Agenda packet — Livermore City Council, October 14, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

173
05 Projects &
Programs

EXHIBIT A

Page 122 of 152 ends

174

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 54
CHAPTER 5 PROJECTS & PROGRAMS This Plan’s proposed active transportation network seeks to provide the Livermore community with safe, convenient, and healthy transportation choices. The network also enhances regional connectivity to adjacent communities, regional parks, and other destinations through an extensive trail network and connected bicycling and walking facilities. Building on the needs and opportunities identified through the evaluation of existing conditions, community input, health, safety, and data-driven analyses, this chapter summarizes the projects, programs, and citywide efforts. These improvements address network gaps informed by the needs analysis, goals identified through community input, and best practices in active transportation planning. For a detailed list of projects, see Appendix I. Detailed trail improvements are described in Appendix J. Proposed and continuing programs are described in Appendix B. Recommendations are considered planning-level, meaning they should be used as a guide when implementing projects. In some cases, traffic impact analysis and more detailed design analysis will be required to evaluate specific site conditions and develop designs that reflect conditions and constraints. This chapter is divided into sections that describe the proposed walking, bicycling, and trail improvements. Proposed infrastructure projects are separated into two categories: network improvements and crossing improvements. Additionally, proposed citywide projects include policies or standards for bicycle and pedestrian amenities that should be implemented as development occurs or opportunities arise.

Finally, programs include current and proposed new activities to support active transportation, organized into four groups: education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation.

NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS Proposed network improvements are intended to make walking and bicycling more comfortable, enjoyable, and safer when traveling along Livermore corridors. Network projects include a variety of bikeway facilities and sidewalk projects. Bikeways are categorized based on the four classes recognized by Caltrans, with subdivisions unique to Alameda County. These classes are described in detail in Chapter 3. A summary of existing and proposed network improvements is provided in Table 5-1, and mapped in Figure 5-1. Network project maps by facility type are included in Appendix I.

Table 5-1: Summary of Proposed Network Improvements
(Mileage)
FACILITY TYPE EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL Class 1A Shared Use Path 40 80.8 120.8 Class 2A Bicycle Lanes 66 16.3 82.3 Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lanes 0 16.8 16.8
Class 3A Bicycle Route 0 1.2 1.2 Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard 0 19.2 19.2 Class 4A Separated Bikeway 0 13.4 13.4 Sidewalk 566 6.0 572.0TOTAL MILES 672 153.7 825.7

EXHIBIT A

Page 123 of 152 ends

175

JACK LO NDON BLVD

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

DR ELLIVNEERG

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

DR OCSAV S

EVA ATSIV ANEUB

N VASCO RD

TS ROOMDAORB

EVA LARTNEC

NWOTGNIRPS

HCNAR ATNEVARAG

DR NILHGUAL

FIRST ST

TS SEMLOH

EAST AVE

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

DR OYORRA

TS ETNEW

NL LLEDRUM
RIATLA

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

E STANLEY BL ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

EVA EROMREVIL N

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

CHARLOTTE WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE
N

CATALINA DR
N L ST

STANFORD WAY

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

CROAK RD

DR OCSAV N

TESLA RD

VINEYARD AVE

CHARLOTTE WAY

LEXINGTON WAY

LOMITAS AVE

PESTANA WAY

EAST AVE

W LAS POSITAS BL

STONERIDGE DR
Iron Horse Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Brushy Peak to Del Valle Trail
Arroyo Las Positas Trail A i
Arroyo Mocho Trail
Arroyo Del Valle Reg i onal Trail
Arroyo Seco Trail
580 580
580
Chain
of Lakes
Lake
Del Valle
Frick
Lake
Bill Payne
Sports
Park
Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
National
Lab
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson
Park
Independence
Park
Les
Knott
Park
Livermore
Downs
Sunken Gardens Neighborhood Park
Portola
Park
Ravenswood
Park
Sunset
Park
Bill Clark
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Wattenburger
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Summit
Park
Christensen
Park
Big Trees
Park Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore
Grove Park
Max Baer
Park
Ida Holm
Park
Jack Williams
Park
Carnegie
Park
Shadow Cliffs
Regional Recreation
Area
Del Valle
Regional Park
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Al Caffodio
Park
Hagemann
Park
Bothwell
Recreation
Center
Marlin Pound
Neighborhood
Park
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Vasco Rd
ACE Station
Downtown
Transit Center
Las Positas
College
Outlets
To Pleasanton
To
Contra Costa
County

EXISTING BIKEWAYS/TRAILS
Class 1a. Paved Shared
Use Path
Class 2a. Bicycle Lane
City of Livermore
Boundary
School Ground
Park
Railway
Creek
ACE Station
City Hall
Hospital
Library
Points of Interest
Post Office
School
Legend

NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS

CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
Class 1A Shared Use Path
Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane
Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard
Class 4A Separated Bikeway
Low Intensity Crossing Improvement
Marked crosswalks, signage
Medium Intensity Crossing Improvement
RRFB, PHB, median refuge island, curb extension
High Intensity Crossing Improvement
Traffic signal, traffic circle, intersection reconfiguration I-580 Crossing Improvement
Separated, non-separated
Sidewalk Gap Improvement
Legend
Class 3A Bicycle Route
Class 2A Bicycle Lane
Proposed Projects 0 1 2 MILES
Figure 5-1

RAILROAD AVE
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve
Arroyo Mocho Trail
T12
B16
T4
T17
S16
T16
T1
S11
T3
S12
L31
L2
S21
S15
S10
S14
T6
L17
T16
T6
T5
BB28
BB32
S19
T9
S17
BB1
BL10
S1
S18
BB5
T6
L1
BB27
BB6
L29
T14
T19
L27 T7
BB30
T5
BB11
S20
S3
L8
BB36
BB16
BB35
S8
T16
L20
L28
B16
T21
T7
BB25
BL4
BB21
SL2
T11
L33
BB4
BB17
L11
T5
L21
BB34
L13 S5
BL14
T10
L3
BB9
T6
BB18
T16
T3
T4
L7
BL7
BB8
T6
T16
S7
T5
BB13
BB37
BB20
T16
L14
S2
BB3
BB31
S9
BB29
T6
BB23
BL9
BB10
BB15
T18
SL6
T10
BB26
BL6
BB22
L4
BB33
BB14
BB7
BB2
T3
BL8
T6
L25
T15
T3
BB12
T16
T16 BL3
T11
S6
L18
SL7
T4
L15
L9
SL5
T24
T10
T16
L5
T19
BR3
SL1
L12
BB19
BL5
BL12
T5
T13
T4
BB24
BL11
BL15
SL3
T16
L19
T10
SL8
T15
SL4
T16
BL1
T2
BL2
T3 T21
T25
T1
T29
T20
B16
T4
T17
S16
T16
T1
S11
T3
S12
L31
L2
S21
S15
S10
S14
T6
L17
T16
T6
T5
BB28
BB32
S19
T9
S17
BB1
BL10
S1
S18
BB5
T6
L1
BB27
BB6
L29
T14
T19
L27 T7
BB30
T5
BB11
S20
S3
L8
BB36
BB16
BB35
S8
T16
L20
L28
B16
T21
T7
BB25
BL4
BB21
SL2
T11
L33
BB4
BB17
L11
T5
L21
BB34
L13 S5
BL14
T10
L3
BB9
T6
BB18
T16
T3
T4
L7
BL7
BB8
T6
T16
S7
T5
BB13
BB37
BB20
T16
L14
S2
BB3
BB31
S9
BB29
T6
BB23
BL9
BB10
BB15
T18
SL6
T10
BB26
BL6
BB22
L4
BB33
BB14
BB7
BB2
T3
BL8
T6
L25
T15
T3
BB12
T16
T16 BL3
T11
S6
L18
SL7
T4
L15
L9
SL5
T24
T10
T16
L5
T19
BR3
SL1
L12
BB19
BL5
BL12
T5
T13
T4
BB24
BL11
BL15
SL3
T16
L19
T10
SL8
T15
SL4
T16
BL1
T2
BL2
T3 T21
T25
T1
T29
T20
= Class 1A Shared Use Path
= Class 2A Bicycle Lane
= Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane
= Class 3A Bicycle Route
= Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard
= Class 4A Separated Bikeway
= Sidewalk Gap Improvement
Project Labels
T
BL
BR
BB
SL
S
L
EXHIBIT A Page 124 of 152
176

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 56
CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS Crossing improvements are an essential complement to the network improvements, as they connect routes at intersections. For Livermore, crossing improvements are classified as low, medium, or high intensity based on the complexity of facilities required. High intensity crossings are further divided into low and high cost categories. Typical improvements in each category are described in the following sections, and summarized in Table 5-2. Crossing improvements are mapped in Figure 5-2.

Table 5-2: Summary of Crossing Improvements
CROSSING INTENSITY NUMBER Low
6 Medium 25High/Low 24High/High 11I-580 Crossings 10 TOTAL 76 Crossing projects were classified based on five factors:
 Existing conditions at the intersection to categorize each location as affecting bikes and/or pedestrians
 Number of travel lanes at the intersection Average daily traffic volumes (ADT) Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) scores, ranging from 1 (low stress) to 4 (high stress); see Chapter 4 andAppendix G  Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) scores, ranging from 1 (low stress) to 6 (high stress); see Chapter 4 andAppendix H LOW INTENSITY CROSSINGS The intersections receiving low-intensity crossing improvements primarily provide access to schools and are local on small, local streets. These crossing improvements primarily affect pedestrians. Existing conditions for bicyclists at these crossing locations generally already have low BLTS scores and do not require additional bicycle-specific treatments. Treatments for pedestrians at these crossings could include installing marked crosswalks, signage warning vehicles of an upcoming pedestrian crossing location, curb ramps, and minor sidewalk repairs. These locations typically have low enough volumes that pedestrians can find a break in traffic to cross with the presence of a marked crosswalk. MEDIUM INTENSITY CROSSINGS Intersections that have medium traffic volumes, generally defined as less than 12,000 ADT, and two to four travel lanes need a more intensive treatment in order to become a lowstress crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians because the higher traffic volumes make it more difficult to find a break in traffic to cross. With higher traffic volumes, these intersections are typically on larger streets, such as Holmes Street and Mines Road.

EXHIBIT A

Page 125 of 152 ends

177

JACK LO NDON BLVD

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

DR ELLIVNEERG

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

DR OCSAV S

EVA ATSIV ANEUB

N VASCO RD

TS ROOMDAORB

EVA LARTNEC

NWOTGNIRPS

HCNAR ATNEVARAG

DR NILHGUAL

FIRST ST

TS SEMLOH

EAST AVE

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

DR OYORRA

TS ETNEW

NL LLEDRUM
RIATLA

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

E STANLEY BL ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

EVA EROMREVIL N

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

CHARLOTTE WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE
N

CATALINA DR
N L ST

STANFORD WAY

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

CROAK RD

DR OCSAV N

TESLA RD

VINEYARD AVE

CHARLOTTE WAY

LEXINGTON WAY

LOMITAS AVE

PESTANA WAY

EAST AVE

W LAS POSITAS BL

CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
Low Intensity Crossing Improvement
Marked crosswalks, signage
Medium Intensity Crossing Improvement
RRFB, PHB, median refuge island, curb extension
High Intensity Crossing Improvement
Traffic signal, traffic circle, intersection reconfiguration I-580 Crossing Improvement
Separated, non-separated
Legend
0 1 2 MILES
Proposed Projects
Crossing Improvements
Figure 5-2

RAILROAD AVE
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve
Arroyo Mocho Trail
Project Labels
P10
P11 P12
P13
P66
P68 P69
P70
P9
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P7 P8
P14
P17
P18
P19
P20
P22
P23
P24
P25
P26
P28P27
P29
P30 P31
P32
P33 P34
P35
P36
P40 P41
P42
P44 P43
P46 P47 P48
P49
P50
P51
P52
P53 P54
P55
P56
P57
P58
P59
P60
P61
P62
P63
P64
P65
P74
P75
P76
P77
P78
P79
P80
P81
P71
P82
P83
P84
P85
P86
P87
P10
P11 P12
P13
P66
P68 P69
P70
P9
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P7 P8
P14
P17
P18
P19
P20
P22
P23
P24
P25
P26
P28P27
P29
P30 P31
P32
P33 P34
P35
P36
P40 P41
P42
P44 P43
P46 P47 P48
P49
P50
P51
P52
P53 P54
P55
P56
P57
P58
P59
P60
P61
P62
P63
P64
P65
P74
P75
P76
P77
P78
P79
P80
P81
P71
P82
P83
P84
P85
P86
P87
P = Crossing Improvement
EXHIBIT A Page 126 of 152
178

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 58
Medium intensity crossings may also include more moderate improvements such as curb extensions, refuge islands, and pedestrian beacons or rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFBs). Where traffic signals already exist, bicycle-specific intersection treatments may include bike boxes or two-stage turn boxes. Where traffic signals do not exist, bicycle-specific intersection treatments may include signage, improved intersection crossing markings, and/or two-stage turn boxes. HIGH INTENSITY CROSSINGS Intersections in the high-intensity crossing treatment group affect either bicyclists, primarily at signalized locations, or both bicyclists and pedestrians, primarily at unsignalized locations. The intersections in this group have high traffic volumes (12,000+) and scored LTS 3 or 4 for bicyclists, indicating high intensity treatments are needed to increase safety and comfort. High intensity crossings include more complex improvements, including new traffic signal configurations, relocating curbs, adding pedestrian actuation buttons, intersection crossing markings, stop control, signalization, intersection reconfiguration, median refuge islands, two-stage turn boxes, bike boxes, or bicycle signal heads. High intensity crossings are further divided into high and low cost efforts, indicating whether traffic signals require major pole relocation and signal modification work (high intensity, high cost), or whether only minor adjustments are required (high intensity, low cost). I-580 CROSSINGSIn addition to crossings of local streets, ten crossings of I-580 were identified. Because these grade-separated crossings will require significant investment and coordination between the City and Caltrans, these projects were not included in the prioritization process in this Plan. Rather, this Plan recommends studying interchanges for possible short-term improvements. Additionally, the projects will be moved forward with Caltrans as funding and opportunities become available. In the interim, the City may apply for funding to study the existing crossings and develop design concepts to improve walking and bicycling access across the highway.

PROJECT GROUPS Community input received throughout development of this Plan highlighted five focus areas for infrastructure: school access, downtown access, crosstown routes, trail connections, and I580 crossings. Sidewalk gap closures, while they support many of these focus areas, have been presented as a separate group due to the process for implementation. Therefore, the network and crossing projects recommended in this plan are organized into six project groups to reflect local priorities. School Access projects improve safety and comfort for students walking and bicycling to school, considering safe access points for each school to maintain a separation between students walking and bicycling and vehicles picking up and dropping off. Downtown Access projects create a more welcoming bicycling and walking environment to and throughout the Downtown area. Crosstown Routes seek to provide meaningful access to destinations by creating longer-distance corridors that increase

EXHIBIT A

Page 127 of 152 ends

179

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 59
safety and comfort for active transportation along major arterial streets with multiple lanes of high speed vehicle traffic. Trail Connections provide recreation, access to jobs, housing, regional parks, transit, shopping, and other major destinations, as well as integrate Livermore’s off-street network with on-street bikeways and pedestrian facilities. Sidewalk Gap Improvements fill in the pedestrian network to provide uninterrupted connectivity to destinations. I-580 Crossing Improvements provide improved accessacross I-580, including connections to Las Positas College,Northwest and Northeast Livermore neighborhoods, anddowntown. As noted previously, these improvements will beadvanced through separate efforts with Caltrans and are notincluded in the implementation strategy for this Plan.Projects by group are summarized in Table 5-3 and mapped in Figure 5-3.

Table 5-3: Proposed Projects by Group
PROJECT GROUP AND FACILITY SEGMENTS MILES School Access 73 18.2 Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard 34 18.2 Low Intensity Crossing 6 -- Medium Intensity Crossing 15 -- High/Low Intensity Crossing 10 -- High/High Intensity Crossing 8 -- Downtown Access 22 7.8
Class 2A Bicycle Lane 6 2.0

PROJECT GROUP AND FACILITY SEGMENTS MILES
Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane 3 2.9 Class 3A Bicycle Route 1 1.2 Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard 2 1.0 Class 4A Separated Bikeway 1 0.7 Medium Intensity Crossing 2 -- High/Low Intensity Crossing 6 -- High/High Intensity Crossing 1 -- Crosstown Routes 54 40.9
Class 2A Bicycle Lane 22 14.7 Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane 12 13.4 Class 4A Separated Bicycle Lane 9 12.7 Medium Intensity Crossing 4 -- High/Low Intensity Crossing 6 -- High/High Intensity Crossing 1 -- Trail Connections 75 80.8
Class 1A Paved Shared Use Path 68 80.8 Medium Intensity Crossing 4 -- High/Low Intensity Crossing 2 -- High/High Intensity Crossing 1 -- Sidewalk Gap Closure 19 6.0
Sidewalk 19 6.0
I-580 Crossing Improvements 10 --
I-580 Crossing Improvements 10 --

EXHIBIT A

Page 128 of 152 ends

180

JACK LO NDON BLVD

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

DR ELLIVNEERG

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

DR OCSAV S

EVA ATSIV ANEUB

N VASCO RD

TS ROOMDAORB

EVA LARTNEC

NWOTGNIRPS

HCNAR ATNEVARAG

DR NILHGUAL

FIRST ST

TS SEMLOH

EAST AVE

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

DR OYORRA

TS ETNEW

NL LLEDRUM
RIATLA

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

E STANLEY BL ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

EVA EROMREVIL N

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

CHARLOTTE WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE
N

CATALINA DR
N L ST

STANFORD WAY

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

CROAK RD

DR OCSAV N

TESLA RD

VINEYARD AVE

CHARLOTTE WAY

LEXINGTON WAY

LOMITAS AVE

PESTANA WAY

EAST AVE

W LAS POSITAS BL

STONERIDGE DR
Iron Horse Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Brushy Peak to Del Valle Trail
Arroyo Las Positas Trail A i
Arroyo Del Valle Reg i onal Trail
Arroyo Seco Trail
580 580
580
Chain
of Lakes
Lake
Del Valle
Frick
Lake
Bill Payne
Sports
Park
Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
National
Lab
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson
Park
Independence
Park
Les
Knott
Park
Livermore
Downs
Sunken Gardens Neighborhood Park
Portola
Park
Ravenswood
Park
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve
Sunset
Park
Bill Clark
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Wattenburger
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Summit
Park
Christensen
Park
Big Trees
Park Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore
Grove Park
Max Baer Park
Ida Holm
Park
Jack Williams
Park
Carnegie
Park
Shadow Cliffs
Regional Recreation
Area
Del Valle
Regional Park
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Al Caffodio
Park
Hagemann
Park
Bothwell
Recreation
Center
Marlin Pound
Neighborhood
Park
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Vasco Rd
ACE Station
Las Positas
College
Outlets
To Pleasanton
To
Contra Costa
County

PROJECT CATEGORIES
School Access Improvements
Crosstown Routes Improvements
Sidewalk Gap Improvements
I-580 Crossing Improvements
Legend
Trail Connections Improvements
Downtown Access Improvements
Proposed Projects by Group 0 1 2 MILES
Downtown
Transit Center
Arroyo Mocho Trail

RAILROAD AVE
= Class 1A Shared Use Path
= Class 2A Bicycle Lane
= Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane
= Class 3A Bicycle Route
= Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard
= Class 4A Separated Bikeway
= Sidewalk Gap Improvement
Project Labels
T
BL
BR
BB
SL
S
L
rroyo Mocho Trail
T12
B16
T4
T17
S16
T16
T1
S11
T3
S12
L31
L2
S21
S15
S10
S14
T6
L17
T16
T6
T5
BB28
BB32
S19
T9
S17
BB1
BL10
S1
S18
BB5
T6
L1
BB27
BB6
L29
T14
T19
L27 T7
BB30
T5
BB11
S20
S3
L8
BB36
BB16
BB35
S8
T16
L20
L28
B16
T21
T7
BB25
BL4
BB21
SL2
T11
L33
BB4
BB17
L11
T5
L21
BB34
L13 S5
BL14
T10
L3
BB9
T6
BB18
T16
T3
T4
L7
BL7
BB8
T6
T16
S7
T5
BB13
BB37
BB20
T16
L14
S2
BB3
BB31
S9
BB29
T6
BB23
BL9
BB10
BB15
T18
SL6
T10
BB26
BL6
BB22
L4
BB33
BB14
BB7
BB2
T3
BL8
T6
L25
T15
T3
BB12
T16
T16 BL3
T11
S6
L18
SL7
T4
L15
L9
SL5
T24
T10
T16
L5
T19
BR3
SL1
L12
BB19
BL5
BL12
T5
T13
T4
BB24
BL11
BL15
SL3
T16
L19
T10
SL8
T15
SL4
T16
BL1
T2
BL2
T3 T21
T25
T1
T29
T20
B16
T4
T17
S16
T16
T1
S11
T3
S12
L31
L2
S21
S15
S10
S14
T6
L17
T16
T6
T5
BB28
BB32
S19
T9
S17
BB1
BL10
S1
S18
BB5
T6
L1
BB27
BB6
L29
T14
T19
L27 T7
BB30
T5
BB11
S20
S3
L8
BB36
BB16
BB35
S8
T16
L20
L28
B16
T21
T7
BB25
BL4
BB21
SL2
T11
L33
BB4
BB17
L11
T5
L21
BB34
L13 S5
BL14
T10
L3
BB9
T6
BB18
T16
T3
T4
L7
BL7
BB8
T6
T16
S7
T5
BB13
BB37
BB20
T16
L14
S2
BB3
BB31
S9
BB29
T6
BB23
BL9
BB10
BB15
T18
SL6
T10
BB26
BL6
BB22
L4
BB33
BB14
BB7
BB2
T3
BL8
T6
L25
T15
T3
BB12
T16
T16 BL3
T11
S6
L18
SL7
T4
L15
L9
SL5
T24
T10
T16
L5
T19
BR3
SL1
L12
BB19
BL5
BL12
T5
T13
T4
BB24
BL11
BL15
SL3
T16
L19
T10
SL8
T15
SL4
T16
BL1
T2
BL2
T3 T21
T25
T1
T29
T20
Figure 5-3
EXHIBIT A Page 129 of 152
181

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 61
CITYWIDE PROJECTS In addition to specific infrastructure projects and related programmatic efforts, key amenities are needed citywide to complete the active transportation network. These amenities should be installed as a matter of policy in conjunction with any City project as opportunities arise, or in conjunction with development. The citywide amenities recommended in this Plan include:
 Pedestrian-scale lighting Development review Bicycle parking New bicycle technologies Streetscape amenities Wayfinding Bike share Traffic control zones Waste management Green bike facilities The following sections describe these citywide projects in further detail.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW As new development is proposed in Livermore, the City reviews projects for compliance with the Municipal Code, Development Code, Design Standards and Guidelines, and existing plans. RECOMMENDATION This Plan recommends that as the City reviews new development proposals for compliance with this Plan, it seeks opportunities to implement project and program recommendations in partnership with developers.

EXHIBIT A

Page 130 of 152 ends

182

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 62
BICYCLE PARKING Bicycle parking needs vary by land use and demand, and whether bikes will be stored for short trips or long-term. Depending on the need, bicycle parking can take many forms, from a simple bicycle rack to storage in a locker or secure area. Livermore currently has bicycle parking at key locations in the city, including some downtown businesses and public buildings. Bicycle parking can be categorized into short-term and longterm parking. Bicycle racks are the preferred device for shortterm bike parking. These racks serve people who leave their bicycles for relatively short periods of time, typically for shopping, errands, or recreational trips. Bicycle racks provide a high level of convenience and moderate level of security. Long-term bike parking includes bike lockers and secure parking areas (SPAs) and serve people who leave their bicycles for longer periods of time. Long-term bike parking is typically needed at destinations such as transit stations, multifamily residential buildings, and commercial buildings. These facilities provide a higher level of security than racks. RECOMMENDATIONS This Plan includes recommendations for installing bicycle parking in locations within the public right-of-way, identified through public input, and locations likely to have high demand. Bike parking should be provided at the following locations on public property or in the public right-of-way, at minimum:
 All city-related buildings, such as city hall, community centers, and libraries
 Downtown, in front of local businesses Transit stations, including ACE Stations and bus stops This Plan also recommends evaluating existing bicycle parking standards in light of best practices recommended by the Association for Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP), including bicycle parking ratios tied to land uses rather than automobile parking rates, and differentiation between the provision of short-term and long-term bicycle parking. Updates to the City’s standards could include providing additional details regarding requirements for land uses such as transit centers, retail, and office space, among others. Additionally, this Plan recommends removing bicycle parking maximums from the Livermore Development Code.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES New legislation in California has provided new guidance for the operation of electric bicycles, while still providing flexibility for local jurisdictions to regulate their operations as needed. As electric bicycle use grows, it will be important to craft regulations meeting the needs of Livermore’s residents. As electric bicycles become more prevalent, charging locations and parking that accommodates e-bikes should be considered. In addition, electrified modes of transportation including electric scooters, Segways, and others are becoming increasingly popular. While these electric vehicles provide improved mobility for some people, care should be taken that they do not create challenges or decrease comfort for people walking or bicycling due to their comparatively higher operating speeds. RECOMMENDATION This Plan recommends the City of Livermore work with the Livermore Police Department and Alameda County to adopt ebike regulations for their use in Livermore, and consider regulations for additional types of electric vehicles.

EXHIBIT A

Page 131 of 152 ends

183

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 63
STREETSCAPE AMENITIES Sidewalk furnishings like benches, shade structures, restrooms, water fountains and pedestrian signals can contribute to a safer, cleaner, and more pedestrian-oriented public realm. These elements encourage the activation of Livermore’s sidewalk and trail system. Litter and debris removal is a concern on all walking and bicycling facilities, including the trail network and on paths through private developments. Providing waste receptacles for trash and recycling can reduce litter, support the environment, and make walking and bicycling more convenient and attractive. Receptacles should be placed near the travelway without impeding the path of a person bicycling or walking, and without requiring a bicyclist to dismount or a person to detour significantly from their path. RECOMMENDATION This Plan recommends streetscape amenities in the downtown core, along major corridors, and near transit stops to encourage multimodal transportation within Livermore. WAYFINDING Wayfinding signs direct bicyclists or pedestrians along the existing network and to key community destinations. Signs typically include distance and direction (using an arrow) to key destinations. In Livermore, there is no consistent wayfinding signage program implemented throughout the City. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) includes standard bicycle wayfinding signage, but it is the also the Class 3A Bicycle Route sign, which may cause confusion. Cities have modified the standard sign to change bike route to bikeway, and others have developed and installed non-standard enhanced wayfinding signs. The non-standard option provides flexibility for wayfinding to reflect community character. RECOMMENDATION This Plan recommends the City of Livermore develops wayfinding signs that reflect the character of the community. These can be used by pedestrians walking downtown and while accessing trails, and by bicyclists along the bicycle network throughout the city and to access trails. Wayfinding signage should be provided directing bicyclists and pedestrians to trailheads, downtown, community centers, libraries, and other key community destinations.

BIKE SHARE Bike share programs are becoming increasingly popular in North America, and allow people to rent bicycles for short periods of time. Several different models of bike share programs exist, including programs with kiosks at fixed locations; programs that allow bicycles to be locked at any public bicycle rack; programs that allow bicycles to be reserved, located, or paid for using mobile apps; and programs that offer electricassist bicycles. RECOMMENDATION This Plan recommends the City research bike share program options and develop a proposal for a bike share system in Livermore.

EXHIBIT A

Page 132 of 152 ends

184

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 64
TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONES When bicycling or walking facilities are affected by construction activities, people walking or bicycling must often travel a significant distance to detour around the interrupted segment. More often than not, these detours are not marked or signed the way motor vehicle detours are identified. This lack of consideration discourages walking and bicycling, and can impact safety when a reasonable alternative path is not clearly provided. RECOMMENDATION This Plan recommends the City review its standards for consideration of bicyclists and pedestrians during construction or maintenance activities to ensure they require adequate temporary traffic control. These standards should require a reasonable detour for walking and/or bicycling be maintained throughout the duration of the project, including for long-term capital projects, short-term maintenance activities, and emergency repairs. In addition, enforcement schedules and practices should be reviewed to encourage compliance with the City’s policy.

WASTE MANAGEMENT On-street collection of trash and recycling totes can create challenges for people bicycling and walking when totes are placed in the bicycle lane or on the sidewalk. The City currently requires residential and commercial customers to place totes in the street with their wheels against the curb. In areas with onstreet parking, however, totes are often incorrectly placed outside of parked cars where they may obstruct the bicycle lane. RECOMMENDATION This Plan recommends the City require future development to provide convenient locations for trash and recycling tote collection that does not conflict with parking or with active transportation facilities. In existing neighborhoods where on-street parking constrains available space for curbside tote placement, the City should consider implementing parking restrictions to allow for waste collection without blocking bicycle lanes. These parking restrictions may be permanent (red painted curbs where parking is never allowed) or time-limited (parking is prohibited only on trash collection days). Citywide, the City should consider adding reflective markings to totes to increase their visibility at night and reduce the risk of a bicyclist colliding with a misplaced tote, or stenciling “Do not place in bicycle lane” on totes to remind residents of proper placement. Educational campaigns or other programmatic efforts, including incorporating messaging into SRTS efforts, should be paired with other improvements to encourage and enforce good behavior.

EXHIBIT A

Page 133 of 152 ends

185

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 65
GREEN BICYCLE FACILITIES Green pavement within bike facilities increases visibility of the facility, identifies potential conflict zones, and reinforces space for bicyclists. The colored pavement can be used along a corridor, such as a bike lane, or as a spot improvement, such as a bike box at an intersection. The City of Livermore has not installed any colored pavement for bike facilities. The National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban Bikeway Design Guide provides design guidance for colored bike facilities, including required, recommended, and optional treatment specifications.

RECOMMENDATION This Plan recommends the City of Livermore develop a method to evaluate and install green pavement within bike facilities in a consistent manner at key locations to address potential conflict areas and promote common understanding among all road users. The practice of installing green pavement in Livermore may be to install it under the following conditions:
 Portions of Class 2A Bicycle Lanes on arterial roads
without additional enhancement, such as a buffer fromvehicle traffic  Driveway conflict zones in high-volume, auto-oriented locations, such as major shopping centers
 Intersections with conflicts on a designated school route Green pavement design specifications can be found in the companion Design Guidelines.

EXHIBIT A

Page 134 of 152 ends

186

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 66
PROGRAMS Bicycle and pedestrian education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs are an integral part of supporting active transportation and increasing users. The physical network should be supplemented by programs and policies focused on increasing walking and bicycling in the City while improving safety and addressing maintenance needs of the network. Programs are organized into four E’s: education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation. Education programs are designed to increase safety by raising awareness and teaching pedestrian and bicycle skills to youth and adults. Encouragement programs promote walking and bicycling through a variety of mechanisms, such as user friendly maps, incentives for walking or bicycling, and social gatherings. Enforcement programs are designed to increase safety by increasing compliance with traffic laws by pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Evaluation programs help the City track progress toward achieving the goals outlined in this Plan and inform any necessary adjustments.

This Plan recommends the City continues its existing programs listed in Chapter 3 and refine or expand those programs as resources become available. The City should also pursue strong partnerships with stakeholder organizations and relevant agencies to effectively implement programs, and identify opportunities for community organizations to take the lead on program implementation as appropriate. Along with the continued implementation of existing programming, this Plan identifies the following programs, based on national best practices. Implementation of these programs will depend on available funding, resources, and community support. New and continuing programs are listed in Table 5-4, and explained in detail in Appendix K. New programs are listed as low, medium, or high effort based on the amount of staff and volunteer time typically required to implement the program.

EXHIBIT A

Page 135 of 152 ends

187

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 67
Table 5-4: Existing and Proposed Programs

PROGRAM STATUS LEVEL OF

RESOURCES

AUDIENCE
Education Youth Bicycle Safety Education
Existing Youth
Adult Bicycle Safety Education
Existing Adults
Pedestrian Safety Education
Existing Youth
Website New Low AllShare-the-Path Campaign
New Low All
New Facility & Low Stress Route Rides
New Low All
Bicycling & Walking Maps & Guides
Existing/ New
Low All
Encouragement Safe Routes to School Existing YouthBike to Work Day Existing AdultsCity Bicycle & Pedestrian Coordination Existing All
Employer-Based Campaigns
New Low Adults
Bicycle Friendly Business Program
New Low All
Bicycle Friendly Community Award
New Low All

PROGRAM STATUS LEVEL OF

RESOURCES

AUDIENCE
Walking & Bicycling Ambassadors
New Medium All
Open Streets Events New High All Bicycle Tourism New Low All Group Social Rides New Low All Enforcement Traffic Citation Diversion Program Existing All
Targeted Enforcement & Speed Trailer
Existing All
Bicycle Patrol Existing AllCrossing Guard Program
Existing Youth
Traffic Calming Existing AllEvaluation Community Survey New Medium All Expanded Bicycle & Pedestrian Counts New Low All
Expanded Collision Data Review
New Low All
Annual Report Card New Medium All Pre/Post Studies of New Infrastructure New Medium All
Resource levels for existing programs are not provided because they are already included in City budgeting efforts

EXHIBIT A

Page 136 of 152 ends

188

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 68
This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A

Page 137 of 152 ends

189
Implementation
Strategy
06 EXHIBIT A

Page 138 of 152 ends

190

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 70
CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY This Plan includes projects and programs intended to create an active, vibrant, safer, and connected Livermore community. The network and crossing improvements seek to increase comfort and safety and improve bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit facilities, major employers, commercial centers, schools, regional parks, and other public facilities. The Implementation Strategy described in this chapter reflects a systematic approach to determine each project’s community benefit and connection to key destinations in a manner that is feasible, fundable, and sustainable. Many linear projects are broken into smaller segments based on the realities of implementation, allowing each segment to be evaluated independently. The strategy used a set of geographic and community based criteria to rank bicycle, pedestrian, and trail improvements, considered limited City resources, and evaluated tradeoffs. The result is a list of projects that the City will work to implement in the near-term, and a framework for reevaluating and recalibrating projects in the future to address changes.

This chapter outlines the strategy used to evaluate the proposed network, including:
 Planning level cost estimates for implementation and
maintenance
 Funding opportunities and assumptions Benefit and feasibility evaluation First phase of projects identified for implementation Guiding principles for implementation of the entire project list
This logical approach starts with an understanding of the cost of implementing and maintaining each project, paired with a realistic snapshot of the funding that is likely to be available. This cost and feasibility information was then reviewed in conjunction with the anticipated benefits of each project, which informed the list of projects to be implemented in a first phase. This first phase project list includes some interim treatments as a first phase for more complex improvements, such as buffered bicycle lanes that will later be converted to separated bikeways, as well as pilot projects or corridor studies where more information is needed before final design can be completed. Finally, a set of guiding principles is based on this strategy and all the community input and analyses completed in this Plan. These principles will assist in prioritizing the remaining projects over time as the City implements some projects, or as opportunities for implementation arise.

EXHIBIT A

Page 139 of 152 ends

191

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 71
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATESCONSTRUCTION COST ASSUMPTIONS Table 6-1 presents the planning level unit cost assumptions used to develop project construction cost estimates. For linear projects, the unit cost method uses a single functional unit (per mile) that serves as a multiplier. Each unit cost is multiplied for each improvement to calculate a project cost estimate. Cost estimates were developed based on recent local project costs. The cost estimates include assumed costs for mobilization, traffic control, earthwork, utility coordination, and grading. In addition, the cost estimates include 30 percent soft costs including engineering design, administration, and construction management, as well as a 15 percent contingency. At the planning level, cost assumptions do not consider projectspecific or location specific factors that may affect actual costs, including acquisition of right-of-way. For some projects, actual costs may differ significantly from the planning level estimates. Cost estimates for projects in this plan have been rounded to the nearest $100, are in 2017 dollars, and do not include cost escalation. For a detailed breakdown of unit cost assumptions, see Appendix K.

Table 6-1: Unit Cost Assumptions
FACILITY UNIT UNIT COST Class 1A Shared Use Path MI $1,579,500 Class 1A Shared Use Path (Unpaved) MI $1,133,400 Class 2A Bicycle Lane MI $75,100 Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane MI $137,800 Class 3A Bicycle Route MI $54,100 Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard MI $539,700 Class 4A Separated Bicycle Lane MI $1,751,600 Sidewalk (one side of street) MI $794,100 Sidewalk (both sides of street) MI $1,588,200 Pilot Project EA $75,000 Corridor Study MI $175,500 Low-Intensity Intersection Crossing EA $35,600 Medium-Intensity Intersection Crossing EA $172,300 High-Intensity Intersection Crossing (Low) EA $312,300 High-Intensity Intersection Crossing (High) EA $447,900 Unit costs include assumed costs for mobilization, traffic control, earthwork, utility coordination, and grading; 30 percent soft cost for engineering design, administration, and construction management; and 15 percent contingency. Costs are 2017 dollars rounded to the nearest $100 and do not include cost escalation.

EXHIBIT A

Page 140 of 152 ends

192

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 72
PROJECT COST ESTIMATES Table 6-2 presents the total estimated costs by project group. The total cost estimate to realize the envisioned network for all projects presented in this Plan is approximately $183 million. A significant amount of project costs are shared use paths, bicycle boulevards, and separated bikeways. Projects are mapped by project group in Figure 6-1. For a complete list of all projects, see Appendix I.

Table 6-2: Estimated Costs by Project Group
PROJECT NO. MI EST. COST School Access Network 73 18.2 $19,330,100 Class 3E Bicycle Boulevards 34 18.2 $9,827,000 Low Intensity Crossings 6 $213,000 Medium Intensity Crossings 15 $2,584,500 High Intensity Low Cost Crossings 10 $3,123,000
High Intensity High Cost Crossings
8 $3,582,400
Downtown Access Network 22 7.8 $4,791,300 Class 2A Bicycle Lanes 6 2.0 $151,600 Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lanes 3 2.9 $404,000
Class 3A Bicycle Routes 1 1.2 $66,400 Class 3E Bicycle Boulevards 2 1.0 $518,100 Class 4A Separated Bikeways 1 0.7 $985,000 Pilot Projects 1 $75,000 Corridor Studies 1 1.4 $237,400 Medium Intensity Crossings 2 $344,600 PROJECT NO. MI EST. COST High Intensity Low Cost Crossings 6 $1,873,800
High Intensity High Cost Crossings
1 $447,800
Crosstown Routes Network 54 40.9 $25,058,800 Class 2A Bicycle Lanes 22 14.7 $1,105,700 Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lanes 12 13.4 $1,852,300
Class 4A Separated Bikeways 9 12.7 $19,090,000 Pilot Projects 1 $75,000 Corridor Studies 3 6.8 $1,197,200 Medium Intensity Crossings 4 $689,200 High Intensity Low Cost Crossings 6 $1,873,800
High Intensity High Cost Crossings
1 $447,800
Trail Connections 75 80.8 $129,450,600 Class 1A Shared Use Paths 68 80.8 $127,689,000 Medium Intensity Crossings 4 $689,200 High Intensity Low Cost Crossings 2 $624,600
High Intensity High Cost Crossings
1 $447,800
Sidewalk Gap Closure 19 5.0 $4,812,300 Sidewalk 19 5.0 $4,812,300 TOTAL 253 152.8 $183,443,100

EXHIBIT A

Page 141 of 152 ends

193

JACK LO NDON BLVD

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

GREENVILLE RD

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

S VASCO RD

BUENA VISTA AVE

N VASCO RD

BROADMOOR ST

CENTRAL AVE

SPRINGTOWN

GARAVENTA RANCH

LAUGHLIN RD

FIRST ST

HOLMES ST

EAST AVE

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

ARROYO RD

WENTE ST

MURDELL LN
ALTAIR

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

E STANLEY BL ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

E V A E R O M R E V I L N

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

CHARLOTTE WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE
N

CATALINA DR
N L ST

STANFORD WAY

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

CROAK RD

D R O C S A

TESLA RD

VINEYARD AVE

CHARLOTTE WAY

LEXINGTON WAY

LOMITAS AVE

PESTANA WAY

EAST AVE

W LAS POSITAS BL

STONERIDGE DR
Iron Horse Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Brushy Peak to Del Valle Trail
Arroyo Las Positas Trail A i
Arroyo Del Valle Reg i onal Trail
Arroyo Seco Trail
580 580
580
Chain
of Lakes
Lake
Del Valle
Frick
Lake
Bill Payne
Sports
Park
Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
Na onal
Lab
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson Park
Independence
Park
Les
Kno
Park
Livermore
Downs
Sunken Gardens
Neighborhood Park
Portola
Park
Ravenswood
Park
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve
Sunset
Park
Bill Clark
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Wa enburger
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Summit
Park
Christensen
Park
Big Trees
Park Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore
Grove Park
Max Baer Park
Ida Holm
Park
Jack Williams
Park
Carnegie
Park
Shadow Cliffs
Regional Recrea on
Area
Del Valle
Regional Park
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Al Caffodio
Park
Hagemann
Park
Bothwell
Recrea on
Center
Marlin Pound
Neighborhood
Park
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Vasco Rd
ACE Sta on
Las Positas
College
Outlets
To Pleasanton
To
Contra Costa
County

PROJECT CATEGORIES
School Access Improvements
Crosstown Routes Improvements
Sidewalk Gap Improvements
I-580 Crossing Improvements
Legend
Trail Connec ons Improvements
Downtown Access Improvements
Propo 0 1 2 MILESsed Projects by Group
Downtown
Transit Center
Arroyo Mocho Trail

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 74
MAINTENANCE COST ASSUMPTIONS Maintaining the walking and bicycling network protects the public’s investment, ensures adequate safety levels, and supports a high quality of life for the Livermore community. Maintenance generally refers to the operations, repair, and eventual replacement of a facility. Due to limited resources and high level of service standards, maintenance costs are a concern for most cities, including Livermore. Most grant programs offer funds to construct projects but not to maintain them. Maintenance activities are typically funded through the City’s General Fund. The cost of maintaining the City’s assets, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, is higher than the current budget allocated. Livermore must continually evaluate tradeoffs and make decisions whether to spend limited funds on new construction and/or maintain existing assets. The Plan assumes that on-street bikeways would be maintained as part of the normal roadway maintenance program, while separated facilities will require additional maintenance considerations. Emphasis should be placed on keeping bicycle and pedestrian facilities clear of debris and obstruction, clearly delineated, and ensuring adequate visibility. Crossing, sidewalk, and trail maintenance should be conducted according to current City policy.

