|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A community group continues to challenge the Eden Housing affordable apartment complex proposed for downtown Livermore – this time petitioning the California Supreme Court to review an October ruling by the state appellate court in favor of the project’s progression.
Move Eden Housing, the group at odds with the city of Livermore and developer Eden Housing Inc., has opposed the 130-unit project for years over its intended location at the southeast corner of Railroad Avenue and L Street. Instead of residential uses on the property acquired with funds designated for affordable housing, MEH suggests that the site would better serve as open space and the apartments should be relocated elsewhere.
In MEH’s most recent legal bid, the group submitted a petition for review Nov. 17, arguing that Livermore City Council violated a section of the California Elections Code by enacting a resolution in 2024 approving the Eden Housing development that was “essentially the same” as a previous resolution that was “entirely repealed” by voter referendum.
MEH’s petition was a response to the appellate court’s October ruling that determined the city had authority to approve the 2024 resolution, overturning a previous trial court decision.
In the MEH’s petition, attorneys Winston P. Stromberg and Paisley Shoemaker argued, “The opinion allows for municipal and state governing bodies to disregard statutory requirements in the elections code established to protect the people’s referendum power and circumvent the will of the voters”.
To city officials, however, “(The petition) is another attempt to delay the much-needed workforce housing project in downtown Livermore, once again preventing working-class families from living in our community”.
The most recent petition follows years of litigation.
During July 2022, Livermore resident Richard Ryon filed a referendum petition in attempts to overturn the council’s approval of a 2022 resolution that authorized the execution of an amended and restated disposition, development and loan agreement with Eden Housing, allowing for the construction of and improvements to Veterans Park.
Then-Livermore city clerk Marie Weber did not process the referendum due to the city staff’s interpretation of the resolution as being an administrative act, rather than a legislative act, and therefore not subject to referendum.
Petitioners initially lost a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court challenging the city’s decision to not process the referendum. But MEH later won in the appellate court, wherein the 2022 resolution was deemed a legislative act subject to referendum due to its inclusion of constructing and improving Veterans Park.
The city then faced two options: rescind the 2022 resolution or bring the issue before voters in an election.
The council decided to rescind the 2022 resolution and on the same day adopted a similar resolution to ratify, reaffirm and readopt the DDLA, except for provisions related to Veterans Park.
Petitioners once again brought the city and Eden Housing to court over the project wherein a trial court ruled that the 2024 resolution was premature under the elections code’s one-year stay provision.
In October, the appellate court reversed the trial court decision, finding instead that the 2024 resolution implemented administrative acts outside the scope of a referendum.
According to the appellate court opinion, legislative decisions about the project, implemented through administrative provisions in both resolutions, were made “long before adoption of the 2022 Resolution and were not challenged by referendum”.
In MEH’s Nov. 17 petition, the group maintains that the city did not “entirely appeal” the 2022 resolution as required by the elections code because the city council adopted a “nearly identical” resolution ahead of a one-year stay.
The 2024 resolution was an attempt to “evade the effect of a referendum petition”, which challenged the entirety of the 2022 resolution, MEH attorneys argued in the petition.
The California Supreme Court will soon determine whether to accept MEH’s petition for review.
