http://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Admin&feedformat=atomCitizens For Balanced Growth Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T07:33:27ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.26.2http://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=The_Rules&diff=459The Rules2018-10-07T19:41:28Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
Our humble local wiki relies on your participation to add/edit content, and we generally expect the dynamics of conduct to parallel that of the great Wikipedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia editing, there are two areas where we operate a little differently.<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
'''<big>1. Original Research</big>''' Some of the subject matter we want to encourage may be so unique that only the editor knows the information. We would rather have key facts than not, with appropriate restraint, so if you know it you can include it.<br />
<br /><br />
'''<big>2. Citations</big>''' We encourage citations, and we also are aware that it can sometimes be a challenge for our population to utilize them ubiquitously (as would be customary for world wide contributors of Wikipedia). We'll bend that rule, and also allow external inline linking for simplicity.<br /><br />
<br />
'''<big>Our Focus is Environmental</big>''' Our Main page describes our mission. CBG wiki is not a lifestyle, arts, entertainment, or blog or general history site. We strive to be a helpful repository of environmentally relevant educational data.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, we operate pretty much like Wikipedia and you can read our modified version of their rules below. The "five pillars" are the most important, especially regarding neutral tone.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 1.''' Register an account==<br />
Although any visitor can edit CBG wiki, creating a user account offers a number of benefits. Firstly, it offers you privacy and security. Though counterintuitive, editors registered under a pseudonymous username actually have greater anonymity than those who edit “anonymously”. A few of us have chosen to associate our accounts with our [[WP:REALNAME|real identities]]. Should you choose to forgo pseudonymity on CBG wiki, your entire editing history will be open to indefinite scrutiny by curious Web searchers, including future colleagues, students, or employers. Do not forget this.<br />
As in academic circles, a good reputation helps your wiki career. By logging in you can build a record of good edits, and it is easier to communicate and collaborate with others if you have a fixed, reputable identity. Finally, registering an account provides access to enhanced editing features, including a “[[WP:WATCHLIST|watchlist]]” for monitoring articles you have edited previously as well as the ability to create new articles.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 2.''' Learn the five pillars==<br />
There are some broad principles—known as the “[[WP:5P|five pillars]]”—all editors are expected to adhere to when contributing to CBG wiki. Perhaps most important for scientists is the appreciation that CBG wiki is not a publisher of [[CBG wiki:OR|original thought or research]]. Accordingly, it is not an appropriate venue to promote your pet theory or share unpublished results. It is also not a [[WP:SOAPBOX|soapbox]] on which to expound your personal theories or a battleground to debate controversial issues. In this respect, CBG wiki fundamentally differs from other types of new media, such as blogs, that encourage editorializing.<br />
Contributing to CBG wiki is something to enjoy; a natural extension of your enthusiasm for science. But differences of opinion inevitably arise, particularly on pages provided for discussion on how to improve articles. Treat other editors as collaborators and maintain a [[WP:CIVIL|respectful and civil manner]], even in disagreement. If you begin to find a particular interaction stressful, simply log off and come back another time. Unlike most scientific enterprises, CBG wiki has [[WP:There is no deadline|no deadlines]].<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 3.''' Be bold, but not reckless==<br />
The survival and growth of any wiki requires participation. CBG wiki is small, nda its continuing success depends on the regular contributions of volunteers. Therefore, CBG wiki urges all users to [[WP:BOLD|be bold]]: if you spot an error, correct it. If you can improve an article, please do so. It is important, however, to distinguish boldness from recklessness. Start off small. Begin by making minor modifications to existing articles before attempting a complete rewrite of ''[[History of science]]''.<br />
Many new editors feel intimidated about contributing to CBG wiki at first, fearing they may make a [[CBG wiki:Avoiding common mistakes|mistake]]. Such reticence is understandable but unfounded. The worst that can happen is that your first edits are deemed not to be an improvement and they get [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]. If this does occur, treat it as a positive learning experience and [[Help:Using talk pages|ask]] the reverting editor for advice.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 4.''' Know your audience==<br />
CBG wiki is not primarily [[WP:AUDIENCE|aimed]] at experts; therefore, the level of [[CBG wiki:Make technical articles understandable|technical detail]] in its articles must be balanced against the ability of non-experts to understand those details. When contributing scientific content, imagine you have been tasked with writing a comprehensive scientific review for a high school audience. It can be surprisingly challenging explaining complex ideas in an accessible, jargon-free manner. But it is worth the perseverance. You will reap the benefits when it comes to writing your next manuscript or teaching an undergraduate class.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 5.''' Do not infringe copyright==<br />
With certain conditions, almost all of CBG wiki's content is [[Open content|free]] for anyone to reuse, adapt, and distribute. Consequently, it does not accept [[CBG wiki:Non-free content|non-free material]] under copyright restriction. Some journals, including those from the [[Public Library of Science]], publish material under an open-access license that is compatible with use in CBG wiki if properly attributed. Most do not. Therefore, although it may be tempting, avoid copying text or figures from your latest review article (or anyone else's) into CBG wiki. It will quickly be identified as a [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright violation]] and flagged for [[WP:CSD|immediate deletion]].<br />
You can give CBG wiki [[CBG wiki:Donating copyrighted materials|permission]] to use material you own, but this process is non-reversible and can be time consuming. It is often better to [[CBG wiki:Close paraphrasing|rewrite the text]] in simpler language or redraw the figure to make it more accessible. This will also ensure it is more suitable for CBG wiki's non-expert readership (see Rule 4).<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 6.''' Cite, cite, cite==<br />
To maintain the highest standards possible, CBG wiki encourages verifiability. This is best established by [[CBG wiki:Citing sources|attributing]] each statement in CBG wiki to a [[WP:IRS|reliable, published source]] (but see Rules 7 and 8 on excessive self-citing). Most scientists are in the fortunate position of having access to a wide body of literature, and experience in using [[CBG wiki:Inline citation|inline citations]] to support their writing. Since unverified content may be removed from CBG wiki at any time, provide supporting citations for every statement that might be challenged by another editor at some point in the future. Whenever possible, give preference to [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]] (such as reviews or book chapters) that survey the relevant primary research over research articles themselves.<br />
CBG wiki's accessibility makes each of its scientific articles an excellent entry point for laypeople seeking specialist information. By also providing direct [[CBG wiki:Manual of Style (linking)|hyperlinks]] to reliable, freely accessible online resources with your citations (biological databases or open-access journals, for example), other editors can quickly verify your content and readers have immediate access to authoritative sources that address the subject in greater detail.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 7.''' Avoid shameless self-promotion==<br />
Many people are tempted to write or edit CBG wiki articles [[WP:AUTOBIO|about themselves]]. Resist that urge. If you are sufficiently [[WP:BIO|notable]] to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia, eventually someone else will write an article about you. Remember that unlike a personal Web page, your CBG wiki biography is [[WP:OWN|not yours to control]]. A lovingly crafted hagiography extolling your many virtues can rapidly accumulate information you would rather not be publicized. You may already have a CBG wiki biography, but it contains factual inaccuracies that you wish to correct. How do you do this without breaking the rules? CBG wiki's guidelines encourage you to provide information about yourself on the associated discussion page, but please permit other editors to add it to the article itself.<br />
Think twice, also, before writing about [[CBG wiki:List of bad article ideas|your mentors, colleagues, competitors, inventions, or projects]]. Doing so places you in a [[CBG wiki:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]] and inclines you towards unintentional bias. If you have a personal or financial interest in the subject of any article you choose to edit, declare it on the associated discussion page and heed the advice of other editors who can offer a more objective perspective.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 8.''' Share your expertise, but don't argue from authority==<br />
Writing about a subject about which you have academic expertise is not a [[CBG wiki:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]]; indeed, this is where we can contribute to CBG wiki most effectively. [[Jimmy Wales]], co-founder of CBG wiki, told ''Nature'' that experts have the ability to “write specifics in a nuanced way”, thereby significantly improving article quality.<ref name=giles/> When writing in your area of expertise, referencing material you have published in peer-reviewed journals is permitted if it is genuinely notable, but use common sense (and revisit Rule 7). For example, if you have an obscure, never-been-cited article in the ''Journal of New Zealand Dairy Research'' discussing the RNA content of cow milk, then referencing this in the introductory paragraph of the CBG wiki articles on “[[RNA]]”, “[[Milk]]”, “[[Cow]]”, and “[[Evolution of mammals]]” is not a good idea.<br />
Occasionally you may interact with another editor who clearly does not share your expertise on the subject of an article. This can often prove frustrating for experts and is the basis of much academic angst on CBG wiki.<ref name=giles/> On such occasions, remember that you are assessed only on your contributions to CBG wiki, not who you are, [[CBG wiki:There is no credential policy|your qualifications]], or what you have achieved in your career. Your specialist knowledge should enable you to write in a neutral manner and produce reliable, independent sources to support each assertion you make. If you do not provide verification, your contributions will be rightly challenged irrespective of how many degrees you hold.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 9.''' Write neutrally and with due weight==<br />
All articles in CBG wiki should be [[WP:NPOV|impartial in tone and content]]. When writing, do state facts and facts about notable opinions, but do not offer your opinion as fact. Many newcomers to CBG wiki gravitate to articles on controversial issues about which people hold strong opposing viewpoints. Avoid these until familiar with CBG wiki's policies (see Rule 3), and instead focus on articles that are much easier to remain dispassionate about.<br />
Many scientists who contribute to CBG wiki fail to appreciate that a neutral point of view is not the same as the mainstream scientific point of view. When writing about complex issues, try to cover all significant viewpoints and afford each with [[WP:UNDUE|due weight]], but not equal weight. For example, an article on a scientific controversy should describe both the [[Scientific consensus|scientific consensus]] and significant [[CBG wiki:Fringe theories|fringe theories]], but not in the same depth or in a manner suggesting these viewpoints are equally held.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 10.''' Ask for help==<br />
CBG wiki can be a confusing place for the [[CBG wiki:New contributors' help page|inexperienced editor]]. Learning [[WP:MARKUP|Wiki markup]]—the syntax that instructs the software how to render the page—may appear daunting at first, though the recent implementation of a new [[CBG wiki:Toolbars|editing toolbar]] has made this easier, and [[Usability:Main Page|usability development]] is ongoing.</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=The_Rules&diff=458The Rules2018-10-07T19:38:56Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
Our humble local wiki relies on your participation to add/edit content, and we generally expect the dynamics of conduct to parallel that of the great Wikipedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia editing, there are two areas where we operate a little differently.<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
'''<big>1. Original Research</big>''' Some of the subject matter we want to encourage may be so unique that only the editor knows the information. We would rather have key facts than not, with appropriate restraint, so if you know it you can include it.<br />
<br /><br />
'''<big>2. Citations</big>''' We encourage citations, and we also are aware that it can sometimes be a challenge for our population to utilize them ubiquitously, like the world wide contributors of Wikipedia. We'll bend that rule, and also allow external inline linking for simplicity.<br /><br />
<br />
'''<big>Our Focus is Environmental</big>''' Our Main page describes our mission. CBG wiki is not a lifestyle, arts, entertainment, or blog or general history site. We strive to be a helpful repository of environmentally relevant educational data.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, we operate pretty much like Wikipedia and you can read our modified version of their rules below. The "five pillars" are the most important, especially regarding neutral tone.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 1.''' Register an account==<br />
Although any visitor can edit CBG wiki, creating a user account offers a number of benefits. Firstly, it offers you privacy and security. Though counterintuitive, editors registered under a pseudonymous username actually have greater anonymity than those who edit “anonymously”. A few of us have chosen to associate our accounts with our [[WP:REALNAME|real identities]]. Should you choose to forgo pseudonymity on CBG wiki, your entire editing history will be open to indefinite scrutiny by curious Web searchers, including future colleagues, students, or employers. Do not forget this.<br />
As in academic circles, a good reputation helps your wiki career. By logging in you can build a record of good edits, and it is easier to communicate and collaborate with others if you have a fixed, reputable identity. Finally, registering an account provides access to enhanced editing features, including a “[[WP:WATCHLIST|watchlist]]” for monitoring articles you have edited previously as well as the ability to create new articles.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 2.''' Learn the five pillars==<br />