Table 6-3 lists typical annual maintenance costs for bikeways based on City Public Work’s Department staff evaluations and actual operations experience. All costs are rounded to the nearest $100, in 2017 dollars, and do not include cost escalation. For a breakdown of maintenance cost assumptions, see Appendix K.

Table 6-3: Maintenance Cost Assumptions
FACILITY UNIT ANNUAL COST Class 1A Shared Use Path MI $26,400 Class 2A Bicycle Lane MI $2,700 Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane MI $3,600 Class 3A Bicycle Route MI $1,300 Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard MI $2,900 Class 4A Separated Bicycle Lane MI $20,800 Sidewalk (one side) MI $8,100 Low Intensity Crossing EA $500 Medium Intensity Crossing EA $3,900 High Intensity Low Cost Crossing EA $7,600 High Intensity High Cost Crossing EA $10,300 All costs are rounded to the nearest $100 in 2017 dollars, and do not include cost escalation

EXHIBIT A

Page 143 of 152 ends

195

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 75
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIESA variety of bicycle and pedestrian funding sources exist. As stated previously, some bicycle and pedestrian funding sources are eligible for maintenance of existing facilities. Others are limited to new construction. The Plan assumes that any funds eligible for maintenance, the City will use for maintenance. Local and Regional funding sources that can be used for construction or maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian improvements, along with competitive grant programs, are described below. LOCAL & REGIONAL FUNDING SOURCES MEASURE B/BB Measure B and Measure BB are Alameda County one-cent sales tax measures for transportation projects. The total revenue is anticipated to be nearly $8 billion over 30 years, from 2014 to 2045. Livermore receives $420,000 annually for bicycle and pedestrian projects, and an additional $1.74 million annually for local streets and roads projects. These funds will be used by the City for maintenance. TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FOR CLEAN AIR The Transportation Funds for Clean Air program, established by AB 434, are generated by a $4 surcharge on vehicle registration in the nine Bay Area counties. The funds may be used on projects that reduce vehicle emissions, including bicycle and pedestrian projects, and can also be used as a local match for state or federal grant programs.

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT Transportation Development Act Article III funds are generated by a sales tax on gasoline, and are returned to the source county to be used on transportation projects—including a two percent set-aside for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Alameda County allocates these funds to cities based on population. Eligible uses for the funds include projects in an adopted plan approved by a local Bicycle Advisory Committee, such as this Plan, or as a local match for state or federal grant programs. PARK FACILITY FEES All new residential and commercial development in Livermore must pay a Park Facility Fee to the City. This fee is used for the design and construction of parks and trails, including purchasing land and constructing shared use paths.

EXHIBIT A

Page 144 of 152 ends

196

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 76
COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAMS CALIFORNIA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM California’s Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds infrastructure and program projects that support the program goals of shifting trips to walking and bicycling, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving public health. Competitive application cycles occur every one to two years. Eligible projects include bicycling and walking facilities, new or expanded programmatic activities, or projects that include a combination of infrastructure and non-infrastructure components. Typically no local match is required, though points are awarded to communities who do identify matching funds. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GRANTS Caltrans Transportation Planning Grants are available to communities for planning, study, and design work to identify and evaluate projects, including conducting outreach or implementing pilot projects. Communities are typically required to provide an 11.47 percent local match, but staff time or in-kind donations are eligible to be used for the match. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Caltrans offers Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grants every one to two years. Projects on any publicly owned road or active transportation facility are eligible, including bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The program focuses on projects that address safety through proven countermeasures, and are implementation-ready, and demonstrate costeffectiveness.

EXHIBIT A

Page 145 of 152 ends

197

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 77
BENEFIT AND FEASIBILITY EVALUATIONAll network and crossing improvements were reviewed based on a two-faceted benefit evaluation:
 Benefit Criteria: Projects were evaluated based on a set of ten benefit criteria.
 Project Feasibility and Readiness: Projects were
evaluated based on feasibility and complexity of implementation.

First, each project was evaluated based on the following 10 benefit criteria:
 Whether the improvement location is within one-quarter mile of five types of activity generator:
o Transit o School o Employment o Retail o Public Facilities  Safety data  Whether the improvement closed a gap  Whether the project was identified by the community  Whether the project increases comfort  Whether the project is consistent with existing planning documents.

The evaluation process weighted the criteria evenly and designated projects as higher or lower benefit. Following the benefit evaluation, projects were evaluated for implementation readiness based on feasibility and construction complexity. Feasibility was evaluated based on right-of-way ownership, the facility type, and the significance of any required roadway modifications. For example, significant modifications to the roadway such as removal of parking or traffic lanes received a low readiness. Similarly, trail segments that require right-ofway acquisition received a low readiness. Less significant alterations, such as reduction of travel lane widths within acceptable standards received a high feasibility rating. The feasibility evaluation considered existing conditions, travel speeds, and average daily trips. Because all intersections (except for the I-580 Crossings) are located within the City rightof-way, the Implementation Strategy primarily ranked them by their intensity. Based on two factors, the Implementation Strategy assigns a high or a low designation for improvement readiness.Together, the results from the benefit and readiness evaluations created groups of projects categorized by their implementation potential, illustrated in Figure 6-2, and explained in detail in Appendix K.

EXHIBIT A

Page 146 of 152 ends

198

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 78
Figure 6-2: Implementation Strategy Short Term Improvements are those projects that provide a high benefit and are ready to be implemented. In contrast, Future Projects have a lower benefit and lower readiness. Improvements that receive a high benefit and high readiness ranking are those that the City could choose to implement in the near term. In addition to these viable improvements, there are several longer term improvements that the Plan recommends pursuing either as a project phase to provide some level of enhancement, a corridor or feasibility study to identify and resolve any potential issues, or a temporary pilot to sample the facility type and gain further public input. For a map of projects by implementation strategy, see Figure 6-3.

EXHIBIT A

Page 147 of 152 ends

199

JACK LO NDON BLVD

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

GREENVILLE RD

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

S VASCO RD

BUENA VISTA AVE

N VASCO RD

BROADMOOR ST

CENTRAL AVE

SPRINGTOWN

GARAVENTA RANCH

LAUGHLIN RD

FIRST ST

HOLMES ST

EAST AVE

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

ARROYO RD

WENTE ST

MURDELL LN
ALTAIR

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

E STANLEY BL ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

E V A E R O M R E V I L N

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

CHARLOTTE WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE
N

CATALINA DR
N L ST

STANFORD WAY

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

CROAK RD

D R O C S A

TESLA RD

VINEYARD AVE

CHARLOTTE WAY

LEXINGTON WAY

LOMITAS AVE

PESTANA WAY

EAST AVE

W LAS POSITAS BL

STONERIDGE DR
Iron Horse Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Brushy Peak to Del Valle Trail
Arroyo Las Positas Trail A i
Arroyo Del Valle Reg i onal Trail
Arroyo Seco Trail
580 580
580
Chain
of Lakes
Lake
Del Valle
Frick
Lake
Bill Payne
Sports
Park
Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
Na onal
Lab
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson Park
Independence
Park
Les
Kno
Park
Livermore
Downs
Sunken Gardens
Neighborhood Park
Portola
Park
Ravenswood
Park
Sunset
Park
Bill Clark
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Wa enburger
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Summit
Park
Christensen
Park
Big Trees
Park Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore
Grove Park
Max Baer
Park
Ida Holm
Park
Jack Williams
Park
Carnegie
Park
Shadow Cliffs
Regional Recrea on
Area
Del Valle
Regional Park
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Al Caffodio
Park
Hagemann
Park
Bothwell
Recrea on
Center
Marlin Pound
Neighborhood
Park
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Vasco Rd
ACE Sta on
Las Positas
College
Outlets
To Pleasanton
To
Contra Costa
County

EXISTING BIKEWAYS/TRAILS
Class 1a. Paved Shared
Use Path
Class 2a. Bicycle Lane
City of Livermore
Boundary
School Ground
Park
Railway
Creek
ACE Sta on
City Hall
Hospital
Library
Points of Interest
Post Office
School
Legend
Short Term Improvements
Network Improvements Crossing Improvements
High benefit and high project readiness
Long Term Improvements
High benefit and low project readiness
Opportunity Improvements
Low benefit and high project readiness
Future Improvements
Low benefit and low project readiness
= Class 1A Shared Use Path
= Class 2A Bicycle Lane
= Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane
= Class 3A Bicycle Route
= Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard
= Class 4A Separated Bikeway
= Sidewalk Gap Improvement
Project Labels
T
BL
BR
BB
SL
S
L
0 1 2 MILES Implementation Strategy
Downtown
Transit Center
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve Arroyo Mocho Trail
rroyo Mocho Trail
Figure 6-3

RAILROAD AVE
T12
B16
T4
T17
S16
T16
T1
S11
T3
S12
L31
L2
S21
S15
S10
S14
T6
L17
T16
T6
T5
BB28
BB32
S19
T9
S17
BB1
BL10
S1
S18
BB5
T6
L1
BB27
BB6
L29
T14
T19
L27 T7
BB30
T5
BB11
S20
S3
L8
BB36
BB16
BB35
S8
T16
L20
L28
B16
T21
T7
BB25
BL4
BB21
SL2
T11
L33
BB4
BB17
L11
T5
L21
BB34
L13 S5
BL14
T10
L3
BB9
T6
BB18
T16
T3
T4
L7
BL7
BB8
T6
T16
S7
T5
BB13
BB37
BB20
T16
L14
S2
BB3
BB31
S9
BB29
T6
BB23
BL9
BB10
BB15
T18
SL6
T10
BB26
BL6
BB22
L4
BB33
BB14
BB7
BB2
T3
BL8
T6
L25
T15
T3
BB12
T16
T16 BL3
T11
S6
L18
SL7
T4
L15
L9
SL5
T24
T10
T16
L5
T19
BR3
SL1
L12
BB19
BL5
BL12
T5
T13
T4
BB24
BL11
BL15
SL3
T16
L19
T10
SL8
T15
SL4
T16
BL1
T2
BL2
T3 T21
T25
T1
T29
T20
B16
T4
T17
S16
T16
T1
S11
T3
S12
L31
L2
S21
S15
S10
S14
T6
L17
T16
T6
T5
BB28
BB32
S19
T9
S17
BB1
BL10
S1
S18
BB5
T6
L1
BB27
BB6
L29
T14
T19
L27 T7
BB30
T5
BB11
S20
S3
L8
BB36
BB16
BB35
S8
T16
L20
L28
B16
T21
T7
BB25
BL4
BB21
SL2
T11
L33
BB4
BB17
L11
T5
L21
BB34
L13 S5
BL14
T10
L3
BB9
T6
BB18
T16
T3
T4
L7
BL7
BB8
T6
T16
S7
T5
BB13
BB37
BB20
T16
L14
S2
BB3
BB31
S9
BB29
T6
BB23
BL9
BB10
BB15
T18
SL6
T10
BB26
BL6
BB22
L4
BB33
BB14
BB7
BB2
T3
BL8
T6
L25
T15
T3
BB12
T16
T16 BL3
T11
S6
L18
SL7
T4
L15
L9
SL5
T24
T10
T16
L5
T19
BR3
SL1
L12
BB19
BL5
BL12
T5
T13
T4
BB24
BL11
BL15
SL3
T16
L19
T10
SL8
T15
SL4
T16
BL1
T2
BL2
T3 T21
T25
T1
T29
T20 EXHIBIT A Page 148 of 152
200

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 80
FIRST PHASEThe Plan compared project costs against the project benefits to develop an implementation strategy that is effective and efficient. The Implementation Strategy refined the total project list to focus on the 50 highest benefit network and intersection improvements and applicable programs. This list included shortterm projects, projects determined by the Advisory Committee to have significant importance, and those evaluated by the City, for overall connectivity and improvement to the existing system. The total project costs on this list is approximately $35 million. See Table I-1 in Appendix I. Even at that level of cost, the Implementation Strategy required further refinement based on available funding. A short list of first phase projects was then developed for the City to pursue over the next five years, totaling approximately $5.8 million. This is the approximate funding anticipated to accrue within five years from the City’s previously identified funding sources.

The Plan establishes a long-term, aspirational vision for a robust bicycle and pedestrian network. However, given limited resources and volume of improvements, the City will focus efforts towards the highest benefit improvements and those that provide the greatest connectivity as listed in Table 6-4. These projects are those that the City may be able to implement in a five-year window. Some of the projects will be constructed to full build out, while others will be phased due to cost, limited right of way, or to introduce a facility type, and determine community support. First phase projects are mapped in Figure 6-4. In addition, the Implementation Strategy proposes allocating funds towards programs to direct cyclists and pedestrians to the existing network, such as mapping and wayfinding, and conduct education, enforcement, and encouragement efforts.

EXHIBIT A

Page 149 of 152 ends

201

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 81
Table 6-4: First Phase Implementation Projects

ID PROJECT NAME CONSTRUCTION ONGOING ANNUAL

MAINTENANCE
L28 Sixth Street Bicycle Lane $27,800 $1,000 S10 Hillcrest Sidewalk at East Avenue $68,900 $700 BL3 Stanley Boulevard Buffered Bicycle Lane (Isabel to Murrieta) $134,900 $3,500 BB37, BB26, BB24 Bicycle Route from Lawrence Livermore National Lab to Livermore High* $140,100 $3,400 SL5 Jack London Boulevard Buffered Bicycle Lane (Discovery to Murrieta)* $162,300 $1,600 P83 Crossing: Robertson Park and Concannon $172,300 $3,900 P26 Crossing: Concannon and Epson $172,300 $3,900 SL7, BL14 First Street Buffered Bicycle Lane (Inman to Southfront) $209,300 $5,500 SL2 Vasco Road Buffered Bicycle Lane (East to Preston)* $259,100 $5,500 P75 Crossing: Murrieta and Stanley $312,000 $7,600 P82 Crossing: First and Scott Street $312,000 $7,600 BL2 Concannon Boulevard Buffered Bicycle Lane (Isabel to San Vincente) $383,900 $10,100 L34, BB14 Olivina Bicycle Lane/Bicycle Boulevard (Hagemann to Rincon) $716,000 $4,100 T13 Arroyo Road Trail (Wetmore to Veterans Park) $2,160,700 $36,100 BL1 East Avenue Corridor Study* $175,000 - I-580 Crossings Study* $175,000 - Programs (education, encouragement, and enforcement) $250,000 - T6 segment E1 Las Colinas Trail – Support to LARPD $25,000 - TOTAL $5,856,600 $94,500
*Phased improvement is an interim treatment to be implemented in the near-term while a more complex facility is pursued as a long-term solution. Estimated cost reflects phased interim treatment.

EXHIBIT A

Page 150 of 152 ends

202

JACK LO NDON BLVD

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

GREENVILLE RD

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

S VASCO RD

BUENA VISTA AVE

N VASCO RD

BROADMOOR ST

CENTRAL AVE

SPRINGTOWN

GARAVENTA RANCH

LAUGHLIN RD

FIRST ST

HOLMES ST

EAST AVE

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

ARROYO RD

WENTE ST

MURDELL LN
ALTAIR

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

E STANLEY BL ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

E V A E R O M R E V I L N

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

CHARLOTTE WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE
N

CATALINA DR
N L ST

STANFORD WAY

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

CROAK RD

D R O C S A

TESLA RD

VINEYARD AVE

CHARLOTTE WAY

LEXINGTON WAY

LOMITAS AVE

PESTANA WAY

EAST AVE

W LAS POSITAS BL

STONERIDGE DR
Iron Horse Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Brushy Peak to Del Valle Trail
Arroyo Las Positas Trail A i
Arroyo Mocho Trail
Arroyo Del Valle Reg i onal Trail
Arroyo Seco Trail
580 580
580
Chain
of Lakes
Lake
Del Valle
Frick
Lake
Bill Payne
Sports
Park
Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
Na onal
Lab
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson
Park
Independence
Park
Les
Kno
Park
Livermore
Downs
Sunken Gardens
Neighborhood Park
Portola
Park
Ravenswood
Park
Sunset
Park
Bill Clark
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Wa enburger
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Summit
Park
Christensen
Park
Big Trees
Park Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore
Grove Park
Max Baer
Park
Ida Holm
Park
Jack Williams
Park
Carnegie
Park
Shadow Cliffs
Regional Recrea on
Area
Del Valle
Regional Park
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Al Caffodio
Park
Hagemann
Park
Bothwell
Recrea on
Center
Marlin Pound
Neighborhood
Park
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Vasco Rd
ACE Sta on
Downtown
Transit Center
Las Positas
College
Outlets
To Pleasanton
To
Contra Costa
County

CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
Class 1A Shared Use Path
Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane
Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard
Class 4A Separated Bikeway
Medium Intensity Crossing Improvement
RRFB, PHB, median refuge island, curb extension
High Intensity Crossing Improvement
Traffic signal, traffic circle, intersec on reconfigura on I-580 Crossing Improvement Study
Separated, non-separated
Sidewalk Gap Improvement
Priority Projects Legend
Class 2A Bicycle Lane
Firs 0 1 2 MILESt Phase Projects
Figure 6-4

RAILROAD AVE
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve
rroyo Mocho Trail
out as Buffered Bicycle Lanes
Class 3A Bicycle Route
Class 3A is the first phase of a Bicycle
Boulevard Project, pending funding & study
Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane Study
Will be studied for feasibility in first phase
= Class 1A Shared Use Path
= Class 2A Bicycle Lane
= Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane
= Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard
= Class 4A Separated Bikeway
= Sidewalk Gap Improvement
Project Labels
T
BL
BB
SL
S
L
P = Crossing Improvement
P10
P11 P12
P13
P66
P68 P69
P70
P9
P26
P75
P82
P83
P87
P10
P11 P12
P13
P66
P68 P69
P70
P9
P26
P75
P82
P83
P87
S10
T6
L28
SL2
BL14
T6
BB37
BB26
BB14
BL3
SL7 SL5
T13
BB24
BL1
BL2
L34
S10
T6
L28
SL2
BL14
T6
BB37
BB26
BB14
BL3
SL7 SL5
T13
BB24
BL1
BL2
L34
EXHIBIT A Page 151 of 152
203

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 83
GUIDING PRINCIPLES Due to the large number of network and intersection improvements and the limited financial resources available, the Implementation Strategy employs a set of principles to address challenges and realize the network vision. These guiding principles can be used to review and prioritize implementation of the broader project list beyond the first phase project list. These principles are not mutually exclusive, and should be applied by the City to achieve the desired improvement. MAINTENANCE All new network projects must secure maintenance funding prior to construction. These can include maintenance districts, agency partnerships, developer paid maintenance mechanism, or other means. Maintenance funding is vital to ensuring longterm sustainability of the facility. OPPORTUNITIES AND EFFICIENCIES The City should capitalize on opportunities and use resources efficiently to implement the network. The City should proactively seek grants, develop agency partnerships, share resources, and facilitate development of bicycle and pedestrian improvements owned and operated by other agencies. The City should also consider consolidating duplicative facilities. Private developers should be required to build new facility types or upgrade existing facilities as part of development projects and consider active transportation through every stage of the project. The City should coordinate new bicycle and pedestrian facilities with other City sponsored projects to take advantage of economy of scale, including staging, traffic control, materials, and mobilization costs.

SUSTAINABLITY Active transportation improvements should proactively seek materials and implement practices that extend useful life of the facility and reduce ongoing and long-term maintenance costs. PROJECT PHASING Project phasing includes installing an easier-to-implement project as an interim treatment before a more complex or costly improvement. For example, a separated facility could be implemented as a buffered bicycle lane or a bicycle boulevard could be implemented as a signed route. This approach would allow the City to provide additional comfort while continuing to study and evaluate the facility type, measure performance, secure funding, and track changes in travel patterns. Phasing also refers to transitions between facility types in conflict zones or areas with limited right of way. Projects in this Plan are planning-level, and as more detailed engineering designs are completed some segments may not be feasible for the pedestrian or bikeway improvement identified. For example, a separated bikeway may need to transition to a buffered bicycle lane if a short segment has constrained right of way. REGULAR REVIEW OF PRIORITIESTo be successful, the Implementation Strategy must adapt to evolving City Policies, changing Plan Goals, fluctuating Network Objectives. In addition, City will need to be strategic and flexible in terms of funding availability. The City should periodically review the project list and implementation principles, and may wish to seek additional input from the community and City Council on emerging priorities to identify a new five-year list of projects for implementation.

EXHIBIT A

Page 152 of 152 ends

204
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 5.5
DATE: October 14, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brent Smith, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution approving an exception to the Livermore Municipal Code bidding requirements and authorizing sole sourcing of specific brands of equipment and instruments for the construction of the Flagpole Plaza Project 2022-25.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City Engineer recommends the City Council adopt a resolution:

1. Authorizing sole sourcing specific brands of equipment and instruments for the construction of the Flagpole Plaza Project 2022-25,

2. Approving, per the recommendation of the City Engineer, an exception to the bidding requirement contained in Livermore Municipal Code Section 2.68.550(C), because there is no competitive advantage to be gained by inviting bids and the City Engineer has determined that the supplies and equipment are unique and available from a sole source, and

3. Authorizing the City Manager to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of the resolution.

SUMMARY
The City of Livermore (City's) Flagpole Plaza project involves renovating the plaza to restore the public gathering area, improve the outdoor dining areas, improve landscaping, add new lighting, and includes new Police Department security cameras for both the Flagpole Plaza and Livermorium Plaza. The existing lighting and landscape system have been proven to be reliable and effective. To ensure that the equipment and instruments for the improvements will be fully compatible and perform well with the existing lighting, landscape and the newly installed Police Department’s Real Time Awareness Center, the City Engineer recommends that items should be sole sourced from the same and compatible manufacturers pursuant to Livermore Municipal Code Section 2.68.550(C).

DISCUSSION
The objective of the Flagpole Plaza project is to improve the public and outdoor dining areas, eliminate tripping hazards by replacing the existing bluestone tiles with stamped concrete, improve the lighting, improve landscape areas, replace the 20-year-old irrigation controller with a new remote-controlled unit, 205
and provide new security cameras compatible with the City’s existing system and Real Time Awareness Center (RTAC).

Given the importance of the location of Flagpole Plaza and Livermorium Plaza (intersection of First Street and South Livermore Avenue), the Police Department has requested security cameras manufactured by the same company as all of the City’s other security cameras. These new cameras will have updated software and are compatible with the Police Department’s recently completed RTAC.

The City uses standard streetlight poles throughout the City and this project will include new public streetlights incorporating compatible LED bulbs. The existing irrigation controller at Flagpole Plaza is also outdated and cannot be managed remotely. The new controller will feature remote communication capabilities, fully integrated with the City’s current system.

To ensure that the equipment for the Flagpole Plaza improvements will be fully compatible with and perform well with the existing instrumentation and control systems for the City’s Maintenance and Police Departments, the City Engineer recommends the following items be sole sourced from the same manufacturers:

1. Security Cameras:
a. Flagpole plaza:
• Manufacturer: Avigilon
• Models: H6A: 8.0C-H6A-DO1-IR W/ WLMT-1021 & PLMT-1001 H5AP: 8.0C-H5A-IRPTZ-DP36-WP IR PTZ W/ IRPTZ-MNT-WALL1 & PLMT-1001 H5A: 32C-H5A-4MH 4K 360 DEGREE W/ WLMT-1001 & PLMT-1001 b. Livermorium Plaza:
• Model: H4 Multisensor Camera by Avigilon, H4: 32C-H4A-4MH-360 4K 360 DEGREE W/ WLMT-1001 & PLMT-1001
• Model: H5A IR PTZ Camera by Avigilon, H5AP: 8.0C-H5A-IRPTZ-DP36-WP IR PTZ W/ IRPTZMNT-WALL1 & PLMT-1001

2. Post Top Lights and Decorative Poles:
• Decorative Fluted Pole (12’-7” and 14’ heights) – by Lumec per City Standard • Fixture – Stenberg Lighting Venice Series per City Standard

3. Irrigation Equipment:
• Toro DXI Controller
• Rainbird control valves
• Rainbird bubblers and spray nozzle
The City selected Gates & Associates to design this project. The final design will be completed in October 2024. When the City identifies a need for using sole source manufacturers, Livermore Municipal Code (LMC) Section 2.68.550(C) allows for an exception to the bidding requirement shown in LMC Section 2.68.540, based on the fact that the equipment is unique. The justification to support an exception to bidding for specific brands of equipment and instruments for the project are listed below.

1. Equipment and instruments listed have a good performance history with the Maintenance and Police Departments.

2. Equipment listed complies with the City’s Standard equipment used by the City. 206

3. Using the same equipment and fixture manufacturer will ensure compatibility and good performance with existing products from the same manufacturer.

4. The inventory of replacement and spare parts can be reduced and better managed if replacement and spare parts are identical to existing equipment.

5. Using similar products reduces the amount of staff training.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
Contractors can obtain competitive quotes from different distributors or vendors for the same brand of products during the bid. Therefore, there should not be a significant increase in the bid price for the project. Using manufacturers that match products in use by the City will reduce maintenance costs.

Funding for the purchase of this equipment and instruments is included in the budget for the Flagpole Plaza Project 2022-25 in the Fiscal Year 2023-2028 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan. No additional appropriations are necessary at this time. Funding for this project, which is in the street right-of-way, is from Gas Taxes (Fund 834) and the Measure BB-Local Streets and Roads (Fund 830).

COMMUNITY PILLAR
4: Inclusive & Inviting Spaces & Places.

GOAL
3: Continue to implement the Downtown Specific Plan.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Project Location

2. Resolution
Prepared by: Farnoush Levers
Assistant City Engineer
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
207
SITE LAYOUT ATTACHMENT 1
208
RESOLUTION NO. ______

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL CODE

BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORIZING SOLE SOURCING OF SPECIFIC

BRANDS OF EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE

FLAGPOLE PLAZA PROJECT
(Flagpole Plaza Project 2022-25)
The Flagpole Plaza, located in the City of Livermore’s key intersection of First Street and South Livermore Avenue, originally included a large grass area used as a public gathering space. Shortly after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the area was repurposed for outdoor dining. During this time, the grass was removed and replaced with decomposed granite to better accommodate dining needs.

The City of Livermore (“City”) is currently designing this space to revitalize the public gathering area, preserve opportunities for outdoor dining, enhance landscaping, add new lighting, and improve security. The design will also maintain strong connections between the flagpole, the existing fountain, and the plaza. Additionally, the improvements will improve overall safety in the Plaza by addressing current ADA deficiencies.

The project involves replacing the existing blue stone tiles to a stamped concrete, new lighting, landscaping, designated outdoor dining areas and new security system.

Existing lighting, landscaping and security equipment currently utilized throughout the City and Police Department have been proven to be reliable and effective.

To ensure that the equipment and instruments for the improvements will be fully compatible with and perform well with the existing instrumentation and control systems at the plant and pump station, the City Engineer is recommending that they be sole sourced from the same manufacturer.

Livermore Municipal Code (LMC) Section 2.68.550(C) authorizes an exception to the bidding requirement contained in LMC Section 2.68.540, if there is no competitive advantage to be gained by inviting bids and where the City Engineer has determined that the supplies and equipment are unique and available from a sole source.

The findings in support of an exception to bidding for specific brands of equipment and instruments for the improvement project are as follows:

1. Equipment and instruments listed below have a good performance history with the Maintenance and Police Departments.

2. Equipment listed below complies with the City’s Standard components.

3. Using the same equipment and instruments manufacturer will ensure compatibility and good performance with existing products at the Maintenance and Police Departments from the same manufacturer.

4. The inventory of replacement and spare parts can be reduced and better managed if replacement and spare parts are compatible to existing equipment.

5. Using similar products reduces the amount of staff training. 209
RESOLUTION NO. ______
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore, that it hereby:

1. Authorizes sole sourcing the following specific brands of equipment for the construction of the Flagpole Plaza Project 2022-25:

SECURITY CAMERAS:
a. Flagpole plaza:
 Manufacturer: Avigilon
 Models:
o H6A: 8.0C-H6A-DO1-IR W/ WLMT-1021 & PLMT-1001
o H5AP: 8.0C-H5A-IRPTZ-DP36-WP IR PTZ W/ IRPTZ-MNTWALL1 & PLMT-1001 o H5A: 32C-H5A-4MH 4K 360 DEGREE W/ WLMT-1001 & PLMT1001 b. Livermorium Plaza:
 Manufacturer: Avigilon
 Models:
o H4 Multisensor Camera by Avigilon, H4: 32C-H4A-4MH-360 4K 360 DEGREE W/ WLMT-1001 & PLMT-1001
o H5A IR PTZ Camera by Avigilon, H5AP: 8.0C-H5A-IRPTZ-DP36- WP IR PTZ W/ IRPTZ-MNT-WALL1 & PLMT-1001

POST TOP LIGHTS AND DECORATIVE POLES
 Manufacturer: Lumec
 Decorative Fluted Pole (12’-7” and 14’ heights) – per City Standard  Fixture – Stenberg Lighting Venice Series per City Standard

IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT
 Toro DXI Controller
 Rainbird control valves
 Rainbird bubblers and spray nozzle

2. Approves, per the recommendation by the City Engineer, an exception to the bidding requirement contained in Livermore Municipal Code Section 2.68.550(C), because there is no competitive advantage to be gained by inviting bids, and the City Engineer has determined that the supplies and equipment are unique and available from a sole source.

3. Authorizes the City Manager to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

On motion of Council Member __________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________, the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this October 14, 2024, by the following vote:
210
RESOLUTION NO. ______
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ /s/ Tara Mazzanti
Deborah L. Elam Tara Mazzanti
City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
211
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 5.6
DATE: October 14, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brent Smith, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing the execution of a Standard Agreement with the State of California for $280,769 in Family Homelessness Challenge Grant Program funds and authorizing the execution of grant agreements with subgrantees to appropriate these funds.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution:

1. Accepting the Family Homelessness Challenge Grant Program Round 2 funds in the total amount of $280,769;

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Standard Agreement with the State of California, and all other related documents authorized and described in that agreement, and all amendments thereto;

3. Authorizing the City Manager to appropriate the funds received from the State for the program subgrantees; and

4. Authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents related to the issuance of the funds, including grant agreements with subgrantees that will receive allocations of Family Homelessness Challenge Grant funds.

SUMMARY
On July 1, 2024, the State of California awarded the City of Livermore approximately $280,769 in Family Homelessness Challenge Grant round two funds (FHC-2). The grant aims to support three additional units at Leahy Square for bridge housing, expanded supportive services, and temporary rental assistance for unhoused families, specifically those with preschool and school-aged children enrolled in Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD). The services will focus on intensive case management, services coordination, behavioral health services and permanent housing navigation.

City staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the standard agreement for the second round of funding with the State of California Housing and Community Development and authorize her, or her designee, to execute all documents related to contracting with 212
subrecipient agencies and issuance of the funds.

DISCUSSION
In 2021, the State of California launched the Family Homelessness Challenge Grant Program (FHCG) to provide funding to local agencies and jurisdictions for developing coordinated efforts to make family homelessness rare, brief and nonrecurring. The program is administered by the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD).

On June 27, 2022, the former California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal-ICH) awarded the City of Livermore $581,440 for the first round of Family Homelessness Challenge Grant Program (FHC1). Subsequently, on September 14, 2022, the City Council passed a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept the award, appropriate the funds and execute the standard agreement, and subrecipient agreement, with the Livermore Housing Authority. Livermore is one of 10 communities across California to receive this competitive award.

Livermore's program is designed to reduce and prevent homelessness among students and families in the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District by supporting 12 set-aside program units at Leahy Square Apartments, owned and managed by the Housing Authority of the City of Livermore, along with on-site supportive services. The program’s core elements were finalized in the summer of 2023, with the first residents moving into the Leahy Square units in October of 2023. In February of 2024, Livermore Housing Authority contracted with LifeSteps to offer on-site intensive case management services to the formerly homeless residents. The core elements for services provided to families in the program include:
assessing housing barriers and developing individualized family plans to build life skills for independent living; and providing multilingual, trauma-informed intensive case management and support to help families transition to permanent housing.

The majority of families in the program are large, female-headed households, often fleeing domestic violence and facing chronic homelessness due to extremely low income and significant housing barriers.

Currently, five families, each comprising of four to 10 members, are participating in the program and residing at Leahy Square.

On December 29, 2023, HCD issued a second request for proposals under the Family Homelessness Challenge Grant Program (FHC-2), inviting the award recipients to apply for additional funding. On July 1, 2024, the City was awarded approximately $280,769 to expand the program’s budget which includes adding three more units at Leahy Square, continuing supportive services and providing temporary rental assistance. The grant requires all funds be expended by June 30, 2026, using the same requirements as the first round to apply the core principles of a Housing First approach and incorporate the perspectives of people with lived experience into the program design.

As the property owner, the Livermore Housing Authority operates the program units, determines the participants’ eligibility and engages LifeSteps as an intensive case management services provider. After receiving the award, the City will disburse the funds to the Livermore Housing Authority to fund the additional units at Leahy Square and to reimburse the Authority for intensive case management costs. A portion of the funds will be disbursed to CityServe to administer temporary rental assistance for homeless families awaiting available and renovated program units. 213
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to accept the award, execute the Standard Agreement with the State of California, appropriate the award funds for the FHC program recipients and execute the subsequent subrecipient agreements with the Livermore Housing Authority and CityServe.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
Upon entering the subrecipient agreement with subgrantees, the City will disburse the awarded funds to the Livermore Housing Authority and CityServe to offset the costs of providing supportive services and deeply affordable rents for low-income households experiencing homelessness and to assist with temporary housing for program participants. No additional City matching funds are anticipated for the project.

Family Homelessness Challenge Grant (FHC-2) Budget Summary:

Subrecipient Program Expenditure
Approximate
Award Amount
Livermore Housing Authority Capitalized Operating Subsidy Reserves (COSR) $204,469 CityServe Rental Assistance 76,300
Total $280,769

COMMUNITY PILLAR
1: A Safe Community that Thrives.

GOAL
8: Expand and preserve the supply of affordable housing opportunities.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A - Standard Agreement
Prepared by: Natalia Gilina
Housing Administrative Technician
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
214
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A STANDARD

AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR
APPROXIMATELY $280,769 IN FAMILY HOMELESSNESS

CHALLENGE GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING THE

EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENTS WITH SUBGRANTEES TO

APPROPRIATE THESE FUNDS
The State of California has established the Family Homelessness Challenge Grant Program (“FHC” or “Program”) pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 50255) of Part 1 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code (“HSC”). FHC was amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 111, Sec. 14. (AB 140) Effective July 19, 2021.

The Program is administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) in the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency (“Agency”). FHC provides one-time grants and technical assistance to support local jurisdictions and Continuums of Care in their response to address and end homelessness. In all, $32 million will be distributed across a minimum of two rounds of funding. On June 24, 2022, $17 million was awarded in FHC-1 grants to 10 communities. Family Homelessness Challenge Grant Program Round 2 (“FHC-2”) is the second and final round of funding. FHC-2 funding is available only to eligible FHC-1 grantees. (Health and Safety Code § 50257(a)(1)(b).)
On September 12, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-151, which authorized the City Manager to receive the FHC-1 award and awarded the Livermore Housing Authority, as a subrecipient, FHC-1 funds to provide unhoused students and their families with supportive bridge housing and case management services at Leahy Square (the “Project”).

On December 29, 2023, HCD issued a Request for Applications under FHC-2.

The City of Livermore (“City”) applied for additional funds to expand the Project to add three additional units to be set aside at Leahy Square, continue supportive services, and provide temporary rental assistance and housing navigation services.

On July 1, 2024, HCD awarded the City approximately $280,769 in FHC-2 funds.

The Agency requires the City of Livermore to enter into a Standard Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, to receive the funds. After receiving the award, the City intends to allocate the funds to: (1) the Livermore Housing Authority to fund the additional units at Leahy Square and to reimburse the Authority for intensive case management costs; and (2) CityServe to administer temporary rental assistance for homeless families awaiting available and renovated program units. 215
RESOLUTION NO. ________
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that it hereby:

1. Accepts the Family Homelessness Challenge Grant Program Round 2 funds in the total amount of $280,769.

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or her designee, to execute the Standard Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, for $280,769 in Family Homelessness Challenge Grant funds and all other related documents described in the Standard Agreement attached hereto or that are required for the City to receive said funding.

3. Appropriates the Family Homelessness Challenge Grant funds received from the State to be awarded to subgrantees that will continue and expand the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Family Homelessness Challenge Grant.

4. Authorizes the City Manager, or her designee, to execute grant agreements, including any amendments thereto, with subgrantees that will receive allocations of Family Homelessness Challenge Grant funds from the City, including grant agreements with subgrantees exceeding $200,000.

On motion of Council Member ______________________, seconded by Council Member ______________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on October 14, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ /s/ Molly A. O’Toole
Deborah L. Elam Molly A. O’Toole
City Clerk Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit A – Standard Agreement with the State of California 216

2. The term of this Agreement is:

EXHIBIT A
217

EXHIBIT A
218
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 1 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT A
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024

AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE OF WORK

1. Authority
The State of California has established the Family Homelessness Challenge Grant Program (“FHC” or “Program”) pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 50255) of Part 1 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code (“HSC”). FHC was amended by Stats. 2021, Ch. 111, Sec. 14. (AB 140) Effective July 19, 2021).

In all, $32 million will be distributed across a minimum of two rounds of funding. On June 24, 2022, $17 million was awarded in FHC-1 grants to 10 communities. This Standard Agreement governs the Family Homelessness Challenge Grant Program Round 2 (“FHC2”), the second and final round of funding. FHC-2 funding is available only to eligible FHC1 grantees. (Health and Safety Code § 50257(a)(1)(b).).

This Standard Agreement along with all its exhibits (“Agreement”) is entered into by HCD and a Continuum of Care, a city, or a county (“Grantee”) under the authority of, and in furtherance of the purpose of, the Program. In signing this Agreement and thereby accepting this award of funds, the Grantee agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Request for Applications (“RFA”) dated December 29, 2023, under which the Grantee applied, the representations contained in the Grantee’s application, HCD guidance or directives, and the requirements appearing in the statutory authority for the Program cited above.

2. Purpose
The general purpose of the Program is to provide one-time grants and technical assistance to local jurisdictions to address and end family homelessness. FHC-2 provides grants to current eligible FHC-1 grantees who will utilize FHC-2 funds to expand, complement, augment, and/or strengthen their FHC-1 proposal by making families’ experiences of homelessness rare, brief, and one-time, defined as:
(a) Rare: Prevented whenever possible.
(b) Brief: Ended quickly whenever it does occur through a focus on Housing First approaches and housing outcomes.

EXHIBIT A
219
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 2 of 23 ends

This funding shall give preference to proposals that:
1) Promote rapid innovation, accelerate nascent programs, expand promising practices, and meet new demands and conditions for solutions targeted towards ending family homelessness;
2) Can demonstrate cross-systems collaboration, multi-funder initiatives, and innovative efforts that coordinate across funding streams and systems; 3) Demonstrate potential for scalability and replication to support statewide efforts to address and end family homelessness.

3. Definitions
The following Family Homelessness Challenge Grants Program terms are defined in accordance with HSC Section 50255, subdivisions (a) – (h):

A. ”Applicant” means a continuum of care, city, or county.

B. ”Continuum of Care” has the meaning provided in Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations as that section read on May 1, 2021.

C. “Council” means the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, previously known as the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council, created pursuant to Section 8257 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

D. “County” includes, but is not limited to, a city and county.

E. ”Department” means the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

F. “Homeless” has the same meaning as defined in Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as that section read on May 1, 2018.

G. “Local jurisdiction” means a city, including a charter city, a county, including a charter county, or a city and county, including a charter city and county.

EXHIBIT A
220
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 3 of 23 ends

I. “Recipient” means a jurisdiction that receives funds from HCD for the purposes of the program.

Additional definitions for the purposes of the FHC-2 program:
“Eligible applicants” for FHC-2 are limited to recipients of FHC-1 who remain in compliance with FHC-1 requirements and demonstrate adequate progress toward their self- identified, prioritized objective.
“Grantee” is synonymous with “Recipient”.
“Subrecipients” or “subgrantees” are entities that receive subawards from “recipients” or “grantees” to carry out part of the Program.
“Expended” means all funds obligated under contract or subcontract that have been fully paid and receipted, and no invoices remain outstanding.

