|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A lawsuit has been filed by Friends of South Livermore seeking to overturn the Livermore City Council’s January approval of the Livermore Wine Country Inn project and to halt any action on the development pending the court’s decision.
The Wine Country Inn is proposed at the southwest corner of Hansen and Arroyo roads on what is currently a 3.2-acre vacant piece of land. The project would include a 30-room two-story hotel, a 77-seat restaurant and bar, 61 parking spaces, a 2,300-square-foot caretaker’s housing unit, and a 1,800-square-foot business and events conference room.
The lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court on Feb. 13, names as defendants the city of Livermore; LWCI, Inc. and Michelle Boss, who started LWCI to develop the Wine Country Inn; and the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, which owns the property pending sale.
The city’s Planning Commission approved the project’s site design and conditional use-permit on Nov. 5. Friends of South Livermore, which is not affiliated with the group opposed to the downtown Livermore hotel, appealed the decision in writing shortly after the commission’s decision and many residents spoke against the project during the City Council’s Jan. 13 meeting. Ultimately the council upheld the commission’s decision, with changes.
The lawsuit argues violations of planning and zoning laws and inconsistencies with the Livermore General Plan, the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan and city municipal code, as well as lack of a full environmental impact report (EIR) to study the project’s potential adverse effects on traffic, safety, noise, aesthetics and visual resources, and biological resources.
“The city believes we have gone through the due diligence and this is the properly sized inn located in the place it was always envisioned in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan,” Mayor John Marchand said.
A mitigated negative declaration was released in September, based on an EIR adopted by the City Council as part of the 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan. The staff report presented to the council Jan. 13 stated, “The mitigated negative declaration concludes that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment.”
The Planning Commission approved the project’s site plan and conditional use-permit on Nov. 5. A letter was sent to council members Jan. 10 on behalf of Friends of South Livermore, requesting an appeal made early to the Planning Commission be upheld and that the council deny the project’s site plan and use permit.
The matter came before the council Jan. 13, where many spoke in favor of the project, citing a need for a hotel near wine country.
Approximately 30 spoke against the development because of increased traffic and safety concerns, the size of the project and the addition of a conference room, and lack of adequate parking being among the main issues.
There was also concern voiced that a mitigated negative declaration was inadequate because it was based on a 1997 EIR, done when the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan was created. Homes in the Los Olivos neighborhood were built between 2003 and 2005 and others in the vicinity were built after that.
“We aren’t opposed to an inn; we are opposed to the current design,” Donna Cabanne, a member of Friends of South Livermore and Los Olivos homeowner, said during the Jan. 13 meeting, asking that the council uphold an appeal until the project plan complies with city codes and plans. She also urged the council to require a full EIR.
“An EIR was done and the inn was developed precisely as plan called for — a 30-room inn and a 100-seat restaurant,” Marchand said. “Nothing has changed. If anything the restaurant is smaller.”
The council voted unanimously to deny the appeal, but made changes based on feedback from the public including elimination of overflow parking, which was opposed by residents because it would entail removal of established vines, which is prohibited in the specific plan. The changes also included planting additional trees and placing a maximum number of seats on the restaurant at 77.
A representative from Friends of South Livermore could not be located to comment.
A telephone conference call to discuss litigation and attempt to settle has been scheduled for 1 p.m. March 31, and a case management conference is currently scheduled with Alameda County Judge Evelio Grillo at 9 a.m. May 15, Department 24, Third Floor, 1221 Oak St., Oakland.
The case was originally assigned to Judge Frank Roesch. However, Sabrina Teller with Sacramento-based Remy Moose Manley, which is representing the city of Livermore, asked that the case be reassigned, stating, “It is my belief that Judge Roesch is prejudiced against the City or the interests of the City to such a degree that the City cannot have fair and impartial hearing and/or trial before him.”
Build a Costco instead!
This started as a campaign by a local transportation company located near the proposed Costco location together with the owners of local gas stations. I don’t know who is behind this latest attempt, but I would like to know so I can stop being a customer. They are costing the taxpayers millions to defend a consistently losing effort, and they should stop.
What is with this new way of life – if someone doesn’t like something or if it doesn’t benefit them personally – they take out a lawsuit! We voted on this people. Just like we voted on a Costco. The majority wants both! This new way of life seems so self centered. If it’s not good for me then it’s not going to be good for anybody. It’s toddler behavior and as adults we should be past that. The majority has spoken whether you agree or disagree. I’m not involved in any way with either project so I can honestly say I’m objective. This new lawsuit business is like taking your marbles and going home because you lost. Except that it is a costly action on everyone’s part. In the end, I think those who take out random frivolous lawsuits should pay for the expenses on both sides. Maybe that would cause people to really think about their actions. Just my opinion.
Steve — you are confusing Pleasanton with Livermore. This small Inn is proposed for Livermore. The “not in my backyard” folks there filed the lawsuit.
Did Matt Sullivan move to Livermore?
Seems perfect to me on Arroyo Road. Don’t we want to promote wineries and wine tourism? That size of boutique hotel and small restaurant are in keeping with the vineyards. What’s the hub bub? I’m tired of these people constantly filing lawsuits if they don’t get exactly what they want and trump up environmental reasons.
Dear Move to Livermore, we can only dream of that but I wouldn’t want to wish MATT on any place. Berkeley or out of State is the only hope for Pleasanton and the Tri Valley.
That part of town really has nothing out there but million dollar homes. Google it yourself.
I would think they would want that out there. It’s only going to increase the property values and now is not the time to bicker about the small things.
Sounds like a terrific project. Good luck Michelle!
If this is not good for me, then it will not be good for anyone. This is the behavior of the little ones, and as adults, we have to get past this. Most said whether you agree or disagree. I am in no way involved in any of the projects, so I can honestly say that I am objective.
I live in the neighborhood and welcome the project, as do many others. It is as envisioned when the plan was established, including the residential community that is complaining. We residents have gotten our piece of the plan, it is now time for the rest of the plan to be built. The wine industry needs this inn, and I welcome something so lovely in our neighborhood. The owner has done a great job of design with the neighborhoods in mind and will live on site and be part of the community. She has listened and responded positively to the neighbors. I agree with others on this string and hope the cost in money and time of these frivolous lawsuits do not detour the owners.