https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=50.247.68.73&feedformat=atomCitizens For Balanced Growth Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T13:09:02ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.26.2https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=306BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-09-13T18:23:35Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station in 2026 involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 1,900 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 1,900 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains run more frequently[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains]. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There are tremendous challenges associated with engineering shorter intervals since transbay timing issues can create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Discussion has begun to replace the system control mechanism and have enough trains to reduce the interval to 12 minutes. BART expects this will happen in 2023, and increase throughput by up to 30%. Valley terminals will increase by 50% in 2026, so in order for cars to transport the new passengers, 40% of Isabel riders would need to exit the Pleasanton stations. A fourth Valley station at Greenville Ace Train is being discussed, which would make a 100% increase in Valley stations.<br />
<br />
Greater train frequency will require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 12 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased. Greenville BART however, would not require additional train beyond this increase.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they declare the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580"[http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965], BART offers no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They have also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. Whether this is an admission that BART to Livermore will fail to relieve traffic problems is unclear.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
==Items not track related==<br />
9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length) <br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget leaves out the 99 additional trains, which will cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$551 Million of the 1.45 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $870 million.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives].<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs<br />
* New gravel mining activity at Cemex [[Lake A quarry expansion|Lake A]][http://www.cemexeliotfacility.com/our-proposal/]</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=305BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-09-13T15:43:58Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station in 2026 involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding without high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 1,900 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 1,900 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains run more frequently[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains]. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There are tremendous challenges associated with engineering shorter intervals since transbay timing issues can create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Discussion has begun to replace the system control mechanism and have enough trains to reduce the interval to 12 minutes. BART expects this will happen in 2023, and increase throughput by up to 30%. Valley terminals will increase by 50% in 2026, so in order for cars to transport the new passengers, 40% of Isabel riders would need to exit the Pleasanton stations.<br />
<br />
Greater train frequency will require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 12 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they declare the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580"[http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965], BART offers no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They have also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. Whether this is an admission that BART to Livermore will fail to relieve traffic problems is unclear.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
==Items not track related==<br />
9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length) <br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget leaves out the 99 additional trains, which will cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$551 Million of the 1.45 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $870 million.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives].<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs<br />
* New gravel mining activity at Cemex [[Lake A quarry expansion|Lake A]][http://www.cemexeliotfacility.com/our-proposal/]</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=304BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-09-13T15:38:39Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station in 2026 involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Wesbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Automobile Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 1,900 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 1,900 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
==== System Throughput ====<br />
BART is often encouraged to find a way to make trains run more frequently[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains]. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There are tremendous challenges associated with engineering shorter intervals since transbay timing issues can create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Discussion has begun to replace the system control mechanism and have enough trains to reduce the interval to 12 minutes. BART expects this will happen in 2023, and increase throughput by up to 30%. Valley terminals will increase by 50% in 2026, so in order for cars to transport the new passengers, 40% of Isabel riders would need to exit the Pleasanton stations.<br />
<br />
Greater train frequency will require BART to buy more trains. Currently, the Dublin/Daly city line requires 180 cars to be in operation during commute (with 9 car trains). Operating at 12 minute intervals versus 15 would require an additional 90 cars to be purchased.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they declare the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580"[http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965], BART offers no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They have also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. Whether this is an admission that BART to Livermore will fail to relieve traffic problems is unclear.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
==Items not track related==<br />
9 additional cars to complete the line (5 trains to become 6 due to track length) <br />
== Financial ==<br />
===Capital Expenditures===<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. <br />
This budget leaves out the 99 additional trains, which will cost $218 million[http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120510], plus unknown costs for a more advanced operational control system[https://www.bart.gov/guide/faq#frequent_trains].<br />
===Revenue Sources===<br />
$551 Million of the 1.45 billion is identified and will be available if it is approved by the ACTC (after MTC approval). The shortfall is $870 million.<br />
<br />
===Operation===<br />
The annual maintenance share attributable to the extension, track and 99 cars could be 17 to 33 million per year[https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20-%20Main%20Financial%20Statements%202013%20-%20FINAL.pdf][http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/04/us/san-francisco-bay-area-rapid-transit-fast-facts/].<br />
<br />
== Pseudo-BART Extension Alternatives ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives].<br />
<br />
== Other Externalities ==<br />
=== Benefits of Extension ===<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer automibiles in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
* Pleasanton relieved from the challenges associated with being an "end station".<br />
<br />
=== Drawbacks of Extension ===<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs<br />
* New gravel mining activity at Cemex [[Lake A quarry expansion|Lake A]][http://www.cemexeliotfacility.com/our-proposal/]</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=240Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-09-01T15:19:00Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate accidental lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals==<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar Multifamily Communities layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
By and large, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance of the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent for Kelly's Meats, farmers market, SpeeDee Oil [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]], and perhaps others. Redevelopment for this use long term would require a modest investment.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=239Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-09-01T15:16:54Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate accidental lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals==<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and the team of DTZ/Colliers International is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded by donations and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Multifamily Communities Alternative ===<br />
The Lennar Plan, proposed by Lennar Multifamily Communities[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf], the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has support as well[https://m.facebook.com/livermoreslatest/posts/997663506936228].<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
The contract for DTZ/Colliers is for $430,000. They have been paid by the City $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $350,000 if the properties are sold to Lennar Multifamily Communities or any other suitor prior to June 30 2017. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Additionally, Kier & Wright has been paid $60,000 to assist DTZ/Colliers. Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for Lennar's new "Cornerstone" development proposal[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/567608bbcbced60a236f6b89/t/574c840622482ec4b437b4ab/1464632338261/MAY+23,+2016+-+Lennar+compressed.pdf]. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
By and large, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance of the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent for Kelly's Meats, farmers market, SpeeDee Oil [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]], and perhaps others. Redevelopment for this use long term would require a modest investment.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=235BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-31T18:12:03Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Eastbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There has been no way to engineer shorter intervals since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals. <br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they declare the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580"[http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965], BART offers no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They have also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. Whether this is an admission that BART to Livermore will not relieve traffic problems is unclear.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
== Extension Options ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives]].<br />
<br />
== Funding ==<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion[https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/faq#A-2]. $551 Million is identified if it is approved by the ACTC after MTC approval.<br />
<br />
== Benefits of Extension ==<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer cars in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
<br />
== Drawbacks of Extension ==<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=234BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-31T18:00:28Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Eastbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There has been no way to engineer shorter intervals since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals. <br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
<br />
==== BART's position on congestion ====<br />
There have been conflicting statements. Although they declare the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580"[http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965], BART offers no explanation why such an outcome would occur. They have also stated it will "provide an alternative to traffic congestion along the federal I-580 corridor" [http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/17131/1212.000_I580CorridorBARTLivermoreStudies_factsheet_ACTIA6260.pdf] which can be interpreted as implying that freeway congestion will still be bad after BART is extended. Whether this is an admission that BART to Livermore will not relieve traffic problems is unclear.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
== Extension Options ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives]].<br />
<br />
== Funding ==<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion. $400 Million is identified if it is approved by the ACTC after MTC approval.<br />
<br />
== Benefits of Extension ==<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer cars in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
<br />
== Drawbacks of Extension ==<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=233BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-31T17:37:57Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Eastbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. Although they declare the "Project also is intended to alleviate traffic congestion on I-580"[http://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12965], BART offers no explanation why such an outcome would occur. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There has been no way to engineer shorter intervals since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals. <br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
== Extension Options ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives]].<br />
<br />
== Funding ==<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion. $400 Million is identified if it is approved by the ACTC after MTC approval.<br />
<br />
== Benefits of Extension ==<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer cars in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
<br />
== Drawbacks of Extension ==<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=232BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-31T17:04:02Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Eastbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Congestion Increase ===<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no additional trips from new development around the Isabel station..<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There has been no way to engineer shorter intervals since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
=== Parking ===<br />
The existing Dublin/Pleasanton station has 2,612 parking spaces[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations]. The Isabel parking allocation has not been decided.<br />
<br />
== Extension Options ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives]].<br />
<br />
