Judge tosses housing lawsuit
A judge Friday scuttled a lawsuit accusing the city of Eureka of violating electoral code by placing a voter initiative on the ballot during its Oct. 17 meeting, rather than their Oct. 3 meeting.
In granting the demurrer filed by the city, Judge Timothy Canning ruled that the city, in its regular practice of publicly posting its agendas six days in advance of the meeting, would have turned its regular Oct. 3 meeting into a special meeting had it placed the Housing for All initiative after posting its agenda.
“There's no requirement … for the city to place something on the agenda with limited notice or special notice,” Canning said.
Representing plaintiffs Mike Munson and Michelle Costantine-Blackwell — two of the initiative's central proponents, which if passed would bar the city from removing parking spaces downtown and require the rezoning of the former Jacobs Junior High campus for housing — Brad Johnson argued that the city could have modified its agenda to include the initiative without violating the Brown Act, the law mandating open, transparent meetings.
Eureka City Clerk Pam Powell received the verified initiative Sept. 28, — a Thursday — well before the Brown Act's requirement of a 72-hour notice and posted agenda before a public meeting. Johnson said the city had ample opportunity to agendize the initiative for its regular meeting.
“The city could have easily amended its agenda on Thursday or Friday and doing so would've been in full compliance with the Brown Act,” Johnson said.
Eureka City Attorney Autumn Luna countered that the Brown Act sets the floor, not the
ceiling, for properly noticing the public.
“Changing our rules would've disadvantaged the public,” Luna said.
Canning agreed, ruling that a regular meeting requires regular notice, and that, while election code mandates placing initiatives that gathered enough signatures on the ballot at the first regular meeting after it's verified, Eureka would have essentially turned their Oct. 3 meeting from regular to special by modifying the agenda.
“It seems to be impossible for the city to proceed on regular notice,” Canning said.
Johnson disagreed. He said there is no reason the city needs to provide six days of advance notice when the law calls specifically for at least 72 hours.
Next week, the parties are scheduled for another hearing for additional lawsuits filed against the city for allegedly violating the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to analyze traffic impacts in their attempt to facilitate housing development on cityowned parking lots.
The ballot initiative — almost entirely funded by Security National Properties headed by part-time Eureka resident Robin Arkley II, who recently found himself the subject of a Supreme Court ethics investigation after Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito
took free vacations to Arkley's Alaska fishing lodge — will preserve downtown parking while simultaneously adding to the city's housing supply, according to the proponents.
The initiative's detractors argue that the cityowned lots are amply located for optimal housing development and the parking preservation requirement — any spots the city removed would have to be rebuilt in a different location — effectively destroys the viability of developing affordable housing.
Earlier this week, California Attorney General Robert Bonta threw the state's weight behind Eureka, filing an amicus brief on the city's behalf. California aims to permit 2.5 million additional homes by 2030, and state housing element laws create a timeline for the number of units incorporated cities are expected to add.
Eureka's General Plan is shooting for 900 additional housing units to be built by 2040. One-third — roughly 297 — of the units must be affordable.