28.9 percent).

Table 2-31: Tenure and Vacancy, 2019
Housing Units
Livermore Alameda County
Estimate Percent Estimate Percent
Owner-occupied housing units 22,995 75.9% 308,891 50.8% Renter-occupied housing units 8,752 28.9% 268,286 44.1% Occupied housing units 29,134 96.2% 577,177 94.9%
Vacant housing units 1,136 3.8% 30,919 5.1%
Total housing units 30,270 100.0% 608,096 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 and Table B25004; ABAG Data Packet, 2021
Table 2-32 provides an overview of the number of vacant units and unit types in Livermore, Alameda County, and the Bay Area. The majority of vacant units in Livermore are classified as “other vacant,” which is the same for Alameda County and the Bay Area. Alameda County and the Bay Area also have a lot of units for rent that are vacant. In Livermore, units that have been sold but are not yet occupied comprise the next biggest group of vacant units.

Table 2-32: Vacant Units by Type, 2019
Geography For
Rent For Sale
For Seasonal,
Recreational, or
Occasional Use
Other
Vacant
Rented, Not
Occupied
Sold, Not
Occupied
Livermore 205 104 140 460 21 206
Alameda County 7,998 1,961 3,892 13,569 1,517 1,982
Bay Area 41,117 10,057 37,301 61,722 10,647 11,816
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

HOUSING GROWTH
According to the Department of Finance, 36,043 new housing units were built in Alameda County from 2010 to 2021. In Livermore, 2,662 new units were built between 2010 and 2021.

A higher proportion of single -family units was built in Livermore than in the county overall (63.2 percent v. 58.2 percent). Table 2- 33 compares housing estimates for Livermore and Alameda County.

Table 2-33: Housing Unit Growth, 2010 to 2020
Livermore Alameda County

EXHIBIT A
345
New Units Percent
Average
Annual
Growth
New Units Percent
Average
Annual
Growth
Single Family1 1,629 68.3% 0.67% 13,897 45.7% 0.4%
Multifamily 756 31.7% 1.3% 16,455 54.3% 0.7%
Mobile Homes 2 0.08% 0.03% 28 0.09% 0.03%
Total 2,386 100.0% 0.8% 30,380 100.0% 0.5%

1. Single family includes both detached and attached units.

Sources: California Department of Finance, E-5 Series; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

HOUSING AGE
The age of a housing unit can be an indicator of its condition. As units age, they require maintenance and modernization, without which, homes will deteriorate and can negatively impact the values of surrounding properties. Generally, houses older than 30 years begin to show signs of deterioration and require reinvestment to maintain their quality, and homes older than 50 years begin to require major renovations.

As of 2019, approximately 65.4 percent of the housing stock in Livermore was built before 1990 (and is approximately 30 years of age). Approximately 34.1 percent of Livermore’s housing stock was built before 1970 (and is approximately 50 years of age). Ala meda County’s housing stock is older than Livermore’s, with approximately 80.6 percent of its housing stock built before 1990 and 52.7 percent built before 1970 (see Table 2 -34).

Table 2-34: Housing Units by Tenure and Age, 2019

Livermore Alameda County
Number Percent Number Percent
Built 2010 or later 1,341 4.1% 19,340 3.2%
Built 2000 to 2009 4,378 13.3% 44,854 7.4%
Built 1990 to 1999 5,629 17.1% 53,513 8.8%
Built 1980 to 1989 3,557 10.8% 75,783 12.5%
Built 1970 to 1979 6,740 20.5% 93,408 15.4%
Built 1960 to 1969 6,129 18.6% 82,967 13.6%
Built 1950 to 1959 3,476 10.6% 77,947 12.8%
Built 1940 to 1949 634 1.9% 41,622 6.8%
Built 1939 or earlier 999 3.0% 118,662 19.5%
Total 32,883 100.0% 608,096 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

HOUSING IN NEED OF REPAIR/REPLACEMENT
The overall number of substandard residential units in need of either rehabilitation or replacement is approximately 100. This is based on the number of complaints to the City’s Neighborhood Preservation Division, who responds to complaints regarding substandard buildings and development code violations. They estimate that they receive

EXHIBIT A
346
appr
oximately 10 complaint calls per year related to substandard or dilapidated housing.

They also work to identify existing housing problems related to blight, abandoned properties, and tenant/landlord issues.

2.6 HOUSING COSTS AND AFFORDABILITY
The cost of housing relative to the income of residents indicates the affordability of housing in a community. For example, if housing costs are high compared to the median household income, families with lower income levels may find it difficult to afford housing.

Overcrowding or longer commutes may result. Setting the stage to provide housing choice for all segments of the community is an important part of the housing element.

HOME SALES TRENDS
As shown in Table 2 -35, a point -in-time survey conducted on RedFin.com shows that the median price of homes ranged from $767,500 for houses with two bedrooms to $1,765,000 for houses with five bedrooms.

EXHIBIT A
347
Table 2-35: Livermore Home Sale Prices, January 2021–January 2022 Bedrooms Sales Median Price Average Price
Homes
2 10 $767,500 $737,200
3 123 $990,000 $1,031,269
4 103 $1,270,000 $1,310,941
5 + 34 $1,765,000 $1,759,374
Homes Total 270 $1,198,125 $1,209,696
Condominiums
1 7 $364,900 $354,129
2 29 $660,000 $633,638
3 19 $845,000 $858,251
4 5 $909,000 $894,600
Condos Total 60 $694,725 $685,155
Townhomes
2 2 $632,500 $632,500
3 15 $815,000 $784,667
4 2 $910,000 $910,000
Townhomes Total 19 $785,833 $775,722
Source: Redfin, 1/4/22.

Between the economic downturn and present day, home prices in Livermore, Alameda County, and the Bay Area increased (Figure 2-2). Home prices have continued to rise, and most of the homes in Livermore are only affordable to above -moderate-income households.

EXHIBIT A
348
Figure 2-2: Home Sale Prices 2001 to 2020
Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI); ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

Note:

1. Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI): a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF's E-5 series.

Housing prices decreased dramatically during the economic downt urn; however, this decrease did not result in home ownership among low - and moderate -income households. Stricter underwriting standards contributed to barriers to homeownership for those without a substantial down payment and good credit history. Because housing prices have climbed, many homes remain unattainable to low - and moderate -income households.

Table 2 -36 shows that the majority of owner- occupied units in Livermore are valued at $500,000 to $750,000 (38.9 percent). The second largest group falls under the value range of $750,000 to 1 million (30.6 percent). This trend of home value is reflected in Alameda County and the Bay Area.
$100,000
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Bay Area Alameda County Livermore

EXHIBIT A
349
Table 2-36: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units, 2019
Geography
Units
Valued
Less than
$250k
Units
Valued
$250k–
$500k
Units
Valued
$500k–
$750k
Units
Valued
$750k–
$1M
Units
Valued
$1M–
$1.5M
Units
Valued
$1M–
$2M
Units
Valued
$2M+
Livermore 3.3% 8.7% 38.9% 30.6% 14.7% 2.4% 1.4%
Alameda
County 5.2% 14.5% 28.4% 25.5% 17.7% 5.0% 3.8%
Bay Area 6.1% 16.3% 22.5% 20.1% 17.9% 7.9% 9.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

RENTAL HOUSING COSTS
Table 2 -37 shows the contract rent for renter- occupied units in 2019. In Livermore, approximately 26.2 percent of renters pay $1,500 to $2,000 per month in rent. In Alameda County and the Bay Area, most renters also pay $1,500 to $2,000 per month in rent (24.9 percent and 22.8 percent, respectively). The second most common rent range in Livermore is $2,000 to $2,500 per month (22.2 percent).

Table 2-37: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units, 2019 Geography
Rent less
than
$500
Rent
$500–
$1000
Rent
$1000–
$1500
Rent
$1500–
$2000
Rent
$2000–
$2500
Rent
$2500–
$3000
Rent
$3000
or more
Livermore 5.3% 7.4% 16.2% 26.2% 22.2% 14.8% 7.9%
Alameda
County 6.4% 11.8% 22.0% 24.9% 17.1% 10.6% 7.2%
Bay Area 6.1% 10.2% 18.9% 22.8% 17.3% 11.7% 13.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056; ABAG Data Packet, 2021
Based on an online survey conducted in January 2022, the average rent in Livermore for a 1 -bedroom apartment was $2,206 (Table 2- 38). The average rent for a 3- bedroom apartment was $3,262 and the average rent across the number of bedrooms in a unit in Livermore was $2,657.

Table 2-38: Average Rental Prices in Livermore, 2022
Bedrooms Average Price of Rent
Studio $1,618
1 Bedroom $2,206
2 Bedroom $2,565
3 Bedroom $3,262
4 Bedroom $3,636
Average $2,657
Source: RealPage.com and Zillow.com Survey, 1/4/2022.

EXHIBIT A
350

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
A community’s housing affordability is measured by evaluating market rate prices for buying and renting homes compared to the ability of residents to afford these market rates. For purposes of the Housing Element, a home is considered affordable if it is suitably sized and costs the household 30 percent or less of its gross monthly income. Households that pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing (i.e., rent or mortgage and utilities) are considered “cost burdened.” Housing that is not suitably sized can result in overcrowding, which occurs when a household has more than one person per room. 5 Housing affordability varies by income group. Extremely low -income households have greater challenges in accessing housing that is affordable than above-moderate-income households, who can spend significantly more on housing. Accordingly, the following analysis evaluates housing affordability by income group (i.e., extremely low -, very-low-, low-, moderate-, and above-moderate-income groups). The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) determines the income groups, which are then adopted by the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). 6 This housing affordability analysis does not consider home maintenance costs. Since landlords of rental housing typically pay maintenance costs, which can be considerable, homeownership is inherently more expensive than rental housing. The discussion also does not consider transportation costs, the second highest household expense, which are strongly influenced by housing location and context (availability of transit, parking prices, etc.).

Table 2-39 shows the maximum amount that a household can pay for housing each month without exceeding the 30 percent threshold and without overcrowding. As noted in the table, the income figures are based on the 2021 HCD AMI for Alameda County of $125,600 for a family of four, and calculation of affordable home sales prices are based on an annual interest rate of 5.007 percent for a mortgage. Interest rates have increased substantially in the last year and are expected to rise more as of Spring 2022.

Comparing this table to the housing cost information described in the previous section reveals that extremely low - and very-low-income households in Livermore cannot afford market rental or owner- occupied housing. Based on prevailing rents, some low -income households could afford market -rate rental units. Only above -moderate-income households can afford the typical median price for a home in Livermore.

The following sections describe in more detail housing affordability by income group. 5 Rooms include living rooms, dining rooms, bedrooms, study, and other rooms, but do not include kitchens, hallways, or bathrooms.
6 HCD and HUD apply the 30 percent of gross income standard to set affordable rents for income -restricted units.

EXHIBIT A
351
Table 2-39: Housing Affordability Matrix (2020)
Income Group
Income Levels Monthly Housing Costs Maximum Affordable
Price
Annual
Income
Affordable
Payment
Utilities/Monthly
Debts
Taxes &
Insurance1 Ownership2 Rental3
Extremely Low
One Person $28,800 $720 $150 $1,595 $101,9 08 $720
Small Family4 $37,000 $925 $225 $1,806 $128,9 23 $925 Large Family $44,400 $1,110 $300 $1,987 $152,2 04 $1,110 Very Low
One Person $47,950 $1,199 $150 $2,252 $186,1 86 $1,199 Small Family $61,650 $1,541 $225 $2,652 $237,4 67 $1,541 Large Family $74,000 $1,850 $300 $3,004 $282,6 14 $1,850 Low
One Person $76,750 $1,919 $150 $3,273 $317,0 42 $1,919 Small Family $98,650 $2,466 $225 $3,964 $405,5 81 $2,466 Large Family $118,400 $2,960 $300 $4,578 $484,3 51 $2,960 Moderate
One Person $105,500 $2,638 $150 $4,292 $447,6 71 $2,638 Small Family $135,650 $3,391 $225 $5,275 $573,6 94 $3,391 Large Family $162,750 $4,069 $300 $6,150 $685,8 60 $4,069 Notes: Maximum affordable home prices are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be used for determining specific program eligibility.

1. Property taxes are based on the average rate for Alameda County of 0.78%, and insurance is based on Zillow Affordability Calculator assumptions.

2. Affordable home price is based on down payment of 20% of annual household income, annual interest of

5.007%, a 30-year mortgage, and monthly payment of 30% of gross household income.

3. Monthly affordable rent based upon rental payments of no more than 30% of household income.

4. Small Family = 3 persons; Large Families = 5 or more persons.

Sources: https://www.zillow.com/mortgage-calculator/house-affordability/; Average property taxes for Livermore, CA, https://smartasset.com/taxes/
california-property-tax-calculator#yYQmplVSUe; Homeowners insurance, http://www.baysano.com/contra- costa-county-ca-average-home-insurance
-cost-74/ OR https://vhomeinsurance.com/contra-costa-county-ca-home-insurance-hi7812/ OR use Zillow.

Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income households in Livermore have incomes that are 30 percent or less of the AMI. The m aximum affordable home rental price for an extremely low -income household ranges from $720 for a one -person household to $1,110 for a five -person household. The maximum qualifying home price for an extremely low -income household ranges from $108,679 for a one-person household to $160,823 for a five -person household (Table 2 -39). With lower end studios renting for $1,618/month, market rents exceed the affordable housing payment for an extremely low -income household. In practical terms,

EXHIBIT A
352
th
is means that a one-person household cannot afford an average priced studio or one - bedroom unit without assuming a cost burden. The problem is exacerbated for larger households with extremely low incomes.

Very Low-Income Households
Very low-income households in the city earn between 31 and 50 percent of the AMI. The maximum qualifying home price for a very low -income household ranges from $210,623 for a one -person household to $318,396 for a five -person household (Table 2 -39). With median home sale prices starting at $767,500 for two-bedroom homes, market-rate homes in Livermore are not attainable for very low-income households.

A very low- income household can afford to pay $1,199 to $1,850 in rent per month, depending on the household size. With the average rents in Livermore starting at $2,206 for a one-bedroom unit, a very low-income household cannot afford to pay the average rental price without facing overcrowding or cost burden issues. Rental prices for one - bedrooms in Livermore currently range from about $1,099 to $2,903, indicating that a two- person, very low- income household earns less than the amount necessary to afford a typical lower-priced one-bedroom in Livermore. In practical terms, this means that very low-income households cannot afford an average market-rate rental without assuming a cost burden.

Low-Income Households
Low-income households earn between 51 and 80 percent of the AMI. The maximum qualifying home price for a low-income household ranges from $363,937 for a one-person household to $554,756 for a five-person household (Table 2-39). Compared to the median selling price of homes in Livermore, low-income households cannot afford homeownership in the city, regardless of household size.

A low-income household can afford to pay $1,919 to $2,960 in rent per month, depending on the household size. With the average rents in Livermore ranging from $2,206 for a one - bedroom to $3,096 for a three-bedroom unit, some low-income households can afford to pay the average rental price in Livermore, depending on household s ize. Larger low- income households could not afford market -rate rentals, as three -bedroom units exceed their maximum affordable rental price.

Moderate-Income Households
Moderate-income households earn between 81 and 120 percent of the AMI. The maximum qualifying home price for a moderate-income household ranges from $516,985 for a one-person household to $790,850 for a five-person household (Table 2-39). Based on the median housing prices in Livermore, moderate -income households cannot afford to purchase a home in Livermore without a sizeable down payment. To assist households out of reach from homeownership, the City offers a down payment assistance program for first-time homebuyers. This program offers a loan of up to $60,000 at three percent interest for first-time homebuyers, making a one-bedroom home affordable to a family of two and a two-bedroom home affordable to a family of three.

A moderate -income household can afford to pay $2,638 to $4,069 in rent per month, depending on the household size. With the average rents in Livermore ranging from $2,206 for a one -bedroom to $3,096 for a three -bedroom unit, some moderate -income

EXHIBIT A
353
ho
useholds can afford to pay the average rental price in Livermore, depending on household size.

COST BURDEN
HUD uses a Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) to evaluate housing cost burden. According to CHAS data for 2011 to 2017, renters in Livermore were more cost burdened than owners, with 25.2 percent of all renter households and 14.9 percent o f all owner households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing.

Table 2 -40 shows cost burden by income group and tenure. Lower -income renter households (those earning less than 50% of the area median family income, or AMFI) are more likely to be cost burdened, with approximately 21.6 percent of very low- income renters cost burdened compared to only 6.1 percent of low income homeowners.

Large families (five or more related individuals) and elderly households tend to experience greater cost burden for housing. Elderly residents on fixed incomes sometimes overpay for housing, and rental increases are particularly difficult for this group. For large families to avoid overcrowding, owning or renting a large home is required, which costs more and is more likely to stretch the household budget for housing. Conversely, families may increase the number of people living in the housing unit to avoid being cost -burdened, causing overcrowding. The prevalence of overcrowding in Livermore is discussed in the following section.

Table 2-40: Cost Burden by Income Classification and Tenure for Livermore, 2018 Cost Burdened
Totals
Renters Owners Total
Numb
er
Percent of
Renters
Percent
of Total Number Percent of
Owners
Percent
of Total Number Percent
of Total
Total Occupied
Units 8,965 100% 28.4% 22,570 100% 71.6% 31,535 100%
Cost Burdened
>30% 2,255 25.2% 7.2% 3,355 14.9% 10.6% 5,610 17.7%
Cost Burdened
>50% 1,940 21.6% 6.2% 1,925 8.5% 6.1% 3,865 12.2%
Cost Burden by Household Income Group
Very Low
Income <=50%
AMFI
1,415 15.8% 4.5% 1,230 5.4% 3.9% 2,645 8.4%
Low Income
>50 to <=80%
AMFI
1,540 17.2% 4.9% 1,590 7% 5% 3,130 9.9%
Moderate
Income >80% to
<=120% AMFI
1,030 11.5% 3.3% 1,525 6.7% 4.8% 2,555 8.1%
Above
Moderate
Income >120%
AMFI
3,580 39.9% 11.3% 17,340 76.8% 54.9% 20,920 66.3%
AMFI= Area Median Family Income
Sources: CHAS data based on ACS 2014–2018 5-year estimates.

EXHIBIT A
354

OVERCROWDING
In response to high housing costs and a limited supply of affordable housing, lower income families are sometimes forced to choose a smaller home to save money to pay for other necessities, including transportation, food, and clothing. Another strategy is to increase the number of people living together. In extreme cases, two families choose to share one home. For these reasons, large families and low -income households are more at risk of living in overcrowded conditions. HCD defines overcrowding as more than one occupant per room, and severe overcrowding as more than 1.5 occupants per room. Table 2-41 shows overcrowding severity in Livermore, Alameda County, and the Bay Area. The CHAS data shows that approximately one percent of owner -occupied units and 5.6 percent of rental units in Livermore are considered overcrowded, with some lower-resource neighborhoods experiencing overcrowding at higher rates. Approximately 0.1 percent of owner-occupied units and 1.7 percent of rental units are considered severely overcrowded in Livermore (Table 2-42)
Table 2-41: Overcrowding Severity, 2017
Geography 1.00 Occupant per
Room or Less

1.01 to 1.50
Occupants per Room

1.50 Occupants per
Room or More
Livermore 30,867 715 165
Alameda County 531,752 29,007 16,418
Bay Area 2,543,056 115,696 72,682
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

Table 2-42: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity in Livermore, 2017 Tenure 1.01 to 1.50
Occupants per Room
More than 1.5
Occupants per Room
Owner Occupied 1.0% 0.1%
Renter Occupied 5.6% 1.7%
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release; ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

HOUSING PROBLEMS FOR ALL HOUSEHOLDS
Table 2 -43 shows the number of households by tenure that has any housing problems according to the 2013- 2017 ACS -based CHAS database. A housing problem includes conditions such as lack of kitchen or plumbing, more than one person per room, or a cost burden greater than 30 percent of the AMI by income category. As shown in Table 2 -43, 3,405 of very low- and extremely low-income households reported a housing problem.

EXHIBIT A
355
Table 2-43: Housing Problems for All Households
Total Renters Total Owners Total Households
Households Income <30% MFI with any
Housing Problem 1,040 640 1,680
Household Income >30% to <50% MFI
with any Housing Problem 1,045 680 1,725
Totals 2,085 1,320 3,405
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.

2.7 REGIONAL HOUSING NEED
State law requires all regional councils of governments to determine the existing and projected housing need for their region and to allocate a portion of the regional housing need to each jurisdiction. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the agency responsible for determining the City of Livermore’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA).

As shown in Table 2 -44, based on ABAG’s allocation, the City should plan for 4,570 new housing units between January 31
st, 2023, and January 31 st, 2031. Approximately 28.8
percent of these units should be for very low -income households, 16.6 percent for low- income households, 15.2 percent for moderate -income households, and 39.4 percent for upper-income households. The RHNA estimate for very low -income housing need in Livermore is 1,317 housing units. Based on HCD standards, 50 percent of these should be planned for extremely low -income households. Therefore, there is a projected need for 658 units affordable to extremely low-income households and 658 units affordable to very low-income households in Livermore. Programs 1.5.3, 3.2.1 and 3.2.3 in the Housing Plan address extremely low-income households.

Table 2-44: Regional Housing Need Allocation by Income Group, January 2023 to January 2031
Geography Very-Low-
Income Units
Low-Income
Units
Moderate-
Income Units
Above-
Moderate-
Income Units
Total Units
Livermore 1,317 758 696 1,799 4,570
ABAG Region 114,442 65,892 72,712 188,130 441,176
Source: ABAG, December 2021.

2.8 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Housing that receives public funding or is created through governmental policies is often a significant source of affordable housing in many communities. This section identifies the affordable housing in Livermore, evaluates the potential for conv ersion to market -rate within 10 years of the beginning of the Housing Element planning period, or 2033, and analyzes the cost to preserve the units. Resources for preservation, replacement, and

EXHIBIT A
356
co
nstruction of new units are described in Chapter 4. Housing programs to address preservation of these units are described in Chapter 5.

INVENTORY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Livermore has produced a large supply of affordable housing through the use of federal, state, and local policies and assistance programs. The City has created both affordable homeownership opportunities as well as rental housing for families, seniors, people experiencing homelessness, and people with disabilities, through the use of in-lieu fees and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Table 2 -45 provides an inventory of affordable housing in Livermore.

EXHIBIT A
357
Table 2-45: Affordable Housing Inventory
Development Total
Units
Affordable Units Total
Affordable
Units
Funding Source Expiration of
Affordability Very Low Low Moderate
Ageno Apartments 171 35 35 LIHTC 2070
Arbors 162 81 81 162 Tax-Exempt Bonds 2050
Arbor Vista 80 39 41 79 HUD 2039
Dogwood House (Crane Ave) 3 3* 3 CalHFA 2071
Avance 45 44* 44 LIHTC 2074
Arroyo Del Valle Commons 12 11 11 HUD 2038
Bluebell Apartments 27 9 6 15 HUD; City 2025/2028
Carmen Ave. 30 29* 29 LIHTC; HCD 2062
Chestnut Apartments 6 2 4 6 City; HCD 2061
Chestnut Square Senior Housing 72 72* 72 LIHTC 2071
Chestnut Square Family Housing 42 42* 42 LIHTC 2072
Colgate (Lily House) 6 6* 6 HUD; City 2057
Corte Cava 2 2* 2 HUD 2037
Vandenburg Villa (formerly Gardella
Gardens) Senior Housing 39 39 39 HUD; City 2044
Heritage Estates (Assisted living) 250 100 100 LIHTC 2058 Heritage Estates (Senior Apartments) 130 23 32 55 LIHTC 2061 Heritage Park 167 33 33 Bond 2085
Hillcrest Gardens 55 43 11 54 HUD N/A
Las Posadas 9 9 9 City; HUD 2059
Leahy Square 125 125* 125 HUD N/A

EXHIBIT A
358
Table 2-45: Affordable Housing Inventory
Development Total
Units
Affordable Units Total
Affordable
Units
Funding Source Expiration of
Affordability Very Low Low Moderate
Marilisa Meadows 50 31 31 N/A 2027
McLeod Apartments 5 2 3 5 CalHFA 2070
Oak Street Apartments 8 2 2 N/A 2056
Outrigger Apartments 42 18* 10 28 City 2034
Owl’s Landing 72 71 71 LIHTC; HUD; CalHFA 2052
Railroad Ave 6 6 6 City 2074
Stoney Creek Apartments 70 69 69 LIHTC; HCD 2070
Vineyard Village 75 75 75 HUD 2022
Totals 1,761 876 205 128 1,208
Source: California Housing Partnership Corporation, 2021 and City records, 2022 *Includes units designated for Extremely Low Income households

EXHIBIT A
359

AT-RISK HOUSING
Affordable housing options for most lower -income households are limited primarily to rental housing. Therefore, preserving the existing affordable rental housing stock is an important goal for Livermore. Most affordable rental housing units in the city were achieved through subsidy contracts and deed restrictions/affordability covenants in exchange for construction and mortgage assistance. From time to time, restricted units lose their affordability controls and revert to market-rate units. For instance, development projects are typically considered at -risk due to: (1) the prepayment provisions of HUD-insured mortgage loans; (2) expiration of Section 8 and Section 236 contracts; and (3) expiration of restrictions on mortgage revenue bonds. The following describes in detail these conditions.
• Prepayment of HUD loans. In the mid -1960s, the federal government provided low- interest financing or mortgage insurance to housing developers in return for guaranteeing that rents remain affordable to lower-income households. After 20 years, the owners could prepay the mortgages and lift their rent restrictions or maintain the affordability controls until their mortgages were paid. • Section 8 Program. In the mid-1970s, the federal government provided two approaches to encouraging the production of affordable rental housing. Under the Section 8 program, HUD provided a 15- or 20- year ag reement to provide rental subsidies to property owners in return for making the units affordable to very -low-income households. The income is typically the difference between 30 percent of the household’s income and a negotiated fair market rent for the area. Due to expiring Section 8 contracts and uncertainty of future Section 8 funds, the future of an affordable complex receiving Section 8 funding is uncertain. • Section 236 Program. The other federal program, Section 236, provided rent subsidies in the form of interest reduction, by which multifamily housing could be produced. Two rent schedules were utilized: market rent, based on a market rate mortgage; and basic rent, based on a 1 percent mortgage. Tenants were required to pay the basic rent of 25 percent of their income, with rent payments never to exceed the market rents. Units were restricted to households that met the low- and moderate-income limits established for the program. The subsidized housing moratorium imposed by President Nixon in January 1973 brought an end to additional Section 236 construction. • Bond Financed Projects. State, county, and local governments have the authority to issue tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds to provide below market-rate financing for rental housing construction. State and federal law require that multifamily projects built with tax -exempt bond proceeds set aside a portion of units as affordable to lower - income households for a specified period of time. The typical contractual period is 10 to 15 years. After the term expires, the property owners may rent the units at market rates.
• In many communities, bond -financed projects typically convert to market rates. Over time, rent levels increase in the community, and the difference between market versus restricted rents i ncreases to the point that, unless additional financial benefits are offered, property owners have no incentive to maintain the units as affordable.

EXHIBIT A
360

AT-RISK AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS IN LIVERMORE
State law requires that the City assess the risk of losing affordable rental housing over a ten-year planning period. “At-risk” housing is defined as multifamily rental housing that is at risk of losing its status as housing affordable for low- and moderate-income tenants due to the expiration of federal, state, or local agreements. For this Housing Element, the at -risk analysis covers units in any subsidized projects at risk before 2033, or 10 years from the beginning of the 6th Round Housing Element planning period in January of 2023.

As shown in Table 2-46, there are three at-risk housing projects within Livermore: Bluebell Drive, Bluebell Transitional, and Vineyard Village. These projects are all scheduled to expire before 2033.

Table 2-46: Projects At-Risk
Project Name Type of Units Type of Subsidy Earliest Conversion Date Units at Risk Bluebell Drive Very Low &
Moderate HUD 2028 5
Bluebell
Transitional
Very Low &
Moderate HUD 2025 10
Vineyard Village Low HUD 2022 75
Total 90
Source: City of Livermore, 2022
Bluebell Drive and Bluebell Transitional are currently owned and operated by the Livermore Housing Authority. Upon the Housing Authority’s request, the City and Housing Authority are negotiating an extension of the City's loans and affordability restrictions beyond the current expiration. Vineyard Village is owned by Interfaith Housing, an affordable housing nonprofit, and the units are at a very low risk of converting to market rate. The City will work with Interfaith Housing to renegotiate the current regulatory agreement and extend the property’s affordability restrictions beyond the expiration date.

PRESERVATION OPTIONS
Transfer of Ownership
Aside from offering the current owner of an at -risk rental housing project modest financial incentives to maintain the property’s affordability status, a transfer of ownership of an at -risk project to a nonprofit housing provider is generally one of the le ast costly ways to ensure that the at- risk units remain affordable. By transferring property ownership to a nonprofit organization, low -income restrictions can be secured indefinitely, and the project becomes eligible for a greater range of governmental assistance. A nonprofit organization could purchase an existing multi- family complex, rather than build a new one, lowering the per -unit cost significantly. Multi-family units in Livermore (primarily condominiums and townhomes) have been selling for an avera ge of $ 730,439 from January 2021 to January 2022. Assuming an average sales price, acquisition of 90 units would equate to $65,739,510.

Purchase of Affordability Covenant
Another option to preserve the affordability of at -risk projects is to provide an inc entive package to owners to maintain the projects as low -income housing. Incentives could include

EXHIBIT A
361
wr
iting down the interest rate on the remaining loan balance in the form of a payment to the project lender and/or supplementing the fair market rent to marke t levels, if market rents are substantially more than the HUD -allowed fair market rent. It is difficult to estimate the cost of purchasing affordability covenants due to the number of variables in such a purchase.

Rental Subsidy
Another way to preserve units as affordable is to provide rental assistance to existing residents.

Rental assistance to the projects could be structured in a similar fashion to Section 8. The feasibility of this alternative is highly dependent on the availability of funding sources necessary to provide the rental subsidies and the willingness of the owners to accept the subsidies if they are provided.

Table 2-47 shows the rental subsidies required to preserve at -risk units. The calculations assume that extremely low-income households would be the likeliest recipients of rental subsidies. The total cost for rental subsidies would range from $ 1,007 to $ 1,412 per unit per month, which equates to $1,239,480 annually.

Table 2-47: Potential Rent Subsidies
Per Unit Affordable Rent + Utilities 1 Bedroom1 2 Bedroom2 3 Bedroom3 Very Low Income (50% AMI) (A) $1,199 $1,541 $1,850
Per Unit Fair Market Rent (B) $2,206 $2,565 $3,262
Monthly Per Unit Subsidy (C=B-A) $1,007 $1,024 $1,412 Annual Subsidy/Unit (C * 12) $12,087 $12,285 $16,944
Average Annual Subsidy $13,772
Total "At Risk" Units 90
Total Annual Subsidy $1,239,480

1. Assumes 1-person household paying 30 percent of household income on rent and utilities.

2. Assumes 3-person household (i.e., a small family) paying 30 percent of household income on rent and utilities.

3. Assumes 5-person household (i.e., a large family) paying 30 percent of household income on rent and utilities.

Note: Assumes an even distribution among bedroom sizes.

Construction of Replacement Units
Constructing new low -income housing units is another means of replacing at -risk units that convert to market rate. The cost of developing the new housing depends upon a variety of factors, including density, unit size, location, land costs, and type of construction. Construction costs for recent multifamily developments averaged $237 per square foot, with an average unit costing $213,931 when accounting for land cost, government fees, and other costs . Based on this average, construction of replacement units would cost approximately $ 19,253,790, assuming an average unit size of 856 square feet. The cost of constructing replacement units far exceeds the cost of the rental subsidy alternative.

