The rezoning described in Action 5.4 was adopted by the City Council concurrently with the Housing Element in December 2022.

The City has been heavily engaged in Housing Element commitments on a number of fronts.  Per the approved Housing Element, the City of Piedmont established a timeline to accomplish rezoning by March of 2024.  The City has since satisfied HCD rezoning requirements.  Piedmont’s Housing Element is currently in compliance with Housing Element Law.  

With reference to the Housing Accountability Act, in particular, the City hosted a Housing Legislation Primer on August 5th to educate the community and interested parties on changes to the legislative landscape.  Presentation materials can be found at https://www.piedmontishome.org/event/city-council-meeting-3-f927z-dsnb6-8kst9-acfpy-n5sze-8e9ah.   

05/23/2022 Livermore City Council Housing Elements Update

​

- Presentation

    - Tricia Pontau, Associate Planner / Amy Sinsheimer, Senior Associate at PlaceWorks: Schedule and next steps

        - This HE shows that Livermore can suffice the RHNA number without rezoning

        - This HE draft will be amended in the future to incorporate edits, comments, and suggestions

        - The HE will be finalized January 2023

        - Tonight is for input. There is a 30-day public comment period that will end on 6/3, after which we will make revisions and then submit to HCD.

        - Staff has begun to review public comments, particularly on development fees – they are higher in real life than reported in the current HE, so revisions will be made

    - AS: Overview

        - Content: existing and projected housing needs; current land inventory for housing; potential constraint on housing; fair housing assessment (new this cycle); previous HE evaluation; and goals, policies, and implementation programs

        - A lot of this is state law-driven, and input will be asked for the local law portions

    - AS: Public engagement

        - Community pop-up events, stakeholder interview, surveys, open house, GPAC meetings 11/2021 and 05/2022, Planning Commission and City Council study session 01/2022, and Planning Commission session 05/17/2022

    - AS: Data sources

        - HCD pre-approved data packet prepared by ABAG – Main source for Housing Needs Assessment

        - HCD AFFH Data Viewer mapping tool – Main source for Assessment of Fair Housing

    - AS: Goals

        - Diverse housing choices, well-managed growth, affordable housing production and preservation, healthy and resilient housing and neighborhoods, AFFH, and regional cooperation to address housing needs

    - AS: Programs

        - There are 29 programs accumulating to 112 actions – Generally, they call for streamlined standards, focusing on areas with infrastructure, administering programs that address discriminatory housing practices, increasing participating in regional housing efforts, etc.

- Public Comments / Questions

    - John Marchand, Former Livermore Mayor and current Livermore resident: Estimated costs are low by about a factor of 100 – take a look at those to correct. Additional concerns on the right fees for other parts of the report. The HE doesn’t address the NIMBYism in water and power today in the state. Infrastructure can’t currently keep up with demand. Livermore has shown it can fulfill the RHNA, but ABAG should suspend its RHNA mandates until the state can fulfill its infrastructure obligations.

    - Alan Burnham, Livermore resident: Good info on demographics, which can form good policies. However, the data in large parts of the HE is outdated, including using 2019 data vs. the most recent 2020 Census. Apparently, this draft HE is approved, but I’m not impressed.

    - Greg Scott, Livermore resident: You’re not going to solve housing until you decommodify and despeculate housing. Blackrock owns ⅓ of all housing in California – how do we fight against this? We’re eating our young – the oldest people are owning the wealth in housing. Until we talk about this, you’re not addressing what we need in the HE.

    - David Kent, Business owner and Livermore resident: The number of people ten years ago who both lived and worked in Livermore was 50% more than it is today. A lot of workers here can’t live here. My request is for the Council to look closely at sites that are practical and have high feasibility because we need the affordable housing. Also, look at industrial sites to replace with housing opportunities.

    - Asa Strout, Livermore resident: Adding to David Kent’s comment: when we talk about “affordable housing,” we don’t mean cutting a portion of housing for young people to be “affordable,” we mean creating enough housing so that all market rate housing is more affordable for entry level homes.

- Council Comments / Questions

    - Brittni Kiick, Livermore Councilmember: Does staff feel the buffer we have built is large enough?

        - TP: Yes, we do. We can also identify additional sites for housing down the line for this cycle and moving forward.

    - Trish Munro, Livermore Councilmember: The 29 programs won’t happen until we look at other things. How do we bring people along for this? This is a complicated area as we ask people for info. Building will take a much longer period of time, so how do we communicate to people that we are mandated to do this and that it’s not optional? We also need to educate that regional items do matter; we are affected by what other cities do, so how do we educate the public on the context in which we are doing this? I would also love to see the data in the HE draft be broken down three ways: Bay Area region, Tri-Valley area, and Livermore as a city.

    - ™: In regards to what John Marchand said: there is a gap, you’re right. Cities and the state often fight against each other, but we need to talk about how we cooperate with the state to fund and build the housing that needs to get done.

    - Robert Carling, Livermore Councilmember: Can we include a map of the areas that are options for development over the next few years? I agree with Trish Munro on this for educating people: what is likely to be built and where? One thing I have a question about: the 80 ADUs in the HE draft. I want to confirm: last year around 50% of our housing permits were for ADUs?

        - Regina Bonanno, Livermore Vice Mayor: Correct

        - RC: How is it then that we expect residents to build all these moderate, low, and very low ADUs? That’s puzzling to me.

        - AS: We’re projecting those numbers, and it’s the city’s responsibility to track what actually happens. Those numbers will need to be reported to the state every year in the annual report. It’s voluntary how much a person can rent an ADU for, but these numbers are based on analysis and reports by ABAG and other sources – and this includes people who rent their ADUs out to their family members for free.

        - RC: You’re putting the city in a pretty awful spot by suggesting we’re going to meet these numbers. I don’t think it’s going to work.

    - RB: I agree with Robert Carling, I’m concerned on ADUs. Have cities found ways to incentivize building ADUs, and for ADUs that actually house people instead of just being offices, etc.

        - Eric Uranga, Livermore Assistant Community Development Director: Staff is currently working with nonprofits right now to create programs and financial incentives to build ADUs. We’re also encouraging local housing nonprofits to build ADUs, which the city can reward with financial incentives.

        - RB: In these income categories: these are where the housing could be, not where it will be, correct? It’s up to state, county, and local agencies to put up the affordable housing in those categories. It’s going to be a much higher bar to actually meet these numbers.

    - RB: Another question is that we have three affordable housing projects that are at risk? Do we have assurances that those projects will stay affordable?

        - EU: We are working with those projects/developers. One project, the Bluebell Apartments, we are working to help the owners rework their city loans for longer affordable housing.

        - RB: I think we should do all we can to do that and help people out with affordable housing

    - RB: Goals and programs looks good. I know an awful lot of work went into this – let’s incorporate as much feedback and changes as possible.

    - BK: I want to clarify that we are looking into how to project/track ADU production. We brought this up as an item in a previous meeting, and the city staff are still on it.

    - Bob Woerner, Livermore Mayor: We want to plan to be plausible – this plan is doing a pretty good job of that. However, nothing is perfect; we’re trying to get this approved by the state, but there are re-adjustments and changes that we can expect to make. I want to request from city staff that we are updated a little earlier when we hear back from HCD after submission so we can think on it better.

    - BW: Also want to clarify: we’re not trying to bring down the market rate housing cost down, we’re just trying to give people different cost/housing options. We don’t have enough inventory in the city of Livermore to bring down the overall cost of housing for the Bay Area. Is that correct?

        - AS: Yes

01/20/2022 Livermore City Council/Planning Commission Housing Elements Update

​

1. Amy Sinsheimer: Overview of the HE cycle

    - Components: analysis of existing and projected housing needs; inventory of available land for housing; analysis of potential constraints on housing (e.g. permit processing procedures, fees), assessment of fair housing; evaluation of previous housing element; goals, policies, and implementation programs

    - Process: HCD → ABAG (441,176 allocated) → Livermore (upcoming cycle: 4,570; current cycle: 2,729)

    - Accommodating the RHNA: default density standard for lower-income housing:

        i. Metropolitan jurisdictions: 30 u/a, so when we look at sites, we look at areas that could hold at least 30 u/a

    - Starting with sites from the current cycle, the City is also looking at additional vacant and underutilized sites (focusing on sites between 0.5-10 acres for lower income RHNA)

        i. Will also look at projected ADUs

    - Some relevant laws: AB 1397 (identification of realistic sites), SB 166 (no net loss zoning), SB 35 (application streaming), SB 330 (removes “roadblocks” to developments)

        i. New law: AB 686 (affirmatively further fair housing) – there are geographic and historical pieces to this law, the City will keep this in consideration when looking at sites, and we welcome community input re: this

    - Public participation to date: GPAC meeting last fall, one-on-one stakeholder interviews, pop-ups at community events for community input on housing, open house at Owls Landing, virtual survey, postcard survey to downtown service workers

        i. All input will be included and will help inform the draft housing elements

    - Project schedule:

        i. HE should be adopted by January 2023

1. City Council and Planning Commission questions/discussion

    - Trish Munro: There is a large increase in the allocation for Livermore and the Bay Area for this upcoming cycle compared to the current cycle. Why the large increase?

        i. AS: The state will say that there is a large housing shortage issue. Allocation locally will also consider the community environment such as transit, price ranges, etc.

        ii. Bob Woerner: I want to point out that the allocation for ABAG went up by 135%, whereas Livermore only went up by 67%, so we actually increased less than the overall region. So we need to think about this holistically, especially thinking that we did not appeal our RHNA, but our other Tri-Valley neighbors did.

        iii. Brittni Kiick: This is the first time we’ve ever considered underhousing in the RHNA. This is especially important when considering BIPOC communities are particularly impacted. This will go a long way to curbing historical inequities like redlining. The high number is good.

        iv. Regina Bonanno: There are a lot of challenges here, but the goal is to put out a good HE and do a thorough job/effort that we’re expecting to be compliant with these numbers. I don’t think we need to be distracted by legal efforts too much. I do have a question about the metropolitan density: what led to Livermore to be classified as metropolitan and not suburban?

            1. Paul Spence: Correct, we do not need to worry about legal stuff. We do have appropriate sites available for a diverse range of housing types in line with the requirements. If that changes, we will react accordingly.

            2. AS: Livermore is in a metropolitan statistical area, so that is why Livermore qualifies.

            3. RB: What are the qualifications?

            4. AS: Certain traits that make it more urban. I don’t remember what the traits are, but they are the most urban parts of the state.

            5. RB: I’m just surprised because I wouldn’t classify it that way

            6. PS: I’m guessing it’s because we are part of the greater Bay Area

            7. AS, RB: Yea

    - Steven Dunbar: Could you speak to the concept of a buffer and no net loss? We are planning more than our allocation because of this.

        i. AS: The goal is to plan for more than we are allocated for (15% is the general rule). We can use the buffer to address changes without worrying about rezoning and other sites.

        ii. SD: We would need to make a 

        iii. AS: If there are no other sites for suitable zoning

        iv. SD: For AB what do you mean by “additional analysis” in your presentation?

        v. AS: Anything that has any use on it now must be analyzed more than a vacant site. Anything that is not vacant now, the state wants to know things like what is the current use, does the owner want to develop housing, how large is the site, etc. The state really wants to make sure we are doing right with the low-income RHNA in particular.

        vi. SD: Just commenting that our AMI is quite high, so even a fair income could be considered low income

    - Evan Branning: Seeing the amount of need at the low and very low levels, I hope we are working here to not only plan, but also making sure we are incorporating ways to make sure these units are actually built. One question: has the City looked into whether SB 10 would be appropriate for Livermore?

