LAFCO
Alameda County Cities
Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗
224 W Winton Ave Suite 110
Hayward, CA 94544
Municipal Service Review and
Sphere of Influence Reviews
Alameda County Cities
Final Commission Report
August 26, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ i
Table of Figures .......................................................................................................................... v
List of Abbreviations Used ....................................................................................................... vi
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
Alameda Cities Reviewed ......................................................................................................... 1
MSR Determinations Summary ................................................................................................ 3
SOI Determinations Summary and Recommendations ............................................................ 5
SOI Updates .......................................................................................................................... 7
Background ............................................................................................................................... 11
Legal Requirements and Purpose .......................................................................................... 11
Authority and Powers of LAFCO ............................................................................................. 11
LAFCO Responsibilities ...................................................................................................... 11
Planning Authorities ............................................................................................................ 12
Sphere of Influence Updates ............................................................................................... 12
Municipal Service Reviews ..................................................................................................... 13
Prior Municipal Service Reviews ......................................................................................... 14
Existing Spheres of Influence .............................................................................................. 14
Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission ......................................................... 19
Commission Composition ................................................................................................... 19
Meeting and Contact Information ........................................................................................ 20
Methodology and Data Sources .............................................................................................. 21
DOF Population and Housing Estimates ............................................................................. 21
Other Data Sources Used ................................................................................................... 21
Agency Profiles ........................................................................................................................ 22
Growth and Population Projections ....................................................................................... 65
Present and Planned Land Uses ............................................................................................. 70
i
Alameda .............................................................................................................................. 71
Albany ................................................................................................................................. 71
Berkeley .............................................................................................................................. 72
Dublin .................................................................................................................................. 72
Emeryville ............................................................................................................................ 72
Fremont ............................................................................................................................... 73
Hayward .............................................................................................................................. 73
Livermore ............................................................................................................................ 73
Newark ................................................................................................................................ 74
Oakland ............................................................................................................................... 75
Piedmont ............................................................................................................................. 75
Pleasanton .......................................................................................................................... 75
San Leandro ........................................................................................................................ 76
Union City ............................................................................................................................ 76
Location and Characteristics of Any DUCs ........................................................................... 77
Capacity of Facilities and Adequacy of Services .................................................................. 80
Street Maintenance and Lighting ............................................................................................ 80
Alameda .............................................................................................................................. 82
Albany ................................................................................................................................. 82
Berkeley .............................................................................................................................. 83
Dublin .................................................................................................................................. 83
Emeryville ............................................................................................................................ 84
Fremont ............................................................................................................................... 84
Hayward .............................................................................................................................. 85
Livermore ............................................................................................................................ 85
Newark ................................................................................................................................ 86
Oakland ............................................................................................................................... 86
Piedmont ............................................................................................................................. 87
Pleasanton .......................................................................................................................... 87
San Leandro ........................................................................................................................ 88
Union City ............................................................................................................................ 88
Parks, Recreation and Open Space ....................................................................................... 89
Alameda .............................................................................................................................. 89
ii
Albany ................................................................................................................................. 90
Berkeley .............................................................................................................................. 90
Dublin .................................................................................................................................. 90
Emeryville ............................................................................................................................ 91
Fremont ............................................................................................................................... 91
Hayward .............................................................................................................................. 91
Livermore ............................................................................................................................ 92
Newark ................................................................................................................................ 92
Oakland ............................................................................................................................... 92
Piedmont ............................................................................................................................. 92
Pleasanton .......................................................................................................................... 93
San Leandro ........................................................................................................................ 93
Union City ............................................................................................................................ 93
Mosquito Abatement Services ................................................................................................ 93
Vector Control Services .......................................................................................................... 94
Broadband Services ................................................................................................................ 94
Alameda .............................................................................................................................. 96
Berkeley .............................................................................................................................. 97
Dublin .................................................................................................................................. 97
Fremont ............................................................................................................................... 97
Hayward .............................................................................................................................. 97
Newark ................................................................................................................................ 98
Oakland ............................................................................................................................... 98
Pleasanton .......................................................................................................................... 98
San Leandro ........................................................................................................................ 99
Library Services ...................................................................................................................... 99
Alameda County Library .................................................................................................... 100
Alameda ............................................................................................................................ 100
Berkeley ............................................................................................................................ 100
Hayward ............................................................................................................................ 101
Livermore .......................................................................................................................... 101
Oakland ............................................................................................................................. 101
Pleasanton ........................................................................................................................ 101
iii
San Leandro ...................................................................................................................... 102
Financial Ability to Provide Services .................................................................................... 103
Alameda ............................................................................................................................ 105
Albany ............................................................................................................................... 106
Berkeley ............................................................................................................................ 107
Dublin ................................................................................................................................ 108
Emeryville .......................................................................................................................... 109
Fremont ............................................................................................................................. 110
Hayward ............................................................................................................................ 111
Livermore .......................................................................................................................... 112
Newark .............................................................................................................................. 113
Oakland ............................................................................................................................. 114
Piedmont ........................................................................................................................... 115
Pleasanton ........................................................................................................................ 116
San Leandro ...................................................................................................................... 117
Union City .......................................................................................................................... 118
Opportunities for Shared Facilities ....................................................................................... 119
Accountability, Government Structure and Operational Efficiencies ............................... 120
iv
TABLE OF FIGURES
Table 1: Alameda LAFCO Commission Roster ...................................................................... 20
Table 2: Individual City Population Changes ......................................................................... 67
Table 3: Individual City Housing Growth ............................................................................... 69
Table 4: Pavement Condition for Cities in Alameda County ................................................ 81
Table 5: Parks Inventory in Alameda Cities ........................................................................... 89
Table 6: Broadband Providers in Alameda Cities ................................................................. 96
Table 7: Library Providers in Alameda Cities ........................................................................ 99
v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED
AAMLO African American Museum and Library at Oakland
ACFD Alameda County Fire Department
ACFR Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
ACL Alameda County Library
ACMAD Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
ARPA American Rescue Plan Act
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CKH Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Reorganization Act of 2000
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CSA County Service Area
DOF California Department of Finance
DUC Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community
EBRPD East Bay Regional Parks District
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Geographic Information Systems
HARD Hayward Area Recreation and Park District
HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District
MSR Municipal Service Review
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
PCI Pavement Condition Index
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
SOI Sphere of Influence
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Local Agency Formation Commission of Alameda County (“Alameda LAFCO”) initiated
this Community Services Municipal Service Review (“MSR”) and Sphere of Influence
(“SOI”) update in 2023 for 14 cities, four special districts, and seven County Service Areas
(“CSAs”) within the County. This report focuses on the 14 incorporated cities within the
County. Alameda LAFCO retained consultant RSG, Inc. (“RSG”) to prepare the MSR,
which included conducting surveys and interviews with each of the agencies in the region,
and collecting demographic, fiscal, and other data to support the MSR findings and
determinations under State law.
This MSR will encompass a comprehensive assessment of community services in Alameda
County, including street maintenance and lighting, library, parks and recreation, mosquito
and vector abatement, and lead abatement services. The MSR will also review the state
of broadband services within the agencies.
ALAMEDA CITIES REVIEWED
The Alameda LAFCO consists of 14 incorporated cities, all of which were included as a
part of this MSR and SOI update. The 14 cities include:
City of Alameda City of Hayward City of San Leandro
City of Albany City of Livermore City of Union City
City of Berkeley City of Newark
City of Dublin City of Oakland
City of Emeryville City of Piedmont
City of Fremont City of Pleasanton
1
2
MSR DETERMINATIONS SUMMARY
As further detailed in the body of this report, RSG makes the following MSR determinations
for the 14 cities based on our data collection, surveys, and interviews:
Population, Growth, and Housing
Generally, the population for cities in the County is expected to increase over the
next five years, as is the housing supply. The cities are planning for increased
population through their respective housing elements and general plans. Many
cities have specific parks and recreation master plans which have been updated in
the past five years to reflect the increased population.
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
The unincorporated community of Ashland, within the SOI of the City of San
Leandro, is the only Alameda LAFCO-designated disadvantaged unincorporated
community (“DUC”) in the County. Ashland receives services from the countywide
community service providers, and receives other municipal services from the
County. More information about Ashland can be found on page 77 of this report.
San Leandro is not actively considering annexation of the area.
Capacity of Facilities and Adequacy of Services
The cities are generally providing adequate street maintenance and lighting, parks
and recreation, library, and vector and mosquito control services to their residents
and customers.
Several cities, including Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro, have street
systems overall rated as “at risk” by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
These cities are funding improvements and annual maintenance to their
infrastructure through their CIP process, but have significant deferred costs which
will be a challenge to address.
The cities have the resources to maintain current levels of service and to meet
expected demand in the future.
3
Financial Ability to Provide Services
The financial capacity of the cities is adequate for current service levels. The cost
of street infrastructure upgrades is a concern for some cities, which are planning
for the improvements in their budget documents. The cities have all adopted
reserve policies which they are able to meet on an ongoing basis.
Opportunities for Shared Facilities
The City of Oakland provides library services to the City of Emeryville and the City
of Piedmont. In interviews with the two cities, representatives of both Emeryville
and Piedmont did not express dissatisfaction with library services provided by
Oakland, and expect that Oakland will continue to provide library services in the
future. More information about shared services can be found on page 119 of this
report.
Overall, the cities did not express a broader desire for further shared community
service facilities, nor did RSG identify potential opportunities for additional shared
facilities during this review.
Accountability for Community Service Needs
The cities implement policies and procedures that ensure transparency and
accountability to the public, including public notice of City Council meetings and
actions and regular elections. All cities have websites and social media which
provide information about their meetings, including ways to access the meetings
virtually. Most of the cities have a number of citizen-led boards and commissions
which advise City Council on key issues facing the community.
The cities of Alameda and Oakland have implemented “Sunshine Ordinances”
which aim to make public records and meetings more accessible to the public. Both
cities have independent commissions which advise elected officials on how to
implement their respective Sunshine Ordinances and hear complaints about
violations of the ordinances.
4
A number of cities take additional discretionary steps to survey residents and
businesses periodically to gauge sentiment or interest in various topics. These
efforts increase accountability for community service needs.
Any Other Matter Related to Effective of Efficient Service Delivery, as Required by
Commission Policy
LAFCO does not have any policies affecting the preparation of MSRs, so RSG did
not evaluate matters aside from those listed above.
SOI DETERMINATIONS SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
When asked, no city told RSG they plan to annex unincorporated areas within their SOIs,
although several did indicate a desire for a change to their SOI. As further detailed in the
body of this report, RSG makes the following SOI determinations for the cities based on
our data collection, surveys, and interviews:
Present and Planned Land Uses
The cities anticipate population growth and are planning for increased housing
stock through their respective planning documents, including General Plans and
Housing Elements. Most of the cities have implemented general plans within the
past 15 to 20 years, and those with general plans that are older are generally
working to update their respective general plans.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65302(c), general plans must include a
housing element explaining how the jurisdiction will meet its part of the regional
housing need. The cities are also required by State law to submit annual progress
reports on their respective general plan and housing element by April 1 for the prior
year. As of the date of this report, all of the cities have received HCD certification
of their 6th Round Housing Element and have submitted annual progress reports for
2022.
5
RSG identified 95 parcels throughout the County designated as prime farmland
under the Williamson Act. Livermore is the only city with prime farmland parcels
within its SOI.
Present and Probable Need for Facilities and Services
Alameda County cities are generally providing adequate community services to
residents within their respective SOIs, and have the resources to meet expected
demand in the future.
Some cities, including Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro have street
systems which do not meet standards set by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, the transportation planning agency for the Bay Area. These cities are
generally funding annual street maintenance and some upgrades through their CIP
process.
Present Capacity and Adequacy of Public Facilities and Services
The present capacity of the public facilities operated by the cities of Alameda
County is adequate to provide community services to their residents and customers.
However, the cities of Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro all have
significant deferred street maintenance costs which will require future
improvements to meet any growth in population and development occurring within
the next five years.
Social or Economic Communities of Interest
Alameda County includes one DUC, the 1,137-acre Ashland community, within the
southeast portion of San Leandro’s SOI. Based on our research, Ashland receives
community services from the following agencies:
• Mosquito Abatement: Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
• Vector Control: Vector Control Services District County Service Area
• Lead Abatement: Alameda County
• Library: Alameda County Library
6
• Street Maintenance and Lighting: Alameda County
• Parks and Recreation: Hayward Area Recreation and Park District
Aside from Ashland, other unincorporated areas are located in the SOIs of
Berkeley, Dublin, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Leandro.
Among these areas are the unincorporated communities of Castro Valley,
Cherryland, Fairview, Sunol, and San Lorenzo. In general, these unincorporated
areas receive community services from countywide districts and CSAs and the
County itself. The Hayward Area Recreation and Park District is the designated
parks and recreation services provider for the unincorporated communities listed
above.
Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services by any DUCs within
the Existing SOIs
As mentioned earlier, the Ashland community within the San Leandro SOI is the
only DUC in the County. The service providers did not indicate any challenges with
providing community services to Ashland. San Leandro is not actively considering
exploring annexation of Ashland into its SOI.
SOI UPDATES
In the course of our review, staff at the City of Dublin, City of Livermore, and City of
Pleasanton made RSG aware of several potential SOI updates.
Crosby Property: Dublin / Livermore
The City of Dublin and the City of Livermore are currently working collaboratively
to plan for SOI updates regarding a two-parcel1, 187-acre area which currently sits
between the two cities’ SOIs, at the base of Doolan Canyon. Figure 1 shows the
location of the Crosby Property parcels.
1 Alameda County Assessor Parcel Numbers 905-1-3-2 and 905-1-1-2
7
Figure 1: Crosby Property Parcels
Both cities indicated to RSG that they were interested in expanding their respective
SOIs to include the Crosby Property for both economic development and natural
conservation goals. After RSG finished the interview process, the cities jointly sent
LAFCO a letter dated December 26, 2023 expressing a desire to work together to
propose an SOI update that will link the two communities, maintain open space,
8
and ensure orderly and visually attractive development. On November 5, voters will
decide whether to allow Dublin City Council the authority to approve limited
development of the Crosby property along a future extension of Dublin Boulevard
with a ballot measure titled “Dublin Traffic Relief, Clean Air/Open Space
Preservation Measure.” While these cities discuss their goals for this area, RSG is
recommending that LAFCO not make any changes to the SOI of either city at this
time.
Las Colinas: Livermore
The City of Livermore is exploring amending its SOI to include four parcels2 totaling
approximately 105 acres located north of I-580 and east of North Livermore Avenue
for which a Conditional Use Permit for cemetery, mortuary, and funeral home
operations has recently been approved by the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors. The City ultimately aims to annex these properties into its boundaries
to secure localized control over land use, consistent with Alameda County's General
Plan, Alameda County voter-approved Measure D, the City of Livermore General
Plan, and the City of Livermore North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative.
RSG recommends that LAFCO encourage the City of Livermore and the County to
negotiate a change in SOI, and that LAFCO not make a change to the City’s SOI at
this time.
Greenville Road: Livermore
Staff at the City of Livermore expressed that the City would be pursuing a third
amendment to its SOI which would include approximately 290 acres to the east of
Greenville Road while concurrently removing approximately 27 acres. The current
SOI follows parcel lines in a north-to-south orientation, while the proposed SOI
amendment follows the natural topographical boundary of the South Bay Aqueduct.
As part of the Livermore General Plan Update, the City began to study potential
2 Alameda County Assessor Parcel Numbers 99-15-16-3, 902-8-5-5, 902-8-5-8, and 902-8-5-9
9
future nonresidential uses in this area in 2023. The City envisions the area being
used for office, life science, and related land uses.
If Livermore pursues development of this area, it will require a ballot measure to
expand the Urban Growth Boundary of the City. RSG recommends that LAFCO
approve this change to Livermore’s SOI upon receipt of an application in order to
align the City’s SOI with planned land uses.
10
BACKGROUND
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND PURPOSE
In 1963 the California Legislature created for each County a Local Agency Formation
Commission (“LAFCO”) to oversee the logical formation and determination of local agency
boundaries that encourage orderly growth and development essential to the social, fiscal,
and economic well-being of the State. LAFCOs’ authority to carry out this legislative
charge is codified in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Reorganization Act of 2000 (“CKH”). For
nearly 60 years, CKH has been amended to give more direction to LAFCOs and, in some
cases, expand the authorities of the Commissions. One of the most important revisions to
CKH by the Legislature occurred in 2000, which added a requirement that LAFCOs review
and update the “spheres of influence” for all cities and special districts every five years
and, in conjunction with this responsibility, prepare comprehensive studies that are known
as “municipal service reviews.”
AUTHORITY AND POWERS OF LAFCO
Codified within CKH are the procedures and processes for LAFCOs to carry out their
purposes as established by the
Legislature. LAFCOs’ purposes are guided
CKH ACT (G.C. SECTION 56301) –
and achieved through their regulatory and
PURPOSES OF LAFCOs
“Among the purposes of a commission are
planning powers and acknowledge that the
discouraging urban sprawl, preserving
open-space and prime agricultural lands,
local conditions of the 58 California
encouraging the efficient provision of
counties shall be considered in part to the government services, and encouraging the
orderly formation and development of local
Commissions’ authorities. agencies based upon local conditions and
circumstances.”
LAFCO RESPONSIBILITIES
LAFCOs’ regulatory authorities include the
reviewing, approving, amending or denying of proposals to change the jurisdictional
boundaries of cities and special districts. Specifically, these types of boundary changes
commonly referred to as “changes of organization,” include:
11
• City Incorporation
• City Disincorporation
• District Formation
• District Dissolution
• City and District Annexations and Detachments
• City and District Consolidations
• Merger of a City and District
• Establishment of a Subsidiary District
• Activation of new or different functions or classes of services, or divestiture of power
to provide services for special districts.
PLANNING AUTHORITIES
LAFCOs’ planning authorities are carried out through the establishment and updating of
agencies’ SOIs, which is a tool used to define a city or special district’s future jurisdictional
boundary and service areas. Through the reform of CKH in 2000, LAFCO’s planning
responsibility includes the preparation of comprehensive studies (MSRs) that analyze
service or services within the county, region, subregion, or other designated geographic
area. The determinations that LAFCOs must review, analyze, and adopt for SOIs and
MSRs are discussed below.
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES
In 1972, LAFCOs throughout the State were tasked with determining and overseeing the
SOIs for local government agencies. An SOI is a planning boundary that may be outside
of an agency’s jurisdictional boundary (such as the city limits or a special district’s service
area) that designates the agency’s probable future boundary and service area. The
purpose of an SOI is to ensure the provision of efficient services while discouraging urban
sprawl and the premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands, and by
preventing overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services. On a regional level,
LAFCOs coordinate the orderly development of a community through reconciling
differences between different agency plans. This is intended to ensure the most efficient
12
urban service arrangements are created for the benefit of area residents and property
owners. Factors considered in an SOI update include current and future land use, capacity
needs, and any relevant areas of interest such as geographical terrain, location, and any
other aspects that would influence the level of service.
Per Government Code Section 56425, a LAFCO shall consider and prepare a written
statement of its SOI determinations on the following five (5) factors:
1. The present and planned land use in the area, including agricultural and open-space
lands.
2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area.
3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency
provides or is authorized to provide.
4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the
commission determines that they are relevant to the agency.
5. If a city or special district provides public facilities or services related to sewer,
municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protection the present and probable
need for those facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated
communities within the existing sphere of influence.
From time-to-time, an SOI may be modified as determined by LAFCO using the procedures
for making sphere amendments as outlined by CKH. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 56430, a LAFCO must first conduct an MSR prior to updating or amending an SOI.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
Section 56425(g) of CKH requires that LAFCOs evaluate an SOI every five years, or when
necessary. The vehicle for doing this is known as a Municipal Service Review.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, MSRs make determinations on seven (7)
required topics as follows:
1. Growth and population projections for the affected area.
2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities
within or contiguous to the sphere of influence(s).
