Citizens For Balanced Growth Wiki - User contributions [en]

Friends of Livermore

2018-10-05T16:58:37Z

Dmann: reorg, added leadership

According to their website, "Friends of Livermore is dedicated to preserving Livermore's distinct heritage and hometown culture by advocating a moderate growth plan that emphasizes a vibrant city center and the preservation of surrounding scenic and agricultural resources"[http://friendsoflivermore.org]. Committees (PACs) incorporating the "Friends of Livermore" name are periodically created to raise money for specific causes, often during election seasons, usually with political advocacy goals.

==Historical Issues and Positions==
No single group can usually take credit for the successful prosecution of local issues.
Friends of Livermore (FOL) is a community –based group that formed under a simple but powerful vision for Livermore to protect the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB), prevent sprawl and preserve open space. Over many years FOL has worked to establish and protect the UGB and been active in Council and county-wide elections to support candidates and initiatives that reflect these values. In more recent times FOL has supported the revitalization of downtown and the emergence of a culturally-rich inner core.
Friends of Livermore have taken a major part in the following:
===2000 Alameda County Urban Growth Boundary===
The Measure D initiative ended the legality of Alameda County developing city-like urbanization. The competing Measure C, designed to be weaker and placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, was defeated. From this point forward, urbanization would only be undertaken by cities.
===2002 North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary===
After more than 10,000 signatures were collected, the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was adopted that reinforced the South Livermore UGB and established the North Livermore UGB. Future expansion of the size of Livermore would need to be voted on by the public.

===2004-2006 First Street Streetscape===
For decades, First Street was a four lane road and not pedestrian friendly. The Council undertook a redesign to transform it into the more tranquil downtown experience that exists today. Through the process, many groups including Friends took part in developing ideas and providing the feedback that led to the remarkable improvements. Friends paid particular attention to maximizing parking availabilty, without which there would have been fewer parking spaces. They also pushed back against the consultant's recommendation to construct a building to replace Lizzie Fountain.

===2005 Weyerhaeuser development===
Weyerhaeuser (through their now defunct subsidiary Pardee Homes) owned many acres of land north of Livermore, outside the UGB that was established by Friends. Confident they could convince residents to allow them to urbanize their land, they drafted an initiative to expand the UGB and create an development they cynically named "Livermore Trails". Friends was a major donor to the defeat of this new "Measure D", and were outspent 10 to 1. Even so, Weyerhaeuser was defeated 72% to 28%.
===2005-2007 Bankhead Theater===
[http://lvpac.org LVPAC] was supported by Friends in their effort to build what would become the 500 seat Bankhead Theater.

===2005-2009 Regional Theater===
Concurrently with the planning for the Bankhead, LVPAC again worked with Friends to establish a location for a 2,000 seat regional theater. There were good reasons at the time to believe that an adequately sized performing arts center would be built in the Tri-Valley and Livermore should be the place to build it. Extensive economic studies involving models of similar regions determined that if it were not too large or too small, it would be profitable. The decision was made to place it on the newly available land at the former [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment|stockyard]]. Ultimately, the transformation of such large area of the downtown to be far less popular with the public than the Bankhead. The project ended with changes to State law that governed redevelopment funding, as it was no longer financially feasible.

===2011 Doolan Canyon===

===2011 City Council election===
Stewart Gary was supported due to his environmental positions, and was elected. Conversely, he was not supported in 2016 due to his position in favor of the controversial [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#lennar|'''Lennar Multifamily Communities''']] downtown housing development project.

===2014 City Council Election===
Friends supported Steve Spedowfski and Robert Woerner, both of whom were elected.

===2016 Campaign against [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#lennar|Lennar Multifamily Communities]] development plan===
The 2016 version of the [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#LVPAC|Stockyard Redevelopment]] was viewed as having too many houses and not enough public open space. Friends actively presented alternate ideas and vision to influence the general direction and oppose Lennar Homes' proposal. Lennar's plan was chosen as the 2016 election was approaching, and Friends threw it's support to successful candidates that took positions against Lennar (Bob Coomber and and Robert Carling).

===2018 Campaign for "West Side Hotel" downtown development===
After Lennar was eliminated, public workshops were convened to gather community input. One overwhelming preference of participants was to build a hotel to the west of Livermore Avenue/South of Railroad. This was due to the fact that the principle alternative location next to the Bankhead Theater was not large enough to accommodate the necessary parking. Instead, some of the cars were expected to park across Railroad Avenue. Ingress/Egress could also not be designed without negative impacts. Traffic congestion and downtown parking availability were high priorities during outreach.
====Referendum====
After Council voted on September 10 2018 to rezone for a 4 story 63 foot high east side hotel with underground parking, Friends notified the City that they would be collecting signatures in order to file a referendum on this decision.

==Leadership==
===Joan Seppala===
The most prominent member of the organization is Joan Seppala. As the editor of the local [https://www.independentnews.com newspaper] coupled with her propensity to donate substantially to environmental political causes, she is often at odds with individuals and groups that have development interests.
===David Rounds===
Mr. Rounds is a retired newspaper editor for the Bay Area News Group.
===Jean King===
Mrs. King is a retired teacher who taught in local schools.
==Controversy==
As one would expect, Friends has its share of supporters and critics. Supporters are eager to cite the long history of environmental stewardship, and critics claim that Friends consists of a small number of powerful people who can control issues in defiance of the larger city population.

Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment

2018-10-05T01:55:29Z

Dmann:

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.

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.

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]
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]
==2017 Current Process==
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.

== History ==
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall.
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===
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. There have been five unsuccessful attempts to redevelop the lot since then.

=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===
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.
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===
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.
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===
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.

===(4) 2016 RFP===
==== "Cornerstone"====
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]]

==== Community Group Alternative ====
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com [[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]

==== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ====
The Lennar Plan, with 260 housing units and an east side hotel was proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities and approved by the Livermore City Council (Marchand, Gary, Turner)[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 that replaced Councilmembers Gary and Turner.

==== Other Alternatives ====
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].

=== (5) Placeworks Plan ===
http://www.yourlivermore.org

The planning process administered by Placeworks resulted in a plan that located a hotel on the east side of Livermore Avenue at Railroad. The zoning decision that made this location buildable was made by Council on September 10, 2018. It was challenged by referendum filing on September 11, 2018.

== Economic Impacts ==
=== Livermore Village ===
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]. 

==== Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund ====
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: 
* In June 2015 it had $5.8 million in working capital[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013]
* In June 2016, that number had risen to $11.8 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396]
* In June 2017, it was $15,011,027 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14700] 
* In June 2018, it was $15,909,442 milion[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/17848/] with another $4,875,052 expected in revenue to be received during the proceeding year

Assets have been accumulating primarily from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects.

=== LVPAC ===
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580].
=== "Cornerstone" ===
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.

=== Community Group ===
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

=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===
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.

== Traffic Impacts ==
=== "Cornerstone" ===
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.

=== Community Group ===
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.
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===
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.
== Effect on Housing Prices ==
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.

== Notable Public Meetings ==
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].

Friends of Livermore

2018-10-04T23:57:26Z

Dmann:

According to their website, "Friends of Livermore is dedicated to preserving Livermore's distinct heritage and hometown culture by advocating a moderate growth plan that emphasizes a vibrant city center and the preservation of surrounding scenic and agricultural resources"[http://friendsoflivermore.org]. Committees (PACs) incorporating the "Friends of Livermore" name are periodically created to raise money for specific causes, often during election seasons, usually with political advocacy goals.

==Historical Issues and Positions==
No single group can usually take credit for the successful prosecution of local issues.
Friends of Livermore (FOL) is a community –based group that formed under a simple but powerful vision for Livermore to protect the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB), prevent sprawl and preserve open space. Over many years FOL has worked to establish and protect the UGB and been active in Council and county-wide elections to support candidates and initiatives that reflect these values. In more recent times FOL has supported the revitalization of downtown and the emergence of a culturally-rich inner core.
Friends of Livermore have taken a major part in the following:
===2000 Alameda County Urban Growth Boundary===
The Measure D initiative ended the legality of Alameda County developing city-like urbanization. The competing Measure C, designed to be weaker and placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, was defeated. From this point forward, urbanization would only be undertaken by cities.
===2002 North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary===
After more than 10,000 signatures were collected, the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was adopted that reinforced the South Livermore UGB and established the North Livermore UGB. Future expansion of the size of Livermore would need to be voted on by the public.

===2004-2006 First Street Streetscape===
For decades, First Street was a four lane road and not pedestrian friendly. The Council undertook a redesign to transform it into the more tranquil downtown experience that exists today. Through the process, many groups including Friends took part in developing ideas and providing the feedback that led to the remarkable improvements. Friends paid particular attention to maximizing parking availabilty, without which there would have been fewer parking spaces. They also pushed back against the consultant's recommendation to construct a building to replace Lizzie Fountain.

===2005 Weyerhaeuser development===
Weyerhaeuser (through their now defunct subsidiary Pardee Homes) owned many acres of land north of Livermore, outside the UGB that was established by Friends. Confident they could convince residents to allow them to urbanize their land, they drafted an initiative to expand the UGB and create an development they cynically named "Livermore Trails". Friends was a major donor to the defeat of this new "Measure D", and were outspent 10 to 1. Even so, Weyerhaeuser was defeated 72% to 28%.
===2005-2007 Bankhead Theater===
[http://lvpac.org LVPAC] was supported by Friends in their effort to build what would become the 500 seat Bankhead Theater.

===2005-2009 Regional Theater===
Concurrently with the planning for the Bankhead, LVPAC again worked with Friends to establish a location for a 2,000 seat regional theater. There were good reasons at the time to believe that an adequately sized performing arts center would be built in the Tri-Valley and Livermore should be the place to build it. Extensive economic studies involving models of similar regions determined that if it were not too large or too small, it would be profitable. The decision was made to place it on the newly available land at the former [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment|stockyard]]. Ultimately, the transformation of such large area of the downtown to be far less popular with the public than the Bankhead. The project ended with changes to State law that governed redevelopment funding, as it was no longer financially feasible.

===2011 Doolan Canyon===

===2011 City Council election===
Stewart Gary was supported due to his environmental positions, and was elected. Conversely, he was not supported in 2016 due to his position in favor of the controversial [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#lennar|'''Lennar Multifamily Communities''']] downtown housing development project.

