• Improvements to the storm drainage pipe at Airway Boulevard between Modoc Place and the Arroyo Las Positas outfall.
• Construction of a floodwall along both banks of Arroyo Las Positas between Airway Boulevard and Isabel Avenue.
However, both recommended improvements were ranked as low-priority projects in the 2021 Storm Drain Master Plan, and as such have not been incorporated into the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. Furthermore, neither of these recommended improvements are identified in the 2021 Storm Drain Master Plan as improvements required to mitigate the impacts of future development.
Potable Water Supply Distribution System
Based on the potable water demand projections for the Isabel Neighborhood land uses, no additional potable water supply system improvements were recommended in the 2017 Water Master Plan, other than potential extension of distribution pipelines to provide service to new development.
Sewer Discharge Collection System
Based on the sewer flow projections for the Isabel Neighborhood land uses, the following collection system improvements were recommended in the 2017 Sewer Master Plan to serve future planned development under the proposed Isabel Neighborhood Plan:
• Improvements to the gravity mains crossing Highway 580 and along Clubhouse Drive. These recommended improvements have not been incorporated into the City’s Capital Improvement Plan based on further hydraulic assessment, as discussed below.
• Additional capacity at the City’s Airport Lift Station. This recommended improvement has been incorporated into the City’s current Capital Improvement Plan as Project No. 2025-12.
In addition to the gravity main and Airport Lift Station improvements identified in the master plan, the City subsequently assessed the capacity of the College Lift Station to serve the Isabel Neighborhood. Accordingly, HydroScience, at the City’s direction, conducted a hydraulic assessment to confirm the previously identified gravity main capacities and to assess the performance of the existing College Lift Station, as documented in the 2021 Isabel Neighborhood Hydraulic Modeling and College Lift Station Evaluation Technical Memorandum. HydroScience’s assessment refined the existing hydraulic modeling included in the 2017 Sewer Master Plan to improve accuracy and better reflect industry standards. Based on this assessment:
ATTACHMENT 2
947
June 27, 2024
• The gravity mains crossing Highway 580 and along Clubhouse Drive were determined to not require upsizing.
• The College Lift Station pumps appear to be operating within acceptable parameters. However, there is less than one hour of combined emergency storage capacity at the College Lift Station wet well and collection system piping if the pumps were to fail at peak hour flow during dry weather or at any time during a 5-year storm.
Based on these results, it appears that implementing the collection piping improvements identified in the 2017 Sewer Master Plan (i.e. I-580 Crossing upsizing and Club House Drive upsizing) are not required prior to construction of the current development uses being considered in the Isabel Neighborhood. Furthermore, modifications to the College Lift Station do not appear to be required, although the addition of dedicated onsite emergency pumping facilities to expedite response time may be worth considering and the projected capacity demands for this lift station are right at the threshold for triggering a new sewer improvement project for the College Lift Station (i.e. peak flow slightly exceeds pumping capacity, but only for a brief period that can be accommodated by the wet well storage capacity). Accordingly, the existing collection system could accommodate buildout conditions included in Appendix B to the 2017 Sewer Master Plan (Isabel Neighborhood Plan Sewer System Evaluation Project), which includes the proposed Isabel Crossing project, but would have no excess capacity for additions to the buildout condition.
Note that there are some model revisions and refinements recommended by HydroScience that the City will consider implementing during the next update to the sewer master plan and associated hydraulic model for the collection system.
ATTACHMENT 2
948
Location Map
This map is based on City of Livermore GIS
Information and reflects the most current information
at the time of this printing. The map is intended for
reference purposes only and the City and its staff is
not responsible for errors. 8,000 Livermore IT, GIS Services 1,333.3
1: NAD_1983_2011_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Ft_US 666.67 Feet 0 1,333.3
6/28/2024
10:27:42 AM
Prepared:
Notes:
Scale:
ATTACHMENT 3
949
Legend
Landscaped MedianReq. Frontage ImprovementsNegotiated Frontage ImprovementsBus Stop ATTACHMENT 4
950
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
INSP
OSP
LII/UM
HII
DA
LDAG
HLCN
HLCN
HLCN
HII
HII
HII
HC
HC
HC
HC
DA
DA
CSGC
NC
CSGC
CSGC
CSGC
CF-E
CF-E
CF-FS
CF-E
UMH
CF-H
CF-S
CF-H
CF-H
CF-E
CF-FS
CF-E
CF-E
CF-E
CF-R&D
CF-R&D
CF-R&D
CF-S
CF-S
CF
CF-E
CF-E
CF
CF-H
CF
CF
CF-I
CF-E
CF-CE
CF-FS
CF-E
CF
CF-E
BCP
CF-AIR CF-AIR
BCP
BCP
BCP
BART
BART
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
AGVT
NMH
OSP
OSP
LPA
OSP INSP
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
UH-2
NMM
NML
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
HII
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
LII
LII
LII/ULM
LII/UH-3
LII
HII
HII
HII
HII
LII
LII
LII
LII
OSP
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC/UH-2
SC
RR
RR
RR
RR
RR
RR
RR
RMG
RMG
RMG
RMG
RMG
RMG
RMG
RMG
RMG
OSP/S&G
OSP/S&G
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
UL-1
UH-4
UH-1
UH-1
UH-1
UH-2
UH-1
UH-1
UH-2
UH-1
UH-2
UH-1
UH-1
UH-2
UH-4
UH-1
ULM
NC
LOC/
CF-HOSP
OC
UM
UM
ULM
AGVT
UH-1
UH-3
UH-2
UH-1
UH-1
UH-3
UH-3
UH-2 UH-2
UH-2
UH-2
UH-2
UH-2
AGVT
UL-2
UL-2
UL-2
UH-3
UH-2
UH-1
UH-2
UH-2
UH-2
UH-2
UH-2 UH-2 UH-2 UH-2
UH-2
UH-2
UM
OSP
UM
UM
UM CF-I
UM
UM UM
UM
ULM/
UH-2
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
ULM
OSP
OSP
OSP
ULM
UH-2
RR
UL-2
UL-2
INSP
UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH
UMH/UH-2
UMH
UM
UM
ULM
UM
UM
UM
UM
UM
UM
UM
OSP/S&G
OSP/S&G
UM
UM
UM
ULM
RR/UM
UMH
UMH
UM
UM
UM RR OSP
UH-3
HII/UH-3
UMH
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
LDAG
ULM
UL-1
UL-1
UL-2
CF-I
CF-E
CF-I
CF-CC
CF-CE
CF-FS
OC
OC
NC/UH-3
OSP
OSP
OSP
UH-1
UH-3
UH-2
OC
UH-2/OC
UH-1
UH-2
UM
OSP
OSP
NMH
LII/UH-3
SV-7
AGVT
(SV7-TDR)
SV-3 SV-AP
SV-5
SV-AP
SV-1
SV-VC
SVVC
SV-VC
SVVC
SV-VC
SV-6
SV-VC
SV-5
SV-VC
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-6
SV-VC
SV-4
SV-VC
SV-4
SV-VC
SV-4
SV-VC
SV-5
SV-VC
SV-4
SV-ROS
SV-1
SV-RDA
SV-2
SV-RDA
SV-3
SV-RDA
SV-4
SV-RDA
SV-1
SV-AP
SV-2
SV-AP
SV-2
SV-AP
SVAP
SV-7
SV-3
SV-AP
SV-1
SV-AP
SV-6
SV-AP
SV-4
SV-AP
SV-5
SV-RDA
SV-4
SV-RDA
SV-4
SV-AP
SV-5
SV-AP
SV-1
SV-RDA
SV-2
SV-AP
SV-1
SV-AP
SV-2
SV-AP
SV-2
SV-AP
CF-AIR UM
UM
UM
UM
UM
UL-2
OSP
SV-5
SV-VC
SV-5
SV-VC
SV-4
SV-AP
AGVT
UM
UM
SV-2
SV-AP
AGVT
UMH
UMH
UM
UM
UL-2
SV-2
SV-VC
HII
OSP
BART UM
UM
OSP
SV-2
SV-AP
SV-1
SV-AP
SV-1
SV-AP
SC
SC
UL-2
OSP
OSP
UH-2
ULM
OSP
RR
CSGC
CSGC
OSP
OSP
DA
DA
ULM
ULM
ULM
UM
UM
OSP
OSP
OSP
OC
ULM
UL-2
UMH
UMH
UH-3
ULM
ULM
LPA
HII/
UH-5b
ULM
LII
LII/UH-5b
UH-3
SC
SC
UH-2
LOC
UH-2
UMH
HC
UH-6
UH-3
OC
COUNTY
COUNTY
¨¦§580
§¨¦580
580
§¨¦
¨¦§580
¨¦§580
5 §¨¦80 580
§¨¦
¨¦§580
N P ST
RINCON AV
N L ST
WISTERIA WY
JUNCTION AV
OLIVINA AV
SUNFLOWER CT
LASCOLINAS RD
COLLEGE AV
SUPERIOR DR
E RUBY HILL DR
SCENIC AV
BLUEBELL DR
CATALINA DR
JENSEN ST
ARROYO RD
W RUBY HILL DR
MURDELL LN
MURDELL LN
BROADMOOR ST
PINE ST
OLIVINA AV
HAGEMANN DR
VANCOUVER WY
NATIONAL DR
HILLCREST AV
EL CAMINITO
SCENIC AV
SPRINGTOWN BL
LEXINGTON WY
ENCINO DR
CHESTNUT ST
HILLCREST AV GAL LOWAY ST
JUNCTION
AV
ARROYO RD
PRESTON
AV
WALL ST
ARLENE WY DAPHNE DR
EL CHARRO RD
CENTRAL AV
CHARLOTTE WY
KITTY HAWK RD
GARAVENTA RANCH RD
HERMAN AV
S L ST
S P ST
S L ST
LAUGHLIN RD
MAPLE ST
S L ST
MADEIRA WY MAPLE ST CHESTNUT ST
SOUTHFRONT RD
BRISA ST
ALDEN LN
CHARLOTTE WY
RUBY HILL BL
BUSCH RD
S P ST
NORTHFRONT RD
OLD FIRSTST
SOUTHFRONT RD
N MINES RD
WETMORE RD
INDEPENDENCE DR INDEPENDENCE D
CO
R
NSTITUTION DR
HOLMES ST
PATTERSON PASS RD
ALTAMONT PASS RD
N MINES RD
N LIVERMORE AV
E VALLECITOS RD
LORRAINE RD
VINEYARD AV
NORTHFRONT RD
AIRWAY BL
S LIVERMORE AV
EL CHARRO RD
S VASCO RD
PORTOLA AV
GREENVILLE RD
FIRST ST N GREENVILLE RD
E AIRWAY BL
ISABEL AV
RAILROAD AV
N VASCO RD
W JACK LONDON BL
CEDARMOUNTAIN RD
MINES RD
EAST AV S S ST
GREENVILLE RD
N MURRIETA BL
CONCANNON BL
MINES RD
FOURTH ST
MINES RD
INMAN ST
ISABEL AV
NORTH CANYONS PW
TESLA RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
E JACK LONDON BL
MARINA AV
MURRIETA BL
LAS POSITAS RD
STANLEY BL
DOOLAN RD
VALLECITOS
RD
ARROYO RD
TESLA RD
E VINEYARDAV
STONERIDGE DR
AMES ST
CRANE R
RD
I DGE
DALTON AV
DAGNINO RD
ISABEL AV
E STANLEY BL
N VASCO RD
DALTON AV
RAYMOND RD
DUBLIN BL
CROAK RD
WENTE ST
HARTFORD AV
CF
AGVT
OSP
OSP
SV-7
SV-ROS
SV-6
SV-VC
SV-5
SV-VC
SV-VC
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-RDA
SV-6
SV-VC
SV-4
SV-VC
SV-7
SV-VC
SV-7
SV-AP
SV-7
SV-AP
SV-6
SV-AP
SV-4
SV-5 SV-AP
SV-VC
SV-5
SV-VC
AGVT
OSP
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Ü
Miles
City of Livermore General Plan Map
Legend
1-5 Acre Site#1 = 1.0-1.5 du/acre#2 = 1.5-2.0 du/acre2.0-3.0 du/acre3.0-4.5 du/acre4.5-6.0 du/acre Residential
Rural Residential (RR)Urban Low Residential (UL)Urban Low Medium Residential (ULM)Urban Medium Residential (UM)Urban Medium High Residential (UMH)Urban High Residential (UH); UH-6 00 0.125 .25 0.5
Miles
Mixed Use
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (INSP)Neighborhood Mixed Low Density (NML)Neighborhood Mixed Medium Density (NMM)Neighborhood Mixed High Density (NMH) Industrial
BCPLIIHigh Intensity Industrial (HII)
Community Facility
Elementary School (CF-E)Fire Station (CF-FS)Intermediate School (CF-I)High School (CF-H)Community College (CF-JC)School General (CF-S)Research and Development (CF-R&D)Hospital (CF-HOSP)Civic Center (CF-CC)Cemetery (CF-CE)Government Services (CF)Airport (CF-AIR)Bart Station Parking (BART) Open Space
Parks, Trailways, Recreation Areas(OSP)Limited AgricultureAgriculture/Viticulture (AGVT)Hillside Conservation (HLCN)Large Parcel AgricultureResource Management (RMG)Sand and Gravel (S&G)Water Management Lands (WML) South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Residential Development Area (SVAgricultural Preserve (SV-AP)Regional Open Space (SV-ROS)Vineyard Commercial (SV-VC) Other
Downtown Area Specific Plan
#1 = 6-8 du/acre#2 = 8-14 du/acre#3 = 14-18 du/acre#4 = 18-22 du/acre #5 = 22-38 du/acre#5a = 22-30 du/acre#5b = 30-38 du/acre#6 = 38-55 du/acre À®
R Transfer Development Credits Receiver Site
I-580 Adopted PlanUrban Growth BoundaryCity Limits
CF-E
CF-I
CF-H
CF-JC
CF-S
CF-R&D
CF-FS
CF-CC
CF-CE
CF
CF-AIR
BART
Floating Potential Future Park Site
Floating Potential Future School Site
CF-S
OSP
Pleasanton
Pleasanton
Dublin
Updated: February 28, 2022
CF-HOSP
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)Service Commercial (SC)Highway Commercial (HC)Office Commercial (OC)Large Office Commercial (LOC)Community Serving GeneralCommercial (CSGC) .30 FAR max.30 FAR max.30 FAR max.30 FAR max.60 FAR max.60 FAR max Site coveragevaries.45 Maxsite coverage.60 Maxsite coverage County
County
ATTACHMENT 5
951
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
À®
R
PDOS-00-198
PD
! PDC14-002
PD
PD
PD
PDI-01-003
AIR-SE
PUD 115
RS
(PUD 3)
PDR-01-006
PUD 4-82
PUD 154
RS
(PUD 3)
PUD 49-89
PUD 29-89
PUD
39-80
PDR-03-006
PUDA
95-89
AIR-SE
PUD 34-92
PUD 79-88
PUDA
02-001
PD-SLVSP
Subarea #4
PUD 240-84
PUDA 02-007 PUD 22
PUDA
01-001
PD-SLVSP
Subarea #5
PUD-58-93
PUD 246-81
PUDA 02-005
PD-SLVSP
Subarea #1
PUD
22 PUD 26-94
PUD 166
PUD 66-94
PUD 52-93
PDC-00-199
RL
E
PUD 3
RG-10
PDR-03-007
PUD 141
PUD 25
PDR 18-003
PUD 158
PUD 46-89
PDI-00-182
RG-16
PUD
117-91
PUD 123-78
RR-1 PUD 153-86
PDR-01-008
PUD 71-88
PUD 72-88
PUD
109-78
PUD
152
!
PUD 80-94
PUD
53-93
PUD
159-A
RG-16
PDR-16-
PD 004
18-009
PUDA
01-013
PUD
70-91
PUD 102
PUD 178-90
RG-16
PD
18-010
PUDA
02-004
PUDA
06-001
INSP
PD 18-007
PUD 137
PUDA
04-003
PUD
3-90
PUDA 02-003
PUD
2-82
PDC07-006
PUD
25-85
PDC00-172
PDR-02-009
PUDA
01-204
PDC00-173
PUDA
04-001
PUD 150
PUD
98-88
PUD 104
PUD 103
PUDA
07-001
RG-10
PUD 139
PUD 4-81
PDR-10-003
RR-1
PUDA 04-002
PDC00-193
PDC02-007
PUD
10-001
PDC00-176
PDC01-018
PUD
116-94
PDI-00-185
PD 18-001
PUD 113
PUD 110-87
RG-16
PUD
196-83
PUD 129
PUD 105
PUD
216-83
PUD
69-81
PUD
138
RS
PDC03-005
PUD
153-86
!
PD 18-009
!
PUD
02-205
PUD 54-93
PUD
143
RG-12
!
PDR14-001
PUD
99-86
!
PUD 41-85
PUD
31-85
PDC00-189
PDR-00-160
!
PDC06-005
PUD
40-85
MFR
RG-16
E
RG-16
PUD
184-84
PDR-02-001
RG-16
PDR00-177
PDI08-003
!
PUD 3
PDR00-168
PDR00-174
PUD
201-82
PDR00-161
! RG-16
PUD
116-78
PUD 225-83
!
PUD
240-84
RG-16
PUD 10-90
RS
RG10
PUD 107
PUD 51-93
PUD 6-81
PUD 44-87 !
! PUD
35-89
!
PUD 118
PDR05-004
PUD 139-80
!
PDR-06-006
PUD
144
PDR-10-004
PUD
188-89
RG-16
!
PUD
202-88
!
PUD 191-94
PDC-08-002
!
RR-5
(Pre-Zoned)
PUD 117
PUD 140-91
PD
PDR-11-001
R-01-007
! PUD 88-81
!
PDC07-005
PDR00-170
!
PUD
111-81
!
PUD
135-80
PDR-00-167
!
PUD
109
RG-12
!
PUD
156
!
PUD 2-80
PD
! PDR- 02-004
! PUD
39-80
!
PUD
1-81
!
PUD 82-88
RG-10 !
!
PDR08-001
!
PDR00-183
!
PUD
139-80
!
PDR-05-006
!
PDR-00-169
!
RG-12
!
PUD
127
!
RG-12
!
PDC-05-003
!
PUD-194-94
PUD 82-88 !
! PUD
195-94
!
PUD
71-88
!
PUD
29-94
!
PUD
173-90
!
PD
!
PUD
57-88
!
PUD
29-94
!
PUD
111-78
!
PUD
111-78
RG16
PUD 57-93
PDR-02-008
RG-10
RG-16
!
PUD
153-87
!
PUD 91-90
!
PDR02-005
!
PUD
98-88
!
PUD
12-94
!
PUD 82-88
!
PUD 33-85
!
PUD
39-80
!
PDR
05-002
! PUD 129
!
PD-07-001
!
PDC03-001
! PDR-03-004
!
PUD 21-84
!
PUD
196-83
!
PDC05-005
!
PUD
17-89
!
PUD
127-78
RG-16
I-3
RL
RL
RS
RL
E
E
DSP
OS-A
RS
T3N
CS
E
RL
RS
E
RS
AIR-OP
E
E
T3N
OS-A
OS-A
RS
RL
E
CS
RL
E
I-2
AIR-SE
RS
E
E
OS-F
E
E
CS
RS
I-2
E
T4N
RL
E
RS
AIR-SE
RL
RS
E
RS
RL
E
T4N
RS
RS
E
E
E
E
RL
E
RS
I-2
RL
E
OS-A
I-2
E
CS
RS
I-3
RS
I-3
E
E
E
RL
CNB
RS
CNB CO
E
E
RL
RL
E
PDC
21-001
E
RS
E
RS
NMU
OS-F
I-3
OS-F
CS
OS-F
E
OS-F
RS
MFR
CHS
E
CNB
E
T4N-O
CHS
CHS
E
E
OS-A
OS-A
RS
NMU MFR
RS
OS-F
RL
CNB
SLV-AG
MFR
CNB
E
RL
OS-A
CHS
T4N
RS
RS
CS
E
I-2
!
SLVAG
RS
RS
RS
CO
!
MFR
CO
!
RS
CS
!
MFR
E
RS
CP
!
CO
T4N-O
CO
RS
!CP
MFR
!
CP
CS
T3N
!
T3N
CP
RS
T4N
CO
!
CP
! CP
!
CO
! CP
!
T4N
PD 18-005
PD 17-002
PD-ECSP-OS
PD-SLVSP
Subarea #6
(Pre-Zoned)
PD-SLVSP
PD/AG
PUDA 07-003 !
PDSLVSP
PD
PUD
34-92
PUD
34-92
PUD
106
PD/R-R-5
PD
RL
PDI
18-002
PD-15
RL
RS
RS
PD
RS
RS
PUD 80-94
PD/AG
!
PUD 80-94
PD/AG
PUD 80-94
PD/AG
! PDR
14-005
PD
!
PUD
153-86
PD PD
RL
RL
PUD
166
PD-SLVSP
PD-SLVSP
PD-SLVSP
Subarea #2
(Pre-Zoned)
OS-F
!
PD
PUD
39-80
PD
PD
PD
RS
RL
I-3
I-3
I-3
I-3
PD-SLVSP
Subarea #2
(Pre-Zoned)
PD
(Pre-Zoned)
AIR-OP
(Pre-Zoned)
(PreZoned)
(Pre-Zoned)
(Pre-Zoned)
PUD
39-80
PD
PD
PUD 11-80
PD
!
PDSLVSP
!
PD 18-009
PDR
12-002
PUD 39-80
!
PD
!
PUD
18-83
E
PDR13-002
CS
PDR
15-001
!
PDR
07-002 ! MFR
PUD 246-81
PDR-16-
004
CS
T4N
RS
PD
CS
PD 18-006
PD 18-006
INSP
INSP
INSP
OS-F
!
CHS
PDC
17-003
E
!PDR 18-004
PreZoned
CO
§¨¦580 ¨¦§580 §¨¦580
¨¦§580
¨¦§580
580
§¨¦
§¨¦580
¨¦§580
58 §¨¦0
N P ST
RINCON AV
N L ST
JUNCTION AV
OLIVINA AV
LAS COLINAS RD
COLLEGE AV
SUPERIOR DR
E RUBY HILL DR
SCENIC AV
BLUEBELL DR
CATALINA DR
JENSEN ST
ARROYO RD
W RUBY HILL DR
MURDELL LN
MURDELL LN
BROADMOOR ST
PINE ST
OLIVINA AV
HAGEMANN DR
VANCOUVER WY
NATIONAL DR
HILLCREST AV
EL CAMINITO
SCENIC AV
SPRINGTOWN BL
LEXINGTON WY
ENCINO DR
CHESTNUT ST
GAL LOWAY ST
JUNCTION
AV
ARROYO RD
PRESTON
AV
WALL ST
ARLENE WY DAPHNE
DR
EL CHARRO RD
CENTRAL AV
CHARLOTTE WY
KITTY HAWK RD
GARAVENTA RANCH RD
HERMAN AV
S L ST
S P ST
S L ST
LAUGHLIN RD
MAP
ST
LE
MADEIRA WY MAPLE ST
CHESTNUT
ST
SOUTHFRONT RD
BRISA ST
ALDEN LN
CHARLOTTE WY
RUBY HILL BL
BUSCH RD
NORTHFRONT
RD
OLD FIRST ST
SOUTHFRONT RD
N MINES RD
WETMORE RD
INDEPENDENCE DR
CONSTITUTION D R
HOLMES ST
PATTERSON PASSRD
PATTERSON PASS RD
ALTAMONT PASS RD
N MINES RD
N LIVERMORE AV
N LIVERMORE AV
E VALLECITOS RD
LORRAINE RD
VINEYARD AV
VINEYARD AV
NORTHFRONT RD
AIRWAY BL
S LIVERMORE AV
EL CHARRO RD
S VASCO RD
S VASCO RD
PORTOLA AV
PORTOLA AV
PORTOLA AV
GREENVILLE RD GREENV LI LE RD
FIRST ST
FIRST ST
N GREENVILLE RD
E AIRWAYBL
ISABEL AV
ISABEL AV ISABEL AV ISABEL AV
RAILROAD AV
N VASCO RD
W JACK LONDON BL
W JACK LONDON BL
CEDAR MOUNTAIN RD
MINES RD
MINES RD
EAST AV EAST AV S S ST
GREENVILLE RD
N MURRIETA BL
CONCANNON BL CONCANNON BL
CONCANNON BL
MINES RD
FOURTH ST
INMAN ST
NORTH CANYONS PW
TESLA RD
TESLA RD
COLL EI R CANYON RD
E JACK LONDON BL
MARINA AV
MURRIETA
BL
LAS POSITAS RD
LAS POSITAS RD LAS POSITAS RD
STANLEY BL
DOOLAN RD
VALLECITOS
RD
ARROYO RD
TESLA RD
E VINEYARDAV
STONERIDGE DR
AMES ST
CRANE R
RD
I DGE
DAGNINO RD
ISABEL AV
E STANLEY BL E STANLEY BL
N VASCO RD
DALTON AV
RAYMOND RD
DUBLIN BL
CROAK RD
WENTE ST
HARTFORD AV
PUD 80-94
PUD 158 Subarea #5
!
PUD 80-94
PUD 80-94
! 02-205
PD-SLVSP
Subarea #7
(Pre-Zoned)
PD-SLVSP
Subarea #6
(Pre-Zoned)
PD-SLVSP
Subarea #7
PD/AG
PD/AG
PUDA 07-0 !
PDSLVSP
PUD 80-94
PD/AG
!
PUD 80-94
PD/AG
PD/AG
PUD 80-94
PD/AG
!
PDSLVSP
0 0.25 0.5 0.75
Miles
Ü
City of Livermore Zoning Map
Mixed Use
Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU)Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (INSP)Transect Zone - T3 Neighborhood (T3N)Transect Zone - T4 Neighborhood (T4N)Transect Zone - T4 Neighborhood Open (T4N-O) Industrial
Research and Development (I-1)Light Industrial (I-2)Heavy Industrial (I-3)
PDPUD/PUDAPD/AGPDCPDIPDOSPDRPD-ECSP-RCPD-ECSP-HRCPD-ECSP-OSPD-SLVSP Planned Development
Planned DevelopmentPlanned Unit Development/Amendment PermitPlanned Development AgriculturalPlanned Development CommercialPlanned Development IndustrialPlanned Development Open SpacePlanned Development ResidentialPlanned Development El Charro Specific Plan Regional CommercialPlanned Development El Charro Specific Plan Highway Regional CommercialPlanned Development El Charro Specific Plan Open SpacePlanned Development South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Airport
Airport Service (AIR-SE)Airport Operations (AIR-OP)
Miscellaneous / Other
À®
R
TransferableDevelopment Credits(TDC) Receiver SiteUrban GrowthBoundaryCity Limits 00 0.125 .25 0.5
Miles
Other
Education and Institutions (E)South Livermore Valley Agricultural (SLV-AG)Open Space Agricultural (OS-A)Open Space Flood Plain (OS-F)Open Space Rural Residential (OS-R)Open Space (OS) I-580 Plan Lines that Reserves Right-of-Way for Future I-580 Expansion Residential
Low Density Residential (RL)Suburban Multiple Family Residential (RG)Multiple Family Residential (MFR)RR-1 40,0000 sq. ft. minimum lot sizeRR-3 125,000 sq. ft. minimum lot sizeRR-5 210,000 sq. ft. minimum lot sizeRural Residential (RR)RG-10RG-12RG-14RG-16Suburban Residential (RS) Updated on February 28, 2022
Commercial
Downtown Specific Plan (DSP)Commercial Service (CS)Professional Office (CP)Commercial Office (CO)Highway Commercial Service (CHS)Neighborhood Business Commercial (CNB) ATTACHMENT 5
952
5 ac.
