LWC City of Livermore First Street Corridor General Plan Land Use Study by Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc.

First Street Corridor Land Use Study City of Livermore

Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. Public Review Draft - June 7, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Location and Physical Conditions ............................................................................................ 1 1.2.1 The City of Livermore ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 The Study Area: The First Street Corridor ......................................................................... 2 1.3 Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Bookend APPROACH.......................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.5 Study Structure ............................................................................................................................ 6 2 Livermore Demographic and Industry Profile................................................................ 7 2.1 Population and Age ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Household Units and Occupancy ............................................................................................. 9 2.3 Household Income .................................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Household Median Income And Home Prices .................................................................... 11 2.5 Education ..................................................................................................................................... 11 2.6 Employment, Industries, & Occupations .............................................................................. 11 3 Regulatory and Land Use Analysis ................................................................................. 15 3.1 Regulatory Consistency ............................................................................................................ 15 3.1.1 City of Livermore General Plan ......................................................................................... 15 3.1.2 City of Livermore Development Code ............................................................................. 16 3.1.3 Plan Bay Area ....................................................................................................................... 17 3.1.4 Livermore Engineering and Traffic Surveys .................................................................... 18 3.2 Land Use Compatibility ........................................................................................................... 18 3.2.1 Land Uses Within the Study Area ..................................................................................... 21 3.2.2 Surrounding Land Uses ...................................................................................................... 22 3.3 Jobs-Housing Balance ............................................................................................................... 23 4 Land Use Scenarios ............................................................................................................. 25 4.1 Existing Conditions /Baseline ................................................................................................. 26 4.2 The Residential Scenarios ........................................................................................................ 26 4.2.1 Residential Scenario 1: 100% Residential ......................................................................... 27 4.2.2 Residential Scenario 2: 40% Residential and 60% Commercial ..................................... 28 5 Infrastructure Impact Analysis......................................................................................... 30 5.1 Sewer System Capacity............................................................................................................. 30 5.2 Stormwater System Capacity................................................................................................... 31 5.3 Water Demand and Supply ..................................................................................................... 31 5.4 Traffic Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 33

5.4.1 Trip Generation Rates ......................................................................................................... 34 5.4.2 Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................... 36 5.4.3 Findings and Feasibility ...................................................................................................... 37 5.5 Schools ......................................................................................................................................... 39 5.6 Parks ............................................................................................................................................. 39 5.7 Police ............................................................................................................................................ 41 5.8 Fire protection services ............................................................................................................. 42

6 Fiscal Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................... 44 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 44 6.2 Summary of Analysis & Findings .......................................................................................... 46 6.3 Methodology............................................................................................................................... 47 6.4 Revenues ..................................................................................................................................... 47 6.5 Expenditures ............................................................................................................................... 53 6.6 Findings & Feasibility .............................................................................................................. 55 7 Community Input Analysis .............................................................................................. 57 7.1 Stakeholder Interviews ............................................................................................................ 57 7.1.1 Interview Approach ............................................................................................................ 57 7.1.2 Stakeholder Contact ............................................................................................................ 58 7.1.3 Stakeholder Interviews ....................................................................................................... 59 7.2 Community Meetings ............................................................................................................... 63 7.2.1 Business Owners & Operators: .......................................................................................... 64 7.2.2 Residential Property Owners and Tenants ...................................................................... 65 8 Commercial Service Capacity, Supply & Demand Analysis...................................... 68 8.1 Commercial Service Capacity Analysis ................................................................................. 68 8.1.1 Vacant land ........................................................................................................................... 73 8.1.2 Underutilized Space ............................................................................................................ 74 8.1.3 Considerations In Relocating Existing Businesses To Underutilized CS Parcels In Livermore .......................................................................................................................................... 75 8.2 Supply/Demand Assessment and Market Study ................................................................ 76 8.2.1 Focus on Automotive Uses ................................................................................................. 76 8.2.2 Demographics and Automobile Use ................................................................................. 77 8.2.3 Existing Businesses .............................................................................................................. 79 8.2.4 Competitive Market Snapshot ........................................................................................... 80 8.2.5 Rents ...................................................................................................................................... 80 8.2.6 Vacancy rates ........................................................................................................................ 81 8.2.7 Absorption ............................................................................................................................ 82 8.2.8 Profile of Property Inventory ............................................................................................. 82 8.3 Study Area Snapshot................................................................................................................. 83 8.3.1 Rents ...................................................................................................................................... 83 8.3.2 Vacancy rates ........................................................................................................................ 84

8.3.3 8.3.4 8.3.5 8.3.6 8.3.7

Absorption ............................................................................................................................ 84 Profile of property inventory ............................................................................................. 84 Study Area Business & Property Owner Feedback ........................................................ 84 Expected Industry Growth ................................................................................................. 85 Findings................................................................................................................................. 88

9 Recommendations and Implementation ........................................................................ 89 9.1 Study Area Land Use Options ................................................................................................. 89 9.1.1 No study Conversion (Baseline) ........................................................................................ 89 9.1.2 Partial Conversion (Residential Scenario 2) ..................................................................... 89 9.1.3 Full conversion (Residential Scenario 1)........................................................................... 89 9.2 Recommendation ....................................................................................................................... 90 9.3 Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 90 9.3.1 General Plan Map Amendment ......................................................................................... 90 9.3.2 Zoning Map Amendment ................................................................................................... 91 10. Appendix A: Parcels, Uses, and Assumptions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Baseline Scenario Appendix B: Sewer System Capacity Analysis (Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.) Appendix C: Stormwater System Capacity Analysis (Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.) Appendix D: Water Supply Analysis (Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.) Appendix E: Traffic Impact Analysis (Sustinere Consulting) Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey Instrument Appendix G: Existing Businesses and Land Uses in the Study Area

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The purpose of the First Street Corridor General Plan Land Use Study (Study) is to evaluate potential land use conversion of the First Street Corridor (Study Area) from commercial to residential. The Study Area is approximately 42-acres on the south side of First Street, roughly 0.7 miles from Downtown Livermore. Currently, the Study Area is composed of 18 parcels, each designated Service Commercial by the City’s General Plan and zoned Commercial Service by the Development Code. This Study assesses the degree(s) to which, if any, the Study Area may be feasibly converted from commercial use to residential use. Feasibility is assessed by evaluating the Commercial Service to Residential land use conversion in context of:       

Infrastructure and Services Capacity Citywide Land Use Capacity Market Forces Traffic Impacts Fiscal Impacts Land Use Compatibility Community Input

This Report was developed to assess the impacts of a potential rezoning of the Study Area. The findings in this Report reflect the professional opinion of Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. and are based on information available at the time of drafting. This Report is not an endorsement either for or against a full or partial rezoning of the Study Area. This Report is not a substitute for an Environmental Impact Report consistent with requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). As explained in the report, the build-out scenarios modeled in this Report were designed to represent the high and low ranges of possible outcomes.

1.2 LOCATION AND PHYSICAL CONDITIONS 1.2.1 THE CITY OF LIVERMORE The City of Livermore is located in northeast Alameda County along the north and south sides of Interstate 580, with a population of approximately 85,000 people. The City is surrounded by an Urban Growth Boundary aimed at limiting urbanization and preserving open space, habitat, and agriculture for Livermore citizens and future generations. The area’s major employers include the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, Las Positas 1

College, the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, and the City of Livermore. The Livermore Valley is home to over fifty wineries, a general aviation airport, four golf courses, and a vibrant downtown community.

1.2.2 THE STUDY AREA: THE FIRST STREET CORRIDOR The Study Area includes a variety of commercial uses and building types, and is situated between one of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s major arterial roadways (First Street) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks. First Street serves as a major thoroughfare to downtown, collecting traffic from surrounding residential areas, as well as providing access from Interstate 580 (I-580). FIGURE 1-1 STUDY AREA

The First Street Corridor is situated among existing urban and residential development. The Corridor is generally perceived in the City as a transitional area that connects I-580 and major retail shopping centers to the east, to the surrounding residential neighborhoods and Downtown Livermore. The Study Area is primarily home to automotive sales and repair, and home improvement businesses. There are also several multi-tenant business parks with space for storage and auto garage access. The Study Area also includes a restaurant and card room, in addition to two motels and a limited number of residential units.

1.3 APPROACH The Livermore City Council’s direction to evaluate the potential implications of a land use conversion from Commercial Service to Residential in the Study Area is consistent with the City’s 2003 – 2025 General Plan. Conducting the Study assures that any and all land use decisions support and enhance the quality of life in Livermore and allow for a balanced mix of opportunities for employment, housing, open space and agriculture. The Land Use Element of the General Plan states: … plan for and shape the future physical development of Livermore and to preserve and enhance Livermore’s current quality of life, so that the City can remain a community with a mix of land uses providing varied job and housing opportunities while maintaining its surrounding agriculture and open space.

To assess the feasibility of a possible land use conversion of the Study Area, the project scope of work focused on two core processes: 

Extensive Community Engagement and Consensus The Community Engagement Building. A foundational project strategy focused process garnered direct on providing multiple and substantive opportunities market data for the capacity for community feedback on the concept of land use and market demand analysis changes in this area. Community engagement and identified key community concerns about a full or partial methods relied on personal interviews, field visits, land use conversion of the and public workshops. The community engagement Study Area. process is described in Chapter 7 and included three public workshops with over 50 attendees, field visits to over 30 businesses, and more than 20 one-on-one interviews with property owners, representatives from the business community and residents.



Interdisciplinary Economic, Fiscal, Planning, and Infrastructure Capacity Analyses. The Study’s analyses draw from multiple disciplines, primarily land use planning, transportation planning, civil engineering, real estate finance, and urban economics. 3

The comprehensive and multidisciplinary evaluation provides a quantitative and qualitative platform from which the City will be able to make highly informed decisions on land use strategies in the Study Area.

BOOKEND APPROACH Baseline, Residential Scenario 1 and Residential Scenario 2 serve as the analysis’ bookends. The scenarios are made up of combinations of factors devised to mark high and low ranges of potential outcomes should the City pursue a full or partial rezoning of the Study Area. The bookends are intended to set potential ranges of impacts and opportunity costs. The Baseline scenario, the low bookend, assumes status quo for the Study Area. Residential Scenario 1, the high bookend includes a 100% residential conversion of the Study Area. Residential Scenario 2, a partial rezoning of the Study Area from commercial service to residential, illustrates a mid-point set of impacts that would occur between the high- and lowend scenarios.

1.4 KEY FINDINGS Table 1.1 (on the following page) summarizes the feasibility findings for the Regulatory and Land Use Analysis, Infrastructure Impacts Analysis, Fiscal Impact Analysis, Community Input Analysis, and Commercial Service Capacity, Supply & Demand Analysis. In brief, the land use and infrastructure impacts of a full or partial Study Area conversion from Commercial Service (CS) to Residential uses can be addressed at the project level. Community sentiment on the land use conversion is mixed. The fiscal impacts of the conversion are minimally negative, and are likely negligible when factoring in the discretionary spending power of future Study Area residents. The City’s existing land inventory can accommodate relocation of CS uses from the Study Area in terms of square footage metrics, however concerns such as affordability, availability of appropriately sized commercial spaces and loss of an established auto-service business cluster would render full relocation difficult. Additionally, Livermore is uniquely poised to capture growth in existing business sectors such as the construction industry, as well as the burgeoning Bay Area high-tech automotive industry.

In considering the Study Area land use conversion, the City must ultimately decide whether the Study Area is appropriate for commercial services (to date primarily auto-related services) or for residential development. This report will suggest that a partial conversion of the Study Area may best serve the City, community, and Study Area stakeholders’ goals and objectives. Demand for Commercial Service space in the City is expected to continue.

TABLE 1.1 SUMMARY OF FEASIBILITY FINDINGS FOR THE POSSIBLE STUDY AREA LAND USE CONVERSION

Feasibility Category

Infrastructure and Services Capacity

Citywide Land Use Capacity

Market Demand

Traffic Impacts

Fiscal Impacts

Land Use Compatibility

Summary of Findings

In general, a conversion to residential uses in the Study Area may be accommodated by existing infrastructure; With system upgrades identified in the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s infrastructure master plans, existing downstream capacity is adequate. Main connections for the sanitary sewer and storm system are more feasible at the southern boundary of the Study Area, and will require granting of an easement by the Union Pacific Railroad. While a conversion to residential uses will increase potable water use, projected system-wide supplies intended to accommodate expected growth will not be significantly impacted. Sufficient vacant and underutilized land exists in the City to accommodate commercial service uses currently in the Study Area on a square foot basis. However, relocating established and thriving industry clusters, namely auto service businesses, presents challenges due to available parcel sizes, building types, location and market forces; and could negatively impact an important source of jobs for the City. Over the last three years, industrial and warehouse rents (commercial real estate space types that apply to uses in the Study Area) have increased in Livermore and nearby Dublin and Pleasanton while vacancy has decreased, indicating improving market demand for these property types in the Tri-Valley region. While Livermore offers competitive rents for light industrial and commercial properties, the affordability, sizable building footprints, and desirable location close to downtown create strong demand in the Study Area. Robust regional growth further suggests the market will continue to support demand for existing Study Area commercial service uses. Still, vacant and underutilized properties exist, suggesting a historic lack of profitability in constructing new commercial buildings, particularly multitenant buildings for which demand is high. Residential uses generate fewer vehicle trips compared to the existing commercial uses in the Study Area. However, any increase in the intensity of development from existing underutilized conditions would likely increase traffic in the area. Improvements, such as traffic signals, would need to address turning movements, signaling and pedestrian safety. General Fund expenditures would modestly exceed revenue with a partial or wholesale conversion to residential uses, which may likely be offset to some degree when factoring in the discretionary spending power of the future Study Area residents. Residential uses already exist in the Study Area which is also surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Allowing additional residential uses in the Study Area, less than one mile from downtown and within a commercial job center, would support the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goals for more walkable development. Still, locating residential uses immediately adjacent to existing commercial uses and the railroad tracks presents potential compatibility issues that include traffic, noise and air quality. Adjacency issues may be addressed by performance standards or project-level mitigation measures.

Community Sentiment

Existing business owners are primarily concerned with preservation of their business in the Study Area. While many acknowledge the potential benefit of new development, including residential uses on vacant, underutilized property within the Study Area, traffic and land use compatibility issues are of primary concern.

1.5 STUDY STRUCTURE Broadly, the Study includes two components: The analysis component (Chapters 2 through 8) followed by the recommendations and implementation component (Chapter 9). Chapter 2: Livermore Demographic and Industry Profile Chapter 3: Regulatory and Land Use Analysis Chapter 4: Land Use Scenarios Chapter 5: Infrastructure Impacts Analysis Chapter 6: Fiscal Impact Analysis Chapter 7: Community Input Analysis Chapter 8: Commercial Service Capacity, Supply & Demand Analysis Chapter 9 concludes the report and presents recommendations for the City concerning land use conversion of the Study Area and steps to implement the recommendations.

2 LIVERMORE DEMOGRAPHIC AND INDUSTRY PROFILE This section presents the City of Livermore’s current demographic profile and trends. The data presented below describes population and housing characteristics and trends, as well as general economic data from 2000 to present. This information sets the demographic and economic context in which the City currently operates, describes trends that may impact current and future uses in the Study Area, and is intended to inform the City’s recommendations for balancing commercial and residential land uses.

2.1 POPULATION AND AGE The age distribution of an area provides insight on demand for housing and commercial land uses and industries in the area. Described in Table 2.1 below, the City of Livermore’s population was 83,665 in 2013, continuing a trend of modest, but notable average annual growth from 2000 to 2010 of 1.0 percent. In 2013, the population was distributed fairly evenly among young to middle age groups (5-44), with the most significant population found in residents aged 45 to 54 (17.1 percent).

Auto uses in the Commercial Service area can expect to see greater demand from the graying baby-boomer population than from the younger age cohorts. This is because the baby-boomer population will likely increase demand for car purchases and maintenance, while younger age cohorts will likely trend away from car purchases and maintenance. – Transportation and the New Generation by Frontier Group

The City’s population is aging. Age groups 45 and above experienced the greatest increases, with 60 to 64-year-olds and 65 to 74-year experiencing remarkable average annual growth from 2000-2010 of roughly 4.2 percent. Comparatively, age groups reflecting young families all experienced decline during that same period. In recent years, age groups 55 and above have continued to grow, making up over 23 percent of the total population in 2013. The effects of age on demand for businesses, namely the auto oriented businesses found in the Study Area, are discussed further in Chapter 8.

TABLE 2.1 AGE DISTRIBUTION TRENDS FOR LIVERMORE POPULATION 2000-2013 2000 Population

2010 Population

2000-2010 Annual Growth Rate

2013 Population

2013 % of Total Population

Under 5

5,650

5,360

-0.5%

5,797

6.9%

5 to 14

11,955

11,519

-0.4%

11,208

13.4%

15 to 24

8,260

9,933

1.9%

10,108

12.1%

25 to 34

10,868

9,972

-0.9%

11,099

13.3%

35 to 44

14,878

12,588

-1.7%

11,537

13.8%

45 to 54

10,300

14,347

3.4%

14,342

17.1%

55 to 64

5,918

8,937

4.2%

10,073

12.0%

65 and Over

5,516

8,342

4.2%

9,501

11.4%

Total

73,345

80,968

1.0%

83,665

100%

Age

Source: U.S. Census 2000 and 2010 Census, and 2013 3-Year American Community Survey (ACS).

2.2 HOUSEHOLD UNITS AND OCCUPANCY Household unit growth and occupancy trends characterize the type of housing in the City and indicate the potential demand for new housing and commercial services. Table 2.2 compares 2000, 1010 and 2013 housing units and occupancy trends. Between 2000 and 2010 the number of housing units increased by 14 percent in total, or by 1.32 on a compounded annual growth rate basis. The City of Livermore is a primarily single-family residential community. In recent years, additional growth in housing units has slowed, with renter occupied housing units experiencing a slight increase (3.8 percent) while owner occupied units have contracted, consistent with national trends towards renting.1 Still, nearly 70 percent of housing units have remained owner occupied.

Dionne Searcey, â&#x20AC;&#x153;More Americans Are Renting, and Paying More, as Homeownership Falls,â&#x20AC;? New York Times, June 24, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/business/economy/more-americans-are-renting-and-paying-moreas-homeownership-falls.html?_r=0.

TABLE 2.2 HOUSING OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTIC TRENDS FOR LIVERMORE 2000-2013

2000

2010

2000-2010 Annual Occupancy Change

Occupied housing units

26,123

29,134

1.10%

29,305

0.6%

Owner-occupied housing units

18,851

20,399

0.79%

20,235

-0.8%

Renter-occupied housing units

7,272

8,735

1.85%

9,070

3.8%

Total housing units

26,610

30,342

1.32%

30,855

1.7%

Housing Occupancy

2013

% Change 2010-2013

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 and 2010 Census, U.S. Census Bureau 2013 3-Year ACS

2.3 HOUSEHOLD INCOME Tri-Valley area income levels provide insight into expected consumer behavior of local residents who may patronize businesses in the Study Area. Businesses consider income and education levels as important factors in location decisions. In 2013, the median household income for the City of Livermore was approximately $97,000.2 As shown in Table 2.3 below, Livermore lags behind other Tri-Valley cities of Dublin and Pleasanton in both total income and income growth, failing to keep pace with inflation from 2000 to 2010.3 However, total income remains much higher than the rest of Alameda County. TABLE 2.3 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME TRENDS FOR LIVERMORE 2000-2014 2000

2010

2000-2010 Annual Growth Rate

2013

% Change 2010-2013

Livermore

$75,322

$93,988

2.2%

$97,205

3.4%

Pleasanton

$90,859

$115,188

2.4%

$120,845

4.9%

Dublin

$77,283

$107,754

3.4%

$113,936

5.7%

Livermore-Pleasanton CCD

$80,698

104,537

2.6%

$108,898

4.2%

Alameda County

$55,946

$69,384

2.2%

$71,356

2.8%

Area

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Decennial Census & 2010 & 2013 3-Year ACS, except for Livermore Pleasanton County Subdivision (CCD), for which only 5-Year ACS for 2013 is available.

U.S. Census Bureau 2013 3-Year ACS

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual inflation from 2000 to 2010 was 2.4 percent.

2.4 HOUSEHOLD MEDIAN INCOME AND HOME PRICES Median home sale prices offer additional understanding of the profile of buyers’ household incomes that may be moving into the Study Area and surrounding neighborhoods. In January 2016 the City’s median home sale price was $638,750.4 A The median home sale price and median household household would need to earn approximately $97,549 to income in Livermore are afford the median home price 5, a figure in line with approximately in balance. Livermore household income discussed in Section 2.3 above.

2.5 EDUCATION Tri-Valley area education levels provide insight into expected consumer behavior and preferences of local residents. Employers, retailers, and small businesses consider area education levels in conjunction with area incomes as key factors in location decisions. The share of Livermore residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher has been increasing consistently since 2000, up 8.7 percent to 40.3 percent in 2013. TABLE 2.4 LIVERMORE EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 2000-2013 Degree

2000

2010

2013

Less than high school graduate:

10.3%

8.3%

9.2%

High school graduate (includes equivalency):

20.0%

18.9%

17.8%

Some college or associate's degree:

38.1%

36.1%

32.7%

Bachelor's degree or higher:

31.6%

36.7%

40.3%

Source: U.S. Census 3 Year American Community Survey (2008-2010), (2011-2013).

2.6 EMPLOYMENT, INDUSTRIES, & OCCUPATIONS The City of Livermore’s employment rate is approximately 94 percent. Table 2.5 below compares employment from 2000 to 2010. During this time, the employment rate fell from 97 percent to 91 percent.

Zillow.com Assumes: 20% down payment, 30-year fixed mortgage, 4.0% interest rate, and 30% of household income attributed to debt service.

4 5

TABLE 2.5 EMPLOYMENT RATE FOR LIVERMORE 2000-2013 2000

2010

2013

Employed

38,525

42,217

42,922

Unemployed

1,349

4,258

2,813

Total Labor Force

39,891

46,475

45,735

Employment Rate

97%

91%

94%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 SF3 Sample Data, U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2010, and 2011-2013

To further illustrate employment trends in Livermore, Table As shown in Table 2.6, 2.6 below presents the breakdown of Livermore jobs by industries with an LQ above 1.0 industry in the 2005 – 2015 timeframe and the Location have a greater concentration Quotient (LQ) for each industry. Location Quotients of jobs in Livermore compared represent the proportion of jobs in one area to that of a to the Bay Area region. larger area, and reveals specializations or concentrations of jobs that make a particular region “unique” in comparison to regional or national levels.6 Industries with LQ values above 1.0 are considered to contribute to a City’s jobs base. Livermore’s industries with an LQ higher than 1.0 include:       

Construction Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Retail Trade Manufacturing Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services Wholesale Trade Arts, Entertainment and Recreation

The industry category that includes Automotive Repair and Maintenance businesses, Other Services, produced declining job growth, -13%, in the 2005 – 2015 timeframe.

Businesses that contribute to the jobs base in Livermore include automotive sales, construction, manufacturing, and wholesale trade, among others. The most predominant industry that occurs in the Study Area, Automotive Repair and Maintenance businesses, are included in the Other Services (except Public Administration) industry category, and are described further in Chapter 8.

Understanding Location Quotient - EMSI, www.economicmodelining .com/2011

TABLE 2.6 EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY

2015 Jobs

% of Total Jobs

% Change 2005 -2015

Location Quotient (Bay Area)1

Total

45,769

100%

Construction

6,718

14.68%

-18%

2.65

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

5,992

13.09%

66%

1.03

Retail Trade

4,654

10.17%

1.17

Manufacturing

4,418

9.65%

-18%

1.92

Government

4,204

9.19%

-4%

0.72

Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services

3,305

7.22%

-13%

1.2

Accommodation and Food Services

2,982

6.52%

34%

0.73

Wholesale Trade

2,847

6.22%

-4%

1.97

Other Services (except Public Administration)

2,235

4.88%

-13%

0.98

Health Care and Social Assistance

1,985

4.34%

34%

0.37

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation

1,166

2.55%

25%

1.24

Transportation and Warehousing

1,015

2.22%

0.77

944

2.06%

42%

0.84

Health Care and Social Assistance

1,985

4.34%

34%

0.37

Accommodation and Food Services

2,982

6.52%

34%

0.73

Other Services (except Public Administration)

2,235

4.88%

-13%

0.98

Total

45,769

100%

Industry

Management of Companies and Enterprises

Notes: 1. The Bay Area MSA refers to the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Metropolitan Statistical Area. Source: EMSI 2015 Q2 Industry Data for All Industries in Livermore, CA. Excludes data for NAICS7 2-digit industry categories: Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction, and Unclassified Industries.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) was developed by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy. The NAICS categorizes jobs by industry; the complete list of most recent and historical industry classifications under this code is provided by the US Census: http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/. 7

Table 2.7 below presents the key businesses, institutions and other entities that make up the largest contributors to employment in Livermore. The Lawrence Livermore National Lab tops the list with an estimated 8,000 jobs. Other major employers include hospitals and health care and social assistance firms. Major retailers, food service companies, and manufacturing and construction firms also represent important employers in the City.

