YES On Measure F | Brentwood, CA | Put Brentwood In Control

LAFCO Chairman Speaks For Himself

Fri, 4 Jun 2010 21:00:00 -0400

In an effort to undue the misinformation caused by Seth Adams’ intentionally misleading comments, Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission Chairman Martin McNair spoke with the Brentwood Press this week. McNair is the chair of the 7 member commission which decides annexations. In this case, LAFCO will need to determine if either Brentwood or Antioch annexes the Measure F area along Balfour Road.

In a series of public comments and emails, the No on F crowd have taken McNair’s comments out of context and have tried to get voters to believe something that just isn’t true.

McNair confirmed that he was unhappy that fellow commissioners had chosen to provide input about LAFCO’s policies and procedures during the Measure F election. He also stated that LAFCO hadn’t made a final decision about the Brentwood or Antioch annexation question.

The reason they haven’t made the decision is because the issue hasn’t come to them yet! The No on F argument is different. They claim that a negative decision regarding Antioch’s potential taking of the site has already been made. Absolutely untrue. A complete fabrication.

McNair went further to clarify his position in his words. He confirmed that he had read both the Helen Allen/RobSchoder letter along with the Dwight Meadows letter. In the Press story McNair says that both letters are “accurate.” He also confirmed in a separate conversation that he agreed with everything the letters of his colleagues stated. Everything. He just wished that LAFCO hadn’t become involved.

Vice Chairman David Piepho also participated. He made it very clear that he also agreed with the comments of Allen, Schroder and Meadows. They just laid out “the reality of the LAFCO process” stated Piepho. He also fully supported both the right of the LAFCO members to make their comments. Unlike the No on F group, others actually still believe in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

With McNair’s and Piepho’s comments, there are now 5 members of LAFCO who have all stated the same thing…namely that if Brentwood’s voters say No and Antioch’s voters say Yes, that they will likely adhere to the express will of the people and put the land into Antioch’s control. The other two members, Supervisors Gayle Uilkema of Lafayette and Federal Glover of Pittsburg haven’t spoken publicly on the issue.

Should Antioch get the property, none of the limitations on growth nor any of the benefits that Measure F provides Brentwood would be assured. Antioch could approve any number of homes they wished and Antioch would get the property taxes and other fees. Given Antioch’s recent announcement that they are openly considering bankruptcy, their need for these dollars couldn’t be more obvious.

Also, this land would be quite distant from the voters of Antioch. Accordingly, it might well be an area within which Antioch tries to supply its legally-mandated affordable housing. Of the 19 cities in Contra Costa, only Moraga, Orinda and Antioch do not have approved housing plans. State law requires each city to indentify sites for low income housing. Antioch needs more dense homes and apartments to bring their plans into compliance with the law.

Voter Alert! Brentwood Press Confirms Antioch Risk

Fix Balfour Road and American Avenue PAC — Fri, 4 Jun 2010 21:00:00 -0400

LAFCO’s 7 commissioners decide Brentwood or Antioch.

Here is what 5 of them have stated:

“If the people of Antioch decide to expand their urban limit line to include the area along Balfour Road, LAFCO could give that great weight.”
Helen Allen, Rob Schroder
LAFCO Commissioners
Brentwood Press, June 4

Potential for Antioch Annexation is “Accurate.”
Brentwood Press, June 4

“I agree with what Helen and Rob said.”
Martin McNair
LAFCO Chairman

Regarding the Allen & Schroder letter
“I couldn’t agree with them more.”
Dwight Meadows
LAFCO Commissioner
Brentwood Press, May 13

Allen & Schroder letter laid out
“the reality of the LAFCO process.”
David Piepho
LAFCO Vice Chairman
Brentwood Press, June 4

If You Think No on F Means No Homes ... Think Again.

Fix Balfour Road and American Avenue PAC — Fri, 4 Jun 2010 21:00:00 -0400

Measure F opponents would have you believe that No on F will stop development. Things aren’t ever that simple!