Cost Comparisons
Based on the calculations, providing rental subsidies offers the least costly alternative for preserving the units while the transfer of ownership is the most costly. Both the construction of new units and the transfer of ownership to a nonprofit entity ensure long -term affordability of the units. Though rental subsidies are the least costly alternative, the subsidies do not necessarily ensure the long-term affordability of the units.

EXHIBIT A
362
Th
e cost estimating scenarios find the relative preservation costs to be:
• Acquisition of at-risk units – $65,739,510
• Rent subsidy – $1,239,480 annually or $ 14,209,249 over 10 years, assuming a three percent inflation rate per year.
• Replacement through new construction – $19,253,790
Replacing or preserving the 9 0 at-risk units is costly, regardless of the method. Providing a rent subsidy program appears to be the least costly option. However, many federal and state funding programs are available for new construction of affordable housing, which may greatly reduce the cost to the City.

Resources for Preservation
The Government Code requires the City to identify local nonprofit corporations which have the “legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage” the at -risk units or the apartment complexes containing the at-risk units. The City is also required to identify the federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs that may be considered to preserve these units. These are listed in the Resources section. HCD maintains a list of qualified organizations, and there are several located in Livermore and Alameda County , including Housing Authority of the City of Livermore and Christian Church Homes of Northern California.

2.9 ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1st, 2021, must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16th, 2015.

Under California law, AFFH means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” To comply with AB 686, the City of Livermore (City) has completed the following outreach and assessment of fair housing issues. The maps and analysis included in this assessment rely on data collected from several sources, including, but not limited to, the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Opportunity Areas,
7 2010 Census, 8 2010- 2014 and 2015- 2019 American Community Survey (ACS), 9 2019 Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEHD), 10 2014-2018 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS),11 California Department of Education,12 7 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and Housing and Community Development Department, 2020. 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/tcac-opportunity-map-2020. 8 U.S. Census Bureau, 2020. 2010 Decennial Census. https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/. 9 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. 2010-2014 American Community Survey. https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/. 10 U.S. Census Bureau, 2019. 2015-2019 American Community Survey. https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/. 11 Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). 2021, December 20 th (accessed). “Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy cost burden data for the City of Livermore.” Huduser.gov. https://www.huduser.gov/PORTAL/datasets/cp.html
12 School Dashboard, State of California. 2019 data, City of Livermore. 2021, December 20 th (accessed). “California School Dashboard for Livermore Valley Unified School District.”caschooldashboard.org.

EXHIBIT A
363
Ca
lifornia Department of Social Services, 13 CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 14 and Zillow Home Value Index.15 All data presented in the maps included in this assessment was collected through the AFFH Data Viewer mapping tool, a tool developed and approved by HCD for use in assessment of fair housing analyses as the most current and accurate data available. T his approach was developed in consultation with HCD and in conjunction with efforts to develop standardized state-wide datasets for fair housing analyses.

OUTREACH
As identified in the Outreach and Public Participation section of this Housing Element, the City met with several stakeholders and community organizations throughout the update process.

Nine consultations were conducted with local nonprofits and housing stakeholders to receive one-on-one, targeted input from those who provide services for those most in need of housing or with special housing needs. Representatives from the following organizations were interviewed:
• Regional Center of the East Bay (RCEB) on September 22 nd
• Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) on October 4th • EveryOneHome/Alameda Continuum of Care (CoC) on October 12th • Livermore Housing Authority on October 13th
• Eden Housing on October 19th
• Centro Legal de la Raza on October 22nd
• Pedrozzi Foundation on November 30th
• Tri Valley Haven on December 2nd
• La Familia on December 17th
The results of these interviews are summarized earlier in this document. The results are aggregated to protect confidentially of participants. Highlights from the interviews related to fair housing are discussed in this section. These efforts included an interview with a fair housing provider serving residents of Livermore and other local Bay Area jurisdictions. During this consultation, the stakeholder expressed a need for proactive and “protective” tenant protections, such as rent control, just -cause protections, and other housing protection laws to keep more individuals housed. They also stated that the Tri-Valley area contains concentrations of low-income, non-White residents, who face harassment and discrimination without the same protection, resources, and services as those same groups in more urban communities, where there are often a range of resources and services that serve people of color and linguistically isolated populations. The fair housing provider pointed to the City of Alameda’s rent petit ion 13 Community Care Licensing Division, California Department of Social Services. 2021, December 2020 (accessed). “Adults Residential Facility Search.” Ccld.dss.ca.gov.
https://www.ccld.dss.ca.gov/carefacilitysearch/Search/AdultResidentialAndDaycare 14 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, State of California. 2021, October 20 th. 2021, December 12 th (accessed). “Map of CalEnviroScreen 4.0.” oehha.ca.gov. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. 15 Home Value Index, Zillow. 2021, December 20th (accessed). “Home Values.” Zillow.com. https://www.zillow.com/research/data/.

EXHIBIT A
364
pro
gram as an example of a useful tool to empower tenants to advocate for themselves. They expressed a need for a tool such as this to be developed for Livermore residents.

However, stakeholders emphasized that a singular rental adjustment program is not enough to protect tenants from a hostile living environment, which can stem from circumstances beyond the landlords’ control, such as harassment from neighbors, particularly against low -income tenants or persons struggling with their mental health. In situations such as this, tenants require access to additional legal assistance to prevent displacement due to harassment or wrongful eviction. In the creation of additional tools, stakeholders expressed that enforcement mechanisms must also be included to ensure effectiveness and accountability. The fair housing provider recommended reviewing protections adopted by the City of Oakland, including a Just Cause ordinance for evictions, a Rent Adjustment program to manage rent increases, and Tenant Harassment o rdinance. The City has identified similar programs and ordinances to be adopted to protect Livermore renters from displacement due to discriminatory actions (Program 5.1.1).

According to stakeholder feedback, residents living with one or more mental disord ers (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder, mental health issues, depression, etc.) typically need more time to pay rent on time because of their mental difficulties. Therefore, stakeholders felt that it would be beneficial to provide training for housing providers to understand the effects of mental illness on paying rent on time and the value of payment plans or other options. Additionally, they felt that a variety of fiscal incentives, such as a shallow subsidy, would provide ongoing support for these residents. In conjunction, supportive services (e.g., case management, in-unit care, etc.) should have more dedicated funding streams to ensure that tenants receive the resources they need to remain in their home.

Consultations identified a need for workshops on fair housing laws for residents and housing providers. The goal of these would be to inform housing providers on their rights and responsibilities under fair housing laws, and provide education on discrimination, aiming to reduce the number of instances that result in fair housing complaints in Livermore. A tenant workshop counterpart can be conducted to inform residents on their tenant rights. Lastly, fulfilling reasonable accommodation requests have been an identified issue in Livermore.

As described in Section 1.3, the City also conducted a survey in English and Spanish on housing needs and barriers in order to solicit input from community members with protected characteristics. The majority of respondents were low-income renters of color living in Livermore.

Through the survey, the City was also able to hear from people experiencing homelessness, people with disabilities, families living in or near poverty, and low wage workers employed in Livermore.

Housing costs were identified as the primary bar rier for living in Livermore. Other barriers identified by survey respondents include:
• Economic insecurity and/or access to quality jobs
• Housing search
• Racial segregation and/or discrimination
• Credit score, income documentation, and income requirements (e.g., being required to earn three or more times the monthly rate)
• Economic segregation and/or discrimination

EXHIBIT A
365
• Hou
sing voucher access
• Prior records and legal status, such as not having a social security number, having a prior eviction on one’s housing record, or being formerly incarcerated • Local preference given to those who live/work in Livermore for affordable housing vacancies
Additional housing access barriers identified at the City’s Housing Solutions Open House, held at an affordable rent al housing development in December 2021, include language access (particularly Spanish), housing navigation, social security number requirements, and income documentation for gig workers and entrepreneurs. The City has identified a variety of actions under Goals 3 and 5 in Section 5.2 of this Housing Element, to address the barriers raised by respondents.

INDICATORS OF FAIR HOUSING
The California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires the City to analyze racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. Since 2017, the TCAC and HCD have developed annual maps of access to resources, such as high- paying job opportunities; proficient schools; safe and clean neighborhoods; and other healthy economic, social, and environmental indicators to provide evidence -based research for policy recommendations.

This effort has been dubbed “opportunity mapping” and is available to all jurisdictions to assess access to opportunities within their community.

The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps can help to identify areas within the community that provide strong access to opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low access to opportunity.

The information from the opportunity maps can help to highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low -resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty and to encourage better access for lower -income households and communities of color to housing in high -resource areas. TCAC/HCD categorized census tracts into high, moderate, or low resource areas based on a composite score of economic, educational, and environmental factors that can perpetuate poverty and segregation, such as school proficiency, median income, and median housing prices. The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps use a regional index score to determine categorization as high, moderate, and low resource. Livermore falls within the Bay Area TCAC region, which inc ludes all the Bay Area counties. Within the Bay Area, the top 40 percent of census tracts are either Highest or High resource and the remaining 60 percent of census tracts are evenly divided into Moderate and Low resource.

Areas designated as “highest resource” are the top 20-percent highest-scoring census tracts in the region. Residents in these census tracts are expected to have access to the best outcomes in terms of health, economic attainment, and education attainment. Census tracts designated “high resource” score in the 21st to 40th percentile compared to the region. Residents of these census tracts have access to highly positive outcomes for health, economic, and education attainment. Moderate resource areas are in the top 30 percent of the remaining census tracts in the region. Areas that are designated as “moderate resource (rapidly changing)” are those that have experienced rapid increases in key indicators of opportunity, such as increasing median income, home values, and an increase in job opportunities. Residents in these census tracts have access to either somewhat positive outcomes in terms of health, economic

EXHIBIT A
366
at
tainment, and education; or positive outcomes in a certain area (e.g., score high for health, education) but not all areas (e.g., may score poorly for economic attainment). Low resource areas are those that score in the bottom 30 percent of census tracts and indicate a lack of access to positive outcomes and poor access to opportunities. The final designation are those areas identified as having “high segregation and poverty;” these are census tracts that have an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the county as a whole, and at least 30 percent of the population in these areas is below the federal poverty line ($26,500 annually for a family of four in 2021).

According to the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas map, the southwestern portion of Livermore is considered high resource, northern and central Livermore are predominantly moderate resource, and eastern Livermore, one central c ensus tract, and the southernmost portions are low resource (see Figure 2-3). There are no areas identified as high segregation and poverty or moderate resource (rapidly changing). However, the eastern low resource area encompasses the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and industrial and commercial areas, with limited to no residential development.

EXHIBIT A
367
Figure 2-3: TCAC Opportunity Area Designations

EXHIBIT A
368
Pa
tterns of Integration and Segregation
Income Distribution
As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment of this Housing Element, a lower -income four- person household in Livermore is any that earns less than $125,600 annually. While the median income in Livermore ranges from $60,000 to $168,542 depending on the neighborhood, those areas where the median income is greater than $125,000 are concentrated outside of the core of the city. The area in the center of Livermore has a median income ranging from approximately $60,000 to $81,786 (see Figure 2-4). The patterns of income distribution income in Livermore follow generally lower incomes in the center of the city to highest incomes along the edges, with few areas that break this pattern. Though the median income overall is higher in Pleasanton, a similar pattern exists as in Livermore, with higher median incomes outside of the city center. This contrasts with Tracy, which has a higher concentration of households with lower household median income groups than Livermore and Pleasanton. The patterns found in Livermore reflect those throughout the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) region, where household median income tends to be higher in less dense neighborhoods, such as the predominantly suburban communities along and east of Interstate 680. Western portions of the Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, including the cities of Oakland, Emeryville, and Berkeley, have higher concentrations of poverty in high -density neighborhoods than are found in suburban communities.

In 2014, there were three areas of concentrated poverty in Livermore: the neighborhood encompassing Big Trees Park bounded by East Avenue to the south, S. Vasco Road to the east, Charlotte Way to the north, and N. Mines Road to the west (14.0 percent), the area bounded by Portola Avenue to the south, Interstate 580 to the north, and First Street to the east (10.6 percent), and the city center between N. Murrieta Boulevard and Junction Avenue (10.7 percent). However, by 2019, the rate of poverty in each of these areas had dropped below 10 percent. Despite the decrease in poverty, the Urban Displacement Project has identified the last area as “Low -income/Susceptible to Displacement” and it has been identified by TCAC and HCD as a “low resource” area. In contrast, the area near Portola Avenue has been identified as an area experiencing “Advanced Gentrification” by the Urban Displacement Project, and by TC AC and HCD as a “moderate resource” area. Several programs to help reduce displacement risk associated with this are identified in Table 2-54 at the end of this AFH.

The Big Trees Park neighborhood contains the highest percentage of children in a female - headed household and designated by TCAC and HCD as a “moderate resource” area.

According to the UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and Association of Bay Area Government/Metropolitan Transportation Council (ABAG/MTC)’s AFFH Segregation Report, above moderate-income residents across the San Francisco Bay Area are significantly more segregated from other income groups. This is also true in Livermore, where above moderate - income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups. Above moderate-income residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups. In 2015, the income segregation in Livermore between lower- income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions. Livermore has a lower share of very low-income residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of low- income residents, a lower share of moderate - income residents, and a higher share of above moderate-income residents. Among all income groups, the very low- income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.

EXHIBIT A
369
AB
AG/MTC found that a variety of historic practices and policies resulted in past and present patterns of segregation. For example, nationwide practices of racially restrictive covenants, redlining, and mortgage lending discrimination presented overt barriers to homeownership, and housing options in general, for people of color. Locally, land use decisions, such as prioritizing single-family development, did not target minority groups but may have established development patterns that prevented access to lower -income households. Local, state, and federal policies have, both directly and indirectly, influenced access to services, amenities, and opportunities for lower-income and non-White households.

In order to address historic discrepancies in access to opportunities lower -income households and people of color, the City will conduct racial equity impact assessments, strengthen requirements for linguistically accessible services, pursue funding to help remove economic barriers for people with protected characteristics, and work with community partners to provide accessible housing search assistance (Program 5.2.1).

EXHIBIT A
370
Figure 2-4: Median Income

EXHIBIT A
371
Ra
cial and Ethnic Characteristics
As presented in the Housing Needs Assessment of this Housing Element, the population of the Livermore is predominantly White, Non -Hispanic, though diversity has increased in the last 10 years (see Table 2-5 in the Housing Needs Assessment). Approximately 62.0 percent of Livermore residents identified as White in 2019, a decrease from 64.7 percent in 2010.

The Black, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Hispanic or Latinx populations have remained relatively stable during this time, while the Asian or Pacific Islander populat ion increased from 8.5 percent to 12.0 percent of the population. There are two areas in Livermore where the population does not predominantly identify as White (see Figure 2-5).

The northwest corner of the city (north of Constitution Drive and west of Collier Canyon Road) is predominantly Asian. The neighborhood containing May Niss en Community Park and Marylin Avenue Elementary School (bounded by the Altamont Corridor Express tracks to the south, N. Murrieta Boulevard to the west, Pine Street to the north, and Junction Avenue to the east), is predominantly Hispanic or Latinx.

Across the San Francisco Bay Area, White residents are significantly more segregated from other racial groups. The analysis for the AFFH Segregation Report completed by UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC staff found that as of 2020, White residents ar e the most segregated compared to other racial groups in Livermore, as measured by the isolation index, meaning that White residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups. Among all racial groups, the White population’s isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020, likely as a result of increasing diversity citywide. Further, the 2020 Alameda County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (County AI) found there are greater levels of socioeconomic integration in Alameda County jurisdictions than at the regional and national levels. The County AI used the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Dissimilarity Index (DI) to measure the division of various racial and ethnic groups across a defined geographic area. The index is broken down into three scored categories: 0 to 39, 40 to 54, and 55 to 100. A higher score indicates a higher intensity of division across racial and ethnic groups. To understand the scores for various ethnic and racial groups, the DI measured four groups: Non -White and White, Black and White, Hispanic and White, and Asian or Pacific Islander and White. Livermore scored between 8.2 and 11.8 in 1990 and between

18.9 and 31.8, in 2017, indicating that division of various racial and ethnic groups within the city has grown since 2002, though it remains lower than scores in other jurisdictions in the region. This indicates that, while there has been an increase in diversity and reduced isolation of White residents as a result, that integration has not occurred in all neighborhoods. As such, neighborhoods remain predominantly White even as diversity has increased in select areas, such as north of the railroad in the center of the city. The highest DI score for Livermore, 31.8, was the division between the Black and White population, meaning that 31.8 percent of Black residents would have to a move to a new track to increase integration. In comparison, Pleasanton’s 2018 DI score for the Black and White population was 28.6. These scores are supported by ABAG/MTC’s finding that Livermore has a higher share of White residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a lower share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents. Overall, jurisdictions in the Alameda County Consortium, which includes the urban county and entitlement cities (all cities in the county excluding Berkeley and Oakland), scored between 36.9 and 49.2 in 2017, indicating less racial and

EXHIBIT A
372
et
hnic division in Livermore than the greater region (scores 45.9 to 63.5). Similarly high racial and ethnic division was found in Oakland, which scored between 51.4 and 67.9 in 2017.

While there are concentrations of populations of color throughout Livermore, none qualify as racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs). A R/ECAP, as defined by HUD, is an area in which 50 percent or more of the population identifies as non -White and 40 percent or more of individuals are living below the poverty line. The closest R/ECAP is in Hayward and one adjacent to Hayward (San Lorenzo area). While no areas in Livermore can be categorized as a R/ECAP, i n the predominantly Hispanic and Latinx population in the center of the city mentioned previously, the median income is approximately $73,000 to $119,000. Additional analysis regarding characteristics that may have resulted in this concentration of lower - and moderate-income and Hispanic/Latinx residents in this area is included throughout this assessment, including discussion of housing types, access to opportunities, and more. Across the Tri-Valley area, the Tri-Valley Housing Displacement Report, produced in 2019 by Seifel Consulting, Inc and The Concord Group for the Tri -Valley cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton, found that lower -income households and residents across the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton , tend to be more diverse in terms of race and ethnicity, reflecting the lower median income in Livermore’s neighborhood with higher diversity score.

In contrast to R/ECAPs, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA) have persisted due to decades of focused investment, appreciated value of real estate, and wealth generation resulting from redlining practices and racially restrictive covenants. While RCAAs have not been officially defined by HUD, for the purposes of this analysis, if the percentage of a population in a census tract that identifies as White is 1.5 times the percentage that identifies as White in ABAG as a whole, and the median income is at least

1.25 times greater than the State AMI ($90,100), or $112,625, the tract is considered a RCAA. By these criteria, most of Livermore qualifies as a RCAA, indicating possible barriers to entry for non -White and lower -income households in most neighborhoods. The areas that do not meet the criteria to be considered a RCAA include the Sunset Park neighborhood and the area north of Downtown extending northeast to the Springtown neighborhood. As stated previously, the UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff identified in the AFFH Segregation Report: Livermore found that White residents of Livermore are the most isolated. Livermore’s isolation index of 0.568 for White residents means that the average White resident lives in a neighborhood in which 56.8 percent of the population is White. To reduce barriers to housing that may result in the persistence of RCAAs in Livermore, the City has identified Program 5.1.1 to partner with fair housing providers to educate housing providers on fair housing laws regarding discrimination, Program 5.2.1 to provide targeted assistance for underrepresented populations, and Programs 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 to increase the supply of housing affordable to lower- and moderate-income households to increase housing mobility opportunities.

EXHIBIT A
373
Figure 2-5: Predominant Population

EXHIBIT A
374
Fa
milial Status
According to the 2015- 2019 ACS, there is a concentration of female -headed households (without spouse or partner) near Big Trees Park in the southeast corner of the city.

Approximately 20 to 40 percent of the households in this area identify as this household type. Due to structural forces like gender wage disparities, the State of California has identified female-headed households as a population that is more likely to be vulnerable to poverty, displacement, or other negative impacts. While there is not a high rate of poverty in the Big Trees Park neighborhood, the median income is approximately $63,636, significantly lower than many other neighborhoods, and all adjacent neighborhoods, in Livermore. In this area, there is a concentration of apartments within walking distance of the Arroyo Seco Elementary School.

For comparison, there are no areas in Pleasanton with a concentration of female-headed households greater than 20 percent, while Tracy contains two areas. Across the ABAG region, there are many more jurisdictions with a higher concentration of this family type than Livermore. The concentrations of married couples with children are predominantly around the perimeter of Livermore, while the center of Livermore contains households with more mixed group family types. The cities of Tracy, Livermore, and Pleasanton all share a relatively similar concentration of largely married couples with children located around the perimeter of their respective city, where there are typically larger single -family home types that are suitable for families. Additionally, home prices are often higher in single - family neighborhoods and are unattainable for many single -income households, thus resulting in a higher rate of married couple and other dual- income households. Married couples with children is the dominant familial type in Tracy, Livermore, and Pleasanton.

Across the ABAG region, more urban communities have more balanced mixes of family types while more suburban communities have higher concentrations of largely married couples with children. To ensure there is housing available to all family types, the City will encourage affordable housing in a range of sizes (Program 1.5.3).

Persons with Disabilities
As stated in the Housing Needs Assessment of this Housing Element, the 2015 -2019 ACS estimated that approximately 8.4 percent of residents in Livermore had a disability. As shown in Table 2 -23 in the Housing Needs Assessment, cognitive difficulty was the most common disability type for Livermore residents. Approximately 30 percent of Livermore senior residents (people 65 years and older) live with a disability. Disability rates and patterns have shifted since 2014, when there were two census tracts where more than 10 percent of the residents identified as living with a disability (see Figure 2 -6). However, by 2019, this concentration has decreased as a larger portion of the city now have a rate of disability greater than 10 percent. An increasing disability rate may be a result of an aging population, as the senior population in Livermore has increased from 9.8 percent of the total population in 2010 to 13.4 percent in 2019 according to the ACS. While there are several assisted living facilities and residential care facilities in Livermore, the City has included Programs 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 to facilitate this type of housing and encourage universal design in new developments, so the growing populations of seniors and persons with disabilities are able to find housing options to remain in their community.

EXHIBIT A
375
Wh
ile the percentage of the population with a disability varies slightly throughout the city, there is one significant concentration of this population between First Street to the north, Lomitas Avenue to the south, Arroyo Road/L Street to the east, and Holmes Street to the west, where approximately 16.3 percent of the population has a disability. Milan Villa Senior Living, Tuscany Villa Senior Living, and A Home of Our Own, with a combined capacity for 61 residents, are within this census tract, supporting a concentration of seniors who are more likely than younger residents to have vision, hearing, or ambulatory difficulties. The proximity of this tract to downtown ma y further support the concentration of this population due to proximity to services, transit, and smaller units often preferred by senior households.

Pleasanton shares a similar rate of disability as Livermore, while Tracy has a higher rate in the center a nd east side of the city. While the disability rate is slightly lower in Livermore than in the region, the patterns of concentration are similar. Typically, urban areas with higher population density, often along the bay and in downtown areas, have slightly higher rates of disability in both the Bay Area and the county. This trend may be due to a concentration of accessible housing, proximity to transit, and the availability of resources in these areas. Livermore largely reflects disability patterns found throughout the region with higher rates of disability in denser areas. The City has identified several programs in Table 2-54 at the end of this AFH to improve housing mobility and access to resources and services for persons with disabilities, to alleviate the concentrations of persons with disabilities identified and to address concerns about shortages of accessible housing and services identified by stakeholders.

EXHIBIT A
376
Figure 2-6: Disability Rate

EXHIBIT A
377
Ac
cess to Opportunity
Educational Opportunities
School quality is often tied to housing, with neighborhoods with higher median incomes and home values often having more resources to invest in local schools than lower - income neighborhoods. Income distribution influences home values and property taxes, and therefore funding for public schools. As such, school districts with higher concentrations of lower -cost housing typically have lower standardized test scores, creating a cyclical problem of not offering these students equal educational opportunities afforded to students in affluent neighborhoods. Therefore, disparities in access to strong school opportunities serves as an indicator of fair housing and equal access to opportunities.

Livermore residents are served by a variety of schooling opportunities through the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD), Del Valle Continuation School, and Livermore Adult Education. Between these schools, there are nine elementary schools, three middle schools, three high schools, and two kindergarten through 12th grade schools in Livermore. The anticipated educational outcome, according to TCAC/HCD opportunity maps (see Figure 2 -7), is lowest in central areas of Livermore, between N. Murrieta Boulevard and Interstate 580 north of First Street, and between S . Livermore Avenue and S. Vasco Road south of First Street. The TCAC/HCD Educational Score is based on access to educational attainment on fourth grade reading and math proficiency from the 2018 - 2019 school year, high school graduation rate, and prevalence of student poverty. The highest educational outcomes are expected in areas outside of the Livermore core, where neighborhoods have higher median incomes (see Figure 2-4). For comparison, Pleasanton, in its entirety, has a much higher overall anticipated educational outcome than Livermore, which correlates with the generally higher median income found in Pleasanton. In contrast, Tracy shares a similar anticipated educational outcome as Livermore, where central and northern parts of Tracy with lower median incomes have the lowest anticipated educational outcome. Like in Livermore, areas in Tracy with higher median incomes have higher educational scores.

Each year, the California Department of Education (DOE) publishes performance metrics for each school in the state, including student assessment results for English Language Arts and Mathematics as they compare to the state on meeting grade -level standards.

Performance scores were available for the nine elementary schools, three middle schools, three high schools, and two kindergarten through 12th grade schools (see Table 2 -48).

Performance scores were not available for Vineyard Alternative School, Del Valle Continuation High, and Livermore Valley Adult Education; however, it is worth noting that continuation and alternative schools typically serve students who struggle with traditional school environments and present a valuable opportunity for students who may otherwise not complete high school or are seeking additional education.

EXHIBIT A
378
Figure 2-7: TCAC Educational Score

EXHIBIT A
379
Ac
cording to the DOE rankings, Marylin Avenue Elementary and Junction K-8 have the highest rates of students who are eligible for free or reduced priced meals, the lowest standardized test scores, and the highest rates of students who were chronically absent (see Table 2 -48).

Both schools serve neighborhoods north of Downtown that are predominantly Hispanic, Latino, Latina, and Latinx according to the 2015 -2019 ACS (N. Murrieta Boulevard to the west, Pine Street to the north, Union Pacific Railroad to the south, and Junction Avenue to the east). At the block group level, the median income for the neighborhood surrounding Junction K -8 is $72,949, while the median income in the neighborhood surrounding Marylin Avenue Elementary is $119,688. Both schools provide a variety of programs and services designed to serve low income community member and immigrant families, and the area has a number of community assets, including community enterprises, a multilingual food pantry at Marylin Avenue Elementary, May Nissen Park, and the Rincon Library. All other schools in Livermore have performance scores at or higher than the State standard.

Table 2-48: School Performance Scores, 2019
School
English
Language
Arts Score
Mathematics
Score
Rate of
Chronic
Absenteeism1
Socially
Disadvantaged
Population2
Leo R. Croce Elementary +3.4 +7 5.4% 25.5%
Junction K-8 -11.8 -54.6 5.8% 63.8%
East Avenue Middle +18 -24.3 0% 30.8%
Sunset Elementary +66.4 +40.5 3.4% 6.7%
Marylin Avenue Elementary -25.2 -17.8 8% 78.6%
Rancho Las Positas Elementary +12.3 +3.9 4.8% 24%
Granada High +41 +16.7 n/a 21.5%
Livermore High +24 -36.9 n/a 26%
Jackson Avenue Elementary +19.6 +5.5 5.1% 39.7%
Andrew N. Christensen Middle +41.2 -2.6 - 19.7%
Altamont Creek Elementary +38 +16 2.3% 17.4%
William Mendenhall Middle +52.5 +26 3.5% 9%
Arroyo Seco Elementary +16.6 +5.1 4.1% 24%
Emma C. Smith Elementary +47.9 +42.5 2.2% 7.6%
Joe Michell K-8 +23.9 -10.7 3% 20.1%
Lawrence Elementary +21.6 +21.3 5.4% 13.4%
Source: California Department of Education, 2019
1 The percentage of students who are absent 10 percent or more of the instructional days they were enrolled.

Applies to elementary and middle schools.
2 Percentage of students who are eligible for free or reduced priced meals; or have parents/guardians who did not receive a high school diploma.

In the 2019 school year, app roximately 25.7 percent of Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) students qualified as socially disadvantaged, measured by the number of students who are eligible for free or reduced- priced meals or have parents or guardians who did not r eceive a high school diploma. Approximately 10.6 percent of students were English learners, measured by students who are learning to communicate effectively in English, which usually requires instruction in the English language in addition to the typical c ourse load, and approximately 0.1 percent of LVJUSD students are in foster care. Additionally, approximately

EXHIBIT A
380

54.4 pe
rcent of the class of 2019 were ranked by the DOE as “prepared” for college or career.

In comparison, in the neighboring Tracy Joint Unified School District (TJUSD), the percent of the student population that is considered socially disadvantaged more doubles, more than a quarter of students are English learners, and the college preparedness rate is significantly lower (see Table 2-49). While to the west, in the Pleasanton Unified School District, the rates of all of these demographic characteristics are significantly lower than in LVJUSD and the college preparedness rate significantly higher.

Table 2-49: School District Demographic Characteristics School District
Socially
Disadvantaged
Population1
English
Learners
Foster
Youth
College
Preparedness
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School
District 25.7% 10.6% 0.1% 54.4%
Tracy Joint Unified School District 57.8% 26.9% 0.4% 34.7% Pleasanton Unified School District 9.1% 11.4% 0.1% 76.2% Source: California Department of Education, 2019
1 Percentage of students who are eligible for free or reduced priced meals; or have parents/guardians who did not receive a high school diploma.

While most schools in Livermore offer strong educational opportunities for students, residents of areas that are predominantly non-White have disproportionately limited access to high-quality schools. Addressing housing instability for families with children living in substandard housing or poverty, paired with encouraging integration of affordable housing in high opportunities, may improve educational opportunities for all students. However, most Livermore schools are an excellent starting point since most schools have high ratings according to Table 2 -48. The Housing Element includes a set of housing programs to increase housing opportunity for extremely low-income households, including Program 3.4.2 to expand Section 8 voucher usage throughout the city and encourage affordable housing in high resource areas.

Transit Mobility
Livermore residents are served by the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Train and the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (aka Tri -Valley Wheels). The ACE Train has two Livermore stations, one located Downtown and the other on Vasco Road, and connects Livermore residents with areas as far northeast as Stockton and southwest as San Jose. The Downtown ACE station also serves as the location of the Livermore Transit Center, which connects to th e Tri-Valley Wheels bus system. Tri- Valley Wheels connects residents across Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and unincorporated areas in Alameda County via a fixed -route bus service. Tri - Valley Wheels operates three routes within Livermore: Route 11 (suspend ed due to low ridership), Route 14, and Route 15. The express route (30R) was suspended due to the COVID - 19 pandemic but is now back in service.

EXHIBIT A
381
No
rthwest of the railroad, between N. Murrieta Boulevard, Pine Street, and Junction Avenue, there is a concentration of non- White and lower -income households, The location of the Livermore Transit Center in disadvantaged communities improves transit access for these residents to connect them to opportunities both within and outside of the city. Discounted ACE Train fares are available to qualifying passengers living with disabilities, Medicare cardholders, seniors (aged 65+), and children ages 6 to 12. Additionally, the ACE Train also has a Community Assistance Program (CAP) to assist lower -income households with fare reductions based on distance traveled. Typically, fares are a flat cost for travel. In December 2021, Tri-Valley Wheels fares ranged from $1 to $2 based on the use of cash, Clipper card, and if the rider identified as a regular rider, youth ($1.60 to $2), senior ($1), living with a disability ($1), or as a Medicare cardholder ($1). Tri -Valley Wheels riders also have access to senior and disabled discounted monthly passes. The Go Tri-Valley rideshare program operated by Tri-Valley Wheels pays for half of an Uber of Lyft ride fare (up to $5) for trips starting and ending within the city limits of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, including rides between cities. This program encourages residents to travel in groups, reducing the number of vehicle trips in each city and cars on the road.

