Downtown Livermore Apartments (Eden Housing)

Ask a question to begin.

The City of Livermore purchases the former Lucky California grocery store site at Railroad Avenue and L Street in downtown Livermore, with the explicit intent to develop affordable housing. Nearly two decades will pass before groundbreaking.

The Livermore City Council votes 5-0 to approve the Eden Housing project under the Density Bonus Law and a CEQA exemption (Government Code section 65457). Mayor Woerner warns a no vote would be an absolutely irresponsible risk. Vice Mayor Munro: "I'm simply being asked to confirm Eden Housing has met the conditions to build."

Save Livermore Downtown files a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court challenging the city's approval of the Eden Housing project, arguing the city improperly rushed through approval without regard to inconsistencies with the Downtown Specific Plan.

On Feb. 4, 2022, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch denies Save Livermore Downtown's petition, saying its CEQA arguments were "almost utterly without merit." On Sept. 27, 2021 he had granted Eden Housing's request for a $500,000 bond from the group to cover "costs and damages incurred as a result of the affordable housing project's delay." SLD appeals. Eden Housing CEO Linda Mandolini: "The delays created by this action required Eden to return a $68 million award of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits."

Move Eden Housing submits a petition with over 8,000 signatures seeking a referendum to put the project to a public vote. City Clerk Marie Weber denies the referendum petition on grounds the city's action was administrative, not legislative, and therefore not subject to referendum.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta files an amicus brief urging the Court of Appeal to expedite review because the ongoing litigation is threatening Eden Housing's ability to retain its tax credit financing. "Timing is critical for affordable housing projects, which often rely on time-sensitive funding sources like tax credits." The AG notes the trial court found the lawsuit was brought for delay. The $68M tax credit award had already been returned by this point.

Eden Housing closes escrow on the 38,000 sq ft property at Railroad Avenue and L Street. Mayor Woerner presents Eden Housing representatives with framed copies of the grant deed at a ceremony. The site remains a parking lot pending resolution of the lawsuits.

On Dec. 28, 2022, the First District Court of Appeal issues its opinion in Save Livermore Downtown v. City of Livermore (Case No. A164987; 87 Cal.App.5th 1116) upholding the approval and CEQA exemption. The court finds SLD's claims 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." In January 2023 the court certified the opinion for publication at the request of the city, Eden Housing, Attorney General Rob Bonta and others.

The California Supreme Court declines to hear Save Livermore Downtown's petition for review. Former mayor Bob Woerner says SLD's $500,000 bond "can now be paid to Eden Housing as partial compensation." This ends SLD's litigation. However, Move Eden Housing continues its separate referendum lawsuit.

On March 6, 2024, in Move Eden Housing v. City of Livermore (A167346), the First District Court of Appeal rules that the 2022 resolution was a legislative act subject to referendum, orders the city to process the petition, and reverses the $500,000 bond the trial court had required of the group. On June 24, 2024 the council repeals the 2022 resolution and readopts the agreement without the Veterans Park provisions.

After a trial court ruled that the June 2024 readoption was premature under the Elections Code, the council votes 4-1 to ratify, reaffirm and readopt the agreement without the Veterans Park work. Ben Barrientos votes no and suggests a park instead.

In a second Move Eden Housing v. City of Livermore decision, the First District Court of Appeal reverses the trial court, holding that Elections Code section 9241 did not bar the 2024 resolution because it involved only administrative acts.

The California Supreme Court declines to hear Move Eden Housing's final petition for review. The group's Nov. 17, 2025 petition sought review of the Court of Appeal's ruling that the city could readopt the agreement without the park. Eden Housing CEO Linda Mandolini: "We are encouraged by the Court's decision and the numerous published opinions confirming our right to build this housing."

Eden Housing and the City of Livermore hold a groundbreaking ceremony for the Downtown Livermore Apartments. Attendees include Mayor John Marchand, representatives for Senator Jerry McNerney, Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, CA Treasurer Fiona Ma, and HCD officials. Expected completion: October 2028. "Nearly two decades since the city of Livermore first purchased a parcel of land near the heart of its downtown with plans to build affordable housing, excavation has finally begun." (Pleasanton Weekly)

Judge Michael Markman denies Move Eden Housing's motion for $779,623 in attorneys' fees from the city, former city clerk Marie Weber and Eden Housing, writing that the petitioners "won the proverbial battle but lost the war."