== Funding ==<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion. $400 Million is identified if it is approved by the ACTC after MTC approval.<br />
<br />
== Benefits of Extension ==<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer cars in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
<br />
== Drawbacks of Extension ==<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=231BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-31T16:05:18Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Eastbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no new trips from development around the Isabel station..<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There has been no way to engineer shorter intervals since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
<br />
== Extension Options ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives]].<br />
<br />
== Funding ==<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion. $400 Million is identified if it is approved by the ACTC after MTC approval.<br />
<br />
== Benefits of Extension ==<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer cars in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
<br />
== Drawbacks of Extension ==<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=230BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-31T16:04:34Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== 580 Eastbound Commute Traffic Impacts ==<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway. The 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda might see relief, but only if there were no new trips from development around the Isabel station..<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There has been no way to engineer shorter intervals since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
<br />
== Extension Options ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives]].<br />
<br />
== Funding ==<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion. $400 is identified if it is approved by the ACTC after MTC approval.<br />
<br />
== Benefits of Extension ==<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer cars in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
<br />
== Drawbacks of Extension ==<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=184Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-26T23:11:45Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate accidental lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals==<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at a cost of $100,000. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
By and large, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance of the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent for Kelly's Meats, farmers market, SpeeDee Oil [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]], and perhaps others.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=183BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-26T17:52:57Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway, other than the 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There has been no way to engineer shorter intervals since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
<br />
== Extension Options ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not seem to recognize this and they continue to suggest other possibilities for consideration such as diesel cars[[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives]].<br />
<br />
== Funding ==<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion. $400 is identified if it is approved by the ACTC after MTC approval.<br />
<br />
== Benefits of Extension ==<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer cars in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
<br />
== Drawbacks of Extension ==<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=182BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-26T16:49:01Z<p>50.247.68.73: m</p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than can be mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway, other than the 5 mile section between Isabel and Hacienda.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership ''throughput'' can only be achieved by increasing the ''frequency'' of trains. There has been no way to engineer shorter intervals since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they could not be accommodated in the terminals.<br />
<br />
The [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] will create many employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to commute traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
<br />
== Extension Options ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not accept this reality and continues to suggest other possibilities for consideration such a diesel cars[[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives]].<br />
<br />
== Funding ==<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion. $400 is identified if it is approved by the ACTC after MTC approval.<br />
<br />
== Benefits of Extension ==<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer cars in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
<br />
== Drawbacks of Extension ==<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Dougherty_Valley_Settlement&diff=180Dougherty Valley Settlement2016-08-26T16:37:05Z<p>50.247.68.73: added contra costa language</p>
<hr />
<div>''This article is about the Livermore/Dublin Settlement; a separate settlement process was conducted in Contra Costa County[http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4315/Dougherty-Valley-Oversite-Committee].''<br />
<br />
== The Issue ==<br />
Zone 7 water services agency entered into an agreement with a developer in Contra Costa County to use its infrastructure for the transportation of water to the development. CBG believed this was not legal and filed a lawsuit which was joined by the City of Livermore. <br />
<br />
== Outcome ==<br />
The lawsuit was settled out of court with multiple remedies. The developer paid into a mitigation fund which is used to purchase open space land. It also includes protections from future abuses, such as prohibiting Dublin from urbanizing Doolan Canyon.</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Isabel_Residential_Rezoning/_Isabel_Neighborhood_Plan_(aborted)&diff=176Isabel Residential Rezoning/ Isabel Neighborhood Plan (aborted)2016-08-25T23:51:35Z<p>50.247.68.73: /* Next Steps: */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Purpose ==<br />
As a precondition of partially funding [[BART to Livermore at Isabel]] the MTC requires dense urban development near the proposed station in the I-580 median at the Isabel Avenue interchange. Since MTC is offering no specifics about the needed urbanization, the City Council has decided to fund and manage the effort to develop a plan they hope would satisfy the MTC. This rezoning plan will be abandoned if BART is not built first. Lacking BART, the existing zoning will remain unchanged.<br />
<br />
== Process ==<br />
The City has completed the first two phases of the planning process: Visioning and Alternatives. The planning team has developed a Draft Preferred Plan, based on public feedback and direction from City Council.<br />
<br />
The planning team hosted an Open House on June 28 to share the Draft Preferred Plan, answer questions, and get feedback from the public. Staff then presented the Draft Preferred Plan to the Planning Commission on July 5 (staff report). A follow-up meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:30. Next, staff is scheduled to present the Draft Preferred Plan to City Council on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00. Both meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 3575 Pacific Avenue. Based on City Council direction, the project team will then prepare the remaining details of the plan and begin preparing the Environmental Impact Report, with the goal of releasing the documents for public review by the end of 2016.<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan area (also referred to as the “Plan Area”) covers approximately 1,132 acres. It surrounds the proposed Isabel BART station platform within the I-580 median. Most of the Plan Area is north of the freeway. The entire Plan Area is within the City’s adopted Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Plan Area is also within the City limits, except for an unincorporated 21-acre property on Airway Boulevard.<br />
<br />
Major existing uses within the Plan Area include: Las Positas College, Costco, Cayetano Park, Airway and North Canyons Business Parks, and existing residential developments such as Shea Montage, Copper Hill, and Vineyard Terrace. The City selected the Isabel interchange over other possible station locations along I-580 because of the Plan Area’s accessibility, proximity to existing development, and presence of vacant land within the UGB that provides an opportunity for transit-supportive development.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Neighborhood Plan Project Goals ==<br />
<br />
The purpose of this land use planning process is to prepare an Isabel Neighborhood Plan that will meet the needs of the Livermore community, support City and community goals, and complement BART’s proposed extension to Livermore. The ultimate goal is to create a safe, vibrant neighborhood that complements the transit extension, positions Livermore to obtain its fair share of regional transportation funds, '''and improves our quality of life.'''<br />
<br />
More specifically, the City would like the land use planning process to accomplish the following objectives:<br />
<br />
'''''City stated goals:'''''<br />
* Involve a wide range of stakeholders and community members in the planning process.<br />
*Use a variety of engagement methods and communication tools for exchanging information and obtaining meaningful input.<br />
*Identify and build upon opportunities for new development within the Plan area.<br />
*Establish appropriate residential types to facilitate the development of housing that is attractive to a range of ages, from young professionals to empty nesters, and affordable to a range of incomes.<br />
*Establish office uses to support development of local professional and technical jobs.<br />
*Establish commercial uses to provide convenient grocery and other neighborhood services.<br />
*Encourage ridership on the BART system through transit-supportive features such as bikeway improvements to comply with regional transit expansion policies and maximize the environmental benefits of the project.<br />
*Enhance the connectivity of the transportation network within the Plan Area.<br />
*Address parking supply/demand, infrastructure constraints, and the compatibility of new and existing land uses.<br />
*Complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that identifies potential environmental impacts (traffic, parking, noise, etc.) and includes appropriate mitigation measures to address these impacts, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).<br />
*Consider innovative financing mechanisms to implement the Isabel Neighborhood Plan.<br /><br />
Not mentioned as a goal: the reduction of traffic congestion<br />
<br />
== Plan Components ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will establish a new framework for guiding development of the area surrounding the proposed BART station. The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will include the following components:<br />
<br />
land use designations;<br />
minimum and maximum development capacities;<br />
design standards and guidelines;<br />
circulation and access improvements (i.e., streets, sidewalks and trails);<br />
other improvements to public infrastructure (utilities, parks, etc.); and<br />
an implementation plan and financing strategy.<br />
If adopted, the land use regulations established in the Neighborhood Plan will replace the existing General Plan land use designations and zoning standards regulating the development of properties in this area.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Neighborhood Plan Process ==<br />
<br />
City staff is working with a consultant team led by the firm Dyett & Bhatia to complete the land use planning process. The process generally includes the following stages, of which the first two have been completed:<br />
<br />
*Community Visioning<br />
*Alternative Land Use/Circulation Scenarios<br />
*Preferred Plan<br />
*Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)<br />
*Adoption of the Isabel Neighborhood Plan<br />
<br /><br />
Visioning: The first stage of planning involved getting input from a range of stakeholders, including the community at large, to discuss priorities for the Isabel Neighborhood and establish a vision for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan area. This phase was conducted in 2015. The City’s planning team talked to over 600 people at over 40 events, including focus groups, interviews, neighborhood meetings, tables at city events, and presentations to community groups. Input from stakeholders was compiled into a Vision for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan. Click here for a summary of the Visioning phase of outreach.<br />
<br />
This stage also included compiling detailed information on existing conditions within the planning area (click here for the Existing Conditions Report).<br />
<br />
Alternatives: Based on community feedback and the analysis of existing conditions, the planning team developed three land use and circulation Alternatives to reflect the Vision for the Isabel Neighborhood, focusing on the half mile radius around the station.<br />
<br />
On November 12, 2015, the City hosted a citywide public workshop at the Elks Lodge in Livermore to get input on the Alternative concepts. The workshop included a presentation by the planning team and small group discussions. About 130 community members attended and provided great feedback! In addition, over 1,000 people responded to an online survey on the Alternatives.<br />
<br />
Planning Commission discussed the three Alternative land use/circulation scenarios at their regular meeting on Tuesday, February 2 2016. The City Council discussed the Alternatives and provided direction on the development of a Preferred Plan at a special meeting on Monday, February 29, 2016. Click here for the staff report and meeting minutes.<br />
<br />
Preferred Plan: Based on community input and direction from the Livermore City Council, the team prepared a Draft Preferred Plan, based on Alternative 1 (Main Street) with some modifications. The team presented the Draft Preferred Plan to the public at an Open House on June 28, 2016 and to the City's Planning Commission on July 5, 2016.<br />
<br />
A follow-up meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:30. Next, staff is scheduled to present the Draft Preferred Plan to City Council on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00. Both meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 3575 Pacific Avenue.<br />
<br />
== Next Steps: ==<br />
<br />
After getting feedback on the Draft Preferred Plan, the City and consultant team will complete the remaining details of the Neighborhood Plan and prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to analyze the potential impacts of the Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA process and EIR Scoping period are described further below.<br />
<br />
The City anticipates releasing the Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan and Draft EIR in late 2016 or early 2017. It is anticipated that the City Council will make a final decision on the Draft EIR and Isabel Neighborhood Plan in spring 2017.<br />
<br />
Environmental Review Process<br />
<br />