According to AllTransit, a transportation database of over 902 transit agencies created by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, Livermore received a transit score of 4.3 out of 10. This score is a result of a “low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling few people to take transit to work.” Comparatively, Pleasanton scored 4.9 and Tracy scored

3.3 for the same metric, both earning the same description as Livermore. Transit scores in the Bay Area are typically highest in dense, urban areas served by a wide range of public transportation options. In contrast, more suburban communities, such as Livermore, have significantly lower transit scores where there are fewer options available to residents, presenting a barrier to households that may want to live in Livermore but rely on public transit to access employment and services.

Employment Opportunities
The transportation options available to Livermore residents significantly affect access to employment opportunities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer - Household Dynamics (LEHD) measurement, in 2019, 26.9 percent of Livermore residents lived less than 10 miles from their place of employment, 30.8 percent lived within 10 to 24 miles of their job, 26.1 percent were 20 to 50 miles from their job, and 16.3 percent were further than 50 miles from their job. While there are several employment opportunities in the city, Livermore’s position in the Bay Area facilitates access to other jobs and industries in other nearby cities.

According to the Tri-Valley Housing Displacement Report, approximately 39 percent of the jobs in the Tri- Valley area are for lower wage workers and many of the industries with high growth opportunities include jobs for lower wage workers. This supports economic opportunities for this population, while high wage workers living in Dublin, Livermore, or Pleasanton are more likely to commute elsewhere in the Bay Area. This is supported by LEHD data, which indicate that 39 percent of Livermore residents work in Alameda County, 16 percent work in San Joaquin County, 13.2 percent work in Contra Costa County, and 6 percent in Santa Clara County. Those that commute the furthest are largely commuting north to Napa, Petaluma, and Santa Rosa, and southeast to Turlock and Merced.

LEHD data also indicate that 20.4 percent of Livermore workers also live there. Other locations from which Livermore workers commute are the cities of Tracy (5.7 percent of Livermore workers), San Jose (3.6 percent), and Pleasanton (3.5 percent). Approximately 50 percent of

EXHIBIT A
382
Liv
ermore workers commute from locations outside of the city that were not identified by the LEHD.

As shown in Figure 2 -8, LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data indicate that there is a greater concentration of jobs in Livermore than in nearby jurisdictions of Pleasanton, Dublin, and San Ramon. The high concentration of jobs in Livermore may be due to the presence of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and the largest distribution center in the Tri-Valley area. However, job access across Livermore is not evenly distributed. The southwest corner of the city is identified as having the furthest proximity to jobs, according to HUD. This area is almost entirely residential and backs up to open space and vineyards, with few job opportunities. Residents of this portion of the city may have to commute north to job centers in Livermore or nearby communities.

Figure 2-8: Concentration of Jobs by Jurisdiction

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019

EXHIBIT A
383
Ac
cording to the Department of Finance E-5 estimates and Table 2-50, Livermore’s jobs-housing ratio has increased from 2002 to 2018. A jobs- housing ratio measures the number of jobs available compared to number of occupied housing units. A 1.0 ratio indicates that there is one job for every housing unit. In 2002, Livermore had a jobs -housing ratio of 1.56, while the county and Bay Area had ratios of 1.30 and 1.28, respectively. By 2018, the ratios had increased to 1.71, 1.43, and 1.47 for Livermore, the County, and the Bay Area, respectively, indicating that each of these have more jobs available than housing units. This high jobs -housing ratio may suggest that there is a shortage of housing in Livermore for workers that commute there. To address the imbalance, the City has included several programs in this Housing Element to facilitate, incentivize, and support housing development so Livermore workers will have housing options to reside within the city.

Table 2-50: Jobs-Housing Ratio
Year Livermore Alameda County Bay Area
2002 1.56 1.30 1.28
2010 1.42 1.20 1.21
2018 1.71 1.43 1.47
Source: ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

In addition, according to Table 2-51, Livermore’s unemployment rate has historically been lower than the rates in Alameda County and the Bay Area. In January 2010, the unemployment rate was 8.1 percent, while Alameda County was 11.6 percent, and the Bay Area was 11.1 percent.

In 2014, the unemployment rate had dropped to 4.5 percent in Livermore, remaining lower than Alameda County (6.6 percent) and the Bay Area (6.1 percent). This finding follows the trend shown in Table 2-51, which indicates that Livermore r esidents may have better access to jobs, or access to more secure jobs, than in the overall county and Bay Area.

Table 2-51: Unemployment Rate
Date Livermore Alameda County Bay Area
January 2010 8.1% 11.6% 11.1%
January 2014 4.5% 6.6% 6.1%
January 2021 5.9% 7.2% 6.6%
Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS); ABAG Data Packet, 2021.

Services for Persons with Disabilities
Livermore residents are served by Dial-A Ride Paratransit, a transportation service operated by the Livermore Transit Authority to provide door-to door transit for persons with disabilities. Drivers can provide assistance from the front door of origin or destination to the vehicle. This service is available whenever fixed -route service is operating and is also available to residents of other jurisdictions in the region, including Pleasanton, Dublin, and unincorporated communities in the county. The fare is $3.75 each way and the service is reservation based – reservations must be made at least the day before the trip and can be made up to seven days prior to the trip.

Additionally, the Livermore Transit Authority also provides a Wheels Para -Taxi Program. The program offers a flexible same -day transportation option for Americans with Disabilities Act

EXHIBIT A
384
(AD
A)-certified riders. Unlike traditional Paratransit services that are ride -share vehicles and operate on a schedule, the Wheels Para-Taxi service operates by allowing riders to use any taxi service, including Lyft, Uber, or regular taxis, then submit a reimbursement form on the Wheels website for the cost of the ride. According to the Livermore Transit Authority, the final cost to the rider after the reimbursement is often less than a Dial -A-Ride ticket. These two services provide the ability for persons living with disabilities to travel independently to, from, and around the Livermore area at reduced costs.

There are several licensed assisted living facilities available to persons living with disabilities in Livermore. In total, there are 459 beds available across 31 facilities, with the largest being The Watermark at Rosewood Gardens, with capacity for 115 residents. These facilities are largely near the downtown area in higher -density neighborhoods. Most facilities are in the two areas of concentrated disability south of First Street, therefore explaining the higher rates of disabilities in these tracts compared to other areas of the city. In addition to the assisted living facilities, there are seven adult residential care facilities with a combined capacity for 38 occupants.

These residential homes are for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who also have medical, behavioral, or age-related support needs.

The City also requires new developments to comply with Title 24 of the 2019 California Building Code to ensure that all new construction meets accessible design standards, thus ensuring that all new housing is accessible for all residents regardless of disability. Additionally, the City ensures that older housing that may not meet the same accessibility requirements can be adapted as needed through its Reasonable Accommodation process, discussed in the Governmental Constraints section of this Housing Element, and by seeking funding to assist with modifications (Program 5.1.2).

Environmental Health
A disadvantaged community or environmental justice community (EJ Community) is identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Ca l EPA) as an “area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation,” and may or may not have a concentration of low -income households, high unemployment rates, low homeownership rates, overpayment for housing, or other indicators of disproportionate housing need. In February 2021, the California Office for Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (COEHHA) released the fourth version of CalEnviroScreen, a tool that uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators to map and compare communities’ environmental scores. In the CalEnviroScreen tool, communities that have a cumulative score in the 75th percentile or above are those that have been designated as disadvantaged communities under Senate Bill (SB) 535. The cumulative score for each census tract includes an exposure score, with a low score being a positive outcome, for each of the following:
• Ozone concentrations
• PM

2.5 concentrations
• Diesel particulate matter emissions
• Drinking water contaminants
• Children’s lead risk from housing for children
• Use of certain high-hazard, high-volatility pesticides

EXHIBIT A
385
• To
xic releases from facilities
• Traffic impacts
Communities that are identified as disadvantaged communities based on their cumulative pollution exposure score are targeted for investment through the State cap- and-trade program. However, the condition of these communities poses fair housing concerns due to disproportionate exposure to unhealthy living conditions. As shown in Figure 2 -9, there are no areas within Livermore that qualify as an EJ Community. Despite this, there are notable patterns of varying environmental conditions. For example, the highest -scoring census tract, scoring in the 39th p ercentile, had a predominantly Hispanic and Latinx population in 2019. This tract, shown in Figure 2-9, is in the center of the city north of First Street, where there is a concentration of high -density and intensity residential and commercial uses. The pollution burden in this neighborhood was in the 49th percentile and the population characteristic score was in the 33rd percentile, suggesting that the environmental score is more likely a result of pollution. A lower population characteristic score, similar to an exposure score, indicates a more positive outcome. This score measures biological traits that reflect health status or community characteristics:
• Asthma concentration
• Cardiovascular disease
• Low birth weight infants
• Educational attainment levels
• Housing burden cost
• Linguistic isolation concentration
• Poverty levels
• Unemployment rate
While still a lower score than found in other communities in the region, outside of Livermore, there are three pollution burden indicators that individually scored above the 75th percentile in this neighborhood: lead from housing, groundwater threats, and hazardous waste. The high lead score may be caused by the older housing stock that is concentrated in this area. Lead - based paint was used in the construction of residential homes prior to 1978. Many of the homes in this area may have been constructed before then, which may contribute to the high indicator score.
16 The high scores of the other indicators may be caused by infrastructure issues or runoff from current or adjacent uses.

16 Properties, Avr. 2017, March 22nd (posted). 2017, April 11th (updated). 2021, December 22nd (accessed). “What If My Livermore Rental Property has Lead -Based Paint?” Property Management Education. Avrhomes.com. https://avrhomes.com/what-if-my-li vermore-rental-property-has-lead-based-paint-property-management- education.

EXHIBIT A
386
Figure 2-9: Environmental Health Scores

EXHIBIT A
387
In
Pleasanton, there are no EJ Communities. However, neighborhoods west of Sunol Boulevard and Del Valle Parkway have higher cumulative scores than the census tracts east of Sunol Boulevard. The area containing the Stoneridge Shopping Center also has a higher cumulative percentile score than most areas in Pleasanton. While these are high -income, predominantly White areas, each has high proximity to non-residential uses, which may increase pollution from vehicular traffic. In contrast to Livermore and Pleasanton, Tracy contains two disadvantaged communities, which are both on the east side of the city (east of S. Mac Arthur Drive). Of the three jurisdictions, Tracy contains the highest concentration of disadvantaged communities, which correlates with lower median incomes.

The distribution and locations of EJ Communities across Livermore, the Bay Area, and the nation are likely caused by numerous factors, including historical planning decisions, such as freeway construction that disrupted o r harmed certain communities and redlining practices that resulted in disproportionate mortgage lending across the nation. In Livermore, the areas with the highest rate of environmental pollution and poverty are adjacent to major thoroughfares, including Interstate 580, and concentrated commercial uses, such as along First Street. While cities commonly have the highest-density and intensity of uses in their core, this aligns with areas of the greatest number of potential fair housing issues in Livermore. To address any discrepancies in access to healthy living conditions, the City will pursue funding to acquire land and/or facilitate development of urban parks on infill sites, particularly in low -resource areas and affordable housing developments, to promote place-based revitalization through air pollution mitigation and improved access to outdoor recreational opportunities (Program

4.2.1).

Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement Risk
Overcrowding
As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment, the U.S. Census Bureau defines an overcrowded household as a unit that is occupied by more than one person per room. A small percentage of overcrowded units is not uncommon, and often includes families with children who share rooms or multi-generational households. However, high rates of overcrowding may indicate a fair housing issue resulting from situations such as two families or households occupying one unit to reduce housing costs (sometimes referred to as “doubling up”). Situations such as these may indicate a shortage of appropriately sized and affordable housing units.

Three census tracts in Livermore have a household overcrowding rate greater than 8.2 percent, the statewide average (Figure 2 -10). Approximately 12.1 percent of households in a neighborhood in northern Livermore (bounded by N. Murrieta Boulevard to west, Portola Avenue to north and east, and the Union Pacific Railroad to south) are experiencing overcrowding. This concentration of overcrowding aligns with areas that are low -resourced according to TCAC/HCD, pollution burdened according to CalEnviroScreen, and have a disproportionate high rate of poverty, indicating possibly disproportionate housing burden and a need for more affordable large units in these areas, in addition to other areas, to affirmatively further fair housing. These neighborhoods are also predominately Hispanic and Latinx, so interventions should be linguistically accessible and culturally relevant. In the neighborhood surrounding Big Tree Park, 10.7 percent of households are overcrowded. As discussed previously, this neighborhood also has the highest rate of female -headed households and a concentration of higher-density housing, which may indicate that female-headed households with children are living in apartments or other smaller units due to housing costs or proximity to

EXHIBIT A
388
sc
hools, resulting in overcrowding. This census tract is bounded by N. Mines Road to the west, Charlotte Way to the north, S. Vasco Road to the east, and East Avenue to the south. While there are no concentratio ns of severe overcrowding in Livermore, the available data are not complete for the entirety of the city. In comparison, Tracy has a high concentration of overcrowded households in four census tracts between W. 11th Street to the south, N. Corral Hollow Road to the west, W. Clover Road and Lavelle Smith Drive to the north, and Holly Drive to the east. The percentage of overcrowded households within these four census tracts range from 9.4 to 18.5 percent. While there are no areas of concentrated overcrowding in Pleasanton, there is one area of concentrated severe overcrowding at 7.4 percent of households.

This concentration of overcrowding, similar to Livermore, aligns with areas that are Low - Income/Susceptible to Displacement according to the Urban Displac ement project and contain vulnerable populations facing pollution burden according to CalEnviroScreen. The majority of residents in these neighborhoods are Hispanic and Latinx. In the ABAG region, overcrowding primarily occurs in dense, urban communities adjacent to the bay, while suburban communities have lower rates of overcrowding. Overcrowding and severe overcrowding may not be an issue for most Livermore residents; however, overcrowding increases displacement risk for those experiencing it. To address overcrowding, the City will provide regulatory waivers for developers that include affordable units for large families with three or more bedrooms in areas of concentrated overcrowding (Program 1.5.3).

EXHIBIT A
389
Figure 2-10: Rate of Overcrowded Households

EXHIBIT A
390
Ov
erpayment or Cost Burden
A household is considered to be overpaying for housing (or cost burdened) when it spends more than 30 percent of its gross income on housing. Severe cost burden occurs when a household pays more than 50 percent of its income on housing. Approximately 31.0 percent of Livermore residents, 37.1 percent of Alameda County residents, and 36.1 percent of Bay Area residents are overpaying for housing. While both renters and homeowners face cost burden, it is a more significant problem among renters.

In 2014, renter overpayment in Livermore was concentrated in the Robertson Park neighborhood, where approximately 67 percent of renters paid more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing, and the southern portion of Livermore, where approximately 69 percent of renters were overpaying for housing. The lowest rate of overpayment, at 18.5 percent, occurred in northern Livermore near the Livermore Municipal Airport and Las Positas Golf Course. The highest rates of overpayment among homeowners in 2014 occurred east of Downtown Livermore, predominantly between S. Livermore Avenue and S. Vasco Road, where

41.6 to 48.5 percent of homeowners have housing that costs 30 percent or more of their household income.

In 2019, the highest rate of renter overpayment was north of Interstate 580, at 62.6 percent of renters, though renter overpayment remains present throughout the city (Figure 2 -11). The lowest rate of renter overpayment is in areas predominantly south of Alden Lane and Lomitas Avenue. There is significantly lower homeowner overpayment than in 2014, with only one remaining concentration in the Wagner Farm neighborhood (East Avenue to the south, N.

Mines Road to the west, and Charlotte Way to the north, S. Vasco Road to the east), where approximately 43.5 percent of homeowners overpay for their home (Figure 2 -12).

EXHIBIT A
391
Figure 2-11: Percent of Cost Burdened Renter Households, 2019

EXHIBIT A
392
Figure 2-12: Percent of Cost Burdened Owner Households, 2019

EXHIBIT A
393
As
shown in Table 2-52, in 2019, approximately 32.8 percent of Black Livermore renters are cost burdened; however, only 1.8 percent of Livermore residents identify as Black or African American. This reflects other racial disproportionalities such as wage and occupational disparities and may indicate that this population of renters is disproportionately experiencing overpayment. In addition, 100 percent (or 10 individuals) of American Indian or Alaskan Native renters are cost burdened. For reference, only 0.3 percent of Livermore residents identify as American Indian and Alaska Native. Along with Black or African American Livermore residents, Livermore American Indian and Alaska Native are disproportionately overpaying for housing.

Additionally, the majority of Pacific Islander and Multiracial renters are experiencing cost burden at disproportionally higher rates than other races.

Among homeowners, approximately 17.7 percent of Black or African American residents are severely overpaying, demonstrating a similar trend as seen among renters. Asian, American Indian, or Alaska Nativ e homeowners experience the highest rate of cost burden, though significantly lower rates of severe cost burden. Non- White homeowners in Livermore generally experience higher rates of overpayment than White homeowners, which reflects regional and national racial disproportionalities and are caused by past and present forms of housing discrimination, occupational segregation, and barriers to accessing affordable housing options.

EXHIBIT A
394
Table 2-52: Percentage of Cost Burden Residents by Tenure, Race, and Ethnicity Tenure and Race
Cost Burden
Not Available
Total ≤ 30% 30% to 50% > 50%
Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share
Owners
White, alone 13,220 77.6% 2,300 13.5% 1,430 8.4% 90 0.5% 17,040 Black or African American, alone 240 77.4% 10 3.2% 55 17.7% 0 0.0% 310 Asian, alone 1610 69.0% 525 22.5% 190 8.1% 10 0.4% 2,335 American Indian or Alaska Native, alone 15 75.0% 4 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 20 Pacific Islander, alone 25 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 25 Other, multiple 455 72.8% 110 17.6% 60 9.6% 0 0.0% 625
Hispanic 1,600 72.4% 405 18.3% 185 8.4% 20 0.9% 2,210
Renters
White, alone 2,805 52.2% 1,365 25.4% 1,170 21.8% 30 0.6% 5,375 Black or African American, alone 165 54.1% 100 32.8% 45 14.8% 0 0.0% 305 Asian, alone 420 56.0% 145 19.3% 170 22.7% 15 2.0% 750
American Indian or Alaska Native, alone 0 0.0% 10 100.0% 4 40.0% 0 0.0% 10 Pacific Islander, alone 15 33.3% 10 22.2% 20 44.4% 0 0.0% 45 Other, multiple 40 23.5% 40 23.5% 80 47.1% 10 5.9% 170
Hispanic 1,225 53.0% 590 25.5% 450 19.5% 40 1.7% 2,310
Source: CHAS, 2014-2018.

EXHIBIT A
395
Su
bstandard Housing
Housing condition presents another issue that may increase displacement risk for residents due to safety and exposure concerns. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, approximately 65 percent of units in the city are older than 30 years, indicating that the housing stock in Livermore is relatively new. However, for those units older than 30 years, it is not uncommon to need at least minor repairs. According to Section 2.5, Housing in Need of Repair/Replacement of the Housing Needs Assessment, approximately 100 residential units are estimated to need either rehabilitation or replacement. To ensure that all residents are able to maintain their homes regardless of income, the City will seek funding to provide housing rehabilitation funding to lower -income residents to reduce displacement risk due to housing conditions (Programs 4.1.3).

Homelessness
In 2022, EveryOne Home conducted the Point in Time (PIT) count for Alameda County to assess the extent of homelessness in the county. The count found 242 people experiencing homelessness living in Livermore, approximately 2.5 percent of the homeless population in Alameda County and an 8.3 percent decrease since 2019. Of the homeless population in Livermore, 68 (or 28.1 percent) were sheltered and 174 (71.9 percent) were unsheltered. In 2019, approximately 32.2 percent of the homeless population in Livermore was sheltered and 67.8 percent was unsheltered. This indicates that, while the size of the homeless population in Livermore has decreased since 2019, the proportion of unsheltered residents has increased. However, the proportion of unsheltered homeless persons in Livermore was lower than other communities in the county. The following statistics were reported on the city’s homeless population:
• 16 percent are chronically homeless.
• Black/African American, Asian , and Hispanic/Latinx residents were overrepresented when compared to the City’s population. • About 27 percent of the citywide homeless population was male and 73 percent identified as female.
• No homeless people in Livermore were veterans.
•
19 percent of the homeless population in Livermore had a disabling condition, which is defined by HUD as developmental disability, HIV/AIDS, or long-term physical or mental impairment that impacts a person’s ability to liv e independently, but could be improved with stable housing.

Persons experiencing homelessness, or those at risk of becoming homeless, are typically extremely low -income and are often displaced from housing due to inability to pay or other issues.

Six housing projects and three programs have been recently completed or are underway in Livermore to support the unhoused population. The six housing projects are:
• Chestnut Square Senior. A 72-unit affordable studio and 1 -bedroom apartments complex that opened in September 2019 as part of a two -phase project with Chestnut Family Square (below). Five affordable housing units are set aside for previously unhoused senior residents.

EXHIBIT A
396
• Che
stnut Square Family. Built in 2021, this project includes 42 affordable rental apartments. Supportive services are provided for 10 of the 42 units at Chestnut Family Square that are set aside for formerly homeless households. • Goodness Village. 28 tiny homes constructed in 2021. This development also provides services and resources to the local Livermore community experiencing homelessness.
• Vineyard 2.0. 24 units of affordable, accessible studios, 1 -bedroom units, and one 2-bedroom unit. This development will include a 10,000 -square-foot kitchen to be operated by Open Heart Kitchen, serving hot meals for Livermore’s homeless and low-income neighbors. Additionally, this development also includes a Housing Resource Center that will provide housing navigation services for both unhoused and low-income community members, showers laundry machines, a winter shelter, and mailboxes. Vineyard is located north of Downtown and is a five -minute walk from downtown Livermore .
• Pacific Avenue Senior Apartments. A 140- unit affordable rental housing project, currently in the development phase, will include both one- and two-bedroom units for seniors. A limited number of units will be dedicated for seniors experiencing homelessness.
• Downtown Livermore Apartments. This development will provide 130 new affordable homes to low-income families in Livermore. A limited number of the units will be set aside for previously unhoused community members to meet County funding requirements.

Examples of City programs for people experiencing homelessness include City Serve, biohazard cleanup, and laundry and shower services. City Serve is a Tri -Valley program that provides crisis stabilization services for unsheltered neighbors living in Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. In partnership with Block by Block, the City provides biohazard cleanup services throughout the city, including cleanup of backpacks, sleeping bags, bags with items inside, urine/fecal matter, and needle/drug paraphernalia that may not be safe for individuals to handle. The Asbury Methodist Church offers laundry and shower services to unhoused commun ity members three days per week , with service providers frequently co-locating and providing housing navigation services on site. More information on supportive services for the unhoused community can be found on the City’s website.

The City has included Programs 1.5.3, 3.4.3 and 6.1.2 to address homelessness in Livermore.

City staff are also exploring the following partnerships to increase the number of supportive housing units in the City for people experiencing homelessness:
• Project Reclamation: The City is working with Bay Area Community Services (BACS) and other cities in Alameda County to develop a regional program that acquires single family homes to create supportive shared housing for people experiencing homelessness. Single family homes offer unique opportunities to bring housing for those experiencing homelessness into existing residential and high opportunity communities.
• Livermore Housing Authority: City staff and the Livermore Housing Authority are pursuing funding that would allow the Livermore Housing Authority to set aside vacant units at properties throughout Livermore for households experiencing

EXHIBIT A
397
ho
melessness and to provide patient, linguistically accessible, and trauma - informed supportive services to help program participants successfully transition from housing insecurity. The City and LHA are working closely with staff from the Livermore Valley Unified School District and homeless services providers to ensure the program meets the needs of families in Livermore experiencing homelessness.

Displacement Risk
The annual rate of increase in average home value or rental prices compared with annual changes in the average income in the city indicates an increased risk of displacement due to housing costs outpacing wage increases, a trend that is felt throughout the region, state, and nation. According to the Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), a seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type, from 2010 to 2020, Livermore home values have nearly doubled from $432,664 to $865,106. Bay Area and Alameda County home values have increased even more rapidly. During this period, the average annual change in home values in Livermore, Alameda County, and the Bay Area was 5.0, 5.6, and 5.2 percent, respectively. Peak periods of change for the city includes 2003-2005, 2006-2008, and 2011-2013.

While housing costs have increased rapidly, wages have not kept pace. The average income in Livermore has increased approximately 3 .5 percent annually, from $93,988 in 2010 to $127,452 in 2019, according to the ACS. The increasing gap between household median income and average housing cost over the last decade indicates growing unaffordability of home ownership in Livermore. To address affordability challenges, Livermore included several programs to connect lower -income residents with affordable housing rental and ownership opportunities and will incentivize construction of affordable units (see Table 2-54).

Livermore’s annual percentage change for median contract rent was similar to the change in home values. Across a period of 10 years, from 2009 to 2019, median rent increased from $1,172 to $1,902, resulting in a 6.2- percent average annual increase each year. As with homeownership units, income has not kept pace with housing cost for rental units in Livermore. The Bay Area’s median rent increased from $1,196 to $1,849 (5.5 percent annual increase), while Alameda County’s median rent increased from $1,083 to $1,692 (5.6 percent) durin g this period. This indicates that rents and median household income have grown at disproportionate rates across the city and region.

The discrepancies between wage increases and rising housing costs that are resulting in increased displacement risk are supported by the findings of the Tri-Valley Housing Displacement Report. The report found that a shortage of housing production, paired with rising housing costs and new employment opportunities in the Bay Area that have intensified housing demand, has resulted in increased displacement risk, particularly for lower-income households.

According to the Urban Displacement Project, the census tract north of Downtown Livermore is designated “low -income/susceptible to displacement.” As discussed throughout this as sessment, the area, which includes the Rincon neighborhood, includes the area bounded by N. Murrieta Boulevard to the west, Portola Avenue to the north and east, and the Union Pacific Railroad to the south that is predominantly Hispanic and Latinx,

EXHIBIT A
398
has a lo
wer median income than most other areas of the city, and is subject to pollution burden. The area to the east, bounded to the southwest by Junction and Portola avenues, to the southeast by First Street, and to the north by I -580, is designated as an area of “advanced gentrification,” meaning this area has seen rapid increases in housing costs and rising median income in the last decade. South of First Street, there are neighborhoods considered “at risk of becoming exclusive,” which the Urban Displacement Project defines as areas where incomes and housing prices are similar to those areas experiencing gentrification, though with housing cost increases rising at a more marginal rate. If this pattern continues in Livermore, housing in these neighborhoods will become increasingly inaccessible for lower - and moderate -income households. The remainder of the city is predominantly considered “stable moderate/mixed income,” meaning this area has not seen significant changes in socioeconomic conditions in recent years . Livermore is one of the only suburban Bay Area communities along the Interstate 580 corridor that is not already “stable/advanced exclusive.” However, the designations listed above indicate that much of Livermore is moving in that direction.

The dominance of single -family housing in many Livermore neighborhoods likely contributes to increasing displacement risk and gentrification as these housing types are typically more expensive than multifamily units and other smaller units, and may present a barrier to entry for lower - and moderate -income households. To facilitate income - integration, housing mobility opportunities, and reduce concentrations of affluence that can stem from dominance of single -family housing, the City has identified several mechanisms to increase density in single -family neighborhoods including, but not limited to:
• Establish standards for smaller unit types, and encourage construction on infill lots in single-family neighborhoods (Program 1.3.1.D).
• Educating homeowners of large lots in neighborhoods dominated by single-family housing on the opportunities provided by SB 9 lot split, as a means of gently increasing density (Program 1.3.1.E).
• Promote ADU development incentives in high resource neighborhoods dominated by low-density housing (Program 1.4.1.D).
• Promote lot consolidation in existing low -density neighborhoods to enable construction of multi-unit and mixed-use development (Program 2.1.2.A).

Other Relevant Factors
History of Development Trends
Beginning in the mid -1950s, Livermore evolved from a small agricultural town into a bedroom community for the region. By the 1980s, Livermore expanded additional industries, including commercial, light industrial, warehouse, and office development, adding to its residential base. The continued population growth in the Bay Area has maintained consistent demand for housing in Livermore, spurring more residential development.

According to the 2015- 2019 ACS, the greatest period of residential growth in Livermore occurred between 1960 and 1979, during which, 39 percent of the city’s current occupied housing stock was constructed – 38 percent of the current owner- occupied units and 43

EXHIBIT A
399
per
cent of current renter-occupied units. The second-largest period of growth occurred in the following two decades, between 1980 and 1999, resulting in an addition of 29 percent of the city’s housing stock, for a total of 68 percent between 1960 and 1999. Less than 20 percent of the housing stock has been built since 2000, indicating a rapid decline in residential growth in Livermore in recent years. However, approximately 5,300 units built since 2000 have been constructed in the limited remaining vacant residential land. In an effort to manage recent growth, the City implemented growth -management policies to ensure high -quality residential design and adequate provision of infrastructure, public facilities, and services. Though discontinued in 2019, the Housing Implementation Program (HIP) guided the allocation of housing units over a three -year period during the previous planning cycle. The HIP scored residential developments of five or more units using criteria (e.g., provision of very low- or low-income housing, use of universal design features, and other considerations) that were used as part of the approval process of developmental projects. A higher score indicated a more competitive project usually with more community benefits. Since there was a cap on how many units could be built in a year, the HIP was a competitive process to direct growth with as much community be nefit as possible. Through the HIP Program, the City encouraged infill development, mixed -use projects, and lot consolidation for larger projects and influenced the production of affordable housing by geographic area and unit type. Upon review of the 2014 -2016 and 2017-2019 HIP cycles, the City confirmed that the program managed growth but did not limit or constrain residential development. While no longer used, the lasting effects of the HIP include a more balanced development pattern to promote infill, un it variety, and housing development where need is greatest.

Investment Patterns
Public and private investment typically includes construction, maintenance, and improvements to public facilities, including infrastructure; acquisition of land; and major equipment. Historically, investment in Livermore has been prioritized based on need, which has prevented disinvestment in any particular area of the city. Projects identified for public investment are considered based on the following factors:
• Consistency with the General Plan
• Consistency with City Council-adopted master plans
• Consistency with other formal long-range plans adopted by City Council • Recommendations of the Council and Commissions
• Input from residents and business owners
• Consistency with the City’s Consolidated Plan for federal funds like Community Development Block grants
• Supporting neighborhoods with the highest need
• State, federal, or other legal mandates
• Potential impact to the operating budget
• Benefit to the community
• The need to mitigate health or safety issues

EXHIBIT A
400
Pr
iority is based on projects that will result in the greatest community benefit, mitigate existing issues, and address public demand and need, therefore, ensuring that projects occur throughout the city. Recent target areas for investment include, but are not limited to:
• Downtown Revitalization Projects. These include projects that will enhance downtown economically and aesthetically through transportation projects, land acquisition, and renovation of existing structures to facilitate place -based revitalization and improve access to resources, services, and amenities in this area of the city.
• Infrastructure Rehabilitation. Historically, infrastructure maintenance has been underfunded and, though public infrastructure remains operational, it does require additional investment. Therefore, the City has begun setting aside general fund monies for rehabilitation and replacement in areas of greatest need, identified in a conditions assessment that resulted in a risk- based approach to prioritizing rehabilitation need.
• Street Maintenance. Investment in streets includes annual preventative street slurry seal and micro surfacing, annual sidewalk repair, ADA access ramp installations, and more that result in preservation of existing transportation and pedestrian infrastructure at a fraction of the cost of what full replacement would cost if streets were not adequately maintained.
• Trail, Bike, and Miscellaneous Street Projects . These projects are intended to provide trail and bike route connections to commercial activity, transit routes, schools, parks, and residential areas, as well as recreational opportunities.

Increased transit mobility increases access to resources across the city for all residents.
• North of Downtown Neighborhoods. The City has targeted federal and local resources for services and public infrastructure in low-income communities north of Downtown where there is the greatest need for place -based investment that is stabilizing for community members. Examples a multilingual food pantry at Marylin Avenue Elementary School and May Nissen park, which is a 12.2- acre community park that was recently renovated and includes a swim center, playgrounds, group picnic areas, basketball courts, restrooms, horseshoe pits, sports fields, tennis courts, dog park and a preschool.

These project areas, among others, improve connections between neighborhoods, to necessary services, and improve environmental health through reduced reliance on vehicular transportation and improved infrastructure system conditions. The City will continue public investment throughout the city, and will encourage the same from private investment, so all residents have access to improved transportation, safer streets, additional recreational amenities, and other outcomes of public and private investment.

Mortgage Loan Denial Rate
Data related to home loan applications are made available annually through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau provides mortgage data specific to census tracts

EXHIBIT A
401
as
opposed to jurisdiction boundaries, so data for Livermore includes small portions of unincorporated Alameda County in tracts that expand beyond city limits.

In 2020, White applicants accounted for 27.7 percent of all mortgage loan applications for home purchase and 38.5 percent of all originated loans in Livermore. While Hispanic and Latinx residents make up 20.0 percent of Livermore’s ethnic composition, Hispanic and Latinx applicants made up only 3.4 percent of loan applications and 4.7 percent of originated loans. Black resident s represented 1.8 percent of the Livermore’s racial composition; however, Black applicants made up less than 1 percent of total loan applications and 1.3 percent of all originated loans. While Asian residents represented 11.6 percent of Livermore’s racial composition, Asian applicants made up 18.0 percent of loan applicants and 24.9 percent of originated loans. Other applicants (e.g., American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, two or more race, and other) represented a total of approximately 50.0 percent of loan applications and 30.6 percent of originated loans. The City hopes to address some of these disproportionalities, particularly for Latinx and Black residents, by implementing targeted and multilingual outreach strategies and programs described in Program 3.4.1 and removing barriers to homeownership identified in the fair housing assessment public outreach process.

In 2020, applicants applied for four types of loans for home purchase: conventional, Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Veterans Administration (VA) loans, and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Denial rates, shown in Table 2 -53, indicate that Hispanic or Latinx residents are denied conventional and Veterans Administration loans at a higher rate than other racial and ethnic groups. Asian applicants seem have to the highest success rate for securing a mortgage loan.

Table 2-53: Home Loan Applications
Loan Type White Black Asian Native
American Latino Total
Conventional
Total Applications 62 19 468 0 83 1,191
Denial Rate 3.7% 5.3% 5.3% 0.0% 7.2% 4.6%
Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
Total Applications 25 5 9 0 9 48
Denial Rate 12.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 11.1% 10.4%
Veterans Administration (VA)
Total Applications 26 1 4 0 3 34
Denial Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 2.9%
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Total Applications 1 0 0 0 0 1
Denial Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC), Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HDMA), 2020
The low participation rate by residents of color and barriers to building capital necessary to pursue homeownership may be a result of both past policies like redlining that

EXHIBIT A
402
pre
vented particular communities of color from building generational wealth, curre nt inequities like occupational segregation, and existing barriers like language access and documentation requirements. Actions described in Programs 3.4.1 and 5.2.1, including targeted and multilingual homebuyer education and outreach strategies and finan cial empowerment services, are just some of the ways the City hopes to address these disparities. The City will also work with legal service providers to ensure all residents have access to legal counseling and representation in cases of discriminatory lending practices and other fair housing issues (Program 5.1.1).

Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Compliance with Fair Housing Laws
Fair housing laws at the federal, state, and local level protect certain characteristics from housing discrimination. These protected characteristics include race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, veteran or military status, source of income, genetic information, familial status, and disability. Fair housing laws in practice may be tenant protections, immigration rights, and other protective laws as required by the jurisdiction. Livermore enforces and complies with fair housing laws and regulation through a multilateral process: regula r review of City programs and impediments to fair housing choice and compliance with state and federal law and referring fair housing complaints to Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Housing.

In addition, the City demonstrates compliance or intention to comply with fair housing laws through the following:
• The City demonstrates compliance with Density Bonus Law (Government Code, Section 65915 - 65918.), which currently allows for an increase up to 35 percent over the maximum allowable residential density requires local governments to grant additional incentives and/or concessions, and grant bonuses for land donation.

Assembly Bills 2753, 2372, 1763, 1227, and 2345 were passed in 2018, 2019, and 2020 and revised density bonus law to provide additional benefits for qualifying projects.

The City has included Program 3.1.2 to update the density bonus ordinance to be consistent with recent State law.
• The City intends to comply with No -Net-Loss (Government Code Section 65863) through identifying a surplus of sites available to meet the County’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. In total, the city’s surplus unit capacity is 908, composed of 457 lower-income units, 159 moderate-income units, and 292 above moderate-income units.
• The City complies with the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code, Section 65589.5) by allowing emergency shelters by right in all transect and non -transect zones (see Table 3-6 of this Housing Element).
• The City will comply with SB 35 (Government Code Section 65913.4) by establishing a written policy or procedure, as well as other guidance as appropriate, to streamline the approval process and standards for eligible projects by 2022 (Program 1.4.1).
• The City will comply with SB 330 (Government Code Section 65 589.5), relying on regulations set forth in the law for processing preliminary application for housing

EXHIBIT A
403
de
velopment projects, conducting no more than five hearings for housing projects that comply with objective general plan and development standards, and making a decision on a residential project within 90 days after certification of an environmental impact report or 60 days after adoption of a mitigated negative declaration or an environment report for an affordable housing project.

Fair Housing Complaints
As part of enforcement efforts, Livermore residents are served by multiple fair housing service providers, including ECHO and Centro Legal de la Raza. The Livermore Housing Authority refers tenants to ECHO on their website. ECHO provides housing counselin g services, tenant/landlord services, conducts fair housing investigations, and operates periodic fair housing audits throughout Alameda County, Contra Costa County, and Monterey County. Additionally, ECHO provides counseling and assistance for first -time homebuyers and lower -income households seeking housing. Centro Legal de la Raza provides similar fair -housing services, including immigrants’ rights, tenant rights, workers’ rights, litigation, and a youth law academy. Centro Legal de la Raza receives issu es from tenants with problems with landlords entering without legal entry, and other housing - related issues and conduct proactive outreach to Livermore renters to identify and respond to tenant legal, habitability, and harassment issues.

Fair housing providers identified that concentrations of low -income and non -English speaking populations are particularly vulnerable to displacement, isolation, and discrimination as they have more limited resources when securing housing. Suburban communities in particular, Livermore included, typically offer fewer services and resources for non-English-speaking households, according to providers and community members, further limiting housing mobility. Centro Legal de la Raza also identified fear or retaliation as a concern among tenants with limited resources at their disposal. The experiences reported by fair housing providers, though not isolated to Livermore residents, indicate a need for greater tenant protections, assistance with finding and securing housing, and education for landlords, property managers, and tenants regarding fair housing rights and responsibilities. The City currently contracts with ECHO for fair housing services and Centro Legal for multilingual tenant legal services and will meet with staff there to implement strategies to improve conditions for low -income, immigrant, and linguistically isolated populations. These will include actions such as audits of housing providers for discriminatory behavior, multilingual community workshops, and increasing awareness of available services (Programs 3.4.1 and 5.1.1).

During consultations, ECHO staff asserted that the lack of affordable housing is one of the greatest problems their clients face and identified the largest number of discrimination cases are related to disability. This includes failure to meet reasonable accommodation requests or unit repairs. ECHO identified that lower-income residents are more likely to be burdened by unhealthy or unsafe housing conditions than higher-income residents due to the s hortage of affordable housing in Livermore. The City’s goal of producing more affordable housing for residents with special housing needs, including people with disabilities and low-income families, will help address this need (Programs 1.5.3 and 3.4.1).

The City will also pursue funding to provide low-income community members with financial assistance for repairs and accessibility improvements (Program 4.1.3)

EXHIBIT A
404
In
its 2019 Annual Report , the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) reported that it received 44 housing complaints from residents of Alameda County, approximately 4.7 percent of the total number of cases in the state that year (934). As part of the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP), DFEH dual-files some fair housing cases with HUD’s Region IX Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). HUD FHEO reported that 10 cases were filed by residents of Livermore between January 1 st, 2013, and April 25th,
2021. Of the 10 cases, three resulted in no -cause determination and six were closed through conciliation or settlement. One case was withdrawn after resolution. Five cases alleged discrimination based on disability, two alleged discriminations due to retaliation, one alleged discrimination based on race, one based on religion, one based on sex, and one based on familial status. One case alleged discrimination based on disability and race, three based on disability, one based on race, and five based on familial status. Of the 10 cases, one alleged discrimination on more than one protected class. In addition to these cases, 14 inquiries about discrimination were sent to HUD to determine whether a case would be valid. Eight of these inquiries did not report which protected class the discriminatory behavior was against, two identified discriminations based on disability, one identified discrimination based on color, and three based on race. Of these inquiries, seven inquirers failed to respond to HUD’s follow up, one inquiry failed to file a claim in a timely manner, and six resulted in a finding that there was no valid basis or issue. No inquiries or cases were made against the City or public housing authority.

SITES INVENTORY ANALYSIS
The location of housing in relation to resources and opportunities is integral to addressing disparities in housing needs and opportunity and to fostering inclusive communities where all residents have access to opportunity. This is particularly important for lower -income households. AB 686 and AB 1304 added a new requirement for housing elements to analyze the location of lower-income sites in relation to areas of high opportunity. Figures 2-3 through 2 -12 show the distribution of projected units by income category of the following indicators compared to citywide patterns to understand how the project ed locations of units will affirmatively further fair housing: TCAC opportunity areas, median income, predominant population, disability rates, educational score, environmental health, and overpayment. The following sites inventory discussion includes an analysis of the number of projected units by income category, total RHNA capacity, and city acreage by income category to further assess the potential impacts of the sites inventory to affirmatively further fair housing.

Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
As presented in Table 4 -1, approximately 66 percent of the city’s lower -income RHNA capacity and 83 percent of the above moderate-income capacity have been identified in the INSP. The primary objective of the INSP is to create a “complete” neighborhood, including a variety of housing types at a range of densities and affordability, jobs, retail, and transit connectivity to the future adjacent Valley Link regional transit station that links to BART, Altamont Corridor Express (ACE), and local bus lines. Further, the INSP includes a Main Street with ground floor retail, pedestrian and bicycle trails to connect to the station and adjacent neighborhoods, bus stops, public parks, and an office hub with employment opportunities. These amenities and services, and the focus on integration of residential types and connectivity, will ensure housing and employment opportunities in the INSP are not separated from the rest of the city. While, by quantification, the location of most of the

EXHIBIT A
405
ci
ty’s lower- and above moderate -income RHNA capacity in the INSP may be a concentration of lower -income units, the prioritization of inclusivity and access to opportunities, within the specific plan area and within the city, from the outset of construction will facilitate income-integration and diversity in Livermore. The integration of lower-income and above moderate -income units, along with job opportunities, retail, parks, and other amenities, in the INSP will directly combat the following fair housing issues identified in Table 2-54:
• Concentrations of communities of color in TCAC -designated low resource areas.

The INSP area is considered to be a moderate and high resource area according to TCAC. Inclusion of affordable housing within the specific plan will expand housing opportunities for lower-income households in these higher resource areas and near existing and future services and opportunities. • Disproportionate access to resources for lower-income and non-White households.

Currently, there is a conc entration of renters and lower -income households in the areas north of Downtown, where there is limited access to parks and open space.

The INSP includes public parks as well as pedestrian and bike trails to facilitate healthy spaces and outdoor recreation for all residents, and in close proximity to units specifically within the INSP. In addition to these resources, the INSP will include retail, transit connectivity, and employment opportunities to expand access to resources for lower-income households, and will provide affordable units in a range of sizes to meet a variety of needs.
• Displacement of residents due to economic pressures. The INSP will include affordable units in a range of sizes, providing mobility opportunities for lower - income households to find a unit suitable for their family at an affordable price.

Further, the inclusion of affordable units within the INSP will combat the existing concentration of lower -income households near Downtown by providing alternative housing options in an integrated neighborhood. Overall, the INSP will help to eliminate displacement risk that stems from a shortage of affordable units in Livermore with the inclusion of over 1,500 affordable housing units.

The City’s inclusionary ordinance requires affordable units to be representative of the project as a whole, with comparable types of units, bedroom mix, exterior appearance, amenities, and interior fixtures and finishes. The affordable units must be dispersed through project areas rather than concentrated in one portion of the area or project. The mix of affordable product types must also reflect the overall mix of product types in the project.

Therefore, the City’s inclusionary ordinance and the Isabel Neighborhood Plan will work together to avoid socio-economic concentrations of lower-income households in the city.

However, while the INSP presents a unique opportunity to combat existing fair housing concerns, promote income integration, and facilitate proximity to a variety of services and resources, the City also aims to combat these fair housing concerns throughout the city by promoting a variety of housing types through infill, construction of ADUs, place -based revitalization, and investment in targeted areas, and implementing anti -displacement strategies such as:
• Program 1.2.1. Update the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan as needed and as appropriate to provide a range of housing types, densities, and affordability levels. The intent of this is to facilitate middle -density housing throughout the city, as well as higher density options, to increase the supply of housing affordable to

EXHIBIT A
406
low
er- and moderate-income households, and meet a range of household needs, to reduce displacement risk citywide and facilitate income-integration. • Program 1.4.1. Create user -friendly, accessible, and multi- lingual information guides for development of ADUs and SB9 projects to encourage infill development and increasing density with the aim of reducing displacement through and increased supply of middle -density options suitable f or lower- and moderate - income households.
• Program 3.1.1. Continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for projects throughout the city, including requiring developers to identify locations for inclusionary units. The intent of this program is to increase the supply of affordable units to reduce displacement risk for lower - and moderate -income households, facilitate income -integration by requiring locations for units, and encouraging integration of affordable units in existing neighborhoods. • Program 3.2.1. Encourage the use of the Low -Income Housing Impact and In- Lieu fees and the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for projects in high resource areas to promote housing mobility and in areas of concentrated overpayment to reduce displacement risk.
• Program 3.2.2. Support land dedication and acquisition of properties for conversion or construction of affordable units in opportunity- rich areas to increase the supply of affordable housing to both reduce displacement risk and increase mobility opportunities.
• Program 3.4.1. Provide mortgage assistance for lower - and moderate -income households to promote mobility opportunities for these households to secure housing in the neighborhood of their choosing.
• Program 3.4.2. Increase promotion of the Housing Choice Voucher program to the development community, property owners, homeowners with accessory dwelling units, and possible participants to increase the supply of units accessible to lower - income households to reduce displacement risk for this population. • Program 4.1.2. Promote the availability of resources for weatherization, energy efficiency, and rehabilitation of unhealthy living conditions to reduce displacement risk through improved housing conditions. The City will prioritize promotion of these resources and materials in neighborhoods with the greatest displacement risk resulting from these conditions, such as the Rincon neighborhood and other areas north of Downtown.
• Program 4.2.1. Upgrade amenities in connectivity in older neighborhoods to facilitate mobility and pursue funding to acquire and or facilitate development of urban parks, particularly in low -resource areas, to promote place -based revitalization.

The combination of these programs aims to facilitate income integration city-wide through more gra dual strategies and investment. Paired with the income -integration and new opportunities proposed as part of the INSP, the City’s RHNA will combat existing concentration of lower -income households, facilitate housing mobility, and will improve access for lower -income households to opportunity -rich areas. The following analysis analyzes the City’s RHNA capacity in its entirety as it compares to citywide patterns.

EXHIBIT A
407
Pot
ential Effect on Patterns of Integration and Segregation Figure 2 -13 presents the breakdown of unit capacity in Livermore by resource area designation and income category. Approximately 81 percent of the total unit capacity identified to meet the RHNA is in moderate resource areas, which, as shown in Figure 2 -3, account for the majority of land area in the city. While there are large portions of the city, particularly along the eastern border, that are considered low resource, most of these are not available for residential development. As such, most of the four percent of the RHNA that is i n low resource areas has been identified in the central portion of the city, where there is a high rate of poverty and overcrowding, and where the majority of households are Hispanic and Latinx households, as discussed in this Assessment of Fair Housing. T here is a concentrated need for more affordable housing in this area to alleviate the likely cause of overcrowding and overpayment, which will be met with the inclusion of new lower-income units. However, to encourage housing mobility opportunities for low er- income households from this neighborhood and others, the City has identified 11 percent of lower-income units in high- and highest-resource areas. The distribution of sites shown in Figure 2 -3 reflects an intention to promote mixed -income neighborhoods, which will facilitate equitable access to resources and opportunities regardless of socioeconomic status.

EXHIBIT A
408
Figure 2-13: Units by TCAC Resource Area Designation

Source: TCAC/HCD, 2021; City of Livermore, 2022
Income
Figure 2-14 shows that most of Live rmore has a relatively high median income with the exception of the central portion of the city north of the railroad. In this area, the median income is less than $80,000. Approximately 27 percent of moderate -income, 7 percent of lower-income, and 2 percent of above moderate-income units are projected for this area of the city. The lower- and moderate-income units will help to alleviate overpayment in this area while the above moderate-income units will facilitate a mixed-income neighborhood without encouraging gentrification. Overall, the distribution of units planned for lower - income households and moderate -income households will create more mixed -income communities throughout the city. The City will introduce the most lower -income units ( 70 percent) in areas earning over $125,000 annually, creating mixed -income communities in historically exclusively wealthy neighborhoods. In areas of relatively lower and moderate median income for Livermore (between $87,000 to $124,999), the City projects 30 percent of the above moderate -income units. Introducing affordable housing and more varied housing types in the downtown area is another key strategy in reducing displacement risk and facilitating integration in the city. The second-largest location of lower-income units is in the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (INSP), integrated with above moderate-income units and in a high resource area that will continue to have further access to services and amenities as the specific plan builds out. The City is committed to facilitating housing mobility for all income groups through several programs, as identified in Table 2 -54. 8%
5%
14%
5%
6%
14%
1%
82%
86%
72%
81%
4%
2%
14%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
Highest Resource High Resource Moderate Resource Low Resource

EXHIBIT A
409
Figure 2-14: Units by Median Income

Source: 2015-2019 ACS; City of Livermore, 2022
Race and Ethnicity
As discussed previously in this assessment, Livermore is predominantly White in most areas, with a dominance of Asian residents in the northwest corner and two concentrations of Hispanic and Latins residents in the central area north of the railroad and at the intersection of East Avenue and S. Vasco Road. The central portion of the city, with a concentration of Hispanic and Latinx residents, also has the lowest median income in Livermore, while the median income in the predominantly Asian area is greater than $125,000. The predominantly White areas in the remainder also have high median incomes and are considered higher resource areas than the central neighborhood. This indicates a possible disparity in access to resources and opportunity based on race and ethnicity in Livermore. Targeted and multilingual outreach strategies for the City’s affordable housing programs, particularly for the inclusionary program, as well as culturally relevant housing navigation services, will help address some of these disparities (Programs 3.1.1, 3.3.1, and

5.2.1).

As shown in Figure 2-15, 94 percent of lower-income and 86 percent of moderate-income units are identified on sites in areas that are currently predominantly White and an additional 5 percent of lower-income units in areas that are currently predominantly Asian.

Continuing to increase housing opportunities for non -White lower- and moderate-income households to access opportunities and resources in these areas of greater affluence and resources access will help to affirmatively further fair housing. 7%
7%
27%
2%
32%
24%
62%
30%
60%
70%
11%
68%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
<$30,000 $50,000 to $87,099 $87,100 to $124,999 >$125,000

EXHIBIT A
410
Figure 2-15: Units by Predominant Population

Source: 2015-2019 ACS; City of Livermore, 2022
A mixture of indirectly exclusionary private practices, such as dominance of single -family development and loan inequities, paired with high costs of housing and limited housing types (i.e., predominantly single -family housing) historically forced lower -income and households of color to locate in the areas of highest density in Livermore, posing a barrier to access for diverse populations. Construction of additional lower- and moderate-income units throughout the city, will improve housing mobility opportunities for residents who would otherwise be priced out or concentrated based on housing types.

Disability
Approximately 8.4 percent of Livermore’s population lives with at least one disability, a rate that is relatively low compared to the region. As shown in Figure 2 -15, approximately 87 percent of the total RHNA capacity identified in the sites inventory is in areas in which 5.0 to 9.9 percent of residents h ave a disability, closely reflecting the disability rate in Livermore. Most sites are on major transportation corridors, as shown in Figure 2-6, improving accessibility to services and amenities through transit, Dial-A- Ride, and other means of transportation regardless of disability status. The sites identified to meet the RHNA are distributed across both the areas with the highest rates of disabilities, and areas with lower rates, at a range of incomes, with several sites near the downtown. Locating units affordable to lower- and moderate-income residents in and around the downtown area will help to improve access for and accommodate the needs of persons living with disabilities, who benefit from close access to services and amenities as well as proximity to transit. Additionally, mixed -use housing types viable in the downtown area can help accommodate the needs of residents living with disabilities by integrating services or amenities on-site.
8%
5%
14%
3%
1%
14%
1%
89%
94%
86%
85%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
Predominantly Asian Predominantly Latinx Predominantly White

EXHIBIT A
411
Figure 2-16: Units by Disability Rate

Source: 2015-2019 ACS; City of Livermore, 2022
Potential Effect on Access to Opportunity
Jobs and Transit Proximity
As previously discussed in the analysis of access to opportunities, jobs proximity index scores in Livermore range from less than the 15th percentile in the southwestern corner of the city to higher than the 95th percentile in the northeast corner, with moderate job proximity in the core of the city. The lower jobs proximity around downtown may be a result of a concentration of jobs in the eastern portion of the city. Approximately 85 percent of lower-income units are projected in areas with scores between the 40th and 59th percentile (Figure 2 -17), suggesting equitable access to jobs for occupants of future affordable housing in Livermore compared to other income groups. While 11 percent of moderate-income units are projected in areas with the furthest proximity to jobs, these are high resource and affluent areas and will therefore promote mixed -income communities through expanded housing mobility opportunities for moderate-income households. 8%
5%
14%
87%
89%
87%
84%
4%
6%
1%
2%
2%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
<5% 5.0% to 9.9% 10.0% to 14.9% ≥15.0%

EXHIBIT A
412
Figure 2-17: Units by Jobs Proximity Index Score

Source: 2014-2017 HUD; City of Livermore, 2022
Additionally, incorporating units at all income levels near downtown and near transit stations will improve access to employment opportunities for occupants of these units.

When considering where to locate future housing for all income levels, and particularly lower-income units, central Livermore offers the most convenient access to jobs available within the city and transit to nearby jurisdictions.

Educational Opportunity
Approximately 10 percent of the City’s total capacity to meet the RHNA is on sites in areas that score above the 75th percentile in expected educational outcome (Figure 2 -18).

These units include 5 percent of lower-income units, 11 percent of moderate-income units, and 15 percent of above moderate- income units. While this will provide housing opportunities for new households, including lower -income households, near schools with high educational outcomes, and provide housing mobility opportunities for some existing residents that may currently have more limited access to schools to move closer to those schools, it still disproportionately locates above moderate -income units in areas with the best expected educational outcome. Additionally, 61 percent of moderate-income units are projected in areas with the lowest educational scores in Livermore. To improve access for lower - and moderate -income households to neighborhoods with the schools in Livermore with the highest TCAC scores, the City has included the following programs:
• Provide financial resources to nonprofit organizations to increase the existing affordable housing stock through market rate conversions and adaptive reuse (Program 3.2.2).
• Increase the inventory of properties for future development of affordable housing, particularly in opportunity-rich areas (Program 3.2.2). • Promote construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) (Program 1.4.1). 2%
11%
1%
9%
13%
17%
2%
87%
85%
72%
95%
2%
2%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
<20 (Furthest Proximity) 20-39 40-59 60-79 ≥80 (Closest Proximity)

EXHIBIT A
413
• Co
ntinue to implement the inclusionary housing ordinance, encouraging construction of these units in moderate- and high-resource areas (Program 3.1.1).

Figure 2-18: Units by TCAC Educational Score

Source: TCAC/HCD, 2021; City of Livermore, 2022
Potential Effect on Displacement Risk
Overcrowding
Two areas in Livermore have overcrowding rates that exceed the state average of 8.2 percent (see Figure 2-10). Most sites fall in the areas with low overcrowding rates. However, 136 units have been identified in areas in which the overcrowding rate is greater than 8.2 percent, or specifically, 12.1 percent. Of these units, 11 are projected to be lower-income, 105 moderate -income, and 20 abov e moderate- income, which accounts for approximately 2.6 percent of the total capacity to meet the RHNA. New lower - and moderate-income units in this area may alleviate overcrowding by increasing housing supply for households live in units that are too small or share a unit with another household.

The moderate -income households ensure that lower -income units are not overly concentrated while also increasing the supply of housing in general.

Overpayment
Homeowners and renters throughout Livermore, and the greater Bay Area, are overpaying for housing due to rapidly increasing housing costs that outpace wage increases.

Increasing the supply of lower- and moderate-income households throughout the city will help alleviate conditions that contribute to overpayment by reducing the gap between supply and demand for this type of housing. Cost burden is typically lower among 25%
24%
61%
12%
65%
71%
28%
73%
10%
5%
11%
15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
<0.25 0.25-0.49 0.50-0.74 ≥0.75

EXHIBIT A
414
ho
meowners than renters, which is reflected in the distribution of units to meet the RHNA.

Approximately 56 percent of the total RHNA units are in areas in which 20 to 29 percent of homeowners are cost burdened, compared to 21 percent of units in a similar cost burden rate among renters (Figures 2-19 and 2-20). Similarly, the majority of lower-income units are in areas in which 20 to 29 percent of homeowners are cost burdened, but 40 to 59 percent of renters are cost burdened. Locating lower- and moderate-income units in areas with high rates of renter overpayment will help to reduce displacement risk for these households by providing additional affordable housing where there is greatest demand.

Typically, above moderate-income units are unaffordable to cost -burdened households, while lower- and moderate-income housing units can help alleviate overpayment.

Figure 2-19: Units by Rate of Cost Burdened Homeowners

Source: 2015-2019 ACS; City of Livermore, 2022
56%
77%
4%
50%
44%
23%
96%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
<20% 20% to 29% 30% to 39% ≥40%

EXHIBIT A
415
Figure 2-20: Units by Rate of Cost Burdened Renters

Source: 2015-2019 ACS; City of Livermore, 2022
Figures 2-11 and 2-12 demonstrate that while 4 percent of RHNA capacity is located in areas of very high renter overpayment (60 percent or more of renter households), and 44 percent of sites where 30 percent or more of homeowners are overpaying , they are not concentrated in these areas. Lower- and moderate-income units near downtown will ease pressure on limited affordable housing stock by increasing the supply of total housing units in this area and locating sites for all income levels in other areas of the city will facilitat e housing mobility opportunities that will not increase cost burden rates. Introducing low - and moderate -income units in highest resource areas of the city will also help to encourage a mixed-income community.

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Through discussions with stakeholders and fair housing advocates, input from the public outreach process, and the assessment of fair housing issues, the City identified several factors that contribute to fair housing issues in Livermore, as shown in Table 2 -54.

Additionally, this fair housing assessment identified the area north of downtown between N. Murrieta Boulevard and Junction Avenue as a priority focus area. This area, where the majority of residents are Hispanic or Latinx, has a low median income compared to the rest of the city and a high percentage of residents living in overcrowded situations. The City will target this area for the fair housing programs identified in Table 2-54 to address the culmination of fair housing issues. The priority factors that have contributed to this concentration of fair housing issues are listed in bold and associated priority actions are shown in bold and italics.
1%
21%
7%
44%
75%
93%
75%
55%
4%
25%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Total RHNA
Percent of Lower-Income Units
Percent of Moderate-Income Units
Percent of Above Moderate-Income Units
<20% 20% to 39% 40% to 59% 60% to 79% ≥80%

EXHIBIT A
416
Table 2-54: Contributing Factors
AFH Identified Fair
Housing Issues Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Concentration of
communities of color in
TCAC-designated low
resource areas
Shortage of affordable housing options in
moderate and high-resource areas.

Housing Navigation Barriers
Housing Discrimination
Concentration of renter-occupied
households in low-resource areas.

Lack of acceptance of Housing
Choice/Section 8 Voucher holders in
moderate and high resource areas
Availability of higher-density housing
options in these areas.

Maintain a list of vacant residential land appropriate for affordable housing in the city, including sites in moderate and high resource areas (Program 1.1.1.B).

Update the Downtown Specific Plan to facilitate revitalization, affordable housing development, and mixed-use development (Program 1.2.1.B).

Encourage construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (Program 1.4.1.E).

Encourage the construction of affordable units with three or more bedrooms (Program 1.5.3.A).

Produce affordable rental housing in opportunity-rich locations near transit, services, and key amenities (Programs 3.2.1.A, 3.2.1.C, and 3.2.2.A).

Implement multilingual communication and outreach strategies for City-funded affordable housing developments (Program 3.3.1.A).

Provide mortgage assistance for low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers, prioritizing advertising to persons with disabilities and limited English proficiency (Program 3.4.1.A and 3.4.1.B).

Encourage landlords and property managers in high resource areas to advertise their units to Section 8 voucher holders (Program 3.4.2.B).

Work with trusted community partners to provide linguistically and digitally accessible and culturally relevant housing search assistance (Program 3.4.2.C).

Provide education to landlords and property managers on fair housing rights and requirements/discrimination (Program 5.1.1.E).

Conduct racial equity impact assessments of City policies for potential unintended fair housing impacts on people of color and work with stakeholders to address those impacts (Program 5.2.1.A).

Pursue funding for culturally relevant financial empowerment services to help community members of color remove economic barriers to accessing housing like credit scores and income documentation (Program 5.2.1.C).

EXHIBIT A
417
Table 2-54: Contributing Factors
AFH Identified Fair
Housing Issues Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Disproportionate
access to resources for
lower-income and non-
White households
Concentration of renters, lower-income
households, and Hispanic and Latinx
residents near high-intensity commercial
and industrial uses, such as
neighborhoods north of Downtown.

Limited access to parks and open space
compared to other neighborhoods.

Lack of public and private investment in
the infrastructure and services in specific
neighborhoods, notably the area north of
Downtown.

Discriminatory lending and other barriers
to home ownership for non-White
populations, including language barriers
and documentation requirements.

Update the Downtown Specific Plan to facilitate revitalization, affordable housing development, and mixed-use development (Program 1.2.1.B).

Update existing community benefit and/or other land value recapture strategies such as the Human Services Facility Fee. (Program 2.1.2.D).

Continue to implement the inclusionary housing ordinance (Program 3.1.1.A).

Increase the inventory of properties for affordable housing in opportunity-rich locations near transit, services, and key amenities (Programs 3.2.1.A, 3.2.1.C, and

3.2.2.A).

Provide financial resources to nonprofit organizations to increase the existing affordable housing stock (Program 3.2.2.B).

Implement targeted and multilingual communication and outreach strategies for City-funded affordable housing programs and development (Program 3.3.1.A).

Provide homebuyer support for low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers, prioritizing persons with disabilities, affordable housing residents, and non-English speakers (Program 3.4.1.A and 3.4.1.B).

Align documentation and eligibility requirements for City housing programs with County programs, including the use of individual taxpayer identification numbers (Program 3.4.1.C).

Target investments in neighborhoods north of Downtown (Programs 4.1.2.A and

4.2.1.A).

Facilitate development of urban parks on infill sites to aid in air pollution mitigation and to provide recreation opportunities (Program 4.2.1.C).

Strengthen requirements for City-funded affordable housing and service providers to offer linguistically accessible services, particularly in Spanish (Program 5.2.1.B).