        i. PS: To respond to your comment, we are looking at sites that we think are viable. Certainly on the city side, we have a good track record of pursuing affordable housing partnerships with our local nonprofits. With SB 10, yes we are looking at this and seeing if it will be relevant to our HE. We are also talking to HCD about how they interpret the new legislation and how it counts towards the HE.

        ii. Jason Alcala: We are looking at SB 10 right now and will be coordinating with planning staff

    - BK: I’ve heard a lot about how cities are going to rely on ADUs to do infill, but that’s not easy to finance because it depends on homeowners to have wealth to build ADUs or get a loan. It’s harder to finance these smaller units. What are the conversations on how much we will rely on ADUs, and if we are going to depend on them, what are the conversations around the easing of financing?

        i. PS: This is something we are working on to see if we can incorporate, but we recognize that they are often not used for people to live in (e.g. offices, playrooms). We do not plan to depend heavily on ADUs for our HE. I suspect they will be more of our background count.

        ii. JA: The City continues to adopt new legislation. SB 10 and AB 345 are new relevant legislation, but we are working on seeing what we can do with them at the City Attorney’s office.

    - John Stein: Do we have any input on what the public would like to see for the additional residential accommodations? Also, everyone always talks about “community character” – how does the public view “community character?”

        i. PS: We’ve had conversations with the public, which have been more general. But we have heard concerns about needing more housing and more affordable housing. We are looking at a variety of alternatives in terms of how we provide that housing (e.g. vacant sites, converting commercial/industrial, higher density around future station areas). We don’t think we need to go out of city boundaries to meet our RHNA at this time for this HE.

        ii. JS: My concern is that generalizations get filtered through the staff, consultants, attorneys, City Council, etc. and may not accurately reflect the public sentiment. Is there a way to drill down to the specifics?

        iii. AS: PS is correct that there haven’t been any specific conversations with the public yet

    - BW: I need clarity on the urban growth boundary. PS, you first said we don’t need to go outside of it, then you said you didn’t think. I want to be clear: we do not need to go outside of it.

        i. PS: You’re right, we do not need to go outside of it. There is no expectation to do that for this cycle.

        ii. BW: Let’s just put it unambiguously for the people who keep complaining and commenting about this: we are not doing this. We are not doing this. Let’s stop the false rumors and stories that we are. We are not doing this.

    - Daniel Leary: The schedule looks very tight, so can you give us an idea of what the upcoming general plan workshops will look like?

        i. AS: The HE really focuses on the sites, programs related to housing, and the background report and analyses. The General Plan is looking at the alternatives of where warehouses should go.

        ii. Tricia Pontau: For this HE cycle, like AS said, we are really looking at current sites and stuff we have available. Anything additional will likely have more impact on future cycles.

        iii. DL: It seems like a lot of new info will be reviewed at the next City Council review. After that, it looks like the next opportunity to review is in December. Can we add more points to review?

        iv. TP: We do have strict deadlines we need to follow. There is very little time to change anything.

        v. AS: The requirements for making changes and making the draft available for comment have gotten more strict since the law got passed last fall. Every time we have changes, the draft must be available for public review for ten days and then more to review the changes. We don’t really have that kind of time; the schedule is pretty much laid out, but we can still receive input.

        vi. JA: SB 20 added 40 days to the review time

    - TM: I very much agree with JS’ comments about reaching out to the public with one caveat: planning was the heaviest lift when I came onto the Council. I’ve learned a lot about what it takes to build and grow a community, how the regional planning takes place, how affordable housing is built, and I’m new at this. All to say: while I really want to know what Livermore residents want, I also want the residents to know even some of what I know so they are informed in their thoughts. It’s amazing what you can learn, and some residents don’t know how complicated this can be. Is there a way we can make this knowledge available and accessible? I believe our residents would like to learn this. Are there any constraints to making this happen?

        i. PS: We certainly try to provide an educational component when we do this. They can also look at the background we’re proposing on the project website. We want the community to understand the variety of issues at play here so they can make an informed decision about things.

        ii. SD: The way I like to think about it is: we have to present trade-offs to people. The state requires us to zone for this housing, we only get to decide what type.