The Measure F area has been planned for homes for many years. Either Antioch or Brentwood will develop the site.
Balfour Road needs widening. American Avenue needs to be extended. These roadway fixes cost $27,000,000. Homes are the only way to pay for this.
Antioch has announced it may be going bankrupt. They’ve already laid off police officers. They need ever penny they can get. Antioch needs growth in order to fund public services.
Antioch’s Roddy Ranch also needs more growth to fund roads and utilities.
Antioch has an average density of 4.5 homes per acre. Measure F limits potential growth to no more than 1.75 homes per acre. An Antioch approval could allow much more development.

LAFCO’s seven commissioners would decide if Antioch can annex this area. Five commissioners have stated that Antioch could take the area when Antioch’s voters say yes if Brentwood’s voters say no.

So, the question ISN’T IF the area will be developed. The question is BRENTWOOD or ANTIOCH?

YES on F Means
BRENTWOOD!

Join Us.Yes on F!

Fix Balfour Road and American Avenue PAC — Fri, 4 Jun 2010 21:00:00 -0400

Join Us. Yes on F! By Voting Yes on Measure F! If Homes Are Ultimately Approved...

Extra Parks
New Sports Fields
$800,000 Annual City Surplus & Help for the Brentwood Economy
$27,000,000 to Widen Balfour & Extend American
Elementary School & Scholarships for Brentwood Students
New Paramedic Service
No New Taxes!
$20,000,000 to expand the Bypass
Brentwood Decides, Not Antioch
Additional Brentwood Police
Tools to Fight Crime
Jobs for Brentwood
No Homes Until At Least June, 2015!
Low Density, Upscale, Owner-Occupied Homes

Antioch Councilman says Antioch Wants Measure F Area

Arne Simonsen - thepress.net — Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:00:00 -0400

I had the honor to be a member of the Antioch City Council from 2000 through 2008 and I continue to speak out on issues facing our city and East County.

Antioch is in serious trouble. Mayor Jim Davis recently announced that our city might be on the verge of bankruptcy. He mentioned the real possibility that we might not be able to make payroll within the next six months. We’ve already seen deep cuts in our police staffing as well as throughout city government. Our reserves have been depleted.

When we were growing, Antioch avoided these problems by bringing in revenue and new investment. Unfortunately for us, this effectively stopped in 2006, before the downturn in the housing market, which began in 2007. Ever since we stopped growing, our financial situation has become worse.

In 2005 we passed Measure K by a nearly 60-percent vote. I was proud to strongly endorse this initiative, which allowed us to bring Roddy Ranch into Antioch. It also gave us our own urban limit line, which the voters of Antioch control. We had had many fights with the county over land planning. Creating our own line put us in charge.

This brings up Brentwood’s Measure F. The initiative area borders both Brentwood and Antioch. Currently, it’s within Brentwood’ sphere of influence (SOI). However, I believe a majority of Antioch residents would vote to annex this land if the people of Brentwood don’t want it. The extra funding it would provide would help us enormously with our budget issues. Additionally, this area would also build roads and utilities we need to allow our growth to continue in the southern part of our city. In fact, implementation of the Roddy Ranch development requires other areas to help pay for infrastructure.

We know that a sphere of influence can change. We saw it when the City of Pittsburg successfully got LAFCO to change the SOI for the Baker property from Antioch to Pittsburg; and then Pittsburg annexed the Baker property. The Baker property is now developed and known as Century Plaza and Delta Gateway. Its sales and property tax revenues go to Pittsburg instead of Antioch.

I can’t vote in the Measure F election. But many friends in Brentwood have asked me what I thought about the chances of the site coming into Antioch. Although I can’t predict the future, the bottom line is that it would complement Antioch’s plans for Roddy Ranch and FUA1, where Kaiser Hospital is located.

