|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Dublin City Council last week voted against appealing an Alameda County Superior Court judge’s order to revoke Measure II over a violation of the state’s environmental laws.
Given voter approval during the November 2024 general election, Measure II permitted the council to approve limited commercial development on 80 acres of land east of the city, located on property owned by Livbor-Manning LLC (Harry Crosby) for the sake of helping fund a $153.6 million project extending Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore.
The measure, otherwise known as the “Dublin Traffic Relief, Clean Air/Open Space Preservation Measure”, rescinded protections for the Crosby property that were previously laid out in the city’s General Plan.Â
However, a final ruling by Judge Michael Markman last fall, ordered the city to repeal Measure II for placing the item on the ballot ahead of conducting an environmental review, as required of projects under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Markman’s ruling Nov. 19 signaled a win for Save Mount Diablo and Friends of Livermore in their lawsuit against the city of Dublin and its council, Dublin city clerk Marsha Moore, Alameda County Registrar of Voters Tim Dupuis and Livbor-Manning LLC.
Following the final ruling, the City Council voted 3-2 vote in closed session Feb.3 to refrain from appealing the decision, as reported out in public that night by city attorney John Bakker.Â
Voting in favor of an appeal were Mayor Sherry Hu and Vice Mayor Jean Josey with the remaining members of council voting against the pursuit of an appellate review.
“The city council determined that pursuing an appeal would involve significant cost, time and uncertainty and would not be in the city of Dublin’s best interest,” city officials said in a Feb. 3 statement.
However, the council maintains that placing Measure II on the ballot did not constitute a project under CEQA, city officials added.
“We thank the three city council members who voted not to appeal, and we thank Save Mount Diablo’s supporters and partners for helping us be successful with this lawsuit to protect our natural world against major opponents with deep pockets,” SMD Executive Director Ted Clement said in a statement.
“(The decision) was validation of our efforts to protect important open space and the urban limit line in the Doolan Canyon area”, he added.
Since their Feb. 3 meeting, councilmembers have expressed to the Pleasanton Weekly the thoughts guiding their individual votes.
In line with the city’s statement, councilmembers Michael McCorriston and Kashef Qaadri affirmed that the time and cost associated with litigation were factors in voting against an appeal.
“Decisions like these are among the most difficult we face as a council because they require us to balance the expressed will of our voters with our fiduciary and legal responsibilities to the city’s future,” Qaadri told the Weekly. “It is time to turn our attention away from the courtroom and back toward the collaborative work of building a sustainable future for Dublin.”
While Councilmember John Morada also voted against seeking an appellate review, he considered the council’s decision as a “victory for integrity in government”, he told the Weekly.
“It was built on deception and driven by special interests, not the public good,” he said of Measure II. “Standing firm on that belief is not about politics; it is about accountability, transparency and honoring the trust of our residents.”
Moving forward, Morada said he intends to oversee the road redesign and its funding with an eye for community input.
“We must be careful not only about where funding comes from, but from whom,” he said. “I send a deliberate warning to those seeking to dilute the public’s voice for their selfish intentions because I will, at all costs, safeguard our democracy.”
On the opposing side of the tally, Josey said she favored appealing Markman’s decision to represent the will of the voters.
“Further, I believe the city is correct on the issue of law, and I believe we would have prevailed before the Court of Appeal,” Josey added.
Hu did not respond for comment.
“Appealing would have been futile and a further waste of taxpayer dollars,” Friends of Livermore advocate Dick Schneider said in a statement.
According to city officials, forgoing an appeal does not impact the Dublin Boulevard extension, as planning and collaboration with the city of Livermore and other stakeholders are expected to continue on the project.
So far, the city has amassed $71 million for the Dublin Boulevard extension advance, according to city officials.
“The funding contemplated as part of the Crosby property would have helped contribute towards the funding for the portion within unincorporated Alameda County, however, without that additional funding, the cities will continue to identify regional, state and federal funding sources,” Dublin city officials told the Weekly.
Livermore city officials had not responded to a request for comment as of Wednesday morning.
As an alternative to the Dublin Boulevard extension, a two-lane road could be constructed to connect Croak Road to Collier Canyon Road for approximately $44 million, Dublin resident Shirley Lewandowski said during public comment at the Feb. 3 meeting.
The proposed project saves open space and can be funded within the city’s budget for capital improvement projects, she added.
“This is the more cost effective and responsible use of taxpayer money,” Lewandowski said.
Although the city has declared its intention to accept Markman’s ruling, defendant Livbor-Manning LLC has the opportunity to appeal the decision prior to Feb. 23, SMD attorney Rebecca Davis of Lozeau Drury said in a statement.
Crosby did not respond for comment as of Wednesday morning.
Station closed? BART could abandon Tri-Valley stops under doomsday budget cutsFebruary 9, 2026 8:36 am
'United and serious': Dublin teachers union authorizes strike amid stalled negotiationsFebruary 8, 2026 12:48 pm