There are some broad principles—known as the “[[WP:5P|five pillars]]”—all editors are expected to adhere to when contributing to CBG wiki. Perhaps most important for scientists is the appreciation that CBG wiki is not a publisher of [[CBG wiki:OR|original thought or research]]. Accordingly, it is not an appropriate venue to promote your pet theory or share unpublished results. It is also not a [[WP:SOAPBOX|soapbox]] on which to expound your personal theories or a battleground to debate controversial issues. In this respect, CBG wiki fundamentally differs from other types of new media, such as blogs, that encourage editorializing.<br />
Contributing to CBG wiki is something to enjoy; a natural extension of your enthusiasm for science. But differences of opinion inevitably arise, particularly on pages provided for discussion on how to improve articles. Treat other editors as collaborators and maintain a [[WP:CIVIL|respectful and civil manner]], even in disagreement. If you begin to find a particular interaction stressful, simply log off and come back another time. Unlike most scientific enterprises, CBG wiki has [[WP:There is no deadline|no deadlines]].<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 3.''' Be bold, but not reckless==<br />
The survival and growth of any wiki requires participation. CBG wiki is small, nda its continuing success depends on the regular contributions of volunteers. Therefore, CBG wiki urges all users to [[WP:BOLD|be bold]]: if you spot an error, correct it. If you can improve an article, please do so. It is important, however, to distinguish boldness from recklessness. Start off small. Begin by making minor modifications to existing articles before attempting a complete rewrite of ''[[History of science]]''.<br />
Many new editors feel intimidated about contributing to CBG wiki at first, fearing they may make a [[CBG wiki:Avoiding common mistakes|mistake]]. Such reticence is understandable but unfounded. The worst that can happen is that your first edits are deemed not to be an improvement and they get [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]. If this does occur, treat it as a positive learning experience and [[Help:Using talk pages|ask]] the reverting editor for advice.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 4.''' Know your audience==<br />
CBG wiki is not primarily [[WP:AUDIENCE|aimed]] at experts; therefore, the level of [[CBG wiki:Make technical articles understandable|technical detail]] in its articles must be balanced against the ability of non-experts to understand those details. When contributing scientific content, imagine you have been tasked with writing a comprehensive scientific review for a high school audience. It can be surprisingly challenging explaining complex ideas in an accessible, jargon-free manner. But it is worth the perseverance. You will reap the benefits when it comes to writing your next manuscript or teaching an undergraduate class.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 5.''' Do not infringe copyright==<br />
With certain conditions, almost all of CBG wiki's content is [[Open content|free]] for anyone to reuse, adapt, and distribute. Consequently, it does not accept [[CBG wiki:Non-free content|non-free material]] under copyright restriction. Some journals, including those from the [[Public Library of Science]], publish material under an open-access license that is compatible with use in CBG wiki if properly attributed. Most do not. Therefore, although it may be tempting, avoid copying text or figures from your latest review article (or anyone else's) into CBG wiki. It will quickly be identified as a [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright violation]] and flagged for [[WP:CSD|immediate deletion]].<br />
You can give CBG wiki [[CBG wiki:Donating copyrighted materials|permission]] to use material you own, but this process is non-reversible and can be time consuming. It is often better to [[CBG wiki:Close paraphrasing|rewrite the text]] in simpler language or redraw the figure to make it more accessible. This will also ensure it is more suitable for CBG wiki's non-expert readership (see Rule 4).<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 6.''' Cite, cite, cite==<br />
To maintain the highest standards possible, CBG wiki encourages verifiability. This is best established by [[CBG wiki:Citing sources|attributing]] each statement in CBG wiki to a [[WP:IRS|reliable, published source]] (but see Rules 7 and 8 on excessive self-citing). Most scientists are in the fortunate position of having access to a wide body of literature, and experience in using [[CBG wiki:Inline citation|inline citations]] to support their writing. Since unverified content may be removed from CBG wiki at any time, provide supporting citations for every statement that might be challenged by another editor at some point in the future. Whenever possible, give preference to [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]] (such as reviews or book chapters) that survey the relevant primary research over research articles themselves.<br />
CBG wiki's accessibility makes each of its scientific articles an excellent entry point for laypeople seeking specialist information. By also providing direct [[CBG wiki:Manual of Style (linking)|hyperlinks]] to reliable, freely accessible online resources with your citations (biological databases or open-access journals, for example), other editors can quickly verify your content and readers have immediate access to authoritative sources that address the subject in greater detail.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 7.''' Avoid shameless self-promotion==<br />
Many people are tempted to write or edit CBG wiki articles [[WP:AUTOBIO|about themselves]]. Resist that urge. If you are sufficiently [[WP:BIO|notable]] to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia, eventually someone else will write an article about you. Remember that unlike a personal Web page, your CBG wiki biography is [[WP:OWN|not yours to control]]. A lovingly crafted hagiography extolling your many virtues can rapidly accumulate information you would rather not be publicized. You may already have a CBG wiki biography, but it contains factual inaccuracies that you wish to correct. How do you do this without breaking the rules? CBG wiki's guidelines encourage you to provide information about yourself on the associated discussion page, but please permit other editors to add it to the article itself.<br />
Think twice, also, before writing about [[CBG wiki:List of bad article ideas|your mentors, colleagues, competitors, inventions, or projects]]. Doing so places you in a [[CBG wiki:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]] and inclines you towards unintentional bias. If you have a personal or financial interest in the subject of any article you choose to edit, declare it on the associated discussion page and heed the advice of other editors who can offer a more objective perspective.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 8.''' Share your expertise, but don't argue from authority==<br />
Writing about a subject about which you have academic expertise is not a [[CBG wiki:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]]; indeed, this is where we can contribute to CBG wiki most effectively. [[Jimmy Wales]], co-founder of CBG wiki, told ''Nature'' that experts have the ability to “write specifics in a nuanced way”, thereby significantly improving article quality.<ref name=giles/> When writing in your area of expertise, referencing material you have published in peer-reviewed journals is permitted if it is genuinely notable, but use common sense (and revisit Rule 7). For example, if you have an obscure, never-been-cited article in the ''Journal of New Zealand Dairy Research'' discussing the RNA content of cow milk, then referencing this in the introductory paragraph of the CBG wiki articles on “[[RNA]]”, “[[Milk]]”, “[[Cow]]”, and “[[Evolution of mammals]]” is not a good idea.<br />
Occasionally you may interact with another editor who clearly does not share your expertise on the subject of an article. This can often prove frustrating for experts and is the basis of much academic angst on CBG wiki.<ref name=giles/> On such occasions, remember that you are assessed only on your contributions to CBG wiki, not who you are, [[CBG wiki:There is no credential policy|your qualifications]], or what you have achieved in your career. Your specialist knowledge should enable you to write in a neutral manner and produce reliable, independent sources to support each assertion you make. If you do not provide verification, your contributions will be rightly challenged irrespective of how many degrees you hold.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 9.''' Write neutrally and with due weight==<br />
All articles in CBG wiki should be [[WP:NPOV|impartial in tone and content]]. When writing, do state facts and facts about notable opinions, but do not offer your opinion as fact. Many newcomers to CBG wiki gravitate to articles on controversial issues about which people hold strong opposing viewpoints. Avoid these until familiar with CBG wiki's policies (see Rule 3), and instead focus on articles that are much easier to remain dispassionate about.<br />
Many scientists who contribute to CBG wiki fail to appreciate that a neutral point of view is not the same as the mainstream scientific point of view. When writing about complex issues, try to cover all significant viewpoints and afford each with [[WP:UNDUE|due weight]], but not equal weight. For example, an article on a scientific controversy should describe both the [[Scientific consensus|scientific consensus]] and significant [[CBG wiki:Fringe theories|fringe theories]], but not in the same depth or in a manner suggesting these viewpoints are equally held.<br />
<br />
=='''Rule 10.''' Ask for help==<br />
CBG wiki can be a confusing place for the [[CBG wiki:New contributors' help page|inexperienced editor]]. Learning [[WP:MARKUP|Wiki markup]]—the syntax that instructs the software how to render the page—may appear daunting at first, though the recent implementation of a new [[CBG wiki:Toolbars|editing toolbar]] has made this easier, and [[Usability:Main Page|usability development]] is ongoing.</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=447Main Page2018-10-03T05:12:52Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome to the [http://citizensforbalancedgrowth.org Citizens for Balanced Growth] Educational Wiki.'''<br />
<br />
The purpose of this wiki is to provide an educational resource for community growth and development issues in the Tri-Valley (Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, Sunol). This project is intended to support the activities or our 501(c)(3) organization per our bylaws:<br />
"To promote growth appropriate for available water and sewer capacities; To promote a balance of residences and jobs in the Livermore-Amador Valley; To preserve agriculture as a viable industry; To reduce pollution of air and water for a healthful environment; To keep the crime rate down; To keep traffic congestion down; and to urge Valley agencies to work together in planning Valley growth."<br />
<br />
Because of rampant vandalism, we don't offer anonymous editing or automatic account creation anymore. [mailto:info@citizensforbalancedgrowth.org '''On request'''], we are happy to create one for you (and you are encouraged to ask!) Account holders can add pages and make edits for any content you consider relevant to these goals. To start a new page, search for the topic in the search box at the upper right. If your page cannot be found, click the red text to compose the page. <br />
<br />
Check out [[The Rules]]. With your help, these entries (pages) will remain useful and informative for years to come. <br />
<br />
= List of existing pages - please edit at will! =<br />
{{Special:AllPages}}</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=446Main Page2018-10-03T05:11:12Z<p>Admin: email address</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome to the [http://citizensforbalancedgrowth.org Citizens for Balanced Growth] Educational Wiki.'''<br />
<br />
The purpose of this wiki is to provide an educational resource for community growth and development issues in the Tri-Valley (Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, Sunol). This project is intended to support the activities or our 501(c)(3) organization per our bylaws:<br />
"To promote growth appropriate for available water and sewer capacities; To promote a balance of residences and jobs in the Livermore-Amador Valley; To preserve agriculture as a viable industry; To reduce pollution of air and water for a healthful environment; To keep the crime rate down; To keep traffic congestion down; and to urge Valley agencies to work together in planning Valley growth."<br />
<br />
Because of rampant vandalism, we don't offer anonymous editing or automatic account creation anymore. [http://mailto:info@citizensforbalancedgrowth.org '''On request'''], we are happy to create one for you (and you are encouraged to ask!) Account holders can add pages and make edits for any content you consider relevant to these goals. To start a new page, search for the topic in the search box at the upper right. If your page cannot be found, click the red text to compose the page. <br />
<br />
Check out [[The Rules]]. With your help, these entries (pages) will remain useful and informative for years to come. <br />
<br />
= List of existing pages - please edit at will! =<br />
{{Special:AllPages}}</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Isabel_Residential_Rezoning/_Isabel_Neighborhood_Plan_(aborted)&diff=396Isabel Residential Rezoning/ Isabel Neighborhood Plan (aborted)2018-06-25T23:53:09Z<p>Admin: cancelled when bart voted down</p>
<hr />
<div><i><b>This rezoning plan was cancelled in May 2018 when BART rejected the extension.</b></i><br />
== Purpose ==<br />
As a precondition of partially funding [[BART to Livermore at Isabel]] the MTC requires dense urban development near the proposed station in the I-580 median at the Isabel Avenue interchange. Since MTC is offering no specifics about the needed urbanization, the City Council has decided to fund and manage the effort to develop a plan they hope would satisfy the MTC. This rezoning plan will be abandoned if BART is not built first. Lacking BART, the existing zoning will remain unchanged.<br />
<br />
== Process ==<br />
The City has completed the first two phases of the planning process: Visioning and Alternatives. The planning team has developed a Draft Preferred Plan, based on public feedback and direction from City Council.<br />
<br />
The planning team hosted an Open House on June 28 to share the Draft Preferred Plan, answer questions, and get feedback from the public. Staff then presented the Draft Preferred Plan to the Planning Commission on July 5 (staff report). A follow-up meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:30. Next, staff is scheduled to present the Draft Preferred Plan to City Council on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00. Both meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 3575 Pacific Avenue. Based on City Council direction, the project team will then prepare the remaining details of the plan and begin preparing the Environmental Impact Report, with the goal of releasing the documents for public review by the end of 2016.<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan area (also referred to as the “Plan Area”) covers approximately 1,132 acres. It surrounds the proposed Isabel BART station platform within the I-580 median. Most of the Plan Area is north of the freeway. The entire Plan Area is within the City’s adopted Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Plan Area is also within the City limits, except for an unincorporated 21-acre property on Airway Boulevard.<br />
<br />
Major existing uses within the Plan Area include: Las Positas College, Costco, Cayetano Park, Airway and North Canyons Business Parks, and existing residential developments such as Shea Montage, Copper Hill, and Vineyard Terrace. The City selected the Isabel interchange over other possible station locations along I-580 because of the Plan Area’s accessibility, proximity to existing development, and presence of vacant land within the UGB that provides an opportunity for transit-supportive development.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Neighborhood Plan Project Goals ==<br />
