Livermore: Appellate court rejects community group’s Eden Housing appeal

The state appellate court has denied community group Save Livermore Downtown’s appeal challenging the city’s approval of a 130-unit affordable housing development planned for downtown.

“The City of Livermore (City) approved a 130-unit affordable housing project in the downtown area. A local organization calling itself Save Livermore Downtown (SLD) unsuccessfully challenged the project approval on the grounds the project is inconsistent with the planning and zoning law and that further review of the project’s environmental impacts is necessary. Like the trial court, we reject these contentions. We further find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order requiring SLD to post a bond. We affirm the judgment,” reads the court opinion issued Wednesday afternoon — two weeks after oral arguments were presented.

SLD filed the appeal in April after their initial lawsuit was denied in Alameda County Superior Court back in February.

The appellate court’s ruling doubled down on comments made by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch, who presided over the trial court case.

“With the trial court we conclude, ‘(t)his is not a close case.’ SLD’s contentions regarding the project’s consistency with the Downtown Specific Plan and its CEQA arguments lack merit, so much so that the inherent weakness of these claims further supports the trial court’s finding that SLD brought this action to delay the project. We see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling.”

The debate surrounding this project loomed over former Livermore mayor Bob Woerner’s two-year term. In a statement to Livermore Vine, he addressed The Independent newspaper publisher Joan Seppala, who has been named a member and financial contributor to SLD.

“This latest ruling once again affirms that Joan Seppala’s Group of Many Names lawsuits are simply shams,” Woerner said. “It is also noteworthy that the appellate court explicitly stated that her scheme for alternative housing is unrealistic. I urge those continuing to enable her delusions to finally stop harming our community.”

SLD has been a staunch opponent of the project’s location, arguing that it is inconsistent with the city’s own Downtown Specific Plan and violates environmental requirements. Another group called Move Eden Housing also has a lawsuit underway against the city for not processing their referendum petition that aims to overturn the city’s approval of an amended disposition, development and loan agreement for the project.

While the groups identify themselves as being separate entities, they share members and a common goal to relocate the housing development.

Eden Housing President and CEO Linda Mandolini also weighed in on the court’s decision, sharing similar sentiments as Woerner.

“After more than a year of meritless lawsuits to stall and delay our project in downtown Livermore, we are very pleased that the Appellate Court ruled in our favor, citing the weakness of SLD’s case,” Mandolini said.

“Most importantly, this is a big win for affordable housing and for the 130 low-income families that are now one step closer to having a place to call home — had it not been for SLD’s actions, we would already be welcoming them by early next year. We hope this win will cause others to think twice before intentionally trying to delay much needed affordable housing projects throughout the greater Bay Area and California. We are very grateful to the City of Livermore for their steadfast support and commitment to this project,” she added.

Throughout the 27-page opinion, the California First District Court of Appeal addressed each point of SLD’s argument. Presiding Justice Alison M. Tucher authored the opinion. Justices Carin Fujisaki and Ioana Petrou concurred.

Among the points reviewed by the appellate court was SLD’s opposition of the trial court’s decision to grant Eden Housing’s motion for SLD to post a $500,000 bond.

“SLD argues this ruling was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Without the evidence the trial court excluded, SLD contends, there was no evidence to support Eden’s argument that SLD would not suffer undue economic hardship if required to post a bond. We disagree,” the appellate court opinion reads.

The appellate court agreed with the trial court that SLD could bear the cost of posting the bond as the record showed that more than 50 people had contributed financially to SLD and the group spent around $37,000 commissioning plans “for an alternative and unrealistic location for affordable housing.”

Additionally, the appellate court noted that “although the (trial) court did not mention this in making its ruling, SLD was represented by a prominent private law firm, further suggesting it could bear the cost of posting a bond without undue hardship.”

In a statement to Livermore Vine, SLD spokesperson Jean King expressed dissatisfaction with the court’s decision on behalf of the group.

“Save Livermore Downtown is disappointed by the Court of Appeal’s opinion denying our challenges to the city’s unlawful approval of the proposed Eden Housing project in downtown Livermore. Although we are currently evaluating our options, based on errors in the opinion, it is likely that we will be filing a petition for rehearing of the decision with the court in early 2023,” King said.

SLD maintains that it is not opposed to affordable housing in general. The group has been advocating for a public park to be built on the project site instead and for the housing to be relocated to an unspecified location.

“We have supported and continue to support more affordable housing opportunities in the city and that is why our organization has worked tirelessly over the last two years to propose a solution to this ongoing dispute that would allow Eden Housing to build its project at a site north of Railroad Avenue. This alternative option would allow for up to 100 additional affordable units and the preservation of the former Lucky site for an attractive and inviting park available to residents of the project and the public,” the group’s statement said.

Proposed by affordable housing developer Eden Housing, Inc. the project in downtown Livermore would consist of two four-story apartment buildings with 130 units overall and the contribution of about 31,000 square feet of land to be allocated to Veterans Park which would be available to the public. Parking would be underground, with additional parking in a nearby parking garage. The project site is bounded by Railroad Avenue on the north, L Street on the west and Veterans Way on the south.

“With respect to the Court of Appeal’s decision, Save Livermore Downtown believes the court simply got it wrong. First, the court’s determination that the City did not err in finding that the project is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan misinterpreted many of the provisions in the Specific Plan and ignored evidence Save Livermore Downtown cited in its briefs,” King said in the statement.

She continued, “Second, we disagree with the court’s determination that the city did not need to conduct additional environmental review given the fact that the city and Regional Water Quality Control Board had determined — long after the prior environmental impact report for the entire downtown had been prepared — that the Lucky site was contaminated by various chemicals of concern that could impact development of the project.

“Finally, we disagree with the court’s finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring Save Livermore Downtown to post a bond, even though it recognized that the evidence submitted by Eden Housing was not strong. The Court of Appeal’s decision was frustrating and, in our view, incorrect. We will support alternatives that will heal a divided community and allow for a more robust revitalization of downtown Livermore.”