According to Nissan North America, Inc., â&#x20AC;&#x153;With our expanding presence in the Bay Area and Northwest, the Livermore location provides a central, easy-to-access location in a key market area.â&#x20AC;?

TABLE 2.7 MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE Business Name

Employees

Lawrence Livermore National Lab

8,000

Valley Care Health System

1,500

Sandia National Laboratories

1,400

Livermore Area Rec & Park Dist.

540

Las Positas College

500

VA Medical Center-Livermore

500

City of Livermore1

500

Wente Vineyards

500

US Foods

500

Peterson Painting Inc

450

RGW Construction Inc

400

Wente Vineyards Restaurant

400

Nissan North America Inc.

300

Performant Financial Corp

300

Lawrence Livermore National Lab, photo by Creative Commons user SA 3.0.

Notes: 1. City of Livermore total estimated from 2014 staff records. Source: EMSI 2015 Q2 Industry Data - Business Listings and 2014 Livermore public salary records.

3 REGULATORY AND LAND USE ANALYSIS This chapter presents a regulatory and land use analysis of a potential conversion of zoning in the Study Area from Commercial Service to some degree of Residential. The purpose of this analysis is to determine how the regulatory and land use context may affect the feasibility for this conversion. Three assessments are used as input for this analysis:   

Regulatory consistency, Land use compatibility, and Jobs-housing balance.

3.1 REGULATORY CONSISTENCY The regulatory consistency assessment considers key governing and policy documents relevant to land use in the Study Area and the City. These documents include:    

City of Livermore General Plan, City of Livermore Development Code, Plan Bay Area, and 2011 Livermore Engineering and Traffic Surveys.

3.1.1 CITY OF LIVERMORE GENERAL PLAN The 2003-2025 General Plan for the City of Livermore was adopted by the City Council in February 2004. The Land Use Element, amended in 2013, is described as the “central chapter of the General Plan.”8 The purpose of the Land Use Element is “to plan for and shape the future physical development of Livermore and to preserve and enhance Livermore’s current quality of life.”9 The Land Use Element includes six categories of land use designations: Residential, Commercial, Mixed-Use, Industrial, Open Space and Agriculture, and Community Facilities. The Land Use Element includes several goals and policies that implement the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The UGB surrounds the City and was City of Livermore General Plan formed to preserve agriculture and open space and prevent urbanization. Further, the UGB’s intent is to focus development near existing infrastructure and services and assure current and future residents have access to amenities such as rolling hills, oak woodlands and opportunities for agriculture which play a key role in Livermore’s quality of life. 8

City of Livermore, “Land Use Element” in General Plan, (Livermore, CA, December 2013), 3-1.

Ibid.

The 42-acre Study Area is designated as Service Commercial (SC) in the City’s Land Use Element of the General Plan. Service Commercial uses include: auto sales and service, nurseries, home maintenance centers and wholesale establishments. This designation is applied to areas outside of the Downtown along major streets, in the general vicinity of freeway interchanges, or at other locations with significant access potential from the community at large. The SC land use designation has a maximum floor area ratio of 0.30. The Land Use Element does not provide any regulatory policies regarding the conversion of land use designations within the City limits. Additionally, because the Study Area is within Livermore’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), it is not subject to the development policies of the North Livermore and South Livermore UGB initiatives included in the Land Use Element. Changing the land use in the Study Area to residential will require a General Plan amendment, discussed further in Chapter 9.

3.1.2 CITY OF LIVERMORE DEVELOPMENT CODE Livermore’s Development Code was adopted by the City Council in May 2010. The Development Code is consistent with and implements the General Plan. In its preamble, the Development Code is introduced as a Form-based code, and defined as: The Form-Based Code is an alternative approach to zoning that reinforces walkable, sustainable mixed-use environments and development and builds upon community character. The Livermore Development Code uses a Form-Based Coding approach in order to achieve the General Plan’s goals of sustainability and sensitive high-quality infill. … Form-based codes foster predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. These codes are adopted into city or county law as regulations, not mere guidelines. Form-based codes are an alternative to conventional zoning.10

As a Form-based code, the Development Code—“focus[es] first on the intended character and type of place and second on the uses within”.11 Zones in the Development Code are divided into two groups: Transect zones and non-Transect zones.“ The Transect zones provide for development contexts ranging from natural and rural to urban, and are intended to reinforce a walkable, transitsupportive urban environment, while the non-Transect zones are more drivable, suburban environments”.12

View from the First Street Corridor Study Area looking East.

City of Livermore Development Code, p. iii City of Livermore Development Code, p. iv 12 City of Livermore Development Code, p. ix. 10 11

In the City’s Development Code, the First Street Corridor Study Area is zoned Commercial Service (CS). The CS zone is a non-Transect zone that is applied to areas of the City that are appropriate for uses of relatively low pedestrian traffic, including areas for high land demand, recreational, home improvement, repair services, and auto-related uses. The CS zoning designation has a maximum floor area ratio of 0.30. Section 3.03.080 of Livermore’s Development Code describes multiple land uses allowed within a CS designated zone. A conversion of the Study Area land use from Commercial Service to include any degree of residential could also mean a conversion from a non-Transect zone to a Transect zone. Conversion from a non-Transect zone to a Transect zone would allow the City to better regulate form of development in the Study Area. An amendment to the existing Zoning Map to allow new residential uses in the Study Area is discussed further in Chapter 9.

3.1.3 PLAN BAY AREA Plan Bay Area is a long-range transportation, land-use, and housing strategy for the San Francisco Bay Area through the year 2040. The Plan is a joint effort led by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in partnership with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC).13 The Plan is presented in four elements, Housing and Jobs, Transportation, Environmental Impact Report, and Equity Analysis and is based on ten quantifiable performance targets to evaluate land use scenarios and transportation investments and policies.

Plan Bay Area, March 2011

Plan Bay Area discusses Priority Development Areas (PDAs)— existing communities that are located near transit and are planning for additional housing. PDAs are nominated by communities themselves, and show a commitment to developing more housing, amenities, and services for residents in pedestrian friendly environments near to transit.14 Plan Bay Area does not specifically address the Study Area. The City of Livermore currently has three PDAs within its jurisdiction. The Study Area does not fall within the boundaries of any of the designated PDAs. Converting the land use from Service Commercial (CS) to some degree of residential would not conflict with Plan Bay Area’s regulatory setting.

Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area, 2012

Association of Bay Area Governments, 2014.

3.1.4 LIVERMORE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEYS The 2011 Livermore Engineering and Traffic Surveys were conducted in order to evaluate the speed limits of 103 roadway segments throughout the City. The Traffic Surveys report safe and reasonable speed limit recommendations based on survey methods determined by the State Department of Transportation. According to the Traffic Survey report, the Study Area falls within Segment 29 (First Street from Inman Street to the 580 Freeway). The report recommended that the speed limit for that segment remain at 40 miles per hour due to the high rate of collision history, and the high rate of turning and parking maneuvers, bicycle activity, and the location of senior housing close to the intersection of Scott Street and First Street. Although the conditions of Segment 29 described in the report are not specific to the Study Area alone, the report does mention the commercial nature of the segment and its generation of high traffic volumes. Section 5.4 will further address the potential traffic impact of a conversion of the Study Area to some degree of residential.

3.2 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The land use compatibility assessment evaluates the land use profile of areas in and adjacent to the Study Area to consider whether a conversion to some degree of residential in the Study Area would be compatible with existing, surrounding uses. Zoning districts and regulations, and General Plan designations that apply to these areas are shown below in Table 3.1. In the context of the City’s Development Code (described above in Section 3.1.2), this section discusses compatibility with:   

Existing land uses within the Study Area (residential, industrial, and commercial), Land uses surrounding the Study Area, and Character (Transect zones vs. non-Transect zones).

TABLE 3.1 ZONING DISTRICTS AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS SURROUNDING THE STUDY AREA Development Code Zoning District

General Plan Land Use Designation

Maximum Floor Area Ratio

Density (du/ac)

Residential Suburban Residential (RS)

Urban Low Medium Residential (ULM)

0.35

1.00

Historical Preservation-Heritage (H-H)

Urban Low Medium Residential (ULM)

0.35

1.00

Urban Low Medium Residential (ULM)

0.40

2.00 - 3.00

Urban Medium Residential (UM)

0.40

3.00 - 4.50

Urban Medium High Residential (UMH)

0.40

4.50 - 6.00

Planned Development

Urban High Residential Category 1 (UH-1)

0.55

6.00 - 8.00

Planned Development

Urban High Residential Category 2 (UH-2)

0.55

8.00 - 14.00

Light Industrial (1-2)

Low-Intensity Industrial (LII)

0.45

N/A

Heavy Industrial (1-3)

High-Intensity Industrial (HII)

0.60

N/A

Service Commercial (SC)

0.30

N/A

0.30

N/A

Low Density Residential (RL)

Industrial

Commercial Commercial Service (CS)

Planned Development-Commercial Community Serving General Commercial (PDC) (CSGC) Source: City of Livermore General Plan Land Use Element (2013) and Development Code.

FIGURE 3-1 FIRST STREET CORRIDOR STUDY AREA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP 2014

-2

Study Area

FIGURE 3-2 FIRST STREET CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT CODE ZONING MAP

Study Area

Source: Source Text | Graphic Created by LWC.

3.2.1 LAND USES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Most uses in the Study Area are varying types of commercial uses, however the area includes several existing residential units including single family and rentals. The majority of uses (representing 39 businesses) are comprised of Vehicle Services, which includes auto-body repair shops, auto sales and related services, followed by a range of general services and commercial operations. Figures 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 illustrate all land uses and development code designations present in the Study Area. FIGURE 3-3 EXISTING LAND USES (BY LAND AREA) WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

Residential: Single-Family (1 unit)

5% 18%

Residential: Multi-Family (6 units)

17%

Commerical: Vehicle Services: AutoSales/Rental

10% Commerical: Vehicle Services: Auto Repair Garage and Parts Sales Commercial: Non-Vehicle Services

24%

20%

Lodging: Motel

Other: PG&E

Source: City of Livermore. Land use counts above are based on uses in the City of Livermore Development Code and include multiple land uses for multiple businesses located within multi-tenant commercial building on individual parcels.

FIGURE 3-4 FIRST STREET CORRIDOR STUDY AREA LAND USES

3.2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USES Three categories of uses can be found in areas that surround the Study Area: Residential, Industrial, and Commercial, as shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2.

RESIDENTIAL The Study Area is primarily surrounded by residential neighborhoods. The majority of the neighborhoods surrounding the Study Area are composed of low-density homes, with the exception of a few high-density, multi-family areas along the north side and western edge of the Study Area.

INDUSTRIAL

Adjacent residential properties on Gilbert Lane. Source: Google Earth, July 2015.

New residential properties in the Portola development by Taylor Morrison. Source: Google Earth, December 2015.

Industrial uses are found in two locations near the Study Area: An area designated High Intensity Industrial (HII) to the south and an area designated Low Intensity Industrial (LII) to the east. Shown in Figure 3-1, the HII land use runs between the Study Area and the along the 22

right of way of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. The railroad tracks also immediately separate the HII land use from a single-family residential neighborhood. Approximately five freight trains and six commuter trains pass through this industrial area each day.15 Noise levels reach approximately 60 decibels (dBa) from approximately 650 feet from both of the rail lines throughout the City, defined as a moderate noise environment in the General Plan Noise Element. For reference, the home closest on Trevarno Road is approximately 400 feet from the tracks. The level of impact this noise will have on the residential neighborhoods is influenced by the distance from the tracks, the frequency of train events, and the lack of barriers between the tracks and adjacent uses. The LII land use to the east of Study Area also neighbors residential uses. Given the acceptable16 noise levels that are produced by the railroad tracks and the HII and LII uses adjacent existing residential near the Study Area, inclusion of residential uses in the Study Area would likely be compatible with nearby industrial uses17.

A full or partial conversion of the Study Area to residential uses would be compatible with surrounding land uses.

COMMERCIAL Only a small amount of other commercial land use occurs adjacent to the Study Area. To the east, there is a small additional Service Commercial (SC) land use designation area, and further east lies a Community Serving General Commercial (CSGC) land use area. This CSGC designated area includes large scale retailers such as Lowe’s and Safeway.

3.3 JOBS-HOUSING BALANCE In addition to assessing land uses in and around the Study area, it is also important to consider the jobs-housing balance that would result from allowing more residential development. Jobshousing balance is a tool used to determine the community’s economic and housing stability. According to research by Dr. Reid Ewing at University of Utah: The ratio of jobs to households in the various subareas within a region or city can be an important indicator of the health of a region. If a large mismatch exists between employment and housing in one or more

Regional studies are underway, including Alameda County Transportation Commission and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Altamont Corridor Express (ACEForward), and other freight plans that could result in increased train activity.

Acceptable per the City of Livermore Noise Element.

17 It is important to point out that the Study Area is located between existing at-grade railroad crossings at Junction Avenue and Trevarno Road. Trains are required to blow their whistle approaching these crossings. This may be a source of annoyance to residents and may generate noise complaints even though the noise level is considered “acceptable” from a regulatory metrics standpoint.

subareas, then significant in-commuting and out-commuting will occur, putting pressure on the transportation system and adding to household transportation costs.18

The City of Livermore General Plan addresses the jobs-housing balance in the Land Use and Economic Development and Fiscal Elements. According to the General Plan Land Use Element: Jobs/housing balance is a measure of the number of jobs available in a specific area compared to the number of housing units in the same area—or, more precisely, the number of employed residents living in these housing units. As of 2002, Livermore had a fairly healthy jobs/housing balance, with 1.5 jobs for each housing unit, resulting in about one job for every employed resident. (p. 3-8) [Objective LU-2.1, P1:] The City shall strive to achieve a balanced relationship between residential development and commercial and industrial development to provide local employment and to realize an adequate tax base. (p. 3-25)

According to the General Plan Economic Development and Fiscal Element, the jobs-housing balance ratio of a balanced community is 1.5 (to accommodate residents that are not working). In 2000, ABAG estimated that the City of Livermore had a total of 41,500 jobs and 26,123 occupied housing units. This translates to an ideal jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.59 in 2002.19 In 2010 there were an estimated 38,370 jobs in the City and 30,000 housing units.20 This translates to a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.28 that falls below the ideal balance of 1.5. The proposed land use conversion from commercial to Adding homes and removing partial or full residential could, all else held constant, job-supporting commercial decrease further the City’s jobs housing balance in the longspace could decrease the City’s overall job-housing term, as job-producing uses will have been removed from balance. the City’s land use supply. The same dynamic holds true in each of the build out scenarios analyzed in this report. Residential Scenario 1, with 100% of the Study Area converted to residential uses, would cause the most significant impact to the City’s jobs housing balance, as all job-producing uses would leave the Study Area in the long term horizon.

Fregonese Associates. "Envision Tomorrow - Jobs-to-Housing Ratio." Envision Tomorrow - Jobs-to-Housing Ratio. Accessed March 01, 2016. http://www.envisiontomorrow.org/jobs-to-housing-ratio/. 19 Economic Development and Fiscal Element, p. 11-5 18

Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area, p. 42, 47 2013

4 LAND USE SCENARIOS This chapter presents three land use scenarios that are used as the basis for more detailed Infrastructure and Fiscal Impact feasibility analyses that are presented in Chapters 5 and 6. The scenarios discussed in this chapter, and listed below, represent the spectrum of full, partial, and no conversion of commercial to residential uses that could occur in the Study Area.   

Baseline: Existing uses with the current CS zoning Residential Scenario 1: 100 percent residential uses Residential Scenario 2: 40 percent residential uses and 60 percent CS uses

Tables 4-1 and 4-2 below describe in detail the composition of each scenario: TABLE 4-1 LAND USE SCENARIO BUILD-OUTS – COMMERCIAL SERVICES SQUARE FOOTAGES PER SCENARIO Commercial Services Auto Sales/Rental

Auto Repair Garage and Parts Sales

Commercial: NonVehicle Services

Baseline

21%

316,294

24%

358,198

29%

432,808

12%

174, 279

Residential 1

Residential 2

30%

447,596

30%

447,596

Land Use Scenario

Lodging: Motel Rms

TABLE 4-2 LAND USE SCENARIO BUILD-OUTS – RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND SQUARE FOOTAGE PER SCENARIO Residential Land Use Scenario

14 du/ac %

18 du/ac

SF (1)

Baseline

100,352

103,574

Residential 1

50%

908,600

292

50%

908,600

375

Residential 2

20%

363,440

117

20%

363,400

150

Note: 1. Square feet and dwelling units are shown to reflect all ways in which the scenarios are analyzed throughout the technical studies that follow.

4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS /BASELINE In the Existing Conditions scenario, referred to hereafter as the Baseline scenario, the Study Area remains zoned as CS with existing uses in place. Identifying the existing uses in the Study Area included two steps: (1) identify parcel sizes and specific land uses, and (2) determine the category of land use per parcel. The process and assumptions for each step are explained below: Step 1. Identify Parcel Sizes and Specific Land Uses   

The square footage area of each parcel in the Study Area was determined using the City’s GIS data file. The specific uses per parcel were identified from a list of businesses in the Study Area provided by the City and additional field and document research. The specific uses were categorized as one of four land uses: Residential, vehicle service commercial, non-vehicle service commercial, and motel.

Step 2. Determine Land Use Composition per Parcel  

Parcels with only one land use, 100% of the parcel area was labeled as that use. Parcels with more than one use, the parcel area was apportioned by each use’s estimated share of building square footage.

Refer to Appendix A to view a detailed breakdown of parcels, uses, and assumptions applied in defining the Baseline scenario.

4.2 THE RESIDENTIAL SCENARIOS Residential Scenarios 1 and 2 assume conversion of some or all of the Study Area to a mix of single family attached and multi-family residential units under the Urban High ResidentialCategory 3 (UH-3) General Plan land use designation. The selection of UH-3 in no way precludes conversion of the Study Area to other appropriate residential zones nor suggests the Study Area should be converted to residential use. UH-3 is described as follows in the General Plan Land Use Element: Category 3 [UH-3] is located in areas near major roads with adequate infrastructure, public services, and amenities to support higher densities. This category is intended to provide housing opportunities for all income groups in the community, including affordable housing. Townhouses and garden apartments are typical under this designation. (p. 3-13)

Density required in the UH-3 designation is 14 to 18 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The City’s Development Code includes two zones designed to comply with the UH-3 designation: T4 Neighborhood (T4N) (a Transect zone) and Multifamily Residential (MFR) (a non-Transect zone).

UH-3 was selected for three reasons. First, the designation allows one Transect zone and one non-Transect zone, allowing flexibility for project implementation. Second, existing UH uses, including UH-3, are adjacent to the Study Area, suggesting that UH-3 may be compatible with other uses surrounding the Study Area. Third, the higher density requirements of UH-3 allow for identification of a wider range of potential impacts relative to lower density designations. Given available zoning and neighboring uses around the Study Area, Residential Scenarios 1 and 2 include a mix of attached single-family (townhomes and condos) and multi-family. The T4N zone allows for multi-family and single-family homes. Most of the neighborhoods surrounding the Study Area are composed of single family-homes. Accordingly, the UH-3 residential uses in Residential Scenarios 1 and 2 are assumed at full build-out and divided evenly in terms of total area between the minimum allowable density (14 du/ac)—representing small lot single family, townhomes, condos, and flats—and the maximum allowable density (18 du/ac)—representing multi-family units such as townhomes, condos, stacked flats, and apartments.

4.2.1 RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO 1: 100% RESIDENTIAL Under Residential Scenario 1, 100 percent of the Study Area is converted to UH-3 for residential development. Residential Scenario 1 is based on the following assumptions:   

100 percent of the Study Area is converted to UH-3 designation for residential development. Residential development in the Study Area is divided evenly between the minimum allowable density (14 du/ac) and the maximum allowable density (18 du/ac) The newly converted UH-3 designation is fully built-out.

Table 4-3 below shows the residential, commercial, and motel build-out assumed under Residential Scenario 1:

TABLE 4-3 RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO 1 BUILD-OUT Residential Portion of Study Area

Commercial Services Commercial: Non-Vehicle Services (SF)

Lodging: Hotel (Rooms)

14 du/ac

18 du/ac

Auto Sales/Rental (SF)

Auto Repair Garage and Parts Sales (SF)

20.86

292

908,600

20.86

375

1,817,199

41.72

292

375

Square Feet

Acres

50%

908,600

50% 100%

Residential

4.2.2 RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO 2: 40% RESIDENTIAL AND 60% COMMERCIAL Under Residential Scenario 2, 40 percent of the Study Area is converted to the UH-3 designation for residential development, and the remaining 60 percent remains CS for vehicle services. The 40 percent figure is informed by the capacity assessment (refer to Section 8.1), which found that the vacant land zoned CS outside the Study Area could accommodate approximately 43 percent of Study Area existing uses. Like Residential Scenario 1, the residential development is divided equally between 14 to 18 du/ac product types. The 60 percent of CS that would remain in Residential Scenario 2 is assumed to include only auto related commercial uses due to potential challenges in relocation caused by limited availability of accommodating zoning outside the Study Area. Residential Scenario 2 is based on the following assumptions:     

40 percent of the Study Area is converted to UH-3 designation for residential development. Residential development in the Study Area is divided evenly between the minimum allowable density (14 du/ac) and the maximum allowable density (18 du/ac). The newly converted UH-3 designation is fully built-out. 60 percent of the Study Area remains zoned as CS. CS uses in the Study Area will consist entirely of vehicle service uses divided evenly between auto sales/rental and auto garage and part sales.

Table 4-4 shows the residential, commercial (assumed all vehicle services), and motel build-out assumed under Residential Scenario 2:

TABLE 4-4 RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO 2 BUILD-OUT Residential Portion of Study Area

Square Feet

Acres

20%

363,440

20% 40%

Commercial: Services Auto Repair Garage and Parts Sales (SF)

Commer cial: NonVehicle Services (SF)

Lodging: Hotel (Rooms)

14 du/ac

18 du/ac

Auto Sales/Rental (SF)

8.34

116

363,440

8.34

150

726,880

16.69

116

150

Residential

Commercial: Vehicle Services 30%

545,160

12.52

545,160

30%

545,160

12.52

545,160

60%

1,090,319

25.03

545,160

1,817,199

41.72

117

150

545,160

Total 100%

5 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT ANALYSIS Chapter 5 presents an infrastructure impact analysis of a conversion of the Study Area from Commercial Service to some degree of residential. The purpose of this analysis is to determine how the capacity of existing civil infrastructure (sewer, potable water, storm water, traffic) affects feasibility of the conversion scenarios. The infrastructure analyses include:        

Baseline and Residential Scenario 1 comprise the bookend cases which portray the full spectrum of all possible impacts that could result from full or partial conversion of the Study Area from commercial service to residential uses.

Sewer System Capacity Stormwater System Capacity Water Supply Traffic Impacts Schools Parks Police Fire Protection Services

To establish the full range of infrastructure impacts, the following analyses were conducted on the Baseline and Residential 1 Scenario (100% residential).

5.1 SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY The following summarizes the sewer system capacity analysis performed by local civil engineering firm Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. (CBG). The complete memorandum of CBG’s analysis and findings is included in Appendix B. From their assessment, CBG determined the difference in sewer infrastructure impacts between the Baseline and Residential Scenario 1 is likely insignificant. Assuming all parcels discharge into the southerly 27” and 30” sewer mains downstream of the Study Area, CBG maintains:  

The proposed Residential Scenario #1 would result in an increase in the peak wet weather flow of 0.157 to 0.273 MGD. The percentage increase in wastewater flow relative to full flow pipe capacity will increase from 1.1% to 1.9% for the 27” and 30” sewer mains just downstream of the Study Area.

The City’s 2004 Sewer Master Plan identified downstream capacity constraints. However, since 2004, the City has completed sewer improvements to correct these deficiencies.

5.2 STORMWATER SYSTEM CAPACITY This Section summarizes the Stormwater System Capacity Analysis performed by CBG. The complete memorandum of CBG’s analysis and findings is included in Appendix C. Similar to the Sanitary Sewer System Capacity Analysis, CBG analyzed impacts based on the Baseline and Residential Scenario 1. The analysis is based upon a review of existing topography, storm drain facilities, impervious surface area, and flood insurance map designations in the Study Area. From their analysis, CBG concludes:  



Land use changes in Residential Scenario #1 will result in increases in storm water flows to 24” main of 125.1 percent. Land use changes in Residential Scenario #1 would potentially increase the impact on the downstream storm drain pipe system and require improvements. Improvements would be required as a condition of project approval and would reduce downstream impacts and comply with City standards. Rerouting a portion of area drainage to the assumed point of connection along the southern boundary may alleviate current flooding conditions along First Street.

Hydromodification Strategies. Projects are required to comply with Hydromodification requirements if:   

The project creates and/or replaces one acre or more of impervious surface, The project will increase impervious surface over pre-project conditions, AND The project is located in a susceptible area, as shown of the County susceptibility map.