<br />
The purpose of this land use planning process is to prepare an Isabel Neighborhood Plan that will meet the needs of the Livermore community, support City and community goals, and complement BART’s proposed extension to Livermore. The ultimate goal is to create a safe, vibrant neighborhood that complements the transit extension, positions Livermore to obtain its fair share of regional transportation funds, '''and improves our quality of life.'''<br />
<br />
More specifically, the City would like the land use planning process to accomplish the following objectives:<br />
<br />
'''''City stated goals:'''''<br />
* Involve a wide range of stakeholders and community members in the planning process.<br />
*Use a variety of engagement methods and communication tools for exchanging information and obtaining meaningful input.<br />
*Identify and build upon opportunities for new development within the Plan area.<br />
*Establish appropriate residential types to facilitate the development of housing that is attractive to a range of ages, from young professionals to empty nesters, and affordable to a range of incomes.<br />
*Establish office uses to support development of local professional and technical jobs.<br />
*Establish commercial uses to provide convenient grocery and other neighborhood services.<br />
*Encourage ridership on the BART system through transit-supportive features such as bikeway improvements to comply with regional transit expansion policies and maximize the environmental benefits of the project.<br />
*Enhance the connectivity of the transportation network within the Plan Area.<br />
*Address parking supply/demand, infrastructure constraints, and the compatibility of new and existing land uses.<br />
*Complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that identifies potential environmental impacts (traffic, parking, noise, etc.) and includes appropriate mitigation measures to address these impacts, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).<br />
*Consider innovative financing mechanisms to implement the Isabel Neighborhood Plan.<br /><br />
Not mentioned as a goal: the reduction of traffic congestion<br />
<br />
== Plan Components ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will establish a new framework for guiding development of the area surrounding the proposed BART station. The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will include the following components:<br />
<br />
land use designations;<br />
minimum and maximum development capacities;<br />
design standards and guidelines;<br />
circulation and access improvements (i.e., streets, sidewalks and trails);<br />
other improvements to public infrastructure (utilities, parks, etc.); and<br />
an implementation plan and financing strategy.<br />
If adopted, the land use regulations established in the Neighborhood Plan will replace the existing General Plan land use designations and zoning standards regulating the development of properties in this area.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Neighborhood Plan Process ==<br />
<br />
City staff is working with a consultant team led by the firm Dyett & Bhatia to complete the land use planning process. The process generally includes the following stages, of which the first two have been completed:<br />
<br />
*Community Visioning<br />
*Alternative Land Use/Circulation Scenarios<br />
*Preferred Plan<br />
*Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)<br />
*Adoption of the Isabel Neighborhood Plan<br />
<br /><br />
Visioning: The first stage of planning involved getting input from a range of stakeholders, including the community at large, to discuss priorities for the Isabel Neighborhood and establish a vision for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan area. This phase was conducted in 2015. The City’s planning team talked to over 600 people at over 40 events, including focus groups, interviews, neighborhood meetings, tables at city events, and presentations to community groups. Input from stakeholders was compiled into a Vision for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan. Click here for a summary of the Visioning phase of outreach.<br />
<br />
This stage also included compiling detailed information on existing conditions within the planning area (click here for the Existing Conditions Report).<br />
<br />
Alternatives: Based on community feedback and the analysis of existing conditions, the planning team developed three land use and circulation Alternatives to reflect the Vision for the Isabel Neighborhood, focusing on the half mile radius around the station.<br />
<br />
On November 12, 2015, the City hosted a citywide public workshop at the Elks Lodge in Livermore to get input on the Alternative concepts. The workshop included a presentation by the planning team and small group discussions. About 130 community members attended and provided great feedback! In addition, over 1,000 people responded to an online survey on the Alternatives.<br />
<br />
Planning Commission discussed the three Alternative land use/circulation scenarios at their regular meeting on Tuesday, February 2 2016. The City Council discussed the Alternatives and provided direction on the development of a Preferred Plan at a special meeting on Monday, February 29, 2016. Click here for the staff report and meeting minutes.<br />
<br />
Preferred Plan: Based on community input and direction from the Livermore City Council, the team prepared a Draft Preferred Plan, based on Alternative 1 (Main Street) with some modifications. The team presented the Draft Preferred Plan to the public at an Open House on June 28, 2016 and to the City's Planning Commission on July 5, 2016.<br />
<br />
A follow-up meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:30. Next, staff is scheduled to present the Draft Preferred Plan to City Council on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00. Both meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 3575 Pacific Avenue.<br />
<br />
== Next Steps: ==<br />
<br />
After getting feedback on the Draft Preferred Plan, the City and consultant team will complete the remaining details of the Neighborhood Plan and prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to analyze the potential impacts of the Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA process and EIR Scoping period are described further below.<br />
<br />
The City anticipates releasing the Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan and Draft EIR in late 2016 or early 2017. It is anticipated that the City Council will make a final decision on the Draft EIR and Isabel Neighborhood Plan in spring 2017.<br />
<br />
Environmental Review Process<br />
<br />
The planning team will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of CEQA is to: provide information to the public and decision-makers about the potential for a proposed project to significantly affect the environment; prevent or reduce environmental impacts through design and mitigation measures; and enhance public participation and interagency coordination in planning and development review processes.<br />
<br />
As described in the Notice of Preparation, the EIR for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan will provide a programmatic assessment of the potential consequences of implementing the plan and its policies. Plan implementation generally includes development under the proposed land use regulations and construction of the associated public improvements. In addition to identifying potentially significant impacts, the EIR will recommend measures to mitigate those impacts. The assessment will utilize the most current CEQA guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387). There is no guarantee that this process will result in a BART extension. The BART to Livermore Extension Project will be evaluated in a separate EIR to be prepared by BART.<br />
<br />
The City hosted a Scoping Meeting on Tuesday, April 26 to collect comments regarding preparation of the EIR. Click here for the presentation on the CEQA process. The feedback received at the Scoping meeting and during the comment period will build upon input received from stakeholders to date. The public will have additional opportunities to comment throughout the planning process, including after release of the Draft EIR (anticipated for end of 2016).<br />
<br />
== Public Involvement ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will be based upon input from the community. Opportunities for direct involvement throughout the planning process include focus groups, community meetings, online surveys, and public workshops and hearings. The City provides updates on the planning process through social media and email distribution lists. Get involved today to make sure your voice is heard! Click here.<br />
<br />
The City Council and City advisory commissions will also continue to provide input at key points in the process. The City also established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of representatives from partner public agencies to coordinate the provision of public services and facilities.</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=395BART to Livermore at Isabel2018-06-25T23:46:21Z<p>Admin: update after voted down</p>
<hr />
<div>The BART Board voted not to extend eastward of the Dublin station. Just prior to the vote, two different methodologies were under consideration.<br />
<br />
==Newer Method, Assembly Bill 758==<br />
After 53 years of waiting for the BART board to make progress, [http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB758 AB 758] was crafted to wrest control of the process away from BART, the MTC and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). At the April 10 2017 Livermore City Council meeting, City staff presented the bill for discussion. It received broad support, as there was only a single vote (out of nine) of the BART board in favor of extending.[http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/04/10/livermore-council-says-bart-board-doesnt-care-backs-new-rail-authority/]. Funding was scheduled to be transferred to the new JPA on June 30 2018.<br />
<br />
==Older Method, Local Agencies==<br />
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery has been considered. It involves the need to achieve approval from three separate agencies: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the ACTC and the BART board of directors. The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station in 2026 involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The MTC is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory was considered by some as faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 1,900 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 1,900 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore may not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. <br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains run more frequently[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains]. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There are tremendous challenges associated with engineering shorter intervals since transbay timing issues can create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Discussion has begun to replace the system control mechanism and have enough trains to reduce the interval to 12 minutes. BART expects this will happen in 2023, and increase throughput by up to 30%. <br />
<br />
Greater train frequency will require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 12 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they have often declared in documents such as the August 12 2012 BART to Livermore Extension Project EIR Notice of Preparation [http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965] the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580", BART offered no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. At the time it was unclear it this was a soft admission that BART to Livermore might not actually relieve traffic problems. The reality that the BART extension will not alleviate 580 congestion was not confirmed until the the Draft EIR was released [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf]. Pages 317, 320, 326, 329, 393, 396, 398, 401 contain charts that show no improvement in 580 commute traffic flow. The cost of the EIR was $11.2 million [https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/04/10/livermore-council-says-bart-board-doesnt-care-backs-new-rail-authority]<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. Alameda County will begin building another garage with 600 spaces in October 2018. [https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/05/03/new-bart-parking-garage-approved-for-dublin-pleasanton-station-without-bart-approval/]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
In 2016, the estimate was $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget left out the 99 additional trains, which were to cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
<br />
In 2017, the project page was updated to a new cost of $1.6 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. Additional trains still need to be purchased.<br />
<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$533 Million of the 1.64 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $1.1 billion.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives] are part of the process. There is a legal requirement to do so, even if the alternatives are not being seriously considered.<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus for commuters when BART is their destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs<br />
* No significant improvement in 580 freeway commute traffic congestion</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=394Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-11-15T21:33:53Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===(4) 2016 RFP===<br />
==== "Cornerstone"====<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
<br />
==== Community Group Alternative ====<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
==== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ====<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the chosen designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown This arrangement expired with the election of a new City Council in 2016.<br />
<br />
==== Other Alternatives ====<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
=== (5) Placeworks Plan ===<br />
http://www.yourlivermore.org<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the properties. The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
==== Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund ====<br />
At some point, the Fund will be repaid the $14.5 million. For now, the fund has a healthy cash balance which has been generally growing in value:<br /><br />
* In June 2015 it had $5.8 million in working capital[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013] <br />
* In June 2016, that number had risen to $11.8 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396] <br />
* In June 2017, it was $15,011,027 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14700]<br /><br />
<br />
Assets have been accumulating primarily from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects.<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment. It is no known how long the land could remain parking lots die to the Low Income Housing financing.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=393Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-11-15T21:31:39Z<p>Admin: /* History */</p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===(4) 2016 RFP===<br />
==== "Cornerstone"====<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
<br />
==== Community Group Alternative ====<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
==== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ====<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
==== Other Alternatives ====<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
=== (5) Placeworks Plan ===<br />
http://www.yourlivermore.org<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the properties. The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
==== Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund ====<br />
At some point, the Fund will be repaid the $14.5 million. For now, the fund has a healthy cash balance which has been generally growing in value:<br /><br />
* In June 2015 it had $5.8 million in working capital[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013] <br />
* In June 2016, that number had risen to $11.8 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396] <br />
* In June 2017, it was $15,011,027 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14700]<br /><br />
<br />
Assets have been accumulating primarily from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects.<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment. It is no known how long the land could remain parking lots die to the Low Income Housing financing.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=392Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-11-15T21:30:58Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===(4) 2016 RFP===<br />
==== "Cornerstone"====<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
=== (5) Placeworks Plan ===<br />
http://www.yourlivermore.org<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the properties. The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
==== Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund ====<br />
At some point, the Fund will be repaid the $14.5 million. For now, the fund has a healthy cash balance which has been generally growing in value:<br /><br />
* In June 2015 it had $5.8 million in working capital[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013] <br />
* In June 2016, that number had risen to $11.8 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396] <br />
* In June 2017, it was $15,011,027 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14700]<br /><br />
<br />
Assets have been accumulating primarily from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects.<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment. It is no known how long the land could remain parking lots die to the Low Income Housing financing.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=391Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-11-15T21:30:31Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===(4) 2016 RFP===<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
=== (5) Placeworks Plan ===<br />
http://www.yourlivermore.org<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the properties. The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
==== Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund ====<br />
At some point, the Fund will be repaid the $14.5 million. For now, the fund has a healthy cash balance which has been generally growing in value:<br /><br />
* In June 2015 it had $5.8 million in working capital[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013] <br />
* In June 2016, that number had risen to $11.8 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396] <br />
* In June 2017, it was $15,011,027 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14700]<br /><br />
<br />
Assets have been accumulating primarily from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects.<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment. It is no known how long the land could remain parking lots die to the Low Income Housing financing.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=390Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-11-13T21:31:04Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===(4) 2016 RFP===<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
==== (5) Placeworks Plan ====<br />
http://www.yourlivermore.org<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the properties. The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
==== Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund ====<br />
At some point, the Fund will be repaid the $14.5 million. For now, the fund has a healthy cash balance which has been generally growing in value:<br /><br />
* In June 2015 it had $5.8 million in working capital[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013] <br />
* In June 2016, that number had risen to $11.8 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396] <br />
* In June 2017, it was $15,011,027 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14700]<br /><br />
<br />
Assets have been accumulating primarily from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects.<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment. It is no known how long the land could remain parking lots die to the Low Income Housing financing.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=389Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-11-13T21:30:13Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===(4) 2016 RFP===<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
==== Placeworks Plan ====<br />
http://www.yourlivermore.org<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the properties. The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
==== Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund ====<br />
At some point, the Fund will be repaid the $14.5 million. For now, the fund has a healthy cash balance which has been generally growing in value:<br /><br />
* In June 2015 it had $5.8 million in working capital[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013] <br />
* In June 2016, that number had risen to $11.8 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396] <br />
* In June 2017, it was $15,011,027 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14700]<br /><br />
<br />
Assets have been accumulating primarily from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects.<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment. It is no known how long the land could remain parking lots die to the Low Income Housing financing.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=388Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-11-13T21:27:42Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===(4) 2016 RFP===<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
http://www.yourlivermore.org<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the properties. The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
==== Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund ====<br />
At some point, the Fund will be repaid the $14.5 million. For now, the fund has a healthy cash balance which has been generally growing in value:<br /><br />
* In June 2015 it had $5.8 million in working capital[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013] <br />
* In June 2016, that number had risen to $11.8 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396] <br />
* In June 2017, it was $15,011,027 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14700]<br /><br />
<br />
Assets have been accumulating primarily from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects.<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment. It is no known how long the land could remain parking lots die to the Low Income Housing financing.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=387Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-11-13T21:25:19Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===(4) 2016 RFP===<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the properties. The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
==== Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund ====<br />
At some point, the Fund will be repaid the $14.5 million. For now, the fund has a healthy cash balance which has been generally growing in value:<br /><br />
* In June 2015 it had $5.8 million in working capital[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013] <br />
* In June 2016, that number had risen to $11.8 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396] <br />
* In June 2017, it was $15,011,027 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14700]<br /><br />
<br />
Assets have been accumulating primarily from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects.<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment. It is no known how long the land could remain parking lots die to the Low Income Housing financing.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=386Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-11-13T21:19:44Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===(4) 2016 RFP===<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the properties. The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
==== Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund ====<br />
At some point, the Fund will be be repaid. It has been growing in value:<br />
In June 2015 it had $5.8 in working capital[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013]<br />
In June 2016, that number had risen to $11.8 Million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396]<br />
In June 2017, it was $15,011,027[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14700]<br />
nd has been rapidly accumulating assets from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013].<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment. It is no known how long the land could remain parking lots die to the Low Income Housing financing.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=385Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-11-13T21:18:16Z<p>Admin: update for 2017</p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===(4) 2016 RFP===<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing- Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the properties. The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
At some point, the Fund will be be repaid. It has been growing in value:<br />
In June 2015 it had $5.8 in working capital[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013]<br />
In June 2016, that number had risen to $11.8 Million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396]<br />
In June 2017, it was $15,011,027[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14700]<br />
nd has been rapidly accumulating assets from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013].<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment. It is no known how long the land could remain parking lots die to the Low Income Housing financing.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=384Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-10-05T15:33:11Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===(4) 2016 RFP===<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing- Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the properties. The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
At some point, the Fund will be be repaid. As of June 2016 the Fund had $11.8 Million unspent[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396], and has been rapidly accumulating assets from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects. In June 2015 it had $5.8 Million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013].<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment. It is no known how long the land could remain parking lots die to the Low Income Housing financing.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=383Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-09-29T05:45:20Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===(4) 2016 RFP===<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing- Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the properties. The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
At some point, the Fund will be be repaid. As of June 2016 the Fund had $11.8 Million unspent[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396], and has been rapidly accumulating assets from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects. In June 2015 it only had $5.8 Million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013].<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment. It is no known how long the land could remain parking lots die to the Low Income Housing financing.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=382Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-09-29T05:43:40Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===2016 RFP===<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing- Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the properties. The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
At some point, the Fund will be be repaid. As of June 2016 the Fund had $11.8 Million unspent[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396], and has been rapidly accumulating assets from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects. In June 2015 it only had $5.8 Million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013].<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment. It is no known how long the land could remain parking lots die to the Low Income Housing financing.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=381Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-09-29T05:41:47Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===2016 RFP===<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing- Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the properties. The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
At some point, the Fund will be be repaid. As of June 2016 the Fund had $11.8 Million unspent[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396], and has been rapidly accumulating assets from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects. In June 2015 it only had $5.8 Million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013].<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment. It is no known how long the land could remain parking lots die to the Low Income Housing financing.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=380Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-09-29T05:39:20Z<p>Admin: update fund balance</p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===2016 RFP===<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing- Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the properties. The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
At some point, the Fund will be be repaid. As of June 2016 the Fund had $11.8 Million unspent[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396], and has been rapidly accumulating assets from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects. In June 2015 it only had $5.8 Million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013].<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=379Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-09-29T05:29:00Z<p>Admin: /* Livermore Village */</p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===2016 RFP===<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
Livermore's "Low Income Housing- Special Revenue Fund" was used to purchase the The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. $9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed ~$5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of ~$14.5 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
At some point, the Fund will be be repaid. As of 2017 the Fund currently has $11.8 Million unspent, as it continues to accumulate assets from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects.<br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=378Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-09-27T19:05:16Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===2016 RFP===<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