===2014 City Council Election===
Friends supported Steve Spedowfski and Robert Woerner, both of whom were elected.

===2016 Campaign against [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#lennar|Lennar Multifamily Communities]] development plan===
The 2016 version of the [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#LVPAC|Stockyard Redevelopment]] was viewed as having too many houses and not enough public open space. Friends actively presented alternate ideas and vision to influence the general direction and oppose Lennar Homes' proposal. Lennar's plan was chosen as the 2016 election was approaching, and Friends threw it's support to successful candidates that took positions against Lennar (Bob Coomber and and Robert Carling).

===2018 Campaign for "West Side Hotel" downtown development===
After Lennar was eliminated, public workshops were convened to gather community input. One overwhelming preference of participants was to build a hotel to the west of Livermore Avenue/South of Railroad. This was due to the fact that the principle alternative location next to the Bankhead Theater was not large enough to accommodate the necessary parking. Instead, some of the cars were expected to park across Railroad Avenue. Ingress/Egress could also not be designed without negative impacts. Traffic congestion and downtown parking availability were high priorities during outreach.
====Referendum====
After Council voted on September 10 2018 to rezone for a 4 story 63 foot high east side hotel with underground parking, Friends notified the City that they would be collecting signatures in order to file a referendum on this decision.

== Controversy ==
As one would expect, Friends has its share of supporters and critics. Supporters are eager to cite the long history of environmental stewardship, and critics claim that Friends consists of a small number of powerful people who can control issues in defiance of the larger city population.
=== Joan Seppala ===
The most prominent member of the organization is Joan Seppala. As the editor of the local [https://www.independentnews.com newspaper] coupled with her propensity to donate substantially to environmental political causes, she is often at odds with individuals and groups that have development interests.

Friends of Livermore

2018-10-04T23:54:59Z

Dmann: lizzie

According to their website, "Friends of Livermore is dedicated to preserving Livermore's distinct heritage and hometown culture by advocating a moderate growth plan that emphasizes a vibrant city center and the preservation of surrounding scenic and agricultural resources"[http://friendsoflivermore.org]. Committees (PACs) incorporating the "Friends of Livermore" name are periodically created to raise money for specific causes, often during election seasons, usually with political advocacy goals.

==Historical Issues and Positions==
No single group can usually take credit for the successful prosecution of local issues.
Friends of Livermore (FOL) is a community –based group that formed under a simple but powerful vision for Livermore to protect the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB), prevent sprawl and preserve open space. Over many years FOL has worked to establish and protect the UGB and been active in Council and county-wide elections to support candidates and initiatives that reflect these values. In more recent times FOL has supported the revitalization of downtown and the emergence of a culturally-rich inner core.
Friends of Livermore have taken a major part in the following:
===2000 Alameda County Urban Growth Boundary===
The Measure D initiative ended the legality of Alameda County developing city-like urbanization. The competing Measure C, designed to be weaker and placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, was defeated. From this point forward, urbanization would only be undertaken by cities.
===2002 North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary===
After more than 10,000 signatures were collected, the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was adopted that confirmed the Livermore South UGB and established the North Livermore UGB. Future expansion of the size of Livermore would need to be voted on by the public.
===2004-2006 First Street Streetscape===
For decades, First Street was a four lane road and not pedestrian friendly. The Council undertook a redesign to transform it into the more tranquil downtown experience that exists today. Through the process, many groups including Friends took part in developing ideas and providing the feedback that led to the remarkable improvements. Friends paid particular attention to maximizing parking availabilty, without which there would have been fewer parking spaces. They also pushed back against the consultant's recommendation to construct a building to replace Lizzie Fountain.

===2005 Weyerhaeuser development===
Weyerhaeuser (through their now defunct subsidiary Pardee Homes) owned many acres of land north of Livermore, outside the UGB that was established by Friends. Confident they could convince residents to allow them to urbanize their land, they drafted an initiative to expand the UGB and create an development they cynically named "Livermore Trails". Friends was a major donor to the defeat of this new "Measure D", and were outspent 10 to 1. Even so, Weyerhaeuser was defeated 72% to 28%.
===2005-2007 Bankhead Theater===
[http://lvpac.org LVPAC] was supported by Friends in their effort to build what would become the 500 seat Bankhead Theater.

===2005-2009 Regional Theater===
Concurrently with the planning for the Bankhead, LVPAC again worked with Friends to establish a location for a 2,000 seat regional theater. There were good reasons at the time to believe that an adequately sized performing arts center would be built in the Tri-Valley and Livermore should be the place to build it. Extensive economic studies involving models of similar regions determined that if it were not too large or too small, it would be profitable. The decision was made to place it on the newly available land at the former [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment|stockyard]]. Ultimately, the transformation of such large area of the downtown to be far less popular with the public than the Bankhead. The project ended with changes to State law that governed redevelopment funding, as it was no longer financially feasible.

===2011 Doolan Canyon===

===2011 City Council election===
Stewart Gary was supported due to his environmental positions, and was elected. Conversely, he was not supported in 2016 due to his position in favor of the controversial [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#lennar|'''Lennar Multifamily Communities''']] downtown housing development project.

===2014 City Council Election===
Friends supported Steve Spedowfski and Robert Woerner, both of whom were elected.

===2016 Campaign against [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#lennar|Lennar Multifamily Communities]] development plan===
The 2016 version of the [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#LVPAC|Stockyard Redevelopment]] was viewed as having too many houses and not enough public open space. Friends actively presented alternate ideas and vision to influence the general direction and oppose Lennar Homes' proposal. Lennar's plan was chosen as the 2016 election was approaching, and Friends threw it's support to successful candidates that took positions against Lennar (Bob Coomber and and Robert Carling).

===2018 Campaign for "West Side Hotel" downtown development===
After Lennar was eliminated, public workshops were convened to gather community input. One overwhelming preference of participants was to build a hotel to the west of Livermore Avenue/South of Railroad. This was due to the fact that the principle alternative location next to the Bankhead Theater was not large enough to accommodate the necessary parking. Instead, some of the cars were expected to park across Railroad Avenue. Ingress/Egress could also not be designed without negative impacts. Traffic congestion and downtown parking availability were high priorities during outreach.
====Referendum====
After Council voted on September 10 2018 to rezone for a 4 story 63 foot high east side hotel with underground parking, Friends notified the City that they would be collecting signatures in order to file a referendum on this decision.

== Controversy ==
As one would expect, Friends has its share of supporters and critics. Supporters are eager to cite the long history of environmental stewardship, and critics claim that Friends consists of a small number of powerful people who can control issues in defiance of the larger city population.
=== Joan Seppala ===
The most prominent member of the organization is Joan Seppala. As the editor of the local [https://www.independentnews.com newspaper] coupled with her propensity to donate substantially to environmental political causes, she is often at odds with individuals and groups that have development interests.

Friends of Livermore

2018-10-04T04:18:33Z

Dmann: streetscape

According to their website, "Friends of Livermore is dedicated to preserving Livermore's distinct heritage and hometown culture by advocating a moderate growth plan that emphasizes a vibrant city center and the preservation of surrounding scenic and agricultural resources"[http://friendsoflivermore.org]. Committees (PACs) incorporating the "Friends of Livermore" name are periodically created to raise money for specific causes, often during election seasons, usually with political advocacy goals.

==Historical Issues and Positions==
No single group can usually take credit for the successful prosecution of local issues.
Friends of Livermore (FOL) is a community –based group that formed under a simple but powerful vision for Livermore to protect the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB), prevent sprawl and preserve open space. Over many years FOL has worked to establish and protect the UGB and been active in Council and county-wide elections to support candidates and initiatives that reflect these values. In more recent times FOL has supported the revitalization of downtown and the emergence of a culturally-rich inner core.
Friends of Livermore have taken a major part in the following:
===2000 Alameda County Urban Growth Boundary===
The Measure D initiative ended the legality of Alameda County developing city-like urbanization. The competing Measure C, designed to be weaker and placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, was defeated. From this point forward, urbanization would only be undertaken by cities.
===2002 North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary===
After more than 10,000 signatures were collected, the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was adopted that confirmed the Livermore South UGB and established the North Livermore UGB. Future expansion of the size of Livermore would need to be voted on by the public.
===2004-2006 First Street Streetscape===
For decades, First Street was a four lane road and not pedestrian friendly. The Council undertook a redesign to transform it into the tranquil downtown experience that exists today. Through the process, many groups including Friends took part in developing ideas and providing the feedback that led to the remarkable improvements. Friends paid particular attention to maximizing parking availabilty, without which there would have been fewer parking spaces.

===2005 Weyerhaeuser development===
Weyerhaeuser (through their now defunct subsidiary Pardee Homes) owned many acres of land north of Livermore, outside the UGB that was established by Friends. Confident they could convince residents to allow them to urbanize their land, they drafted an initiative to expand the UGB and create an development they cynically named "Livermore Trails". Friends was a major donor to the defeat of this new "Measure D", and were outspent 10 to 1. Even so, Weyerhaeuser was defeated 72% to 28%.
===2005-2007 Bankhead Theater===
[http://lvpac.org LVPAC] was supported by Friends in their effort to build what would become the 500 seat Bankhead Theater.

===2005-2009 Regional Theater===
Concurrently with the planning for the Bankhead, LVPAC again worked with Friends to establish a location for a 2,000 seat regional theater. There were good reasons at the time to believe that an adequately sized performing arts center would be built in the Tri-Valley and Livermore should be the place to build it. Extensive economic studies involving models of similar regions determined that if it were not too large or too small, it would be profitable. The decision was made to place it on the newly available land at the former [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment|stockyard]]. Ultimately, the transformation of such large area of the downtown to be far less popular with the public than the Bankhead. The project ended with changes to State law that governed redevelopment funding, as it was no longer financially feasible.

===2011 Doolan Canyon===

===2011 City Council election===
Stewart Gary was supported due to his environmental positions, and was elected. Conversely, he was not supported in 2016 due to his position in favor of the controversial [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#lennar|'''Lennar Multifamily Communities''']] downtown housing development project.

===2014 City Council Election===
Friends supported Steve Spedowfski and Robert Woerner, both of whom were elected.

