News

League of California Cities backs Livermore in Eden Housing appeal

Key hearing set for next week in case over downtown affordable housing development

Rendering of the completed Eden Housing downtown development, featuring two four-story buildings and Veterans Park situated between them. (Courtesy Eden Housing)

The League of California Cities recently demonstrated support for the city of Livermore in the pending appeal challenging the City Council's approval of the 130-unit Eden Housing development under the California Environmental Quality Act.

The association, also known as Cal Cities, filed an amicus brief with the appellate court last month, backing the city against community group Save Livermore Downtown, which filed the appeal in April after its initial lawsuit against the city was denied in Alameda County Superior Court earlier this year.

SLD argues that the city's approval of the complex -- set to be built at the southeast corner of Railroad Avenue and L Street -- violated state environmental policy and the city's own Downtown Specific Plan. The group is advocating for the housing development to be relocated to a yet-undetermined location and for a community park to be built on the project site instead.

In the midst of the ongoing litigation, the previously city-owned land has already been sold to developer Eden Housing, Inc. but opponents of the project are not backing down.

Cal Cities -- an association of 479 California cities -- "is dedicated to protecting and restoring local control to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare of their residents, and to enhance the quality of life for all Californians," according to court documents obtained by Livermore Vine.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

The organization filed the amicus brief after determining that the case raises issues that affect all cities.

"Specifically, the appellant's contentions concerning the standard of judicial review and its piecemeal (and often mistaken) focus on various design standards without addressing the city's overall findings of the project at issue's consistency with its Downtown Specific Plan implicate the constitutionally allocated authority of cities and counties," the document reads.

Cal Cities also said that SLD's environmental claims demonstrate a concerning and growing practice of litigation abuse.

"As Cal Cities' members strive to meet their communities' mounting housing needs, opponents of housing development seek to delay or halt such efforts through misuse of the state's environmental laws. Cal Cities believes this court's decision on the appellant's CEQA claims may implicate future CEQA disputes and ultimately, the law's identity as either an obstructive tool for anti-housing groups or a powerful tool for proponents of affordable housing."

Citing several references including relevant literature, authorities and other California appellate court examples, Cal Cities' amicus brief urges the court to affirm the trial court's decision and uphold the city's approval of the project.

The Cal Cities' amicus brief contends that SLD is misusing CEQA in an effort to block affordable housing, which was also the argument at the center of California Attorney General Rob Bonta's amicus brief filed back in August.

"Perhaps the most compelling evidence that SLD is motivated by personal preferences rather than by legitimate environmental concerns is the fact that SLD does not even claim the housing project will negatively impact the environment," Cal Cities' amicus brief reads, adding:

"Rather, appellant's CEQA claims rely on the argument that the 'soil and groundwater contamination at the project site is far more severe than what was assumed in the city's previous environmental review documents.' Appellant argues that because it contends the contamination at the project site is greater than what was originally believed, the city was required to do additional environmental review. In arguing this point, SLD reveals its lack of experience working with CEQA."

The hearing for the appeal is set for next Wednesday (Dec. 14), following a partially granted joint motion filed by the city and Eden Housing, Inc. to expedite review of the case.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Looking for more Livermore stories? The Livermore Vine will be your new source of vital news and information. Sign up to be among the first to get our daily local news headlines sent to your inbox for free.

Cierra Bailey
   
Cierra started her journalism career after college as an editorial intern with the Pleasanton Weekly in 2014. After pursuing opportunities in digital and broadcast media and attending graduate school at Syracuse University, she’s back as the editor of the Vine. Read more >>

Follow PleasantonWeekly.com and the Pleasanton Weekly on Twitter @pleasantonnews, Facebook and on Instagram @pleasantonweekly for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Stay informed on important city government news. Sign up for our FREE daily Express newsletter.

League of California Cities backs Livermore in Eden Housing appeal

Key hearing set for next week in case over downtown affordable housing development

by / Livermore Vine

Uploaded: Wed, Dec 7, 2022, 4:52 pm

The League of California Cities recently demonstrated support for the city of Livermore in the pending appeal challenging the City Council's approval of the 130-unit Eden Housing development under the California Environmental Quality Act.

The association, also known as Cal Cities, filed an amicus brief with the appellate court last month, backing the city against community group Save Livermore Downtown, which filed the appeal in April after its initial lawsuit against the city was denied in Alameda County Superior Court earlier this year.

SLD argues that the city's approval of the complex -- set to be built at the southeast corner of Railroad Avenue and L Street -- violated state environmental policy and the city's own Downtown Specific Plan. The group is advocating for the housing development to be relocated to a yet-undetermined location and for a community park to be built on the project site instead.

In the midst of the ongoing litigation, the previously city-owned land has already been sold to developer Eden Housing, Inc. but opponents of the project are not backing down.

Cal Cities -- an association of 479 California cities -- "is dedicated to protecting and restoring local control to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare of their residents, and to enhance the quality of life for all Californians," according to court documents obtained by Livermore Vine.

The organization filed the amicus brief after determining that the case raises issues that affect all cities.

"Specifically, the appellant's contentions concerning the standard of judicial review and its piecemeal (and often mistaken) focus on various design standards without addressing the city's overall findings of the project at issue's consistency with its Downtown Specific Plan implicate the constitutionally allocated authority of cities and counties," the document reads.

Cal Cities also said that SLD's environmental claims demonstrate a concerning and growing practice of litigation abuse.

"As Cal Cities' members strive to meet their communities' mounting housing needs, opponents of housing development seek to delay or halt such efforts through misuse of the state's environmental laws. Cal Cities believes this court's decision on the appellant's CEQA claims may implicate future CEQA disputes and ultimately, the law's identity as either an obstructive tool for anti-housing groups or a powerful tool for proponents of affordable housing."

Citing several references including relevant literature, authorities and other California appellate court examples, Cal Cities' amicus brief urges the court to affirm the trial court's decision and uphold the city's approval of the project.

The Cal Cities' amicus brief contends that SLD is misusing CEQA in an effort to block affordable housing, which was also the argument at the center of California Attorney General Rob Bonta's amicus brief filed back in August.

"Perhaps the most compelling evidence that SLD is motivated by personal preferences rather than by legitimate environmental concerns is the fact that SLD does not even claim the housing project will negatively impact the environment," Cal Cities' amicus brief reads, adding:

"Rather, appellant's CEQA claims rely on the argument that the 'soil and groundwater contamination at the project site is far more severe than what was assumed in the city's previous environmental review documents.' Appellant argues that because it contends the contamination at the project site is greater than what was originally believed, the city was required to do additional environmental review. In arguing this point, SLD reveals its lack of experience working with CEQA."

The hearing for the appeal is set for next Wednesday (Dec. 14), following a partially granted joint motion filed by the city and Eden Housing, Inc. to expedite review of the case.

Comments

There are no comments yet. Please share yours below.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.