The Truth about the Antioch Debate

Fix Balfour Road and American Avenue PAC — Sat, 29 May 2010 21:00:00 -0400

Much of the current debate about Measure F is turning on the question of whether or not Antioch might take control of the area if Measure F is defeated. Our opposition has provided an impressive sounding argument. Unfortunately, it’s full of misinformation half-truths and does not tell the whole story..

Here are the facts.

1. The site is NOT within Brentwood’s City Limits. Until it is within the actual City Limits, the determination of the area’s ultimate control remains unresolved. This is the law.

2. The Contra Costa Local Agency Formation (LAFCO) has the power to decide whether the area goes to Brentwood or Antioch or stays unincorporated. It is made up of 7 members. Contra Costa LAFCO has a longstanding policy of abiding by the express will of the people. In this case, if the people of Brentwood reject this area for a 2^nd time, LAFCO Commissioners have indicated that they are open to sending it to Antioch if Antioch’s voters want it.

3. The area is within Brentwood’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). This does support the idea that Brentwood should ultimately control this territory. We agree. That’s why we’re trying to finalize the steps of coming into Brentwood by passing Measure F. We would much rather join Brentwood. That’s why we wrote an initiative to come to Brentwood instead of Antioch.

It’s important to understand that a SOI status can be changed at any time LAFCO deems it appropriate. As recently as 2008, LAFCO removed hundreds of acres from Brentwood’s SOI after that land was made part of the state park system. LAFCO does a regular review of SOI’s to see if they still make sense. We’re concerned that a 2^nd rejection of our land by Brentwood’s voters would be a substantial basis for removing our land from Brentwood’s SOI. This is the kind of reasoning that LAFCO uses throughout the County.

4. Opponents seem to think that the position of the City of Antioch somehow decides whether land is placed under their control. Not true. In fact, Antioch’s City Council could even OPPOSE the proposed annexation. In the final analysis, the relevant issue is the policy of the 7 LAFCO Commissioners. State law gives them the sole power to decide this question.

But don’t be fooled. Antioch has NOT rejected the idea of bringing our land into their control should Brentwood reject it. Even more important, with their recent announcement that they may be facing bankruptcy, Antioch would have a strong motivation to go after this area. Brentwood’s staff concluded that homes on our site would generate annual net $800,000 surplus. Not only would the tax dollars and fees be of great benefit to Antioch, they have made it clear that development is needed to fund roads and sewer lines to allow them to implement their plans for Roddy Ranch. Antioch voters approved Roddy Ranch via the Measure K initiative in 2005 by nearly a 60% to 40% vote.

5. The real question surrounding Antioch is what will the voters of that city do? Because of the approval of Measure K in 2005, Antioch has its own Urban Limit Line. Pittsburg and San Ramon’s voters have the same power and authority over their own area. Currently, Brentwood does not. If Measure F passes, Brentwood will have its own Urban Limit Line which it will control. Right now, Brentwood is only a 5% fraction of overall countywide line.

6. An initiative in Antioch would change that city’s Urban Limit Line and would amend its General Plan. These are the key factors which would allow Antioch to annex the Balfour area.

7. Once Antioch’s voters approved the initiative, all that would be left is for LAFCO to finalize the shift to Antioch. It is true that a full review and public hearing would be part of that process. However, given LAFCO’s stated policy of respecting the will of the people, ask yourself this basic question: if Brentwood’s voters say no while Antioch’s voters say yes, why wouldn’t LAFCO put the area in the city which wants it? They almost certainly would. They always have.

8. Regarding an Antioch initiative, there are at least 4 groups who can put one on the ballot. A) the Antioch City Council, B) a group of Antioch citizens, C) other property owners, and D) the Measure F property owners. Please understand that initiatives get on city ballots a number of ways, often without the consent of the impacted property owners.

9. Finally, when our opponents say that Antioch can’t take this area, please remember that Roddy Ranch was outside Antioch and outside the Urban Limit Line. It became a part of Antioch because of the passage of Measure K and the votes of the 7 LAFCO Commissioners.

