LIVERMORE — According to a June 25 report published by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the city’s proposed cleanup for contamination at the site set for Eden Housing in downtown Livermore is “neither appropriately justified nor acceptable.”
Jean King, spokesperson for Save Livermore Downtown (SLD), submitted a press release stating that staff experts from the Water Quality Control Board “have raised new concerns about the city’s plan to remediate volatile organic compounds in the soil and mitigate vapor intrusion risks to future residents at the site of the proposed Eden Housing plan.”
The site of the future Eden Housing project approved by the council May 25 once housed a train depot and dry-cleaning businesses. The city has been tasked with remediating the volatile organic compounds and other chemicals of concern present at the site due to its previous uses.
The five-page, preliminary report also questions the city’s contention that a ventilated garage “is an engineering control that mitigates potential vapor intrusion.” The report states that “the consideration of garages as a VI (vapor intrusion) mitigation measures is relatively new and there is limited information on the subject.”
The report outlines in detail further shortcomings in the city’s clean-up plan and lists a number of areas where more information, more testing, and further reporting are necessary. The full report is available at https://bit.ly/Indy_WaterBoardReport.
According to the SLD community group, the report bolsters the lawsuit that it has filed against the City of Livermore and Eden Housing. SLD contends that “the city wrongly determined that the project was exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.”
“In fact, it is apparent from the report that the city approved the project without knowing what is really beneath the site, how it might negatively impact future residents, and how the city will address it,” wrote SLD in its press release. “Save Livermore Downtown believes the safest choice is to move housing off the site entirely to a nearby location where more housing could be built without putting residents at risk, and where the cost and delay of addressing the contamination would be avoided.”
The city council, attorney and manager did not return requests for comment. Councilmember Robert Carling noted that he was away on vacation.