Since Hydromodifcation requirements are not unique to the Study Area and would be required for any future project applications, defined strategies and the feasibility of implementation are not necessarily needed at this time. Each future project application will need to take the previously mentioned requirements into account and appropriately plan the site layout, utilities, grading, and density requirement, among other topics.

5.3

WATER DEMAND AND SUPPLY

This section summarizes the water demand and supply estimates for the Study Area under the Baseline and Residential Scenario 1 performed by CBG. The complete memorandum of CBG’s analysis and findings is included in Appendix D. The Study Area is located within the service area of the California Water Service Company (“Cal Water"),21 which supplies and delivers water to approximately 69 percent of the City’s City of Livermore, Water Resources Division, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan for Livermore Municipal Water, (Livermore, CA, June 2011), 13.

population.22 Cal Water’s demand projections are based on population growth projections and land uses from the City of Livermore 2003 General Plan.23 Cal Water is currently updating the Livermore service area Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for 2015, anticipated to be adopted in July, 2016. The Draft 2015 UWMP generally indicates that Cal Water will maintain adequate water supply for the Livermore service area under all hydrologic conditions. The information below is from the adopted 2010 UWMP. Shown in Tables 5.1 to 5.4 below, the water demand increase generated in Residential Scenario 1 is likely minimal and does not exceed the projected water supply for the Livermore District. Presented in Table 5.1, CalWater provided average water demand figures for single family, multi-family and commercial uses. On a per service basis, multi-family residential generates the greatest water usage demands, however demands per unit are much less than those of a single family home (per service). On average, commercial uses demand substantially more water than a single family home or multi-family residential unit, however actual demand will vary depending on the type of commercial use and activity on a given parcel. TABLE 5.1 CALWATER AVERAGE DEMAND FACTORS 2010-2015 Single Family

Multi‐Family

Commercial

per Service

per Unit

per Service

355

5,436

1,168

Source: CalWater

Table 5.2 below indicates the change in demand between the Baseline and Residential Scenario. The demand for each parcel was calculated by multiplying the existing number of units/services for the parcel by the demand factors provided by CalWater (See Table 5.1 above). Demand from a full residential conversion of the Study Area is estimated to increase by approximately 72.1 acre feet per year. TABLE 5.2 STUDY AREA DEMAND Gallons per Day

Acre Feet per Year

Baseline Demand

41,203

46.1

Residential Scenario 1

105,528

118.2

Net Change in Demand

+ 64,325

+72.1

Scenario

Notes: 1. 1 gallon US per day (gal/day) = 0.00112 acre feet per year (acre-ft/yr) Source: CalWater and CBG Demand Calculations 22

California Water Service Company, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan: Livermore District, (June 2011), 16.

Ibid., 22, 29.

While the net increase in water use in the Study Area is important given recent drought conditions in the region and State, supply for the entire water system serving the City should be considered. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 below present projected supply and the impacts to overall supply from proposed land use changes from Residential Scenario 1. TABLE 5.3 PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY FOR CAL WATER LIVERMORE DISTRICT 2015 (acre-ft/yr)

2020 (acre-ft/yr)

2025 (acre-ft/yr)

Zone 7 Water Agency

9,059

8,612

9,836

Supplier Produced Groundwater

3,069

Total

12,128

11,681

12,905

Source

Source: 2010 Urban Water Management Plan: Livermore District, 41. TABLE 5.4 CALWATER 2015 PROJECTED DEMAND AND SUPPLY COMPARISON Projected 2015 Demand

Total including Study Area Demand

Percent Change in Projected Demand

Total 2015 Supply

Remaining Supply

11,228

11,300

0.61%

12,128

828

Source: Projected demand from CalWater and 2010 Urban Water Management Plan: Livermore District, 30-31, Appendix C, Worksheet 19.

Table 5.4 shows that water supply could likely accommodate expected demand from the Study Area.

5.4 TRAFFIC IMPACTS This section summarizes a traffic impact analysis prepared by Sustinere Consulting, that assesses potential impacts from the Residential 1 and Residential 2 scenarios relative to Baseline existing conditions for trip generation, estimated at 40,327 average daily trips (ADT). Analyses in this section are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) standards. The complete memorandum of Sustinereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s analysis and findings is included in Appendix E. From a traffic analysis perspective, the Study Area is relatively suburban. Although the City has goals to provide more bicycle and pedestrian amenities as identified in the General Plan and Bikeways and Trails Master Plan,24 there are no immediate plans to implement these plans in the study area other than the potential future extension of the Iron Horse Trail along the south side of the site. The potential future extension of BART to Livermore is a part of the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s long-term goals.25 The Tri-Valley Rapid Bus route is planned to connect the future Livermore 24

City of Livermore. City of Livermore Bikeways and Trails Masterplan. By Wilbur Smith Associates and 2M Associates. 2001. 25

Alameda County Transportation Commission. 2012 Transportation Expenditure Plan: City of Livermore.

BART station to the Maple Avenue and First Street Rapid Bus stop, and could play a part in reinforcing more non-automotive traffic in this area in the future (see Figure 5-1 below)26. Within this context Residential Scenarios 1 and 2 are examined relative to the existing uses. EXISTING USES. FIGURE 5-1 PROPOSED LIVERMORE BART AND RAPID BUS LINE LOCATIONS

Study Area Source: Bay Area Rapid Transit, LWC

5.4.1 TRIP GENERATION RATES The estimated travel generated by potential land use changes is calculated using rates and equations from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th edition. The resulting trip generation rates based on this calculation are presented in Table 5.5. Special consideration was given to how the existing PG&E yard within the middle portion of the Study Area should be classified and it was determined the general office category would be the most appropriate. Trip generation projections are based upon trip generation rates put forth in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip General Manual, 9th Edition. The PG&E use does not perfectly fit within the use categories identified in the ITE manual. The ITE General Office category best captures the combined office, vehicle storage, and auxiliary uses 26

The Rapid Bus Stop is located approximately one-half mile from the Study Area residential uses (walking from the Study Area, along First Street, to Maple Street). According to research by Drs. Robert Cervero (University of California Berkeley) and Erick Guerrra (University of Pennsylvania), a half-mile proximity to the Rapid Bus stop would be expected to yield a mode shift from auto trips to active modes of transport. “Proximity to a transit station strongly influences whether people use the service… A transit catchment area measures a station’s primary zone of influence… The half-mile transit catchment area, whether radial or road-network-based, is more a convenient rule of thumb than a statistical or analytical construct… Through a process of eliminating and combining catchment bands, we settled on the quarter-mile catchment as the best context for modeling with job counts, and the half-mile circle as the best context for modeling with residents.” (Cervero, Robert, PhD, and Erick Guerra, PhD. "Is a Half-Mile Circle the Right Standard for TODs?" ACCESS Magazine (University of California Transportation Center), Spring 2013).

that PG&E undertakes in the Study Area. Actual trips generated in the existing conditions may vary from the projections, and would require field trip counts, outside the scope of this report, to ensure consistency with on-the-ground conditions. In addition to estimating trip numbers, it is also important to highlight the timing and directional variation between AM peak hour and daily trips for residential vs. some nonresidential uses. While residential uses generate far fewer daily trips, they do sometimes result in a higher number of outbound trips, particularly during the AM Peak. TABLE 5.5 TRIP GENERATION RATES Rates

ITE Land Use Code

Unit

Single-Family Detached

210

Apartment

220

Motel

Specific Land Use

ITE Land Use

Residential Single Residential Multi

Daily

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

Out

Total

Out

Total

9.5

0.19

0.56

0.75

0.63

0.37

1.00

6.1

0.16

0.39

0.55

0.41

0.26

0.67

320

Rms

5.6

0.17

0.27

0.44

0.30

0.26

0.56

General Office

710

ksf

11.0

1.37

0.19

1.56

0.25

1.24

1.49

Retail

Shopping Center

820

ksf

42.7

0.60

0.36

0.96

1.78

1.93

3.71

Auto Dealership

New Car Sales

841

ksf

32.3

1.22

1.00

2.22

1.32

1.48

2.80

Automobile Care Center

942

ksf

23.7

1.49

0.77

2.25

1.49

1.62

3.11

Motel Commercial

Auto Repair

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012

It is also important to note that while trip generation rates Mixed-uses and transit shown above might accurately reflect more traditional connections may be considered suburban residential design, they may lose accuracy as in planning for Study Area the amount of higher-density, mixed-use and multimodal development as approaches to reduce auto traffic generation development increases. Recent literature suggests that trip generation rates from the ITE manual can Residential Scenario 1 produces dramatically overstate the number of trips in locations the least traffic impacts of Study such as the San Francisco Bay Area. This is based on the Area land use alternatives. fact that these trip generation numbers are highly aggregated and, many times, based on more suburban locations throughout the United States (Schneider, Shafizadeh and Handy 2012).27 Therefore, it is possible that traffic generation 27 Schneider, R., K. Shafizadeh & S. Handy (2012). Methodology for Adjusting ITE Trip Generation Estimates for Smart-Growth Projects. Transportation Research Record.

estimates of Residential Scenarios 1 and 2 may overstate trips using ITE rates. Although no attempt is made to adjust the ITE rates, due to a lack of a strong mixed-use or transit connected component of the proposed corridor land uses, it may be important to consider this as planning for the Study Area evolves. Potential resources in these efforts can be found in publications by Handy (2014),28 Ewing et al (2011)29 and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684.30

5.4.2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Table 5.6 shows the anticipated daily traffic volumes for the Baseline, Residential Scenario 1, and Residential Scenario 2 development alternatives. Table 5.7 compliments this by providing AM and PM peak estimates. As illustrated in the tables, Residential Scenarios 1 and 2 produce fewer trips than the Baseline scenario. This is because retail is the most trip-intensive land use, followed by auto sales and care centers.

Planning for a multi-modal transportation network that emphasizes biking, walking, and transportation demand management will serve to decrease traffic impacts of future Study Area development and coupled with auto technology advances will reduce roadway right-of-way needs.

Residential Scenario 1 represents the least intensive option and a dramatic drop in daily trips as compared to the Baseline. Residential Scenario 2 decreases the number of trips by roughly 7,700 trips daily, however, as the tables show, it could result in an increase in cars on the road during peak hours. This presents an opportunity for an increased focus on biking, walking and increased connectivity to the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transit center. Such a strategy could reduce peak roadway demand during peak hours and minimize the need for long-term roadway expansion. This is especially important to consider given the overall drop in average daily trips (ADT) and future advances in technology (networked transportation, autonomous vehicles, etc.) which may reduce the right-of-way needs for roadways.

Schneider, R., K. Shafizadeh, & S. Handy (2014). TRB Innovations in Travel Modeling Conference. Ewing, Reid, Michael Greenwald, Ming Zhang, Jerry Walters, et. al., Traffic Generated by Mixed-Use Developments â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A Six-Region Study Using Built Environmental Measures, Journal of Urban Planning & Development (2011) 30 NCHRP 684, Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments (2011) http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_684.pdf. 28 29

TABLE 5.6: AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS Single Family

Apartment

Motel

Office (PG&E)

Shopping Center

New Car Sales

Auto Care Center

Total

747

3,217

17,601

10,216

8,496

40,327

Scenario 1

2,780

2,497

5,277

Scenario 2

1,112

999

17,609

12,931

32,651

Daily Trips

Baseline

Notes: 1. Existing does not include 6480 SF of property dedicated as easement 2. Residential scenarios do not support mixed-use or transit reductions

TABLE 5.7 AVERAGE AM / PM PEAK TRIPS

Baseline

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Daily Trips AM Hour PM Peak Daily Trips AM Hour PM Peak Daily Trips AM Hour PM Peak

Single Family

Apartment

Motel

Office (PG&E)

Shopping Center

New Car Sales

Auto Care Center

Total

747.02

3,217

17,601

10,216

8,496

40,327

0.75

3.06

52.48

492

381

607

806

2,342

3.72

47.56

443

1,599

829

1,114

4,037

2,780

2497

5,277

219

191

410

292

233

525

1,112

999

17,609

12,931

32,651

1,047

1,227

2,438

117

1,428

1,695

3,334

5.4.3 FINDINGS AND FEASIBILITY Given this assessment, the following traffic assessment is based on land use scenarios described in Chapter 4. In sum, Scenario 1 would result in an estimated 5,277 trips and Scenario 2 would result in 32,651 trips â&#x20AC;&#x201D; both represent a net reduction in the ADT in the study area relative to the existing baseline scenario.

TABLE 5.8 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY BY USE Baseline

Residential Scenario 1

Residential Scenario 2

Residential: Single-Family

2,780

1,112

Residential: Multi-Family

2,497

999

Commercial: Vehicle Services: Auto Sales/Rental

10,216

17,609

Commercial: Vehicle Services: Auto Repair Garage and Parts Sales

8,496

12,931

Commercial: Non-Vehicle Services

17,601

747

Other: PG&E

3,217

Total

40,327

5,277

3,2651

Land Use

Lodging: Motel Other: Easement

Based on this assessment, the following conclusion should be considered:  



Both development scenarios would result in a net reduction of trips generated in the corridor area as compared to the Baseline existing situation. Residential Scenario 1 represents the highest reduction and lowest impact from a trip generation standpoint. Residential uses generate far fewer trips than retail and auto uses on a daily basis. Residential Scenario 2 would reduce the number of trips modestly as compared to the Baseline, but may slightly increase the total number of peak hour trips unless mitigated by transportation demand management efforts. Traffic impacts of Residential Scenario 1 and Residential Scenario 2 land use alternatives could be reduced by implementation of a multi-modal access plan and investment in transportation demand management and infrastructure32.

Recent Bay Area Affordable Housing Sustainable Community (AHSC) program grants highlight success of transportation demand management (TDM) systems in residential settings. Recipients of AHSC grants must demonstrate that residential TDM programs yield greenhouse gas emissions reductions that address climate change concerns. Recent efforts of TransForm (http://www.transformca.org), a leading transportation advocate and an award-winning nonprofit organization working in the San Francisco Bay Area and California, such as the GreenTRIP certification program, also speak to the importance and success of TDM programs for residential developments. The Garden Village development project in Berkeley, a recent GreenTRIP Platinum certification recipient, illustrates a recent case study in the implementation of TDM strategies in the residential setting (GreenTRIP. Case Study: Garden Village: The Inspiration for GreenTRIP Platinum Certification. TransForm, July 7, 2015). 32

5.5 SCHOOLS This section discusses the impact that new Study Area development would pose to Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) schools. School-aged children in the Study Area would likely attend Junction K-8 and Livermore High School and would produce expected enrollment demand as shown in Table 5-9 below.33 Conversations between City Staff and LVJUSD revealed that area schools have the capacity to accommodate expected enrollment projections associated with a potential Study Area land use conversion. To offset the expense associated with increased student enrollment from new development, developers are required to pay school impact fees in the amounts of $3.36 per square foot of residential uses, and $0.54 per square foot of commercial and industrial uses.34 TABLE 5-9. LIVERMORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ENROLLMENT School

Junction (K-8)

Level

Elementary and Middle High School

Enrollment (2014/1015)

Added Enrollment from Study Area Scenario 1 (3)

Added Enrollment from Study Area Scenario 2 (3)

872 (1)

454 182 Livermore High 1771 (2) School Notes: 1. Enrollment Data from the Junction Avenue K-8 School 2014-2015 School Accountability Report Card Published in 2015-2016. 2. Enrollment Data from the Livermore High School 2014-2015 School Accountability Report Card Published in 2015-2016. 3. Study Area enrollment projections are based upon a 0.68 students per single-family home generation rate, as called out in the City of Livermore 2014 Community Services and Infrastructure Report.

5.6 PARKS This section discusses the impact that new Study Area development would pose to Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) facilities. According to the LARPD Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan (2015 Draft Version), the Study Area is primarily served by three parks: Lester J. Knott Park, Robert Livermore Park, and Dolan Park. New residential development in the Study Area can be expected to yield demand for park facilities as shown in Table 5.10., below. Expected park demand from Study Area land use Scenario 1 and 2 would exacerbate deficits in supply of the Softball Fields (Youth), Softball Fields (Adult), and Indoor Volleyball Courts facility categories.

33Livermore 34

Valley Joint Unified School District. Street Guide School Assignments. February 18, 2016. According to the January 2016 City of Livermore fee schedule.

TABLE 5-10. STUDY AREA EXPECTED PARK FACILITY DEMAND Facility Type

Facility Need Ratio (1)

Expected Demand Presented by Study Area Scenario 2 (3)(4) 0.06

2015 Facility Need Surplus/Deficit Citywide

1/13,050 pop.

Expected Demand Presented by Study Area Scenario 1 (2)(4) 0.15

Softball Fields, Youth Softball Fields, Adult

1/26,950 pop.

0.07

0.03

-0.4

Baseball Fields, Youth

1/5,850 pop.

0.33

0.13

Soccer/Sports Fields, Youth

1/3,950 pop.

0.48

0.19

Swimming Pools

1/25,050 pop.

0.08

0.03

1.3

Indoor Volleyball Courts

1/81,500 pop.

0.02

0.01

Indoor Basketball Courts

1/39,300 pop.

0.05

0.02

1.7

Walking/Jogging Paths (mi.)

1/3,800 pop.

0.50

0.20

7.5

Bicycle Paths (mi.)

1/3,250 pop.

0.59

0.24

3.5

Picnic Tables

1/938 pop.

2.04

0.82

106

Tot Lots / Playgrounds

1/5,800 pop.

0.33

0.13

11.5

Passive Open Space

1/450 pop.

4.26

1.70

1201

-1

Notes: 1. Facility Need Ratios are shown in 2015 figures and are drawn from the LARPD Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan (2015 Draft Version). 2. Assumes a household size figure of 2.87, from California Department of Finance, “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011- 2015, with 2010 Benchmark”; development of 667 new housing units; and a resulting City of Livermore population increase of 1915 residents that the proposed land use change of the Study Area is expected to produce. 3. Assumes a household size figure of 2.87, from California Department of Finance, “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011- 2015, with 2010 Benchmark”; development of 267 new housing units; and a resulting City of Livermore population increase of 765 residents that the proposed land use change of the Study Area is expected to produce. 4. Expected Demand is presented in terms of number of facilities, consistent with the LARPD Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan needs assessment projections.

To offset the expense associated with accommodating park facility demand from new development in the Study Area, developers would need to pay impact fees outlined in Table 511 below.

TABLE 5-11. PARK FACILITIES FEE SCHEDULE Land Use Residential (per dwelling unit)

Total Fee

Single-Family (&4 bedroom multi-family)

$14,721

Multi-Family 3 bedrooms

$12,809

Multi-Family 2 bedrooms

$11,288

Multi-Family 1 bedroom

$8,735

Multi-Family Studio

$7,804

Senior Housing

$2,505

Non-Residential (per 1,000 sq. ft.) Commercial

$1,866

Office

$2,669

Industrial

$1,241

Warehouse

$932

Source: January 2016 City of Livermore fee schedule.

5.7 POLICE This section discusses the impact that new Study Area development would pose to the Livermore Police Department’s ability to provide an adequate level of police protection services. The Livermore Police Department employs 90 sworn officers and 45 full time staff members.35 Assuming a population of 85,99036, the ratio of sworn officers per 1,000 residents can be estimated at 1.05. The City of Livermore does not have a target ratio, but this ratio is consistent with the ratio for other cities in the Bay Area which largely range from 1.0 to 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents.37 Table 5-12 below shows the change that new Study Area development would cause in the ratio of sworn officers per 1,000 residents.

http://www.cityoflivermore.net/citygov/police/admin/chief.htm

36 California Department of Finance, “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011- 2015, with 2010 Benchmark” 37

City of Livermore Garaventa Hills Project Environmental Impact Report.

TABLE 5-12. SWORN OFFICER PER 1,000 RESIDENT RATIOS Land Use Scenario

Population

Baseline

85,990 (1)

Sworn Officer per 1,000 Residents Ratio (4) 1.05

Scenario 1

87,905 (2)

1.02

Scenario 2

86,755 (3)

1.04

Notes: The Baseline Scenario population figure is the January 1, 2015 City of Livermore population estimate published by the California Department of Finance in the “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011- 2015, with 2010 Benchmark” data set. Scenario 1 assumes a household size figure of 2.87, from California Department of Finance, “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011- 2015, with 2010 Benchmark”; development of 667 new housing units; and a resulting City of Livermore population increase of 1915 residents that the proposed land use change of the Study Area is expected to produce. Scenario 2 assumes a household size figure of 2.87, from California Department of Finance, “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011- 2015, with 2010 Benchmark”; development of 267 new housing units; and a resulting City of Livermore population increase of 765 residents that the proposed land use change of the Study Area is expected to produce. The Livermore Police Department currently employs 90 sworn officers. The Sworn Officer per 1,000 Residents ratio calculations in this table assume a constant level of 90 sworn officers to isolate the impact of added population from the Study Area land use scenarios.

5.8 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) utilizes a total response time standard of seven minutes from time of call intake to the arrival of the first responder on scene and measures itself against a 90% compliance rate. LPFD achieved an 81.5% department-wide compliance rate in 201538. Fire Station 7, at 951 Rincon Avenue, is the closest fire station to the Study Area. The compliance rate of Fire Station 7 with the seven-minute response time standard is among the highest in the department at 85.5%. To maintain adequate fire protection service levels in Study Area land use Scenarios 1 and 2, the City should:

Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department 2015 Annual Report. http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14245/

1. Continue to involve LPFD in assessing the physical layout and design of new structures to ensure LPFD emergency apparatus will be allowed adequate access to continue to meet targeted response times39. 2. Implement open space and fire-rated building construction features to provide separation, compartmentalization and exposure protection while still meeting desired density objectives. Take advantage of integrating both active and passive fire protection systems to meet the intent of costly upsizing of the current infrastructure and to eliminate exterior fire suppression equipment in the valued public space40.

2014 City of Livermore Community Services and Infrastructure Report

Ibid.

6 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 6.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents a fiscal impact analysis of the Residential Scenario 1 and Residential Scenario 2 land use alternatives described in Chapter 4, and is based on revenues and expenditures of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s General Fund. The purpose of a fiscal impact analysis is to estimate the impact of a development or a land use change on the costs and revenues of government that serves the development.41 The fiscal impact analysis presented herein assesses whether the full or partial conversion of the Study to residential uses produces a positive or negative fiscal impact to the City. The Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s General Fund receives revenue largely derived from sales, property and other local taxes, and is used to pay for police, fire, city staff, and other community services. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-2015, General Fund actual revenues were $92,941,654 and expenditures were $85,267,832. Due to a positive net change in the General Fund over Fiscal Year 2014-2015, the General Fund's June 30, 2015 balance was approximately $37 million. Percentages of actual General Fund revenues and expenditures for FY 2014-2015 are shown in Figures 6-1 and 6-2.

41 Edwards, Mary. "Community Guide to Development Impact Analysis." Fiscal Impact Analysis; from "Community Guide to Development Impact Analysis" by Mary Edwards. Accessed March 02, 2016. http://www.lic.wisc.edu/shapingdane/facilitation/all_resources/impacts/analysis_fiscal.htm

FIGURE 6-1 ACTUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES FY 2014-2015

Actual Revenues FY 2014-2015 2%

Property Taxes

3% Sales Taxes

11% 28%

Other Taxes 9% Licenses and Permits 3% Intergovernmental Charges for Current Services

15% 29%

Use of Money and Property Miscellaneous and Other

FIGURE 6-2 ACTUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES FY 2014-2015

Actual Expenditures FY 2014-2015 1% 5%

General Government 4%

Administrative Services 7%

16%

General Services Fire

19%

Police Public Works Community & Economic Development Library

36%

6.2

Capital Projects

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

Based on the methodologies and assumptions, Residential Scenario 1 would result in added annual costs that slightly exceed expected revenues to the General Fund. Alternative methodologies or changes to the assumptions would alter the findings of this analysis. TABLE 6.1 SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND FISCAL IMPACT FINDINGS Summary of General Fund Fiscal Impact Findings (Annual, Post-Build-out) (Constant 2015 dollars)

Baseline Scenario

Residential Scenario 1

Residential Scenario 2

Total Revenues

$527,187

$1,551,706

$1,027,136

Total Expenditures

$474,534

$1,587,844

$1,004,169

Net Annual Surplus/(Deficit)

$52,652

($36,139)

$22,967

6.3 METHODOLOGY Various methodologies and assumptions are applied to determine estimated General Fund revenues and expenditures for the Baseline and Residential Scenarios 1 and 2. General methodologies and assumptions are described here, while assumptions specific to an individual revenue source or expenditure are discussed in the respective section that follows.     