1/2 Mile Radius
1/4 Mile Radius
0 500 1000 2000
FEET
Residential
Transition: 15-25 du/ac
Village: 25-40 du/ac
Center: 40-60 du/ac
Core: 60-100 du/ac
Non-Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Office Core
Office
Business Park
Airway Business Park
Educational/Institutional
Open Space
Ground Floor Retail/
Overlay Flex Space
K-12 School Overlay
Parking Overlay
New Neighborhood Park/Plaza
Circulation
Valley Link
Existing Street
Proposed Street
Pedestrian Streetscape
Valley Link Pedestrian Bridge
Urban Growth Boundary
Planning Area
S
COLLIER
CANYO
N
R
D
PORTOLA AVE
ISABEL AVE NORTH CANYONS PKWY
NORTH CANYONS PKWY
CONSTITUTION DR
INDEPENDENCE DR AIRWAY
BLVD
KITTY HAWK RD
LINDBERGH DR
NRD NESSI
ARMSTRON TS G
AIRWAY BLVD
E. AIRWAY BLVD
ISABEL
AVE
PORTOLA AVE
E. AIRWAY BLVD
RUTA
N
D
R
DOOLAN RD
INTERSTATE 580
580
Las Positas
College
Valley Link to Isabel Station
A rr o y o L a s Po s i t a s
Livermore Municipal Airport
A r r o y o L a s P o s i t a s
C o l l i e r
C a n y o n
C r e e k
A r ro y o L a s P o s i t a s
P
Innovation
Hub
GATEWAY AVE
HTLAETS TS
RETTUS TS
RETNEC AEHS D R
Cayetano
Park
TS NIAM
S
C a y e t a n
o
C r e
e k
S
FIGURE 2-1: LAND USE DIAGRAM )LJXUH
/DQG8VH'LDJUDP
ATTACHMENT
5 953
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
October 2, 2019
MEMORANDUM FOR: Planning Directors and Interested Parties FROM: Zachary Olmstead, Deputy Director
Division of Housing Policy Development
SUBJECT: No Net Loss Law
Government Code Section 65863
The purpose of Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss Law), is to ensure development opportunities remain available throughout the planning period to accommodate a jurisdiction’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA), especially for lower- and moderate- income households. This memorandum provides guidance on the implementation of Government Code section 65863, including amendments pursuant to Chapter 367, Statutes of 2017 (Senate Bill 166).
Summary of No Net Loss Requirements
• A jurisdiction must maintain adequate sites to accommodate its remaining unmet RHNA by each income category at all times throughout the entire planning period. • A jurisdiction may not take any action to reduce a parcel’s residential density unless it makes findings that the remaining sites identified in its Housing Element sites inventory can accommodate the jurisdiction’s remaining unmet RHNA by each income category, or if it identifies additional sites so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. • If a jurisdiction approves a development of a parcel identified in its Housing Element sites inventory with fewer units than shown in the Housing Element, it must either make findings that the Housing Element’s remaining sites have sufficient capacity to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA by each income level, or identify and make available sufficient sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA for each income category.
• A jurisdiction may not disapprove a housing project on the basis that approval of the development would trigger the identification or zoning of additional adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA.
If you have any questions, or would like additional information or technical assistance, please contact the Division of Housing Policy Development at (916) 263-2911.
ATTACHMENT 6
954
Table of Contents
Background......................................................................................................................................... 3 No Net Loss Law and Charter Cities ................................................................................................. 4 Responsibilities and Requirements Under No Net Loss Law ......................................................... 4 Maintaining Sites ................................................................................................................................ 4 Helpful Hints...................................................................................................................................... 5 Decisions to Carefully Consider – Development Limitations ............................................................. 5 Jurisdiction Actions ........................................................................................................................... 6 Helpful Hints...................................................................................................................................... 7 Decisions to Carefully Consider – Changes to Zoning ...................................................................... 7 Approval of Development at a Lower Density.................................................................................. 8 Helpful Hints...................................................................................................................................... 9 Decisions to Carefully Consider – Development Approval ................................................................ 9 California Environment Quality Act (CEQA)...................................................................................10 Failure to Comply with No Net Loss Law........................................................................................10 Resources..........................................................................................................................................11 Identifying your Remaining RHNA and Maintaining Capacity..........................................................11 No Net Loss Capacity Calculation Tool Example ............................................................................11 No Net Loss Law Decision Flow Chart ............................................................................................14 Sample Housing Element Program ................................................................................................. 16 No Net Loss Law Statute (Government Code Section 65863) ........................................................17 ATTACHMENT 6
955
Background
Since 1969, California has required that all jurisdictions (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting Housing Elements as part of their general plan. To demonstrate the availability of land to accommodate future housing development, a Housing Element is required to include an inventory of housing sites, or “adequate sites”, with sufficient capacity by income level to accommodate a jurisdiction’s RHNA by income category. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Example: RHNA By Income Category
Very Low Income 300 Units
Low Income 260 Units
Moderate Income 250 Units
Above Moderate Income 650 Units
Total RHNA 1,460 Units
To expand the supply of housing, including affordable housing, and to ensure jurisdictions do not take actions to reduce the potential capacity for new development, the Legislature adopted the No Net Loss Law in 2002. The No Net Loss Law ensures that a jurisdiction maintains a sufficient supply of adequate sites in the Housing Element sites inventory throughout the RHNA planning period. This law was amended by Chapter 367, Statutes of 2017 (Senate Bill 166), which requires sufficient adequate sites to be available at all times to meet a jurisdiction’s remaining unmet housing needs for each income category. To comply with the No Net Loss Law, as jurisdictions make decisions regarding zoning and land use, or development occurs, jurisdictions must assess their ability to accommodate new housing on the remaining sites in their Housing Element site inventories. A jurisdiction must add adequate sites if land use decisions or development results in a shortfall of sufficient sites to accommodate its remaining housing need for each income category.
What is an adequate site?
Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, an adequate site must be available and suitable to accommodate development. Factors include:
• Have infrastructure available or planned to support a housing development. • Be available to be developed in the planning period. For non-vacant sites, this means that the existing use is not an impediment to additional residential development. • Be appropriately sized (larger than half an acre and smaller than 10 acres) to accommodate lower income housing.
• For sites accommodating lower income households, the sites must have appropriate zoning as demonstrated by analysis, or by meeting prescribed densities. • Identify the number of units (capacity) that can be realistically accommodated on the site.
For more information, visit the Department’s Housing Element Building Block Webpage.
ATTACHMENT 6
956
No Net Loss Law and Charter Cities
Pursuant to Chapter 856, Statutes of 2018 (Senate Bill 1333), the No Net Loss Law applies to all jurisdictions, including charter cities. This requirement was effective on January 1, 2019, and applies to the current and subsequent Housing Element planning periods.
Responsibilities and Requirements Under No Net Loss Law No Net Loss Law can be divided into three statutory areas of responsibility for jurisdictions to consider when making land-use decisions related to sites and capacity identified in the Housing Element to accommodate the RHNA:
• Maintaining Sites (Government Code section 65863(a))
• Jurisdiction Actions Relating to Zoning (Government Code section 65863(b)(1)) • Approval of Development at a Lower Density (Government Code section 65863(b)(2)) Maintaining Sites
A jurisdiction must ensure their Housing Element sites inventory continues to have capacity at all times to accommodate the RHNA by income group throughout the planning period. This requires a careful accounting of development on the sites identified in the Housing Element and residential projects throughout the jurisdiction. Action by the jurisdiction to modify development standards in a way that would result in a lower density, limit or stop development on sites identified in the inventory, exchange sites in the inventory, or downzone sites would trigger No Net Loss unless the jurisdiction can make the required findings or identify alternative sites.
If, at any time during the planning period, the jurisdiction finds that there is a shortfall of sites to accommodate its remaining RHNA, the jurisdiction must take immediate action to correct the shortfall by amending its Housing Element sites inventory to either include sites previously unidentified with capacity to accommodate the shortfall, or sites that have been rezoned to correct for the shortfall.
Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the No Net Loss law. Please note, Housing Element law requires the element to identify sufficient adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA for all income levels. However, many jurisdictions choose to include sites in their Housing Element inventory above and beyond what is required to accommodate RHNA, including sites that are not considered suitable to accommodate RHNA for lower-income households (e.g., sites less than one-half acre or larger than 10 acres). When making findings that the Housing Element continues to accommodate the remaining RHNA, jurisdictions should only consider capacity of sites in the inventory that was determined adequate. Jurisdictions should not consider inadequate or unsuitable sites as adequate or available to accommodate RHNA for the purposes of No Net Loss Law.
The lack of sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s RHNA represents a fundamental alteration to the jurisdiction’s ability to meet Housing Element Law. Therefore, the amended inventory must (1) demonstrate sites to address the shortfall meet the adequate site requirements of Housing Element Law, pursuant to Government Code section 65585(b), and (2) be submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) for review to ensure compliance with state Housing Element Law. (Cal. Gov’t Code §65580 et seq.) (Housing Element Law).
ATTACHMENT 6
957
Helpful Hints
To ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the Housing Element to accommodate the RHNA throughout the planning period, create a buffer in the Housing Element inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required, especially for capacity to accommodate the lower-income RHNA. Jurisdictions can also create a buffer by projecting capacity less than what is allowed from the maximum density to allow for some reductions in density, or rezoning additional sites above what is needed to accommodate the RHNA.
Jurisdictions should keep an updated accounting of development on the sites in the inventory and throughout the jurisdiction to ascertain the impact that development has on accommodating the remaining RHNA. This can be done in any number of ways, but an example of one methodology can be found in the Resources section below, in addition to a program committing to such an update in the Housing Element.
Decisions to Carefully Consider – Development Limitations No Net Loss Law explicitly states that at no time may a jurisdiction take an action to permit or cause the sites inventory to be insufficient to meet its remaining RHNA without triggering the statute. The only exception is the 180-day timeframe for replacing capacity from the approval of a development at a lower density that results in a shortfall of sites to accommodate the RHNA (see page 8.) Therefore, a jurisdiction should carefully consider the introduction or adoption of development limitations (e.g., development standard limitations, policies or ordinances that affect the development potential of a site, development moratorium). A jurisdiction should carefully examine the effect of these types of actions on development capacity and consult with their legal counsel prior to approval.
Zoning and Development Standard Modifications – Changes in development standards may affect the potential capacity of a site. For example, an increase in parking requirements, reductions in height limitations or lot coverage, new design requirements, or modifications to set-back requirements, all impact the buildable area of a site and could reduce the housing unit potential. Zoning and development standard modifications should be carefully considered to ensure that they do not impact the potential capacity of a site in a jurisdiction’s inventory.
Growth Control Ordinances – If a jurisdiction considers adoption of an ordinance or other measure that limits growth or development potential through unit or population caps, or limits where development can occur through the use of buffers, or by phasing development, it must consider the statewide shortage of housing and the requirements of No Net Loss Law. The adoption of one or more of these types of ordinances could prevent a jurisdiction from accommodating its RHNA either by affecting a site in the inventory, or by limiting development as a whole. Proposed growth limiting ordinances should be prudently drafted so as not to impact the accommodation of the remaining RHNA throughout the planning period. Otherwise, implementation of the ordinance may violate No Net Loss Law.
ATTACHMENT 6
958
How do growth control ordinances relate to the RHNA?
Government Code section 65302.8 requires findings be made to ensure that a jurisdiction can continue to fulfill requirements of Housing Element Law, including the accommodation of the RHNA. Findings include a description of the following:
• The jurisdiction’s RHNA.
• The specific housing programs and activities being undertaken by the jurisdiction to achieve RHNA objectives.
• How the public health, safety, and welfare would be promoted. • Fiscal and environmental resources available to the local jurisdiction.
Moratoriums – Pursuant to Government Code section 65858, jurisdictions may adopt a 45-day interim ordinance prohibiting any uses, including housing, that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal. This applies to a general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering, studying, or intends to study within a reasonable time. While the ordinance may be extended for other uses, a moratorium on the development of multifamily housing cannot be extended unless specific findings are made. In addition, regardless of its duration, a moratorium that affects sites in the Housing Element inventory may be in conflict with the No Net Loss Law, as the law requires a jurisdiction to maintain capacity at all times to accommodate the RHNA. A jurisdiction should consult counsel prior to enacting a moratorium on housing.
Jurisdiction Actions
Jurisdiction actions include downzoning or other actions taken by a jurisdiction to reduce a parcel’s allowable residential density. This can be done through a change in zoning or an imposition of density limitations that preclude that ability to achieve densities assumed in the Housing Element sites inventory. If the parcel to be downzoned is identified in the Housing Element, a jurisdiction must make written findings, supported by substantial evidence, that:
• The reduction is consistent with the jurisdiction’s adopted general plan, including the Housing Element. For example, this finding could be made if downzone does not change the land use and zoning designation.
• The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s remaining share of the RHNA for the planning period. The finding must include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s RHNA at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the Housing Element to accommodate that need by income level.
ATTACHMENT 6
959
If a jurisdiction cannot make these findings, it may take action to reduce the residential density of a parcel only if it identifies or rezones additional sufficient adequate sites with an equal or greater residential density in the jurisdiction so that there is sufficient residential unit capacity appropriate to accommodate the RHNA by income level. Actions to identify additional sites or rezone must occur before or concurrently with any action or approval to reduce a parcel’s density. Sites identified or rezoned must meet the following criteria:
• Must be considered an adequate site pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2.
• If the capacity to be replaced was on a site that was zoned by-right pursuant to Government Code section 65863.2 (h) and (i), then the replacement site must also satisfy those requirements.
As these actions taken by the jurisdiction represent a fundamental alteration to the Housing Element, the Housing Element sites inventory must then be amended and, pursuant to Government Code section 65585(b), be submitted to the Department for review to ensure the compliance with state Housing Element Law, prior to, or concurrently with, any action or approval to reduce a parcel’s density.
Helpful Hints
If unsure as to whether new sites identified or rezoned will meet Housing Element adequate sites requirements, contact the Department’s Housing Policy Division for a Housing Element reviewer to provide technical guidance.
Rezoned sites may include sites previously identified in the sites inventory that are rezoned to a higher density zoning designation than identified in the sites inventory.
Decisions to Carefully Consider – Changes to Zoning
General Plan Updates – Sometimes land use inconsistencies arise during a general plan update when undertaken separately from the Housing Element. A jurisdiction updating the land use element of the general plan must consider the sites inventory of the Housing Element. If sites identified in the Housing Element site’s inventory will be downzoned as part of the general plan update, other sites must be identified or rezoned to accommodate the resulting shortfall of capacity. Under state law, the land use element must be consistent with the Housing Element, and if the land use element does not permit the density in the Housing Element, the Housing Element or land use element must be amended to achieve consistency.
ATTACHMENT 6
960
Approval of Development at a Lower Density
A jurisdiction must make written findings or identify additional site capacity if a development is allowed with a lower density than what was assumed in the sites inventory of the Housing Element.
A lower residential density sometimes results from a jurisdiction either approving a development with residential units less than what was assumed for the site or affordable to a different income category than the site was assumed to accommodate. Lower residential density could also result from another use, such as commercial being approved on a site identified in the inventory for housing regardless of what the zoning allows.
What constitutes a “lower-density”?
For jurisdictions with an adopted Housing Element found in compliance with Housing Element Law:
• Fewer units will be developed on the site than projected in the sites inventory (capacity) or program of the Housing Element.
For jurisdictions out of compliance with Housing Element Law:
• A density that is lower than 80 percent of the maximum allowable residential density for that parcel, or 80 percent of the maximum density required by Government Code section 65583.2(c)(3), whichever is greater. For more information on default densities, please see the Department’s Building Block website.
At the time of approval, the following written findings must be made, and supported by substantial evidence in the record:
• Remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the jurisdiction’s remaining RHNA for the planning period by income category. • The findings should include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s RHNA at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the Housing Element, to accommodate that need by income level.
If the approval of a development at a lower residential density results in the remaining sites capacity becoming inadequate to accommodate the RHNA by income category, a jurisdiction has up to 180 days from the approval to identify, or rezone, “sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites” to accommodate the remaining RHNA for each income category. Sites identified or rezoned must meet the following criteria:
• Must be considered an adequate site pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2.
• If the capacity to be replaced was on a site that was zoned by-right pursuant to Government Code section 65863.2 (h) and (i), then the replacement site must also satisfy those requirements.
ATTACHMENT 6
961
A jurisdiction must report in the jurisdiction’s Annual Progress Report (APR) any sites that have been identified or rezoned to accommodate the resulting shortfall due to the approval of a development at a lower density. APRs are required to be sent to the Department by all jurisdictions by April 1, pursuant to Government Code section 65400. For more information on completing this section of the APR, see the Department Webpage and select “Annual Progress Reports.” Who makes the findings?
The body that “takes action or approves” the jurisdiction action to reduce a parcel’s density or approve a development at a lower density would make the findings. For example, if a zoning administrator approves a development at a lower density, as part of the approval, the administrator would include the appropriate findings. For instance, if the development approval is ministerial under the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (SB 35, 2017), the findings should be included as part of the plan review and approval. If the City Council is approving a zone change, it must include the findings in the resolution adopting the zone change.
Helpful Hints
The jurisdiction has only 180 days to complete any rezoning needed to accommodate a shortfall of adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA due to the approval of a development at a lower density. To ensure the rezones can be completed on time, it is recommended that the jurisdiction begin the rezone process early in the development application approval process.
Jurisdictions may post the sites inventory on their website with the capacity estimates from the Housing Element for developers to reference when considering projects on sites identified in the Housing Element.
Decisions to Carefully Consider – Development Approval
Jurisdictions out of compliance with state Housing Element Law - No Net Loss Law provisions related to approving a lower density development applies to all jurisdictions regardless of Housing Element compliance status. A jurisdiction that has not adopted a Housing Element within 90 days of the due date, or has a Housing Element out of compliance, must still comply with No Net Loss requirements, even though they may not have a Housing Element Law compliant sites inventory. If the jurisdiction does not have a current sites inventory to compare the project unit count, the determination of lower density would be required for all new housing development.
ATTACHMENT 6
962
Denying an application - A jurisdiction may not deny a housing development application on the basis that approval of the development would trigger the identification, or zoning, of additional adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA.
However, since the term “housing development” is used in the statute, it does not prevent a jurisdiction from denying a non-residential development on an identified site if it would trigger the identification, or rezoning, of additional adequate sites.
Requests for developer assistance with complying with No Net Loss Law – While the jurisdiction is solely responsible for compliance with No Net Loss Law, under limited circumstances the statute does allow a jurisdiction the option to require the applicant to assist the jurisdiction in meeting these provisions. Specifically, requests can be made if an applicant’s initial development application requests a residential density that results in the remaining sites in the sites inventory being insufficient to accommodate it remaining RHNA. A jurisdiction cannot require developer assistance if the subsequent approval process results in a reduction of units.
Types of assistance required could include help with the identification of additional sites for potential rezones or community outreach. However, requests should be balanced with the potential impact on the overall viability of the project. Overly burdensome requirements may make a development project financially infeasible and could, in effect, constitute a denial of the project or may violate the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5.)
California Environment Quality Act (CEQA)
The act of identifying or making available additional adequate sites, in and of itself, to comply with the statutory requirements to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA, does not trigger a CEQA review. However, if making available additional adequate sites requires an increase in density, a rezone, or other actions that constitute a “project” under CEQA, a CEQA analysis would be required.
When approving a site at a lower residential density, the possibility of a CEQA analysis should be considered since the CEQA review must be completed within the 180-day timeline to identify and rezone additional, adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA by income category. The failure to complete a timely CEQA analysis would render the additional sites inadequate to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA. This would be a violation of No Net Loss Law and could also render the Housing Element out of compliance with state Housing Element Law.
Failure to Comply with No Net Loss Law
In addition to violating of the No Net Loss Law, the failure to ensure that there are sufficient adequate sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA by income category throughout the entire planning period is also a violation of the Housing Element Law. This is because the Housing Element will also fail to identify adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA by income category. As a result, pursuant to Government Code section 65585 (i) and (j), the Department may revoke a jurisdiction’s Housing Element compliance and/or refer the violation to the Attorney General. In addition, a third party may file an action to challenge the jurisdiction in court.
ATTACHMENT 6
963
Resources
Identifying Your Remaining RHNA and Maintaining Capacity A jurisdiction should implement an ongoing, project-by-project evaluation of each approved residential development to ensure that sufficient adequate site capacity is available to accommodate the remaining RHNA by income category throughout the planning period. This evaluation could also be used to complete the APR required to be sent to the Department by April 1 of each year.
The evaluation procedure could utilize a spreadsheet or tool, such as the No Net Loss Capacity Calculation Tool below, to subtract the number of residential units in each approved development from the RHNA to determine the remaining unmet RHNA by income category. The total number of approved units by income category could then be subtracted from the Housing Element’s sites inventory site capacity by income category to determine the remaining site capacity.
No Net Loss Capacity Calculation Tool Example
Step 1: Determine remaining RHNA
• Identify the reported RHNA from permitted projects as reported in the Housing Element Annual Progress Report (Table B of the Annual Progress Report). If the jurisdiction has not yet completed those reports for the planning period, please go to the Departments Webpage and select “Annual Progress Reports.”
• Identify any projects from the planning period that have received their approvals/entitlements and are anticipated to pull their building permits.
• Identify the number of units permitted or that have been approved/entitled in the current reporting year (including accessory dwelling units and other alternatives under Government Code section 65583.1.)
• Calculate the remaining RHNA to date.
• If determining potential No Net Loss capacity of a proposed development, subtract the units from the proposed development to get the remaining RHNA resulting from the proposed project.
ATTACHMENT 6
964
Example:
City A has an application for a market rate project for 75 high-end multifamily apartments. This project is being proposed on a site identified in the inventory as having the ability to accommodate a portion of its very low- and low-income RHNA.
Table A: Remaining RHNA
Very
LowIncome
LowIncomeModerateIncomeAbove ModerateIncome
RHNA 300 260 250 650
Year Reported Progress
2014 -5 -15 -2 -50
2015 -5 -100
2016 -25 -25 -20 -60
2017 -250
2018 -15 -60 -25 -75
Project
Name/APN
Projects approved/entitled anticipated to pull permits
Siempre Verde
001-256-2154, -
57 -4
Project
Name/APN
Current Year Progress
Hightop Condos
001-256-5574
-7 -75
Sunflower Apt
001-256-4475
-25 -50
Remaining RHNA To Date
230 103 198 36
Project
Name/APN
Proposed Project RHNA
Magnolia Luxury
Apt
001-256-4472
-75
Remaining RHNA with Proposed Development
230 103 198 0
Step 2: Determine remaining capacity from the Housing Element sites inventory* • Identify the total site capacity from the Housing Element by income category. • List the capacity estimated in the Housing Element for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), or other alternative site capacity methodology.
• List the capacity by income category as identified in the Housing Element inventory for each site identified in the inventory that has an approved/entitled or permitted project in the planning period (identified in the previous table).
ATTACHMENT 6
965
Some projects will be developed on sites not identified in the Housing Element. These sites should not be included in the table below, as their capacity was not anticipated to accommodate a portion of the RHNA. They are included in the previous calculation to determine the remaining RHNA. As a result, the additional capacity from these projects can help mitigate loss in capacity from other projects, depending on their affordability.
• For each site rezoned that was identified in the Housing Element (but does not include a project per above) identify the adjusted capacity by income as result of the zone change. • Calculate the remaining available capacity.
• Subtract the capacity identified in the inventory for the proposed development or rezone to calculate the remaining capacity in the sites inventory by income level.
Example Continued:
Table B: Remaining Capacity*
Very LowIncomeLowIncomeModerateIncomeAbove
ModerateIncome
Capacity from sites 325 370 260 800
Capacity from ADU or other
alternative site capacity
methodology
15 10
Project Name/APN Sites Inventory RHNA from Approved/Entitled or Permitted Project
001-256-4758- 868 -160
001-256-5631 -25 -25
001-256-5270 - 330 -60
Dell Webb Master Plan -250
002-40526-7785 -50 -75
002 -526 -7788 -15
001-256-5575 -25 -155
APN Capacity changes due to rezone
003-578-7584 (downzone to open
space)
-30
Remaining Sites Inventory Capacity to Date
240 125 215 330
APN Sites Inventory Capacity from Development or
Rezone
Magnolia Luxury Apt
001-256-4472
-75
Remaining Sites Inventory Capacity with Proposed Development or Rezone 240 50 215 330
* Note: For most 5th cycle Housing Elements, jurisdictions will need to make assumptions on capacity by income category based on density and the analysis provided in the Housing Element, since the 5th cycle sites are not required to be identified by income category. However, for the 6th and subsequent cycles, sites will be required to identify capacity by income level. Some jurisdictions have chosen to combine low and very low- income RHNA for purposes of calculating site capacity, which should be reflected in supporting charts.
ATTACHMENT 6
966
Step 3: Compare remaining RHNA with remaining sites inventory to determine if additional capacity will be needed.
• Input the remaining RHNA from Table A. (If this calculation is due to a proposed development, enter the remaining RHNA from the line “Remaining RHNA with Proposed Development”.) • Input the remaining sites inventory capacity with a proposed development or rezone. • Calculate the No Net Loss potential by subtracting the available capacity from the remaining RHNA. If the result is negative, there is a net loss in capacity, and the difference must be accommodated pursuant to No Net Loss Law.
Example:
Approval of the Magnolia Luxury Apartments would result in a net capacity loss of 53 units. City A would have to rezone or identify additional capacity for at least 53 low-income units.
Table C: No Net Loss Calculation
Very LowIncomeLow-Income ModerateIncomeAbove
ModerateIncome
Remaining Capacity (Table B) 240 50 215 330
Remaining RHNA (Table A) 230 103 198 0
No Net Loss Calculation +10 -53 +17 +330
Please note: There may be many unique circumstances that do not fall neatly into the above example. This calculation tool is meant to be a framework to help jurisdictions think about the best way to identify potential No Net Loss situations.
No Net Loss Law Decision Flow Chart
The following flow chart is intended to help visualize how to determine if a project or a decision would be subject to No Net Loss Law and its remedies. Jurisdictions should consult with legal counsel prior to final determination on whether a project or decision triggers No Net Loss requirements.
ATTACHMENT 6
967
No Net Loss Law Decision Flow Chart
ATTACHMENT 6
968
Sample Housing Element Program
Sample Program: No Net Loss of Residential Capacity to Accommodate the RHNA by Income Category (Government Code section 65863)
To ensure sufficient residential capacity is maintained to accommodate the RHNA for each income category, within one year of adoption of the Housing Element, develop and implement a formal, ongoing (project-by-project) evaluation procedure pursuant to Government Code section 65863. The evaluation procedure will track the number of extremely low-, very low-, low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income units constructed to calculate the remaining unmet RHNA. The evaluation procedure will also track the number of units built on the identified sites to determine the remaining site capacity by income category and will be updated continuously as developments are approved.
No action can be taken to reduce the density or capacity of a site (e.g., downzone, moratorium), unless other additional adequate sites are identified prior to reducing site density or capacity.
If a development is being approved on an identified site at a lower density than what was assumed for that site identified in the Housing Element, additional adequate sites must be made available within 180 days of approving the development. A program to identify the replacement sites, and take the necessary actions to make the site(s) available and ensure they are adequate sites, will be adopted prior to, or at the time of, the approval of the development.
