Lawsuit aims at Millbrae BART development

Millbrae officials maintain the more than 1,400 referendum petition signatures were filed outside the 30-day window which opened following councilmembers approving the project, according to the documents, but plaintiffs disagree.

A statement from the group details their position, which revolves around the uncertainty determining which day the officials signed the documents and started the clock ticking on the referendum process.

“Better Millbrae’s referendum petition against the project was presented timely under the California Constitution and has sufficient citizen signatures and applicable law,” according to the statement. “Better Millbrae demands that the city place the project on the future ballot so all Millbrae voters can decide what is best.”

Meanwhile, attorney Robin Johansson, who represents project developer Republic Urban, claims officials acted appropriately in rejecting the referendum, which she too believes was filed too late.

“The code says it goes from the date the clerk signs the ordinance. Everyone knows that is an important date and you have to keep an eye out for it,” she said. “In this case, it was done in early May. And it is up to people like Better Millbrae, who have been following this and speaking at City Council meetings, to keep tabs.”

City officials declined to comment on the case.

The Millbrae City Council voted Tuesday, April 10, to approve 150,000 square feet of offices, nearly 30,000 square feet of retail space, 400 new housing units and a hotel abutting the city’s train station. Of the housing units, 80 are proposed in a standalone project to be constructed nearby and reserved for military veterans.

The decision came after years of deliberation, negotiation and community opposition, as city officials, residents and builders grinded out details of the development agreement for the project to be built on BART land currently used for parking adjacent to the station.

Better Millbrae members were some of the most critical of the project throughout the approval process, as dozens from the group would pack public meetings and call for councilmembers to withhold approval until a more favorable deal for the community was struck.

Among the conciliations sought, Better Millbrae members called for the project to include more retail space reserved for high-end sellers as well as increased traffic congestion mitigations and more money for local schools financed by the builder.

Ultimately defeated in their initial attempt to define conditions of the development deal, group members turned their focus to the referendum process, with an eye on slowing construction until their concerns were addressed.

According to court documents, Better Millbrae members asked in early May to be notified by City Hall staffers once the City Council’s decision was certified by the clerk, officially starting the referendum clock.

Better Millbrae members received no such notification, according to the lawsuit, then followed up during a meeting with officials in late May to find the resolution was certified weeks earlier.

When they finally attempted to present the 1,439 signatures Friday, June 22, they were rejected by Administrative Services Director Angela Louis, who said the referendum period passed.

Better Millbrae members claimed in the lawsuit their uncertainty over the resolution certification date is the fault of unresponsive city officials, and request the court mandate their petition be accepted.

Johansson, meanwhile, believes city officials acted appropriately in rejecting Better Millbrae’s efforts.

“The city clerk and city attorney made it very clear to the other side that when they presented their petition that they were untimely and that was the right thing to do,” she said. “They were clearly untimely.”

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105