3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and
infrastructure needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial
water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated
communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence.
4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services.
5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities.
6. Accountability for community service needs, including government structure and
operational efficiencies.
7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by
Commission Policy.
13
The focus of an MSR is to ensure public services are being carried out efficiently and the
residents of any given area or community are receiving the highest level of service
possible, while also discouraging urban sprawl and the premature conversion of
agricultural lands. If an MSR determines that certain services are not being carried out to
an adequate standard, LAFCO can recommend changes be made through making sphere
changes and dissolution or consolidation of service providers to provide the best service
possible to the population.
PRIOR MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS
Several cycles of MSRs have been completed by Alameda LAFCO prior to this one. The
first was produced in 2008 and the second in 2013. In 2017, LAFCO released an SOI
update for all cities in the County and in 2021, LAFCO released a Countywide MSR on
Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and Flood Control Services. Most recently, LAFCO
released the public review draft of Countywide Fire and Emergency Medical Municipal
Service Review in March 2024. Each MSR cycle has provided Alameda LAFCO with new
and important information regarding the delivery of services to Alameda County residents.
EXISTING SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
This MSR evaluates service provision by and within the cities of Alameda County, both
within their incorporated boundaries and their unincorporated spheres of influence. A
number of cities have unincorporated islands which are completely surrounded by
incorporated city limits, or have unincorporated area adjacent to their boundaries but
within their spheres. RSG has identified these areas below.
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs)
Consistent with Government Code Section 56430, this MSR reviews DUCs within
the County, including their location, characteristics, and adequacy of services and
public facilities. Further, to address issues of inequity and infrastructure deficits,
Government Code Section 56375 places restrictions on annexations to cities if the
proposed annexation is adjacent to a DUC.
14
DUCs are defined as inhabited territory located within an unincorporated area of a
county in which the annual median household income is less than 80 percent of the
statewide median household income. State law considers an area with 12 or more
registered voters to be an inhabited area.
Alameda LAFCO has identified one DUC within the eastern SOI of the City of San
Leandro, the Ashland community. The City did not respond to RSG’s survey and did
not indicate whether it is exploring annexation. The following agencies provide
community services to Ashland:
• Street Maintenance & Lighting: Alameda County
• Parks and Recreation: Hayward Area Recreation and Park District
• Mosquito Abatement: Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District (“ACMAD”)
• Vector Control: Vector Control Services District County Service Area (“Vector
Control CSA”)
• Lead Abatement: Alameda County
• Broadband: Private providers
• Library: Alameda County Library
More information about Ashland can be found on page 77.
Unincorporated Islands
There are a number of unincorporated islands (territory completely or substantially
surrounded by cities) that should eventually be transitioned to an adjacent city over
time and when feasible. CKH, in various sections of the statute, requires LAFCO
to address these areas during MSR/SOI updates and annexation proceedings.
Annexations of unincorporated islands 150 acres or less in size that meet the
criteria listed in Government Code Section 56375 are to be approved by the
Commission, per Alameda LAFCO policy. Alameda LAFCO waives protest
proceedings for these annexations.
15
The cities of Livermore and Pleasanton both have unincorporated islands within
their SOIs, neither of which have been identified as DUCs.
Livermore SOI:
Livermore has twelve unincorporated areas within its SOI, including three islands.
Two of the islands are smaller than 150 acres. The City is not currently exploring
annexation of any of these areas.
• Street Maintenance & Lighting: Alameda County
• Parks and Recreation: Livermore Area Recreation and Park District & East Bay
Regional Park District
• Mosquito Abatement: Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District (“ACMAD”)
• Vector Control: Vector Control Services District County Service Area (“Vector
Control CSA”)
• Lead Abatement: Alameda County
• Broadband: Private providers
• Library: Alameda County Library
Pleasanton SOI
Pleasanton has four large unincorporated areas within its SOI surrounding the
City’s corporate boundaries, and one island in the center of the City. The island is
smaller than 150 acres. The City is not currently exploring annexation of any of
these areas.
• Street Maintenance & Lighting: Alameda County
• Parks and Recreation: Alameda County
• Mosquito Abatement: Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District (“ACMAD”)
• Vector Control: Vector Control Services District County Service Area (“Vector
Control CSA”)
• Lead Abatement: Alameda County
• Broadband: Private providers
16
• Library: Alameda County Library
Other Unincorporated Areas of Note
There are a number of other unincorporated areas adjacent to the cities’
incorporated boundaries within their respective spheres of influence. These areas
and their respective service providers are identified below:
Berkeley SOI
Berkeley’s SOI includes one small area on the eastern edge of the City which is a
part of Oakland’s boundary but not Oakland’s SOI. Alameda LAFCO updated the
SOI determinations for each of the incorporated cities in 2017, and encouraged
Berkeley and Oakland to consider a reorganization of this territory at that time. RSG
is not aware of any progress that has been made on this issue. The area is serviced
by the following providers:
• Street Maintenance & Lighting: City of Oakland
• Parks and Recreation: City of Oakland & East Bay Regional Park District
• Mosquito Abatement: Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District (“ACMAD”)
• Vector Control: Vector Control Services District County Service Area (“Vector
Control CSA”)
• Lead Abatement: Lead Abatement County Service Area
• Broadband: Private providers
• Library: City of Oakland
Dublin SOI
Dublin has a large unincorporated area to the west of the City. The City did not
indicate any plans to annex this area.
• Street Maintenance & Lighting: Alameda County
• Parks and Recreation: East Bay Regional Park District
• Mosquito Abatement: Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District (“ACMAD”)
17
• Vector Control: Vector Control Services District County Service Area (“Vector
Control CSA”)
• Lead Abatement: Alameda County
• Broadband: Private providers
• Library: Alameda County Library
Fremont SOI
Fremont has two unincorporated areas on the western edge of the City. Fremont
did not respond to RSG’s survey and did not indicate whether it is exploring
annexation of these areas.
• Street Maintenance & Lighting: Alameda County
• Parks and Recreation: City of Fremont & East Bay Regional Park District
• Mosquito Abatement: Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District (“ACMAD”)
• Vector Control: Vector Control Services District County Service Area (“Vector
Control CSA”)
• Lead Abatement: Alameda County
• Broadband: Private providers
• Library: Alameda County Library
Hayward SOI
Hayward has two unincorporated areas to the north of the City, another
unincorporated area on the southeast portion of the City, and a final small
unincorporated area near the coast. The City is not currently exploring annexation
of any of these areas.
• Street Maintenance & Lighting: Alameda County
• Parks and Recreation: Hayward Area Recreation and Park District & East Bay
Regional Park District
• Mosquito Abatement: Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District (“ACMAD”)
18
• Vector Control: Vector Control Services District County Service Area (“Vector
Control CSA”)
• Lead Abatement: Alameda County
• Broadband: Private providers
• Library: Alameda County Library
ALAMEDA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
Alameda LAFCO is responsible for
overseeing the boundaries, establishing
MISSION:
Alameda LAFCO serves Alameda County
and updating SOIs, and preparing MSRs
cities, special districts, and the county to
for the County’s 14 cities and 29 ensure effective and efficient delivery of
municipal services.
independent and dependent special
districts. Alameda LAFCO’s authority is
guided through adopted policies and procedures that assist in the implementation of the
provisions of CKH and consideration of the local conditions and circumstances of the
County.
COMMISSION COMPOSITION
Alameda LAFCO is comprised of 11 Commissioners, with 7 voting Commissioners and 4
Alternates. The Commissioners represent different parts of the County, including: three
County Supervisors, three Cities, three independent Special Districts, and two
representatives of the general public. All members serve four-year terms and there are no
term limits. In accordance with the statute, while serving on the Commission, all
Commission members shall exercise their independent judgement on behalf of the
interests of residents, property owners, and the public as a whole.
Table 1 identifies the Commissioners and Alternates along with their respective appointing
authority and term, as well as the two members of LAFCO staff.
19
Table 1: Alameda LAFCO Commission Roster
Commissioners Appointing Authority Current Term
Regular Members
Karla Brown, Chair City Member City Selection Committee 2024-2028
Independent Special District
Mariellen Faria, Special District Member 2023-2027
Selection Committee
David Haubert, County Member Board of Supervisors 2023-2027
Independent Special District
Ralph Johnson, Special District Member 2024-2028
Selection Committee
John Marchand, City Member City Selection Committee 2021–2025
Nate Miley, County Member Board of Supervisors 2024-2028
Sblend Sblendorio, Public Member Alameda LAFCO Commission 2022-2026
Alternate Members
Vacant, City Member, Alternate City Selection Committee Vacant
Lena Tam, County Member, Alternate Board of Supervisors 2023-2026
Georgean Vonheeder-Leopold, Special Independent Special District
2021-2025
District Member, Alternate Selection Committee
Bob Woerner, Public Member Alternate Alameda LAFCO Commission 2023-2027
LAFCO Staff
Rachel Jones, Executive Officer
April Raffel, Clerk
MEETING AND CONTACT INFORMATION
The Commission’s regular meetings are held on the second Thursday of the month at 2:00
p.m. Currently, the meetings are conducted at City of Dublin Council Chambers 100 Civic
Plaza, Dublin, 94568.
The Alameda LAFCO administrative offices are centrally located at 224 West Winton Ave.,
Suite 110, Hayward, CA 94644. Commission staff may be reached by telephone at (510)
670-6267. The agency’s agendas, reports and other resources are available online at
www.alamedalafco.org.
20
METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES
RSG worked in coordination with Alameda LAFCO staff throughout the duration of this
MSR. To fully understand key factors and current issues involving the cities, RSG
conducted an initial working session with Alameda LAFCO staff to determine the project
scope and process and formalize overall MSR objectives, schedules, agency services to
review, fiscal criteria, and roles and responsibilities of Alameda LAFCO, and RSG.
Data presented in this MSR was compiled between July 2023 and February 2024.
Population and housing data presented in this MSR reflect statistics released by the
California Department of Finance (“DOF”) Demographic Research Unit for incorporated
cities, and the Federal Decennial Census data, as reported by ESRI Business Analyst, for
unincorporated areas.
DOF POPULATION AND HOUSING ESTIMATES
This MSR uses the DOF’s population and housing estimates for cities and the county, and
reflects data compiled through January 1, 2023. The DOF’s Demographic Research Unit
publishes population estimates annually and are the official population and housing unit
tallies used in most State programs and for jurisdictional appropriation limits.
OTHER DATA SOURCES USED
The DOF does not provide data for unincorporated areas within SOIs. In order to produce
the demographic reports for these areas, RSG extracts Census data from ESRI Business
Analyst using GIS shapefiles provided by the County.
21
AGENCY PROFILES
For each of the 14 incorporated cities, this section presents a summary of the governing
structure, basic size and population information, types, and providers of community
services. This section also presents detailed demographic summaries and maps of the
current boundaries and SOIs for each city.
Below is a list of the 14 incorporated cities profiled in this MSR:
• Alameda • Fremont • Piedmont
• Albany • Hayward • Pleasanton
• Berkeley • Livermore • San Leandro
• Dublin • Newark • Union City
• Emeryville • Oakland
22
City of Alameda
Incorporated 1854
Agency Information
Address 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda
Primary Contact Jennifer Ott, City Manager
Contact Information 510-747-7400
Website www.alamedaca.gov
Governance 5 Council Members, Elected At-Large
Total City Staff 566 Full-Time
Service Area Information
Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 22.92
Population Served 77,287
Community Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Street Maintenance and Lighting City of Alameda - Public Works
Parks and Recreation City of Alameda - Recreation and Parks
Mosquito Abatement Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Vector Control Vector Control Services District County
Service Area
Broadband Comcast, AT&T, Sonic
Library Alameda Free Library
Other Municipal Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Law Enforcement City of Alameda - Police Department
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical City of Alameda - Fire Department
City of Alameda - Planning, Building, and
Building/Planning
Transportation
City of Alameda - Planning, Building, and
Code Enforcement
Transportation
City of Alameda - Police Department - Animal
Animal Control Services and the Friends of the Alameda
Animal Shelter
Landscape Maintenance City of Alameda - Recreation and Parks
Lighting City of Alameda - Public Works
Electricity/Gas City of Alameda - Alameda Municipal Power
Solid Waste Alameda County Industries
Stormwater Drainage City of Alameda - Public Works
Water East Bay Municipal Utility District
Wastewater City of Alameda - Public Works
23
Demographic Summary
Alameda
Population & Density Agency County
2020 Population 7 8,280 1,682,353
2023 Population 7 7,287 1,636,194
2028 Population1 8 0,960 1,697,701
2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 4.8% > 3.8%
Daytime Population 6 8,850 1,660,752
Households 3 1,355 595,862
Household Size 2 .46 < 2.75
Area (Square Miles) 2 2.92 821.46
Density (Persons per Square Mile) 3 ,372 > 1,992
Housing
Housing Units 3 3,959 630,758
Owner Occupied (%) 46% < 51%
Renter Occupied (%) 48% > 44%
Vacant (%) 7% > 6%
Median Home Value $ 1 ,205,206 > $ 1,064,817
Employment & Poverty
Businesses 3 ,127
Employees 4 4,206
2023 Median Household Income $ 1 17,551 > $ 116,079
Poverty Rate 7% < 9%
12028 Population estimate is a projection only.
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities), ESRI
Business Analyst
Land Use Summary
Alameda
Present Land Use Agency County
Residential Units
Single Family 23,158 68.2% 68.6%
Multifamily 10,681 31.5% 30.2%
Mobile Home 120 0.4% 1.2%
Total Units 33,959 100% 100%
New Units Since 2010 1,608
Commercial Gross SF
Retail 3,691,770 24.3% 20.1%
Industrial 7,010,130 46.1% 59.9%
Office 4,497,027 29.6% 20.1%
Total 15,198,927 100% 100%
New Commercial Since 2010 1,658,077
Sources: California Department of Finance, Costar (24Q1)
24
25
City of Albany
Incorporated 1908
Agency Information
Address 1000 San Pablo Ave. Albany, CA 94706
Primary Contact Nicole Almaguer, City Manager
Contact Information 510-981-2489
Website www.albanyca.org
Governance 5 Council Members, Elected By-District
Total City Staff 107 Full-Time
Service Area Information
Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 1.79
Population Served 21,401
Community Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Street Maintenance and Lighting City of Albany - Maintenance Services
Parks and Recreation City of Albany - Recreation & Community
Services
Mosquito Abatement Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Vector Control Vector Control Services District County
Service Area
Broadband AT&T, Sonic, Comcast
Library Alameda County Library
Other Municipal Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Law Enforcement City of Albany - Police Department
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical City of Albany - Fire Department
City of Albany - Community Development
Building/Planning
Department
Code Enforcement City of Albany - Community Development
Animal Control City of Berkeley Animal Control Services
Landscape Maintenance City of Albany - Public Works
Lighting Alameda County Public Works Agency
Electricity/Gas PG&E
Solid Waste Waste Management of Northern California
Stormwater Drainage City of Albany - Public Works
Water East Bay Municipal Utility District
Wastewater City of Albany - Public Works
26
Demographic Summary
Albany
Population & Density Agency County
2020 Population 2 0,271 1,682,353
2023 Population 2 1,401 1,636,194
2028 Population1 1 9,664 1,697,701
2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) -8.1% 3.8%
Daytime Population 1 6,822 1,660,752
Households 7 ,362 595,862
Household Size 2 .91 2.75
Area (Square Miles) 1 .79 821.46
Density (Persons per Square Mile) 1 1,956 1,992
Housing
Housing Units 7 ,967 630,758
Owner Occupied (%) 46% 51%
Renter Occupied (%) 48% 44%
Vacant (%) 6% 6%
Median Home Value $ 1 ,228,318 $ 1,064,817
Employment & Poverty
Businesses 8 21
Employees 1 1,026
2023 Median Household Income $ 1 16,606 $ 116,079
Poverty Rate 8% 9%
12028 Population estimate is a projection only.
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities),
ESRI Business Analyst
Land Use Summary
Albany
Present Land Use Agency County
Residential Units Units % %
Single Family 6,921 86.9% 68.6%
Multifamily 1,019 12.8% 30.2%
Mobile Home 27 0.3% 1.2%
Total Units 7,967 100% 100%
New Units Since 2010 1,255
Commercial Gross SF % City % County
Retail 1,035,933 69.9% 20.1%
Industrial 233,810 15.8% 59.9%
Office 211,902 14.3% 20.1%
Total 1,481,645 100% 100%
New Commercial Since 2010 48,211
Sources: California Department of Finance, Costar (24Q1)
27
28
City of Berkeley
Incorporated 1878
Agency Information
Address 2180 Milvia St, Berkeley, CA 94704
Primary Contact LaTanya Bellow, Interim City Manager
Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Contact Information 510-981-2489
Website www.berkeleyca.gov/
Governance 9 Council Members, Elected By-District
Total City Staff 1,660 Full-Time
Service Area Information
Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 18.07
Population Served 123,562
Population of Unincorporated SOI 122
Community Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Street Maintenance and Lighting City of Berkeley - Parks, Recreation &
Waterfront Department
Parks and Recreation City of Berkeley - Parks, Recreation &
Waterfront Department
Mosquito Abatement Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Vector Control Vector Control Services District County
Service Area
Broadband AT&T, LV.net
Library Berkeley Public Library
Other Municipal Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Law Enforcement City of Berkeley - Police Department
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical City of Berkeley - Fire Department