Time Frame: Within six months of adoption of the Housing Element, develop and implement a formal ongoing evaluation procedure pursuant to Government Code section 65863.
Subsequent to adopting an evaluation procedure, monitor rezones and development of residential units, and update Housing Element sites inventory. Housing Element sites inventory is posted on the Planning Department’s website and will be updated at least once a year.
At least annually, update the sites inventory in conjunction with Housing Element Annual Reports pursuant to Government Code section 65400, as necessary.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
ATTACHMENT 6
969
No Net Loss Law Statute (Government Code Section 65863) 65863.
(a) Each city, county, or city and county shall ensure that its housing element inventory described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 or its housing element program to make sites available pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need allocated pursuant to Section 65584, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c). At no time, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c), shall a city, county, or city and county by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action permit or cause its inventory of sites identified in the housing element to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need for lower and moderate-income households.
(b) (1) No city, county, or city and county shall, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, reduce, or require or permit the reduction of, the residential density for any parcel to, or allow development of any parcel at, a lower residential density, as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (g), unless the city, county, or city and county makes written findings supported by substantial evidence of both of the following:
(A) The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element. (B) The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. The finding shall include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the housing element to accommodate that need by income level. (2) If a city, county, or city and county, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, allows development of any parcel with fewer units by income category than identified in the jurisdiction’s housing element for that parcel, the city, county, or city and county shall make a written finding supported by substantial evidence as to whether or not remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. The finding shall include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the housing element to accommodate that need by income level.
(c) (1) If a reduction in residential density for any parcel would result in the remaining sites in the housing element not being adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584, the jurisdiction may reduce the density on that parcel if it identifies sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites with an equal or greater residential density in the jurisdiction so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity.
(2) If the approval of a development project results in fewer units by income category than identified in the jurisdiction’s housing element for that parcel and the jurisdiction does not find that the remaining sites in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need by income level, the jurisdiction shall within 180 days identify and make available additional adequate sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need by income level. Nothing in this section shall authorize a city, county, or city and county to disapprove a housing development project on the basis that approval of the housing project would require compliance with this paragraph.
ATTACHMENT 6
970
(d) The requirements of this section shall be in addition to any other law that may restrict or limit the reduction of residential density.
(e) This section requires that a city, county, or city and county be solely responsible for compliance with this section, unless a project applicant requests in his or her initial application, as submitted, a density that would result in the remaining sites in the housing element not being adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. In that case, the city, county, or city and county may require the project applicant to comply with this section.
The submission of an application for purposes of this subdivision does not depend on the application being deemed complete or being accepted by the city, county, or city and county. (f) This section shall not be construed to apply to parcels that, prior to January 1, 2003, were either (1) subject to a development agreement, or (2) parcels for which an application for a subdivision map had been submitted.
(g) (1) If the local jurisdiction has adopted a housing element for the current planning period that is in substantial compliance with Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3, for purposes of this section, “lower residential density” means the following:
(A) For sites on which the zoning designation permits residential use and that are identified in the local jurisdiction’s housing element inventory described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, fewer units on the site than were projected by the jurisdiction to be accommodated on the site pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2.
(B) For sites that have been or will be rezoned pursuant to the local jurisdiction’s housing element program described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583, fewer units for the site than were projected to be developed on the site in the housing element program. (2) (A) If the local jurisdiction has not adopted a housing element for the current planning period within 90 days of the deadline established by Section 65588 or the adopted housing element is not in substantial compliance with Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 within 180 days of the deadline established by Section 65588, “lower residential density” means any of the following:
(i) For residentially zoned sites, a density that is lower than 80 percent of the maximum allowable residential density for that parcel or 80 percent of the maximum density required by paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, whichever is greater. (ii) For sites on which residential and nonresidential uses are permitted, a use that would result in the development of fewer than 80 percent of the number of residential units that would be allowed under the maximum residential density for the site parcel or 80 percent of the maximum density required by paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, whichever is greater. (B) If the council of governments fails to complete a final housing need allocation pursuant to the deadlines established by Section 65584.05, then for purposes of this paragraph, the deadline pursuant to Section 65588 shall be extended by a time period equal to the number of days of delay incurred by the council of governments in completing the final housing need allocation. (h) An action that obligates a jurisdiction to identify and make available additional adequate sites for residential development pursuant to this section creates no obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) to identify, analyze, or mitigate the environmental impacts of that subsequent action to identify and make available additional adequate sites as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as a determination as to whether or not the subsequent action by a city, county, or city and county to identify and make available additional ATTACHMENT 6
971
adequate sites is a “project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (i) Notwithstanding Section 65803, this section shall also apply to a charter city.
ATTACHMENT 6
972
! "
#
$%&
&'
$%(
(
)
*(
$
'
+
(
$
,
$
,
-
$
,
)
,
',
$%
.
/0123456789:;<=23>3;?@:?39A;B3;?7CDE/0123@?0C?9:;F3224G HIIHJHHHKHHLMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_J`aHJb`LcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN rJrJ MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_sMSZ^tbZ[Q\T]T\^RO_lONO[[XWiQYT_ ROdQrHrHO_YdVQ_QluW_T_UlONO[[RTQYbSWO[[RT\OdTW_N]WXXQNTYQ_dTOR YQiQRW[qQ_dT_NTYQdVQZ[Q\T]T\^RO_
OXQOVOiQXQ\QTiQYPhRTYT_U[QXqTdNjQdbvVTN[OX\QRO_YdVQXQNdW]dVQMSZ^ [OX\QRNRTNdQYPQRWlOXQdVWNQdVOdORRWl]WXXQNTYQ_dTORYQiQRW[qQ_dT_dVQZ^b HIIHJHHHJLKHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_J`aHJHbKJcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN JaHJaHMSZ^ HIIJKaaHIJHHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_J`aHIbIwNQR]fNdWXOUQeQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN JK`JK`MSZ^ HIIJKKJHrLHHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_J`aHrJbJH mUXT\hRdhXQO_YRWl YQ_NTdjXQNTYQ_dTOR eQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN rLwrLwMSZ^ IHKHHJHHKxHaMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_J`JHHJJbwwcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN rxHJ`LarL MSZ^y[OXdTOR[OXdW][OX\QR]WXRWlQX T_\WqQh_TdNfabKJO\XQN IHKHHJaHHaHHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_J`aHKbLacO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN `r`rMSZ^IHKHHJHH`HHHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_r`JHHabwcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN JwrwK MSZ^y[OXdTOR[OXdW][OX\QR]WXRWlQX T_\WqQh_TdNfHbJKO\XQN IHKHHJHH`JHHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_wHJHHHbJKcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN Jr K MSZ^y[OXdTOR[OXdW][OX\QR]WXRWlQX T_\WqQh_TdNfHbJJO\XQN IHKHHJHHaIHHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_r`JHHrbrLcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN JxKJaL MSZ^y[OXdTOR[OXdW][OX\QR]WXRWlQX T_\WqQh_TdNfHbKLO\XQN IHKHHJHHaLHHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_r`JHHJabHwcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN aLwJIJwxx MSZ^y[OXdTOR[OXdW][OX\QR]WXRWlQX T_\WqQh_TdNfJHbxaO\XQN IHKHHJHH`KHHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_aHJHHwb``cO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN JarLIrKJ MSZ^y[OXdTOR[OXdW][OX\QR]WXRWlQX
T_\WqQh_TdNT_NhPOXQOKPfHbrHO\XQNy
[OXdTOR[OXdW][OX\QR]WXRWlQXT_\WqQ h_TdNT_NhPOXQOK\frbIaO\XQN IHKHHJHHaxHHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_aHwHKb`JcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN wraLJJH MSZ^y[OXdTOR[OXdW][O\QR]WXRWlQX T_\WqQh_TdNfJbxaO\XQN IHKHHJHHawHHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_aHwHKb`KcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN IHaLJKL MSZ^y[OXdTOR[OXdW][OX\QR]WXRWlQX T_\WqQh_TdNfrb`HO\XQN IHKHHJHHrLHHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_J`aHrbaKcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN KKKKMSZ^ IHKHHJHHrIHHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_J`aHabIxcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN wxwxMSZ^ IHKHHJHHKHHHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_J`aH`b`acO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN x`x`MSZ^ IH`HHJHHHaHKMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_J`aH`brxcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN xJxJMSZ^ IH`HHJHHHwHHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_J`aHabIKcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN wxwxMSZ^ IH`HHJ`HHLHHMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_aHwHrbwwcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN JH`KwJaJ MSZ^y[OXdTOR[OXdW][OX\QR]WXRWlQX T_\WqQh_TdNfrbJLO\XQN ATTACHMENT 7
973
! "
#
$%&
&'
$%(
(
)
*(
$
'
+
(
$
,
$
,
-
$
,
)
,
',
$%
.
/0123456789:;<=23>3;?@:?39A;B3;?7CDE/0123@?0C?9:;F3224G HIJIIKJILHIIMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_LJ`IabIacO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN `rsKKIH MSZ^t[OXdTOR[OXdW][OX\QR]WXRWlQX T_\WqQh_TdNfKbsLO\XQN HIJIIKJILrIIMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_KJsILbaJcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN aLaLMSZ^ HIJIIKJIL`IIMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_KJsILbrKcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN ararMSZ^ HIJIIKJILuIIMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_KJsILbLscO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN aIaIMSZ^ HIaIIKIIa`ILMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_`IKIIIbIucO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN KK MSZ^ HIaIIKIIa`IaMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_`IKIIIb`scO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN auauMSZ^ HIaIIKIIauILMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_KJKIIIbKKcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN KK MSZ^ HIaIIKIIKrIKMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_sI`ILbJcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN HIHIMSZ^ HIaIIKIIJLIIMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_`IKIILbrIcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN KuHKuHMSZ^ HIaIIKIIJsIIMNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_MNOPQRSQTUVPWXVWWYZ[Q\T]T\^RO_sI`IIbsLcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN LILIMSZ^ IHHIHJIIIrILnXPO_oTUVvQNTYQ_dTOR^RO__QYwQiQRW[qQ_dKrfIIsJJabJI gTiT\hNQNO_YROXUQiO\O_dOXQOW__WXdVQONdNTYQW]
[OX\QRdVOdTN[Q_YT_UYQiQRW[qQ_dON
VWhNT_UbZhPYTiTNTW_W]dVOd[OX\QRTNORNW
[Q_YT_Ub
eQNfghXXQ_deQNfgTdjfkl_QY ^Q_YT_U [XWxQ\d SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN KsIKsI yVQOXQOdWdVQ_WXdVQONdW]dVQNWROX
]TQRYlONXQ\Q_dRjXQzW_QY]WXO_O]]WXYOPRQNQ_TWXVWhNT_UYQiQRW[qQ_dbSQlRj\XQOdQY[OX\QR_hqPQXlTRRPQT_\RhYQYlVQ_TdTNOiOTROPRQbvQORTNdT\h_Td_hqPQXTNPONQYW_dVQO[[XWiQY[XWxQ\db IHrILrHILLIIwWl_dWl_mXQO wWl_dWl_Z[Q\T]T\^RO_fwWl_dWl_ gWXQ
aIJJLbIrcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QY ^Q_YT_U ^XWxQ\d SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN KaIKaI p_dTdRQY]WXKaIRWlT_\WqQh_TdNbSW PhTRYT_U[QXqTdNTNNhQYbvQORTNdT\h_Td _hqPQXTNPONQYW_dVQQ_dTdRQY[XWxQ\db
IHrILJIIILIs{ wWl_dWl_mXQO wWl_dWl_Z[Q\T]T\^RO_f SQTUVPWXVWWYSWXdVZTYQ KJLsIbLH^OX|T_URWdeQNfghXXQ_deQNfgTdjfkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN JJ gTdjfWl_QY]WXqQXvwmNTdQbwQNTU_OdQYONVWhNT_UONNQdNNTdQO_YlTRRPQYQiQRW[QYlTdVKII}O]]WXYOPRQVWhNT_U~dVOdTNlVjdVQNTdQTNT_\RhYQY]WXRWlQXvoSmQiQ_dVWhUVqOYQ_NTdjTNLsYhO\bgTdjQ[Q\dNdWXQRQONQvROdQXdVTNjQOXdWYQiQRW[O_YdWVOiQO_OUXQQqQ_d]WXdVQ [XWxQ\dT_[RO\QPjdVQQ_YW]LILabgWqPT_QYlTdVm^SPQRWlb IHrILJIIIKIa{ wWl_dWl_mXQO wWl_dWl_Z[Q\T]T\^RO_f SQTUVPWXVWWYSWXdVZTYQ KJLsIbas mhdWPWYjNVW[O_Y [OX|T_U eQNfghXXQ_deQNfgTdjfkl_QYmiOTROPRQ SWdnNQYT_^XTWX oWhNT_UpRQqQ_dN `` gTdjfWl_QY]WXqQXvwmNTdQbwQNTU_OdQYONVWhNT_UONNQdNNTdQO_YlTRRPQYQiQRW[QYlTdVKII}O]]WXYOPRQVWhNT_U~dVOdTNlVjdVQNTdQTNT_\RhYQY]WXRWlQXvoSmQiQ_dVWhUVqOTqhqYQ_NTdjTNLsYhO\bgTdjQ[Q\dNdWXQRQONQvROdQXdVTNjQOXdWYQiQRW[O_YdWVOiQO_OUXQQqQ_d]WXdVQ[XWxQ\dT_[RO\QPjdVQQ_YW]LILabgWqPT_QYlTdVm^SOPWiQ IHHKaLJIrJII WlfM_dQ_NTdjM_YhNdXTORnXPO_ oTUVvQNTYQ_dTORnofJP ^RO__QYn_TdwQiQRW[qQ_dLs`frKaIar`bKrcO\O_deQNfghXXQ_dSWf^XTiOdQRjkl_QYmiOTROPRQ nNQYT_^XTWXoWhNT_U pRQqQ_dK KruKru ATTACHMENT 7
974
2-35 Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
2. May have in-person contact with clients,
customers or employees at the residence;
3. May store up to 250 cubic feet of supplies/
stock/merchandise in the unit;
4. May employ people who do not live in the
live/work unit;
5. May have visible signage on vehicles and at
the unit, subject to the Ground floor Retail
signage standards (Chapter 5, Urban Design);
6. May have one commercial grade vehicle
associated with the business; and
7. May include photography studios and retail/
wholesale sales of products as permitted
business types.
P-LU-5: Encourage the continued operation
of, and investment in, existing business park, light
industrial, and commercial uses.
P-LU-6: Ensure that land uses are compatible with existing residential uses and minimize conflicts between adjacent land uses with
respect to scale, safety, noise, privacy, and other
potential nuisances and hazards.
P-LU-7: Plan the provision of high quality,
cost effective child care facilities are provided
throughout the Neighborhood.
• Encourage new residential, office, and mixed
use developments to incorporate child day
care facilities early in the site planning and
design process.
• Consider applying regulatory and/or financial
incentives to support child care centers close
to the Valley Link station to serve commuters.
• Partner with other public agencies such as
Alameda County, non-profit organizations,
and private child care providers to leverage
resources and assist with planning efforts.
P-LU-8: The City shall encourage property
owners to collaborate and prepare Master Plans
by residential subarea. (Refer to Figure 2-3 for the
subarea map.) For the purposes of this Specific
Plan, Master Planning shall mean the subdivision and/or site plan design review application of at least one entire subarea. If Master Planned,
residential densities may be averaged or distributed across the subarea rather than calculated at the parcel level, provided that the Master Plan
complies with:
1. The target subarea unit count and the performance measures identified in Table 2-6; and
2. All other applicable development and design
standards for the land use.
If Master Planning more than one subarea, the
densities may be averaged or distributed across
those subareas. The City may consider a unit
count lower than the average subarea unit count
within a Master Plan, if there are demonstrated,
significant regulatory, environmental, or other
constraints within the subarea, as determined by
the Director.
P-LU-9: The location of the Ground Floor
Retail/Flex Space Overlay on the BART property
north of I-580 is diagrammatic on Figure 2-1. As
the Plan is implemented, the Overlay shall apply
to all building frontages along the Isabel Path
between the north end of the Valley Link pedestrian bridge and Isabel Avenue.
P-LU-10: Allow mobile food vendors to operate
in non-residential areas within the Isabel Neighborhood with a Temporary Use Permit (TUP), subject to the following regulations:
• Mobile food vendors are responsible for
providing a solid waste receptacle and maintaining a clean environment around their facility.
• No loud music.
• No blocking driveways or taking up more than
two spaces in private parking lots.
• Mobile food vendors must provide copies of
relevant permits from the Alameda County
Health Department and obtain a City of
Livermore Business License, as part of the
TUP application.
• The TUP shall identify the locations in which
vendors would be allowed to locate and during
which hours of the day (between 8:00 AM and
9:00 PM, for example).
• The TUP shall be effective for one calendar
year with no limit on the number of days
in which it can operate. Each TUP shall be
ATTACHMENT 8
975
Isabel Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Commercial & Office Economic Feasibility
Introduction
The INSP envisioned a 106,000 SF commercial center with ground floor retail options and anchored by a grocery store. Similarly, the INSP envisions an estimated 382,000 sq. ft. for new office space.
This commercial feasibility analysis evaluates the retail and office market forces impacting the Isabel Neighborhood SpecificPlan (“INSP”) since the last market analysis was completed by Gruen Gruen + Associates (GG+A) in 2022. The report is intended to provide the City of Livermore with an understanding of how retail and office demand in the INSP area is impacted by market changes and, more specifically, if desired office and commercial density requirements in the INSP are economically feasible to achieve.
Relative to the project’s commercial uses and compatibility with the INSP, this analysis also took into consideration the following goals and objectives taken from the INSP:
1. Complete Neighborhood
2. Access to Open Space, Arroyos, and Scenic Views
3. Well Connected Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
4. High Quality Design
5. Community Gathering Spaces
6. Compatibility with Existing Uses
For both retail and office markets, Kosmont prepared a summary evaluation of local area market data on inventory, absorption rates, lease rates and vacancy rates to demonstrate the supportable new commercial development within the Project. Kosmont’s summary of the market primarily includes a specific assessment within the City of Livermore but provides a high-level analysis of the East Bay and Tri-Valley area to benchmark against regional trends.
Retail Demand Findings
Kosmont’s analysis found similar market conditions from GG+A’s findings in 2022. Demand for projected brick-and-mortar commercial space did increase slightly, likely due to stabilized retail vacancies and population increase. Given the recent shift in consumer preferences, demand is likely to be centered on retail that is geared toward essentials, experience, and e-commerce.
Retail will increasingly be part of a more blended approach (housing, retail, open space, creative office, hotel, etc.) that appeals to those working from home looking for a live, work, play environment in a post-COVID economy.
ATTACHMENT 9
976
Isabel Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Total resident and employee expenditure potential for the area surrounding the Project demonstrates a maximum need of 75,200 SF upon full buildout of the Isabel Crossing project to support the influx of new residents from the Isabel neighborhood, as well as existing local area residents, students and workers. Kosmont analysis indicates the INSP target of 106,000 SF of retail is not supported under current conditions.
Local Demographics
The City of Livermore has seen a steady increase in population growth within the past decade of about 11% according to the Imagine Livermore 2045 General Plan equating to an additional 9,000 residents. As of 2023, the total population was roughly 87,500 and with approximately 31,500 households. The average household size is 2.75 and the household income is an average of $188,700. The East Bay single-family home real estate market has grown and Livermore is no exception seeing increasing home values with a median of $970,000 in 2023. The local area is comprised of primarily owner-occupied housing units (73%) but with home values continuing to climb, the number of available renter-occupied units is expected to grow the next decade.
Local Area Demographics
Variable Livermore, CA Radius from Project Site
1 mile 3 miles 5 miles
2023 Total Population 87,549 5,316 56,574 173,667
2023 Total Households 31,511 2,019 20,056 60,324
2023 Average Household Size 2.75 2.62 2.79 2.83
2023 Median Age 40.6 39.4 38.8 39.2
2023 Average Household Income $188,751 $192,352 $191,051 $207,485 2023 Median Home Value $970,253 $921,739 $977,906 $1,132,209 2023 Renter Occupied Housing Units (%) 27.13% 17.38% 31.42% 30.56% 2023 Owner Occupied Housing Units (%) 72.87% 82.62% 68.58% 69.44% Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online
Retail Market Trends
Brick and mortar retailers across the U.S. face a dramatic decline in retail sales as the digital economy transforms the lifestyles and social patterns of every generation. Today’s consumers use online websites for purchasing many hard and soft good commodities. According to Insider Intelligence, E-commerce retail sales increased by more than 30% in 2020 due to pandemic-era shopping patterns, and growth is expected to continue, particularly in clothing and general merchandise purchases.
Consumers are purchasing retail goods through multiple vehicles such as online purchasing, brick and mortar sales and buy online / pickup in store (“BOPIS”). E-Commerce sales, which have ATTACHMENT 9
977
Isabel Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions. increased steadily over the past 10 years, grew to $1.2 trillion in 2023. Insider Intelligence says E-commerce retail sales represents over 15% of total sales and are projected to be more than 20% of total retail sales by 2027, significantly impacting new retail development feasibility.
Livermore Retail Market Overview
The retail submarket of Livermore comprises 5.2 million SF of inventory. The Livermore retail market has a current vacancy rate of 3.5%. The highest retail vacancies come from neighborhood centers (5.7%) and shopping strip centers (5.6%), while general retail buildings are holding a
1.4% vacancy rate. There has been negative absorption of 20,000 SF for neighborhood centers and strip centers. The East Bay market vacancy rate is higher at 5.5%, which has changed very little since 2018 (5.8%).
Retail Characteristics within the City of Livermore (April 2024) Submarket Retail Type Vacancy Rate
(2024)
Inventory Sq. Ft. by
Subcategory
Livermore Neighborhood 5.7% 2,210,092
Livermore Strip Centers 5.6% 380,612
Livermore General Retail 1.4% 1,925,120
Livermore Other 0% 697,000
Source: CoStar (Q2 - 2024)
Livermore has seen relatively little development (6% overall growth over the past decade). Retail vacancies saw their peak at 5.4% in 2020 due to the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic but have decreased since. Annual rents grew an overall 23% in the submarket in the past decade. No retail inventory is under construction despite the submarket’s existing low vacancy rate of 3.3%.
Retail Market History – Livermore Submarket
Period Vacancy Rate Inventory SF Available SF
Direct
Net Absorption
SF
Market Asking
Rent/SF
2024 YTD 3.5% 5,237,084 205,915 (18,489) $32.59
2023 2.4% 5,237,084 176,417 37,714 $32.23
2022 3.1% 5,234,884 183,788 44,118 $32.72
2021 3.5% 5,211,059 197,988 98,995 $32.06
2020 5.4% 5,208,859 310,810 (46,938) $31.34
2019 4.3% 5,196,476 266,816 23,997 $30.96
2018 2.0% 5,054,439 233,150 96,862 $29.87
2017 1.8% 4,941,287 150,165 63,224 $28.91
2016 3.0% 4,941,287 140,343 46,577 $27.76
2015 3.6% 4,922,451 198,053 39,678 $26.36
2014 4.3% 4,915,585 268,541 10,716 $25.19
Source: CoStar (Q2 - 2024)
ATTACHMENT 9
978
Isabel Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Competitive Retail Centers
Within a 6-mile market area there are five (5) shopping strip centers, twenty (20) neighborhood centers, and four (4) large community centers. As seen in the map below, there are approximately 23 grocery store options within a 6-mile radius from the Project, such as Costco, Walmart, Target, Safeway, Whole Foods, including ethnic-specific grocery options like 99 Ranch, 88 Seafood Market, and Del Rancho Supermercado. Although residents of Livermore have a number of options, local neighborhood-serving grocery options do not exist in the INSP area. A Costco located one mile from the site is a regional-serving option, but a smaller grocer option to serve immediate needs for residents would be a value-add as the Project is built out.
Grocery Stores within a 6-mile radius
Source: CoStar (Q2 - 2024)
City Taxable Sales
Taxable retail sales have grown less than 1% overall during the past five years, with the declines in clothing and motor vehicle related categories (-4% and -11%, respectively). The largest growth in taxable retail sales is the food services and drinking places category, which expanded by 21%, followed by general merchandise with 10% growth.
ATTACHMENT 9
979
Isabel Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
City Taxable Retail Sales for Livermore, CA
Category No. of
Outlets 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 5-Year %
1 Food Services and Drinking Places 334 216,597,013 223,969,533 156,476,998 218,057,198 249,130,694 262,310,696 21% 2 General Merchandise Stores 42 249,547,300 259,544,831 232,640,806 262,800,579 283,463,872 274,173,926 10% 3 Food and Beverage Stores 70 78,327,431 78,945,918 76,625,205 82,687,329 89,833,956 86,183,079 10% 4 Building Material and Garden
Equipment and Supplies Dealers 44 150,893,703 141,782,754 149,646,242 169,002,605 175,477,832 156,216,482 4% 5 Gasoline Stations 31 177,629,577 162,660,637 146,932,826 188,425,565 201,765,687 181,099,524 2% 6 Home Furnishings and Appliance
Stores 75 36,686,994 30,791,273 29,578,754 32,415,700 42,988,890 37,123,944 1% 7 Clothing and Clothing Accessories
Stores 270 519,605,908 531,698,429 268,482,336 435,433,831 482,543,007 499,652,112 -4% 8 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 80 402,295,421 425,063,855 329,345,106 377,298,207 397,525,765 358,264,698 -11% Subtotal 946 1,831,583,347 1,854,457,230 1,389,728,273 1,766,121,014 1,922,729,703 1,855,024,461 1% Source: City Taxable Retail Sales (2018-2023)
Potential Retail Demand
Kosmont performed an additional analysis to estimate brick-and-mortar retail demand by expenditures from four primary target markets: 1) households in the project site area, 2) households outside of the project site area but within the INSP area, 3) students from Las Positas College, and 4) local area workers.
New Resident Spending
Recent ESRI data shows City of Livermore with an average household income of approximately $188,700 annually. Among these households, estimated yearly spending for non-automotive brick-and-mortar retail and general services is approximately $38,300 per household.
Existing households in the entire city spend $1.2 billion annually in select brick-and-mortar retail categories with the highest proportion of expenditures going toward food at home, entertainment, and food away from home.
When considering the potential spending from an additional 1,299 new households within the proposed development in the Isabel Neighborhood, Kosmont estimates the new town center could capture annual expenditures of $44.8 million at full buildout, as shown in the Table on the following page.
ATTACHMENT 9
980
Isabel Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Projected Expenditures for Brick-and-Mortar Retail in Livermore Household Budget Expenditures Livermore Isabel Project
Per HH Total Exp. Total Exp.
Population
Households
87,549 87,549 -
31,511 31,511 1,299
Avg. Household Income
Food at Home $11,600 $365,527,600 $13,561,600
Food Away from Home $6,300 $198,519,300 $7,365,300
Alcoholic Beverages $1,200 $37,813,200 $1,402,900
Housekeeping Supplies $1,600 $50,417,600 $1,870,600
Household Furniture & Equipment $5,100 $160,706,100 $5,962,400 Apparel & Services $3,800 $119,741,800 $4,442,600
Entertainment $6,400 $201,670,400 $7,482,200
Personal Care Products & Services $1,700 $53,568,700 $1,987,500 Tobacco Related $600 $18,906,600 $701,500
Brick-and-Mortar Subtotal Retail: $38,300 $1,206,871,300 $44,776,600 Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (2023)
Total Demand
Annual retail expenditures from the four target markets is estimated at $132 million per year as shown in table below. Kosmont utilized $650 psf sales (an Urban Land Institute (ULI) industry average that assumes the likely sales necessary by retailers to justify development costs for new retail space. Kosmont utilized capture rates ranging from 20-50% for target markets. Capture rates are based on the groups’ likelihood of patronage to the Project’s new commercial uses and taking into consideration the variety of grocery and non-grocery retail options available in the local area.
