|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The fate of the contentious Eden Housing development planned for downtown Livermore could lie in the hands of voters this fall.
The Move Eden Housing community group has celebrated a recent court victory in its effort to get a referendum petition processed which seeks to overturn the city of Livermore’s approval of an amended disposition, development and loan agreement with Eden Housing, Inc. – the developer for the 130-unit affordable housing complex and public Veterans Park set to be built at the southeast corner of Railroad Avenue and L Street.
The state appellate court has sided with the group, which filed an appeal after its initial lawsuit against the city was denied in trial court last year. The lawsuit challenged the city’s decision to not process the group’s referendum petition despite it having more than enough signatures necessary.
The referendum petition was initially submitted to the city in July of 2022. At the time, City Clerk Marie Weber deemed the council’s action approving the DDLA as administrative, not legislative, and therefore not eligible for a challenge by referendum. Her determination was based on the advice of City Attorney Jason Alcala and special counsel.
While the trial court upheld the city’s decision, the appellate court determined that refusing to process the petition was unlawful and ruled last week to reverse the trial court’s decision.
“Adoption of the challenged resolution was a legislative act subject to the referendum power, because the development agreement at issue approved the construction of and improvements to a new public park,” the appellate court ruling stated. “We also conclude that, in approving the development agreement, the City did not act as an administrative agent for the State of California under the statutes dissolving California’s redevelopment agencies, enacted starting in 2011.”
Tom Ramos, who was part of the lawsuit as an individual petitioner, said that he welcomes the appellate court’s decision.
“Much to the surprise and disappointment of many of my Livermore friends, we saw that the city council did not enact the promises made in the previous election (2020) about future plans for downtown Livermore,” Ramos said. “Along with many other Livermore voters, I volunteered my time to collect signatures from citizens for a referendum to repeal the resolution authorizing millions of city dollars to be spent on an ill-conceived plan.”
“After weeks of volunteer work, we collected thousands of signatures. When the city refused to process the signatures, we were stunned. So I was happy to join the lawsuit as an individual petitioner to compel the city to process the referendum. It has been a long road, but we are delighted to see that the Court of Appeal has reached the correct result and preserved the people’s rights to petition their government. We hope the city council is willing to work with its constituents on a better plan for this important downtown site,” Ramos said.
The appellate court also reversed the $500,000 bond that Move Eden Housing was previously ordered to pay to the developer. The court agreed with Move Eden Housing’s argument that their lawsuit was brought “to enforce provisions of the Elections Code and secure for the City’s voters their right to referendum” rather than to challenge the project itself and therefore does not fit the criteria to require a plaintiff to post a bond.
“Although the proposed referendum challenges the Project and would have the effect of delaying the Project if it meets the statutory requirements, the present action is not itself a challenge to the Project. Instead, it is a challenge to the City Clerk’s violation of the Elections Code,” the appellate court’s ruling says.
Justice Mark Simons authored the opinion and Presiding Justice Teri L. Jackson and Justice Danny Y. Chou concurred.
“We believe the court arrived at the correct result based on the law and the facts,” attorney for the plaintiffs Winston Stromberg told Livermore Vine. “The law has been clear for decades that elections officials like city clerks do not have the discretion to reject a proposed ballot measure because they believe it will not be valid if enacted. And the court got it right when it determined that the resolution approved by the Livermore city council in May 2022 was a legislative act subject to referendum.”
He continued, “Move Eden Housing is thrilled that the court has sided with the people and determined that the City violated the law. We look forward to seeing the processing of the referendum completed as the law requires, and we will see whether the city council repeals the resolution or puts it to a vote of the people.”
The city and the developer could appeal the appellate court’s ruling to the state Supreme Court; however, city officials told Livermore Vine that the city is still “reviewing the opinion and evaluating its next steps.”
“That said, the City is pleased the Appellate Court determined the agreement approved by the City Council for the Eden Housing project is not a legislative act, and therefore it is not subject to referendum, except for the construction of Veterans Park,” officials added.
If the referendum petition qualifies after being processed, it could be placed on the November general election ballot.
Move Eden Housing’s case was one of two recent lawsuits filed related to the affordable housing project. Save Livermore Downtown — which identifies itself as a separate group but shares members with Move Eden Housing — filed a lawsuit in 2021 that sought to overturn the council’s approval of the project. After their suit was denied in trial court and the state appellate court, they took their case to the state Supreme Court for review, which was also rejected.
Both Move Eden Housing and Save Livermore Downtown have advocated for the relocation of the Eden Housing complex in favor of a community park being built on the current project site instead.
During Monday night’s Livermore City Council meeting, Doug Mann of Citizens for Balanced Growth called for the termination of Alcala, removal of Weber as election official and disciplinary action against City Manager Marianna Marysheva, calling their actions regarding the referendum voter suppression.
“Here we are in 2024 and we are in a constitutional mess and it’s far from over. Marie Weber must no longer be Livermore’s election official, beginning right now. Marianna Marysheva needs to be disciplined for her unwillingness to intervene,” Mann said.
He continued, “Finally, Jason Alcala’s shameful performance over the past several years cannot be allowed to continue paying its tragic dividends. It’s not just his direction to subvert an election nor his additional career Garaventa Hills Supreme Court failure, he has proven in countless ways that he is quite inadequate for the position of city attorney and must be terminated immediately. Through you, he works for us, we don’t need his legal advice anymore.”
Later in the meeting during council committee reports, Vice Mayor Bob Carling addressed Mann’s comments, defending Weber, Alcala and Marysheva.
“That’s certainly one person’s opinion but it’s not the opinion of me and I would suggest it’s not the opinion of the people that are sitting up here,” Carling said of Mann’s remarks. “We deal with these people on a daily basis and see the expertise, the professionalism and the care they have for this community and we’re all doing the best we can. To demean them the way that (Mann) did earlier and did back in January 2022, I think is reprehensible. I just want you to know and the public to know that I personally support Marie, Jason and Marianna and if and when we ever have an issue that’s a responsibility of your City Council to deal with it and we don’t respond to those comments like we heard this evening from that gentleman earlier,” he added.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify actions requested by Doug Mann in his comments to City Council.