 



Actual revenue figures were used for the Baseline scenario when available for each revenue category. Although construction would occur in phases, anticipated annual General Fund revenues and expenditures are forecast after project build-out. General Fund FY 2015-2016 projections are used unless specified otherwise. Based on available data, the most applicable expenditure allocation methodology was applied (e.g., case study, per service population, per capita, etc.). Household size assumed is 2.76 persons per household (2010 U.S. Census, City of Livermore). Thus, 1,841 residents are estimated for Residential Scenario 1 and 737 residents estimated for Residential Scenario 2. Employees are assumed to have ½ the impact of a resident (i.e., employees are factored as 50% of a resident in service population calculations). This results in a citywide service population of 107,910 and a Residential Scenario 2 study area commercial service population of 1,374. Residential Scenario 1 does not include commercial space for employees. Expenditures are estimated in aggregate, utilizing the Allocation Rule Percentage (ARP) methodology, discussed in detail under Expenditures. The commercial square footage in Residential Scenario 2 is assumed to be within existing commercial buildings (i.e., no redevelopment or new development of commercial space). All new infrastructure/facility construction and maintenance costs directly required for Build-out of the scenarios are assumed to be paid by the developer and future property owners (e.g., Community Facilities District, Benefit Assessment District, etc.).

The methodologies and underlying assumptions were selected based on available data and the professional expertise and experience of LWC. Alternative methodologies or changes to the assumptions would alter the findings of this analysis.

6.4 REVENUES This section summarizes the revenue analysis for Residential Scenarios 1 and 2, organized by revenue source. Property Tax – Property tax is projected based on estimated assessed valuation. Residential unit sales prices, translating into estimated assessed valuation, were projected based on sales prices of comparable projects and substantiated through a development pro forma analysis. The 47

assessed valuation of commercial uses in Residential Scenario 2 was estimated based on the average assessed value of existing Study Area commercial uses ($14.90 per square foot). Based on this approach, the following estimated annual property tax would result:  

Scenario 1 - $690,421 Scenario 2 - $264,486

TABLE 6.2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX TO GENERAL FUND AT BUILD-OUT Estimated Annual Property Tax to General Fund at Build-out (Constant 2015 dollars)

Residential Scenario 1

Residential Scenario 2

Existing Valuation (2015-2016)

$13,283,675

Average Assessed Valuation/SF (1)

$14.90

292

117

$723,475

$636,658

$211,254,700

$74,488,986

375

150

$587,356

$516,873.48

$220,258,587

$77,531,022

$431,513,287

$165,202,684

$4,315,133

$1,653,037

Estimated Assessed Valuation

New Residential – Single Family

Number of Units

Estimated Average Value/Unit (2) Total Single Family Estimated Valuation New Residential – Multi-Family Estimated Average Value/Unit (2) Total Multi-Family Estimated Valuation Total Estimated Assessed Valuation

Number of Units

Projected Annual Property Tax Countrywide Tax (1%) (3) To City of Livermore General Fund Total Estimated Annual Property Tax

16% $690,421

$264,486

Assumptions: 1. Scenario 2 assumes $14.90/SF for commercial vehicle services based on existing valuations. 2. Residential values estimated based on comparable projects’ price points and LWC pro forma analysis. Scenario 2 units assumed to command a 12% lower sales price due to proximity to vehicle service uses. 3. Excludes any overlapping rates or voter approved debt service above the 1%. Sources: Alameda County, City of Livermore

Sales Tax – Sales tax is estimated on a per service population basis, using a rate of $261.29 per service population42. The estimated annual sales and use taxes for both scenarios are as follows:  

Residential Scenario 1 - $481,006 Residential Scenario 2 - $358,893

Franchise Taxes – A franchise tax is the “rent” that a utility company pays the city to use rightof-ways for its lines, pipes, poles, etc. The utility company passes the tax on to consumers as a fee. The utility company then pays the City a tax payment that is sourced from the consumer fee. The City then accounts for the payment as a revenue stream. Utility companies that pay Franchise taxes in Livermore provide cable TV, gas, garbage, and electric services. Franchise taxes are estimated on a per service population basis, using a rate of $41.38 per service population43. The following estimated annual franchise taxes would result:  

Residential Scenario 1 - $76,172 Residential Scenario 2 - $56,835

Business License Tax – Business license tax is estimated by allocating projected business license tax on a per acre basis to retail, office, and industrial uses throughout the City.44 A rate of $2,487.28 of business license tax per acre was derived. Taxes associated with existing businesses are assumed to stay in place in Residential Scenario 2. The estimated annual business license tax for both scenarios are as follows:  

Residential Scenario 1 - $0 Residential Scenario 2 - $201,644

Real Property Transfer Tax – Real property transfer tax is estimated based on an annual residential property turnover rate combined with the estimated residential property valuation discussed under Property Tax, above. An annual residential property turnover rate of 4.34% is applied (see Table 6.3). This property turnover rate was calculated over a 13-year period (2000 to 2014) according to the number of housing units moved into during that time. Due to low commercial assessed values and for a conservative analysis, a 0.0 percent commercial property turnover rate is assumed.

42 The per service population figure was derived by taking the City’s total sales tax figure (FY2015-2016) and dividing it by the City’s total service population that includes residents and employees. The method accounts for all transactions undertaken by employees and residents on a blended basis to account for a variety of population types in the Study Area (residents, employees, and employee-residents). The method is demand-based and is derived from the spending power of residents and employees within the City of Livermore. 43 Similar to the sales tax calculation described in the footnote above, the franchise tax figure was derived by taking the City’s total franchise tax figure (FY2015-2016) and dividing it by the City’s total service population that includes residents and employees. 44

City of Livermore, General Plan Land Use Element, Table 3-1: 2002 Existing Land Uses.

TABLE 6.3 PROPERTY TURNOVER RATES Property Turnover Rates Total Owner Occupied Units

57,127

Year Moved into Unit Moved in 2010 or later

6,493

Moved in 2000 to 2009

25,712

Total Moved 2000 to 2014

32,205

Years in 2000 to 2014 Period

Annual Turnover Units: 2000 to 2014

2,477

Annual Turnover Rate: 2000 to 2014

4.34%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey

With this approach the following estimated annual real property transfer tax would result:  

Residential Scenario 1 - $10,292 Residential Scenario 2 - $3,626

Property transfer tax would also be paid at the time of initial sale, creating a larger injection of cash to the City compared to annual forecasts. As noted in the assumptions, these types of short term revenues are not included in the projected annual post-build-out revenues. Transient Occupancy Tax – Neither Residential Scenario 1 or 2 would retain the two existing motels (Sands Motel and Del Valle Lodge) in the Study Area or develop new transient lodging. Therefore, both scenarios are not estimated to generate any transient occupancy tax:  

The two existing motels are estimated to generate approximately $85,000 of TOT annually using $65-$75 average daily rates and 50% vacancy.

Residential Scenario 1 - $0 Residential Scenario 2 - $0

Business License Tax Construction – Business license tax construction is a tax on the construction of residential units in the City.45 It is estimated on a per capita basis utilizing projected business license tax construction revenues, resulting in $8.14 of business license tax construction revenues per capita. Thus, the City could expect to receive the following estimated annual business license tax construction revenues:

See Section 3.08.640, “Imposition of tax – Rate”, of the City of Livermore Municipal Code. 50

 

Residential Scenario 1 - $14,986 Residential Scenario 2 - $5,999

Licenses and Permits – License and permit fees include building, mechanical, street and curb, and other permit fees. These fees are estimated by allocating projected license and permit fees according to the proportion of land use (i.e., residential, commercial, and industrial) throughout the City.46 Such fees occur over time and are separate from one-time fees discussed below. The total number of housing units, 31,281,47 was used to calculate estimated license and permit fees per household, resulting in $31.86 per household. As shown in Table 4-6, with this approach the following annual licenses and permit fees are estimated after project build-out:  

Residential Scenario 1 - $21,250 Residential Scenario 2 - $14,544

TABLE 6.4 ESTIMATED ANNUAL LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES TO GENERAL FUND AT BUILD-OUT Estimated Annual License and Permit Fees to General Fund at Build-out (Constant 2015 dollars)

Residential Scenario 1

Residential Scenario 2

667

267

Estimated Annual Licenses and Permits Number of Units Average license and permit fees per household (1) Estimated annual residential license/permit fees Estimated commercial license/permit fees (2) Total Estimated Annual Licenses and Permits

$31.86 $21,250

$8,507

$6,038

$21,250

$14,544

Assumptions: 1. Estimated based on residential percentage of city land and total housing units. 2. Estimated based on study area percentage of city commercial land. Scenario 2 assumes 80% of existing (baseline) commercial license/permit fees.

Significant fees would be paid to obtain necessary construction permits. Although these onetime fees are not included in the estimated revenues, they are discussed under One-Time Fees, below. Intergovernmental Revenues – Vehicle License Fee (VLF) Comp Fund – VLF Comp Fund revenues are estimated by multiplying the projected VLF Comp Fund revenues by the percent change in total citywide assessed valuation resulting from the two scenarios. This calculation is 46

City of Livermore, General Plan Land Use Element, Table 3-1: 2002 Existing Land Uses.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 3-Year American Community Survey.

applied as it is assumed that these revenues are generated as property tax provided in lieu of VLF. With this approach the following estimated annual VLF Comp Fund revenues would result:  

Residential Scenario 1 - $195,773 Residential Scenario 2 - $74,997

Charges for Current Services – Charges for current services include use and variance permits, engineering inspection fees, library fees, plan check fees, and other charges. These revenues are estimated on a per service population basis, using a rate of $83.93 per service population. To allow for a conservative revenue forecast and considering new construction, the per service population rate is discounted by 60%. The following estimated annual charges for current services would result:  

Residential Scenario 1 - $61,804 Residential Scenario 2 - $46,114

Other Revenues Not Included in the Fiscal Impact Analysis One-Time Fees – To obtain construction permits, one-time fees will be paid to the City. These fees include building permit fees along with storm drainage, sewer, water, park facilities, housing in-lieu, traffic, and other impact fees.48 This initial fee revenue is not included in the summary of fiscal impacts because it is not an ongoing revenue stream. Nonetheless, these onetime permit fees have been estimated to provide comprehensive overview. A development pro forma analysis was used to estimate anticipated one-time fees for both scenarios:  

Residential Scenario 1 - $49,188,582 Residential Scenario 2 - $19,690,182

These projections equate to per unit fees of $64,500 to $79,193 per unit.49 Collection of the fees is assumed to occur over the development timeline of projects (in other words, the per unit fee is not assumed to be collected in a single year, and time value of money is accounted for in the figures shown. Discretionary Spending – Since this analysis focuses on the City’s General Fund, residents’ discretionary spending is only partially and indirectly addressed through estimated sales tax. However, residents’ discretionary spending is fundamental to support and attract businesses and industries to Livermore. Thus, it is important to consider in terms of overall economic impacts of a proposed project. Based on the estimated residential unit sales prices, household One-time fees are for new construction related services (for example, building permit review) and do not generate revenue that would cover other City services.

Per unit fee estimates are sourced from the Livermore Housing Element.

incomes are anticipated to be between $129,000 and $180,000, generating a significant level of discretionary spending power. Other Revenues â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The City receives additional revenues from other sources, such as other taxes (e.g., business license registration), the use of money and property, other intergovernmental revenues, and other revenues. These sources are generally expected to change negligibly and are not included to allow for a conservative analysis.

6.5 EXPENDITURES General Fund expenditures are estimated using the Allocation Rule Percentage (ARP). The ARP is a method used to allocate City spending across a variety of uses by taking a ratio of total parcels to value of such parcels.50 The ARP averages the citywide percentage of residential parcels and percentage of assessed residential valuation to determine residential costs per capita. The remaining costs are allocated to nonresidential uses per employee. This methodology calculates a residential per capita cost of $863 and a per employee cost of $289. A rate of one employee per 700 square feet of vehicle commercial services is applied to the nonresidential uses in Scenario 2. The ARP methodology results in the following estimated annual expenditures: ď&#x201A;ˇ ď&#x201A;ˇ

Residential Scenario 1 - $1,587,844 Residential Scenario 2 - $1,004,169

50 For example, considering an example where residential parcels represent 93% of all property parcels in a city and where the residential property values represent 67% of all property value in the City. The ARP would be determined by averaging these two percentages, in this case producing an ARP of 80%. The fiscal impact analysis would then assume that 80% of all city spending is related to residential activities and the remainder, 20%, is related to nonresidential activities.

TABLE 6.5 ESTIMATED ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES AT BUILD-OUT Estimated Annual General Fund Expenditures at Build-out (Constant 2015 dollars)

Residential Scenario 1

Residential Scenario 2

1,841

737

Estimated Residential Expenditures Estimated Study Area Population Residential Share per Capita Estimated Residential Expenditures

$863 $1,587,844

$635,614

1,273

Estimated Nonresidential Expenditures Estimated Study Area Employees (2) Nonresidential Share per Capita Nonresidential Expenditures Total Estimated Annual Expenditures

$289 -

$368,555

$1,587,844

$1,004,169

Assumptions: 1. Assumes all new infrastructure/facility construction and maintenance costs will be covered by the developer and property owners (e.g., CFD, BAD, etc.). 2. Assumes nonresidential square footage in Scenario 2 is commercial service related uses, including auto. Sources: Alameda County, California Department of Finance, 2010-2014 American Community Survey.

6.6 FINDINGS & FEASIBILITY Based on methods described above, Residential Scenario 1 expenditures would exceed revenue. TABLE 6.6 GENERAL FUND FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY (ANNUAL, POST-BUILD-OUT) General Fund Fiscal Impact Summary (Annual, Post-Build-out) (Constant 2015 dollars)

Revenues

FY 15-16 (1)

Estimation Factor

Baseline

Residential Scenario 1

Residential Scenario 2

Property Taxes

$27,228,100

Property value

$26,357

$690,421

$264,486

Sales Taxes

$28,195,330

Per service population

$229,092

$481,006

$358,893

Franchise Taxes

$4,465,032

Per service population

$33,526

$76,172

$56,835

Business License Tax

$4,400,000

Land use, acres

$150,750

$201,644

Real Property Transfer Tax

$620,000

Property turnover

$10,292

$3,626

Transient Occupancy Tax

$2,000,000

N/A

$36,351

Business License Tax Construction

$700,000

Per capita

$14,986

$5,999

Other Taxes

$32,500

N/A

Licenses & Permits

$2,368,000

Land use, households, acres

$7,724

$21,250

$14,544

Fines & Forfeitures

$400,000

N/A

$2,597,650

N/A

$6,471,815

Property value

$16,180

$195, 773

$74,997

$1,368,100

N/A

$7,900

N/A

Charges for Current Services

$9,057,010

Per service population

$27,202

$61,804

$46,114

Other Revenue

$1,318,700

N/A

Total Revenues

$91,230,137

Various

$527,187

$1,551,706

$1,027,136

Expenditures

FY 15-16 (2)

Est. Factor

Baseline

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Total Expenditures

$86,858,283

Allocation Rule %

$474,534

$1,587,844

$1,004,169

Net Annual Surplus/(Deficit)

$4,371,854

$52,652

($36,139)

$22,967

Use of Money & Property Intergovernmental Revenues – VLF Comp Fund Intergovernmental Revenues – Other Housing Auth In-Lieu Tax

Notes: 1. Projected per 2015-17 Financial Plan 2. Requested per 2015-17 Financial Plan

Residential Scenario 1â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s estimated deficit can be largely attributed to the absence of business license tax revenues associated with existing businesses. While the Baseline Scenario is most beneficial, Residential Scenario 2 also maintains a positive fiscal impact to the City.

Residential Scenario 2 would result in a small annual General Fund surplus, and future Study Area residents would bring spending power that would spread additional revenues throughout and to the City.

7 COMMUNITY INPUT ANALYSIS At the direction of the City, the project included a robust community engagement effort aimed at giving community members and stakeholders in the Study Area an opportunity to provide feedback regarding the potential land use conversion and to inform research with direct knowledge of the Study Area. Community engagement included: 1. Personal interviews with Study Area business and property owners (in person, phone, and email) 2. Three (3) community workshops focused on: a. Business owners, tenants and property owners located in the eastern portion of the Study Area, b. Business owners, tenants and property owners located at the western portion of the Study Area, and c. Residential property owners and tenants within and surrounding the Study Area.

7.1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS Stakeholder interviews were conducted to gather an “insider’s perspective” from business and property owners in the area in order to:  

 



Better understand the current conditions of the area By asking for current rents, from a “user’s perspective”, stakeholder interviews Confirm and qualify business and property owner provided a key source of firstactivities and future intentions to help clarify and hand real estate market data anticipate potential opportunities and constraints in for the Study Area and the Study Area, illustrated different sentiments felt towards a potential land Identify and clarify issues that may arise from the use conversion. potential land use conversion, Augment and qualify data collected from the economic census, Bureau of Labor Statistics and real estate data archives with “human informant data” and enable the community to participate in the research process, and Develop a dialogue with the community to enable the Consultant Team to ground truth findings throughout the project.

7.1.1 INTERVIEW APPROACH LWC developed a survey instrument which assures consistency across interviews and that the interviewer is collecting the most important information. The survey instrument consists of general, open-ended questions aimed at inviting respondents’ perspective in a conversational, and informal manner. While personal interviews require more time and expertise on the part of 57

the interviewer, they yield input that may not be available through other, more impersonal methods. Stakeholder interviews were conducted over the phone and in person, and consisted of two parts: Introduction: The interviewer described the purpose of the interview, that participation is completely voluntary, that the information they provide will be kept confidential, and confirms stakeholder contact and affiliation information. It was made clear that the study was objective and preliminary in nature, that no decision had been made, and that the community’s input was vital to the Study. Dialogue: The interviewer asked the stakeholder a series of open-ended questions which enable the respondent to drive the interview process in a conversational manner and provide an “insider’s perspective” of Study Area issues. Refer to Appendix F for the survey instrument with complete list of survey questions used to guide the stakeholder interviews.

7.1.2 STAKEHOLDER CONTACT LWC contacted all Study Area business owners and property owners for which the City provided contact information and could be accessed in the public archive. LWC reached out to 72 Study Area property and/or business owners, by phone LWC contacted 42 persons via and/or email. phone and/or email and visited over 30 businesses onsite, completing 24 interviews with Study Area business and property owners.

The survey process included the “snowball sampling” technique, or asking survey respondents if they believe that there are others in the community that should be contacted. Several initial interviewees provided contact information previously unavailable and referred LWC to other Survey Area interview candidates. However, a significant number of business owners were unavailable or declined to participate due to time constraints. Several business owners expressed general dissatisfaction with the City and were unwilling to participate. In order to increase the interview response rate, LWC visited the Study Area on September 21, 2015 to interview businesses and property owners in person and to observe site conditions. At this time, LWC visited over 30 businesses and interviewed 8 business owners, surveyed vacancy in the Study Area, and recorded field observations. LWC also obtained contact information for several business owners previously unavailable which facilitated follow up interviews via phone. In total, LWC interviewed 19 Study Area business owners who represented vehicle service uses, contractors, professional services and sales, among others. LWC also interviewed 5 commercial and residential property owners in the Study Area. Generally, interviewees were generous 58

with their time and pleased to be engaged in the project. Interview respondents generally answered questions clearly, asked follow up questions, offered opinions, and volunteered anecdotal stories to clarify and qualify their input. All of those interviewed offered to answer additional questions if necessary.

7.1.3 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS The issues listed below were drawn directly from the interviews, and are summarized by the following topics:        

Location, State and Future of Business, State and Future of Residential Uses, Business Relocation, Demand for Space, Increased Residential Use, Traffic and Access, and Personal Safety.

Location. Generally, business owner respondents indicated that the Study Area is attractive to commercial service uses and auto-oriented uses, in particular. Respondents cited a number of desirable Study Area attributes that benefit their enterprise:      

Competitive lease rates, Central location in the Bay Area, Proximity to Downtown Livermore and business owner’s residence, Easy access at the intersection of two major freeways, Ample parking and delivery access, particularly compared to downtown, and Known and established business cluster.

For several business and property owners, the Study Area’s CS zoning designation is one of few zones in the City and surrounding area that allows their business type. Further, the CS zone is viewed as more flexible than general commercial zones. For these reasons, property owners specifically sought out locations with CS zoning. Furthermore, the viability of auto dealerships has diminished given the relocation of many previously existing dealerships to new sites adjacent the freeway. Several respondents identified that the commercial area is surrounded by existing residential uses, and that proximity to downtown and the City’s attractive qualities would likely

Relocation of previous Study Area auto dealerships to locations near the highway have rendered the Study Area less viable for new dealership businesses.

Surrounding residential uses provide a key source of business to Study Area businesses. Increased residential uses would bring more customers to Study Area businesses.

support more residential, and that residential uses could provide economic benefits to the surrounding area overall. Several respondents indicated that Downtown Livermore has improved significantly in recent years, and provides ample shopping and dining options for residents, as well as customers visiting commercial businesses in the Study Area, and awaiting vehicles to be serviced. State and Future of Businesses. Businesses in the Study Study Area interviewees Area have generally experienced growth over the last generally maintain that auto uses are the highest and best several years. Some of the multi-tenant buildings are set up use for the area. to allow incremental growth without relocation, which was identified as a particularly valuable attribute. One vehicle service business owner and lessor stated they wished to expand, but are unable due to unavailability of land and unwillingness of a property owner to accommodate the expansion. Overall, business owners and property owners of existing commercial spaces generally agreed that auto-uses are the highest and best use for the area. Respondents explained that the Study Area generally attracts customers from the greater Bay Area and a substantial portion of sales are internet-driven. Several auto businesses indicated that they relied on word-of-mouth and an established customer base and reputation as a key driver of sales.

The Study Area attracts customers from around the Bay Area.

Most respondents, particularly auto-related business owners, intend to stay in their current location for as long as possible and/or pass the business along to the next generation. Few business owners shared plans to retire, sell the business, or relocate the business. Of the few businesses considering relocation, reasons for leaving the Study Area included:    

Moving closer to the freeway for improved access and visibility, Need to expand into larger and/or newer space, including storage and parking, Disagreement with current landlord, and A more desirable community character elsewhere (given the business is not location- based or restricted to a certain area).

Several interviewees are considering expansion if space becomes available. Inability to expand is cited as one reason for leaving the Study Area.

Most auto-business owners did not intend to alter their spaces or operations, however several were considering expansion into adjacent spaces if they became available, or to expand in areas outside of their shops to accommodate more parking or Interviewees generally agreed storage. the Study Area is underutilized and that other uses should be considered.

Demand for Residential Uses. Several property owners indicated strong demand for residential uses in the Study Area, and that developer interest exists for residential uses as opposed to new commercial uses. Improvements in Downtown Livermore and the housing market in general have made the Study Area an attractive place to live. Several respondents see residential uses in the Study Area as a “filling in” of surrounding land uses. Property owners generally agreed that a considerable portion of the study area is underutilized, and that the City should consider other uses as the area hasn’t experienced much interest otherwise. One property owner pointed out that the viability of residential is predicated on inexpensive land values and low interest rates. If market conditions change, higher density residential uses could be a potential for blight and underperformance. Benefits of Proximity to Residential Uses. For existing business owners, proximity to residential uses is generally not important or desired. Most businesses in the area do not depend on foot traffic and see little advantage from residential or other uses that increase pedestrian activity. However, certain new retail options could be welcome, such as restaurants to serve local workers or destination shops that encourage Auto-oriented businesses customers to “make a day of it” (e.g., customers drop off a perform best when located car for repairs and are able to shop at nearby stores). near other auto businesses. Further, auto-related business owners strongly believe that the clustering of similar uses is beneficial to their businesses. Business Relocation. The business owners interviewed contend that any forced relocation would be detrimental to their company, since they rely on the Study Area’s competitive rents and smaller spaces. Business owners also stated that such a move would incur significant costs, and negatively impact marketing and sales as they have an established location well known by their existing customer base. Respondents to the survey also expressed that because constructing new multi-tenant commercial buildings is an expensive prospect, it would be highly unlikely that a rush of development would meet the specific space demand created by relocation. As a result, lease rates for similar uses in Livermore would likely increase. Demand for Commercial Service Space. Respondents noted additional demand for non-auto related commercial service uses, such as insurance brokers, CPAs, and other service businesses that rely on easy parking and lower rents compared to downtown. One respondent stated that the existing diversity in commercial businesses located in the multi-tenant buildings was a positive quality. Residential Density. Although perceptions varied regarding what constitutes higher density residential, respondents generally contend that residential developments beyond the two- to 61

three-story developments adjacent to the Study Area would be untenable. One respondent stated a mix of multi-family residential makes, and would continue to make, the area looks “hodgepodge” and, therefore, a less desirable location overall. Another respondent suggested that a three story development could be acceptable if there was variation across building heights, and if the units are designed and constructed well. The homes under construction across the street were generally viewed unfavorably in terms of aesthetics, which some attributed to their height and density. Most respondents identified single family homes as a more desirable home type for the area, however both property owners and business owners acknowledged the need for higher densities to accommodate current housing needs. Some respondents also indicated that higher density residential is more appropriate for infill sites closer to downtown where transit, shopping and dining amenities are available.

Left: Single family residential along Portola Avenue (source: Google Earth, July 2015). Right: New multifamily along Portola Avenue (source: Taylor Morrison).