Projected Retail Demand for Project Site
Population 1,299 1,181 8,500 7,342
Weekly Est. Expenditure - - $50 $75
Total Retail Expenditure $44,776,600 $45,232,300 $14,875,000 $27,532,500 Retail Area Capture Rate 50% 30% 50% 20%
Projected Retail Expenditure $22,388,300 $13,569,690 $7,437,500 $5,506,500 Sales / Sq. Ft. $650 $650 $650 $650
Projected Retail SF by Population 34,400 20,900 11,400 8,500 Total Projected Retail SF 75,200
Sources: OnTheMap - Local Area Workers in Specific Plan area ESRI - Household data
Las Positas College - enrollment from Educational Master Plan ULI - Sales per sq. ft. assumption for likely minimum sales performance $188,751 $188,751 $188,751
Households
in
Workers
ATTACHMENT 9
981
Isabel Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
The supportable SF from expected expenditures by the local target market segments is summarized below:
1. households in the Project are estimated to support up to 34,400 SF of brick-andmortar retail space,
2. households in the INSP area are likely to support an additional 20,900 SF.
3. Factoring both the local area worker population and Las Positas College student enrollment, an additional 19,900 SF of retail demand is estimated.
Thus, total potential demand for new brick-and-mortar retail from all populations combined is a maximum of 75,200 SF following full buildout, which is much less than the INSP target of 106,000 SF.
OFFICE UPDATE
This office analysis is to evaluate changes within the Tri-Valley office market since the last analysis was completed by GG+A in 2022. The report is intended to provide the City of Livermore with an understanding of how office demand in the INSP area is affected by market forces and, more specifically, if the expected office density in the Specific Plan is economically feasible to achieve.
Kosmont prepared a summary evaluation of office market data on inventory, absorption rates, lease rates and vacancy rates to demonstrate the feasibility of the mixed-use project. Kosmont’s summary of the market primarily includes a specific assessment within the City of Livermore, but provides a high-level analysis of the East Bay or Tri-Valley market, where appropriate, to benchmark City against regional trends.
Summary of Office Findings
Kosmont’s findings were similar to those in the GG+A report as the statewide office market has not improved since 2022. Kosmont does not deem the Livermore office market to be established enough to support new speculative office space development. Kosmont’s analysis revealed a variety of factors that do not support building speculative office space.
In particular, the Livermore market is strained by recent negative absorption (-12,382 SF), low asking rents ($32.00 / SF) that are not high enough to support new construction, and a large supply of vacant inventory (381,500 SF). Furthermore, Kosmont’s analysis revealed the market ATTACHMENT 9
982
Isabel Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions. constraints are felt more acutely near the Project. Kosmont identified eight (8) properties closest to the project site that were experiencing an average vacancy rate of 62% and vacant inventory of over 292,000 SF.
Due to Kosmont’s findings, this analysis also confirms that the INSP’s buildout target of 382,000 SF of new office is not feasible. Given market fundamentals for office in the Tri-Valley and a lack of demand for speculative office space in the City of Livermore, Kosmont does not recommend any office development for the Project.
Office Market Trends
Throughout the state, the office market has struggled to adapt to the shift in fully remote or hybrid working environments since the pandemic. Vacancy rates have increased significantly in the East Bay market since its low of 8.3% in 2019 to a current vacancy rate of 14.1%. The primary reasons are moveouts of large occupiers like Bank of America and Meta/Facebook giving back 500,000 square feet in 2023, and leases that were initiated before 2020 are expiring or will expire soon.
Office Submarket History – Tri-Valley Area
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Vacancy Rate Net Absorption Market
Rent
2023 9,884,470 1,960,534 19.8% (458,101) $33.70
2022 9,884,470 1,502,433 15.2% (127,562) $35.10
2021 9,884,470 1,374,871 13.9% (80,733) $34.62
2020 9,884,470 1,294,138 13.1% (121,778) $36.03
2019 9,884,470 1,172,360 11.9% (24,525) $34.93
2018 9,884,470 1,143,411 11.6% 108,480 $35.02
2017 9,884,470 1,251,891 12.7% (275,768) $34.44
2016 9,884,470 976,123 9.9% 63,300 $32.34
2015 9,884,470 1,040,820 10.5% 168,964 $31.77
2014 9,884,470 1,209,784 12.2% 145,928 $29.90
Source: CoStar (Q2 - 2024)
The decrease in office utilization from hybrid work can also be seen in low BART ridership levels, which are at 40% below pre-pandemic levels. The Tri-Valley office market has also seen negative net absorption of 458,101 SF and with a vacancy rate of 19.8%.
ATTACHMENT 9
983
Isabel Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Livermore Office Market Overview
The City of Livermore’s total office vacancy rate of 16.4% is higher than the greater East Bay region, but less than the entire Tri-Valley. The office market in Livermore is not well established compared to its peer cities in the entire Tri-Valley area. Utilizing CoStar’s star rating system, there are no 5-Star buildings within the City and only one 4-Star building, which is a Kaiser Permanente located on Las Positas Road. The remaining supply of office space is comprised of 1-, 2- and 3- Star buildings. Livermore’s vacancy among its 3-Star buildings remains the highest (25.5%).
In general, the office inventory is outdated and City has not seen any new units come online since 2008. Net absorption for Livermore’s office submarket is negative 12,382 SF across the City’s full inventory of nearly 2.1 million SF. Market asking rents have decreased by 0.4% since last year (2023) to $31.92 / SF but is expected to stabilize into the second half of 2024.
Office Characteristics within the City of Livermore (April 2024) Office Building Type Inventory Vacancy Rate
SF (2024)
Market Asking
Rent / SF
Under
Construction
4 Star 70,472 0% $37.63 0
3 Star 1,147,519 25.5% $30.85 0
1 & 2 Star 833,834 5.2% $32.92 0
Submarket 2,051,825 16.4% $31.92 0
Source: CoStar (Q2 - 2024)
Historically, the vacancy rate was at its lowest point in 2020 (9.0%) just prior to the pandemic.
Since then, the vacancy rates have almost doubled in four years. Increased vacancy has translated to approximately 381,000 SF of available space in the City of Livermore. Rents have also stayed flat since 2020, when compared to the year-to-date figures.
The office market in Livermore has been stagnant for years, with occupied space declining by 100,000 SF in past decade, with modified gross market rents staying flat around $30 per square foot per year.
The office inventory is unchanged since 2018. Prior to 2018 the inventory shrank as a result of approximately 33,600 SF of demolition. Given its current stock is older with primarily 2- and 3- Star buildings and with many options in the Tri-Valley area available to prospective tenants, the Livermore market vacancy rate will likely continue to climb through the end of the year with a projected vacancy rate of 17.5% by CoStar analytics.
At the time of this analysis, Kosmont identified eight (8) properties close to the Project that have an average vacancy rate of 62% and a vacant inventory of over 292,000 SF.
ATTACHMENT 9
984
Isabel Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Office Submarket History – City of Livermore
Year Inventory
SF
Vacant
SF
Vacancy Rate Net
Absorption
Market
Rent
2023 2,051,825 328,456 15.5% (5,754) $31.62
2022 2,051,825 338,009 15.2% 33,788 $31.91
2021 2,051,825 389,997 16.9% (161,386) $31.66
2020 2,051,825 264,892 9.0% 143,206 $32.09
2019 2,051,825 331,306 16.0% (85,920) $32.49
2018 2,077,025 213,003 12.9% 6,103 $30.64
2017 2,077,025 245,281 13.1% (80,169) $28.83
2016 2,085,425 247,990 9.7% (2,017) $27.91
2015 2,085,425 241,319 9.6% 27,298 $26.03
2014 2,085,425 272,146 10.9% 38,603 $24.56
Source: CoStar (Q2 - 2024)
Conclusion
Kosmont’s conclusion is that new office development is financially infeasible with modified gross market rents slightly above $30 per square foot. Operating expenses and normal vacancy factors would reduce net operating income to $20 per square foot, which indicates a stabilized value of $400 per square foot, which is dramatically lower than estimated development costs of $600 per square foot.
ATTACHMENT 9
985
ISABEL PORTOLA CROSSING PROJECT
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
Isabel Portola Owner, LLC
Prepared By:
1601 N. Sepulveda Blvd. #382
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
www.kosmont.com
June 2024
ATTACHMENT 9
986
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Overview
Isabel Portola Owners, LLC (“Applicant”) is seeking entitlements from the City of Livermore (“City”) to develop Isabel Crossing, a significant mixed-use project on a 45-acre former Sutter Health site with an estimated 1,299 residential units, 65,900 SF of new retail/restaurants uses (“Project”) surrounding almost 2 acres of public outdoor space, all within the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (“INSP”), an 1,138-acre area concentrated along the I-580 freeway, adopted by the City of Livermore (“City”) in 2020, and amended in 2022 as a regulatory framework for the next 20 years.
Kosmont & Associates, Inc. doing business as Kosmont Companies (“Consultant” or “Kosmont”) has prepared this Fiscal and Economic Impact and a separate Commercial Feasibility Analysis (“Analysis”) for the Applicant’s proposed Project in the INSP.
The Fiscal Analysis evaluates net fiscal revenues and expenditures for the City, as well as direct, indirect, and induced economic benefits to the local economy resulting from development of the Project.
• The fiscal revenues were derived by estimating the various City taxes associated with the proposed Project including property taxes, business taxes, franchise taxes, direct and indirect sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes, and utility user taxes. • The fiscal expenditures were derived from a per capita allocation ratio applied to estimated Project occupants based on the 2023-24 Adopted Budget for the City.
The Commercial Feasibility Analysis examined the economic and market factors affecting near term demand for retail and office uses with the Applicant property in the INSP. The INSP, developed in the past 5 years, envisioned a target level of 1,477 residential units with a mix of 20% affordable units, 106,000 SF of retail uses, and 382,000 SF of business park/office uses on the Project site.
Kosmont’s analysis indicates that substantial reductions in all three land use categories (i.e., retail, residential, and office/business park) within the INSP are required for Project’s feasibility given the various community benefit requirements, such as new roadway infrastructure to create a mixeduse town square, public parks, and viable neighborhoods.
Additional economic feasibility/hardship analyses related to affordable housing equivalency and Housing Density were also prepared by Kosmont under separate cover.
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan
The City adopted the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (“INSP”) in 2020 , and amended in 2022 to establish a framework for public and private development in an 1,138-acre area in the northwest sector of the City centered on the intersection of I-580 and Isabel Avenue. The major focus of the ATTACHMENT 9
987
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions. planning effort is a ½ mile radius from the proposed Valley Link station site. The primary objectives of the INSP are to:
• Create safe vibrant neighborhood with amenities for residents, workers and students compatible with community character.
• Support citywide goals for increased housing choices and economic vitality. • Support Valley Link rail by developing a complete neighborhood.
The planning area currently has approximately 1,380 residential units, commercial, industrial and institutional uses supporting 10,500 jobs, and it contains 250 acres of undeveloped land.
The Project site is located within the INSP at the intersection of Isabel and Portola Avenues, north of I-580 freeway interchange in the City, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Map of Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Area ATTACHMENT 9
988
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY BENEFITS
Development of the Project will generate thousands of construction jobs, and hundreds of retail and service jobs following completion. Developer is estimated to pay over $125 million in impact fees to City and County agencies, and City could receive $4 million per year in general fund tax revenues, yielding a significant fiscal and economic benefit for the City of Livermore, the school districts and local business, as well as provide other significant community benefits including:
• 363 affordable housing units for very low, low, median, and moderate-income households. • 1.5-acre public park, as well as other open space amenities including a trail system, plazas and town square
• Community recreation center
• 65,000 square foot town center
Stimulus from New Resident Spending
With approximately 1,300 new households, Kosmont estimates the Project residents at buildout will infuse approximately $43 million in local retail spending, of which Livermore businesses, outside of the Project could expect to capture an estimated 75% of this new resident spending.
Development Impact Fees
Development of the Project will require payment of $125 million in fees for City and various local agencies as summarized below. The analysis excludes City Transferable Development Credit (“TDC”) fees, for which Applicant has not received an estimate as of the date of this report.
City will receive approximately $36 million in one-time impact fees and improvements at Project buildout:
• $14 million for traffic impacts (less earned credit of $2.2 million for Developer provided facilities),
• $15.5 million or water, sewer and drainage improvements; and • $6.5 million for other items.
Livermore Area Recreation and Park District will receive $26.7 million for park facilities (less earned credit of $1.5 million for Developer provided land),
The Zone 7 Water Agency is expected to receive approximately $48 million in developer fees.
The Tri-Valley Transportation Authority is expected to receive close to $5 million in fees The Livermore Valley School District is estimated to receive $8.7 million in one-time fees Annual Fiscal Impact to City
Considering the uncertainty of future economic conditions over the likely +10-year buildout, Kosmont estimated Project’s annual tax revenues in 2024 dollars of $4.1 million at full buildout.
After deducting the estimated $3.1 million increase in City service costs, the Project is anticipated to yield a net fiscal impact to the City of approximately $1 million annually in 2024 dollars.
ATTACHMENT 9
989
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Exhibit 1: Summary of City Fiscal Impact
Project Annual Fiscal Revenues
Estimated
City General Fund Revenues Annual Total
Property Tax (Secured & Unsecured) $1,722,000
Property Tax in Lieu of MVLF $328,000
Sales & Use Tax (Direct On-Site) $182,000
Sales & Use Tax (Indirect Off-Site) $357,000
Franchise Fees $211,900
Business Licenses $600,700
License & Permits $196,600
Fines & Forfeitures $12,100
Charge for Services $276,100
Other Taxes $203,900
Total Estimated General Fund Revenues: $4,090,300
City General Fund Expenditures
Police $1,241,731
Fire $716,289
Public Works $262,025
Library $212,651
General Government $694,006
Total Expenditures $3,127,000
Estimated Net Fiscal Impact $963,000
Source: Kosmont Companies, City of Livermore
Economic Benefits
The Analysis also includes an assessment of economic impact and job benefits using the IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) econometric input/output model developed by the IMPLAN Group.
The model quantifies the economic impact to the local region during the Project construction period as well as ongoing operations. The output includes direct and indirect jobs and wage estimates during the construction period and permanent direct and indirect jobs and wage estimates for stabilized operations.
Construction Period
This Project will yield substantial economic benefits to the City, Alameda County, and the region, as buildout will require approximately $600 million in capital expenditures (excluding land acquisition and financing costs).
Per the IMPLAN analysis, the spending is estimated to provide 3,752 Full Time Equivalent (“FTE”) jobs on site, with additional 1,073 FTE indirect service jobs spread countywide. Combined paying ATTACHMENT 9
990
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions. $475 million in wages and could yield an additional $230 million in indirect and induced regional economic output.
Operations
At full buildout, the Project will support approximately 200 FTE jobs onsite from commercial retail and office businesses, plus property management and maintenance for the residential development. Resident spending from the Project is estimated to support 533 FTE local jobs and ($40 million in wages).
Other Benefits
In addition to General Fund revenues and local job creation, Tri-Valley Transportation and Zone 7 Water fees, the Project will provide indirect benefits to City, County and Livermore Valley School District (“School District”):
• The School District will receive approximately $8.7 million in one-time developer school fees estimated at approximately $4.79 per square foot of residential and $0.62 per square foot of commercial building area.
• The School District will receive 21.5% of the basic 1% property tax levy, yielding at full buildout an estimated $1.8 million per year (shown in Section 4).
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this Analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
ATTACHMENT 9
991
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Project Description
The Project is to be developed on the 45-acre subarea 3b and 3c site within the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan, just north of the I-580 freeway. The Site is adjacent to an office / business park to the west, single-family townhomes and Las Positas College to the north (across Portola Avenue), and more single-family townhomes to the east (across Isabel Avenue). Heading south on Isabel Avenue immediately south of I-580 exists a variety of commercial spaces to the southwest and office / business park space to the southeast.
Figure 2 Aerial Photo of Site and Immediate Neighborhood Source: Google Earth
The Site is currently vacant. The Applicant’s proposed multi-phase redevelopment Project will consist of 1,299 residential units, 1.5-acre neighborhood park, 3.9 acres of garden/green spaces spread throughout the Project, an approximate 9,825 SF community recreation center, and an estimated 65,900 SF of commercial retail space.
Figure 3 shows the conceptual master plan level of the site.
ATTACHMENT 9
992
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Figure 3: Site Plan
ATTACHMENT 9
993
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Stabilized Annual Fiscal Impact
The fiscal impact analysis evaluates the stabilized annual fiscal revenues and municipal service costs expected for the City’s General Fund for the Project. Fiscal revenue estimates were derived from estimating the various taxes including property taxes (secured and unsecured), business taxes, utility and franchise taxes, direct and indirect sales taxes. Municipal service costs were derived from City budget categories allocated on a per capita basis. The Analysis is based on information provided by the Applicant, City, County Property Tax Auditor-Controller’s Office, California Department of Finance (“DOF”), California Board of Equalization (“BOE”), and ESRI.
General Assumptions
Given the uncertainty of actual development timing and future inflation rates for revenues and expenses, Kosmont has focused this Analysis on the estimated annual revenues and expenses at full Project buildout. All estimates are 2024 Dollars.
Fiscal Revenue Analysis
Property Tax
Property tax revenues are based on the anticipated assessed value of the Project upon full buildout and the applicable City property tax rates. The Project is predominantly located within Tax Rate Area 16-000. Based on the County Assessor allocation for TRA 16-000, the General Fund receives approximately 21% of the annual 1.0% secured property tax general levy, the Livermore Area Rec and Park District receives approximately 12% and Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District receives approximately 21.5% of the basic levy.
Based on estimated assessed value of $1,000,000 per for-sale residential unit, $500,000 for market rate rental unit and $350 per SF of retail at full buildout, Project is estimated to generate $1.7 million in annual property taxes to the City General fund, $1 million to Parks & Rec District, while School District could receive $1.76 million as shown below.
Exhibit 2: Property Taxes
Project Buildout
Baseline: Existing Assessed Value $ 50,000,000
Estimated New Assessed Value $870,000,000
Net Assessed Value $820,000,000
Total Secured Property Tax General Levy 1.00% $8,200,000 Distributions to Taxing Entities
City of Livermore 21.00% $1,722,000
Livermore Parks and Rec District 12.00% $984,000
School District 21.50% $1,763,000
Source: County Assessor, Kosmont Companies
ATTACHMENT 9
994
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Taxes in Lieu of VLF
Prior to 2004, a percentage of State of California motor vehicle license fee (“VLF”) was distributed to cities. In 2005, the State instituted a revenue swap, guaranteeing that municipalities within California receive a distribution equal to the VLF collected, plus a percentage equal to the annual increase in assessed value, which for Livermore is equivalent to approximately 4% share of the basic levy, or estimated VLF revenues of $328,000 for full buildout.
Sales Tax (On-Site / Direct)
California cities receive 1% of the taxable retail sales occurring within the City. The Project has a minimum of 65,000 SF of designated retail/restaurant space plus 25,000 SF of non-residential space. Kosmont assumed that onsite businesses generate an average of $500 per square foot in taxable sales or $32 million annually. Based on the basic 1.0% sales tax allocated to cities, direct sales tax revenues from the Project to the City General Fund at stabilization are estimated at approximately $325,000. Adding the State allocated Use Tax conservatively estimated at 12%, yields an estimated total of $384,000 per year.
Exhibit 3: Onsite Sales Tax
Project
Retail SF 65,000 SF
Estimated Taxable Sales - Retail $500 PSF $32,500,000
Sales Tax to City 1.00% $325,000
Use Tax as % of Sales Tax 12.00% $39,000
Total Direct Sales & Use Tax to City: $364,000
Source: BOE, City of Livermore, Kosmont Companies
Sales Tax (Off-Site / Indirect)
Off-site / indirect sales tax revenue projections are estimated based on the taxable sales generated by the spending of Project residents, businesses and employees within the area.
Employee spending is based on BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey data.
Annual Use Tax collected by the State is allocated to each City from County Pool taxes based fair share allocation of online sales taxes, averaging over 12% of the local sales taxes generated. At stabilized occupancy, the total annual resident retail spending is estimated $42.5 million at full buildout. Based on the Project’s location, the Analysis assumes a 75% Citywide capture rate for annual spending, yielding indirect/offsite sales and use tax revenue to the General Fund estimated at $357,000 per year as shown in Exhibit 4.
ATTACHMENT 9
995
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Exhibit 4: Sales Tax (Off-Site/Indirect)
Full Buildout
Ownership Households 833
Est. Annual HH Retail Spending $38,000
Rental Households 466
Est. Annual HH Retail Spending $20,000
Estimated # Employees 202
Estimated Annual Local Retail Spending Per Employee $7,500 Estimated Taxable Retail Spending $42,490,000
Estimated Capture within City 75.0% $31,870,000
Sales Tax to City 1.00% $318,700
Use Tax as % of Sales Tax 12.00% $38,244
Total Indirect Sales & Use Tax to City: $357,000
Source: ESRI, Livermore, and Kosmont Companies
Other Tax Revenues
The City collects a variety of taxes and fees from residents and businesses. These include franchise fees on utility charges, business taxes, business license and permits, fines and forfeitures, charges for services, misc. taxes and business license fees for commercial and industrial uses, as summarized in Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6.
Exhibit 5 Other Per Capita Tax Factors
Relevant Per
2024/25City City Capita
City Budget Category Budget Allocation Basis Population Discount Factor General Fund Revenues
Franchise Fees
Business Licenses
License & Permits
Fines & Forfeitures
Charge for Services
Other Taxes
$6,575,000 Service Population 116,000 0% $56.68
$10,735,000 Employee Population 52,000 20% $165.15
$3,514,000 Employee Population 52,000 20% $54.06
$385,000 Service Population 116,000 0% $3.32
$8,805,000 Service Population 116,000 0% $75.91
$6,326,000 Service Population 116,000 0% $54.53
Total Selected Revenues $36,340,000
Source: 2024-25 City Budget, and Kosmont Companies
They illustrate the combined new revenue from these taxes is estimated at $1,494,000 at full buildout.
ATTACHMENT 9
996
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Estimated # Residents
Employees
Total Project Service Population
3,637
202
3,738
Budget Category Allocation Basis
Project
Exhibit 6: Other Tax Revenue
Revenues
Franchise Fees Service Population $209,700
Business Licenses Employee Population $600,700
License & Permits Employee Population $196,600
Fines & Forfeitures Service Population $11,900
Charge for Services Service Population $273,300
Other Taxes Service Population $201,800
Total Other Revenues - Rounded: $1,494,000
Source: 2024-25 City Livermore Budget, and Kosmont Companies Fiscal Expenditure Analysis
The City’s General Fund expenditures will be impacted by the new development. Expenditures such as police, fire, public works, parks; museums, library, community development and general government (city council, city manager, city clerk) and other miscellaneous categories. For this analysis Kosmont estimated the per capita cost based on the City Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Adopted Budget, and the relevant resident and employee populations within the City.
Service Population
For the purpose of expenditure budget allocation, total projected employees within the City are multiplied by a factor of 0.5 to arrive at a number of equivalent residents. The sum of these “equivalent” residents plus actual City residents equal the “service population” of 116,000 referenced in Exhibit 7 below.
Exhibit 7: City Service Population
Total City Population (2023) 90,000
Total City Employee Population (2023) 52,000
Employee Weighting for Service Population 0.50
Total Weighted # Employees 26,000
Total City Service Population 116,000
Source: ESRI and Kosmont
ATTACHMENT 9
997
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
General Fund Expenditures
Based on the budget and service population, Kosmont estimated a fixed/variable percentage appropriate for each category to derive per capita cost factors shown in Exhibit 8.
Exhibit 8: Fiscal Expenditures
Relevant Discount Per
2024/25City City for Fixed Capita
City Budget Category Budget Allocation Basis Population Costs Factor General Fund Expenditures
Police $48,167,000 Service Population 116,000 20% $332.19 Fire $27,785,000 Service Population 116,000 20% $191.62 Public Works $10,164,000 Service Population 116,000 20% $70.10 Library
General Government
Administration
$7,517,000
$8,193,000
Resident Population
Service Population
90,000
116,000
30%
50%
$58.47
$35.31
Administrative Services $6,658,000 Service Population 116,000 50% $28.70 General Services $3,412,000 Service Population 116,000 50% $14.71 Economic Development $3,099,000 Service Population 116,000 50% $13.36 Community Development $21,711,000 Service Population 116,000 50% $93.58 Subtotal General Governmen $43,073,000 $185.66
Total: Expenditures $136,706,000 $838.03
Source: City 2024-25 Budget and Kosmont
Applying the per capita factor to each service cost category, Kosmont estimates additional City General Fund expenditures in 2024 dollars to total $3,130,000 following full build-Out as shown in Exhibit 9.
Exhibit 9: Annual Fiscal Expenditures
Project Buildout
Estimated # Employees 3,637
Employees 202
Total Project Service Population 3,738
Budget Category Allocation Basis
Expenditures
Police Service Population $1,241,731
Fire Service Population $716,289
Public Works Service Population $262,025
Library Residents $212,651
General Government Service Population $694,006
Total Expenditures - Rounded: $3,130,000
Source: City of Livermore, Kosmont
ATTACHMENT 9
998
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Net Fiscal Analysis
Considering the expected increase in annual General Fund revenue and municipal service costs, the Project is expected to generate a net fiscal surplus of $963,000 per year at full build-Out (2024 dollars), as shown below.
Exhibit 10: Net Fiscal Analysis
Project Annual Fiscal Revenues
Estimated
City General Fund Revenues Annual Total
Property Tax (Secured & Unsecured) $1,722,000
Property Tax in Lieu of MVLF $328,000
Sales & Use Tax (Direct On-Site) $182,000
Sales & Use Tax (Indirect Off-Site) $357,000
Franchise Fees $211,900
Business Licenses $600,700
License & Permits $196,600
Fines & Forfeitures $12,100
Charge for Services $276,100
Other Taxes $203,900
Total Estimated General Fund Revenues: $4,090,300
City General Fund Expenditures
Police $1,241,731
Fire $716,289
Public Works $262,025
Library $212,651
General Government $694,006
Total Expenditures $3,127,000
Estimated Net Fiscal Impact $963,000
Source: City of Livermore, Kosmont Companies
ATTACHMENT 9
999
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Development Impact Fees
In addition to annual General Fund tax revenues and local job creation, the Project will provide millions of dollars in one-time impact fees to the City General Fund, local school district, recreation and parks and regional traffic and water agencies.
Exhibit 11 shows the various City impact fees for each land use type, as well as for the other agencies as summarized below:
The Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District (“LARPD”) charges fees for square foot of commercial and per residential unit as shown in Exhibit 11.
The Alameda County Flood Control Dept. (“Zone 7 Water”) charges significant fees equal to $36 per square foot for commercial and $59,600 for each Townhome unit and $16,200 for each apartments/stacked flat unit.
Tri-Valley Transportation Agency charges fees equal to approximately $3.74 per square foot of commercial and $3,500 per residential unit.
The School District will receive one-time developer fees at approximately $4.79 per square foot of residential ($4,800 per unit) and $0.62 per square foot of commercial/industrial building area for a total of $1.5 million.