From a financial perspective, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance associated with the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent from SpeeDee Oil and a few other sources. As parking lots, they would require a relatively small investment.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=377BART to Livermore at Isabel2017-09-05T00:34:38Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>Extending BART to Livermore is under consideration that involves two different methodologies.<br />
<br />
==Newer Method, Assembly Bill 758==<br />
After 53 years of waiting for the BART board to make progress, [http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB758 AB 758] was crafted to wrest control of the process away from BART, the MTC and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). At the April 10 2017 Livermore City Council meeting, City staff presented the bill for discussion. It received broad support, as there was only a single vote (out of nine) of the BART board in favor of extending.[http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/04/10/livermore-council-says-bart-board-doesnt-care-backs-new-rail-authority/]<br />
<br />
==Older Method, Local Agencies==<br />
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery has been considered. It involves the need to achieve approval from three separate agencies: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the ACTC and the BART board of directors. The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station in 2026 involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The MTC is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory was considered by some as faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 1,900 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 1,900 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore may not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART might more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART. The 2017 Draft EIR is not yet clear on that point.<br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains run more frequently[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains]. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There are tremendous challenges associated with engineering shorter intervals since transbay timing issues can create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Discussion has begun to replace the system control mechanism and have enough trains to reduce the interval to 12 minutes. BART expects this will happen in 2023, and increase throughput by up to 30%. Valley terminals will increase by 50% in 2026, so in order for cars to transport the new passengers, 40% of Isabel riders would need to exit the Pleasanton stations. A fourth Valley station at Greenville Ace Train is being discussed, which would make a 100% increase in Valley stations.<br />
<br />
Greater train frequency will require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 12 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased. Greenville BART however, would not require additional train beyond this increase.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they have often declared in documents such as the August 12 2012 BART to Livermore Extension Project EIR Notice of Preparation [http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965] the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580", BART offered no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. At the time it was unclear it this was a soft admission that BART to Livermore might not actually relieve traffic problems. The reality that the BART extension will not alleviate 580 congestion was not confirmed until the the Draft EIR was released [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf]. Pages 317, 320, 326, 329, 393, 396, 398, 401 contain charts that show no improvement in 580 commute traffic flow.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
==Items not track related==<br />
9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length) <br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
In 2016, the estimate was $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget left out the 99 additional trains, which were to cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
<br />
In 2017, the project page was updated to a new cost of $1.6 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. Additional trains still need to be purchased.<br />
<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$533 Million of the 1.64 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $1.1 billion.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives] are part of the process. There is a legal requirement to do so, even if the alternatives are not being seriously considered.<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs<br />
* No significant improvement in 580 freeway commute traffic congestion</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=376BART to Livermore at Isabel2017-09-05T00:27:35Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>Extending BART to Livermore is under consideration that involves two different methodologies.<br />
<br />
==Newer Method, Assembly Bill 758==<br />
After 53 years of waiting for the BART board to make progress, [http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB758 AB 758] was crafted to wrest control of the process away from BART, the MTC and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). At the April 10 2017 Livermore City Council meeting, City staff presented the bill for discussion. It received broad support, as there was only a single vote (out of nine) of the BART board in favor of extending.[http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/04/10/livermore-council-says-bart-board-doesnt-care-backs-new-rail-authority/]<br />
<br />
==Older Method, Local Agencies==<br />
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery has been considered. It involves the need to achieve approval from three separate agencies: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the ACTC and the BART board of directors. The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station in 2026 involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The MTC is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 1,900 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 1,900 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains run more frequently[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains]. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There are tremendous challenges associated with engineering shorter intervals since transbay timing issues can create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Discussion has begun to replace the system control mechanism and have enough trains to reduce the interval to 12 minutes. BART expects this will happen in 2023, and increase throughput by up to 30%. Valley terminals will increase by 50% in 2026, so in order for cars to transport the new passengers, 40% of Isabel riders would need to exit the Pleasanton stations. A fourth Valley station at Greenville Ace Train is being discussed, which would make a 100% increase in Valley stations.<br />
<br />
Greater train frequency will require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 12 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased. Greenville BART however, would not require additional train beyond this increase.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they have often declared in documents such as the August 12 2012 BART to Livermore Extension Project EIR Notice of Preparation [http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965] the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580", BART offered no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. At the time it was unclear it this was a soft admission that BART to Livermore might not actually relieve traffic problems. The reality that the BART extension will not alleviate 580 congestion was not confirmed until the the Draft EIR was released [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf]. Pages 317, 320, 326, 329, 393, 396, 398, 401 contain charts that show no improvement in 580 commute traffic flow.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
==Items not track related==<br />
9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length) <br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
In 2016, the estimate was $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget left out the 99 additional trains, which were to cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
<br />
In 2017, the project page was updated to a new cost of $1.6 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. Additional trains still need to be purchased.<br />
<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$533 Million of the 1.64 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $1.1 billion.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives] are part of the process. There is a legal requirement to do so, even if the alternatives are not being seriously considered.<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs<br />
* No significant improvement in 580 freeway commute traffic congestion</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=375BART to Livermore at Isabel2017-09-05T00:25:40Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>Extending BART to Livermore is under consideration that involves two different methodologies.<br />
<br />
==Newer Method, Assembly Bill 758==<br />
After 53 years of waiting for the BART board to make progress, [http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB758 AB 758] was crafted to wrest control of the process away from BART, the MTC and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). At the April 10 2017 Livermore City Council meeting, City staff presented the bill for discussion. It received broad support, as there was only a single vote (out of nine) of the BART board in favor of extending.[http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/04/10/livermore-council-says-bart-board-doesnt-care-backs-new-rail-authority/]<br />
<br />
==Older Method, Local Agencies==<br />
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery has been considered. It involves the need to achieve approval from three separate agencies: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the ACTC and the BART board of directors. The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station in 2026 involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The MTC is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 1,900 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 1,900 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains run more frequently[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains]. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There are tremendous challenges associated with engineering shorter intervals since transbay timing issues can create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Discussion has begun to replace the system control mechanism and have enough trains to reduce the interval to 12 minutes. BART expects this will happen in 2023, and increase throughput by up to 30%. Valley terminals will increase by 50% in 2026, so in order for cars to transport the new passengers, 40% of Isabel riders would need to exit the Pleasanton stations. A fourth Valley station at Greenville Ace Train is being discussed, which would make a 100% increase in Valley stations.<br />
<br />
Greater train frequency will require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 12 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased. Greenville BART however, would not require additional train beyond this increase.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they have often declared in documents such as the August 12 2012 BART to Livermore Extension Project EIR Notice of Preparation [http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965] the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580", BART offered no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. At the time it was unclear it this was a soft admission that BART to Livermore might not actually relieve traffic problems. The reality that the BART extension will not alleviate 580 congestion was not confirmed until the the Draft EIR was released [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf]. Pages 317, 320, 326, 329, 393, 396, 398, 401 contain charts that show no improvement in 580 commute traffic flow.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
==Items not track related==<br />
9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length) <br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
In 2016, the estimate was $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget left out the 99 additional trains, which were to cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
<br />
In 2017, the project page was updated to a new cost of $1.6 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. Additional trains still need to be purchased.<br />
<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$533 Million of the 1.64 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $1.1 billion.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives] are part of the process. There is a legal requirement to do so, even if the alternatives are not being seriously considered.<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs<br />
* New gravel mining activity at Cemex [[Lake A quarry expansion|Lake A]][http://www.cemexeliotfacility.com/our-proposal/]</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=374BART to Livermore at Isabel2017-09-05T00:23:32Z<p>Admin: updated cost estimate</p>
<hr />
<div>Extending BART to Livermore is under consideration that involves two different methodologies.<br />
<br />
==Newer Method, Assembly Bill 758==<br />
After 53 years of waiting for the BART board to make progress, [http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB758 AB 758] was crafted to wrest control of the process away from BART, the MTC and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). At the April 10 2017 Livermore City Council meeting, City staff presented the bill for discussion. It received broad support, as there was only a single vote (out of nine) of the BART board in favor of extending.[http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/04/10/livermore-council-says-bart-board-doesnt-care-backs-new-rail-authority/]<br />
<br />
==Older Method, Local Agencies==<br />
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery has been considered. It involves the need to achieve approval from three separate agencies: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the ACTC and the BART board of directors. The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station in 2026 involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The MTC is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 1,900 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 1,900 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains run more frequently[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains]. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There are tremendous challenges associated with engineering shorter intervals since transbay timing issues can create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Discussion has begun to replace the system control mechanism and have enough trains to reduce the interval to 12 minutes. BART expects this will happen in 2023, and increase throughput by up to 30%. Valley terminals will increase by 50% in 2026, so in order for cars to transport the new passengers, 40% of Isabel riders would need to exit the Pleasanton stations. A fourth Valley station at Greenville Ace Train is being discussed, which would make a 100% increase in Valley stations.<br />
<br />