The planning team will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of CEQA is to: provide information to the public and decision-makers about the potential for a proposed project to significantly affect the environment; prevent or reduce environmental impacts through design and mitigation measures; and enhance public participation and interagency coordination in planning and development review processes.<br />
<br />
As described in the Notice of Preparation, the EIR for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan will provide a programmatic assessment of the potential consequences of implementing the plan and its policies. Plan implementation generally includes development under the proposed land use regulations and construction of the associated public improvements. In addition to identifying potentially significant impacts, the EIR will recommend measures to mitigate those impacts. The assessment will utilize the most current CEQA guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387). There is no guarantee that this process will result in a BART extension. The BART to Livermore Extension Project will be evaluated in a separate EIR to be prepared by BART.<br />
<br />
The City hosted a Scoping Meeting on Tuesday, April 26 to collect comments regarding preparation of the EIR. Click here for the presentation on the CEQA process. The feedback received at the Scoping meeting and during the comment period will build upon input received from stakeholders to date. The public will have additional opportunities to comment throughout the planning process, including after release of the Draft EIR (anticipated for end of 2016).<br />
<br />
== Public Involvement ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will be based upon input from the community. Opportunities for direct involvement throughout the planning process include focus groups, community meetings, online surveys, and public workshops and hearings. The City provides updates on the planning process through social media and email distribution lists. Get involved today to make sure your voice is heard! Click here.<br />
<br />
The City Council and City advisory commissions will also continue to provide input at key points in the process. The City also established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of representatives from partner public agencies to coordinate the provision of public services and facilities.</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Isabel_Residential_Rezoning/_Isabel_Neighborhood_Plan_(aborted)&diff=175Isabel Residential Rezoning/ Isabel Neighborhood Plan (aborted)2016-08-25T23:47:41Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Purpose ==<br />
As a precondition of partially funding [[BART to Livermore at Isabel]] the MTC requires dense urban development near the proposed station in the I-580 median at the Isabel Avenue interchange. Since MTC is offering no specifics about the needed urbanization, the City Council has decided to fund and manage the effort to develop a plan they hope would satisfy the MTC. This rezoning plan will be abandoned if BART is not built first. Lacking BART, the existing zoning will remain unchanged.<br />
<br />
== Process ==<br />
The City has completed the first two phases of the planning process: Visioning and Alternatives. The planning team has developed a Draft Preferred Plan, based on public feedback and direction from City Council.<br />
<br />
The planning team hosted an Open House on June 28 to share the Draft Preferred Plan, answer questions, and get feedback from the public. Staff then presented the Draft Preferred Plan to the Planning Commission on July 5 (staff report). A follow-up meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:30. Next, staff is scheduled to present the Draft Preferred Plan to City Council on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00. Both meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 3575 Pacific Avenue. Based on City Council direction, the project team will then prepare the remaining details of the plan and begin preparing the Environmental Impact Report, with the goal of releasing the documents for public review by the end of 2016.<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan area (also referred to as the “Plan Area”) covers approximately 1,132 acres. It surrounds the proposed Isabel BART station platform within the I-580 median. Most of the Plan Area is north of the freeway. The entire Plan Area is within the City’s adopted Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Plan Area is also within the City limits, except for an unincorporated 21-acre property on Airway Boulevard.<br />
<br />
Major existing uses within the Plan Area include: Las Positas College, Costco, Cayetano Park, Airway and North Canyons Business Parks, and existing residential developments such as Shea Montage, Copper Hill, and Vineyard Terrace. The City selected the Isabel interchange over other possible station locations along I-580 because of the Plan Area’s accessibility, proximity to existing development, and presence of vacant land within the UGB that provides an opportunity for transit-supportive development.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Neighborhood Plan Project Goals ==<br />
<br />
The purpose of this land use planning process is to prepare an Isabel Neighborhood Plan that will meet the needs of the Livermore community, support City and community goals, and complement BART’s proposed extension to Livermore. The ultimate goal is to create a safe, vibrant neighborhood that complements the transit extension, positions Livermore to obtain its fair share of regional transportation funds, '''and improves our quality of life.'''<br />
<br />
More specifically, the City would like the land use planning process to accomplish the following objectives:<br />
<br />
'''''City stated goals:'''''<br />
* Involve a wide range of stakeholders and community members in the planning process.<br />
*Use a variety of engagement methods and communication tools for exchanging information and obtaining meaningful input.<br />
*Identify and build upon opportunities for new development within the Plan area.<br />
*Establish appropriate residential types to facilitate the development of housing that is attractive to a range of ages, from young professionals to empty nesters, and affordable to a range of incomes.<br />
*Establish office uses to support development of local professional and technical jobs.<br />
*Establish commercial uses to provide convenient grocery and other neighborhood services.<br />
*Encourage ridership on the BART system through transit-supportive features such as bikeway improvements to comply with regional transit expansion policies and maximize the environmental benefits of the project.<br />
*Enhance the connectivity of the transportation network within the Plan Area.<br />
*Address parking supply/demand, infrastructure constraints, and the compatibility of new and existing land uses.<br />
*Complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that identifies potential environmental impacts (traffic, parking, noise, etc.) and includes appropriate mitigation measures to address these impacts, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).<br />
*Consider innovative financing mechanisms to implement the Isabel Neighborhood Plan.<br /><br />
Not mentioned as a goal: the reduction of traffic congestion<br />
<br />
== Plan Components ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will establish a new framework for guiding development of the area surrounding the proposed BART station. The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will include the following components:<br />
<br />
land use designations;<br />
minimum and maximum development capacities;<br />
design standards and guidelines;<br />
circulation and access improvements (i.e., streets, sidewalks and trails);<br />
other improvements to public infrastructure (utilities, parks, etc.); and<br />
an implementation plan and financing strategy.<br />
If adopted, the land use regulations established in the Neighborhood Plan will replace the existing General Plan land use designations and zoning standards regulating the development of properties in this area.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Neighborhood Plan Process ==<br />
<br />
City staff is working with a consultant team led by the firm Dyett & Bhatia to complete the land use planning process. The process generally includes the following stages, of which the first two have been completed:<br />
<br />
*Community Visioning<br />
*Alternative Land Use/Circulation Scenarios<br />
*Preferred Plan<br />
*Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)<br />
*Adoption of the Isabel Neighborhood Plan<br />
<br /><br />
Visioning: The first stage of planning involved getting input from a range of stakeholders, including the community at large, to discuss priorities for the Isabel Neighborhood and establish a vision for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan area. This phase was conducted in 2015. The City’s planning team talked to over 600 people at over 40 events, including focus groups, interviews, neighborhood meetings, tables at city events, and presentations to community groups. Input from stakeholders was compiled into a Vision for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan. Click here for a summary of the Visioning phase of outreach.<br />
<br />
This stage also included compiling detailed information on existing conditions within the planning area (click here for the Existing Conditions Report).<br />
<br />
Alternatives: Based on community feedback and the analysis of existing conditions, the planning team developed three land use and circulation Alternatives to reflect the Vision for the Isabel Neighborhood, focusing on the half mile radius around the station.<br />
<br />
On November 12, 2015, the City hosted a citywide public workshop at the Elks Lodge in Livermore to get input on the Alternative concepts. The workshop included a presentation by the planning team and small group discussions. About 130 community members attended and provided great feedback! In addition, over 1,000 people responded to an online survey on the Alternatives.<br />
<br />
Planning Commission discussed the three Alternative land use/circulation scenarios at their regular meeting on Tuesday, February 2 2016. The City Council discussed the Alternatives and provided direction on the development of a Preferred Plan at a special meeting on Monday, February 29, 2016. Click here for the staff report and meeting minutes.<br />
<br />
Preferred Plan: Based on community input and direction from the Livermore City Council, the team prepared a Draft Preferred Plan, based on Alternative 1 (Main Street) with some modifications. The team presented the Draft Preferred Plan to the public at an Open House on June 28, 2016 and to the City's Planning Commission on July 5, 2016.<br />
<br />
A follow-up meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:30. Next, staff is scheduled to present the Draft Preferred Plan to City Council on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00. Both meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 3575 Pacific Avenue.<br />
<br />
== Next Steps: ==<br />
<br />
After getting feedback on the Draft Preferred Plan, the City and consultant team will complete the remaining details of the Neighborhood Plan and prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to analyze the potential impacts of the Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA process and EIR Scoping period are described further below.<br />
<br />
The City anticipates releasing the Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan and Draft EIR in late 2016 or early 2017. It is anticipated that the City Council will make a final decision on the Draft EIR and Isabel Neighborhood Plan in spring 2017.<br />
<br />
Environmental Review Process<br />
<br />
The planning team will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of CEQA is to: provide information to the public and decision-makers about the potential for a proposed project to significantly affect the environment; prevent or reduce environmental impacts through design and mitigation measures; and enhance public participation and interagency coordination in planning and development review processes.<br />
<br />
As described in the Notice of Preparation, the EIR for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan will provide a programmatic assessment of the potential consequences of implementing the plan and its policies. Plan implementation generally includes development under the proposed land use regulations and construction of the associated public improvements. In addition to identifying potentially significant impacts, the EIR will recommend measures to mitigate those impacts. The assessment will utilize the most current CEQA guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387). Note that the BART to Livermore Extension Project will be evaluated in a separate EIR to be prepared by BART.<br />
<br />
The City hosted a Scoping Meeting on Tuesday, April 26 to collect comments regarding preparation of the EIR. Click here for the presentation on the CEQA process. The feedback received at the Scoping meeting and during the comment period will build upon input received from stakeholders to date. The public will have additional opportunities to comment throughout the planning process, including after release of the Draft EIR (anticipated for end of 2016).<br />
<br />
== Public Involvement ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will be based upon input from the community. Opportunities for direct involvement throughout the planning process include focus groups, community meetings, online surveys, and public workshops and hearings. The City provides updates on the planning process through social media and email distribution lists. Get involved today to make sure your voice is heard! Click here.<br />
<br />
The City Council and City advisory commissions will also continue to provide input at key points in the process. The City also established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of representatives from partner public agencies to coordinate the provision of public services and facilities.</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Isabel_Residential_Rezoning/_Isabel_Neighborhood_Plan_(aborted)&diff=174Isabel Residential Rezoning/ Isabel Neighborhood Plan (aborted)2016-08-25T23:46:12Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Purpose ==<br />
As a precondition of partially funding [[BART to Livermore at Isabel]] the MTC requires dense urban development near the proposed station in the I-580 median at the Isabel Avenue interchange. Since MTC is offering no specifics about the needed urbanization, the City Council has decided to fund and manage the effort to develop a plan they hope would satisfy the MTC. This rezoning plan will be abandoned if BART is not built first. Lacking BART, the existing zoning will remain unchanged.<br />
<br />
== Process ==<br />
The City has completed the first two phases of the planning process: Visioning and Alternatives. The planning team has developed a Draft Preferred Plan, based on public feedback and direction from City Council.<br />
<br />
The planning team hosted an Open House on June 28 to share the Draft Preferred Plan, answer questions, and get feedback from the public. Staff then presented the Draft Preferred Plan to the Planning Commission on July 5 (staff report). A follow-up meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:30. Next, staff is scheduled to present the Draft Preferred Plan to City Council on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00. Both meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 3575 Pacific Avenue. Based on City Council direction, the project team will then prepare the remaining details of the plan and begin preparing the Environmental Impact Report, with the goal of releasing the documents for public review by the end of 2016.<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan area (also referred to as the “Plan Area”) covers approximately 1,132 acres. It surrounds the proposed Isabel BART station platform within the I-580 median. Most of the Plan Area is north of the freeway. The entire Plan Area is within the City’s adopted Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Plan Area is also within the City limits, except for an unincorporated 21-acre property on Airway Boulevard.<br />
