The city of Livermore, California is located in the eastern part of Alameda County, one of seven counties that border the San Francisco Bay. The eastern bayside portion of Alameda County has long been urbanized and contains the major city of Oakland and the University of California at Berkley. Livermore is about 30 miles inland in a historically rural portion of the county, it has a population of around 80,000 people and covers around 24 square miles.¹ It is located in the Livermore Valley, an area of rolling hills with longstanding vineyards to the southeast.² Livermore was originally intentionally placed on the transcontinental railroad to San Francisco; the city currently is just south of where US 580 runs to Oakland from US 5, the major corridor to the Bay Area from Los Angeles. The city's location on major transportation corridors led to a long period of the city largely being an agricultural and residential community for the Bay Area, more so residential in post World War II America.³ All of this has changed in the last few decades, as the city of Livermore has increasingly become a major business and industry center in its own right.⁴

Livermore was originally an agricultural community; the city downtown largely held businesses to supply goods to farmers and winemakers.⁵ Although the city did have a functioning brick making industry in the early 1900's, farming was the principal business. ⁶ After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, an Air Force Base was built outside of Livermore to train pilots for the war. After the close of World War II, The Lawrence-Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) was created as a laboratory for Cold War atomic weapons innovation and consequently the study of atomic physics.⁷ In addition to vast contributions to knowledge of atomic physics, work at the LLNL led to remarkable advances in supercomputing and biotechnology.⁸ The biotechnology departments were originally begun to test the reaction of organisms to radioactive aftereffects of weaponry.⁹ Employment at the National Laboratory grew over the years to a current staff of around 8,000 persons still largely doing atomic physics supercomputing and biotechnological research.

Agriculture has continued in the Livermore Valley over the years, but it has been continuously pressed back by residential development. In the 1960's Livermore began growing in population at a very rapid rate, over 8% growth per year.¹¹ In 1969 air quality in the area was at its historical worst.¹² The Livermore Valley is subject to frequent air inversions that trap polluted air in the valley instead of pushing it over the mountains; this situation is compounded by dirty air from the San Francisco Bay being carried into the valley by winds coming through the Golden Gate.¹³ This effect caused Livermore to fail federal and state air quality tests in the early 1970's with the advent of federal air quality legislation.¹⁴ Livermore was designated a "critical air basin" in the early 1970's, which led to the removal of state and federal funding for extending sewage facilities.

This lack of infrastructure funding led to the city negotiating with state and federal environmental agencies to take measures to improve air quality, and part of the deal making included limiting development.¹⁶ The Livermore city government had no other means of extending infrastructure other than putting bonds on the ballot, which was a common practice in other cities. Given the option, Livermore voters proved willing to stand behind the decision to limit development. The power of cities to annex land from the county, and the possibility of establishing new cities in unincorporated areas led to a series of land-use battles in the Livermore Valley over potentially overlapping jurisdictions. Livermore had a unique populous, it had more PhD holding citizens than any other city in America at one point, and they came from all over the nation to work at the National Laboratory.¹⁷ This was part of what contributed to Livermore's progressive policies concerning growth and also it's uniquely rich cultural amenities given its size.

The city entered into an agreement that it would limit growth in order to again obtain the funding for sewage.¹⁹ In 1972 the citizens of Livermore adopted an initiative, Measure B (LLNL) or the SAVE initiative, disallowing further development unless adequate services were already in place.²⁰ This moratorium on growth had to do with overcrowding in schools, and overuse of the sewage and water systems, and horrible air quality.²¹ It was driven by a group called SAVE, which stood for Save All Valley Environments that had formed the year before to take on growth. The SAVE initiative was the major theme of the 1972 elections in both Livermore and nearby Pleasanton.₂₂ In Livermore this amounted to the election of pro moratorium city council.²³ The requirement that proper infrastructure be in place before development occurs is today a very common policy, in 2005 the entire state of Florida adopted similar legislation, but at the time the rights of local governments and developers were still being defined by the courts.