Greater train frequency will require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 12 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased. Greenville BART however, would not require additional train beyond this increase.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they have often declared in documents such as the August 12 2012 BART to Livermore Extension Project EIR Notice of Preparation [http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965] the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580", BART offered no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. At the time it was unclear it this was a soft admission that BART to Livermore might not actually relieve traffic problems. The reality that the BART extension will not alleviate 580 congestion was not confirmed until the the Draft EIR was released [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf]. Pages 317, 320, 326, 329, 393, 396, 398, 401 contain charts that show no improvement in 580 commute traffic flow.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
==Items not track related==<br />
9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length) <br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
In 2016, the estimate was $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget left out the 99 additional trains, which were to cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
<br />
In 2017, the project page was updated to a new cost of $1.6 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. Additional trains still need to be purchased.<br />
<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$533 Million of the 1.64 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $1.1 billion.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives].<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs<br />
* New gravel mining activity at Cemex [[Lake A quarry expansion|Lake A]][http://www.cemexeliotfacility.com/our-proposal/]</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=373BART to Livermore at Isabel2017-09-04T23:38:45Z<p>Admin: update cost</p>
<hr />
<div>Extending BART to Livermore is under consideration that involves two different methodologies.<br />
<br />
==Newer Method, Assembly Bill 758==<br />
After 53 years of waiting for the BART board to make progress, [http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB758 AB 758] was crafted to wrest control of the process away from BART, the MTC and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). At the April 10 2017 Livermore City Council meeting, City staff presented the bill for discussion. It received broad support, as there was only a single vote (out of nine) of the BART board in favor of extending.[http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/04/10/livermore-council-says-bart-board-doesnt-care-backs-new-rail-authority/]<br />
<br />
==Older Method, Local Agencies==<br />
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery has been considered. It involves the need to achieve approval from three separate agencies: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the ACTC and the BART board of directors. The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station in 2026 involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The MTC is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 1,900 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 1,900 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains run more frequently[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains]. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There are tremendous challenges associated with engineering shorter intervals since transbay timing issues can create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Discussion has begun to replace the system control mechanism and have enough trains to reduce the interval to 12 minutes. BART expects this will happen in 2023, and increase throughput by up to 30%. Valley terminals will increase by 50% in 2026, so in order for cars to transport the new passengers, 40% of Isabel riders would need to exit the Pleasanton stations. A fourth Valley station at Greenville Ace Train is being discussed, which would make a 100% increase in Valley stations.<br />
<br />
Greater train frequency will require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 12 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased. Greenville BART however, would not require additional train beyond this increase.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they have often declared in documents such as the August 12 2012 BART to Livermore Extension Project EIR Notice of Preparation [http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965] the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580", BART offered no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. At the time it was unclear it this was a soft admission that BART to Livermore might not actually relieve traffic problems. The reality that the BART extension will not alleviate 580 congestion was not confirmed until the the Draft EIR was released [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf]. Pages 317, 320, 326, 329, 393, 396, 398, 401 contain charts that show no improvement in 580 commute traffic flow.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
==Items not track related==<br />
9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length) <br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
In 2016, the estimate was $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget left out the 99 additional trains, which were to cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
<br />
In 2017, the project page was updated to a new cost of $1.6 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. Additional trains still need to be purchased.<br />
<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$551 Million of the 1.45 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $870 million.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives].<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs<br />
* New gravel mining activity at Cemex [[Lake A quarry expansion|Lake A]][http://www.cemexeliotfacility.com/our-proposal/]</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=372BART to Livermore at Isabel2017-09-04T23:30:03Z<p>Admin: Update that BART does not affect 580 traffic</p>
<hr />
<div>Extending BART to Livermore is under consideration that involves two different methodologies.<br />
<br />
==Newer Method, Assembly Bill 758==<br />
After 53 years of waiting for the BART board to make progress, [http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB758 AB 758] was crafted to wrest control of the process away from BART, the MTC and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). At the April 10 2017 Livermore City Council meeting, City staff presented the bill for discussion. It received broad support, as there was only a single vote (out of nine) of the BART board in favor of extending.[http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/04/10/livermore-council-says-bart-board-doesnt-care-backs-new-rail-authority/]<br />
<br />
==Older Method, Local Agencies==<br />
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery has been considered. It involves the need to achieve approval from three separate agencies: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the ACTC and the BART board of directors. The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station in 2026 involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The MTC is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 1,900 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 1,900 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains run more frequently[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains]. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There are tremendous challenges associated with engineering shorter intervals since transbay timing issues can create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Discussion has begun to replace the system control mechanism and have enough trains to reduce the interval to 12 minutes. BART expects this will happen in 2023, and increase throughput by up to 30%. Valley terminals will increase by 50% in 2026, so in order for cars to transport the new passengers, 40% of Isabel riders would need to exit the Pleasanton stations. A fourth Valley station at Greenville Ace Train is being discussed, which would make a 100% increase in Valley stations.<br />
<br />
Greater train frequency will require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 12 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased. Greenville BART however, would not require additional train beyond this increase.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they have often declared in documents such as the August 12 2012 BART to Livermore Extension Project EIR Notice of Preparation [http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965] the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580", BART offered no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. At the time it was unclear it this was a soft admission that BART to Livermore might not actually relieve traffic problems. The reality that the BART extension will not alleviate 580 congestion was not confirmed until the the Draft EIR was released [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf]. Pages 317, 320, 326, 329, 393, 396, 398, 401 contain charts that show no improvement in 580 commute traffic flow.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
==Items not track related==<br />
9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length) <br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget leaves out the 99 additional trains, which will cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$551 Million of the 1.45 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $870 million.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives].<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs<br />
* New gravel mining activity at Cemex [[Lake A quarry expansion|Lake A]][http://www.cemexeliotfacility.com/our-proposal/]</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=371BART to Livermore at Isabel2017-04-14T23:13:04Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>Extending BART to Livermore is under consideration that involves two different methodologies.<br />
<br />
==Newer Method, Assembly Bill 758==<br />
After 53 years of waiting for the BART board to make progress, [http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB758 AB 758] was crafted to wrest control of the process away from BART, the MTC and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). At the April 10 2017 Livermore City Council meeting, City staff presented the bill for discussion. It received broad support, as there was only a single vote (out of nine) of the BART board in favor of extending.[http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/04/10/livermore-council-says-bart-board-doesnt-care-backs-new-rail-authority/]<br />
<br />
==Older Method, Local Agencies==<br />
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery has been considered. It involves the need to achieve approval from three separate agencies: the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the ACTC and the BART board of directors. The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station in 2026 involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The MTC is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 1,900 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 1,900 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains run more frequently[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains]. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There are tremendous challenges associated with engineering shorter intervals since transbay timing issues can create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Discussion has begun to replace the system control mechanism and have enough trains to reduce the interval to 12 minutes. BART expects this will happen in 2023, and increase throughput by up to 30%. Valley terminals will increase by 50% in 2026, so in order for cars to transport the new passengers, 40% of Isabel riders would need to exit the Pleasanton stations. A fourth Valley station at Greenville Ace Train is being discussed, which would make a 100% increase in Valley stations.<br />
<br />
Greater train frequency will require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 12 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased. Greenville BART however, would not require additional train beyond this increase.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they declare the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580"[http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965], BART offers no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They have also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. Whether this is an admission that BART to Livermore will fail to relieve traffic problems is unclear.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
==Items not track related==<br />
9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length) <br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget leaves out the 99 additional trains, which will cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$551 Million of the 1.45 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $870 million.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives].<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs<br />
* New gravel mining activity at Cemex [[Lake A quarry expansion|Lake A]][http://www.cemexeliotfacility.com/our-proposal/]</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=370BART to Livermore at Isabel2017-04-14T22:59:37Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>Extending BART to Livermore is under consideration that involves two different methodologies.<br />
<br />
==Newer Method, Assembly Bill 758==<br />
After 53 years of waiting for the BART board to make progress, [http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB758 AB 758] was crafted to wrest control of the process away from BART, the MTC and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). At the April 10 2017 Livermore City Council meeting, City staff presented the bill for discussion. It received broad support, as there was only a single vote (out of nine) of the BART board in favor of extending.[http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/04/10/livermore-council-says-bart-board-doesnt-care-backs-new-rail-authority/]<br />
<br />
==Older Method, Local Agencies==<br />
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery has been considered. It involves the need to achieve approval from three separate agencies: the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC), the ACTC and the BART board of directors. The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station in 2026 involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The MTC is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 1,900 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 1,900 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains run more frequently[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains]. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There are tremendous challenges associated with engineering shorter intervals since transbay timing issues can create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Discussion has begun to replace the system control mechanism and have enough trains to reduce the interval to 12 minutes. BART expects this will happen in 2023, and increase throughput by up to 30%. Valley terminals will increase by 50% in 2026, so in order for cars to transport the new passengers, 40% of Isabel riders would need to exit the Pleasanton stations. A fourth Valley station at Greenville Ace Train is being discussed, which would make a 100% increase in Valley stations.<br />
<br />
