DUBLIN--The proposed Dublin extension to Livermore upsets many more citizens than Tom Evans.
The second article in a two-report series reveals an apparent lack of public trust and transparency, leaving many confused on why officials are proposing a new traffic pattern.
"It appears that the goal of the City of Dublin is to extend Dublin Blvd to Livermore with a super modern roadway to develop the land in the southeast corner of Dublin," Evans said, adding it also appears plans include developing mainly commercial, industrial and office-friendly properties in the southeast corner of Dublin while also annexing the Crosby and develop 80 acres of the property as commercial, industrial.
Enter, the 2014 Open Space Initiative passed in Dublin in 2014.
Dublin goverment depiction of proposed extension
"It preserves the land between Dublin and Livermore, including the Crosby property, from development; however, it does allow a road to be built thru the Crosby property while leaving the rest of the land use unchanged," Evans said.
If the Crosby property was to be developed, it would first have to be annexed and the annexation of the Crosby property would not require a public vote.
"If the city council and the property owner agree, then it’s pretty much a done deal," Evans said.
Evans' arguments continually coincide with those of concerned citizens who also spoke at the June 3 meeting. Four citizens raised concerns that evening, beginning with Shirley Lewandowski, who "critiqued the proposed $160 million Dublin Extension Road project, which would be a 1.5-mile, six-to-four lane expressway, highlighting its proximity to Interstate 580."
Like Evans, Lewandowski "asserted that Livermore would not financially support the City's plan due to the commercial development aspect, leaving Dublin with the full cost," according to the OpGov.ai platform, which added that "expensive design prioritizes developer profits over resident interests and the environment."
The resident held up a sign expressing her opinion on an alternative extension, costing $50 million, that would connect two existing roads with only a third of a mile of new construction, preserve open space, and avoid the annexation of unincorporated land for commercial development.
Shirley Lewandowski is showing a picture of an alternative traffic route
Lewandowski's husband, Norm, also shared his concerns, noting the Dublin Extension Road project and city transparency do not go hand in hand, arguing "residents would have overwhelmingly rejected the $160 million project with commercial development if it had been clearly presented on a ballot measure."
"He accused the city of using misleading wording in Measure II to bypass direct resident decision-making and obscure commercial plans in open space," the OpGov.ai platform reports. "Lewandowski emphasized that the council should prioritize residents' best interests over developers' profits, especially given the city's projected reserve depletion by 2031."
Evans said, "rezoning the property to commercial and industrial requires a public vote unless Measure II makes it through the court system," noting "the court system has recently ruled that Measure II was not done legally, there are possible appeals."
The most significant contributor to the "Yes on Measure II" campaign was the Crosby family. The bottom line is that Dublin would lose 80 acres of scenic land from Crosby's property, and it could also cost the City of Dublin money, along with the loss of scenery. Livermore is currently expected to fund $27 million out of the $154 million.
But there is a big red flag.
If Dublin annexes the Crosby property, Livermore will back out and pay nothing.
Dublin government's depiction of the proposed extension
"Measure II says it’s about traffic reduction, clean air, and open space," Evans said. "However, the main thing it really does is give the city council the right to change the Crosby property zoning (if certain conditions are met) from agriculture to commercial/industrial without a public vote, which is nothing like the title suggests.
Never mind money, according to Evans, whose primary concern is misleading the public with a title for the measure that doesn’t match the text of the measure. For example, Evans stated that the city claims that emergency response time would improve with Measure II.
That's not true.
"What they never disclosed to the public, unless one specifically asked, is that emergency response time would not change a bit for 99% of Dublin," Evans said. "Our city leaders based their claim on one single address on Collier Canyon Road, near the Livermore casino, so that they could present it that way"
Tom Evans graph of emergency response time
Evans thinks this effort to fool Dublin voters is shameful, especially when the City’s own leaders generated it.
Unlike officials, Evans laid out the pros and cons of both issues.
The benefits of the Dublin Extension include providing partial infrastructure for future commercial development and an alternative route for fire vehicles to a single address in Dublin, which could reduce fire response time for that specific address on Collier Canyon Road if multiple stations needed to respond. It would have a dedicated bike path, easing freeway traffic slightly by allowing vehicles to exit the I-580 freeway and drive through Dublin, offering a time savings of a couple of minutes to Costco or Las Positas College for a few people in East Dublin.
Cons of Dublin Extension include it will cost $154 million; Dublin doesn’t have the money to pay for it; if Dublin gets too far in debt; local landowners and developers who benefit the most are not contributing to the funding; increases traffic in Dublin by allowing vehicles to exit the I-580 freeway, enabling them to drive through Dublin; does not improve 911 response time for medical emergencies; and CEQA mitigation is being paid for by the Dublin at $16 million thus far.
But most of all, Evans asked, if Dublin gets too far in debt will they ask the residents to pay for it?
Photo: Alameda County Transportation Commission
Evans did the same for the Measure II Campaign.
Pros of Measure II include that it will provide a huge profit for the Crosby family; allows the City to collect future fees and taxes, estimated $27 million over 20 years, but all of those revenues would be instantly cancelled out the moment Dublin annexed the Crosby property because they would lose Livermore’s $27M contribution; could provide some jobs depending on how much and what type of building, if it becomes a large warehouse and distribution opportunity; and vows that 100 acres out of the 180 acres won’t get developed.
Cons of Measure II Campaign include Dublin will lose the beauty of some of our last remaining hills north of I-580; the City will instantly lose $27 million in funding from Livermore for the Dublin Blvd extension; does not provide cleaner air; does not provide traffic relief within the City of Dublin; does not improve 911 response time the Dublin Blvd extension could be built with or without Measure II; develops 80 acres of scenic land that is currently zoned to be left as open land, primarily agricultural; and gives up beautiful scenic land and $27M in funding to make the Crosby family richer.”
"How does this benefit the residents?" Evans asked, then answered, "Getting to Costco two minutes faster is not worth spending $154 million."
Tom Evans graph of extension in full detail, considering many factors
The city could collect $16 million in fees/taxes, and estimate $11 million in property taxes over 20 years, according to Evans. At the same time, it will instantly lose $27 million in funding from Livermore.
"They effectively cancel each other out," Evans said.
The matter discussed in the last meeting was on June 17, when Evans and Gillergerten spoke up again.
"A significant point of contention was the proposed allocation of an additional $3.5 million from the General Fund to the Dublin Boulevard Extension's ED TIF, which staff framed as crucial for securing external grants," the OpGov.ai platform reports. "However, Councilmember Morada critically questioned its prudence given rising city expenses and a projected deficit by 2030-31. Public comments introduced sharp criticisms, including doubts about the economic realism of the Crosby property annexation."
Between the OpGov.ai platform and residents, it is obvious there is an issue with the proposed extension. If you have concerns, please email me at reporterangelaunderwood@gmail.com so I can share your thoughts as well.
Comments