Building/Planning City of Berkeley - Planning and Development
Code Enforcement City of Berkeley - Code Enforcement
Animal Control City of Berkeley - Community and Recreation
Landscape Maintenance City of Berkeley - Parks, Recreation &
Waterfront Department
Lighting City of Berkeley - Public Works
Electricity/Gas PG&E
Solid Waste City of Berkeley - Parks, Recreation &
Waterfront Department
Stormwater Drainage City of Berkeley - Parks, Recreation &
Waterfront Department
Water East Bay Municipal Utility District
Wastewater City of Berkeley - Streets, Side Walks,
Sewers, and Utilities Department
29
Demographic Summary
Berkeley
Population & Density Agency County
2020 Population 1 24,321 1,682,353
2023 Population 1 23,562 1,636,194
2028 Population1 1 24,883 1,697,701
2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 1.1% 3.8%
Daytime Population 1 68,301 1,660,752
Households 4 7,526 595,862
Household Size 2 .60 2.75
Area (Square Miles) 1 8.07 821.46
Density (Persons per Square Mile) 6 ,838 1,992
Housing
Housing Units 5 3,734 630,758
Owner Occupied (%) 38% 51%
Renter Occupied (%) 53% 44%
Vacant (%) 10% 6%
Median Home Value $ 1 ,439,378 $ 1,064,817
Employment & Poverty
Businesses 6 ,956
Employees 6 5,474
2023 Median Household Income $ 1 01,357 $ 116,079
Poverty Rate 15% 9%
12028 Population estimate is a projection only.
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities),
ESRI Business Analyst
Land Use Summary
Berkeley
Present Land Use Agency County
Residential Units Units % %
Single Family 32,664 60.8% 68.6%
Multifamily 20,858 38.8% 30.2%
Mobile Home 212 0.4% 1.2%
Total Units 53,734 100% 100%
New Units Since 2010 4,280
Commercial Gross SF % City % County
Retail 6,454,035 31.6% 20.1%
Industrial 8,027,458 39.3% 59.9%
Office 5,939,059 29.1% 20.1%
Total 20,420,552 100% 100%
New Commercial Since 2010 1,092,539
Sources: California Department of Finance, Costar (24Q1)
30
31
City of Dublin
Incorporated 1982
Agency Information
Address 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568
Primary Contact Linda Smith, City Manager
Contact Information 925-833-6650
Website https://dublin.ca.gov
Governance 5 Council Members, Elected By-District
Total City Staff 96 Full-Time
Service Area Information
Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 15.23
Population Served 71,750
Population of Unincorporated SOI 22
Community Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Street Maintenance and Lighting City of Dublin - Public Works and Engineering
Parks and Recreation City of Dublin - Parks and Community
Services Department
Mosquito Abatement Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Vector Control Vector Control Services District County
Service Area
Broadband AT&T, Comcast (Xfinity), Direct TV, Dish
Network, Nextiva, T-Mobile, Viasat
Library Alameda County Library
Other Municipal Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Law Enforcement City of Dublin – Alameda County Sheriff’s
Office (Contract)
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical City of Dublin – Alameda County Fire
Department (Contract)
Building/Planning City of Dublin - Community Development
Code Enforcement City of Dublin - Community Development
Alameda County Sheriff’s Office - Animal
Animal Control
Control
Landscape Maintenance City of Dublin - Public Works
Lighting City of Dublin - Public Works
Electricity/Gas Ava Community Energy and PG&E
Solid Waste Amador Valley Industries
Stormwater Drainage City of Dublin - Public Works
Water Dublin San Ramon Services District
Wastewater Dublin San Ramon Services District
32
Demographic Summary
Dublin
Population & Density Agency County
2020 Population 7 2,589 1,682,353
2023 Population 7 1,750 1,636,194
2028 Population1 7 5,554 1,697,701
2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 5.3% 3.8%
Daytime Population 6 3,521 1,660,752
Households 2 4,127 595,862
Household Size 2 .97 2.75
Area (Square Miles) 1 5.23 821.46
Density (Persons per Square Mile) 4 ,711 1,992
Housing
Housing Units 2 5,304 630,758
Owner Occupied (%) 63% 51%
Renter Occupied (%) 33% 44%
Vacant (%) 5% 6%
Median Home Value $ 1 ,149,597 $ 1,064,817
Employment & Poverty
Businesses 2 ,484
Employees 3 7,202
2023 Median Household Income $ 1 77,999 $ 116,079
Poverty Rate 4% 9%
12028 Population estimate is a projection only.
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities),
ESRI Business Analyst
Land Use Summary
Dublin
Present Land Use Agency County
Residential Units Units % %
Single Family 18,899 74.7% 68.6%
Multifamily 6,352 25.1% 30.2%
Mobile Home 53 0.2% 1.2%
Total Units 25,304 100% 100%
New Units Since 2010 9,522
Commercial Gross SF % City % County
Retail 4,231,174 43.7% 20.1%
Industrial 2,648,790 27.4% 59.9%
Office 2,800,606 28.9% 20.1%
Total 9,680,570 100% 100%
New Commercial Since 2010 1,024,126
Sources: California Department of Finance, Costar (24Q1)
33
34
City of Emeryville
Incorporated 1896
Agency Information
Address 1333 Park Ave, Emeryville, CA 94608
Primary Contact Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Contact Information 510-596-4300
Website www.ci.emeryville.ca.us
Governance 5 Council Members, Elected At Large
Total City Staff 169 Full-Time Equivalents
Service Area Information
Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 2.25
Population Served 12,610
Community Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Street Maintenance and Lighting City of Emeryville - Public Works
Parks and Recreation City of Emeryville - Community Services
Mosquito Abatement Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Vector Control Vector Control Services District County Service
Area
Broadband AT&T, Xfinity,
Library Oakland Public Library
Other Municipal Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Law Enforcement City of Emeryville - Police Department
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical City of Emeryville - Alameda County Fire
Department
Building/Planning City of Emeryville - Community Development
Code Enforcement City of Emeryville - Community Development
Animal Control City of Emeryville – City of Berkeley
Landscape Maintenance City of Emeryville - Public Works
Lighting City of Emeryville - Public Works
Electricity/Gas PG&E
Solid Waste Waste Management of Alameda County
Stormwater Drainage City of Emeryville - Public Works
Water East Bay Municipal Utility District
Wastewater East Bay Municipal Utility District
35
Demographic Summary
Emeryville
Population & Density Agency County
2020 Population 1 2,905 1,682,353
2023 Population 1 2,610 1,636,194
2028 Population1 1 4,609 1,697,701
2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 15.9% 3.8%
Daytime Population 2 4,547 1,660,752
Households 7 ,097 595,862
Household Size 1 .78 2.75
Area (Square Miles) 2 .25 821.46
Density (Persons per Square Mile) 5 ,604 1,992
Housing
Housing Units 7 ,853 630,758
Owner Occupied (%) 32% 51%
Renter Occupied (%) 60% 44%
Vacant (%) 8% 6%
Median Home Value $ 7 25,683 $ 1,064,817
Employment & Poverty
Businesses 1 ,463
Employees 9 ,185
2023 Median Household Income $ 1 18,586 $ 116,079
Poverty Rate 11% 9%
12028 Population estimate is a projection only.
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities),
ESRI Business Analyst
Land Use Summary
Emeryville
Present Land Use Agency County
Residential Units Units % %
Single Family 3,427 43.6% 68.6%
Multifamily 4,392 55.9% 30.2%
Mobile Home 34 0.4% 1.2%
Total Units 7,853 100% 100%
New Units Since 2010 1,207
Commercial Gross SF % City % County
Retail 2,489,996 19.7% 20.1%
Industrial 5,676,627 44.9% 59.9%
Office 4,464,594 35.3% 20.1%
Total 12,631,217 100% 100%
New Commercial Since 2010 991,752
Sources: California Department of Finance, Costar (24Q1)
36
37
City of Fremont
Incorporated 1956
Agency Information
Address 3300 Capitol Ave. Fremont, CA 94538
Primary Contact Karena Shackelford, City Manager
Contact Information 510-284-4000
Website www.fremont.gov
Governance 7 Council Members, Elected By-District
Total City Staff 970 Full-Time
Service Area Information
Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 89.06
Population Served 229,467
Population of Unincorporated SOI 9
Community Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Street Maintenance and Lighting City of Fremont - Maintenance Services
Division
Parks and Recreation City of Fremont - Park and Recreation
Mosquito Abatement Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Vector Control Vector Control Services District County
Service Area
Broadband AT&T, Xfinity, Verizon, EarthLink, Viasat,
Hughesnet, Starlink, T-Mobile
Library Alameda County Library
Other Municipal Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Law Enforcement City of Fremont - Police Department
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical City of Fremont - Fire Department
Building/Planning City of Fremont - Community Development
Code Enforcement City of Fremont - Code Enforcement
Animal Control City of Fremont - Police Department
Landscape Maintenance City of Fremont - Maintenance Services
Division
Lighting City of Fremont - Maintenance Services
Division
Electricity/Gas PG&E
Solid Waste Republic Services of Fremont
Stormwater Drainage City of Fremont - Environmental Services
Department
Water Alameda County Water District
Wastewater Union Sanitary District
38
Demographic Summary
Fremont
Population & Density Agency County
2020 Population 2 30,504 1,682,353
2023 Population 2 29,467 1,636,194
2028 Population1 2 34,565 1,697,701
2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 2.2% 3.8%
Daytime Population 2 43,082 1,660,752
Households 7 5,942 595,862
Household Size 3 .02 2.75
Area (Square Miles) 8 9.06 821.46
Density (Persons per Square Mile) 2 ,577 1,992
Housing
Housing Units 8 1,065 630,758
Owner Occupied (%) 59% 51%
Renter Occupied (%) 37% 44%
Vacant (%) 5% 6%
Median Home Value $ 1 ,284,336 $ 1,064,817
Employment & Poverty
Businesses 9 ,072
Employees 1 25,005
2023 Median Household Income $ 1 62,298 $ 116,079
Poverty Rate 5% 9%
12028 Population estimate is a projection only.
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities),
ESRI Business Analyst
Land Use Summary
Fremont
Present Land Use Agency County
Residential Units Units % %
Single Family 60,235 74.3% 68.6%
Multifamily 20,162 24.9% 30.2%
Mobile Home 668 0.8% 1.2%
Total Units 81,065 100% 100%
New Units Since 2010 7,076
Commercial Gross SF % City % County
Retail 8,713,420 14.4% 20.1%
Industrial 45,981,631 76.2% 59.9%
Office 5,640,773 9.3% 20.1%
Total 60,335,824 100% 100%
New Commercial Since 2010 5,670,083
Sources: California Department of Finance, Costar (24Q1)
39
40
City of Hayward
Incorporated 1876
Agency Information
Address 777 B Street Hayward, CA 94541
Primary Contact Kelly McAdoo, City Manager
Contact Information 510-583-4000
Website www.hayward-ca.gov
Governance 7 Council Members, Elected By-District
Total City Staff 910 Full-Time
Service Area Information
Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 64.35
Population Served 159,800
Population of Unincorporated SOI 36,953
Community Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Street Maintenance and Lighting City of Hayward - Maintenance Services
Department
Parks and Recreation City of Hayward - Parks and Recreation
Mosquito Abatement Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Vector Control Vector Control Services District County
Service Area
Broadband Comcast and AT&T
Library City of Hayward - Library
Other Municipal Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Law Enforcement City of Hayward - Police Department
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical City of Hayward - Fire Department
Building/Planning City of Hayward - Development Services
Code Enforcement City of Hayward - Development Services
Animal Control City of Hayward - Police Department
Landscape Maintenance City of Hayward - Maintenance Services
Department
Lighting City of Hayward - Maintenance Services
Department
Electricity/Gas PG&E
Solid Waste Waste Management of Alameda County and
Tri-CED Recycling
Stormwater Drainage City of Hayward - Public Works & Utilities
Water City of Hayward and East Bay Municipal
Utility District
Wastewater City of Hayward and Oro Loma Sanitary
41
Demographic Summary
Hayward
Population & Density Agency County
2020 Population 1 62,954 1,682,353
2023 Population 1 59,800 1,636,194
2028 Population1 1 63,295 1,697,701
2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 2.2% 3.8%
Daytime Population 1 52,089 1,660,752
Households 5 0,371 595,862
Household Size 3 .17 2.75
Area (Square Miles) 6 4.35 821.46
Density (Persons per Square Mile) 2 ,483 1,992
Housing
Housing Units 5 3,564 630,758
Owner Occupied (%) 51% 51%
Renter Occupied (%) 44% 44%
Vacant (%) 5% 6%
Median Home Value $ 7 73,317 $ 1,064,817
Employment & Poverty
Businesses 6 ,515
Employees 8 4,141
2023 Median Household Income $ 1 01,636 $ 116,079
Poverty Rate 8% 9%
12028 Population estimate is a projection only.
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities),
ESRI Business Analyst
Land Use Summary
Hayward
Present Land Use Agency County
Residential Units Units % %
Single Family 30,408 56.8% 68.6%
Multifamily 20,866 39.0% 30.2%
Mobile Home 2,290 4.3% 1.2%
Total Units 53,564 100% 100%
New Units Since 2010 5,268
Commercial Gross SF % City % County
Retail 7,842,451 14.5% 20.1%
Industrial 43,188,935 79.8% 59.9%
Office 3,123,489 5.8% 20.1%
Total 54,154,875 100% 100%
New Commercial Since 2010 2,943,958
Sources: California Department of Finance, Costar (24Q1)
42
43
City of Livermore
Incorporated 1869
Agency Information
Address 1052 S. Livermore Ave
Livermore, CA 94550 1052
Primary Contact Marianna Marysheva, City Manager
Contact Information 925-960-4000
Website www.livermoreca.gov
Governance 4 Council Members, Elected By-District with
Mayor Elected At-Large
Total City Staff 414 Full-Time
Service Area Information
Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 26.44
Population Served 84,793
Population of Unincorporated SOI 597
Community Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Street Maintenance and Lighting City of Livermore - Public Works Department
Parks and Recreation Livermore Area Recreation and Park District
Mosquito Abatement Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Vector Control Vector Control Services District County Service
Area
Broadband Comcast/Xfinity, AT&T/Direct TV, Dish Network,
Zayo, and Astound
Library City of Livermore Public Library
Other Municipal Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Law Enforcement City of Livermore - Police Department
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department
City of Livermore - Community Development
Building/Planning
Department
City of Livermore - Community Development
Code Enforcement
Department
Animal Control City of Livermore - Police Department
Landscape Maintenance City of Livermore - Public Works Department
Lighting City of Livermore - Public Works Department
Electricity/Gas PG&E
Solid Waste Livermore Sanitation, Inc. (Waste Connections)
Stormwater Drainage City of Livermore - Public Works
Water Livermore Municipal Water and California Water
Service (Cal Water)
Wastewater City of Livermore - Public Works
44
Demographic Summary
Livermore
Population & Density Agency County
2020 Population 8 7,955 1,682,353
2023 Population 8 4,793 1,636,194
2028 Population1 8 7,730 1,697,701
2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 3.5% 3.8%
Daytime Population 1 01,604 1,660,752
Households 3 1,441 595,862
Household Size 2 .70 2.75
Area (Square Miles) 2 6.44 821.46
Density (Persons per Square Mile) 3 ,207 1,992
Housing
Housing Units 3 3,157 630,758
Owner Occupied (%) 70% 51%
Renter Occupied (%) 26% 44%
Vacant (%) 4% 6%
Median Home Value $ 9 69,636 $ 1,064,817
Employment & Poverty
Businesses 4 ,006
Employees 4 8,348
2023 Median Household Income $ 1 50,153 $ 116,079
Poverty Rate 4% 9%
12028 Population estimate is a projection only.
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities),
ESRI Business Analyst
Land Use Summary
Livermore
Present Land Use Agency County
Residential Units Units % %
Single Family 27,683 83.5% 68.6%
Multifamily 4,960 15.0% 30.2%
Mobile Home 514 1.6% 1.2%
Total Units 33,157 100% 100%
New Units Since 2010 2,815
Commercial Gross SF % City % County
Retail 5,233,696 18.3% 20.1%
Industrial 21,321,981 74.5% 59.9%
Office 2,052,455 7.2% 20.1%
Total 28,608,132 100% 100%
New Commercial Since 2010 4,243,187
Sources: California Department of Finance, Costar (24Q1)
45
46
City of Newark
Incorporated, 1955
Agency Information
Address 37101 Newark Blvd, Newark, CA 94560
Primary Contact David J. Benoun, City Manager
Contact Information 510-578-4000
Website www.newark.org.
Governance 5 Council Members, Elected At-Large
Total City Staff 176 Full-Time
Service Area Information
Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 14.06
Population Served 47,459
Community Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Street Maintenance and Lighting City of Newark - Public Works Department
Parks and Recreation City of Newark - Parks Department, Recreation
and Community Services Department, Public
Works Department
Mosquito Abatement Alameda County - Mosquito Abatement District
Vector Control Vector Control Services District County Service
Area
Broadband Comcast Xfinity (cable), AT&T (DSL/IP
Broadband)
Library Alameda County Library
Other Municipal Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Law Enforcement City of Newark - Police Department
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Alameda County - Fire Department
City of Newark - Community Development
Building/Planning
Department, Public Works Department
City of Newark - Community Development
Code Enforcement
Department
Animal Control City of Newark - Police Department
Landscape Maintenance City of Newark - Public Works Department
Lighting City of Newark - Public Works Department
Electricity/Gas PG&E; East Bay Community Energy
Solid Waste Waste Management, StopWaste, and Republic
Services
Stormwater Drainage City of Newark - Public Works Department
Water Alameda County Water District
Wastewater Union Sanitary District
47
Demographic Summary
Newark
Population & Density Agency County
2020 Population 4 7,529 1,682,353
2023 Population 4 7,459 1,636,194
2028 Population1 4 8,483 1,697,701
2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 2.2% 3.8%
Daytime Population 4 6,780 1,660,752
Households 1 5,509 595,862
Household Size 3 .06 2.75
Area (Square Miles) 1 4.06 821.46
Density (Persons per Square Mile) 3 ,375 1,992
Housing
Housing Units 1 6,153 630,758
Owner Occupied (%) 70% 51%
Renter Occupied (%) 27% 44%
Vacant (%) 3% 6%
Median Home Value $ 1 ,017,800 $ 1,064,817
Employment & Poverty
Businesses 2 ,084
Employees 2 6,755
2023 Median Household Income $ 1 50,574 $ 116,079
Poverty Rate 5% 9%
12028 Population estimate is a projection only.
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities),
ESRI Business Analyst
Land Use Summary
Newark
Present Land Use Agency County
Residential Units Units % %
Single Family 14,282 88.4% 68.6%
Multifamily 1,871 11.6% 30.2%
Mobile Home 0 0.0% 1.2%
Total Units 16,153 100% 100%
New Units Since 2010 2,739
Commercial Gross SF % City % County
Retail 3,474,273 20.8% 20.1%
Industrial 12,648,930 75.8% 59.9%
Office 557,016 3.3% 20.1%
Total 16,680,219 100% 100%
New Commercial Since 2010 1,742,584
Sources: California Department of Finance, Costar (24Q1)
48
49
City of Oakland
Incorporated 1852
Agency Information
Address 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Primary Contact Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Contact Information 510-615-5566
Website www.oaklandca.gov
Governance 8 Council Members, Elected By-District
Total City Staff 3469 Full-Time
Service Area Information
Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 78.01
Population Served 419,556
Community Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Street Maintenance and Lighting City of Oakland Transportation Department
Parks and Recreation City of Oakland - Parks, Recreation & Youth
Development
Mosquito Abatement Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Vector Control Vector Control Services District County Service
Area
Broadband Sonic, Comcast, AT&T, Viasat, Earthlink
Library Oakland Public Library
Other Municipal Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Law Enforcement City of Oakland Police Department
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical City of Oakland Fire Department