<br />
Major existing uses within the Plan Area include: Las Positas College, Costco, Cayetano Park, Airway and North Canyons Business Parks, and existing residential developments such as Shea Montage, Copper Hill, and Vineyard Terrace. The City selected the Isabel interchange over other possible station locations along I-580 because of the Plan Area’s accessibility, proximity to existing development, and presence of vacant land within the UGB that provides an opportunity for transit-supportive development.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Neighborhood Plan Project Goals ==<br />
<br />
The purpose of this land use planning process is to prepare an Isabel Neighborhood Plan that will meet the needs of the Livermore community, support City and community goals, and complement BART’s proposed extension to Livermore. The ultimate goal is to create a safe, vibrant neighborhood that complements the transit extension, positions Livermore to obtain its fair share of regional transportation funds, '''and improves our quality of life.'''<br />
<br />
More specifically, the City would like the land use planning process to accomplish the following objectives:<br />
<br />
'''''City stated goals:'''''<br />
* Involve a wide range of stakeholders and community members in the planning process.<br />
*Use a variety of engagement methods and communication tools for exchanging information and obtaining meaningful input.<br />
*Identify and build upon opportunities for new development within the Plan area.<br />
*Establish appropriate residential types to facilitate the development of housing that is attractive to a range of ages, from young professionals to empty nesters, and affordable to a range of incomes.<br />
*Establish office uses to support development of local professional and technical jobs.<br />
*Establish commercial uses to provide convenient grocery and other neighborhood services.<br />
*Encourage ridership on the BART system through transit-supportive features such as bikeway improvements to comply with regional transit expansion policies and maximize the environmental benefits of the project.<br />
*Enhance the connectivity of the transportation network within the Plan Area.<br />
*Address parking supply/demand, infrastructure constraints, and the compatibility of new and existing land uses.<br />
*Complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that identifies potential environmental impacts (traffic, parking, noise, etc.) and includes appropriate mitigation measures to address these impacts, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).<br />
*Consider innovative financing mechanisms to implement the Isabel Neighborhood Plan.<br /><br />
Not mentioned as a goal: the reduction of traffic congestion<br />
<br />
== Plan Components ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will establish a new framework for guiding development of the area surrounding the proposed BART station. The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will include the following components:<br />
<br />
land use designations;<br />
minimum and maximum development capacities;<br />
design standards and guidelines;<br />
circulation and access improvements (i.e., streets, sidewalks and trails);<br />
other improvements to public infrastructure (utilities, parks, etc.); and<br />
an implementation plan and financing strategy.<br />
If adopted, the land use regulations established in the Neighborhood Plan will replace the existing General Plan land use designations and zoning standards regulating the development of properties in this area.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Neighborhood Plan Process ==<br />
Isabel Neighborhood Plan Process<br />
<br />
City staff is working with a consultant team led by the firm Dyett & Bhatia to complete the land use planning process. The process generally includes the following stages, of which the first two have been completed:<br />
<br />
Community Visioning<br />
Alternative Land Use/Circulation Scenarios<br />
Preferred Plan<br />
Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)<br />
Adoption of the Isabel Neighborhood Plan<br />
Visioning: The first stage of planning involved getting input from a range of stakeholders, including the community at large, to discuss priorities for the Isabel Neighborhood and establish a vision for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan area. This phase was conducted in 2015. The City’s planning team talked to over 600 people at over 40 events, including focus groups, interviews, neighborhood meetings, tables at city events, and presentations to community groups. Input from stakeholders was compiled into a Vision for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan. Click here for a summary of the Visioning phase of outreach.<br />
<br />
This stage also included compiling detailed information on existing conditions within the planning area (click here for the Existing Conditions Report).<br />
<br />
Alternatives: Based on community feedback and the analysis of existing conditions, the planning team developed three land use and circulation Alternatives to reflect the Vision for the Isabel Neighborhood, focusing on the half mile radius around the station.<br />
<br />
On November 12, 2015, the City hosted a citywide public workshop at the Elks Lodge in Livermore to get input on the Alternative concepts. The workshop included a presentation by the planning team and small group discussions. About 130 community members attended and provided great feedback! In addition, over 1,000 people responded to an online survey on the Alternatives.<br />
<br />
Planning Commission discussed the three Alternative land use/circulation scenarios at their regular meeting on Tuesday, February 2 2016. The City Council discussed the Alternatives and provided direction on the development of a Preferred Plan at a special meeting on Monday, February 29, 2016. Click here for the staff report and meeting minutes.<br />
<br />
Preferred Plan: Based on community input and direction from the Livermore City Council, the team prepared a Draft Preferred Plan, based on Alternative 1 (Main Street) with some modifications. The team presented the Draft Preferred Plan to the public at an Open House on June 28, 2016 and to the City's Planning Commission on July 5, 2016.<br />
<br />
A follow-up meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:30. Next, staff is scheduled to present the Draft Preferred Plan to City Council on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00. Both meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 3575 Pacific Avenue.<br />
<br />
== Next Steps: ==<br />
<br />
After getting feedback on the Draft Preferred Plan, the City and consultant team will complete the remaining details of the Neighborhood Plan and prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to analyze the potential impacts of the Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA process and EIR Scoping period are described further below.<br />
<br />
The City anticipates releasing the Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan and Draft EIR in late 2016 or early 2017. It is anticipated that the City Council will make a final decision on the Draft EIR and Isabel Neighborhood Plan in spring 2017.<br />
<br />
Environmental Review Process<br />
<br />
The planning team will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of CEQA is to: provide information to the public and decision-makers about the potential for a proposed project to significantly affect the environment; prevent or reduce environmental impacts through design and mitigation measures; and enhance public participation and interagency coordination in planning and development review processes.<br />
<br />
As described in the Notice of Preparation, the EIR for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan will provide a programmatic assessment of the potential consequences of implementing the plan and its policies. Plan implementation generally includes development under the proposed land use regulations and construction of the associated public improvements. In addition to identifying potentially significant impacts, the EIR will recommend measures to mitigate those impacts. The assessment will utilize the most current CEQA guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387). Note that the BART to Livermore Extension Project will be evaluated in a separate EIR to be prepared by BART.<br />
<br />
The City hosted a Scoping Meeting on Tuesday, April 26 to collect comments regarding preparation of the EIR. Click here for the presentation on the CEQA process. The feedback received at the Scoping meeting and during the comment period will build upon input received from stakeholders to date. The public will have additional opportunities to comment throughout the planning process, including after release of the Draft EIR (anticipated for end of 2016).<br />
<br />
== Public Involvement ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will be based upon input from the community. Opportunities for direct involvement throughout the planning process include focus groups, community meetings, online surveys, and public workshops and hearings. The City provides updates on the planning process through social media and email distribution lists. Get involved today to make sure your voice is heard! Click here.<br />
<br />
The City Council and City advisory commissions will also continue to provide input at key points in the process. The City also established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of representatives from partner public agencies to coordinate the provision of public services and facilities.</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Isabel_Residential_Rezoning/_Isabel_Neighborhood_Plan_(aborted)&diff=173Isabel Residential Rezoning/ Isabel Neighborhood Plan (aborted)2016-08-25T23:36:04Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Purpose ==<br />
As a precondition of partially funding [[BART to Livermore at Isabel]] the MTC requires dense urban development near the proposed station in the I-580 median at the Isabel Avenue interchange. Since MTC is offering no specifics about the needed urbanization, the City Council has decided to fund and manage the effort to develop a plan they hope would satisfy the MTC. This rezoning plan will be abandoned if BART is not built first. Lacking BART, the existing zoning will remain unchanged.<br />
<br />
== Process ==<br />
The City has completed the first two phases of the planning process: Visioning and Alternatives. The planning team has developed a Draft Preferred Plan, based on public feedback and direction from City Council.<br />
<br />
The planning team hosted an Open House on June 28 to share the Draft Preferred Plan, answer questions, and get feedback from the public. Staff then presented the Draft Preferred Plan to the Planning Commission on July 5 (staff report). A follow-up meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:30. Next, staff is scheduled to present the Draft Preferred Plan to City Council on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00. Both meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 3575 Pacific Avenue. Based on City Council direction, the project team will then prepare the remaining details of the plan and begin preparing the Environmental Impact Report, with the goal of releasing the documents for public review by the end of 2016.<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan area (also referred to as the “Plan Area”) covers approximately 1,132 acres. It surrounds the proposed Isabel BART station platform within the I-580 median. Most of the Plan Area is north of the freeway. The entire Plan Area is within the City’s adopted Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Plan Area is also within the City limits, except for an unincorporated 21-acre property on Airway Boulevard.<br />
<br />
Major existing uses within the Plan Area include: Las Positas College, Costco, Cayetano Park, Airway and North Canyons Business Parks, and existing residential developments such as Shea Montage, Copper Hill, and Vineyard Terrace. The City selected the Isabel interchange over other possible station locations along I-580 because of the Plan Area’s accessibility, proximity to existing development, and presence of vacant land within the UGB that provides an opportunity for transit-supportive development.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Neighborhood Plan Project Goals ==<br />
<br />
The purpose of this land use planning process is to prepare an Isabel Neighborhood Plan that will meet the needs of the Livermore community, support City and community goals, and complement BART’s proposed extension to Livermore. The ultimate goal is to create a safe, vibrant neighborhood that complements the transit extension, positions Livermore to obtain its fair share of regional transportation funds, '''and improves our quality of life.'''<br />
<br />
More specifically, the City would like the land use planning process to accomplish the following objectives:<br />
<br />
Involve a wide range of stakeholders and community members in the planning process.<br />
Use a variety of engagement methods and communication tools for exchanging information and obtaining meaningful input.<br />
Identify and build upon opportunities for new development within the Plan area.<br />
Establish appropriate residential types to facilitate the development of housing that is attractive to a range of ages, from young professionals to empty nesters, and affordable to a range of incomes.<br />
Establish office uses to support development of local professional and technical jobs.<br />
Establish commercial uses to provide convenient grocery and other neighborhood services.<br />
Encourage ridership on the BART system through transit-supportive features such as bikeway improvements to comply with regional transit expansion policies and maximize the environmental benefits of the project.<br />
Enhance the connectivity of the transportation network within the Plan Area.<br />
Address parking supply/demand, infrastructure constraints, and the compatibility of new and existing land uses.<br />
Complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that identifies potential environmental impacts (traffic, parking, noise, etc.) and includes appropriate mitigation measures to address these impacts, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).<br />
Consider innovative financing mechanisms to implement the Isabel Neighborhood Plan.<br />
<br />
== Plan Components ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will establish a new framework for guiding development of the area surrounding the proposed BART station. The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will include the following components:<br />
<br />
land use designations;<br />
minimum and maximum development capacities;<br />
design standards and guidelines;<br />
circulation and access improvements (i.e., streets, sidewalks and trails);<br />
other improvements to public infrastructure (utilities, parks, etc.); and<br />
an implementation plan and financing strategy.<br />
If adopted, the land use regulations established in the Neighborhood Plan will replace the existing General Plan land use designations and zoning standards regulating the development of properties in this area.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Neighborhood Plan Process ==<br />
Isabel Neighborhood Plan Process<br />
<br />
City staff is working with a consultant team led by the firm Dyett & Bhatia to complete the land use planning process. The process generally includes the following stages, of which the first two have been completed:<br />