Greater train frequency will require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 12 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased. Greenville BART however, would not require additional train beyond this increase.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they declare the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580"[http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965], BART offers no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They have also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. Whether this is an admission that BART to Livermore will fail to relieve traffic problems is unclear.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
==Items not track related==<br />
9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length) <br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget leaves out the 99 additional trains, which will cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$551 Million of the 1.45 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $870 million.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives].<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs<br />
* New gravel mining activity at Cemex [[Lake A quarry expansion|Lake A]][http://www.cemexeliotfacility.com/our-proposal/]</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=369BART to Livermore at Isabel2017-04-14T22:59:14Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>Extending BART to Livermore is under consideration that involves two different methodologies.<br />
<br />
==Newer Method, Assembly Bill 758==<br />
After 53 years of waiting for the BART board to make progress, [http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB758 AB 758] was crafted to wrest control of the process away from BART, the MTC and the Alameda County Transit Commission (ACTC). At the April 10 2017 Livermore City Council meeting, City staff presented the bill for discussion. It received broad support, as there was only a single vote (out of nine) of the BART board in favor of extending.[http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/04/10/livermore-council-says-bart-board-doesnt-care-backs-new-rail-authority/]<br />
<br />
==Older Method, Local Agencies==<br />
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery has been considered. It involves the need to achieve approval from three separate agencies: the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC), the ACTC and the BART board of directors. The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station in 2026 involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The MTC is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 1,900 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 1,900 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains run more frequently[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains]. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There are tremendous challenges associated with engineering shorter intervals since transbay timing issues can create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Discussion has begun to replace the system control mechanism and have enough trains to reduce the interval to 12 minutes. BART expects this will happen in 2023, and increase throughput by up to 30%. Valley terminals will increase by 50% in 2026, so in order for cars to transport the new passengers, 40% of Isabel riders would need to exit the Pleasanton stations. A fourth Valley station at Greenville Ace Train is being discussed, which would make a 100% increase in Valley stations.<br />
<br />
Greater train frequency will require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 12 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased. Greenville BART however, would not require additional train beyond this increase.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they declare the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580"[http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965], BART offers no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They have also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. Whether this is an admission that BART to Livermore will fail to relieve traffic problems is unclear.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
==Items not track related==<br />
9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length) <br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget leaves out the 99 additional trains, which will cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$551 Million of the 1.45 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $870 million.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives].<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs<br />
* New gravel mining activity at Cemex [[Lake A quarry expansion|Lake A]][http://www.cemexeliotfacility.com/our-proposal/]</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=368Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2017-04-14T22:14:03Z<p>Admin: steering committe creation april 2017</p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents have often referred to the larger lot as "Livermore Village Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143], which is a carryover term from the failed attempt to create a housing development there. As residents currently show little enthusiasm for significant housing being built, the continued use of "village" may be seen by some as loaded terminology. Similarly, documents refer to the Bankhead parking lot as the "Hotel Site"[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143] where there is considerable opposition to locating a hotel. Adding to the confusion, the 2016 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
==2017 Current Process==<br />
The fallout of the 2016 RFP led to the replacement of two City Council members in November of that year. Early in 2017, a revised process began. A Steering committee was appointed to advise Council on how to manage the changes to the properties going forward. A series of meetings began on April 13th with the goal of producing a report of recommendations the same year.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been four failed redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a successful strip mall anchored by a Lucky's Supermarket. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores eventually abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished but the parking lot remained.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
===2016 RFP===<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
By and large, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance of the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent for Kelly's Meats, farmers market, SpeeDee Oil [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]], and perhaps others. Redevelopment for this use long term would require a modest investment.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Owens_Drive_lane_reductions&diff=367Owens Drive lane reductions2017-04-12T20:30:51Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>In August 2016, Owens drive was reduced from 3 eastbound lanes (plus a turning lane) to 1 eastbound lane between Willow Road and Iron Horse Trail. This was done to create public diagonal parking in the existing street right of way in conjunction with the new apartments that were built at the same time. This project was approved several years prior. <br />
== Traffic Planning ==<br />
Traffic backups have been observed as a result. It was determined in 2009 that the PM traffic condition of "LOS A" would exist at 2025 buildout[http://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23898]. The previously predicted flow has clearly suffered. The current LOS has not yet been studied, and it is not known whether the buildout performance will change. Currently it would be hard to define it better than C[http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/cmp_2005_Appendix_B.pdf].<br />
==Controversy==<br />
There have been a wide variety of complaints about the reduction, as well as public support.[[https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2017/01/17/group-plans-to-protest-narrowing-of-owens-drive-at-tonights-city-council-meeting]]<br />
== Future ==<br />
The same lane configuration change will be applied in the opposite direction when housing is built in the current BART parking lot, which may not happen for several years.</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Livermore_Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Depot&diff=366Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot2017-04-12T20:22:05Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Historic Building ==<br />
Livermore's Southern Pacific Railroad Depot was built in 1892 on the original rail line of the transcontinental railroad[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad]. It served as Livermore's railroad station for decades. Although it was nearly torn down in the 1970s, it was saved by the Livermore Heritage Guild [http://www.livermorehistory.com/Who%20We%20Are/Who%20We%20Are.html] and remains in its original location[http://www.elivermore.com/photos/Hist_lvr_railroad2.htm].<br />
<br />
== Relocation==<br />
On October 30 2006, the Council approved a development agreement with Anderson Pacific to build houses on the land occupied by the depot[http://24.104.72.12/weblink8/0/doc/32602/Page1.aspx]. Though the development failed, efforts have continued to move the depot, establish a viable plan to restore and operate it, and consider other types of development on the depot site. A $2.5 Million federal grant was obtained to move it to a nearby transportation hub and put it into transportation related use. Livermore also plans to spend $500,000 of general fund money to complete the budget[http://m.independentnews.com/news/need-to-move-historic-train-depot-questioned/article_ab9a546e-64d7-11e6-b2b1-8f892beaf4ed.html?mode=jqm].<br />
<br />
On January 23 2017, Council elected to move the station [http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/01/24/livermore-council-agrees-to-move-125-year-old-train-depot/]<br />
<br />
== Relocation Advocacy ==<br />
Until recently, The Livermore Heritage Guild played a leading role in the continued relocation planning. <br />
<br />
In addition to accommodating development, the move is an opportunity to put the depot back into service as a transportation hub, a function it has not served for over 4 decades since the tracks beside it were removed. Advocates say that the best way to preserve the depot is to use it, especially if it can be restored to its original use. Usually this is not possible, and old depots often become restaurants, antique shops or office space (which is not viewed as dignified by historians). The opportunity to have this depot do exactly what it was intended to do and restore it to that role is exciting historians, rail buffs and citizens anxious to save the depot. <br />
<br />
The City has spent $362,000 for historical architects from Page and Turnbull[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11092] to lead the restoration and move, and they have produced a detailed plan for the restoration work which includes original colors, restoring original trim, and removing unwise modifications that were added over time. Advocates say that there is no way to keep the $2.5 Million grant unless the depot is relocated. Grants such as these are not easy to obtain, and this commitment is in hand. Furthermore, if not relocated it would remain dependent on unknown funding for operating cash. This reality has not served it particularly well so far.<br />
<br />
== Criticism of Relocation ==<br />
Others suggest the Depot should remain where it is and argue that there is money available to accomplish the preservation activity. They also contend that the genesis of the relocation was financial, not for preservation reasons. They cite 4/22/13 report:[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8665/] “relocating the Railroad Depot building will significantly enhance the value of the Livermore Village site, resulting in higher proceeds from the sale and development of the site.” In contrast to the advocates, they believe the grant would be useable even if the depot were not moved[http://www.independentnews.com/mailbox/historic-depot/article_0c5e71ca-6a66-11e6-a7db-531cbd90d106.html]. The MTC would need to approve this new use of funds, though it is argued that the approval would not face resistance[http://www.independentnews.com/mailbox/historic-depot/article_0c5e71ca-6a66-11e6-a7db-531cbd90d106.html].<br />
<br />
The 2016 Livermore Heritage Guild board meeting was disrupted by relocation critics. A vote of members present ensued, and the result was to no longer recommend moving the Depot.</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=365BART to Livermore at Isabel2017-04-12T20:12:29Z<p>Admin: ab 758</p>
<hr />
<div>Extending BART to Livermore is under consideration that involves two different methodologies.<br />
<br />
==Newer Method, Assembly Bill 758==<br />
After 53 years of waiting for the BART board to make progress, [http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB758 AB 758] was crafted to wrest control of the process away from BART and the Alameda County Transit Authority (ACTC). At the April 10 2017 Livermore City Council meeting, City staff presented the bill for discussion. It received broad support, as there was only a single vote (out of nine) of the BART board in favor of extending.[http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/04/10/livermore-council-says-bart-board-doesnt-care-backs-new-rail-authority/]<br />
<br />
==Older Method, Local Agencies==<br />
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery has been considered. It involves the need to achieve approval from three separate agencies: the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC), the ACTC and the BART board of directors. The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station in 2026 involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The MTC is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 1,900 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 1,900 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains run more frequently[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains]. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There are tremendous challenges associated with engineering shorter intervals since transbay timing issues can create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Discussion has begun to replace the system control mechanism and have enough trains to reduce the interval to 12 minutes. BART expects this will happen in 2023, and increase throughput by up to 30%. Valley terminals will increase by 50% in 2026, so in order for cars to transport the new passengers, 40% of Isabel riders would need to exit the Pleasanton stations. A fourth Valley station at Greenville Ace Train is being discussed, which would make a 100% increase in Valley stations.<br />
<br />
Greater train frequency will require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 12 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased. Greenville BART however, would not require additional train beyond this increase.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they declare the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580"[http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965], BART offers no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They have also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. Whether this is an admission that BART to Livermore will fail to relieve traffic problems is unclear.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
==Items not track related==<br />
9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length) <br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget leaves out the 99 additional trains, which will cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$551 Million of the 1.45 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $870 million.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives].<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs<br />