Exhibit 11: Impact Fee Schedule
Source: Isabel Portola Owners, City of Livermore
Per Unit/SF Cost Factor Commercial Townhomes Apts/Flats PSF Per Unit Per Unit
LARPD Park Fees $3.178 $21,809 $19,220
City Traffic Impact $32.250 $9,358 $8,002
Water Connection $2.844 $8,009 $1,709
Storm Drainage $0.540 $1,080 $513
Sewer Connection $1.770 $6,948 $6,108
Social/Human Services $0.005 $1,298 $1,298
GP Cost Recovery $0.390 $780 $371
Art in Public Places $0.000 $4,125 $2,475
Total City Fee $37.799 $31,598 $20,475
Zone 7 Fees $36.72 $59,564 $16,193
Tri-Valley Transportation $3.740 $3,484 $3,484
School District Fee $0.624 $9,580 $4,551
ATTACHMENT 9
1000
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Applying the per Unit/SF fees to the proposed land uses in Exhibit 12 shows that Project development will generate approximately $26 million to LARPD and $36 million in fees to the City, primarily fortraffic and utility connection fees. Overall, the developers will pay approximately $80 per square foot of commercial, $120,000 per Townhome unit and $65,000 per multi-family unit.
Zone 7 Water fees are estimated at $48 million, while Tri-Valley transportation fees are estimated at $5 million and local school fees are estimated at $8.7 million. Note that nonresidential uses generate less than 5% of the combined City, Agency and school fees.
Exhibit 12: Impact Fees By Use
ource: Isabel Portola Owners, City of Livermore
90,000 545 754 Total
Total Fee Non-Residential TownHomes Apts/Flats Project
LARPD Park Fees $ 286,020 $11,885,905 $14,491,880 $26,664,000 City Traffic Impact $ 2,902,500 $ 5,100,110 $ 6,033,508 $14,036,000 Water Connection $ 256,000 $ 4,364,905 $ 1,288,345 $ 5,909,000 Storm Drainage $ 48,600 $ 588,600 $ 386,802 $ 1,024,000 Sewer Connection $ 159,300 $ 3,786,660 $ 4,605,432 $ 8,551,000 Social/Human Services $ 450 $ 707,410 $ 978,692 $ 1,687,000 GP Cost Recovery $ 35,100 $ 425,100 $ 279,357 $ 740,000 Art in Public Places $ - $ 2,248,125 $ 1,866,150 $ 4,114,000 Total City Fees $ 3,400,000 $17,220,000 $15,440,000 $36,060,000 Zone 7 Fees $3,305,000 $32,463,000 $12,209,000 $47,977,000 Tri-Valley Transportation $337,000 $1,899,000 $2,627,000 $4,863,000 School District Fee $56,000 $5,221,000 $3,431,000 $8,708,000 ATTACHMENT 9
1001
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Economic and Job Benefits
Construction Cost
The hard and soft construction costs for the residential mixed-use Project were estimated by Applicant at approximately $600 million for full buildout. Land acquisition and financing costs are not referenced, as they do not impact the economic benefit calculations.
IMPLAN Modeling
The Analysis uses the IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) econometric input/output model developed by the IMPLAN Group to quantify the economic benefit to the local region from Project construction / renovation and ongoing operations. This proprietary model estimates the economic benefits on the industries in a given geographic area based on known economic inputs, such as construction costs. The model estimates direct, indirect, and induced benefits expressed in terms of increased economic activity (“output”), earnings (“labor income”), and job creation.
Direct Economic Benefits: Direct benefits refer to the short-term business activity of general contractors involved in Project construction / renovation and the ongoing business activities of Project tenants.
Indirect Economic Benefits: Indirect benefits will result when local firms directly impacted by the Project purchase materials, supplies or services from other firms. Examples would include increased sales of building materials as a result of construction activity, and increased sales of inputs related to the business operations of tenants within the Project.
Induced Economic Benefits: Induced benefits relate to the consumption spending of employees of firms that are directly or indirectly affected by the Project. These would include the goods and services associated with household consumption (e.g. housing, retail purchases, services).
Inputs for the IMPLAN economic benefit analysis include the development budget provided by the Client and permanent on-site employment information estimated by Kosmont. The permanent fulltime employment estimates were derived from similar projects and industry standard per- squarefoot employment densities for corresponding land use types.
ATTACHMENT 9
1002
Isabel Portola Project
Fiscal / Economic Analysis
June 2024
The analyses, projections, assumptions and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis, as results are difficult to predict as a function of market conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, significant economic impacts, legislation and administrative actions.
Economic Benefits from Construction (One-Time / Short-Term) Economic Benefits from Ongoing Operation (Annual)
Construction Related Economic Benefits
During the construction period, the Project is expected to produce approximately 3,752 onsite/direct FTE construction jobs, and combined with 1,073 indirect and induced job impacts, a total of 4,825 FTE jobs, $475 million in labor income, and approximately $834 million of total economic output are expected within the County, of which an estimated $615 million is within the City (see Exhibit 13).
Exhibit 13: Economic Benefits from Construction
Employment Labor Income Economic Output
Direct (On-Site) 3,752 $393,100,000 $604,000,000
Indirect 261 $22,500,000 $61,200,000
Induced 812 $60,200,000 $169,300,000
Total Countywide 4,825 $475,800,000 $834,500,000
Estimated City Capture 3,806 $397,235,000 $615,525,000
Values in 2024 dollars.
Source: IMPLAN, Kosmont Companies
Economic Benefits from Ongoing Operation
At full buildout the multi-family and commercial operations are projected to provide 201 FTE jobs on site. In addition, business and resident spending is expected to support approximately 533 indirect and induced jobs, for a total of 734 countywide jobs, $50 million of labor income, and $131 million economic output. (see Exhibit 14). The City is estimated to capture 446 FTE jobs with $29 million in annual wages.
Exhibit 14: Economic Benefits from On-Going Operations - Full Buildout Employment Labor Income Economic Output
Direct (On-Site) 201 $10,200,000 $17,600,000
Indirect 24 $2,100,000 $5,300,000
Induced 509 $38,600,000 $108,900,000
Total Countywide 734 $50,900,000 $131,800,000
Estimated City Capture 446 $28,900,000 $70,200,000
Source: IMPLAN, Kosmont Companies
ATTACHMENT 9
1003
Kosmont Companies
Mailing Address: 1601 N. Sepulveda Blvd., #382 (424) 297-1070 Physical Address: 2301 Rosecrans Ave, Ste. 4140 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 www.kosmont.com El Segundo, CA 90245
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 21, 2024
To: Planning Division, Community Development Department, City of Livermore From: Larry Kosmont, CEO - Kosmont Companies
Thomas Jirovsky, Senior Advisor – Kosmont Companies
Re: Affordable Housing Economic Equivalency Analysis – Isabel Crossing ____________________________________________________________________________ Kosmont & Associates, Inc., doing business as Kosmont Companies (“Consultant” or “Kosmont”), presents this memorandum providing an economic analysis of the proposed affordable housing program in Isabel Portola Owner, LLC (“Applicant") master planned, mixed-use development located (“Project”) located on an approximately 45-acre site within the Isabel Neighborhood of the City of Livermore, California (“City”).
This memorandum provides Kosmont’s high-level comparative economic equivalency assessment between the Project’s proposed affordable housing program and the generally applicable affordable housing requirements as set out under the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (“INSP”) and the Livermore Development Code (“LDC") (collectively “City Affordable Housing Regulations”). As set out below, the Project proposes a robust affordable housing program that exceeds the requirements of the INSP and LDC in terms of supporting housing at all affordability levels. In addition, the added affordable housing units require an estimated $15- 20 million greater investment by the Applicant to construct affordable housing units.
Comparative Economic Analysis
The LDC generally requires new housing developments to provide between 10 and 15% of all apartment and for-sale residential units as affordable for low income and moderate income households.
1 The LDC increases this requirement within the INSP area by requiring 20% of the units in a new housing project to be provided as covenanted affordable units.2
The maximum annual household income levels for an average sized household of three persons3 needed to qualify for the affordable housing levels addressed in City regulations are summarized as follows:
1 LDC, §10.06.505-A.I.a.
2 LDC, §10.06.505-A.I.c.
3 The average household size in Livermore is 2.82 persons, per U.S. Census Bureau 2018-2022 data.
See: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/livermorecitycalifornia/HSD310222, last accessed April 24, 2024.
ATTACHMENT 9
1004
Isabel Portola Owner, LLC
DRAFT Affordable Equivalency Analysis
June 21, 2024
Kosmont Companies 2 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
• Very Low Income: $ 64,300;
• Low Income: $ 98,650;
• Median Income: $128,500;
• Moderate Income: $154,200.
4 The Applicant’s development plan calls for a total of 1,299 dwelling units, including 466 apartment units, 288 stacked flat condominium units, and 545 townhouse units. Of these, the Project proposes to provide a total of 363 covenanted affordable housing units, 28% percent of the total units in the Project.
Of the 363 affordable units, the Project proposes a total of 306 affordable rental units and 57 affordable for-sale units. This includes a total of 65 rental units for households at the Very Low Income Level, 113 rental units for households at the Low Income Level, 65 rental units for households at the Median Income Level, 63 rental units for households at the Moderate Income Level, 18 for-sale units for households at the Median Income Level, and 39 for-sale units for households at the Moderate Income Level. The Project would thus provide 178 housing units to benefit Very Low and Low Income households earning from $60,000 to just under $100,000 per year.
By comparison, following the City’s Affordable Housing Regulations’ 20% inclusionary requirement, the Applicant would provide a total of 260 affordable units, including 166 affordable for sale units for median and moderate income households and 94 affordable rental units, including 30 Very Low, 32 Low, 18 Median, and 14 Moderate Income units.5 Stated differently, compliance with the City Affordable Housing Regulations, would only yield 62 low and very low units out of the 206 total affordable units benefiting an average-sized households earning less than $100,000 per year.
The Project thus provides 103 more total affordable units than would be required by applicable City Affordable Housing Regulations. In addition, the Project would provide 178 affordable housing units for households earning under $100,000 per year, which is nearly three times more low-income units than City Affordable Housing Regulations require.
In addition, the Project’s proposed housing plan will require an increased investment of approximately $15-20 million from the Applicant for the 363 affordable units’ construction costs and fees, as compared to the cost to build the 260 affordable units under strict compliance with City Affordable Housing Regulations.
Under City Regulations, the Applicant would need to build 166 for-sale units ranging from 1,600 to 2,000 SF with a construction costs of $300 to $350 per SF – or ~$600,000 per unit on average, and 94 apartment units estimated to cost $400,000 per unit based on an average 1,000 SF per 4 City of Livermore, 2024 Affordable For-Sale Prices and Rental Rates, found at:
https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showdocument?id=11243&t=638412798907201477, last visited April 23, 2024.
5 This analysis assumes a proportionate number of for sale and rental affordable units would be provided.
See LCD, §10.06.505-A.I.c.
ATTACHMENT 9
1005
Isabel Portola Owner, LLC
DRAFT Affordable Equivalency Analysis
June 21, 2024
Kosmont Companies 3 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
unit (including common areas) and will cost $400 per SF including allocated parking structure costs for total investment of $135-$140 million. The proposed Project will provide 57 for sale units (@~$550,000 to $600,000) and 306 apartment units (@$400,000) with a total investment of ~$155 million, an increase investment of $15 to $20 million.
Collateral Economic Factors
The provision of affordable housing for families and persons earning under $100,000 per year is critical in light of the region and state’s current, constrained housing market. Such affordable housing is needed for a variety of working professionals. This includes governmental employees, including City staff, teachers in local schools, social workers, emergency service providers, and other public professionals who serve the community. Such workers are often forced to commute into the City from long distances, a factor that produces a variety of negative economic, environmental, and personal outcomes for the workers. Such housing is also needed for many young and other working professionals and households making under $100,000 per year, including employees of non-profits/public benefit organizations, service industry workers, and restaurant, retail and hospitality industry workers.
According to Zillow, the median monthly rent for a two-bedroom market rate rental unit in Livermore is $2,895 as of April 2024.6 In 2024, the maximum monthly rent for a covenanted Very Low Income two-bedroom rental unit in the City is $1,665, available for households or persons earning up to $66,600 per year; a 42.5% reduction from the City’s median rent for a two-bedroom unit.7 For a two-bedroom Low Income rental unit, the maximum monthly rent is $1,998, available for households or persons earning up to $79,720 per year; a 30% reduction from the City’s median rent for a two-bedroom unit.
Covenanted affordable housing rents are set at levels that constitute 30% of the monthly takehome income of qualifying low-income tenants, excluding tenant utility allowances. This rent level is set to avoid negative “housing burden,” which is defined to occur where a household pays more than 30% of its total household income on housing. According to a 2023 study, 56% of renter households in the Tri-Valley area were rent burdened based on 2017-2021 data, while overcrowding of housing units in the area nearly doubled between just 2015 and 2021. 8 6 See, Zillow.com, 2024, found at: https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/livermoreca/#:~:text=The%20median%20rent%20price%20in,%24400%20less%20than%20April%202023, last visited April 23, 2024.
7 City of Livermore, 2024 Affordable For-Sale Prices and Rental Rates, found at:
https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showdocument?id=11243&t=638412798907201477, last visited April 23, 2024.
8 Tri-Valley Nonprofit Alliance, Data Profile: Just Getting by in the Tri-Valley, 2023 Updates, at p. 11, found at: https://tvnpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/TVAPC-Data-Profile-Final-2023.pdf, last visited April 23, 2024. Overcrowding is defined by the US Census as having more than 1.01 person per bedroom in a housing unit. Ibid. Notably, the City’s most recent Sixth Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element reports lower numbers of both housing burden and overcrowding, the data still demonstrates overall increases in both important housing market health metrics over time.
ATTACHMENT 9
1006
Isabel Portola Owner, LLC
DRAFT Affordable Equivalency Analysis
June 21, 2024
Kosmont Companies 4 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
With the Project providing 103 units in excess of affordability requirements, Kosmont believes the Project’s affordable housing program is economically superior to strict compliance with the City Affordable Housing Regulations. The Project, as proposed, provides more affordable housing units overall, and more units for persons that qualify for the lower income categories covered by City code and state law, which have the greatest economic need for financial assistance.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Comparative Analysis In the past nine years, the City has been successful in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) goals for Moderate and Above Moderate Income units, but has fallen short for Low and Very Low Income units. Thus, the Project’s provision of greater Low and Very Low Income units provides a notable boost toward the City meeting lower income housing goals for which it has the greatest need as shown below:
2015-2022 Fifth Cycle RHNA Targets and Housing Production9 Affordability Level RHNA Goal 2015-
2022
Actual City Housing
Production 2015-
2022
Percentage of
RHNA Target
Achieved
Very Low Income 839 196 23.3%
Low Income 474 56 8.4%
Moderate Income10 496 649 131%
Above Moderate
Income
920 1,411 153%
The most recent Annual Housing Element Progress Report issued in March 2024 concluded that, in 2023, a total of 80 Moderate Income and 42 Above Moderate Income units were approved, while zero Very Low and Low Income Units were approved.11 Accordingly, the City has an acute need for an increased production of Very Low and Low Income units to meet its housing goals. The following table presents a comparative analysis that reviews the City’s state-approved 2022-2030 RHNA targets for the City’s current Sixth Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element. It also compares the Project’s affordable housing program with that which would occur with strict compliance with City Affordable Housing Regulations. 9 City of Livermore, 2022 Annual Housing Element Progress Report, found at: https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1848928/Livermore_2022.pdf 10 The Moderate Income category here includes both Moderate and Median Income units. 11 City of Livermore, 2023 Annual Housing Element Progress Report, found at: https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/2464483/3._2023-2031_RHNA_Progress.pdf ATTACHMENT 9
1007
Isabel Portola Owner, LLC
DRAFT Affordable Equivalency Analysis
June 21, 2024
Kosmont Companies 5 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
2023-2031 Sixth Cycle RHNA Targets and Comparison Between Proposed Project and City Affordable Housing Regulations
Affordability Level City RHNA Goal
2022-203012
Project, As
Proposed
Project with City
Affordable Housing
Regulations
Very Low Income 1,317 65 30
Low Income 758 113 32
Moderate Income 696 185 166
As indicated, the Project performs better in the provision of much needed Very Low and Low Income Unit categories, as well as for the Moderate Income category.
Conclusion
The City has the most need for housing production in the lower income categories, which consequently serve the households and individuals facing the most acute housing burden and need for economic assistance with housing costs.
Based on the foregoing analysis, Kosmont believes that the proposed Project will provide significantly greater economic benefits for affordable housing in the City, by providing a larger and more diverse offering of affordable units than the applicable 20% inclusionary policy under the City Affordable Housing Regulations.
The Project provides particular benefits for the lower income affordable housing categories where both the City and residents in need of affordable housing have the greatest need. At the same time, the Project does a better job helping the City meet all applicable RHNA affordable housing production goals for 2030.
In summary, the Project provides more of the economic equivalent of existing City Affordable Housing Regulations, including requiring an estimated $15-20 million greater investment in affordable housing by the Applicant. It is an economically superior alternative in terms of greater investment supporting affordable housing, and for the economic health of the City’s housing market, and will boost the housing supply for lower income City residents. 12 See Housing Element, at p. 2-36.
ATTACHMENT 9
1008
Kosmont Companies
Mailing Address: 1601 N. Sepulveda Blvd., #382 (424) 297-1070 Physical Address: 2301 Rosecrans Ave, Ste. 4140 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 www.kosmont.com El Segundo, CA 90245
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 21, 2024
To: Bill Myers, Isabel Portola Owner, LLC
From: Larry Kosmont, CEO - Kosmont Companies
Thomas Jirovsky, Senior Advisor – Kosmont Companies
Re: Housing Density Economic Hardship
____________________________________________________________________________ Kosmont & Associates, Inc. doing business as Kosmont Companies (“Consultant” or “Kosmont”) is pleased to present this report for the City’s requested economic hardship analysis. This economic report presents Kosmont’s high-level assessment of the economic challenges of meeting the Target housing density.
Developer Request
Isabel Portola Owner LLC (“Applicant”) is requesting a reduction in residential density to 1,299 units from the “target” residential density of 1,477 units for the 45-acre site within Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (subareas 3b and 3c) in the City of Livermore (“City”).
The Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (“INSP”) identifies a range of density standards from 15 to 100 units per acre based on location within INSP to achieve a target of 3,000 to 4,000 new housing units as follows:
• Transition – 15-25 units per acre
• Village – 25-40 units per acre
• Center – 40-60 units per acre
• Core – 60-100 units per acre
Table 2-6 in the INSP identifies the residential unit development identified for Applicant’s subareas as shown below:
Minimum No. Units Target Units
Subarea 3b 1,054 1,267
Subarea 3c 182 210
Subtotal 1,236 1,477
Background
P- LU-8 of the INSP provides that “[t]he City may consider a unit count lower than the average subarea unit count within a Master Plan, if there are demonstrated, significant regulatory, environmental, or other constraints within the subarea, as determined by the Director.” ATTACHMENT 9
1009
Isabel Portola Owner, LLC
Density Hardship Analysis
June 21, 2024
Kosmont Companies 2 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
In order to meet the Specific Plan’s target of 1,477 residential units, a developer would need to add 178 more multi-family units, since the development plan calls for 1,299 units, as follows:
• 833 for-sale duplex, triplex, townhomes and condos and • 466 multi-family apartments.
The alternative plan would require eliminating approximately 4 acres of for-sale housing at 20 units/acre and replacing them with multifamily apartments at 60-80 units per acre.
Apartment Market Conditions
The INSP target density was developed with expectations of a new Valley Link (previously BART) station and high-density transit-oriented development similar to BART served communities in the East Bay approaching 100 units per acre.
Multi-Family Market Trends
Within a 3-mile radius of the site, there are around 2,541 units with no units under construction.
The Livermore market has a current vacancy rate of 7.3% with 186 vacant units. With over 195 units in positive absorption since 2019 and a decrease in vacancy rates, there is some sign of a rebound of the residential rental market. Within the 3-mile radius, 246 units have been delivered since 2023 and the average rent per unit has increased slightly by 2.6% to $2,444. These rent level trends are averages for all quality types. A focused review of recent Class A product found market rents of $2,700 for 1-bedroom units, $3,200 for 2-bedroom units and $4,200 for 3-bedroom units.
Multi-Family Market History – 3-Mile Radius
Period Inventory Units Vacancy Units Vacancy Percent Absorption Units Avg Rent Per Unit
Avg Rent Per SF
2024 YTD 2,541 186 7.3% 107 $2,444 $3.16
2023 2,517 270 10.7% 69 $2,382 $3.08
2022 2,295 117 5.1% (35) $2,564 $3.33
2021 2,295 81 3.5% 59 $2,389 $3.10
2020 2,253 98 4.4% 16 $2,225 $2.88
2019 2,253 114 5.1% (21) $2,185 $2.83
2018 2,253 94 4.2% 13 $2,149 $2.78
2017 2,253 107 4.7% (5) $2,064 $2.67
2016 2,253 102 4.5% (25) $2,009 $2.60
Source: CoStar (Q2 - 2024)
ATTACHMENT 9
1010
Isabel Portola Owner, LLC
Density Hardship Analysis
June 21, 2024
Kosmont Companies 3 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
The Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore multifamily submarket contains approximately 14,000 units of inventory. The last delivery of units in the region occurred in 2022/23 with 697 units. Historically, investors have shown a high level of interest in the submarket, although sales have slowed due to higher interest rates and tighter lending standards.
However, Livermore apartment rent levels will need to be substantially higher than current Class A market rents of approximately $2,700 to $3,400 per month in order to be financially feasible given the substantial development impact fees, high cost of parking structures, and the requirement to provide 20% of units affordable to very low, low, median and moderate-income households. This averages out to approximately $2,400 per month.
Financial Hardship
Kosmont has prepared an illustrative pro forma comparison of multi-family development under a range of densities from 25 to 80 units per acre on a hypothetical 2-acre site in INSP to show the residual value available to cover land and infrastructure costs.
Key pro forma assumptions:
• Gross building area of 1,000 SF per unit with 15% allocated to common area for a net rentable area of 850 SF
• Direct construction costs of $225 per SF rentable area and $150 per SF for common area • Parking cost of $5,000 per space for low-density carports vs $30,000 per space for enclosed parking structures required for higher density • City, County, School District, Tri-Valley and Zone 7 impact fees of $62,000 per unit • Soft costs of 10-12% of hard costs
• Financing cost at 6% for an 18 month to 30-month construction period • Average market rent of $3,100 for 1-bedroom units, 2-bedroom units and 3-bedroom units • Vacancy rate of 5%
• Operating costs of 33% of gross revenue
• Investment Value required ROI of 5.5% per year needed to achieve a builder profit margin As shown on the following page, the resulting residual land value for 25 units per acre is $77,000 per unit or $1.9 million per acre. With density of 80 units per acre, the per unit supportable value is reduced under current conditions to a value of only $200,000 per acre.
ATTACHMENT 9
1011
Isabel Portola Owner, LLC
Density Hardship Analysis
June 21, 2024
Kosmont Companies 4 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
Source: Kosmont, Isabel Portola Owners, LLC
MF DENSITY FEASIBILITY ILLUSTRATION
RESIDUAL LAND VALUE
2-acre site @ Various Densities
Apts Apts Apts
Cost Assumption 25 DU /Acre 40 DU /Acre 80 DU /Acre
Units 50 80 160
Low Income Inclusionary 20% 20% 20%
Direct Hard Costs
Parking Structure 2.00 $ 30,000 space NA 4,800,000 9,600,000 Surface Carport 2.00 $ 5,000 space 500,000
Apt Units @ 850 SF (net) $ 225 psf 9,562,500 15,300,000 30,600,000 Common Area, etc. $ 150 psf 1,200,000 1,920,000 4,800,000 Total Direct Costs $ 11,262,500 $ 22,020,000 $ 45,000,000 Indirect/ Soft Costs
Architecture & Engineering 6.00% hard $ 675,750 $ 1,321,200 $ 2,700,000 City Fees $ 62,000 per unit 3,100,000 4,960,000 9,920,000 EIR & Traffic Engineering Consultants 2.00% hard 225,250 440,400 900,000 Loan Fees + Interest 5-7% total 718,125 1,618,800 3,844,400 Acctg/taxes/insurance 2.00% hard 225,250 440,400 1,125,000 Total Soft Costs $ 4,944,375 $ 8,780,800 $ 18,489,400
Developer Overhead 3.00% Total $ 486,206 $ 924,024 $ 1,904,682 A. Total Development Cost $ 16,693,000 $ 31,725,000 $ 65,394,000 Development Valuation
Market Units @ $3,100 per mth $ 1,488,000 $ 2,380,800 $ 4,761,600 Low-Mod Units @ $2,400 per mth 288,000 460,800 921,600
Gross Income $ 1,776,000 $ 2,841,600 $ 5,683,200
Less: Vacancy/Bad Debt 5% $ (88,800) $ (142,080) $ (284,160) Effective Gross Income $ 1,687,200 $ 2,699,520 $ 5,399,040 Less: Operating Costs 33% $ (556,776) $ (890,842) $ (1,781,683) Net Operating Income $ 1,130,000 $ 1,809,000 $ 3,617,000 B. Sales / Investment Value 5.5% $ 20,545,455 $ 32,890,909 $ 65,763,636 Residual Land Value (B-A) $ 3,852,000 $ 1,166,000 $ 370,000 Land value per Acre $ 1,926,000 $ 583,000 $ 185,000
Land Value per Unit $ 77,000 $ 15,000 $ 2,000
ATTACHMENT 9
1012
Isabel Portola Owner, LLC
Density Hardship Analysis
June 21, 2024
Kosmont Companies 5 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
With land acquisition and infrastructure costs exceeding $2 million per acre, a high-density multifamily community is not feasible without a substantial for-sale townhome component.
Townhome Residual Land Value
Kosmont prepared illustrative pro forma to estimate for the per acre contribution margin for land and infrastructure. For a typical for-sale townhome product at 20 units per acre, Kosmont’s preliminary research indicates the average Townhome/condo unit sells for $900,000 to $1 million while 20% median and moderate affordable 3-bedroom units would be limited to $450,000 to $550,000 and yield an average residual land value of $4 million per acre.
The table below illustrates the estimated per acre contribution margin available from For-sale Townhome products to cover land cost and community benefit costs.
Illustration of
Townhome Contribution Margin
Source: Kosmont , Isabel Portola Owners LLC
However, by replacing 4 acres of land from for-sale townhomes with high-density apartment units it creates a potential incremental financial loss of $15 million to the master developer making overall development infeasible. This is based on a loss of $4 million per townhome acre x 4 acres and a gain of $200,000 per high-density multi-family acre times 4 acres.
Towmhomes
Density Per Acre 20
Average Unit Value $ 900,000
Direct Construction $200/sf 400,000
Soft Costs 20% 80,000
Builder Overhead 80,000
Marketing/Sales Costs 90,000
Total Costs 650,000
Contribution Margin Per Unit $ 250,000
Less: Infrastructure Cost per Acre $ 1,000,000
Contribution Margin per Acre $ 4,000,000
ATTACHMENT 9
1013
Isabel Portola Owner, LLC
Density Hardship Analysis
June 21, 2024
Kosmont Companies 6 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
Community Benefits Financial Impact
Unlike typical subdivisions, Applicant designed a community village with a wide range of housing types, affordability levels, open space, town square and other community benefits that require a multi-million dollar investment:
• 74,362 Retail/ Commercial space @ $350psf. $ 26m
• 115 additional parking spaces for retail @ $40,000 per space $ 5m • Excess open space of 292k-155k sf @ $4m per acre $ 12m • Additional Affordable Subsidy (28% vs 20%) $ 15m
TOTAL $ 58m
Conclusion
Based on the analysis, Kosmont’s opinion is that the INSP target density for the subject parcels is financially infeasible given the estimated +$50 million in community benefits to be contributed by the Applicant.