===2016 Campaign against [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#lennar|Lennar Multifamily Communities]] development plan===
The 2016 version of the [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#LVPAC|Stockyard Redevelopment]] was viewed as having too many houses and not enough public open space. Friends actively presented alternate ideas and vision to influence the general direction and oppose Lennar Homes' proposal. Lennar's plan was chosen as the 2016 election was approaching, and Friends threw it's support to successful candidates that took positions against Lennar (Bob Coomber and and Robert Carling).

===2018 Campaign for "West Side Hotel" downtown development===
After Lennar was eliminated, public workshops were convened to gather community input. One overwhelming preference of participants was to build a hotel to the west of Livermore Avenue/South of Railroad. This was due to the fact that the principle alternative location next to the Bankhead Theater was not large enough to accommodate the necessary parking. Instead, some of the cars were expected to park across Railroad Avenue. Ingress/Egress could also not be designed without negative impacts. Traffic congestion and downtown parking availability were high priorities during outreach.
====Referendum====
After Council voted on September 10 2018 to rezone for a 4 story 63 foot high east side hotel with underground parking, Friends notified the City that they would be collecting signatures in order to file a referendum on this decision.

== Controversy ==
As one would expect, Friends has its share of supporters and critics. Supporters are eager to cite the long history of environmental stewardship, and critics claim that Friends consists of a small number of powerful people who can control issues in defiance of the larger city population.
=== Joan Seppala ===
The most prominent member of the organization is Joan Seppala. As the editor of the local [https://www.independentnews.com newspaper] coupled with her propensity to donate substantially to environmental political causes, she is often at odds with individuals and groups that have development interests.

Friends of Livermore

2018-10-03T23:13:28Z

Dmann: Lennar links

According to their website, "Friends of Livermore is dedicated to preserving Livermore's distinct heritage and hometown culture by advocating a moderate growth plan that emphasizes a vibrant city center and the preservation of surrounding scenic and agricultural resources"[http://friendsoflivermore.org]. Committees (PACs) incorporating the "Friends of Livermore" name are periodically created to raise money for specific causes, often during election seasons, usually with political advocacy goals.

==Historical Issues and Positions==
No single group can usually take credit for the successful prosecution of local issues.
Friends of Livermore (FOL) is a community –based group that formed under a simple but powerful vision for Livermore to protect the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB), prevent sprawl and preserve open space. Over many years FOL has worked to establish and protect the UGB and been active in Council and county-wide elections to support candidates and initiatives that reflect these values. In more recent times FOL has supported the revitalization of downtown and the emergence of a culturally-rich inner core.
Friends of Livermore have taken a major part in the following:
===2000 Alameda County Urban Growth Boundary===
The Measure D initiative ended the legality of Alameda County developing city-like urbanization. The competing Measure C, designed to be weaker and placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, was defeated. From this point forward, urbanization would only be undertaken by cities.
===2002 North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary===
After more than 10,000 signatures were collected, the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was adopted that confirmed the Livermore South UGB and established the North Livermore UGB. Future expansion of the size of Livermore would need to be voted on by the public.

===2005 Weyerhaeuser development===
Weyerhaeuser (through their now defunct subsidiary Pardee Homes) owned many acres of land north of Livermore, outside the UGB that was established by Friends. Confident they could convince residents to allow them to urbanize their land, they drafted an initiative to expand the UGB and create an development they cynically named "Livermore Trails". Friends was a major donor to the defeat of this new "Measure D", and were outspent 10 to 1. Even so, Weyerhaeuser was defeated 72% to 28%.
===2005-2007 Bankhead Theater===
[http://lvpac.org LVPAC] was supported by Friends in their effort to build what would become the 500 seat Bankhead Theater.

===2005-2009 Regional Theater===
Concurrently with the planning for the Bankhead, LVPAC again worked with Friends to establish a location for a 2,000 seat regional theater. There were good reasons at the time to believe that an adequately sized performing arts center would be built in the Tri-Valley and Livermore should be the place to build it. Extensive economic studies involving models of similar regions determined that if it were not too large or too small, it would be profitable. The decision was made to place it on the newly available land at the former [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment|stockyard]]. Ultimately, the transformation of such large area of the downtown to be far less popular with the public than the Bankhead. The project ended with changes to State law that governed redevelopment funding, as it was no longer financially feasible.

===2011 Doolan Canyon===

===2011 City Council election===
Stewart Gary was supported due to his environmental positions, and was elected. Conversely, he was not supported in 2016 due to his position in favor of the controversial [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#lennar|'''Lennar Multifamily Communities''']] downtown housing development project.

===2014 City Council Election===
Friends supported Steve Spedowfski and Robert Woerner, both of whom were elected.

===2016 Campaign against [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#lennar|Lennar Multifamily Communities]] development plan===
The 2016 version of the [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#LVPAC|Stockyard Redevelopment]] was viewed as having too many houses and not enough public open space. Friends actively presented alternate ideas and vision to influence the general direction and oppose Lennar Homes' proposal. Lennar's plan was chosen as the 2016 election was approaching, and Friends threw it's support to successful candidates that took positions against Lennar (Bob Coomber and and Robert Carling).

===2018 Campaign for "West Side Hotel" downtown development===
After Lennar was eliminated, public workshops were convened to gather community input. One overwhelming preference of participants was to build a hotel to the west of Livermore Avenue/South of Railroad. This was due to the fact that the principle alternative location next to the Bankhead Theater was not large enough to accommodate the necessary parking. Instead, some of the cars were expected to park across Railroad Avenue. Ingress/Egress could also not be designed without negative impacts. Traffic congestion and downtown parking availability were high priorities during outreach.
====Referendum====
After Council voted on September 10 2018 to rezone for a 4 story 63 foot high east side hotel with underground parking, Friends notified the City that they would be collecting signatures in order to file a referendum on this decision.

== Controversy ==
As one would expect, Friends has its share of supporters and critics. Supporters are eager to cite the long history of environmental stewardship, and critics claim that Friends consists of a small number of powerful people who can control issues in defiance of the larger city population.
=== Joan Seppala ===
The most prominent member of the organization is Joan Seppala. As the editor of the local [https://www.independentnews.com newspaper] coupled with her propensity to donate substantially to environmental political causes, she is often at odds with individuals and groups that have development interests.

Friends of Livermore

2018-10-03T23:00:51Z

Dmann:

According to their website, "Friends of Livermore is dedicated to preserving Livermore's distinct heritage and hometown culture by advocating a moderate growth plan that emphasizes a vibrant city center and the preservation of surrounding scenic and agricultural resources"[http://friendsoflivermore.org]. Committees (PACs) incorporating the "Friends of Livermore" name are periodically created to raise money for specific causes, often during election seasons, usually with political advocacy goals.

==Historical Issues and Positions==
No single group can usually take credit for the successful prosecution of local issues.
Friends of Livermore (FOL) is a community –based group that formed under a simple but powerful vision for Livermore to protect the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB), prevent sprawl and preserve open space. Over many years FOL has worked to establish and protect the UGB and been active in Council and county-wide elections to support candidates and initiatives that reflect these values. In more recent times FOL has supported the revitalization of downtown and the emergence of a culturally-rich inner core.
Friends of Livermore have taken a major part in the following:
===2000 Alameda County Urban Growth Boundary===
The Measure D initiative ended the legality of Alameda County developing city-like urbanization. The competing Measure C, designed to be weaker and placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, was defeated. From this point forward, urbanization would only be undertaken by cities.
===2002 North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary===
After more than 10,000 signatures were collected, the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was adopted that confirmed the Livermore South UGB and established the North Livermore UGB. Future expansion of the size of Livermore would need to be voted on by the public.

===2005 Weyerhaeuser development===
Weyerhaeuser (through their now defunct subsidiary Pardee Homes) owned many acres of land north of Livermore, outside the UGB that was established by Friends. Confident they could convince residents to allow them to urbanize their land, they drafted an initiative to expand the UGB and create an development they cynically named "Livermore Trails". Friends was a major donor to the defeat of this new "Measure D", and were outspent 10 to 1. Even so, Weyerhaeuser was defeated 72% to 28%.
===2005-2007 Bankhead Theater===
[http://lvpac.org LVPAC] was supported by Friends in their effort to build what would become the 500 seat Bankhead Theater.

===2005-2009 Regional Theater===
Concurrently with the planning for the Bankhead, LVPAC again worked with Friends to establish a location for a 2,000 seat regional theater. There were good reasons at the time to believe that an adequately sized performing arts center would be built in the Tri-Valley and Livermore should be the place to build it. Extensive economic studies involving models of similar regions determined that if it were not too large or too small, it would be profitable. The decision was made to place it on the newly available land at the former [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment|stockyard]]. Ultimately, the transformation of such large area of the downtown to be far less popular with the public than the Bankhead. The project ended with changes to State law that governed redevelopment funding, as it was no longer financially feasible.

===2011 Doolan Canyon===

===2011 City Council election===
Stewart Gary was supported due to his environmental positions, and was elected. Conversely, he was not supported in 2016 due to his position in favor of the controversial [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#lennar|lennar]] downtown housing development project.

===2014 City Council Election===
Friends supported Steve Spedowfski and Robert Woerner, both of whom were elected.

===2016 Campaign against "Lennar" development plan===
The 2016 version of the [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#LVPAC|Stockyard Redevelopment]] was viewed as having too many houses and not enough public open space. Friends actively presented alternate ideas and vision to influence the general direction and oppose Lennar Homes' proposal. Lennar's plan was chosen as the 2016 election was approaching, and Friends threw it's support to successful candidates that took positions against Lennar (Bob Coomber and and Robert Carling).

===2018 Campaign for "West Side Hotel" downtown development===
After Lennar was eliminated, public workshops were convened to gather community input. One overwhelming preference of participants was to build a hotel to the west of Livermore Avenue/South of Railroad. This was due to the fact that the principle alternative location next to the Bankhead Theater was not large enough to accommodate the necessary parking. Instead, some of the cars were expected to park across Railroad Avenue. Ingress/Egress could also not be designed without negative impacts. Traffic congestion and downtown parking availability were high priorities during outreach.
====Referendum====
After Council voted on September 10 2018 to rezone for a 4 story 63 foot high east side hotel with underground parking, Friends notified the City that they would be collecting signatures in order to file a referendum on this decision.