Building/Planning City of Oakland - Planning & Building Department
Code Enforcement City of Oakland - Planning & Building Department
Animal Control City of Oakland Police Department
Landscape Maintenance City of Oakland Public Works Department
Lighting City of Oakland Transportation Department
Electricity/Gas PG&E
Solid Waste Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. and
California Waste Solutions
Stormwater Drainage City of Oakland Public Works Department
Water Oakland Airport
Wastewater East Bay Municipality Utility District
50
Demographic Summary
Oakland
Population & Density Agency County
2020 Population 4 40,646 1,682,353
2023 Population 4 19,556 1,636,194
2028 Population1 4 49,563 1,697,701
2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 7.2% 3.8%
Daytime Population 4 16,348 1,660,752
Households 1 70,217 595,862
Household Size 2 .46 2.75
Area (Square Miles) 7 8.01 821.46
Density (Persons per Square Mile) 5 ,378 1,992
Housing
Housing Units 1 87,734 630,758
Owner Occupied (%) 37% 51%
Renter Occupied (%) 56% 44%
Vacant (%) 7% 6%
Median Home Value $ 9 85,421 $ 1,064,817
Employment & Poverty
Businesses 1 9,503
Employees 2 34,905
2023 Median Household Income $ 8 9,421 $ 116,079
Poverty Rate 13% 9%
12028 Population estimate is a projection only.
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities),
ESRI Business Analyst
Land Use Summary
Oakland
Present Land Use Agency County
Residential Units Units % %
Single Family 115,714 61.6% 68.6%
Multifamily 71,483 38.1% 30.2%
Mobile Home 537 0.3% 1.2%
Total Units 187,734 100% 100%
New Units Since 2010 18,024
Commercial Gross SF % City % County
Retail 18,348,829 20.9% 20.1%
Industrial 37,473,215 42.7% 59.9%
Office 31,888,732 36.4% 20.1%
Total 87,710,776 100% 100%
New Commercial Since 2010 4,688,861
Sources: California Department of Finance, Costar (24Q1)
51
52
City of Piedmont
Incorporated 1907
Agency Information
Address 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611
Primary Contact Rosanna Bayon Moore, City Administrator
Contact Information 510-420-3040
Website www.piedmont.ca.gov
Governance 5 Council Members, Elected By-District
Total City Staff 96 Full-Time
Service Area Information
Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 1.7
Population Served 10,793
Community Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Street Maintenance and Lighting City of Piedmont – Public Works Department
Parks and Recreation City of Piedmont – Recreation Department
Mosquito Abatement Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Vector Control Vector Control Services District County Service
Area
Broadband AT&T, Comcast, Sonic
Library Alameda County Library
Other Municipal Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Law Enforcement City of Piedmont – Police Department
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical City of Piedmont – Fire Department
City of Piedmont – Planning and Building
Building/Planning
Department
City of Piedmont – Planning and Building
Code Enforcement
Department
Animal Control City of Piedmont Police Department
Landscape Maintenance City of Piedmont – Public Works Department
Lighting City of Piedmont – Public Works Department
Electricity/Gas East Bay Community Energy; PG&E
Solid Waste Piedmont Evergreen Recycling, Organic Waste &
Garbage Collection Service
Stormwater Drainage City of Piedmont – Public Works Department
Water East Bay Municipal Utility District
Wastewater City of Piedmont – Public Works Department
53
Demographic Summary
Piedmont
Population & Density Agency County
2020 Population 1 1,270 1,682,353
2023 Population 1 0,793 1,636,194
2028 Population1 1 1,284 1,697,701
2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 4.5% 3.8%
Daytime Population 8 ,548 1,660,752
Households 3 ,836 595,862
Household Size 2 .81 2.75
Area (Square Miles) 1 .70 821.46
Density (Persons per Square Mile) 6 ,349 1,992
Housing
Housing Units 3 ,979 630,758
Owner Occupied (%) 85% 51%
Renter Occupied (%) 12% 44%
Vacant (%) 3% 6%
Median Home Value $ 2 ,000,001 $ 1,064,817
Employment & Poverty
Businesses 2 39
Employees 5 ,867
2023 Median Household Income $ 2 00,001 $ 116,079
Poverty Rate 3% 9%
12028 Population estimate is a projection only.
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities),
ESRI Business Analyst
Land Use Summary
Piedmont
Present Land Use Agency County
Residential Units Units % %
Single Family 3,785 95.1% 68.6%
Multifamily 194 4.9% 30.2%
Mobile Home 0 0.0% 1.2%
Total Units 3,979 100% 100%
New Units Since 2010 55
Commercial Gross SF % City % County
Retail 35,300 59.2% 20.1%
Industrial 0 0.0% 59.9%
Office 24,354 40.8% 20.1%
Total 59,654 100% 100%
New Commercial Since 2010 0
Sources: California Department of Finance, Costar (24Q1)
54
55
City of Pleasanton
Incorporated, 1894
Agency Information
Address P.O. Box 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566
Primary Contact Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Contact Information 925-931-5500
Website www.cityofpleasantonca.gov
Governance 4 Council Members, Elected By-District with
Mayor Elected At Large
Total City Staff 433 Full-Time
Service Area Information
Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 24.28
Population Served 76,459
Population of Unincorporated SOI 1,295
Community Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Street Maintenance and Lighting City of Pleasanton – Public Works Department
Parks City of Pleasanton – Public Works Department
Mosquito Abatement Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Vector Control Vector Control Services District County Service
Area
Broadband Comcast, AT&T U-verse
Library and Recreation City of Pleasanton - Library and Recreation
Department
Other Municipal Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Law Enforcement City of Pleasanton Police Department
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department
City of Pleasanton - Community Development
Building/Planning
Department
City of Pleasanton - Community Development
Code Enforcement
Department
Animal Control Pleasanton Police Department
Lighting City of Pleasanton – Public Works Department
Electricity/Gas Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Ava
Community Energy
Solid Waste Pleasanton Garbage Services
Stormwater Drainage City of Pleasanton – Public Works Department
Water City of Pleasanton - Public Works Department
Wastewater City of Pleasanton - Public Works Department and
Dublin San Ramon Services District
56
Demographic Summary
Pleasanton
Population & Density Agency County
2020 Population 7 9,871 1,682,353
2023 Population 7 6,459 1,636,194
2028 Population1 8 0,747 1,697,701
2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 5.6% 3.8%
Daytime Population 9 6,482 1,660,752
Households 2 8,554 595,862
Household Size 2 .68 2.75
Area (Square Miles) 2 4.28 821.46
Density (Persons per Square Mile) 3 ,149 1,992
Housing
Housing Units 2 9,776 630,758
Owner Occupied (%) 64% 51%
Renter Occupied (%) 32% 44%
Vacant (%) 4% 6%
Median Home Value $ 1 ,320,861 $ 1,064,817
Employment & Poverty
Businesses 5 ,081
Employees 4 2,804
2023 Median Household Income $ 1 80,429 $ 116,079
Poverty Rate 5% 9%
12028 Population estimate is a projection only.
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities),
ESRI Business Analyst
Land Use Summary
Pleasanton
Present Land Use Agency County
Residential Units Units % %
Single Family 22,775 76.5% 68.6%
Multifamily 6,625 22.2% 30.2%
Mobile Home 376 1.3% 1.2%
Total Units 29,776 100% 100%
New Units Since 2010 3,723
Commercial Gross SF % City % County
Retail 4,821,827 22.1% 20.1%
Industrial 5,396,559 24.7% 59.9%
Office 11,646,833 53.3% 20.1%
Total 21,865,219 100% 100%
New Commercial Since 2010 1,173,060
Sources: California Department of Finance, Costar (24Q1)
57
58
City of San Leandro
Incorporated, 1872
Agency Information
Address 835 Eat 14th Street, San Leandro, CA 94577
Primary Contact Fran Robustelli, City Manager
Contact Information 510-577-3200
Website www.sanleandro.org
Governance 7 Council Members, Elected By-District
Total City Staff 434 Full-Time
Service Area Information
Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 15.47
Population Served 87,497
Population of Unincorporated SOI 26,587
Community Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Street Maintenance and Lighting City of San Leandro - Public Works Department
Parks and Recreation City of San Leandro - Recreation and Human
Services Department
Mosquito Abatement Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Vector Control Vector Control Services District County Service
Area
Broadband AT&T, Xfinity, Verizon, Viasat, EarthLink, Starlink,
T-Mobile
Library San Leandro Public Library
Other Municipal Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Law Enforcement City of San Leandro - Police Department
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Alameda County Fire Department
City of San Leandro - Community Development
Building/Planning
Department
City of San Leandro - Community Development
Code Enforcement
Department
Animal Control City of San Leandro - Police Department
Landscape Maintenance City of San Leandro - Public Works Department
Lighting City of San Leandro - Public Works Department
Electricity/Gas East Bay Community Energy (Renewable
Electricity) PG&E
Solid Waste City of San Leandro - Public Works, Alameda
County Industries, Waste Management of
Alameda County, Oro Loma Sanitary District
Stormwater Drainage City of San Leandro - Public Works Department
Water East Bay Municipal Utility District
Wastewater City of San Leandro - Public Works Water
Pollution Control Division
59
Demographic Summary
San Leandro
Population & Density Agency County
2020 Population 9 1,008 1,682,353
2023 Population 8 7,497 1,636,194
2028 Population1 8 8,572 1,697,701
2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 1.2% 3.8%
Daytime Population 8 5,966 1,660,752
Households 3 1,415 595,862
Household Size 2 .79 2.75
Area (Square Miles) 1 5.47 821.46
Density (Persons per Square Mile) 5 ,656 1,992
Housing
Housing Units 3 3,223 630,758
Owner Occupied (%) 55% 51%
Renter Occupied (%) 42% 44%
Vacant (%) 4% 6%
Median Home Value $ 7 44,710 $ 1,064,817
Employment & Poverty
Businesses 4 ,055
Employees 4 7,355
2023 Median Household Income $ 9 3,021 $ 116,079
Poverty Rate 11% 9%
12028 Population estimate is a projection only.
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities),
ESRI Business Analyst
Land Use Summary
San Leandro
Present Land Use Agency County
Residential Units Units % %
Single Family 20,415 61.4% 68.6%
Multifamily 11,953 36.0% 30.2%
Mobile Home 855 2.6% 1.2%
Total Units 33,223 100% 100%
New Units Since 2010 804
Commercial Gross SF % City % County
Retail 6,232,711 19.6% 20.1%
Industrial 23,200,829 73.0% 59.9%
Office 2,347,136 7.4% 20.1%
Total 31,780,676 100% 100%
New Commercial Since 2010 1,859,976
Sources: California Department of Finance, Costar (24Q1)
60
61
City of Union City
Incorporated, 1894
Agency Information
Address 34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
Union City, CA 94587
Primary Contact Joan Malloy, City Manager
Contact Information 510-471-3232
Website www.unioncity.org
Governance 4 Council Members, Elected By-District with
Mayor Elected At Large
Total City Staff 314 Full-Time
Service Area Information
Incorporated Area (Sq. Mi.) 19.34
Population Served 66,754
Community Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Street Maintenance and Lighting City of Union City - Public Works Department
Parks and Recreation City of Union City - Community & Recreation
Services Department and Public Works
Department
Mosquito Abatement Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Vector Control Vector Control Services District County Service
Area
Broadband Lumen, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and Tekify
Fiber
Library Alameda County Library
Other Municipal Service Providers
Service or Department Provider
Law Enforcement City of Union City Police Department
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Alameda County Fire Department
City of Union City - Economic and Community
Building/Planning
Development Department
City of Union City - Economic and Community
Code Enforcement
Development Department
Animal Control City of Union City Police Department
Lighting City of Union City Public Works Department
Electricity/Gas PG&E
Solid Waste Union City Recycles, Republic Services, Tri-CED
Community Recycling
Stormwater Drainage Union City Public Works Department and
Alameda County Flood Control District
Water Alameda County Water District
Wastewater Union Sanitary District
62
Demographic Summary
Union City
Population & Density Agency County
2020 Population 7 0,143 1,682,353
2023 Population 6 6,754 1,636,194
2028 Population1 6 8,462 1,697,701
2023-2028 Projected Growth Rate (%) 2.6% 3.8%
Daytime Population 5 8,258 1,660,752
Households 2 1,213 595,862
Household Size 3 .15 2.75
Area (Square Miles) 1 9.34 821.46
Density (Persons per Square Mile) 3 ,452 1,992
Housing
Housing Units 2 1,960 630,758
Owner Occupied (%) 64% 51%
Renter Occupied (%) 34% 44%
Vacant (%) 3% 6%
Median Home Value $ 9 80,928 $ 1,064,817
Employment & Poverty
Businesses 2 ,023
Employees 3 6,362
2023 Median Household Income $ 1 35,542 $ 116,079
Poverty Rate 5% 9%
12028 Population estimate is a projection only.
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates (Cities),
ESRI Business Analyst
Land Use Summary
Union City
Present Land Use Agency County
Residential Units Units % %
Single Family 16,733 76.2% 68.6%
Multifamily 4,258 19.4% 30.2%
Mobile Home 969 4.4% 1.2%
Total Units 21,960 100% 100%
New Units Since 2010 702
Commercial Gross SF % City % County
Retail 1,943,207 11.6% 20.1%
Industrial 14,229,606 85.0% 59.9%
Office 567,837 3.4% 20.1%
Total 16,740,650 100% 100%
New Commercial Since 2010 729,197
Sources: California Department of Finance, Costar (24Q1)
63
64
GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The 14 cities have a combined 2023 population of approximately 1.49 million people, which
is approximately 91 percent of the total population within the County. The DOF estimates
the remaining 147,000 people reside outside the cities, of which 65,500 are within a city’s
unincorporated SOI, and approximately 81,400 people outside of the SOIs.
RSG used data from both the DOF and ESRI Business Analyst to make determinations
about growth and population. The DOF does not provide individual city population
projections, so RSG has relied on ESRI Business Analyst for those projections, which
largely are aligned with the trends of the DOF. RSG has also relied on ESRI for population
projections for the unincorporated areas within each city’s SOI.
The DOF projects that the County population will grow over the next five years and through
2040 at a faster rate than growth throughout the state. Collectively, ESRI projects the
incorporated cities will see growth through 2028. In 2020, the cities had an incorporated
population of 1.53 million people, while the County had 1.68 million residents in total. By
2023, both experienced a slight population decline of approximately 2.7 percent, with
incorporated cities at 1.49 million residents and the County at 1.64 million residents,
respectively. ESRI projects that by 2028 the incorporated population of the cities will grow
to 1.55 million residents and the County population will grow to 1.7 million residents,
surpassing the 2020 populations.
According to LAFCO’s SOI maps, eight of the cities have unincorporated areas which
collectively total approximately 38 square miles. These unincorporated areas of the County
include the only DUC within the County (Ashland, located within San Leandro’s SOI) as
well as several islands and other small unincorporated areas. There are several notable
unincorporated communities, not designated as DUCs, which are also within or partially
within the cities’ unincorporated SOIs:
65
• Sunol (partially within the SOI of Fremont and Pleasanton)
• Castro Valley (partially within the SOI of San Leandro and Hayward)
• Cherryland (within the SOI of Hayward)
• San Lorenzo (partially within the SOI of Hayward)
• Fairview (partially within the SOI of Hayward)
According to ESRI, the unincorporated SOIs experienced minimal growth between 2020
and 2023, and are expected to have very little growth through 2028. The cities with the
most populated unincorporated SOIs (San Leandro and Hayward) are projected to
experience a reduction in population in their unincorporated SOIs over the next five years.
Table 2 shows past and projected population trends for each of the cities and their
corresponding unincorporated SOIs.
66
Table 2: Individual City Population Changes
Alameda Cities Past Growth Projected Growth
Population Changes 2020-2023 2023-2028
% # % #
Alameda
Incorporated City Limits -1.27% -993 4.75% 3,673
Albany
Incorporated City Limits 5.57% 1,130 -8.12% -1,737
Berkeley
Incorporated City Limits -0.61% -759 1.07% 1,321
Unincorporated SOI 0.00% 0 1.64% 2
Dublin
Incorporated City Limits -1.16% -839 5.30% 3,804
Unincorporated SOI 10.00% 2 0.00% 0
Emeryville
Incorporated City Limits -2.29% -295 15.85% 1,999
Fremont
Incorporated City Limits -0.45% -1,037 2.22% 5,098
Unincorporated SOI 0.00% 0 0.00% 0
Hayward
Incorporated City Limits -1.94% -3,154 2.19% 3,495
Unincorporated SOI -1.42% -531 -1.61% -596
Livermore
Incorporated City Limits -3.60% -3,162 3.46% 2,937
Unincorporated SOI 2.75% 16 4.36% 26
Newark
Incorporated City Limits -0.15% -70 2.16% 1,024
Oakland
Incorporated City Limits -4.79% -21,090 7.15% 30,007
Piedmont
Incorporated City Limits -4.23% -477 4.55% 491
Pleasanton
Incorporated City Limits -4.27% -3,412 5.61% 4,288
Unincorporated SOI 1.97% 25 1.78% 23
San Leandro
Incorporated City Limits -3.86% -3,511 1.23% 1,075
Unincorporated SOI -1.45% -392 -1.68% -446
Union City
Incorporated City Limits -4.83% -3,389 2.56% 1,708
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates, ESRI Business Analyst
67
Between 2010 and 2023, overall Alameda County housing stock increased by
approximately .64 percent annually. There was a higher rate of housing growth in the
incorporated cities versus the County as a whole. According to the DOF, the cities had
approximately 530,350 housing units in 2010 and by 2020, they increased their housing
stock to approximately 560,324 housing units. As of 2023, the cities recorded a total of
589,430 housing units, reflecting an 11.1 percent increase from 2010.
The COVID-19 pandemic created unique migration patterns in the US, with many urban
areas losing population rapidly in the years after 2020. These urban areas have been
slowly regaining population, and projections show they will continue to grow in the future.
However, the data for the housing projections from ESRI does not align with the cities’
self-reported development pipelines. RSG has used the jurisdictional goals established by
HCD as part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) for estimates of future
housing growth in both cities and in the unincorporated County.
Table 3 shows historic and projected housing growth for each of the cities. The County
Housing Element identifies potential sites for housing in unincorporated parts of the
County. Hayward and San Leandro are the only cities with housing sites identified in their
unincorporated SOIs by the County Housing Element.
68
Table 3: Individual City Housing Growth
Alameda County Cities Past Growth Projected Growth
Housing Unit Changes 2010-2023 2023-2031
% # % #
Alameda 4.97% 1,608 15.76% 5,353
Albany 18.70% 1,255 13.98% 1,114
Berkeley 8.65% 4,280 16.63% 8,934
Dublin 60.33% 9,522 14.70% 3,719
Emeryville 18.16% 1,207 23.11% 1,815
Fremont 9.56% 7,076 15.91% 12,897
Hayward 10.91% 5,268 8.63% 4,624
Livermore 9.28% 2,815 13.78% 4,570
Newark 20.42% 2,739 11.60% 1,874
Oakland 10.62% 18,024 13.98% 26,251
Piedmont 1.40% 55 14.75% 587
Pleasanton 14.29% 3,723 20.03% 5,965
San Leandro 2.48% 804 11.60% 3,855
Union City 3.30% 702 12.42% 2,728
Unincorporated Alameda County 2.66% 1,359 8.99% 4,711
Hayward SOI 1.82% 216 6.65% 802
San Leandro SOI 1.97% 174 18.18% 1,640
Source: US Census Bureau, DOF Population and Housing Estimates, ESRI Business Analyst, Local Housing Elements
69
PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES
Per Government Code Section 56425, a LAFCO shall consider and prepare a written
statement of its SOI determinations on five (5) factors, including:
1. The present and planned land use in the area, including agricultural and open space
lands.
The cities anticipate population growth and are planning for increased housing stock
through their respective planning documents, including General Plans and Housing
Elements. Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that jurisdictions adopt general
plans for the physical development of the community. The Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research indicates that general plans must be updated periodically, although there is
no prescribed definition of frequency. General plans typically have a defined planning
period of 15-20 years, at the end of which a new general plan update would be prepared
unless otherwise necessary.
Most of the cities have implemented general plans within the past 15 to 20 years, and
those with older general plans are generally working to update them. The City of
Pleasanton’s General Plan goes through 2025. The City of Oakland is currently in the
process of updating its General Plan, which will be approved in 2025. Phase II of the
update is slated to begin in early 2024, which will include the Land Use and Transportation
Element Update, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element Update, Noise
Element Update, and a new Infrastructure and Facilities Element. The City of Livermore is
also currently working on its comprehensive General Plan update.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65302(c), general plans must include a housing
element explaining how the jurisdiction will meet its part of the regional housing need. The
County is part of the Association of Bay Area Governments planning agency, which
established jurisdictional housing goals for the 6th Round planning cycle (2023 through
2031); these goals are known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”). Each
city is to prepare and seek HCD approval of their local housing element. As of February
29, 2024, all Alameda County cities have received HCD certification of their 6th Round
Housing Element.
70
Sections 65400 and 65700 of the Government Code require all jurisdictions to submit
annual progress reports on their respective general plan and housing element by April 1
for the prior year. As of February 29, 2024, all the cities have submitted their annual
progress reports for 2022.
RSG identified 95 parcels throughout the County designated as prime farmland under the
Williamson Act. The majority of these parcels are within the SOI of the City of Livermore,
and none of the other cities have prime farmland parcels either within their corporate
boundaries or their respective unincorporated SOIs.
Following are individual city notes on development and land use:
ALAMEDA
The City of Alameda intends to incorporate around 2,000 additional housing units into its
housing inventory over the next five years, and has a RHNA of 5,353 units for 2023-2031.