EXHIBIT A
418
Table 2-54: Contributing Factors
AFH Identified Fair
Housing Issues Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Displacement of
residents due to
economic pressures
Rising housing costs outpacing wage
increases.

Concentration of poverty and lower-
income households north of Downtown.

Shortage of affordable housing options.

Limited range of affordable units in a
range of sizes.

Encourage construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (Program 1.4.1.E).

Encourage the production of units with three or more bedrooms (Program

1.5.3.A).

Continue to implement the inclusionary housing ordinance (Program 3.1.1.A).

Assist the development of affordable housing through the Affordable Housing Fund (Program 3.2.1.A).

Provide support for low-income renters, including multilingual tenant counseling, rental assistance, financial counseling, crisis stabilization services, and legal support (Program 3.4.2.D).

Work with trusted community partners to provide linguistically and digitally accessible and culturally relevant rental housing search assistance to lower income households and groups with special housing needs (Program 3.4.2.C and

5.2.1.E).

Displacement of
tenants due to
discriminatory actions.

Landlord and property managers’ lack of
knowledge and engagement on fair
housing laws.

Limited tenant protections.

Provide financial assistance to fair housing providers to provide services such as tenant/landlord mediation (Program 5.1.1.A).

Continue to support the City’s Fair Housing Audit (Program 5.1.1.E).

Provide education to landlords and property managers on fair housing rights and requirements/discrimination (Program 5.1.1.E).

Assess impacts and solicit community input on new policies that prevent displacement for low- and moderate-income community members, such as a Citywide rental registry, anti-harassment ordinance, or a tenant opportunity to purchase policy. (Program 5.2.1.D and 5.2.1.F).

EXHIBIT A
419
Table 2-55: Summary of Housing Programs and Actions Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Strategy Action Commitment Timing Geographic
Targeting
Quantified Objective
Encourage New
Housing Choices in
Higher Resource Areas

1.1.1.B Maintain an online map of
vacant residential site
Create map at the time
of new Housing Element
adoption. Update and
annually thereafter
throughout the
planning period.

Facilitate access to
moderate and high
resource areas.

Assist at least 3 interested
developers annually to identify
suitable land for residential
development.

3.1.1.A
Approve inclusionary units
in moderate- and high-
resource areas to facilitate
housing mobility
opportunities for lower-and
moderate income
households
Commence
immediately and
engage developers as
new projects are
submitted at least
annually
Low-density and
single-family
dominated
neighborhoods or
high resource areas.

Produce at least 100 affordable
units for low- and moderate-income
households through the inclusionary
housing ordinance, encouraging at
least half of these units to be
integrated into low-density and
single-family dominated
neighborhoods, or in high resource
areas.

3.2.1.A
Use Affordable Housing
Funds to provide
affordable and permanent
supportive housing
opportunities for extremely,
very, and low income
households and people
with special housing
needs.

Biannually through
budget process
High resource areas
or in areas which
reduce potential for
displacement of
residents in their
existing
neighborhoods.

Provide funding to at least three
affordable housing projects that
create homes for lower income
households (20 percent to 80
percent of Area Median Income)
and people with special housing
needs in moderate or high resource
areas.

3.2.1.C
Continue waiving
applicable fees and
provide funding to offset
development fee costs for
affordable units, prioritizing
those that provide the
greatest level of
affordability and serve
special needs households,
to facilitate new
affordable housing
By 2031 Moderate or high
resource areas

Waive fees or provide funding for
the creation of 50 affordable units
that create homes for lower income
households and people with special
housing needs in moderate or high
resource areas.

EXHIBIT A
420
Table 2-55: Summary of Housing Programs and Actions Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Strategy Action Commitment Timing Geographic
Targeting
Quantified Objective
opportunities in moderate
and high resource areas.

3.2.2.A
Increase the inventory of
properties for future
development of
affordable and permanent
supportive housing

Ongoing Opportunity-rich
locations near
transit, services, and
key amenities.

Support a nonprofit partner’s
acquisition of at least one new
affordable housing site during the
planning period 3.2.2.B
Increase the existing
affordable housing stock
through market rate
conversions and adaptive
reuse

Ongoing; coordination
with nonprofit
development partners
to identify potential
properties and facilitate
development. Target
one property within two
years of Housing
Element adoption
Prevent
displacement in low
resource areas and
facilitate access to
moderate and high
resource areas

Support the acquisition and
conversion of at least one market
rate property to affordable housing
within 2 years of Housing Element
adoption.

3.2.2.D
Develop affordable
housing on City-owned
sites

Declare three City-
owned sites exempt
surplus land under
Government Code
Section 54221(f)(1)(A)
by Spring 2023 and
enter into agreements
with nonprofit
developers for all three
sites by 2025. Prepare
North M Street and 2047
First Street for
development and
select a nonprofit
developer by 2024.

Issue building permits by
Opportunity-rich
locations

Support development of affordable
housing on at least three City-
owned sites, including Pacific
Avenue, North M Street, and 2047
First Street.

EXHIBIT A
421
Table 2-55: Summary of Housing Programs and Actions Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Strategy Action Commitment Timing Geographic
Targeting
Quantified Objective
2028 if all necessary
financing is secured.

3.4.2.A
Pursue funding to increase
the amount of rental
housing available through
the Housing Choice
Voucher program
Annually Citywide with
emphasis in high
resource areas
Support at least eight funding
requests or advocacy efforts to
increase the number of vouchers in
Livermore.

3.4.2.B Promote the Housing
Choice Voucher program
Biennially High resource areas Engage at least 50 landlords of properties in high resource areas.

3.4.3.A
Reduce barriers to
transitional housing,
supportive housing, low-
barrier navigation centers,
and emergency shelters
consistent with State law
By 2024 and ongoing as
needed
Citywide n/a
Address Housing
Mobility

1.2.1.B
Update the Downtown
Specific Plan to facilitate
downtown revitalization,
the provision of affordable
housing, and mixed-use
development to facilitate
income integration,
housing mobility
opportunities and access
to transit, resources, and
amenities.

As projects are
proposed; reviewed
annually
Downtown Approve or maintain the potential
for 37 moderate and 141 lower-
income housing units in the DSP
area.

1.4.1.E
Create user-friendly,
accessible, and multi-
lingual information guides
about standards and
review processes for
residential projects (ADUs,
SB 9 projects, SB 35 and SB
330 streamlining, etc.) to
improve housing mobility.

By 2024. Update on an
ongoing basis as
needed
Areas of need
including north of
Downtown
n/a

EXHIBIT A
422
Table 2-55: Summary of Housing Programs and Actions Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Strategy Action Commitment Timing Geographic
Targeting
Quantified Objective

1.5.3.A
Work with housing
providers to ensure that
special housing needs are
addressed to reduce
displacement risk for large
families, female-headed
households, college
students, and single-parent
households with children,
through a combination of
regulatory incentives,
zoning standards,
affordable housing
programs.

Ongoing and evaluate
opportunities annually
including meeting with
housing providers.

Citywide with
emphasis in
moderate- and high-
resource areas
Support the creation or
rehabilitation of at least 100 units of
housing for people and families with
special housing needs over the
planning period through
development agreements with
Eden Housing and the Livermore
Housing Authority to develop
projects such as Downtown
Livermore Apartments.

3.1.1.B

Implement accessible and
multilingual
communication and
outreach strategies for
potential tenants and
owners of inclusionary
units.

Within 1 year of Housing
Element Adoption
Citywide with
emphasis in areas
with high
concentration of
renters
Adopt policies and procedures with
inclusive outreach and marketing
standards.

3.3.1.A

Implement multilingual
communication and
outreach strategies for
City-funded affordable
housing developments.

By December 2023
Citywide with
emphasis in
downtown
neighborhoods &
Springtown for
outreach events
Incorporate multilingual outreach
standards into the City’s guidelines
for affordable rental projects.

3.3.1.C

Participate in efforts to
design a regional
application system and
housing search tools

As regional
opportunities arise and
reach out to Alameda
County and Bay Area
Housing Finance
Authority at least once
a year
Citywide Requirements for developers to list
affordable units in a regional
application system once the system
is launched.

EXHIBIT A
423
Table 2-55: Summary of Housing Programs and Actions Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Strategy Action Commitment Timing Geographic
Targeting
Quantified Objective

3.4.1.A

Provide mortgage
assistance for down
payment, closing costs,
and secondary financing
to low- and moderate-
income first-time
homebuyers

Ongoing; make
assistance information
available on the City’s
website and in printed
materials at City
buildings by December
2023.

Citywide Continue to provide First-Time
Homebuyer Down Payment
Assistance to an average of three
low- and moderate-income
households annually.

3.4.1.B
Provide mortgage
assistance for down
payment, closing costs,
and secondary financing
to low- and moderate-
income first-time
homebuyers

Translate program
information to Spanish
by December 2023.

Distribute materials
annually.

Citywide with
emphasis in
downtown
neighborhoods &
Springtown for
outreach events
Execute at least two targeted
outreach methods when marketing
available BMR homeownership units.

3.4.1.C
Align documentation and
eligibility requirements with
County programs,
including the use of
individual taxpayer
identification numbers
By 2024 Citywide Update program requirements to
remove access barriers.

3.4.1.E

Provide homebuyer
education, financial
counseling
Ongoing Citywide 60 low- and moderate- income
households receive homebuyer
support services over the course of
the planning period.

3.4.1.F

Pursue funding for
programs that help
affordable housing tenants
access homeownership
opportunities
By 2024 Citywide with
emphasis in low
resource
neighborhoods
Submit or support a community
partner’s submission of at least one
funding application.

EXHIBIT A
424
Table 2-55: Summary of Housing Programs and Actions Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Strategy Action Commitment Timing Geographic
Targeting
Quantified Objective

3.4.2.C

Provide linguistically and
digitally accessible and
culturally relevant rental
housing search assistance
to lower-income
households and groups
with special housing needs
Launch Vineyard
Housing Resource
Center within 1 year of
housing adoption and
support ongoing
operations
Neighborhoods
north of Downtown
Provide assistance to at least 50
lower-income households annually
to identify housing opportunities.

3.4.3.B

Support of outreach,
housing navigation,
behavioral health and
supportive services
programs for people
experiencing homelessness
Launch the Vineyard
low barrier navigation
center by 2025 and
support ongoing
operations
Citywide Assistance to at least 50 unhoused
individuals annually.

5.1.1.D

Fund fair housing audits
and the dissemination of
audit results and
information on fair housing
laws to landlords, rental
housing organizations, and
the public
Annually
Citywide, with
emphasis on
engaging landlords
in high resource
areas
Update and distribute fair housing
materials at least annually, and
disburse materials at least one
community event annually with an
emphasis on areas with a high
number of renters.

5.1.1.E
Provide financial support
for fair housing audits and
the dissemination of audit
results and information on
fair housing laws to
landlords, rental housing
organizations, and the
public.

Annually, through
annual grants and
contracts
Citywide with an
emphasis on high
resource areas
Engage at least 30 landlords and
property owners every 2 years with
an emphasis on high resource areas.

Support annual audits of 10 or more
landlords. Conduct fair housing
testing and/or advertising audits
annually.

5.1.2.A

Provide individuals with
disabilities reasonable
accommodation in rules,
policies, practices, and
procedures through the
building permit and
Ongoing Citywide n/a

EXHIBIT A
425
Table 2-55: Summary of Housing Programs and Actions Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Strategy Action Commitment Timing Geographic
Targeting
Quantified Objective
development review
processes

5.2.1.A

Conduct racial equity
impact assessments of City
policies for potential
unintended fair housing
impacts on people of color
Within 3 years of
Housing Element
adoption
Citywide Racial equity assessments of at least
three City housing policies. 5.2.1.B

Strengthen requirements
for City-funded affordable
housing and service
providers to offer
linguistically accessible
services, particularly in
Spanish, to increase
housing mobility
opportunities through
increased accessibility
Within 3 years of
Housing Element
adoption
Citywide Incorporate language access
requirements into at least five
Housing and Human Services grant
agreement or service contracts

5.2.1.C

Pursue funding for
culturally relevant financial
empowerment services to
help community members
with protected
characteristics remove
economic barriers to
accessing housing like
credit scores and income
documentation
Within 2 years of
Housing Element
adoption
Citywide with
emphasis in low
resource
neighborhoods
Submit at least one funding
application to support the program.

5.2.1.E

Help community partners
to provide linguistically and
digitally accessible and
culturally relevant housing
search assistance to
address racial housing
disparities experienced by
Latinx, Black, Asian, and
Pacific Islander community
member
Engage community
partners and provide
guidance and/or
resources within 2 years
of Housing Element
adoption
Citywide with
emphasis in low
resource
neighborhoods
Provide resources and guidance to
at least three community partners to
address.

EXHIBIT A
426
Table 2-55: Summary of Housing Programs and Actions Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Strategy Action Commitment Timing Geographic
Targeting
Quantified Objective
Improve place-based
strategies toward
community
revitalization

2.1.2.D
Update existing
community benefit and/or
other land value recapture
strategies such as the
Human Services Facility
Fee to increase proximity
to services and other
opportunities throughout
the city to improve place-
based strategies toward
community revitalization.

Within 5 years of
Housing Element
adoption
Citywide Update at least one community
benefit strategy within 5 years of
Housing Element adoption.

4.1.2.A

Offer incentives for energy
efficiency, electrification,
weatherization, energy
storage, and resilience
retrofits in existing housing
Meet with partner
organizations annually
Rincon
neighborhood and
other neighborhoods
north of Downtown
100 retrofitted housing units during
the planning period.

4.1.2.B

Provide information in
multiple languages on the
City’s website and in the
community on safe and
healthy housing conditions
and tools to address
unhealthy housing
conditions.

By 2024 Springtown,
neighborhoods north
of Downtown, and
supportive shared
housing and
licensed care
facilities
n/a

4.1.3.B

Pursue funding to provide
low-income homeowners
and renters with financial
assistance to correct
building code violations
and make accessibility
improvements
Ongoing; apply for
funding at least
annually as available.

Neighborhoods
north of Downtown
like Rincon.

See Program 4.1.2.A

4.1.3.C

Monitor multifamily
complexes that have
received City funding for
housing quality, resident
services, customer service,
Ongoing Low resource
neighborhoods Conduct annual monitoring
assessments.

EXHIBIT A 427
Table 2-55: Summary of Housing Programs and Actions Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Strategy Action Commitment Timing Geographic
Targeting
Quantified Objective
and linguistic and physical
accessibility

4.2.1.A

Improve the quality of
older neighborhoods in
low-resource areas and
affordable housing
developments by
upgrading sidewalks,
parks, lighting, tree
canopy, bike lanes, and
other public facilities.

Biennially as part of the
capital improvement
planning process
Neighborhoods
north of Downtown At least 8 infrastructure investments in high need communities, such as
rehabilitation of Doolan Park, the
installation of electric car chargers
at Rincon Library, or bike lines along
Rincon Avenue, during the Planning
period.

4.2.1.C

Pursue funding to acquire
land and/or facilitate
development of urban
parks on infill sites to
promote place-based
revitalization through air
pollution mitigation and
improved access to
outdoor recreational
opportunities
Meet annually with
LARPD
Low-resource areas
and affordable
housing
development
Provide at least one-third acre of
parkland or open space within one
mile of all residences.

4.2.1.D
Support enhancements to
community and
recreational spaces in
rental housing properties
owned and managed by
the Livermore Housing
Authority
Ongoing LHA-wned properties Support at least three service or infrastructure enhancements at
Leahy Square, Bluebell, Chestnut, or
Las Posadas apartments over the
planning period.

5.2.1.G

Prioritize public
improvements and
residential retrofits in
neighborhoods with the
greatest need
Within 2 years of
Housing Element
Adoption

Neighborhoods with
high concentrations
of poverty and
limited existing
resources and
amenities
Adopt a Climate Action Plan that
includes commitments to prioritizing
microgrid, water efficiency, urban
canopy, stormwater, and electric
vehicle investments in high need
communities.

EXHIBIT A
428
Table 2-55: Summary of Housing Programs and Actions Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Strategy Action Commitment Timing Geographic
Targeting
Quantified Objective

5.2.1.H

Identify opportunities in the
General Plan Circulation
Element and/or Active
Transportation Plan to
strengthen biking,
pedestrian, and public
transit connections from
lower resource to higher-
resource areas
Within 3 years of
Housing Element
adoption
Connections from
lower resources to
higher resource
neighborhoods
Adopt an updated Circulation
Element of the General Plan and/or
updated Active Transportation Plan.

5.2.1.I

Implement strategies in
partnership with the school
district, Livermore Amador
Valley Transit Authority,
and community based
organizations that increase
biking, pedestrian, and
public transit access for
low-income and special
needs households, such as
free transit pass programs
Commence
immediately and
engage partners on
annual basis about new
strategies
Citywide with
emphasis in low
resource
neighborhoods
Distribute 5,000 free bus passes over
the planning period to low-income
families, unhoused individuals, and
people with disabilities through
partnerships with organizations such
as the Livermore Valley Unified
School District, Cityserve, La Familia,
and Communities for Resource
Independent Living (CRIL).

5.2.1.J

Support place-based
strategies to improve
conditions, resources, and
amenities in lower-income
communities
Ongoing through
annual Housing &
Human Services Grant
allocation process.

Lower-income
communities and
neighborhoods north
of Downtown
At least 5 investments in projects
that create or improve facilities and
infrastructure benefiting low-income
community members over the
planning period.

Protect Existing
Residents from
Displacement

3.4.2.D

Provide multilingual tenant
counseling, rental
assistance, financial
counseling, crisis
stabilization services, and
legal support to low-
income renters
Ongoing Citywide with
emphasis in low
resource
neighborhoods

Provide assistance to at least 10
lower-income renters annually.

5.1.1.A
Fund fair housing
counseling,
tenant/landlord mediation,
Annually through grants
and contracts
Citywide Assist at least 20 households
annually through the programs
offered by fair housing providers.

EXHIBIT A
429
Table 2-55: Summary of Housing Programs and Actions Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Strategy Action Commitment Timing Geographic
Targeting
Quantified Objective
education, outreach, and
rental assistance

5.1.1.B
Refer complaints of
discriminatory housing
practices to fair housing
providers.

Ongoing Citywide Provide references to at least 3
residents experiencing fair housing
issues, or as complaints are
received.

5.1.1.C
Refer complaints and
requests for housing for the
disabled to partner
organizations.

Ongoing Citywide Provide references to at least 3
residents, or as complaints are
received.

5.1.1.D

Distribute multilingual fair
housing literature
Annually
Citywide with
emphasis in
downtown
neighborhoods &
Springtown for
outreach events
Update and distribute fair housing
materials at least annually, and
disburse materials at least one
community event annually with an
emphasis on areas with a high
number of renters.

5.1.2.C
Identify landlords in need
of assistance with making
modifications for persons
with disabilities in the
Section 8 program
Meet with the Housing
Authority within 2 years
of Housing Element
adoption; identify
landlords biannually, as
feasible
Citywide n/a

5.2.1.C
Present new policies to
City Council that prevent
displacement for low- and
moderate-income
community members and
protect families with
children, essential workers,
seniors, and people with
disabilities, such as an anti-
harassment ordinance, just
cause eviction ordinance,
Within 2 years of
Housing Element
adoption
Citywide Submit at least one funding
application to support the program.

EXHIBIT A
430
Table 2-55: Summary of Housing Programs and Actions Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Strategy Action Commitment Timing Geographic
Targeting
Quantified Objective
Ellis Act protections, or a
tenant opportunity to
purchase policy

5.2.1.D
Present new policies to
City Council that prevent
displacement for low- and
moderate-income
community members and
protect families with
children, essential workers,
seniors, and people with
disabilities, such as an anti-
harassment ordinance, just
cause eviction ordinance,
Ellis Act protections, or a
tenant opportunity to
purchase policy.

Within 3 years of
Housing Element
adoption
Citywide Present at least one tenant
protection ordinance to City
Council to consider for adoption.

5.2.1.F
Conduct a feasibility
assessment for a Citywide
rental registry

Within 2 years of
Housing Element
adoption
Citywide Complete Citywide rental registry
feasibility assessment

EXHIBIT A
431
This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
432

3. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
The provision of adequate and affordable housing is an important goal of the City. As a result, the City has proactively implemented a variety of programs, incentives, and development standards to encourage the development, maintenance, and improvement of affordable housing and address potential constraints to housing development. Nonetheless, a variety of factors, including environmental conditions, market mechanisms, and government regulations, can influence or constrain the development of housing. This section identifies existing constraints that inhibit the production of affordable housing in the community as well as opportunities and programs to mitigate these constraints, as appropriate.

3.1 MARKET CONSTRAINTS
Land costs, site development costs, and financing contribute to the cost of housing and can potentially hinder the production of new affordable housing. Although many constraints are driven by market conditions, jurisdictions have some leverage in instituting policies and programs to address the constraints.

LAND COST
A key component of residential development costs is the price of raw land. The diminishing supply of residential land combined with high demand generally keeps land cost high in the Bay Area. The economic downturn in 2008 caused land sales and land development to slow down, and the COVID -19 pandemic further induced economic volatility into the housing market. However, as indicated by land prices in 2022, the Livermore housing market has recovered, resulting in higher sales prices and rental rates for new housing products. According to Zillow, vacant land costs per acre range from $15,900 to $449,500. Typically, smaller parcels are valued higher per acre than larger parcels (more than 10 acres).

As of January 2022, residential land in Livermore listed through Zillow varies considerably—from as low as 37 cents per square foot to over $10 per square foot. This range can be attributed to varying locations of the land, existing infrastructure, the increasing economies of scale associated with larger parcels, and other parcel -specific factors such as environmental conditions and topography.

An Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Analysis in 2013 found that single -family detached housing continues to represent a major portion of units being developed in Livermore, but small lot, compact single-family detached and attached products are a growing part of the market.

Since 2016, about 20 percent of the new units constructed in Livermore have been single-family detached housing. Even though the cost per unit for multifamily attached housing is lower than for single-family housing, total construction costs can be about 50 percent higher due to the larger development scale, which tends to require a longer land use entitlement process and construction period. However, the entitlement timelines for multi- family housing developments and single-family subdivisions are relatively similar.

EXHIBIT A
433

MORTGAGE AND REHABILITATION FINANCING
The availability of financing affects a person’s ability to purchase or improve a home. Mortgage interest rates are extremely volatile. In 2008, the average 30- year fixed-rate mortgage (FRM) was approximately 6.0 percent. In 2015 rates fell to about 4.0 percent, and currently in 2022 are at about 3.0 percent.

Home Loans in Livermore
Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions must disclose information on the disposition of loan applications. Table 3-1 summarizes the disposition of loan applications submitted to financial institutions for home purchase and home improvement loans within the city.

In 2020, approximately 54,922 households applied for home purchase or improvement loans in the Berkeley/Oakland/Livermore Metropolitan Statistical Area (defined by the federal Office of Management and Budget). A large majority of loan applications (83.6 percent) were for home purchase. Of all loan products available, approximately 92.9 percent of applicants applied for conventional loans; only 7.1 percent of applicants applied for government -assisted home loans.

Approval rate s for home loans vary by loan type. Conventional loans often have a higher approval rate than government -assisted loans. For all applicants, approximately 60.4 percent were approved and accepted; 9.5 percent were denied; 8.5 were purchased by a financial institution; and the remaining 21.6 percent were not accepted, withdrawn, or incomplete.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are tightening their lending practices and loaning primarily to people with excellent credit scores who can afford at least 10 percent for a down payment, so FHA loans are the only remaining option for many homebuyers. FHA loans require the buyer to pay an upfront fee and a monthly insurance premium and ensure that the borrower has sufficient income to cover the loan, but borrowers are able to pay a down payment as low as three percent and are not required to have an excellent credit score.

EXHIBIT A
434
Table 3-1: Home Loan Application Status Disclosure in Berkeley/Oakland/Livermore Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2020
Number Percent
Type of Loan
Total 297,341 100.0%
Conventional 276,169 92.9%
Government assisted 21,172 7.1%
FHA-insured 11,748 4.0%
VA-guaranteed 9,331 3.1%
USDA-guaranteed 93 0.0%
Loan Purpose
Total 54,922 100.0%
Home purchase 45,923 83.6%
Home improvement 8,999 16.4%
Loan Purpose
Total 297,232 100.0%
Approved and accepted 179,509 60.4%
Denied 28,299 9.5%
Withdrawn or not accepted 49,941 16.8%
Closed/Incomplete 14,357 4.8%
Purchased by institution 25,126 8.5%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2020, confirmed in 2021.

City of Livermore Programs
In order to facilitate additional access to financial resources for lower - and moderate-income households to acquire homeownership, the City offers a down payment assistance program to first-time homebuyers. As described in Chapter 4, the program provides a three percent interest loan, fully or partially deferred, of up to $60,000.

3.2 GOVERNMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
Local policies and regulations can impact the price and availability of housing and, in particular, the provision of affordable housing. However, other governmental policies or actions are intended to reduce these barriers and/or actively encourage the development of housing that meets the diverse needs of t he community. This section discusses the following possible constraints and opportunities related to the maintenance, development, and improvement of housing:
• Land use controls
• Local ordinances/regulations impacting housing supply • Provisions for a variety of housing
• Density bonus

EXHIBIT A
435
• De
velopment review process
• Building codes
• Housing for persons with disabilities
• Public Improvements

LAND USE CONTROLS
Land use controls affecting housing development include: General Plan, Specific Plans, Neighborhood Plans, Municipal Code, and the Development Code. The City maintains the current Development Code with zoning and development standards along with current fees on the City website.

General Plan
The Land Use Element of the Livermore General Plan sets forth the City’s policies for guiding local development, including density ranges. These policies, together with zoning regulations, establish the amount and distribution of land for different uses, including housing. The key questions for evaluating constraints and opportunities associated with the General Plan are:
does it designate enough land available for residential development, and does it allow for a sufficient range of housing types to meet community needs? As listed in Table 3-2, the General Plan has 11 broad residential land use designations permitting a range of rural and urban residential uses. Three additional mixed -use designations permit residential units to be integrated with other types of uses. Most of the open space and agricultural land use designations permit rural residential development as well as agriculture - related employee and caretaker housing. Residential uses are also permitted in certain commercial districts subject to discretionary review.

EXHIBIT A
436
Table 3-2: General Plan Land Use Categories
General Plan Land Use Density (du/ac) Residential Type(s) Residential
Rural Residential (RR) 1.0-1.0/5
Designed to accommodate large-lot
residential of a rural character on urban
fringe
Urban Low Residential (UL) 1.0-2.0 Intended to accommodate residential development in areas with special land
amenities or constraints
UL-1 1.0-1.5
UL-2 1.5-2.0
Urban Low Medium
Residential (ULM) 2.0-3.0
Intended as a transition between lower
density at edges of town and higher
density residential development as one
approaches the center of the community
Urban Medium Residential
(UM) 3.0-4.5
Urban medium areas are located closer
to the center of the community and in
areas surrounding commercial
development
Urban Medium-High
Residential (UMH) 4.5-6.0
Intended to encourage cluster and
higher density residential development to
preserve urban open spaces
Urban High Residential (UH) 6.0-55.0
Intended to provide a variety of housing
opportunities for all income groups to be
located near major roads and other
public services
UH-1 6.0-8.0
UH-2 8.0-14.0
UH-3 14.0-18.0
UH-4 18.0-22.0
UH-5a 22.0-30.0
UH-5b 30.0-38.0
UH-6 38.0- 55.0
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
(NM)

12.0-38.0 Intended to help improve the pedestrian
orientation of Livermore’s neighborhoods
by providing neighborhood commercial
services within walking distance of
existing residents and integrating housing
with commercial development on a
single site
NM Low (NML) 2.0-3.0 or 12.0-15.0 w/ TDC*
NM Medium (NMM) 3.0-4.5 or 15.0-24.0 w/ TDC
NM High (NMH) 6.0-8.0 or 24.0-38.0 w/ TDC
Downtown Area (DA)
Min range 15-30
Max range 30.0-55.0
Intended to provide a unique, locally
oriented, pedestrian-friendly shopping
environment in Downtown Livermore and
to allow higher-intensity residential
development to support and revitalize
the commercial environment

EXHIBIT A
437
Table 3-2: General Plan Land Use Categories
General Plan Land Use Density (du/ac) Residential Type(s) Isabel Neighborhood (IN) 15.0-100.0
Intended for a range of housing choices
from attached single-family units to
multistory condominiums and apartment
buildings that will support development of
a complete neighborhood.

Transition 15.0-25.0
Housing types may include attached
dwellings (townhomes) or low-rise garden
apartments and condominiums,
organized around a central courtyard or
along drive courts with ground-level
garage or surface parking.

Village 25.0-40.0
Housing types may include
condominiums and apartments, with
some opportunity for townhomes.

Center 40.0-60.0
This designation allows for higher density
housing types, such as multi-story
condominiums and apartment buildings
with structured or below-ground parking.

Core 60.0-100.0
Core Residential is intended for the
highest density housing closest to the
Isabel Valley Link Station with structured
or belowground parking, similar to the
Center designation. Housing types are
similar to those of the Center designation,
but with greater allowable height and
density.

Commercial
Service Commercial (SC) n/a
Intended for uses such as auto sales and
service, nurseries, home maintenance
centers, and wholesale establishments in
the general vicinity of freeway
interchanges or at other locations with
significant access potential from the
community at large
Highway Commercial (HC) n/a
Intended to primarily serve the traveling
public with uses such as hotels and
motels, restaurants, and motor vehicle
and gasoline service stations
Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) n/a
Intended primarily for neighborhood
serving commercial uses such as grocery
stores, drug stores, and personal service.

Community Serving
General Commercial
(CSGC)
n/a
Intended for commercial uses in areas
outside of Downtown with significant
access potential from the region and the
community at large
Office Commercial (OC) 14.0-18.0
Intended primarily for office uses with no
impacts to and compatible with
adjacent residential neighborhoods.

EXHIBIT A
438
Table 3-2: General Plan Land Use Categories
General Plan Land Use Density (du/ac) Residential Type(s) Residential can be considered with a
Conditional Use Permit
Industrial
Business and Commercial
Park (BCP) n/a
Intended for a mix of uses, locating
employment-generating activities
adjacent to destination-oriented and
limited retail commercial uses
Low-Intensity Industrial (LII) n/a
Intended for uses such as manufacturing,
warehousing, research and development
facilities, fully enclosed recycling facilities,
and administrative and professional
offices
High-Intensity Industrial
(HII) n/a
Intended to provide an insulated area for
uses with objectionable noises, odors,
vibrations, glares, or hazards from uses
such as manufacturing, warehousing,
research and development facilities,
recycling facilities, and storage or
processing of raw materials
Open Space and Agriculture
Open Space (OSP) 1.0 du/
existing parcel
Permits single-family residential and farm
worker housing subject to environmental
review
Agriculture/Viticulture
(AGVT) 1.0/100 Intended for rural residential densities and farm worker housing
Limited Agriculture
(LDAG) Min 20 acres Intended for rural residential densities and farm worker housing
Hillside Conservation
(HLCN) 1.0/20 to 1.0/100 Intended for rural residential densities and farm worker housing
Large Parcel Agriculture
(LPA) Min 100 acres
Intended for uses such as agricultural,
agriculture processing facilities, limited
agricultural support, secondary
residential, visitor serving commercial
facilities, recreation, public and quasi
public, and waste management facilities
Resource Management
(RMG)

1.0 du/
parcel; Min 100 acres
Intended for a single-family home per
parcel
Water Management
Lands (WML)

1.0 du/
parcel; Min 100 acres
Intended for a single-family home per
parcel
Open Space/Sand and
Gravel (OSP/S&G) n/a
Intended primarily for open space;
secondarily for sand and gravel
extraction, processing, and related
activities
Community Facilities n/a
Intended to provide areas for public
agencies and institutions, including City,
County, State, and federal government
facilities. May be designated as any of

EXHIBIT A
439
Table 3-2: General Plan Land Use Categories
General Plan Land Use Density (du/ac) Residential Type(s) the following: Elementary School (CF-E),
Intermediate School (CF-I), High School
(CF-H), Community College (CF-JC), Fire
Station (FS), Civic Center (CF-CC),
Cemetery (CF-CE), Government Services
(CF), Airport (CF-AIR), Post Office (PO),
Hospital (HOSP), BART (BART),
Government Research and Development
(CF-R&D)
*TDC refers to Transferable Development Credit Program.