== Controversy ==
As one would expect, Friends has its share of supporters and critics. Supporters are eager to cite the long history of environmental stewardship, and critics claim that Friends consists of a small number of powerful people who can control issues in defiance of the larger city population.
=== Joan Seppala ===
The most prominent member of the organization is Joan Seppala. As the editor of the local [https://www.independentnews.com newspaper] coupled with her propensity to donate substantially to environmental political causes, she is often at odds with individuals and groups that have development interests.

Friends of Livermore

2018-10-03T22:56:02Z

Dmann: added the lennar support

According to their website, "Friends of Livermore is dedicated to preserving Livermore's distinct heritage and hometown culture by advocating a moderate growth plan that emphasizes a vibrant city center and the preservation of surrounding scenic and agricultural resources"[http://friendsoflivermore.org]. Committees (PACs) incorporating the "Friends of Livermore" name are periodically created to raise money for specific causes, often during election seasons, usually with political advocacy goals.

==Historical Issues and Positions==
No single group can usually take credit for the successful prosecution of local issues.
Friends of Livermore (FOL) is a community –based group that formed under a simple but powerful vision for Livermore to protect the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB), prevent sprawl and preserve open space. Over many years FOL has worked to establish and protect the UGB and been active in Council and county-wide elections to support candidates and initiatives that reflect these values. In more recent times FOL has supported the revitalization of downtown and the emergence of a culturally-rich inner core.
Friends of Livermore have taken a major part in the following:
===2000 Alameda County Urban Growth Boundary===
The Measure D initiative ended the legality of Alameda County developing city-like urbanization. The competing Measure C, designed to be weaker and placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, was defeated. From this point forward, urbanization would only be undertaken by cities.
===2002 North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary===
After more than 10,000 signatures were collected, the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was adopted that confirmed the Livermore South UGB and established the North Livermore UGB. Future expansion of the size of Livermore would need to be voted on by the public.

===2005 Weyerhaeuser development===
Weyerhaeuser (through their now defunct subsidiary Pardee Homes) owned many acres of land north of Livermore, outside the UGB that was established by Friends. Confident they could convince residents to allow them to urbanize their land, they drafted an initiative to expand the UGB and create an development they cynically named "Livermore Trails". Friends was a major donor to the defeat of this new "Measure D", and were outspent 10 to 1. Even so, Weyerhaeuser was defeated 72% to 28%.
===2005-2007 Bankhead Theater===
[http://lvpac.org LVPAC] was supported by Friends in their effort to build what would become the 500 seat Bankhead Theater.

===2005-2009 Regional Theater===
Concurrently with the planning for the Bankhead, LVPAC again worked with Friends to establish a location for a 2,000 seat regional theater. There were good reasons at the time to believe that an adequately sized performing arts center would be built in the Tri-Valley and Livermore should be the place to build it. Extensive economic studies involving models of similar regions determined that if it were not too large or too small, it would be profitable. The decision was made to place it on the newly available land at the former [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment|stockyard]]. Ultimately, the transformation of such large area of the downtown to be far less popular with the public than the Bankhead. The project ended with changes to State law that governed redevelopment funding, as it was no longer financially feasible.

===2011 Doolan Canyon===

===2011 City Council election===
Stewart Gary was supported due to his environmental positions, and was elected. Conversely, he was not supported in 2016 due to his position in favor of the controversial "Lennar" downtown housing development project.

===2014 City Council Election===
Friends supported Steve Spedowfski and Robert Woerner, both of whom were elected.

===2016 Campaign against "Lennar" development plan===
The 2016 version of the [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#LVPAC|Stockyard Redevelopment]] was viewed as having too many houses and not enough public open space. Friends actively presented alternate ideas and vision to influence the general direction and oppose Lennar Homes' proposal. Lennar's plan was chosen as the 2016 election was approaching, and Friends threw it's support to successful candidates that took positions against Lennar (Bob Coomber and and Robert Carling).

===2018 Campaign for "West Side Hotel" downtown development===
After Lennar was eliminated, public workshops were convened to gather community input. One overwhelming preference of participants was to build a hotel to the west of Livermore Avenue/South of Railroad. This was due to the fact that the principle alternative location next to the Bankhead Theater was not large enough to accommodate the necessary parking. Instead, some of the cars were expected to park across Railroad Avenue. Ingress/Egress could also not be designed without negative impacts. Traffic congestion and downtown parking availability were high priorities during outreach.
====Referendum====
After Council voted on September 10 2018 to rezone for a 4 story 63 foot high east side hotel with underground parking, Friends notified the City that they would be collecting signatures in order to file a referendum on this decision.

== Controversy ==
As one would expect, Friends has its share of supporters and critics. Supporters are eager to cite the long history of environmental stewardship, and critics claim that Friends consists of a small number of powerful people who can control issues in defiance of the larger city population.
=== Joan Seppala ===
The most prominent member of the organization is Joan Seppala. As the editor of the local [https://www.independentnews.com newspaper] coupled with her propensity to donate substantially to environmental political causes, she is often at odds with individuals and groups that have development interests.

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-10-03T20:53:18Z

Dmann:

A central premise of environmentally beneficial development is the concept of the Jobs-Housing Balance. In our region, it is generally accepted that a Jobs/Housing ratio of 1.4-1.5 jobs per residence is healthy for a community to economically exist while minimizing the impacts of daily commuter traffic [https://yimby.wiki/wiki/Jobs-Housing_Balance]. Achieving this ratio supports housing that is affordable and employment opportunities that are closer to those residences.

In the San Francisco Bay Area Megaregion, the counties with too high a ratio (too many jobs or too few houses) are Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Franciso. Those with a deficient ratio (too many houses or too few jobs) include San Joaquin. The remaining counties in the Bay Area are better balanced, and there have been attempts to project the effects of likely future planning and development [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_E90AYG2sPDMXQ1UzhURWlkYm8/view].

== [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/county-to-county-commute-patterns.html EDD Commute Pattern Maps] ==
The California Employment Development Department maintains a good volume of information about employment destinations and also where the workers live.
The [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/county-to-county-commute-patterns.html '''graphic maps'''] on commute patterns for every county in the state are very revealing [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/county-to-county-commute-patterns.html] . The data is from 2010, accumulated over the previous 2 years.

In [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/alameda2010.pdf '''Alameda County'''], nearly the same number of people commute inward as outward. Alameda County as a whole '''is balanced''' [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/alameda2010.pdf]

[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/santaclara2010.pdf '''Santa Clara County'''] has 100,000 too few workers (or 100,000 too many jobs[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/santaclara2010.pdf]

[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanfrancisco2010.pdf '''San Francisco County'''] has 162,000 too few workers (or 162,000 too many jobs) [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanfrancisco2010.pdf]

[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanjoaquin2010.pdf '''San Joaquin County'''] has 19,000 too few jobs (or 19,000 too many workers)[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanjoaquin2010.pdf]

== Tri-Valley Cities ==
===Livermore===

== Other Research ==
Here's another perspective from Curbed [https://sf.curbed.com/2016/10/12/12945854/bay-area-cities-jobs-housing-san-jose-palo-alto-sf]
MTC has an interesting interactive projection tool [http://travel-housing.mtcanalytics.org/#origin=375+Beale+St,+SF,+CA&mode=da&time=AM&scenario=2010&xyz=9.00/37.8573/-121.5896].

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-10-03T04:34:22Z

Dmann:

A central premise of environmentally beneficial development is the concept of the Jobs-Housing Balance. In our region, it is generally accepted that a Jobs/Housing ratio of 1.4-1.5 jobs per residence is healthy for a community to economically exist while minimizing the impacts of daily commuter traffic [https://yimby.wiki/wiki/Jobs-Housing_Balance]. Achieving this ratio supports housing that is affordable and employment opportunities that are closer to those residences.

In the San Francisco Bay Area Megaregion, the counties with too high a ratio (too many jobs or too few houses) are Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Franciso. Those with a deficient ratio (too many houses or too few jobs) include San Joaquin. The remaining counties in the Bay Area are better balanced, and there have been attempts to project the effects of likely future planning and development [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_E90AYG2sPDMXQ1UzhURWlkYm8/view].

== [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/county-to-county-commute-patterns.html EDD Commute Pattern Maps] ==
The California Employment Development Department maintains a good volume of information about employment destinations and also where the workers live.
The [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/county-to-county-commute-patterns.html '''graphic maps'''] on commute patterns for every county in the state are very revealing [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/county-to-county-commute-patterns.html] . The data is from 2010, accumulated over the previous 2 years.

In [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/alameda2010.pdf '''Alameda County'''], nearly the same number of people commute inward as outward. Alameda County as a whole '''is balanced''' [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/alameda2010.pdf]

[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/santaclara2010.pdf '''Santa Clara County'''] has 100,000 too few workers (or 100,000 too many jobs[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/santaclara2010.pdf]

[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanfrancisco2010.pdf%5D '''San Francisco County'''] has 162,000 too few workers (or 162,000 too many jobs) [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanfrancisco2010.pdf]

[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanjoaquin2010.pdf '''San Joaquin County'''] has 19,000 too few jobs (or 19,000 too many workers)[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanjoaquin2010.pdf]

== Tri-Valley Cities ==
===Livermore===

== Other Research ==
Here's another perspective from Curbed [https://sf.curbed.com/2016/10/12/12945854/bay-area-cities-jobs-housing-san-jose-palo-alto-sf]
MTC has an interesting interactive projection tool [http://travel-housing.mtcanalytics.org/#origin=375+Beale+St,+SF,+CA&mode=da&time=AM&scenario=2010&xyz=9.00/37.8573/-121.5896].

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-10-03T04:30:12Z

Dmann:

A central premise of environmentally beneficial development is the concept of the Jobs-Housing Balance. In our region, it is generally accepted that a Jobs/Housing ratio of 1.4-1.5 is healthy for a community to economically exist while minimizing the impacts of daily commuter traffic [https://yimby.wiki/wiki/Jobs-Housing_Balance]. Achieving this ratio supports housing that is affordable and employment opportunities that are closer to those residences.

In the San Francisco Bay Area Megaregion, the counties with too high a ratio (too many jobs or too few houses) are Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Franciso. Those with a deficient ratio (too many houses or too few jobs) include San Joaquin. The remaining counties in the Bay Area are better balanced, and there have been attempts to project the effects of likely future planning and development [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_E90AYG2sPDMXQ1UzhURWlkYm8/view].