The City is particularly focusing on the redevelopment of the Alameda Point area along
the northern waterfront, which was previously home to the Naval Air Station Alameda. The
City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element identifies the area as an important opportunity for the
City to develop commercial, residential, open space, recreational, and retail uses. The City
has adopted the Main Street Neighborhood Plan for the area in order to provide
regulations, standards, and guidelines to implement the General Plan policy objectives.
Alameda amended its General Plan 2040 on June 7, 2022. The General Plan includes a
Parks and Open Space Element, which identifies existing and planned parklands and open
space. The Plan includes goals to expand and improve the open space system in the City,
including ensuring access to the waterfront, connecting the trail system throughout the
City, and protecting wildlife habitat areas.
ALBANY
The City of Albany has a RHNA requirement of 1,114 units for the 2023-2031 cycle, a
significant increase from the prior 2015-2023 allocation of 335 units. In order to
accommodate this new housing, Albany is rezoning parts of the City in a phased approach.
71
In July 2022, the City adopted the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan which updated
development standards and raised height limits for 81 acres on both sides of San Pablo
Avenue.
Albany’s 2035 General Plan includes information about parks and open space in the City.
It identifies 91 acres of passive open space in the City, which are areas that typically focus
on wildlife preservation and have more limited access to parks users.
BERKELEY
The City of Berkeley adopted its 2023-2031 Housing Element on January 18, 2023. The
City has a RHNA requirement of 8,934 for the same period. Berkeley has identified sites
within the City that could be used for housing, and anticipates that existing sites will be
able to fully accommodate the RHNA requirement without the need for rezoning.
DUBLIN
HCD allocated the City of Dublin 3,719 units for the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle. Dublin
expects housing development will occur in the eastern part of the City (northeast of Fallon
Road), along with some infill development. The City is planning for this growth in its
General Plan.
The City is additionally in the process of constructing a new road between Dublin and
Livermore through unincorporated area outside its SOI, and has already allocated $80
million of funding to the $160 million project. The City is working collaboratively with the
City of Livermore to plan for updated land uses in the Doolan Canyon unincorporated area
between the two cities.
EMERYVILLE
The City of Emeryville has a requirement of 1,815 units in the 2023-2031 RHNA cycle. Per
the City’s Housing Element, Emeryville has adequate sites to accommodate this housing,
most of which will be in infill and reuse of underutilized sites. The City currently has 623
housing units entitled across six projects.
72
FREMONT
The City of Fremont has a RHNA requirement of 12,897 for the 2023-2031 period and has
planned for the new housing in its updated Housing Element. Fremont did not respond to
RSG’s requests for information and did not provide additional information on any
challenges associated with providing services to an increased population in the future.
HAYWARD
The City of Hayward was allocated 3,920 housing units by HCD in the 2015-2023 RHNA
cycle, and was allocated 4,624 units in the current cycle. There is adequate capacity in
the City for the development of these units. Per the City’s Housing Element, the City
expects most of this development will occur in the Downtown Specific Plan Area, the
Mission Boulevard Specific Plan Area, and the Former Route 238 Corridor. Hayward has
identified 2,073 units that are in the development pipeline.
The City is collaborating with the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District to implement
its Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which includes policies about parks and open space
land uses.
LIVERMORE
The City of Livermore currently has 3,000 housing units in the residential development
pipeline, and its Housing Element includes plans to accommodate the RHNA requirement
of 4,570 new units. The City is also implementing the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan,
which integrates transit-oriented development and job opportunities, and it continues to
explore growth strategies within its urban and corporate boundaries through a General
Plan update.
As noted earlier, both Livermore and Dublin are working together on building a road and
updating the land use in the unincorporated Doolan Canyon area between the two cities’
SOIs.
73
Livermore is the only city in the County with parcels designated as prime farmland under
the Williamson Act within its SOI. The majority of these parcels are under conservation
easements or in active agricultural use. Figure 2 shows the location of these parcels.
Figure 2: Williamson Act Land in Livermore's SOI
NEWARK
The City of Newark is planning for population growth and residential development in the
next five years through the implementation of its 2023-2031 Housing Element, which
includes plans for the City’s RHNA of 1,874. Newark successfully added 1,023 housing
units to its housing stock between 2020 and 2022, and expects that these units would
bring in approximately 3,000 new residents.
74
The City adopted its General Plan in 2013. At that time, approximately 50 percent of the
City’s land area was undeveloped or non-urbanized land, which includes area for salt
harvesting and production along the edge of the San Francisco Bay in the southern and
western parts of the City.
OAKLAND
The City of Oakland adopted its 2023-2031 Housing Element in January 2023. The City
has a RHNA requirement of 26,251 for the period. According to the Housing Element, the
City currently has sufficient capacity to accommodate this development. Oakland did not
respond to RSG’s requests for information and did not provide additional information on
any challenges associated with providing services to an increased population in the future.
PIEDMONT
The City of Piedmont is in the process of developing the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan,
which, if adopted, would add 132 dwelling units to the City’s housing stock. The City has
a RHNA of 587 units for 2023-2031. Staff expect the Specific Plan to be adopted by the
end of 2026, and that it will include infrastructure planning to accommodate the growth in
population and related service needs.
Piedmont’s General Plan, adopted in 2009, includes open space policies. As of 2009,
seven percent of Piedmont’s area was considered open space.
PLEASANTON
The City of Pleasanton has a RHNA of 5,965 housing units and has sufficient capacity to
accommodate this development in its certified Housing Element. The City has 818 units
that are currently in the development pipeline per the City’s Housing Element (adopted in
August 2023) and has completed the rezoning required by its Housing Element.
Pleasanton’s 2009 General Plan identifies open space within the City, including over 1,700
acres of sand and gravel deposits. These areas are covered by the Specific Plan for
75
Livermore-Amador Valley Quarry Area Reclamation, which contains quarry operation
phasing plans and reclamation options.
SAN LEANDRO
The City of San Leandro adopted its 2023-2031 Housing Element in December 2022. The
City has a RHNA requirement of 3,855 for the 2023-2031 period and identified 3,535 units
in the development pipeline. San Leandro is actively working to ensure the provision of
public services to an increased population in the future. The City’s General Plan update
noted that the City has sufficient public utility and public safety capacity to absorb most of
the projected growth, and the City works with developers to offset community impacts.
UNION CITY
The City of Union City has a RHNA of 2,728 for the 2023-2031 period. The City had
approved 1,491 units as of May 2023, and has also created new zoning districts in the City
to help facilitate the development of housing.
Union City adopted its updated General Plan in 2019, which includes policies to protect
and maintain open space. The City adopted the Hillside Area Plan in 1989 to provide
parameters for development in the Hillside Area, which is made up of approximately 6,100
acres to the north and east of the City. The Plan established a density limit and a priority
of preserving the area’s natural appearance and protecting ecological systems.
Staff at Union City indicated to RSG that the City is exploring the establishment of a
community facilities district for new residential development to assist in funding the
ongoing cost of maintenance for public facilities, and to supplement public safety services.
76
LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ANY DUCS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, MSRs make determinations on seven (7)
required topics, including:
2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities
within or contiguous to the sphere of influence(s).
Per Government Code Section 56425, a LAFCO shall consider and prepare a written
statement of its SOI determinations on five (5) factors, including:
4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the
commission determines that they are relevant to the agency.
Alameda LAFCO has identified one DUC within the fourteen incorporated cities within the
SOI of the City of San Leandro. While there are a number of cities which have boundaries
that are not coterminous with their SOI, these cities do not have any DUCs that are within
or adjacent to their boundaries.
The unincorporated community of Ashland, within the SOI of the City of San Leandro,
meets the criteria to be considered a DUC. A DUC is defined by Government Code Section
56033.5 as an area of inhabited territory (with 12 or more registered voters) located within
an unincorporated area of a county with an annual median household income that is less
than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household, or $147,900 for 2023. Figure
3 shows the location of the Ashland community.
77
Figure 3: Ashland Unincorporated Community
Ashland receives community services from a variety of different providers, as summarized
below:
• Street Maintenance & Lighting: Alameda County
• Parks and Recreation: Hayward Area Recreation and Park District
• Mosquito Abatement: Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
• Vector Control: Vector Control Services District County Service Area
• Lead Abatement: Alameda County
• Broadband: Private providers
• Library: Alameda County Library
78
The Hayward Area Recreation and Park District operates a number of parks and facilities
in the Ashland area, including Ashland Park, the Ashland Community Center, Jack Holland
Sr. Park, Edendale Park, Hesperian Park, and Fairmont Linear Park. Neighboring Ashland
is the Lake Chabot Regional Park, which is operated by EBRPD.
The closest library branches to the Ashland area is the San Lorenzo Branch of the Alameda
County Library. Residents of Ashland are able to join both library systems by providing a
valid ID with a California address. The South Branch Library, which was operated by the
San Leandro Public Library, was also a library which served this area. The South Branch
Library closed in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and has not yet re-opened due to
staffing constraints. The City of San Leandro continues to evaluate the status of this library
and has yet to determine its future plans.
According to data from the California Public Utilities Commission, Ashland is considered
adequately served by broadband providers. More information about broadband services
can be found on page 94.
79
CAPACITY OF FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF SERVICES
Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, MSRs make determinations on seven (7)
required topics, including:
3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services,
adequacy of public services, infrastructure needs, or deficiencies related to sewers,
municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged,
unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence.
Per Government Code Section 56425, a LAFCO shall consider and prepare a written
statement of its SOI determinations on the five (5) factors, including:
2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area;
3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the
agency provides or is authorized to provide; and
5. the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any
disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of
influence.
Overall, cities in Alameda County are providing adequate community services to their
residents and customers. In general, cities report they have the resources to maintain
current levels of service and there are very few service areas with any ongoing issues or
disputes between agencies.
Fremont and Oakland did not engage with RSG throughout the MSR process. RSG has
made determinations about the provisions of community services in those cities based on
publicly available documents, but was unable to speak with staff in those cities in order to
gain a deeper understanding of service opportunities and challenges.
This section of the report discusses the community services provided by the cities in
Alameda County and their capacity to deliver those services with the existing staff and
public facilities.
STREET MAINTENANCE AND LIGHTING
Streets and road maintenance of public infrastructure are provided to the cities by their
own Public Works departments. Cities typically determine infrastructure needs through
adopted planning documents and maintenance schedules. The County provides street
maintenance and lighting services to unincorporated areas of Alameda County, including
the unincorporated city SOIs.
80
Table 4 shows the Pavement Conditions Index (“PCI”) for each of the cities established by
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”) as of 2022. The MTC is the
transportation planning, financing, and coordinating agency for the nine counties in the
Bay Area. The PCI measures the pavement health of a road on a scale of 0 to 100, with
100 being a newly paved road. A PCI score of between 80 and 89 is very good, a score
between 70 and 79 is good, a score between 60 and 69 is fair, a score of between 50 and
59 is at risk, and 49 or lower is poor. The PCI allows governments to assess the health of
pavement in their jurisdictions, and to plan maintenance and infrastructure improvements
as necessary.
Two cities (Dublin and Emeryville) have very good scores, five cities have good scores,
three have fair scores, and four are considered at risk. Alameda County as a whole has a
PCI of 67 (fair).
Table 4: Pavement Condition for Cities in Alameda County3
City Total Lane Miles Pavement Condition
Index
Alameda 308.5 67 (Fair)
Albany 62.9 57 (At Risk)
Berkeley 449.6 56 (At Risk)
Dublin 349.2 80 (Very Good)
Emeryville 47.4 81 (Very Good)4
Fremont 1,094.2 72 (Good)
Hayward 681.4 69 (Fair)
Livermore 733.7 78 (Good)
Newark 256.0 72 (Good)
Oakland 2,051.8 54 (At Risk)
Piedmont 78.4 63 (Fair)
Pleasanton 515.0 78 (Good)
San Leandro 393.8 55 (At Risk)
Union City 329.9 73 (Good)
Several cities noted in interviews that new housing development will create more wear on
the streets and roads in their jurisdictions. The cities are planning for anticipated
infrastructure improvements in their General Plans and Capital Improvement Programs.
3 Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, excludes any areas outside respective city limits.
4 Source: City of Emeryville Pavement Management Budget Options Report, February 2023
81
Measure BB is a voter-approved countywide one-cent transportation sales tax which can
be used to expand mass transit, improve highway infrastructure, improve local streets and
roads, improve bicycle and pedestrian safety, and expand special transportation for
seniors and those with disabilities. The Measure was approved by the voters in 2014 and
will sunset in 2050. Measure F was also approved by the voters in 2014 and is a $10
charge per year for each vehicle registered in Alameda County. The revenues can be used
for local road improvement and repair, transit for congestion relief, local transportation
technology, and pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety programs. Measure F is
imposed annually unless it is repealed by the voters.
ALAMEDA
The City of Alameda documents certain funded infrastructure projects in its CIP, the most
recent of which covers a three fiscal year period from 2023 through 2025. The CIP shows
that the majority of the projects have been focused in two areas: sanitary sewer (24
percent) and parks (22 percent). The City uses a variety of sources to fund these activities,
including Measure BB and Measure F funds, sewer services funds, and other sources.
The City includes funding in its CIP to treat four or more miles of pavement each year in
order to maintain its current PCI rating of “fair”; the City projects that it can maintain this
PCI by spending $4 million annually on pavement.
The City is currently working to secure funding and finalize design plans for a major
corridor safety project along Central Avenue. This project will make the streets safer and
improve pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. The City also recently funded another
corridor safety project along Clement Avenue. The total cost of improvements on Clement
Avenue total approximately $6.8 million and the improvements on Central Avenue will total
approximately $15.3 million.
ALBANY
The City of Albany infrastructure projects over $25,000 with a useful life of more than five
years in its five-year CIP. The current CIP (FY 19-20 through FY 23-24) allocates
82
approximately $42.6 million to capital projects throughout the City. The majority of the
funding over the five-year period is for streets/bikeways/pedestrian projects ($16.5 million)
and sewer/storm drain projects ($23.3 million). Measure F, a local parcel tax, is used for
street and storm drain improvements, and supports annual street rehabilitation projects.
The CIP includes $2.4 million per year in both FY 22-23 and FY 23-24 for annual street
rehabilitation. The majority of the funding for the street rehabilitation projects comes from
Measure BB and Measure F. In FY 20-21, the City allocated $200,000 for a street lighting
evaluation, which aimed to evaluate the lighting conditions and identify areas for lighting
improvements. This project was entirely funded by Measure B.
BERKELEY
The City of Berkeley documents anticipated infrastructure projects in its current
comprehensive five-year CIP (FY 22-23 to FY 26-27). The CIP includes approximately
$359 million allocated across 115 diverse projects aimed at enhancing the City's facilities
and services. Streets projects make up 26 percent of current CIP funding.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission estimated that the City of Berkeley’s
deferred street maintenance costs were greater than $250 million as of 2019. In FY 22-
23, Berkeley requested $13 million of CIP funding for street rehabilitation and $8 million
for PCI improvement projects.
DUBLIN
The City of Dublin has one of the highest PCIs in the County as of the writing of this report.
The Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for 2022-27 included a five-year budget of
$92.5 million in four project categories: General Improvements, Public Art, Parks, and
Streets. The FY 22-23 CIP budget included $12 million for streets, and the FY 23-24 CIP
budget included $21 million for streets. The majority of the budget ($16 million) in FY 23-
24 is for an extension of Dublin Boulevard, with another $2.3 million designated for annual
street resurfacing and $1.5 million allocated for Tassajara Road improvements. Dublin
plans to expend at least $2.3 million annually on street resurfacing in order to maintain its
83
PCI, and funds the majority of its street resurfacing costs through Measure BB and gas
tax funds.
The extension of Dublin Boulevard, a joint effort with the City of Livermore, will create a
more efficient transportation corridor between the two cities. Part of the project will be
outside both cities’ SOIs in the Doolan Canyon area. Per the CIP, the total cost for the
project is estimated at $180.5 million, with Dublin responsible for $120.7 million. In FY 22-
23, the City is funding the $16.3 million of costs through the Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee.
EMERYVILLE
The City of Emeryville’s FY 22-23 to FY 27-28 CIP outlines capital investment totaling $68
million across 46 projects. The projects are categorized into community facilities, essential
infrastructure, housing, information technology, sustainable transportation, and urban
greening. The sustainable transportation category, allocated $44.4 million over five years
(65 percent of the total CIP budget), includes the City’s Annual Street Rehabilitation
Program and traffic signal and street light projects. Emeryville uses the annual
maintenance work as an opportunity to make small improvements to street infrastructure,
including the installation of bike facilities and improving pedestrian crossings.
The City has also included funding in its CIP for a survey of its existing streetlight
conditions and for an updated plan to implement any necessary street and traffic light
upgrades. Emeryville is currently reconstructing its street light system along Powell Street
to the Marina, due to outdated current lighting infrastructure.
FREMONT
The City of Fremont's five-year CIP (FY 23-24 through FY 27-28) includes $112 million of
funding for transportation projects. These projects include pavement and sidewalk
maintenance, traffic operations and signal system improvements, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, and major streets projects. All projects are executed in alignment with the City’s
traffic safety policies, such as Vision Zero, complete streets initiatives (aimed at providing
84
equitable mobility for all travel modes, ages, and abilities), and efforts to enhance traffic
flow.
Gas tax, Measure BB, and countywide vehicle registration fees funds make up
approximately 34 percent of Fremont’s CIP funding between FY 23-24 and FY 27-28.
Most funding within the Transportation CIP is dedicated to ongoing annual initiatives,
including the repaving of City streets, repair of deteriorating sidewalks, curbs, and gutters,
and the construction of curb ramps compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Approximately $74 million is allocated for these maintenance activities. The City also
included approximately $20 million in funding for Traffic Operations and Signal Projects to
maintain the 195 signals in the City limits and manage traffic.
HAYWARD
The City of Hayward’s 2023-2032 CIP includes $9.8 million in FY 22-23 and $1.5 million
in FY 23-24 for pavement rehabilitation, which includes repair work for the streets in the
most significantly deteriorated conditions and preventative maintenance for streets in
decent condition. The City includes at least $10 million per year for pavement rehabilitation
in FY 23-24 through FY 26-27.
The City also includes annual funding for traffic signals and streetlights in its CIP. In FY
22-23, the CIP allocates $1.7 million for traffic signals and streetlights, and increases by
$40,000 per year through FY 26-27.
Hayward has taken on several complete streets projects, which generally improve
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, resurfacing roadways, and installing landscaping. In FY
21-22, the City expended $18.9 million on these projects, and in FY 22-23 allocated $5.6
million for complete streets projects. There is no funding allocated beyond FY 22-23.
LIVERMORE
The City of Livermore’s five-year CIP identifies 146 projects with a need for funding over
the next five years. Approximately $43.4 million (10 percent) of the CIP budget is for street
85
maintenance expenditures, including projects which help extend the useful life of the street
network in the City.
The CIP also included $3.5 million in its FY 22-23 CIP for transportation infrastructure
beyond street maintenance, which increases to $13.7 million in FY 23-24 and reaches
$36.9 million in FY 27-28. Most of this funding is for improvements at Vasco Road and the
I-580 Interchange, which will include the replacement of a bridge above the freeway. The
City is still in the planning stages of the improvement. The CIP notes that most of the City’s
transportation infrastructure projects are funded by local and regional traffic impact fees,
project specific Measure B funds, and grants.
As mentioned earlier, Livermore and Dublin are working on a joint project to connect North
Canyons Parkway and Dublin Boulevard in the unincorporated area between the two cities
to improve transportation options. Livermore includes $28.4 million from FY 22-23 through
FY 27-28 for this project in its CIP. Most of the funding for the portion within Livermore’s
boundary is from traffic impact fees; funding for the extension within unincorporated
Alameda County will likely consist of regional, state, and federal funding.