Compatibility. Several respondents voiced concern over the compatibility between residential and commercial uses, particularly regarding auto repair uses. Primary issues of concern included noise and site contamination, as well as traffic congestion, site access, and public safety (all discussed below). Many respondents believe that their business could co-exist with residential uses and that more residents may support additional business. However, many also believed that site-specific constraints would greatly hinder a residential project’s viability. Although some sites accommodate residential uses, most saw a wholesale conversion to residential to be completely untenable. Traffic and Access. Concerns about traffic congestion, particularly during the morning and afternoon commutes, were frequently raised and often the most emphasized during the interviews. Access onto First Street from the Study Area’s commercial properties is very difficult and

Noise and contamination from auto repair uses are cited as creating compatibility issues between residential and commercial uses. Most interviewees saw a full conversion of the site from commercial to residential uses as untenable. Interviewees are generally concerned about traffic congestion in the A.M. and P.M. peak hours that will be exacerbated by additional residential uses.

Turning movements on and off of First Street are difficult in the Baseline scenario and should be addressed by new development.

the residential projects under development would be expected to exacerbate this and other traffic-related problems. Respondents generally believe that residential uses, especially higher density residential uses, will increase traffic-related problems. It was believed by some that stop lights, crosswalks and other measures may not effectively accommodate increases in traffic, and that other streets and parking along First Street would also be impacted. Turning movements onto and off of First Street were cited as very difficult under present conditions; this should be addressed with any new development along the corridor. Personal Safety. Respondents believe that an increase in residential uses in the Study Area will cause personal safety issues for new residents. One concern was the areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proximity to the railroad tracksâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;its physical character, resident transient population, and past history with crime. Another concern was that the speed and concentration of vehicular movement on First Street creates an unsafe and challenging environment for pedestrians.

7.2 COMMUNITY MEETINGS On January 27 and 28, LWC and project managers from the City of Livermore (Christine Rodrigues, Steve Stewart and Paul Spence) facilitated three hour-long workshops to gather input from business owners, residential tenants, and property owners regarding their views on impacts that would result from full or partial conversion of the Study Area to residential uses. Over 50 people attended the workshops that began with a brief PowerPoint presentation followed by Q&A, mapping exercises and a recap by the Consultant Team to ensure accuracy in the information gathered. The PowerPoint included a project description and preliminary findings of this report.

The meetings were part of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s comprehensive approach which included one-on-one interviews, an assessment of market conditions, economic and fiscal performance, traffic and circulation, civil infrastructure (water, sewer/sanitary, storm) as well as basic demographics and trends.

Community representatives at project public meeting held January 27, 2015, discussing opportunities and constraints while referring to specific sites on maps of the Study Area.

7.2.1 BUSINESS OWNERS & OPERATORS: This section identifies the priority issues presented by meeting attendees who represented business owners and operators in the Study Area. The issues can be summarized by the following topics:         

Incompatibility, Displacement, Anti-business, Lack of interest from developers, Traffic congestion, Mixed use, Drought and water, Eminent domain, and Crime.

General: Business owners and operators were generally appreciative of the opportunity to share their perspective, concerned about potential land use changes and engaged in a constructive dialogue during the Q&A and mapping exercises of the workshops. The group stressed that:       

Residential and auto-related uses may not be compatible, They have established a vibrant business cluster that facilitates attracting and serving customers, Current lease/rent levels make their businesses “affordable”, The types of structures that they need and use are not viable (for developers) in today’s market to construct new buildings on undeveloped sites. “They don’t pencil”, Traffic congestion (First Street, Portola Avenue, Scott Street) is bad and getting worse, The City is not perceived as business or auto-industry friendly, and Drought conditions and floodplains should be considered when approving any new development.

Incompatibility. Fear that there will be incompatibility between homeowners and auto repair businesses that use pneumatic/noisy equipment (wrenches, drills, chippers, sanders), generate dust, unattractive working landscapes and they will eventually be pushed out. Displacement has already happened on the West end of the study area abutting Trevarno Rd., where auto-oriented businesses have been replaced by gym/gymnastics, plumbing and retail establishments. Anti-Business Sentiment. Business owner attendees described a general sentiment that the City is not business-friendly, and that housing is seen as preferable and more profitable for the

City. Several attendees claimed that the City has made unfulfilled promises (to change or strengthen auto-friendly zoning) to support their businesses. Lack of Interest from Developers. Business owner attendees maintain the lack of interest from developers to build commercial uses is perpetuated by the City’s anti-business anti-auto sentiment, and further threatens the viability of auto businesses. Traffic Congestion has caused delays and poses safety issues along First Street (particularly at Scott Street as traffic comes down from the railroad over-crossing). Mixed Uses. If housing is allowed in the Study Area, business owners maintain the City should continue to allow or even encourage to include auto-oriented businesses/commercial uses as they may be compatible and additional residents may generate/represent more (auto repair) business. Drought and Water. While learning that in a recent Water Supply Evaluation, the City has access to sufficient potable water considering full build-out as outlined in the General Plan; attendees urged the City to consider potentially worsening drought conditions when approving any new development. Eminent Domain. Attendees learned that eminent domain was only applied in circumstances where the City was “converting” private land for public use, such as to build a road or public building which is not the case in the First Street Study Area. Crime. Attendees voiced concerns over their perception that certain types of residential developments coupled with downturns in the economy may set the stage for increased crime. They also understood that sensitive design (lighting, placement of trees and shrubs) and general increased activity at the street level are crime deterrents.

7.2.2 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS AND TENANTS This section identifies the priority issues presented by meeting attendees who represented residential property owners and tenants within and surrounding the Study Area. The issues can be summarized by the following topics:        

General, Traffic congestion, View shed, Open space, Sidewalks, Parking, Noise, Design criteria, 65

  

Infrastructure, Flood plain, and Eminent domain.

General. Residents in and around the study area were generally appreciative of the opportunity to share their views regarding potential land use changes and stressed the following as the highest priority issues:    

Residents are concerned that auto uses produce noise and are incompatible with residential uses.

Traffic congestion is bad and getting worse, Building design is important and view-sheds should be protected, Any new development should include green space, sidewalks and sufficient parking, and Auto industry businesses tend to be noisy and may be incompatible with residential uses.

Traffic Congestion. Residents identify traffic congestion as a major concern for any new development. Increased traffic congestion will cause safety impacts and delays and will detract from the peaceful, walkable setting which is said to be getting worse. View Shed. Residents maintain any new development should conserve/preserve view sheds and blend with existing low-rise architecture. Building height restrictions are encouraged.

Residents maintain that any new development must be designed in a way that will preserve the viewshed.

Open Space. Any development should include open space, parks and green space. Sidewalks. Any development should include sidewalks and sidewalk improvements. Parking. Any new development should include sufficient parking for residents and customers, such that parking does not spill into nearby neighborhoods and increase congestion and safety issues. Noise. Any new development should limit the amount and timing of noise. Livermore Sanitation garbage 4:00 a.m. pick-up time at businesses along the West end of the Study Area was cited as one example of a potential noise impact. Design Criteria. Any new development along First Street should match the design of the homes contained in neighborhoods across the street.

Infrastructure. Homeowners, particularly along Trevarno Road asked that any new development collaborate with and contribute to the repair and upgrade of stormwater, sewer, and water infrastructure along Trevarno Road. Flood Plain. Residents urged the City to consider FEMA flood plain data before approving any new development. Eminent Domain. Attendees learned that eminent domain was only applied in circumstances where the City would take private land for public use, such as to build a road or public building which is not the case in the Study Area Density. Residents were also concerned about higher density housing and generally preferred lower densities.

8 COMMERCIAL SERVICE CAPACITY, SUPPLY & DEMAND ANALYSIS The purpose of this section is to identify and assess the capacity and supply and market demand for Commercial Service land in the Study area and the entire City of Livermore.

8.1 COMMERCIAL SERVICE CAPACITY ANALYSIS The commercial service capacity assessment considers whether there is sufficient space within the City to adequately relocate the existing Commercial Service uses in the Study Area. This capacity assessment also includes existing auto-related nonconforming uses in the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) zone that are likely consistent with CS zone allowed uses.51 Based on GIS data provided by the City, Table 8.1 below lists the 17 Study Area CS parcels and the 19 nonconforming DSP parcels outside the Study Area for potential relocation.

51 These parcels are included as they are adjacent to the Study Area and operate in the same local market and as nonconforming uses should also be factored into the assessment for potential relocation. Generally, automotive services are not permitted within the Downtown Specific Plan area.

TABLE 8.1 STUDY AREA PARCELS Lot Size Parcel Number (APN)

Zoning Square Feet

Acres

Building Size (Square Feet)

Study Area 099004001422

220,518

5.06

11,307

099004004800

74,515

1.71

19,800

099004005500

72,951

1.67

27,262

099004005600

81,474

1.87

23,160

099004005700

68,977

1.58

099005101306

43,137

0.99

4,023

099005101308 (Easement)

6,480

0.15

099005101400

91,657

2.10

29,362

099005101502

93,798

2.15

35,430

099005600200

163,350

3.75

13,456

099005600309

38,196

0.88

9,539

099005600311

14,397

0.33

2,000

099005600313

31,619

0.73

099005600410

100,352

2.30

1,690

099005600602

103,574

2.38

4,532

099005600901

84,487

1.94

9,855

099005601002

202,503

4.65

12,137

099005600302 (Public Utility) (1)

325,214

7.47

1,817,199

41.72

203,553

Total

TABLE 8.1 (CONTINUED) STUDY AREA PARCELS Lot Size Parcel Number (APN)

Zoning Square Feet

Acres

Building Size (Square Feet)

Outside Study Area (Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Auto-Related Non-Conforming Uses) 097000102401

DSP

10,000

0.23

1,500

097000900100

DSP

10,000

0.23

1,200

097000900307

DSP

10,000

0.23

1,200

097001000101

DSP

15,000

0.34

1,371

097001000702

DSP

15,000

0.34

1,200

097001500200

DSP

10,281

0.24

5,750

097008200101

DSP

15,000

0.34

5,936

097008200707

DSP

13,176

0.30

282

097010900600

DSP

15,000

0.34

1,200

097013600406

DSP

7,522

0.17

2,400

097013600412

DSP

14,576

0.33

5,100

098025200702

DSP

15,000

0.34

7,563

098026000804

DSP

21,780

0.50

984

098026001601

DSP

8,100

0.19

2,680

098026400101

DSP

13,441

0.31

1,500

098027500300

DSP

6,668

0.15

1,080

098027501700

DSP

22,128

0.51

1,800

098028000401

DSP

10,745

0.25

4,130

098040702902

DSP

36,848

0.85

2,948

270,265

6.20

49,824

Total

All Parcels for Potential Relocation (Study Area plus Outside Study Area) Total

1,762,250

40.46

253,377

Notes: 1. CS land is not required for relocation of uses on the Public Utility lot.

The 36 parcels within and outside of the Study Area that are appropriate (due to their CS designation or pre-existing non-conforming use) for potential relocation total 1,762,250 square feet (40.46 acres) in lot size and 253,377 square feet in building size. To identify space in Livermore that could potentially accommodate relocation of the uses on these parcels to outside the Study Area, two parcel types were evaluated:



Vacant land zoned CS: Vacant land is defined as parcels with no building square footage or North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. (Presence of an NAICS code suggests that the parcel may be in use despite the absence of a building.52) Underutilized space zoned CS: Underutilized land is defined as the remaining building square footage that may be built on a parcel under the Development Code, assuming maximum build-out is feasible. Maximum build-out is calculated by multiplying the total lot size by the maximum allowable floor-to-area ratio. The maximum floor area ratio for CS zones is 0.30.

Of the 132 CS parcels in Livermore and outside the Study Area, 48 were considered ineligible to accommodate relocated CS uses from the Study Area or DSP zone for one of the following reasons:  

The parcel is occupied by building space at the maximum allowable floor area ratio (0.30 for CS) (20 parcels). The parcel, presently vacant or occupied, is reserved for a future BART project (28 parcels).

Table 8.2 shows the lot and building sizes of the excluded parcels for accommodation. TABLE 8.2 LOT AND BUILDING SIZES FOR PARCELS THAT CANNOT ACCOMMODATE RELOCATED CS USES Lot Size No. of Parcels

Zoning Square Feet

Acres

Building Size (Square Feet)

Occupied at Max Floor Area Ratio

726,606

16.68

253,859

Reserved for BART (Vacant)

1,979,724

45.45

Reserved for BART (Occupied)

447,336

10.27

94,846

Total

3,153,666

72.40

348,705

Table 8.3 below shows the lot and building sizes for CS tenants that could potentially relocate in Livermore but outside the Study Area and DSP zone and, accordingly, the Livermore CS space that could potentially accommodate relocated CS uses.

NAICS industry data at the parcel level is based on Alameda County Assessor’s database maintained by the City. A given parcel may not have improvements (structures and associated square footage) reported in assessor’s parcel data, however a known business or other entity may be operating on the site, for which an NAICS industry classification applies. Excluding parcels with either an NAICS or square footage for building improvements provides a more conservative estimate of vacant land, and assures vacant sites that may be in use are excluded.

TABLE 8.3 LOT AND BUILDING SIZES FOR POTENTIAL RELOCATION AND ACCOMMODATION PARCELS Lot Size No. of Parcels

Zoning Square Feet

Acres

Building Size (Square Feet)

CS Space that Could be Relocated outside the Study Area and DSP Zone Study Area

1,491,985

34.25

203,553

Auto-Related Non-Conforming DSP

DSP

270,265

6.20

49,824

Total

1,762,250

40.46

253,377

CS Space that Could Accommodate Relocated CS Uses (1) Vacant

801,466

18.40

Occupied (Not Max Floor Area Ratio)

3,506,066

80.49

321,273

Total

4,307,532

98.89

321,273

Notes: 1. The number of vacant parcels outside the Study Area excludes the parcels totaled in Table 8.4.

Preliminary findings that are discussed further below show that vacant CS land outside the Study Area could accommodate up to 45.5 percent of CS uses in the Study Area and DSP zone (non-conforming, auto-related uses only). Preliminary findings also show that the underutilized CS space outside the Study Area may accommodate more than 100 percent of the existing CS uses in the Study Area. Based on the findings in this project, it is important to consider the feasibility of relocating existing businesses and the construction of comparable commercial spaces. Such considerations are addressed in Section 8.1.3 below.

8.1.1 VACANT LAND Considering lot size, relocation of a sizable portion of the Study Area and the non-conforming DSP existing uses may be potentially accommodated by Vacant CS parcels in vacant land zoned as CS. Outside of the Study Area, 18.40 Livermore could acres of vacant land are zoned as CS. These 18.40 acres may accommodate 45.5% of CS potentially accommodate up to 45.5 percent of the 40.46 acres uses in the Study Area and of CS land for potential relocation. As discussed in Section DSP zone (non-conforming 8.1.2 below, relocation of uses not accommodated by vacant auto uses). CS land outside the Study Area may be accommodated by the underutilized CS space.

8.1.2 UNDERUTILIZED SPACE In terms of building size, relocation of the Study Area and non-conforming DSP existing uses may be potentially accommodated by underutilized space zoned as CS. Table 8.4 below shows existing building size figures for potentially relocated space and underutilized space zoned as CS. TABLE 8.4 POTENTIAL ACCOMMODATION BY UNDERUTILIZED CS SPACE Location of CS Space

Potential for Relocation No. of Building Size Parcels (Square Feet)

Underutilized CS Space (1) Underutilized Space No. of Parcels (2) (Square Feet) (3)

Study Area

203,553

258,575

Outside Study Area (4)

49,824

970,923

Total

253,377

1,011,370

Notes: 1. Underutilized land is defined as the remaining building square footage that may be built on a parcel under the Development Code, assuming maximum build-out is feasible. Maximum build-out is calculated by multiplying the total lot size by the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (0.30 for CS). 2. The number of underutilized parcels excludes the parcels totaled in Figure 8-2. 3. Underutilized space total is calculated by subtracting building size from building maximum build-out. 4. The 19 parcels outside the Study Area for potential relocation are presently DSP nonconforming auto-related uses that are likely consistent with the CS zone.

Vacant and underutilized lots in the Study Area

Outside of the Study Area, but in Livermore, 1,011,370 square feet of underutilized space is zoned as CS. This underutilized space may accommodate 53 100% of the 253,377 square feet of CS uses that could be relocated from the Study Area or DSP zone (non-conforming, auto-uses). Conversely, underutilized CS space inside the Study Area could accommodate 100% of DSP non-conforming auto use square footage.

Underutilized CS parcels could accommodate additional CS space through additions to existing buildings or development of new buildings. 53

8.1.3 CONSIDERATIONS IN RELOCATING EXISTING BUSINESSES TO UNDERUTILIZED CS PARCELS IN LIVERMORE This section discusses the feasibility of relocating existing businesses from the Study Area or DSP zone (non-conforming, auto uses) to underutilized CS parcels outside the Study Area. Three key issues arise in the aforementioned feasibility evaluation, and are discussed further below: (1) actual uses, (2) consideration of parcel sizes, and (3) vacant or underutilized parcels with other zoning designations. ACTUAL USES The above capacity assessment accounts for allowable uses in the CS zone, but does not consider the actual uses in the Study Area. Actual uses in the Study Area may present greater challenges for relocation, namely the Vehicle Services, which constitute the majority of uses. The existing Vehicle Service businesses rely on the smaller, and more affordable multi-tenant commercial building spaces, which are not generally available elsewhere in the City or TriValley Area. Based on community input described in Chapter 7 and discussed further in Section 8.3.5 below, these businesses also rely on clustering with similar businesses, proximity to downtown and the highway, and an established, well-known location for their customer base. The distribution of land uses is presented in Chapter 3.2. A complete list of existing businesses and land uses in the Study Area can be found in Appendix F and is discussed further in Section 8.2. PARCEL SIZES Accounting for the parcel sizes within the Study Area on a parcel-by-parcel basis, specific locations outside the Study Area may be more suited than others to accommodate existing uses. Table 8.5 below shows data on parcel sizes relative to parcels zoned CS. The range of Study Area parcel sizes fall outside the ranges Parcel sizes in the Study Area of vacant land and underutilized space zoned as CS. The are larger than CS zoned four larger parcels of vacant CS land â&#x20AC;&#x201D;ranging from parcels outside the Study 219,110 to 503,139 square feetâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;are owned by BART and Area. located within the Greenville BART Transit Oriented District. As indicated in the Community Input Analysis in Chapter 7, many of the businesses that currently operate in the Study Area require smaller, more affordable spaces. Such spaces are typically more feasible when constructed as part of larger, multi-tenant commercial buildings that might not be accommodated on the smaller CS parcels that occur outside the Study Area.

TABLE 8.5 COMMERCIAL SERVICE (CS) PARCEL SIZE DATA Location of CS Zones Study Area Outside Study Area Vacant Land Underutilized Space

Min. (SF)

Max. (SF)

Average (SF)

Median (SF)

6,480

325,214

100,558

82,980

212

196,900

50,139

29,503

212

165,902

54,358

13,639

4,700

196,900

55,878

34,478

OTHER ZONING DESIGNATIONS The above capacity assessment reviews only available space in the CS zone, and does not consider the space that may be available in other zones that allow for and can accommodate uses in the Study Area. For example, the Highway Service Commercial (CHS) Zone allows four of the five vehicle service uses that are allowed in CS (auto part sales, auto service centers, car wash, and auto repair garage, but not auto/vehicle sales and rental). However, business and property owners who took part in the community outreach process discussed in Chapter 7, stated these areas may not be feasible for existing businesses as the available space is not affordable and does not meet space requirements of these business types.

8.2 SUPPLY/DEMAND ASSESSMENT AND MARKET STUDY The above capacity assessment assumes that the vacant CS parcels and underutilized CS space are the subject of pending or prospective development, and must consider the impact from demand and market forces. This section assesses whether residential conversion in the Study Area presents the City with advantages or disadvantages in Livermore is home to a few capturing future industry growth. As discussed below, remaining pockets of growth in the automotive industry sector serves as a key underutilized industrial space focus of this study.

8.2.1 FOCUS ON AUTOMOTIVE USES This market study focuses primarily on automotive uses, as the Commercial Service Zone (CS) comprises the primary areas of the City where automotive uses may occur. Other uses allowed in the CS zone can largely be accommodated in other City zoning designations. The City of Livermore Development Code, Section 3.03.080 states, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Commercial Service (CS) zone is applied to areas of the City that are appropriate for uses of relatively low pedestrian traffic generation, including areas for high land demand, recreational, home improvement, repair services, and auto-

in the Bay Area, and as the automotive industry continues to expand its presence in the region, demand for Livermore industrial space is expected to continue to increase.

55.9% of businesses in the Study Area are categorized as Auto repair, garage, and parts sales of Auto vehicle sales and rentals.

related uses.” Permitted uses in CS include:                   

contractor construction, metal products fabrication, recycling facility, commercial amusement facility, specialty school, farm equipment sales and service, night club, plant nursery sales and garden, bar, restaurant, ATM, hotel/motel, printing and processing, consumer goods rental shops, equipment repair service, auto parts sales, auto/vehicle sales and rental, car wash, and auto repair garage.

The only other zone that allows similar automotive uses is the Highway Service Commercial Zone (CHS). However, CHS areas are located adjacent to freeways and transportation corridors, and are intended to service primarily the travelling public.

8.2.2 DEMOGRAPHICS AND AUTOMOBILE USE As discussed in Chapter 2, the Study Area rests within the The aging Baby Boomer City of Livermore and Tri-Valley region (comprised of population will spend more Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore) that continues to see time and resources buying growth in population, households, and income. As shown and maintaining cars than will younger generations. in Table 8.6 below, a majority of residents, 60.6%, commute outside of the City for work, and the majority of workers who commute into the City, do so via automobile. This commuter profile is consistent with other communities that comprise the Tri-Valley Area, and suggests continued support of auto businesses in the area. Furthermore, demographic trends indicate the population is aging, a potentially positive characteristic with implications for auto service industry demand.

TABLE 8.6 2013 COMMUTING CHARACTERISTICS Commuter Category

Livermore

Mode of Transportation Car, truck, or van

87.4%

Public transportation (excluding taxicab)

3.7%

Walked

0.9%

Bicycle

1.4%

Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means

1.0%

Worked at home

5.6%

Vehicles Available No vehicle available

1.7%

1 vehicle available

13.2%

2 vehicles available

42.4%

3 or more vehicles available

42.7%

Commuter Place of Work Worked in place of residence

39.4%

Worked outside place of residence

60.6%

Source: US Census 2013 American Community Survey

The age distribution of an area provides insight on demand for land uses and commercial industries. As discussed in Chapter 2, the City population is aging; 60 to 64-year-olds and 65 to 74-year olds were the age groups that experienced the greatest percentage growth (85.1% and 70.3% respectively) between 2001 and 2015. In terms of the automotive uses, age distribution presents a telling story. The baby-boomer population will increase demand for car purchases and maintenance, while the younger age cohorts will trend away from car purchase and maintenance. Recent research suggests that car ownership in the United States peaked prior to the Great Recession, and that car ownership increases in the 55 to 64-year old age categories. Retirees with income demonstrate a preference to spend time and resources on buying and maintaining cars as a

In 1983, 91.8% of persons between 20 and 24 years had a driverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s license; in 2011, that percentage dropped to 79.7%. The corresponding percentages for those aged 60 to 64 were 83.8% in 1983 and 92.7% in 2011. -Michael Sivak, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute using 2013FHWA data in Marketing Implications of the Changing Age Composition of Vehicle Buyers in the U.S.

hobby. “For people who grew up and lived in the 20th century, the car was…a visible expression of you and your personality,” says John Wolkonowicz, an automotive historian and former Ford Motor product planner. “A 20-year-old doesn’t see the car the same way.”54 The implications for automotive industries demand are significant.

8.2.3 EXISTING BUSINESSES As shown in Figure 8-1 below, the majority of businesses in the Study Area represent subsectors of the automotive industry, such as auto sales and rentals, auto repair garages and service centers, and auto part sales. The Study Area also includes businesses in the home improvement sector such as paint stores, fireplace installers, construction services, door repair and sales, and appliance repair services. A complete list of businesses in the Study Area can be found in Appendix F. FIGURE 8-1 STUDY AREA BUSINESS USES

2.9% 2.9%

Auto Repair Garage & Parts Sales (27) Auto/Vehicle Sales & Rental (11)

7.4%

2.9%

Home Improvement Sales & Services (8) Contract Construction (4)

2.9% 39.7%

2.9% 4.4%

Equipment Sales & Services (3) Consumer Goods Service (2) Hotel/Motel (2)

5.9%

Printing & Processing (2) Professional Services (2)

11.8% 16.2%

Recreational Fitness (2) Other (5)

Source: City of Livermore. Land use counts above include multiple land uses for multiple businesses located within multi-tenant commercial building on individual parcels.

Most Study Area businesses are located in one of the three light industrial business parks that line the corridor, located at the eastern and western ends of the Study Area.

54 Naughton,

Keith. "In Car Buying, Baby Boomers Surpass the Young." Bloomberg.com. August 29, 2013. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-08-29/in-car-buying-baby-boomers-surpass-the-young.