<br />
Community Visioning<br />
Alternative Land Use/Circulation Scenarios<br />
Preferred Plan<br />
Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)<br />
Adoption of the Isabel Neighborhood Plan<br />
Visioning: The first stage of planning involved getting input from a range of stakeholders, including the community at large, to discuss priorities for the Isabel Neighborhood and establish a vision for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan area. This phase was conducted in 2015. The City’s planning team talked to over 600 people at over 40 events, including focus groups, interviews, neighborhood meetings, tables at city events, and presentations to community groups. Input from stakeholders was compiled into a Vision for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan. Click here for a summary of the Visioning phase of outreach.<br />
<br />
This stage also included compiling detailed information on existing conditions within the planning area (click here for the Existing Conditions Report).<br />
<br />
Alternatives: Based on community feedback and the analysis of existing conditions, the planning team developed three land use and circulation Alternatives to reflect the Vision for the Isabel Neighborhood, focusing on the half mile radius around the station.<br />
<br />
On November 12, 2015, the City hosted a citywide public workshop at the Elks Lodge in Livermore to get input on the Alternative concepts. The workshop included a presentation by the planning team and small group discussions. About 130 community members attended and provided great feedback! In addition, over 1,000 people responded to an online survey on the Alternatives.<br />
<br />
Planning Commission discussed the three Alternative land use/circulation scenarios at their regular meeting on Tuesday, February 2 2016. The City Council discussed the Alternatives and provided direction on the development of a Preferred Plan at a special meeting on Monday, February 29, 2016. Click here for the staff report and meeting minutes.<br />
<br />
Preferred Plan: Based on community input and direction from the Livermore City Council, the team prepared a Draft Preferred Plan, based on Alternative 1 (Main Street) with some modifications. The team presented the Draft Preferred Plan to the public at an Open House on June 28, 2016 and to the City's Planning Commission on July 5, 2016.<br />
<br />
A follow-up meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:30. Next, staff is scheduled to present the Draft Preferred Plan to City Council on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00. Both meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 3575 Pacific Avenue.<br />
<br />
== Next Steps: ==<br />
<br />
After getting feedback on the Draft Preferred Plan, the City and consultant team will complete the remaining details of the Neighborhood Plan and prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to analyze the potential impacts of the Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA process and EIR Scoping period are described further below.<br />
<br />
The City anticipates releasing the Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan and Draft EIR in late 2016 or early 2017. It is anticipated that the City Council will make a final decision on the Draft EIR and Isabel Neighborhood Plan in spring 2017.<br />
<br />
Environmental Review Process<br />
<br />
The planning team will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of CEQA is to: provide information to the public and decision-makers about the potential for a proposed project to significantly affect the environment; prevent or reduce environmental impacts through design and mitigation measures; and enhance public participation and interagency coordination in planning and development review processes.<br />
<br />
As described in the Notice of Preparation, the EIR for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan will provide a programmatic assessment of the potential consequences of implementing the plan and its policies. Plan implementation generally includes development under the proposed land use regulations and construction of the associated public improvements. In addition to identifying potentially significant impacts, the EIR will recommend measures to mitigate those impacts. The assessment will utilize the most current CEQA guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387). Note that the BART to Livermore Extension Project will be evaluated in a separate EIR to be prepared by BART.<br />
<br />
The City hosted a Scoping Meeting on Tuesday, April 26 to collect comments regarding preparation of the EIR. Click here for the presentation on the CEQA process. The feedback received at the Scoping meeting and during the comment period will build upon input received from stakeholders to date. The public will have additional opportunities to comment throughout the planning process, including after release of the Draft EIR (anticipated for end of 2016).<br />
<br />
== Public Involvement ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will be based upon input from the community. Opportunities for direct involvement throughout the planning process include focus groups, community meetings, online surveys, and public workshops and hearings. The City provides updates on the planning process through social media and email distribution lists. Get involved today to make sure your voice is heard! Click here.<br />
<br />
The City Council and City advisory commissions will also continue to provide input at key points in the process. The City also established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of representatives from partner public agencies to coordinate the provision of public services and facilities.</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Isabel_Residential_Rezoning/_Isabel_Neighborhood_Plan_(aborted)&diff=172Isabel Residential Rezoning/ Isabel Neighborhood Plan (aborted)2016-08-25T23:26:50Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Purpose ==<br />
As a precondition of funding [[BART to Livermore at Isabel]] the MTC requires much greater urban density to be approved near the proposed station in the I-580 median at the Isabel Avenue interchange. A land use and circulation plan for the area is being developed and will be based upon input from the community. This rezoning plan will be abandoned if BART is not built first, and the existing zoning will remain unchanged.<br />
<br />
== Process ==<br />
The City has completed the first two phases of the planning process: Visioning and Alternatives. The planning team has developed a Draft Preferred Plan, based on public feedback and direction from City Council.<br />
<br />
The planning team hosted an Open House on June 28 to share the Draft Preferred Plan, answer questions, and get feedback from the public. Staff then presented the Draft Preferred Plan to the Planning Commission on July 5 (staff report). A follow-up meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:30. Next, staff is scheduled to present the Draft Preferred Plan to City Council on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00. Both meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 3575 Pacific Avenue. Based on City Council direction, the project team will then prepare the remaining details of the plan and begin preparing the Environmental Impact Report, with the goal of releasing the documents for public review by the end of 2016.<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan area (also referred to as the “Plan Area”) covers approximately 1,132 acres. It surrounds the proposed Isabel BART station platform within the I-580 median. Most of the Plan Area is north of the freeway. The entire Plan Area is within the City’s adopted Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Plan Area is also within the City limits, except for an unincorporated 21-acre property on Airway Boulevard.<br />
<br />
Major existing uses within the Plan Area include: Las Positas College, Costco, Cayetano Park, Airway and North Canyons Business Parks, and existing residential developments such as Shea Montage, Copper Hill, and Vineyard Terrace. The City selected the Isabel interchange over other possible station locations along I-580 because of the Plan Area’s accessibility, proximity to existing development, and presence of vacant land within the UGB that provides an opportunity for transit-supportive development.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Neighborhood Plan Project Goals ==<br />
<br />
The purpose of this land use planning process is to prepare an Isabel Neighborhood Plan that will meet the needs of the Livermore community, support City and community goals, and complement BART’s proposed extension to Livermore. The ultimate goal is to create a safe, vibrant neighborhood that complements the transit extension, positions Livermore to obtain its fair share of regional transportation funds, '''and improves our quality of life.'''<br />
<br />
More specifically, the City would like the land use planning process to accomplish the following objectives:<br />
<br />
Involve a wide range of stakeholders and community members in the planning process.<br />
Use a variety of engagement methods and communication tools for exchanging information and obtaining meaningful input.<br />
Identify and build upon opportunities for new development within the Plan area.<br />
Establish appropriate residential types to facilitate the development of housing that is attractive to a range of ages, from young professionals to empty nesters, and affordable to a range of incomes.<br />
Establish office uses to support development of local professional and technical jobs.<br />
Establish commercial uses to provide convenient grocery and other neighborhood services.<br />
Encourage ridership on the BART system through transit-supportive features such as bikeway improvements to comply with regional transit expansion policies and maximize the environmental benefits of the project.<br />
Enhance the connectivity of the transportation network within the Plan Area.<br />
Address parking supply/demand, infrastructure constraints, and the compatibility of new and existing land uses.<br />
Complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that identifies potential environmental impacts (traffic, parking, noise, etc.) and includes appropriate mitigation measures to address these impacts, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).<br />
Consider innovative financing mechanisms to implement the Isabel Neighborhood Plan.<br />
<br />
== Plan Components ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will establish a new framework for guiding development of the area surrounding the proposed BART station. The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will include the following components:<br />
<br />
land use designations;<br />
minimum and maximum development capacities;<br />
design standards and guidelines;<br />
circulation and access improvements (i.e., streets, sidewalks and trails);<br />
other improvements to public infrastructure (utilities, parks, etc.); and<br />
an implementation plan and financing strategy.<br />
If adopted, the land use regulations established in the Neighborhood Plan will replace the existing General Plan land use designations and zoning standards regulating the development of properties in this area.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Neighborhood Plan Process ==<br />
Isabel Neighborhood Plan Process<br />
<br />
City staff is working with a consultant team led by the firm Dyett & Bhatia to complete the land use planning process. The process generally includes the following stages, of which the first two have been completed:<br />
<br />
Community Visioning<br />
Alternative Land Use/Circulation Scenarios<br />
Preferred Plan<br />
Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)<br />
Adoption of the Isabel Neighborhood Plan<br />
Visioning: The first stage of planning involved getting input from a range of stakeholders, including the community at large, to discuss priorities for the Isabel Neighborhood and establish a vision for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan area. This phase was conducted in 2015. The City’s planning team talked to over 600 people at over 40 events, including focus groups, interviews, neighborhood meetings, tables at city events, and presentations to community groups. Input from stakeholders was compiled into a Vision for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan. Click here for a summary of the Visioning phase of outreach.<br />
<br />
This stage also included compiling detailed information on existing conditions within the planning area (click here for the Existing Conditions Report).<br />
<br />
Alternatives: Based on community feedback and the analysis of existing conditions, the planning team developed three land use and circulation Alternatives to reflect the Vision for the Isabel Neighborhood, focusing on the half mile radius around the station.<br />
<br />
On November 12, 2015, the City hosted a citywide public workshop at the Elks Lodge in Livermore to get input on the Alternative concepts. The workshop included a presentation by the planning team and small group discussions. About 130 community members attended and provided great feedback! In addition, over 1,000 people responded to an online survey on the Alternatives.<br />
<br />
Planning Commission discussed the three Alternative land use/circulation scenarios at their regular meeting on Tuesday, February 2 2016. The City Council discussed the Alternatives and provided direction on the development of a Preferred Plan at a special meeting on Monday, February 29, 2016. Click here for the staff report and meeting minutes.<br />
<br />
Preferred Plan: Based on community input and direction from the Livermore City Council, the team prepared a Draft Preferred Plan, based on Alternative 1 (Main Street) with some modifications. The team presented the Draft Preferred Plan to the public at an Open House on June 28, 2016 and to the City's Planning Commission on July 5, 2016.<br />
<br />
A follow-up meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:30. Next, staff is scheduled to present the Draft Preferred Plan to City Council on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00. Both meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 3575 Pacific Avenue.<br />
<br />
== Next Steps: ==<br />
<br />
After getting feedback on the Draft Preferred Plan, the City and consultant team will complete the remaining details of the Neighborhood Plan and prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to analyze the potential impacts of the Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA process and EIR Scoping period are described further below.<br />
<br />
The City anticipates releasing the Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan and Draft EIR in late 2016 or early 2017. It is anticipated that the City Council will make a final decision on the Draft EIR and Isabel Neighborhood Plan in spring 2017.<br />
<br />
Environmental Review Process<br />
<br />
The planning team will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of CEQA is to: provide information to the public and decision-makers about the potential for a proposed project to significantly affect the environment; prevent or reduce environmental impacts through design and mitigation measures; and enhance public participation and interagency coordination in planning and development review processes.<br />
<br />
As described in the Notice of Preparation, the EIR for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan will provide a programmatic assessment of the potential consequences of implementing the plan and its policies. Plan implementation generally includes development under the proposed land use regulations and construction of the associated public improvements. In addition to identifying potentially significant impacts, the EIR will recommend measures to mitigate those impacts. The assessment will utilize the most current CEQA guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387). Note that the BART to Livermore Extension Project will be evaluated in a separate EIR to be prepared by BART.<br />