* New gravel mining activity at Cemex [[Lake A quarry expansion|Lake A]][http://www.cemexeliotfacility.com/our-proposal/]</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=363Main Page2016-09-19T21:14:25Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome to the [http://citizensforbalancedgrowth.org Citizens for Balanced Growth] Educational Wiki.'''<br />
<br />
The purpose of this wiki is to provide an educational resource for community growth and development issues in the Tri-Valley (Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, Sunol). This project is intended to support the activities or our 501(c)(3) organization per our bylaws:<br />
"To promote growth appropriate for available water and sewer capacities; To promote a balance of residences and jobs in the Livermore-Amador Valley; To preserve agriculture as a viable industry; To reduce pollution of air and water for a healthful environment; To keep the crime rate down; To keep traffic congestion down; and to urge Valley agencies to work together in planning Valley growth."<br />
<br />
Because of rampant vandalism, we don't offer anonymous editing or automatic account creation anymore. On request, we are happy to create one for you (and you are encouraged to ask!) Account holders can add pages and make edits for any content you consider relevant to these goals. To start a new page, search for the topic in the search box at the upper right. If your page cannot be found, click the red text to compose the page. <br />
<br />
Check out [[The Rules]]. With your help, these entries (pages) will remain useful and informative for years to come. <br />
<br />
= List of existing pages - please edit at will! =<br />
{{Special:AllPages}}</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=361Main Page2016-09-19T15:47:40Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome to the [http://citizensforbalancedgrowth.org Citizens for Balanced Growth] Educational Wiki.'''<br />
<br />
The purpose of this wiki is to provide an educational resource for community growth and development issues in the Tri-Valley (Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, Sunol). This project is intended to support the activities or our 501(c)(3) organization per our bylaws:<br />
"To promote growth appropriate for available water and sewer capacities; To promote a balance of residences and jobs in the Livermore-Amador Valley; To preserve agriculture as a viable industry; To reduce pollution of air and water for a healthful environment; To keep the crime rate down; To keep traffic congestion down; and to urge Valley agencies to work together in planning Valley growth."<br />
<br />
Please feel free to create an account, add pages and make edits for any content you consider relevant to these goals. Check out [[The Rules]]. With your help, these entries (pages) will remain useful and informative for years to come. To start a new page, search for the topic in the search box at the upper right. If your page cannot be found, click the red text to compose the page.<br />
<br />
= List of existing pages - please edit at will! =<br />
{{Special:AllPages}}</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Lake_A_quarry_expansion&diff=291Lake A quarry expansion2016-09-10T04:57:58Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>Lake A is a gravel quarry owned by Cemex Corporation. It is located south of Livermore, near the intersection of Isabel and Vineyard avenue. In 2015 they had planned to abandon mining operations there[https://nextdoor.com/agency-post/ca/livermore/city-of-livermore/cemex-quarry-lake-a-reclamation-plan-meeting-on-july-30th-from-6-8-pm-13599064/].<br />
Cemex has changed their position and would now like to expand mining operations beyond what is currently permitted, in part to supply materials for the [[BART to Livermore at Isabel|BART to Isabel]] expansion project[http://www.cemexeliotfacility.com/our-proposal/].<br />
<br />
The Independent reported this story[http://www.independentnews.com/news/cemex-wants-to-restart-mining-near-isabel-avenue/article_f02fe32a-59db-11e6-8800-d32754504aba.html].<br />
<br />
CEMEX plans to conduct more gravel mining in "Lake A," a quarry near the Oaks subdivision in Livermore, close to Isabel and Vineyard Avenues.<br />
CEMEX had stopped mining the site several years ago. It was planning a reclamation project that would turn the water-filled mine over to Zone 7 Water Agency as early as 2018.<br />
Once reclamation were completed, Zone 7 would take over control of the lake, with a CEMEX-built conveyance to other Zone 7 lakes, where the water could be used to recharge the groundwater. If Alameda County were to approve the plan to start mining again, the transfer would not occur until 2023 or 2025.<br />
<br />
CEMEX wants to continue mining, because there is a great demand for housing now, and therefore for aggregate. CEMEX proposes to extend the mining to the west, south and east, but not the north, where the Oaks subdivision is located.<br />
<br />
CEMEX notified neighbors of a meeting held at Granada High School. Zone 7 director Sarah Palmer announced the forum at the Zone 7 meeting July 20, having learned of it because she is a neighbor. She was surprised that Zone 7 was not notified.<br />
<br />
CEMEX spokesperson Megan Lawrence told The Independent that the meeting was held to provide a forum for "residents, neighbors and homeowners to ask questions about the proposed changes to the reclamation plan" before CEMEX files its application to the county to extend mining. CEMEX is in the process of scheduling formal meetings with Zone 7 and the City of Livermore."<br />
<br />
Zone 7 and the city sent observers to the July 21 meeting. Although the project is on unincorporated land, the city wants to make sure that the proposal would not lead to instability for city homeowners' property, said Planning Manager Paul Spence.<br />
LARPD also expressed interest in the plans, and had not been notified, said Assistant General Manager John Lawrence. LARPD has a recreational interest in it. Further, the mine is adjacent to Sycamore Grove Park, where arroyo water levels were an issue 10 years ago. It was thought that the fluctuating waters were responsible for poor health of some park trees. Lawrence said that since then, the arroyo has stabilized.<br />
One resident at the meeting, which was attended by 40 or 50 people, according to one attendee, said there were concerns about whether any properties could be undermined by the digging. Megan Lawrence, the CEMEX spokesperson, said, "CEMEX, Alameda County and technical experts have all undertaken considerable geotechnical and stability studies of Lake A."<br />
They concluded that the increased mining would not cause property owners any problems because it would take place at a distance from homes.</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Lake_A_quarry_expansion&diff=290Lake A quarry expansion2016-09-10T04:53:41Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>Lake A is a gravel quarry owned by Cemex Corporation. It is located south of Livermore, near the intersection of Isabel and Vineyard avenue. In 2015 they had planned to abandon mining operations there[https://nextdoor.com/agency-post/ca/livermore/city-of-livermore/cemex-quarry-lake-a-reclamation-plan-meeting-on-july-30th-from-6-8-pm-13599064/].<br />
Cemex has changed their position and would now like to expand mining operations beyond what is currently permitted, in part to supply materials for the [[BART to Livermore at Isabel|BART to Isabel]] expansion project[http://www.cemexeliotfacility.com/our-proposal/].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Lake_A_quarry_expansion&diff=289Lake A quarry expansion2016-09-10T04:51:08Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>Lake A is a gravel quarry owned by Cemex Corporation. It is located south of Livermore, near the intersection of Isabel and Vineyard avenue. Cemex would like to expand mining operations beyond what is currently permitted, in part to supply materials for the BART to Isabel expansion project[http://www.cemexeliotfacility.com/our-proposal/]. In 2015 they had planned to abandon mining operations there[https://nextdoor.com/agency-post/ca/livermore/city-of-livermore/cemex-quarry-lake-a-reclamation-plan-meeting-on-july-30th-from-6-8-pm-13599064/].</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=288BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-09-10T04:43:29Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There has been no way to engineer shorter intervals since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals. BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains rune more frequently and is looking at solutions but so far has not found any that work[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
<br />
Greater train frequency would also require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 10 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they declare the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580"[http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965], BART offers no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They have also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. Whether this is an admission that BART to Livermore will fail to relieve traffic problems is unclear.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
==Items not track related==<br />
9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length) <br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget leaves out the 99 additional trains, which will cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$551 Million of the 1.45 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $870 million.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives].<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs<br />
* New gravel mining activity at Cemex [[Lake A quarry expansion|Lake A]][http://www.cemexeliotfacility.com/our-proposal/]</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Lake_A_quarry_expansion&diff=287Lake A quarry expansion2016-09-10T04:37:41Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>Lake A is a gravel quarry owned by Cemex Corporation. It is located south of Livermore, near the intersection of Isabel and Vineyard avenue. Cemex would like to expand mining operations beyond what is currently permitted.</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Lake_A_quarry_expansion&diff=286Lake A quarry expansion2016-09-10T04:31:50Z<p>Admin: Created page with "Lake A is a gravel quarry owned by Cemex Corporation. It is located south of Livermore, near the intersection of Isabel and Vineyard avenue."</p>
<hr />
<div>Lake A is a gravel quarry owned by Cemex Corporation. It is located south of Livermore, near the intersection of Isabel and Vineyard avenue.</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=284BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-09-09T04:15:26Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There has been no way to engineer shorter intervals since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals. BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains rune more frequently and is looking at solutions but so far has not found any that work[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
<br />
Greater train frequency would also require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 10 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they declare the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580"[http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965], BART offers no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They have also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. Whether this is an admission that BART to Livermore will fail to relieve traffic problems is unclear.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
==Items not track related==<br />
9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length) <br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget leaves out the 99 additional trains, which will cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$551 Million of the 1.45 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $870 million.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives].<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Ipb-default-expiry&diff=244MediaWiki:Ipb-default-expiry2016-09-04T17:48:05Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>indefinite</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Ipb-default-expiry&diff=243MediaWiki:Ipb-default-expiry2016-09-04T17:46:36Z<p>Admin: Created page with "Indefinite"</p>
<hr />
<div>Indefinite</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=241Main Page2016-09-04T16:53:35Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome to the [http://citizensforbalancedgrowth.org Citizens for Balanced Growth] Educational Wiki.'''<br />
<br />
The purpose of this wiki is to provide an educational resource for community growth and development issues in the Tri-Valley (Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, Sunol). This project is intended to support the activities or our 501(c)(3) organization per our bylaws:<br />
"To promote growth appropriate for available water and sewer capacities; To promote a balance of residences and jobs in the Livermore-Amador Valley; To preserve agriculture as a viable industry; To reduce pollution of air and water for a healthful environment; To keep the crime rate down; To keep traffic congestion down; and to urge Valley agencies to work together in planning Valley growth."<br />
<br />
Please feel free to add pages and make edits for any content you consider relevant to these goals. Check out [[The Rules]]. With your help, these entries (pages) will remain useful and informative for years to come. To start a new page, search for the topic in the search box at the upper right. If your page cannot be found, click the red text to compose the page.<br />
=== ''We've restored new account creation'' ===<br />
You can edit existing pages anonymously, or create new pages by creating a new acount. Email us at info@citizensforbalancedgrowth.org if you have any problems.<br />
<br />
= List of existing pages - please edit at will! =<br />
{{Special:AllPages}}</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=238Main Page2016-08-31T23:55:41Z<p>Admin: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome to the [http://citizensforbalancedgrowth.org Citizens for Balanced Growth] Educational Wiki.'''<br />
<br />
The purpose of this wiki is to provide an educational resource for community growth and development issues in the Tri-Valley (Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, Sunol). This project is intended to support the activities or our 501(c)(3) organization per our bylaws:<br />
"To promote growth appropriate for available water and sewer capacities; To promote a balance of residences and jobs in the Livermore-Amador Valley; To preserve agriculture as a viable industry; To reduce pollution of air and water for a healthful environment; To keep the crime rate down; To keep traffic congestion down; and to urge Valley agencies to work together in planning Valley growth."<br />
<br />
Please feel free to add pages and make edits for any content you consider relevant to these goals. Check out [[The Rules]]. With your help, these entries (pages) will remain useful and informative for years to come. To start a new page, search for the topic in the search box at the upper right. If your page cannot be found, click the red text to compose the page.<br />
=== ''We've temporarily disabled new account creation'' ===<br />
There's been some abuse, so until we come up with a good fix you won't be able to create any new pages or accounts. You can edit existing pages. If you would like to add a page, please email us at info@citizensforbalancedgrowth.org and we'll create the page for you.<br />
<br />
= List of existing pages - please edit at will! =<br />
{{Special:AllPages}}</div>Adminhttp://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Statcounter-security&diff=202MediaWiki:Statcounter-security2016-08-30T17:52:07Z<p>Admin: Created page with "4fc213b8"</p>
<hr />
<div>4fc213b8</div>Admin