8.2.4 COMPETITIVE MARKET SNAPSHOT Based on feedback from Study Area business owners and general market research, the primary competitive market for the Study Area are the cities of Livermore, Dublin, and Pleasanton, collectively called the Tri-Valley cities. This section provides real estate rental market data for the competitive market area. A summary of market data for the Tri-Valley Cities is shown in Table 8.7 below. Livermore has the lowest asking rents in the Tri Valley Cities market and the highest absorption rate. Livermore also has the most available warehouse space and the highest corresponding warehouse vacancy rates in the Tri-Valley Cities. TABLE 8.7 TRI-VALLEY INDUSTRIAL MARKET SUMMARY 2015 Fourth Quarter Vacancy Rate

2015 Net Absorption (SF)

2015 Fourth Quarter Weighted Average Asking Rent ($/SF/Month)

Livermore

3.4%

167,016

$0.60

Dublin

15.8%

285

$1.00

Pleasanton

2.5%

8,504

$1.10

Livermore

4.3%

152,174

$0.47

Dublin

0.0%

$0.80

Pleasanton

0.0%

No Data

Light Industrial

Warehouse

Source: Colliers International, Pleasanton Tri-Valley Industrial Q4 2015

8.2.5 RENTS Industrial and warehouse rents55 in Livermore, Dublin, and Pleasanton are trending upward as shown in Figure 8-2 below. Combined light industrial and warehouse weighted average asking rents in Livermore are more affordable than rents in Dublin and Pleasanton. Furthermore, industrial rents in Livermore are trending slightly downward, while rents in Dublin and Pleasanton are trending upward.

55 CS uses are comprised of space the commercial real estate industry refers to as warehouse or industrial. The terms ‘warehouse’ and ‘industrial’ in Sections 8.2 and 8.3 of this report should not be confused with similar-sounding zoning or land use designations.

FIGURE 8-2 2015 TRI-VALLEY INDUSTRIAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE ASKING RENT TRENDS

$1.20 $1.10 $1.00 $0.90 $0.80

Dublin

$0.70

Livermore Pleasanton

$0.60 $0.50 $0.40 $0.30 2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Colliers International, Pleasanton Tri-Valley Industrial Q4 2010-2015

8.2.6 VACANCY RATES Combined light industrial and warehouse vacancy rates in Livermore and Pleasanton are the lowest in the Tri-Valley Cities, and trending downward as shown in Figure 8-3 below. FIGURE 8-3 2015 TRI-VALLEY INDUSTRIAL VACANCY RATE TRENDS

18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% Dublin

10.0%

Livermore

8.0%

Pleasanton

6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Colliers International, Pleasanton Tri-Valley Industrial Q4 2010-2015

8.2.7 ABSORPTION Absorption is a measure that depicts how much space is newly occupied during a given time period. The worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest commercial real estate services firm, CBRE, describes net absorption as: the amount [of space] occupied at the end of a period minus the amount [of space] occupied at the beginning of a period and takes into consideration space vacated during that same period as well as newly constructed space.56

Positive absorption indicates continued demand for a certain space type, and negative absorption indicates falling demand. Figure 8-4 below shows that annual net industrial space absorption is trending upward across all Tri-Valley cities. The increasing absorption for Livermore indicates continued demand for industrial space, such as that which houses autorelated uses on Study Area CS parcels. FIGURE 8-4 TRI-VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY ANNUAL NET ABSORPTION TRENDS (SF) 650,000 450,000 250,000 Livermore

50,000 -150,000

'06

'07

'08

'09

'10

'11

'12

'13

'14

'15

Dublin Pleasanton

-350,000 -550,000 -750,000 Source: Colliers International, Pleasanton Tri-Valley Industrial Q4 2015

8.2.8 PROFILE OF PROPERTY INVENTORY Available industrial properties in the Tri-Valley area represent a varied mix of small and large spaces, as shown in Figure 8-5 below.

Sigfridson, Drew. 2013 Office Market Survey: Absorption, CBRE.com (February 6, 2013)

FIGURE 8-5 AVAILABLE SPACE BY SQUARE FOOT RANGE

0-5,000 SF

12% 31%

5,001 - 10,000 SF

21% 10,001 - 20,000 SF

20,001 - 50,000 SF 12% 24%

50,001 SF - Above

Source: Colliers International, Pleasanton Tri-Valley Industrial Q4 2015

8.3 STUDY AREA SNAPSHOT This section provides data on the commercial real estate market for the Study Area. The purpose of this assessment is to establish a benchmark for comparison between the Study Area where Commercial Service businesses are currently located and other areas where the same businesses would consider relocating.

8.3.1 RENTS Lease rates identified in the Study Area generally range between $1.00 and $2.00 per square foot per month. In observation of confidentiality for contributors to the project, rent rate information is presented without addresses or other personally identifiable information.

Study Area business owners identified the relatively affordable rental rates as a positive attribute of their business operation.

TABLE 8.8 CURRENT STUDY AREA RENTS Monthly Rent

S.F.

Monthly Rent per S.F. $1.23

$3,700

3,000

$2,038

1,700

$1.20

$1,500

750

$2.00

$3,700

3000

$1.23

$2,250

2100

$1.07

$1,878

1500

$1.25

$1,000 400 $2.50 Source: LWC Staff interviews with business and property owners

8.3.2 VACANCY RATES Based on field-observations (windshield survey) of commercial spaces conducted by LWC staff and discussions with business owners through the interview process outlined in Chapter 7, the Study area is nearly 100% occupied.

8.3.3 ABSORPTION Several business owner interview respondents (refer to Study Area business owners Chapter 7) indicated that business owners competed for the identified the desire to expand few Study Area spaces as they became available. This their operations that was qualitative measure of absorption combined with Study constrained by lack of Area business owner feedback on the inability to expand available space. operations due to lack of available space suggest that absorption of CS space in the Study Area would be positive were space to become available.

8.3.4

PROFILE OF PROPERTY INVENTORY

Parcel sizes in the Study Area are generally larger than Commercial Service parcels in the rest of the City. Structures include a mix of multi-tenant commercial buildings offering small spaces. These types of spaces are generally not found outside of the Study Area.

Study Area business owners identified the small spaces sizes of the Study Area buildings as a positive attribute of their business operation.

8.3.5 STUDY AREA BUSINESS & PROPERTY OWNER FEEDBACK Presented in Chapter 7, LWC received community input from business and property owners in the Study Area from over 20 personal interviews and three public workshops. This section presents their insight on the commercial market in Livermore and the opportunities and constraints of operating businesses in the Study Area. Those business owners who are anticipating relocation and have been actively looking for comparable commercial space claim to be experiencing difficulty finding affordable leases with appropriate zoning, especially for auto-related businesses. Detailed Study Area business and property owner feedback is discussed below. Study Area Rental Rates. Prior to locating in the Study Area, one business owner stated that on properties adjacent to the Livermore Municipal Airport, feasible space and parking, were approximately three times as expensive as the Study Area. Leases near downtown were similarly expensive and lacked sufficient parking. Another business owner currently paying approximately $3,200 per month (in the Study Area) is finding leases that would accommodate their auto business to be approximately 2.5 times as expensive and is looking at the industrial area near Vasco Road as a possible place to relocate. Alternative Locations. When asked where auto repair business owners would locate their business if not at their current site (stakeholder interview question 19), several business owners 84

stated that the zoning code is so prohibitive to auto-related uses that they were unable to name feasible alternative locations in the City or elsewhere. One non-auto business owner stated that he would move to “any available commercial space in the area” when his business outgrows its current capacity. Others stated that the most important factor in relocating would be high visibility from I-580 or the area’s main thoroughfares. Interview respondents also claimed that neither Downtown Livermore nor other commercial areas offer the spaces, parking, visibility, or affordability found in the Study Area. Positive Attributes of the Study Area. The Study Area is a preferred location for the business owners for several reasons. The area is close to Downtown Livermore, making it convenient for customers with other business in town, and offering a more prominent location for the local residents. Smaller properties were particularly sought after by small businesses and autorelated shops (some of which emerged following the closure of adjacent car dealerships). There is also a high demand for relatively small facilities for businesses seeking to grow or remain in Livermore after being forced to relocate due to regulatory action and/or cost reasons. In general, auto and non-auto businesses supported the concept that smaller commercial spaces, particularly businesses and business types that require substantial parking and freeway access, are at a premium in the City. Viability of Study Area Businesses. Nearly all Study Area business owners interviewed stated that they were experiencing strong demand and growth, particularly auto-repair shops and services. Most auto repair businesses stated being very busy (booked up to two weeks in advance), while some stated a desire to expand services and physical area. Of the autobusinesses interviewed, the majority relied solely on word of mouth and referrals for new business generation.

8.3.6 EXPECTED INDUSTRY GROWTH Existing businesses in the Study Area are predominantly automotive-industry oriented. As such, in order to anticipate future demand for space in the Study Area, an assessment of industry trends and recent advances in the regional automotive industry is presented here. The ultimate intent of this assessment is a better understanding of the implications for potential rezoning of the Study Area from Commercial Service to Residential uses. Job trends in the Livermore Automotive Industry from 2005-2015, which included the Great Recession, were varied. While several declined over the ten year period, as shown in Table 8.9 below, four sub-sectors experienced growth, three of which provide the City with a high concentration of jobs relative to the Bay Area (See Section 2.6 of this report for a discussion on Location Quotient and LQ values):  

Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance (LQ: 2.8), Automotive Oil Change and Lubrication Shops (LQ: 2.93), and 85

ď&#x201A;ˇ

All Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance (LQ 4.25).

TABLE 8.9 LIVERMORE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY SUBSECTOR TRENDS

Automotive Industry Subsector

2005 Jobs

2015 Jobs

% Change

2020 Jobs Estimate

Current Annual Job Earnings

2015 Location Quotient (Bay Area)

Automotive Repair and Maintenance

388

379

-2.2%

405

$34,192

1.28

Automotive Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance

125

107

-14.7%

107

$46,445

0.84

General Automotive Repair

2.4%

$47,099

0.79

Automotive Exhaust System Repair

<10

Automotive Transmission Repair

<10

-50.8%

<10

$47,261

1.03

-10.8%

$53,056

0.51

-1.4%

$55,218

0.48

<10

212

228

7.1%

251

$24,718

2.80

-13.7%

$30,278

0.99

169

172

1.7%

183

$22,762

2.93

Other Automotive Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance Automotive Body, Paint, Interior, and Glass Repair Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance Automotive Glass Replacement Shops Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance Automotive Oil Change and Lubrication Shops Car Washes

All Other Automotive Repair and 29 43 49.7% 57 $30,910 4.25 Maintenance Notes: 1. The Location Quotient in this table uses the Bay Area as the reference region. Refer to Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion on the Location Quotient. Source: EMSI 2015 Q2 Industry Data

Image Source: Smoothgroover22, Creative Commons

In contrast to decline in Livermore auto industries shown in Table 8-9, the Bay Area automotive industry is experiencing robust growth due to innovation in technology research that has led to self-driving cars and mainstream production of electric vehicles. Newmark Realty Capital, the largest independent commercial mortgage banking firm in the Western United States identifies the automotive industry as a growth engine for the Bay Area57. Given the availability of suitable CS space, Livermore is well poised to capture Bay Area growth in the auto industries given space constraints and land prices elsewhere in the region.

8.3.7 FINDINGS The First Street Corridor Study Area is comprised primarily of industrial space made up of light industrial and warehouse sub-categories. A majority of businesses in the Study Area are automotive-related businesses and are experiencing strong demand and growth. Little comparable industrial space is available outside the Study Area and City. However, market dynamics of recent years for automotive space has not supported new construction in the Study Area. Livermore is home to a few remaining pockets of underutilized industrial space in the Bay Area, and as the automotive industry continues to expand in the region, driven by innovation (driverless cars, hybrid and electric cars), demand for Livermore industrial space is expected to continue to increase.

Demand for Study Area CS space is robust, and autoindustries are expected to grow. In considering the Study Area land use conversion from a market perspective, the City is in a difficult situation in that it must choose between preserving the supply of City land that can support jobproducing auto uses and increasing housing development to tip the home supply-demand imbalance toward a more balanced state.

Given strong positioning of the Study Area in terms of demand for CS space and anticipated growth of auto-related business in Livermore, the City will need to decide whether it should preserve the Study Area for future, potential job-producing uses, or whether it should rezone the Study Area in part or full, increasing housing supply to tip the City home supply demand imbalance toward a more balanced state.

2015 Bay Area Economic Engine, New Mark Realty Capital, November 2015, pg. 1.

9 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION 9.1 STUDY AREA LAND USE OPTIONS Based on the analysis above, a combination of residential and commercial uses may be compatible. Presented below are three options the City may consider regarding a possible conversion of the Study Area from commercial to residential uses.

9.1.1 NO STUDY CONVERSION (BASELINE) This option would preserve the existing Commercial Service zoning of the site and enable the City to capture expected auto industry growth occurring in the region as well as automotive business relocations from areas such as downtown. This option would produce the fewest impacts to the City, and would produce positive fiscal and employment impacts that would benefit the overall City population. However, underutilized land within the Study Area would remain undeveloped in the short-term.

9.1.2 PARTIAL CONVERSION (RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO 2) This option would preserve existing, viable commercial clusters in the Study Area and would allow housing development in underutilized parts of the Study Area. To best implement this option, the City would need to consider the following measures to address land use compatibility, infrastructure needs, and traffic:   

Incorporate appropriate mitigations to reduce noise impacts to new residential uses, Upgrade infrastructure as identified in Chapter 5 and Appendices B through D, and Require a multi-modal approach to circulation for new residential development in the Study Area to address traffic and pedestrian safety concerns.

This option would retain employment and fiscal benefits of commercial uses, largely maintain the City’s jobs housing balance, would not displace current businesses, and would address the diversity of stakeholder interests in the Study Area. As mentioned above, infrastructure impacts would need to be mitigated with project-level measures.

9.1.3 FULL CONVERSION (RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO 1) This option would convert the Study Area entirely to residential uses. In the near and medium term, this option may trigger systemic infrastructure upgrades, decrease the City’s jobs housing balance, and could limit the City’s ability to capture any auto industry growth that is expected to occur in the region, therefore precluding employment increases associated with such industry growth. Perhaps most importantly, all businesses currently located on the site would be displaced. This option does 89

not address many stakeholder sentiments expressed during the community engagement process identified in Chapter 7.

9.2 RECOMMENDATION Given the diversity of interests in the site from community engagement and market economic perspectives, a partial conversion of the Study Area is perhaps the most prudent land use option for the City. Residential Scenario 2, partial conversion, indicates infrastructure and fiscal impacts are neutral or minimally negative; displacement of existing Study Area businesses would be less than Residential Scenario 1, full conversion; and the jobs housing balance would largely remain as is. In considering the No Conversion, Partial Conversion, and Full Conversion alternatives, the City must balance employment and housing objectives. This report will suggest that a partial conversion of the Study Area may best serve the City, community, and Study Area stakeholders’ goals and objectives.

9.3 IMPLEMENTATION Should the City elect to allow new residential uses within the Study Area, amendments to the City’s General Plan and Zoning Map would be required. These amendments require a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. Application procedures for these amendments are codified in Chapter 9.14 of the City’s Development Code, and are discussed further below.

9.3.1 GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT As described in Section 3.2, there are several General Plan (GP) land use designations that could accommodate residential development at a variety of densities. A GP amendment could also apply more than one land use designation to the Study Area (dual designation), and would provide the flexibility for a combination of zoning districts that allow for a mix of commercial and residential uses. This approach could preserve the existing Commercial Service land use designation and existing businesses, and facilitate a transition of vacant and underutilized land to new uses over time. Any amendment to the General Plan is required to remain consistent with existing GP provisions, goals and policies. The City would need to consider the following criteria in determining an appropriate change in the General Plan land use designation:   

Compatibility with adjacent land uses, Access and circulation, Proximity of residential uses to non-residential services and jobs, and 90



Impacts to infrastructure and available city services.

Presented in Table 9.1 below, the Urban Medium High (UMH) and Urban High Residential (UH) General Plan land use category provide for a range of residential densities and housing types that may be appropriate for residential uses in the Study Area. These land uses are generally found in the areas immediately adjacent to downtown and along the First Street Corridor adjacent the Study Area, and allow for detached and attached housing types. TABLE 9.1 GENERAL PLAN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Max Floor Area Ratio

Max Units per Acre

Urban Medium High Residential (UMH)

0.40

4.50 - 6.00

Urban High Residential Category 1 (UH-1)

0.55

6.00 - 8.00

Urban High Residential Category 2 (UH-2)

0.55

8.00 - 14.00

Urban High Residential Category 3 (UH-3)

0.55

14.00 - 18.00

General Plan Land Use Designation

Source: City of Livermore General Plan

Near Downtown Livermore and the Study Area, these land use designations are generally implemented by a combination of transect zoning districts, including the T3 Neighborhood and T4 Neighborhood zones (zones are discussed further in Section 9.3.2 below).

9.3.2 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Following the GP amendment, a subsequent Zoning Map amendment would be required to implement the new land use designation(s) and ensure GP consistency. A combination of zones could be applied in the Study Area, including new residential or mixeduse zones and preservation of existing CS zoning. Form based residential zones may be appropriate for the site given existing residential and commercial uses within and surrounding the Study Area. For example, the City could apply the T4 Neighborhood (T4N) or T4 Neighborhood - Open (T4N-O) zone60, which allows for a variety of attached and detached housing types, including:     

Single family homes, Carriage houses, Duplexes, Townhomes, and Apartments.

Criteria the City should consider when applying new zoning to the Study Area include:

  

Connectivity, Intensity61, and Available infrastructure.

The City could also consider a Planned Development (PD), for an individual site or collection of sites. While a PD would provide flexibility accommodate site-specific features, PDs present challenges in managing changes to zoning and development review in the future. This study does not recommend the PD implementation approach.

In the example provided, the T4N and T4N-O zones allow a maximum height of 2 and ½ stories. The City would be amending the zoning code to allow for 35 feet height outside of existing T-zone areas.

APPENDIX A: PARCELS, USES, AND ASSUMPTIONS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; BASELINE SCENARIO

Residential

Commercial: Vehicle Services

Parcel Size Parcel No.

Single-Family

Multi-Family

Auto Sales/Rental

Auto Repair Garage and Parts Sales

Commercial: Non-Vehicle Services

Lodging: Motel

Square Feet

Acres

Square Feet

Dwelling Units

Square Feet

Dwelling Units

Square Feet

Room s

99-51-15-2

93,798

2.15

100%

93,798

99-51-13-6

43,137

0.99

31%

13,307

69%

29,830

99-51-13-8 (Easement)

6,480

0.15

99-51-14

91,657

2.10

38%

34,371

63%

57,286

99-56-6-2

103,574

2.38

100%

103,574

99-56-10-2

202,503

4.65

100%

202,503

99-56-9-1

84,487

1.94

43%

36,204

57%

48,283

99-56-4-10

100,352

2.30

100%

100,352

99-56-3-9

38,196

0.88

100%

38,196

99-56-3-13

31,619

0.73

100%

31,619

99-56-3-11

14,397

0.33

100%

14,397

99-56-2

163,350

3.75

17%

27,267

83%

136,083

99-40-55

72,951

1.67

11%

8,106

44%

32,423

44%

32,423

99-40-56

81,474

1.87

7,407

91%

74,067

99-40-48

74,515

1.71

100%

74,515

99-40-57

68,977

1.58

100%

68,977

99-40-14-22

220,518

5.06

43%

94,790

57%

125,728

1,491,985

34.25

100,352

103,574

21%

316,294

24%

358,198

29%

432,808

12%

174,279

325,214

7.47

1,817,199

41.72

100,352

103,574

17%

316,294

20%

358,198

24%

432,808

10%

174,279

Total 99-56-3-2 (Pub.Utility) Total

APPENDIX B: SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS (CARLSON, BARBEE & GIBSON, INC.)

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS  SURVEYORS  PLANNERS

January 15, 2016 Job No.: 2472-000

M E M O R A N D U M TO:

Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc.

FROM:

Ryan Hansen, P.E., Project Manager

SUBJECT:

Sanitary Sewer Analysis – Land Use Scenario #1 First Street Corridor Land Use Study Livermore, California

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to present sanitary sewer capacity findings regarding the Baseline Scenario (Existing uses with CS zoning) and proposed wastewater flows for Land Use Scenario #1 (100% Residential Land Use) as a part of the First Street Corridor Land Use Study (Study Area). The City’s Sewer Master Plan (Master Plan) and City provided sewer base maps were reviewed for the purposes of this memo as well as the Lisa Wise Consulting Inc. background memorandum for all land use parcel data. The Master Plan was referenced to determine unit base flow factors for each land use in order to establish the existing and proposed wastewater flows as presented in this memo. Existing Facilities The Study Area consists of 18 properties with a total area of approximately 42 acres (41.72 acres) or 1,817,199 sf. The Study Area is on the south side of First Street between Scott Street to the west, Trevarno Road to the east and the Union Pacific Railroad to the south. See attached Parcel Identification Exhibit. There are two existing sections of the sanitary sewer system within First Street. The first 8” main is located along the frontage for a majority of the Study Area (Parcels 1, 2-3, and 5-11) and flows westerly towards Junction Avenue. City base maps indicate this main starts as an 8” sewer but then decreases in size to a 6” sewer in front of Parcel 6, see attached Parcel Identification Exhibit. The second 8” sanitary sewer main is located along the frontage of Parcels 15 and 17 and flows easterly towards North Mines Road and ultimately ties into an existing 30” sanitary sewer main that is located directly south of the study area within the Union Pacific Railroad property. The 30” sanitary sewer main flows westerly towards Junction Avenue.

2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866-0322 • www.cbandg.com P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\Sewer\2016-01-15 Scenario #1\Sewer Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area – Sanitary Sewer Analysis Page 2 of 6

January 15, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

Proposed Point of Connection A majority of the existing properties have buildings and facilities ranging from 15’ to 125’ setback from First Street, so it is reasonable that these properties may currently be served by the existing 8” mains in First Street although this has not been confirmed at this time, as City provided base maps and GIS data do not include sewer laterals. Parcels 12, 13, 14 and 16 do not have existing mains along their frontage so it has been assumed they currently discharge to the existing 30” sewer main to the south. According to the City Sewer Base Maps, the depth of the 8” sewer mains located within First Street varies. The westerly flowing 8” main varies between approximately 2’-5’ deep and would appear to not be deep enough to serve any future development that was proposed within the Study Area due to pipe size and cover concerns. The easterly flowing 8” main is deeper (12’-18’ deep) but doesn’t front a majority of the project area, only Parcels 15 and 17. The proposed point of connection for Scenarios #1 and #2 could conceivably be the 30” sanitary sewer main located on the Union Pacific Railroad property south of the study area, pending review and approval by the City of Livermore and Union Pacific Railroad. Existing Capacity Issues – Sewer Master Plan The Master Plan has identified a problem area noted as a bottleneck Project D-1: Railroad Avenue and Rincon Avenue in the existing sewer main downstream of the study area. The City Sewer Base Maps show extremely shallow pipes and larger pipes draining into smaller pipes (i.e. 8” pipe connecting to 6” pipe, and 36” pipe connecting to a 30” pipe). Furthermore the Master Plan identifies Capital Improvements are required to “address capacity deficiencies causing surcharging or overflows for existing flow conditions”. Capital Improvement Project D-1 was identified as the first priority Capital Improvement Project in the City of Livermore at the time the Master Plan was published in 2004. Current City Sewer Base Maps do not indicate that any portion of this system near the upstream end of the bottleneck has been improved. Existing Wastewater Flow The land use within the Study Area consists of several different designations including one single family residential home, six multi-family units, a PG&E facility and yard, two motels and various auto-related commercial businesses. The existing dry wastewater flow was calculated using unit based flow factors from the Master Plan. A factor for Urban Low #1 was used for the existing single family house (Parcel 8) because it is on a 2.3 acre parcel. The Master Plan specifies that a flow factor based on a gallon per acre day (gpad) be used for single family parcels greater than 1 acre. Factors for Urban High #1 were used for the existing 6 unit multi-family complex (Parcel 5) and Urban High #4 were used for the

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\Sewer\2016-01-15 Scenario #1\Sewer Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area – Sanitary Sewer Analysis Page 3 of 6

January 15, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

two motel properties (Parcels 9 and 12). The wastewater generation factors used for the existing flows are as follows: Commercial Single Family (Urban Low #1) Multi-Family (Urban High #1) Multi-Family (Urban High #4)

600 gpad 270 gpad 137 gpd/du 102 gpd/du

Using these factors, the calculated existing average dry weather flow is 29,630 gpd, see Attachment 2 for parcel by parcel calculations. Existing ADWF = 29,630 gpd Proposed Wastewater Flow The proposed Scenario #1 assumes that the Study Area with be converted to a 100% Urban High Residential #3 development. The 42 acre Study Area will be studied using a density of 16 du/ac. Urban High Residential #3 is a multi-family land use designation. Per the Master Plan Table 4-6, a current unit base flow factor of 2,200 gpad was used for a density of 16 du/ac. The proposed average dry weather flow for the 42 acre study area for Scenario #1 is: Scenario #1 (100% Residential): Proposed ADWF = 2,200 gpad x 42 ac= 92,400 gpd Land Use Conversion Changing the land use of the Study Area to 100% Residential in Scenario #1 will increase the wastewater flows by three times the existing average dry weather flow. This would appear to exuberate the existing problems for the City’s sewer system as the downstream portion of the system has already been identified as the highest priority Capital Improvement project in the Master Plan. While the increase of three times the average dry weather flow appears to be a substantial change in the system, there are multiple factors that would need to be considered to truly determine whether the expected increase would further impact the existing system let alone which specific portion of the downstream system. The obvious assumption would be any increase of wastewater discharge to the 6” and 8” mains within First Street would more than likely have a larger impact than to the 30” main to the south, assuming the invert elevations for a gravity main connection were even possible to the First street mains with the future residential land plans.

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\Sewer\2016-01-15 Scenario #1\Sewer Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area – Sanitary Sewer Analysis Page 4 of 6

January 15, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

From a modeling standpoint, the peak wet weather flow (which takes into account Groundwater and Rainfall infiltration GWI/I and RDI/I) would need to be analyzed by the City sewer model which is not a part of the scope for this study. For the purposes of this study and as mentioned in the Proposed Point of Connection section of this memo, an assumption could be made that it will be necessary that most if not all of the parcels within the Study Area will discharge into the southerly 30” sewer main. If these parcels do not already have an existing connection to the 30” sewer main, the question of connection feasibility and access rights to the Union Pacific Railroad property would have to be considered by the City and any future developers. In order to evaluate the potential impact to the system the following net capacity calculations have been provided to understand the potential impact to the 27” and 30” sewer system based on a full flow capacity comparison. These calculations could be used as a baseline capacity analysis if a study were commissioned by the City to fully understand the model impacts once the downstream CIP improvements were completed as land use designation changes for this Study Area in the Master Plan were not accounted for. The increase in wastewater flow that will result from the development scenario when compared to the existing land use designation can be compared to the full flow capacity of the nearest downstream sewer main in order to evaluate the net capacity percentage change for that section of pipe. Typically, sewer mains increase in size which is why the flattest pipe, at the most downstream end is typically studied. In this case, the 30” sewer main downsizes to a 27” main just beyond the Study Area so both pipe sizes using City Base Map pipe slopes have been evaluated. When calculating the Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF), the City of Livermore does not have published Sanitary Sewer Design Guidelines that specify a peaking factor. For the purposes of this study, a conservative peaking factor of 2.5 for an average daily flow near 0.07 MGD per the Dublin San Ramon Services District has been applied (see Attachment 5). The Master Plan also accounts for Rainfall Dependent Infiltration and Inflow (RDI/I) when calculating the peak wet weather flow and a value of 1,000 gpad was noted for all parcels during future build out at the time of the 2004 Master Plan. Therefore, the proposed peak wet weather flow (PWWF) has been calculated by the following formula: PWWF = ADWF x Peaking Factor + RDI/I (which includes groundwater infiltration per the Master Plan) Scenario #1 (100% Residential): Existing PWWF = 29,630 gpd x 2.5 + (1,000 gpad x 42 ac) = 116,075 gpd or 0.116 MGD Proposed PWWF = 92,400 gpd x 2.5 + (1,000 gpad x 42 ac) = 273,000 gpd or 0.273 MGD

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\Sewer\2016-01-15 Scenario #1\Sewer Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area – Sanitary Sewer Analysis Page 5 of 6

January 15, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

Change in Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) The net increase in PWWF assuming that all of the existing parcels within the Study Area currently discharge to the 30” sewer, and all of the future study area parcels will also discharge into the 30” sewer would result in an increase of: Scenario #1 (100% Residential): Proposed Study Area PWWF Existing Study Area PWWF Increased PWWF

273,000 gpd - 116,075 gpd 156,925 gpd (0.157 MGD)

Capacity of Existing Sanitary Sewer The capacity of the existing 27” and 30” sewer mains, flowing full, at the flattest point of connection downstream of the Study Area near the First Street overpass were calculated using data from the City’s Sewer Base Maps using and a Mannings “n” value of 0.013. Q Full = 14.43 MGD for the 27” sanitary sewer main with a slope of 0.52% Q Full = 14.27 MGD for the 30” sanitary sewer main with a slope of 0.29% Change in PWWF Relative to Pipe Capacity The net changes in PWWF as a percentage of the full flow pipe capacity for each of the respective mains at the downstream end of the Study Area are: Scenario #1 (100% Residential): Percentage Change in the 27” main = 0.157 MGD / 14.43 MGD Percentage Change in the 30” main = 0.157 MGD / 14.27 MGD

Percentage Change 1.1% 1.1%

For comparison purposes and to provide a more conservative observation, if it were assumed that none of the existing parcels currently discharge to the 30” sewer main, but the proposed developments would under the 100% residential scenario, the percentage change compared to the full flow capacity would be as follows: Scenario #1 (100% Residential): Percentage Change in the 27” main = 0.273 MGD / 14.43 MGD Percentage Change in the 30” main = 0.273 MGD / 14.27 MGD

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\Sewer\2016-01-15 Scenario #1\Sewer Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Percentage Change 1.9% 1.9%

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area – Sanitary Sewer Analysis Page 6 of 6

January 15, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

Conclusion The proposed Development Scenario #1 would result in an increase in the peak wet weather flow of 0.157 to 0.273 MGD, depending on the assumptions considered as noted in this memo. This results in a percentage increase in wastewater flow relative to full flow pipe capacity of 1.1% to 1.9% for the 27” and 30” sewer mains just downstream of the Study Area. While CBG can conclude that this is an insignificant increase, additional studies or Master Plan updates and modeling are recommended to evaluate the overall impact. The additional studies should evaluate the existing system which is experiencing capacity issues and the future system once the CIP improvements have been upgraded per the Master Plan. It is also recommended that the City of Livermore consider the connection feasibility for each parcel as existing base maps and topographic data suggest the potential connection points will be along the southerly 30” sewer main, which is currently on Union Pacific Railroad property. Attachments 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Parcel Identification Map Existing Average Dry Weather Flow Sewer Base Maps - 5F Full Flow Capacity Calculations (27” and 30” pipe) DSRSD Peaking Factor

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\Sewer\2016-01-15 Scenario #1\Sewer Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS

2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583

SURVEYORS

PLANNERS

(925) 866-0322 www.cbandg.com

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS  SURVEYORS  PLANNERS

EXISTING AVERAGE WET WEATHER FLOW FIRST STREET CORRIDOR STUDY AREA PARCEL NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

APN 99-51-15-2 99-51-13-6 99-51-13-8 99-51-14 99-56-6-2 99-56-10-2 99-56-9-1 99-56-4-10 99-56-3-9 99-56--3-13 99-56-3-11 99-56-2

AC 2.15 0.99 0.15 2.1 2.38 4.65 1.94 2.3 0.88 0.73 0.33 3.75

RESIDENTIAL NO COMMERICAL OR LODGING OF UNITS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 6 100% 100% 100% 1 100% 27 100% 100% 83% 55 17% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

FLOW FACTOR 600 gpad 600 gpad 600 gpad 600 gpad 137 gpd/du 600 gpad 600 gpad 270 gpad 102 gpd/du 600 gpad 600 gpad 102 gpd/du 600 gpad 600 gpad 600 gpad 600 gpad 600 gpad 600 gpad 600 gpad

EXISTING FLOW gpd 1,290 594 90 1,260 822 2,790 1,164 621 2,754 438 198 5,610 383 1,002 1,122 1,026 948 3,036 4,482 29,630

NOTES

Existing Easement Multi-family units

Single family unit Motel (2)

Motel (2)

13 99-40-55 1.67 14 99-40-56 1.87 15 99-40-48 1.71 16 99-40-57 1.58 17 99-40-14-22 5.06 18 99-56-3-2 7.47 Existing PG&E facility TOTAL: 42 NOTES: 1. Base flow values were not available for motel/hotel land use. Urban High #4 was applied for the purposes of this study.

2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866-0322 • www.cbandg.com

APPENDIX C: STORMWATER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS (CARLSON, BARBEE & GIBSON, INC.)

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS  SURVEYORS  PLANNERS

February 26, 2016 Job No.: 2472-000

M E M O R A N D U M TO:

Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc.

FROM:

Ryan Hansen, P.E., Project Manager

SUBJECT:

Storm Drain Analysis – Land Use Scenario #1 First Street Corridor Land Use Study Livermore, California

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to present storm drain capacity findings regarding the Baseline Scenario (Existing uses with CS zoning) and proposed stormwater runoff for Land Use Scenario #1 (100% Residential Land Use) as a part of the First Street Corridor Land Use Study (Study Area). The City’s 2004 Storm Drain Master Plan (Master Plan), 2009 Storm Drain Master Plan Addendum (Master Plan Addendum) and City of Livermore (City) provided storm drain base maps were reviewed for the purposes of this memo as well as the Lisa Wise Consulting Inc. background memorandum for all land use parcel data. Existing Topography and Storm Drain Facilities The Study Area consists of 18 properties with a total area of approximately 42 acres (41.72 acres) or 1,817,199 sf. The Study Area is on the south side of First Street between Scott Street to the west, Trevarno Road to the east and the Union Pacific Railroad to the south. See attached Parcel Identification Exhibit. The Livermore Valley watershed extends significantly south of the City limits along the Arroyo Mocho and the Arroyo Del Valle. Per the Master Plan Addendum, the Livermore Valley watershed is 310 square miles in size, which includes 26.5 square miles within the City limits. The City is divided into five major watersheds which all drain to channels and creeks flowing west towards the San Francisco Bay through Niles Canyon via pumps or gravity. The Study Area is within the Downtown watershed drainage area. There is very limited topographic data available for the Study Area, but based on the Alameda County base maps and topographic data for Parcels 6 and 7, it appears that roughly 50% of the 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866-0322 • www.cbandg.com SAN RAMON • SACRAMENTO P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\GP LAND USE MEMOS-LWC\Drainage Report\Scenario #1 2016-01-15\Storm Drain Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area – Storm Drain Analysis Page 2 of 10

February 26, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

Study Area generally drains towards First Street and the remainder 50% of the Study Area drain to the rear of the site onto the Union Pacific Railroad’s property. The four tributary areas are noted on the Existing Conditions Exhibit. Private drainage systems have not been confirmed at this time as City Base Maps only include the storm drain system mains so these assumptions are purely based on surface contours provided by the County. There are two existing sections of the storm drain system within First Street along the Study Area. The first main is located along the frontage for a majority of the Study Area (Parcels 2-12) on the north side of First Street and flows westerly towards Junction Avenue. City base maps indicate this main starts as an 18” storm drain and increases in size to a 21” storm drain in Gardella Plaza, just east of the First Street bridge crossing over the railroad tracks (see attached Existing Utilities Exhibit and City Base Maps). The storm drain line continues to Portola Avenue and ultimately drains and outfalls as a 60” main to Arroyo Las Positas. The second storm drain main in First Street is located along the frontage of Parcel 17. City base maps indicate this main to be a 30” storm drain at Parcel 17. The City base maps show that the 30” storm drain pipe connects to a small segment of 27” storm drain before increasing in size to a 36” and larger storm drain main. The main flows easterly towards Las Positas Road and outfalls as a 60” main into Arroyo Seco. Along the Union Pacific Railroad property to the south of the Study Area, there is a 24” storm drain main along the southern boundary of Parcel 1. This main flows westerly and ultimately connects to the storm drain main in Junction Avenue which outfalls to Arroyo Las Positas. There are no other storm drain pipe facilities within the Union Pacific Railroad property along the Study Area southern boundary, although there does appear to be a natural swale directing storm water flow westerly, which is an assumption based on the limited topographic information available at the time of this memorandum. Existing Impervious/Pervious Surfaces Given that the Study Area’s current use is mainly commercial, there is a large amount of impervious surface present due to existing parking lots. Based on the aerial photography currently available, CBG estimates that the current site is approximately 75% impervious and 25% pervious. See attached Impervious/Pervious Surfaces Exhibit. Flood Insurance Rate Map Designation The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designates the southern portion of the Study Area as Zone X shaded and unshaded. This designation is identified on all the Parcels that border the Union Pacific Railroad Property (Parcels 1, 4-8, 12, 14, 16 and 18) and increasingly encroaches onto the parcels in a westerly to easterly direction across the Study Area. The Zone X designation also includes the entire Union Pacific Railroad property adjacent to the Study Area

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\GP LAND USE MEMOS-LWC\Drainage Report\Scenario #1 2016-01-15\Storm Drain Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area – Storm Drain Analysis Page 3 of 10

February 26, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

and extends to the existing residential neighborhood south of the railroad property. The encroachment depth varies but generally covers about 1/3 to 2/3’s of the affected Study Area parcels. See attached FIRM maps for reference. Zone X is defined as “Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood”. The Study Area is shown on FIRM No. 06001C0334G, 06001C0342G and 06001C0353G all dated August 3, 2009. This designation would indicate that there is some existing flooding with the current uses within the Study Area. Proposed Point of Connection The provided City base map information for the storm drain mains within First Street was incomplete as some nodes do not provide invert or rim information. Further field survey work would be necessary to determine the depth of the 18” and 30” storm drain mains in First Street. The base maps do, however, indicate that along Parcels 6 and 7, the westerly flowing 18” pipe is approximately 5’-6’ deep. Existing rim elevations are not provided for the easterly flowing 30” main as shown on the base maps along the Study Area frontage at Parcel 17. However, using the same top of curb as a catch basin on the north side of First Street, it can reasonably be assumed that the depth is approximately 5’ per the City Base Map invert. For this study and given the site topography the assumed proposed point of connection for Scenario #1 will be the 24” storm drain main located on the Union Pacific Railroad property along the southern boundary of Parcel 1, pending review and approval by the City of Livermore and Union Pacific Railroad. Per the City base maps, the 24” storm drain is approximately 7’ deep at the proposed tie-in location. A connection to the southern boundary is assumed to be a desirable point of discharge given the fact it is highly probably that each parcel will need to prepare for bio retention requirements and it is common to place treatment areas at the low end of a drainage system when feasible. Existing Capacity Issues – 2004 Storm Drain Master Plan and 2009 Storm Drain Master Plan Addendum In 2004, the City prepared a Master Plan that examined the existing storm collection system for a 10 year storm event based on future development as designated on the 2003-2025 General Plan. The Study Area is shown to have a land use of Service Commercial (SC) on the 2003-2025 General Plan, the same as the current land use designation. Therefore, the 2004 Master Plan does not take into account any additional storm drain improvements that may be required based on the development of the Study Area.

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\GP LAND USE MEMOS-LWC\Drainage Report\Scenario #1 2016-01-15\Storm Drain Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area – Storm Drain Analysis Page 4 of 10

February 26, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

The Master Plan does however, even without the development of the Study Area, recommend improvements to the downstream storm collection system. Although, the City doesn’t identify any historical flooding areas within the Downtown drainage area, the computer analysis (MOUSE) of the storm drain system identified flooding at approximately 33% of the existing catch basins and manholes. There was additional flooding within First Street along the Study Area’s frontage identified as being greater than 1.0 foot in depth at 5 nodes and between 0.5’1.0’ in depth at two nodes. The existing 24” pipe within the Union Pacific Railroad just south of Parcel 1 shows no flooding in the City’s Master Plan analysis and currently meets the City freeboard requirements. To alleviate these flooding concerns for the 10-year storm event, the Master Plan identifies proposed improvements downstream of the Study Area. These improvements consist of installing a 42” storm drain parallel pipe (pipes sizes vary from 42”, 48” and 52”) in Junction Ave. and a 48” outfall to Arroyo Las Positas. The Junction Avenue storm drain main improvement project has been given a priority of “moderate” from a scale of low, moderate or high priority projects. In 2009 the City prepared a Storm Drain Master Plan Addendum which evaluated the impacts of increased runoff from development upstream of the Study Area on existing channels and culverts for the 100 year storm event. The Study Area currently drains to both Arroyo Seco and Arroyo Las Positas. The 2009 Addendum recommended improvements to both of the aforementioned channels including a 450’ floodwall on Arroyo Seco and 5 culvert/bridge improvements along Arroyo Las Positas. Storm Water Runoff Criteria To determine the additional demand on the existing storm drain system, the Rational Method was used to determine the storm water runoff. Q=CiA where Q = storm water flow (cfs) C = runoff coefficient i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) A = drainage area (acres) Runoff Coefficient, C When calculating design level storm drain flows, a modified C value is typically calculated which accounts for ground slope and rainfall intensity. For the purposes of this study and without a specific land plan, we will use a non-modified basic runoff coefficient, which assumes that the difference in existing and proposed ground slope and rainfall intensity factors will be minimal.

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\GP LAND USE MEMOS-LWC\Drainage Report\Scenario #1 2016-01-15\Storm Drain Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area – Storm Drain Analysis Page 5 of 10

February 26, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

The runoff coefficient for the existing uses within the Study Area was compared to Table 2 from the 2003 Alameda County Hydrology and Hydraulics Manual conservatively using a Type “D” soil group. The Townhouse Land Use description assumes 0.71 Runoff coefficient while the basic runoff coefficient with a Type “D” soil group is 0.83 for “Apartment”. The C value under the “Apartment” category was used because the percent impervious surface (85%) is what typical projects of similar density would approximately have given the expected row townhome/alley loaded products for a 16 du/ac product. For Scenario #1 (100% Residential): C = 0.83 Time of concentration, Tc Roughly 1/3 of the Study Area was assumed to currently drain to the two storm drain mains in First Street and the remaining land was assumed to drain to the Union Pacific Railroad property. As mentioned in the Point of Connection section of this memo, we will assume that when the Study Area land use is converted to Scenario #1, the entire 42 acre site will drain to a 24” storm drain pipe which will be extended to the east on the Union Pacific Railroad property. For urbanized watersheds, the initial time of concentration equals the roof to gutter time plus the travel time from the upstream end of the gutter to the first inlet. As is typical, a 5 minute roof to gutter time was assumed. These times do not account for proposed system layouts and are intended to be on the conservative side assuming a direct connection from the furthest point of the tributary area. The First Street times of concentration calculations assume a combination of surface flow, pipe flow and gutter flow as shown on the Existing Conditions exhibit from the furthest point of each tributary area to the system point of connection. Tc = Initial roof to gutter (5 min) + Overland Flow (L / (60 x v)) + Pipe Flow (L / (60 x v)) where: L = Overland flow length in feet & pipe length in feet v = Overland flow velocity in fps, from Attachment 3 (see attached) Existing Drainage Areas, First Street (21 AC - Areas 2, 3 and 4) and UPRR (21 AC - Area 1) Area 1

Tc = Initial Time + Overland Flow (Paved) + Overland (Short Grass) Tc = 5 min + 435’ / (60 x 1.8 fps) + 2,500’/ (60 x 0.7 fps) = 68.5 min

Area 2

Tc = Initial Time + Pipe Flow (Average pipe velocity of 5 fps assumed) Tc = 5 min + 800’ / (60 x 5.0 fps) = 7.7 min

Area 3

Tc = Initial Time + Overland Flow (Paved) + Gutter Flow Tc = 5 min + 435’ / (60 x 1.8 fps) + 690’/ (60 x 1.8 fps) = 15.4 min

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\GP LAND USE MEMOS-LWC\Drainage Report\Scenario #1 2016-01-15\Storm Drain Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area – Storm Drain Analysis Page 6 of 10

Area 4

February 26, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

Tc = Initial Time + Overland Flow (Paved) + Gutter Flow Tc = 0 min + 845’ / (60 x 2.0 fps) + 1,180’ / (60 x 1.0 fps) = 26.70 min

Proposed Drainage Area, UPRR (42 AC) Total Area Tc = Initial Time + Overland Flow (Paved: Assumes 0.5% Street Slopes) + Pipe Flow (Average pipe velocity of 5 fps assumed) Tc = 5 min + 730 / (60 x 1.4 fps)+2,870 / (60 x 5 fps) = 23.2 min Rainfall Intensity, i Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) is based on the appropriate time of concentration and storm recurrence interval. It can be derived from the following formula: i = (0.33 + 0.091144 x MAP) x (0.249 + 0.1006 x Kj) x Ti-0.56253 where: MAP = Mean Annual Precipitation (inches) Kj = Frequency factor for recurrence interval Ti = Storm Duration – (Tc/60) Tc = Time of Concentration The design storm intensity for the Study Area is based on the Alameda County Manual for a 10year storm event. The Mean Annual Precipitation (MAP) was determined to be 14.5 inches using “Attachment 6: Mean Annual Precipitation Map” (see attached). Based on a MAP of 14.5. “Attachment 9: 10 Year Storm Rainfall Intensity” (see attached) was used to determine the rainfall intensity for the specific Tc determined above. For the purposes of this study due to lack of topographic and field data , the following 10 year flow calculations we completed using a runoff coefficient of 0.75 for the existing condition, which is what the overall Study area composite value was calculated to be based on aerial photographs. Existing Drainage Area Intensities: Area 1 : i = 0.59 Area 2 : i = 2.01 Area 3 : i = 1.36 Area 4 : i = 1.00 Proposed Drainage Area Intensity: Total Area : i = 1.08

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\GP LAND USE MEMOS-LWC\Drainage Report\Scenario #1 2016-01-15\Storm Drain Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area – Storm Drain Analysis Page 7 of 10

February 26, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

Existing Flow (10 Year) Study Area Drainage Areas: Area 1 : Q = (.75 x 0.59 x 21 Ac) = 9.3 cfs Area 2 : Q = (.75 x 2.01 x 8.0 Ac) = 12.06 cfs Area 3 : Q = (.75 x 1.36 x 4.0 Ac) = 4.1 cfs Area 4 : Q = (.75 x 1.00 x 9.0 Ac) = 6.8 cfs Proposed Flow (10 Year) – Scenario #1 (100% Residential) Total Area : Q = (.83 x 1.08 x 42 Ac) = 37.6 cfs Land Use Conversion For the purposes of this study and as mentioned in the Proposed Point of Connection section of this memo, an assumption could be made that it may be necessary that most if not all of the parcels within the study area will need to discharge into the 24” storm drain main located on the Union Pacific Railroad at Parcel 1. The feasibility and access rights to the Union Pacific Railroad property would have to be considered by the City and any future developers. Changing the land use of the study area to 100% Residential in Scenario #1 will increase the storm water flows to the Union Pacific Railroad point of connection from 9.3 cfs to 37.6 cfs. Since the City has already identified existing downstream flooding and capacity issues in their Master Plan, the land use change in Scenario #1 would potentially increase the impact of the downstream storm drain pipe improvements if noted pipe upsizing was not completed. However, the shift in tributary area drainage may alleviate current flooding conditions along First Street as the existing flows will be routed to the assumed point of connection along the south boundary. There are multiple factors that would need to be considered to truly determine how the additional storm water flow from Scenario #1 would specifically affect the downstream system. From a modeling standpoint, the specific storm drain flow components (other potential developments, existing HGL’s, drainage areas, runoff coefficients, rainfall intensities and time of concentrations) would need to be analyzed by the City’s Master Plan storm drain model which is not a part of the scope for this study. In order to evaluate the potential impact to the system the following net capacity calculations have been provided to understand the potential impact to the 24” storm drain system. This is separate from evaluating the impact to the existing bottleneck, capacity and flooding issues downstream. These calculations can be used as a baseline capacity analysis if a study were commissioned by the City to fully understand the model impacts once the downstream Master Plan improvements were completed. Land use designation changes for this Study Area in the

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\GP LAND USE MEMOS-LWC\Drainage Report\Scenario #1 2016-01-15\Storm Drain Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area – Storm Drain Analysis Page 8 of 10

February 26, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

Master Plan were not accounted for and in fact, as mentioned in the Existing Capacity Issues section of this memo, the Master Plan does not account for a change in land use for the Study Area. The increase in storm water flow that will result from the residential development scenario when compared to the existing land use designation can be compared to the full flow capacity of the nearest downstream storm drain main in order to evaluate the net capacity percentage change for that section of pipe. Change in Storm Drain Capacity - UPPR 24” Main The net increase in Storm Drain flow assuming that all of the existing parcels within the Study Area would discharge into the 24” Storm Drain main: Scenario #1 (100% Residential) Proposed Study Area Flow Existing Study Area #1 Flow Increased Flow

37.6 cfs -9.3 cfs 28.3 cfs

The capacity of the existing 24” (on the Union Pacific Railroad Property) storm drain main, flowing full, at the flattest point of connection downstream of the Study Area was calculated using data from the City’s Storm Drain Base Maps using and a Mannings “n” value of 0.013. 24’ Storm Drain Capacity - Union Pacific Railroad Property: Q Full = 22.62 cfs for the 24” storm drain main with a slope of 1.0% The net change in storm drain runoff as a percentage of the full flow pipe capacity for the 24” main at the downstream end of the Study Area is: Scenario #1 (100% Residential): Percent increase compared to the 24” main full flow capacity = 28.3 cfs / 22.62 cfs

Percentage Increase +125.1%

Conclusion With an expected 125.1% increase to the existing flow draining to the 24” main, CBG then reviewed the 2004 Storm Drain Master Plan to better understand the existing flood elevation at the downstream manhole which is expected to serve as the Study Area point of connection, referenced as node 5F0026 in the ultimate land use, existing system scenario in Appendix G of the Master Plan. Appendix G notes that the maximum flood elevation, assuming no improvements have been implemented, is only 1.62’ below the elevation of that structure. Since the City standard minimum freeboard requirement is 0.75’ for drainage inlets, less than 1’ of

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\GP LAND USE MEMOS-LWC\Drainage Report\Scenario #1 2016-01-15\Storm Drain Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area – Storm Drain Analysis Page 9 of 10

February 26, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

freeboard remains in this system at this node. This would suggest that in addition to the downstream improvements identified in the Master Plan, the 24” storm drain pipe may need to be upsized as the existing system would not be able to accept the expected 28.3 cfs flow increase. However, given the assumption the existing node does not take into account any downstream improvements, specifically noted in the South Junction corridor, CBG then researched Appendix I to better understand the expected decrease in pipe capacity once the improvements were installed. As highlighted on page I-11, the first two sections of pipe that are expected to require a parallel 42” pipe were reviewed. Pipe section 3201 and 3202 are experiencing pipe capacities of roughly 82% and 64% respectively in the ultimate land use, existing system scenarios. When the parallel 42” pipes are installed under the ultimate land use, improved system scenario the pipe capacities decrease to 60.5% and 47.8%, respectively. While it would appear that the CIP improvements would reduce the overall capacity and potentially allow for the Study Area increased flow, additional studies and modeling updates of the City Storm Drain Master Plan are recommended to evaluate the overall system impact assuming all improvements are installed as evaluating only the first few lengths of pipe improvements would not be sufficient. The additional studies should evaluate the existing system which is experiencing capacity and flooding issues along with the land use conversion for the Study Area which would include a storm drain trunk main that would connect all of the Study Area parcels along the southern boundary. In the full build out condition for the study area multiple factors would need to be considered to determine the impact at the connection point to the 24” storm drain such as what type of developments are to be planned on the parcels. An increased ratio of single family to multifamily units may reduce the runoff coefficient for the area which would decrease the flow leaving the developments. Parcels 8, 12 and possibly 5 would have to consider the use of hydro modification as there would be a potential increase in impervious surface area if the parcels were to be developed. If hydromodification were to be necessary it would require the developed parcels to have an on-site detention system that would mitigate the post project runoff. Additionally site grading could dictate the parcels connection point into the existing storm drain system. For instance parcel 7 and parcel 8 have a grade differential of approximately 5’ between the two parcels. This could require one parcel to drain toward to Union Pacific Railroad while the other parcel could potential drain toward First Street. All of these factors could potentially reduce the impact of the storm drain system at the connection point to the 24” storm drain. It is recommended that the City of Livermore consider the connection feasibility including bioretention considerations as existing base maps and topographic data as suggest the potential connection point will be along the 24” storm drain main, which is currently on Union Pacific Railroad property.

