Livermore residents may not get to vote on controversial downtown housing project

Livermore residents may not get to vote on a bitterly contested affordable housing project after all.

After a court decision appeared likely to send the project before voters this November, city officials have determined a referendum isn’t necessary and that construction can move forward on the 130-unit complex downtown.

In March, a state appellate court ruled that the city had to consider a petition for a referendum by a neighborhood group opposing the project, set to be developed by the Hayward nonprofit Eden Housing.

But on Monday, the City Council, which has the final say over whether to put the issue on the ballot, voted 4-1 to effectively halt the measure.

The neighborhood group, Move Eden Housing, which gathered the thousands of signatures needed for a referendum, argues the project can’t proceed without a public vote. City officials, however, contend the court ruling makes clear that a referendum is needed only to fund a proposed public park that would border the complex, not to build the housing itself.

Over objections from residents who accused the city of denying the will of the voters, the council voted to pause plans for the 1-acre park and continue working with the developer on the housing project, planned for the corner of Railroad Avenue and South L Street.

During Monday’s public meeting, Councilmember Evan Branning, whose district includes downtown, chastised residents who’ve opposed and delayed the project. Before pursuing the referendum, opponents unsuccessfully sued the city in 2021 to block the development.

“You are the ones sowing hate and division in our community,” said Branning. “You have the option to welcome our neighbors, to bring them in, to say that Livermore is a community that loves each other.”

Opponents, meanwhile, echoed a familiar refrain: We support affordable housing, just not this specific project.

“Eden Housing can be built somewhere else in this town, not downtown, where we play, where we walk, where we eat, where we entertain ourselves,” said resident Greg Rogowski. “Everyone here isn’t against Eden Housing — we’re just against where it’s going right now.”

Under its interpretation of the court ruling, the city maintains that its agreement to sell the land for the project to Eden Housing was an “administrative act,” which can’t be challenged by a referendum. Therefore, city officials said, only the decision to fund the new park is subject to a public vote.

In a letter to the council, lawyers for Move Eden Housing accused the city of mischaracterizing the court ruling and argued the council must either put the entire project on the ballot or suspend it altogether.

“We strongly urge the city to listen to the over 6,000 registered voters who signed the referendum petition and not take further action that infringes their rights,” wrote Los Angeles-based attorney Winston Stromberg.

Matt Regan, a housing policy expert with the pro-business group Bay Area Council, said the opposition led by a small group of wealthy homeowners is emblematic of the challenges cities across the region face in building subsidized affordable housing.

“It shouldn’t be this hard,” Regan said. “This is why we have a housing crisis.”

Asked whether Move Eden Housing could again sue the city to force the measure on the ballot, Stromberg said the group is “considering all of its options currently.”