4. Scope of Work
This Scope of Work identifies the terms and conditions necessary to accomplish the Program’s intended objectives.

Grantees will utilize FHC-2 funds to implement their self-identified, prioritized objective that expands, complements, augments, and/or strengthens their FHC-1 proposal by making families' experiences of homelessness rare, brief, and one-time.

Grantees will implement their FHC-2 funded local proposal as described in their application. Any material deviation from the proposal described in the application must be approved by HCD through the Budget Change process described in Exhibit B.4.A, Budget Change. Furthermore, Grantees will implement their FHC-2 funded program in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Request for Applications (“RFA”) under which the Grantee applied, the representations contained in the Grantee’s application, Agency guidance or directives, and the requirements per the authorizing statute.

Permissible eligible uses and activities are detailed below in Exhibit B.4, Budget Details and Expenditure of Funds.

EXHIBIT A
221
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 4 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT A
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024
Because of the legislative intent to share scalable and replicable family homelessness models:
(a) Information about the program submitted through reporting and provided through Technical Assistance (TA) Reports will be public information that HCD will use to disseminate learnings and successful models to be replicated and scaled across the state.
(b) Grantees are expected to be close partners with HCD. This means timely and accurate reporting, candid communication of successes and challenges, and availability of persons, information, and materials.

Quarterly reporting requirements are detailed below in Exhibit D.4, Reporting, Evaluation, and Audits.

Fiscal deadlines are detailed below in Exhibit A.6, Effective Date, Term of Agreement, and Deadlines.

Grantees shall complete a Final Work Product (as detailed below in Exhibit A.6.C.) and participate in a program evaluation regarding their implementation of FHC-2 awards. To support this effort, the Agency will make technical assistance support available.

HCD maintains sole authority to determine if a grantee is acting in compliance with the program objectives and may direct grantees to take specified actions or risk breach of this Agreement. Grantees will be provided reasonable notice and HCD’s discretion in making these determinations is absolute and final.

5. HCD Contract Coordinator
HCD’s Contract Coordinator for this Agreement is HCD’s Grants Program Design Section Chief or the Section Chief’s designee. Unless otherwise instructed, any communication shall be conducted through email to the HCD Contract Coordinator or their designee. If documents require an original signature, the strongly preferred form is an e-Signature in accordance with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). If an Awardee is unwilling or unable to sign a document electronically, HCD shall accept wet or original signed documents. These documents containing wet signatures should be both mailed to HCD and scanned and emailed as instructed. State law or policy may require the use of wet signatures for specific documents.

EXHIBIT A
222
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 5 of 23 ends

PROGRAM GRANTEE
ENTITY: California Department of Housing and
Community Development City of Livermore
SECTION/UNIT: Policy and Program Support
ADDRESS: 651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA, 95811
1052 S Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94577

CONTRACT
COORDINATOR: Jeannie McKendry Frances Reisner
PHONE
NUMBER: (916) 490-9589 (925) 960-4583
EMAIL
ADDRESS:

[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
The Department reserves the right to change their HCD Contract Coordinator, designee, and/or contact information at any time with reasonable notice to the Grantee.

All requests to update the Grantee information listed within this Agreement shall be emailed to the HCD’s grant general email box at [email protected].

Notice to either party may be given by email. Such notice shall be effective when received as indicated on email. Changes to the HCD Contract Coordinator, designee, and/or contact information or grantee information can be made without a formal amendment.

6. Effective Date, Term of Agreement, and Deadlines
A. This Agreement is effective upon execution by Agency. This is indicated by the HCD provided signature and date on the second page of the accompanying STD. 213, Standard Agreement. Note, HCD signs the Agreement after a Grantee signs.

B. Grantees will continue to perform until the Agreement is terminated, including data reporting and participation in program evaluation activities, as needed.

C. This Agreement will terminate on March 31, 2027.

EXHIBIT A
223
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 6 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT A
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024
Grantees shall submit a Final Work Product by September 30, 2026. The Final Work Product will include programmatic and fiscal data and a narrative on the outputs and outcomes of the program on a reporting template to be provided by HCD.

HCD will review submitted Final Work Products and collaborate with Grantees to cure any deficiencies by March 31, 2027.

Grantees are expected to continue performing until March 31, 2027. This means timely and accurate reporting, candid communication of success and challenges, and availability of persons, information, or materials.

D. Expenditure Deadlines:

All Program funds (100 percent of FHC-1 and FHC-2) shall be expended by June 30, 2026. Any funds not expended by June 30, 2026, shall be returned to the General Fund pursuant to HSC § 50258(e).

7. Special Conditions
HCD maintains sole authority to determine if a grantee is acting in compliance with the program objectives and may direct grantees to take specified actions or risk breach of this Agreement. Grantees will be provided reasonable notice and HCD’s discretion in making these determinations is absolute and final.

EXHIBIT A
224
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 7 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT B
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024
BUDGET DETAIL AND DISBURSEMENT PROVISIONS

1. Payee
Name: City of Livermore Amount: $280,768.86

2. General Conditions Prior to Disbursement
All Grantees must submit the following completed forms prior to round 2 of the Family Homelessness Challenge (FHC-2) funds being released:

A. Request for Funds Form (“RFF”)
B. STD 213 Standard Agreement form and initialed Exhibits A, B, D and E C. STD 204 Payee Data Record or Government Agency Taxpayer ID Form

3. Disbursement of Funds
FHC-2 funds will be disbursed to the Grantee in one allocation upon receipt, review and approval of the completed Standard Agreement and RFF by HCD.

The RFF must include the proposed eligible uses and the amount of funds proposed to be expended.

4. Budget Details and Expenditure of Funds
The Grantee shall expend Program funds on eligible uses and activities as detailed in the submitted standardized budget and pursuant to Exhibit A, Section 4 “Scope of Work”. HCD reserves the right to direct specific line-item changes in submitted standardized budgets.

To ensure efficient and reliable processing, grantees shall submit budget change requests through a designated submission portal (i.e., currently Cognito, though subject to change). These requests will be reviewed in the first week of each month. Failure to submit by 5 pm on the 1st day of the month subjects a Grantee to having their budget change request being reviewed the following month. HCD may consider budget change requests outside of this timeline and through email as needed due to documented, exigent circumstances. Grantees carry the burden to anticipate foreseeable budget change requests and should plan accordingly.

EXHIBIT A
225
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 8 of 23 ends

A. Budget Changes
Any decrease or increase to the total expenditures for any eligible use category must be submitted through a budget modification request and approved by HCD’s Grants Program Design Section Chief or their designee, in writing, before the Grantee may expend Program funds according to an alternative standardized budget. Budget modification requests may be submitted with the regular quarterly reports or by reaching out to [email protected]. The Grants Program Design Section Chief will respond to Grantee with approval or denial of the request. Failure to obtain written approval from the Grants Program Design Section Chief or their designee as required by this section may be considered a breach of this Agreement. A breach of this agreement may result in remedies listed below in Exhibit D.6, Breach and Remedies.

Regardless of an increase or decrease of an expenditure amount, any significant or material programmatic or fiscal changes that alter the scope of the project proposal shall be submitted to HCD for prior approval.

These eligible uses and activities must be consistent with HSC Sections 50255 – 50259, other applicable laws, the terms and conditions of this Agreement, HCD guidance or directives, the Request for Applications (“RFA”) under which the Grantee applied, representations contained in the Grantee’s application, and the Purpose of the Program as detailed in Exhibit A.2, Purpose.

B. Eligible Uses
Eligible Uses and Activities include, but are not limited to, the following:

Rapid rehousing, including housing identification, rental subsidies, and incentives to landlords, such as security deposits and holding fees for eligible families, housing search assistance, rapid re-housing case management and services.

Operating subsidies in new and existing affordable or supportive housing units, emergency shelters, and navigation centers. Operating subsidies may include operating reserves.

EXHIBIT A
226
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 9 of 23 ends

Services coordination which may include access to workforce, education, and training programs, or other services needed to promote housing stability for eligible families, as well as direct case management services being provided to families.

Systems support for activities that improve, strengthen, augment, complement, and/or are necessary to create regional partnerships and a homeless services and housing delivery system that makes families’ experiences of homelessness rare, brief, and/or one-time.

Delivery of permanent housing and innovative housing solutions, such as unit conversions that are well suited for eligible families.

Prevention and shelter diversion to permanent housing, including flexible forms of financial assistance, problem solving assistance, and other services to prevent people from losing their housing and/or from needing to enter emergency shelter/interim housing or becoming unsheltered.

Interim Housing, limited to newly developed clinically enhanced congregate shelters, new or existing non-congregate shelters, and operations of existing navigation centers and shelters based on demonstrated need that are well suited for eligible families.

Improvements to existing emergency shelters to lower barriers and increase privacy, better address the needs of eligible families, and improve outcomes and exits to permanent housing.

In addition to the funding use requirements described above, the Grantee’s expenditure of its entire FHC-2 allocation must also comply with the following:

Not more than 5 percent of funds may be used for administrative costs incurred by the city, county, or continuum of care to administer its program allocation, including reporting, contract management, etc. For purposes of this Agreement, “administrative costs” do not include staff or other costs directly related to implementing activities funded by the program allocation.

EXHIBIT A
227
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 10 of 23 ends

5. Ineligible Costs
FHC-2 funds shall not be used for costs associated with activities in violation, conflict, or inconsistent with HSC Sections 50255 – 50259, other applicable laws, the terms and conditions of this Agreement, HCD guidance or directives, the Request for Applications (“RFA”) under which the Grantee applied, representations contained in the Grantee’s application, and the Purpose of the Program as detailed in Exhibit A.2, Purpose.

HCD, at its sole and absolute discretion, shall make the final determination regarding the allowability of FHC-2 fund expenditures.

HCD reserves the right to request additional clarifying information to determine the reasonableness and eligibility of all uses of the funds made available by this Agreement. If the Grantee or its funded subrecipients use FHC-2 funds to pay for ineligible activities, the Grantee shall be required to reimburse these funds to HCD at an amount and timeframe determined by HCD.

An expenditure which is not authorized by this Agreement, or by written approval of the Grants Program Design Section Chief or their designee, or which cannot be adequately documented, shall be disallowed, and must be reimbursed to HCD by the Grantee at an amount and timeframe determined by Agency.

Program funds shall not be used to supplant existing local funds for homelessness housing, assistance, or prevention.

Unless expressly approved by HCD in writing, reimbursements are not permitted for any Program expenditures prior to this Agreement’s date of execution.

EXHIBIT A
228
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 11 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT D
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024

FHC GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Termination and Sufficiency of Funds
A. Termination of Agreement
HCD may terminate this Agreement at any time for cause by giving a minimum of 14 days’ notice of termination, in writing, to the Grantee. Cause shall consist of violations of any conditions of this Agreement, any breach of contract as described in  Exhibit D.6, Breach and Remedies; violation of any federal or state laws; or withdrawal of Agency’s expenditure authority.  Upon termination of this Agreement, unless otherwise approved in writing by Agency, any unexpended funds received by the Grantee shall be returned to HCD within 30 days of Agency’s specified date of termination.

B. Sufficiency of Funds
This Agreement is valid and enforceable only if sufficient funds are made available to HCD by legislative appropriation. In addition, this Agreement is subject to any additional restrictions, limitations or conditions, or statutes, regulations, or any other laws, whether federal or those of the State of California, or of any agency, department, or any political subdivision of the federal or State of California governments, which may affect the provisions, terms or funding of this Agreement in any manner.

2. Transfers
Grantee may not transfer or assign by subcontract or novation, or by any other means, the rights, duties, or performance of this Agreement or any part thereof, except as allowed within Exhibit D.12, Special Conditions – Grantees/Sub Grantee or with the prior written approval of HCD and a formal amendment to this Agreement to affect such subcontract or novation.

3. Grantee’s Application for Funds
Grantee submitted a budget to HCD as part of their application for the Program.

Grantee warrants that all information, facts, assertions, and representations contained in the application and budget and additions thereto are true, correct, and

EXHIBIT A
229
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 12 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT D
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024
complete to the best of Grantee’s knowledge. In the event that any part of the application and any approved modification and addition thereto is untrue, incorrect, incomplete, or misleading in such a manner that would substantially affect HCD approval, disbursement, or monitoring of the funding and the grants or activities governed by this Agreement, then HCD may declare a breach of this Agreement and take such action or pursue such remedies as are legally available.

4. Reporting, Evaluation, and Audits
A. Reporting Requirements
1) Grantee is required to provide HCD or its agents with all data and outcomes that may inform an assessment of the funded project.

Grantees shall report quarterly and have one Final Work Product submitted prior to this Agreement’s termination.
2) Grantee will be required to provide at a minimum:
(a) Client service data and housing status of persons served; (b) Status of funding as presented in the HCD approved, standardized budget; and
(c) Continued confirmation that projects receiving FHC-2 funds are populated timely into the Homeless Management
Information System (HMIS) and use HCD supplied funding
codes.

Agency’s discretion in identifying which information shall be included in these reports is absolute and final.

Pursuant to HSC Section 50259, grantees shall provide data elements, including, but not limited to, health information, in a manner consistent with state and federal law, to their local Homeless Management Information System for tracking in the statewide Homeless Data Integration System. 3) The quarterly reports shall be submitted on a template to be provided by HCD at least 60 days prior to the first reporting deadline. HCD may request interim reports as needed and will provide no less than 30 days’ notice to Grantees.

EXHIBIT A
230
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 13 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT D
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024
4) If the Grantee fails to provide any such report, HCD may recapture any portion of the amount authorized by this Agreement with a 14-day written notification.

B. Evaluation
1) Grantees shall participate in a program evaluation regarding their implementation of FHC-2 awards. To support this effort, HCD will contract a third party to complete the evaluation. Grantee agrees to accept evaluation assistance as directed by HCD or by a contracted provider acting on behalf of HCD.
2) Grantees are expected to be close partners with HCD for this program evaluation and for all evaluative aspects of this Program.

This means timely and accurate reporting, candid communication of success or challenges, and availability of persons, information, or materials. More specifically, Grantees must cooperate with HCD or its designee as reasonably required to implement an evaluation plan.

This includes providing or facilitating the collection of data and materials as reasonably requested by HCD or its designee. 3) For the purpose of evaluation, HCD or its designee may visit sites related to the project and film, tape, photograph, interview, and otherwise document Grantee’s operations during normal business hours and with reasonable advance notice. HCD will comply with Grantee’s site visit terms during any site visits.
4) Grantees should maintain active data, documents, and filings in anticipation of this evaluation. Special care should be taken to organize and preserve internal work products that guided implementation by the Grantee or subgrantee.
5) Grantees shall notify HCD and provide copies of any reports or findings if Grantee conducts or commissions any third-party research or evaluation regarding their funded project.
6) All terms and conditions that apply to reporting similarly apply to evaluation.

EXHIBIT A
231
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 14 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT D
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024
C. Auditing
HCD reserves the right to perform or cause to be performed a financial audit. At HCD request, the Grantee shall provide, at its own expense, a financial audit prepared by a certified public accountant.  Should an audit be required, the Grantee shall adhere to the following conditions:
1) The audit shall be performed by an independent certified public accountant.
2) The Grantee shall notify HCD of the auditor's name and address immediately after the selection has been made. The contract for the audit shall allow access by HCD to the independent auditor's working papers.
3) The Grantee is responsible for the completion of audits and all costs of preparing audits.
4) If there are audit findings, the Grantee must submit a detailed response acceptable to HCD for each audit finding within 90 days from the date of the audit finding report.

5. Inspection and Retention of Records
A. Record Inspection
HCD or its designee shall have the right to review, obtain, and copy all records and supporting documentation pertaining to performance under this Agreement. The Grantee agrees to provide HCD, or its designee, with any relevant information requested within 30 days of a written request. Failure to provide the requested information may be considered a breach of this agreement.

The Grantee agrees to give HCD or its designee access to its premises, upon reasonable notice and during normal business hours, for the purpose of interviewing employees who might reasonably have information related to such records, and of inspecting and copying such books, records, accounts, and other materials that may be relevant to an investigation of

EXHIBIT A
232
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 15 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT D
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024
compliance with the Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program laws, HCD guidance or directives, and this Agreement.

B. Record Retention
The Grantee further agrees to retain all records described in subparagraph A for a minimum period of five (5) years after the termination of this Agreement.

If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit, monitoring, inspection, or other action has been commenced before the expiration of the required record retention period, all records must be retained until completion of the action and resolution of all issues which arise from it.

C. Public Records Act
The grantees’ final FHC-2 application, this contract, and other documents related to the grant are considered public records, which are available for public viewing pursuant to the California Public Records Act Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code.

6. Breach and Remedies
A. Breach of Agreement
Breach of this Agreement includes, but is not limited to, the following events:
1) Grantee’s failure to comply with the terms or conditions of this Agreement.
2) Use of, or permitting the use of, Program funds provided under this Agreement for any ineligible activities.
3) Any failure to comply with the deadlines set forth in this Agreement.

B. Remedies for Breach of Agreement
In addition to any other remedies that may be available to HCD in law or equity for breach of this Agreement, HCD may:

EXHIBIT A
233
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 16 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT D
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024
1) Conduct a program monitoring which will include a corrective action plan (CAP) with findings, remedies, and timelines for resolving the findings.
2) Bar the Grantee from applying for future FHC funds;
3) Revoke any other existing FHC award(s) to the Grantee; 4) Require the return of any unexpended FHC Grant funds disbursed under this Agreement;
5) Require repayment of FHC Grant funds disbursed and expended under this Agreement;
6) Require the immediate return to HCD of all funds derived from the use of FHC Grant funds;
7) Seek, in a court of competent jurisdiction, an order for specific performance of the defaulted obligation or participation in the technical assistance in accordance with FHC Grant requirements.

C. All remedies available to HCD are cumulative and not exclusive.

D. HCD may give written notice to the Grantee to cure the breach or violation within a period of not less than 14 days.

7. Waivers
No waiver of any breach of this Agreement shall be held to be a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach. The failure of HCD to enforce at any time the provisions of this Agreement, or to require at any time performance by the Grantee of these provisions, shall in no way be construed to be a waiver of such provisions nor to affect the validity of this Agreement or the right of HCD to enforce these provisions.

8. Nondiscrimination
During the performance of this Agreement, Grantee and its subrecipients shall not unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment against any employee or

EXHIBIT A
234
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 17 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT D
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024
applicant for employment because of sex (gender), sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, race, color, ancestry, religion, creed, national origin (including language use restriction), pregnancy, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition (cancer/genetic characteristics), age (over 40), genetic information, marital status, military and veteran status, denial of medical and family care leave or pregnancy disability leave, or any other characteristic protected by state or federal law. Grantees and Sub grantees shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free from such discrimination and harassment. Grantee and its subrecipients shall comply with the provisions of California’s laws against discriminatory practices relating to specific groups: the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.); the regulations promulgated thereunder (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11000 et seq.); and the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (Gov. Code, §§ 11135 - 11139.5).  Grantee and its subrecipients shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement.

9. Conflict of Interest
All Grantees are subject to state and federal conflict of interest laws. Failure to comply with these laws, including business and financial disclosure provisions, will result in the application being rejected and any subsequent contract being declared void. Other legal action may also be taken. Additional applicable statutes include, but are not limited to, Government Code Section 1090 and Public Contract Code Sections 10410 and 10411.

A. Current State Employees: No State officer or employee shall engage in any employment, activity, or enterprise from which the officer or employee receives compensation or has a financial interest, and which is sponsored or funded by any State agency, unless the employment, activity, or enterprise is required as a condition of regular State employment. No State officer or employee shall contract on his or her own behalf as an independent Grantee with any State HCD to provide goods or services.

B. Former State Employees: For the two-year period from the date he or she left State employment, no former State officer or employee may enter into a contract in which he or she engaged in any of the negotiations, transactions, planning, arrangements, or any part of the decision-making

EXHIBIT A
235
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 18 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT D
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024
process relevant to the contract while employed in any capacity by any State agency. For the twelve-month period from the date he or she left State employment, no former State officer or employee may enter into a contract with any State agency if he or she was employed by that State agency in a policy-making position in the same general subject area as the proposed contract within the twelve-month period prior to his or her leaving State service.

C. Employees of the Grantee: Employees of the Grantee shall comply with all applicable provisions of law pertaining to conflicts of interest, including but not limited to any applicable conflict of interest provisions of the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Gov. Code, § 81000 et seq.).

D. Representatives of a County: A representative of a county serving on a board, committee, or body with the primary purpose of administering funds or making funding recommendations for applications pursuant to this chapter shall have no financial interest in any contract, program, or project voted on by the board, committee, or body on the basis of the receipt of compensation for holding public office or public employment as a representative of the county.

10. Drug-Free Workplace Certification
Certification of Compliance: By signing this Agreement, Grantee hereby certifies, under penalty of perjury under the laws of State of California, that it and its subrecipients will comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 (Gov. Code, § 8350 et seq.) and have or will provide a drug-free workplace by taking the following actions:

Publish a statement notifying employees and subrecipients that unlawful manufacture distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees, Grantees, or subrecipients for violations, as required by Government Code Section 8355, subdivision (a)(1).

A. Establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program, as required by Government Code Section 8355, subdivision (a)(2) to inform employees, Grantees, or subrecipients about all of the following:

EXHIBIT A
236
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 19 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT D
1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
2) Grantee’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; 3) Any available counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance program; and
4) Penalties that may be imposed upon employees, Grantees, and subrecipients for drug abuse violations.

B. Provide, as required by Government Code Section 8355, subdivision (a)(3), that every employee and/or subrecipient that works under this Agreement:
1) Will receive a copy of Grantee’s drug-free policy statement, and 2) Will agree to abide by terms of Grantee’s condition of employment or subcontract.

11. Child Support Compliance Act
For any Contract Agreement in excess of $100,000, the Grantee acknowledges in accordance with Public Contract Code 7110, that:

A. The Grantee recognizes the importance of child and family support obligations and shall fully comply with all applicable state and federal laws relating to child and family support enforcement, including, but not limited to, disclosure of information and compliance with earnings assignment orders, as provided in Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 5200) of Part 5 of Division 9 of the Family Code; and
B. The Grantee, to the best of its knowledge, is fully complying with the earnings assignment orders of all employees and is providing the names of all new employees to the New Hire Registry maintained by the California Employment Development Department.

12. Special Conditions – Grantees/Subgrantee
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024

EXHIBIT A
237
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 20 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT D
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024
The Grantee agrees to comply with all conditions of this Agreement including the Special Conditions set forth in Exhibit E. These conditions shall be met to the satisfaction of HCD prior to disbursement of funds. The Grantee shall ensure that all Subgrantees are made aware of and agree to comply with all the conditions of this Agreement and the applicable State requirements governing the use of FHC-2 funds. Failure to comply with these conditions may result in termination of this Agreement.

A. The Agreement between the Grantee and any Subgrantee shall require the Grantee and its Subgrantees, if any, to:
1) Perform the work in accordance with Federal, State and Local housing and building codes, as applicable.
2) Maintain at least the minimum State-required worker’s compensation for those employees who will perform the work or any part of it. 3) Maintain, as required by law, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and liability insurance in an amount that is reasonable to compensate any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by the Grantee or any Subgrantee in performing the Work or any part of it.
4) Agree to include and enforce all the terms of this Agreement in each subcontract.

13. Compliance with State and Federal Laws, Rules, Guidelines, and Regulations
The Grantee agrees to comply with all state and federal laws, rules and regulations that pertain to construction, health and safety, labor, fair employment practices, environmental protection, equal opportunity, fair housing, and all other matters applicable and/or related to the FHC program, the Grantee, its subrecipients, and all eligible activities.

Grantee shall also be responsible for obtaining any and all permits, licenses, and approvals required for performing any activities under this Agreement, including those necessary to perform design, construction, or operation and maintenance of the activities. Grantee shall be responsible for observing and complying with any applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules or regulations affecting any such

EXHIBIT A
238
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 21 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT D
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024
work, specifically those including, but not limited to, environmental protection, procurement, and safety laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances. Grantee shall provide copies of permits and approvals to HCD upon request.

14. Inspections
A. Grantee shall inspect any work performed hereunder to ensure that the work is being and has been performed in accordance with the applicable federal, state and/or local requirements, and this Agreement.

B. HCD reserves the right to inspect any work performed hereunder to ensure that the work is being and has been performed in accordance with the applicable federal, state and/or local requirements, and this Agreement.

C. Grantee agrees to require that all work that is determined based on such inspections not to conform to the applicable requirements be corrected and to withhold payments to the subrecipient until it is corrected.

15. Litigation
A. If any provision of this Agreement, or an underlying obligation, is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity, at the sole discretion of Agency, shall not affect any other provisions of this Agreement and the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Therefore, the provisions of this Agreement are and shall be deemed severable.

The Grantee shall notify HCD immediately of any claim or action undertaken by or against it, which affects or may affect this Agreement or Agency, and shall take such action with respect to the claim or action as is consistent with the terms of this Agreement and the interests of Agency.

EXHIBIT A
239
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 22 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT E
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024

SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. All proceeds from any interest-bearing account established by the Grantee for the deposit of funds, along with any interest-bearing accounts opened by subrecipients to the Grantee for the deposit of funds, must be used for eligible activities.

Grantees must maintain records of all expenditures of the proceeds from these interest-bearing accounts for five (5) years and report on these expenditures as required by HCD. HCD reserves the right to perform or cause to be performed a financial audit on the use of proceeds from interest-bearing accounts.

2. Grantee shall utilize its local Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) to track FHC-2 funded projects, services, and clients served. Grantee will ensure that HMIS data are collected in accordance with applicable laws and in such a way as to identify individual projects, services, and clients that are supported by funding (e.g., by creating appropriate FHC-2 specific funding sources and project codes in HMIS).

3. Grantee shall participate in and provide data elements, including, but not limited to, health information, in a manner consistent with federal law, to their local HMIS, for tracking in the statewide Homeless Data Integration System (HDIS), in accordance with their existing Data Use Agreement entered into with the Council, if any, and as required by HSC Section 50259. Any health information provided to, or maintained within, the statewide HMIS shall not be subject to public inspection or disclosure under the California Public Records Act. For purposes of this paragraph, “health information” means “protected health information,” as defined in Part 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and “medical information,” as defined in subdivision (j) of Section 56.05 of the Civil Code. The Council may, as required by operational necessity, amend, or modify required data elements, disclosure formats, or disclosure frequency. Additionally, the Council, at its discretion, may provide Grantee with aggregate reports and analytics of the data Grantee submits to their local HMIS and which gets reported to HDIS in support of the Purpose of this Agreement and the existing Data Use Agreement.

4. Grantee agrees to accept technical assistance as directed by HCD or by a contracted technical assistance provider acting on behalf of HCD and report to HCD on programmatic changes the grantee will make as a result of the technical assistance and in support of their grant objective.

EXHIBIT A
240
City of Livermore
24-FHC-2-10001

Page 23 of 23 ends

EXHIBIT E
Program Name: Family Homelessness Challenge Grant and Technical Assistance Program “FHC”
RFA Date: December 29, 2023
Approved Date: 07/22/2024
Prep. Date: 08/19/2024

5. Grantee should establish a mechanism for people with lived experience of homelessness to have meaningful and purposeful opportunities to inform and shape all levels of planning and implementation, including through opportunities to hire people with lived experience.

6. Non-Bond Funded
The Department represents that the intent of Exhibit D.1.B, Sufficiency of Funds is only to preserve the legislature’s ability to make changes to appropriations and matters that are lawfully subject to change through the Budget Act. The Department represents and warrants that as of the date of this Agreement the nonbond funds referenced in the Family Homelessness Challenge Grant, Round 2 Request for Application dated December 29, 2023, for this Agreement are appropriated to and available for the purposes of this Agreement, and further, that upon execution of this Agreement said funds are deemed allocated to and encumbered for the purposes described in this Agreement and shall not be terminated or reduced as a result of Exhibit D.1.B, Sufficiency of Funds once construction has commenced in compliance with Program requirements and in accordance with the construction commencement requirements within this Agreement. If not continuously appropriated, said funds must still be disbursed prior to any applicable disbursement or expenditure deadline set forth in this Agreement.

EXHIBIT A
241
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 6.1
DATE: October 14, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brent Smith, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Hearing to introduce an ordinance and waive the first reading amending Livermore Development Code Section 11.01.020 definition of “Public and quasi-public” use to include emergency shelters and supportive housing associated with another public or quasi-public use.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Planning Commission and staff recommend the City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution finding the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that the activity is covered by the commonsense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; and

2. Introduce an ordinance and waive the first reading, approving Development Code Amendment (DCA) 24-003 to amend Livermore Development Code Section 11.01.020 to modify the definition of “Public and quasi-public” use to include emergency shelters and supportive housing associated with another public or quasi-public use.

SUMMARY
The staff-initiated Development Code Amendment 24-003 proposes to amend the City’s Development Code definition of Public and Quasi-Public use to add emergency shelters and supportive housing to the uses listed under the existing definition. Currently, emergency shelters and supportive housing are not listed under the public and quasi-public-definition.

To help address homelessness and affordable housing shortages, the Planning Commission and staff recommend amending the public and quasi-public definition to include emergency shelters and supportive housing when associated with another public/quasi-public use. All public and quasi-public uses, including emergency shelters and supportive housing, would continue to be subject to Planning Commission review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) at a public hearing. Each CUP would be evaluated on an individual basis to ensure consistency with the General Plan and land use compatibility with neighboring land uses. The proposal would facilitate diversifying the city's housing 242
supply by enabling emergency shelters and supportive housing to operate in association with another public/quasi-public use.

DISCUSSION
The Development Code includes the following definition for Public and quasi-public:

Public and quasi-public. Includes public, semi-public, and private elementary schools, high schools, civic buildings, community buildings and uses, and public utility uses including substations, governmental buildings, churches, museums, art galleries, fire houses, post offices, police stations, reservoirs, libraries, parks, essential services, hospitals and similar uses, any of which may have additional requirements to use set forth herein.

The project proposes to amend the definition of Public and quasi-public uses as shown below (proposed text is shown in underline text):

Livermore General Plan Chapter 3, Land Use Element states that public and quasi-public uses are typically valued as important to community identity and function and that they are conditionally allowed in all land use designations. Consistent with the General Plan, the Development Code lists public and quasi-public uses as conditionally permitted uses in all zoning districts. The General Plan also includes goals and policies to update the Development Code to simplify standards and expand opportunities for a greater variety of housing types.

The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. It would conditionally allow a range of housing types to operate on a permanent basis in association with a variety of public and quasi-public uses.

As with other Conditional Use Permit applications, staff and Planning Commission will carefully consider all aspects of the project including design, operation, security, and location to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, especially existing neighborhoods. Additionally, conditions of approval can be added to ensure long-term compatibility.

The proposed Code Amendment is also consistent with the city's past practice to amend the Development Code to implement the General Plan and allow a variety of housing types and provide essential services citywide. For example, in 2015, City Council adopted Ordinance 2018 that permitted supportive and transitional housing uses in all of the city's residential zones. This enabled additional locations for these facilities in close proximity to transit and services such as Valley Care Medical Center, neighboring medical, dental and professional offices, Downtown Livermore, and nearby commercial shopping centers.

One example of supportive housing existing in Livermore is Goodness Village on the Crosswinds Church 243
property on Freisman Road. Goodness Village operates in association with Crosswinds Church and provides a stable and safe living environment and critical supportive services for formerly homeless individuals.

Planning Commission
On September 17, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment and recommended that the City Council adopt the ordinance. There were no public comments. Some Planning Commissioners stated concerns related to operational compatibility and construction sustainability. The Commission provided direction to staff to consider requiring three to five-year periodic reviews on subsequent Conditional Use Permits. The purpose of the periodic reviews would be to ensure emergency shelters or supportive housing associated with a public and quasi-public use continue to operate and be maintained up to the standards considered when a Conditional Use Permit was approved. See the Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes (Attachments 1 and 2) for additional details.

Summary
The Planning Commission and staff recommend amending Livermore Development Code Section

11.01.020 to modify the definition of “Public and quasi-public” use to allow emergency shelters and supportive housing associated with another public and quasi-public use. This amendment would expand the opportunity for emergency shelters and supportive housing to locate on sites with public and quasipublic uses consistent with the 2023-2031 Housing Element and diversify housing opportunities for a variety of income levels.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The activity is covered by the common sense exemption, which states that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The subject proposal does not result in the approval of any development project, nor does it directly or indirectly impact the physical environment. The proposal modifies Livermore’s Development Code to conditionally allow emergency shelters and supportive housing in association with a public and quasi-public use. A separate and full CEQA evaluation will be required for all public and quasi uses, including emergency shelters and supportive housing, through the Conditional Use Permit process.

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
The proposed amendments would require a conditional use permit application for emergency shelters and supportive housing in association with a public and quasi-public use. Staff does not anticipate a large number of applications for such facilities in the near future, and application fees would cover staff time needed to process submitted applications.

COMMUNITY PILLAR
1: A Safe Community That Thrives
244
GOAL
7: Expand and preserve the supply of affordable housing opportunities

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Commission Staff Report 9-17-24

2. Draft - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9-17-24

3. Redline Changes to Existing Definition

4. Resolution - CEQA

5. Exhibit A - PC Reso 28-24, DCA24-003 CEQA

6. Ordinance

7. Exhibit A - PC Reso 29-24, DCA24-003 Project

8. Exhibit B - Proposed Public and Quasi Public Definition Prepared by: Steve Stewart
Special Projects Coordinator
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
245
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 5.1
DATE: September 17, 2024
TO: Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Steve Riley, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Hearing to consider Development Code Amendment (DCA) 24-003 which would modify the definition of “Public and quasi-public” use to include emergency shelters and supportive housing associated with another public or quasi-public use.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt two resolutions, recommending the City Council:

1. Find the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; and

2. Approve Development Code Amendment 24-003, which would amend Livermore Development Code Section 11.01.020 to modify the definition of “Public and quasi-public” use to include emergency shelters and supportive housing associated with another public or quasi-public use.

SUMMARY
The proposed project is to amend the City’s Development Code definition of Public and Quasi-Public use to allow emergency shelters and supportive housing associated with the uses listed under the existing definition. The Development Code includes the following definition for Public and Quasi-Public:

Currently, emergency shelters and supportive housing are not listed under the public and quasi-publicdefinition. To help address homelessness and affordable housing shortages, the city proposes to amend the public and quasi-public definition to include emergency shelters and supportive housing when associated with another public/quasi-public use. All public and quasi-public uses would continue to be 1 ATTACHMENT 1
246
subject to Planning Commission review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) at a public hearing. The CUP would be evaluated on an individual basis to ensure consistency with the General Plan and land use compatibility with neighboring land uses. The proposal would facilitate diversifying the city's housing supply by enabling emergency shelters and supportive housing to operate in association with another public/quasi-public use.

DISCUSSION

BACKGROUND
On February 22, 2010, the Livermore City Council adopted the Livermore Development Code (Development Code). Consistent with State statutes, emergency shelters, transitional, supportive, and farmworker housing were added as permitted uses to certain zoning districts.

On April 13, 2015, the Livermore City Council adopted Ordinance 2018 to:

Define emergency, supportive, and transitional housing; Identify supportive and transitional housing as permitted uses in Transect Zones that allow residential uses and in the Suburban Multiple Residential (RG) Zoning District; and Include other conforming Development Code modifications necessary to be consistent with State law and facilitate State certification of the City’s Draft 2015-2022 Housing Element.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to amend the definition of Public and Quasi-Public uses as shown below (proposed text is shown in underline text):

STAFF ANALYSIS
General Plan
In the Livermore General Plan Chapter 3, Land Use Element, it is stated that public and quasi-public uses are typically valued as important to community identity and function and that they are conditionally allowed in all land use designations. Further, the General Plan includes the following uses as public and quasi-public uses:
public and private schools
civic, community, and government buildings and uses
fire and police stations
churches
museums
parks
2 ATTACHMENT 1
247
hospitals, and
similar essential services
It is stated in the General Plan that within the Open Space designation only parks, trails, and similar recreational areas and their related facilities and uses are allowed as public or quasi-public uses.

The city's adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element includes the following goal and policy:

GOAL 1: DIVERSE HOUSING CHOICES
Address the diverse housing needs of all community members and foster economic, social, and racial integration by allowing for a range of housing types, price levels, and densities.

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

The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. It would conditionally allow a range of housing types to operate on a permanent basis in association with a variety of public and quasi-public uses.

Livermore Development Code
Consistent with the General Plan, the Livermore Development Code lists public and quasi-public uses as conditionally permitted uses in all zoning districts. It also includes the following development standard in Section 6.02.090 (Public and Quasi-Public):

Per Development Code section 6.02.090, public and quasi-public uses shall provide and permanently maintain, except in required front yards, a six-foot-high solid board fence, masonry wall, or chain-link fence on all property lines which abut a residential zone or provide a 25 foot-wide permanently maintained landscaped strip in compliance with Section 4.05 (Landscape Standards). This landscape strip would be between the public and quasi-public use and adjacent residential zone.

As with other Conditional Use Permit applications, staff and Planning Commission will carefully consider all aspects of the project including design, operation, security, and location to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, especially existing neighborhoods. And conditions of approval can be added to ensure long-term compatibility.

The Development Code defines Emergency Shelters and Supportive Housing as follows:

Emergency shelter. Housing with minimum supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.

Supportive housing. Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.
3 ATTACHMENT 1
248
The City Council's adoption of Ordinance 2018 permitted supportive and transitional housing uses in all of the city's residential zones. This enabled additional locations outside of RG and certain Transect Zones for these facilities in close proximity to transit and services such as Valley Care Medical Center, neighboring medical, dental and professional offices, Downtown Livermore, and nearby commercial shopping centers. The proposed Code Amendment is consistent with the city's past practice to amend the Development Code to implement the General Plan and allow a variety of housing types and provide essential services citywide.

One example of supportive housing existing in the City is Goodness Village on the Crosswinds Church property on Friesman Road. Goodness Village operates in association with Crosswinds Church and provides a stable and safe living environment and critical supportive services for formerly homeless individuals.

In summary, staff recommends amending Livermore Development Code Section 11.01.020 to modify the definition of “Public and quasi-public” use to allow emergency shelters and supportive housing associated with another public or quasi-public use. Public and quasi-public uses are conditionally permitted in all General Plan land use designations and residential zoning districts. Continuing to require review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit for public and quasi-public uses and associated emergency shelters and supportive housing projects would ensure that such facilities are appropriately located and compatible with adjacent land uses. Expanding the opportunity for emergency shelters and supportive housing to locate on sites with public and quasi-public uses is consistent with the 2023-2031 Housing Element to diversify housing opportunities for a variety of income levels.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), that the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The subject proposal does not result in the approval of any development project, nor does it directly or indirectly impact the physical environment.

The proposal modifies Livermore’s Development Code to conditionally allow emergency shelters and supportive housing in association with a public and quasi-public use. A separate and full CEQA evaluation will be required for all public and quasi uses, including emergency shelters and supportive housing, through the Conditional Use Permit process.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution - CEQA

2. Resolution - Development Code Amendment

3. Exhibit A - Proposed Public and Quasi-Public Definition Prepared by: Steve Stewart
Special Projects Coordinator
4 ATTACHMENT 1
249
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Draft Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION

PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
________________________________________________________________

REGULAR MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jacob Anderson at 7:00 pm, held in person at 1016 S.

Livermore Avenue.

ROLL CALL – Present: Chairperson Anderson, Vice-Chairperson Yolanda Fintschenko, Commissioner Steven Dunbar, Commissioner Daniel Leary, Commissioner Tracy Kronzak.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Anderson led the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. OPEN FORUM
Chairperson Anderson opened and closed the public comment period.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 Approval of the June 4, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the draft minutes.

ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER FINTSCHENKO, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER LEARY AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.

4. PROJECT REVIEW – NONE.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.1 Hearing to consider Development Code Amendment (DCA) 24-003 which would modify the definition of “Public and quasi-public” use to include emergency shelters and supportive housing associated with another public or quasi-public use.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt two resolutions, recommending the City Council:

ATTACHMENT 2
250
PLANNING COMMISSION Draft Minutes SEPTEMBER 17, 2024

2. Approve Development Code Amendment 24-003, which would amend Livermore Development Code Section 11.01.020 to
modify the definition of “Public and quasi-public” use to include emergency shelters and supportive housing associated with another public or quasi-public use.

Special Projects Coordinator Steve Stewart presented the staff report.

Chairperson Anderson opened and closed the public comment period.

In response to Commissioner Kronzak, Special Projects Coordinator Stewart explained that State law would supersede City law in relation to the definition and passage of SB1395, Interim Housing Act; City’s practice of not establishing time frames for Conditional Use Permits; and requirements to meet Codes and hearing process to remedy. Planning Manager Riley discussed the tool of periodic review and suggested a five-year review for compliance with applicable state standards.

Commissioner Kronzak expressed concern with construction of temporary structures remaining due to no time limit on the CUP.

Commissioner Dunbar suggested a process for the CUP and discussed State housing laws including AB2339.

In response to Vice-Chairperson Fintschenko, Special Projects Coordinator Stewart explained the definition of RG Zoning Districts and Transect zones; obstacles of Goodness Village; SB2; and process upon ordinance implementation and referral to existing design standards. Planning Manager Riley discussed use of required findings, parameters and Bay area best practices.

Vice-Chairperson Fintschenko indicated the findings could be made.

Chairperson Anderson indicated support for the proposal.

