The Eureka parking lot at Fifth and D, which is slated to be developed into multi-family housing by Dishgamu Humboldt Community Land Trust, a unit of the Wiyot Tribe. | Photo by Andrew Goff.

###

In court this morning, an attorney representing the Wiyot Tribe urged the judge to dismiss one of several lawsuits filed against the City of Eureka by special interest group Citizens for a Better Eureka (CBE).

The group, which is financed by the Rob Arkley-founded real estate acquisition and management firm Security National, filed five legal complaints last year aimed at halting multi-family housing projects slated for development on under-used municipal parking lots around the city.

Arguing that the loss of parking would be devastating to downtown businesses, the group claims in its lawsuits that Eureka failed to follow the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it declared the parking lots “surplus property” and invited interested developers to submit proposals for affordable housing projects. 

One of the developers to step forward was Dishgamu Humboldt Community Land Trust, a component unit of the Wiyot Tribe, and last July the city awarded development rights to Dishgamu for two projects — one at the corner of Fifth and D streets, very near Security National’s Eureka headquarters, and the other at Sixth and L, next to City Hall.

Today’s case concerned the now-vacant parcel at Fifth and D.

Conceptual design by Dishgamu Humboldt Community Land Trust, a unit of the Wiyot Tribe, for housing at 5th and D streets. | Image via City of Eureka.

###

The Wiyot Tribe was represented in court by Siena Kalina, Indian Law Fellow with the Davis firm of Berkey Williams, LLC. Arguing via Zoom before Judge John Feeney (who was covering for Judge Timothy Canning), Kalina said the Tribe “has a significant interest” in the outcome of the case, even though it was never named as a party in the lawsuit.

“The Tribe has been working very hard to carry out their obligations under the memorandum of understanding [with the City of Eureka] by developing plans and taking steps to acquire funding for the project,” Kalina said. “But this case is directly threatening the Tribe’s work and presenting considerable uncertainty for the tribe and the success of this project.”

She argued that the Wiyot Tribe is “an indispensable party” to the suit, but as a federally recognized Indian Tribe it also has sovereign immunity and thus cannot be “joined” or included in the suit. Therefore, she said, the suit should be dismissed.

She also argued that the Tribe’s plans for the Fifth and D lot are inextricably linked to the outcome of this lawsuit.

“There’s no way this case can be reconfigured to limit the impact to the Wiyot Tribe because the removal of parking that took place at the April 2023 city council meeting is a necessary first step in the Tribe’s development,” Kalina said.

In a rebuttal, Citizens for a Better Eureka attorney Brad Johnson (also appearing via Zoom) argued that the case technically doesn’t involve the Wiyot Tribe at all. It concerns only the legality of the city’s decision to reduce its parking supply by eliminating several lots, a decision that took place months before the city awarded development rights to Dishgamu.

As for the argument that the Wiyot Tribe is an “indispensable party” to the suit, Johnson disagreed, citing as precedent a 1997 case called People ex rel. Lungren v. Community Redevelopment Agency, which he referred to simply as “Lungren.”

That case concerned a southern California tribe’s plans to build a gaming casino in Riverside County via  a development agreement with the City of Palm Springs Redevelopment Agency. The California Attorney General filed a complaint, arguing that the deal conflicted with the state’s anti-gambling laws, and the tribe (the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians) filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of tribal immunity.

In that case, Johnson pointed out, the court ultimately denied the tribe’s motion, explaining that “tribal immunity does not extend to barring suit against a third, non-immune party solely because the effect of a judgment against the third party will be felt by the tribe.”

Johnson reiterated that his client, Citizens for a Better Eureka, has no problem with the Wiyot Tribe’s development plans, per se. (Elsewhere, representatives of the group have said that their lawsuits wouldn’t necessarily prevent any downtown housing projects; they’d simply require developers to build even more parking than what’s currently there.)

Johnson said the case is purely about whether the city violated CEQA when it declared the parking lots surplus property in preparation for future housing developments.

“Here,” he said, “the Wiyot Tribe is not party to the action that was challenged. The agreement with the city that they formed months later is not subject to challenge, and there’s nothing in this case, Your Honor, that would undo the agreement between the city and the Tribe. And as counsel for the Wiyot Tribe noted, there may be some delay [in the housing development], but delay is not adequate to trump all of the legal principles outlined in Lungren.”

Johnson asked the court to deny the Tribe’s motion.

In response, Kalina argued that the Lungren case was different than the one at hand and should not be considered as a governing authority. 

“This case does affect the Wiyot Tribe,” she said. “The Wiyot Tribe’s development is dependent on the city’s actions at that April meeting to remove parking. … The Wiyot Tribe has exerted significant time and resources to develop this property and would like to be able to continue this development pursuant to their memorandum of understanding and their awarded development rights.”

She added that if the court rules to require additional environmental analysis under CEQA, the Wiyot Tribe will be forced to bear the cost of additional studies before it can proceed with the housing development.

“Your Honor,” Kalina said, “to say that the Tribe has no interest that is affected by this case, and that it’s analogous to Lungren, is just simply incorrect.”

She asked Judge Feeney to grant the dismissal.

The City of Eureka’s attorney, Autumn Luna, appeared via Zoom for today’s hearing but did not address the court. In response to these lawsuits from Citizens for a Better Eureka, Luna argues that Eureka fully complied with CEQA when it updated the Housing Element for its 2040 General Plan. The parking lots slated for redevelopment were designated for affordable housing in that document, which was certified by the state in 2019. 

In February, the state’s Attorney General came to Eureka’s defense, urging the court to reject the various legal motions from Citizens for a Better Eureka.

At the outset of today’s hearing, Feeney said he needs more time to read and consider the documents submitted in the case. After today’s arguments he said he’ll take the matter under submission and issue a written ruling before the end of this week.

###

PREVIOUSLY: