Home > Resource Center > In the News Home > Greenbelt Alliance in the News

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

December 18, 2002

Council puts controls on North Livermore

New majority adopts initiative to limit growth without asking voters

Citing strong public support, the council said it is comfortable exercising its legal option to simply adopt it. The council also said its decision also saves time and money on an election. The council voted 3-2 Monday night to adopt it.

Petitions had been signed by 10,500 people, nearly three times the number of registered Livermore voters needed to qualify it for the November 2003 ballot.

Opponents criticized the council majority for declining to put it through an election process so pros and cons could be aired, especially since a voter-sponsored initiative can't be overturned without voter approval.

About 25 Bay Area jurisdictions have urban-growth boundaries. The majority have been approved by voters, but some have been approved by city councils. But Livermore's council may be the first to adopt one that first qualified for the ballot through the initiative process, said Jeremy Madsen of the Greenbelt Alliance, who lauded Monday's action.

The initiative, which goes into effect immediately, deletes portions of a North Livermore general plan amendment adopted in 1993, including development for as many as 12,500 houses. And it requires future urban development there to first get a thumbs up from voters. The North Livermore area is north of Interstate 580, west of Springtown.

"It gives more power to voters, not less," said Councilman Tom Reitter, who voted with Councilman Mark Beeman and Mayor Marshall Kamena to adopt it. "It's giving the public the right to decide on major land-use issues that have a huge and irreversible impact on their lives."

Residents are told they can do nothing to control growth, but "I think that only death and taxes are inevitable, and that everything else is up for grabs," Reitter said.

Council members Tom Vargas and Lorraine Dietrich urged the majority to put the issue on the ballot, saying that special interests are deciding the matter for the voters who didn't sign initiative petitions.

"What we have is a group trying to seize an opportunity away from voters," Vargas said, claiming a city general plan update under way is "completely undermined and pre-empted" by this action.

Vargas noted that the council majority in October blocked a city-staff study of the measure's fiscal and other impacts on grounds that voters would have the chance to hear the pros and cons through the election process.

But with Monday night's action, he said, "Voters will never have a chance to understand it, until it's too late." He said the measure threatens completion of road extensions necessary to build the new I-580/Highway 84 interchange, though initiative supporters dispute it.

Those favoring council adoption said Livermore voters have for more than two decades made clear their desire to preserve North Livermore, most recently by voting in a new City Council majority favoring protections and, in November 2000, by supporting the Measure D open-space initiative, which restricts county development in North Livermore.

"I believe there's been ample time for discussion on this," Beeman said. "Twenty years ought to put a lid on it."

But others said many in the community are worried about tradeoffs, including replacing North Livermore development with high-density housing within existing city limits.

Attorneys for some North Livermore landowners said that council adoption of the initiative triggers environmental-review requirements that haven't been met.

"Will we sue over that? I don't know," said Marty Inderbitzen, representing the Lin family, a major North Livermore property owner already litigating Measure D.

Supporters dispute environmental study was needed, and Livermore City Attorney Dan Sodergren said he's not aware of case law that addresses the question.

Reach Bonita Brewer at 925-847-2120 or bbrewer@cctimes.com.

###