A Northern California city will ask voters in November to approve plans to redevelop downtown parking lots into affordable housing despite local opposition.
California’s push for housing, during what continues to be dubbed a housing crisis, goes against some of the state’s environmental regulations as more traffic and vehicles clog roadways, according to a local citizen group opposing the redevelopment.
Citizens for a Better Eureka, a coalition of residents and business owners against the city’s initiative, have argued that the redevelopment plan would erase 640 public parking spaces downtown and hurt surrounding restaurants and retail stores that rely on the spaces. They have sued the city under the California Environmental Quality Act, and they say the city has failed to argue a case to be exempt from it.
“I proudly support Eureka in opposing this cynical effort to hamper development projects that benefit low-income residents; I will not stand for it,” Mr. Bonta said in a statement. “The housing crisis and climate crisis are among the largest, most urgent issues facing California and we need to act swiftly and fiercely. Eureka is doing exactly this and has my steadfast support.”
Under goals set forth by the state’s housing department, California must build 2.5 million new homes in the next eight years, including 1 million for low- to very-low-income families.
The city’s plan would replace parking lots downtown with low- and very low-income housing, amounting to 175 units for families who earn less than $23,500 a year and 47 units for those earning less than $37,500, according to Jan. 8 legal filings by the coalition requesting the initiative be removed from the November ballot.
Attorneys for the coalition argued the development doesn’t include any parking spaces for residents and doesn’t replace existing public parking spaces, among other issues.
In four separate lawsuits—each involving different parking lots—filed with the California Superior Court of Humboldt County, the coalition has challenged the city’s initiative, citing among other issues that the development could cause congestion downtown. Mr. Bonta said its argument fails to recognize findings by the city that say otherwise.
He said the city, through its own analysis, has concluded that the new housing would result in less vehicle travel, thus reducing harmful emissions, and that intersections wouldn’t be affected by the new housing as more people would walk or use public transport.
Coalition members argue the initiative has flaws beyond vehicle congestion, including lacking services for the new low-income tenants such as an affordable grocery store nearby.
“We all think Eureka needs more housing, but this proposal is flawed. It comes at the expense of our local businesses, stores, and restaurants; it doesn’t provide services that new low-income residents would need to live comfortably downtown,” a portion of the coalition’s website pointing out alleged flaws in the plan states.
They also argued that downtown employees would need to walk farther to work in “unsafe conditions” with the city’s homeless camping on the sidewalks.
The coalition noted that city staff pushing the initiative claimed that most spaces in Old Town—where some of the parking lots are—went unused most of the time, but that the study the city cited uses data from 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. They said the same study showed more residents used the spaces from 2016 to 2019, before COVID-19 hit, and doesn’t reflect the current situation.
“The city does not have current, accurate data on which to base such an important and controversial decision,” the coalition argued.
In a recent survey conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates—a Los Angeles-based market research organization—more than half of 365 survey respondents oppose the city’s proposal, totaling 52 percent, while 43 percent support it and 4 percent are unsure. Other key findings show most people travel downtown by car and a majority think there is insufficient parking.
Kati Moulton, councilwoman for the city’s 2nd Ward, told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement that while she cannot comment on the issue, as there is pending litigation, she does believe building housing will benefit the city.
“Building housing in Eureka will improve our economy and benefit our community in countless other ways from improved public safety to better test scores for students. Many working families are paying an unreasonable percentage of their income for housing because they have no other choice,” she said.
Eureka Mayor Kim Bergel also said she couldn’t comment because of pending litigation.
Representatives from Citizens for a Better Eureka didn’t return a request for comment by press time.
Other cities, such as Huntington Beach in Orange County, have challenged the state’s housing mandate, citing concerns that it would negatively affect neighborhoods.
The dispute comes after Mr. Bonta and the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development filed a lawsuit with the Orange County Superior Court—which was later transferred to San Diego—in March 2023 over housing laws the city has refused to follow.
The city filed its own lawsuit in federal court right after, arguing the state’s mandate that it zone for more than 13,000 housing units is the largest allocation in the state and disproportionate to other cities, among other issues.
Since 8,000 of those units must be set aside as “affordable” for residents earning very low, low, and moderate incomes, the city has argued that to reach that number, potentially 40,000 units would have to be built, as developers usually can make only 20 percent of units in a project affordable to remain profitable.
A federal judge dismissed the city’s lawsuit in November 2023, and the city filed an appeal. The state’s lawsuit against the city is ongoing.
