Ballot measure tied to commercial development of Crosby property heads to Dublin city voters while also being challenged in court
Commercial development may spring up on nearly half of the Crosby property between Livermore and Dublin if voters in the latter city pass Measure II, dubbed the “Dublin Traffic Relief, Clean Air/Open Space Preservation Measure”.
The 180 acres of unincorporated land owned by Livbor-Manning LLC has long been eyed as a pass-through for the Dublin Boulevard extension, which is expected to connect the current street with North Canyons Parkway in Livermore. That’s a plan both Dublin and Livermore officials can agree upon.
But as the last buffer between the cities, Livermore leaders want to maintain the land as open space.
In contrast, Dublin supports limited commercial development on land adjacent to the extension as a means to cover a significant portion of the road construction and maintenance cost, according to a City Council staff report on July 16.
Dublin voters will have a direct say in the matter in the Nov. 5 general election.
Measure II will ask for voter approval to amend the city’s Open Space Initiative of 2014, which currently “restricts development to the east of Dublin’s eastern boundary,” according to an analysis of the measure by Dublin city attorney John Bakker.
It will also ask if the city of Dublin can accept a “land donation to connect Dublin Boulevard 1.5 miles east to North Canyons Parkway” and gain the power to approve “potential limited commercial development on the adjacent 80 acres,” according to the ballot measure.
If passed, commercial development would be limited to the area 1,200 feet north of Interstate 580, except west of Cottonwood Creek that could exceed 1,200 feet “if the total area of developed land does not exceed 80 acres,” Bakker wrote.
Proponents of the measure say it would improve 911 response times and reduce traffic as well as protect open space, according to their argument linked on the city’s website.
But opponents of the measure call the measure a “land grab” that would oppose every promise in its name. They argue it would actually increase traffic, worsen pollution and reduce open space.
The division has even reached the courts, as the city has been sued for not conducting an environmental review before putting the measure to vote — an issue that won’t be hashed out in the courts until after the election.
Arguments for and against Measure II
The argument in favor of the measure contends that an extension to Dublin Boulevard would improve 911 response times, reduce traffic and carbon emissions, help connect Dublin and Livermore, and preserve wildlife and open space.
Measure II “allows this long-awaited road to be built, without the hefty cost to the taxpayers’ bottom line,” the argument reads.
The donated land would be dedicated to road development, including bike lanes and pedestrian access. They also expect the creation of new trails, with 100 acres of open space protection, according to the argument in favor of the measure.
Those who signed the pro-argument include three former mayors of Dublin: Alameda County Supervisor David Haubert, BART Board Director Melissa Hernandez and Chabot-Las Positas Community College Board Trustee Tim Sbranti.
The opposition claims the measure would actually reduce open space, destroy wildlife habitat, worsen traffic, block scenic views, increase air pollution and increase water consumption and sewage treatment loads, according to the formal argument filed against Measure II.
The warehouses and distribution centers would invite traffic to the new road, according to the opponents. And the development would also reduce wildlife habitat.
“You don’t get traffic relief by adding thousands of semi-trucks to Dublin Road. You don’t get clean air from all that added exhaust. And you don’t get all the space preservation from building on the last open space separator between Dublin and Livermore,” Juan Pablo Galván Martínez, senior land use manager of Save Mount Diablo, told the Pleasanton Weekly.
In their argument, the opponents remind voters that the measure would overturn the Dublin voter’s decision to create an urban limit line for eastern Dublin in 2014, saying it would take away the residents’ right to vote against commercial development along Dublin Boulevard.
Local environmental groups Save Mount Diablo, Audubon Society, California Native Plant Society East Bay Chapter and others oppose Measure II.
Signers of the argument opposing Measure II includes co-author of the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014 Dave Bewley, Save Mount Diablo conservation director Seth Adams and CEO of West Dublin Alliance Shirley Lewandowski.
What’s at stake
Adams argues that measure proponents will misplace the attention on the Dublin Boulevard extension.
The real issues at stake are the urban limit line and the green belt between the two cities, according to Adams.