<br />
The City hosted a Scoping Meeting on Tuesday, April 26 to collect comments regarding preparation of the EIR. Click here for the presentation on the CEQA process. The feedback received at the Scoping meeting and during the comment period will build upon input received from stakeholders to date. The public will have additional opportunities to comment throughout the planning process, including after release of the Draft EIR (anticipated for end of 2016).<br />
<br />
== Public Involvement ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will be based upon input from the community. Opportunities for direct involvement throughout the planning process include focus groups, community meetings, online surveys, and public workshops and hearings. The City provides updates on the planning process through social media and email distribution lists. Get involved today to make sure your voice is heard! Click here.<br />
<br />
The City Council and City advisory commissions will also continue to provide input at key points in the process. The City also established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of representatives from partner public agencies to coordinate the provision of public services and facilities.</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Isabel_Residential_Rezoning/_Isabel_Neighborhood_Plan_(aborted)&diff=171Isabel Residential Rezoning/ Isabel Neighborhood Plan (aborted)2016-08-25T23:25:16Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Purpose ==<br />
As a precondition of funding [[BART to Livermore at Isabel]] the MTC requires much greater urban density to be approved near the proposed station in the I-580 median at the Isabel Avenue interchange. A land use and circulation plan for the area is being developed and will be based upon input from the community. This rezoning plan will be abandoned if BART is not built first, and the existing zoning will remain unchanged.<br />
<br />
== Process ==<br />
The City has completed the first two phases of the planning process: Visioning and Alternatives. The planning team has developed a Draft Preferred Plan, based on public feedback and direction from City Council.<br />
<br />
The planning team hosted an Open House on June 28 to share the Draft Preferred Plan, answer questions, and get feedback from the public. Staff then presented the Draft Preferred Plan to the Planning Commission on July 5 (staff report). A follow-up meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:30. Next, staff is scheduled to present the Draft Preferred Plan to City Council on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00. Both meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 3575 Pacific Avenue. Based on City Council direction, the project team will then prepare the remaining details of the plan and begin preparing the Environmental Impact Report, with the goal of releasing the documents for public review by the end of 2016.<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan area (also referred to as the “Plan Area”) covers approximately 1,132 acres. It surrounds the proposed Isabel BART station platform within the I-580 median. Most of the Plan Area is north of the freeway. The entire Plan Area is within the City’s adopted Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Plan Area is also within the City limits, except for an unincorporated 21-acre property on Airway Boulevard.<br />
<br />
Major existing uses within the Plan Area include: Las Positas College, Costco, Cayetano Park, Airway and North Canyons Business Parks, and existing residential developments such as Shea Montage, Copper Hill, and Vineyard Terrace. The City selected the Isabel interchange over other possible station locations along I-580 because of the Plan Area’s accessibility, proximity to existing development, and presence of vacant land within the UGB that provides an opportunity for transit-supportive development.<br />
<br />
Isabel Neighborhood Plan Project Goals<br />
<br />
The purpose of this land use planning process is to prepare an Isabel Neighborhood Plan that will meet the needs of the Livermore community, support City and community goals, and complement BART’s proposed extension to Livermore. The ultimate goal is to create a safe, vibrant neighborhood that complements the transit extension, positions Livermore to obtain its fair share of regional transportation funds, '''and improves our quality of life.'''<br />
<br />
More specifically, the City would like the land use planning process to accomplish the following objectives:<br />
<br />
Involve a wide range of stakeholders and community members in the planning process.<br />
Use a variety of engagement methods and communication tools for exchanging information and obtaining meaningful input.<br />
Identify and build upon opportunities for new development within the Plan area.<br />
Establish appropriate residential types to facilitate the development of housing that is attractive to a range of ages, from young professionals to empty nesters, and affordable to a range of incomes.<br />
Establish office uses to support development of local professional and technical jobs.<br />
Establish commercial uses to provide convenient grocery and other neighborhood services.<br />
Encourage ridership on the BART system through transit-supportive features such as bikeway improvements to comply with regional transit expansion policies and maximize the environmental benefits of the project.<br />
Enhance the connectivity of the transportation network within the Plan Area.<br />
Address parking supply/demand, infrastructure constraints, and the compatibility of new and existing land uses.<br />
Complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that identifies potential environmental impacts (traffic, parking, noise, etc.) and includes appropriate mitigation measures to address these impacts, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).<br />
Consider innovative financing mechanisms to implement the Isabel Neighborhood Plan.<br />
<br />
== Plan Components ==<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will establish a new framework for guiding development of the area surrounding the proposed BART station. The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will include the following components:<br />
<br />
land use designations;<br />
minimum and maximum development capacities;<br />
design standards and guidelines;<br />
circulation and access improvements (i.e., streets, sidewalks and trails);<br />
other improvements to public infrastructure (utilities, parks, etc.); and<br />
an implementation plan and financing strategy.<br />
If adopted, the land use regulations established in the Neighborhood Plan will replace the existing General Plan land use designations and zoning standards regulating the development of properties in this area.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Neighborhood Plan Process ==<br />
Isabel Neighborhood Plan Process<br />
<br />
City staff is working with a consultant team led by the firm Dyett & Bhatia to complete the land use planning process. The process generally includes the following stages, of which the first two have been completed:<br />
<br />
Community Visioning<br />
Alternative Land Use/Circulation Scenarios<br />
Preferred Plan<br />
Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)<br />
Adoption of the Isabel Neighborhood Plan<br />
Visioning: The first stage of planning involved getting input from a range of stakeholders, including the community at large, to discuss priorities for the Isabel Neighborhood and establish a vision for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan area. This phase was conducted in 2015. The City’s planning team talked to over 600 people at over 40 events, including focus groups, interviews, neighborhood meetings, tables at city events, and presentations to community groups. Input from stakeholders was compiled into a Vision for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan. Click here for a summary of the Visioning phase of outreach.<br />
<br />
This stage also included compiling detailed information on existing conditions within the planning area (click here for the Existing Conditions Report).<br />
<br />
Alternatives: Based on community feedback and the analysis of existing conditions, the planning team developed three land use and circulation Alternatives to reflect the Vision for the Isabel Neighborhood, focusing on the half mile radius around the station.<br />
<br />
On November 12, 2015, the City hosted a citywide public workshop at the Elks Lodge in Livermore to get input on the Alternative concepts. The workshop included a presentation by the planning team and small group discussions. About 130 community members attended and provided great feedback! In addition, over 1,000 people responded to an online survey on the Alternatives.<br />
<br />
Planning Commission discussed the three Alternative land use/circulation scenarios at their regular meeting on Tuesday, February 2 2016. The City Council discussed the Alternatives and provided direction on the development of a Preferred Plan at a special meeting on Monday, February 29, 2016. Click here for the staff report and meeting minutes.<br />
<br />
Preferred Plan: Based on community input and direction from the Livermore City Council, the team prepared a Draft Preferred Plan, based on Alternative 1 (Main Street) with some modifications. The team presented the Draft Preferred Plan to the public at an Open House on June 28, 2016 and to the City's Planning Commission on July 5, 2016.<br />
<br />
A follow-up meeting with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:30. Next, staff is scheduled to present the Draft Preferred Plan to City Council on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00. Both meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 3575 Pacific Avenue.<br />
<br />
== Next Steps: ==<br />
<br />
After getting feedback on the Draft Preferred Plan, the City and consultant team will complete the remaining details of the Neighborhood Plan and prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to analyze the potential impacts of the Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA process and EIR Scoping period are described further below.<br />
<br />
The City anticipates releasing the Draft Isabel Neighborhood Plan and Draft EIR in late 2016 or early 2017. It is anticipated that the City Council will make a final decision on the Draft EIR and Isabel Neighborhood Plan in spring 2017.<br />
<br />
Environmental Review Process<br />
<br />
The planning team will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of CEQA is to: provide information to the public and decision-makers about the potential for a proposed project to significantly affect the environment; prevent or reduce environmental impacts through design and mitigation measures; and enhance public participation and interagency coordination in planning and development review processes.<br />
<br />
As described in the Notice of Preparation, the EIR for the Isabel Neighborhood Plan will provide a programmatic assessment of the potential consequences of implementing the plan and its policies. Plan implementation generally includes development under the proposed land use regulations and construction of the associated public improvements. In addition to identifying potentially significant impacts, the EIR will recommend measures to mitigate those impacts. The assessment will utilize the most current CEQA guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387). Note that the BART to Livermore Extension Project will be evaluated in a separate EIR to be prepared by BART.<br />
<br />
The City hosted a Scoping Meeting on Tuesday, April 26 to collect comments regarding preparation of the EIR. Click here for the presentation on the CEQA process. The feedback received at the Scoping meeting and during the comment period will build upon input received from stakeholders to date. The public will have additional opportunities to comment throughout the planning process, including after release of the Draft EIR (anticipated for end of 2016).<br />
<br />
Public Involvement<br />
<br />
The Isabel Neighborhood Plan will be based upon input from the community. Opportunities for direct involvement throughout the planning process include focus groups, community meetings, online surveys, and public workshops and hearings. The City provides updates on the planning process through social media and email distribution lists. Get involved today to make sure your voice is heard! Click here.<br />
<br />
The City Council and City advisory commissions will also continue to provide input at key points in the process. The City also established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of representatives from partner public agencies to coordinate the provision of public services and facilities.</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=170Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-25T22:29:15Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels forming two land masses, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate accidental lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals==<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
By and large, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance of the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent for Kelly's Meats, farmers market, SpeeDee Oil [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]], and perhaps others.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=169Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-25T22:28:14Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels, the larger (west of Livermore Avenue) consists of a 6.75 acre contiguous land area bordered roughly by First Street, L Street, Railroad Avenue, and Livermore Avenue. Currently it is a 524 space parking lot plus a few buildings including the historic [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]]. The smaller parking lot (1.43 acres east of Livermore Avenue) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate accidental lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals==<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
By and large, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance of the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent for Kelly's Meats, farmers market, SpeeDee Oil [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]], and perhaps others.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=168Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-25T22:17:08Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels, the larger of which 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) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate accidental lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals==<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
By and large, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance of the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent for Kelly's Meats, farmers market, SpeeDee Oil [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]], and perhaps others.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=167Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-25T22:15:35Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels, the larger of which 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) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate accidental lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals==<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