That’s it. As complicated as it may sound, it’s ultimately a 3 step process. Our land can come into Antioch if: A) Measure F loses, B) an Antioch initiative passes and C) LAFCO approves the move.

Please ask our opponents that if Roddy Ranch could come into Antioch by initiative, why couldn’t the Balfour area? Regardless of what they say, the simple fact is that it can.

It’s Happened Before. Don’t Let It Happen Again!

Fix Balfour Road and American Avenue PAC — Thu, 27 May 2010 21:00:00 -0400

Slatten Ranch: After Brentwood said No to annexing Slatten Ranch, Antioch said Yes to the 53 acre, 570,000 square foot retail development. Result: Antioch receives more than $1.5 million annually in taxes. Brentwood gets the traffic.
Ginochio Property. When Brentwood's voters defeated Measure L in 2005, this opened the door for Antioch. Antioch has targeted the 792 acre Ginochio area calling it a "Focus Area" in its General Plan. Given Antioch's average development density of 4.5 units/acre, Antioch approval of Ginochio could lead to more than 3,000 homes. Antioch would get the fees and taxes, we'd get the traffic.
Measure F Initiative Area: On Tuesday June 8 Brentwood voters will decide Measure F. If F passes, this area will be annexed to Brentwood and Brentwood will decide if homes are allowed, not Antioch nor the County. Yes on Measure F means Brentwood Control & Brentwood Benefits.

The Choice. Know the Truth Before You Vote!

By Fix Balfour Road and American Avenue PAC — Thu, 27 May 2010 21:00:00 -0400

Opponents of Measure F aren't telling the truth.

They claim that annexation of the Measure F area to Antioch "can't happen" and is "impossible."

The opposite is true.

If Measure F is approved, the land will be annexed into Brentwood and Brentwood will decide if homes are allowed. Brentwood will have control.

However, if Measure F is defeated, here's how the area can get into Antioch:

Antioch's voters approve an initiative including this area in Antioch's own Urban Limit Line
The Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approves the shift to Antioch. LAFCO members have already indicated that they are open to putting this area into Antioch depending on the results of the Measure F election.

That's it.

This is the process Measure F opponents claim "can't" happen. Their allegations are especially strange since this is exactly howRoddy Ranch was annexed to Antioch!

Some additional details.

An Antioch initiative can be brought forth by ANY of the following:
1. The Antioch City Council
2. A group of Antioch citizens
3. Other property owners
4. The Measure F property owners
The City Council of Antioch is NOT required to either approve or even support the annexation.
Brentwood residents would NOT be allowed to vote.

Readers' Forum: Times wrong about Measure F

Brian Swisher and Barbara Guise - Contra Costa Times — Fri, 14 May 2010 21:00:00 -0400

WE WERE disappointed but hardly surprised by the half-truths and misinformation of the Times editorial regarding Measure F. The Times has worked against Brentwood's interests for many years. We've been disrespected before and this is more of the same.

Measure F involves land between Brentwood and Antioch. The area was originally inside the 1990 voter approved Urban Limit Line and intended for Brentwood annexation. The Times doesn't bother to mention this.

Everything changed in 2000. Notwithstanding, the Brentwood City Council's unanimous opposition, the Board of Supervisors took this land away from us. With the Times cheering the county along, our wishes were ignored. After the county's land grab, Brentwood sued. Unfortunately, we lost because the county had control. They still do.

Measure F Opponents Engaged in Sleazy Push Poll

Fri, 14 May 2010 21:00:00 -0400

Over the past 24 hours, residents of Brentwood have been subjected to an anonymous “push poll” designed to deceive voters into opposing Measure F. “Push polls” are calls which claim to be polling efforts but which, in reality, are attempts to confuse voters with misinformation. The goal of the “push poll” is to frighten and mislead people into voting against Measure F. These calls are being made by opponents of Measure F and are not from the Yes on F campaign.