"Timing is critical for affordable housing projects, which often rely on time-sensitive funding sources like tax credits to finance development. CEQA plays a critical role in protecting the environment and public health. We won't stand by when it is used to thwart new development, rather than to protect Californians and our environment." (August 9, 2022 amicus brief press release)

Filed a request for publication of the Court of Appeal opinion in the Save Livermore Downtown case (January 2023), helping make the ruling binding precedent statewide. By requesting publication, YIMBY Law helped ensure the ruling would protect future affordable housing projects from similar CEQA delay tactics.

"We needed the 130 units of affordable housing seven years ago. We just can't wait any more."

Voted unanimously to approve on May 25, 2021. Mayor Bob Woerner said voting no "would be an absolutely irresponsible risk." Councilmember Branning: "It's unfortunate what the delays cost in terms of people not having a place to live." Defended the project at every legal stage.

"While we at Eden are pleased with the court's decision, we would vastly have preferred to be proceeding with the construction of this development in 2022. The delays created by this action required Eden to return a $68 million award of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits." (Linda Mandolini, Feb 2022). "When complete, Downtown Livermore Apartments will offer 130 low-income families the stability of a permanent, affordable home." (May 2026 groundbreaking)

"Save Livermore Downtown is frustrated 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." (Jean King, January 2023). The project does not comply with design and density standards in the Downtown Specific Plan. The city improperly rushed through approval. About 60% of Livermore voters oppose this location per an SLD-commissioned poll.

The downtown corner should be a public park. Collected 8,000+ signatures to force a popular vote. The city's action in approving the property sale was legislative, not administrative, and subject to referendum. Filed multiple lawsuits. California Supreme Court petition denied January 2026.

Suggested building a park on the site instead of the housing project and said he would vote against the resolution on principle.

Granted Eden Housing's request for a $500,000 bond on Sept. 27, 2021 and denied the group's petition on Feb. 4, 2022, saying its CEQA arguments were "almost utterly without merit."

Ordered the group to post a $500,000 bond in October 2022 (reversed in March 2024), ruled in November 2024 that the June 2024 readoption was premature (reversed in October 2025), and on July 31, 2026 denied the group's fee motion: "won the proverbial battle but lost the war."

Save Livermore Downtown filed a CEQA lawsuit challenging the city's CEQA exemption under Government Code section 65457 and alleging the project was inconsistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. The trial court required SLD to post a $500,000 bond for Eden Housing's delay costs and denied the petition on Feb. 4, 2022. On Dec. 28, 2022 the First District Court of Appeal affirmed, saying the weakness of the claims "further supports the trial court's finding" that SLD sued to delay the project, and the California Supreme Court denied review on April 19, 2023. Eden Housing said the delay required it to return a $68 million Low-Income Housing Tax Credit award.

Move Eden Housing organized a referendum petition (8,000+ signatures) to force a popular vote and filed a lawsuit when the City Clerk declined to process it. The referendum petition added legal uncertainty and delay to an already-litigated project. On March 6, 2024 the Court of Appeal ruled that the city had to process the referendum petition. The council then readopted the agreement without the park, and on Oct. 7, 2025 the Court of Appeal upheld that readoption, reversing a November 2024 trial court ruling for the group. The California Supreme Court denied review on Jan. 14, 2026, and on July 31, 2026 the trial court denied the group's request for $779,623 in attorneys' fees. This parallel litigation track contributed to the overall 4-year delay.

Developer project fact sheet. Contains full litigation timeline, unit details (130 units, 20-60% AMI), building descriptions (two four-story buildings), and groundbreaking information.

Most recent source — published 9 days before research date. Best source for groundbreaking confirmation, expected completion (Oct 2028), Mandolini statement on wasted costs, Branning quote.

Confirms California Supreme Court denied MEH's final petition (approximately January 15, 2026). Best source for confirming the end of all litigation.

Best source for explaining the published opinion's significance as binding precedent. Confirms YIMBY Law, AG, and CBIA requested publication.

Best legal analysis of the Court of Appeal opinion and the $500,000 bond ruling under Code of Civil Procedure section 529.2. Essential for understanding the legal mechanism.

AG amicus brief press release. Primary source for Bonta's statement on tax credit timing and CEQA abuse. Confirms trial court imposed $500,000 bond.

Primary source for Linda Mandolini's $68 million tax credit statement — the most important quote in this entry. Essential.