1972 marks the beginning of a long contentious battle between local residents and developers in the Livermore valley. Shortly after the SAVE initiative went into effect, the Association of Homebuilders of The Greater East Bay Inc. took the City of Livermore to court over the moratorium on housing.²⁴ In addition to this trouble, a developer by the name of Harlan Gelderman owned a large amount of land north of US 580 that he wished to develop. He went to the city government demanding that he be allowed to create a new city called Los Positas. He formed the Los Positas Development Agency and took his plans to build in the area north of Livermore to Alameda County's Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to obtain a district designation for the Los Positas Development.²⁵ The LAFCO originally granted the designation and was consequently sued by the city of Livermore.²⁶ Livermore sued the Alameda LAFCO for giving another entity a sphere of influence that overlapped with Livermore's planning area.²⁷ It also sued the LAFCO because the county had changed the plan for a fourth time in a single year (too many times by law) in order to move this development forward, a technicality that saw it struck down by the court. This development requested water from Livermore, but not sewage.²⁸ Livermore had created its development moratorium based in part on air quality, which development of Los Positas would worsen. The city of Livermore was also still appealing litigation against it for issuing its moratorium at this time. Livermore completed its Air Pollution Study Report in 1973. It declared the valley had two to three times the amount of air pollution that was safe under National Air Quality standards.

July 2, 1974 the city of Livermore completed the Environmental Impact Review for the North Livermore Area Plan Amendment Consideration. This was followed in November of the same year with a report entitled "An Evaluation of Improved accessibility to the Livermore Valley and its effects on Population Growth and air quality." The LAFCO denied the Los Positas Development as separate sphere of influence on July 10, 1975.²⁹ In 1976 the city won in its appeal to the California State Supreme Court based on the fact that the moratorium was a reasonable exercise toward the good of the region.³⁰ The moratorium had been based primarily on sewage and water restrictions.

The General Plan of the city was amended in 1976 to manage growth. Coordination of development with the extension of sewage, water, roads, and schools was a major focus of the amendment.³¹ In 1977 the Los Positas development came back to the county and was denied 3 to 2 by a newly elected commission.³² In 1978 the city adopted Resolution 280-78, which began Livermore's commitment to a 2% growth rate and created the first Growth Management program, the Residential Development Policy (RDP). That same year the sewage system was expanded.

In 1979 there were more requests for development than what would be a mere 2% growth rate.³⁴ This led to the beginning of use of the RDP to allocate housing developments. The allocations were made on a first come first serve basis. This process of reviewing each development carefully and then selecting the one's that the city determined were best was somewhat arduous.

In 1980 affordable housing entered the limelight, and the RDP set aside special criterion to streamline its creation.³⁶ The next year a category for custom lots was added, up to 75 of them per year. All of the lots for 1981 to 1982 were processed at the same time.³⁷ Two years later in 1982 a special category was set aside for government housing, not limited to the 2% growth rate.³⁸ The next year the RDP was again amended to allow up to 200 affordable units.³⁹ In 1985 all the affordable and government housing, as well as the custom lot sizes language was eliminated from the RDP and housing for senior citizens was inserted instead.

In 1987 Livermore reviewed the RDP and determined that it was too complex a system.⁴¹ The RDP was replaced with the Housing Implementation Program (HIP). The city determined that a growth rate of between 1.5% and 3% was appropriate, and used a point system to determine which developments were built each year.⁴² The HIP is a program that lasted for three years before renewal and gives preference to certain types of development.⁴³ The HIP enabled the city to review developments based on merit instead of a first come first served basis.⁴⁴ In its first few years as part of the transition from the RDP to the HIP the city approved 3,000 units and gave preference to particular square footage.⁴⁵ The next few three-year HIP cycles focused on low income housing in very specific areas of the city, the focus then shifted in later HIP cycles to simply all infill and affordable housing.⁴⁶ In 2002 the General Plan was amended to allocate a range between 140 and 700 new residences per year based on 2002 residential growth percentages, instead of the previously used 1.5% to 3% growth.

The area north of Livermore usually referred to as North Livermore has been hotly contested over the years.⁴⁸ People refer to North Livermore as if it were a specific entity although there is really nothing in the area besides a smattering of industry, agriculture, and islands of rural residences mostly on large lots to accommodate such rural potentials as owning horses. The area is strategically considered good residential property because it is north of US 580 thus making it possible that future homeowners could commute to jobs i The citizens of Livermore have, however, repeatedly voted down residential development in North Livermore (six times in fact).⁴⁹ As stated the area was almost given its own sphere of influence in the early seventies as "Los Positas" but due to litigation from the city of Livermore and environmental concerns the sphere of influence was denied. The major concerns for voters against development there are traffic congestion, air quality, and aesthetics and environmental quality in the Livermore Valley. Regardless of voter disapproval over time, the area is subject to constant development attempts regardless of hurdles imposed by local legislation.⁵⁰ Several development attempts have tried to circumvent the residential development controls that are part of Livermore's land-use policy. The following is a short catalog of what has occurred in the North Livermore area.

In 1981 the Los Positas Land Development Company proposed that the Alameda County Plan be amended to allow for the development of over 4,000 acres of the North Livermore Planning area.⁵¹ This would have created over 18,000 new residences in the area as well as commercial development to serve the new residents. Voters rejected the proposed amendment to the plan as part of the 1984 election.