In response to Vice-Chairperson Fintschenko, Staff explained the requirements to comply with City and State codes.

Commissioner Kronzak expressed concern with relinquishing the City’s control to the State.

ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER FINTSCHENKO, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER DUNBAR AND CARRIED ON A 4-1 VOTE, COMMISSIONER

KRONZAK DISSENTING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS:

ATTACHMENT 2
251
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Draft Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION
Resolution 28-24 Recommending that the City Council find that Development Code Amendment 24-003 is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
Resolution 29-24 Recommending that the City Council approve Development Code Amendment 24-003, which would modify the definition of public and quasipublic use to include emergency shelters and supportive housing associated with another public or quasi-public use

5.2 Hearing to consider a Variance request to allow a residential good-neighbor fence within the required driveway setback at 3573 and 3525 Pestana Way.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission:

1. Adopt a resolution finding the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303;

2. Make findings and adopt a Resolution to approve Variance 24-001 and Variance 24-002, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and

3. Direct the Planning Manager to file a Notice of Exemption, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, subject to project approval.

Planning Technician Emily LaDue presented the staff report.

Kristina Kazakoff, Applicant, thanked Staff for its investigation and recommendation and discussed the importance of the fence.

Commissioner Dunbar expressed concern with neighbor’s using the fence for RV storage and need ensure appropriate tree placements and bicycle safety.

Commissioner Leary discussed nearby houses with fences and sight triangles; and suggested potential red curb.

Commissioner Kronzak indicated the findings could be made and support for red curb.

Vice-Chairperson Fintschenko commended the applicant on the beautiful fence; agreed with Staff’s analysis; and mentioned the narrow street and limited parking.

In response to Chair Anderson, Planning Technician LaDue stated the variance was required due to the distance from driveway. Chair Anderson indicated he could make the findings and suggested notifying fence builders of requirements.

ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER FINTSCHENKO, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER KRONZAK AND CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS:

ATTACHMENT 2
252
PLANNING COMMISSION Draft Minutes SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Resolution 30-24 Finding that the fence at 3573 Pestana Way is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
Resolution 31-24 Approving Variance 24-001 for the fence at 3573 Pestana Way Resolution 32-24 Approving Variance 24-002 for the fence at 3525 Pestana Way Resolution 33-24 Finding that the fence at 3525 Pestana Way is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act

6. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION - NONE

7. MATTERS INITIATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF
Commissioner Dunbar requested information on the grant writer and bike lane projects.

Commissioner Kronzak requested the status of tallying and reporting on matters initiated for the year.

Commissioner Fintschenko requested a briefing on legal constraints regarding Senate Bill 33 and density waivers.

Planning Manager Riley reminded the Commission that the October 1 meeting would be cancelled.

8. ADJOURNMENT – at 8:31 pm to a Regular Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, at 7:00 pm, Civic Center Meeting Hall, City Council Chambers, 1016 S. Livermore Ave.

ATTACHMENT 2
253
ATTACHMENT 3

11.01.020 Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases
Public and quasi-public. Includes public, semi-public, and private elementary schools, high schools, civic buildings, community buildings and uses, and public utility uses including substations, governmental buildings, churches, museums, art galleries, fire houses, post offices, police stations, reservoirs, libraries, parks, essential services, hospitals and similar uses, any of which may have additional requirements to use set forth herein. Emergency shelters and supportive housing associated with one of the above public or quasi-public uses are included in this definition.
254
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 24-003 IS

EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
Development Code Amendment 24-003
The City of Livermore initiated an application for a Development Code Amendment to modify the definition of “Public and quasi-public” use to include emergency shelters and supportive housing associated with another public or quasi-public use. (Project”).

On September 17, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the Project, made the necessary findings, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 28-24 recommending the City Council find the Project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

On October 14, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, Planning Commission and staff recommendations, and all public comments and testimony, and findings.

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore, has considered the findings made in Planning Commission Resolution No. 28-24, 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. Based upon the City Council's own independent review of the Record Evidence and considerations, the City Council hereby finds that the Project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) in that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

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

1. Finding. The subject proposal does not result in the approval of any development project, nor does it directly or indirectly impact the physical environment.

The proposal modifies Livermore’s Development Code to conditionally allow emergency shelters and supportive housing in association with a public and quasi-public use. 255
RESOLUTION NO. ________
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore directs the Planning Manager to file a Notice of Exemption with the Alameda County Clerk, if the project is approved.

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

On motion of Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council Member _______________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on October 14, 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
City Clerk Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit A – Planning Commission Resolution No. 28-24
256

EXHIBIT A
257

EXHIBIT A
258
ORDINANCE NO. ___

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING LIVERMORE DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION

11.01.020 DEFINITION OF PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC USE TO INCLUDE

EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ASSOCIATED WITH

ANOTHER PUBLIC OR QUASI-PUBLIC USE
On August 29, 2024, the City of Livermore initiated a Development Code Amendment to modify the definition of “Public and quasi-public” use to include emergency shelters and supportive housing associated with another public or quasi-public use.

On September 17, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project and staff recommendations, all public comments and testimony, and findings.

On October 14, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, Planning Commission and staff recommendations, and all public comments and testimony.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Findings. The City Council has considered the findings made in Planning Commission Resolution No. 29-24, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and hereby adopts the same findings by this reference and incorporates them herein, and based upon the City Council’s own independent review of the Record Evidence and considerations, it adopts this Ordinance.

Section 2. Public Hearing. Prior to taking action on the Project, and at a properly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Livermore 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 Ordinance by reference.

Section 2. Environmental. The City Council has adopted Resolution No. [ ] finding Development Code Amendment 24-003 to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) in that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

Section 3. Ordinance. Section 11.01.020 of the Livermore Development Code is hereby amended to read as set forth below. The added language is shown with an 259
ORDINANCE NO. ___
underline, but the underlines themselves shall not be codified in the Development Code, which publication shall only reflect the final language:

Section 4. Consistency. The ordinance is consistent with the Livermore General Plan, any applicable specific plan, and the Livermore Development Code.

Section 5. Publication and Effective Date. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Livermore within 15 days after its adoption and shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after its adoption.

Section 6. Filing. Planning Manager is directed to file a Notice of Exemption with the Alameda County Clerk.

Section 7. Documents. The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based on can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore, California.

Section 8. Severability. If any part of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid by a court, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any remaining parts.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Livermore held on October 14, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

The ordinance was adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council held on __________________ by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
260
ORDINANCE NO. ___
________________________________
Mayor, City of Livermore
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ /s/ Katherine Mirassou______________ Deborah L. Elam Katherine Mirassou
City Clerk Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit A – Planning Commission Resolution No. 29-24
Exhibit B – Development Code Amended Sections 11.01.020 261

IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA

A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 24-003, WHICH WOULD MODIFY THE

DEFINITION OF PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC USE TO INCLUDE EMERGENCY

SHELTERS AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ASSOCIATED WITH ANOTHER PUBLIC OR

QUASI-PUBLIC USE
On August 29, 2024, the City initiated a Development Code Amendment to modify the definition of "Public and quasi-public" use to include emergency shelters and supportive housing associated with another public or quasi-public use.

On September 17, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project and staff recommendations, all public comments and testimony, and findings.

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, with respect to Development Code Amendment 24- 003, the Planning Commission finds based upon the information presented that:

1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.

Findings: The changes to the Development Code are consistent with the intent of the City of Livermore General Plan Housing Element, which is to establish specific goals, policies, and objectives relative to the provision of housing for all income levels. The Livermore General Plan states that public and quasi-public uses are typically valued as important to community identity and function and that they are conditionally allowed in all land use designations. The Development Code Amendment would conditionally allow underrepresented, but needed, housing types-emergency shelters and supportive housing-to operate on a permanent basis in association with a variety of public and quasi-public uses. The amendment is consistent with the General Plan, as follows:

Consistency with General Plan Housing Element
The proposed Development Code Amendment is consistent with the following General Plan Housing Element Goal and policy:

GOAL 1: DIVERSE HOUSING CHOICES
-1- Resolution No. 29-24

EXHIBIT A
262

EXHIBIT A
263

EXHIBIT A
264

EXHIBIT B

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends City Council introduce an ordinance and waive the first reading amending Section

2.04.030 Compensation Limits for the Mayor and City Council Members of the Livermore Municipal Code to adjust the monthly compensation for the Mayor and City Council Members consistent with Measure W.

SUMMARY
At the September 9, 2024, City Council meeting, City Council directed staff to agendize an item regarding City Council compensation to allow for discussion. The current City Council compensation was last increased December 2007. In November 2014 the Livermore voters approved Measure W and established compensation limits in Livermore. These limits are more restrictive than the Government Code and do not allow for multi-year increases. To increase City Council compensation, an ordinance must be adopted amending Section 2.04.030 Compensation Limits for the Mayor and City Council Members of the Livermore Municipal Code. If the ordinance is adopted, an increase of 5% will take effect after the newly elected City Council members are sworn in on December 9, 2024.

DISCUSSION
On December 2, 2007, the current City Council compensation of $1,070 a month or $12,840 annually for City Council Members and $1,490 a month or $17,880 annually for the Mayor, went into effect. The City Council does not receive city benefits i.e. medical, dental, retirement, etc.

On November 4, 2014, Livermore voters approved Measure W and established compensation limits in Livermore that are more restrictive than those set forth in the Government Code based upon Livermore’s population. The measure set City Council Members’ and the Mayor’s compensation at the amounts in effect at that time ($1,070 a month for City Council Members and $1,490 a month for the Mayor). The measure allows the compensation to be increased, but expressly excluded multi-year increases and only authorized a single increase before each new term of office commences. The City Council has not received an increase since 2007. The measure further limited the amount of the increase to the lesser of 266
5% or the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco Bay Area (W) from the prior election cycle.

An increase in compensation shall not apply to the City Council Members or Mayor during their term of office when the ordinance approving an increase was approved. However, since City Council Members serve staggered terms and because the General Municipal Election on November 5, 2024, will result in the commencement of new terms of office for the Mayor and City Council Members for District 3 and 4, the new compensation amounts approved by this ordinance shall apply to the Mayor and all City Council Members following the swearing in and commencement of the new terms as set forth in Government Code section 36516.5. In order to approve an increase for the City Council that takes office December 2024, an ordinance must be introduced, adopted, and a 30-day effective date must occur before December 9, 2024. If that timeframe is not met, the City Council increase will take effect in December 2026 when new City Council Members are sworn in.

The current ordinance does not specify dates to base the CPI change on, it references election cycle.

The intent was to use November of each year. In order to meet the process timeline of adopting an ordinance for City Council prior to December 9, 2024, staff has used the most recent monthly CPI information available of June 2024 (351.1) and two years prior to June 2022 (330.5), which is an increase of 6.2%. Per Measure W, compensation can be increased by the lesser of 5% or CPI, therefore an increase of 5% can occur.

It is recommended that future increase requests occur early for the following term and use the Annual Average for the prior years. For example, the next request could occur in 2025 and use the Annual Average for 2023-2024 and the increase would go into effect with new City Council taking office in December 2026.

The table below shows a comparison of what the compensation could have been if the City Council had adopted increases as often as allowed. The table also shows what the current base rate would be if the City had not adopted Measure W and used the base rate established by SB329 based on population.

Current
Compensation
5% Each 2-Year
Election Cycle
Starting 2008*
(inc. 2024)
5% Each 2-Year
Election Cycle
Starting 2014**
(inc. 2024)
SB 329 Based
on Population ***
Proposed 5%
Increase
Council
Members
$1,070 $1,659.92 $1,365.62 $1,900 $1,123.50
Mayor $1,490 $2,311.48 $1,901.66 $1,900**** $1,564.50
*Election cycle following last raise
**Measure W was adopted
*** If the City had not adopted Measure W
****The Mayor’s compensation may be larger if an ordinance is adopted.

Additional information regarding Measure W, SB 329, and the process for changing City Council compensation is provided in the City Attorney Opinion memo concerning Council Member compensation (Attachment 1).

FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACTS
267
The fiscal impact of increasing City Council Members’ and the Mayor’s compensation by 5% is $3,462 annually.

COMMUNITY PILLAR
5: A City That Works
GOAL
1: Engage effectively with the Mayor and City Council

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Attorney Opinion 2024-04 - Council Member Compensation

2. Ordinance
Prepared by: Debbie Elam
City Clerk
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
268

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
CAO 2024-04
Date: September 11, 2024
To: Marianna Marysheva, City Manager
From: Jason Alcala, City Attorney
Subject: Council Member Compensation
This memorandum provides a City Attorney Opinion concerning Council Member compensation in Livermore. It contains an overview of the requirements in the California Government Code for compensation and increases, which includes the amendments by SB 329 that became effective on January 1, 2024. It also provides an overview of Measure W adopted by the Livermore voters in 2014. Lastly, it provides guidance for processing changes to council member compensation, and to Measure W, in Livermore.

Background
The California Government Code1 allows cities to enact ordinances compensating mayors and council members for their service.2 A mayor is a member of the city council, but an ordinance may also provide additional compensation to a separately elected mayor.
3 The compensation ordinances may be enacted by either the city council or the voters. Compensation amounts set by a council enacted ordinance are subject to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. However, compensation set by voter enacted ordinances are not subject to the Government Code limits and are instead subject to the requirements set by the voters.

Similarly, changes to compensation must also be enacted by ordinance. Changes to the compensation set by a council enacted ordinance are subject to the requirements in the Government Code.
4 In contrast, changes to the compensation set by a voter enacted ordinance are subject to the requirements in either the voter’s initial ordinance or by a subsequent voter enacted ordinance.
5 Reimbursements paid to council members for actual and necessary expenses are not considered compensation.6 Likewise, amounts paid by a city for retirement, health and welfare, and federal social security benefits, are not considered compensation.7 1 All statutory references are to the California Government Code unless otherwise noted. 2 Sections 36516(a) and (b). 3 Section 36516.1; See also, Section 34903 (“The mayor is a member of the city council and has all of the powers and duties of a member of the city council.”).
4 Section 36516(a)(4).
5 Section 36516(b).
6 Sections 36514.5 and 36516(e).
7 Section 36516(d).

ATTACHMENT 1
269
September 11, 2024

Page 2 of 5 ends

CAO 2024-04
Overview of Law

1. City Council Enacted Compensation Ordinances
a. Initial Compensation
A city council enacted ordinance may set initial council compensation in an amount that does not exceed the amount in the Government Code corresponding to the city’s population.
8 The adoption of SB 329 increased the initial compensation for cities based upon their population. As a result, for cities with populations between 75,000 and 150,000 people, a city council enacted compensation ordinance may now set an initial council compensation amount up to $1,900 a month.9
b. Increases to Compensation
A city council enacted compensation ordinance cannot provide for automatic compensation increases.10 However, a city council may adopt subsequent ordinances to modify the initial council enacted compensation amount, but those ordinances cannot increase the compensation more than the greater of:
(1) 5% for each year since the last adjustment; or,
(2) An amount equal to inflation (based upon the California Consumer Price Index since January 1, 2024) in an amount not-to-exceed 10% for each calendar year since the last adjustment.11
Generally, a change in compensation will not apply to a council member during their same term of office when the change was approved.12 Nevertheless, if council members serve staggered terms, then the changed compensation amounts will apply to all council members after an election that results in one-or-more council members beginning a new term.
13 Essentially, the Government Code allows a city council to approve a compensation change that increases the amount by the greater of 5% or CPI for each year since the last increase.
c. Process to Change Compensation
The process for the city council to enact an ordinance changing city council enacted compensation follows the standard two reading process – one meeting to introduce the ordinance, and the second to adopt the ordinance – with two additional requirements, as follows:
8 Sections 36516(a)(1) and (2). 9 Section 36516(a)(2)(D). 10 Section 36516(a)(5).
11 Section 36516(a)(4).
12 Section 36516.5.
13 Ibid.

ATTACHMENT 1
270
September 11, 2024

Page 3 of 5 ends

CAO 2024-04
(1) At the meeting introducing the ordinance, the city council must include findings demonstrating the need for the increased compensation; and (2) Rather than the usual 5 days, the meeting to adopt the ordinance must be at least 7 days after the meeting when the ordinance was introduced.14 A city council may only adopt an ordinance changing compensation at a regular or adjourned regular meeting that takes effect 30 days after adoption, and cannot adopt a compensation change as an urgency ordinance.
15 2. Voter Enacted Compensation Ordinances
a. Initial Compensation
A voter enacted compensation ordinance must specify the amount council members will receive, but the amount is not subject to Government Code’s limits based upon a city’s population.
16 b. Increases to Compensation
The initial voter enacted council compensation may be changed as set forth in either the voter’s initial ordinance or a subsequent voter enacted ordinance.17 If a voter enacted compensation ordinance is silent on how council compensation will be changed, then the initial compensation amount may only be changed by subsequent voter enacted ordinance.18
Unlike a council enacted ordinance, a voter enacted compensation ordinance is not subject to the Government Code’s prohibition against automatic future increases.19 Likewise, changes to a voter enacted compensation are not subject to the government Code’s 5% and CPI adjustment limits.20
c. Process to Change Compensation
The voters or the city council may place a measure on an election ballot to approve a change to the council compensation specified in voter enacted ordinance. The usual processes set forth in the California Elections Code must be followed to place that ordinance on a ballot for voter approval or rejection.
14 Sections 25131, 36516(g), and 36934.
15 Ibid; See also, Section 36937.
16 Section 36516(b).
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Compare, Sections 36516(a)(4) and Section 36516(b).
20 Compare Sections 36516(a)(5) and Section 36516(b).

ATTACHMENT 1
271
September 11, 2024

Page 4 of 5 ends

CAO 2024-04
Changes to voter enacted compensation amounts apply to all council members after either a concurrent or subsequent election that results in one-or-more council members beginning a new term.21

3. Additional Compensation for Mayor
An ordinance may also provide the additional compensation to a separately elected mayor.22 The ordinance may be enacted by either the city council or the voters following the corresponding processes set forth above for setting the initial compensation. 23 The
Government Code does not limit the amount of the Mayor’s additional compensation, which can be set by either the City Council or voters.24 A change to the mayor’s additional compensation will apply in the same manner as changes to council member compensation.25
Measure W - Mayor and Council Member Compensation in Livermore At the municipal election on November 4, 2014, Livermore voters approved Measure W as a voter enacted compensation ordinance that is more restrictive than the Government Code. The measure set City Council and Mayoral compensation at the amounts in effect at the time. Also, the measure expressly excluded multi-year increases and only authorized a single increase before each new term of office commences. Lastly, the measure limited the amount of the increase to the lesser of 5% or the change in CPI.

1. Initial Compensation
The voter enacted ordinance set the Council Member compensation amount at $1,070 a month, and the Mayor’s compensation amount, which includes additional compensation, at $1,490 a month. Therefore, the $1,900 a month compensation for council members authorized by the Government Code does not apply in Livermore.

2. Increases to Compensation
The voter enacted ordinance was intended to modify the requirements in the Government Code for council enacted changes to city council compensation. The measure is more restrictive than the Government Code but still allows the City Council to increase Council Member and Mayoral compensation as follows:
(1) A single increase before each new term of office commences; and, (2) The amount of the increase in the monthly compensation for the Mayor and Council Members cannot be more than the lesser of:
21 Ibid.
22 Section 36516.1.
23 Ibid.
24 Section 36516.1.
25 Section 36516.5.

ATTACHMENT 1
272
September 11, 2024

Page 5 of 5 ends

CAO 2024-04
a. 5%, or
b. The change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco Bay Area (W) from the prior election cycle since the last election.26 Therefore, in Livermore, the voter approval of Measure W expressly precludes application of the Government Code’s allowed changes to compensation in an amount equal to the greater of 5% or an amount equal to inflation (based upon the California Consumer Price Index since January 1, 2024) in an amount not-to-exceed 10% for each calendar year since the last adjustment. Similarly, in Livermore, the voter approval of Measure W precludes application increasing the initial compensation up to $1,900 a month authorized by SB 329. As a result, in will take a series of increases over more than 10 election cycles before the Council Member compensation set by Measure W reaches the current compensation amount allowed by SB 329 of $1,900 a month.

3. Process to Change Compensation
The process for the City Council to enact an ordinance increasing Council Member and Mayoral compensation in Livermore follows the standard two reading process – one meeting to introduce the ordinance, and the second to adopt the ordinance – with two additional requirements, as follows:
(1) At the meeting introducing the ordinance the city council must include findings demonstrating the need for the increased compensation; and (2) Rather than the usual 5 days, the meeting to adopt the ordinance must be at least 7 days after the meeting when the ordinance was introduced.27

4. Process to Change Measure W
The voters, or the City Council, may change Measure W by following the usual processes set forth in the California Elections Code to place measures on a ballot for voter approval or rejection. The measure should reflect the intended initial compensation for Council Members and the Mayor, as well as limits and processes for subsequent changes and whether those changes will be automatic.

Changes to voter enacted compensation amounts apply to all council members after either a concurrent or subsequent election that results in one-or-more council members beginning a new term.

CC: Mayor and Council Members
City Clerk
Administrative Services Director
26 Livermore Municipal Code sections 2.04.030(B) and (C). 27 Measure W was intended to modify the processes in Section 36516(b) for city council enacted compensation increases, so the remaining procedural requirements must still be followed.

ATTACHMENT 1
273
ORDINANCE NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.04.030 COMPENSATION LIMITS FOR

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THE LIVERMORE MUNICIPAL CODE TO

ADJUST THE MONTHLY COMPENSATION FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL

MEMBERS CONSISTENT WITH MEASURE W
The California Government Code allows cities to enact ordinances compensating mayors and council members for their service. A mayor is a member of the city council, but an ordinance may also provide additional compensation to a separately elected mayor. The compensation ordinances may be enacted by either the city council or the voters.

On November 4, 2014, Livermore voters approved Measure W and established compensation limits in Livermore that are more restrictive than those set forth in the Government Code based upon Livermore’s population. The measure set city council member and mayoral compensation at the amounts in effect at that time. The measure allows the compensation to be increased, but expressly excluded multi-year increases and only authorized a single increase before each new term of office commences. The measure further limited the amount of the increase to the lesser of 5% or the change in CPI.

The monthly compensation for the Mayor and Council Members was last increased in December 2, 2007. The change in CPI since the last term commenced in 2022 is 6.2%.

Therefore, consistent with Measure W, compensation cannot be increased by more than 5%.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Authority. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the City of Livermore’s police power authority established in section 7, article XI of the California Constitution, California Government Code sections 36516, 36516.1, 36516.5, and Livermore Municipal Code section 2.04.030 as amended by Measure W (2014).

Section 2. Purpose. This ordinance is intended to increase the monthly compensation for the Mayor and Council Members consistent with Measure W, which is more restrictive than the requirements in the California Government Code.

Section 3. Amendment – Municipal Code. The Livermore Municipal Code section 2.04.030 Compensation Limits for Mayor and Council Members is hereby amended to add the following sentence to the end of the existing language in that section:
“The compensation for the mayor shall be $1,564.50 per month and the compensation for each council members shall be $1,123.50 per month and shall apply when the terms commence for the mayor and council members elected at the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election.”
274
ORDINANCE NO. ________
Section 4. Environmental. The passage of this ordinance is not a project according to the definition in the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, is not subject to the provisions requiring environmental review.

Section 5. Severability. If any part of this ordinance is declared invalid by a court, such invalidity shall not affect any of the remaining parts.

Section 6. Publication. This ordinance shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Livermore within fifteen days after its adoption.

Section 7. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption.

Section 8. Compensation Eligibility. The increased compensation shall not apply to the mayor or council members during their term of office when this ordinance is approved. However, since Livermore council members serve staggered terms and because the General Municipal Election on November 5, 2024, will result in the commencement for new terms of office for mayor and for the council members for District 3 and 4, the new compensation amounts approved by this ordinance shall apply to the mayor and all council members following the swearing in and commencement of the new terms as set forth in Government Code section 36516.5
The foregoing ordinance was introduced at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Livermore held on October 14, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

The ordinance was adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council held on ______________________, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
________________________________

MAYOR, CITY OF LIVERMORE
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ /s/ Jason Alcala___________________ Deborah L. Elam Jason Alcala
City Clerk City Attorney
275
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 10.1

5.4 Resolution finding the Livermore Active Transportation Plan - 2024 Interim Update is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the Livermore Active Transportation Plan – 2024 Interim Update.

Materials: Public Comment, Memo, Revised Staff Response to Public Comments, Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution

6.1 Hearing to introduce an ordinance and waive the first reading amending Livermore Development Code Section 11.01.020 definition of “Public and quasi-public” use to include emergency shelters and supportive housing associated with another public or quasi-public use.

Material: PowerPoint Presentation

7.1 Discussion and direction regarding City Council compensation.

Materials: PowerPoint Presentation, Regional Compensation

8.0 Council Committee Reports and Matters Initiated by City Manager, City Attorney, Staff, and Council Members.

Material: Council Reports
DATE: October 14, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marianna Marysheva, City Manager
SUBJECT: REVISED Supplemental materials received prior to the meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

SUMMARY
These materials were posted online and made available to the public at the same time that they were distributed to the City Council.

DISCUSSION
276

ATTACHMENTS

1. Revised Supplemental Materials
Prepared by: Helena Graves
Deputy City Clerk
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
277
1 Helena Graves
From: City Clerk
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 11:25 AM
To: Helena Graves
Subject: 2024 Interim Active Transportation Plan
Attachments: interim transportation 2024.pdf
From: Alan Burnham
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 12:38:20 PM
To: John Marchand <[email protected]>; Robert Carling <[email protected]>; Brittni Kiick <[email protected]>; Evan Branning <[email protected]>; Barrientos, Ben <[email protected]>
Cc: Marianna Marysheva <[email protected]>; Paul Spence <[email protected]> Subject: 2024 Interim Active Transportation Plan
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On the Monday consent calendar (item 5.4), you are being asked to (1) confirm that the Transportation Plan is exempt from the provisions of CEQA, and (2) approve the plan until the new general plan is issued. I certainly agree with (1), but a careful reading indicates that it needs some changes prior to (2) as outlined in the attachment. Perhaps the minor editorial corrections and minor changes to the bike path plan could be made as part of the resolution as you direct, but the document as it stands is not of the quality I would expect from the City of Livermore.

Best regards,
Alan Burnham
Item 5.4
Public Comment
278
October 13, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Alan Burnham
Subject: Needed Improvements to the Interim Active Transportation Plan As a pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver, I am concerned about the interactions and potential conflicts between various modes of transportation. Consequently, I read the June 2024 Active Transportation Plan with interest. There are both serious weaknesses in the report and significant errors in editorial details that should be fixed. I first cover the more substantive issue of creating bike paths that are viable for east-west commuters. I then cover minor editing changes that would greatly improve the quality of the report from a non-policy standpoint.

East-West Bicycle Commute Improvements:

My biggest concern about proposed bicycle path improvements (near- and long-term) is that they are not functional for east-west bicycle commuter traffic as an alternative to East Ave. They are certainly not where I currently ride to stay safe, and I doubt that anything substantial will happen soon on East Ave due to the traffic challenges near East Ave Middle School. Alternatively, I believe there are some inexpensive improvements in bike path routes that would greatly improve the safety east-west computing parallel to East Ave. I think the Council should direct staff to implement some portion of the following options.

Item 5.4
Public Comment
279
(1) The College Ave bike path should either divert to or have a boulevard branch down Palm Ave to connect with Pacific Ave, and the Pacific Ave path should have a viable connection to the bike path along Drake. In fact, after the recent completion of the East Avenue Middle School addition, the connection was inexplicably made worse by changing the entrance to the bike path behind East Ave School from a driveway cut to a solid curve. In addition, the bike path along Findlay and its turn north should be marked—it is very heavily used, probably more than East Ave. There is a formal bike path parallel to the street, but all commuters take the street, and it should be formally recognized as a bike path. (2) The bike path along Stanford and Pomona may make sense for kids going to Jackson School, but it is useless for commuters to the Labs. There are a variety of possible alternatives that make sense, and none involve making the route 0.5 miles longer with several curb jumps.
a. One would go along Madera to Jenson to Santa Clara to Hillcrest to Pomona, if there were a way to get to the bike paths going east on East Ave, either by crossing the park to Loyola or going down a straightened path along the west side of the Robert Livermore Community Center.
b. Another would continue along Stanford to Jefferson, either going directly to East Ave with a two-way bike path on the north side of East Ave to Madison or creating a connection between Claremont and the path along western boundary of the Robert Livermore Community Center along with extending the Madison intersection by 100 ft so bikes can stop traffic both directions to cross East Ave.

Minor edits:

In Figure 3, there are bold lines having an alternating yellow and orange colors. There is no such definition of such lines in the legend. Are they simultaneously completed Class 3A bicycle routes and proposed Class 3E Bicycle Boulevards? There should be a source cited to explain what the different classes are—there is certainly room at the bottom of page 16. An important point I found is that Class I shared use paths are bikes shared with pedestrians, not cars. However, I could not find a distinction between a lane and a boulevard in the 2024 document. I eventually found examples in the 2018 document, and at least a simple summary of the distinction should in the 2024 document.

Tables 2 and 3 on page 21 of the plan are presented without citation in the text. More importantly, it is not apparent from the Table 2 caption that this is specifically for Livermore. While the numbers for bicycling and walking for Livermore in Table 3 are similar for 2014 and 2021, they are significantly different in 2018 (1.14 v 2.1 for biking and 1.31 v 1.8 for walking). Is this an error, is it from a different source, or what? The text should cite the Tables, and the Table captions should make it clear why there are differences, if in fact the numbers are correctly cited sources. This discrepancy makes a big difference in how one might interpret trends.

On page 20, statements are made about the commute work mode in Livermore. Is this Livermore residents commuting to wherever, any worker commuting to Livermore, or some combination of both. This would be easily clarified.

Next, there is a statement that driving alone decreased from 80% in 2014 to 69% in 2018. This is not correct. In Table 2, it dropped from 79% in 2014 to 77% in 2018. The big drop to 69% happened Item 5.4
Public Comment
280
in 2021. However, this is a pandemic recovery time frame and not clearly indicative to long-term trends. Note that the number of commuters also dropped. Had employment fully recovered yet? Are people working at home included as commuters? Telecommuting and working on one’s own business at home are different situations.

A related concern is that the drop in public transport percentage from 4.66 to 3.09% between 2014 and 2021 does not seem to be consistent with what I hear about public transport ridership. I thought public transport dropped to less than 50% of pre-pandemic levels right after the pandemic.

Maybe it is correct, but the numbers should be checked.

I would guess that commute patterns 2024 would revert closer to 2018, but I really don’t know. The point is that the text is trying to draw trends for the future with insufficient data, although technology may make working from home more prevalent than in 2018. A qualification about ambiguities introduced by the pandemic is essential.

On page 23, it is important to make it explicit in the first paragraph whether the percentile reflects good or bad. It makes a difference whether one is ranking the amount pollution or the quality of air.

One can eventually figure it out from context, but please make it easier on the reader. Also, I find it quite odd that crossing Arroyo Road south of Concannon and Vallecitos Road south of Arroyo Del Valle makes the air change from really good to really bad. I realize that these are census tracts, but the lack of any comment leaves one wanting.

Pages 25-27 are very interesting but need some minor edits. First, the same symbol should be used for the bullet points for Bicycle and Pedestrian sections. Second, there are some omissions that would greatly clarify what is happening. I presume only bicyclists were traveling on the wrong side of the road. If so, please state so in the bullet. Can you separate the improper turning by motorist or bicyclist? It is important to know when one is considering policies to fix the problem. For the discussion of Table 4, it is worth noting that the pedestrian collision rate dropped significantly from 2014 to 2021. Also worth noting is the very high bicycle collision rate just east of Hillcrest, where East Ave narrows. In terms of knowing how to fix the problem, it would be nice to know if the collisions were for East Ave students or adult commuters and whether on the east or west direction.

Item 5.4
Public Comment
281

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Date: October 14, 2024
To: Mayor Marchand
City Council Members
From: Brent Smith
Community Development Director
Subject: October 14, 2024, Item 5.4: 2024, Livermore Active Transportation Plan – 2024 Interim Update
During the meeting this evening, October 14, 2024, Council will consider a resolution finding the Livermore Active Transportation Plan – 2024 Interim Update is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the Livermore Active Transportation Plan – 2024 Interim Update.

City Council received a comment from Alan Burnham that included requests for minor changes to the bike path plan as well as editorial corrections. Staff has reviewed Mr.

Burnham’s requests and provided a response to Mr. Burnham, which are attached to this memo, and Staff worked with the consultant to update the June ATP.

This item is not intended to change the proposed recommended projects that are currently part of the 2018 Active Transportation Plan, therefore, staff recommends the City Council approve the plan being presented tonight. Mr. Burnham’s comments will be used during the next comprehensive Active Transportation Plan Update that will begin after the adoption of the General Plan Update in early 2026.

Attachments:

1. Public Comment with Staff Responses

2. Revised Exhibit A to Resolution
Item 5.4
Supplemental Memo
282
October 14, 2024
To: Mr. Burnham
From: Brent Smith, Community Development Director
Thank you for the great input. As clarified at the beginning of the report, it is not the intention for this interim update to replace the 2018 ATP, and readers should refer to the 2018 ATP for any topics that are not repeated in this interim update, including the project selection. These comments will be documented to be considered in the future comprehensive ATP update after the adoption of the General Plan Update.

Staff’s responses are below the relevant paragraph in red. ----------------------------------------------------------- October 13, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Alan Burnham
Subject: Needed Improvements to the Interim Active Transportation Plan As a pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver, I am concerned about the interactions and potential conflicts between various modes of transportation. Consequently, I read the June 2024 Active Transportation Plan with interest. There are both serious weaknesses in the report and significant errors in editorial details that should be fixed. I first cover the more substantive issue of creating bike paths that are viable for east-west commuters. I then cover minor editing changes that would greatly improve the quality of the report from a non-policy standpoint.

East-West Bicycle Commute Improvements:

The following is an excerpt from Figure 7 on page 31 of the 2024 plan along with some possible bikepath routes (in solid purple lines), most of which could be implemented very cheaply next year plus some options that would take more work. A verbal description of the options is also given in options (1)and (2) following the figure.
(1) The College Ave bike path should either divert to or have a boulevard branch down Palm Ave to connect with Pacific Ave, and the Pacific Ave path should have a viable connection to the bike path along Drake. In fact, after the recent completion of the East Avenue Middle School addition, the connection was inexplicably made worse by changing the entrance to the bike path behind East Ave School from a driveway cut to a solid curve. In addition, the bike path along Findlay and its turn north should be marked—it is very heavily used, probably more than East Ave. There is a formal bike path parallel to the street, but all commuters take the street, and it should be formally recognized as a bike path. (2) The bike path along Stanford and Pomona may make sense for kids going to Jackson School, but it is useless for commuters to the Labs. There are a variety of possible alternatives that make sense, and none involve making the route 0.5 miles longer with several curb jumps.

Item 5.4
Revised - 1. Public Comment with Staff Responses
283
a. One would go along Madera to Jenson to Santa Clara to Hillcrest to Pomona, if there were a way to get to the bike paths going east on East Ave, either by crossing the park to Loyola or going down a straightened path along the west side of the Robert Livermore Community Center.
b. Another would continue along Stanford to Jefferson, either going directly to East Ave with a two-way bike path on the north side of East Ave to Madison or creating a connection between Claremont and the path along western boundary of the Robert Livermore Community Center along with extending the Madison intersection by 100 ft so bikes can stop traffic both directions to cross East Ave.

Minor edits:

These are overlapping lines – the dashed yellow line on top of the solid orange line. The dashed yellow line
represents the proposed project in 2018 ATP, and the solid orange line represents what has been completed
so far on the same segments. Figures will be updated with thinner dash lines to better represent such situations. Texts will also be added for better understanding.

An important point I found is that Class I shared use paths are bikes shared with pedestrians, not cars. However, I could not find a distinction between a lane and a boulevard in the 2024 document. I eventually found examples in the 2018 document, and at least a simple summary of the distinction should in the 2024 document.

As indicated at the beginning of the report, this Interim ATP Update should be used in conjunction with 2018
ATP, therefore, not all the terminologies were repeated in this report. To respond to this comment, a sentence will be added in the text to refer to 2018 ATP.

Tables 2 and 3 on page 21 of the plan are presented without citation in the text.

Citation will be added in the text.

More importantly, it is not apparent from the Table 2 caption that this is specifically for Livermore.

Table 2 caption will be revised to clarify it’s for Livermore.

While the numbers for bicycling and walking for Livermore in Table 3 are similar for 2014 and 2021, they are significantly different in 2018 (1.14 v 2.1 for biking and 1.31 v 1.8 for walking). Is this an error, is it from a different source, or what? The text should cite the Tables, and the Table captions should make it clear why there are differences, if in fact the numbers are correctly cited sources.

This discrepancy makes a big difference in how one might interpret trends.

Numbers in table are correct. Some of the Table 3 numbers have been taken directly from the 2018 ATP and
used a different source. To respond to this comment, explanation to be added.

Will clarify that this refers to the commute mode of Livermore residents.

At one point we were reporting the 2018 ACS 1-year estimates but later switched to the ACS 5-year Item 5.4
Revised - 1. Public Comment with Staff Responses
284
estimates. The table will be edited. The text needs to be edited to match.

However, this is a pandemic recovery time frame and not clearly indicative to long-term trends.

Note that the number of commuters also dropped. Had employment fully recovered yet? Are people working at home included as commuters? Telecommuting and working on one’s own business at home are different situations.

Maybe it is correct, but the numbers should be checked.

Numbers have been checked. The 2021 ACS 5-year estimates are based on samples from 2017-2021 so doesn't fully reflect post pandemic conditions. This will be noted in the text.

See previous response.

Explanatory phrase about percentiles will be added under Air Quality.

Pages 25-27 are very interesting but need some minor edits. First, the same symbol should be used for the bullet points for Bicycle and Pedestrian sections.

Symbols will be edited to be consistent.

Second, there are some omissions that would greatly clarify what is happening. I presume only bicyclists were traveling on the wrong side of the road.

Please note that the exact same factors that contributed to the collisions were used in the 2018 ATP without
further explanation since these were taken directly from the collision database. To respond to this comment,
explanation will be added in the bullet point.

If so, please state so in the bullet. Can you separate the improper turning by motorist or bicyclist? It is important to know when one is considering policies to fix the problem.

The crash records don't specify this, and this is how it was described in the 2018 ATP.

For the discussion of Table 4, it is worth noting that the pedestrian collision rate dropped significantly from 2014 to 2021.

This will be added in the text.

Also worth noting is the very high bicycle collision rate just east of Hillcrest, where East Ave narrows. In terms of knowing how to fix the problem, it would be nice to know if the collisions were for East Ave students or adult commuters and whether on the east or west direction.

As with the 2018 ATP, we are only presenting a high-level overview of crashes and not getting into detailed
diagnostics.

Item 5.4
Revised - 1. Public Comment with Staff Responses
285

CITY OF LIVERMORE
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN – INTERIM UPDATE
OCTOBER 202 4
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
286

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CITY OF LIVERMORE
Xiaojia (Joanna) Liu, P.E., T.E., Senior Transportation Engineer Kristina Mai, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer

DKS ASSOCIATES
Veronica Sullivan, Transportation Planner
Connor Wolff, Transportation Planner
Erin Vaca, Senior Transportation Planner
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
287

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 6 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 7 VISIONS & GOALS .................................................................................................. 8 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 11 EXISTING NETWORKS ..................................................................................................... 12 NEEDS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 23 NEEDS ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 24 PROJECTS & PROGRAMS ...................................................................................... 29 PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS ............................................................................................ 30 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY................................................................................ 40 CONSTRUCTION COSTS .................................................................................................. 41 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................... 41 NEAR TERM UPCOMING PROJECTS ................................................................................. 43 COMMUNITY OUTREACH ....................................................................................... 45 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH ............................................................................................. 46 VIRTUAL WORKSHOP ...................................................................................................... 46 SUMMARY OF INPUT RECEIVED ...................................................................................... 47 APPENDIX A. PROJECTS COMPLETED SINCE 2018
APPENDIX B. PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS APPENDIX C. BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
288

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK - MAJOR ARTERIALS ............................................ 13 FIGURE 2: EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE ............................................................................ 15 FIGURE 3. EXISTING AND PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS ........................... 17 FIGURE 4: ACTIVITY GENERATORS ................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 5. CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0 POLLUTION BURDEN PERCENTILE ................................... 26 FIGURE 6. PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE COLLISIONS, TRANSPORTATION INJURY MAPPING SYSTEM, 2017 - 2021. .................................................................................................................... 28 FIGURE 7. COMPLETED AND PROPOSED PROJECTS ............................................................ 32 FIGURE 8. COMPLETED AND PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS .................. 34 FIGURE 9. PROPOSED PROJECTS BY GROUP ..................................................................... 35 FIGURE 10: NEAR TERM PROJECTS .................................................................................. 44 Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
289

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: EXISTING BIKEWAY MILES ................................................................................. 16 TABLE 2. COMMUTE TO WORK MODE SHARE FOR LIVERMORE RESIDENTS ............................. 21 TABLE 3. COMMUTE MODES IN PEER COMMUNITIES ............................................................ 21 TABLE 4: CRASHES COMPARED TO SURROUNDING AREA - 2021 (2014) ................................... 27 TABLE 5. COMPLETED PROJECTS SINCE 2018 .................................................................... 30 TABLE 6. EXISTING AND PROPOSED NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS ........................................... 31 TABLE 7: CITYWIDE PROJECTS AND STATUS ..................................................................... 36 TABLE 8: EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROGRAMS ................................................................ 38 TABLE 9: ESTIMATED COSTS BY PROJECT GROUP .............................................................. 41 TABLE 10: FIRST PHASE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS ........................................................ 42

LIST OF TABLES
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
290
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
291

I NTRODUCTION
The City of Livermore is dedicated to fostering a community where people can easily walk, bicycle, and access trails for transportation and recreation. To retain eligibility for grant funding, plans outlining this vision must be up to date and have been adopted within the previous five years. This document is therefore a refreshment and strategic update of the Livermore Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Active Transportation Plan adopted in 2018. The city plans to conduct a full-scale active transportation update following the adoption of the Imagine Livermore 2045 General Plan, currently anticipated for early 2026.