    - SD: I also want to make a point: is it true that having a compliant HE sets us up for state funds and grants? Is it also true that not having a compliant HE sets us up for state fines?

        i. PS, AS: Yes

    - BK: Turner Center was very glad we were the only Tri-Valley city not to appeal our RHNA, and they offered to help us out on our HE process. Just wanted to put that out there that we did a good thing and that the offer is on the table.

        i. PS: We would be happy to get those connections

    - RB: We need to be crystal clear about what’s fact, what’s noise, what’s true, what’s false. We need residents to be informed. We don’t need to be worried about the noise, but we need to be clear and informed when we talk to residents and the public.

    - JS: Traditional planning believes that the past predicts the future, but what we’re seeing now is that it really doesn’t. Human health, water availability, energy, etc. how do those affect housing? Especially when thinking that California’s population decreased for the first time, and a lot of those things affect housing planning.

        i. AS: We gather data (such as through ABAG for the HE), and we look at the trends that you’re talking about (such as whether we have enough wastewater capacity). But as you said, it’s a moving target.

        ii. PS: We’ll take the best facts and info available to identify the best housing sites. As we go through specific planning for individual projects, we get more detailed. But we try to make sure we have all the pieces in place generally to make sure we have all the infrastructure we need.

    - BW: Going back to the schedule: my concern is: how do we know that we are going to have a balance here in the community (e.g. housing vs. recreation)? As some of these current sites are displaced, where will we put them? Is there a time in this schedule where we can say that a General Plan update would make sense? Where do we get a first look at whether the overall General Plan in this HE context makes sense?

        i. PS: We are currently working on public outreach on focus areas. We will also be looking at a variety of land use types and how much land we have. We will look at the total land, land use breakdown, and how we can redistribute. We can look at providing a broader General Plan analysis at the end even though it’s not required.

        ii. BW: Good, and I’d like it during a time when the analysis would actually matter. We’d like a point in time analysis. In the schedule where we are seeing “prepare draft environmental review” in April/May, we would need that point in time analysis check.

        iii. PS: We won’t have all of that info for the General Plan available at that time

        iv. BW: We don’t need all the info, but after the HE is proposed, do we have enough land to relocate the displaced businesses? That’s all we need to know.

        v. PS: We can look to have that provided

        vi. BW: Are there any sectors in particular we need to be concerned about for loss? We would like that info.

        vii. PS: We can look to have that provided

​

Speakers/Presenters:

- Amy Sinsheimer, Senior Planner at PlaceWorks

- Trish Munro, At-Large Councilmember for the City of Livermore

- Bob Woerner, Mayor for the City of Livermore

- Brittni Kiick, District 3 Councilmember for the City of Livermore

- Regina Bonanno, Vice Mayor for the City of Livermore

- Paul Spence, Community Development Director

- Steven Dunbar, Vice Chair/Planning Commissioner for the City of Livermore

- Evan Branning, Planning Commissioner for the City of Livermore

- Jason Alcala, City Attorney for the City of Livermore

- John Stein, Planning Commissioner for the City of Livermore

- Daniel Leary, Vice Chair/Planning Commissioner for the City of Livermore

- Tricia Pontau, Associate Planner

-Livermore is incorporating the HE process as part of their General Plan update process — this was more of a General Plan update

-Current timeline for their HE process is January-November 2022

-Lack of Affordable and diverse housing identified as a key issue as are homeless, rent control, more high-density housing

-Also identified as a key issue is “no four-story housing developments”

-Commissioners’ commented and generally agreed housing was too expensive in Livermore

-Chair Anderson and Vice Chair Dunbar both noted they recently bought houses and that they were super expensive