MTC has an interesting interactive projection tool [http://travel-housing.mtcanalytics.org/#origin=375+Beale+St,+SF,+CA&mode=da&time=AM&scenario=2010&xyz=9.00/37.8573/-121.5896].

== [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/county-to-county-commute-patterns.html EDD Commute Pattern Maps] ==
The California Employment Development Department maintains a good volume of information about employment destinations and also where the workers live.
The [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/county-to-county-commute-patterns.html '''graphic maps'''] on commute patterns for every county in the state are very revealing [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/county-to-county-commute-patterns.html] . The data is from 2010, accumulated over the previous 2 years.

In [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/alameda2010.pdf '''Alameda County'''], nearly the same number of people commute inward as outward. Alameda County as a whole '''is balanced''' [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/alameda2010.pdf]

[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/santaclara2010.pdf '''Santa Clara County'''] has 100,000 too few workers (or 100,000 too many jobs[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/santaclara2010.pdf]

[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanfrancisco2010.pdf%5D '''San Francisco County'''] has 162,000 too few workers (or 162,000 too many jobs) [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanfrancisco2010.pdf]

[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanjoaquin2010.pdf '''San Joaquin County'''] has 19,000 too few jobs (or 19,000 too many workers)[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanjoaquin2010.pdf]

== Tri-Valley Cities ==
===Livermore===

== Other Research ==
Here's another perspective from Curbed [https://sf.curbed.com/2016/10/12/12945854/bay-area-cities-jobs-housing-san-jose-palo-alto-sf]

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-10-03T04:21:07Z

Dmann: spelling

A central premise of environmentally beneficial development is the concept of the Jobs-Housing Balance. In our region, it is generally accepted that a Jobs/Housing ratio of 1.4-1.5 is healthy for a community to economically exist while minimizing the impacts of daily commuter traffic [https://yimby.wiki/wiki/Jobs-Housing_Balance]. Achieving this ratio supports housing that is affordable and employment opportunities that are closer to those residences.

In the San Francisco Bay Area Megaregion, the counties with too high a ratio (too many jobs or too few houses) are Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Franciso. Those with a deficient ratio (too many houses or too few jobs) include San Joaquin. The remaining counties in the Bay Area are better balanced, and there have been attempts to project the effects of likely future planning and development [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_E90AYG2sPDMXQ1UzhURWlkYm8/view].

MTC has an interesting interactive projection tool [http://travel-housing.mtcanalytics.org/#origin=375+Beale+St,+SF,+CA&mode=da&time=AM&scenario=2010&xyz=9.00/37.8573/-121.5896].

== EDD Data ==
The California Employment Development Department maintains a good volume of information about employment destinations and where the workers live including graphic maps on commute patterns [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/county-to-county-commute-patterns.html] . The data is from 2010, accumulated over the previous 2 years.

In Alameda County, nearly the same number of people commute inward as outward. Alameda County as a whole is balanced [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/alameda2010.pdf]

Santa Clara County has 100,000 too few workers (or 100,000 too many jobs) [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/santaclara2010.pdf]

San Francisco County has 162,000 too few workers (or 162,000 too many jobs) [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanfrancisco2010.pdf]

San Joaquin County has 19,000 too few jobs (or 19,000 too many workers)[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanjoaquin2010.pdf]

== Tri-Valley Cities ==
===Livermore===

== Other Research ==
Here's another perspective from Curbed [https://sf.curbed.com/2016/10/12/12945854/bay-area-cities-jobs-housing-san-jose-palo-alto-sf]

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T19:39:30Z

Dmann:

According to their website, "Friends of Livermore is dedicated to preserving Livermore's distinct heritage and hometown culture by advocating a moderate growth plan that emphasizes a vibrant city center and the preservation of surrounding scenic and agricultural resources"[http://friendsoflivermore.org]. Committees (PACs) incorporating the "Friends of Livermore" name are periodically created to raise money for specific causes, often during election seasons, usually with political advocacy goals.

==Historical Issues and Positions==
No single group can usually take credit for the successful prosecution of local issues. Friends have taken a major part in the following:
===2000 Alameda County Urban Growth Boundary===
The Measure D initiative ended the legality of Alameda County developing city-like urbanization. The competing Measure C, designed to be weaker and placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, was defeated. From this point forward, urbanization would only be undertaken by cities.
===2002 North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary===
After more than 10,000 signatures were collected, the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was adopted that confirmed the Livermore South UGB and established the North Livermore UGB. Future expansion of the size of Livermore would need to be voted on by the public.

===2005 Weyerhaeuser development===
Weyerhaeuser (through their now defunct subsidiary Pardee Homes) owned many acres of land north of Livermore, outside the UGB that was established by Friends. Confident they could convince residents to allow them to urbanize their land, they drafted an initiative to expand the UGB and create an development they cynically named "Livermore Trails". Friends was a major donor to the defeat of this new "Measure D", and were outspent 10 to 1. Even so, Weyerhaeuser was defeated 72% to 28%.
===2005-2007 Bankhead Theater===
[http://lvpac.org LVPAC] was supported by Friends in their effort to build what would become the 500 seat Bankhead Theater.

===2005-2009 Regional Theater===
Concurrently with the planning for the Bankhead, LVPAC again worked with Friends to establish a location for a 2,000 seat regional theater. There were good reasons at the time to believe that an adequately sized performing arts center would be built in the Tri-Valley and Livermore should be the place to build it. Extensive economic studies involving models of similar regions determined that if it were not too large or too small, it would be profitable. The decision was made to place it on the newly available land at the former [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment|stockyard]]. Ultimately, the transformation of such large area of the downtown to be far less popular with the public than the Bankhead. The project ended with changes to State law that governed redevelopment funding, as it was no longer financially feasible.

===2011 Doolan Canyon===

===2011 City Council election===
Stewart Gary was supported due to his environmental positions, and was elected.

===2014 City Council Election===
Friends supported Steve Spedowfski and Robert Woerner, both of whom were elected.

===2016 Campaign against "Lennar" development plan===
The 2016 version of the [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#LVPAC|Stockyard Redevelopment]] was viewed as having too many houses and not enough public open space. Friends actively presented alternate ideas and vision to influence the general direction and oppose Lennar Homes' proposal. Lennar's plan was chosen as the 2016 election was approaching, and Friends threw it's support to successful candidates that took positions against Lennar (Bob Coomber and and Robert Carling).

===2018 Campaign for "West Side Hotel" downtown development===
After Lennar was eliminated, public workshops were convened to gather community input. One overwhelming preference of participants was to build a hotel to the west of Livermore Avenue/South of Railroad. This was due to the fact that the principle alternative location next to the Bankhead Theater was not large enough to accommodate the necessary parking. Instead, some of the cars were expected to park across Railroad Avenue. Ingress/Egress could also not be designed without negative impacts. Traffic congestion and downtown parking availability were high priorities during outreach.
====Referendum====
After Council voted on September 10 2018 to rezone for the east side hotel, Friends notified the City that they would be filing a referendum.

== Controversy ==
As one would expect, Friends has its share of supporters and critics. Supporters are eager to cite the long history of environmental stewardship, and critics claim that Friends consists of a small number of powerful people who can control issues in defiance of the larger city population.
=== Joan Seppala ===
The most prominent member of the organization is Joan Seppala. As the editor of the local [https://www.independentnews.com newspaper] coupled with her propensity to donate substantially to environmental political causes, she is often at odds with individuals and groups that have development interests.

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T19:32:00Z

Dmann:

According to their website, "Friends of Livermore is dedicated to preserving Livermore's distinct heritage and hometown culture by advocating a moderate growth plan that emphasizes a vibrant city center and the preservation of surrounding scenic and agricultural resources"[http://friendsoflivermore.org]. Committees (PACs) incorporating the "Friends of Livermore" name are periodically created to raise money for specific causes, often during election seasons, usually with political advocacy goals.

==Historical Issues and Positions==
No single group can usually take credit for the successful prosecution of local issues. Friends have taken a major part in the following:
===2000 Alameda County Urban Growth Boundary===
The Measure D initiative ended the legality of Alameda County developing city-like urbanization. The competing Measure C, designed to be weaker and placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, was defeated. From this point forward, urbanization would only be undertaken by cities.
===2002 North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary===
After more than 10,000 signatures were collected, the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was adopted that confirmed the Livermore South UGB and established the North Livermore UGB. Future expansion of the size of Livermore would need to be voted on by the public.

===2005 Weyerhaeuser development===
Weyerhaeuser (through their now defunct subsidiary Pardee Homes) owned many acres of land north of Livermore, outside the UGB that was established by Friends. Confident they could convince residents to allow them to urbanize their land, they drafted an initiative to expand the UGB and create an development they cynically named "Livermore Trails". Friends was a major donor to the defeat of this new "Measure D", and were outspent 10 to 1. Even so, Weyerhaeuser was defeated 72% to 28%.
===2005-2007 Bankhead Theater===
[http://lvpac.org LVPAC] was supported by Friends in their effort to build what would become the 500 seat Bankhead Theater.

===2005-2009 Regional Theater===
Concurrently with the planning for the Bankhead, LVPAC again worked with Friends to establish a location for a 2,000 seat regional theater. There were good reasons at the time to believe that an adequately sized performing arts center would be built in the Tri-Valley and Livermore should be the place to build it. Extensive economic studies involving models of similar regions determined that if it were not too large or too small, it would be profitable. The decision was made to place it on the newly available land at the former [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment|stockyard]]. Ultimately, the transformation of such large area of the downtown to be far less popular with the public than the Bankhead. The project ended with changes to State law that governed redevelopment funding, as it was no longer financially feasible.

===2011 Doolan Canyon===

===2014 City Council Election===
Friends supported Steve Spedowfski and Robert Woerner.

===2016 Campaign against "Lennar" development plan===
The 2016 version of the [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#LVPAC|Stockyard Redevelopment]] was viewed as having too many houses and not enough public open space. Friends actively presented alternate ideas and vision to influence the general direction and oppose Lennar Homes' proposal. Lennar's plan was chosen as the 2016 election was approaching, and Friends threw it's support to candidates that took positions against Lennar (Bob Coomber and and Robert Carling).