There is uncertain demand for creating a community with 50% of the units as rentals. Increasing the unit count through higher density will result in a net loss of an estimated $15 million in contribution margin, dramatically increasing the financial risk.
ATTACHMENT 9
1014
1610431061.3
Isabel Portola Owner, LLC
July 3, 2024
Via Electronic Submittal
City of Livermore
c/o Jake Potter, Senior Planner
Planning Division, Community Development Department
1052 South Livermore Drive
Livermore, CA 94550
Re:
Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan, Isabel Crossing (Harridge) Development Project (SUB22-008, DA22-001, CUP 24-002, SPDR 24- 003, SPPA 24-001)
Third Revised Density Bonus Request Letter
Dear Jake:
Isabel Portola Owner, LLC (Isabel Portola) has applied to the City of Livermore (“City”) for entitlement approvals for the Isabel Crossing project (Project), a master planned mixed-use development consisting of 1,299 dwelling units, approximately 75,000 square feet of commercial uses along a new commercial main street, and public open space uses and amenities including a new neighborhood park, community center, plazas, and a public trail and bike paths on a vacant and underutilized parcel within Subareas 3b and 3c of the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (INSP) area.
Under the Density Bonus Law, “[w]hen a developer agrees to construct a certain percentage of the units in a housing development for low- or very-low-income households… the city or county must grant the developer one or more itemized concessions and a ‘density bonus,’ which allows the developer to increase the density of the development by a certain percentage above the maximum allowable limit under local zoning law.” (Latinos Unidos Del Valle De Napa Y Solano v. County of Napa (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1164.) The Legislature has stated that the Density Bonus Law “shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units.” (Gov’t Code, § 65915(r); Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549, 554-555.) Moreover, the purpose of the incentive and waiver provisions of the Density Bonus statute is to eliminate local zoning requirements that would inhibit the development of affordable housing units and “contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower income housing in proposed housing developments.” (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329,1339.) The Project provides a total of 363 new covenanted affordable housing units, comprising 28 percent of the total number units in the. Of the Project’s affordable ATTACHMENT 10
1015
City of Livermore
Planning Division, Community Development Department
July 3, 2024
1610431061.3
units, a total of 178 units are provided as rental units at the Very Low and Low Income Levels, which is 13 percent of the total units in Project.1 This figure exceeds the 10 percent minimum base density of Low Income units to qualify the Project for density bonus “incentives and concessions” and “waivers or reductions” of “development standards” under Government Code, Section 65915(b)(1), (d) and (e)(1) and Livermore Development Code (LDC), Section 6.02.030. The Project seeks one incentive and various waivers, as follows.
I. Incentive or Concession Request.
First, “specific incentives or concessions” under Section 65915(d) are broadly defined to include: (1) “a reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission”; (2) approval of mixed- use zoning; or (3) other proposed regulatory incentives or concessions. (Gov’t Code, § 65915(k).)
A city “shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city … makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence,” of any of the following: (1) the incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions; (2) the incentive would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety, the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the … impact; or (3) the incentive would be contrary to state or federal law. (Gov’t Code, § 65915(d)(1).)
With respect to showing cost reductions under Government Code, Section 65915(d)(1)(A), the “applicant is not required to prove the requested incentives will lead to cost reductions; the incentive is presumed to result in cost reductions and the city bears the burden to demonstrate otherwise if it intends to deny the incentive.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 770.) Because the Project proposes to provide over 13 percent of its total density of 1,299 units, a total of 178 units, at the low and very low income level, the Project qualifies for at least one incentive, and seeks one incentive.
Isabel Portola requests the following incentive or concession:
1. Eliminate any applicable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements that apply to office uses within INSP Subarea 3c set forth INSP Table 2-3. 1 The Project proposes a total of 306 affordable rental units between the Very Low Income and Moderate Income levels and 57 for-sale affordable units at the Median and Moderate Income levels, totaling 28 percent of the total number of units in the Project.
ATTACHMENT 10
1016
City of Livermore
Planning Division, Community Development Department
July 3, 2024
1610431061.3
II. Waiver or Reduction Requests.
The Project also seeks “waivers or reductions” of development standards under Government Code, Section 65915(e)(1) and LDC, Section 6.02.030-H, specified below, which are not limited in number by the State Density Bonus Law. The waiver or reduction provision of the Density Bonus Law, Government Code, Section 65915(e)(1), provides, in part, that “in no case may a city . . . apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) [a density bonus project] at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section.”
The right to waivers has also been broadly interpreted by California courts. (See Wollmer, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at 1346–1347.) A city violates the Density Bonus Law where it fails to waive development standards that would physically preclude the construction of a qualifying Density Bonus project. (Wollmer, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at 1347.) “If the project were not built, it goes without saying that housing units for lower income households would not be built and the purpose of the Density Bonus Law to encourage such development would not be achieved.” (Id.) Thus, under the Density Bonus Law, “[u]nless one of the statutory exceptions applies, so long as a proposed housing development project meets the criteria of the Density Bonus Law by including the necessary affordable units, a city may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed.” (Bankers Hill 150, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at 775.)
“Development standard” is defined by the statute to include “a site or construction condition including, but not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, or a parking ratio that applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation.” (Gov’t Code, § 65915(o)(2).) “For example, if a city ordinance imposes a building height limitation, a city must waive that limitation for a development that is eligible for a density bonus if imposing the height limit would physically preclude construction of the proposed building with the requested incentives and at the density allowed by the Density Bonus Law. There are no financial criteria for granting a waiver.” (Bankers Hill 150, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at 770.)
In accordance with these provisions, Isabel Portola requests the following waivers of applicable development standards, listed by the proposed Project master plan “Planning Area” requiring a waiver or reduction:
1. In Planning Area N-1:
a. A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP porch separation requirement for porches facing each other of 15 feet along paseos, where two particular porches in the Planning Area are separated by 7.5 feet and
9.9 feet, respectively.
ATTACHMENT 10
1017
City of Livermore
Planning Division, Community Development Department
July 3, 2024
1610431061.3
2. In Planning Areas N-2 and N3-A:
a. A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP dimension requirement for private open space, which requires a minimum of 75 square feet of open space per dwelling unit with minimum dimensions of 6 feet by 8 feet, and the Project provides certain units that include private open space that is 17 feet, 3 inches by 5 feet, 0 inches, for a total area of approximately 86.25 square feet.
3. In Planning Area C1-B:
a. A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP front setback requirement of a 10-foot setback at the fourth floor of the proposed four-story apartment building; no setback is proposed (though decks are provided to break up the facades).
b. A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP minimum 16-foot floor to ceiling ground floor height standard for ground floors of commercial uses within the retail/flex space overlay area; the proposed ceiling height is an average of approximately 14 feet.
4. In Planning Area C2-A:
a. A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP front setback requirement of a 10-foot setback at the fourth floor of the proposed five-story apartment building; no setback is proposed (though decks are provided to break up the facades).
b. A waiver or reduction of the applicable INSP height limit of 490 feet MSL, where a maximum height of approximately 499 feet MSL is provided for a portion of a building on the north end of the Planning Area. c. A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP minimum 16-foot floor-toceiling ground floor height standard for ground floors of commercial uses within the retail/flex space overlay area; the proposed ceiling height is an average of approximately 14 feet.
5. In Planning Area S1:
a. A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP minimum commercial FAR of 0.4:1, where an FAR of approximately 0.3:1 is provided. b. A waiver or reduction of the applicable INSP height limit of 485 feet above MSL, where a maximum height of approximately 497 feet above MSL is provided.
ATTACHMENT 10
1018
City of Livermore
Planning Division, Community Development Department
July 3, 2024
1610431061.3
6. In Planning Area S2 and S4:
a. A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP dimension requirement for private open space, which requires a minimum of 75 square feet of open space per dwelling unit with minimum dimensions of 6 feet by 8 feet, and the Project provides certain units that include private open space that is 14 feet, 2 inches by 5 feet, 4 inches, for a total area of approximately 73.3 square feet.
7. In Planning Area S3-A:
a. A waiver or reduction of the applicable INSP height limit of 485 feet MSL, where a maximum height of approximately 491 feet MSL is provided.
8. In Planning Area S3-B:
a. A waiver or reduction of the applicable INSP height limit of 475 feet MSL, where a maximum height of approximately 496 feet MSL is provided.
9. In All Planning Areas:
a. A waiver or reduction of the applicable INSP requirement for a minimum of 16 trees per acre of site area, where the Project proposes approximately 10 trees per acre (465 total).
Isabel Portola expressly reserves the right to modify or add to this list any additional incentives or concessions and waivers or reductions that may arise prior to the approval of the Project’s entitlements or building permits.
We thank for you for time and attention.
Sincerely,
ISABEL PORTOLA OWNER, LLC
By: _____________________
Name: _____________________
Its: _____________________
ATTACHMENT 10
1019
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
685 East Jack London Boulevard, Livermore, CA 94551
Tel (925) 606-3200 Fax (925) 606-3329
March 21, 2024
Stephen Riley, Acting Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Livermore
Mr. Riley:
Thank you for allowing me to review the plans for the Isabel Crossings Project and comment on its potential impact on Livermore School District schools. As you know, the City and District have been working very closely for many years to ensure that we are well positioned for the expected growth from the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan. It is my understanding that the Isabel Crossings Project will have approximately 1300 new units.
As a regular practice, we engage with local demographers every other year to update our projections to ensure that our enrollment capacity meets or exceeds the anticipated student growth in both the short and long term.
Currently, the schools in our District as they sit today can accommodate over 15,000 students. Our current enrollment is just over 13,000. Including the completion of the Isabel Neighborhood Plan, we do not project student growth to approach our current capacity. This is based upon a student generation rate of .5 students/unit, which is a bit higher than the actual rate over the past ten years, but provides us with a small buffer. Generation rates for townhomes and apartments are even lower, at approximately .25 students/unit.
Based upon that number, we anticipate the Isabel Crossings project to produce less than 650 students, ranging from Transitional Kindergarten through 12th grade, which would not exceed our current school capacity.
Schools closest to the project – Rancho Las Positas Elementary, Lawrence Elementary, Junction TK-8, and Granada High School – have the room to house these additional students. In addition, our District recently purchased land in the northwestern Livermore area (just east of Constitution Drive) that could be a future school site. Though we do not believe the students generated by Isabel Crossings would necessitate a new school, we will closely monitor the build out of the Isabel area to determine if a school in the area is warranted. Though neighborhood schools have long been desired in Livermore, we are finding that more and more students are being driven to school each day, such that having a school within walking distance is no longer as important to parents as it once was.
Again, I thank you sincerely for keeping us an active partner in these development projects. By working together as we have, we can ensure that we are providing high quality educational services to all our residents.
Sincerely,
Chris Van Schaack
Superintendent
ATTACHMENT 11
1020
ATTACHMENT 12
1021
ATTACHMENT 12
1022
ATTACHMENT 12
1023
ATTACHMENT 12
1024
ATTACHMENT 12
1025
Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce
2157 First St. Livermore, CA 94550
925-447-1606
www.LivermoreCHamber.org
June 12, 2024
City of Livermore Planning Commission
1052 S. Livermore Ave.
Livermore, CA 94550
RE: Isabel Neighborhood Project
On behalf of the Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce, I am writing to express support for the proposed plans for the development of the Isabel Neighborhood Plan. We appreciate having an opportunity to weigh in on this proposal supporting the business community and our members.
After reviewing the architectural drafts for the neighborhood and having many conversations with business owners in Livermore, we think that this plan fits appropriately into our community. The types of housing offered in the plan will help alleviate a need for affordable housing in Livermore. High density housing is the only option for affordable housing in our area.
This plan will also provide the housing community north of 580 freeway with retail solutions and conveniences that are current needs for those living in the established housing developments currently located in the area.
This will give Livermore additional opportunities for small and medium businesses to operate outside of the downtown district at perhaps more affordable commercial lease options.
The vision for Livermore includes expanded transportation services, such as Valley Link Rail Service, Wheels Bus Services and better connections to the BART system that currently has no buy-in in our community. The Isabel Neighborhood Plan can help provide our community with options for cleaner and greener living and convenient use of public transportation systems and local retail and services that do not currently make themselves available to our community.
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan would resolve many needs of residents and business owners in Livermore and would offer options that are not currently available and also provide community for future residents and businesses. We are offering our support in favor of the Isabel Neighborhood Plan and hope the Planning Commission will move forward with this project.
Thank you for your attention on this matter and please contact us if we can be of further assistance in this important decision.
Sincerely,
Sherri Souza
CEO/President
ATTACHMENT 12
1026
5960 Inglewood Dr., Suite 201, Pleasanton, CA 94588 | Office: 925.337.2859 June 5, 2024
City of Livermore
Mayor Marchand
Vice Mayor Carling
CM Barrientos
CM Branning
CM Kiick
Subject: Support for Isabel Crossing
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group (ITV), I am pleased to write a letter of support for the Isabel Crossing project, a model of vibrant placemaking in action.
ITV is an interconnected cross-sector network of business and community leaders working to advance the business climate and quality of life in the Tri-Valley. Our collaboration is attracting new businesses, helping existing businesses expand, attracting workforce, and branding the TriValley as a region of innovation to help to create a better world. To that end, ITV spearheaded the creation of the Tri-Valley 2040 Vision Plan to provide touchstones for our region’s current and future planning efforts.
We were pleased to see the alignment of the Isabel Crossings project with the recommendations outlined in the Tri-Valley 2040 Vision. Vibrant placemaking is a key pillar of the regional vision and recommendations within that theme focus on inclusive housing opportunities for all and pioneering walkable, smart and green communities.
With a strong focus on sustainability, job creation, and community well-being, Isabel Crossing sets a high standard for development in the Tri-Valley region by providing 1,299 new multifamily units with a full range of affordability levels. This includes 535 market-rate for-sale townhomes, 10 affordable for-sale townhomes, 241 market-rate for-sale condos, 47 affordable for-sale condos, 160 market-rate for-rent apartments, and 306 affordable for-rent apartments.
While Isabel Crossing is only required to provide a total of 260 affordable units (20%) under the ATTACHMENT 12
1027
5960 Inglewood Dr., Suite 201, Pleasanton, CA 94588 | Office: 925.337.2859 INSP, it provides a notable 363 affordable units; 28% of the total units provided and 103 more affordable units than would otherwise be required. The affordable units will be deed restricted for sale and rent to median-, moderate-, low-income and very low-income households, with 65 very low-income rental units, 113 low-income rental units, 65 median-income rental units, 63 moderate-income rental units, 18 median-income for-sale units, and 39 moderate income forsale units.
Emphasizing connectivity and economic development, Isabel Crossing creates a transit-friendly, walkable neighborhood with 75,000 square feet of job-creating new commercial uses oriented around a tree-lined main street. There will be a wide array of restaurants, retail options, and a community-serving grocery store and ample public open spaces including a neighborhood park, recreation center, multiple plazas, trails, bike lanes, and a public art program. Isabel Crossing also includes substantial new infrastructure and transportation features including a network of internal roads with new signalized intersections, wide sidewalks, new bus stops, hiking trails and dedicated new bike lanes within walking distance of the proposed location of a future station for the hydrogen-powered Valley Link train system. Together, these uses will make a significant contribution to the region’s housing, transportation, cultural, and economic development goals.
Isabel Crossing also integrates the 2040 Vision Plan’s emphasis on sustainability and building a regional Green Economy. All buildings will meet the stringent requirements of the California Green Building Code and the California Energy Code, requiring nation-leading efficiency in water conservation and energy consumption through careful design, state-of-the-art appliances and high efficiency building systems. All residential units will have EV charging capability. All new buildings will also be outfitted with solar panels.
In summary, the Isabel Crossing development provides a sustainable, transit-friendly new neighborhood with a range of housing options, commercial spaces, public open spaces, recreational amenities, public art, and new job opportunities on a vacant and underutilized site in the heart of the Tri-Valley. Given the project’s compatibility with and fulfillment of what was imagined in the Tri-Valley 2040 Vision, Isabel Crossing has the full support of ITV. On behalf of our organization, we urge you to vote to approve this long-awaited project.
Sincerely,
Katie Marcel Tim Sbranti
CEO, Innovation Tri-Valley Director of Strategic Initiatives Innovation Tri-Valley
ATTACHMENT 12
1028
JULY 2, 2024 Draft Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 2, 2024
________________________________________________________________
REGULAR MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Vice-Chairperson Yolanda Fintschenko at 7:00 pm, held in person at 1016 S. Livermore Avenue.
ROLL CALL – Present: Vice-Chairperson Yolanda Fintschenko, Commissioner Steven Dunbar, Commissioner Daniel Leary, Commissioner Tracy Kronzak.
Absent: Chairperson Jacob Anderson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. OPEN FORUM
Vice-Chairperson Fintschenko opened and closed the public comment period.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
3.1 Approval of the May 7, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the draft minutes.
3.2 Approval of the May 21, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the draft minutes.
ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER LEARY, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER KRONZAK AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE, THE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE CONSENT CALENDAR,
WITH AS AMENDED.
4. PROJECT REVIEW – NONE.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 Hearing to consider a request for Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Site Plan Design Review, Development Agreement, Consistency Determination, Conditional Use Permit, Master Sign Program Amendment, and ATTACHMENT 13
1029
PLANNING COMMISSION Draft Minutes JULY 2, 2024
Development Code amendment to develop vacant land located southwest of the Portola Avenue and Isabel Avenue intersection with for-sale residential townhome and condominium units and for-rent apartments with mixed commercial and office uses and a public park and public plazas, known as Isabel Crossing.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving Consistency Determination (CD) 24-004; and recommending the City Council adopt the attached resolutions to:
1. Certify/adopt an Addendum to the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
2. Approve Subdivision (SUB) 22-008, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 24- 002, Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 24-003, Master Sign Plan Amendment (MSP) 24-001; the proposed Master Plan; the Alternative Affordable Plan;
3. Approve Development Agreement (DA) 22-001;
4. Approve Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 24-001;
5. Approve Development Code Amendment (DCA) 24-001;
6. Approve the requested Density Bonus Waiver and incentive/concessions
7. Approve the No Net Loss findings
8. Direct the Planning Manager to file a Notice of Determination, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, subject to project approval.
Senior Planner Jake Potter presented the staff report.
Vice-Chairperson Fintschenko opened the public comment period.
Splend Splendorio, legal counsel and project lead, thanked staff and the project team; introduced the project team; and presented a video depicting the proposed project.
Bill Meyers, Heritage Development, discussed the collaborative effort and thanked City staff.
In response to Commission questions, Senior Planner Potter explained the RHNA requirements in the Housing Element, the State’s lower income requirements, and no net loss of units by rezoning the parcel across the street from office to residential; State laws related to Development Agreements and proposed amenities; risk of non-compliant Housing Element; recycled water fire hydrants; and surplus of 120 lower income units due to rezoning.
Mr. Splendorio stated a local ordinance would be required for smoke free rental properties.
Ron Nestor, Project Applicant, explained the average heights due to the sloping ATTACHMENT 13
1030
JULY 2, 2024 Draft Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION
street.
Vice-Chairperson Fintschenko opened the public hearing.
Brian Werner, East Bay Residents for Responsible Development, indicated support for the project since it would be built sustainability and create equity in the community.
Silray Garcia, Local 713, representing 37,000 members, discussed the core values of the union including apprenticeship, local hire, medical benefits and a fair living wage and requested making the project a union project.
Sherri Souza, Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce, expressed support for the proposed project due to the plan providing high density housing, affordable lease options for small businesses, expanded transportation services, and cleaner and greener living.
Jean King discussed inclusionary housing and indicated support for the proposed 28% affordable and 49% low income; suggested some of the low-income units be for sale; and expressed disappointment that the affordable units were not being distributed over the entire plan.
Brandon Evans, Alameda County Electricians Union, indicated support for the Isabel Crossing Project.
Jeremy O’Donnell indicated support for the project due to the park and open spaces and commitment to use local construction workers and apprenticeship programs.
There were no more speakers, and the public comment period was closed.
The Commission discussed the required findings to approve Consistency Determination (CD) 24-004.
Commissioner Dunbar indicated he could make the findings.
In response to Commissioner Leary, Senior Civil Engineer Salgado agreed with concerns regarding the space between the Caltrans right-of-way and the buildings and indicated Staff would ensure the Water Resources Division approved and State mandated separations were maintained.
Commissioner Kronzak indicated the findings could be made and concurred with concerns regarding easements.
Vice-Chairperson Fintschenko indicated the findings could be made.
ATTACHMENT 13
1031
PLANNING COMMISSION Draft Minutes JULY 2, 2024
The Commission discussed the resolution to certify/adopt an Addendum to the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
In response to Commissioner Dunbar, Senior Planner Potter explained the condition to form the transportation demand management program and coordinate with the other HOAs within the Isabel Neighborhood.
Commissioner Kronzak indicated the addendum EIR was adequate.
Commissioner Leary concurred.
In response to Vice-Chairperson Fintschenko, Senior Planner Potter explained the discrepancy between level of service and vehicle miles traveled (VMT); that there was no significant impact greater than the EIR initially established; City Council statements of overriding consideration; other locations in the City with transportation management plans; and addition of the Comcast Property in the addendum. Vice-Chairperson Fintschenko indicated she could find with the staff recommendations.
ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER DUNBAR, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER KRONZAK AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE, THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE
FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution 20-24 Approving Consistency Determination (CD) 24-004, for the Isabel Crossing Development
Resolution 21-24 Recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the 2020 Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
In response to Commissioner Kronzak, Senior Civil Engineer Salgado stated there was not currently an associated traffic mitigation and calming plan but there were projects included in the current five-year CIP. Commissioner Kronzak pointed out impact to three or four intersections and expressed concern regarding traffic impacts.
The Commission discussed Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8659 - Subdivision (SUB) 22-008, Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 24-003, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 24-002, and Master Sign Program Amendment (MSP) 24-001; accept the Density Bonus Request; Find No Net Loss; approve a Master Plan; and approve an Alternative Affordable Plan for the Isabel Crossing Development.
Commissioner Dunbar discussed limitations on developing low-income units, the tradeoff between the number of units and dispersal, and in indicated the findings could be made.
ATTACHMENT 13
1032
JULY 2, 2024 Draft Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION
Commissioner Leary discussed the site plan in comparison to the specific plan including crossings, inclusion of a grocery store, integration, and prime location of affordable housing; streetlights; phasing; and erosion control.
In response to Commissioner Kronzak, Senior Planner Potter explained that the existing conditions were considered when evaluating mitigation of exterior noise and the project would conform to Building Code standards for interior noise.
Senior Planner Potter stated there were standards to mitigate noise in the Building Code. Commissioner Kronzak stated their decision was based on State law, RHNA requirements, cost of construction and green field opportunity. They discussed their personal experience with housing issues and indicated the findings could be made.
Vice-Chairperson Fintschenko concurred with the other commissioners and questioned the phasing. Senior Civil Engineer Salgado explained that the engineering considerations acknowledged the phasing set out in the development agreement.
Commissioner Dunbar noted the requirement to ensure infrastructure was completed or repaired, improved audio blocking of new buildings; concern with lighting; and need to mix bike racks fronting onto the commercial space. He suggested a bus stop on Gateway; improvement of the trail behind the low-income housing; reviewing whether bike lanes on Campus Hills Drive were necessary versus an access path connecting the southwest corner up to Isabel and Gateway; and reviewing design guidelines for facility selections; and directional curb ramps.
In response to Commissioner Dunbar, Senior Planner Potter explained that a lighting plan would be required prior to issuance of the building permit; off street ADA spaces were for the private recreation center.
Commissioner Leary suggested the crosswalk alignment closer to the recreation center. Ashley Alvernaz, civil engineer with Carlson, Barbee and Gibson, explained that the turning radius was based on City standards, which precluded directional ramps.
Commissioner Kronzak reiterated the prior concerns raised regarding safety and maintenance of the bike path underneath the highway and thanked the developer for including the native plants pallet.
Commissioner Dunbar referenced the City of Fremont protected intersections which shortened the pedestrian crossing and disentangled peds and bikes and increased level of service for vehicles. Ms. Alvernaz stated it was an option on the Portola side of the project but was not possible on Isabel. Commissioner Dunbar encouraged staff to design protected intersections on Isabel as well and that Gateway and A Street should be as safe as possible for bikes and pedestrians.
ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER KRONZAK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER DUNBAR, AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER DUNBAR AND ATTACHMENT 13
1033
PLANNING COMMISSION Draft Minutes JULY 2, 2024
ACCEPTED BY COMMISSIONER KRONZAK AND CARRIED 4-0 TO
RECOMMENDED THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE FOLLOWING
RESOLUTION:
Resolution 16-24 Recommending that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8659 - Subdivision (SUB) 22-008, Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 24-003, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 24-002, and Master Sign Program Amendment (MSP) 24-001; accept the Density Bonus Request; Find No Net Loss; approve a Master Plan; and approve an Alternative Affordable Plan for the Isabel Crossing Development, amended as follows:
1. add evaluation of the trail connection south of Building S1 up to Gateway Avenue if it can be designed;
2. consider improvements to crosswalks to be directional curb ramps, consideration of improvements to crosswalks at signalized intersections to extend the pedestrian refuge out if space allowed;
3. bike rack distribution down Main Street following the Downtown Livermore Design Standards;
4. recommending staff look at the proposal for bus stops on Gateway where warranted; and
5. consider Safe Streets on Gateway and A Street relative to Bikeway Selection Design Guidelines.
The Commission discussed the Development Agreement and indicated the findings could be made.
Vice-Chairperson Fintschenko suggested using the $2 million in park funds for other community wide facilities such as colling centers and a library.
ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER DUNBAR, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER LEARY AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE, THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE
FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:
Resolution 19-24 Recommending that the City Council Approve Development Agreement (DA) 22-001, for the Isabel Crossing Project, that would vest Development Rights for 20 years, provide financial certainty for the applicant, and secure a range of Community Benefits for the City
The Commission discussed Specific Plan Amendment 24-001 and Development Code Amendment 24-001 and indicated the findings could be made.
ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER KRONZAK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER DUNBAR AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE, THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE
FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution 17-24 Recommending that the City Council approve Specific Plan Amendment 24-001, for the Isabel Crossing Project, that would amend the Isabel ATTACHMENT 13
1034
JULY 2, 2024 Draft Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION
Neighborhood Specific Plan’s Master Planning and Inclusionary Policies and amend the Land Use Map
Resolution 18-24 Recommending that the City Council approve Development Code Amendment 24-001, for the Isabel Crossing Project, that would amend the alternative means of compliance and affordability requirements in Livermore Development Code Section 10.06.050 (“Inclusionary Ordinance”) The Commission discussed the requested Density Bonus Waiver and incentive/concessions and indicated the findings could be made. The Commission also discussed how Waiver number nine was not needed, based on the applicant’s earlier testimony that the project exceeded the required landscaped area standard.
ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER DUNBAR, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER KRONZAK AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE, THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE DENSITY BONUS WAIVER AND INCENTIVE/CONCESSIONS, REMOVING WAIVER NO.