The refreshed plan builds on the previous document through ensuring the relevance of the previous needs, challenges, and implementation strategies. While the Vision and Goals of the 2018 ATP are carried forward, Existing Conditions have been updated, as have key elements of the Needs Analysis, including health and safety. In addition, the status of previously recommended projects has been updated and new project needs identified through the recently adopted Local Road Safety Plan have been incorporated. Finally, the planning level cost estimates presented in the Implementation Strategy have been inflated to current year dollars.

Although the following chapters summarize essential information from the 2018 ATP, the emphasis is on data that has changed since the plan’s adoption. Further, it is not the intention for this interim update to take any credit for the extensive work that underlies the 2018 ATP. Therefore, the reader is directed to the 2018 ATP, available as Appendix C or at the City of Livermore website1 , for details on the
adopted Vision and Goals, the methodology of the Needs Analysis, and other topics that are not repeated in this interim update.

KEY FINDINGS
Since 2018, significant progress has been made towards the vision of a safer, low stress active transportation network that supports a flourishing walking, bicycling, and rolling City of Livermore.

The City of Livermore has completed over 100 projects that contribute to a safer and lower stress active transportation network since 2018. Following the approval of the last Active Transportation Plan (ATP) in 2018, over 22 miles of bikeway upgrades have improved the safety and connectivity of the bikeway network, the active transportation mode share for school trips has been increased by almost 5%, bike involved crashes have been reduced by 18%, and pedestrian involved crashes have been reduced by 6% compared to the five-year total previously reported2 .
1 https://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/community-development/planning 2 Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and Education Center, University of California, Berkeley. 2023
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
292
CHAPTER 2

VISIONS & GOALS
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
293
The City of Livermore reaffirms its commitment to the Vision, Goals, and Policies outlined in the 2018 Active Transportation Plan. For reference, the vision statement, goals, and policies are provided below.

VISION
“The City of Livermore envisions a city where people of all ages and abilities can comfortably access jobs, schools, recreation, shopping, and transit on foot or by bicycle as part of daily life in a healthy and active community.”

GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL 1: SAFE & COMPREHENSIVE NETWORK
Provide a safe, efficient, and connected bicycle, pedestrian, and trail network that accommodates all users and abilities.

POLICIES

1.1 Develop and implement projects and improvements to address bicycle and pedestrian safety

1.2 Connect neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, transit facilities, and other destinations with on-street facilities and/or separated trails

1.3 Build cross town connections for the bicycle, pedestrian, and trail network

1.4 Improve the pedestrian and bicycle network to and through Downtown Livermore to increase access, safety, and mobility

1.5 Establish safe crossings of barriers including high volume roadways, freeway interchanges, railroads, arroyos, and other barriers

1.6 Coordinate with other agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, and regional partners to plan and implement projects that improve Livermore’s network and connections to the region GOAL 2: DESIGN FOR ALL USERS
Build a well-designed and comfortable bicycle, pedestrian, and trail network with support services and facilities to serve users of all ages and abilities.

POLICIES

2.1 Incorporate best practices for the design of pedestrian facilities, bikeways, and trails that emphasize user safety and comfort

2.2 Incorporate sustainable and environmentally sensitive design for all facilities and amenities

2.3 Provide support facilities on public properties as appropriate, such as bicycle parking, rest areas, water fountains, and other facilities
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
294

2.4 Require private development to provide appropriate support facilities, such as shower/locker facilities and bicycle parking

2.5 Connect new development and public spaces to the active transportation network

2.6 Consider maintenance needs in the design of all new facilities GOAL 3: ENGAGE & GROW THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY Increase bicycling and walking for transportation and recreation with education, awareness, and enforcement.

POLICIES

3.1 Educate the public on the benefits of bicycling and walking, the available bicycle and trail facilities, and their rights and responsibilities

3.2 Provide up-to-date information about the bicycle and trail network, bicycle parking, and program resources

3.3 Develop and implement strategies to encourage bicycling and walking to and through community events, including bicycle and pedestrian support facilities

3.4 Support and participate in Federal, State, Regional, and Local programs, such as countywide Safe Routes to School efforts

3.5 Coordinate with other agencies to promote, encourage, and implement active transportation programs

3.6 Continue and expand bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic enforcement programs to encourage proper use of facilities, increase safety, and improve the user experience GOAL 4: MAINTAIN THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Maintain roadways, sidewalks, and multi-use trails to provide safe and comfortable active transportation conditions for all users and abilities.

POLICIES

4.1 Develop and provide a maintenance program for pedestrian facilities, bikeways, and trails to provide continued safe and comfortable use of the network

4.2 Provide new facilities only where sufficient maintenance funding can be identified

4.3 Work with Federal, State, and Regional agencies to expand maintenance funding opportunities Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
295
CHAPTER 3

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
296

EXISTING NETWORKS

ROADWAY NETWORK & MAJOR BARRIERS
Since 2018, infrastructure in Livermore has seen only incremental change. The roadway network in Livermore generally follows a traditional grid pattern in the city center and quickly expands outwards to residential, suburban cul-de-sacs with limited network connectivity. As a result, the few corridors that provide cross-town connectivity face enormous pressure to accommodate all modes of transportation.

Major east-west arterials include First Street, Jack London Boulevard, Stanley Boulevard, Concannon Boulevard, East Avenue, and Portola Avenue. Major north-south arterials include Livermore Avenue, Mines Road, Vasco Road, L Street/Arroyo Road, Isabel Avenue, and Murrieta Boulevard.

A defining feature of the Livermore roadway network is the Union Pacific Railroad tracks that bisect the city. The tracks create a physical barrier for people traversing the city from north to south since there are few grade-separated crossings and many streets do not cross the railroad or are blocked when trains are active. Existing at-grade crossings are found at L Street, Junction Avenue, and Vasco Road.

Grade-separated crossings include Murrieta Boulevard, Livermore Avenue, First Street, P Street, Mines Road, Vasco Road, and Greenville Road.

The City of Livermore is connected to the rest of the Bay Area and Central Valley via I-580. The interstate crosses the northern part of the city and separates the northwest and northeast neighborhoods from the rest of the city due to sparse crossing options. There are eight existing streets which cross I-580 in Livermore. Most but not all these overcrossings have some bicycle and pedestrian access; however, most are high stress crossings due to the lack of comfortable bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Arroyos crisscross Livermore followed by service roads that have been or could be converted to multiuse paths. The water courses are maintained by the Zone 7 Flood Control District and act as both barriers and opportunities for connection. The uncertain flows of the arroyos limit crossings, however the service roads provide low stress connections for cyclists and pedestrians throughout the city.

Figure 1 illustrates the roadway network in Livermore.

The following sections focus on changes to the transportation system in Livermore since the last Active Transportation Plan was approved in 2018. Appendix A includes a more detailed list of active transportation projects completed since 2018.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
297

GREENVILLE RD

N VASCO RD
N P ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

COLLEGE
AVE

EAST AVE

ARROYO RD
S L ST

CONCANNON BLVD

S VASCO RD

W JACK LONDON BLVD
N L ST

N MINES RD

ISABEL AVE

E STANLEY BLVD
¯
Legend
City Boundary
Major Arterials
0 1 2
MILES Major Arterials
Existing Road Network
Figure 1.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
298

TRANSIT NETWORK
Since 2018 few changes have been made to the Livermore transit system. The Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) still operates from San Jose to Stockton and has two stops in Livermore. Wheels buses continue to be operated by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) and connect Livermore to San Ramon, Dublin, and Pleasanton. Proposed changes to LAVTA routes were recently open for public feedback and include adjustments to increase service and resume Route 2 which was paused during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2018, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) was proposed to extend to Livermore. However, BART decided not to move forward with this proposal. Instead, Valley Link Rail will connect the region from Dublin to Mountain House in the initial phase and ultimately to Stockton. The Valley Link service will stop in Livermore at the Isabel Avenue station and Southfront Road station. Figure 2 Illustrates current transit routes in Livermore.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
299

GREENVILLE RD

N VASCO RD
N P ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

COLLEGE
AVE

EAST AVE

ARROYO RD
S L ST

CONCANNON BLVD

S VASCO RD

W JACK LONDON BLVD
N L ST

N MINES RD

ISABEL AVE

E STANLEY BLVD
¯
Legend
Transit Agency
Livermore / Amador Valley Transit Authority
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission
City Boundary
0 1 2
MILES Transit Service
Existing Transit Network
Figure 2.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
300

BICYCLE NETWORK
Table 1 summarizes the existing bikeway mileage in Livermore in 2001, at the time of the 2018 ATP, and today (please refer to the 2018 ATP for more definitions of the different types of bicycle facilities).

As shown, the existing bikeway mileage has increased by 3% since 2018 and over 16 miles of bikeways have been upgraded with buffers. Figure 3 shows the existing and previously proposed bikeways and trails. Note that some previously proposed Class IIIE Bicycle Boulevard facilities have been implemented as Class IIIA Bicycle Routes (indicated by yellow dashed lines over orange solid lines), and some previously proposed Class IV Separated Bike Lanes have been implemented as Class IIB Buffered Bike Lanes (indicated by red dashed lines over blue solid lines) as interim improvements.

TABLE 1: EXISTING BIKEWAY MILES
BIKEWAY CLASS 2001 MILES 2018 MILES 2023 MILES
Class I Shared Use Paths 22 40 41.6
Class II Bicycle Lanes 46 66 67.1 a
Class III Bicycle Boulevards 0 0 1.8
Class IV Separated Bike Lanes 0 0 0.6
Total 68 106
111.0
Source: Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails Active Transportation Plan (June 2018), City of Livermore.

Notes: a) This total includes about 53 miles of Class IIa and 14 miles of Class IIb facilities.

PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
The pedestrian network in Livermore is composed of crosswalks, curb ramps, crossing enhancements, and features such as benches and lighting. Since 2018, these pedestrian facilities have been augmented with approximately 1.3 miles of additional sidewalks, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant curb ramps at 67 locations, and new or improved crosswalks at 34 locations.

TRAIL NETWORK
Many trails weave through Livermore with over 40 miles of Class I paved shared use paths designed for bicycling, walking, and horseback riding across the city. Existing and proposed trails are illustrated in Figure 3.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
301

GREENVILLE RD

N VASCO RD
N P ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

COLLEGE
AVE

EAST AVE

ARROYO RD
S L ST

CONCANNON BLVD

S VASCO RD

W JACK LONDON BLVD
N L ST

N MINES RD

ISABEL AVE

E STANLEY BLVD
¯
Legend
Previously Existing Bikeways/Trails
Class 1A Shared Use Path
Class 2A Bicycle Lane
Completed Bikeways/Trails
Class IA Shared Use Path
Class 2A Bicycle Lane
Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane
Class 3A Bicycle Route
Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard
Class 4A Separated Bikeway
Previously Proposed Bikeways/Trails
Class 1A Shared Use Path
Class 2A Bicycle Lane
Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane
Class 3A Bicycle Route
Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard
Class 4A Separated Bikeway
0 1 2
Existing, Completed since 2018, and Previously Proposed MILES Bikeways & Trail Network
Figure 3.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
302

ACTIVITY GENERATORS
Activity generators are destinations that are likely to attract walking or bicycling trips. Further information on how activity generators are defined can be found in the 2018 ATP. Since 2018, the largest shift in activity generators has been in the major employers in Livermore. The current major employers listed by the Livermore Chamber of Commerce are the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Standford Health Care ValleyCare, Livermore Joint Unified School District, ComCast Cable, the Sandia National Laboratory, Wente Vineyards, the Kaiser Permanente Regional Distribution Center, the City of Livermore, FormFactor, Las Positas College, US Foodservice, the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, TopCon Positioning Systems, WalMart Stores, Costco Wholesale.

McGrath RentCorp, and Target. The locations of the major employers and other activity generators can be found in Figure 4.

DEMOGRAPHICS
Understanding how the population of Livermore has changed since the last active transportation plan is essential to meeting the needs of residents. Knowing who lives in the city helps to guide projects, priorities, and programs and allows effective outreach to all groups of residents. The demographic data shown here is from the 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates and is compared to the 2014 ACS 5-year estimates presented in the 2018 ATP.

POPULATION
In 2014 the population of the City of Livermore was 89,301; as of 2022, the population has decreased by 5%, contracting to 84,722. Livermore remains the sixth largest city in Alameda County, just behind San Leandro.

AGE
Livermore still has a large young population compared to Alameda County as a whole. Nearly a quarter of the people in Livermore are aged 19 or younger. At 24% of the population, there is a higher proportion of young people in Livermore compared to 22% in Alameda County as a whole. These younger residents are less likely to drive or have access to a car and have higher dependence on transit, walking, and bicycling to move around the city.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
303
Las Positas
College
Livermore
Unified School
District
Valley Care
Health System
Kaiser
Permanente
City of
Livermore
Wente
Vineyards
Sandia
National
Lab
Lawrence
Livermore
National Lab
ComCast Cable
FormFactor
US Foods
Livermore Area
Recreation and
Park District
TopCon
Positioning
Systems
Walmart
Costco McGrath
Target RentCorp
Wente
Vineyards

GREENVILLE RD

N VASCO RD
N P ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

COLLEGE
AVE

EAST AVE

ARROYO RD
S L ST

CONCANNON BLVD

S VASCO RD

W JACK LONDON BLVD
N L ST

N MINES RD

ISABEL AVE

E STANLEY BLVD
Las Positas
Golf Course Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Downtown
Transit
Center
Vasco Rd
ACE Station
¯
Legend
City Boundary
Park
City Hall
Hospital
Library
Livermore Municipal Airport
Points of Interest
Post Office
ACE Station
School
Major Employer
0 1 2
MILES Activity Generators
Figure 4.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
304

ACCESS TO CARS
Most households in Livermore (96%) still have access to a car with the other 4% likely relying on transit, walking, or bicycling. Based on household sizes this represents nearly 3,400 residents with no access to a car. In 2014, there were nearly 3,500 residents without access to a car for transportation.

Additionally, 22% of households only have access to one vehicle compared to 23% in 2014. If these households have two or more workers, those without a car may rely on other modes of transportation for their commute.

INCOME
Median household income in Livermore has grown 46% since 2014 and sits at $145,919 as of 2022.

Residents of Livermore tend to earn more than Alameda County overall, which has a household median income of $122,159.

TRAVEL PATTERNS

COMMUTE TRAVEL
As shown in Table 2, driving alone has remained the dominant commute to work mode share for Livermore residents. The driving alone mode share has decreased from nearly 80% in 2014 to 69% in 2021 based on American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. A significant share (44%) of the commute trips begin and end in Livermore, offering a major opportunity to shift residents from driving to active transportation and transit3
. Since 2018, the commute mode shares for public transportation, bicycling, and walking have slightly decreased or remained constant while the share of residents working from home have nearly doubled. Note that the 2021 figures from the American Community Survey 5-year Estimate reflect data sampled from 2017 through 2021. As such, this data does not yet fully reflect post pandemic travel patterns.

Table 3 presents some commute mode share comparisons of Livermore to peer cities in the Bay Area and California. Statistics from Copenhagen, Denmark are also presented for informational purposes. 3 Replica Places, Fall 2022.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
305
TABLE 2. COMMUTE TO WORK MODE SHARE FOR LIVERMORE RESIDENTS

COMMUTE MODE

MODE SHARE
2014 2018 2021
Drove Alone 79.14% 77.24% 69.37%
Carpooled 8.30% 8.86% 9.93%
Public Transit 3.75% 4.66% 3.09%
Bicycling 1.36% 1.14% 1.1%
Walking 0.87% 1.31% 1.31%
Work from Home 5.56% 5.64% 13.76%
Other 1.03% 1.15% 1.43%
Total Commuters 42,706 47,027 46,330
Sources: American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, Table B08301.

TABLE 3. COMMUTE MODES IN PEER COMMUNITIES
CITY
2014 2018 2021

BIKE WALKING BIKE WALKING BIKE WALKING
Livermore 1.4% 0.9% 1.14% 1.31% 1.1% 1.3%
Dublin 0.4% 2.0% 0.4% 1.2% 0.3% 1.4%
Pleasanton 0.9% 2.4% 0.8% 2.3% 0.9% 2.4%
Rancho
Cordova

1.4% 2.3% 0.8% 1.8% 0.5% 1.4%
Berkeley 9.7% 19.6% 7.8% 18.3% 5.9% 15%
Davis 23.2% 5.1% 19% 4.3% 13.8% 3%
Copenhagen 37% 6.0% 49% 6% 42% 10%
Sources: The 2014 statistics are taken from Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails Active Transportation Plan (June 2018). Statistics for California cities are from the American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. Copenhagen statistics are from Mobility Facts and Figures, City of Copenhagen 2021, The Bicycle Account 2018, Copenhagen City of Cyclists 2018.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
306

SCHOOL TRAVEL
The Alameda County Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program has been collecting data on trips to school since 2014. The program includes all the schools in the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. According to data published by the SRTS program, commuting to school via physically active modes has risen significantly, rising from a 25% mode share in the 2017- 2018 school year to a 30% active mode share for the 2021-2022 school year4
. The increase shows that the changes in
infrastructure and programming are effectively encouraging and supporting active travel to school. In comparison to Livermore’s active mode share, about 11% of children walk or bike to school in the United States, based on data from the National Household Travel Survey. 4 Alameda County Safe Routes to Schools Program. 2021-2022 District Snapshot, published online at alamedacountysr2s.org.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
307
CHAPTER 4

NEEDS ANALYSIS
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
308

NEEDS ANALYSIS
Walking and bicycling are part of holistic environments that support community needs. Health, safety, and comfort are as much a part of the active transportation network as physical infrastructure and as such, the needs of the residents are informed by these factors. This chapter builds upon the 2018 Active Transportation Plan and includes updates to the following sections to capture the current state of Livermore as it relates to these topics:
• Health (Air Quality), and
• Safety (Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions)
HEALTH

AIR QUALITY
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 is a tool developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment team that measures pollution factors to identify census tracts where adverse health effects are disproportionately distributed. Outputs from CalEnviroScreen 4.0, released in 2021, are compared to outputs from CalEnivroScreen 2.0 which was published in 2014. The pollution indicators are assigned a percentile for each geographic unit, based on the rank order of the value – the higher the percentile the worse the geography ranks in terms of impact (100th percentile would be the worst or highest ranked geography).

Exposure to traffic pollution can cause chronic illnesses such as asthma and heart and lung diseases.

Reducing exposure to harmful emissions can make the residents of Livermore healthier and live longer.

Since 2014, Livermore has become a significantly healthier place to live. In 2014, the pollution burden experienced by residents was in the 51st percentile. As of 2021, Livermore has risen to the 32nd percentile while Alameda County has fallen from the 34th to the 41st percentile. With regard to traffic related pollution, Livermore has risen from the 36th percentile to the 21st for exposure to PM2.5 but has fallen from the 45th to the 50th percentile for diesel emissions.

The 2018 ATP reported that residents of Livermore suffered from asthma at higher rates than the rest of California. Eighteen percent of Livermore residents over 18 had been diagnosed with asthma compared to 13% statewide. As of 2020, diagnoses in Livermore have decreased to 16.1% in adults and from 18.6% to 16.4% in children. Statewide, diagnoses in children have fallen from 13% to 12.3% and in adults have risen to 16.1%5
.
5 California Health Interview Survey Neighborhood Edition, 2014-2020 Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
309
Figure 5 illustrates the pollution burden percentile from CalEnviroScreen 4.0 in Livermore (the pollution burden percentile score is an average across several categories of pollution exposure). The map shows that large areas Livermore have a pollution burden higher than the state median value.

SAFETY
Safety and comfort inform how we travel to places. If a route or mode of travel is seen as too dangerous, safer options will generally take precedence. This section builds on the safety section developed in the 2018 Active Transportation Plan. The section covers the location and number of bicycle and pedestrian involved crashes in Livermore from 2017 - 2021 based on data acquired from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)6
. Crashes in Livermore are compared to nearby
communities in Table 4 and collisions are mapped in Figure 6. Note that the TIMS likely underestimate the true number of crashes as not all incidents are reported to law enforcement.

Bicycle-Involved Collisions
There were a total of 103 bicycle collisions during the 2017-2021 study period representing 5.5% of all crashes in Livermore. Although the total number has decreased from the 122 bicycle-related crashes recorded for the 2010-2014 period, the percentage of all crashes that are bicycle-related has increased from the 2.3% observed earlier. One bicyclist fatality was recorded, and 12 bicyclists were severely injured.

The most commonly reported factors that contributed to these collisions included:
• Bicycles traveling on the wrong side of the road (33.98%) • Improper turning by motorist or bicyclist (15.53%)
• Unsafe speeds by drivers (12.62%)
Pedestrian-Involved Collisions
There were 68 pedestrian involved collisions during the study period representing 3.6% of the total crashes in Livermore. Again, while the absolute number of pedestrian-involved crashes has decreased from the 72 recorded for the 2010-2014 period, the percentage of all crashes that are pedestrian involved has more than doubled from the 1.4% that was previously recorded. There were seven pedestrians fatally injured and 14 were severely injured.

The most frequently reported factors contributing to these accidents included:
• Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians (30.88%)
• Pedestrians failing to yield to drivers (27.94%)
• Unsafe speeds by drivers (14.71%)
6 The Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) presents the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) data in a geo-coded query-able format.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
310

GREENVILLE RD

N VASCO RD
N P ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

COLLEGE
AVE

EAST AVE

ARROYO RD
S L ST

CONCANNON BLVD

S VASCO RD

W JACK LONDON BLVD
N L ST

N MINES RD

ISABEL AVE

E STANLEY BLVD
¯
Legend
Pollution Burden Percentile
50 - 84.4

36.5 - 50

22.9 - 36.5

12.2 - 22.9

5.8 - 12.2
0 1 2
MILES
Figure 5.

Pollution Burden Percentile
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
311
Comparison To Surrounding Area
Compared to nearby cities, Livermore has a lower rate of bicycle collisions and higher rate of pedestrian collisions. Compared to Alameda County in total, Livermore is a lower risk city to ride a bike or walk in. Table 4 highlights this with crash data from TIMS and the American Community Survey with comparison to the numbers previously reported for 2014. As shown, the Livermore pedestrian collision rate has significantly dropped from 2014 to 2021.

TABLE 4: CRASHES COMPARED TO SURROUNDING AREA- 2021 (2014)

DATA LIVERMORE PLEASANTON DUBLIN

ALAMEDA
COUNTY
Bicycle collisions 103 (122) 136 (155) 49 (35) 2,445 (3,305) Bicycle commuters 515 (580) 350 (293) 120 (99) 11,792 (13,812) Collisions/100
bicyclists 20 (21) 38 (53) 41 (35) 20 (24)
Pedestrian collisions 68 (72) 57 (63) 41 (35) 3,348 (3,283) Pedestrian
commuters 608 (371) 953 (821) 484 (483) 25,916 (25,802) Collisions/100
pedestrians 11 (19) 5 (8) 9 (7) 13 (13)
Source: American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2017-2021), TIMS GIS Map, 2021 In Livermore, collisions generally take place near major streets and in the downtown core of the city.

Figure 6 shows where collisions have occurred and their associated injury severity.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
312

GREENVILLE RD

N VASCO RD
N P ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

COLLEGE
AVE

EAST AVE

ARROYO RD
S L ST

CONCANNON BLVD

S VASCO RD

W JACK LONDON BLVD
N L ST

N MINES RD

ISABEL AVE

E STANLEY BLVD
¯
Legend
City Boundary
Pedestrian Collisions
Fatal Injury
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Injury (Complaint of Pain)
Bicycle Collisions
Fatal Injury
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Injury (Complaint of Pain)
0 1 2
MILES Pedestrian & Bicycle Collisions 2017-2021
Safety & Collision Analysis
Figure 6.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
313
CHAPTER 5

PROJECTS & PROGRAMS
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
314

PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
This section focuses on the projects the City of Livermore has completed since 2018 and changes to programs that the city offers or participates in. The goal of the proposed active transportation network is to provide the Livermore Community with safe, convenient, and healthy transportation choices. Since 2018, significant strides have been made in achieving this goal.

NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
The previously proposed network improvements were intended to make walking and bicycling more comfortable, enjoyable, and safer when traveling along Livermore corridors. A number of these projects have been completed and offer bicyclists more roadway space and pedestrians safer more accessible crossings. More information on how projects were classified can be found in the 2018 ATP. Table 5 summarizes the projects completed since 2018. See Appendix A for more detailed information about projects completed since 2018.

TABLE 5. COMPLETED PROJECTS SINCE 2018
PROJECT TYPE QUANTITY COMPLETED SINCE 2018
ADA Ramp Improvement 67 locations
Crossing Improvements 34 locations
Sidewalk Improvements 1.3 miles
Class I Shared Use Paths 1.6 miles
Class 2A Bicycle Lane 1.6 miles
Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lanes or addition of buffer to Class 2A lanes 16.4 miles
Class 3A Bicycle Route 1.8 miles
Class 4A Separated Bikeway 0.6 mile
Source: City of Livermore
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
315
The completion of these projects has contributed to a safer, more connected active transportation network. Table 6 shows the previously existing (2018), currently existing (2023), and proposed mileage of network improvements. The projects completed since 2018 are mapped in Figure 7 alongside the previously proposed projects. Livermore examples of the bike lane classifications and crossing improvements are pictured in Appendix B.

TABLE 6. EXISTING AND PROPOSED NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
FACILITY TYPE EXISTING 2018 EXISTING 2023 REMAINING
PROPOSED a

PROJECTED
TOTAL b
Class IA Shared Use Path 40 41.6 79.3 120.9
Class 2A Bicycle Lane 66 50.7 c 13.0 63.7
Class 2B Buffered Bike
Lane 0 16.4 15.5 31.8
Class 3A Bicycle Route 0 1.8 1.2 3.0
Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard 0 0.0 19.2 19.2
Class 4A Separated
Bikeway 0 0.6 12.8 13.4
Sidewalk 566 566.4 5.6 572.0
Source: City of Livermore
Notes: a) Facilities proposed in the 2018 Active Transportation Plan. b) Projected total is calculated as Existing 2023 plus Remaining Proposed. However, some facilities currently implemented as Class 2B bicycle lanes may be ultimately planned as Class 4A separated bikeways. c) Some of the Class 2A facilities existing in 2018 have been converted to Class 2B facilities.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
316

GREENVILLE RD

N VASCO RD
N P ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

COLLEGE
AVE

EAST AVE

ARROYO RD
S L ST

CONCANNON BLVD

S VASCO RD

W JACK LONDON BLVD
N L ST

N MINES RD

ISABEL AVE

E STANLEY BLVD
¯
Legend
Completed Projects
ADA Ramp Improvement
Crossing Improvement
Class IA Shared Use Path
Class 2A Bicycle Lane
Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane
Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard
Class 4A Separated Bikeway
Previously Proposed Projects
Crossing Improvement
Overpass/Undercrossing Improvement
Class 1A Shared Use Path
Class 2A Bicycle Lane
Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane
Class 3A Bicycle Route
Class 3E Bicycle Boulevard
Class 4A Separated Bikeway
Sidewalk Gap Improvement
Local Road Safety Plan Crossing Improvements
High Visibility Crosswalk
Pedestrian Beacon 0 1 2
MILES
Completed and Proposed Projects
Figure 7.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
317

CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
Crossing improvements are essential to provide low stress connections throughout the active transportation network. Since 2018, 34 crossing improvements were completed. The completed and proposed improvements are mapped in Figure 8. More information on how crossing improvements were categorized and prioritized can be found in the 2018 ATP.

PROJECT GROUPS
Project groups were developed through community input received during the development of the 2018 ATP. The five focus areas highlighted include:
■ School Access,
■ Downtown Access,
■ Crosstown Routes,
■ Trail Connections,
■ Sidewalk Gap Closures,
■ and I-580 crossings.

Figure 9 shows the remaining proposed projects by grouping. The 2018 ATP can be referenced for more information on the project groups.

CITYWIDE PROJECTS
In addition to location-specific capital projects, the 2018 ATP recommended a suite of citywide programs to support active transportation. These are listed in Table 7, along with updates on implementation and status. Many citywide projects are at least partially implemented via projects programmed in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) or concurrent with construction of adjacent development projects.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
318

GREENVILLE RD

N VASCO RD
N P ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

COLLEGE
AVE

EAST AVE

ARROYO RD
S L ST

CONCANNON BLVD

S VASCO RD

W JACK LONDON BLVD
N L ST

N MINES RD

ISABEL AVE

E STANLEY BLVD
¯
0 0.9 1.8
MILES
Figure 8.

Legend
Completed Projects
ADA Ramp Improvement
Crossing Improvement
Previously Proposed Projects
Crossing Improvement
Overpass/Undercrossing
Improvement
Proposed Local Road Safety
Plan Crossing Improvements
High Visibility Crosswalk
Pedestrian Beacon
Crossing Improvements
Completed & Previously Proposed
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
319

GREENVILLE RD

N VASCO RD
N P ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

COLLEGE
AVE

EAST AVE

ARROYO RD
S L ST

CONCANNON BLVD

S VASCO RD

W JACK LONDON BLVD
N L ST

N MINES RD

ISABEL AVE

E STANLEY BLVD
¯
Legend
Project Group
Crosstown Routes Network Improvements
Downtown Access Network Improvements
School Access Network Improvements
Sidewalk Gap Improvements
Trail Connections Network Improvements
Project Group
Crosstown Routes Network Improvements
Downtown Access Network Improvements
I-580 Crossing Improvements
School Access Network Improvements
Trail Connections Network Improvements
0 1 2
MILES Proposed Projects by Group
Figure 9.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
320
TABLE 7: CITYWIDE PROJECTS AND STATUS

PROJECT RECOMMENDATION STATUS/PROGRESS
Pedestrian-scale
Lighting
Develop a method to evaluate and install pedestrian-scale lighting to enhance the pedestrian environment and
improve visibility in and around activity generators in key locations such as schools, downtown, transit stops, and community facilities.

Pedestrian lighting is
improved through annual CIP
project to install, upgrade,
and maintain street lighting,
including decorative lighting
Development
Review
Implement project and program recommendations in
partnership with developers as part of development
review.

City reviews proposed
developments against
planned active transportation
improvements and requires
developers to install adjacent
ATP improvements.

Bicycle Parking
▪ Provide bike parking at all city-related buildings,
downtown, and at transit stations/stops.
▪ Review existing bicycle parking standards against best practices recommended by Association for Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals.
▪ Remove bicycle parking maximums from the Livermore
Development Code.

Bicycle parking is provided at
city-related buildings and at
the Livermore Transit Center.

Development code
amendment is underway and
staff will consider this
change.

New Bicycle
Technologies
Adopt e-bike regulations and consider regulations for
additional types of electric vehicles.

Municipal code does not
currently refer to e-bicycles or
similar vehicles
Streetscape
Amenities
Add streetscape amenities in the downtown core, along
major corridors, and near transit stops to encourage
multimodal transportation.

The Downtown Revitalization
project (CIP #200827)
included additional bike
parking
Wayfinding Develop wayfinding signage that reflect the character of the community.

Active transportation-specific
wayfinding not yet
implemented
Bike Share Research options and develop a proposal for a bike share system in Livermore.

There are currently no active
bike share programs in
Livermore
Traffic Control
Zones
Review standards for consideration of bicyclists and
pedestrians during construction and maintenance
activities.

City requires maintenance of
bicycle and pedestrian
access when reviewing
Traffic Maintenance Plans
(TMPs)
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
321

PROJECT RECOMMENDATION STATUS/PROGRESS
Waste
Management
Require future development to provide convenient
locations for trash and recycling collection that does not conflict with parking or with active transportation facilities.

Implemented through
development review process
Green Bike
Facilities
Install green pavement within bike facilities in a consistent manner at key locations:
▪ Portions of Class 2A Bicycle Lanes without buffers or other enhancement on arterial roads
▪ Driveway conflict zones in high-volume, auto oriented locations
▪ Intersections with conflicts on designated school routes Green bicycle facilities in
conflict zones are
implemented as a standard
component of repaving
projects
Source: Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails Active Transportation Plan (June 2018), City of Livermore.

PROGRAMS
The physical active transportation infrastructure is complemented with programs that increase walking and bicycling while improving safety and addressing maintenance needs. Programs may be organized into the so-called “Four E’s” categories:
■ Education
■ Encouragement
■ Enforcement
■ Evaluation
The 2018 ATP recommended that existing programs within the City of Livermore be continued and refined or expanded as resources become available. In addition, several new programs were recommended. Table 8 lists the previously existing and recommended programs and summarizes their current implementation status. As shown, programs existing at the time of the 2018 ATP implementation have largely continued but new programs are still being considered.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
322
TABLE 8: EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROGRAMS
PROGRAM 2018 STATUS CURRENT STATUS
Education
Youth Bicycle Safety Education Existing School participation in Alameda County Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program.

Annual youth bicycle rodeo offered by Police
Department
Adult Bicycle Safety Education Existing Available through Bike East Bay and Alameda County Bicycle Safety Education Program
Pedestrian Safety Education Existing Available for students through participation in Alameda County SR2S program
Website New 2018 Active Transportation Plan and other
relevant documents are posted on the
Transportation & Traffic web page
Share-the-Path Campaign New Not implemented
New Facility & Low Stress Route
Rides
New Bike East Bay hosts group rides
Bicycling & Walking Maps &
Guides
Existing/New The Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails Map will be updated as part of this Active Transportation
Plan refresh and posted on City’s website
Encouragement
Safe Routes to School Existing Schools continue participation Bike to Work Day Existing Ongoing through Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Bike East Bay and local
businesses
City Bicycle & Pedestrian
Coordination
New City does not presently have a dedicated
bicycle and pedestrian coordinator
Employer-Based Campaigns New Implemented at Oaks Business Park and San Francisco Premium outlets as part of ongoing
Transportation Demand Management
programs
Bicycle Friendly Business
Program
New Not implemented
Bicycle Friendly Community
Awards
New Not implemented
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
323
PROGRAM 2018 STATUS CURRENT STATUS
Walking and Bicycle
Ambassadors
New Not implemented
Open Street Events New The Downtown Street Fest is one such annual event
Bicycle Tourism New Promoted through local business organizations such as Visit Tri-Valley
Group Social Rides New Not currently implemented
Enforcement
Traffic Citation Diversion
Program
Existing Ongoing
Targeted Enforcement & Speed
Trailer
Existing Ongoing
Bicycle Patrol Existing No longer offered
Crossing Guard Program Existing Recently reprioritized to cover more locations Traffic Calming Existing Current Neighborhood Traffic Calming program was adopted in 2020 and improvements are
programmed in the CIP
Evaluation
Community Survey New Not currently implemented
Expanded Bicycle & Pedestrian
Counts
New Not currently implemented
Expanded Collision Data Review New Not currently implemented Annual Report Card New Not currently implemented
Pre/Post Studies of New
Infrastructure
New Not currently implemented
Source: Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails Active Transportation Plan (June 2018), City of Livermore Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
324
CHAPTER 6

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
325

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Table 9 shows the estimated costs for the recommended projects from the 2018 ATP alongside the costs inflated to current dollars using the California Construction Cost Index published by the Department of General Services. Note that the inflated costs have not been adjusted to account for the projects delivered since 2018. Given the inflation of construction costs seen in recent years, success in obtaining grant funding will be essential to delivering the envisioned active transportation network in Livermore.

TABLE 9: ESTIMATED COSTS BY PROJECT GROUP

PROJECT GROUP ESTIMATED COST
($2017)

ESTIMATED COST
($2023)
School Access Network $19,330,100 $27,268,600
Downtown Access Network $4,791,300 $6,759,000
Crosstown Routes Network $25,058,800 $35,350,000
Trail Connections $129,450,600 $182,613,700
Sidewalk Gap Closure $4,812,300 $6,788,600
TOTAL $183,443,100 $258,779,900
Sources: Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails Active Transportation Plan (June 2018), DKS Associates

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
All projects identified in the 2018 ATP were prioritized to arrive at a list of high-priority improvements to be pursued within the first few years. Additional detail on the prioritization process can be found in the 2018 ATP. These first phase projects along with their implementation status are listed in Table 10. The City of Livermore will work towards implementing the first phase projects until a full-scale update of its active transportation plan is completed.

One implementation strategy for delivering ATP projects will continue to be via the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Opportunities for delivering ATP projects can be found in the Street Maintenance (paving), Traffic Control (crosswalk safety improvements), and Trail, Bike, and Miscellaneous Street Projects categories of the CIP.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
326
TABLE 10: FIRST PHASE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS

ID PROJECT NAME STATUS
L28 Sixth Street Bicycle Lane Not yet implemented
S10 Hillcrest Sidewalk at East Avenue Not yet implemented BL3 Stanley Boulevard Buffered Bicycle Lane
(Isabel to Murrieta) Not yet implemented
BB37,
BB26, BB24
Bicycle Route from Lawrence Livermore
National Lab to Livermore High
Class 3 bicycle route constructed on:
- School Street between Livermore High School
and Pestana Way
- Stanford Way between Jensen St and Estates
St
- Pomona Way between Lincoln Ave and
Jefferson Ave
SL5 Jack London Boulevard Buffered Bicycle
Lane (Discovery to Murrieta)
Class 2B buffered lanes constructed between
Curlew Road and Murrieta Boulevard
P83 Crossing: Robertson Park and
Concannon High visibility crosswalk and RRFB installed
P26 Crossing: Concannon and Epson Flashing beacon installation, high visibility crosswalk installed
SL7, BL14 First Street Buffered Bicycle Lane
(Inman to Southfront)
Class 2B buffered lanes installed from Inman
Street to Scott Street as well as along Auburn
Grove town home project frontage on east side
of First Street around Larch Lane.

SL2 Vasco Road Buffered Bicycle Lane (East
to Preston)
Class 2B buffered lanes constructed from East
Avenue to Preston Road
P75 Crossing: Murrieta and Stanley Not yet implemented
P82 Crossing: First and Scott Street Not yet implemented BL2 Concannon Boulevard Buffered Bicycle
Lane (Isabel to San Vincente)
Class 2B buffered lanes installed from Murdell
Avenue to Altair Avenue
L34, BB14 Olivina Bicycle Lane/Bicycle Boulevard
(Hagemann to Rincon) CIP Project #202114
T13 Arroyo Road Trail (Wetmore to Veterans
Park) Segment B is CIP project #201955
BL1 East Avenue Corridor Study
Study underway as of November 2023
Improvements programmed as CIP Project
202222
I-580 Crossings Study Not yet implemented
Programs (education, encouragement,
and enforcement)
Several previously existing programs are
ongoing, including Bike to Work Day and
Neighborhood Traffic Calming
T6

SEGMENT
E1
Las Colinas Trail – Support to LARPD CIP Project #201945 Source: City of Livermore 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan Fiscal Years 2023-2028.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
327

NEAR TERM UPCOMING PROJECTS
The City of Livermore has programmed funds and will complete several projects in the near future.

Several multiuse trail segments are currently under construction or in design, including the Arroyo Road Trail, the Arroyo Mocho Trail and the Las Colinas Trail, for a total of three miles of new multiuse trail.

These will supplement recently completed trail segments at Robertson Park, on the Arroyo Las Positas Trail, and the Montage Trail.

Additionally, plans are underway to install 2.1 miles of Class 2B buffered bike lane and pedestrian crossing improvements are planned for 10 locations. The pedestrian crossing improvements include new/modified signals, protected intersections, Rapid Flashing Rectangular Beacons (RRFBs), and high visibility crosswalks. All of these upcoming improvements are shown in Figure 10.

Finally, new bicycle facilities continue to be added as part of land use development projects. Almost a mile of Class 4 separated bikeway will be constructed on North Canyons Parkway/Portola Avenue and Isabel Avenue as part of the adjacent residential projects. Another 0.4 miles is planned for Isabel Avenue between Portola Avenue and the I-580 ramps. Additionally, a recently approved project will be providing a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Highway 84/Isabel Avenue and an associated new trail segment linking the Arroyo Mocho trail with the Jack London trail.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
328

GREENVILLE RD

N VASCO RD
N P ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

COLLEGE
AVE

EAST AVE

ARROYO RD
S L ST

CONCANNON BLVD

S VASCO RD

W JACK LONDON BLVD
N L ST

N MINES RD

ISABEL AVE

E STANLEY BLVD
¯
Legend
Planned Trails & Bike Facilities
Class 1A Shared Use Path
Class 2B Buffered Bicycle Lane
Class 4A Separated Bikeway
Upcoming Crossing Improvements
New or Modified Signal/Protected Intersection
Pedestrian Beacon
High Visibility Crosswalks
Near Term Projects
0 1 2
MILES
Figure 10.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
329
CHAPTER 7

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
330
This chapter describes stakeholder and community outreach activities for the draft interim ATP update, feedback received, and resulting changes made to the plan.

