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

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

November 9, 2005

California Town Rejects Solar Development

On Tuesday night Livermore's constituency voted against city ballot Measure D, preventing a large California housing developer from building what it claimed would have been the country's largest completely solar community.

A coalition of environmentalists, citizens, and politicians thwarted the measure, which they claimed posed many threats to the environment, even though the development would have run on purely solar power. The controversial measure would have extended the urban growth boundary established by the Livermore City Council in 2002, and allowed the development of a currently unspoiled 1,400-acre, privately owned parcel of rolling grasslands.

Most local and national environmental groups were opposed to the development, including the Sierra Club, the California Native Plant Society, and the Alameda County League of Conservation Voters, because of the environmental impact on local wildlife and increased road traffic on Interstate 580. The Livermore city council was split on the question, with "slow-growth" mayor Marshall Kamena, who won reelection yesterday, staunchly opposed.

"This is the fifth time in 30 years that developers have come in and tried to get their hands on our scenic corridor and agricultural belt," Kamena told Outside Online. "They'd make a fortune off of our beautiful land. But with 30,000 more car trips down our highway, and the impact of 2,450 additional homes, they're not doing us any favors."

Livermore citizens were generally opposed to development outside the growth boundary, though some community members were enticed by the developer's promise to provide money for the building of a high school and a 130-acre sports park on the land. Some were also encouraged by the proposed protection of 750 acres of open space.

The developer, Pardee Homes, a wholly owned subsidiary of multi-billion dollar Weyerhaeuser Industries and a leader in the green-building movement, spent an estimated $3.25 million dollars—about $75 for each of the 44,000 registered voters—on a campaign to influence the vote. By contrast, opponents of the measure spent an estimated $220,000.

Many supporters of the development banked on Pardee's multi-million-dollar incentive package to push the measure through. "What we're talking about here is smart growth," Bernie Rhinerson, a spokesperson for Pardee Homes, told Outside Online before the measure was defeated. "Opponents of the measure are making an illegitimate claim. This is the best opportunity that Livermore has ever had. They'll get a school, additional housing, both of which are major needs. And sensitive habitats will be set aside in an environmental preserve."

David Reid, the East Bay Field Representative for the Greenbelt Alliance—a bay-area non-profit dedicated to protecting open space and preserving the quality of life of cities and towns—rallied much of the opposition to the development. He felt that it would undermine the progressive nature and cohesive identity of the city.

"Our main concern is that the development would shift Livermore's future from being a compact and walkable community, a model of livable growth, to another example of a city gobbled up by urban sprawl," Reid told Outside Online.

Additionally, environmental groups feared that traffic congestion would worsen on Interstate 580, and that construction and pollution would permanently alter the delicate balance of plant and animal life on the grasslands. Of specific concern was the potential extinction of an endangered herb, the palmate bracted bird's-beak, which is making a last stand in the grasslands of North Livermore.

Lorraine Dietrich, one of the two city council members who were in favor of the development, said that she and her coalition looked on the situation pragmatically, seeking an outcome that would both protect the environment and improve urban life.

"If you take an eagle's-eye view of the situation, it's clear that this project would have been good for our city. All this screaming about traffic—which is going to come regardless of this project—and damage to the environment that this development would supposedly create, none of it is rooted in fact. These groups who are opposed to the measure should stop squawking about sprawl and do something real with the money they're getting from their supporters. It's a travesty."

The anti-development majority disagrees, pointing to the overwhelming citizen support of slow-growth.

"People in Livermore were smart enough to see through the scheme," said Reid. "The development wouldn't have been smart-growth, it would've been sprawl."

###