9. The Commission discussed the No Net Loss findings.
In response to Commissioner Dunbar, Senior Planner Potter explained the Housing Element designation and the no net loss.
Commissioner Kronzak indicated BART had no objections and, therefore, could make the findings.
ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER LEARY, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER DUNBAR AND CARRIED ON A 4-0 VOTE, THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE NO NET LOSS FINDINGS.
6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION - NONE
7. MATTERS INITIATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF
Commissioner Dunbar suggested consideration of design standards related to sidewalks and rolled curbs.
Commissioner Kronzak discussed the powers of HOA’s and encouraged a local policy or ordinance to protect residents from HOA’s taking away homes.
Interim Planning Manager Riley reminded the Commissioners about the Planning conference in Riverside in late September.
8. ADJOURNMENT – at 9:49 pm to a Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, July 16, 2024, at 7:00 pm, Civic Center Meeting Hall, City Council Chambers, 1016 S. Livermore Avenue.
ATTACHMENT 13
1035
RESOLUTION NO. ________
IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE 2020 ISABEL NEIGHBORHOOD
SPECIFIC PLAN SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
ISABEL CROSSING PROJECT
On May 14, 2018, the Livermore City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-063, adopting California Environmental Quality Act Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (“2018 EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2016042039).
On November 9, 2020, the Livermore City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-201 adopting California Environmental Quality Act Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and certifying the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“2020 SEIR”) for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2016042039). The 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR are referred to collectively herein as the Previous EIR.
On September 22, 2022, the City of Livermore (“City”) received an application from Isabel Portola Owner, LLC (Harridge Development Group) (“Applicant”) to develop the approximately 45-acre vacant parcel located at the southwest corner of the Portola Avenue and Isabel Avenue intersection with a mixed-use residential/ commercial development project.
On May 10, 2024, the City received an amended application from the Applicant for Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8659 – Subdivision (SUB) 22-008, Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 24-003, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 24-002, Consistency Determination (CD) 24-004, Master Sign Program Amendment (MSP) 24-001, Development Agreement (DA) 22-001, Development Code Amendment (DCA) 24-001, and Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 24-001 (collectively, the “Project”). The Project would develop vacant land located southwest of the Isabel Avenue and Portola Avenue intersection, implementing the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (“Project”). The Project includes 1,299 residential units, including 363 units affordable to individuals and families of lower, median, and moderate incomes, approximately 90,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial, office, and amenity space, an approximately 1.5-acre neighborhood park with an additional approximately 0.5 acres of public plaza space, new bike lanes, street improvements, street trees, public art, and utility infrastructure. The residential units consist of for sale townhomes and duplexes and mid-rise rental apartments. The Project also includes a 20-year Development Agreement between the City and Developer, a new communities facilities district to finance Project infrastructure, and Specific Plan amendments. The Project is seeking relief under state housing/streamlining laws.
In June 2024, the City prepared an Addendum to the Previous EIR (“Addendum”, Exhibits B, C, and D, attached hereto) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
1036
RESOLUTION NO. ________
On July 2, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the Project, heard public testimony, made the necessary findings, and adopted Planning Commission resolution No. 21-24, attached hereto as Exhibit A, recommending the City Council approve the Project.
On July 22, 2024, 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.
Together with this resolution, the City Council concurrently considered resolutions for:
1) Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 8659 – Subdivision (SUB) 22-008, Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 24-003, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 24-002, Master Sign Program Amendment (MSP) 24-001, the Density Bonus request, No Net Loss, the Master Plan, and the Alternative Affordable Plan; and 2) Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 24-001; and ordinances for: 1) the Project’s Development Agreement (DA) 22-001 application; and 2) the Project’s Development Code Amendment (DCA) 24-001 application.
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. 21-24, 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, and as described below:
The Addendum indicates that no subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines section 15164, given that none of the following conditions exist:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the Previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Response: The Addendum analyzes potential project impacts on each of the environmental factors evaluated in the Previous EIR. As discussed in the staff analysis under the subheading “Specific Plan EIR and Addendum”, the Addendum includes a Water Supply Assessment, a Focused Transportation Analysis, and a VMT Analysis, in addition to all the required CEQA analyses, as summarized below. The Addendum analyzes potential Project impacts, including impacts from amending the land use designation from office to residential in Specific Plan Subareas 3a and 1d. Land use changes to Subarea 3a are to be considered concurrently with the Project, while changes to Subarea 1d are not part of this Project.
1037
RESOLUTION NO. ________
Substantial changes are not proposed to the Specific Plan nor have substantial changes occurred that would require major revisions to the Previous EIR prepared for the Specific Plan. Substantially more severe impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the Previous EIR would not occur as a result of the proposed Project. For example, the Project will still provide a mixed-use commercial development on an approximately 45-acre site. All contemplated land uses in the Specific Plan are still provided, like residential, commercial, office, and open space. The quantities of residential and open space uses are within the ranges contemplated by the Specific Plan and the site is still served by transit near the freeway interchange. No new land uses or operations have been introduced into the Specific Plan or the Project site that would cause new significant impacts or incompatibilities.
Overall, the proposed Project would result in no new impact or mitigation information of substantial importance that would generate new, more severe impacts or require new mitigation measures compared to those identified for the original project in the Previous EIR. As such, the proposed project would not result in conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring supplemental environmental review or a Subsequent EIR, and these are therefore not required for the proposed Project.
For these reasons, the City concludes that the analyses conducted, the conclusions reached, and the mitigation measures adopted in the Previous EIR would not be substantially changed for the proposed Project. The proposed Project would remain subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures and uniformly applicable development policies included in the Previous EIR for Specific Plan. Based on the above analysis, no subsequent action under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15164 is required.
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Response: No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the Previous EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
The Project site is still located on approximately 45 acres in the same location identified in the Specific Plan. No new natural hazards have been identified onsite, and the Project provides the uses and densities contemplated in the Specific Plan.
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
1038
RESOLUTION NO. ________
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Response: There is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the Previous EIR is adequate, and this evaluation serves as an Addendum to the City of Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Plan Environmental Impact Report (2018 EIR) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2020 SEIR), SCH # 2016042039, collectively referred to as the Previous EIR.
No new operational, use, or natural hazard impacts have been identified. The Project’s Biological, Geological, and Noise studies have not identified any impacts beyond those discussed in the EIR. Fire Protection would be provided by the LivermorePleasanton Fire Department. The Specific Plan EIR notes that the Project site would be served by Fire Station #10 on Airway Boulevard. The Station can deploy front line apparatuses within 10 minutes, and the Fire Department can dispatch a ladder truck to serve the proposed five to seven story buildings. Given the proximity of Fire Station #10, current response times, and the ability to dispatch a ladder truck, existing facilities are sufficient to serve the Project.
Although existing service capacity is adequate for the Project, the Fire Department is currently conducting a Community Risk Assessment to ensure that the incremental population increases across the City and within the Specific Plan do not further degrade fire service levels. The Risk Assessment will analyze whether a new fire station is needed within the Specific Plan area, among other analysis. The results of the Assessment will be completed by the end of summer 2024. Pursuant to Specific Plan policy, the Project will be required to implement the Risk Assessment recommendations. The Project’s net increase in the City’s tax base and contributions to the Community Benefit Fund will help fund the Project’s fair share of any Risk Assessment recommendations. For these reasons, there is no new information of substantial importance that would cause any additional or worsened significant impacts.
1039
RESOLUTION NO. ________
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, based upon the City Council’s own independent review of the Record Evidence and considerations, the City Council hereby adopts the Isabel Crossing and No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Addendum (“Addendum”), and finds that no subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines section 15164, for the Isabel Crossing Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore directs the Planning Manager to file a Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk if the Project is approved.
The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, in Livermore, California. This resolution shall be effective upon adoption by the City Council.
On motion of Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council Member _______________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on July 22, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ /s/ Katherine Mirassou
Deborah L. Elam Katherine Mirassou
Acting City Clerk Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit A – Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-24
Exhibit B – Specific Plan EIR Addendum
Exhibit C – Addendum Appendix Volume A
Exhibit D – Addendum Appendix Volume B
1040
EXHIBIT A
1041
EXHIBIT A
1042
EXHIBIT A
1043
EXHIBIT A
1044
EXHIBIT A
1045
Isabel Crossing and No Net Loss Specific Plan
Amendment Project
Environmental Impact Report Addendum
State Clearinghouse # 2016042039
prepared by
City of Livermore
Community Development Department
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
Contact: Jennifer Ackerman, Assistant Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
June 2024
w 301
Y E A R S
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. SINCE 1994
EXHIBIT B
1046
EXHIBIT B
1047
Table of Contents
1 Introduction and Project Summary ................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Title.........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Lead Agency/Project Sponsor Contact Information ...........................................................1
1.3 Introduction and Background .............................................................................................1
1.4 Project Location and Setting ...............................................................................................1
1.5 Project Description..............................................................................................................5
1.6 Project Approvals..............................................................................................................12
1.7 Prior Environmental Document(s) ....................................................................................12
1.8 Location of Prior Environmental Document(s) .................................................................12 2 Overview of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 ...........................................................13 3 Environmental Effects and Determination ...................................................................................15 Environmental Areas Determined to Have New or Substantially More Severe Significant Effects Compared to Those Identified in the Previous EIR..............................15 Determination...............................................................................................................................15 4 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................................17
4.1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................19
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..................................................................................23
4.3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................27
4.4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................33
4.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................47
4.6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................49
4.7 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................51
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................57
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................65
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................71
4.11 Land Use and Planning......................................................................................................77
4.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................79
4.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................81
4.14 Population and Housing....................................................................................................87
4.15 Public Services...................................................................................................................89
4.16 Recreation.........................................................................................................................93
4.17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................95
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................................................101
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ..........................................................................................103
4.20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................107 5 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................................111 6 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................113 7 References..................................................................................................................................115
EXHIBIT B
1048
Tables
Table 1 Isabel Crossing Project Characteristics.................................................................................7 Table 2 Isabel Crossing Project Operational Emissions...................................................................31 Table 3 Combined Annual Emissions for the Isabel Crossing Project – Unmitigated .....................59 Table 4 Combined Annual Emissions for the Isabel Crossing Project - Mitigated ..........................60 Table 5 Combined Annual Emissions for the No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project – Unmitigated.........................................................................................................61 Table 6 Combined Annual Emissions for the No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project – Mitigated.............................................................................................................62 Table 7 VMT Analysis for Original Project Compared with Isabel Crossing Project (Total VMT) ...................................................................................................................................97 Table 8 VMT Analysis for Original Project Compared with Isabel Crossing Project (VMT per Capita) ..........................................................................................................................97 Table 9 Daily VMT Analysis for Original Project Compared with No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project ...................................................................................................98 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location .................................................................................................................3 Figure 2 Project Location....................................................................................................................4 Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan................................................................................................................8 Figure 4 View of the Project Site Looking West from Isabel Avenue ...............................................20 Figure 5 View of the Project Site Looking North from Shea Center Drive .......................................21 Appendices
Appendix A Project Site Plans
Appendix B CalEEMod Output Files
Appendix C Biological Summary Memorandum and Peer Review Appendix D Aquatic Resources Delineation
Appendix E Transportation and VMT Analysis Memorandums
Appendix F Water Supply Assessment Update
EXHIBIT B
1049
1 Introduction and Project Summary
1.1 Project Title
Isabel Crossing and No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project
1.2 Lead Agency/Project Sponsor Contact Information
City of Livermore
Community Development Department
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
Contact: Jake Potter, Senior Planner
Email: [email protected]
1.3 Introduction and Background
The City of Livermore was the lead agency for the certified 2018 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2016042039) and the certified 2020 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2016042039) for the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan (INSP) and is the lead agency for this document. This document presents the results of environmental review for the Isabel Crossing and No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project, which consists of changes to the development program for a portion of the Specific Plan area; these changes are henceforth referred to as the “proposed project” or “modified project.” The City has prepared this EIR Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 because it has determined that “major revisions” to the prior 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR are not required for the project. In accordance with CEQA, the analysis herein considers the changes in the proposed project compared to the original development program and buildout originally planned for the project site, henceforth known as the “original project,” that was analyzed in the 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR; substantial changes with respect to the surrounding circumstances under which the proposed project is undertaken; and “new information of substantial importance” that shows that the project may cause a new, previously unanalyzed significant environmental effect, a substantial increase in the severity of previously analyzed significant impact, or that mitigation previously found to be infeasible is now feasible to reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the project proponent refuses to implement it.
1.4 Project Location and Setting
The project site includes three distinct areas. The Isabel Crossing Parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN] 903-0010-046 through -054) encompass approximately 45 acres located at the southwest corner of Isabel Avenue and Portola Avenue in the INSP area of Livermore in Alameda County. The Isabel Crossing Parcels are bounded by Isabel Avenue to the east, Portola Avenue to the north, Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south and existing office and commercial development to the west. The Isabel Crossing Parcels are located within the 3b and 3c Subareas of the INSP. Subareas 3b and 3c
EXHIBIT B
1050
are core areas of the INSP with a general objective of creating a vibrant residential neighborhood with retail uses that generate transit ridership.
The No Net Loss Parcels make up the remaining two areas of the project site. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) “BART Parcel” (6.53 acres, APN 903-10-36-3) is located to the east of the intersection of I-580 and Isabel Avenue, and two contiguous “Comcast Parcels” (26.83 total acres, APNs 905-10- 23 and 905-10-24) are located northwest of North Canyons Parkway at 3055 Triad Place, Livermore, California, 94551. The BART Parcel is bounded by undeveloped land planned for residential land uses to the east, Isabel Avenue to the north, and the I-580 offramp to the south and west. The BART Parcel is located within Subarea 3a of the INSP. Subarea 3a land uses include Office Core and Core Residential (60 to 100 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]). The Comcast Parcels are bounded by existing residences to the east, agricultural land and hills to the north, undeveloped parcels and North Canyons Parkway beyond to the south, and offices to the west. The Comcast Parcels are located within Subarea 1d of the INSP. Subarea 1d is designated for Business Park land uses.
The INSP Planning Area is accessible through interstate highway (I-580), State Route 84, and Vasco Road. The Isabel Crossing Parcels are accessible from Portola Avenue, Isabel Avenue, and Shae Center Drive. The BART Parcel is accessible from Isabel Avenue. The Comcast Parcels are accessible via a driveway entrance that extends from North Canyons Parkway. The future Isabel Station for the Valley Link railway is located less than 0.25 mile to the southeast of the Isabel Crossing and BART Parcel portions of the project site. The Valley Link railway is a proposed 42-mile passenger rail project that will connect the Lathrop Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) rail station with the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The Isabel Crossing and BART Parcel portions of the project site is located within 0.5 mile of the proposed Isabel Station platform. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project area and Figure 2 shows the location of the site in its vicinity context.
The Isabel Crossing Parcels have gently rolling topography that slopes slightly down toward its center, and currently undeveloped with sparse vegetation. Surrounding land uses include undeveloped land, open space, and residential townhouses to the north; office and commercial buildings to the west; undeveloped land designated for residential and office land uses to the east; and undeveloped land designated for institutional and education uses to the south beyond I-580.
The Bart Parcel is relatively flat, sloping slightly downward towards the east, and currently undeveloped with sparse vegetation. Surrounding land uses include undeveloped land designated for residential and office uses to the north, east, and west; and undeveloped land planned for educational/institutional uses to the south beyond I-580.
The Comcast Parcels are currently developed with existing office buildings and parking lots. The parcels are relatively flat in the southern portion and in the northern portion slope gradually upwards to the hills to the north of the parcels. Surrounding land uses include agriculture to the north; residential to the west; offices to the east; and undeveloped land planned for residential uses to the south.
EXHIBIT B
1051
Figure 1 Regional Location
Concord
Marsh Creek Rd
Discovery Bay
Mount Diablo
State Park Alamo Valley Rd
Diablo,
Danville
.
»
Line Rd
Anthony Camp °
Chabot 9 Raymond
Dalton Ave
Regional Park
Dublin
Livermore -
tola
'
Ave
Fairview
East Ave Stanley Valley Ave
Pleasanton CR 7827
Marina Ave
Lake del
Valle State
Recreation Area
Imagery provided by Esri and Its licensors © 2023. 23-14939 EPS Fig1Regional
Eldorado
Roseville Forest
Project Location -
Sacramento
Santa
Elk Grove Vacaville
' Fairfield
Vallejo
Antioch Stockton
Francisco
Modesto
Fremont
99 Merced
San Jose
Los Banos
Santa Cruz
Salinas
Monterey
EXHIBIT B
1052
Figure 2 Project Location
| | Project Boundary
BART Parcel
Comcast Parcels
Isabel Crossing Parcels
Imagery provided Microsoft Bing and its licensors 2024.
EXHIBIT B
1053
1.5 Project Description
The proposed project consists of a currently proposed mixed-used development located on 45 acres (referred to as the “Isabel Crossing Project”), and a proposed land use designation change for three additional parcels totaling approximately 33 acres from commercial and office use to residential use for three parcels (referred to as “No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project”). The individual project components are described in more detail below.
Isabel Crossing Project
The Isabel Crossing Project would consist of a mixed-used development located on 45 acres. The project applicant proposes to construct 1,299 dwelling units (townhomes and mid-rise multi-family apartments) and 74,362 square feet of neighborhood serving commercial space on the 45-acre site.
Commercial spaces, including retail and grocery uses, would be located on the ground floor of multistory mixed-use buildings, and would front streets internal to the project site. Residential units would range from 453 square feet to 2,402 square feet in size, and would include flat condos, apartments, and three-story townhomes. Commercial space would be on the street level of multistory buildings with residential condos and apartments located above. Proposed amenities include a neighborhood park, a recreation center that includes a pool, and open space at the corners of the retail-lined street including a pocket plaza and a town square.
Vehicular site access would be provided by two intersections along Portola Avenue, two intersections along Isabel Avenue, one intersection at the east end of Gateway Avenue where it meets Shea Center Drive, and one intersection along Shea Center Drive. The project would include internal roadways, pedestrian walkways, and a multi-use trail along the southern border of the site connecting the east end of the proposed Gateway Road to Shea Center Drive. Table 1 outlines characteristics of the proposed project compared to the development program and buildout for these subareas in the original project and Figure 3 illustrates the proposed plans and gross acreage of each parcel included in the proposed project.
Among its approvals, the Isabel Crossing Project requests one “incentive or concession” and a total of 12 “waivers or reductions” of “development standards” under the State and local Density Bonus law, which provides for relief from certain local zoning standards for development projects that provide affordable housing. Under these provisions, the Isabel Crossing Project seeks relief from certain standards adopted in the original INSP for the Isabel Crossing Project. This includes waiver requests for the parcels within the proposed project would exceed the height limits required in the INSP. Parcel S1 would exceed the height envelope by approximately 11.5 feet, Parcel C-2A would exceed the height envelope by approximately 8.5 feet at the north end of the building only, Parcel S3-A would exceed the height envelope by approximately 5.9 feet, and Parcel S3-B would exceed height requirements by approximately 20.5 feet. To accommodate the project, the applicant has requested the following waivers on specific parcels (parcel locations are shown in Figure 3):
▪ Parcel N1:
▫ A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP porch separation requirement for porches facing each other of 15 feet along paseos, where two particular porches in Parcel N1 are separated by 7.5 feet and 9.9 feet, respectively.
EXHIBIT B
1054
▪ Parcels N2 and N3-A:
▫ A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP dimension requirement for private open space, which requires a minimum of 75 square feet of open space per dwelling unit with minimum dimensions of 6 feet by 8 feet, and the project provides certain units that include private open space that is 17 feet and 3 inches by 5 feet and 0 inches, for a total area of approximately 86.25 square feet.
▪ Parcel C1-B:
▫ A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP front setback requirement of a 10-foot setback at the fourth floor of the proposed four-story apartment building; no setback is proposed (though decks are provided to break up the façades). ▫ A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP minimum 16-foot floor to ceiling ground floor height standard for ground floors of commercial uses within the retail/flex space overlay area; the proposed ceiling height is an average of approximately 14 feet. ▪ Parcel C2-A:
▫ A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP front setback requirement of a 10-foot setback at the fourth floor of the proposed five-story apartment building; no setback is proposed (though decks are provided to break up the façades). ▫ A waiver or reduction of the applicable INSP height limit of 490 feet above mean sea level (MSL), where a maximum height of approximately 499 feet above MSL is provided for a portion of a building on the north end of Parcel C2-A.
▫ A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP minimum 16-foot floor to ceiling ground floor height standard for ground floors of commercial uses within the retail/flex space overlay area; the proposed ceiling height is an average of approximately 14 feet. ▪ Parcel S1:
▫ A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP minimum commercial FAR of 0.4:1, where an FAR of approximately 0.3:1 is provided.
▫ A waiver or reduction of the applicable INSP height limit of 485 feet above MSL, where a maximum height of approximately 497 feet above MSL is provided. ▪ Parcel S2 and S4:
▫ A waiver or reduction from the applicable INSP dimension requirement for private open space, which requires a minimum of 75 square feet of open space per dwelling unit with minimum dimensions of 6 feet by 8 feet, and the project provides certain units that include private open space that is 14 feet and 2 inches by 5 feet and 4 inches for a total area of approximately 73.3 square feet.
▪ Parcel S3-A:
▫ A waiver or reduction of the applicable INSP height limit of 485 feet above MSL, where a maximum height of approximately 491 feet above MSL is provided. ▪ Parcel S3-B:
▫ A waiver or reduction of the applicable INSP height limit of 475 feet above MSL, where a maximum height of approximately 496 feet above MSL is provided.
EXHIBIT B
1055
Table 1 Isabel Crossing Project Characteristics
Project Characteristic Proposed Project Original Project Change (Proposed Project
Compared to Original Project)
Non-residential Area
Office 0 square feet 39,640 square feet1-39,640 square feet Commercial 74,362 square feet 167,185 square feet -92,823 square feet Common Area 2.56 acres 2.17 acres +0.39 acres
Residential Units
Market Rate 936 units 1,086 units -150 units
Affordable 363 units 252 units +111 units
Total 1,299 units 1,338 units2-39 units
Maximum Building Height
(feet above mean sea level)
498.5 feet 505 feet3-6.5 feet
Parking (stalls) 2,436 At least 2,142 +294
1 The office buildout for the project site was estimated using the acreage for proposed products within the Office Core area of the project site and a minimum floor area ratio of 1.0 as planned for the Office Core designation in the Land Use chapter of the INSP. 2 The calculated target buildout of the project site considered in the INSP. 3 The maximum height allowed in the project site.
Source: Appendix A; City of Livermore 2020a
EXHIBIT B
1056
Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan
...
!
- _
IB
B
l
ExistingOffice i
i
, Gateway Avenue
;
=
:•
i
:
Si' !
. : / Proposed INSP Land Use
" l _ _
- _
I
B Streey -
i
.
* &
i Open Space
// '
Commercial
Office
Retail
'
'
i 0 100 200 N Ground Retail Office
Source: William Hezmal Hatch
Architects, Inch. DBA WHA., 2023. _ Feet
.
EXHIBIT B
1057
No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project
Since certification of the INSP EIR, proposed and constructed developments in the INSP area have not met the anticipated unit counts identified in the INSP and/or City of Livermore Housing Element; therefore, the City desires to re-designate certain parcels within the INSP to ensure that there is adequate opportunity for the development of housing within the INSP area. The current shortfall of residential units is 344 units (including the Isabel Crossing Project, described above), with the trend of housing unit shortfalls anticipated to continue as the INSP area is built-out.
The project would amend the INSP to change the land use designation of the BART Parcel to Residential Core (60-100 du/ac). The existing Commercial Overlay/Flex Space designation would remain on a portion of the BART Parcel. The project would also include a future amendment to the INSP to change the land use designation of the Comcast Parcels to Village (25-40 du/ac; eastern half) and Transition (15-25 du/ac; western half). The proposed future land use designations of the Comcast Parcels would match the existing designations of parcels located immediately south of the Comcast Parcels. The intent of the proposed and future land use designation changes is to ensure no net loss of housing opportunity sites within the INSP area, in accordance with the City’s adopted Housing Element. This Addendum addresses the anticipated buildout of the No Net Loss Parcels that could result from the proposed and future land use designation changes.
Re-designation of the BART and Comcast Parcels would result in the potential to develop up to 1,775 additional residential units compared with existing land use designations on these parcels.
Comcast Parcel West (APN 905-10-23) would be able to develop 350 residential units; Comcast Parcel East (APN 905-10-24) would be able to develop 512 residential units; and the BART Parcel (APN 903-10-36-3) would be able to develop 913 units. This change would also result in a net loss of 1,531,486 square feet of existing and proposed office space on the No Net Loss Parcels.
Overall Growth Projections
Because constructed and currently proposed development, including the Isabel Crossing Project, would not meet the anticipated quantity of residential units identified in the INSP and/or Housing Element, the proposed land use designation change of the No Net Loss Parcels is required so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. The overall project would result in a net increase of 1,431 residential units and a net decrease of 1,531,486 square feet of office space), compared to what was analyzed in the 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR for the INSP.
Consistency of the Project with Adopted Plans and Ordinances Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan Background
The INSP was adopted to guide future development of the area around the planned Valley Link rail station, which is planned for the median of I-580, just east of Isabel Avenue. The INSP covers approximately 1,138 acres and allows for development of 4,095 new multi-family housing units and approximately 2.1 million square feet of net new office, business park, and commercial development (including a neighborhood commercial center) (City of Livermore 2023). It also envisions three new neighborhood parks, pedestrian and bike facilities, and infrastructure improvements. The INSP Planning Area is currently developed with a range of residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, and open space uses; the project site remains undeveloped.
EXHIBIT B
1058
The INSP underwent CEQA review in the form of an EIR (2018 EIR), which was certified in 2018. An update to the INSP was subsequently made to account for the Valley Link Rail Project, and an SEIR (2020 SEIR) was prepared to evaluate updates to the INSP. The SEIR was certified in 2020 and the INSP was adopted in November of 2020.
Isabel Crossing Project
The Isabel Crossing Project would be constructed within and would modify the approved development program for Subareas 3b and 3c of the INSP. Approved land uses in Subarea 3b include:
▪ Residential
▫ Village: 25-40 du/ac
▫ Center: 40-60 du/ac
▫ Core: 60-100 du/ac
▪ Neighborhood commercial
Approved land uses in Subarea 3c include:
▪ Residential Core: 60-100 du/ac
▪ Office Core
Under the adopted INSP, Subareas 3b and 3c have a combined target buildout of 1,477 residential units. The Isabel Crossing project site is approximately 2.32 acres smaller than the full 3b and 3c Subareas; therefore, the buildout of the project site considered in the INSP is 1,338 residential units, which is greater than the 1,299 units proposed by the project. The Isabel Crossing project site includes the Neighborhood Commercial area of the INSP, which envisions a maximum buildout of 167,185 square feet of commercial space. The approximately 75,000 square feet of commercial space proposed by the project would not exceed the commercial space considered in the 2020 SEIR.
The Isabel Crossing Project seeks a Specific Plan Amendment in a manner that enables the approval of the Isabel Crossing Project via an approved master site plan, which includes reductions of commercial and office space, a reconfiguration of the site plan and applicable zoning designations, and alternative compliance with affordable housing requirements. As mentioned above, the Isabel Crossing Project also seeks a Density Bonus law incentive to reduce any required office space and provide for waivers from certain applicable INSP development standards. Therefore, the proposed number of residential units and commercial space are less than, and are thus within, the intensity of development envisioned in the INSP for these subareas as analyzed in the 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR.