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
An administrative draft copy of the Interim ATP Update was circulated to the following stakeholders and community groups:
■ Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
■ Bike East Bay
■ Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA)
■ Livermore Police Department
■ Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department
■ Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD)

VIRTUAL WORKSHOP
The City of Livermore conducted a virtual public workshop to showcase the Livermore ATP Update, provide information on completed and upcoming projects, and answer questions from the greater Livermore community. The public outreach event was held on the evening of April 25, 2024. Twentyseven people registered for the event and 15 attended. The event included a 30-minute presentation about the Livermore ATP from the project team and was followed by an hour of open question/comment time for the public.

The virtual workshop was promoted digitally and in-print. Several promotional flyers (digital and print) and social media posts about the plan and virtual workshop were sent out to various stakeholders in the community. Stakeholders were requested to share this information within their own distribution lists to further expand promotional efforts. In addition to online promotional efforts, phone calls were made to the entire stakeholder list to let community members know about the virtual workshop and encouraged to share it with others. The presentation given at the public workshop is included in Appendix B.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
331

SUMMARY OF INPUT RECEIVED
Participants at the public workshop asked a number of questions and City staff responded with the best available information. The importance of maintaining a state of good repair, enforcement of traffic and parking laws, and questions about plans for specific facilities emerged as the major themes. A summary of questions and responses along with the slide presentation that was given by staff may be found in Appendix B.

Bike East Bay also provided input in written format. The ATP was revised in response to some of the comments. However, many of the comments were proposals for new or revised policies. While these proposals were found to be thoughtful and reasonable, this interim update of the ATP was intended to reaffirm goals and policies from the 2018 plan. Proposed new policies will be given full consideration when the ATP undergoes a full update after the comprehensive General Plan amendment is completed in early 2026. A summary of comments received from Bike East Bay and responses may be found in Appendix B.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
332

APPENDIX
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
333

CONTENTS
APPENDIX A. PROJECTS COMPLETED SINCE 2018
APPENDIX B. PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS APPENDIX C. BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
334
APPENDIX A. PROJECTS COMPLETED SINCE 2018
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
335
From To
North Livermore Ave
120' N/O Arroyo Plaza (SB) Arroyo Plaza Parcel #10720 Painted Bike Lane Class II bike lane Painted green bike lane on North Liverm 0.02 School St Fourth St Silver Oaks Wy 2018‐01 Painted Sharrows None Bicycle Route 0.03 North Livermore Ave 150' N/O Arroyo Plaza (NB), Arroyo Plaza Painted Bike Lane Class II bike lane Painted green bike lane on North Liverm 0.03 Springtown Blvd Bluebell Dr 603' N/O Freeway 2020-04 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.04 S Vasco Rd Naylor Ave Las Positas Rd CB180009 Bike Lane, Bike Lane Buffer Existing Bike Lane New Bike Lane, Bike Lane Buffer 0.06First St Bellmawr Dr N Mines Rd CB190019 Bike Lane Buffer Installation Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.07 North Livermore Ave Arroyo Plaza Las Positas Rd Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.08 First Street 221' W/O Larch Ln 209' E/O Larch Ln Tract 8168 Bike Lanes None Class IV separated bikeway 0.09 North Livermore Ave Portola Ave Junction Ave 2018-46 Painted Sharrows None Bicycle Route 0.10 Vallecitos Road Bridge Holmes 2019-04 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.11 School St Pestana Wy End 2018‐01 Painted Sharrows None Bicycle Route 0.13South Vasco Rd East Ave Mesquite Wy 2021-04 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.14 North Livermore Ave Cromwell Ave Portola Ave 2018-46 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.16South Vasco Rd Patterson Pass Rd Daphne Rd 2021-04 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.16Springtown Blvd Lassen Rd Rhododendron Dr 2019-01 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.16 Ladd Ave Junction Ave Lee Ave 2018‐04 Painted Sharrows None Bicycle Route 0.16Portola Ave N L St N Livermore Ave 2018‐01 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.16 North Livermore Ave Las Positas Rd 745' S/O Las Positas Rd 2019-01 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.17 N Vasco Rd Scenic Ave 227' S/O Crestmont Ave 2018‐01 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.17 Concannon Blvd Murdell Ave Altair Ave 2018‐01 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.18 Stanford Jensen St Estates St 2018‐04 Painted Sharrows None Bicycle Route 0.19East Stanley Blvd Bridge Murdell Lane 2019-04 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.19 Portola Ave 100' W/O Woodhaven CommN L St 2018‐04 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.19 First Street Las Positas Rd 956' N/O Las Positas Rd 2020-04 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.19South Vasco Rd Naylor Ave Preston Rd 2021-04 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.21 Pomona St Lincoln Ave Jackson Ave 2018‐01 Painted Sharrows None Bicycle Route 0.21Greenville Rd Southfront Rd Altamont Pass Rd CB180008 Bike Lane Buffer Installation Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.22 East Stanley Blvd Murrietta Blvd Fenton 2018‐01
(Eastbound only) Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.23 Scenic Ave 85' E/O Mt Diablo Wy Central Av 2021-01 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.25 Lee Ave Ladd Ave Portola Ave 2018‐04 Painted Sharrows None Bicycle Route 0.26First Street Inman St Scott St Painted buffered bike lanes from Inman St to Scott St Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.30 North Vasco Rd Northfront Rd Scenic Ave 2021-04 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.32Springtown Blvd 1578' N/O Oleander St Oleander St 2021-04 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.33 Kelly St Enos Wy Lee Ave 2018‐04 Painted Sharrows None Bicycle Route 0.33S Vasco Rd/Las Positas Rd S Vasco Rd Pullman St CB190012 Bike Lane Buffer Installation Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.35 Fifth Street L St South Livermore Ave 2020-04 Painted Sharrows None Bicycle Route 0.35 North Livermore Ave Cromwell Ave 745' S/O Las Positas Rd 2021-01 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.35 Voyager St/W Jack London Blvd 150' W/O Voyager St 75' E/O Voyager St CB190001 Install bike lane buffer Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.37

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
336
From To

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TRACKING
Trails and Bicycle Lanes
Street/Intersection
CIP# /
Development
Project
Project Description Existing facility New facility Mileage Vancouver Way Holmes St Arroyo Rd 2019-04 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.40 North Murrietta Blvd 450' S/O Northwood Comm Olivina Av 2021-01 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.43E Jack London Blvd Curlew Rd N Murrieta Blvd 2018‐04 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.43 Murdell Ln Albert Wy Stanley Blvd 2021-04 Construct Class IV separated bikeway Class II bike lane Class IV separated bikeway 0.51Superior Drive Arroyo Road End 2019-04 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.63 Bluebell Dr Springtown Blvd Sunflower Ct 2021-01 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.65Airway Blvd 220' S/O Kitty Hawk Rd Pavement Change 2018‐01 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.66 S Vasco Rd Patterson Pass Rd Naylor Ave 2018‐01/2018‐04 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.69S Vasco Rd Emily Wy Patterson Pass Rd 2018‐01 (Northbound only) Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.71 South Livermore Ave Palm Ave Concannon Blvd 2018-46 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.75Garaventa Ranch Rd North Vasco Rd Scenic Ave 2019-01 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.83 Bluebell Dr Galloway St Sunflower Ct Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 1.10 S Greenville Rd 320' S/O National Dr Pave Change (N/O RRX) 2018‐01 Bike Lanes None Class II Bike Lane 1.35First Street Portola Ave Las Positas Rd 2020-28 Painted Buffered Bike Lanes Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 1.47 Greenville Rd Marathon Dr Las Positas Rd Bike Lane, Bike Lane Buffer Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.05 Greenville Rd Southfront Rd Northfront Rd CB190020 Bike Lane, Bike Lane Buffer Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.37 Dalton Ave
Approx 100' west of Broadmoor St Pasatiempo St 2022-01 Bike lanes on both sides Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.62 Greenville Rd Southfront Rd Las Positas Rd 2022-01 Bike lanes on both sides Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.26 Las Positas Blvd North Livermore Ave Hilliker Place 2022-01 Bike lanes on both sides Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.46 East Airway Blvd 200' west of Sutter St 1800' east of Sutter St 2022-01 Bike lanes on both sides Class II bike lane Class II bike lane with buffer 0.76 Robertson Park Bypass Trail Construct Class I multiuse path None Class I multiuse path 0.06Arroyo Las Positas Trail Construct Class I multiuse path None Class I multiuse path 0.14Jack London Trail Voyager St Isabel Avenue Construct Class I multiuse path None Class I multiuse path 0.17 Isabel Trail Alden Ln E Vineyard Ave Construct Class I multiuse path None Class I multiuse path 0.35Enos Way Portola Ave Junction Ave Construct Class IIA None Class II Bike Lane 0.21Montage Trail College Trail Collier Canyon Trail Construct Class I multiuse path None Class I multiuse path 0.06 Arroyo Mocho Trail Isabel Avenue Arroyo Mocho/El Charro Road Trail Construct Class I multiuse path None Class I multiuse path 0.85 Portola Avenue/N Canyons Pkwy* 550' e/o Comcast Pl Tranquility Circle Class IV lane to be installed on north sideClass II Class IV 0.92 Arroyo Road Trail* Wetmore Road City Limit Construct Class I multiuse path Class I multiuse path 1.44 Arroyo Mocho Trail* Existing trailhead Isabel Avenue Construct Class I multiuse path Class I multiuse path 1.00 Las Colinas Trail* Construct Class I multiuse path Class I multiuse path 0.50 Isabel Avenue* Portola Ave I-580 Ramps Class IV lanes to be installed on both sides Class IV 0.36 *Projects under design or construction
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
337
Street/Intersection From To CIP# / Development
Project
Project Description Existing facility New facility Mileage First Street 221' W/O Larch Ln 209' E/O Larch Ln Tract 8168 Sidewalk replacement 10' sidewalk with no landscape in
between
Sidewalk divided by landscape. One
sidewalk path for bicyclists (class 4 -
separated bikeway) 0.09
Southfront Rd/Longard RdN/A N/A CB180001 Sidewalk Installation No curb ramps or sidewalk Sidewalk installation 0.03 Livermore Outlets Dr/Wolf House Dr N/A N/A CB180002 Sidewalk Installation No curb ramps Installed sidewalk near south parking lot 0.61 Greenville Rd Southfront Rd Altamont Pass Rd CB180008 Sidewalk Installation Curb Ramps (2) and
Traffic Lights Installed sidewalk west of property 0.16 S Vasco Rd Naylor Ave Las Positas Rd CB180009 Sidewalk Installation Existing Sidewalk Installed sidewalk path to property 0.00 Voyager St/W Jack London Blvd N/A N/A CB190001 Sidewalk Installation Existing Sidewalk Installed sidewalk north of property 0.03 Southfront Rd/Longard RdN/A N/A CB190015 Sidewalk Installation No sidewalks Installed sidewalk south of property 0.05 N Livermore Ave 15' S/O Arroyo Plaza 117' N/O Arroyo Plaza Parcel #10720
(CB210001) Sidewalk Installation No sidewalks Installed sidewalk near driveway entrance 0.04 Veterans Way S L St S Livermore Ave CB220003 Sidewalk Installation No sidewalks Installed sidewalk between parking lots 0.25

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TRACKING
Sidewalk Installation
*Projects under design or construction
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
338
Portola Ave/Enos Way 2022-06 Safety improvements at Crosswalk One diagonal continental crosswalk, standard crosswalk RRFB installation, high visibility crosswalk (2) College Ave/5th St 2022-06 Safety improvements at Crosswalk No crosswalks RRFB installation, high visibility crosswalk (2) College Ave/Kingsbury Dr 2022-06 Safety improvements at Crosswalk No crosswalks high visibility crosswalk (2) Concannon Blvd/Robertson Park Rd 2021-35 Safety improvements at Crosswalk standard crosswalks (2) RRFB installation, high visibility crosswalk (1) Concannon Blvd/Epson St 2021-35 Safety improvements at Crosswalk standard crosswalks (2) flashing beacon installation, high visibility crosswalk (1)
Bluebell Dr/Shetland Rd Safety improvements at Crosswalk Standard crosswalk Continental crosswalk Bluebell Dr/Heather Ln Safety improvements at Crosswalk Standard crosswalk Continental crosswalk Bluebell Dr/Sunflower Ct Safety improvements at Crosswalk Standard crosswalk (2) Continental crosswalk (2) S Vasco Rd/Charlotte Way Safety improvements at Crosswalk No RRFB RRFB N Mines Rd/Technology Dr EN200342 Safety improvements at Crosswalk 2 way stop-controlled Signalized intersection W Jack London Blvd/Shops Safety improvements at Crosswalk No traffic signal Installed traffic signal W Jack London Blvd/Wolf House Dr Parcel #10525Safety improvements at Crosswalk No signalized intersection Signalized intersection, standard crosswalks (2) Livermore Outlets Dr/
Republic Square Dr Parcel #10525Safety improvements at Crosswalk No signalized intersection Signalized intersection,
texture concrete paving crosswalks (2)
First Street/Larch Ln Safety improvements at Crosswalk No signalized intersection Signalized intersection Olivina Ave/North Murrieta blvd 2021-01 Safety improvements at Crosswalk standard crosswalks (4) Continental crosswalks (4) Scenic Ave/Central Ave 2021-01 Safety improvements at Crosswalk Standard crosswalks (2) Continental crosswalks (2) Naples Way/Kingsport Ave 2021-01 Safety improvements at Crosswalk Standard crosswalks (2) Continental crosswalk (2) Frankfurt Way/Warsaw Ave 2021-01 Safety improvements at Crosswalk Standard crosswalks (2) Continental crosswalk (2) North Livermore Ave/Arroyo Plaza
Parcel #10720 Safety improvements at Crosswalk No crosswalk on south side of North Livermore Ave, no driveway on west side of Arroyo Plaza Standard Crosswalk, new driveway on Arroyo
Plaza
Old First Street/Kalapaki Common Tract #8173 New development Concrete driveway to car wash Texture Concrete Paving crosswalk Freisman Road/Republic Square
(North entry near North Parking Lot) Parcel #10525New development All dirt Texture Concrete Paving crosswalk Wolf House Drive/Republic Square
(East Entry of Hotel) Parcel #10525New development Concrete driveway to car wash Texture Concrete Paving crosswalk Wolf House Drive/Republic Square
(between retails A & B) Parcel #10525New development Concrete driveway to car wash Texture Concrete Paving crosswalk Wolf House Drive/Republic Square
(East Entry of North Parking Lot) Parcel #10525New development Concrete driveway to car wash Texture Concrete Paving crosswalk Wolf House Drive/Freisman Park Parking
Lot Parcel #10525New development Concrete driveway to car wash Texture Concrete Paving crosswalk

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
339

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TRACKING
Crossing Improvements
Street/Intersection
CIP# /
Development
Project
Project Description Existing facility New facility
Discovery Dr
(from Atlantis Ct to W Jack London Blvd) CB180010 Sidewalk Driveway Crosswalk Installation Existing Sidewalk Installed driveway crosswalk for sidewalk Voyager St/W Jack London Blvd CB190001 Sidewalk Driveway Crosswalk Installation Existing Sidewalk Installed driveway crosswalk for sidewalk Exchange Ct/National Dr CB190011 Sidewalk Driveway Crosswalk Installation Existing Sidewalk Installed driveway crosswalk for sidewalk Las Positas Rd/S Vasco Rd CB190012 Sidewalk Driveway Crosswalk Installation Existing Sidewalk Installed driveway crosswalk for sidewalk Southfront Rd/Longard Rd CB190015 Sidewalk Driveway Crosswalk Installation No sidewalks Installed crosswalk for sidewalk Contractors Pl
(from Contractors St to Technology Dr) CB190017 Sidewalk Driveway Crosswalk Installation Existing Sidewalk Installed driveway crosswalk for sidewalk Contractors Pl
(from Contractors St to Technology Dr) CB190018 Sidewalk Driveway Crosswalk Installation Existing Sidewalk Installed driveway crosswalk for sidewalk First St
(from Bellmawr Dr to N Mines Rd) CB190019 Sidewalk Driveway Crosswalk Installation Existing Sidewalk Installed driveway crosswalk for sidewalk Veterans Way
(from S L St to N Livermore Ave) CB220003 Sidewalk Driveway Crosswalk Improvement Existing driveway crosswalk Improved driveway crosswalk (9) Dalton Ave/Pasatiempo St* 2022-01 Safety improvements at Crosswalk One standard crosswalk, one zebra crosswalk Two ladder crosswalks
First St @ Scott St* Install RRFB
Stanley Blvd @ Isabel Ave on-off Ramp Connector* Install curb bulb-outs Concannon Blvd @ San Vicente* Install RRFB
Arroyo Rd @ Hansen Rd* Install RRFB
Arroyo Rd @ Ascalano Ln* Install RRFB
S Livermore Ave @ College Ave* Install RRFB
East Ave @ Mitra St* Install RRFB
N P St & Elm St* Install high visibility crosswalk
L St & 3rd St* Install high visibility crosswalk
Portola Avenue & Lam Research Driveway* New/modified signal; protected intersection None New/modified signal; protected intersection Isabel Avenue & Portola Avenue* New/modified signal; protected intersection Existing signal New/modified signal; protected intersection Isabel Avenue & A Street* New/modified signal; protected intersection None New/modified signal; protected intersection Isabel Avenue and Gateway Avenue* New/modified signal; protected intersection None New/modified signal; protected intersection *Projects under design or construction
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
340
Street/Intersection
CIP# /
Development
Project
Project Description Existing facility New facility
Garnet Dr/Emerald St 2018‐01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2) Jensen St/Leahy Wy 2018‐01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2) Quartz Cir 2018‐01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2) Quartz Cir/Murdell Ln 2018‐01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2) Hillcrest Ave/Pomona Wy 2018‐01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Pomona Ct/Pomona Wy 2018‐01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)E Jack London Blvd/Troy St 2018‐04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)S Livermore Ave/Palm Ave 2018-46 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb rampFelicia Ave/Kirsten Wy 2019-01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Lambeth Road/Westminster Wy 2019-01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Lambeth Road/Farnsworth Dr 2019-01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Geraldine St/Francine Wy 2019-01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb rampGeraldine St/Joan Wy 2019-01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Geraldine St/Felicia Ave 2019-01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb rampLas Positas Road/Lawrence Dr 2019-01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb rampN Murrieta Blvd/Cedar Dr 2019-01, 2021-0 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb rampE Stanley Blvd/Isabel Blvd 2019-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb rampSuperior Dr/Regent Dr 2019-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Superior Dr/Lexington Wy 2019-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (3)Superior Dr/Pillsbury Dr 2019-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Superior Dr/Pyramid St 2019-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Superior Dr/Walker Pl 2019-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Superior Dr/Almanor Ct 2019-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Vancouver Wy/Accra Ct 2019-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Vancouver Wy/Athens St 2019-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Vancouver Wy/Belfast Ct 2019-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Vancouver Wy/Calais Ave 2019-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TRACKING
ADA Curb Ramp Improvements
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
341
Street/Intersection
CIP# /
Development
Project
Project Description Existing facility New facility

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TRACKING
ADA Curb Ramp Improvements
Vancouver Wy/Halifax Rd 2019-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Vancouver Wy/Jaffa Rd 2019-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (3)Fifth St 2020-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb rampFifth St/S H St 2020-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)South I St/College Ave 2021-01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Naples Way/Naples Ct 2021-01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Genoa St/Genoa Ct 2021-01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Genoa St/Helsinki Way 2021-01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (1)Genoa St/Heidelberg Dr 2021-01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Genoa St/Warsaw Ave (north side) 2021-01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Warsaw Ave/Genoa St (south side) 2021-01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (1)Bluebell Dr/Sunflower Ct 2021-01 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb rampMurdell Ln/Cinnabar Dr 2021-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Murdell Ln/Amber Way 2021-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Murdell Ln/Alice Way 2021-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Murdell Ln/Jillana Ave 2021-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb rampMurdell Ln/Quartz Cir ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2)Murdell Ln/Albert Way 2021-04 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp North Livermore Ave/Arroyo Plaza
Parcel #10720(CB210001) ADA improvements No curb ramps New ADA curb ramp (3) Old First Street/Kalapaki Common
Tract #8173 ADA improvements No curb ramps New ADA curb ramp (2) W Jack London Blvd/Wolf House Dr Parcel #10525 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (4) Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
342
Street/Intersection
CIP# /
Development
Project
Project Description Existing facility New facility

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TRACKING
ADA Curb Ramp Improvements
Livermore Outlets Dr/Republic
Square Dr Parcel #10525 ADA improvements No curb ramps New ADA curb ramp (4) N Mines Rd/Technology Dr EN200342 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (4) Portola Ave/Enos Way 2022‐06 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (4)College Ave/Kingsbury Dr 2022‐06 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (1)Concannon Blvd/Robertson Park Rd 2021‐35 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (1)Concannon Blvd/Epson St 2021‐35 ADA improvements No curb ramp New ADA curb ramp (2) Freisman Road/Republic Square (North entry near North Parking Lot) Parcel #10525 ADA improvements No curb ramps New ADA curb ramp (2)Wolf House Drive/Republic Square (East Entry of Hotel) Parcel #10525 ADA improvements No curb ramps New ADA curb ramp (2)Wolf House Drive/Republic Square (between retails A & B) Parcel #10525 ADA improvements No curb ramps New ADA curb ramp (2)Wolf House Drive/Republic Square (East Entry of North Parking Lot) Parcel #10525 ADA improvements No curb ramps New ADA curb ramp (2)Wolf House Drive/Freisman Park Parking Lot Parcel #10525 ADA improvements No curb ramps New ADA curb ramp (2) Southfront Rd/Longard Rd CB180001 ADA Installation No curb ramps or sidewNew ADA curb ramp (2)Greenville Rd CB180008 ADA Improvement Existing Curb Ramp (1)
and Traffic Lights New ADA Curb Ramp Compliant (1)
Discovery Dr CB180010 ADA Installation No Curb Ramps New ADA Curb Ramps (2)Exchange Ct/National Dr CB190011 ADA Installation Existing Sidewalk New ADA Curb Ramps (2) Southfront Rd/Longard Rd CB190015 ADA Installation No sidewalks New ADA Curb Ramps (2)Contractors Pl CB190017 ADA Installation Existing Sidewalk New ADA Curb Ramps (2) Contractors Pl CB190018 ADA Installation Existing Sidewalk New ADA Curb Ramps (2) Veterans Way CB220003 ADA Installation No curb ramps New ADA Curb Ramps (20) Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
343
APPENDIX B. PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY AND

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
344
TABLE B.1. RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM BIKE EAST BAY (LETTER RECEIVED APRIL 22, 2024)

QUESTION/COMMENT RESPONSE

1. Add a policy to track, coordinate, and use all
roadway repaving opportunities to reduce
traffic stress and increase safety
All proposed policy revisions will be considered for the full Active Transportation Update after the
comprehensive General Plan update is completed in
early 2026.

2. Add a policy to track, coordinate, and use all
development opportunities, including bus stops

3. Add a policy to select roadway repaving
boundaries in order to provide logical safety
improvement connections

4. Update policies under Goal 2 to provide an allages-and-abilities network (LTS 2 or better) that connects all points in town with less than 0.5
mile of path diversion

5. Update policy 3.5, specifically referencing
creation of continuous and direct bike/ped/transit
routes of travel

6. Remove Policy 4.2 regarding sufficient
maintenance funding and replace with
something more nuanced

7. Add a policy to optimize designs to reduce
maintenance costs where they can be made
without reductions in comfort or safety (i.e. tree
selection and placement, reasonable but not
overdone lighting requirements)

8. Add a policy to update design guidelines to
follow best national standards no later than 2025

9. Fix the existing conditions map Map has been updated.

10. Fix an incorrect statement regarding Vasco
Overpass on page 12 (there is no pedestrian
access)
Report has been edited to reflect the lack of
pedestrian facilities on the Vasco Road overpass of
I-580.

11. Remove the reference to bicycle boulevards
implemented These facilities have been relabeled as bike routes.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
345

QUESTION/COMMENT RESPONSE

12. Specify that best practice bicycle boulevard
design standards must be updated no later than
2025
All proposed policy revisions will be considered for the full Active Transportation Update after the
comprehensive General Plan update is completed in
early 2026.

13. Table 7 says the city reviews proposed
developments against planned improvements
but does not specifically require them and has
failed to require them in certain instances
(Legacy development, Brighton 2 development).

Implement policy to ensure such review is not
missed, specific checkbox within development
application (reviewed by staff and approving
bodies)
The City does generally require a developer to pay for
and install any ATP planned improvement (or the
INSP planned ped/bike improvements) along their
frontage. Some exceptions can be made through a
negotiated Development Agreement, which allows the
City to require developers to make ATP improvements
beyond their frontage or allow developers to pay for
the cost of ATP frontage improvements that can then
be used by city as part of a CIP project with a larger
scope for ped/bike improvements.

14. Table 8, there are open street events such as
downtown street fest Table 8 has been updated to reflect this event.

15. Re-evaluate first phase projects for relevance
in 2024, in light of unplanned opportunity
projects delivered since 2018 and expected
development projects coming online in the
future.

The interim ATP update is simply reporting on the
status of the first phase projects from the 2018 ATP.

Projects will be re-prioritized as part of the next full ATP update.

16. Provide CIP funding to facilitate opportunity
improvements.

The report has been updated to clarify that the City
continues to fund opportunity improvements through
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding programs:
repaving, annual crosswalk improvements, trail
projects, and ATP implementation.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
346
TABLE B.2. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC WORKSHOP

QUESTION/COMMENT RESPONSE

1. Are high stress 580 crossing into Springtown
still planned? The crossing along S Vasco Rd
is pretty dangerous. To get to Springtown it is
relatively stressful to get from downtown
Livermore.

City staff are working on the Vasco Rd Interchange
project. In addition, the developer of the adjacent
Lassen townhome development is required to
construct the Las Colinas bike ped trail on the west
side of Springtown to the Las Colinas overcrossing of I580, which should be less stressful.

2. Does the plan include increased enforcement
by Livermore Police of traffic/parking laws
related to pedestrian and cyclist safety?
City staff will definitely consider this in the next fullscale update for the ATP. Staff will respond to specific requests as City and Police resources allow.

3. Will the presentation be available to use after? Yes, they will be on the website.

4. Are you planning to install more leading
pedestrian signal intervals?
Yes, the City is planning on installing more.

5. Is repair and maintenance part of this plan? In
particular around Arroyo Place.

Yes, Goal #4 is to maintain the active transportation
network.

6. On the Arroyo Mocho Trail, there are some
tree roots that have uprooted the path.

Comment noted and will be considered in the future
trail repair project.

7. Flooding destroyed an important transportation
facility under Arroyo Bridge near Robertson
Fields. Will the City work with LARPD to
provide a permanent solution for pedestrians,
scooters and cyclists?
Comment noted and will be considered in the future
trail repair project.

8. Plans for improvements for the bike path from
First St and Holmes St? Currently this is a
double lane and it is over capacity. It is difficult
for pedestrians to navigate through the plaza
and the drivers try to cross through the double
lanes.

Comment noted. This intersection will be evaluated in
the full Active Transportation Update.

9. Parking in bike lanes and cars opening doors
is problematic. Without change in drivers’
behavior and more respect for cyclists, it can
only go so far. Having an increased focus on
rules and laws designed to protect active
transportation users is important.

Comment noted. Possible policy revision will be
considered in the full Active Transportation Update.

10. How will the ATP deal with construction signs
and trash cans blocking bike lanes? This is a
critical safety issue.

Construction signs: the engineering departments are
reviewing the traffic control plan so that the signs do not block the bike lane. Or City staff will put on a sign to "share the road" for cyclists and drivers.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
347

11. Will homeowners be fined for homeowners for
blocking the bike lanes with trash cans?
Currently not. The City Community Development
Department will work with Police Department in the full Active Transportation Update to consider a policy to
address this issue.

12. How are you publicizing the projects that you
complete and provide updates?
On the city website:
https://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/communitydevelopment/engineering/captial-improvement-planproject

13. I live in East Dublin and I know that El Charro
Road interchange there is no connection over
the highway 580.

This interchange is owned by three different
jurisdictions.

14. City of Pleasantville is doing a plan and they
are not doing anything for El Charro Rd
Interchange.

This interchange is owned by three different
jurisdictions.

15. Can you talk about the Springtown Low Stress
Pathway?
There is a new shared use path coming that leads to
Las Colins Road that is going to be constructed by the
developer. That is going to be a great connection for
our Springtown residents.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
348
APPENDIX C. BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
349
Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails Active Transportation Plan JUNE 11, 2018
Prepared by Alta Planning + Design
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
350

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CITY OF LIVERMORE
This page intentionally left blank.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
351

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CITY COUNCIL 2016-2018
Mayor John Marchand
Vice Mayor Bob Woerner
Robert W. Carling
Bob Coomber
Steven Spedowfski
CITY COUNCIL 2015-2016
Mayor John Marchand
Vice Mayor Laureen Turner
Stewart Gary
Steven Spedowfski
Bob Woerner

PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair Erik Bjorklund
Vice Chair Neal Pann
Regina Bonanno
Bryan Fagundes
Loretta Kaskey

CITY STAFF
Debbie Bell, Associate Planner
Andy Ross, Associate Planner
Carlo Sendaydiego, Senior Transportation
Engineer
Cheri Sheets, City Engineer
Paul Spence, Community Development
Director
Anthony Smith, Management Analyst
Steve Stewart, Planning Manager
Bob Vinn, Assistant City Engineer
Patricia Pontau, Assistant Planner

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Alameda County Public Works Agency
Paul J. Keener
Alameda County Transportation Commission
Matthew Bomberg, Chris Marks
Bike East Bay
Peter Marleau
East Bay Regional Parks District
Suzanne Wilson, Sean Dougan
City of Dublin
William Lai, Obaid Khan
City of Pleasanton
Matt Nelson
City of Livermore Police Department
Keith Pini
City of Livermore Public Works Department
Jeff Shafer
Las Positas Community College
Eric Harpell, Jeff Sperry
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
Christy Wegener, Michael Tree
Livermore Area Recreation and Park District
John Lawrence, Patricia Lord, Tim Barry
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
Scott Vernoy, Chris VanSchaack
Zone 7
Larry Akinsiku, Joe Seto

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairperson Steve Howard
Vice Chairperson Kimberly Schertzer
Michael Ansell
Connie Campbell
Maria Dawson Lara Leininger

CONSULTING TEAM
Alta Planning + Design
Kimley Horn
LSA Associates
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
352

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1 WHAT IS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION? ................ 2 PLANNING AREA .................................................... 2 PLANNING PROCESS ............................................ 3 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN ....................................... 4 ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN ............................. 4 CHAPTER 2 VISION & GOALS ............................................ 5 VISION ..................................................................... 6 GOALS ..................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................. 9 COMMUNITY SETTING AND CONTEXT ............. 10 EXISTING NETWORKS ........................................ 11 EXISTING PROGRAMS ........................................ 22 ACTIVITY GENERATORS ..................................... 23 DEMOGRAPHICS .................................................. 26 TRAVEL PATTERNS ............................................. 27 CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS ........................................ 29 PUBLIC INPUT ...................................................... 30 HEALTH ................................................................. 36 SAFETY ................................................................. 38 DATA-DRIVEN ANALYSIS .................................... 41 FOCUS AREAS ..................................................... 52 CHAPTER 5 PROJECTS & PROGRAMS ........................... 53 NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS ............................... 54 CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS .............................. 56 PROJECT GROUPS .............................................. 58 CITYWIDE PROJECTS ......................................... 61 PROGRAMS .......................................................... 66 CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ................... 69 PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES ................ 71 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ................................ 75 BENEFIT AND FEASIBILITY EVALUATION ......... 77 FIRST PHASE ........................................................ 80 GUIDING PRINCIPLES ......................................... 83 APPENDIX A PLAN & POLICY REVIEW ........................... A-1 APPENDIX B PROGRAMS ................................................. B-1 APPENDIX C PUBLIC INPUT............................................. C-1 APPENDIX D HEALTH ANALYSIS .................................... D-1 APPENDIX E SAFETY & COLLISION ANALYSIS ............ E-1 APPENDIX F DEMAND ANALYSIS ................................... F-1 APPENDIX G BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ANALYSIS .................................... G-1

APPENDIX H PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE
ANALYSIS.................................................... H-1 APPENDIX I DETAILED PROJECT LIST ........................... I-1 APPENDIX J TRAILS .......................................................... J-1 APPENDIX K IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DETAIL ............. K-1 Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
353

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | iii
TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 3-1: Existing and Previously Proposed Bicycle and Trail Network.................................................... 16 Figure 3-2: Existing and Previously Proposed Trail Network ........... 21 Figure 3-3: Activity Generators ........................................................ 25 Figure 4-1: Public Mapping Input ..................................................... 33 Figure 4-2: Pedestrian and Bicycle Related Collisions .................... 40 Figure 4-3: Composite Demand Analysis ........................................ 42 Figure 4-4: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress ....................................... 44 Figure 4-5: Pedestrian Level of Service ........................................... 46 Figure 4-6: Low-Stress Bicycling Islands ......................................... 48 Figure 4-7: Low-Stress Pedestrian Islands ...................................... 49 Figure 4-8: Combined Bicycle Network Analysis ............................. 50 Figure 4-9: Combined Pedestrian Network Analysis ....................... 51 Figure 5-1: Proposed Projects ......................................................... 55 Figure 5-9: Proposed Projects – Crossing Improvements ............... 57 Figure 5-10: Proposed Projects by Group ....................................... 60 Figure 6-1: Projects by Project Group .............................................. 73 Figure 6-2: Implementation Strategy ................................................ 78 Figure 6-3: Projects by Implementation Strategy ............................. 79 Figure 6-4: First Phase Project Implementation............................... 82 TABLE OF TABLES Table 3-1: Existing Bikeway Miles .................................................... 12Table 3-2: Commute Modes in Peer Communities .......................... 27Table 4-1: Crashes Compared to Surrounding Area ....................... 39 Table 5-1: Summary of Proposed Network
Improvements (Mileage) ..................................................... 54 Table 5-2: Summary of Crossing Improvements ............................. 56Table 5-3: Proposed Projects by Group ........................................... 59Table 5-4: Existing and Proposed Programs ................................... 67Table 6-1: Unit Cost Assumptions .................................................... 71Table 6-2: Estimated Costs by Project Group .................................. 72Table 6-3: Maintenance Cost Assumptions ..................................... 74Table 6-4: First Phase Implementation Projects .............................. 81 Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
354

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | iv
This page intentionally left blank.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
355
01 Introduction
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
356

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 2
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Livermore envisions a vibrant community where people can comfortably walk, bicycle, and access trails for transportation and recreation. The Livermore Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Active Transportation Plan (Plan) carries this vision forward with a strategy to realize a safer, more comfortable active transportation environment with a thriving walking and bicycling culture. The Plan identifies challenges and recommends implementation strategies to improve walking, biking, and trails in Livermore. The Plan analyzes existing conditions, incorporates community objectives, implements current policies, and recommends network improvements and programs that address limitations and challenges to active transportation. The Plan proposes enhancements to the existing network to close gaps and increase safety, comfort, connectivity. The Plan prioritizes network and programmatic improvements, explores options for project phasing, and identifies funding opportunities.

WHAT IS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION? Active Transportation refers to all human-powered modes of transportation, from walking and bicycling to scootering, skateboarding, or rollerblading. These active modes of transportation are not only fun, affordable, and environmentally friendly, they support public health by incorporating physical activity into daily life. In this document, “pedestrian” and “walking” are intended to include people walking as well as those using wheelchairs (whether manual or motorized), skateboards, scooters, or any other human-powered transportation other than a bicycle. These modes of transportation all primarily use sidewalks and are considered “pedestrians” by the vehicle code, which dictates the rules and traffic signals or signs that each mode must abide by. PLANNING AREA The Active Transportation Planning Area for this Plan (Planning Area) is aligned with the City’s Planning Area as described in the General Plan, and encompasses land in Alameda County. The Planning Area extends beyond Livermore City limits to the north, east, and south to allow for bicycle, pedestrian, and trail access within the City to connect to regional and local open space and parks, schools, job centers, and other recreation opportunities. See Figure 3-1 in Chapter 3 for a map of the planning area.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
357

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 3
PLANNING PROCESS WHAT WE LEARNED Using a data-driven approach, multiple analyses highlighted areas of strong demand for walking and bicycling facilities near downtown, schools, and parks; gaps in the existing network; and community partners who support walking and bicycling related programs in the city. They also showed areas where improvements to safety or comfort of people walking and bicycling are needed, and where freeways and other features create barriers to connectivity. WHAT WE HEARD A significant amount of community input provided throughout the planning process at key milestones contributed to the development of this Plan. The Plan is the result of a contiguous feedback loop with the community throughout the entire process, which took on many forms including workshops, online engagement tools, surveys, pop up events, and Advisory Committee meetings. More than 250 people attended events to share their thoughts, and over 500 people provided input with the online tools. In responses to the community survey, 75 percent of people said they would like to walk or bicycle more for daily transportation, but concerns prevent them from feeling comfortable on the current networks. Bicycling and walking facilities that increase comfort by providing additional separation from vehicle traffic would encourage this group of residents to use active transportation more often.

Across all feedback opportunities, community members expressed a strong appreciation for the walking and bicycling trails in Livermore, and identified a need for improvements. When input from all outreach events was reviewed, five overarching themes coalesced into focus areas that guided development of the project and program lists in this Plan:
 Improved school access  Improved access to and throughout the downtown area  Crosstown routes that improve connectivity on longer corridors
 Increased connections within the existing trail network, as well as between the trail network and on-street bicycle and pedestrian networks  I-580 crossing improvements to reduce the impact of this barrier
THE ACTION PLAN The programs, policies, and projects in this Plan are informed by the extensive community outreach, current best practices in bicycle and pedestrian planning, and key findings from the assessment of existing conditions and needs. The project list was then reviewed and prioritized to create a strategic plan for implementation based on the cost, complexity, and anticipated benefit of each project.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
358

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 4
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN This Plan replaces the City’s 2001 Bikeways and Trails Master Plan. It adds a pedestrian emphasis and has been updated to reflect the current physical environment and public policy conditions. Based on this updated assessment of conditions, this Plan establishes a long-term vision to improve the active transportation network and enhance connections to transit facilities, employment, retail and commercial centers, and public facilities. This document is a comprehensive framework to guide decisions to implement network improvements, which will result in quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities to improve mobility, connectivity, public health, physical activity, and recreational opportunities. Using this Plan, the City aims to increase transportation options, reduce environmental impacts of the transportation system, and enhance the overall quality of life for the Livermore community. Overall, the Plan will create a system that enables people to use a variety of modes to achieve daily needs. Development of the Plan ultimately resulted in a programmed system of improvements consistent with State, regional, and local planning policies. This Plan complies with the State of California Active Transportation Program (ATP) guidelines, making Livermore more competitive for the ATP and other sources of grant funding. In addition, the Plan is consistent with or provides further guidance for regional plans and policies including the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Master Plan, the East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan, Alameda Countywide Bike Plan and Pedestrian Plan, and Unincorporated Alameda County’s Bike Plan and Pedestrian Plan. It also complies with the “Alameda County Transportation Commission Bicycle Master Plan Guidelines” and the “Toolkit for Improving Walkability in Alameda County.” See Appendix A for a review of relevant plans and policy documents. Further, this Plan implements the City’s Complete Street Policies set forth in the Livermore General Plan, and is consistent with or provides further guidance for the City’s Climate Action Plan, South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, El Charro Specific Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study, Arroyo Vista Neighborhood Plan, Development Code, Municipal Code, Design Guidelines, and Standard Details.

ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN The Plan is organized into seven chapters. In addition, appendices include more detailed background data and analyses used to support the project recommendations, and an attachment provides documentation of public input and events.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
359
02 Vision &
Goals
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
360

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 6
CHAPTER 2 VISION & GOALS The vision, goals, and policies of the Plan will guide City decisions to prioritize and implement recommended active transportation network improvement projects and programs. In this Plan, Goals and Policies are defined as follows: Goals are broad statements of what the City hopes to achieve for the bicycle, pedestrian, and trail network. These represent the most important priorities and attitudes of the community. Policies address City priorities, direct the way that public improvements are made, where resources are allocated, and how programs are operated. These include actions with measurable outcomes to be evaluated regularly.