Source: City of Livermore Land Use Element 2002, amended 2013, confirmed 2021 Neighborhood Plans
In 2007, the City approved two Neighborhood Plans: Brisa and Arroyo Vista. These plans cover two areas that were redesignated in the 2003 General Plan to a dual designation permitting either industrial uses (base designation) or residential uses, subject t o development of a Neighborhood Plan for each area. The plans are intended to facilitate orderly growth and the creation of a livable neighborhood that includes community amenities and is compatible with surrounding uses. The plans create important opportunities for infill development of vacant land with a mix of higher density housing types that would not otherwise be developed for residential uses.

These two Neighborhood Plans facilitate residential development by providing site layout plans that can be utilized by developers to achieve consistency with and meet the development standards of each of the plans, including providing a mix of housing types. The concept site plans for each of the sites demonstrate that a mid - to upper-density range can be achie ved on each site while still providing a minimum of three different housing types and circulation and open space requirements. The design guidelines and standards in each of the plans are straightforward and feasible for the site and encourage residential development. Potential developers can utilize site plans to reduce design time and minimize uncertainty during the development review and approval process because the site layout plans have already been determined to be consistent with provisions of the Neighborhood Plans. Although these two sites are TDC receiver sites, adoption of the residential Neighborhood Plans preclude these sites from going back to their base designation without discretionary review by City Council. As of 2022, the Brisa Neighborhoo d Plan has been fully built, and Arroyo Vista Plan remains undeveloped.

Brisa Neighborhood Plan
The Brisa Neighborhood Plan has been built out. The plan area encompasses 37.5 acres and covers vacant land north and south of Brisa Street east of Vasco Road a nd adjacent to the ACE train station and parking area. The plan includes an approved Neighborhood Concept Site Plan for 465 units designed to create a walkable urban neighborhood and to provide pedestrian access to Livermore’s multiuse trail system and to the adjacent ACE commuter rail station. The plan requires a variety of housing types, a general circulation system layout consistent with the site plan, consistency with the design standards, two neighborhood parks, and a trail network with connections to the ACE train station.

EXHIBIT A
440
The Livermore City Council approved plans for a residential development in the neighborhood plan area on January 13th, 2014. The project includes 465 units, with courtyard and alley-loaded single-family homes, row townhouses, and apartments. This project provides 26 subsidized very- low- and low -income units. Site grading began in August 2014 and as of 2022, the Brisa Neighborhood Plan is fully built out.

Arroyo Vista Neighborhood Plan
The Arroyo Vista Neighborhood Plan was approved by the Livermore City Council on July 2 nd, 2007. The plan area is approximately 28 acres and covers the vacant land south of First Street along the north side of Las Positas Road and east of existing neighborhood commercial services. The plan includes two conceptual land use plans. The conceptual plans are intended to show how one might develop the entire site at the lower end of the density range (402 dwelling units) and at the high end (495 dwelling units). The plan includes the following mandatory provisions: three variations of housing types, one neighborhood park, open space, and trails. Since a residential subdivision was approved under the Neighborhood Plan, in 2017 for 435 units the sites can no longer be developed as industrial without City Council approval of a major conditional use permit. The 2017 subdivision entitlements are still valid but the project has not yet started construction. The property is currently in escrow with a prominent homebuilder who anticipates closing in first quarter 2023. The homebuilder has also informed city staff that they will be submitting the subdivision and development improvement plans before the end of 2022.

Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
The 2003 General Plan identified the Greenville BART TOD 17 transitional area to provide land
uses appropriate for a future commuter transit station. The environmental impact report prepared for the 2003 General Plan assumed that 4,474 housing units would be built within the Greenville TOD area.

Subsequent analysis identified the area around the Isabel Avenue interchange of I -580 as a more immediately viable location for a BART station. The Livermore City Council directed staff to update the documents necessary to shift the TOD planning effort from the Greenville/Southfront area to the Isabel/I -580 area. In 2018, the City adopted the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan, which was contingent upon an approved BART extension to Livermore.

At its May 24
th, 2018, board meeting, the BART Board voted to certify the BART to Livermore Extension Project Final Environmental Impact Report, but to not advance the proposed conventional BART extension to Livermore. The Board recommended that the City turn to the newly formed Tri-Valley–San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority to conduct further transit planning in Livermore.

In 2020, the City adopted a revised Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan that acknowledged a future Valley Link rail station instead of BART. While the INSP is consistent with many General Plan goals, the plan modified existing General Plan land use designations, as well as some policies as a means of achieving the General Plan goals and implementing related policies. For projects within the Planning Area, policies and standards in the INSP will implement the General Plan 17 Transit-oriented development: Development in which land uses are designed and sited to maximize transit ridership and the use of alternative forms of transportation; TODs are typically also mixed-use developments.

EXHIBIT A
441
polic
ies. Where policies or standards relating to a particular subject have not been provided in the INSP, the General Plan’s policies and standards continue to apply, as they are today or amended in the future.

The plan area encompasses over 1,100 acres, or about 6.6 percent of the city. It is in the northwest part of Livermore, approximately 2.5 miles from Downtown. The plan area is entirely within the city’s urban growth boundary (UGB). It is largely within the city limits, with the exception of an approximately 21 -acre property that is currently in unincorporated Alameda County.

The INSP will guide future development of the area surrounding the Isabel Valley Link station in the I-580 median at Isabel Avenue. T he abundance of vacant land near the proposed Valley Link station is a major opportunity for shaping a new neighborhood centered around a major transit hub.

The three primary objectives of the INSP are:
• Create a safe, vibrant neighborhood that includes amenities for residents, workers, and students and that is compatible with existing development and community character.
• Support citywide goals for increased transportation options, housing choices, and economic vitality.
• Support the Valley Link rail project through development of a complete neighborhood.

Specific housing strategies for advancing the plan’s vision and objectives include: allowing for a range of housing types; encouraging a livable and accessible neighborhood with an active street life; concentrating development of the highest intensity closest to the Valley Link station to support transit ridership; promoting compatibility with existing residential uses; and advancing the City’s housing and economic development goals.

The target residential unit number for the INSP is 4,068. The minimum number of residential units required for the specific plan is 3,223. At least 25 percent of the units are required to be affordable to lower income households —or at least 830 affordable units. Twen ty percent of units in each residential project approved in the specific plan area will be affordable, per the plan’s inclusionary requirements. Additionally, five percent of units will be developed in stand - alone affordable housing projects.

Downtown Specific Plan
The Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) was adopted by the City Council in February 2004 and most recently updated in 2020. Objectives of the DSP are to revitalize the Downtown and re-establish it as the center of the city and as a viable, pedestrian -oriented city neighborhood. The DSP outlines strategies for accomplishing these goals, including:
• Revising land use policies to allow housing at a range of types and densities everywhere except on the ground level in the Downtown Core.
• Encouraging construction of housing above storefronts in the Downtown Core by requiring new buildings to be mixed use.

EXHIBIT A
442
• Identifying opportunity sites that provide immediate development prospects for new housing and that offer the potential to deliver a significant number of new units.

Examples include the former Livermore Village in the heart of downtown and several vacant, formerly commercial parcels to the east of Downtown. • Attract potential Downtown residents with transit opportunities that enable them to travel easily and conveniently to job centers in the region.

The DSP requires 10 percent of each project proposed in the plan area to be units affordable to low -income households. The DSP established five plan areas. Appendix A shows the boundary of the Downtown Specific Plan Area. Plan Areas and the associated assumptions about capacity are as follows:
• The Downtown Core Plan Area
The intent of the Downtown Core is to revitalize the city’s historic core area as the center of the city. Therefore, mixed-use buildings are required for all parcels fronting First Street and are encouraged throughout the Core. In order to ensure that Downtown Core is the most densely developed part of the city, a minimum density of 30 and up to 55 dwelling units per acre is required. At this density, sites in the Core would be considered appropriate for lower-income households.
• The Gateway Plan Areas / Boulevard and Transit
The primary intent of the two Gateway Plan Areas is the provision of land for high-quality housing adjacent to the Downtown Co re. The Downtown Transit Gateway District, centered along east First Street, provides an opportunity for transit -oriented development due to the proximity of the ACE/LAVTA stations. In this Plan Area, residential development within 2,000 feet of the ACE/LA VTA/station is awarded a 25 percent density bonus.
• The Neighborhood Plan Areas / North and South Sides
The two Neighborhood Plan Areas are intended to enhance and maintain the residential character surrounding the Downtown Core. The development standards encourage residential uses compatible with the single -family neighborhoods adjacent to the Downtown.

Incentives to Facilitate Redevelopment
The DSP development standards were crafted to promote redevelopment in the Downtown, including increased, more -intense housing opportunities. The DSP encourages this through alternative open space requirements, relaxed parking standards, minimal setbacks, flexibility for National Register historic structures or historic resources, and streamlined processing for smaller projects. Specific standards are discussed in more detail later in this section.

Since adoption of the DSP, the City has moved forward with implementation steps to further increase the viability of Downtown redevelopment. Most recently, Development Standards for the Downtown Core Plan Area were amended in May 2020, which enabled implementation of the Downtown Plan that the City Council had approved on January 29 th, 2018. The
amendments enabled the Downtown Core with various uses including 130 multi-family housing units and associated infrastructure upgrades.

EXHIBIT A
443
In
frastructure Upgrades
A major step the City has taken to support redevelopment and accommodate intensified development in the Downtown is improving and upgrading Downtown infrastructure, particularly in the Core Plan Area where the catalyst sites are located. Following adoption of the DSP, the City began to implement numerous upgrades and improvements that included:
• Moving State Route 84 from First Street to Isabel Avenue to remove truck traffic from First Street and create a more pedestrian friendly environment for Downtown residents and the shopping community. This step was particularly crucial to foster a pedestrian friendly environment in the Downtown Core Plan Area along First Street between Maple and L Streets, where mixed-use is required in new buildings.
• Reconfiguring First Street from 4 lanes to 2 and adding diagonal parking, stree t trees, landscaping, and hardscape to create a more lively, walkable environment for commercial and mixed-use buildings.
• Widening Railroad Avenue to accommodate increased traffic diverted from First Street in the Downtown Core.
• Water and sewer upgrades along Railroad Avenue to accommodate estimated Downtown Specific Plan buildout.
• New water mains and sewer laterals to all parcels along First Street in the Downtown Core from Maple to L Streets to accommodate intensified mixed-uses.

Streamlined Project Review Process
The Downtown Specific Plan provides detailed development standards and regulations as well as purposeful goals and objectives to achieve revitalization. Due to the specificity and detail in the plan, potential developers and property owners tend to have a clear understanding regarding the use of their property, as well as development standards that must be addressed in new or redeveloped buildings. The DSP also streamlined the review process for Downtown projects by a) establishing sufficient detail on regulations and b) allowing a majority of the projects to be reviewed at an administrative level, thereby reducing the overall processing time for new projects. Most projects that are consistent with the DSP can be processed at the staff level. Only larger residential and commercial projects require discretionary review by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Development Code
The City implements the General Plan policies and regulates the type, location, and scale of residential development primarily through the Development Code. Development regulations are designed to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of residents and to preserve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods.

In February 2010, the Cit y adopted a new Development Code to replace the previous Planning and Zoning Code. The City updated the standards in the code to ensure consistency with the General Plan, existing policies and procedures, and applicable state regulations, including those for “reasonable accommodations.” The City also revised outdated development regulations and older zoning districts to help reduce constraints to development caused by the City’s previous zoning law. The new code was designed to be easier for residents, developers, and staff to understand and apply, which can save time during the entitlement

EXHIBIT A
444
process. For example, residential projects with four or fewer units are subject to administrative design review by staff. The most recent ordinance updating the code was passed on June 28th, 2021. The City will be starting a comprehensive Development Code Update in January 2023.

Residential Zoning
The current Dev elopment Code has 12 major residential zoning districts and a Planned Development (PD) District (see Table 3 -3, below). Most of the residential zoning districts permit a range in density. In all cases, the density range permitted in each zoning district is consistent with the underlying General Plan designation. As described further below, the code establishes development standards for each zoning district, such as lot coverage, setbacks, and minimum lot sizes.

Form-Based Zoning
As part of the 2010 Develop ment Code update, the City included form -based regulations to promote pedestrian -scaled urbanism in “Transect” zones. Unlike conventional zoning, form - based codes emphasize the built form over the segregation of land uses and parameters such as setbacks and floor area ratios. Built form involves the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. Form -based codes frequently use photos and graphics to explain the details of the requirements, making them more readily understandable by residents and developers. Use of a form -based code can reduce the length of the project review process.

The code includes two Transect zones (T3 and T4), with placeholders for four zones not currently used. (T1 and T2 are intended to apply to Natural and Rural areas, respectively, and T5 is reserved for the Urban Center and T-6 for the Urban Core.) The development standards for the T3 and T4 zones primarily focus on mixed-use, walkable areas of the city. They range in function and density from primarily residential areas with a mix of building types (T3 -Neighborhood) to medium density neighborhoods and other commercial and retail areas (T4 -Neighborhood, T4- Neighborhood Open, T4-Main Street Open, and T4-Main Street). The City has designated much of the neighborhoods immediately north and south of the Downtown area as T3 or T4.

Mixed-Use
Zoning
The NM zone was created to implement the Neighborhood Mixed-Use land use designation of the 2003 General Plan Update. The zoning district permits a mixture of neighborhood -serving businesses and residential uses and refers to the T4 development standards. Vertical mixed-use is permitted and encouraged on-site. A minimum of 20 percent of the site’s floor area shall be developed with commercial uses. The required range of the mix of Transect zones within the NMU planning sites is:
• T4 Neighborhood: Allowed to occupy 25 to 80 percent of land • T4 Neighborhood Open: Allowed to occupy up to 50 percent of land • T4 Main Street Open: Allowed to occupy 10 to 50 percent of land • T4 Main Street: Allowed to occupy 10 to 20 percent of land The Neighborhood Mixed -Use sites are also designated as Transferable Development Credit (TDC) receiver sites, meaning they have dual general plan designations.

EXHIBIT A
445
Sin
ce the TDC program was implemented, several residential projects have been approved or constructed on a TDC site (Auburn Grove, Portola Common, Arroyo Crossings, Shea Sage, Magnolia Place, Catalina Townhomes, Brisa, and Bluebell Drive). None of these projects, applications, or proposals have opted, or even proposed, to utilize the baseline densities on these sites. This suggests that the higher density residential option is the most economically feasible—more so than new commercial or the lower density residential option.

General Plan policy provides an exemption to participating in the TDC progr am for projects that provide all affordable housing, and individual affordable units are exempt from the TDC fee. Projects that provide affordable or other types of special housing may also have the baseline density increased.

The TDC Program is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

Other Zoning
The City permits some residential uses in the Commercial Office (CO), Professional Office (CP), Planned Development/Agriculture (PD -AG), South Livermore Valley/Agriculture (SLV -AG), Education and Institution (E), and Open Space (OS -R and OS- A) zones. The City also conditionally permits additional residential uses in the nonresidential zones listed in Table 3 -3.

EXHIBIT A
446
Development Standards
The Development Code includes a set of development standards for each zoning district. Sites zoned as Planned Development (PD) have a unique set of development standards, although some refer to a standard zoning district under the current or previous zoning codes. This section discusses the main types of development standards.

EXHIBIT A
447
Table 3-3: Zoning Districts That Allow Residential Uses and Development Standards District/Purpose GP Land Use GP Density
(du/acre)
Min/Max.

Lot Area in
sq. ft
Setbacks
Coverage1
Max. Bldg. Ht.
and/or
Maximum
Stories Front Sides Rear
R-R – Residential Rural RR

1.0 per acre
to 1.0 per 5
acres
Min. 40,000 30’ 1 side: 20’
Total: 45’ 50’ 25% 35’
R-S – Suburban
Residential

UL, ULM, UM,
UMH

1.0 per 5
acres up to

6.0 Min. 6000 Min. 20’ Min 10’, and
12’ Min. 25’ FAR max.
35% Max. 35’
R-L – Residential Low
density UL-1, UL-2, 1.0 – 2.0 Min. 5,000 Min. 15’ Min. 15’ Min. 5’ – 10’ 40% Max. 35’ MFR – Multifamily
Residential UH 6.0-18.0 Min. 5,000 15’
8’ min plus
5’ for every
story above
first.
5’ min plus 5’
for every story
above first.
50%
Main building:

Max 3 stories,
45’/Accessory
structure:

Max 15’
RG – Suburban Multi-
Residential UH 4.5 - 18.0 See subcategories listed below.

RG-16 UH-3 14.0 - 18.0 6,000 Min. 20’
1 story: Min.
10’/ 2 to 3
stories: 20’
plus 5’ for
every story
above
1 story: Min.
10’/ 2 to 3
stories: 20’
plus 5’ for
every story
above
50%
Main building:

Max 3 stories,
45’/Accessory
structure: Max
15’
RG-14 UH -2
UH-3

8.0 – 14.0

14.0 -18.0 6,500 Min. 20’ ″ ″ 40% ″
RG-12 UH-2 8.0-14.0 7,500 Min. 25’ ″ ″ 35% ″
RG-10 UH-2 8.0-14.0 9,000 Min. 30’ ″ ″ 30% ″
T3N – T3
Neighborhood

ULM, UM,
UMH 2.0-6.0
Regulated
by building
type
Min.
20’/Max
30’
Min. 5’ Min. 5’ Max. 35’
2 ½ stories
NMU – Neighborhood
Mixed-Use

NML, NMM,
NMH 2.0-30.0 See T4 subcategories listed below.

EXHIBIT A
448
Table 3-3: Zoning Districts That Allow Residential Uses and Development Standards District/Purpose GP Land Use GP Density
(du/acre)
Min/Max.

Lot Area in
sq. ft
Setbacks
Coverage1
Max. Bldg. Ht.
and/or
Maximum
Stories Front Sides Rear
T4N – T4
Neighborhood
UH-2, UH-3,
UH-4 8.0-22.0
Regulated
by building
type
Min.
match
adjacent
property/
Max. 30’
1 story Min.
5’/ 2+ stories
Min. 7.5’
Min. 5’ Max. 35’
2 ½ stories
T4N-O –
Neighborhood Open OC 14.0-18.0
Min.
match
adjacent
property/
Max. 25’
1 story Min.
5’/ 2+ stories
Min. 7.5’
Min. 5’ Max. 35’ to ,
2 ½ stories
T4MS-O – Main Street
Open NML, NMM 2.0 – 24.0 with
TDC 0’ Min. 0’ Min. 0’
Max. 35’ to
eave/parapet,
3 stories
T4MS – Main Street NML, NMM 2.0 – 24.0 with
TDC 0’ Min. 0’ Min. 0’ Max. 35’
3 stories
CO – Commercial
Office OC
n/a,
regulated by
FAR
Min. 5,000
Min. 5’ /
adj R zone
15’
Min. 0’ / adj
R zone 10’
Min. 0’ / adj R
zone 10’
FAR max.
30% 35’
CP – Professional
Office OC
Min. 5,000
/ Max.
10,000
Min. 15’ Min. 5’ Min. 5’ FAR max.
30%
Max 26’,
2 stories
E – Education and
Institution CF Min 20,000 Min. 25’ Min. 15’ Min. 15’ 50% 35’ OS – Open Space OS
OS-A: min.
871,200 /
OS-R: min.
43,560/
OS-F 0
Min. 20’
Lots < 10,000
sf: 10’ min. /
Lots > 10,000
12’ min.

Min. 25’ FAR max.
35% 35’

EXHIBIT A
449
Table 3-3: Zoning Districts That Allow Residential Uses and Development Standards District/Purpose GP Land Use GP Density
(du/acre)
Min/Max.

Lot Area in
sq. ft
Setbacks
Coverage1
Max. Bldg. Ht.
and/or
Maximum
Stories Front Sides Rear
PD-AG – Planned
Development/Agricult
ure
Limited
Agriculture,
Large Parcel
Agriculture

100 acres
min. or 18
acres min.
with
Reduced
Lot Option
Min. 30' Min. 50' Min. 20' No max. 40'
SLV-AG – South
Livermore
Valley/Agriculture
Agriculture/V
iticulture

1.0 per 100
acres
100 acres
min. Min. 30' Min. 50' Min. 20' FAR max.
20% 40'
DSP – Downtown
Specific Plan4 DA See subcategories listed below.

Downtown Core DA Min. 30.0
Max. 55.03
No
min./Max.
20’
Min. 0
Max. 10’ None N/A
Min. 2 floors/
20’Max.
3 floors/
45’4 floors/
55’ on
designated
sites
Gateway Plan
Areas (Transit &
Boulevard)
DA
Min. 15.0
Max. 30.0
Along First St.
up to 50
w/ CUP
Min. 5,000;
Max 10,000
for SF in
Residential
Transition
Areas
Min. 15’-20'
Min. 5’
Increased 5’
for every
story above
first (except
for
detached
SF).

Min. 15’
(except for
detached SF
with public
alley)
Increased 5’
for every story
above first
N/A 3-floors/45’
Neighborhood-
North and South
Side
DA
No min. for
detached SF
Min. 15.0 for
all other uses
Min. 5,000;
Max 10,000
for
detached
SF
Min. 15’
Min. 5’
Increased 5’
for every
story above
first.

Min. 15’ N/A 3-floors/45’

EXHIBIT A
450
Table 3-3: Zoning Districts That Allow Residential Uses and Development Standards District/Purpose GP Land Use GP Density
(du/acre)
Min/Max.

Lot Area in
sq. ft
Setbacks
Coverage1
Max. Bldg. Ht.
and/or
Maximum
Stories Front Sides Rear
IN – Isabel
Neighborhood IN See subcategories listed below.

Transition IN 15.0-25.0 Min. 0'-20'
Min. 15' where abutting
existing residential uses;
otherwise, Min. 5' for first and
second stories;
Min. 10' for third story and
above
3 5
Village IN 25.0-40.0 Min. 0'-20' 4 5
Center IN 40.0-60.0 Min. 0'-20'
Max. 12'
along non
Main or
Major
Streets
Min. 10' for
3rd story
and
above
0' side setback along Main
Street; otherwise, Min 5' for
first and second stories; Min.
10' for third story and
above
5 5
Core IN 60.0-100.0 6 5
1 Coverage” is the floor area of the largest story of a building divided by the total site area. 2 Residential uses at an RM density are conditionally permitted. 3 No minimum density in mixed-use developments for units above first floor where nonresidential uses are on ground floor. 4 Refer to DSP for exceptions.
5 Refer to the INSP for height limits in the Scenic Corridor exception areas. For all other areas, building heights shall be regulated by Policy P-LU-8 and Table 2-6, Performance Measures by Subarea, in the INSP or by the General Plan Scenic Corridor Policy, whichever is more restrictive.

Source: City of Livermore Development Code, 2010, confirmed 2021

EXHIBIT A
451
De
nsity
The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in each residential project is calculated by multiplying the gross acreage times the maximum allowable density under the General Plan residential land use designation, rounding down to the nearest whole number. General Plan policy defines gross acreage to include all the land within the boundaries of the property as well as all or a portion of adjacent street frontage.
18 The 2003-2025 General Plan includes five mixed -use land designations to encourage infill and higher density residential development close to transit, existing services, and infrastructure.

These include: Downtown Core (30-55 du/acre), Downtown Gateway Plan Areas (15- 30 du/acre; up to 50 du/acre with CUP), Downtown Neighborhood (0- 15 du/acre), Isabel Neighborhood (15 -100 du/acre), Neighborhood Mixed Low (12- 15 du/acre), Neighborhood Mixed Medium (15 -24 du/acre), and Neighborhood Mixed High (24 -38 du/acre). These designations, along with the Urban High (UH) categories, provide a wider range of d ensities and allow for a variety of housing types compared to the other residential designations.

Height Limits and Setbacks
Maximum height and lot coverage regulations are designed to preserve the quality and ensure the compatibility of residential development in neighborhoods. The typical height limit in lower density residential zones is 35 feet. This allows for a two -story home with additional room to incorporate a variety of roof designs. Medium and higher density residential districts permit varied heights and number of stories depending on the number of units constructed and/or the setback.

In 2011, the City amended the Development Code to simplify the RG zone height limits, which was previously dependent on the size of the setback. The RG zone height limits are three stories or 45 feet, and proposed development above 45 feet is subject to a conditional use permit.

Though market conditions may affect development of multifamily housing, the City cannot control market conditions and can only ensure development standards do not constrain development. The City has reduced development constraints to multifamily housing by allowing a greater maximum height.

The Core Area of the Downtown Specific Plan, which allows the most intense residential development (up to 55 dwelling units per acre), permits up to three stories or 45 feet in most areas. Select sites may have a height up to four stories or 55 feet with City Council approval.

The City Council has considered requests to exceed the maximum height permitted in the Downtown Core. Two examples of actual projects are the Bankhead Theater and the Legacy project. The Bankhead Theater is a 500-seat local performing arts theater. The maximum height permitted for the small performing arts theater is 75 feet. The highest point of the proposed building, the fly- space tower, is 65½ feet. Legacy is a mixed -use project with 222 rental apartments with about 14,000 square feet of retail. The project has two buildings. One is ground- floor retail with two stories of apartments above it. The building is 3 floors and 45 feet adjacent to First Street. The maximum height of the project is 54 feet at the ridges and stair towers, and 49 feet for the main roof.
18 For the purpose of calculating density, properties with more than one street frontage may only use the longest street frontage, which is considered the area between the street right-of-way boundary and the midline of the adjacent fronting streets (except freeways and highways).

EXHIBIT A
452
Small Lot Development
The Downtown Specific Plan Area has a number of small vacant and underdeveloped sites, particularly in the Downtown Core and Downtown Gateway Plan Areas. Potential constraints to creating new residential units on small lots in the Downtown, and in the Downtown Core area in particular, include the existing character and historic nature of buildings, which may make renovation or new construction more difficult. In the Core area along First Street, buildings are constructed along property lines, which limits new construction to additional stories to add square footage. The Downtown also includes several brownfield sites that are redevelopment opportunities with site remediation.

To offset the above constraints, the City utilizes a variety of measures and tools , including regulatory incentives, financial subsidies, negotiation/mediation, and business relocation assistance.

Regulatory Incentives
To accomplish the goal of creating new housing in the Downtown through small- lot redevelopment or lot consolidation where possible, the DSP allows densities of a minimum 30 dwelling units per acre in the Downtown Core. It also allows taller building heights, especially in the Downtown Core and Transit and Boulevard Plan Areas, which permit up to three floors/45 feet. The DSP specifically allows greater height (up to four floors and 55 feet) on the Livermore Village (the site where the Eden affordable housing project has been approved) and Groth Brothers catalyst sites (the site where the Legacy mixed -use project is nearly complete) in the Core as further incentive for redevelopment. Development regulations intended to encourage revitalization and increase opportunities to create housing include:
• Alternative Open Space Requirements. The DSP offers flexibility to smaller sites to meet their Open Space requirements in the Downtown. Residential or mixed-use sites of less than one acre may meet their requirement on -site, off- site, by in -lieu payment, or through a combination of any of these options.
• Relaxed Parking Standards . Parking standards in the Downtown have been developed to address its more urban nature. They are intended to encourage redevelopment and shared parking opportunities via existing or new parking structures (in the Core Area).
o Parking requirements for renovation, enlargement, or use changes apply only to net new floor area and/or the incremental increase in parking demand that accompanies a higher intensity use.
o Smaller residential units and multifamily (apartments, flats, lofts) require less parking: 1-bedroom units require only 1 space, and apartments and flats require only 1.75 spaces.
o Throughout the Downtown, no additional parking spaces are required for the conversion of existing commercial/office/retail space to mixed -use where residential units are provided above (second floor and up). • Minimal Setbacks . In the Core Plan Area there are no minimum building setback requirements.

EXHIBIT A
453
• Fl
exibility for National Historic Structures or Historic Resources. To allow use conversions of historic structures that will promote rehabilitation (including relocation), the Specific Plan allows modifications to development standards, subject to review by the Historic Preservation Commission.
• Streamlined Processing for Smaller Projects. Residential projects providing less than 40 dwelling units can be reviewed and approved administratively at a staff level. • Density Incentives . A 25 percent density bonus is permitted in the Transit Gateway Plan Area for projects within 2,000 fee t of the LAVTA/ACE station (or other planned transit station). Also, along First Street near the transit center, up to 50 du/acre projects are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit.

Parking Requirements
In general, parking requirements are intended to pr ovide adequate on -site parking without causing parking deficiencies. Requiring too much parking, however, can add costs to development, which in turn creates a constraint.

The City’s parking requirements for residential districts vary by housing type, the number of bedrooms, and parking needs (see Table 3-4). Detached and attached residences and mobile home parks are required to provide two on -site spaces per unit for units with two bedrooms or more. Guest parking must also be provided at a ratio of one additional space for every four units in multifamily projects.

As part of the Development Code update in 2010, the City investigated reduced parking standards for senior housing and smaller units (studios and one-bedrooms). As a result, the Code now has red uced parking requirements for studio and one -bedroom units at one space per unit, which reduces the land costs and improves the feasibility of these housing types. The City also updated its parking regulations to clarify that tandem parking is allowed in all residential and mixed-use zones when both spaces are for the same residential unit. Accessory dwelling units (ADU) require a similarly reduced amount of parking with circumstantial exemptions allowed, and junior accessory dwelling units (JADU) do not require additional parking.

In the Downtown Specific Plan, parking requirements for detached and attached residential uses are the same as for the rest of the city but vary for multifamily and senior housing. For example, parking for senior housing is required at 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit, and parking for multifamily units with two or more bedrooms is required at 1.75 spaces.

EXHIBIT A
454
Table 3-4: Parking Requirements
Residential Type Required Spaces
Detached and Attached Units
Studio and 1-bedroom 1 space per unit (No covered space required) 2 or more bedrooms 2 spaces per unit (No covered space required) Guest spaces (multiple families) 1 space per 4 units (No covered space required) Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) 1 space per unit, with some exceptions1 Mobile Home Parks
Each mobile home 2 spaces per unit
Use in common 0.5 space per unit (Within 200’ of each lot) Guest spaces 0 spaces per unit if on-street parking is provided within project or on an adjacent street;
1 space per 5 units if one side of street has
parking;
2 spaces per 5 units if no on-street parking exists;
(Determined by street adjacent lot. If corner lot,
can use either street, or both, to determine.)
Downtown Specific Plan
Single-family, detached/attached
Studio and 1-bedroom 1 space per unit (1 covered space required) 2 or more bedrooms 2 spaces per unit (1 covered space required) Multifamily
Studio and 1-bedroom 1 space per dwelling unit (1 covered space required)
2 or more bedroom 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit (1 covered space required)
Guest spaces
1 space per 10 units (or portion thereof) provided
on-site or off-site within 600’ of the project, or
waived with payment of in-lieu fees if public
parking is identified within 600’ of the project
Senior housing

1.25 spaces per unit (1 covered space required)
In-lieu fee payment also possible for on-site or off-
site parking.

Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
Transition and Village Districts
Studio and 1-bedroom 1 to 1.25 spaces per unit
2-bedrooms 1.5 to 2 spaces per unit
3 or more bedroom 2 to 2.5 spaces per unit

EXHIBIT A
455
Table 3-4: Parking Requirements
Residential Type Required Spaces
Center and Core Districts
Studio and single room occupancy (SRO) 0.75 to 1 space per unit 1-bedroom 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit
2 or more bedrooms 1.25 to 2 spaces per unit
Guest spaces 1 space per 4 to 8 units
Source: Livermore Development Code, 2010; Livermore Downtown Specific Plan, amended in 2020; City of Livermore ADU and JADU Criteria Checklist, July 2020; Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan, 2020. Confirmed 2021. 1 No parking for ADUs within: one-half mile walking distance of transit (including local bus stops or ACE Train station); a historic district; an existing primary residence or existing accessory structure; where on street parking permit is required but not offered to the inhabitant of the ADU; where a documented carshare vehicle is located within one block. Where the ADU is a garage, carport, or parking structure conversion, no replacement parking is required.

LOCAL ORDINANCES/REGULATIONS IMPACTING HOUSING SUPPLY
Urban Growth Boundary
The intent of Livermore’s urban growth boundary (UGB) is to protect existing agricultural uses and natural resources outside the city from urban development while promoting infill development near available services. The UGB was completed in two phases. The South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was passed by local voters in March 2000 and established the boundary along the southern edge of the city. The North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was passed in December 2002 and completed the UGB around the northern edge of the city. The Land Use Element of the General Plan includes the policies associated with both initiatives, while the exact language of each Initiative is contained in the General Plan appendix.

While the UGB limits urban development to within city limits, the North Livermore UGB Initiative contains a “State Housing Requirement” provision that would permit the development of affordable housing outside the UGB to meet State housing requirements, so long as there is no land available within the city boundary to meet the requirement through new development, more intensive development, or redevelopment.

The City’s UGB is not considered a constraint to housing development because it does not affect the total number of units permitted in Livermore, only the location of units.

Transferable Development Credits Program
The Transferable Development Credits (TDC) Program was developed as part of the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative, adopted in December 2002. The program implements the UGB as another way to preserve agricultural land outside the City’s UGB, curtail sprawl, and provide opportunities for higher density infill residential development near existing infrastructure and transportation services within the UGB. The program reduces the pressure to develop on property outside the UGB in North Livermore by enabling rural property owners to sell credits to builders seeking residential density within the city boundary.

EXHIBIT A
456
General Plan policy outlines the basic objectives and parameters of the program, while the TDC Ordinance outlines the implementation details of the program. The program assigns development credits to properties beyond the UGB as well as residential receiver sites within the UGB. Developers may purchase development credits from willing sellers beyond the UGB to achieve greater residential density on the receiver sites within the UGB. Existing TDC receiver sites were established during the 2003 General Plan update and were selected based on their suitability for higher density, infill residential development. In most cases, the developer and/or property owner requested the change.

Each receiver site has a dual general plan designation. The baseline density is achievable without the need to comply with the City’s TDC Ordinance. Applicants who wish to exceed the baseline density must comply with the City’s TDC Ordinance by purchasing TDCs from owners in North Livermore or by paying an in- lieu fee to the City. Development on the receiver site is limited to the maximum density allowed under the General Plan designation and is subject to the development standards of the corresponding, underlying zoning district. Projects may also utilize the Planned Development District for greater flexibility in achieving higher density. An example of a receiver site is the 28+ -acre Arroyo Vista Neighborhood Plan site, which has a base general plan land use designation of light industrial and a dual designation of Urban High – 3 Residential (which permits 14 to 18 du/acre).
19 Participation in the program is voluntary; participants may purchase TDCs and achieve the higher density. However, the TDC In-Lieu Fee Ordinance provides an alternative to purchasing TDCs and provides exemptions for certain projects.

The TDC Ordinance establishes exemptions from the TDC or in -lieu fee requirement to support the provision of affordable units and use of density bonus incentives. Projects exempt from purchasing TDCs or paying an in-lieu fee include residential projects in the Downtown Specific Plan Area; housing units covered by an affordable housing agreement provided through density bonus for affordable or senior housing consistent with the State law; and units provided consistent with the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.

The TDC program provides an alternative to achieving more intense residential development on certain sites. It does not preclude or constrain higher density residential development on receiver sites and has no demonstrable impact on accommodating the City’s RHNA.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Since 1987, the City has been setting inclusionary housing policies, which require residential development projects to contribute to the production of affordable housing units for low - income and moderate-income households. By requiring developers to set aside a portion of a market rat e housing project’s units as affordable, the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, which was codified in 2000 and is also referred to as its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, has produced over 180 homes for low- and moderate -income first -time homebuyers.

Approximately 25% of the units produced have been purchased by Livermore schoolteachers.

The program has also contributed to the City’s inventory of affordable rental units through City Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee funding and implementation of the on-site requirement. 19 Under the approved Neighborhood Plan, a subdivision map was approved to build 435 small lot single -family and multifamily residential units. Neighborhood plans are not typically required for the development of TDC receiver sites.

EXHIBIT A
457
Th
e City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (detailed in Section 10.06.050 of the Livermore Development Code) requires that at least 15 percent of all units in a for-sale or rental residential development within General Plan areas be set aside as affordable (excluding Downtown and Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Areas which have their own specific inclusionary requirements). Developments in General Plan areas with for -sale units must set aside at least

7.5 percent of affordable units for low -income households, with the balance set aside for moderate-income households. For rental developments in General Plan areas, at least 7.5 percent of affordable units must be set aside for very-low-income households, with the balance set aside for low-income households. Wherever inclusionary set-asides result in an odd number of units, the majority of units must be provided to the lower income group. Residential projects of 10 units or less are not required to construct affordable housing units, but must pay th e affordable housing fee.

As noted earlier in this chapter, in the Downtown Specific Plan Area, at least 10 percent of units in each project must be affordable to low-income households.

Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Inclusionary Requirements On November 9, 2020, the Livermore City Council adopted the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (INSP), which included affordable housing requirements for both rental and ownership residential development in the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan area to take advanta ge of the strong connection between density, transit, and affordable housing. The affordability requirements for units within the INSP are specified in Section 10.06.050 of the Livermore Development Code. Each project must provide a minimum of 20 percent of its units as inclusionary affordable units. In the plan area overall, 25 percent of the units will be developed as affordable. The other five percent may be as part of 100 percent affordable projects.

Additional description of unit potential and projects in the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan area is included in the Housing Resources section.

As part of the planning process for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan, the City contracted an economic analysis firm to look at market rate property values an d determine what inclusionary requirements in the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan would best match existing Citywide inclusionary requirements to ensure that would not be an additional development burden. The analysis found a mix of 5 percent median and 15 percent moderate most closely matched the costs associated with the City’s existing inclusionary for -sale requirements, and that for rental, a combination of 6 percent very -low, 7 percent low, 4 percent median, and 3 percent moderate most closely matched the development costs we would have seen had the citywide rental inclusionary requirements been in place at that time. The above affordable income mixes and percentages were then adopted into the affordable housing policies in the INSP and the Development Code.

Conclusion
This ordinance effectively helps to overcome market constraints to the provision of affordable housing by requiring developers to build a percentage of affordable units as part of their projects. The City will continue to implement the ordinance to facilitate the production of affordable housing (Program 3.1.1). The remainder of this section provides a detailed description of the ordinance and an analysis of its effects on housing production and costs.

On-Site Requirement

EXHIBIT A
458
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has a “must build” requirement that affordable units be constructed on-site. The on-site requirement is implemented because it:
• Helps offset past market trends that constructed more expensive, low -density homes on available land.
• Augments the City’s affordable housing stock. (Almost all residential properties in Livermore are under private ownership, and even with the inclusionary housing fees, the City and nonprofit agencies have difficulty competing in the private market for land on which to develop affordable housing.)
• Provides opportunity for lower-income and moderate-income households to enter the homeownership market.
• Promotes economic residential integration by producing mixed -income housing throughout the city.
• Provides reside nts within affordable housing units with the same access to public services, such as parks, transit, and schools, that are available in or near market -rate subdivisions.

Alternate Means of Compliance with On-Site Requirement
State housing law mandates alternate means for complying with local inclusionary provisions.

Accordingly, the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance provides options for complying with all or a portion of the on -site requirement, pending approval by City Co uncil (see “Approval Process for Alternative Compliance Requests,” below). These options are described in Section

10.06.050 of the Development Code and must be economically equivalent to producing affordable units on-site. The five alternative methods include:
• Accessory Dwelling Units. In a project of more than 50 dwelling units, up to 20 percent of the requirement for reserved units may be satisfied by including accessory dwelling units accessory to the market -priced units. Each accessory dwelling unit pro vides a credit of 20 percent of a required affordable unit without regard to unit size or other minimum standards specified in Section 10.06.050(D)7.
• Off-Site Construction. A developer may satisfy the affordable housing requirement by constructing or making provisions to construct reserved housing units on a site other than the primary project site. The off -site units are subject to the standards in the Development Code. A developer may not satisfy the affordable housing requirement by applying credits from reserved units on previously constructed projects. Other existing units in projects already completed may not be substituted to satisfy the affordable housing requirement.
• In-Lieu Fee. A developer may satisfy the affordable housing requirement by paying an in-lieu fee that is economically equivalent to producing the required number of affordable units. The method of calculating the in-lieu fee is in Chapter 3.26.050 of the Municipal Code. Projects of 10 or fewer units are subject to the In -Lieu fee adopted by City Council annually and specified in the City Development Fee Schedule.

Projects with 11 or more units which have been approved for a portion of on-site units to be satisfied in fee are subject to the fee methodology based on the actual development cost of the market rate units subject to the requirement, as described in the Code.

EXHIBIT A
459
• De
dication of Land. A developer may satisfy the affordable housing requirement by dedicating to the City a parcel of land suitable for development of housing units equal to or exceeding the number of affordable units required to be provided in compliance with this section. The General Plan designation and zoning designation on the land proposed for dedication shall be consistent with the intended use of the property for affordable housing at the appropriate density, and there shall be direct access to improved streets and utilities.

Approval Process for Alternative Compliance Requests
Residential projects of 11 units or more within the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan an d Isabel Neighborhood Plan Area are subject to the on -site requirement, and alternative compliance requests require City Council approval. Projects of 10 or fewer units may pay the in-lieu fee without an alternative compliance request.

Alternative compliance requests are processed and approved as part of the City’s residential entitlement process. Staff work extensively with developers to implement City Council Affordable Housing priorities and identify alternatives that are economically equivalent to building required units on-site, address the City’s affordable housing needs, and are feasible for the development project. The requirements are designed to maximize the impact of each residential development and allow the City to respond to emerging opportunities.

Comparability of Units
Affordable units must be constructed concurrently with market -rate units and must be “comparable” units to the market -rate units —in type, bedroom mix, amenities, exterior appearance, and interior fixtures and finishes. Specific requirements to further this end include:
• The affordable units cannot be distinguishable from other units in the project from the street.
• The average number of bedrooms must equal the average number of bedrooms for all other units in the project, up to a limit of three bedrooms per unit. • Minimum unit sizes.
• The number of bathrooms in affordable units must equal the proportion of bathrooms in the market-priced units.
• Units must have air conditioning, enclosed garages, and laundry facilities to the extent market-priced units have those amenities.
• The mix of product types of reserved units shall reflect the overall mix of market -rate product types provided in the project.
• Affordable units must be dispersed throughout the project site rather than concentrated in one portion of the development. The comparability requirements for the required inclusionary units are consistent with design requirements applied to market-rate units. Developers are not required to provide additional external or internal design features or upgrades or amenities in the inclusionary units that exceed the City’s standard design requirements for adequate housing. The “average number of bedrooms requirement” (up to a limit of 3 bedrooms) is intended to provide affordable housing to meet the demographic needs of the city while limiting

EXHIBIT A
460
developer cost to provide excessively large comparable units. For example, about 46 percent of households in Livermore have three or more people.

Consistent with a variety of State initiatives regarding smart growth and climate change, the comparability requirements are intended to ensure that affordable housing units are not segregated within residential neighborhoods or congregated in areas isolated from existing community services. Combined with the on -site requirement, the comparability requirement gives residents living in affordable housing units the same access to amenities, such as community parks, as market -rate units in the development. The City does allow variation in housing types, provided that the project does not compromise the intent of the ordinance—to blend, not segregate affordable units within neighborhoods and to provide affordable housing comparable in quality to market -rate housing. A potential construction impact of the comparability requirement is cost, when compared to the reduced cost of providing smaller affordable units with less amenities than market-rate units.

Affordability Terms/Restrictions
The Inclusionary Ordinance contains affordability restrictions to ensure that the affordable units remain as such. These restrictions are implemented through a Low-Income Housing Agreement, which identifies the specific units that will be affordable and the sales price of the units. It also reiterates the provisions and stipulations of the ordinance. Developers cannot proceed until an agreement is reached. Specific affordability restrictions in the Inclusionary Ordinance and implemented by the Low-Income Housing Agreement include:

• 55-year Restriction: The ordinance ensures the affordability of the reserved units by requiring a 55 -year deed restriction for either rental or for- sale housing. The 55 -year restriction, however, is a minimum requirement of the ordinance and, in an effort to preserve affordability to the greatest extent possible, the City strives to apply deed restrictions for more than the minimum (up to 99 years for rental projects). However, the City may negotiate a reduction in the minimum requirement if some of the for - sale units are reserved for very-low-income households. • For-Sale Units: For-sale units are encumbered with a silent second mortgage for the difference in value between the affordable price and the initial market rate sales price for comparable units. If a buyer resells the reserved unit within the restricted time period for a price in excess of the current affordable purchase price, the second mortgage must be repaid to the City for use in affordable housing programs.

Additionally, the owner must live in the affordable unit.

• Rental Units: The affordability of rental units in a complex is preserved through a deed restriction, as outlined above, as well as a regulatory agreement that outlines the terms and conditions placed on the reserved units, such as term of affordability and maximum affordable rents to be charged based on the established household income limits. Additionally, the complex must be managed by a management company experienced in affordable housing and market available units through accessible and inclusive processes approved by the City.

• Enforcement: Through the various agreements, the City ensures that parties in violation of the affordable housing restrictions—such as by selling or renting an affordable unit at a price or rent exceeding the maximum allowed or to an ineligible household—are

EXHIBIT A
461
su
bject to various penalties, which may include fines, payment of rents, or exercise of options to purchase the affordable units by the City.

Available Resources to Offset Potential Costs
The City offers programs to assist developers of affordable or special needs housing pay impact fees. The City regularly defers city sewer, storm drain, and water connection fees. In addition, Tri-Valley Transportation Council elected to waive its impact fees for affordable housing altogether in 2015. As part of this program, the City will also work with other local and regional agencies, for which the City collects fees, to explore similar deferral programs for their development impact fees (see Program 3.2.3, Partner with Affordable Housing and Service Providers).

Existing regulatory incentives that the City utilizes to offset development costs include:
• Waiving the Tri- Valley Transportation Development fee for affordable and/or inclusionary housing projects.
• Waiving impact fees for accessory dwelling units less than 750 square feet in size. • Waiving Parks Facility Fee for accessory dwelling units as well as certain health facilities, such as assisted living, convalescent care, and skilled nursing facilities. • Allowing the payment of some development fees until occupancy or over time. • Providing fee credits for existing conditions to residential developers who are building on existing sites.
• Waiving the Art in Public Places Fee for affordable housing projects To further offset potential constraints, developers may use affordable units achieved via the Inclusionary Ordinance provisions toward meeting State density bonus provisions and City incentives.

Short-Term Rental Regulations
The City updated its short-term rental (STR) regulations in 2020 in Chapter 5.90 of the Municipal Code. Short-term rentals are allowed in residential districts and are not allowed in accessory dwelling units. No more than one short -term rental may be operated at a single location. The property owner is required to obtain an STR license from the City. Only one permit may be held per owner at a time. Short-term rental permits do not run with the land. The updates to the STR regulations are recent and balance the housing needs of long -term residents with options for property owners to have a short- term rental. The City will continue to monitor the impacts of STRs on long-term housing options.

PROVISIONS FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING
Housing element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify ade quate sites, to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards, to encourage the development of various types of housing for all economic segments of the population. This includes single-family housing, multifamily housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for the disabled, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and others. Table 3 -5 summarizes housing types permitted in the Development Code with a required permit. The following Table 3-6 summarizes housing types permitted in the Specific Plans with a required permit.

EXHIBIT A
462
Livermore offers a diversity of housing types for all economic segments of the community as well as the more vulnerable members of the community, including those earning lower incomes, seniors, disabled persons, students, the homeless, and others.

EXHIBIT A
463
Table 3-5: Housing Types Permitted by Development Code Zone Land Use
Transect Zones Non-Transect Zones
T3N T4N T4N
-O
T4MS
-O
T4
MS NMU RR RS RL MFR RG CS CNB CO CP I-1 I-2 E PD-
AG
SLV-
AG
OS-A/
OS-R
OS-
F
Residential Uses
Dwelling: Carriage House P - - - -
Regulated by a mix of the other Transect Zones5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dwelling: Accessory
Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P - - - C C - - P - C P - Dwelling: Junior
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P - - - C C - - P - - P - Dwelling: Single Room
Occupancy P P P P P P P P P P - - C C - - - - - - -
Dwelling: Single family P P1 P1 - - P P P - P - - C C - - P2 P P P C Dwelling: Mobile
home/manufactured
housing
P P1 P1 - - P P P - P - - C C - - P2
- -
P C
Dwelling: Duplex P1 P P - - - C
1 P
1 P P - - C C - - - - -
Townhouse - P P - - - C
1 - - - - - C C - - - - - -
Bungalow Court/
Fourplex/Sixplex/
Courtyard Apt
- P P - - - - - P P - - C C - - -
- -
- -
Multi-family - - - - - - - P
1 P P - - C C - - - - - - -
Mixed-Use, residential
component - - P P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mobile home parks - - - - - - - - C C - - C C - - - - - - - Home Occupation H H H H H H H H H H - - - - - - - - - - - Residential Accessory
Use or Structure P P P P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Child Day Care Facility
(small) P P P P P P P P P P - - - - - - - - - - -
Child Day Care Facility
(large) Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z - - - - - - - - - - -
Child Day Care Facility
(family) C C C C C C C C C C C P P P P P P - - - -

EXHIBIT A
464
Table 3-5: Housing Types Permitted by Development Code Zone Land Use
Transect Zones Non-Transect Zones
T3N T4N T4N
-O
T4MS
-O
T4
MS NMU RR RS RL MFR RG CS CNB CO CP I-1 I-2 E PD-
AG
SLV-
AG
OS-A/
OS-R
OS-
F
Live/Work - - P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Caretaker Residence - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C C - - Special Needs Housing
Health Facility (≤6 beds)6 P P P P P
Regulated by a mix of the
other Transect Zones5 P P P P P - - - P - - - - - P -
Health Facility (>6 beds)6 C C C C C - C C P C C - C C C - - C - Emergency Shelters3 P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P - - P P Transitional/ Supportive
Housing4 P P P P P P P P P P - - C C - - - - - - -
Farm worker (Employee)
Housing - - - - - P - - - - - - - P - - - P - C -
Low Barrier Navigation
Center - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Notes:

1. Permitted only if legally existing at time of Code adoption, 5/01/10.

2. Accessory to a permitted use.

3. Subject to the provisions of Livermore Development Code Section 6.03.060.

4. Pursuant to SB 2, the City’s updated Development Code allows transitional and supportive housing as a residential use in all Transect zones subject to the same permit requirements of a residential use in the same zone. Definition of transitional housing includes supportive housing, shelter housing, and single room occupancy hotels and shelter housing.

5. The NMU zone is regulated by using a required mix of the T4 Main Street, T4 Main Street-Open, T4 Neighborhood, and T4 Neighborhood-Open transect zones. The T4 Neighborhood zone must comprise between 25 to 80 percent of a planning site; the T4 Neighborhood-Open zone may comprise up to 50 percent of the planning site; the T4 Main Street Open zone must comprise between 10 to 50 percent of the planning site; and the T4 Main Street zone must comprise between 10 to 20 percent of the planning site.

6. The Development Code defines “health facility” as residential and community care facilities for the elderly, alcoholism recovery, and homes for mentally disordered, handicapped, or dependent and neglected children.

EXHIBIT A
465
Table 3-6: Housing Types Permitted by Specific Plan Zone Land Use
Downtown Specific Plan Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Core
Subarea 1
Core
Subarea 2
Core
Subarea 3
Core
Subarea 1,4 DTG DBG DNSS DNNS Transition Village Center Core Residential Uses
Accessory Dwelling
Unit P2 P P - P P P P P P P P
Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit
P2 P P - P P P P P P P P
Single Room
Occupancy P2 P P - P P P P P P P P
Detached Single-
Family - - - - CUP CUP3 P P - - - -
Attached Single-
Family P2 P P - P P P P P P P P
Mobile home/
manufactured
housing
P2 P P - P P P P P P P P
Multi-family P2 P P P P P P P P P P P
Mixed-Use, residential
component P2 P P P P P P P P P P P
Mobile home parks - - - - - - - - - - - -
Home Occupation - - - - - - - - P P P P
Residential Accessory
Use or Structure
- - - - - - - - P P P P
Child Day Care
Facility (small)
- CUP CUP - - - - - P P P P
Child Day Care
Facility (large)
- CUP CUP - - - - - Z - - -
Live/Work - P P - CUP CUP P4 P5 P P P P

EXHIBIT A
466
Table 3-6: Housing Types Permitted by Specific Plan Zone Land Use
Downtown Specific Plan Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Core
Subarea 1
Core
Subarea 2
Core
Subarea 3
Core
Subarea 1,4 DTG DBG DNSS DNNS Transition Village Center Core Special Needs Housing
Health Facility (≤6
beds) - CUP CUP - CUP CUP CUP CUP P P P P
Health Facility (>6
beds)
- CUP CUP - CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Emergency Shelters - - - - - - - - P P P P
Transitional/
Supportive Housing
6 P2 P P - P P P P P P P P
Farm worker
(Employee) Housing
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Low Barrier
Navigation Center
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Notes: P = Permitted, Z = Zoning Use Permit, CUP = Conditional Use Permit

1. Special Condition Subdistrict

2. Allowed on upper floors.

3. No CUP required in Transition Zone.

4. Allowed west of Livermore Avenue if pre-existing upon adoption of the Specific Plan. This use requires a CUP if not already existing.

5. Allowed when related to arts, crafts and artisan type uses, including walk-in trade in the area bounded by Railroad Avenue (south), L Street (west), Railroad Right of Way (north) and South Livermore Avenue (east). If these conditions don't apply, a CUP is required.

6. Pursuant to SB 2, the City’s updated Development Code allows transitional and supportive housing as a residential use in all Transect zones subject to the same permit requirements of a residential use in the same zone.

EXHIBIT A
467
Mu
ltifamily Units
The Development Code permits multifamily housing in the Multiple Family Residential (MFR) and Suburban Multiple Residential (RG) zones by right. Additionally, duplexes and townhouses are permitted by right in T4N and T4N -O Neighborhood Transect zones. In these districts, densities range from 6 units per acre to 22 units per acre. All five plan areas in the Downtown Specific Plan permit multifamily at density ranges starting at 15 units per acre up to 55 units per acre.

Approximately 20 percent of the Livermore housing stock consists of multifamily residences (see Table 2-30). Due to the residential infill policies adopted as part of the 2003 General Plan, as well as the focus to revitalize the Downtown Area and provide higher density residential there to support revitalization, the development trend has continued to be away from single -family development. Livermore has seen more applications and approvals for multifamily attached housing on infill sites and in the Downtown area. Most of these infill projects have resulted from the policy changes and increased residential densities permitted with adoption of the 2003 General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.

Licensed Care Facilities
The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 5115 and 5116) declares that persons with mental and physical disabilities are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings. The use of property for the care of six or fewer persons with disabilities is a residential use for the purpose of zoning. State-authorized, -certified, or -licensed family care home, foster home, or group home serving six or fewer persons with disabilities or dependent and neglected children on a 24 -hour-a-day basis is considered a residential use that is permitted in all residential zones. No local agency can impose stricter zoning or building and safety standards on these homes than otherwise required for homes in the same district.

Per State law, the Livermore Development Code permits licensed and non-licensed residential or community care facilit ies with six or fewer beds in all residential zones. In general, non - licensed health facilities are treated like any other residential use. Residential care facilities or community care facilities are defined as health facilities in Livermore. 20 Community care
facilities for seven or more residents are permitted in the MFR zone by right and permitted with a conditional use approval in an additional 23 zones (see Tables 3-5 and 3-6, above). A total of 43 care facilities are in Livermore (see Table 2 -24). As part of program 1.5.2.B, the City is committing to update its development code by 2023 to ensure that both residential care facilities of seven or more persons and unlicensed care facilities, are subject to the same standards as other residential uses in the zone.

Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) provide an affordable rental housing opportunity for low - income and special needs population groups, such as the elderly, because they are small.

Housing costs typically increase with square footage, so smaller units are considered “affordable by design.” JADUs, or junior accessory dwelling units, are accessory units entirely enclosed within the primary structure.
20 The Development Code defines “health facility” as residential and community care facilities for the elderly, alcoholism recovery, and homes for mentally disordered, handicapped, or dependent and neglected children.

EXHIBIT A
468
The Livermore Development Code allow s ADUs in every residential zoning district and in most nonresidential districts that allow single-family or multifamily dwellings. Unit size is dependent on the size of the lot and primary dwelling as well as the underlying zoning standards on lot coverage and floor area ratio (FAR), up to a maximum of 1,200 square feet. ADUs cannot be sold but may be rented. For these reasons, ADUs provide an opportunity for the development of relatively small and affordable rental units for low - and moderate-income individuals and families, seniors, and disabled persons.

Many of the ADU units are garage conversions, which limits maximum size. The City waives some fees for ADUs and regularly responds to inquiries from homeowners interested in building ADUs.

Program 1.2.4 is proposed to allow ADUs in all zones that allow single -family or multifamily residential uses, to continue to update the City’s ADU regulations when state law changes, and to promote ADUs as a housing option to homeowners.

Mobile/Manufactured Homes
Mobile homes and manufactured homes offer an affordable housing option to many low- and moderate-income households. Mobile homes and manufactured housing are defined in the Development Code as single-family dwellings and are permitted in all residential zoning districts in Livermore. In addition, the Development Code permits mobile home parks in the MFR and RG, subject to a Conditional Use Permit, as well as in some PD districts.

Manufactured homes are reviewed for building permit issuance in the same manner as single - family homes; the City does not impose any additional design standards or requirements.

According to the California Department of Finance, 542 manufactured or mobile homes were located in the city in 2020 (see Table 2 -30). The City has not processed any conversions of mobile home parks over the last two Housing Element cycles. The City’s Building Division has not issued a permit for manufactured single-family units since 2016 when two units were approved.

The City receives one or two permits for manufactured ADUs annually.

Farmworker Housing
The City’s agricultural uses, especially vineyards, may use seasonal labor. ABAG estimates that there were 314 agriculture jobs in Livermore in 2019 (see Table 2-9). Although ABAG indicates a low number of agricultural jobs in Livermore, there is potential demand for seasonal farm worker housing because Livermore is surrounded by agricultural land. By the nature of the profession, it is difficult to determine the number of seasonal farm laborers that may be working in the agricultural areas surrounding the city.

In anticipation of this potential need, the Livermore Development Code makes provisions to allow farm labor housing in districts that permit agricultural uses, such as the Rural Residential (R-R) and Open Space (OS-A & OS-R) Districts, and in the South Livermore Specific Plan areas.

The Planned Development - Agricultural District (PD -AG), the Planned Development – South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Area (PD -SLVSP), and the South Livermore Valley – Agricultural Zone (SLV- AG) all permit the provision of caretakers’ residences, which are defined as temporary modular dwellings for persons employed in the agricultural use of the property and the families of those persons, and/or living quarters for farm workers when necessary for on-site farming operations. Program 1.3.4 is proposed to review and revise the City’s Development Code for full compliance with the Employee Housing Act, which addresses farmworker and other employee housing.

EXHIBIT A
469
Eme
rgency Shelters, SROs, and Transitional and Supportive Housing State law requires that a jurisdiction specify the zoning district(s) where emergency shelters for the homeless (including lower barrier navigation centers), single -room occupancy units (SRO), and transitional and supportive housing facilities are permitted. The definition of “transitional housing” in Chapter 11 of the City’s Development Code includes supportive housing, SRO hotels, and shelter housing.

Transitional and supportive housing is permitted in residential non -Transect zoning districts (R-R, R-S, R-L, R-G. and MFR) by right, and similar to other residential uses, with a conditional use permit in the CO and CP districts. In the Transect zones, a variety of residential use types are allowed by right. Pursuant to SB 2, the City’s Development Code allows transitional and supportive housing as a residential use in all Transect zones subject to the same permit requirements of a residential use in the same zone.

Consistent with State law, the City has identified at least one zoning district where e mergency shelters are explicitly permitted. Emergency shelters are permitted by right in any non -Transect zoning district subject to the provisions of Section 6.03.060 of the Development Code (see Table 3-5). All non -Transect zoning districts include residential and nonresidential zones. Together, non-Transect zones include approximately 129 acres of vacant land (not including vacant land part of a Planned Development or a Neighborhood Plan) on nine sites that range from 7,000 square feet to greater than 5,000,000 square feet.

The emergency shelter standards in Section 6.03.060 are:
• On-site management and on -site security shall be provided during hours when the emergency shelter is in operation.
• Adequate external lighting shall be provided for security purposes. The lighting shall be stationary, directed downward, and shielded so as not to produce off-site glare. • The development may provide one or more of the following specific common facilities for the exclusive use of the residents and staff:
o Central cooking and dining room(s)
o Recreation room
o Counseling center
o Child day care facilities
o Other support services
• Parking and outdoor facilities shall be designed to provide security for residents, visitors, employees, and the surrounding area.
• The agency or organization operating the shelter shall comply with the following requirements:
o Temporary shelter shall be available to residents for no more than six months. o Staff and services shall be provided to assist residents in obtaining permanent shelter and income.

EXHIBIT A
470
o The provider shall have a written management plan including, as applicable, provisions for staff training; neighborhood outreach; security; screening of residents to ensure compatibility with services provided at the facility; and training, counseling, and treatment programs for residents. • No emergency shelter shall be located within 300 feet of another emergency shelter site.
• The facility shall be in, and shall maintain at all times, good standing with City and/or State licenses, if required by these agencies for the owner(s), operator(s), and/or staff of the proposed facility.
• Emergency shelters in residential districts, when not developed in an individual dwelling unit format, shall not be subject to the underlying zone’s maximum unit density standard, but the number of beds shall be limited to three times the maximum number of dwelling units which would otherwise be permitted.

Program 3.3.3 is proposed to review the above standards for compliance with current state law and amend the standards if needed to comply with current state law, including but not limited to Assembly Bill 139.

The Alameda Countywide Homeless Count and Survey Report 21 estimates there were 8,022
persons in 7,661 households experiencing homelessness in Alameda County. The re was an estimated homeless population of 264 people in the Livermore in 2019. Homeless services available in Livermore are outlined in Table 2 -27 and include transitional housing; permanent supportive housing; and three permanent, year -round, shelters —Tri-Valley Haven Sojourner House, Shiloh House, and Shepherd’s Gate. The City also has a temporary emergency shelter, the Livermore Homeless Refuge, which operates under a tempo rary use permit (nondiscretionary) in the winter months. Existing shelters provide approximately 146 beds for the homeless.
22 While many shelters target families and women with children, the Livermore Homeless Refuge has an established winter shelter program that serves single males.

To address homelessness in Livermore, the City has included Program 3.3.2 (Rental Assistance), which seeks additional Section 8 vouchers and funding for rental housing, and Program 3.3.3 (Homelessness Prevention), which includes the AC Impact program that assists homeless persons not traditionally served by emergency or transitional shelters. While continuing to support existing emergency (temporary) shelters, the City is focused on long -term solutions to homelessness and reducing overall need for these types of shelters. By working with local groups and identifying funds for rental assistance, the goal is to place more individuals in permanent housing instead of temporary shelters.