No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project
The No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project would allow for the future development of higher density residential uses within Subareas 3a and 1d of the INSP and would modify the approved development program for those subareas. Approved land uses on the BART Parcel in Subarea 3a include:
▪ Residential Core: 60-100 du/ac
▪ Office Core
EXHIBIT B
1059
Approved land uses on the Comcast Parcels in Subarea 1d include:
▪ Business Park
The proposed land use designation change of the BART parcel would allow 913 units which is greater than is currently allowed in Subarea 3a. Subarea 1d is designated as Business Park which allows commercial and light industrial uses. Residential uses are not currently permitted on the Comcast Parcels. The City is proposing an amendment to the INSP to change the land use designation of the BART Parcel to Residential Core and the Comcast Parcels to Village and Transition (future change) to ensure that there is adequate opportunity for the development of housing within the INSP area.
State Density Bonus Law
Residential projects may in some cases use provisions of the State Density Bonus law (California Government Code Sections 65915 – 65918) to develop affordable and senior housing. The State Density Bonus law also includes incentives to make the development of affordable and senior housing economically feasible. These include waivers and concessions, such as exceptions to a zoning ordinance or other land use regulations. Projects providing sufficient affordable housing can avail themselves of any applicable combination of additional density and/or other waivers and incentives.
The Isabel Crossing Project would include 363 affordable housing units which is approximately 28 percent of the project’s proposed residential buildout. Based on the percentage of affordable units, the project proponent is proposing to use the State Density Bonus law to request additional waivers and concessions, which were described above.
No Net Loss Law (Government Code Section 65863)
The purpose of Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss Law) is to ensure development opportunities remain available throughout the planning period to accommodate a jurisdiction’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA), especially for lower- and moderate- income households. A jurisdiction may not take any action to reduce a parcel’s residential density unless it makes findings that the remaining sites identified in its Housing Element sites inventory can accommodate the jurisdiction’s remaining unmet RHNA by each income category, or if it identifies additional sites so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. If a jurisdiction approves a development of a parcel identified in its Housing Element sites inventory with fewer units than shown in the Housing Element, it must either make findings that the Housing Element’s remaining sites have sufficient capacity to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA by each income level, or identify and make available sufficient sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA for each income category.
While existing and planned developments in the INSP area, including the Isabel Crossing Project, would result in a reduction of 344 units compared to what was originally planned under the INSP and accounted for in the City’s Housing Element, the proposed No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project would result in a net increase of 1,431 residential units compared to what was planned under the INSP and analyzed in the INSP 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR.
EXHIBIT B
1060
1.6 Project Approvals
The City Council would need to take the following actions regarding the proposed Isabel Crossing Project:
▪ Adoption of this Addendum to the INSP EIR
▪ Approval of a Development Agreement
▪ Approval of a Density Bonus “Incentive and Concession” and “Waiver and Reduction” Requests ▪ Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (to allow residential uses in the INSP Neighborhood Commercial Zone)
▪ Approval of an Amendment to the INSP
▪ Site and Design Review
▪ Approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map
▪ Approval of a Master Sign Program Amendment
▪ General Plan Consistency Determination
The City Council would need to take the following actions regarding the proposed land use designation change of the BART Parcel:
▪ Adoption of this Addendum to the INSP EIR
▪ Approval of an Amendment to the INSP
The City Council would need to take the following actions regarding the future land use designation change of the Comcast Parcels:
▪ Adoption of this Addendum to the INSP EIR
▪ Approval of an Amendment to the INSP
1.7 Prior Environmental Document(s)
The INSP underwent environmental review in the form of an EIR certified by the City of Livermore in 2018. An update to the INSP was subsequently made to account for the Valley Link Rail Project, and an SEIR was prepared to evaluate updates to the INSP. The SEIR was certified by the City of Livermore in 2020.
▪ Isabel Neighborhood Plan Environmental Impact Report (2018 EIR), SCH #2016042039, certified April 2018.
▪ Isabel Neighborhood Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2020 SEIR), SCH #2016042039, certified June 2020.
1.8 Location of Prior Environmental Document(s)
City of Livermore, Planning Department Website:
https://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/specificplans/isabel-neighborhood-specific-plan/insp-draft-and-final-environmental-impact-report-eir
EXHIBIT B
1061
2 Overview of CEQA Guidelines Sections
15162 and 15164
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 set forth the criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental documentation, if any, to be completed when a project has a previously certified EIR.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) states that no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR shall be prepared for a project with a certified EIR unless the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
The analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 demonstrates whether the lead agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the existing certified EIR, that an addendum to the existing EIR would be appropriate, and no new environmental document, such as a new EIR, would be required. The addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR, and the decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the Final EIR prior to deciding on the project.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to a previously certified EIR is the appropriate environmental document in instances when “only minor technical changes or additions are necessary” and when the new information does not involve new significant environmental
EXHIBIT B
1062
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a significant effect beyond those identified in the previous EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that:
a. The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. b. An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. c. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
d. The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. e. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record.
15162 Standard: Substantial Changes in the Project
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1), Section 4, Impact Analysis, presents a discussion of whether the proposed project constitutes a substantial change in the project analyzed in the certified EIR that would require major revisions to the certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Please refer to Section 4, Impact Analysis, for a discussion of each impact and changes to such impacts resulting from project changes. 15162 Standard: Substantial Changes in the Circumstances Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(2), Section 4, Impact Analysis, presents a discussion of whether changes to the project site or the vicinity (environmental setting) have occurred subsequent to the certification of the EIR that would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact that were not evaluated and mitigated by the previous EIR. Please refer to Section 4, Impact Analysis, for a discussion of each impact and change in circumstances related to such impacts. 15162 Standard: New Information of Substantial Importance Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), Section 4, Impact Analysis, includes a discussion of whether the proposed project would result in new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the INSP 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR were certified. New information of substantial importance includes: (1) one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; (2) significant effects previously examined that are substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Please refer to Section 4, Impact Analysis, for a discussion of each impact and new information related to such impacts.
EXHIBIT B
1063
3 Environmental Effects and Determination
Environmental Areas Determined to Have New or
Substantially More Severe Significant Effects Compared to Those Identified in the Previous EIR
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages.
■ NONE
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology and Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Land Use and Planning □ Mineral Resources
□ Noise □ Population and
Housing
□ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities and Service
Systems
□ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Determination
Based on this analysis:
□ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT or SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.
EXHIBIT B
1064
City of Livermore
Isabel Crossing and No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions tothe previous EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Also,there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore,the previously certified EIR is adequate and this evaluation serves as an ADDENDUM tothe City of Livermore Isabel Neighborhood Plan Environmental Impact Report (2018 EIR) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2020 SEIR),SCH # 2016042039.
Signature Date
Printed Name Title
1 6
EXHIBIT B
1065
4 Impact Analysis
The analysis in this section of the potential impacts associated with the Isabel Crossing and No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project compared with those of the approved INSP analyzed in the certified 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR has been prepared using the CEQA checklist as a guide. This checklist is consistent with the format and environmental topics and questions of the checklist used in the Final EIR, but also includes recent updates to reflect the most recently adopted checklist provided in Appendix G of the 2023 CEQA Guidelines. The checklist considers the full range of environmental issues subject to analysis under CEQA (in rows), and then poses a series of questions (in columns) aimed at identifying the degree to which the issue was analyzed in the certified 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR. The checklist also includes a column identifying whether there is new information of substantial importance, as defined by CEQA, relative to each environmental issue.
The questions posed and addressed in the checklist are described below.
Where was Impact Analyzed in the EIR?
This column provides a cross-reference to the portions of the certified 2018 EIR and/or 2020 SEIR where information and analyses may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic. The cross-references identified in this column correspond with page numbers and section numbers of the 2018 EIR and/or 2020 SEIR.
Are Major Revisions to the EIR Required?
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), this column indicates whether the proposed project would involve new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts, new information of substantial importance, or substantial changes in the circumstances that, in turn, would require major revisions of the 2018 EIR and/or 2020 SEIR.
Are There New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1), this column indicates whether the proposed project would involve new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts that were not discussed in the 2018 EIR and/or 2020 SEIR.
Do EIR Mitigation Measures Address and/or Resolve Impacts? This column indicates whether mitigation measures from the 2018 EIR and/or 2020 SEIR would address and/or resolve impacts related to the modified project.
EXHIBIT B
1066
This page intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT B
1067
4.1 Aesthetics
Where was
Impact Analyzed
in the EIR?
Are Major
Revisions to the
EIR Required?
Are There New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR Mitigation
Measures
Address and/or
Resolve Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
Pages 3.5-8
through 3.5-10
of the 2018 EIR
No No N/A
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
Pages 3.5-14 of
the 2018 EIR
No No N/A
c. In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that
are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the
project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
Pages 3.5-14
through 3.5-15
of the 2018 EIR
No No N/A
d. Create a new source of
substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in
the area?
Pages 3.5-15 of
the 2018 EIR
No No N/A
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
Impacts to aesthetics were analyzed on pages 3.5-8 through 3.5-15 of the 2018 EIR. The 2020 SEIR did not update or modify the analysis of impacts to aesthetics from the 2018 EIR. Aesthetic impacts related to scenic resources, visual character, and light and glare were determined to be less than significant, while impacts related to scenic vistas were determined to be significant and unavoidable despite implementation of Goal G-LU-2 of the INSP which requires the protection of existing scenic views to the extent possible and create new view corridors from within the INSP Planning Area.
The following describes the analysis included in the 2018 EIR and provides a review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcels on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in a previous environmental
EXHIBIT B
1068
documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.
Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The 2018 EIR determined that impacts to scenic vistas would be significant and unavoidable due to the proposed height and intensity of development within the INSP planning area. The proposed project would be entirely within the INSP Planning Area analyzed in the 2018 EIR. As discussed in Section 1.5, Project Description, four of the Isabel Crossing Parcels in the proposed project would exceed the height limits required in the INSP pursuant to requested Density Bonus law “waiver and reduction” requests. Parcel S1 would exceed the height envelope by approximately 11.5 feet, Parcel C-2A would exceed the height envelope by approximately 8.5 feet at the north end of the building only, Parcel S3-A would exceed the height envelope by approximately 6.0 feet, and Parcel S3-B would exceed height requirements by approximately 20.5 feet. However, several of the proposed building heights would be reduced compared to the original project, and the overall impact on scenic vistas would be similar to and not substantially more severe than the original project. The height requirements would be consistent with INSP land uses after concessions and waivers approved under the proposed State Density Bonus. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show views of the project site from Isabel Avenue and Shea Center Drive. Development on the site would generally obscure views of the distant ridgelines regardless of the height increases proposed for the project.
Under the original project, building height was restricted to 490 to 495 feet above MSL for the BART Parcel (pursuant to Figure 2-4 of the INSP) and 30 feet in height for the Comcast Parcels (pursuant to the City’s General Plan Scenic Corridor Policy). The proposed land use designation change of the No Net Loss Parcels would not modify the height limitations, and as no specific development is proposed on the No Net Loss Parcels at this time, it is reasonably assumed that future development proposals on the No Net Loss Parcels would comply with the height limitations set forth in the City’s General Plan and INSP.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts to scenic vistas beyond those identified in the 2018 EIR.
Figure 4 View of the Project Site Looking West from Isabel Avenue
EXHIBIT B
1069
Figure 5 View of the Project Site Looking North from Shea Center Drive b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The 2018 EIR indicated that the portion of I-580 that passes through the INSP planning area is an Eligible State Scenic Highway, and the Gandolfo Farm is a historic resource within the INSP Planning Area. The hills north and south of I-580 comprise the scenic resources visible from I-580, and areas with existing trees along creeks in the INSP Planning Area would be maintained as open space.
There are no significant rock outcroppings within the INSP Planning Area or project site.
The project site falls within a scenic corridor zone as identified in the 2018 EIR, and the project site is visible from I-580. However, development proposed under the Isabel Crossing Project would remain in areas designated for development under the INSP and would not be located on areas designated as open space, or on the Gandolfo Farm property. Similarly, future development of the No Net Loss Parcels facilitated by the proposed and future land use changes would occur in an area designated for development under the INSP and would not be located on the Gandolfo Farm property. The proposed project would not damage historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or trees within a State Scenic Highway beyond what was considered in the 2018 EIR for the original project. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts to scenic resources would be similar to those studied in the prior EIRs and would be less than significant. The proposed project would have no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to scenic vistas beyond those described in the certified EIR. c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The 2018 EIR determined that new development would be subject to development standards in Chapter 2: Land Use of the INSP that would regulate building height and setbacks to minimize the visual impacts of new construction and redevelopment and design standards and guidelines in
EXHIBIT B
1070
Chapter 5: Urban Design of the INSP, which address the street interface, building massing, architecture, colors, materials, landscaping, and signage.
The proposed project would be entirely within the project area for the original project. The modified project site has retained the same general appearance as was analyzed in the 2018 EIR for the original project. The Isabel Crossing Project would not substantially change the appearance of new development on the site compared to the original project analyzed in the 2018 EIR because the original project planned for new residential and commercial development on the Isabel Crossing Parcels, similar to the proposed project. The Isabel Crossing Project would be less dense than that studied in the prior EIRs, and there would be slightly more landscaping and open space, which would be an improvement to the visual character of the site compared with the original project.
The No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project would allow future development of the BART and Comcast Parcels to be strictly residential use, as compared to the original project, which allowed for Business Park development on the Comcast Parcels and some Office Core development on the BART Parcel. While the allowed type of use and density of development would be modified under the No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project, the proposed uses would be visually consistent with existing and planned surrounding development, which includes residential uses near the No Net Loss Parcels. In particular, the BART Parcel was designated for Residential Core (60-100 dwelling units per acre) and Office Core development and would be re-designated for exclusively Residential Core. While the Comcast Parcels would be re-designated to Village and Transition, parcels to the south and east of the Comcast Parcels are also designated for Village and Transition, and the land use change would be consistent with those adjacent designations.
Furthermore, INSP goals and policies would apply to the proposed project, like the original project.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in no new or more severe impacts to visual character and quality beyond those identified in the 2018 EIR.
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
The 2018 EIR found that while new development under the original project would increase sources of light and glare (through street lights, buildings, and vehicles), compliance with Livermore General Plan policies for controlling outdoor artificial light and Chapter 15.18 of the Livermore Municipal Code would reduce potentially significant long-term light and glare impacts and design standards would further help to ensure that lighting for new development is held to high design standards for light pollution and glare reduction. The proposed project would not add new sources or light or glare to the project site beyond what was considered in the 2018 EIR for the original project, as all portions of the project site were anticipated for development and not designated for open space.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in no new or more severe impacts to light and glare beyond those identified in the 2018 EIR.
EXHIBIT B
1071
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Where was
Impact Analyzed
in the EIR?
Are Major
Revisions to the
EIR Required?
Are There New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR Mitigation
Measures
Address and/or
Resolve Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as
shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
the 2018 EIR
No No N/A
b. Conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
the 2018 EIR
No No N/A
c. Conflict with existing zoning
for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code
Section 4526); or timberland
zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code Section
51104(g))?
the 2018 EIR
No No N/A
d. Result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
the 2018 EIR
No No N/A
e. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which,
due to their location or
nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
the 2018 EIR
No No N/A
EXHIBIT B
1072
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
Impacts to agriculture and forestry resources were analyzed on pages 3.14-7 through 3.15-1 of the 2018 EIR. The 2020 SEIR did not update or modify the analysis of impacts to agriculture and forestry resources from the 2018 EIR. Impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland and agricultural zoning were determined to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of INSP policies. Impacts to existing farmland were determined to be less than significant with compliance with Chapter 8.16 of the Livermore Municipal Code. The 2018 EIR determined that there would be no impact on forest resources or land zoned for forest use.
The following describes the analysis included in the 2018 EIR and provides a review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcels on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in a previous environmental documents as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.
Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The 2018 EIR identified one property, the Gandolfo property, as impacted by the conversion of Prime Farmland and Unique Farmland to non-agricultural use. The Isabel Crossing and No Net Loss Parcels do not include this property.
The 2018 EIR stated that there is one zoning district, PDR-01-001, in the INSP Planning Area that allows for agriculture uses. The Isabel Crossing and No Net Loss Parcels are not located within this agricultural zoning district.
The proposed project would be located on the same site as studied in the prior EIRs, on land designated as grazing land by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Important Farmlands Inventory. The Isabel Crossing and No Net Loss Parcels do not include Important Farmland and is not designated for agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no new or more severe impacts to Prime Farmland or Unique Farmland beyond those identified in the 2018 EIR.
EXHIBIT B
1073
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The 2018 EIR stated that the INSP Planning Area does not contain forest resources or land zoned for forest use. Because the proposed project is entirely within the INSP Planning Area considered under the 2018 EIR, and no forest land is located on the Isabel Crossing or No Net Loss Parcels, the proposed project would result in no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 2018 EIR for the original project.
EXHIBIT B
1074
This page intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT B
1075
4.3 Air Quality
Where was
Impact Analyzed
in the EIR?
Are Major
Revisions to the
EIR Required?
Are There New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR Mitigation
Measures Address
and/or Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or
obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan?
the 2018 EIR
the 2020 SEIR
No No No
b. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net
increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or
state ambient air
quality standard?
Pages 3.3-33
and 3.3-35 of
the 2018 EIR
Pages 3.1-36
and 3.1-43 of
the 2020 SEIR
No No Yes
c. Expose sensitive
receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Pages 3.3-38,
3.3-40, and
3.3-44 of the
2018 EIR
Pages 3.1-43,
3.1-45, and
3.1-49 of the
2020 SEIR
No No Yes
d. Result in other
emissions (such as
those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?
the 2018 EIR
the 2020 SEIR
No No No
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
Impacts to air quality were analyzed on pages 3.3-1 through 3.3-47 of the 2018 EIR and pages 3.1-1 through 3.1-52 of the 2020 SEIR. The certified 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR determined that implementation of the INSP would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
The 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR determined that development facilitated by the INSP, with the implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 (included below), in addition to the proposed 2018 EIR policies, would reduce construction-related emissions to a less-than-significant level. The INSP emissions in the 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR would be generated from mobile sources (i.e., passenger vehicles) that are not regulated at the city level; therefore, no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce these operational emissions. Operational impacts were
EXHIBIT B
1076
determined to be significant and unavoidable. The 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR found construction and operation may expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. With the Implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-4 (shown below), construction emissions would be reduced and a project-level evaluation within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors would be required; however, project-specific conditions could preclude the reduction of health risk below Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds. Therefore, toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposure was determined to be significant and unavoidable.
MM AQ-1: Require Construction Fleet to Use Renewable Diesel. All applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all off-road equipment operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall operate on renewable diesel (such as Diesel high performance renewable). Renewable diesel is currently commercially available in San Francisco Bay Area.
MM AQ-2: Require Use of Diesel Trucks with 2010-Compliant Model Year Engines. All applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to use diesel trucks that have 2010 model year or newer engines. In the event that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained, the contractor must provide documentation to the City showing that a good faith effort to locate such engines was conducted.
MM AQ-3: Require payment of mitigation fees to offset emissions exceeding BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds.
MM AQ-4: Require future projects located within 1,000 feet of receptors perform a construction health risk assessment (HRA). All applicants proposing development of projects within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, as defined by BAAQMD, shall prepare a sitespecific construction HRA taking into account both project-level and cumulative health risks (including existing TAC sources). If the HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, that the health risk exposures for adjacent receptors will be less than BAAQMD project-level and cumulative thresholds (as appropriate), then additional mitigation would be unnecessary. However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks would exceed BAAQMD project-level and/or cumulative thresholds (as appropriate), additional feasible on- and offsite mitigation shall be analyzed by the applicant to help reduce risks to the greatest extent practicable.
The following describes the analysis included in the 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR and provides a review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that are either 1) peculiar to the project or the parcels on which the project is located, 2) were not previously analyzed in a previous environmental documents as significant effects, 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents, and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.
EXHIBIT B
1077
Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The California Clean Air Act requires that air districts create a 2017 Climate Action Plan (CAP) that describes how the jurisdiction will meet air quality standards. The most recently adopted air quality plan is the 2017 CAP. The 2017 CAP does not include control measures that apply directly to individual development projects. Instead, the control strategy includes control measures related to stationary sources, transportation, energy, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, waste management, water, and super-greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutants. A project that would not support the 2017 CAP’s goals would not be consistent with the 2017 CAP. On an individual project basis, consistency with BAAQMD quantitative thresholds is interpreted as demonstrating support for the CAP’s goals.
As noted on page 3.1-24 of the 2020 SEIR, the original project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD’s 2017 CAP with the development of numerous polices that promote mixed-use and transit-oriented development. The proposed project would exceed development for the original project planned under the INSP. In addition, by adhering to INSP policies and design guidelines the proposed project would incorporate many of the 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures related to transportation, building energy, waste, and water sections discussed in Table 3.1-6 of the 2020 SEIR for the original project, such as trip reduction programs, transit efficiency, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, urban tree planting, and waste diversion.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to conflicts with applicable air quality plans beyond those identified in the 2018 EIR or 2020 SEIR for the original project.
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Isabel Crossing Project
Construction
The Isabel Crossing Project would involve the construction of 39 fewer residential units and 92,823 square feet less commercial space than the project as considered in the 2020 SEIR. In addition, the proposed project would not include office space. Similar to the 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR, with the implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 from the 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR (included above), the proposed project’s construction criteria pollutant impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to air quality with the implementation of the proposed project.
Operation
Long-term operational emissions associated with the Isabel Crossing Project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1. During operations, the proposed uses would result in emissions of criteria pollutants from area sources (i.e., consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment), energy sources (natural gas usage), and mobile sources (vehicle use). Table 2 below compares the proposed Isabel Crossing Project to the original project planned for the Isabel Crossing Parcels under the INSP. Operational emissions of
EXHIBIT B
1078
the proposed project would be less than the original project for nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns, and particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns because there would be less commercial retail space and no office land uses the proposed project, resulting in a corresponding decrease in emissions sources, such as vehicle trips. Reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions would increase three pounds per day compared to the original project since the proposed project would increase the total usable residential square footage, which would increase consumer product consumption. As shown in Table 3.1-7 in the 2020 SEIR, the original project’s increase in ROG emissions compared to existing (2013) conditions would be 7 pounds per day below the BAAQMD threshold. Therefore, with the proposed Isabel Crossing Project increasing emissions by three pounds per day, emissions from the Isabel Crossing Project would be four pounds per day below the BAAQMD threshold. Therefore, the proposed Isabel Crossing Project would result in no new or more severe impacts related to air quality impacts and criteria pollutant emissions beyond those identified in the 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR for the original project.
Isabel Crossing and No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project Table 2 provides the net air quality emissions associated with the potential future development that could occur as a result of the proposed land use designation change of the BART Parcel and the future land use designation change of the Comcast Parcels, when combined with the Isabel Crossing Project and existing and planned development. The overall project would result in an increase of residential units and a decrease of commercial office space compared to the original INSP.
Operational emissions would be lower for ROG, nitrogen oxide, CO, particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns, and particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns as compared to the original INSP. This is due to the reduced commercial office space, leading to a corresponding decrease in emissions sources, such as vehicle trips. Additionally, operational emissions would decrease due to reduced consumption of consumer products and natural gas energy consumption. As a result, the potential development of the No Net Loss Parcels when combined with the proposed development of the Isabel Crossing Parcels would not lead to a new or more severe impact related to air quality and criteria pollutant emissions beyond those already identified in the 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR for the original project.
EXHIBIT B
1079
Table 2 Isabel Crossing Project Operational Emissions
Average Daily Emissions (lbs./day)
Sources ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Isabel Crossing Project
2040 With Adopted INSP
Mobile 12 30 337 164 42
Area 45 1 49 <1 <1
Energy <1 7 3 1 1
Original Project Emissions 57 38 390 165 43
2040 With Isabel Crossing Project
Mobile 10 26 287 139 36
Area 50 1 38 <1 <1
Energy <1 3 1 <1 <1
Isabel Crossing Emissions 60 29 327 139 36
Net Difference From Adopted INSP on
the Isabel Crossing Parcels
3 (9) (63) (26) (7)
No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project
Decrease of 1,531,486 sf of Office Space
Mobile (27) (27) (261) (100) (26)
Area (39) (<1) (33) (<1) (<1)
Energy (1) (10) (8) (1) (1)
Total Emissions (67) (37) (302) (101) (26)
Increase of 1,431 Residential Units1
Mobile 16 16 153 58 15
Area 37 1 40 <1 <1
Energy <1 7 3 1 1
Total Emissions 54 24 197 59 16
Net Difference From Adopted INSP on
the No Net Loss Parcels
(13) (13) (105) (42) (10)
Isabel Crossing and No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project Total Net Emissions from the Isabel
Crossing and No Net Loss Specific Plan
Amendment Project Compared with the
Adopted INSP
(10) (22) (168) (68) (17)
1 The increase of 1,431 residential units from the No Net Loss Parcels accounts for the overall reduction in housing units in the INSP area from the proposal Isabel Crossing Project and other planned and constructed projects in the INSP area.
Lbs./day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Notes: Parenthetical values are negative numbers and are subtracted from the total emissions rather than added.
Source: Average daily and annual emissions. See Table 2.5 “Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated”. See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix B. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
EXHIBIT B
1080
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The proposed project would involve the development of land uses and associated sensitive receptors near roadways that could emit substantial pollutant concentrations, similar to the original project analyzed in the 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR. Implementation of the Isabel Crossing and No Net Loss Specific Plan Amendment Project would reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and average daily vehicle trips compared to the original project. As shown in Table 2, the proposed project would emit less CO emissions from mobile sources compared to the original project. Therefore, no new or significant increase in CO exposure would be anticipated under the proposed project.
Construction and operational activity from the proposed project would generate TAC emissions that could expose new and existing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant emissions. Without project specific details, such as construction equipment, building footprints, and construction schedule, it would be speculative to determine construction impacts on sensitive receptors. With the implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-4, provided above, the proposed project would reduce construction TAC emissions and exposure to sensitive receptors. However, project-specific conditions may prevent the reduction of health risk below adopted thresholds; therefore, construction impacts would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the findings of the 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR. Development under the proposed project may involve new stationary sources of TACs and could expose sensitive receptors to TAC emissions. Stationary sources would be subject to the permit authority of BAAQMD. Consistent with the 2020 SEIR, project-specific details could preclude the reduction of health risk below BAAQMD thresholds. However, no more stationary sources of TACs are proposed than under the original project. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollution beyond those identified in the 2018 EIR or 2020 SEIR for the original project. d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The proposed project would not involve the use of construction equipment or materials that were not accounted for in the original project and analyzed in the SEIR. The proposed project would occur within the same proximity to existing residences as the construction activities anticipated for the original project and the proposed project would involve similar operational uses to those evaluated for the original project in the 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR. Therefore, no new odors beyond those analyzed in the 2018 EIR and 2020 SEIR for the original project would result from the proposed project.
EXHIBIT B
1081
4.4 Biological Resources
Where was
Impact Analyzed
in the EIR?
Are Major
Revisions to the
EIR Required?
Are There New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR Mitigation
Measures
Address and/or
Resolve Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or
through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Pages 3.7-26
through 3.7-35
of the 2018 EIR
No No Yes
b. Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural
community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Pages 3.7-35
through 3.7-37
of the 2018 EIR
No No Yes
c. Have a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally
protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Pages 3.7-37
through 3.7-39
of the 2018 EIR
No No Yes
d. Interfere substantially with
the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?