“Are you more or less likely to support Measure F given its plan to build Section 8 housing and bring people from Richmond to Brentwood” is one of the questions asked. The intent of this question couldn’t be more obvious. Of course, none of this is true.

“Are you more or less likely to support Measure F since Members of the City Council stand to make financial gain if it passes” is another totally false element of the call. No member of the City Council stands to profit from Measure F other than the fact that the entire City will do better financially if F is approved. Brentwood’s staff analysis of Measure F has shown an $800,000 annual surplus to the City if homes are constructed. This is in addition to major economic boost with local jobs and investment that F includes.

Land between two cities

Dwight Meadows, LAFCO Commissioner - thepress.net — Wed, 12 May 2010 21:00:00 -0400

I read with interest the recent letter of my colleagues Helen Allen and Rob Schroder. I am fortunate to serve with them on the Local Agency Formation Commission. We have worked together for many years to try and make the right decisions about boundary changes and annexations.

In terms of the issues their letter raised, I couldn’t agree with them more. Like Helen and Rob, I too feel that it is imperative that we at LAFCO respect the will of the people. It has been our long-term policy to honor voter-approved urban limit lines when deciding if and where a particular site should be annexed to one city or another.

Editorial: Now is the time – ‘Yes’ on Measure F

thepress.net — Wed, 12 May 2010 21:00:00 -0400

Stroll down the freezer aisle of your favorite grocery store and you’ll find a classic dessert known as Neapolitan ice cream. Traditionally, it contains three flavors in equal measure – chocolate, vanilla and strawberry. Everyone has a favorite. Some love chocolate, are just OK with vanilla, and don’t care for strawberry. Nonetheless, all three are there, and the treat has been popular since the 19th century.

So it is with Measure F. Parts of the measure are desirable, others less so, but as a whole the package fits well with today’s world of compromise solutions: there is something there for everyone.

Proponents of Measure F, though, have been accused of selling their box of Neapolitan by claiming it contains chocolate – true enough, but only part of the story. Likewise, opponents have only been touting that it contains strawberry. The truth, as usual, is like the vanilla: it’s in the middle.

Supervisor comments

Mary Nejedly Piepho - thepress.net — Wed, 12 May 2010 21:00:00 -0400

I realize sensitive and emotional local issues like Brentwood’s Measure F bring lots of opinions to the table, but I was surprised to see one in particular. First, let me say that I admire and respect our county’s Superintendent of Education Dr. Joe Ovick and his service to our county’s education system. However, his letter of May 7 was incorrect about Measure F.

First, Dr. Ovick states that the Highway 4 Bypass is “funded incrementally with federal dollars.” Actually, the Bypass is funded entirely with local dollars collected solely on new construction as mitigation. Of the $216 million that have been spent, 88 percent has come from development impact fees and 12 percent from the half-cent countywide sales tax measure. If Measure F passes and development occurs, an additional $20 million will go to the Bypass project. There is no other source of money for this critical element of local infrastructure.

Measure F earns mayoral stamp of approval

Mayor Robert (Bob) Taylor - thepress.net — Wed, 12 May 2010 21:00:00 -0400

After much forethought on the Measure F initiative, and after researching past history, I have found that this area of land has always been in Brentwood’s General Plan and sphere of influence.

I have always pursued the point that the City of Brentwood should always protect all sides of our city, and I do believe that this area should be under the control of the City of Brentwood.

I would like to also ensure that, if passed, this measure should provide a larger area, buffer zone, of open space versus development than it currently does. Additionally, I do not wish to have development on the ridgelines affecting the views of our beautiful hills and mountains.

‘No’ is no plan

Alex Sanabria, Brentwood - thepress.net — Wed, 5 May 2010 21:00:00 -0400

In reading the arguments for and against Measure F, it is sad to see that the voices and politics of “no” have come to dominate the debate. To my fellow Brentwood residents: it is very easy to vote no because no is short for nothing!