DENSITY BONUS
In accordance with State law, the City provides density bonuses to qualified new housing projects as detailed in 6.02.030 of the Development Code. The State's density bonus law (Government Code sections 65915– 65918) offers a maximum bonus of up to 50 percent and requires local governments to grant additional incentives and/or concessions and grant bonuses for land donation. The City’s Density Bonus regulations were last updated in 2019. 21 Focus Strategies, Alameda Countywide Homeless Count and Survey Report, 2019. 22 City of Livermore, Council Minutes, Feb 10, 2014.

EXHIBIT A
471
Pr
ogram 3.1.2 is included to update the City’s Density Bonus regulations for consistency with current state law. The City complies with current State density bonus law whenever applications are received even if updates to the local density bonus ordinance to align with updates to state law are pending.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
The City ’s Community Development Department is responsible for performing development review to implement policies that direct the physical development of the city. Policy implementation and project analysis include establishing conformance to local goals for development, adopted growth management goals, open space and agricultural preservation, and identifying environmental consequences.

The development review process has potential to add time and uncertainty to projects, which can increase costs above direct expenses related to design and construction. However, the City has added certainty to t he development review process by providing: opportunities for comprehensive pre-application meetings, adopted Design Standards and Guidelines, and in some cases, simultaneous development review and review of construction permits. Project applicants may request and attend Advance Team meetings that provide real time, comprehensive feedback from all City departments before submitting formal development applications. The City’s adopted Design Standards and Guidelines provide clear written and illustrative examples of site design components and architectural features that are required and/or recommended. Increasing certainty in the Development Review process often results in shorter review times and lower indirect costs for applicants. The City has reviewed and issued grading permits in advance of final subdivision map approval in order to accommodate aggressive construction schedules. The following sections describe the process.

Streamlined Development Review
The City has worked to streamline the development review process to minimize costs associated with delay (initially borne by developers but ultimately consumers); ensure development complies with City goals and standards; and provide enough time for the public and decision-makers to provide input.

Tables 3 -7 and 3 -8 summarize approximate time frames for various approval processes that apply to residential projects of varying sizes and types. Environmental analysis, including environmental impact reports and negative declarations, is processed concurrently with other development applications.

The estimated time frame to process projects of five or more units and/or that require tentative map review (either parcel or tract) can range from 6 to 18 months (including final map review and building permit plan check), depending on the complexity and size of the project. Smaller projects (4 units or less) are processed the most expeditiously, typically in under six months. They usually can be reviewed administratively by staff, reducing the planning entitlement time frame by three to four months compared to larger projects. If proposed in a developed area with existing infrastructure, they can also be processed with a parcel map waiver, further reducing the processing time. Applications for building permits are usually submitted within one year after a project is fully entitled. The City has not received any requests to develop below identified minimum densities for sites o n the existing sites inventory. However, the City has had projects that developed with fewer overall units than identified in the sites inventory. The City went

EXHIBIT A
472
through a no net loss review process with HCD in 2020 and they determined the City still had plenty of sites to accommodate RHNA.

The Design Review process established for the Downtown Area permits larger projects (up to and including 39 units) to be reviewed administratively by staff, provided they are not proposing a new parcel or tract map.

Table 3-7: Development Review Time Frames: General Plan Areas (outside Downtown Specific Plan)
Permit/Approval Type Application Review Planning1 Final Map Review
Building
Permits Total2
1 single-family unit/1 lot n/a n/a n/a 4-6 wks. 4-6 wks. 2-4 units, single- or
multifamily Up to 30 days 2-3 mos. n/a 4-6 wks. 3-4½ mos. w/ parcel map
waiver Up to 30 days 2-3 mos. n/a 4-6 wks. 3-4½ mos.
w/ parcel map Up to 30 days 2½-3 mos. 3-5 mos. 4-6 wks. 6½-9½ mos. 5+ units, single- or
multifamily Up to 30 days 5-7 mos. n/a 4-6 wks. 6-8½ mos. w/ parcel map
waiver Up to 30 days 5-7 mos. n/a 4-6 wks. 6-8½ mos.
w/ parcel map Up to 30 days 6½-8 mos. 3-5 mos. 4-6 wks. 10½-14½ mos. w/ tract map Up to 30 days 8½-11 mos. 4-6 mos. 6-8 wks. 14-19 mos.

1. The Design Review/ Site Plan process is part of the Planning review and integrated into this timeline.

2. Estimated planning entitlement time frames are best case scenario based upon a deemed “complete” application/submittal package during the application review period as well as consistency with city development regulations. Incomplete, inconsistent and/or complex residential projects may warrant additional processing time.

Source: City of Livermore, 2014. Confirmed 2021.

EXHIBIT A
473
Table 3-8: Development Review Time Frames: Downtown Specific Plan Areas Permit/Approval
Type
Application
Review Planning1 Final Map
Review
Building
Permits Total
1 single-family unit/1
lot n/a 2-6 wks. n/a 4-6 wks. 1½-3 mos.
39 or less units Up to 30 days 2-3½ mos. n/a 4-6 wks. 3-5 mos. w/ parcel map
waiver Up to 30 days 2-3½ mos. n/a 4-6 wks. 3-5 mos.
w/ parcel map Up to 30 days 2½-4 mos. 3-5 mos. 4-6 wks. 6½-10½ mos. w/ tract map Up to 30 days 5-7 mos. 4-6 mos. 4-6 wks. 10-14½ mos. 40 or more units Up to 30 days 3½-4 mos. n/a 6-8 wks. 5-6 mos.

Parcel map waiver Up to 30 days 3½-4 mos. n/a 6-8 wks. 5-6 mos. w/ parcel map Up to 30 days 3½-4 mos. 3-5 mos. 6-8 wks. 8-11 mos. w/ tract map Up to 30 days 5½-7 mos. 4-6 mos. 6-8 wks. 11-15 mos. 125. 1. The Design Review/ Site Plan process is part of the Planning review and integrated into this timeline.

Source: City of Livermore, 2014. Confirmed 2021.

The City will comply with SB 330 (Government Code Section 65589.5), relying on regulations for processing preliminary applications for housing development projects, conducting no more than five hearings for housing projects that comply with objective General Plan and development standards, and making a decision on a residential project within 90 days after certification of an environmental impact report or 60 days after adoption of a mitigated negative declaration or an environment report for an affordable housing project. The City is proposing Program 3.2.3 to establish a process in compliance with SB 35 to streamline review of eligible affordable housing projects. The City has created public handouts for ADU and SB 9 units that describe the ministerial, streamlined approval processes consistent with state law.

Finally, City is undertaking a Development Code u pdate (see Program 1.3.1) to ensure consistency with recent state housing laws, including those that streamline the housing approval process (e.g., implementing objective design standards) and to consider other streamlining measures.

Design Standards and Guidelines
City staff evaluates proposed residential development projects against Residential Design Standards and Guidelines (2004). The Design Guidelines are used to promote high quality architecture and encourage the compatibility of residential development with the surroundings. The Design Guidelines are flexible and encourage housing that uses a variety of materials, drought tolerant plants, and energy efficient designs. The guidelines also emphasize pedestrian-oriented environments.

The City’s implementation of the Design Guidelines has worked to mitigate the visual impacts of higher density affordable projects, which has led to greater community support for affordable housing than in many other cities. The Design Guidelines do not require specific architecture, site design, or materials that add substantial cost or hinder the production of affordable housing.

Fees and Exactions

EXHIBIT A
474
The City collects fees and exactions from developments to cover the costs of processing permits and providing the necessar y services and infrastructure related to new development (see discussion on Public Improvements below). The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, which capped property tax revenue, along with subsequent tax revenue shifts away from cities during the early 1990’s, have eroded the ability of local government entities to finance public improvements to accommodate new development with general funds. Development impact fees related to public improvements (such as storm drainage, sewer, water, parks, and traffic) ensure that infrastructure has adequate capacity to accommodate new residential development, as discussed further under “Site Improvements” below. Similarly, the City’s affordable housing fees contribute to the production of affordable housing and its long -term availability, despite fluctuating economic and market conditions.

Planning fees are calculated based on the average cost of processing a particular type of case and are charged at the time an application for development is received. Development impact fees are collected as part of the building permit issuance process and are typically based on the project type and square footage. Table 3-9 lists the planning, development, and other fees charged for residential development.

There are some fees associated with residential development listed in Table 3 -9 that the City does not control. For example, the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee is used to finance transportation improvement projects needed to accommodate new development and reduce traffic-related impacts in the Tri-Valley Development Area, including Livermore. The Tri- Valley Transportation Commission (TVTC) is a Joint Powers Agreement consisting of one representative of each of the following entities: Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville. The TVTC periodically evaluates the impacts of projected land uses on regional transportation infrastructure in the Tri- Valley area and establishes a cost nexus between land use projections and impacts to the regional transportation infrastructure.

Potential Impacts on Cost and Supply of Housing
The potential impact of development fees on the overall cost and supply of housing, particularly of affordable housing, rests on a v ariety of factors. As described in “Market Constraints,” in addition to fees, other factors contributing to housing cost and production include the cost of land, labor, materials, and financing as well as the availability of financing.

While impact fees add to the overall cost to produce housing, it has not been shown that a reduction in impact fees decreases the cost to the home purchaser or increases the production of affordable housing in a community. In other words, a reduction in fees would reduce cost s to developers, but it does not guarantee that this cost savings would be passed on to the consumer.

The City uses various practices and procedures to offset the potential negative effects that development impact fees may have on housing development and cost. These include:
• Residential development projects involving multiple planning applications can have their planning fees reduced by 10 percent.
• The City also provides incentives and planning assistance for developers of affordable or special needs housing, including reduced fees, exemption from growth management programs, shorter review timelines, and pre-application meetings. Fees for affordable housing projects are often paid with City affordable housing funds.

EXHIBIT A
475
• Th
e City waives the Transferable Development Credit Fee for affordable housing units identified in residential developments.
• Developers may amortize the payment of development fees over time to meet affordable housing goals.
• The City provides fee credits to residential developers who are building on existing infill sites. The amount of credit given to a particular fee is based upon existing conditions and improvements on or to the site, such as utility connections and building square footage. The previous use of the site is also considered in determining whether traffic impact fee credits are warranted.
• Below market rate housing is exempt from the Art in Public Place Fee

EXHIBIT A
476
Table 3-9: Planning and Development Fees
Development Fees Fee Charged
Planning Entitlements1
Site Plan Design Review – Public Hearing (res. 5+ units) $28,296 Site Plan Design Review – Staff Level (res. < 5 units) $15,963 Downtown Design Review – Planning Commission (res. 40+
units) $11,483
Downtown Design Review – Staff Level (res. < 40 units) $8,231 Parcel Map Waiver $5,252
Tentative Parcel Map $15,326
Tentative Tract Map2 $20,028 + $104 per unit/lot
Planned Development Fee $12,759
Environmental Review (CEQA) Fees
County Clerk Filing Fee $50
Notice of Exemption $190
Negative Declaration $6,374
Environmental Impact Report – Set-up, RFP $9,265
Environmental Impact Report – Deposit 20% contract
amount to City Time and Materials
Building Permits Fees Vary According to Valuation
Public Services/Public Works Single Family Multifamily
Water Connection (City Fee)3 $5,292/unit depends on required meter size Storm Drainage (City Fee) $0.54/sq ft impervious surface $0.54/sq impervious surface Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (Regional Fee)4 $5,057/unit $3,484/unit In-lieu Low Income Housing Fee5 $39.34/SF for all residential housing developments 10 units or less. Projects more than 10 units are subject to must-build requirement of ordinance.6 Social and Human Service Facility Fee $1,415 – 1,677/unit $1,298/unit Art in Public Places7 0.33% total project valuation 0.33% total project valuation Single Family
Multi-Family
Studio 1
bdrm
2 bdrm
3 bdrm
4 bdrm
Park Facilities Fee $25,065/unit $13,288
/unit
$14,872
/unit
$19,220
/unit
$21,809
/unit
$25,065
/unit
Wastewater Connection Fee $7,895/unit $4,167
/unit
$4,693
/unit
$6,053
/unit
$6,886
/unit
$7,895
/unit

EXHIBIT A
477
Table 3-9: Planning and Development Fees
Development Fees Fee Charged
Traffic Impact Fee (Downtown only) n/a $3,395
/unit
$3,802
/unit
$4,913
/unit
$5,745
/unit
$5,745
/unit
Traffic Impact Fee (Citywide except Downtown) $11,869/unit $5,531 /unit
$6,193
/unit
$8,002
/unit
$9,358
/unit
$9,358
/unit
General Plan Cost Recovery $0.39/sq ft
DSP Cost Recovery (only if located in downtown) $0.31/sq ft

1. Applications involving multiple entitlements can be reduced by 10%.

2. Base fee plus $104 per unit/lot.

3. Areas within Cal Water Service Area, Greenville/Vasco Assessment District, or Triad Park do not pay a City water connection fee.

4. Affordable and/or inclusionary housing exempt from Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee. The TVTD Fee is a fee collected to fund regional transportation improvements, while the City’s Traffic Impact Fee is to fund transportation projects within Livermore.

5. See discussion of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and alternative compliance.

6. Rental projects 10 units or less are exempt from In-Lieu. Effective 7/28/21, on-site requirement applies for 11+ unit projects. 7 Residential projects of 4 or more units.

Source: Community Development Department Development Fees, City of Livermore, Effective July 1st, 2022

EXHIBIT A
478
Impacts by Housing Type
Table 3-10 provides a hypothetical comparison between fees charged to develop a single - family detached dwelling and an 8-unit rental apartment building. Fees for multi-family for-sale projects are lower than single -family attached or detached projects, with the grea test difference in fees issued at a “per unit” or “per square foot” rate, such as the storm drainage fee. Table 3 -11 compares the fees for each example project to the total development cost.

Programs 3.2.1 and 3.2.5 are proposed to reduce governmental constraints to projects with an affordable component by: exploring additional funding sources for affordable housing, providing subsidies to affordable housing projects, allowing developers to amortize payment of fees over time, and meeting with developers to discuss other incentives for the provision of affordable housing.

The per unit costs shown for each development scenario do not reflect fee credits that may be applicable to the site or project based upon existing improvements such as existing utility connections and/or existing impervious surface area (i.e. existing paving and buildings). There is not a separate fee structure for single -room occupancy or efficiency units. However, most City fees are based on square footage or number of bedrooms. So smaller units generally have smaller, proportional fees. The City does not require Planning approval or charge any Planning fees for an ADU or JADU. Those two housing types are charged significantly reduced development fees compared to larger primary homes. AD Us that are 750 sq. feet or less (that is the majority of ADUs proposed) are charged a total of approximately $2,500 in fees and JADUs $1,500. If fire sprinklers are required, there is an additional approximately $900 in fees required.

The City is currently conducting a comprehensive General Plan Update and Development Code Update. Underway since January 2021, the General Plan Update that includes the Housing Element Update will include goals, objectives, and actions to address new and shifting state and regional policies that influence policy and decision -making at the local level. The City anticipates the General Plan Update will account for the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocations for the next two (7th and 8th) Housing Element cycles. Staff and the consultant are currently evaluating geographic Focus Areas that are likely to see significant changes in land uses. The evaluation of these Focus Areas will include the following aspects relevant to updating appropriate development impact and entitlement fees:
• Housing supply
• Ca
pacity of water, sewer, and storm drainage infrastructure • Fiscal impacts
• Traffic and transportation impacts
• Commercial land use supply
• Jobs/housing balance and jobs/housing match
Staff anticipates completing the General Plan Update in 2024. Following the General Plan Update, the Community Development Department will coordinate the prioritization of infrastructure/public facilities needs, conduct community engagement, and develop updated development impact fees based on a prioritized list of needs.

EXHIBIT A
479
Commencing in January 2023, the Livermore Development Code Update includes a three - year program to respond to new state legislation, and implement the new General Plan. Year one includes updating the Code to be consistent with state legislation, and include comprehensive objective design standards. Year two will include an update to the City’s provisions regarding entitlement review authority and process, and year three will conform the zoning map and development code to the new General Plan. The conclusion of year two will coincide with the completion of the General Plan Update. Together, the updated General Plan and Development Code will provide more certainty to developers seeking to build residential housing projects. These two essential documents will also serve as the foundation for updating the City’s development and entitlement fees. The City will adjust fees, where legally and financially feasible, to ensure they do not unduly constrain housing development.

Program 1.4.1 is pro posed to monitor and update fees to ensure they do not unduly constrain development.

Table 3-10: Fee Comparison: Single Family vs. Multifamily Rental Units Type of City Fees 1 Single-Family Dwelling 8-Unit Apartment Building Building $10,231 $40,000
City Storm1 $1,890 $11,761
County Storm $3,500 $10,890
Sanitary Sewer $7,895 $48,420
Park Fee 2 $25,065 $153,760
City Water Connection 3 $5,292 $42,332 (Domestic) +
$13,229 (Irrigation)
ACWFC Zone 7 Connection (Domestic) 5/8” $31,910 $255,280 ACWFC Zone 7 Connection (Irrigation) n/a $79,775
Tax on Construction $6,615 $20,661
Traffic Impact2 $11,869 $64,016
In-Lieu Low Income Housing4 $79,880 n/a
Tri-Valley Transportation Fee $5,057 $27,872
General Plan Cost Recovery Fee5 $780 $2,672
LVJUSD School Fee $8,160 $28,895
Social & Human Services Facility Fee $1,677 $10,384
Total Fee $199,821 $809,947
Total Fee per Unit $199,821 $101,243
1 $0.54 per sq. ft. of imperious surface @ 50% lot coverage: Single Family 7,000 sq. ft. lot, Multi-Family. 5 acre. 2 Assumes multi-family units are 2-bedroom.
3 Single Family home = 5/8” meter; Townhome = 1-1/2” meter, 1” meter irrigation; Apartment = 2” meter, 1” meter irrigation
4 $39.94 per sq. ft. Assumed single family dwelling is 2,000 sq. ft. Rental projects with 10 or less units currently exempt from Fee. Assumed Apartments are rentals.
5 Fee is $0.39 per sq. ft. Assumed single family dwelling is 2,000 sq. ft. and apartment building is 7,082 sq.ft.

Source: City of Livermore, June 2022.

EXHIBIT A
480
Table 3-11: Proportion of Fees of Total Development Cost Single-Family Multi-Family
Total Estimated Fees Per Unit $199,821 $101,243
Estimated Development Cost per Unit $684,545 $467,423
Estimated Proportion of Fee Cost to Overall Development Cost Per Unit 29.2% 21.7%
Assumptions: Single-fam–ly – 2,000 sq. ft. home with 2 car attached garage, and wood frame construction.

References a median vacant lot price of $150,179 ($21.45/sf for a 7,000 sf lot) and assumes a single-family construction cost of $334,545. Multi-fam–ly – Assumes 8-unit development on 0.5 acres. Includes land costs and construction costs (land cost of $1,306,800 and construction cost of $1,622, 639).

Source: Craftsman Book Company (www.building-cost.net)and City of Livermore, 2021

BUILDING CODES AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT
Building standards are essential to ensure safe housing, though excessive standards can constrain the development of housing. Building standards in Livermore are regulated under Title 24, the California Building Standards Code, which establishes basic stan dards and requires inspections at various stages of construction of buildings and homes to ensure code compliance and progress toward “energy conservation, green design, construction and maintenance, fire and life safety, and accessibility.” The City most recently adopted the 2019 California Building Standards Code with a small number of additional amendments, as listed in

15.02.030 of the Livermore Municipal Code. The amendments are minor, as is allowed by the state code, and cover building and safety, wor k exempt from permit, floor and roof design loads, fees, lath and gypsum board inspections, energy efficiency inspections, fire protection systems, fire classification roof coverings, and concrete construction. The City’s building code also requires new residential construction to comply with the federal American with Disabilities Act, which regulates accessibility for persons with disabilities. The intent of the codes is to provide structurally sound, safe, and energy-efficient housing and to address housing needs of all residents in the community.

The City’s Neighborhood Preservation staff is responsible for enforcing both State and City regulations governing maintenance of all buildings and property. Neighborhood Preservation staff primarily address code enforcement and property maintenance issues, and implement the Neighborhood Nuisance Abatement Program. To facilitate the correction of code violations or deficiencies, Neighborhood Preservation staff refers owners to rehabilitation loan and grant programs offered through the City’s Housing and Human Services Division.

The City also coordinates internally between staff from various departments and divisions — including Neighborhood Preservation, Building, the Police Department, and Housing and Human Services—to identify areas with building problems, code enforcement, and other issues and to focus strategies and resources into targeted neighborhood revitalization efforts.

The adopted building codes and code enforcement ensure the safety and welfare of residents and do not hinder residential development.

EXHIBIT A
481

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
The City actively promotes the development of housing that meets the needs of persons with disabilities, including physical, mental, and cognitive disabilities. The following sections provide an evaluation of the potential for City processes to impede housing opportunities for persons with disabilities.

Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
Pursuant to the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City shall provide individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, and procedures. A reasonable accommodation is typically an adjustment to physical design standards (e.g. setbacks) to accommodate the placement of wheelchair ramps or other exterior modifications to a dwelling in response to the needs of a disabled resident. Requests for reasonable accommodation in development standards are reviewed and approved at the staff level (Development Code Chapter 9.06). Findings required to grant a reasonable accommodation are:

Findings. The written decision to approve or deny a request for Reasonable Accommodation that will be consistent with the Acts shall be based on consideration of all of the following factors:
• Whether the housing, which is the subject of the request, will be used by an individual defined as disabled under the Acts;
• Whether the request for Reasonable Accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Acts; • Whether the requested Reasonable Accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City;
• Whether the requested Reasonable Accommodat ion would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning;
• Whether there are alternatives to the requested waiver or exception that could provide similar benefits to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants or to the general public;
• Physical attributes of the property and structures; and • Other Reasonable Accommodations that may provide an equivalent level of benefit.

The City is including Program 1.5.3.J to address findings and ensure they are consistent with state law and do not pose a constraint to individuals requesting an accommodation. The Community Development Department regularly responds to requests for reasonable accommodation in existing residences through the building permit process and in new residential construction through the development review process (Program 5.1.2). For example, the City approved and participated in the development of the Carmen Avenue apartme nts, which includes universal design features for accessibility in the units. ECHO Housing has also completed fair housing tests for reasonable accommodations in multifamily rental properties and provides regular training for all landlords on this requirement.

EXHIBIT A
482
Building Code
The City has adopted the California Building Code, as amended. Chapter 11 of the Building Code provides guidance for accessibility improvements. The City has not adopted any amendments that would impede a person with a disability from improving their home to make it more accessible.

In order to maintain an independent lifestyle, a home may need to be modified to increase accessibility through universal design features. Universal design is also known as “design for all” and “lifespan design.” The objective is to improve the accessibility of homes not only for residents of all ages and abilities, but visitors as well. Examples of universal design features include wheelchair ramps.

The City has not adopted an ordinance governing the construction or modification of houses to incorporate universal design, which is intended to allow individuals to remain in their homes as their physical needs and capabilities change. However, the City does encourage the use of universal design, as listed in Program 1.3.2 in Chapter 5.

Zoning and Land-Use Policies and Practices
The City has not identified any zoning or other land -use regulatory practices that could discriminate against persons with disabilities and impede the availability of such housing for these individuals. Examples of the ways in which the City facilitates housing for persons with disabilities through its regulatory and permitting processes are:
• As previously discussed under “Licensed Care Facilities,” the City’s Development Code provides for the development of group care facilities for persons with disabilities.

Program 1.3.1 is proposed to update regulations for care facilities. • The City does not restrict occupancy of unrelated individuals in group homes and does not have a restrictive or n arrow definition of family in its Development Code.

Occupancy restrictions are limited to provisions deemed necessary to ensure public health, safety, and welfare, and do not conflict with regulations of the California Building Code, the Fair Housing Act, or the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
• The City permits housing for special needs groups, including individuals with disabilities, without regard to distances between such uses or the number of uses in any part of the City.
• The City actively works with nonprofit developers to secure financing for special needs housing, including Prop 63, Mental Health Services Act funding opportunities. • The City has included a program (Program 5.1.1) to ensure ongoing compliance with Fair Housing Laws.

Based on this review, the City did not identify any governmental constraints that may impede the development and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities, as the main challenge is the high cost of housing. To offset this constraint and encourage development of housing for persons with special needs, the City offers the following incentives (Program 1.3.3).

EXHIBIT A
483
• Mo
netary Subsidies. The City uses its Affordable Housing Fund and other available sources to provide monetary assistance to developers and nonprofits to create special needs housing and make accessibility modifications to existing properties. The City has provided subsidies to developers for the payment of fees, project construction, and land costs.
• Flexibility in Development Standards. The City has allowed variations in parking, open space, and setback standards to facilitate special needs housing. • Value Engineering . The City provides “value engineering” during the plan check process by allowing for different construction materials that achieve cost savings while still meeting minimum code requirements.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Public improvements for new residential development are integral to the planning and development process. The City requires developers to provide public improvements to ensure the health, welfare, and safety of the community and future residents of new dev elopments, consistent with General Plan policies.

The City applies minimum improvement standards to ensure that public improvements are adequate to serve new development. The City also has specific construction standards and details regarding how improvements are built. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance requires specific improvements and design standards as part of every subdivision approval, in accordance with established engineering standard specifications and construction details.

Required improvements include: storm drainage, sanitary sewer, water supply, utilities, undergrounding utilities, street, access, and frontage improvements such as street lighting, fire hydrants, signs, street trees, and landscaping.

As part of each subdivision approval, the City also requires improvement plans that demonstrate conformance with the standard engineering specifications and details as well as a signed subdivision improvement agreement ensuring the completion of improvements within a specified time and payment for them.

The City updates and amends its engineering standard specifications and details every two to three years to address changes in existing conditions, new legislation, environmental and conservation issues, technological advancement, and/or other improvem ents related to health, safety, cost, or efficiency.

While the cost of providing public improvements and meeting City requirements may influence the cost of housing, they are necessary components of providing quality and sustainable residential development. The City’s Engineering Standard Specifications and Construction Details for each of these improvement areas are consistent with and no more onerous than public improvement specifications of other jurisdictions in Alameda County. In many instances, the standards are governed by state or federal regulations, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for accessibility, the Clean Water Act for stormwater treatment measures, and Caltrans for highway design specifications. Table 3-12 provides detail on the specific public improvement standards and the regulating ordinance or legislation.

EXHIBIT A
484
Street Improvements
The City requires basic street and access improvements for new residential development.

Requ
irements include curbs, gutters, and sidewalks at a minimum width of five feet. Street right- of-way and travel lane widths vary depending on the proposed street classification. Table 3-12 depicts the required widths based on each street classification. Private residential streets and local streets vary in minimum width from 15 feet to 40 feet (travel way, not total right -of-way), depending on the presence and location of street parking. As would be expected due to their larger traffic volume, major and collector streets are considerably wider; collector streets are 52 feet wide, and major streets vary between 34 and 46 feet in each direction, as their width is based on the number of travel lanes. Sidewalks and other pedestrian paths have a minimum paved width requirement of 5 feet.

Storm Drainage and Sanitary Sewer
The
City requires residential developers to provide a hydrology/hydraulic study in accordance with the City’s Facilities Planning Guidelines and also consistency of the proposed system with the City’s storm drain master plan. The City also requires residential developers to provide a sewer study based on the City’s Facilities Planning Guidelines and consistent with the City’s Sewer Master Plan.

Water Supply
The proposed water system of any new residential development must be consistent with the City’s Water Master Plan. Additionally, comments from the City’s Water Resources Division regarding the design and sizing of the system must be incorporated into the site design, with comments from the Fire Marshall concerning the location of fire hydrants and minimum fire flow requirements to address fire suppression. New projects that are in Cal Water’s service area must be approved by that agency.

EXHIBIT A
485
Table 3-12: Public Improvement Standards
Required Improvement(s) Development Guidelines Comments Governing Legislation Streets Travel Way
Total ROW
(including curb
and sidewalk)
Approved Tentative Map determines actual
street widths. The following street dimensions are
intended as guidelines only.

City Engineering Standard
Details
Major 34’ to 46’ 104’ to 140’
Dimensions are provided for comparison; Final
widths depend on no. of lanes. No new major
streets are planned in conjunction with new
residential.

City Engineering Standard
Details
Collector 52’ 72’ Total ROW includes 5’ bike lane each way City Engineering Standard Details
Local 40’ 60’ Serving 50+ units each direction City Engineering Standard Details
Local Street/
Parking One Side 32’ 52’ No homes fronting on one side of street City Engineering Standard Details
Minor Local Street,
Cul-De-Sac, and Loops 36’ 56’ Serving 20 to 50 units each direction City Engineering Standard Details
Short Cul-De-Sac 32’ 52’ Serving less than 20 units City Engineering Standard Details
Curb, Gutters, Sidewalks Min. 5’ wide
paved sidewalk
10’ each side of
street Sidewalks can be monolithic or separated. City Engineering Standard Details
Curb Ramps/Return Caltrans and Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Bus Turnouts Provided on collector or major street when required by the local transit authority
Livermore Valley Transit
Authority (LAVTA)
Private Residential Streets
Private street dimensions are commonly used in
Residential Planned Developments to allow
flexibility to address site constraints on residential
infill properties/projects.

Parking both sides Min. width 36’ City Engineering Standard Details
Parking one side Min. width 33’
City Engineering Standard
Details; Livermore
Development Code
No street parking Min. width, 24’
City Engineering Standard
Details; Livermore
Development Code

EXHIBIT A
486
Table 3-12: Public Improvement Standards
Required Improvement(s) Development Guidelines Comments Governing Legislation No street Parking
(Private Alley) Min. width, 20’
City Engineering Standard
Details; Livermore
Development Code
Private sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways Minimum width 5’
City Engineering Standard
Details; Livermore
Development Code
Public Landscaping
One tree per single frontage lot Min. street tree size 24” box; Min. shrub size 5 gal. City Engineering Standard Details
No written standard for multifamily
development projects.

Typically, these are zoned as Planned
Developments and the location and number of
street trees would be determined based on the
proposed site layout and final street width
determinations.

Signs/Striping
Street name signs at all intersections Caltrans/City of Livermore Speed limit signs where appropriate Caltrans/City of Livermore One-way signs shown in median
and streets where appropriate Caltrans/City of Livermore Stop signs provided where required
by City Engineer Caltrans/City of Livermore
Centerline striping where
appropriate Caltrans/City of Livermore
Sanitary Sewer
Min./typical new line size: 8”
Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be
served by an approved sanitary sewer system,
designed for ultimate development of the area

All lines must have min. 5’ of cover
from grade
Sewer laterals/residential – 4” one-
way cast iron cleanout behind curb City Engineering Standard Details
No curved sewers
All lines end at maintenance hole;
holes spaced max. 400’ apart
Sewer lines extended to all tract
boundaries
System can be easily extended to
serve future development

EXHIBIT A
487
Table 3-12: Public Improvement Standards
Required Improvement(s) Development Guidelines Comments Governing Legislation Water Supply
Water service and meter provided
to all lots, medians and other public
or private landscaped areas; All
new construction requires sprinklers

Single family units
Min. 5/8” line for domestic service;
Typical size implemented is 1” to
include adequate water for fire
suppression.

Multi-family
development
Size is determined in coordination with Water
Resources Department and Fire Marshall to
ensure adequate water supply for domestic and
fire suppression uses.

Stormwater Drainage
Minimum pipe size: 12”
Maximum distance between storm
maintenance holes or inlets 500’
Storm lines extended to all tract
boundaries
System can be easily extended to
serve future development
Stormwater Treatment
Measures
Soil based (bio-swales, bio-retention
areas, or landscaped areas) or
mechanical
NPDES Permit requires permanent, post-
construction stormwater quality control measures
as part of development projects. Measures can
be natural (soil or landscape based) or
mechanical.

Livermore City CouncilMarch 13, 2023

Livermore City Council
March 13, 2023