Members also debate pros and cons of potentially annexing the unincorporated land bordering Livermore
Voters will decide come Nov. 5 whether to allow Dublin City Council the authority to approve limited development of the debated Crosby property along a future extension of Dublin Boulevard with a ballot measure titled “Dublin Traffic Relief, Clean Air/Open Space Preservation Measure”.
The council approved the ballot measure in a 3-2 vote after spending more than two hours discussing the topic at its July 16 meeting.
Mayor Michael McCorriston and Councilmember Kashef Qaadri were the two dissenting votes. During deliberations, they both expressed an interest in obtaining more information and collaborating with partners like the city of Livermore before moving the ballot measure forward.
The parcel known as the Crosby property, owned by Livbor-Manning LLC, is the unincorporated buffer between Dublin and Livermore along Interstate 580 and is the subject of the two cities’ differing visions.
Both cities have agreed on the benefit of constructing a 1.5-mile extension to Dublin Boulevard to connect the current street with North Canyons Parkway as an alternative route to the freeway, but Livermore wants to maintain an open space buffer between the cities, whereas Dublin wants to commercially develop the area surrounding the road in the Crosby area to offset the cost of constructing the extension.
The extension project itself does not depend on passage of the measure but if it does pass, the Dublin’s next move would likely be to annex the Crosby property into the city.
“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. However, he also shared concerns during deliberations about the implications of annexing the property as it would make the city of Dublin solely responsible for the cost of constructing the Dublin Boulevard extension.
The space is currently protected under the Open Space Initiative of 2014, which established regulations and developmental standards to protect open and agricultural spaces of Doolan and Collier canyons and Western Dublin Extended Planning Area.
Only voters can appeal and amend this initiative in the General Plan.
The 2014 initiative proposed that after 10 years, the city council shall “study commercial development along the extension of Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway up to 1,200 feet north of interstate Highway 580.”
Currently, Dublin estimates to pay $96.5 million on the 1 mile of road within the current city limits. It expects to pay $27.5 million for half of the portion of the Crosby property while Livermore pays the other half, according to the July 16 staff report.
However, Livermore Mayor John Marchand sent a letter to the Dublin council prior to its meeting clarifying that if the Crosby property is annexed, the city of Livermore would not be financially responsible for any amount of the road construction costs.
“Since the road, as presented in the staff report, will be wholly inside Dublin urban boundaries after the proposed annexation, per the existing agreement between our cities, Livermore’s contribution to the road will be zero,” Marchand wrote.
The commercial development proposed by Dublin to help fund the road extension is estimated to create $1.1 million in annual revenue, $16 million in one-time revenue, 2,000 full-time jobs and a total of 3,700 jobs.
If the recently approved ballot initiative passes, the city could designate “the portion of the property east of the Dublin Eastern Urban Limit Line up to the Livermore city boundary and along the proposed extension of Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway, up to 1,200 feet north of Interstate 580” as commercial land. An exception could be made west of Cottonwood Creek, as long as the developed land didn’t exceed 80 acres.
This means at least 100 acres of the property would remain open space.
The city completed an environmental review for the road extension but not the proposed commercial development because “The City Council’s approval of the resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.”
The public comment period of the meeting elicited 14 speakers, three of which supported the measure being placed on the ballot.
Former Dublin mayor Tim Sbranti was among the supporters. He offered some historical context, noting that the current measure doesn’t conflict with a 2002 memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Dublin and Livermore that was meant to protect Doolan Canyon.
“Dublin wants to preserve our rights in the future for this commercial development as well as the extension of the road,” he said.
The 11 remaining speakers opposed the measure going to vote, with the majority citing problems with developing some of Crosby property and more specifically questioning the staff report’s accuracy, bill clarity, the legal requirement for a full environmental review, fire danger and the irreplaceability of open space in Dublin.
Local environmental groups who opposed the measure include the Tri-Valley Conservancy, Sierra Club and Save Mount Diablo.
A particularly passionate resident displayed a DVD case from the 2012 film “The Lorax” based on the children’s book by Dr. Seuss.
“You are either the Oncler – who basically takes down all the greenspace for profit, for money – or you can be the Lorax who tries to preserve what little we have left,” she said. “One day our kids are going to look at us and go, ‘Why did we get this name Dublin? Where’d it come from?’ because there won’t be a single ounce of greenspace around them.”
Following the public comment, Qaadri said the environmental impact of developing some of the land in the Crosby Property outweighed the revenue, since the land is a scarce resource.
Councilmember Janine Thalblum pushed back on all fronts, suggesting there would remain a lot of open space in the Crosby property even with the development.
“Putting this on the ballot is not going to be detrimental to the conversations we’re having with the city of Livermore. Putting this on the ballot just gives the voters opportunity to see the vision that the city of Dublin is trying to put forth for its economic success,” Thalblum said.
Vice Mayor Sherry Hu doubled down on the harmony between partial development and environmental concerns, which would be addressed at the time of development.
Councilmember Jean Josey voiced in favor of continuing conversations with Livermore, protecting as much open space as possible and a buffer space between the cities, but also moving forward with the measure.
“I think that not putting this on the ballot puts the (road) funding perhaps in jeopardy,” Josey said. “It doesn’t obligate us to do any actual development by asking the voters their opinion.”
“I’m concerned about the ballot measure being a false indicator of our unwillingness to negotiate with our partners in Livermore,” Qaadri responded.
Josey disagreed, saying the measure could go through without impacting negotiations with Livermore.
Additionally, Josey clarified that obligation for road costs within the Crosby property would only be incurred if Dublin annexed the property. Even if voters pass the ballot measure in November, the land would still be considered unincorporated and not all Dublin’s responsibility.
McCorriston elaborated on his concern about financing the Dublin Boulevard extension should the city decide to try annexing the Crosby land.
Upon annexation, the city would be responsible for a total of $54 million, McCorriston said. “We’re betting on mitigating this through $1.1 million a year that will actually take full effect in 20 years or maybe somewhere around there.”
Staff said that they could look for grant funding, support from developers and even local sales tax measures as funding sources to construct the road.
The landowner is also set to assist in paying for the road in addition to contributing the right-of-way for the road (10 acres) and off-site mitigation area.
Qaadri echoed McCorriston’s financial concerns and expressed that he didn’t see the benefit of pushing for annexation. Instead, he said he supports determining partnership and funding first, action that would also make environmental gains.
McCorriston finished the discussion by reiterating his stance against putting the measure on the ballot at this time, noting that with more information, he could be willing to do so in the future.
With the council majority ultimately voting in favor of the measure, it will now be up to voters to determine the next step.
Comments