“Our urban limit gave (the green belt) real protection. Now they’re trying to break the urban limit line for some additional development,” Adams said.
The development in question could total up to 1.2 million square feet of industrial/business park development and bring nearly $16 million in construction-related revenues and $1.1 million in annual revenue, according to an assessment by city consultant Keyser Marston cited in the council’s July 16 report. Developing the area would also bring more than 2,000 full-time jobs and over 3,700 jobs.
But without an agreement between the developer and the city, any proposed benefits are just speculative, Adams responded.
The development would require voter approval because the Crosby property cannot be developed under Open Space Initiative.
The 2014 ballot measure was meant “to protect the open spaces and agriculture of the Doolan and Collier Canyons area and the Western Extended Planning Area,” according to a staff report by Dublin City Manager Linda Smith on July 16.
But it allowed construction of the Dublin Boulevard extension to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore and proposed the City Council consider commercial development along the Dublin Boulevard extension “up to 1,200 feet north of interstate Highway 580,” as written in the city’s General Plan.
It directed the council to consider if “commercial development is needed to fund the construction or maintenance of the extension, and if water supply and wastewater service is assured for any development.” It also authorized the council to “put a measure on the ballot to authorize development in the designated area.”
The City Council discussed and voted 3-2 to advance the measure — later designated as Measure II — for the ballot on July 16.
Without the measure and the funding it could garner, Councilmember Jean Josey said she was concerned that construction of the Dublin Boulevard extension would be postponed. The 1.5-mile extension is expected to cost more than $150 million, according to the staff report on July 16.
One mile would exist within Dublin’s current boundaries. The other half mile is expected to run through the Crosby property, which is currently unincorporated Alameda County land owned by Livbor-Manning LLC.
If the Crosby property were to remain unincorporated, the cost of road construction on that land would be split between Dublin and Livermore.
In total, Dublin would be on the hook to pay approximately $124 million and Livermore would be expected to pay $27.5 million, according to the staff report.
For the portion of the road inside the city limits, “The City anticipates the development will be self-funded through traffic impact fees, which do not rely on taxpayer dollars, along with contributions from property owners for the indirect benefits they receive —again, at no cost to the general public,” Dublin city communications analyst Ryan Moran told the Weekly.
He continued, “For the portion of the Extension outside of the city limits, if Measure II passes and when the Council decides on future development in the area, the City would establish traffic impact fees to help fund the Extension and seek grant funding for any remaining costs.”
Despite talk of splitting costs within the Crosby property, Dublin Mayor Michael McCorriston revealed the council’s inclination to annex the land. “The objective of putting it on the ballot is to be successful, not spin the dice. It’s to achieve something, that is, eventually annex this,” McCorriston said at the July 16 meeting.
Livermore Mayor John Marchand made the outcome of annexation clear in a letter to McCorriston in July: If Dublin annexes the property, Livermore would not be responsible to pay for any portion of the road.
Going to court
In addition to the cities’ conflicting desires for the property and the possibility of Dublin’s annexation, Measure II has elicited legal issues.
On Aug. 9, Save Mount Diablo and Friends of Livermore sued the city of Dublin, its City Council and other involved parties for not conducting an environmental review before placing Measure II on the ballot, according to Adams.
Adams alleges the city was required to undergo an environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
However, the city of Dublin contends the measure is not a project, arguing it is not required to conduct an environmental review yet.
That argument falls short for Adams, since the city is simultaneously claiming “project” benefits.
“We want proper environmental review to occur, and we want legal disclosure of that information so that the public can make an informed decision, instead of a rush to the ballot to try and trick voters,” Save Mount Diablo writes on its website.
Since the court hearing is scheduled for two days after the election, Save Mount Diablo and Friends of Livermore “filed for a temporary restraining order and stay to prevent the City and the Alameda County Registrar of Voters from placing Measure II on the November ballot,” according to the Save Mount Diablo website.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Michael Markman denied the application, so Measure II will be on the ballot.
Comments