NEWARK
Newark’s 2022-2024 CIP includes funded projects as well as future unfunded projects
which require planning. The City included $2.3 million in FY 22-23 and $2.5 million in FY
23-24 for the Street Asphalt Concrete Overlay Program, which provides ongoing pavement
maintenance for City streets. The City also is currently funding the Thornton Avenue
Complete Streets project, which would improve pedestrian facilities along Thornton
Avenue. The City’s CIP estimates construction for the project will cost $14 million.
OAKLAND
Oakland’s streets are considered at-risk per the MTC. Oakland did not respond to the
survey provided by RSG, and did not provide comment on the state of the City’s streets.
The Oakland Department of Transportation manages the City’s streets and traffic signals.
86
According to the City’s CIP posted on its website, the City plans expenditures of $23.9
million in FY 23-24 and $50 million in FY 24-25 for citywide street resurfacing. Oakland
has several complete streets projects which are currently underway, with a total of $11.3
million allocated for those projects in FY 23-24. The City also included $1.25 million for
traffic signal management in its FY 2023-2025 CIP.
PIEDMONT
Piedmont included $1.5 million for streets projects in its adopted FY 22-23 budget. Most
of the funding is for street resurfacing. The City adopted a Complete Streets policy in 2012
which mandates that the City, “to the maximum extent feasible and practicable,” plan,
operate and maintain its transportation system in a way that makes them safe and
convenient for all users. The City’s CIP budget for FY 22-23 through FY 25-26 does not
identify street improvement or street lighting projects.
PLEASANTON
Pleasanton included a total of $46.6 million for transportation and streets projects in its
four-year CIP for FY 23-24 to FY 26-27. The most significant transportation and streets
projects are street resurfacing projects ($16.3 million), followed by slurry sealing ($3.3
million), and intersection enhancements ($400,000). The City also included $1.5 million
over the next four years for the installation of new traffic signals.
Over the next four years the City will spend approximately $9 million on multimodal
reconstruction of West Las Positas Boulevard. This project will result in the reconstruction
and replacement of portions of the roadway and sidewalk, along with pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit improvements.
Gas Tax, Measure BB, and Highway Funds are the single largest funding source for
Pleasanton’s CIP, contributing $28.8 million over the four-year period. City Development
Fees, totaling $12 million, are the next largest contribution source.
87
SAN LEANDRO
Per the City of San Leandro’s FY 24-33 CIP posted on the City’s website, the City currently
has approximately $180 million in deferred street maintenance. The City allocated $1.2
million in FY 24-25 to rehabilitate streets in poor condition and with failing pavement. It
also allocated $3.6 million in FY 24-25 for street sealing of the streets in good or fair
condition, which will help maintain those streets. The street sealing projects are funded by
Measure BB.
San Leandro collects Street Improvement Funds from new development in order to
mitigate the impact of increased vehicles on public streets. These funds are used for safety
and capacity improvements, and are not available for maintenance projects. On February
7, 2024, the City Council Facilities Committee heard a presentation about the state of the
City’s streets. The presentation outlined the importance of preventative maintenance to
protect the streets, and also showed several different funding scenarios to address the
deferred maintenance.
UNION CITY
Union City includes a five-year CIP as part of its budget process that details funded capital
projects. The City included $1.3 million for streets in its CIP in FY 22-23, rising to $3.1
million in FY 25-26. The City also included an average of $490,000 annually between FY
21-22 and FY 25-26 for traffic signals. Streets and traffic signal expenditures combined
make up 20 percent of the current CIP.
Approximately $2.2 million over the next five years will be spent on annual overlay and
slurry sealing projects, which are used to preserve the City’s relatively high PCI. Most of
the funding for annual overlay and slurry sealing projects comes from Measure BB. The
City is additionally in the process of upgrading its traffic signals to comply with state
standards and will be investing $2.1 million in its signal system over the next five years.
88
PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
For most cities, local parks and recreation services are provided by city departments,
except in Livermore and Hayward. These services are provided to Livermore residents by
the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, an independent special district, and to
Hayward residents by the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, also an independent
special district.
Regional parks services are provided throughout both Alameda County and Contra Cost
County by the East Bay Regional Park District. More information about East Bay Regional
Park District can be found in the Special Districts MSR, which was also prepared by RSG.
The cities generally reported that they have the capacity to continue to provide these
services at current levels. Table 5 shows the parks inventory in the Alameda cities.
Table 5: Parks Inventory in Alameda Cities
Total Parks Number of
City
Acreage Parks
Alameda 118 24
Albany 80 14
Berkeley 250 54
Dublin 237 24
Emeryville 31 14
Fremont 1,224 64
Hayward 3,000 30
Livermore 331 37
Newark 156 15
Oakland 2,500 149
Piedmont 59 8
Pleasanton 385 46
San Leandro 104 23
Union City 138 35
ALAMEDA
In the past five years, the City of Alameda has opened 38 acres of new parks and open
space and constructed a new recreation center. The City is focusing on improving its
existing parks inventory over the next two years, including repairing pathways, concrete,
and fences, replacing a playground at Lincoln Park, resurfacing tennis courts and adding
89
pickleball courts, and construction of a new dog park. The City additionally has designed
and funded a City Aquatic Center and has plans to start construction in the coming year.
ALBANY
In February 2022, Albany’s City Council approved an updated Parks, Recreation and Open
Space Master Plan. The plan identifies eleven park and open space goals for the next ten
years, including the maintenance and revitalization of existing parks in the City’s inventory.
The City’s five-year CIP for 2019-2024 included a total of $2.5 million for parks capital
projects, of which $1.1 million was to be spent in 2022 on pedestrian and cyclist
transportation improvements along Codornices Creek. The City has a special parcel tax,
Measure M, which supports maintenance and improvements for Albany’s parks, recreation,
and open spaces.
The City also formed a Landscape and Lighting Assessment District to fund the
improvement and maintenance of open space, recreational fields, and creek restoration.
BERKELEY
Berkeley’s five-year CIP for 2023-2027 includes $44.1 million for parks, recreation, and
waterfront capital projects. Most of this funding is for renovation and maintenance of
existing parks, but the City is also developing a new park at the Santa Fe right of way,
funded by a $5 million Proposition 68 grant.
DUBLIN
The City of Dublin updated its Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 2022, which evaluated
existing services and facilities, and also assessed changing needs for the community in
order to provide recommendations to improve services. The Plan identified 10 additional
future parks (with a total of 117 acres) for the City. The City’s 2022-27 adopted CIP budget
included $7.2 million for CIP projects in 2022-23, and $3.8 million in 2023-24. In both
years, the majority of these expenditures are for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open
Space and the Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Square, both of which were identified as future
90
parks for the City in the Master Plan. These projects are largely funded by public facility
fees.
EMERYVILLE
Emeryville has committed $6.6 million to urban greening projects through its CIP over the
next five years. The majority of these expenditures are in FY 23-24 ($2.2 million) and in
FY 24-25 ($3.9 million), and include the creation of a new park on La Coste Street.
In October of 2023 The City of Emeryville opened Huchiun Park adjacent to City Hall. The
two-acre park is one of Emeryville's most prominent and expansive green spaces, and is
surrounded by more than 500 newly built housing units.
FREMONT
The City of Fremont’s FY 23-24 through FY 27-28 CIP includes project allocations of
approximately $20.9 million for parks investments. This includes funding for improvements
in the City’s major parks, new pickleball courts and a new dog park, and a new community
center.
In 2022, the City published a Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan with the aim of
creating a framework for providing a wide range of recreational facilities which reflect
changing community needs. The Plan identifies five “Big Moves,” or most significant goals,
which include ensuring a ten minute walk to parks for all, building recreation centers,
updating outdated and failing park amenities, diversifying funding sources, and planning
for staffing to meet future levels of service.
HAYWARD
The Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District (“HARD”) provides park and recreation
services to the City of Hayward. The City did not express any challenges with the services
provided by HARD. HARD and the City are currently developing a new park, La Vista Park,
which will be a 50-acre hillside park in South Hayward. The park will include sports
facilities, walking trails, a science garden, and open areas. Per the City’s 2023-2032 CIP,
91
65 percent of the construction documents have been completed. The FY 22-23 CIP
included $21 million for this project. The City is also building a new Youth and Family
Center in partnership with HARD, which will provide health, wellness, and recreation
programming to the community.
LIVERMORE
The Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (“LARPD”) provides park and recreation
services to the City of Livermore. The City did not express any challenges with the services
provided by LARPD. The City collects parks facilities fees and reimburses a portion of the
fees to LARPD for eligible capital projects included in the District’s CIP.
NEWARK
Newark established its Citywide Parks Master Plan in June 2017 and is currently in the
processing of updating it. The Plan established three top priority developments for the
City, including a new dog park, new turf fields and pedestrian pathways at the Sportsfield
Park, and a new skate park.
OAKLAND
Oakland allocated $16.6 million in its two year budget for operations and maintenance of
four priority parks projects: the planning and construction of a new trail in Estuary Park,
revisions and renovations at San Antonio Park, renovation of the Sobrante Mini Park, and
renovation of the Tyrone Carney Park, which is currently closed.
PIEDMONT
Piedmont identified a need for significant park upgrades in its CIP. Specifically, the City
included $765,000 for improvements at various park facilities in FY 24-25, and $17.2
million for FY 25-26 and beyond.
92
PLEASANTON
The City of Pleasanton included $3.5 million of funding for parks projects in its updated
four-year CIP through FY 26-27. This includes $600,000 for landscape irrigation
improvements, $500,000 for trail and pathway repaving, $500,000 for a cricket field, and
$730,000 for playground renovations and court resurfacing at parks throughout the City.
SAN LEANDRO
The City of San Leandro is in the process of developing a Recreation and Parks Master
Plan, which will be led by the Recreation and Parks Department. The City anticipates the
final plan will be available in December 2024.
UNION CITY
Union City allocated $3.1 million for its FY 21-22 through FY 25-26 CIP. This includes
funding for repairs and renovations at existing parks, along with an update of the Parks
and Community Facilities Master Plan and resurfacing of the tennis courts at Veterans
Park.
MOSQUITO ABATEMENT SERVICES
The Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District (“ACMAD”) provides mosquito
abatement services Countywide. ACMAD is an independent special district funded by a
share of property taxes, a special tax, and a benefit assessment. The District provides
both abatement services and education services in order to reduce and eliminate mosquito
populations. More information about ACMAD can be found in the Special Districts MSR,
also prepared by RSG.
None of the cities expressed challenges with the services provided by ACMAD and expect
that ACMAD will continue to provide services in the future.
93
VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES
The Vector Control Services District County Service Area, a division of the County Board
of Supervisors, provides vector control services for vectors other than mosquitos, including
rodents, ticks, bedbugs, and cockroaches, to all incorporated cities and unincorporated
areas within the County. The Special Districts MSR, prepared concurrently by RSG,
provides more detail about the Vector Control CSA.
None of the cities expressed challenges with the services provided by the Vector Control
District and expect that the District will continue to provide services in the future.
BROADBAND SERVICES
Residential broadband or internet access is considered a more vital service than in
decades prior. Alameda LAFCO is highlighting broadband services as a community service
due to the critical need for the service as a path toward economic development and
interconnectedness in a post-pandemic economy.
Figure 4 shows broadband coverage in Alameda County using 2020 data from the
California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), the most recent available for GIS
purposes. Per the CPUC, areas that are considered “served” receive at least 10 megabits
per second download speeds and 1 megabit per second upload speeds. Most of the land
area within the incorporated cities receives broadband services that meets this threshold.
Despite receiving broadband service, yellow areas of the County are not considered
served by the CPUC. These areas are uncommon and receive varying speeds of internet,
all below the 10 megabit per second threshold. Red areas are populated, rural and/or
semi-urban areas that do not have broadband service connections and thus are
considered unserved. The cities with the largest unserved zones are Union City, Fremont,
and San Leandro. The eastern unincorporated part of the County is mostly considered
unserved as well. Areas not shaded are unpopulated open space or urban commercial and
industrial centers. The only DUC in the County, Ashland, is considered served by the
CPUC.
94
Figure 4: Broadband Coverage in Alameda County
95
There are 15 schools which are located in areas considered unserved by the CPUC, 14 of
which are public schools.
Broadband services in the County are provided by a variety of private companies. Table 6
shows the different providers in each of the cities.
Table 6: Broadband Providers in Alameda Cities
City Broadband Providers
Alameda Comcast, AT&T, Sonic
Albany AT&T, Sonic, Comcast
Berkeley AT&T, Comcast
Dublin AT&T, Comcast (Xfinity), T-Mobile
Emeryville AT&T, Xfinity, Paxio
AT&T, Xfinity, Verizon, EarthLink, Viasat, Hughesnet, Starlink, T-
Fremont
Mobile
Hayward Comcast, AT&T
Livermore Comcast/Xfinity, AT&T/Direct TV, Dish Network, Zayo, Astound
Newark Comcast Xfinity (cable), AT&T (DSL/IP Broadband)
Oakland Sonic, Comcast, AT&T, Viasat, Earthlink
Piedmont AT&T, Comcast, Sonic
Pleasanton Comcast, AT&T U-verse
San Leandro AT&T, Xfinity, Verizon, Viasat, EarthLink, Starlink, T-Mobile
Union City Lumen, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Tekify Fiber
The cities did not express concerns or challenges with their current broadband providers,
although a number of cities, identified below, are undertaking initiatives to provide faster
and more reliable Wi-Fi at their public facilities.
The cities of Fremont and Oakland did not respond to RSG’s survey and have not
confirmed the service providers listed above.
ALAMEDA
The City of Alameda is currently in the feasibility and design phase of implementing a
comprehensive communications network that includes fiber, satellite, private 5G, and
microwave platforms to ensure uninterrupted connectivity.
96
BERKELEY
The City of Berkeley is currently in the process of installing enterprise quality Wi-Fi in all
city facilities, and should be finished with the project by June 2024. The City’s Information
Technology department is also evaluating opportunities to share fiber assets with other
public agencies, such as BART.
In 2018, the City undertook a review of other cities’ broadband master plans and research
on challenges to broadband by Berkeley residents in order to determine how the City can
best help its residents access Wi-Fi. That research suggested that making broadband
more accessible would require both new programming, to help residents understand their
broadband options, and new infrastructure, to improve the quality of the broadband itself.
The City has not taken further action to provide broadband to the public.
DUBLIN
The City of Dublin, with multiple broadband providers, is planning to expand coverage in
upcoming development areas and is in the process of developing a municipal fiber master
plan. The City’s adopted 2022-27 CIP budget included $140,000 to develop a five-year
fiber optic master plan and feasibility study, which will be used to assess the existing City
network and determine the need for build out. Dublin additionally established free public
Wi-Fi in the downtown area, which is provided by the City’s internet bandwidth. The Wi-Fi
equipment is managed and maintained by Smartwave Technologies.
FREMONT
The City of Fremont has an Information Technology Services Department, which has
established free public Wi-Fi at two “Lift Zones” at two community centers in the City.
Internet services at these zones are provided by Comcast.
HAYWARD
The City of Hayward has completed the first phase of its fiber network and is actively
seeking funding for subsequent phases outlined in its Fiber Master Plan, including the
construction of a fiber network. The Master Plan identifies a phased approach for the City
97
to increase broadband services. The City will focus first on providing fiber-based
connectivity to businesses, and then eventually expand to residential neighborhoods.
The City received initial funding from the US Department of Commerce to install a
preliminary fiber optic and conduit network. Hayward will be leveraging public-private
partnerships in the future to provide broadband services as efficiently as possible to its
businesses and residents.
NEWARK
The City of Newark is in the process of developing a Broadband Master Plan. Newark is
using ARPA funding to develop the Master Plan, and will be leveraging grants to improve
broadband infrastructure in the areas with the greatest need.
OAKLAND
The City of Oakland launched the Oakland Undivided campaign in May 2020 in partnership
with the Oakland Unified School District, Oakland Public Education Fund, TechExchange,
and the Oakland Promise in order to bring broadband to the City’s unconnected
households and to sustain home digital access for Oakland’s public school students. The
initiative provides technical support, online learning about technology, and affordable
internet.
Oakland Undivided includes the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides a
monthly discount of $30 on internet services to qualifying households. This program is
expected to end at the end of April 2024 due to funding constraints.
The City has also implemented OAK Wi-Fi, which has live hotspots in 13 zones throughout
the City. This internet is free and available for anyone in the public to use.
PLEASANTON
The City of Pleasanton provides free Wi-Fi in all public areas of City-owned buildings and
throughout the Downtown Specific Plan. The free Wi-Fi offers unthrottled bandwidth with
symmetrical upload and download capabilities.
98
SAN LEANDRO
In 2012, the City of San Leandro partnered with a local private software company to build
a fiber optic loop in order to provide better broadband services to the City’s businesses.
The partnership, called Lit San Leandro, offers business internet solutions and fiber
leases. The infrastructure is owned by a private entity but is maintained by Lit San
Leandro.
LIBRARY SERVICES
The Alameda County Library (“ACL”) provides library services to the Cities of Albany,
Dublin, Fremont, Newark, and Union City. Those cities did not express any challenges with
the services provided by ACL and expect that ACL will continue to provide library services.
The cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Hayward, Livermore, Oakland, Pleasanton, and San
Leandro all provide their own library services through an in-house library department. The
City of Piedmont and City of Emeryville receive library services from the Oakland Public
Library system.
Table 7 shows library service providers and the number of library branches in each city.
The cities reported that they have the capacity to continue to provide these services at
current levels.
Table 7: Library Providers in Alameda Cities
Number of
City Library Service Provider Library
Branches
Alameda City of Alameda 3
City of Albany (via contract with
Albany 1
Alameda County Library)
Berkeley City of Berkeley 6
City of Dublin (via contract with
Dublin 1
Alameda County Library)
Emeryville City of Oakland 1
City of Fremont (via contract with
Fremont 1
Alameda County Library)
Hayward City of Hayward 2
Livermore City of Livermore 3
99
City of Newark (via contract with
Newark 1
Alameda County Library)
Oakland City of Oakland 18
Piedmont City of Oakland 0
Pleasanton City of Pleasanton 1
San Leandro City of San Leandro 4
City of Union City (via contract with
Union City 1
Alameda County Library)
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY
The cities of Albany, Dublin, Fremont, Newark, and Union City each own their library
facilities and contract with the Alameda County Library (“ACL”) to deliver library services.
The cities have ongoing negotiations with the County to adjust the number of hours of
library services provided by the County at their respective facilities. The City of Albany has
two voter-approved parcel taxes which fund library services for residents. The County
provides library services along with janitorial maintenance and administrative services at
the three libraries in the City of Fremont. Newark and Union City provide janitorial services
at their respective library facilities, which the County reimburses.
ALAMEDA
The City of Alameda has three library branches within the City and is working to establish
a fourth branch at Alameda Point. The City established this goal in the library’s 2020-2025
strategic plan. There are two divisions in the Library Department: Library Administration
and Adult Literacy. The Alameda Free Library offers services and programs to people of
all ages, including a literacy program for adults.
BERKELEY
The City of Berkeley’s library was accepted into the first year of the California Libraries
Cultivating Race, Equity, and Inclusion Initiative. As a part of its social equity efforts, the
Library has allocated $142,000 of funds from the Library Tax Fund to provide health,
housing, and community services to patrons with mental health or housing security needs.
The City of Berkeley has included $2 million of funding for deferred and ongoing
maintenance in its FY 23-24 budget from the Library Tax Fund. The City noted in its budget
100
that deferred projects, including stucco replacement, air conditioning units, and roof
replacement pose a challenge to the library.
