DUBLIN — The city of Dublin is pushing ahead on its extension of Dublin Boulevard along a once-environmentally protected piece of land outside its jurisdiction, but environmentalists are also continuing their efforts to block commercial development there.

Related Articles

State officials disappointed over collapse of $1.5 billion plan to expand Los Vaqueros Reservoir

Letters: Jimmy Carter sought peace for Palestinians

Santa Cruz Wharf to reopen to the public after partial collapse

East Bay brackish desalination plant set to begin operations

Capitola Wharf survives mother nature’s first big test since reopening

Dublin has eyed the possibility of developing the 1.5-mile piece of land along Dublin Boulevard for years, though for the past decade it has been part of a protected 80-acre piece of land, known as the Crosby Property.

Environmentalists in 2014 helped create an urban limit line which until now barred any development along Dublin Boulevard into the Doolan Canyon area. Approved by voters on Nov. 5, Measure II now allows the city to develop 80 acres for commercial use along the Dublin Boulevard extension, up to North Canyons Parkway.

The Dublin City Council on Tuesday voted unanimously to hire Bay Area transportation consulting firm Gray-Bowen-Scott to provide project management services at a cost of $250,000 through June 2028 – a small step in a much larger, hotly debated process to bring businesses to the unincorporated area.

The road extension project will cost an estimated $153.6 million, with the costs split between Dublin and Livermore, according to the city. Dublin would pay $126.1 million, and Livermore would pay $27.5 million.

On Tuesday, Dublin Councilman Michael McCorriston asked that the city review the progress of the project annually, which the council also approved unanimously.

Councilwoman Jean Josey stressed to the public that the council was not directly discussing developing the Dublin Boulevard extension on Tuesday night. She noted that the city would first have to agree to annex the land, and go through more steps — such as an environmental review of the area — before any development could happen.

Environmentalists have sued the city in Alameda County Superior Court over Measure II, arguing the city should have done an environmental review of the project site before putting the measure on the ballot.

Seth Adams, an environmentalist who helped organize the opposition against Measure II with Save Dublin Open Space, said the civil case could go to trial as early as this summer — something he hopes to see.

Adams on Wednesday again called the extension project “unnecessary” and added “we’re obviously opposed to the idea of them encroaching on the urban limit line.”

“The only reason they got Measure II through is because it was incredibly deceptive. They claim to be doing the opposite of what it actually does,” Adams said in an interview. “They should be ashamed of themselves deceiving Dublin voters the way they did.”

Livermore Mayor John Marchand in an interview Wednesday said both cities have had ongoing discussions about the Dublin Boulevard extension, and he maintains that Livermore will not pay for any part of the road if Dublin annexes the area. He wants to maintain an “open space buffer” between the cities.

“When you drive along the Peninsula, you leave one town and enter another one. You don’t know where one town end and the other begins. There’s not distance between the two towns,” Marchand said. “When you come into the Tri-Valley, there’s actually this breathing space between these two communities. Livermore voters believe that an open space boundary is incredibly important for quality of life.”