VISION The City of Livermore envisions a city where people of all ages and abilities can comfortably access jobs, schools, recreation, shopping, and transit on foot or by bicycle as part of daily life in a healthy and active community.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
361

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 7
GOALS GOAL 1: SAFE & COMPREHENSIVE NETWORK Provide a safe, efficient, and connected bicycle, pedestrian, and trail network that accommodates all users and abilities. POLICIES  1.1 Develop and implement projects and improvements to address bicycle and pedestrian safety
 1.2 Connect neighborhoods, schools, work places, transit facilities, and other destinations with on-street facilities and/or separated trails  1.3 Build cross town connections for the bicycle,
pedestrian, and trail network
 1.4 Improve the pedestrian and bicycle network to and through Downtown Livermore to increase access, safety, and mobility  1.5 Establish safe crossings of barriers including highvolume roadways, freeway interchanges, railroads, arroyos, and other barriers
 1.6 Coordinate with other agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, and regional partners to plan and implement projects that improve Livermore’s network and connections to the region GOAL 2: DESIGN FOR ALL USERS Build a well-designed and comfortable bicycle, pedestrian, and trail network with support services and facilities to serve users of all ages and abilities. POLICIES  2.1 Incorporate best practices for the design of pedestrian facilities, bikeways, and trails that emphasize user safety and comfort  2.2 Incorporate sustainable and environmentally sensitive design for all facilities and amenities
 2.3 Provide support facilities on public properties as appropriate, such as bicycle parking, rest areas, water fountains, and other facilities  2.4 Require private development to provide appropriate support facilities, such as shower/locker facilities and bicycle parking  2.5 Connect new development and public spaces to the
active transportation network
 2.6 Consider maintenance needs in the design of all new facilities
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
362

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 8
GOAL 3: ENGAGE & GROW THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY Increase bicycling and walking for transportation and recreation with education, awareness, and enforcement. POLICIES  3.1 Educate the public on the benefits of bicycling and walking, the available bicycle and trail facilities, and their rights and responsibilities  3.2 Provide up-to-date information about the bicycle and trail network, bicycle parking, and program resources
 3.3 Develop and implement strategies to encourage
bicycling and walking to and through community events, including bicycle and pedestrian support facilities  3.4 Support and participate in Federal, State, Regional, and Local programs, such as countywide Safe Routes to School efforts  3.5 Coordinate with other agencies to promote,
encourage, and implement active transportation programs  3.6 Continue and expand bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic enforcement programs to encourage proper use of facilities, increase safety, and improve the user experience GOAL 4: MAINTAIN THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK Maintain roadways, sidewalks, and multi-use trails to provide safe and comfortable active transportation conditions for all users and abilities. POLICIES  4.1 Develop and provide a maintenance program for
pedestrian facilities, bikeways, and trails to provide continued safe and comfortable use of the network  4.2 Provide new facilities only where sufficient
maintenance funding can be identified
 4.3 Work with Federal, State, and Regional agencies to expand maintenance funding opportunities
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
363
03 Existing
Conditions
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
364

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 10
CHAPTER 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter describes the existing transportation environment in Livermore, with a focus on conditions that affect the bikeway, pedestrian, and trail networks. Conditions were evaluated under six broad categories, including:
 Community Setting and Context  Existing Networks  Existing Programs  Activity Generators  Demographics  Travel Patterns These existing conditions serve as the basis for the needs analysis in Chapter 4.

COMMUNITY SETTING AND CONTEXT Livermore is in eastern Alameda County, in the Tri-valley region of the San Francisco Bay Area which includes Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon, and Danville. The Livermore Valley, oriented east to west, is formed by the Diablo Range of the coastal mountains, and joins the Amador and Sunol Valleys on its west side. The City of Livermore is predominantly flat on the valley floor, while the northern, eastern, and southern valley edges are composed of rolling hills, vineyards, and ridge lines. Interstate 580 (I-580) aligns east to west through the Valley and bisects the Planning Area. Similarly, the Union Pacific Railroad parallels I-580 to the south through the downtown core. Livermore’s historic downtown is located in the geographic center of Livermore, in an area roughly bounded by the railway to the north, Fourth Street to the south and east, and Murrieta Boulevard to the west. Livermore is crossed by several arroyos, including Arroyo Seco, Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo Las Positas, and Arroyo del Valle, which form the natural drainage for the area. These watercourses support vegetation and wildlife habitat; provide opportunities for human and wildlife connectivity, and recreation; and add visual interest to the community. The diverse open spaces and trails provide a suitable environment for outdoor activity and opportunity to increase bicycling, walking, and horseback riding.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
365

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 11
EXISTING NETWORKS ROADWAY NETWORK & MAJOR BARRIERS Streets in downtown Livermore generally follow a traditional grid network. The majority of the City is comprised of suburban streets with cul-de-sacs and limited connections between neighborhoods. As a result, the few corridors that provide crosstown connectivity face enormous pressure to accommodate all modes of transportation. Major east-west arterials include:
 First Street  Jack London Boulevard  Stanley Boulevard  Concannon Boulevard  East Avenue
Major north-south arterials include:
 Livermore Avenue  Mines Road  Vasco Road
 L Street/Arroyo Road  Isabel Avenue
The Union Pacific Railroad tracks that bisect the city create a barrier to north-south travel for motor vehicles, bicycle traffic, and trail users since many streets do not cross the railroad tracks and there are few grade-separated crossings. Existing at-grade crossings include:
 L Street  Junction Avenue  Vasco Road
Grade separated crossings include:
 Murrieta Boulevard  Livermore Avenue  First Street  P Street  Mines Road  Vasco Road  Greenville Road
In addition, I-580 separates the Northwest and Northeast neighborhoods from the rest of the City due to limited crossing options. There are eight existing crossings of I-580 in Livermore. All allow bicycle and pedestrian crossings, but most are not ideal because they lack pedestrian and bicycle facilities that provide a comfortable experience. Finally, several arroyos weave through Livermore, creating both opportunities and constraints. Many of these arroyos are under the jurisdiction of the Zone 7 Flood Control District and have service roads, which have been or could be converted to multiuse trails. However, the arroyos can also act as barriers with limited crossing opportunities.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
366

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 12
TRANSIT NETWORK The Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) rail service runs from San Jose to Stockton and has two stops in Livermore, one in downtown and one at Vasco Road. ACE service provides pedestrian and bicycle commuters and visitors who live outside of Livermore with an alternative mode of transportation into the City. The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) operates a fleet of its Wheels buses within Livermore and provides connecting access to and from San Ramon, Dublin, and Pleasanton. The Livermore Transit Center in downtown Livermore serves as a major hub for LAVTA bus service as well as the downtown Livermore ACE station. BICYCLE NETWORK The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) classifies and defines bicycle facilities. Caltrans designates four classes of bicycle facilities: Classes I, II, III, and IV. In addition, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) has adopted a set of sub-classifications for each Caltrans classification. These sub-classifications were designed to harmonize previously existing local classification systems within Alameda County and to incorporate emerging bikeway typologies. The following sections describe the classes of bikeways that currently exist in Livermore, followed by a description of the additional bikeway classes identified by Caltrans and Alameda CTC.

EXISTING BIKEWAYS IN LIVERMORE Table 3-1 summarizes existing bikeway mileage in Livermore in 2001 and today, and Figure 3-1 shows existing and previously proposed bikeways and trails.

Table 3-1: Existing Bikeway Miles
BIKEWAY CLASS 2001 MILES 2018 MILES Class I Shared Use Paths 22 40 Class II Bicycle Lanes 46 66 Total 68 106 An existing shared use path in Livermore Class I Shared Use Paths are completely separated, exclusive rights-of-way for two-way bicycling, walking, and other nonmotorized uses.  Class IA for paved paths  Class IB for unpaved paths Equestrians are permitted to use all paths in Livermore.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
367

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 13
An existing Class II bicycle lane in Livermore
Class II Bicycle Lanes are striped, preferential lanes on roadways for one-way bicycle travel. All existing bicycle lanes in Livermore are Class IIA conventional bicycle lanes, consisting of a single stripe to delineate the lane, stenciled pavement markings, and signs to identify it as a bicycle lane. Where a bicycle lane is adjacent to on-street parking, the lane may be striped on both sides. ADDITIONAL BICYCLE FACILITIES In addition to Class I shared use paths and Class IIA conventional bicycle lanes, there are several additional classes of bikeways designated by Caltrans and Alameda CTC and intersection treatments that do not yet exist in Livermore but were considered in development of this Plan and recommended where appropriate.

A typical buffered bicycle lane Class II bicycle lanes can be upgraded from conventional striping to include striped buffers that add a few feet of separation between the bicycle lane and traffic lane or parking aisle, or other features that improve bicyclist comfort. The additional Alameda CTC designations for bicycle lanes are:
 Class IIB for upgraded bicycle lanes, either with a
striped buffer between the bicycle lane and traffic lane, or with green conflict markings in the bicycle lane  Class IIC for climbing bicycle lanes, which have a
dedicated bicycle lane in the uphill direction and a Class III bicycle route in the downhill direction  Class IID for contraflow bicycle lanes, which allow for bicycling in the opposite direction of motor vehicle traffic (typically used to support two-way bicycle travel on oneway streets) Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
368

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 14
Typical bicycle boulevard features, clockwise from top left: sharrows, wayfinding, speed hump, and traffic circle Class III Bicycle Routes are signed routes where people riding bicycles share a travel lane with people driving motor vehicles.  Class IIIA for signage-only routes  Class IIIB for wide curb or shoulder lanes, that may or may not include signage
 Class IIIC for routes with shared lane markings
(“sharrows”) or other pavement stenciling, and may also include signage  Class IIID for routes with green-backed sharrows, also called “super sharrows”
 Class IIIE for bicycle boulevards, which are signed,
shared travelways with low motor vehicle volumes and
speeds that prioritize convenient and safe bicycle travel through traffic calming, wayfinding signs, and traffic control adjustments Because they are mixed-traffic facilities, Class III bicycle routes are only appropriate for very low-volume streets with slow travel speeds. Designating Class III bicycle routes can support bicycling beyond the actual facility provided. Signed bicycle routes can help people riding bicycles navigate quiet streets and identify which streets connect. The City may also choose to adopt related policies or practices to maintain designated streets at a level that is comfortable for people bicycling, which may include sweeping more frequently or maintaining a higher quality pavement surface than non-designated streets.

Typical separated bikeway with bollardsClass IV Separated Bikeways are on-street bicycle lanes that are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by a vertical element or barrier such as a curb, bollards, or parking aisle. They may allow for one- or two-way traffic.  Class IVA for one-way separated bikeways  Class IVB for two-way separated bikeways Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
369

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 15
Bike boxes at signalized intersections provide a designated space for bicyclists to queue ahead of vehicle traffic, increasing visibility, reducing signal delay for bicyclists, and helping to prevent right-hook conflicts with turning vehicles. Bike boxes also benefit pedestrians as they reduce vehicles encroaching into the crosswalk. Typical bicycle box Two-stage turn boxes help bicyclists make left turns at signalized intersections with multiple travel lanes from a bicycle lane or separated bikeway. They may also be used at unsignalized locations to facilitate turns from one facility type to another, such as the transition from a bike lane to a bike boulevard. The turn boxes separate turning bicyclists from those continuing through, reduce turning conflicts between vehicles and bikes, and provide a formal queuing space in the intersection. Two-stage turn box Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
370

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

RAILROAD AVE

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

DR OCSAV S

EVA ATSIV ANEUB

DR OCSAV N

TS ROOMDAORB

EVA LARTNEC

NWOTGNIRPS

HCNAR ATNEVARAG

DR NILHGUAL

FIRST ST

TS SEMLOH

EAST AV

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

DR OYORRA

TS ETNEW

NL LLEDRUM
RIATLA

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE VINEYARD AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

JACK LONDON BLVD JACK LONDON BLVD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

STANLEY BL

E STANLEY BL

ISABEL AV ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

EVA EROMREVIL

HIGHLAND

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

LEXINGTON

CHARLOTTE WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE

BERNAL AV

POSITAS BL
N
Iron Horse Trail Iron Horse Trail
Arroyo Seco
Trail
Brushy Peak to Del Valle Trail
Arroyo Las Positas Trail Arroyo
Trail
Arroyo Mocho Trail
Arroyo Del Valle Reg i onal Trail
580 580
580

CATALINA DR
N L ST

TS NESNEJ

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

TOURIGA DR

KIRKCALDY RD ECNEDNEPEDNI

CROAK RD

N VASCO RD

TESLA RD
Chain of Lakes
Lake
Del Valle
Frick
Lake
Bill Payne
Sports
Park
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson
Park
Independence
Park
Les
Park Livermore Downs
Ravenswood
Park
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve
Marlin
Pound
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore Grove Park
Carnegie Park
Max Baer
Park
Shadow Cliffs
Area
Del Valle
Regional Park
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Livermore
Municipal Airport
Vasco Rd
Downtown
Transit Center
Las Positas
College
Outlets

EXISTING BIKEWAYS/TRAILS
Class 1a. Paved Shared
Use Path
Class 2a. Bicycle Lane

PROPOSED BIKEWAYS/TRAILS
Class 1a. Paved Shared
Use Path
Class 2a. Bicycle Lane
City of Livermore
Boundary
School Ground
Park
Railway
Creek
City Hall
Hospital
Library
Points of Interest
Post Office
School
Legend

PREVIOUSLY

EXISTING AND PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED
Bikeways & Trail Network 0 1 2 MILES
ACE Station
Class 3a. Signage-only
route (e.g. bike route)
Mocho
Figure 3-1
Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
National
Lab
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
371

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 17
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK The pedestrian network is composed of sidewalks, pathways, crosswalks, curb ramps, crossing enhancements, and amenities like benches and lighting. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN NETWORK IN LIVERMORE A typical sidewalk Sidewalks are smooth, even surfaces for pedestrian use that are separated from vehicle travel lanes. Some sidewalks are buffered from the roadway by landscaped areas or other features. Sidewalks throughout Livermore vary in width from five to ten feet wide, depending on the adjacent land use. Livermore currently has approximately 566 miles of sidewalks, covering 93 percent of the street network. There are 44 miles of roadways that have sidewalk on only one side, and 32 miles that lack sidewalks entirely. Small sidewalk gaps that exist sporadically throughout the planning area impede or discourage pedestrian activity.

Transverse and high visibility crosswalk markings Marked crosswalks guide pedestrians to a preferred path of travel across a street, and alert motorists that pedestrians are likely to be crossing at that location. Standard or “transverse” crosswalks consist of two parallel lines, while high visibility crosswalks add horizontal stripes or other markings. Crosswalks near schools may be marked in yellow. Marked crossings should always include advance warning signage and advance yield lines, and can be enhanced with curb extensions to shorten the crossing distance and increase visibility. On streets with one lane in each direction and moderate traffic volumes, the addition of a median refuge may be necessary to improve safety and comfort of people crossing.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
372

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 18
Curb ramps Curb ramps help pedestrians with mobility impairments, those using assistive devices, and children transition from the sidewalk to a crosswalk. They also support pedestrians with strollers and children riding scooters or skateboards on the sidewalk. At corners with two crosswalks, two perpendicular curb ramps should be installed to lead directly into the crosswalk on a straight path. While a single diagonal ramp is acceptable under certain constrained conditions, two perpendicular ramps are the preferred design option because of the benefits they offer to people with disabilities. People with vision impairments are aligned from a ramp directly into the crosswalk, and people using wheelchairs or other assistive devices do not travel diagonally into the street before turning back into one of the crosswalks. The City has an estimated 8,000 curb ramps. Based on an inventory and condition assessment of a sample of the City’s curb ramps, it is estimated that 28 percent of ramps comply with current ADA standards, 59 percent require updates, and 13 percent are locations where a curb ramp would traditionally be located but has not been installed.

A typical median refuge Median refuges, also known as pedestrian refuge islands, provide a safe waiting area for pedestrians in the median of wide, busy streets. Median refuges also allow pedestrians to focus on one direction of vehicle traffic, stop and wait in the median, and then focus on the other direction of vehicle traffic to finish crossing. The median refuge should have a physical barrier on either side, which can be curbs or plantings, to separate pedestrians from vehicle traffic. Median refuges should be combined with other crossing treatments, such as Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) or other beacons.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
373

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 19
A typical RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are useractuated amber LEDs that supplement warning signs at uncontrolled intersections and mid-block crosswalks. They can be activated by people bicycling and walking by manually pushing a button or passively by remote detection. For crossings of roadways with one lane in each direction and higher traffic volumes, or on four-lane streets with medium volumes, both a median refuge island and RRFB are typically provided to improve safety and comfort. ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES In addition to the previously described pedestrian facilities and amenities that exist in Livermore today, one additional type of pedestrian beacon was considered in development of this Plan and may be recommended for intersection improvements as appropriate.

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, also known as high-intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) beacons, are traffic control devices used to stop roadway traffic and allow people to walk or bike across an intersection. People walking and bicycling activate the beacon by manually pushing a button or passively by video detection or a detector loop system. A PHB creates the lowest level of stress (LTS 1) for people crossing major streets as it functions as a traffic signal, requiring vehicles to stop at a red light when activated. It is designed for intersections that may not meet requirements for a traffic signal, but have volumes high enough that a beacon is needed to provide adequate breaks in traffic for pedestrians and bicyclists to get through the intersection.

A typical pedestrian hybrid beacon
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
374

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 20
TRAIL NETWORK Livermore currently has approximately 40 miles of Class I paved shared use paths designed for bicycling, walking, and horseback riding. While equestrians are allowed on all existing trails, trails constructed in South Livermore Valley generally provide a separate unpaved path for horses. The existing trail network is partially developed throughout portions of the City. The previous Bikeways and Trails Master Plan proposed a network of trails throughout Livermore, along the railroad tracks, linkages to cross I-580, and along the arroyos. Figure 3-2 shows existing and previously proposed trails in Livermore. The existing and proposed trail network is intended to provide separated and comfortable access to community facilities, schools, and transit. The trail network also provides recreational opportunity and connection to neighborhood and regional parks. TRAILHEADS There are several existing trailheads that serve the network and provide access for equestrians, including:
 Robertson Park (Robertson Park Rd)  Sycamore Grove Park (Wetmore Rd access from Sycamore Grove Park Parking Lot)
 Del Valle Regional Park (Arroyo Rd Del Valle Arroyo Rd Staging Area (EBRPD))
 Brushy Peak (Laughlin Rd – Laughlin Ranch Staging
Area)
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
375

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

GREENVILLE RD

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

RAILROAD AVE

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

S VASCO RD

BUENA VISTA AVE

BROADMOOR ST

N VASCO RD

CENTRAL AVE

SPRINGTOWN

GARAVENTA RANCH

LAUGHLIN RD

FIRST ST

HOLMES ST

EAST AV

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

ARROYO RD

WENTE ST

MURDELL LN
ALTAIR

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE VINEYARD AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

JACK LONDON BLVD JACK LONDON BLVD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

STANLEY BL

E STANLEY BL

ISABEL AV ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

LIVERMORE AVE

HIGHLAND

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

LEXINGTON

CHARLOTTE WAY

CHARLOTT E WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE

BERNAL AV

POSITAS BL
N
Iron Horse Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Arroyo Seco
Trail
Brushy Peak to Del Valle Trail
Arroyo Las Positas Trail
Arroyo Mocho Trail
Arroyo Del Valle Reg i onal Trail
Arroyo Mocho Trail
580 580
580

CATALINA DR
N L ST

JENSEN ST

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

TOURIGA DR

KIRKCALDY

INDEPENDENCE DR

CROAK RD

N VASCO RD

EXISTING TRAILS
Class 1a. Paved Shared
Use Path

PROPOSED TRAILS
Class 1a. Paved Shared
Use Path
City of Livermore
Boundary
School Ground
Park
Railway
Creek
ACE Station
City Hall
Hospital
Library
Points of Interest
Post Office
School
Legend

EXISTING AND PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED
Trail Network 0 1 2 MILES
Figure 3-2
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
376

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 22
EXISTING PROGRAMS Bicycle and pedestrian education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs are an integral part of supporting active transportation and increasing users. Programs are generally described by four E’s: education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation. Livermore has a strong history of supporting and participating in active transportation programs, which are listed briefly below. These programs are described in greater detail, along with recommendations for new and expanded program efforts, in Chapter 5 and Appendix K. EDUCATION  Bicycle Safety Education Classes for youth are
offered by Livermore police to students in Kindergarten through 8th grade, and through the Alameda County Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program to elementary, middle, and high school students  Adult Bicycle Safety Education is offered by Bike East Bay, and teaches riders the rules of the road and how to safely bicycle in a variety of scenarios, including both classroom lessons and on-bike practice  Youth Pedestrian Safety Education provided to
Kindergarten through second graders by the Alameda County SR2S program includes practicing safe walking and crossing behaviors  Bike Maps provide information about the City’s existing bikeways and trails in addition to information on key destinations, routes, and distances between points

ENCOURAGEMENT
 Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program operated by
Alameda County Transportation Commission includes numerous activities to promote walking and bicycling to school, including school site audits, evaluation activities, education efforts, and fun encouragement events  Bike to Work Day activities in Livermore, which include energizer stations, giveaways for commuters, and an outreach campaign, are led by the City in partnership with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Bike East Bay  Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordination for the City is
currently incorporated into the responsibilities of two staff members in the Planning department who manage bicycling and walking plans and projects for the City, including coordinating with partner agencies to implement programs and events

ENFORCEMENT
 Ticket Diversion Classes for Bicyclists operated by
the Livermore Police Department and Bike East Bay allow youth bicyclists to attend a bicycle safety course instead of paying a fine for a citation  Crossing Guards hired by the Livermore Police
Department are stationed at key locations near schools to assist students and enforce safe driving behavior at crosswalks  Speed Feedback Trailers deployed by the Livermore
Police Department are used for short-term enforcement to target areas where speeding is a concern Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
377

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 23
 Bicycle Patrol officers and volunteers with the
Livermore Police Department patrol trails in addition to streets and other areas of the community, and may notice challenges or hazards specific to bicyclists during their shifts  Traffic Calming consists of engineering treatments
designed and implemented to reduce traffic speeds and improve safety and comfort along key corridors, often coupled with enforcement campaigns to educate the community on the new features EVALUATION The City currently does not formally evaluate bicycling and walking programs or projects on an annual or routine basis.

ACTIVITY GENERATORS Existing activity generators are destinations that are likely to attract walking or bicycling trips, including:
 Parks and community facilities  Commercial retail centers  Schools  Major employers A map of activity generators can be seen in Figure 3-3.

PARKS & COMMUNITY FACILITIES Three libraries and one community center in Livermore provide space for recreational activities, classes, and community gatherings. These include the Civic Center, Rincon Branch, and Springtown Branch libraries and the Robert Livermore Community Center. Parks are distributed throughout the community and vary in size, intensity and design. The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) is an independent special district that owns and/or manages parks in and around Livermore. LARPD provides:
 29 neighborhood parks  Three community parks  Seven dog parks  Four open space areas totaling 1,360 acres  10 special-use parks Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
378

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 24
East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) owns or manages approximately 6,500 acres of regional park land in the Livermore area, offering a variety of recreational opportunities. In addition, EBRPD owns or manages several miles of regional trails in Livermore including the Iron Horse Regional Trail and the Shadow Cliffs to Del Valle Regional Trail. There is high demand for improved access to these regional park amenities. Zone 7 Water Agency serves the Livermore-Amador Valley, and controls several arroyos and access roads within Livermore. Some maintenance roads on levees are currently open for bicycle and pedestrian use, and the Agency has expressed a willingness to discuss opening additional levee trails for transportation and recreation. COMMERCIAL RETAIL CENTERS Commercial uses in Livermore are concentrated downtown and in neighborhood shopping centers along arterials in the community. Providing improved bicycle and pedestrian access to shops, restaurants, services, and other businesses will support residents who want to socialize or run errands without using a car. Wineries are also a major commercial activity and destination in Livermore. Many vineyards and tasting rooms are clustered just southeast of the City, and form a transition between the developed area and the surrounding open space. Some wineries are served by existing shared use paths, and opportunities exist to connect additional wineries and promote the area as a wine trail.

SCHOOLS Livermore schools are distributed throughout the city’s neighborhoods. They include:
 Livermore Valley Unified School District: nine
elementary schools, two K-8 schools, three middle schools, and three high schools  Las Positas Community College  Private schools and pre-schools MAJOR EMPLOYERS According to the Livermore Office of Innovation and Economic Development, the largest employers in Livermore are the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Valley Care Health Systems, Sandia National Lab, Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, Kaiser Permanente, GILLIG, Lam Research, Form Factor, Wente Vineyards, US Foods, the RK Logistics Group, Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District, the City of Livermore, Las Positas College, Topcon Positioning Systems, Costco, and Performant.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
379

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

GREENVILLE RD

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

RAILROAD AVE

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

S VASCO RD

BUENA VISTA AVE

BROADMOOR ST

N VASCO RD

CENTRAL AVE

SPRINGTOWN

GARAVENTA RANCH

LAUGHLIN RD

FIRST ST

HOLMES ST

EAST AV

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

ARROYO RD

WENTE ST

MURDELL LN
ALTAIR

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE VINEYARD AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

JACK LONDON BLVD JACK LONDON BLVD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

STANLEY BL

E STANLEY BL

ISABEL AV ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

LIVERMORE AVE

HIGHLAND

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

LEXINGTON

CHARLOTTE WAY

CHARLOTT E WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE

BERNAL AV

POSITAS BL
N
580 580
580

CATALINA DR
N L ST

JENSEN ST

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

TOURIGA DR

KIRKCALDY

INDEPENDENCE DR

CROAK RD

N VASCO RD

TESLA RD
Chain
of Lakes
Lake
Del Valle
Frick
Lake
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Bill Payne
Sports
Park
Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
National
Lab
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson
Park
Independence
Park
Les
Knott
Park Livermore
Downs
Ravenswood
Park
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve
Marlin
Pound
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Wattenburger
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore
Grove Park
Rotary
Park
Max Baer
Park
Livermore
School
District
Kaiser
Permanente
Wente
Vineyards
RGW
Construction, Inc
Wente
Vineyards
Livermore Area
Recreation &
Park District
City of
Livermore
Valley Care
Health System
GILLIG
Form
Factor
US Foods
RK Logistics
Group
Topcon
Positioning
Systems
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Vasco Rd
ACE Station
Downtown
Transit Center
Las Positas
College
Outlets
Lam Research
Costco Corporation
Wholesale
Performant
City of Livermore
Boundary
School Ground
Park
Railway
Creek
ACE Station
City Hall
Hospital
Library
Points of Interest
Major Employer
Post Office
School
Legend
Figure 3-3
Activity Generators 0 1 2 MILES
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
380

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 26
DEMOGRAPHICS Understanding the demographics of the Livermore community not only informed the projects, programs, and priorities reflected in this Plan, but also informed a strategic outreach and community engagement plan to reach the diverse residents. All demographic data reflects 2014 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey. POPULATION Livermore is home to 89,301 residents, and has grown by 22 percent since 2000. It is the sixthlargest city in Alameda County. AGE There are many young people in Livermore, with just over 24 percent of residents under 18 years of age compared to 22 percent in Alameda County. This 24 percent are likely to be unable to drive, which increases their dependence on walking, bicycling, and taking transit to reach their destinations. ACCESS TO CARS More than 95 percent of Livermore households have access to a car. Just four percent do not have access to a car, suggesting they rely on walking, bicycling, or transit. Based on Livermore’s average household size, this represents nearly 3,500 residents who may not have access to a car for transportation. An additional 23 percent of households have access to only one vehicle. If these households have two workers, one or more of them may rely on other modes of transportation for their commute. INCOME Median household income in Livermore is $99,683 in 2014 dollars, representing a 32 percent increase from the 2000 median of $75,322. On average, Livermore residents earn more than Alameda County overall, which has a median income of $73,775.

American Community Survey 2014 5-year estimates
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
381

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 27
TRAVEL PATTERNS COMMUTE TRAVEL Almost 80 percent of Livermore residents drive alone to work. Bicycling and walking together make up just two percent of all commute trips, based on 2014 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey. Bicycling and walking is likely higher than this overall, as the American Community Survey does not count recreational trips or trips where commuters use more than one mode, such as taking a bus and then bicycling to their final destination. Thirty-nine percent of the Livermore residents also work in Livermore, which provides an opportunity to shift commute trips within the city from driving to other modes. Compared to communities listed in Table 3-2, Livermore has a higher bicycling commute mode share and a lower walking commute mode share than some Bay Area peers.

Table 3-2: Commute Modes in Peer Communities
CITY BIKE COMMUTE SHARE WALK COMMUTE SHARE Livermore 1.4% 0.9% Dublin 0.4% 2.0% Pleasanton 0.9% 2.4% Rancho Cordova 1.4% 2.3% Berkeley 9.7% 19.6% Davis 23.2% 5.1% Copenhagen 37.0% 6.0% SCHOOL TRAVEL The Alameda County Safe Routes to School program collects data on trips to school, including several schools in Livermore. From 2013 to 2015, 6.6 percent of Livermore students bicycled and 17.4 percent of students walked to school. Bicycling to school in Livermore is higher than the national average of 2.2 percent, which suggests the bicycle network in Livermore currently supports some trips to school. If the bicycling network along routes to school is improved, bicycling to school rates are likely to increase.

Alameda County Safe Routes to Schools Program counts taken between 2013 and 2015 Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
382

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 28
This page intentionally left blank.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
383
04 Needs
Analysis
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
384

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 30
CHAPTER 4 NEEDS ANALYSIS The walking and bicycling needs of the Livermore community are diverse, influenced by the quality of the networks—both the physical condition of the infrastructure and the perceived comfort of people walking and bicycling—community demographics, trip purposes, and many other factors. This chapter includes an overview of active transportation needs identified through the following analyses:
 Public Input  Health  Safety  Data-driven Analysis PUBLIC INPUT Throughout the planning process, the City held multiple workshops, tours, and other events to gather input for this Plan. Opportunities to inform existing conditions and help identify and prioritize needed improvements were offered throughout development of the Plan, with a priority on reaching a broad cross section of Livermore residents. This continuous feedback loop resulted in a project list, evaluation strategy, and programs suite that truly reflects community values and priorities. Opportunities for public input included:
 Two public workshops  Survey and interactive map  14 pop-up events  Walking and bicycling tours  Advisory committee meetings  Planning Commission and City Council meetings Activities and key outcomes are summarized in the following sections. For detailed information, see Appendix C.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
385

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 31
WORKSHOPS COMMUNITY WORKSHOP 1 The first public open house, held in April 2016, was attended by 76 people. Participants reviewed and provided comments on the existing conditions information, including suggesting Plan goals and desired improvements. Hard copies of the community survey were also distributed for participants to complete.

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP 2 A second workshop was held in January 2017 to gather feedback from the community on draft network, crossing, and program recommendations, and provide an opportunity for input on project prioritization criteria. The workshop, which included Spanish and Vietnamese interpretation, was attended by 110 people. Feedback themes included:
 Support for green bicycle lanes or boxes at key conflict points
 Need for additional bicycle parking  Improved bicycle detection at signalized intersections  Improved lighting citywide  Additional amenities along trails  Improved connectivity between bikeways  Preference for accommodating on-street bikeways
through travel lane narrowing or removal rather than onstreet parking removal Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
386

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 32
SURVEY AND INTERACTIVE MAP A community survey gathered input on active transportation challenges and opportunities throughout Livermore. The survey was available online in English and Spanish from March 28 through May 30, 2016, and collected 524 responses. An interactive mapping tool was also included online, which allowed residents and stakeholders to draw routes and make comments to help identify locations that need improvements, routes they are currently using, and barriers to walking and bicycling. Survey respondents expressed an appreciation for the walking and bicycling paths in Livermore, and a desire for a more connected network and improved safety and comfort. Mapped input is shown in Figure 4-1. The majority of survey respondents also reported a desire to walk (76 percent) or bicycle (81 percent) more often for their daily commute, errands, and other trips. In addition, 34 percent of respondents reported they are interested in bicycling but have concerns, representing an opportunity for mode shift and behavior change if improvements to bicyclist safety and comfort are implemented. Additional themes from the feedback received include: WALKING NEEDS  Close sidewalk gaps  Improve street lighting  Improve crossings and curb ramps  Traffic calming Key locations identified as needing improvements include:
 Downtown Livermore  Livermore Avenue  Vasco Road/I-580 crossing

BICYCLING NEEDS
 Improve safety for on-street bikeways  Create dedicated space for bicycling  Design ramps and bollards to accommodate bicycles with trailers
 Improve crossings
Key locations identified as needing improvements include:
 Arroyo Mocho Trail  East Avenue  Vasco Road/I-580 crossing Additional bicycle parking was also identified as a need, including along First Street in the downtown, and near parks, grocery stores, and other destinations. TRAIL NEEDS  Improve connectivity of separated trails  Address personal safety concerns  Complete trail gaps Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
387

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 33
Figure 4-1: Public Mapping Input
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
388

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 34
POP-UP EVENTS To gather input from residents who may not have attended a traditional workshop, the City of Livermore planned and facilitated 14 diverse community events to share information and talk with attendees about the project. These pop up events were conducted at:
 Parent Club Information Council – April 26, 2016  Senior Services – Living with Purpose – May 2, 2016  Youth Advisory Commission – May 2, 2016  Las Positas Junior College – May 4, 2016  Livermore Farmer’s Market – May 19, 2016  WHEELS Disabled Advisory Committee – January 4, 2017
 Marylin Elementary – English Learner Advisory
Committee – March 29, 2017
 Livermore Wine Country Downtown Street Fest – May
2016 and May 2017
 Bike to Work Day Energizer Stations at Sandia and
Lawrence Livermore Labs and at My Buddy’s Bike Shop – May 2016 and May 2017  Hook and Ladder Run – June 4, 2017  Equestrian Focus Group – June 25, 2017  Livermore Trailblazers Focus Group – July 10, 2017 WALKING AND BICYCLING TOUR A walking and bicycling tour of Livermore was attended by four people walking and five people bicycling in March 2017. The groups were led by project staff and visited locations to discuss proposed projects and document challenges. ADVISORY COMMITTEES ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Development of this Plan was guided by an Active Transportation Plan Citizen Advisory Committee composed of six members appointed by the City Council. The group met seven times throughout the planning process to set project goals, review key deliverables, and inform community outreach processes.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
389

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 35
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE A technical advisory committee of thirteen subject area experts met four times throughout the process to provide in-depth input into project development and prioritization. Member agencies included:
 Alameda County Public Works  Alameda CTC  Bike East Bay  City of Dublin  City of Livermore Police Department  City of Livermore Public Works Department  City of Pleasanton  East Bay Regional Parks District  Las Positas Community College  Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority/Wheels  Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District  Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District  Zone 7 Water Agency PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Two rounds of presentations were made to the Planning Commission and City Council at key project milestones. The first round of meetings, held in Fall of 2016, presented information on the existing conditions, needs analysis, and goals chapters of the Plan. The second round of meetings, held in Summer of 2018, presented the completed draft Plan for review and comments before adoption.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
390

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 36
HEALTH Bicycling and walking are closely tied to health, and a review of physical activity and air quality can illuminate the need for active transportation improvements in a community. A growing number of studies show how communities and transportation systems have a profound impact on health and quality of life issues. Fostering conditions where bicycling and walking are accepted and encouraged can increase the health and livability of a city through increased physical activity and improved air quality. For detailed data on health in Livermore, see Appendix D. PHYSICAL ACTIVITY The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends adults get 150 minutes of physical activity each week. According to the California Health Interview Survey Neighborhood Edition, only 36 percent of adults in Livermore meet this recommendation. While this is a small sample of the population, the rate is consistent with county and statewide rates at 37 and 33 percent respectively. The Department of Education, which collects physical fitness data for students, reports approximately 75 percent of students in the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District are in the Healthy Fitness Zone for aerobic capacity. Similar to adult activity rates, this is on par with county and state levels. The Department of Education also reports slightly lower rates of obese or overweight youth in Livermore compared to state and county data, while California Health Interview Survey Neighborhood Edition data shows Livermore adults are slightly more likely to be obese or overweight than their peers in Alameda County or California. Improving walking and bicycling networks can improve physical activity and reduce obesity in both children and adults. The CDC has found increasing opportunities for activity can result in 25 percent more residents exercising at least three times per week. California Health Interview Survey Neighborhood Edition; California Department of Education; and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
391

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 37
AIR QUALITY CalEnviroScreen 2.0 is a tool developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment team that measures pollution and population factors to identify census tracts where adverse health effects are disproportionately distributed. According to CalEnviroScreen 2.0, Livermore residents experience a greater pollution burden than Alameda County as a whole. Livermore ranks in the 51st percentile, while Alameda County ranks in the 34th percentile. With regards to traffic related pollution, Livermore census tracts rank in the 36th percentile on average for exposure to PM2.5 and in the 45thpercentile for diesel emissions. Exposure to traffic pollution can have adverse health effects, such as respiratory issues, heart and lung disease, and asthma. Livermore residents also disproportionately suffer from asthma compared to the rest of California, which may be related to increased air pollution exposure in the City. The California Health Interview Survey Neighborhood Edition reports 18 percent of Livermore residents have been diagnosed with asthma, compared to 15 percent of youth and 13 percent of adults statewide.

CalEnviroScreen 2.0; California Health Interview Survey Neighborhood Edition Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
392

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 38
SAFETY Safety and comfort play a significant role in the decision to walk or bicycle instead of some other mode of transportation. While these two factors are closely related, safety refers to the real risk of injury or fatality due to a collision, while comfort refers to a person’s perception of the bicycle or pedestrian facility provided on a particular street. This section discusses safety in Livermore; comfort is addressed in the following data-driven analysis section. Identification of locations and behaviors involved in bicycle and pedestrian related crashes informed this Plan’s recommendations. A summary is presented in this section, and Appendix E contains a detailed analysis. Collisions are mapped in Figure 4-2. Bicycle and pedestrian related collisions in Livermore were analyzed using the most recent five years of available data, from 2010 to 2014, accessed through the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). SWITRS is likely an underestimate of crashes, as not all incidents are reported to law enforcement—especially those that do not result in property damage.

BICYCLE-INVOLVED COLLISIONS There were a total of 122 bicycle-related collisions during the study period, representing 2.3 percent of all collisions in Livermore. No bicyclist fatalities were recorded, but four bicyclists were severely injured. The most commonly reported factors that contributed to these collisions included:
 Traveling on the wrong side of the road  Improper turning  Failure to yield to a motor vehicle PEDESTRIAN-INVOLVED COLLISIONS There were 72 pedestrian-related collisions during the study period, representing 1.4 percent of all collisions in Livermore. Three collisions resulted in pedestrian fatalities, and nine pedestrians were severely injured. The most commonly reported contributing factors included:
 Motorist failing to yield to a pedestrian  Pedestrian failing to yield to a motor vehicle  Unsafe starting or backing up by a motorist Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
393

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 39
COMPARISON TO SURROUNDING AREA Compared to nearby cities and Alameda County, Livermore has a lower rate of bicycle collisions and a higher rate of pedestrian collisions, as shown in Table 4-1. This table uses commute to work modes as reported in American Community Survey 2014 5-year estimates.

Table 4-1: Crashes Compared to Surrounding Area

DATA LIVERMORE PLEASANTON DUBLIN ALAMEDA COUNTY
Bicycle collisions 122 155 35 3,305 Bicycle commuters 580 293 99 13,812 Collisions/100 bicyclists 21 53 35 24 Pedestrian collisions 72 63 35 3283 Pedestrian commuters 371 821 483 25,802 Collisions/100 pedestrians 19 8 7 13 This table shows the risk of a bicyclist or pedestrian being exposed to a collision while accounting for walking and bicycling rates in the community. For example, Livermore has nearly four times as many bicycle collision than Dublin, but it has nearly six times as many bicycle commuters. Therefore the exposure rate is lower in Livermore than Dublin.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
394

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

GREENVILLE RD

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

RAILROAD AVE

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

S VASCO RD

BUENA VISTA AVE

BROADMOOR ST

N VASCO RD

CENTRAL AVE

SPRINGTOWN

GARAVENTA RANCH

LAUGHLIN RD

FIRST ST

HOLMES ST

EAST AV

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

ARROYO RD

WENTE ST

MURDELL LN
ALTAIR

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE VINEYARD AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

JACK LONDON BLVD JACK LONDON BLVD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

STANLEY BL

E STANLEY BL

ISABEL AV ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

LIVERMORE AVE

HIGHLAND

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

LEXINGTON

CHARLOTTE WAY

CHARLOTT E WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE

BERNAL AV

POSITAS BL
N
Iron Horse Trail
Arroyo Las Positas Trail
Arroyo Mocho Trail
Arroyo Del Valle Reg i onal Trail
580
580
580

CATALINA DR
N L ST

JENSEN ST

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

TOURIGA DR

KIRKCALDY

INDEPENDENCE DR

CROAK RD

N VASCO RD

EXISTING BIKEWAYS
Class 1a. Paved Shared
Use Path
Class 2a. Bicycle Lane
City of Livermore
Boundary
School Ground
Park
Railway
Creek
ACE Station
City Hall
Hospital
Library
Points of Interest
Post Office
School
No Injury
Minor Injury
Serious Injury
Fatality
(8) (12)
(3)
(9)
(62)
(0)
(4)
(99)

PED BIKE

COLLISIONS
Legend
Figure 4-2
DATA SOURCE: Transportation Injury Mapping
System (TIMS), City of Livermore, Alameda County
0 1 2 MILES

SAFETY & COLLISION ANALYSIS
Pedestrian & Bicycle Collisions
2010 to 2014
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
395

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 41
DATA-DRIVEN ANALYSIS Data-driven analyses help document current conditions, projected demand, and opportunities to improve the bicycling and walking environment in Livermore. Four analyses were completed during development of this Plan, described at right. DEMAND ANALYSIS The first data-driven analysis used is the Bicycle and Pedestrian Composite Demand Model. This process identifies dense activity areas most likely to have high demand for walking and biking by quantifying factors such as where people live, work, learn, play, shop, and access transit—many of the activity generators identified in Chapter 3. This analysis does not reflect current levels of walking and bicycling activity, but instead captures latent demand—the potential for walking and bicycling. Results of the composite demand model are used to identify areas of higher demand within Livermore and prioritize locations for improvements. The model results, illustrated in Figure 4-3, show high demand areas in orange. Areas that yielded highest demand include the confluence of schools, retail, transit, and higher density residential areas. Areas with potential high walking and bicycling demand include:
 Downtown Livermore, including the Transit Station  Schools, especially Mendenhall Middle School and Livermore High School
 Parks  Las Positas College
See Appendix F for a detailed description of the Demand Model process.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
396

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

GREENVILLE RD

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

RAILROAD AVE

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

S VASCO RD

BUENA VISTA AVE

BROADMOOR ST

N VASCO RD

CENTRAL AVE

SPRINGTOWN

GARAVENTA RANCH

LAUGHLIN RD

FIRST ST

HOLMES ST

EAST AV

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

ARROYO RD

WENTE ST

MURDELL LN
ALTAIR

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE VINEYARD AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

JACK LONDON BLVD JACK LONDON BLVD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

STANLEY BL

E STANLEY BL

ISABEL AV ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

LIVERMORE AVE

HIGHLAND

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

LEXINGTON

CHARLOTTE WAY

CHARLOTT E WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE

BERNAL AV

POSITAS BL
N
580 580
580

CATALINA DR
N L ST

JENSEN ST

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

TOURIGA DR

KIRKCALDY

INDEPENDENCE DR

CROAK RD

N VASCO RD

TESLA RD
Chain
of Lakes
Frick
Lake
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Bill Payne
Sports
Park Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
National
Lab
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson
Park
Independence
Park
Les
Knott
Park Livermore
Downs
Ravenswood
Park
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve
Marlin
Pound
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Wattenburger
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore
Grove Park
Rotary
Park
Max Baer Park
Vasco Rd
ACE Station
Downtown
Transit Center
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Las Positas
College
Outlets

EXISTING BIKEWAYS
Class 1a. Paved Shared
Use Path
Class 2a. Bicycle Lane
City of Livermore
Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Railway
Creek
ACE Station
City Hall
Hospital
Library
Points of Interest
Post Office
School
Legend
High Demand
Low Demand
Composite Demand

WHERE PEOPLE LIVE, WORK, PLAY,

LEARN, SHOP, AND ACCESS TRANSIT

COMPOSITE DEMAND
0 1 2 MILES
Figure 4-3
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
397

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 43
BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS The second analysis completed for this Plan was the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) model. BLTS models score street segments and intersections based on characteristics of the roadway and the bicycle facility provided. The analysis is based on a number of factors, including:
 Posted speed limit  Roadway width and number of travel lanes  Intersection conditions  Presence and character of bicycle facilities  Land use context BLTS models measure the perceived discomfort associated with bicycling in or adjacent to motor vehicle traffic. Higherstress facilities provide little comfort for bicyclists, and are likely to be used only by the most confident and fearless riders. Lowstress facilities offer higher comfort, and are likely to be attractive to a broad group of riders. This analysis classifies road segments and intersections into four categories, with BLTS 1 being the least stressful and BLTS 4 being the most stressful. For a bicycle network to attract the broadest segment of the population, it must provide a continuous and comfortable experience for users. A continuous and comfortable network will allow citizens of all ages and abilities to better consider bicycling as a viable and safe form of transportation.