By and large, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance of the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent for Kelly's Meats, farmers market, [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]], perhaps more.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the western large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=166Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-25T22:15:08Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels, the larger of which 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) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate accidental lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals==<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
By and large, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance of the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent for Kelly's Meats, farmers market, [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]], perhaps more.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Effect on Housing Prices ==<br />
Many residents want expanded affordable housing options, and hope for some relief by building more units on the eastern large site. It is unclear what would result from adding more units there. Livermore had 30,342 units in 2010. 260 apartments/condos would add 0.86% to the total inventory.<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Sunset_Office_Plaza_Zoning&diff=165Sunset Office Plaza Zoning2016-08-25T17:15:34Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>Sunset Office Plaza is a commercial parcel with several buildings at the corner of Holmes and Concannon in Livermore. 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]. <br />
<br />
Sunset Development stated at the time that their intent was to raze the buildings in September 2015. As of August 2016 the plaza remains unmodified. Although Sunset asserts that the land will be available for sale after the buildings are destroyed, they will not entertain offers while the buildings are still standing. The new owner would be allowed to rebuild for commercial purposes and maintain the park area; retail and residential is not allowed.</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Sunset_Office_Plaza_Zoning&diff=164Sunset Office Plaza Zoning2016-08-25T17:14:53Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>Sunset Office Plaza is a commercial parcel with several buildings at the corner of Holmes and Concannon in Livermore. 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]. <br />
<br />
Sunset Development stated at the time that their intent was to raze the buildings in September 2015. As of August 2016 the plaza remains unmodified. Although Sunset asserts that the land will be available for sale after the buildings are destroyed, they will not entertain offers while the buildings are still standing. The new owner would be allowed to rebuild for commercial purposes and maintain the park area; retail and residential is not allowed.</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=163BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-25T16:52:13Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than what is mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway, other than the section between Isabel and Hacienda.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership throughput can only be increasing the frequency of trains. There has been no way to accomplish this since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they would not longer fit the terminals.<br />
<br />
The Isabel development may create twice that many (or more) employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
<br />
== Extension Options ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not accept this reality and continues to suggest other possibilities for consideration [[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives]].<br />
<br />
== Funding ==<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion. $400 is identified if it is approved by the ACTC after MTC approval.<br />
<br />
== Benefits of Extension ==<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* 5 mile shorter drive for out of county commuters utilizing Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer cars in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
<br />
== Drawbacks of Extension ==<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=162BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-25T16:48:46Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than what is mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (uncomfortably termed "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway, other than the section between Isabel and Hacienda.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership throughput can only be increasing the frequency of trains. There has been no way to accomplish this since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they would not longer fit the terminals.<br />
<br />
The Isabel development may create twice that many (or more) employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
<br />
== Extension Options ==<br />
Although Livermore is only interested in extending real BART to Isabel, BART staff does not accept this reality and continues to suggest other possibilities for consideration [[http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv/alternatives]].<br />
<br />
== Funding ==<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion. $400 is identified if it is approved by the ACTC after MTC approval.<br />
<br />
== Benefits of Extension ==<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* Less freeway driving for out of county commuters via Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer cars in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
<br />
== Drawbacks of Extension ==<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=161BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-25T16:40:48Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than what is mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (the uncomfortable term "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway, other than the section between Isabel and Hacienda.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership throughput can only be increasing the frequency of trains. There has been no way to accomplish this since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they would not longer fit the terminals.<br />
<br />
The Isabel development may create twice that many (or more) employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
<br />
== Funding ==<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion. $400 is identified if it is approved by the ACTC after MTC approval.<br />
<br />
== Benefits of Extension ==<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* Less freeway driving for out of county commuters via Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer cars in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders; less time on the bus if BART is the destination<br />
<br />
== Drawbacks of Extension ==<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=157Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-24T21:59:26Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels, the larger of which 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) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate accidental lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by developer Anderson Pacific [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
=== 2011 RFP ===<br />
Overlapping the LVPAC planning, an RFP was created to gauge interest from the development community in the midst of a recession. No acceptable responses were received.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals==<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ was hired to develop the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
By and large, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance of the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent for Kelly's Meats, farmers market, [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]], perhaps more.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=156Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-24T21:51:53Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels, the larger of which 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) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate accidental lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by a developer [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals==<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ developed the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
By and large, the land and buildings are revenue neutral. Any maintenance of the gravel area, the paved areas, electricity and the building repairs is offset by small fees. Revenue includes rent for Kelly's Meats, farmers market, [[Livermore Southern Pacific Railroad Depot]], perhaps more.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=155Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-24T21:40:32Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels, the larger of which 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) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate accidental lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by a developer [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals==<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ developed the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the current designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
No information is available regarding the current annual costs of maintenance. Annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=154Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-24T21:39:27Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels, the larger of which 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) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate accidental lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by a developer [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals==<br />
=== "Cornerstone"===<br />
DTZ developed the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown <br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
No information is available regarding the current annual costs of maintenance. Annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=153Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-24T21:38:44Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels, the larger of which 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) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate accidental lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by a developer [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals ("Cornerstone")==<br />
DTZ developed the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown <br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
No information is available regarding the current annual costs of maintenance. Annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=152Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-24T21:38:14Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels, the larger of which 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) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which was the result of an unfortunate accidental lapse in judgement. This is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by a developer [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals (Cornerstone)==<br />
DTZ developed the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown <br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
No information is available regarding the current annual costs of maintenance. Annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=151Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-24T21:35:46Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels, the larger of which 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) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by a developer [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals (Cornerstone)==<br />
DTZ developed the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown <br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
No information is available regarding the current annual costs of maintenance. Annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=150Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-24T21:35:17Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels, the larger of which 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) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by a developer [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals (Cornerstone)==<br />
DTZ developed the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown <br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== "Cornerstone" ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
No information is available regarding the current annual costs of maintenance. Annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Cornerstone ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=149Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-24T21:34:04Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels, the larger of which 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) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by a developer [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals (Cornerstone)==<br />
DTZ developed the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown <br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== Cornerstone ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872][http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
No information is available regarding the current annual costs of maintenance. Annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Cornerstone ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.<br />
== Notable Public Meetings ==<br />
Joint City Council/Planning Commission August 1 2016, continued to Aug 8. Authorized $100,000 for various studies[http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14835].</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=148Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-24T21:27:31Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels, the larger of which 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) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by a developer [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals (Cornerstone)==<br />
DTZ developed the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown <br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== Cornerstone ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at http://vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
No information is available regarding the current annual costs of maintenance. Annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Cornerstone ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=147Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-24T21:26:44Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site (also known as the former “Lucky’s” site), was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot building and blacksmith buildings. Across Livermore avenue is the "eastern" site. These sites are owned by the City and various ways are being considered to utilize them to strengthen the success of the downtown core area. Currently they are free parking lots.<br />
<br />
There are several adjoining parcels, the larger of which 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) has 63 spaces adjacent to the Bankhead Theater at the corner of Livermore and Railroad Avenue. In total there are 587 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
Official documents often refer 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" is 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 RFP labeled the development project "Cornerstone", which is the name of a prominent Livermore megachurch [http://cornerstoneweb.org]<br />