===2018 Campaign for "West Side Hotel" downtown development===
After Lennar was eliminated, public workshops were convened to gather community input. One overwhelming preference of participants was to build a hotel to the west of Livermore Avenue/South of Railroad. This was due to the fact that the principle alternative location next to the Bankhead Theater was not large enough to accommodate the necessary parking. Instead, some of the cars were expected to park across Railroad Avenue. Ingress/Egress could also not be designed without negative impacts. Traffic congestion and downtown parking availability were high priorities during outreach.
====Referendum====
After Council voted on September 10 2018 to rezone for the east side hotel, Friends notified the City that they would be filing a referendum.

== Controversy ==
As one would expect, Friends has its share of supporters and critics. Supporters are eager to cite the long history of environmental stewardship, and critics claim that Friends consists of a small number of powerful people who can control issues in defiance of the larger city population.
=== Joan Seppala ===
The most prominent member of the organization is Joan Seppala. As the editor of the local [https://www.independentnews.com newspaper] coupled with her propensity to donate substantially to environmental political causes, she is often at odds with individuals and groups that have development interests.

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T19:31:18Z

Dmann:

According to their website, "Friends of Livermore is dedicated to preserving Livermore's distinct heritage and hometown culture by advocating a moderate growth plan that emphasizes a vibrant city center and the preservation of surrounding scenic and agricultural resources"[http://friendsoflivermore.org]. Committees incorporating the "Friends of Livermore" name are periodically created to raise money for specific causes, often during election seasons, usually with political advocacy goals.

==Historical Issues and Positions==
No single group can usually take credit for the successful prosecution of local issues. Friends have taken a major part in the following:
===2000 Alameda County Urban Growth Boundary===
The Measure D initiative ended the legality of Alameda County developing city-like urbanization. The competing Measure C, designed to be weaker and placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, was defeated. From this point forward, urbanization would only be undertaken by cities.
===2002 North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary===
After more than 10,000 signatures were collected, the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was adopted that confirmed the Livermore South UGB and established the North Livermore UGB. Future expansion of the size of Livermore would need to be voted on by the public.

===2005 Weyerhaeuser development===
Weyerhaeuser (through their now defunct subsidiary Pardee Homes) owned many acres of land north of Livermore, outside the UGB that was established by Friends. Confident they could convince residents to allow them to urbanize their land, they drafted an initiative to expand the UGB and create an development they cynically named "Livermore Trails". Friends was a major donor to the defeat of this new "Measure D", and were outspent 10 to 1. Even so, Weyerhaeuser was defeated 72% to 28%.
===2005-2007 Bankhead Theater===
[http://lvpac.org LVPAC] was supported by Friends in their effort to build what would become the 500 seat Bankhead Theater.

===2005-2009 Regional Theater===
Concurrently with the planning for the Bankhead, LVPAC again worked with Friends to establish a location for a 2,000 seat regional theater. There were good reasons at the time to believe that an adequately sized performing arts center would be built in the Tri-Valley and Livermore should be the place to build it. Extensive economic studies involving models of similar regions determined that if it were not too large or too small, it would be profitable. The decision was made to place it on the newly available land at the former [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment|stockyard]]. Ultimately, the transformation of such large area of the downtown to be far less popular with the public than the Bankhead. The project ended with changes to State law that governed redevelopment funding, as it was no longer financially feasible.

===2011 Doolan Canyon===

===2014 City Council Election===
Friends supported Steve Spedowfski and Robert Woerner.

===2016 Campaign against "Lennar" development plan===
The 2016 version of the [[Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment#LVPAC|Stockyard Redevelopment]] was viewed as having too many houses and not enough public open space. Friends actively presented alternate ideas and vision to influence the general direction and oppose Lennar Homes' proposal. Lennar's plan was chosen as the 2016 election was approaching, and Friends threw it's support to candidates that took positions against Lennar (Bob Coomber and and Robert Carling).

===2018 Campaign for "West Side Hotel" downtown development===
After Lennar was eliminated, public workshops were convened to gather community input. One overwhelming preference of participants was to build a hotel to the west of Livermore Avenue/South of Railroad. This was due to the fact that the principle alternative location next to the Bankhead Theater was not large enough to accommodate the necessary parking. Instead, some of the cars were expected to park across Railroad Avenue. Ingress/Egress could also not be designed without negative impacts. Traffic congestion and downtown parking availability were high priorities during outreach.
====Referendum====
After Council voted on September 10 2018 to rezone for the east side hotel, Friends notified the City that they would be filing a referendum.

== Controversy ==
As one would expect, Friends has its share of supporters and critics. Supporters are eager to cite the long history of environmental stewardship, and critics claim that Friends consists of a small number of powerful people who can control issues in defiance of the larger city population.
=== Joan Seppala ===
The most prominent member of the organization is Joan Seppala. As the editor of the local [https://www.independentnews.com newspaper] coupled with her propensity to donate substantially to environmental political causes, she is often at odds with individuals and groups that have development interests.

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T19:19:03Z

Dmann:

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T19:17:16Z

Dmann:

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T19:15:19Z

Dmann:

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T19:13:26Z

Dmann:

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T17:43:03Z

Dmann: controversy

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T04:35:38Z

Dmann:

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T04:34:26Z

Dmann:

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T04:26:29Z

Dmann:

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T04:12:10Z

Dmann:

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T04:03:12Z

Dmann:

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T03:56:53Z

Dmann: more details

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T00:38:29Z

Dmann: add hotel issue

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T00:11:41Z

Dmann: outline

Friends of Livermore

2018-09-30T00:02:19Z

Dmann: initial publication

BART to Livermore at Isabel

2018-09-29T23:54:33Z

Dmann:

BART's easternmost station, the Dublin/Pleasanton station went into service in 1997 with anticipation of going into Livermore at some point. In June 2018, the BART Board voted not to extend eastward of the Dublin station. Just prior to the vote, two different methodologies for train projects were under consideration.

==New Approach, Assembly Bill 758==
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 at the time (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 control was scheduled to be transferred to the new JPA on June 30 2018.

==Old Approach, Local Agency Planning==
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery was considered - BART. It involved 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 involved several steps. Funding was key.

The MTC was the entity which approves crucial funding. They would not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.

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.

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.

== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===
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.

The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips.
==== System Throughput ====
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.

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, increasing throughput by up to 30%.

As of September 2016, BART expected the 12 minute interval would be achieved in 2023.

In July 2017, the Livermore EIR pushed back that estimate and specified a very wide time range. "At some point after 2025, BART intends to improve weekday train headways from 15 minutes to 12 minutes, which will be in effect by 2040." Page 287 Vol 1 [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf].

In July 2018, that estimate was moved back to 2026 "at the earliest".

Page 88 of the DEIR [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf] lists the requirements to run a 12 minute interval, ALL of which need to be complete before ANY of the trains can run more often.
Fleet of the Future – Expansion of BART's current fleet from 669 cars to as many as 1,116 cars
Train Control Modernization Project – An updated train control system that will allow BART to run trains more frequently and reliably
(Construct the) Hayward Maintenance Complex – To ensure that BART has sufficient capacity to repair and maintain the fleet of its expanded system
Traction Power Improvements – Upgrade or install five traction power substations to serve the congested corridor to adequately power additional BART service

==== BART's position on congestion ====
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 confirmed when 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]

=== Parking ===
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/]

== Financial ==
===Capital Expenditures===
In 2016, the estimate was $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2].
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].

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.

===Revenue Sources===
$533 Million of the 1.64 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). $400 million of this funding is from the 2014 Alameda County Measure BB sales tax increase [http://www.smartvoter.org/2014/11/04/ca/alm/meas/BB/] and by reference, the approved expenditure plan[https://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/12934/2014_Transportation_Expenditure_Plan.pdf]. The shortfall is $1.1 billion.

===Operation===
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/].

== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==
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.

== Other ==
=== Freeway Termination ===
In response to the building momentum toward terminating the line near the Livermore Transit Center downtown, a citizen sponsored intiative was drafted in 2011 to require Council to recommend a termination on highway 580 instead of downtown. Using volunteers, it gathered the necessary signatures over a four month period[https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/06/13/livermore-leaders-order-study-on-keep-bart-on-580-initiative/]. It was adopted by a 3-2 vote Council vote [https://patch.com/california/livermore/city-council-forgoes-election-approves-initative-advo0f5d494a3b].
=== Benefits of Extension ===
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non-commute hours
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus for commuters when BART is their destination
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".

=== Drawbacks of Extension ===
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.
* High capital costs
* No significant improvement in 580 freeway commute traffic congestion

BART to Livermore at Isabel

2018-09-29T23:53:19Z

Dmann:

BART's easternmost station, the Dublin/Pleasanton station went into service in 1997 with anticipation of going into Livermore at some point. In June 2018, the BART Board voted not to extend eastward of the Dublin station. Just prior to the vote, two different methodologies for train projects were under consideration.

==Newer Method, Assembly Bill 758==
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 at the time (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 control was scheduled to be transferred to the new JPA on June 30 2018.

==Older Method, Local Agencies==
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery was considered - BART. It involved 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 involved several steps. Funding was key.

The MTC was the entity which approves crucial funding. They would not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.

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.

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.

== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===
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.

The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips.
==== System Throughput ====
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.

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, increasing throughput by up to 30%.

As of September 2016, BART expected the 12 minute interval would be achieved in 2023.

In July 2017, the Livermore EIR pushed back that estimate and specified a very wide time range. "At some point after 2025, BART intends to improve weekday train headways from 15 minutes to 12 minutes, which will be in effect by 2040." Page 287 Vol 1 [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf].

In July 2018, that estimate was moved back to 2026 "at the earliest".

Page 88 of the DEIR [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf] lists the requirements to run a 12 minute interval, ALL of which need to be complete before ANY of the trains can run more often.
Fleet of the Future – Expansion of BART's current fleet from 669 cars to as many as 1,116 cars
Train Control Modernization Project – An updated train control system that will allow BART to run trains more frequently and reliably
(Construct the) Hayward Maintenance Complex – To ensure that BART has sufficient capacity to repair and maintain the fleet of its expanded system
Traction Power Improvements – Upgrade or install five traction power substations to serve the congested corridor to adequately power additional BART service

==== BART's position on congestion ====
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 confirmed when 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]

=== Parking ===
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/]

== Financial ==
===Capital Expenditures===
In 2016, the estimate was $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2].
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].