HAYWARD
Voters in the City of Hayward approved Measure C in 2014, a 0.5 percent local sales tax
partially used for the financing and construction of a new main library and community
learning center. The new library opened in September 2023 and is a net-zero facility with
a number of sustainable features, including a cistern for capturing rainwater.
LIVERMORE
The City of Livermore updated its Library Services Strategic Plan in 2019. The 2020-2025
Plan identified three strategic objectives: promoting literacy, affirming equity and inclusion,
and increasing awareness of and accessibility to library services. The City has three
branches and any individual (resident or non-resident) is able to obtain a library card.
OAKLAND
The City of Oakland provides in-house library services and additionally provides library
services to the cities of Piedmont and Emeryville. The Oakland Public Library manages
one main library branch, sixteen neighborhood branches, and the African-American
Museum and Library at Oakland (“AAMLO”). The Library also operates the Oakland History
Center and a Tool Lending Library. AAMLO includes archival collections and a reference
library.
PLEASANTON
The City of Pleasanton has one library, and received a grant for a library and recreation
mobile outreach vehicle that it will use to expand services throughout the community. The
City allows all students at the Pleasanton Unified School District to use their student ID
cards as public library cards.
101
SAN LEANDRO
The City of San Leandro has one main library and three branch libraries which are
managed by the Library Services Department. The City has entered agreements with the
Columbia Telecommunications Corporation which will provide the Library with California
State Broadband funding in order to provide fiber internet connection to one of the branch
libraries. The Department is also securing funding for facilities upgrades to its library
system, including HVAC and lighting upgrades.
102
FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, MSRs make determinations on seven (7)
required topics, including:
4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services.
As part of the Alameda MSR process, RSG gathered data from publicly available sources
including city budgets and audits. RSG included information between FY 18-19 and FY
22-23, the most recent audit year available for most of the cities as of the date of this
report. Some cities did not have a FY 22-23 audit available as of the writing of this report;
for these cities, RSG has included the most up-to-date financial information available.
This MSR reviews community services, so RSG has attempted to identify expenditures
and revenues specifically related to the community services which are being provided by
each city. Any revenues or expenditures not related to the services reviewed in this report,
including but not limited to those related to law enforcement, fire, and general government
services, have been included under the “Other” line item in the agency tables. RSG has
not included summaries of funds which are not used for community service uses, such as
funds used for housing services.
Many cities experienced a decline in revenues in FY 19-20 and FY 20-21 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, which often forced the closure of facilities and a decrease in certain
services provided by cities. In general, revenues have since increased over the past two
years, as both facilities and services have generally returned to pre-pandemic levels.
RSG made determinations about revenue and expenditure growth for the cities based on
compound annual growth rates (“CAGR”). Some cities have made accounting changes
over the years, so RSG has only calculated the CAGR for total General Fund revenues
and expenditures for each city.
• Less than 0 percent: Negative growth
• 0 – 2 percent: Low growth
• 2.1 – 4 percent: Below average growth
• 4.1 – 6 percent: Average growth
103
• 6.1 – 10 percent: Moderate growth
• 10.1 – 18 percent: High growth
• Above 18 percent: Very high growth
The financial capacity of each city is adequate for providing services at the current levels.
The cities have all established reserve policies and have reserves which meet their policy
requirements. Although some cities have significant deferred maintenance costs, these
cities are planning appropriately through budget documents in order to continue to provide
services.
104
ALAMEDA
The City of Alameda experienced average General Fund revenue growth and low General
Fund expenditure growth from FY 18-19 through FY 21-22. The City’s net General Fund
revenues remained positive through all four years in RSG’s analysis. The City had not yet
released its FY 22-23 ACFR as of the writing of this report.
Alameda
Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
General Fund $ 99,639,351 $ 106,471,286 $ 1 15,071,287 $ 1 24,319,018
Capital Improvement Projects1 $ 8,079,191 $ 17,445,027 $ 1 4,639,641 $ -
Other Governmental Funds $ 38,014,971 $ 62,623,292 $ 5 0,471,160 $ 4 4,889,986
Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
General Fund
Community Services
Recreation and Parks $ - $ - $ - $ 1 0,382,106
Library - - - -
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES - - - 10,382,106
Public Works2 2,179,896 2,437,812 2 ,330,924 3 ,308,954
Other Uses 88,674,173 81,867,318 8 3,646,636 8 5,368,918
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 90,854,069 $ 84,305,130 $ 8 5,977,560 $ 9 9,059,978
Capital Improvement Projects $ 20,625,740 $ 41,467,306 $ 2 0,469,058 $ -
Other Governmental Funds
Community Services
Recreation and Parks $ - $ - $ - $ 7 66,276
Library - - - 4 ,857,264
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES - - - 5,623,540
Public Works $ 3,204,646 $ 3,344,909 $ 4 ,629,585 $ 5 ,684,282
Other Uses 34,670,179 42,869,642 34,932,289 32,549,410
TOTAL OTHER FUNDS $ 37,874,825 $ 46,214,551 $ 3 9,561,874 $ 4 9,480,772
1CIP may include infrastructure not related to community services.
2Public Works budgets may include expenditures not related to community services.
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, City of Alameda
105
ALBANY
The City of Albany experienced below average revenue growth and moderate expenditures
growth in the General Fund from FY 18-19 through FY 21-22. Between FY 19-20 and FY
21-22, the City’s General Fund expenditures exceeded revenues, but the pace of revenue
growth slowed between FY 21-22 and FY 22-23.
Albany
Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund $ 20,481,005 $ 19,827,362 $ 2 1,639,085 $ 2 3,891,883 $ 2 5,890,552
Street & Storm Fund $ 1,134,980 $ 1,159,381 $ 1 ,199,884 $ 1 ,214,596 $ 1 ,248,522
Other Governmental Funds $ 10,927,145 $ 10,275,577 $ 1 2,159,285 $ 1 2,924,323 $ 1 6,032,023
Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund
Recreation and Community Services $ 2,227,819 $ 1,988,968 $ 1 ,318,099 $ 2 ,079,875 $ 2 ,728,384
Other Uses 17,823,458 17,897,240 2 2,536,997 2 4,236,513 2 5,067,732
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 20,051,277 $ 19,886,208 $ 2 3,855,096 $ 2 6,316,388 $ 2 7,796,116
Street & Storm Fund
Recreation and Community Services $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other Uses 789,765 289,373 7 02,988 3 65,779 2 ,982,578
TOTAL STREET & STORM FUND $ 789,765 $ 289,373 $ 7 02,988 $ 3 65,779 $ 2 ,982,578
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
Recreation and Community Services $ 944,632 $ 759,348 $ 4 56,724 $ 1 ,117,945 $ 2 ,266,287
Other Uses 7,315,663 7,679,673 7 ,687,467 6 ,472,283 8 ,938,959
TOTAL NONMAJOR GOV'T FUNDS $ 8,260,295 $ 8,439,021 $ 8 ,144,191 $ 7 ,590,228 $ 1 1,205,246
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, City of Albany
106
BERKELEY
The City of Berkeley had below average revenue growth and moderate expenditure growth
in the General Fund between FY 18-19 through FY 22-23. The City has a fund specifically
dedicated to the operations and maintenance of its library system. Revenue growth
outpaced expenditure growth for this fund over the five years from FY 18-19 through FY
22-23, and revenues exceeded expenditures for every year in the analysis. Like many
other cities, the City’s charges for service revenues declined in FY 20-21 but rebounded
in FY 21-22.
Berkeley
Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund $ 201,089,822 $ 210,940,719 $ 213,739,932 $ 232,594,533 $ 241,247,508
Grants $ 24,485,578 $ 26,834,350 $ 38,488,025 $ 80,274,805 $ 74,391,507
Library $ 20,063,287 $ 20,616,745 $ 21,025,076 $ 22,915,954 $ 24,328,539
Other Governmental Funds $ 88,800,853 $ 74,314,924 $ 73,589,111 $ 109,976,976 $ 110,952,151
Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund
Community Services
Highway and Streets $ 2,904,262 $ 2,289,459 $ 3,163,011 $ 3,833,392 $ 3,055,307
Culture-Recreation 5,943,167 7,013,665 7,361,990 8,707,861 9,290,768
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 8,847,429 9,303,124 10,525,001 12,541,253 12,346,075
Other Uses 141,873,821 179,302,220 178,788,175 188,285,598 198,957,809
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 150,721,250 $ 188,605,344 $ 189,313,176 $ 200,826,851 $ 211,303,884
Grants
Community Services
Highway and Streets $ 323,385 $ 323,385 $ 800,632 $ 546,047 $ 2,222,509
Culture-Recreation 331,426 331,426 467,798 342,338 455,376
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 654,811 654,811 1,268,430 888,385 2,677,885
Other Uses 33,618,111 33,618,111 31,580,892 41,315,663 42,743,285
TOTAL GRANTS $ 34,272,922 $ 34,272,922 $ 32,849,322 $ 42,204,048 $ 45,421,170
Library $ 19,009,097 $ 19,009,097 $ 20,144,965 $ 18,526,627 $ 20,193,808
Other Governmental Funds
Community Services
Highway and Streets $ 11,474,717 $ 11,474,717 $ 6,507,792 $ 7,561,325 $ 8,121,811
Culture-Recreation 20,786,996 20,786,996 19,788,855 23,612,798 16,645,713
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 32,261,713 32,261,713 26,296,647 31,174,123 24,767,524
Other Uses 58,572,358 58,572,358 82,889,335 72,181,519 67,970,054
TOTAL OTHER GOV'T FUNDS $ 90,834,071 $ 90,834,071 $ 109,185,982 $ 103,355,642 $ 92,737,578
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, City of Berkeley
107
DUBLIN
The City of Dublin experienced below average revenue growth and average expenditure
growth in its General Fund between FY 18-19 and FY 22-23. Revenues dropped in FY 20-
21 and FY 21-22, largely due to a significant decrease in revenue for charges for service,
but rebounded in FY 22-23. The City also significantly increased its revenue from
developer fees in FY 20-21. Park and Community Services spending decreased over the
five years of this analysis, while Public Works spending increased.
Dublin
Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund $ 107,273,141 $ 102,872,533 $ 99,392,683 $ 9 9,125,378 $ 1 21,813,345
Capital Projects Funds1 $ 21,126,416 $ 8,966,291 $ 4,320,989 $ 1 5,769,485 $ 5 ,002,093
Other Governmental Funds $ 12,759,729 $ 13,821,194 $ 19,590,235 $ 1 9,320,213 $ 2 4,913,615
Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund
Community Services
Public Works $ 12,704,232 $ 11,915,994 $ 12,014,081 $ 1 3,413,099 $ 1 8,129,060
Park and Community services 9,486,704 7,135,822 6,034,953 8 ,689,027 8 ,262,422
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 22,190,936 19,051,816 18,049,034 22,102,126 26,391,482
Other Uses 50,709,053 55,200,069 56,072,743 5 8,828,931 6 5,592,321
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 72,899,989 $ 74,251,885 $ 74,121,777 $ 8 0,931,057 $ 9 1,983,803
Capital Projects Funds
Community Services
Parks $ 1,081,809 $ 6,180,120 $ 4,170,540 $ 1 3,400,686 $ 4 ,539,778
Streets 14,666,554 5,488,030 3,116,314 4 ,030,047 1 3,053,219
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 15,748,363 11,668,150 7,286,854 17,430,733 17,592,997
Other Uses 13,021,906 14,217,262 8,521,288 1 3,048,654 1 2,045,114
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS $ 28,770,269 $ 25,885,412 $ 15,808,142 $ 3 0,479,387 $ 2 9,638,111
Other Governmental Funds
Community Services
Public works and transportation2 $ 1,987,540 $ 1,879,056 $ 2,082,078 $ 2 ,283,403 $ 2 ,470,450
Park and community services 182,858 44,312 50,301 6 7,830 3 9,001
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 2,170,398 1,923,368 2,132,379 2,351,233 2,509,451
Other Uses 5,314,253 6,034,217 8,678,886 1 2,171,281 1 1,396,093
TOTAL OTHER GOV'T FUNDS $ 7,484,651 $ 7,957,585 $ 10,811,265 $ 1 4,522,514 $ 1 3,905,544
1 Capital Projects Funds may include revenues not related to community services.
2 Public works budgets may include projects not related to community services.
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, City of Dublin
108
EMERYVILLE
The City of Emeryville experienced below average revenue and expenditure growth
between FY 18-19 and FY 22-23 in its General Fund, although expenditure growth did
outpace revenue growth. While General Fund revenues decreased between FY 19-20 and
FY 20-21, revenues have significantly increased between FY 20-21 and FY 22-23.
Between FY 20-21 and FY 22-23, the growth of revenues has outpaced expenditures. The
largest source of General Fund revenue growth was for licenses and permits, which grew
from $4.9 million in FY 18-19 to $10.9 million in FY 22-23.
Emeryville
Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund $ 48,992,281 $ 45,146,558 $ 40,564,460 $ 48,576,621 $ 57,522,025
Other Grants $ - $ 383,186 $ 2,146,284 $ 1,691,328 $ 1,082,491
General Capital Improvements1 $ 7,038,453 $ 8,258,631 $ 11,779,789 $ 2,123,158 $ 3,248,303
Nonmajor Governmental Funds $ 10,426,781 $ 12,693,469 $ 10,743,542 $ 12,820,394 $ 15,108,186
Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund
Community Services
Community Services $ 961,378 $ 570,509 $ 525,229 $ 734,620 $ 777,774
Public Works2 3,360,044 3,551,480 3,816,143 3,763,659 4,448,227
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 4,321,422 4,121,989 4,341,372 4,498,279 5,226,001
Other Uses 34,295,035 35,522,632 34,826,372 37,598,488 41,028,665
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 38,616,457 $ 39,644,621 $ 39,167,744 $ 42,096,767 $ 46,254,666
Grants
Community Services
Community Services $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 246,619
Public works - 50,000 50,000 50,000 21,234
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES - 50,000 50,000 50,000 267,853
Other Uses - 1,258,603 2,236,340 1,477,270 5,803,427
TOTAL GRANTS $ - $ 1,308,603 $ 2,286,340 $ 1,527,270 $ 6,071,280
General Capital Improvements
Community Services
Public Works $ 11,058 $ 530,982 $ 466,269 $ 477,485 $ 495,997
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 11,058 530,982 466,269 477,485 495,997
Other Uses 892,352 7,306,087 6,417,468 2,242,566 3,149,247
TOTAL GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 903,410 $ 7,837,069 $ 6,883,737 $ 2,720,051 $ 3,645,244
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
Community Services
Community services $ 2,261,778 $ 2,331,071 $ 2,273,418 $ 2,142,038 $ 2,246,278
Public works 2,131,576 592,957 471,998 596,984 733,699
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 4,393,354 2,924,028 2,745,416 2,739,022 2,979,977
Other Uses 8,089,571 8,826,859 8,533,250 4,484,272 6,725,679
TOTAL OTHER GOV'T FUNDS $ 12,482,925 $ 11,750,887 $ 11,278,666 $ 7,223,294 $ 9,705,656
1 May include capital improvements not related to community services.
2 May include projects not related to community services.
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, City of Emeryville
109
FREMONT
The City of Fremont experienced average General Fund revenue growth and moderate
expenditure growth between FY 18-19 and FY 22-23. The City has a dedicated Recreation
Services fund; this fund experienced revenue growth over the timeframe of RSG’s analysis
along with declining expenditures.
Fremont
Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund $ 208,075,729 $ 200,959,295 $ 230,698,745 $ 270,377,156 $ 261,356,720
Recreation Services $ 8,632,133 $ 6,348,844 $ 4,673,289 $ 7,020,550 $ 9,007,416
Capital Improvement1 $ 2,361,213 $ 1,239,022 $ ( 622,643) $ 39,876 $ 241,293
Streets, Bike & Pedestrian $ 17,667,579 $ 23,670,148 $ 21,298,240 $ 16,258,256 $ 14,955,253
Non-Major Governmental Funds $ 31,896,591 $ 40,457,450 $ 46,769,711 $ 48,305,042 $ 40,342,646
Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund
Capital Assets Maintenance2 $ 23,725,195 $ 25,934,406 $ 25,528,082 $ 28,824,390 $ 32,074,121
Other Uses 161,083,433 176,417,194 179,606,663 191,766,524 230,344,088
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 184,808,628 $ 202,351,600 $ 205,134,745 $ 220,590,914 $ 262,418,209
Recreation Services $ 9,947,436 $ 9,271,061 $ 6,748,305 $ 9,165,130 $ 8,984,343
Capital Improvement
Capital Assets Maintenance $ 12,081,704 $ 6,387,006 $ 8,617,682 $ 4,620,375 $ 6,838,330
Other Uses 2,549,697 10,206,582 6,543,999 3,181,659 1,193,012
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $ 14,631,401 $ 16,593,588 $ 15,161,681 $ 7,802,034 $ 8,031,342
Streets, Bike & Pedestrian $ 18,939,352 $ 31,999,909 $ 18,325,021 $ 10,793,739 $ 9,512,934
Non-Major Governmental Funds
Capital Assets Maintenance $ 10,389,348 $ 12,494,006 $ 13,749,863 $ 15,511,488 $ 15,515,697
Other Uses 17,804,787 23,000,363 23,788,221 32,543,357 27,680,781
TOTAL NON-MAJOR FUNDS $ 28,194,135 $ 35,494,369 $ 37,538,084 $ 48,054,845 $ 43,196,478
1 May include capital improvements not related to community services.
2 May include projects not related to community services.
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, City of Fremont
110
HAYWARD
The City of Hayward experienced below average General Fund revenue and expenditure
growth, although revenue growth outpaced expenditure growth. In all of the years of RSG’s
analysis, General Fund revenues exceeded expenditures. As of the date of this report, the
City had not yet released its FY 22-23 ACFR.
Hayward
Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
General Fund $ 182,269,528 $ 183,535,033 $ 199,884,873 $ 205,880,353
Grants $ 568,201 $ 785,893 $ 995,410 $ 1,288,154
General Capital Projects1 $ 5,053,484 $ 7,986,625 $ 12,556,475 $ 10,920,508
Other Governmental Funds $ 26,878,707 $ 24,514,544 $ 43,668,174 $ 31,117,111
Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
General Fund
Community Services
Public Works & Transportation2 $ 3,596,709 $ 5,144,882 $ 4,085,154 $ 4,117,683
Library and Community Services 6,522,261 7,186,368 7,587,444 8,460,055
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 10,118,970 12,331,250 11,672,598 12,577,738
Other Uses 155,984,648 154,176,226 160,716,410 169,304,049
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 166,103,618 $ 166,507,476 $ 172,389,008 $ 181,881,787
Grants
Community Services
Public Works & Transportation $ 379,160 $ 12,111 $ - $ -
Library and Community Services - 162,173 179,684 369,953
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 379,160 174,284 179,684 369,953
Other Uses - 311,881 757,536 265,618
TOTAL GRANTS $ 379,160 $ 486,165 $ 937,220 $ 635,571
General Capital Projects
Public Works & Transportation $ 5,547 $ 40,743 $ 44,072 $ 40,743
Other Uses 18,292,125 12,231,411 26,559,107 38,990,457
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 18,297,672 $ 12,272,154 $ 26,603,179 $ 39,031,200
Other Governmental Funds
Community Services
Public Works & Transportation $ 4,869,013 $ 1,595,328 $ 4,069,040 $ 5,592,896
Library and Community Services 1,085,197 1,358,671 1,356,861 1,767,260
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 5,954,210 2,953,999 5,425,901 7,360,156
Other Uses 18,174,087 18,552,959 25,998,228 28,058,392
TOTAL OTHER GOV'T FUNDS $ 24,128,297 $ 21,506,958 $ 31,424,129 $ 35,418,548
1 May include capital projects not related to community services.
2 May include projects not related to community services.
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, City of Hayward
111
LIVERMORE
The City of Livermore experienced below average General Fund revenue growth and low
expenditure growth between FY 18-19 and FY 22-23. During this time period, General
Fund community service expenditures grew at a similar pace to revenues, and outpaced
the growth of other, non-community service expenditures. The City’s Other Governmental
Funds experienced negative growth in both revenues and expenditures.