[[File:SIte-Map.jpg|thumbnail]]<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been various redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== 1979 - 2005 Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard and the lumber yard were exhausted it became a 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 and the parking lot remains.<br />
<br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by a developer [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center proposed by LVPAC[http://lvpac.org]. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible and the project was not completed.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals (Cornerstone)==<br />
DTZ developed the original RFP documents, and is the exclusive real estate broker for all the acreage. [[File:community.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Community Group layout]]<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com <br />[[File:lennar.jpg|300px|thumbnail|Lennar layout]]<br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown <br />
<br />
=== Other Alternatives ===<br />
Some have proposed the Groth Brothers site at L and First be considered for housing, or the hotel and included in the planning process on an equal level. The option of continuing the parking lots with their current use has not been studied.<br />
<br />
== Economic Impacts ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditures. 9 million of this money came from Livermore's affordable housing fund in the form of a loan, and 5 million from redevelopment funds. When the State took away the redevelopment funds, Livermore borrowed 5 million more from Affordable housing, resulting in the total debt to the fund of 14 million.[http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
<br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars during the process [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. <br />
=== Cornerstone ===<br />
DTZ has been paid by the City at least $80,000 from the general fund and so far and will be paid another $300,000 if the properties are sold, to Lennar or any other suitor. [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/11143 ] Another $50,000 payment to DTZ is implied but unclear, as their entire contract agreement is for $430,000. 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. They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs. The City also plans to spend 17 million of general fund money on a parking garage [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/14872]. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance (an issue which affected [[First Street Streetscape]]). Estimated annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
An alternative to the RFQ defined project, no public funds were spent; all funding has been from private donations. No information is available regarding estimated annual costs of maintenance. Two professional studies have been conducted. One by PKF on an initial concept of a 180 room hotel (current plan is ~135 rooms) and conference center, and a study by NBS regarding possible revenue from the project. Both studies are available to the public at vibrantlivermore.com<br />
<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
No information is available regarding the current annual costs of maintenance. Annual revenue is also unknown.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
=== Cornerstone ===<br />
Studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 that include traffic. The traffic impacts are expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident.<br />
=== Community Group ===<br />
The traffic impacts are also expected to be substantial due to the numerous changes in flow that are evident. Council has not approved traffic studies for this alternative plan.<br />
=== Existing Use as Parking Lots ===<br />
Current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service LOS] has not been a subject of significant discord, though there have been complaints raised at the workshop about Railroad Avenue during commute hours. The western site has numerous entries and exits on all four bordering streets.</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=146BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-24T18:21:41Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than what is mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (the uncomfortable term "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway, other than the section between Isabel and Hacienda.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership throughput can only be increasing the frequency of trains. There has been no way to accomplish this since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they would not longer fit the terminals.<br />
<br />
The Isabel development may create twice that many (or more) employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
<br />
== Funding ==<br />
The most recent estimate is $1.2 billion. $400 is identified if it is approved by the ACTC after MTC approval.<br />
<br />
== Benefits of Extension ==<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* Shorter drive for out of county commuters via Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer cars in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders<br />
<br />
== Drawbacks of Extension ==<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=145BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-24T18:00:51Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than what is mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (the uncomfortable term "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership throughput can only be increasing the frequency of trains. There has been no way to accomplish this since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they would not longer fit the terminals. <br />
<br />
The Isabel development may create twice that many (or more) employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
<br />
== Benefits of Extension ==<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* Shorter drive for out of county commuters via Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer cars in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
* More efficient bus routes for Livermore resident riders<br />
<br />
== Drawbacks of Extension ==<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=144BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-24T17:56:34Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than what is mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (the uncomfortable term "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership throughput can only be increasing the frequency of trains. There has been no way to accomplish this since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they would not longer fit the terminals. <br />
<br />
The Isabel development may create twice that many (or more) employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
<br />
== Benefits of Extension ==<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better usability for Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* Shorter drive for out of county commuters via Altamont Pass<br />
* Fewer cars in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
<br />
== Drawbacks of Extension ==<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=143BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-24T17:54:30Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than what is mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (the uncomfortable term "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are currently transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the Livermore extension. That means extending BART to Livermore does not result in any additional cars removed from the freeway.<br />
<br />
Increasing the ridership throughput can only be increasing the frequency of trains. There has been no way to accomplish this since the transbay timing issues would create a "BART traffic jam" within its own system. Trains cannot be lengthened or decked, as they would not longer fit the terminals. <br />
<br />
The Isabel development may create twice that many (or more) employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to traffic than the completed project with BART.<br />
<br />
== Benefits of Extension ==<br />
The addition of BART to Livermore does have benefits:<br />
* Better access to Livermore residents, especially disabled/elderly, during non commute hours<br />
* Fewer cars in the Pleasanton parking lots<br />
<br />
== Drawbacks of Extension ==<br />
* Pleasanton residents will have less available seating/standing, since trains will arrive with passengers instead of being empty.<br />
* High capital costs</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=142BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-24T17:27:37Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory may be faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than what is mitigated by BART. At up to 200 people per car (the uncomfortable term "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. Every 15 minutes, up to 2,000 people are transported up the Dublin grade. This number does not change with the extension, but each day begins with one more empty train. That means extending BART to Livermore can only physically result in 2,000 more people per day exiting the valley via BART than the current configuration, with the terminus at East Pleasanton. <br />
<br />
The Isabel development may create twice that many (or more) employees seeking westward commutes, plus and local school trips. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to traffic than the completed project with BART.</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=BART_to_Livermore_at_Isabel&diff=141BART to Livermore at Isabel2016-08-24T15:54:25Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The potential to extend BART to Livermore with an Isabel Boulevard station involves several steps. Funding is key.<br />
<br />
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the entity which approves crucial funding. They will not approve funding if there is not high density urban development close to the proposed station.<br />
<br />
Since Livermore's desired location for BART is currently open space, it would not qualify. Logic might suggest that MTC simply state the development that would be required in order for them to fund the station. They refuse to do this. Instead, Livermore must prepare a plan to develop what the City thinks might be sufficient to gain support for BART funding. Livermore has been engaged in a costly and time consuming [[Isabel Residential Rezoning]] process in order to satisfy this MTC requirement.<br />
<br />
MTC will be presented with the final proposed development plan for MTC to debate and decide. If MTC commits to funding, the BART Board will then decide if it wants to extend. With approval of both entities, the process will move on to feasibility assessments and acquisition of the remainder of the necessary funds.<br />
<br />
== Traffic Impacts ==<br />
It is often noted that a key goal of bringing BART to Livermore is to "take cars off the road", implying that the daily AM traffic jam on highway 580 would improve. This theory is faulty, as the additional 12,000 residents added to the Isabel development will create more commute traffic than what is mitigated by BART. The logic is debatable. At 200 people per car (the uncomfortable sounding term "crush load") a train can carry a maximum of 2,000 passengers. That means extending BART to Livermore can only physically result in 2,000 more people per morning taking BART than are currently riding with the terminus configuration at East Pleasanton. The Isabel development may create twice that many (or more) employees seeking eastward commutes. Thus, the undeveloped Isabel Neighborhood without BART is more favorable to traffic than the completed project with BART.</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=56Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-18T00:02:14Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site, also known as the former “Lucky’s” site and Livermore Valley Center site, was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot. The redevelopment of the downtown sites owned by the City provide an opportunity to strengthen the success of the downtown core area.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been several redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard was exhausted it became a strip mall anchored by Lucky's Supermarkets. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished and the parking lot remains. <br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by a developer [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals (Cornerstone)==<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com<br /><br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
== Financial Implications ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The Livermore Village costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditure [http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars on that effort [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. The project was not completed. <br />
=== Cornerstone ===<br />
Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for the new "Cornerstone" development proposal They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs.</div>50.247.68.73https://wiki.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/index.php?title=Stockyard_(Old_Lucky%27s_Parking_Lot)_Redevelopment&diff=55Stockyard (Old Lucky's Parking Lot) Redevelopment2016-08-18T00:01:42Z<p>50.247.68.73: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Livermore Village site, also known as the former “Lucky’s” site and Livermore Valley Center site, was once a stockyard accompanied by the surviving railroad depot. The redevelopment of the downtown sites owned by the City provide an opportunity to strengthen the success of the downtown core area.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There have been several redevelopment projects either constructed or proposed over the years. <br />
=== Lucky's Era ===<br />
After its value as a Stockyard was exhausted it became a strip mall anchored by Lucky's Supermarkets. Subsequent development of other shopping centers further away from the town center resulted in fewer customers and Lucky Stores abandoned the site. Most of the buildings were demolished and the parking lot remains. <br />
=== 2006 Livermore Village ===<br />
This was a proposal by a developer [http://live-work.com/projects/livermore-village/]to build housing on the sites. An economic downturn ensued, and Livermore acquired the property.<br />
=== 2009 Performing Arts Effort===<br />
Another redevelopment plan was for a 2,000 seat performing arts center. It was scrapped when a change in State law regarding the availability of redevelopment funding made it economically infeasible.<br />
<br />
== Current Development Proposals ==<br />
=== Community Group Alternative ===<br />
Funded and managed by volunteers http://vibrantlivermore.com<br /><br />
<br />
=== Lennar Alternative ===<br />
Proposed by Lennar Homes, the designated developer http://cityoflivermore.net/downtown<br />
<br />
== Financial Implications ==<br />
=== Livermore Village ===<br />
The Livermore Village costs for acquisition and demolition of Lucky's was $22 million in general fund expenditure [http://www.dof.ca.gov/Programs/Redevelopment/Housing_Assets/Transfer_Forms/documents/Livermore_Housing_Asset_Form.pdf]. <br /><br />
=== LVPAC ===<br />
For the 2,000 seat theater, Livermore spent over 9 million dollars on that effort [http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/8580]. The project was not completed. <br />
=== Cornerstone ===<br />
Several studies were recommended by Council on Aug 8 2016 for the new "Cornerstone" development proposal They will commence Q3 2016 at unknown costs.</div>50.247.68.73