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\GP LAND USE MEMOS-LWC\Drainage Report\Scenario #1 2016-01-15\Storm Drain Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area – Storm Drain Analysis Page 10 of 10

February 26, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

Attachments 1. Existing Conditions - Parcel Identification Map 2. Existing Conditions – Existing Conditions Exhibit 3. Storm Drain Base Maps - 5F 4. Flood Insurance Rate Map – 06001C0353G, 06001C0334G and 06001C0342G 5. Existing Conditions – Impervious/Pervious Areas Exhibit 6. Alameda County Flood Control – Overland Flow Velocity 7. Alameda County Flood Control – 10 Year Storm Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) 8. Alameda County Flood Control – Mean Annual Precipitation, Attachment 6 9. Full Flow Capacity Calculations (18” 24” and 30” pipe) 10. Storm Drain Master Plan – Pipe Network and CIP Model (Appendix I) 11. Preliminary Hydrology Map

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\GP LAND USE MEMOS-LWC\Drainage Report\Scenario #1 2016-01-15\Storm Drain Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS

2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583

SURVEYORS

PLANNERS

(925) 866-0322 www.cbandg.com

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS

2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583

SURVEYORS

PLANNERS

(925) 866-0322 www.cbandg.com

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS

2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583

SURVEYORS

PLANNERS

(925) 866-0322 www.cbandg.com

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS  SURVEYORS  PLANNERS

FIRST STREET CORRIDOR LAND USE STUDY IMPERVIOUS/PERVIOUS AREAS ‐ EXISTING PARCELS

APN No. 99‐51‐15‐2 99‐51‐13‐6 99‐51‐13‐8 99‐51‐14 99‐56‐6‐2 99‐56‐10‐2 99‐56‐9‐1 99‐56‐4‐10 99‐56‐3‐9 99‐56‐3‐13 99‐56‐3‐11 99‐56‐2 99‐40‐55 99‐40‐56 99‐40‐48 99‐40‐57 99‐40‐14‐22 99‐56‐3‐2 TOTALS:

Parcel Size, SF Parcel No. per Lisa Wise 1 93,798 2 43,137 3 6,480 4 91,657 5 103,574 6 202,503 7 84,487 8 100,352 9 38,196 10 31,619 11 14,397 12 163,350 13 72,951 14 81,474 15 74,515 16 68,977 17 220,518 18 325,214 1,817,199

Parcel Size, SF per ACAD file 93,826 43,526 6,480 91,728 102,483 202,463 84,470 99,212 39,058 29,363 14,397 161,152 72,951 81,422 74,515 68,995 220,349 327,380 1,813,770

Impervious/Pervious Areas, SF Pavement/ Roof Concrete Open Space 35,827 39,474 18,525 6,552 32,512 4,462 0 5,416 1,064 33,918 52,579 5,231 16,678 37,617 48,188 26,272 161,082 15,109 12,956 68,863 2,651 6,137 9,151 83,924 13,607 17,406 8,045 7,932 18,908 2,523 2,734 11,663 0 22,939 28,340 109,873 24,695 41,746 6,510 24,400 42,971 14,051 22,144 44,797 7,574 20,389 38,818 9,788 66,191 113,119 41,039 10,488 230,168 86,724 353,859 994,630 465,281 19.5% 54.8% 25.7%

Overall Study Area % Impervious/Pervious: % Impervious: 74.3% % Pervious: 25.7%

2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866-0322 • www.cbandg.com

January 15, 2016 Job No. 2472

Short GrIn Pasture

(Ovtr1and Flow)

100

Mearty Bare and UntiUed Ground or

Cultivated Land (Ovenlnd Flow) Grassed Waterway

Woodland (Overland Flow)

"'V

/ 1/

Paved Area (Sheet Flow), & Small Upland GUIliH

/ 11/

J V

II V/ 1/

1/ 1/

VI V

0.1 0.1

100

Velocity 1ft/sec)

ATTACHMENT 3: OVERLAND FLOW VELOCITY

, COUNTY 10 YEAR STORM

1,:,1.. """"" " " """ """"""." .,," 1.51j

1,1

" " I'"

~ ~~: I_mw_ ~~~ '_ ~~

' __ ..

_WU

~Hiif*~T.~~*~~~

, "

"'" ,.

, '=T.~Hi;*~¥*Hi*~~

-'. '~

1+ *

'" '.U

'" ,.

""* ; ; '

"" ~'" '~ ' ", .MI'.''' '''''''''''

I+* ~*

, ,'"

..",.

, ,m '" ,. '" "

, ~ -:" -'~

,~ ,~ :~,~ : "

'R '. '. '. ' .

~-ii

:" ,. ,,,,.,,, ,.,,

"""'~,.~,."

, " ~~~~~~~~~~~ , ,

' "1 •• •°1'.'''''''''

""'" , '''",. ,

:: ~~HT.Hi

I+ *~~f*~-+i " ''' 1'," " 1'" .....

' .0

...

,." ,.,"

'.0

,n ' "

, ... ww."o.... 'm , '.

~ u

·'

~ I '''~I~~u

'" I ''''·I~··'''' , . .n'·'·'·'·I''''·'·'·

1 of 8

"".

..,

,. ,

''' . "

ATIACHMENT 9: RAINFALL INTENSITY (In/hr)

;., 'Sa

-~ 1

"'j

DATE: MAY 2003

ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL

AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION (\I.o.wES~I~S)

ATTACHMENT-6

APPENDIX D: WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS (CARLSON, BARBEE & GIBSON, INC.)

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS  SURVEYORS  PLANNERS

February 26, 2016 Job No.: 2472-000

M E M O R A N D U M TO:

Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc.

FROM:

Ryan Hansen, P.E., Project Manager

SUBJECT:

Water Demand Analysis – Land Use Scenario #1 First Street Corridor Land Use Study Livermore, California

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to present water capacity findings regarding the Baseline Scenario (Existing uses with CS zoning) and proposed water demands for Land Use Scenario #1 (100% Residential Land Use) as a part of the First Street Corridor Land Use Study (Study Area). The City’s Water Master Plan, The California Water Service Company, Urban Water Management Plan Livermore District and City provided water base maps were reviewed for the purposes of this memo as well as the Lisa Wise Consulting Inc. background memorandum for all land use parcel data. Existing Facilities The Study Area consists of 18 properties with a total area of approximately 42 acres (41.72 acres) or 1,817,199 sf. The Study Area is on the south side of First Street between Scott Street to the west, Trevarno Road to the east and the Union Pacific Railroad to the south. See attached Parcel Identification Exhibit. Based on the City provided GIS data, there is an existing 8” water main located within Gardella Plaza which continues east towards First Street. Approximately 2000 ft. east of the Gardella Plaza and First Street intersection the 8” main increases to a 12” water main in front of the parcel 10, please see the attached Existing Utilities Exhibit. An existing 12” water main is located to the south of the first street corridor in the Union Pacific Railroad right of way. The 12” water main is located on the south side of the railroad tracks as it runs parallel along First Street. The 12” water main then crosses the railroad tracks to the north at parcel 18 and then travels east parallel to the tracks. 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866-0322 • www.cbandg.com SAN RAMON • SACRAMENTO P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\GP LAND USE MEMOS-LWC\Water\Water Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area – Water Demand Analysis Page 2 of 3

February 26, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

Proposed Point of Connection It is conceivably that the point of connection for the proposed developments along the First Street corridor would be the existing 8” water main that is located within First Street. The existing 12” water main located in the Union Pacific Railroad could also alternately be used however alternative permits may be required to work within the Union Pacific Railroad right of way. Existing Water Demand Land use designations within the Study Area consist of several different designations including one single family residential home, six multi-family units, a PG&E facility and yard, two motels and various auto-related commercial businesses. In order to determine the existing demand of the parcel within the Study Area, California Water Company (CalWater) was contacted to provide water demand factors for multi-family, single family, and commercial areas. CalWater was able to provide CBG with the requested demand factors which were based on CalWater Urban Water Management Plan for Livermore. The average water demand from 2010 to 2015 was used in determining the existing parcels average daily demand. Single Family Residential

Demand per Service

Multi‐Family Residential

Demand per Service Demand per Unit

Commercial Demand per Service

2015

GPD 378 374 404 417 303 256

GPD 6,498 5,975 6,066 5,773 4,535 3,769

GPD 114 110 112 106 83 69

GPD 1,214 1,186 1,309 1,315 1,055 928

Average (2010‐2015)

355

5,436

1,168

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

CalWater was asked to provide the existing number of services for the Study Area however that data was not available. In order to determine the existing number of commercial services in the Study Area it was assumed that each existing building would have 1 commercial service. The total number of building on each parcel was determined using aerial photos of the Study Area while the number of existing units for the existing multi-family units, single family units, and Motels was based on the Lisa Wise "Land Use Scenarios for First Street Corridor Land Use Conversion Study." dated May 15, 2015. In order to determine the demand for the existing motels, the multi-family demand of 66 gpd/unit was applied to each of the rooms of the motels.

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\GP LAND USE MEMOS-LWC\Water\Water Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. First Street Corridor Study Area â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Water Demand Analysis Page 3 of 3

February 26, 2016 Job No. 2472-000

The demand for each parcel was calculated by multiplying the existing number of units/services for the parcel by the demand factors provided by CalWater. The total existing demand for the study area was calculated to be 41,203 gpd. Proposed Water Demand The proposed Scenario assumes the study area will be developed with 240 single family units and 308 multi-family units. The same methodology used in the existing condition for the single and mutli-family residences was used for the proposed conditions. The total demand required with the build out of the parcels was calculated to be 105,528 gpd. Change in Water Demand Capacity Summary Based on the data provided by CalWater, it was determined that there would be an increase in demand for the study area of 64,325 gpd which is a 156.1% increase over the existing condition. As shown in Table 3 of the Water Supply and Demand Study prepared by Lisa Wise Consulting on June 25, 2015, the projected Total Supply (acre feet per year) was 12,128. While the net increase of the Study Area would be a cause for concern, the impact to the overall demand of the existing system should also be considered. The net increase of 64,325 gpd equates to roughly 71.1 acre feet per year, which is 0.61% of the 2015 Projected System Supply. Further modeling studies prepared by CalWater may help clarify the potential impact on the existing infrastructure in the area as other developments have been planned and constructed within the service area recent years. Attachments 1. 2.

Existing Utilities / Parcel Identification Map Water Demand Calculations

P:\2400 - 2499\2472-000\Engineering\GP LAND USE MEMOS-LWC\Water\Water Capacity Analysis-Scenario #1.docx

Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS

2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583

SURVEYORS

PLANNERS

(925) 866-0322 www.cbandg.com

APPENDIX E: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (SUSTINERE CONSULTING)

Phone: 415.935.4512 info@sustinere.co www.sustinere.co

Transportation Impact Analysis To:

David Pierucci, Lisa Wise Consulting

From:

William Riggs, PhD, AICP, LEED AP

CC:

Menka Sethi, Lisa Wise Consulting Brian Harrington, Lisa Wise Consulting

Date:

10.13.2015

Re:

First Street Corridor Transportation Impact Analysis

Summary This memo assesses the potential traffic impacts of changes in use along the First Street Corridor in Livermore, CA. This analysis evaluates the feasibility of converting a certain portion of the corridor from commercial service to some degree of residential. In this memo, we first assess the existing conditions and trip generation, estimated at 40,327 average daily trips (ADT). This forms a baseline for additional options to be explored. After this we evaluate potential alternatives based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) standards. In sum, these alternative residential land uses would result in an estimated 5,277 or 32,651 trips respectively — both a net reduction in the ADT in the study area.

Study Area The area of analysis is presented in Figures 1 and 2. The area is relatively suburban. It is comprised primarily of service-oriented uses with a zoning designation of ‘service commercial’, indicated in blue in Figure 2. The darker blue in the map represents low-to-medium density residential uses. Although the City of Livermore has goals to provide more bicycle and pedestrian amenities as a part of their General Plan and Bikeways and Trails Master Plan,1 there are no immediate plans to implement these plans in the study area other than the notion of the future extension of the Iron Horse Trail along the south side of the site. The potential future extension of BART to Livermore is a part of the community’s long-term goals2 and could play a part in reinforcing more non-automotive traffic in this area in the future. Within this context we examine 2 alternatives to the existing uses, which transition the site to more residential uses. Residential scenario 1 converts the site to 100% residential.

1 2

http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/6553/ Alameda CTC http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/8617/Livermore_TEP_Fact_Sheet.pdf

St udyAr eaMap

St udyAr eaZoni ng

Trip Generation Rates As a first step of analysis, the estimated travel generated by potential land use changes is calculated using rates and equations from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th edition. The resulting trip generation rates based on this calculation are presented in Table 1. It is worth noting that special consideration was given to how the PG&E yard should be classified, and while other alternatives (such as a “utility” classification) were considered, it was ruled that the general office category provided the best fit for the use occurring on the site. Additionally, it is important to highlight the variation between AM peak hour and daily trips for residential vs. some non-residential uses. While residential uses generate far fewer daily trips, they do sometimes result in a higher number of outbound trips, particularly during the AM Peak. Table 1: Trip Generation Rates

Specific Land Use

ITE Land Use

ITE Land Use Code

Rates Unit

Daily

AM Peak Hour In

Out

Residential - Single

Single-Family Detached

210

9.5

0.19

0.56

0.75

0.63

0.37

1.00

Residential - Multi

Apartment

220

6.1

0.16

0.39

0.55

0.41

0.26

0.67

Motel

320

Rms

5.6

0.17

0.27

0.44

0.30

0.26

0.56

Commercial

General Office

710

ksf

11.0

1.37

0.19

1.56

0.25

1.24

1.49

Retail

Shopping Center

820

ksf

42.7

0.60

0.36

0.96

1.78

1.93

3.71

Auto Dealership

New Car Sales

841

ksf

32.3

1.22

1.00

2.22

1.32

1.48

2.80

942

ksf

23.7

1.49

0.77

2.25

1.49

1.62

3.11

Auto Repair Automobile Care Center Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012

Total

PM Peak Hour In

Out

Total

It is also important to note that while these trip generation rates might accurately reflect more traditional suburban residential design, they may lose accuracy as the amount of higher-density, mixed-use and multimodal development increases. Recent literature suggests that trip generation rates from the ITE manual can dramatically overstate the number of trips in locations such as the San Francisco Bay Area. This is based on the fact that these trip generation numbers are highly aggregated and, many times, based on more suburban locations throughout the United States (Schneider, Shafizadeh and Handy 2012).3 Given this, it is possible that future scenarios may tend to over state trips using ITE rates. Although we make no attempt to adjust these rates, since there is not a strong mixed-use or transit connected component of the proposed corridor land uses at this time, it may be important to consider this as the planning for the area evolves. Potential resources in these efforts can be found in publications by Handy (2014),4 Ewing et al (2011)5 and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 6846.

Schneider, R., K. Shafizadeh & S. Handy (2012). Methodology for Adjusting ITE Trip Generation Estimates for Smart-Growth Projects. Transportation Research Record http://downloads.ice.ucdavis.edu/ultrans/smartgrowthtripgen/Appendix_F_Adjustment_Method.pdf 4

Schneider, R., K. Shafizadeh, & S. Handy (2014). TRB Innovations in Travel Modeling Conference. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conferences/2014/ITM/Presentations/Tuesday/OldDatawithaNewTwist/Sch neider.pdf 5

Ewing, Reid, Michael Greenwald, Ming Zhang, Jerry Walters, et. al., Traffic Generated by Mixed-Use Developments

– A Six-Region Study Using Built Environmental Measures, Journal of Urban Planning & Development (2011)

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000068. 6 NCHRP 684, Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments (2011) http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_684.pdf.

Traffic Volumes Table 2 shows the anticipated daily traffic volumes for the corridor given the proposed land uses. Table 3 compliments this by providing AM and PM peak estimates. As can be seen by the tables, Scenarios 1 and 2 both provide for fewer trips generated than the existing uses. Retail is the most trip-intensive land use, followed by auto sales and care centers. Residential Scenario 1 represents the least intensive option and a dramatic drop in daily trips as compared to the baseline. Residential Scenario 2 decreases the number of trips by roughly 7700 trips daily, however, as the tables show, it could result in an increase in cars on the road during peak hours if considerations are not made to reduce the driving habits of future residents in this area. This presents an opportunity for an increased focus on biking, walking and transportation demand management programs in these future residential developments. Such a strategy could reduce peak roadway demand during peak hours and minimize the need for longterm roadway expansion. This is especially important to consider given the overall drop in ADT and future advances in technology (networked transportation, autonomous vehicles, etc.) which may reduce the rightof-way needs for roadways. Table 2: Average Daily Trips

Daily Trips Existing

Single Family

Apartment

Office (PG&E)

Motel

Shopping Center

New Car Sales

Auto Care Center

747

3217

17601

Residential 1

2780

2497

5277

Residential 2

1112

999

17609

12931

32651

1 2

10216

8496

Total

40327

Existing does not include 6480 SF of property dedicated as easement Residential scenarios do not support mixed-use or transit reductions

Table 3: Average AM / PM Peak Trips Single Family Baseline / Existing

Daily Trips AM Hour PM Peak

Residential Scenario 1

Residential Scenario 2

Apartment

Office (PG&E)

Motel

Shopping Center

New Car Sales

Auto Care Center

Total

747.02

3217

17601

10216

8496

40327

0.75

3.06

52.48

492

381

607

806

2342

3.72

47.56

443

1599

829

1114

4037

2780

2497

5277

AM Hour

219

191

410

PM Peak

292

233

525

Daily Trips

1112

999

17609

12931

32651

AM Hour

1047

1227

2438

PM Peak

117

1428

1695

3334

Summary & Conclusions Given the analysis conducted as a part of this assessment we find that the alternatives can be summarized according to Table 4. Table 4: Trip Generation Summary By Use

Land Use Residential: Single-Family Residential: Multi-Family Commercial: Vehicle Services: Auto Sales/Rental Commercial: Vehicle Services: Auto Repair Garage and Parts Sales Commercial: Non-Vehicle Services Lodging: Motel Other: Easement Other: PG&E Total

Residential Scenario 1

Baseline

Residential Scenario 2

2780

1112

40 10216

2497 0

999 17609

8496

12931

17601

747

3217

40327

5277

32651

Based on this we conclude the following:

1. Both development scenarios would result in a net reduction of trips generated in the corridor area as compared to the existing situation / baseline. 2. Residential Scenario 1 represents the highest reduction and lowest impact from a trip generation standpoint. Residential uses generate far fewer trips than retail and auto uses on a daily basis. 3. Residential Scenario 2 would reduce the number of trips modestly as compared to the baseline, but may slightly increase the total number of peak hour trips unless mitigated by transportation demand management efforts. In sum, there would be only minimal transportation impacts of residential conversions in the First Street Corridor area, and with appropriate focus on multimodal accessibility and investment in transportation demand management / infrastructure these minor impacts would likely be mitigated.

APPENDIX F: STAKEHOLDER SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Stakeholder Interview Form Livermore First Street Corridor General Plan Land Use Study – Community Input Analysis 1.1

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

The purpose of the stakeholder interviews is to better understand the current conditions of the area, confirm and qualify business/property owner activities and their future intentions, and identify and clarify issues that may arise from the potential land use conversion. Input from the stakeholder interviews will be used to inform further research, and confirm and qualify preliminary findings from the other areas of analysis with local knowledge. Stakeholder interviews consist of two parts: 1. Introduction: The interviewer explains the purpose of the interview, that participation is completely voluntary, and confirms stakeholder information. 2. Dialogue: The interviewer asks the stakeholder a series of open-ended questions which enable the respondent to drive the interview process in a conversational manner and provide an “insider’s” perspective of the issue. Maps and other visual aids will be present to aid the discussion and record location-specific input.

Interview Script and Answers: I. Thank the respondent, express that the interview is completely voluntary, and confirm the following information: 1. Name: 2. Bold: Property Owner | Business Owner 3. Business/property name: 4. Business/property located: 5. Type of business/land use at the property: Storage and automotive use. 6. Length of time business/land use has been active: 18 plus years II. Introduce the First Street Corridor Land Use Study and purpose of the interview. The Study: The City of Livermore hired Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. to prepare a study that assesses the degree to which, if any, the First Street Corridor (First Street between Trevarno Road and Scott Street) may be feasibly converted from commercial use to residential use. The City has made no decision

lisawiseconsulting.com | 983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | 805.595 .1345

to change current land uses on these properties, and is undertaking this study solely to better understand the feasibility and potential impacts of introducing residential uses to the area. Purpose of the Interview: The City wants to learn from your experience with and understanding of the area and gather your input on the highest priority issues. EMPHASIZE THAT CITY WANTS TO TAKE A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT THE AREA AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS BEFORE CONSIDERING CHANGING LAND USES. III. Following the introduction, the interviewer will engage the stakeholder in a series of questions designed to foster an open dialogue and productive conversation. These questions may include: 7. What characteristics of your property and the surrounding area do you feel are the most positive? 8. What characteristics of your property and the surrounding area do you feel are the most problematic? 9. What changes or improvements do you intend to make to your property/business in the next few years? 10. What changes or improvements would you make to your property or business, but are currently unable to perform? 11. What are your long term plans for your property and/or business? 12. Would you benefit from the allowance of other land uses on your property? 13. What other uses on your property would benefit you?â&#x20AC;? 14. What other land uses or businesses do you see working in the 1st Street Corridor area? 15. What issues would you envision if residential land was allowed in the area? 16. What type of residential buildings do you think would be successful (low density/high density)? 17. What is your rent? If you are not comfortable stating an approximate figure, would you mind telling us if it is less or more than the $6.60/Sq.Ft./Year City-wide average for leased commercial industrial space? (triple net - which mean tenant pays for everything - utilities, exterior maintenance, taxes, etc.) 18. Who are your customers? Where do they come from? 19. Where would you relocate to if not in your current location? 20. Is your business growing/shrinking/staying-the-same?

lisawiseconsulting.com | 983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | 805.595 .1345

APPENDIX G: EXISTING BUSINESSES AND LAND USES IN THE STUDY AREA

Business Name

Specific Business Use

Land Use Type

Tire Mart & Auto Express