|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
An Alameda County Superior Court judge ordered the city of Dublin last month to revoke Measure II for failing to conduct a required environmental review ahead of placing the measure on the November 2024 general election ballot.
With voter approval of Measure II last year, the Dublin City Council gained authority to approve commercial development on 80 acres of land on property owned by Livbor-Manning LLC (Harry Crosby) for funding the extension of Dublin Boulevard to Livermore. As land east of the city, it was formerly protected from development in the city’s General Plan.
The final ruling Nov. 19 retracts the council’s newly granted authority and affirms the tentative decision and preliminary statement of decision issued Oct. 1 by Judge Michael Markman in favor of granting the petition for writ of mandate to repeal Measure II, otherwise known as the Dublin Traffic Relief, Clean Air/Open Space Preservation Measure.
The ruling also marks a win for organizations Save Mount Diablo and Friends of Livermore over defendants including the city of Dublin and its council, Dublin City Clerk Marsha Moore, Alameda County Registrar of Voters Tim Dupuis and Livbor-Manning LLC.
In issuing the final decision, Markman considered the city’s objections to the tentative decision, the petitioner’s responses as well as each sides’ arguments at a hearing Nov. 13.
The final decision was a “significant David versus Goliath win for Save Mount Diablo, our partner Friends of Livermore, our wonderful supporters and everyone who cares about open spaces and following the rules”, SMD Executive Director Ted Clement said in a statement.
“The city respects the court’s decision and is currently reviewing the ruling,” Dublin spokesperson Shari Jackman told the Pleasanton Weekly. “At this time, any next steps would need to be discussed and considered by the Dublin City Council.”
On July 16, 2024, the council voted 3-2 to place Measure II on the ballot.
Among the goals of the measure, it was intended to revoke the portion of the 2014 Open Space Initiative that prevented the city council from approving development on 80 acres of the Crosby property.
Of note, the OSI permitted the construction of a Dublin Boulevard extension to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore and directed the council in 2024 to consider whether commercial development along the extension — up to 1,200 feet north of Interstate 580 — is needed to fund the construction or maintenance of the extension.
The court case revolved around the question of whether a measure that “dramatically alters a government agency’s authority over land use” is a project requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act, the ruling states.
CEQA guides government agencies in identifying and addressing the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects, defined as activities that may cause either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
Both sides in the suit agreed that any future commercial development would require steps in addition to Measure II, the ruling states.
Additionally, the city recognized that any future changes to land-use designations or permissions would require CEQA review.
However, the city maintained that the Measure II resolution was not a project and therefore did not require an environmental review.
The city also argued that if the Measure II resolution was a project, the “common sense exemption” would apply, meaning the activity in question cannot possibly have a significant effect on the environment.
“This case presents an unusual situation,” the ruling states.
A city typically has the authority to make zoning changes, at which point CEQA review begins, according to the ruling.
However, the OSI restricted the city’s land-use authority over the 180-acre Crosby property and the petitioners have shown that Measure II, “at a minimum”, will cause indirect physical changes in the environment, the ruling concludes.
“The court’s decision plays a key role in preventing sprawl and protecting the beauty of our region,” Tri-Valley Conservancy conservation manager Diana Roberts told the Weekly.
Following the ruling, the defendants have 60 days to appeal the decision.
The city has not yet evaluated alternative options at this time, Jackman said Nov. 25. Any considerations would be directed by the city council if they choose to explore them, she added.
Crosby did not respond for comment as of Tuesday afternoon.
