###

PREVIOUSLY:

###

During a brief special meeting last night, the Eureka City Council set language for the “Housing for All and Downtown Vitality” initiative that will appear on November’s ballot. Limited to 75 words, it was the Council’s second go at framing the complicated measure after rejecting its original wording last week due to concerns about clarity and neutrality. The controversial initiative aims to prevent replacing city-owned parking lots with affordable housing — like the EaRTH Center in downtown Eureka, for example. 

Last night, councilmembers reviewed new phrasing, which, really, is not that different from the language they discussed and rejected last week. Before approving the revised statement, the Council agreed to remove a few words due to a lawsuit threat from the initiative’s proponents, a move that concerned opposition. 

Eureka City Attorney Autumn Luna explained that after releasing the agenda with reworked language, Brad Johnson, an attorney representing Citizens for a Better Eureka – the group that supports the measure – shared some comments. (The same thing happened before last week’s meeting.)

“It is my recommendation tonight that we do make a couple of adjustments based on that feedback from Mr. Johnson, in an effort, again, to work with proponents and ensure that there isn’t litigation about the ballot question itself,” Luna said.

Specifically, Luna recommended removal of “above ground level” and “subject to review for consistency with state law” from the following proposal:

Shall the measure amending Eureka’s General Plan, creating an overlay designation for downtown that limits 21 City-owned lots, with exceptions, to parking at or above the current capacity and above-ground-level high-density housing, and creating an overlay designation for the former Jacobs Middle School site, allowing housing, public, quasi-public, and commercial uses, with at least 40% of non-public use area dedicated to high-density housing, subject to review for consistency with state law, be adopted?

Here is the result, clocking in at 64 words:

Shall the measure amending Eureka’s General Plan, creating an overlay designation for downtown that limits 21 City-owned lots, with exceptions, to parking at or above the current capacity and high-density housing, and creating an overlay designation for the former Jacobs Middle School site, allowing housing, public, quasi-public, and commercial uses, with at least 40% of non-public use area dedicated to high-density housing, be adopted?

Councilmember G. Mario Fernandez asked why “subject to review for consistency with state law” was deleted, and Luna explained that those words “frankly could go without saying,” and therefore seemed worth removing given the litigation threat.

During public comment, Solomon Everta – a member of the group “I Like Eureka Housing!” which was formed to oppose the Housing for All and Downtown Vitality initiative – voiced concern about the proponents’ influence over the ballot language, and said he’d happily contribute as well.

“Just wanted to note that opposition is here and is aware of what’s going on. And we would like [the measure] to be extremely neutral and not be favoring,” Everta said. “And the rewrite, in my mind, seemed to be favoring the proponents more than the initial offering had been — but I’m no lawyer.”

The only other commenter was Johnson, who thanked Luna for suggesting the changes and said that proponents “would not see a need to litigate” over the revised wording. 

During discussion, Fernandez questioned why supporters of the measure were involved but not its opponents. 

Luna explained that the City didn’t reach out to either side for input, but that proponents independently submitted detailed comments prior to both meetings that agendized the ballot wording.

“What we receive ahead of time is what we can then propose to Council,” Luna said, adding that the City didn’t receive “lengthy input from opponents.” 

“I’m responding to an attorney, who is the proponent’s attorney, who has suggested that if the language were not amended, the City would face litigation,” Luna said. 

“It’s one of my primary jobs to advise you in a way that ensures that the City doesn’t get sued. I have done that while still being faithful to a neutrality in the question.”

Councilmember Leslie Castellano said she continues to feel concerned about the initiative’s ability to balance neutrality with relevant context and education about the measure’s intent, and asked how a potential lawsuit would impact the City.

Luna responded that it would take up time and resources, and tentatively predicted that the outcome would be similar to approving the revised 64-word version that was before the Council. 

Before the group voted, Mayor Kim Bergel noted that Luna will prepare a neutral 500-word statement to appear in the voter information guide, which is distributed with ballots. 

The present council members each voted to approve the revised 64-word statement, with Councilmember Scott Bauer absent. Watch the full 15-minute meeting above.