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.

===Revenue Sources===
$533 Million of the 1.64 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). $400 million of this funding is from the 2014 Alameda County Measure BB sales tax increase [http://www.smartvoter.org/2014/11/04/ca/alm/meas/BB/] and by reference, the approved expenditure plan[https://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/12934/2014_Transportation_Expenditure_Plan.pdf]. The shortfall is $1.1 billion.

===Operation===
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/].

== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==
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.

== Other ==
=== Freeway Termination ===
In response to the building momentum toward terminating the line near the Livermore Transit Center downtown, a citizen sponsored intiative was drafted in 2011 to require Council to recommend a termination on highway 580 instead of downtown. Using volunteers, it gathered the necessary signatures over a four month period[https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/06/13/livermore-leaders-order-study-on-keep-bart-on-580-initiative/]. It was adopted by a 3-2 vote Council vote [https://patch.com/california/livermore/city-council-forgoes-election-approves-initative-advo0f5d494a3b].
=== Benefits of Extension ===
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non-commute hours
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus for commuters when BART is their destination
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".

=== Drawbacks of Extension ===
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.
* High capital costs
* No significant improvement in 580 freeway commute traffic congestion

BART to Livermore at Isabel

2018-09-29T23:29:14Z

Dmann:

BART's easternmost station, the Dublin/Pleasanton station went into service in 1997 with anticipation of going into Livermore at some point. In June 2018, the BART Board voted not to extend eastward of the Dublin station. Just prior to the vote, two different methodologies for train projects were under consideration.

==Newer Method, Assembly Bill 758==
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 at the time (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 control was scheduled to be transferred to the new JPA on June 30 2018.

==Older Method, Local Agencies==
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery was considered - BART. It involved 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 involved several steps. Funding was key.

The MTC was the entity which approves crucial funding. They would not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.

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.

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.

== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===
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.

The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips.
==== System Throughput ====
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.

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, increasing throughput by up to 30%.

As of September 2016, BART expected the 12 minute interval would be achieved in 2023.

In July 2017, the Livermore EIR pushed back that estimate and specified a very wide time range. "At some point after 2025, BART intends to improve weekday train headways from 15 minutes to 12 minutes, which will be in effect by 2040." Page 287 Vol 1 [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf].

In July 2018, that estimate was moved back to 2026 "at the earliest".

Page 88 of the DEIR [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf] lists the requirements to run a 12 minute interval, ALL of which need to be complete before ANY of the trains can run more often.
Fleet of the Future – Expansion of BART's current fleet from 669 cars to as many as 1,116 cars
Train Control Modernization Project – An updated train control system that will allow BART to run trains more frequently and reliably
(Construct the) Hayward Maintenance Complex – To ensure that BART has sufficient capacity to repair and maintain the fleet of its expanded system
Traction Power Improvements – Upgrade or install five traction power substations to serve the congested corridor to adequately power additional BART service

==== BART's position on congestion ====
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 confirmed when 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]

=== Parking ===
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/]

== Financial ==
===Capital Expenditures===
In 2016, the estimate was $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2].
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].

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.

===Revenue Sources===
$533 Million of the 1.64 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). $400 million of this funding is from the 2014 Alameda County Measure BB sales tax increase [http://www.smartvoter.org/2014/11/04/ca/alm/meas/BB/] and by reference, the approved expenditure plan[https://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/12934/2014_Transportation_Expenditure_Plan.pdf]. The shortfall is $1.1 billion.

===Operation===
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/].

== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==
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.

== Other Externalities ==
=== Benefits of Extension ===
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus for commuters when BART is their destination
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".

=== Drawbacks of Extension ===
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.
* High capital costs
* No significant improvement in 580 freeway commute traffic congestion

Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment

2018-09-13T02:16:45Z

Dmann:

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.

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.

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]
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]
==2017 Current Process==
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.

== History ==
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall.
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===
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. There have been five unsuccessful attempts to redevelop the lot since then.

=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===
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.
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===
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.
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===
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.

===(4) 2016 RFP===
==== "Cornerstone"====
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]]

==== Community Group Alternative ====
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com [[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]

==== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ====
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.

==== Other Alternatives ====
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].

=== (5) Placeworks Plan ===
http://www.yourlivermore.org

The planning process administered by Placeworks resulted in a plan that located a hotel on the east side of Livermore Avenue at Railroad. The zoning decision that made this location buildable was made by Council on September 10, 2018. It was challenged by referendum filing on September 11, 2018.

== Economic Impacts ==
=== Livermore Village ===
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]. 

==== Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund ====
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: 
* In June 2015 it had $5.8 million in working capital[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013]
* In June 2016, that number had risen to $11.8 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396]
* In June 2017, it was $15,011,027 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14700] 
* In June 2018, it was $15,909,442 milion[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/17848/] with another $4,875,052 expected in revenue to be received during the proceeding year

Assets have been accumulating primarily from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects.

=== LVPAC ===
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580].
=== "Cornerstone" ===
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.

=== Community Group ===
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

=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===
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.

== Traffic Impacts ==
=== "Cornerstone" ===
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.

=== Community Group ===
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.
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===
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.
== Effect on Housing Prices ==
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.

== Notable Public Meetings ==
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].

Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment

2018-09-13T01:39:43Z

Dmann: 2018

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.

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.

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]
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]
==2017 Current Process==
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.

== History ==
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall.
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===
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.

=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===
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.
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===
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.
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===
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.

===(4) 2016 RFP===
==== "Cornerstone"====
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]]

==== Community Group Alternative ====
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com [[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]

==== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ====
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.

==== Other Alternatives ====
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].

=== (5) Placeworks Plan ===
http://www.yourlivermore.org

The planning process administered by Placeworks resulted in a plan that located a hotel on the east side of Livermore Avenue at Railroad. The zoning decision that made this location buildable was made by Council on September 10, 2018. It was challenged by referendum filing on September 11, 2018.

== Economic Impacts ==
=== Livermore Village ===
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]. 

==== Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund ====
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: 
* In June 2015 it had $5.8 million in working capital[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013]
* In June 2016, that number had risen to $11.8 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396]
* In June 2017, it was $15,011,027 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14700] 
* In June 2018, it was $15,909,442 milion[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/17848/] with another $4,875,052 expected in revenue to be received during the proceeding year

Assets have been accumulating primarily from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects.

=== LVPAC ===
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580].
=== "Cornerstone" ===
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.

=== Community Group ===
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

=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===
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.

== Traffic Impacts ==
=== "Cornerstone" ===
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.

=== Community Group ===
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.
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===
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.
== Effect on Housing Prices ==
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.

== Notable Public Meetings ==
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].

Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment

2018-09-13T01:34:37Z

Dmann: Referendum

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.

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.

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]
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]
==2017 Current Process==
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.

== History ==
There have been four failed redevelopment projects proposed over the years since it became an abandoned strip mall.
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===
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.

=== (1) 2006 Livermore Village ===
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.
=== (2) 2009 Performing Arts Effort===
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.
=== (3) 2011 RFP ===
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.

===(4) 2016 RFP===
==== "Cornerstone"====
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]]

==== Community Group Alternative ====
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com [[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]

==== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ====
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.

==== Other Alternatives ====
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].

=== (5) Placeworks Plan ===
http://www.yourlivermore.org

The planning process administered by Placeworks resulted in a plan that located a hotel on the east side of Livermore Avenue at Railroad. The zoning decision that made this location buildable was made by Council on September 10, 2018. It was challenged by referendum filing on September 11, 2018.

== Economic Impacts ==
=== Livermore Village ===
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]. 

==== Low Income Housing - Special Revenue Fund ====
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: 
* In June 2015 it had $5.8 million in working capital[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14013]
* In June 2016, that number had risen to $11.8 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/15396]
* In June 2017, it was $15,011,027 million[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14700] 

Assets have been accumulating primarily from fees that developers pay to avoid building low cost housing as part of otherwise approved projects.

=== LVPAC ===
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580].
=== "Cornerstone" ===
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.

=== Community Group ===
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

=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===
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.

== Traffic Impacts ==
=== "Cornerstone" ===
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.

=== Community Group ===
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.
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===
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.
== Effect on Housing Prices ==
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.

== Notable Public Meetings ==
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].

Sunset Office Plaza Zoning

2018-09-09T02:42:56Z

Dmann: sold update

Sunset Office Plaza is a commercial parcel with several buildings at the corner of Holmes and Concannon in Livermore. Facing very robust public pressure, on July 13 2015, the Livermore City Council denied a request by Sunset Development to rezone the parcel for residential use[http://www.independentnews.com/news/livermore_news/livermore-council-denies-sunset-zoning-proposal/article_08cca40c-2b59-11e5-834e-6f8adab22bad.html].

Sunset Development stated at the time that their intent was to raze the buildings in September 2015. As of August 2016 the plaza remained unmodified. Although Sunset asserted that the land would be available for sale only after the buildings were destroyed, they would not entertain offers while the buildings are stood. The new owner would be allowed to rebuild for commercial purposes and maintain the park area; retail and residential is not allowed.

The buildings were never demolished. In 2018 the buildings and land were sold intact to a southern California company for 9.1 Million.

BART to Livermore at Isabel

2018-08-20T04:41:42Z

Dmann:

BART's easternmost station, the Dublin/Pleasanton station went into service in 1997 with anticipation of going into Livermore at some point. In June 2018, the BART Board voted not to extend eastward of the Dublin station. Just prior to the vote, two different methodologies for train projects were under consideration.

==Newer Method, Assembly Bill 758==
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 at the time (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 control was scheduled to be transferred to the new JPA on June 30 2018.

==Older Method, Local Agencies==
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery was considered - BART. It involved 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 involved several steps. Funding was key.

The MTC was the entity which approves crucial funding. They would not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.

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.

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.

== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===
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.

The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips.
==== System Throughput ====
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.

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, increasing throughput by up to 30%.

As of September 2016, BART expected the 12 minute interval would be achieved in 2023.

In July 2017, the Livermore EIR pushed back that estimate and specified a very wide time range. "At some point after 2025, BART intends to improve weekday train headways from 15 minutes to 12 minutes, which will be in effect by 2040." Page 287 Vol 1 [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf].

In July 2018, that estimate was moved back to 2026 "at the earliest".

Page 88 of the DEIR [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf] lists the requirements to run a 12 minute interval, ALL of which need to be complete before ANY of the trains can run more often.
Fleet of the Future – Expansion of BART's current fleet from 669 cars to as many as 1,116 cars
Train Control Modernization Project – An updated train control system that will allow BART to run trains more frequently and reliably
(Construct the) Hayward Maintenance Complex – To ensure that BART has sufficient capacity to repair and maintain the fleet of its expanded system
Traction Power Improvements – Upgrade or install five traction power substations to serve the congested corridor to adequately power additional BART service

==== BART's position on congestion ====
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]

=== Parking ===
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/]

== Financial ==
===Capital Expenditures===
In 2016, the estimate was $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2].
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].

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.

===Revenue Sources===
$533 Million of the 1.64 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). $400 million of this funding is from the 2014 Alameda County Measure BB sales tax increase [http://www.smartvoter.org/2014/11/04/ca/alm/meas/BB/] and by reference, the approved expenditure plan[https://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/12934/2014_Transportation_Expenditure_Plan.pdf]. The shortfall is $1.1 billion.

===Operation===
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/].

== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==
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.

== Other Externalities ==
=== Benefits of Extension ===
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus for commuters when BART is their destination
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".

=== Drawbacks of Extension ===
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.
* High capital costs
* No significant improvement in 580 freeway commute traffic congestion

BART to Livermore at Isabel

2018-08-20T04:07:42Z

Dmann:

In June 2018, the BART Board voted not to extend eastward of the Dublin station. Just prior to the vote, two different methodologies for train projects were under consideration.

==Newer Method, Assembly Bill 758==
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 at the time (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 control was scheduled to be transferred to the new JPA on June 30 2018.

==Older Method, Local Agencies==
Until AB 758, only one pathway to delivery was considered - BART. It involved 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 involved several steps. Funding was key.

The MTC was the entity which approves crucial funding. They would not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.

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.

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.

== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===
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.

The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips.
==== System Throughput ====
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.

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, increasing throughput by up to 30%.

As of September 2016, BART expected the 12 minute interval would be achieved in 2023.

In July 2017, the Livermore EIR pushed back that estimate and specified a very wide time range. "At some point after 2025, BART intends to improve weekday train headways from 15 minutes to 12 minutes, which will be in effect by 2040." Page 287 Vol 1 [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf].

In July 2018, that estimate was moved back to 2026 "at the earliest".

Page 88 of the DEIR [http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BLVX%20DEIR_Vol%201_Complete.pdf] lists the requirements to run a 12 minute interval, ALL of which need to be complete before ANY of the trains can run more often.
Fleet of the Future – Expansion of BART's current fleet from 669 cars to as many as 1,116 cars
Train Control Modernization Project – An updated train control system that will allow BART to run trains more frequently and reliably
(Construct the) Hayward Maintenance Complex – To ensure that BART has sufficient capacity to repair and maintain the fleet of its expanded system
Traction Power Improvements – Upgrade or install five traction power substations to serve the congested corridor to adequately power additional BART service

==== BART's position on congestion ====
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]

=== Parking ===
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/]

== Financial ==
===Capital Expenditures===
In 2016, the estimate was $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2].
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].

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.

===Revenue Sources===
$533 Million of the 1.64 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). $400 million of this funding is from the 2014 Alameda County Measure BB sales tax increase [http://www.smartvoter.org/2014/11/04/ca/alm/meas/BB/] and by reference, the approved expenditure plan[https://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/12934/2014_Transportation_Expenditure_Plan.pdf]. The shortfall is $1.1 billion.

===Operation===
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/].

== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==
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.

== Other Externalities ==
=== Benefits of Extension ===
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus for commuters when BART is their destination
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".

=== Drawbacks of Extension ===
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.
* High capital costs
* No significant improvement in 580 freeway commute traffic congestion

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-08-19T22:45:57Z

Dmann:

A central premise of environmentally beneficial development is the concept of the Jobs-Housing Balance. In our region, it is generally accepted that a Jobs/Housing ratio of 1.4-1.5 is healthy for a community to economically exist while minimizing the impacts of daily commuter traffic [https://yimby.wiki/wiki/Jobs-Housing_Balance]. Achieving this ratio supports housing that is affordable, and employment opportunities that are closer to those residences.

In the San Francisco Bay Area Megaregion, the counties with too high a ratio (too many jobs or too few houses) are Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Franciso. Those with a deficient ratio (too many houses or too few jobs) include San Joaquin. The remaining counties in the Bay Area are better balanced, and there have be attempts to project the effects of likely future planning and development [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_E90AYG2sPDMXQ1UzhURWlkYm8/view].

MTC has an interesting interactive projection tool [http://travel-housing.mtcanalytics.org/#origin=375+Beale+St,+SF,+CA&mode=da&time=AM&scenario=2010&xyz=9.00/37.8573/-121.5896].

== EDD Data ==
The California Employment Development Department maintains a good volume of information about employment destinations and where the workers live including graphic maps on commute patterns [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/county-to-county-commute-patterns.html] . The data is from 2010, accumulated over the previous 2 years.

In Alameda County, nearly the same number of people commute inward as outward. Alameda County as a whole is balanced [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/alameda2010.pdf]

Santa Clara County has 100,000 too few workers (or 100,000 too many jobs) [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/santaclara2010.pdf]

San Fransico county has 162,000 too few workers (or 162,000 too many jobs) [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanfrancisco2010.pdf]

San Joaquin County has 19,000 too few jobs (or 19,000 too many workers)[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanjoaquin2010.pdf]

== Tri-Valley Cities ==
===Livermore===

== Other Research ==
Here's another perspective from Curbed [https://sf.curbed.com/2016/10/12/12945854/bay-area-cities-jobs-housing-san-jose-palo-alto-sf]

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-08-11T21:29:10Z

Dmann:

A central premise of environmentally beneficial development is the concept of the Jobs-Housing Balance. In our region, it is generally accepted that a Jobs/Housing ratio of 1.4-1.5 is healthy for a community to economically exist while minimizing the impacts of daily commuter traffic [https://yimby.wiki/wiki/Jobs-Housing_Balance]. Achieving this ratio supports housing that is affordable, and employment opportunities that are closer to those residences.

In the San Francisco Bay Area Megaregion, the counties with too high a ratio (too many jobs or too few houses) are Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Franciso. Those with a deficient ratio (too many houses or too few jobs) include San Joaquin. The remaining counties in the Bay Area are better balanced, and there have be attempts to project the effects of likely future planning and development [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_E90AYG2sPDMXQ1UzhURWlkYm8/view].

MTC has an interesting interactive projection tool [http://travel-housing.mtcanalytics.org/#origin=375+Beale+St,+SF,+CA&mode=da&time=AM&scenario=2010&xyz=9.00/37.8573/-121.5896].

== EDD Data ==
The California Employment Development Department maintains a good volume of information about employment destinations and where the workers live including graphic maps on commute patterns [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/county-to-county-commute-patterns.html] . The data is from 2010, accumulated over the previous 2 years.

In Alameda County, nearly the same number of people commute inward as outward. Alameda County as a whole is balanced [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/alameda2010.pdf]

Santa Clara County has 100,000 too few workers (or 100,000 too many jobs) [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/santaclara2010.pdf]

San Fransico county has 162,000 too few workers (or 162,000 too many jobs) [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanfrancisco2010.pdf]

San Joaquin County has 19,000 too few jobs (or 19,000 too many workers)[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanjoaquin2010.pdf]

== Other Research ==
Here's another perspective from Curbed [https://sf.curbed.com/2016/10/12/12945854/bay-area-cities-jobs-housing-san-jose-palo-alto-sf]

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-08-11T21:16:13Z

Dmann:

A central premise of environmentally beneficial development is the concept of the Jobs-Housing Balance. In our region, it is generally accepted that a Jobs/Housing ratio of 1.4-1.5 is healthy for a community to economically exist while minimizing the impacts of daily commuter traffic [https://yimby.wiki/wiki/Jobs-Housing_Balance]. Achieving this ratio supports housing that is affordable, and employment opportunities that are closer to those residences.

In the San Francisco Bay Area Megaregion, the counties with too high a ratio (too many jobs or too few houses) are Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Franciso. Those with a deficient ratio (too many houses or too few jobs) include San Joaquin. The remaining counties in the Bay Area are better balanced, and there have be attempts to project the effects of likely future planning and development [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_E90AYG2sPDMXQ1UzhURWlkYm8/view].

MTC has an interesting interactive projection tool [http://travel-housing.mtcanalytics.org/#origin=375+Beale+St,+SF,+CA&mode=da&time=AM&scenario=2010&xyz=9.00/37.8573/-121.5896].

== EDD Data ==
The California Employment Development Department maintains a good volume of information about employment destinations and where the workers live including graphic maps on commute patterns [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/county-to-county-commute-patterns.html] . The data is from 2010, accumulated over the previous 2 years.

In Alameda County, nearly the same number of people commute inward as outward. Alameda County as a whole is balanced [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/alameda2010.pdf]

Santa Clara County has 100,000 too few workers (or 100,000 too many jobs) [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/santaclara2010.pdf]

San Fransico county has 162,000 too few workers (or 162,000 too many jobs) [http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanfrancisco2010.pdf]

San Joaquin County has 18,000 too few jobs (or 18,000 too many workers)[http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/sanjoaquin2010.pdf]

Here's another perspective from Curbed [https://sf.curbed.com/2016/10/12/12945854/bay-area-cities-jobs-housing-san-jose-palo-alto-sf]

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-08-07T05:28:35Z

Dmann:

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-08-07T05:15:53Z

Dmann: Added maps

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-08-07T05:03:43Z

Dmann:

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-08-07T05:00:57Z

Dmann:

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-08-07T04:59:15Z

Dmann:

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-08-07T04:58:16Z

Dmann:

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-08-07T04:34:01Z

Dmann:

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-08-07T04:27:21Z

Dmann: first edit

Jobs Housing Balance

2018-08-07T04:20:09Z

Dmann: Initial publication

A central premise of certain environmental goals is the concept of the Jobs Housing Balance. In our region, it is generally accepted that a Jobs/Housing ration of 1.4-1.5 is healthy for a community to economically exist while minimizing the impacts of daily commuter traffic.