Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Citizen group Move Eden Housing was ordered by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Michael Markman to post a $500,000 bond to nonprofit developer Eden Housing, Inc. in a ruling issued Tuesday afternoon.

The bond serves as security for costs and damages incurred by Eden Housing from delays to the 130-unit affordable housing project planned for downtown Livermore caused by the citizen group’s ongoing lawsuit.

The court looks for proof of four key elements to determine if a plaintiff is required to post a bond or “undertaking,” which are, “(1) a civil action was brought to challenge a low- or moderate-income housing project; (2) the action ‘has the effect of preventing or delaying the project from being carried out’; (3) the action was either ‘brought in bad faith, vexatiously, for the purpose of delay, or to thwart the low- or moderate-income nature of the housing development project,’ and (4) ‘the plaintiff will not suffer undue economic hardship by filing the undertaking,'” according to documents obtained by Livermore Vine.

The judge said he was not persuaded by Move Eden Housing’s argument that it is not challenging the affordable housing project but rather the city clerk’s decision to not process a referendum petition.

“The nature of the referendum, and the clerk’s decision not to process it, cannot be unbundled from the Project,” the ruling says.

Move Eden Housing filed its suit back in August, challenging the city’s decision to not process the group’s referendum petition which sought to overturn the City Council’s approval of an amended disposition, development and loan agreement (DDLA) with the developer.

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. This decision was based on the advice of city attorney Jason Alcala and special counsel.

As part of its efforts, Move Eden Housing is advocating for the relocation of the Eden Housing complex in favor of a community park being built on the current project site instead.

Despite sharing the same members, Move Eden Housing has identified itself as separate from Save Livermore Downtown, which currently has a lawsuit under appeal that aims to overturn the city’s initial approval of the Eden Housing project. However, Markman noted in his ruling that the two groups have other commonalities.

“They attempt to distinguish this case from the earlier unsuccessful action brought by ‘Save Livermore Downtown’ under CEQA, which is now on appeal (and subject to a bond under section 529.2). The Court will credit Petitioner’s argument that the entities are different, though the Court must also note that Save Livermore Downtown and Move Eden Housing share a common promoter, Joan Seppala, and common litigation counsel.”

In addition to her ties to these groups, Seppala is also the publisher of The Independent newspaper.

Markman’s ruling states that Move Eden Housing is required to post the $500,000 bond on or before Nov. 14.

Cierra is a Livermore native who started her journalism career as an intern and later staff reporter for the Pleasanton Weekly after graduating from CSU Monterey Bay with a bachelor's degree in journalism...

Join the Conversation

3 Comments

  1. If the Judge has determined that the owner of The Independent is also the primary financial backer and “promoter” of these shadowy groups, such as Save Livermore Downtown, Move Eden Housing and Take Back Livermore, why doesn’t The Independent acknowledge these conflicts – as required by the journalism code of ethics – when reporting on their political and legal activities?

  3. Appellate Court ruled on March 6, 2024,that Livermore city staff acted unconstitutionally when they refused to process referendum petitions.

    https://www.citizensforbalancedgrowth.org/livermore-petition-refusal-ruled-unconstitutional/

    Livermore city staff acted unconstitutionally when they refused to process referendum petitions for a vote of the people. This is another major court decision against the City of Livermore. Winning and losing in court is an occasional occurrence for most cities. Comparatively, this may be the most serious illegal activity the City of Livermore has ever accomplished.

    The video of the hearing is posted on the CBG Youtube channel.

    The decision states, “Livermore city staff’s 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. 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. We direct the superior court to order respondents to process the referendum petition as required by the Elections Code. We also reverse the court’s order requiring plaintiffs to file an undertaking under Code of Civil Procedure section 529.2 as a security for costs and damages due to the action.”.

    Notable quote from Judge Chou: “This was a lawsuit that that plaintiffs or petitioners never should have had to file because the city clerk improperly rejected the referendum… this was a lawsuit that frankly, they never should have had to file”

Leave a comment