Disrespectful dilettante

Sean McCauley, Brentwood - thepress.net — Wed, 5 May 2010 21:00:00 -0400

I am a local businessman and Brentwood farmer for over 35 years. I went to grammar, middle and high school in this town. My family has lived and farmed this Brentwood corridor since 1970.

The facts are: The traffic volume is overwhelming on the west end of Balfour Road. It can no longer handle the volume of vehicles. I live and see the traffic issues every day at my farm stand.

The selfish nature of Kathy Griffin’s deceptive comments is what has driven me to write this letter. She states, “I want to see green hills when I drive down Balfour Road,” and discounting my children’s safety and the safety of other families and their children upsets me to no end. People currently drive 70 to 80 mph on the section of Balfour Road after Heritage High School.

We need police and fire services to this area; currently we have nothing. Is the next fatality worth your selfish view of green hills, Kathy? For your information, we made sure the ridge lines will be protected and views will still be there if and when homes are built.

Consequences of Measure F results

Helen Allen, Rob Schroder, LAFCO Commissioners - thepress.net — Wed, 5 May 2010 21:00:00 -0400

We represent Contra Costa’s 19 cities as the Mayors’ Conference representatives on the Local Agency Formation Commission. LAFCO is the agency responsible to decide, among other issues, whether or not a particular area is annexed to one city or another.

Among the factors we consider in deciding these proposed annexations is whether or not the site is within voter-approved urban limit lines. For example, in 2006, we annexed Roddy Ranch (Horse Valley) to Antioch after Antioch’s voters approved Measure K. In 2009, we annexed the Faria Ranch into San Ramon after that city’s voters approved their own urban limit line.

The issue of annexation has come to our attention regarding Brentwood’s Measure F. The land involved in Measure F is located between and adjacent to both Brentwood and Antioch. It is currently within Brentwood’s Sphere of Influence. This is important because it means that Brentwood is the more logical service provider for this area.

Now is the time for yes

David B. Bristow, Brentwood - thepress.net — Wed, 5 May 2010 21:00:00 -0400

As a long-term Brentwood resident, I find it extremely offensive that those who are against Measure F think that doing nothing will solve our problems.

Brentwood can’t let those who choose to be blind dictate our future. They offer no solutions and no vision as how to solve these problems. A no never fixed a road. A no never built a park or school. A no will not solve gridlock or build a bypass. A no will not bring jobs to Brentwood.

Guest Comment: Measure F challenge: If not now, when?

Lee Hancock - thepress.net — Wed, 5 May 2010 21:00:00 -0400

I have been a builder for over 40 years and I am very proud of every development I have been involved with, including Shadow Lakes.

I own one of the properties that would be affected by the passage of Measure F; however, I am not a greedy, fat cat, land grabber, out-of-town developer that the opponents of this measure like to throw around. I have owned this property for 25 years, as have the other property owners. I am a local resident of nearby Discovery Bay and three of my grandchildren attend Heritage High School and Adams Middle School.

I want to give the true facts, not the half truths and outright lies the No on Measure F group is spreading.

The debate over Measure F

Rick Lemyre - thepress.net — Wed, 5 May 2010 21:00:00 -0400

As the June 8 election approaches, there’s one thing that both sides of the debate over Measure F share: the belief that the other side is playing fast and loose with the facts.

The measure would move the urban limit line to add 740 acres – the Balfour Plan Area – to southwest Brentwood, and approve a development agreement that rewrites a portion of the city’s General Plan and zoning ordinances to allow construction of up to 1,300 homes, 35 acres of commercial development, and about 200 acres of parks, open space and public facilities.

The agreement also calls for special fees and taxes on the area’s residents that would provide money for recreation, job creation, public safety, additional road construction and a paramedic for eight hours per day at the closest fire station.

This week, The Press presents the first of a two-part story examining the details of Measure F and the potential impacts of its passage or failure. This week’s story covers the housing element of the plan and the urban limit line aspects; next week we will look at impacts and amenities as well as the possible time line for the various components of the project.