Results of the BLTS model are shown in Figure 4-4. Just over 60 percent of the roadway network in Livermore was rated BLTS 1 or 2, meaning they are relatively low-stress environments for bicycling. The remaining segments, rated BLTS 3 or 4, are primarily higher speed arterials and other streets comfortable only for the most experienced bicyclists. For additional detail on the BLTS model, see Appendix G.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
398
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
! !!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

GREENVILLE RD

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

RAILROAD AVE

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

S VASCO RD

BUENA VISTA AVE

BROADMOOR ST

N VASCO RD

CENTRAL AVE

SPRINGTOWN

GARAVENTA RANCH

LAUGHLIN RD

FIRST ST

HOLMES ST

EAST AV

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

ARROYO RD

WENTE ST

MURDELL LN
ALTAIR

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE VINEYARD AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

JACK LONDON BLVD JACK LONDON BLVD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

STANLEY BL

E STANLEY BL

ISABEL AV ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

LIVERMORE AVE

HIGHLAND

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

LEXINGTON

CHARLOTTE WAY

CHARLOTT E WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE

BERNAL AV

POSITAS BL
N
Iron Horse Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Arroyo Seco
Trail
Brushy Peak to Del Valle Trail
Arroyo Las Positas Trail Arroyo Bike Trail
Arroyo Mocho Trail
Arroyo Del Valle Reg i onal Trail
580 580
580

CATALINA DR
N L ST

JENSEN ST

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

TOURIGA DR

KIRKCALDY

INDEPENDENCE DR

CROAK RD

N VASCO RD

TESLA RD
Chain
of Lakes
Lake
Del Valle
Frick
Lake
Bill Payne
Sports
Park
Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
National
Lab
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson
Park
Independence
Park
Les
Knott
Park Livermore
Downs
Ravenswood
Park
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve
Marlin
Pound
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Wattenburger
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore
Grove Park
Rotary
Park
Max Baer Park
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Las Positas
College
Outlets
Vasco Rd
ACE Station
Downtown
Transit Center
City of Livermore
Boundary
School Ground
Park
Railway
Creek
ACE Station
City Hall
Hospital
Library
Points of Interest
Post Office
School
Legend

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
LTS 1 LEAST STRESSFUL
LTS 2
Intersections
LTS 3
LTS 4 MOST STRESSFUL
LTS 1 LEAST STRESSFUL
LTS 2
Corridors
LTS 3
LTS 4 MOST STRESSFUL
Bicycling Level of Trac Stress 0 1 2 MILES
Figure 4-4
LTS results updated May 14, 2018
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
399

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 45
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE The third data-driven analysis completed was a Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) model. Similar to the BLTS process, a PLOS model helps identify where pedestrian improvements could improve comfort, and where they may have the greatest impact given the existing conditions and the anticipated demand. The model scores street segments and intersections based on characteristics that impact pedestrian safety, comfort, and ease of movement. The PLOS analysis is based on four factors:
 Presence of sidewalks  Posted speed limit  Roadway width (number of travel lanes)  Pedestrian buffers (sidewalk is separated from travel lanes by bicycle lanes, on-street parking, and/or landscaping) Results of the PLOS model are shown in Figure 4-5. Key outcomes of the analysis include:
 High levels of pedestrian comfort were found on roughly 90 percent of roadways in Livermore, generally on lowspeed residential streets and in the downtown core  Low levels of pedestrian comfort were found on the
remaining 10 percent of roadways, primarily on higherspeed arterials, collectors, and state routes, which generally lack sidewalks While the overwhelming majority of roadways are relatively comfortable for walking, these roadways tend to be islands isolated by arterials or other barriers that make it challenging to reach meaningful destinations. Improving access along and across these key roadways will be vital to creating an inviting walking environment. For additional detail on the PLOS model, see Appendix H.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
400

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

GREENVILLE RD

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

RAILROAD AVE

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

S VASCO RD

BUENA VISTA AVE

BROADMOOR ST

N VASCO RD

CENTRAL AVE

SPRINGTOWN

GARAVENTA RANCH

LAUGHLIN RD

FIRST ST

HOLMES ST

EAST AV

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

ARROYO RD

WENTE ST

MURDELL LN
ALTAIR

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE VINEYARD AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

JACK LONDON BLVD JACK LONDON BLVD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

STANLEY BL

E STANLEY BL

ISABEL AV ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

LIVERMORE AVE

HIGHLAND

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

LEXINGTON

CHARLOTTE WAY

CHARLOTT E WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE

BERNAL AV

POSITAS BL
N
580 580
580

CATALINA DR
N L ST

JENSEN ST

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

TOURIGA DR

KIRKCALDY

INDEPENDENCE DR

CROAK RD

N VASCO RD

TESLA RD
Chain
of Lakes
Lake
Del Valle
Frick
Lake
Bill Payne
Sports
Park
Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
National
Lab
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson
Park
Independence
Park
Les
Knott
Park Livermore
Downs
Ravenswood
Park
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve
Marlin
Pound
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Wattenburger
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore
Grove Park
Rotary
Park
Max Baer
Park
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Las Positas
College
Outlets
Vasco Rd
ACE Station
Downtown
Transit Center
City of Livermore
Boundary
School Ground
Park
Railway
Creek
ACE Station
City Hall
Hospital
Library
Points of Interest
Post Office
School
Legend

LEVEL OF SERVICE
Pedestrian Level of Service 0 1 2 MILES

MOST STRESSFUL

LEAST STRESSFUL
Corridors

MOST STRESSFUL
Intersections

LEAST STRESSFUL
Figure 4-5
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
401

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 47
NETWORK CONNECTIVITY ANALYSIS This fourth data-driven analysis evaluates connectivity of the low-stress bicycling and walking networks in Livermore. On an effective bicycle and pedestrian network, people must be able to travel to their destinations without encountering barriers that discourage them from choosing active transportation. These barriers, including high speed or wide streets, railroads, waterways, or other features that do not have comfortable and convenient crossings or parallel paths. Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7 show the low-stress network islands for bicycling and walking in Livermore, illustrating how these isolated pockets are separated by high stress segments or crossings that make it challenging for people to reach their destinations. The bicycling network analysis shows relatively small islands of high comfort suggesting most bicyclists would be uncomfortable riding beyond their neighborhood due to stressful crossings or route segments. Downtown Livermore is surrounded by highstress network segments, which makes it challenging to access. The pedestrian network analysis shows fewer barriers, by comparison. With the exception of a few key routes and crossings, walking is likely to be a comfortable option for many residents. This analysis does not take lighting into account, which can affect both visibility and personal security for pedestrians, so walking at night may be more challenging.

COMBINED ANALYSIS RESULTS The synthesis of the Demand Analysis, the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS), Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS), and the Network Connectivity Analysis informed the Plan’s recommended infrastructure and programmatic improvements. Each of these analyses are strong and useful tools for understanding both current conditions and projected demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Livermore. By overlaying the analysis results, locations where high demand coincides with high-stress or disconnected networks are identified and can be prioritized for improvements. These are locations where projects are likely to have the greatest benefit for walking and bicycling comfort and connectivity. Figure 4-8 illustrates the LTS network results over the composite demand analysis. The downtown core and surrounding areas, which have high composite demand, are intersected by high stress roadways for bicyclists. These roadways may be significant barriers for the bicyclists who wishes to travel in and around the downtown area. Figure 4-9 illustrates the PLOS network results over the composite demand analysis. As shown on the map, high demand areas throughout the city are complemented by high supply pedestrian roadways. In fact, there are very few low supply pedestrian roadways in high demand areas of the city. Key connecting streets in high demand areas like E Stanley Blvd, Las Positas Road, East Ave, and Holmes St could benefit from network and crossing improvements so that pedestrians can more easily traverse the high supply pedestrian network.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
402

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

DR ELLIVNEERG

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

RAILROAD AVE

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

DR OCSAV S

EVA ATSIV ANEUB

DR OCSAV N

TS ROOMDAORB

EVA LARTNEC

NWOTGNIRPS

HCNAR ATNEVARAG

DR NILHGUAL

FIRST ST

TS SEMLOH

EAST AV

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

DR OYORRA

TS ETNEW

NL LLEDRUM
RIATLA

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE VINEYARD AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

JACK LONDON BLVD JACK LONDON BLVD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

STANLEY BL

E STANLEY BL

ISABEL AV ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

EVA EROMREVIL

HIGHLAND

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

LEXINGTON

CHARLOTTE WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE

BERNAL AV

POSITAS BL
N
580 580
580

CATALINA DR
N L ST

TS NESNEJ

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

DR HCSUB

TOURIGA DR

KIRKCALDY RD ECNEDNEPEDNI

CROAK RD

N VASCO RD

TESLA RD
Chain of Lakes
Lake
Del Valle
Frick
Lake
Bill Payne
Sports
Park
Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
Lab
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson
Park
Independence
Park
Les
Park Livermore Downs
Ravenswood
Park
Marlin
Pound
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore Grove Park
Max Baer
Park
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Carnegie
Park
Shadow Cliffs
Area
Del Valle
Regional Park
Livermore
Municipal Airport
Livermore
Municipal Airport
Las Positas
College
Outlets
Downtown
Transit Center
Vasco Rd

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
Legend
City of Livermore
Boundary
School Ground
Park
Railway
Creek
City Hall
Hospital
Library
Points of Interest
Post Office
School
Low stress islands are
internally connected
clusters of street
segments with BLTS
scores of 1 or 2. Each
island shows where
travel on low stress
streets is possible
of higher stress streets
High Stress Barriers
Class 1a. Paved Shared
Use Path
(BLTS 4, 5, or 6)

BICYCLING LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
Low Stress Islands 0 1 2 MILES
Low Stress Islands
Low Stress Islands
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve
Low Stress Islands
Figure 4-6
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
403

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

DR ELLIVNEERG

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

RAILROAD AVE

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

DR OCSAV S

EVA ATSIV ANEUB

DR OCSAV N

TS ROOMDAORB

EVA LARTNEC

NWOTGNIRPS

HCNAR ATNEVARAG

DR NILHGUAL

FIRST ST

TS SEMLOH

EAST AV

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

DR OYORRA

TS ETNEW

NL LLEDRUM
RIATLA

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE VINEYARD AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

JACK LONDON BLVD JACK LONDON BLVD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

STANLEY BL

E STANLEY BL

ISABEL AV ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

EVA EROMREVIL

HIGHLAND

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

LEXINGTON

CHARLOTTE WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE

BERNAL AV

POSITAS BL
N
580 580
580

CATALINA DR
N L ST

TS NESNEJ

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

DR HCSUB

TOURIGA DR

KIRKCALDY RD ECNEDNEPEDNI

CROAK RD

N VASCO RD

LEVEL OF SERVICE
Legend
City of Livermore
Boundary
School Ground
Park
Railway
Creek
City Hall
Hospital
Library
Points of Interest
Post Office
School
Low stress islands are
internally connected
clusters of street
segments with PLOS
scores of 1, 2, or 3. Each
island shows where
comfortable pedestrian
travel is possible
of higher stress streets
High Stress Barriers
(PLOS 4, 5, or 6)
Class 1a. Paved Shared
Use Path

PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE
Low Stress Islands 0 1 2 MILES
Downtown
Transit Center
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve
Downtown
Transit Center
Figure 4-7
Low Stress Islands
Low Stress Islands
Low Stress Islands
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
404
!!
!
!
! ! !
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

GREENVILLE RD

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

RAILROAD AVE

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

S VASCO RD

BUENA VISTA AVE

BROADMOOR ST

N VASCO RD

CENTRAL AVE

SPRINGTOWN

GARAVENTA RANCH

LAUGHLIN RD

FIRST ST

HOLMES ST

EAST AV

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

ARROYO RD

WENTE ST

MURDELL LN
ALTAIR

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE VINEYARD AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

JACK LONDON BLVD JACK LONDON BLVD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

STANLEY BL

E STANLEY BL

ISABEL AV ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

LIVERMORE AVE

HIGHLAND

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

LEXINGTON

CHARLOTTE WAY

CHARLOTT E WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE

BERNAL AV

POSITAS BL
N
580 580
580

CATALINA DR
N L ST

JENSEN ST

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

TOURIGA DR

KIRKCALDY

INDEPENDENCE DR

CROAK RD

N VASCO RD

TESLA RD
Chain
of Lakes
Lake
Del Valle
Frick
Lake
Bill Payne
Sports
Park
Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
National
Lab
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson
Park
Independence
Park
Les
Knott
Park Livermore
Downs
Ravenswood
Park
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve
Marlin
Pound
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Wattenburger
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore
Grove Park
Rotary
Park
Max Baer
Park
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Las Positas
College
Outlets
Vasco Rd
ACE Station
Downtown
Transit Center

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
Legend
LTS 1 LEAST STRESSFUL
LTS 2
Intersections
LTS 3
LTS 4 MOST STRESSFUL
LTS 1 LEAST STRESSFUL
LTS 2
Corridors
LTS 3
LTS 4 MOST STRESSFUL
City of Livermore
Boundary
Livermore Sphere
of Influence
Railway
Creek
ACE Station
City Hall
Hospital
Library
Points of Interest
Post Office
School
High Demand
Low Demand

COMPOSITE DEMAND
0 1 2 MILES

BICYCLING
Level of Trac Stress
over Composite Demand
Figure 4-8
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
405
Figure 4-9

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

GREENVILLE RD

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

RAILROAD AVE

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

S VASCO RD

BUENA VISTA AVE

BROADMOOR ST

N VASCO RD

CENTRAL AVE

SPRINGTOWN

GARAVENTA RANCH

LAUGHLIN RD

FIRST ST

HOLMES ST

EAST AV

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

ARROYO RD

WENTE ST

MURDELL LN
ALTAIR

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE VINEYARD AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

JACK LONDON BLVD JACK LONDON BLVD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

STANLEY BL

E STANLEY BL

ISABEL AV ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

LIVERMORE AVE

HIGHLAND

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

LEXINGTON

CHARLOTTE WAY

CHARLOTT E WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE

BERNAL AV

POSITAS BL
N
580 580
580

CATALINA DR
N L ST

JENSEN ST

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

TOURIGA DR

KIRKCALDY

INDEPENDENCE DR

CROAK RD

N VASCO RD

TESLA RD
Chain
of Lakes
Lake
Del Valle
Frick
Lake
Bill Payne
Sports
Park
Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
National
Lab
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson
Park
Independence
Park
Les
Knott
Park Livermore
Downs
Ravenswood
Park
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve
Marlin
Pound
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Wattenburger
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore
Grove Park
Rotary
Park
Max Baer Park
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Las Positas
College
Outlets
Vasco Rd
ACE Station
Downtown
Transit Center
City of Livermore
Boundary
Livermore Sphere
of Influence
Railway
Creek
ACE Station
City Hall
Hospital
Library
Points of Interest
Post Office
School
High Demand
Low Demand

COMPOSITE DEMAND
0 1 2 MILES

PEDESTRIAN
Level of Service
over Composite Demand

LEVEL OF SERVICE
Legend

MOST STRESSFUL
Intersections

LEAST STRESSFUL

MOST STRESSFUL
Corridors

LEAST STRESSFUL
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
406

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 52
FOCUS AREAS After reviewing existing conditions, listening to community needs and completing the data-driven analyses described in this chapter, five overarching themes for needs and opportunities emerged. To achieve the Plan’s vision and goals, the recommended improvements are structured to provide or enhance access to these focus areas. SCHOOL ACCESS Many students must cross major arterial roadways to get to school. This Plan includes recommendations to increase the safety and comfort of students accessing their schools. DOWNTOWN ACCESS High stress streets surround the downtown area, making it difficult to comfortably access downtown on foot or by bike. Improving routes and intersections into and throughout the downtown area will encourage more active transportation in the community. CROSSTOWN ROUTES The city’s major arterial streets carry multiple lanes of high speed vehicle traffic, creating high stress corridors and crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians. This Plan recommends increasing safety and comfort for active transportation users along and across these corridors, enabling more people to reach their destinations on foot or by bicycle.

TRAIL CONNECTIONS Livermore’s extensive trail network is a community asset cherished by residents and visitors alike, but gaps between the trail system and the street network create connectivity challenges. This Plan emphasizes closing key gaps to provide a seamless active transportation network, while also improving trail access to regional parks, downtown Livermore, transit, and other destinations. I-580 CROSSINGS Residents expressed a strong desire for improved access across I-580, including connections to Las Positas College, Northeast Livermore neighborhoods, and downtown. This Plan identifies opportunities to improve existing I-580 crossings as well as provide new crossings.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
407
05 Projects &
Programs
Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
408

Finally, programs include current and proposed new activities to support active transportation, organized into four groups: education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation.

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
409

JACK LO NDON BLVD

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

DR ELLIVNEERG

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

DR OCSAV S

EVA ATSIV ANEUB

N VASCO RD

TS ROOMDAORB

EVA LARTNEC

NWOTGNIRPS

HCNAR ATNEVARAG

DR NILHGUAL

FIRST ST

TS SEMLOH

EAST AVE

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

DR OYORRA

TS ETNEW

NL LLEDRUM
RIATLA

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

E STANLEY BL ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

EVA EROMREVIL N

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

CHARLOTTE WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE
N

CATALINA DR
N L ST

STANFORD WAY

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

CROAK RD

DR OCSAV N

TESLA RD

VINEYARD AVE

CHARLOTTE WAY

LEXINGTON WAY

LOMITAS AVE

PESTANA WAY

EAST AVE

W LAS POSITAS BL

NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
410

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
411

JACK LO NDON BLVD

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

DR ELLIVNEERG

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

DR OCSAV S

EVA ATSIV ANEUB

N VASCO RD

TS ROOMDAORB

EVA LARTNEC

NWOTGNIRPS

HCNAR ATNEVARAG

DR NILHGUAL

FIRST ST

TS SEMLOH

EAST AVE

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

DR OYORRA

TS ETNEW

NL LLEDRUM
RIATLA

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

E STANLEY BL ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

EVA EROMREVIL N

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

CHARLOTTE WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE
N

CATALINA DR
N L ST

STANFORD WAY

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

CROAK RD

DR OCSAV N

TESLA RD

VINEYARD AVE

CHARLOTTE WAY

LEXINGTON WAY

LOMITAS AVE

PESTANA WAY

EAST AVE

W LAS POSITAS BL

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
412

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
413

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
414

JACK LO NDON BLVD

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

DR ELLIVNEERG

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

DR OCSAV S

EVA ATSIV ANEUB

N VASCO RD

TS ROOMDAORB

EVA LARTNEC

NWOTGNIRPS

HCNAR ATNEVARAG

DR NILHGUAL

FIRST ST

TS SEMLOH

EAST AVE

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

DR OYORRA

TS ETNEW

NL LLEDRUM
RIATLA

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

E STANLEY BL ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

EVA EROMREVIL N

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

CHARLOTTE WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE
N

CATALINA DR
N L ST

STANFORD WAY

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

CROAK RD

DR OCSAV N

TESLA RD

VINEYARD AVE

CHARLOTTE WAY

LEXINGTON WAY

LOMITAS AVE

PESTANA WAY

EAST AVE

W LAS POSITAS BL

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
415

PEDESTRIAN-SCALE LIGHTING Pedestrian-scale lighting provides illumination of walking areas by installing frequent lampposts at a low height, typically around 12-15 feet tall. Pedestrian-scale lighting increases pedestrianvisibility to drivers, increases pedestrian comfort and perceivedsense of safety, and helps to create an inviting and vibrantstreetscape for those walking. Some major arterials and trails inLivermore do not currently have pedestrian-scale lighting,deterring walking in the early morning hours and at night.RECOMMENDATION This Plan recommends the City develop a method to evaluate and install pedestrian-scale lighting to enhance the pedestrian environment and improve visibility in and around activity generators in key locations such as schools, downtown, transit stops, and community facilities. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW As new development is proposed in Livermore, the City reviews projects for compliance with the Municipal Code, Development Code, Design Standards and Guidelines, and existing plans. RECOMMENDATION This Plan recommends that as the City reviews new development proposals for compliance with this Plan, it seeks opportunities to implement project and program recommendations in partnership with developers.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
416

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
417

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
418

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
419

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
420

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
421

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 67
Table 5-4: Existing and Proposed Programs

PROGRAM STATUS LEVEL OF

RESOURCES

PROGRAM STATUS LEVEL OF

RESOURCES

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
422

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 68
This page intentionally left blank.

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
423
Implementation
Strategy
06 Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
424

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
425

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
426

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
427

JACK LO NDON BLVD

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

GREENVILLE RD

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

S VASCO RD

BUENA VISTA AVE

N VASCO RD

BROADMOOR ST

CENTRAL AVE

SPRINGTOWN

GARAVENTA RANCH

LAUGHLIN RD

FIRST ST

HOLMES ST

EAST AVE

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

ARROYO RD

WENTE ST

MURDELL LN
ALTAIR

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

E STANLEY BL ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

E V A E R O M R E V I L N

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

CHARLOTTE WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE
N

CATALINA DR
N L ST

STANFORD WAY

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

CROAK RD

D R O C S A

TESLA RD

VINEYARD AVE

CHARLOTTE WAY

LEXINGTON WAY

LOMITAS AVE

PESTANA WAY

EAST AVE

W LAS POSITAS BL

STONERIDGE DR
Iron Horse Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Brushy Peak to Del Valle Trail
Arroyo Las Positas Trail A i
Arroyo Del Valle Reg i onal Trail
Arroyo Seco Trail
580 580
580
Chain
of Lakes
Lake
Del Valle
Frick
Lake
Bill Payne
Sports
Park
Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
Na onal
Lab
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson Park
Independence
Park
Les
Kno
Park
Livermore
Downs
Sunken Gardens
Neighborhood Park
Portola
Park
Ravenswood
Park
Oak Grove
Nature Preserve
Sunset
Park
Bill Clark
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Wa enburger
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Summit
Park
Christensen
Park
Big Trees
Park Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore
Grove Park
Max Baer Park
Ida Holm
Park
Jack Williams
Park
Carnegie
Park
Shadow Cliffs
Regional Recrea on
Area
Del Valle
Regional Park
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Al Caffodio
Park
Hagemann
Park
Bothwell
Recrea on
Center
Marlin Pound
Neighborhood
Park
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Vasco Rd
ACE Sta on
Las Positas
College
Outlets
To Pleasanton
To
Contra Costa
County

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
428

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
429

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
430

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
431

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
432

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
433

JACK LO NDON BLVD

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

GREENVILLE RD

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

S VASCO RD

BUENA VISTA AVE

N VASCO RD

BROADMOOR ST

CENTRAL AVE

SPRINGTOWN

GARAVENTA RANCH

LAUGHLIN RD

FIRST ST

HOLMES ST

EAST AVE

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

ARROYO RD

WENTE ST

MURDELL LN
ALTAIR

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

E STANLEY BL ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

E V A E R O M R E V I L N

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

CHARLOTTE WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE
N

CATALINA DR
N L ST

STANFORD WAY

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

CROAK RD

D R O C S A

TESLA RD

VINEYARD AVE

CHARLOTTE WAY

LEXINGTON WAY

LOMITAS AVE

PESTANA WAY

EAST AVE

W LAS POSITAS BL

STONERIDGE DR
Iron Horse Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Brushy Peak to Del Valle Trail
Arroyo Las Positas Trail A i
Arroyo Del Valle Reg i onal Trail
Arroyo Seco Trail
580 580
580
Chain
of Lakes
Lake
Del Valle
Frick
Lake
Bill Payne
Sports
Park
Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
Na onal
Lab
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson Park
Independence
Park
Les
Kno
Park
Livermore
Downs
Sunken Gardens
Neighborhood Park
Portola
Park
Ravenswood
Park
Sunset
Park
Bill Clark
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Wa enburger
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Summit
Park
Christensen
Park
Big Trees
Park Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore
Grove Park
Max Baer
Park
Ida Holm
Park
Jack Williams
Park
Carnegie
Park
Shadow Cliffs
Regional Recrea on
Area
Del Valle
Regional Park
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Al Caffodio
Park
Hagemann
Park
Bothwell
Recrea on
Center
Marlin Pound
Neighborhood
Park
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Vasco Rd
ACE Sta on
Las Positas
College
Outlets
To Pleasanton
To
Contra Costa
County

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
434

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
435

LIVERMORE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, & TRAILS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN CITY OF LIVERMORE | 81
Table 6-4: First Phase Implementation Projects

ID PROJECT NAME CONSTRUCTION ONGOING ANNUAL

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
436

JACK LO NDON BLVD

PATTERSON PASS RD
N P ST

GREENVILLE RD

LAS POSITAS RD

FIRST ST
3RD ST
6TH ST
7TH ST

PINE ST

MAPLE ST

S LIVERMORE AVE

PORTOLA AV

S VASCO RD

BUENA VISTA AVE

N VASCO RD

BROADMOOR ST

CENTRAL AVE

SPRINGTOWN

GARAVENTA RANCH

LAUGHLIN RD

FIRST ST

HOLMES ST

EAST AVE

SCENIC AVE

DALTON AVE

HARTFORD AVE

PRESTON AV

WALL ST

ARROYO RD

WENTE ST

MURDELL LN
ALTAIR

ALDEN LN MARINA AVE

CONCANNON BLVD

EL CAMINITO

COLLEGE AVE

PORTOLA AVE

JUNCTION AVE

LAS POSITAS RD

EL CHARRO RD

AIRWAY BLVD

OLIVINA AVE

WETMORE RD

ARROYO RD

MINES RD

E STANLEY BL ISABEL AV ISABEL AV

DOOLAN RD

STEALTH ST

RINCON AVE

E V A E R O M R E V I L N

ENCINO DR

HAGEMANN DR

BL UEBELL DR

COLLIER CANYON RD

GREENVILLE RD

ALTAMONT PASS RD

CANYONS PK W Y

VANCOUVER WAY

CHARLOTTE WAY

ARLE NE WAY

NORTHFRONT RD

WISTERIA

VALLEY AV

VINEYARD AVE
N

CATALINA DR
N L ST

STANFORD WAY

NATIONAL DR

VALLECITOS RD

ISABEL AVE

BUSCH RD

CROAK RD

D R O C S A

TESLA RD

VINEYARD AVE

CHARLOTTE WAY

LEXINGTON WAY

LOMITAS AVE

PESTANA WAY

EAST AVE

W LAS POSITAS BL

STONERIDGE DR
Iron Horse Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Brushy Peak to Del Valle Trail
Arroyo Las Positas Trail A i
Arroyo Mocho Trail
Arroyo Del Valle Reg i onal Trail
Arroyo Seco Trail
580 580
580
Chain
of Lakes
Lake
Del Valle
Frick
Lake
Bill Payne
Sports
Park
Lawrence
Livermore
Lab
Sandia
Na onal
Lab
Las Positas
Golf Course
Bruno
Canziani
Park
Robertson
Park
Independence
Park
Les
Kno
Park
Livermore
Downs
Sunken Gardens
Neighborhood Park
Portola
Park
Ravenswood
Park
Sunset
Park
Bill Clark
Park
Holdener
Park
Pleasure
Island
Park
Wa enburger
Park
Tex
Spruiell
Park
Summit
Park
Christensen
Park
Big Trees
Park Robert
Livermore
Park
May
Nissen
Park
Sycamore
Grove Park
Max Baer
Park
Ida Holm
Park
Jack Williams
Park
Carnegie
Park
Shadow Cliffs
Regional Recrea on
Area
Del Valle
Regional Park
Brushy Peak
Regional
Preserve
Al Caffodio
Park
Hagemann
Park
Bothwell
Recrea on
Center
Marlin Pound
Neighborhood
Park
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Vasco Rd
ACE Sta on
Downtown
Transit Center
Las Positas
College
Outlets
To Pleasanton
To
Contra Costa
County

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
437

Item 5.4

2. Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution
438
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
439
Item 6.1
PowerPoint Presentation
440
Item 7.1
PowerPoint Presentation
441
Item 7.1
PowerPoint Presentation
442
Item 7.1
PowerPoint Presentation
443
Regional Compensation Comparison
City Salary
Livermore
CCM - $1,070 /mo - $12,840/year
Mayor - $1,490/mo - $17,880/year
Alameda
(Charter City)
CCM - $18,896/year
Mayor - $28,311/year
Albany
(Charter City) All Council Members $950/mo - $11,400/year Danville Town Council $1,387/mo - $16,640/year
Dublin
CCM - $1,600/mo - $19,200/year
Mayor - $2,400/mo - $28,800/year
Emeryville
(Charter City)
All Council Members $1,446.74/mo plus $30 each
Council meeting attended
$17,360.88/year plus $30 each Council meeting
Fremont
CCM - $2,602.56/mo - $31,230.72/year
Mayor - $4,623.83/mo - $55,485.96/year
Hayward
(Charter City)
CCM - $43,305/year
Mayor $69,288/year
Newark
CCM - $1,371/mo - $16,452/year
Mayor - $2,999/mo - $35,988/year
Oakland
(Charter City)
CCM $108,802.91/year
Mayor $216,202.44/year
Pleasanton
CCM $1,321.92/mo - $15,863.04/year
Mayor $1,421.92/mo - $17,063.04/year
San Leandro
(Charter City)
CCM - $1,900/mo $22,800/year
Mayor - $3,800/mo $45,600/year
San Ramon
(Charter City)
CCM - $1,034.23/mo - $12,410.76/year
Mayor - $1,134.23/mo - $13,610.76/year
Item 7.1
Regional Compensation
444
Council Member
Date of
Meeting or
Event Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex.
board meeting or ribbon cutting) Summary of Meeting or Event Mayor Marchand 9/24/2024
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority
(LAVTA)
Finance and Administration
Subcommittee
Reviewed Treasurer's report and
update on Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises (DBE) program policy
Mayor Marchand 9/25/2024 Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce (LVCC) Board Meeting Approved the Financials and provided
City report
Mayor Marchand 9/25/2024 Tri-Valley NonProfit Alliance (TVNPA) Reception Local artist reception Mayor Marchand 9/26/2024
Alameda County Transportation Commission
(ACTC) Commission meeting
Discussed Dublin Blvd. extension and
closed session on personnel issues.

Mayor Marchand 9/26/2024 City of Livermore/Chamber of Commerce Ribbon-cutting/recognition Ribbon-cutting for Elevation and
recognized the oldest parachuting
club in America which was founded in
Livermore in 1956.

Mayor Marchand 9/27/2024 City of Livermore Tour/history presentation Joe Mitchell School Tour Mayor Marchand 9/28/2024 Tri-Valley Seek and Save Community festival Spoke at the event Mayor Marchand 9/28/2024 City of Livermore Tri Valley Dandiya Raas Spoke at the event Mayor Marchand 9/29/2024 Altamont Cruisers Car show
Picked out two cars for recognition.

The show had over 790 cars
registered and the Cruisers have
given over $1M to local non-profits.

Mayor Marchand 9/30/2024 City of Livermore Advisory Body Subcommittee Conducted advisory body interviews Mayor Marchand 10/2/2024 Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce (LVCC) Business Alliance Meeting Provided City update Mayor Marchand 10/2/2024 City of Livermore - Water Resources Division Water Professionals Week
Recognition Presented proclamation
Mayor Marchand 10/2/2024 Tri-Valley Council meeting Business meeting Update from our advocacy groups Mayor Marchand 10/3/2024 Livermore Yotsukaido Sister City Organization Cultural Exchange Trip Student exchange program with
Livermore's Sister City
Mayor Marchand 10/12/2024 City of Livermore Tour Conducted a downtown walking tour Item 8.0
Council Reports
445
Council Member
Date of
Meeting or
Event Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex.
board meeting or ribbon cutting) Summary of Meeting or Event Mayor Marchand 10/12/2024
Livermore Valley Arts (Livermore Valley
Performing Arts Center) ArtWalk Festival Attended the 23rd ArtWalk Mayor Marchand 10/12/2024 Livermore Valley Craft Beer Foundation Bikes and Brews Festival Community gathering celebrating
bikes and brews.

Item 8.0
Council Reports
446
Council Member
Date of
Meeting or
Event Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex. board meeting or
ribbon cutting)
Vice Mayor Carling 9/24/2024 StopWaste Board Meeting
Vice Mayor Carling 9/26/2024 League of California Cities (CalCities) East Bay Division meeting Vice Mayor Carling 10/2/2024 Tri-Valley Cities Council meeting Vice Mayor Carling 10/8/2024 Ascend Rehab Services Ascend Clinic Ribbon cutting Vice Mayor Carling 10/9/2024 Livermore Downtown Inc (LDI) Board Meeting Vice Mayor Carling 10/9/2024 City of Livermore Livermore Employee Recognition luncheon Vice Mayor Carling 10/10/2024 StopWaste
Programs & Administration (P&A) Board
meeting
Vice Mayor Carling 10/12/2024 St. Mary’s Syriac Orthodox Church St. Mary's Syriac Orthodox Church Family Night Item 8.0
Council Reports
447
Council Member
Date of
Meeting or
Event Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex.
board meeting or ribbon
cutting) Summary of Meeting or Event
Council Member Barrientos 10/12/2024
Livermore Valley Arts (Livermore Valley
Performing Arts Center) Art Walk
Volunteer to set up and breakdown
tents and assist with cleanup
Item 8.0
Council Reports
448
Council Member
Date of
Meeting or
Event Committee or Organization
Meeting or Event Type (ex. board meeting or
ribbon cutting)
Council Member Branning 10/13/2024 Goodness Village Spaghetti Fundraiser Council Member Branning 10/12/2024
Livermore Valley Arts (Livermore Valley
Performing Arts Center) Art Walk
Council Member Branning 10/12/2024 Flaca's
Community Maker Faire. Celebrate Flaca's 4
year anniversary. Fall Vendor Event
Council Member Branning 10/7/2024
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority
(LAVTA) Board Meeting
Council Member Branning 10/5/2024 Livermore Rotary Chili Cook-off Council Member Branning 10/5/2024 Livermore Valley Wine Growers Wine Auction Council Member Branning 9/30/2024 Livermore Vine Candidate Forum Council Member Branning 9/28/2024 Girl Scouts Tour of City Hall Council Member Branning 9/26/2024 League of California Cities (CalCities) Board Meeting Council Member Branning 9/25/2024 Tri-Valley NonProfit Alliance (TVNPA) Art Stroll Item 8.0
Council Reports
449
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 10.2
DATE: October 14, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marianna Marysheva, City Manager
SUBJECT: Supplemental materials received at the meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

SUMMARY

DISCUSSION

ATTACHMENTS

1. Items Received at the Meeting
Prepared by: Helena Graves
Deputy City Clerk
Approved by:
____________________________________
Marianna Marysheva
City Manager
Fiscal Review by:
____________________________________
Tina Olson
Administrative Services Director
450
Docusign Envelope !O: 304F63'1 1-0E8E485A-90F2-83F8CCE95346 octobet 9,2024
Mayor of Livermore and City CounciI
Via emaiI
Roce €d d ttE l,i\torrnore OtY Coun { ot
ac+a r zo2
RE: Downtown Devetopment Projects
Dear Mayor Marchand and City CounciI Members,
We, the u ndersign ed, support finishing the rema ining etements of the City of Live rmo re's approved ptan for the downtown catalyst site. Veteran's Way and Stockmen's Park are done. The L Street Parking Garage and the expansion of Btacksmith Square are wett underway. The community witt be wel't served by focusing on compteting the Quest Science Center, SPARC Theater, Veteran's Park and Eden Housing affordabte workforce housing as approved.

We have reviewed the most recent atternative proposaI circulated by Joan Seppata that advocates major changes to the approved ptan includ ing bui{ding a community center on the Eden Housing parcel. The ptan inctudes retocating cutturat facitities with substantiaI changes to their size and design, which woutd not accommodate specific programming objectives.

This proposed ptan has not been embraced bythe organizations cited. We betieve it is in the best interests of Livermore and the stakehotder organizations to staythe course and expedite completing the current approved vision.

Si
Sh,,l'L (A,^rp
Chabot-Las Positas CCD, Stephen Lanza, Truslee ateaT (Livermore) ltwl,^ lt"*l^&u^
c5E
Ed Linda Mandotrni, Presrdent/CEO
",1"-?.
l^^-
8r, Lisa Tromovitch, Executive/Artistic Director
Cc: Mariann a Marysheva
Quest Science Center, Monya Lane, CEO/Board Chair
tll'til,^,+a,
Item 4.0
Public Comment
451
October 14th,2024
Livermore City Council Members
Fecohrod sr the t hroflitol€ Cty Coono| flraolhEot
2DZ
Dear City Council Members:

Could the city manager provide a progress update on any ongoing talks with GAMI officials to obtain GAMI G100 UL at the airport? LVK now offers UL 94, but unfortunately, not all piston aircraft can use UL

94. Clearly, the most important next step is for Five Rivers Aviation FBO Pete Sandhu to offer GAMI G100UL --- an unleaded aviation fuel that can be used in any plane or aviation tank.

GAMI G100UL is FAA approved, insurable, and can be purchased from a distributor in Fresno by the end of 2024. Mr. Sandhu says he will offer GAMI G100UL by the end of 2025. Why DELAY ayear? .

The Council has the authority to direct the FBO to offer GAMI G100UL sooner.

At the July 22nd council meeting, the Mayor stated that other airports sell LEADED aviation fuel. Should we follow their bad example? Regardless of what other airports do, Livermore needs to show leadership and a willingness to protect our children from leaded aviation fuel.
which poses a significant health risk to minors living and participating in outdoor activities near the airport This risk extends to a 1.5 mile radius surrounding the airport.

Depending on the wind direction, aviation exhaust significantly impacts both Livermore and Pleasanton residents
The Council needs to respond to this health risk as urgently and forcefully as you did to the sale of tobacco vaping products. Vaping is a choice teenagers make. ln contrast, children living near the airport are marginalized because inhaling leaded aviation fuel exhaust is not a choice they get to make.

Item 4.0
Public Comment
452
I urge you to direct the city manager to work with GAMI officials and Mr.

Sandhu to ensure GAMI G100UL is available at LVK by the end of 2024.

Additional fuel tank costs for could be financed through airport infrastructure funds and hangar fees.

We need to further reduce the impacts of leaded aviation fuel exhaust on the residents of the Tri-Valley as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Uba"^rru
Donna Cabanne
member of Sierra Club, member of the Center for Biodiversity, UnleadLVK.

Item 4.0
Public Comment
453

Livermore City CouncilOctober 14, 2024

Livermore City Council
October 14, 2024