Over the course of the next few years with public input, Livermore and Alameda County then came up with two different plans for the North Livermore area. Livermore's plan was completed in 1994; the County plan was completed in 1993.⁵³ Both plans entailed a large number of residences being built in the area; the county plan included about 35,000 new people while the city plan included 37,000 new people.⁵⁴ Due to a host of public outcry over open space and agricultural issues both the city and the county issued new plans for the area that limited development to around 37,000 new residents.⁵⁵ In 1994 the Plan's Environmental Impact Assessments were challenged in court.⁵⁶ A settlement was reached that allowed the plans to remain in effect, but forced them to be collaborative. The city and county then embarked on a collaborative planning effort, which culminated in the creation of the Preferred Plan for the North Livermore area that capped housing at 12,500 units.

In 1996 the North Livermore Open Space Feasibility Study was completed. The study was carried out to determine the possibility of open space being supported by economic development in the North Livermore Area.⁵⁸ Coinciding with this study were "smart growth" studies looking at the same area by various environmental and civic organizations to attempt to make the development of North Livermore dense and well organized while preserving usable open space.⁵⁹ This large amount of attention focused on limiting or cordoning off development and keeping open space open, resulted in a move by both the county and the city to create a Specific Plan for the North Livermore area.

The pressure of local citizens and local environmental groups to preserve as much open space as possible (following on the heels of voters rejecting multiple development proposals for the area over the years) caused the county to place "Measure D" the Save Agriculture and Open Space Initiative on the ballot in 2000, which was passed by Alameda County voters.⁶⁰ Measure D created a County Urban Growth Boundary excluding the area from future urban development, pending a majority vote for development.⁶¹ Measure D also outlined a preference for use of the area for agriculture instead.⁶² Agriculture is not only a viable means of preserving open space it is also a productive use of land and a good source of revenue. Measure D left North Livermore in the city of Livermore's planning area, but by agreement limited what could happen there.

Livermore has an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that surrounds the city and acts to protect the agricultural areas within its limits. The city also has an Urban Limit Line that correlates with Alameda County's Urban Growth Boundary as determined by Measure D. The city's UGB was passed in two phases. The South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was passed in 2000. There is quite a bit of existing viticulture in the area south and east of Livermore, this has been addressed by a specific plan affecting this area and protecting the vineyards there from residential development pressures. The North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was passed in 2002. Livermore adopted the South Livermore Valley Area Specific Plan in 1997 in order to "promote the area as a unique and historic wine district". Further development of areas beyond the UGB to the north of Livermore are to defer to County's East County Area Plan (ECAP).

Alameda's ECAP was amended according to Measure D to limit further urban growth, and encourage agriculture as outlined in the initiative. The Plan amendments include the following direct protections of agricultural interests in the county: buffers that must be placed between agricultural and non-agricultural areas, a deferment to original land-use in contests about new land uses, the creation of county outlines for buffers between agricultural uses of land and nearby uses that are incompatible with agriculture, and the provisions of the "right to farm" policy of the county.

Both the city of Livermore and Alameda County have "Right to Farm" Ordinances. Livermore's was passed in 1997 as Ordinance 1511. It specifically works to protect agricultural interests from land uses nearby that may cause them hardship or the inability to farm the land. The policy includes advising new residents of agricultural areas about the potential negative side effects of farming, and encourages dispute resolution in order to keep both parties happy. The city ordinance includes a specific warning to be delivered to residences within 2,000 feet of any farming operation, and designates an information coordinator as a go between to explain the agricultural practices to allay residents concerns.

Alameda County's Chapter 6.28 of the County Code outlines the policy on the "Right to Farm". It is similar to the Livermore's (the city's was likely patterned after the county's though), in that it gives each person within 2,000 feet a clear notice. The county policy also goes into details about new agricultural activity protection on all land that is zoned for agriculture. The county sets up an advisory committee to settle any disputes between residents and purveyors of agricultural business. Specific timeframes for residential complaints of nuisance and such are outlined, as are the many acceptable nuisances that agriculture regularly produces in its normal activity.

In 2003 the Livermore city council passed an ordinance prohibiting any future annexations of land to the city in or beyond the UGB except by popular vote. The city also created an urban growth boundary that mimics the boundary established by Measure D. The support shown by the county in promoting agricultural use of the North Livermore area hinges on the passage of infrastructure improvements by the citizens of Livermore to provide water necessary to support successful agriculture in that area.

Return to list of local stewardship articles
Return to HowMany.org home page