Livermore
Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund $ 117,420,762 $ 118,435,835 $ 124,558,590 $ 127,001,798 $ 142,363,579
Other Governmental Funds1 $ 27,145,245 $ 29,331,117 $ 24,010,297 $ 19,056,526 $ 21,471,447
Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund
Community Services
Public Works2 $ 7,048,763 $ 7,298,306 $ 7,886,134 $ 11,066,658 $ 8,734,430
Library 5,587,920 5,834,282 5,517,721 6,286,856 6,301,649
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 12,636,683 13,132,588 13,403,855 17,353,514 15,036,079
Other Uses 97,599,673 95,991,415 100,323,200 112,460,324 103,593,172
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 110,236,356 $ 109,124,003 $ 113,727,055 $ 129,813,838 $ 118,629,251
Other Governmental Funds
Community Services
Public Works $ 3,809,511 $ 3,998,680 $ 5,207,860 $ 4,875,348 $ 3,348,359
Library 77,864 62,516 108,459 100,784 171,001
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 3,887,375 4,061,196 5,316,319 4,976,132 3,519,360
Other Uses 37,529,522 27,913,822 14,369,270 22,773,831 17,368,967
TOTAL OTHER GOV'T FUNDS $ 41,416,897 $ 31,975,018 $ 19,685,589 $ 27,749,963 $ 20,888,327
1 May include funds not related to community services.
2 May include projects not related to community services.
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, City of Livermore
112
NEWARK
The City of Newark’s General Fund expenditure growth outpaced revenue growth between
FY 18-19 and FY 22-23. General Fund revenues declined slightly between FY 19-20 and
FY 20-21, but grew again in FY 21-22. Service charges as a revenue source declined over
the five years. General Fund community service expenditures experienced the same trend
as General Fund revenues during that time, with recreation expenditures the most
impacted in FY 20-21.
Newark
Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund $ 6 7,243,195 $ 6 5,426,814 $ 6 4,638,925 $ 7 1,684,204 $ 7 9,620,841
Park Impact Fees $ 3 08,596 $ - $ 2 ,885,477 $ 1 ,812,427 $ 3 61,088
Capital Projects Fund1 $ 3 ,719,151 $ 2 ,774,023 $ - $ 4 1,401 $ -
Other Funds $ 4 ,895,004 $ 6 ,856,163 $ 5 ,194,848 $ 5 ,811,917 $ 6 ,136,862
Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund
Community Services
Recreation $ 5 ,348,141 $ 5 ,093,905 $ 4 ,520,499 $ 5 ,218,855 $ 5 ,119,440
Public Works2 8 ,044,475 8 ,519,745 8 ,479,337 8 ,774,572 1 0,655,287
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 13,392,616 13,613,650 12,999,836 13,993,427 15,774,727
Other Uses 3 8,807,809 4 0,588,345 5 2,885,547 4 9,789,632 5 0,230,641
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 5 2,200,425 $ 5 4,201,995 $ 6 5,885,383 $ 6 3,783,059 $ 6 6,005,368
Capital Projects Fund
Public Works $ 4 ,551,128 $ - $ 3 40,721 $ 2 34,546 $ 8 6,568
Other Uses 7 36,767 3 2,778,777 4 2,296,896 3 ,336,349 1 46,546
TOTAL CAPITAL FUND $ 5 ,287,895 $ 3 2,778,777 $ 4 2,637,617 $ 3 ,570,895 $ 2 33,114
Other Governmental Funds
Community Services
Recreation $ 2 06,196 $ 1 70,008 $ 1 23,992 $ 2 02,241 $ 1 86,593
Public Works 9 1,100 6 15,250 3 11,311 1 ,138,345 8 66,651
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 297,296 785,258 435,303 1,340,586 1,053,244
Other Uses 3 ,387,703 5 ,707,873 1 ,709,542 4 ,051,108 1 ,997,908
TOTAL OTHER GOV'T FUNDS $ 3 ,684,999 $ 6 ,493,131 $ 2 ,144,845 $ 5 ,391,694 $ 3 ,051,152
1 May include projects not related to community services.
2 May include uses not related to community services.
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, City of Newark
113
OAKLAND
The City of Oakland experienced similar growth in its General Fund revenues and
expenditures between FY 18-19 and FY 22-23. In all years of RSG’s analysis, General
Fund revenues exceeded General Fund expenditures. Community service spending over
the same time period increased more rapidly, mostly due to a significant increase in
expenditures for community and human services.
Oakland1
Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund $ 840,434 $ 832,649 $ 887,221 $ 926,596 $ 967,768
Federal/State Grant Fund $ 91,055 $ 118,365 $ 194,063 $ 226,069 $ 203,512
Municipal Capital Improvement Fund2 $ 12,520 $ 14,685 $ 20,943 $ 15,985 $ 24,188
Other Special Revenue Fund $ 148,197 $ 145,513 $ 163,539 $ 175,726 $ 229,087
Other Governmental Funds $ 106,587 $ 115,688 $ 118,589 $ 116,826 $ 127,756
Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund
Community Services
Community and Human Services $ 44,656 $ 54,344 $ 46,613 $ 64,812 $ 78,895
Public Works and Transportation3 42,662 42,600 36,172 48,229 55,317
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 87,318 96,944 82,785 113,041 134,212
Other Uses 610,818 666,611 651,205 577,613 674,756
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 698,136 $ 763,555 $ 733,990 $ 690,654 $ 808,968
Federal/State Grant Fund
Community Services
Community and Human Services $ 46,699 $ 52,650 $ 59,094 $ 64,647 $ 64,102
Public Works and Transportation 4,184 5,997 9,330 5,623 5,651
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 50,883 58,647 68,424 70,270 69,753
Other Uses 45,612 46,207 137,685 192,245 141,260
TOTAL FEDERAL/STATE GRANT $ 96,495 $ 104,854 $ 206,109 $ 262,515 $ 211,013
Municipal Capital Improvement Fund
Public Works and Transportation $ 7,703 $ 10,703 $ 12,760 $ 12,951 $ 13,715
Other Uses 53,311 55,133 105,752 82,284 46,282
TOTAL MUNICIPAL CAPITAL IMPR. $ 61,014 $ 65,836 $ 118,512 $ 95,235 $ 59,997
Other Special Revenue Fund
Community Services
Community and Human Services $ 51,131 $ 59,796 $ 62,233 $ 60,514 $ 63,888
Public Works and Transportation 7,501 10,509 18,499 26,812 31,202
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 58,632 70,305 80,732 87,326 95,090
Other Uses 79,350 84,825 88,352 98,355 126,522
TOTAL OTHER SPECIAL REVENUES $ 137,982 $ 155,130 $ 169,084 $ 185,681 $ 221,612
Other Governmental Funds
Community Services
Community and Human Services $ 6,447 $ 3,790 $ 6,259 $ 6,266 $ 7,087
Public Works and Transportation 47,024 49,861 47,166 46,775 48,848
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 53,471 53,651 53,425 53,041 55,935
Other Uses 135,868 131,054 127,698 124,847 144,538
TOTAL OTHER GOV'T FUNDS $ 189,339 $ 184,705 $ 181,123 $ 177,888 $ 200,473
1 All amounts shown in thousands.
2 May include capital projects not related to community services.
3 May include uses not related to community services.
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, City of Oakland
114
PIEDMONT
General Fund expenditure growth outpaced General Fund revenue growth for the City of
Piedmont between FY 18-19 and FY 21-22. Community service spending outpaced total
General Fund expenditure growth, largely due to an increase in Public Works
expenditures. As of the writing of this report, the City has not yet released its FY 22-23
ACFR.
Piedmont
Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
General Fund $ 29,762,060 $ 28,733,313 $ 33,932,347 $ 34,964,871
Facilities Maintenance $ 220,975 $ 176,711 $ 24,324 $ ( 108,711)
Other Governmental Funds $ 2,729,302 $ 2,522,405 $ 2,694,915 $ 3,392,759
Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
General Fund
Community Services
Public Works1 $ 3,790,687 $ 4,033,333 $ 4,470,211 $ 5,784,643
Recreation 2 ,912,559 2 ,666,206 2 ,404,970 3 ,296,287
TOTAL COMMUNITY SVS. 6,703,246 6,699,539 6,875,181 9,080,930
Other Uses 1 7,854,157 1 8,465,479 1 9,864,422 2 1,696,675
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 2 4,557,403 $ 2 5,165,018 $ 2 6,739,603 $ 3 0,777,605
Facilities Maintenance
Community Services
Public Works $ 5 ,743 $ 1 8,416 $ 1 9,841 $ 7 ,728
Recreation 4 96,295 2 60,416 1 07,222 2 63,756
TOTAL COMMUNITY SVS. 502,038 278,832 127,063 271,484
Other Uses 1 ,084,153 8 37,648 1 ,131,220 1 ,477,783
TOTAL FACILITIES MAINT. $ 1 ,586,191 $ 1 ,116,480 $ 1 ,258,283 $ 1 ,749,267
Other Governmental Funds
Community Services
Public Works $ 4 61,516 $ 2 9,761 $ 3 2,148 $ 6 0,591
Street Improvement 1 88,074 - 4 8,250 2 04,879
Recreation 7 00,688 7 30,609 7 06,355 7 53,765
TOTAL COMMUNITY SVS. 1,350,278 760,370 786,753 1,019,235
Other Uses 2 ,280,649 4 ,727,978 9 41,347 1 ,948,103
TOTAL OTHER GOV'T. FUNDS $ 3 ,630,927 $ 5 ,488,348 $ 1 ,728,100 $ 2 ,967,338
1 May include uses not related to community services.
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, City of Piedmont
115
PLEASANTON
The City of Pleasanton has experienced similar growth rates for its General Fund revenues
and expenditures. In all years of RSG’s analysis, General Fund revenues exceeded
General Fund expenditures.
Pleasanton
Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund1 $ 126,900,375 $ 124,920,607 $ 126,584,069 $ 139,016,693 $ 149,725,799
Capital Improvement Programs Fund2 $ 811,417 $ 1,424,054 $ 4,051,189 $ ( 908,557) $ ( 259,424)
Other Governmental Funds3 $ 13,437,223 $ 14,890,590 $ 10,887,161 $ 8,099,590 $ 11,430,518
Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 22-23
General Fund $ 113,377,001 $ 113,806,103 $ 115,390,177 $ 120,540,275 $ 133,540,493
Capital Improvement Programs Fund $ 896,898 $ 1,512,806 $ 6,171,177 $ 4,332,526 $ 5,646,332
Other Governmental Funds $ 8,412,250 $ 12,914,511 $ 18,941,450 $ 15,147,821 $ 10,750,450
1 May include funds not related to community services.
2 May include projects not related to community services.
3 May include funds not related to community services.
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, City of Pleasanton
116
SAN LEANDRO
The City of San Leandro experienced higher General Fund revenue growth than General
Fund expenditure growth between FY 18-19 and FY 21-22. Community service spending
grew at a slightly faster rate than total General Fund expenditures. In FY 20-21, the City
established a fund specifically for Measure BB, the Countywide measure used for street
and road improvements. As of the writing of this report, the City had not yet published its
FY 22-23 ACFR.
San Leandro
Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
General Fund $ 118,854,224 $ 117,410,317 $ 125,709,950 $ 135,928,389
Capital Improvements1 $ 60,236 $ 63,492 $ 14,647 $ 8,822
Measure BB $ - $ - $ 2,331,526 $ 5,933,117
Non-Major Governmental Funds $ 16,268,165 $ 26,937,576 $ 15,499,216 $ 14,573,419
Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
General Fund
Community Services
Engineering and Transportation2 $ 9,571,683 $ 10,094,413 $ 10,216,409 $ 11,735,643
Recreation and Culture 10,720,040 10,385,984 9,751,091 11,314,002
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 20,291,723 20,480,397 19,967,500 23,049,645
Other Uses 82,545,701 86,181,332 89,166,846 88,586,408
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 102,837,424 $ 106,661,729 $ 109,134,346 $ 111,636,053
Capital Improvements
Engineering and Transportation $ 1,570,643 $ 1,291,555 $ 1,304,167 $ 2,317,396
Other Uses 2,519,105 6,858,965 8,517,038 3,128,076
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 4,089,748 $ 8,150,520 $ 9,821,205 $ 5,445,472
Measure BB $ - $ - $ 5,874,380 $ 6,055,475
Non-Major Governmental Funds
Community Services
Engineering and Transportation $ 12,990,673 $ 17,395,665 $ 6,511,620 $ 9,249,084
Recreation and Culture 381,842 613,397 318,288 405,787
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 13,372,515 18,009,062 6,829,908 9,654,871
Other Uses 4,454,074 5,563,158 6,620,221 5,841,138
TOTAL NON-MAJOR GOV'T FUNDS $ 17,826,589 $ 23,572,220 $ 13,450,129 $ 15,496,009
1 May include projects not related to community services.
2 May include uses not related to community services.
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, City of San Leandro
117
UNION CITY
As of the writing of this report, the City of Union City has not published its FY 21-22 or its
FY 22-23 ACFR due to a cyberattack. City staff expect to be up to date with financial
reporting in 2024. Between FY 18-19 and FY 20-21, the City experienced declining general
Fund revenues and expenditures; in all three years, General Fund expenditures exceeded
General Fund revenues. The decline in General Fund revenues was largely a result of a
decline in charges for service in FY 20-21.
Union City
Revenues FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21
General Fund $ 62,622,448 $ 63,037,899 $ 62,339,062
Capital Improvement Fund1 $ 1,948,614 $ 1,701,483 $ 1,106,614
Public Improvement Capital Project2 $ 1,329,781 $ 608,093 $ 152,470
Other Governmental Funds $ 24,300,582 $ 22,906,948 $ 24,260,985
Expenditures FY 18-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21
General Fund
Community Services
Community and Recreation Services $ 6,353,280 $ 5,701,289 $ 4,055,400
Public Works3 5,476,487 5,182,837 5,155,871
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 11,829,767 10,884,126 9,211,271
Other Uses 50,344,578 50,780,294 48,976,874
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 74,004,112 $ 72,548,546 $ 67,399,416
Capital Improvement Fund
Public Works $ 497,540 $ 3,169,847 $ 639,994
Other Uses 33,015 241,418 233,019
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND $ 530,555 $ 3,411,265 $ 873,013
Public Improvement Capital Project Fund
Public Works $ 2,092,106 $ 4,791,808 $ -
Other Uses 979,188 48,604 8,073,933
TOTAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FUND $ 3,071,294 $ 4,840,412 $ 8,073,933
Non-Major Governmental Funds
Community Services
Community and Recreation Services $ 765,220 $ 704,271 $ 828,371
Public Works 9,824,977 7,430,483 7,375,068
TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 10,590,197 8,134,754 8,203,439
Other Uses 11,459,294 11,120,134 10,816,552
TOTAL NON-MAJOR GOV'T FUNDS $ 22,049,491 $ 19,254,888 $ 19,019,991
1 May include capital projects not related to community services.
2 May include capital projects not related to community services.
3 May include uses not related to community services.
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, City of Union City
118
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, MSRs make determinations on seven (7)
required topics, including:
5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities;
The City of Oakland provides library services to Emeryville and Piedmont. Neither city
expressed challenges with the services currently provided by Oakland, and both expect
that Oakland will continue to provide library services in the future.
As part of the data collection process for this MSR, RSG asked the cities to identify any
services currently being provided under out-of-area service agreements. None of the cities
identified out-of-area service agreements for the community services reviewed as a part
of this report. The City of Livermore and the City of Pleasanton both noted that they have
a number of out-of-area service agreements for water and wastewater services.
RSG did not identify additional shared community service facilities in the Alameda County
cities.
None of the cities expressed a desire for further shared community service facilities, nor
did RSG identify potential opportunities for additional shared community service facilities
during this review.
119
ACCOUNTABILITY, GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL
EFFICIENCIES
Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, MSRs make determinations on seven (7)
required topics, including:
6. Accountability for community service needs, including government structure and
operational efficiencies.
7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by
Commission Policy.
Cities in Alameda County have established a robust framework of policies and procedures
aimed at fostering transparency and accountability to the local community. This framework
encompasses a range of practices, including the organization of elections and the
dissemination of public notices regarding city meetings and actions. To enhance
accessibility, many cities utilize technology, such as Zoom, to broadcast public hearings
and meetings. This approach accommodates a wider audience and overcomes potential
barriers to in-person attendance.
All cities maintain user-friendly websites that contain information about departments, their
activities, and upcoming events. These websites are valuable resources for residents
seeking information about local government services. Collectively, the cities prioritize
operational efficiency and structural strength, demonstrating their commitment to
accessible, accountable, and responsive local governance.
The cities of Alameda, Berkeley, and Oakland have implemented “Sunshine Ordinances”
which aim to make public records and meetings more accessible to the public. These
ordinances clarify and specify which documents need to be made available to the public,
when they need to be posted, and provide mechanisms for residents to file complaints
about transparency. Berkeley and Oakland have independent commissions which advise
elected officials on how to implement their respective Sunshine Ordinances and hear
complaints about violations of the ordinances.
Alameda County comprises both charter cities and general law cities. Charter cities have
their own charters that grant them greater autonomy and the ability to create local laws
and regulations that may differ from state laws. General law cities, on the other hand,
120
operate under the general laws of the state, which limit their authority to enact local
regulations beyond what the state allows.
• Charter Cities: Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Hayward, Oakland, Piedmont, San Leandro
• General Law Cities: Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Livermore, Newark, Pleasanton,
Union City
All of the cities, with the exception of Oakland, employ a Council-Manager form of
government. In this setup, elected city councils are responsible for shaping policies, while
a City manager supervises day-to-day operations to ensure effective governance.
Meanwhile, Oakland functions under a Mayor-Council system. In this model, the Mayor
holds executive authority, overseeing the city's administration, appointing officials, and
making substantial decisions without requiring approval from the City Council.
The cities of Alameda, Albany, Emeryville, Hayward, Newark, and Piedmont employ at-
large elections, where Council members are elected citywide. In contrast, Berkeley,
Dublin, Fremont, Livermore, Oakland, San Leandro, and Union City opt for district
elections. Under this model, the cities are divided into distinct geographical districts, and
Council members are elected by residents of those specific districts. Livermore,
Pleasanton, and Union City have four Council members who are elected by-district, while
the Mayor of the cities is elected at-large. Berkeley has eight Council members elected
by-district, while the Mayor is elected at-large. Berkeley also employs a ranked choice
voting system.
• Five-Member Councils: Alameda, Albany, Dublin, Emeryville, Livermore, Newark,
Piedmont, Union City, Pleasanton
• Seven-Member Councils: Fremont, Hayward, San Leandro
• Eight-Member Council: Oakland
• Nine-Member Council: Berkeley
Some of the cities have taken steps to engage their communities beyond what is required
by law. For example, the City of Livermore prioritized community input when it updated the
Library Strategic Services Plan for 2020-2025. Livermore residents completed over 1,500
121
surveys about library services which staff used to draft library objectives. The City of
Hayward solicited input for its Housing Element by contacting over 175 stakeholders and
organizations in the City and attending community meetings.
No additional matters related to effective and efficient service delivery have been identified
for review in this MSR by Alameda LAFCO.
122