MAY 14, 2010
Letters from page 16A residents, these improvements would need to be fast-tracked and accomplished in a more timely fashion as development moves forward. These views being stated, the Mayor of Brentwood supports Measure F on the June ballot. Mayor Robert (Bob) Taylor
Look past the rhetoric Editor: The Danvillians Are Coming! A paraphrased old movie quote I used back in 1983 as a response to the fear tactics being used by those who wanted a City of San Ramon. Today, Measure F backers have also employed a political tactic by using fear in an attempt to influence our opinions and actions at the ballot box. According to them, a Yes vote is the only way to stop Antioch from taking over this parcel of land and will “stop the bloodshed” at Heritage and Adams Schools by completing the extension of American Avenue. However, when you look past all the rhetoric, you quickly see this measure is not the fairytale marriage of Kinkade-type cottages and acres of beautifully manicured hillsides and parks, or the idyllic landscape of children skipping to school alongside parents cruising down Fantasy Drive (American Avenue) as if it were the yellow brink road. I will just say this: if you have a child who is currently attending Adams Middle School, when that child graduates from Heritage High School, American Avenue will look no different than it does today. Just listen to what Measure F’s supporters say: Lee Hancock, developer/owner of Measure F land: “Fact: A reasonable timeline is that it will take five or more years to get approvals from the city. Shadow Lakes took 10 years to build the first house.” There is also a condition in the measure that permits development to be stalled for up to 10 years, with an automatic renewal for another 10 years. And when housing is not built, all of the “income” for road extensions, paramedic services, parks, schools, job training, police protection, Highway 4 Bypass improvements, cannot be collected from Fantasyland. Why then, are they in such a hurry to pass this measure if development is years or perhaps decades away?
THEPRESS.NET
Because this measure is just a deception to get the voters to approve a general plan amendment that will allow them to double the number of homes for that area and build what they want, when they want, whenever that would be convenient and lucrative for them, with the added bonus of a little input from its residents. This development proposal also ties the city’s hands and permits building on lots as small as 2,000 square feet, and three stories tall; some set aside for low-income apartment housing. I would think nearby residents would benefit from a type of neighborhood planning more comparable with their current landscape that would ultimately improve, rather than reduce, their own property values. The developers owe it to the residents of Brentwood to return with a proposal that adheres to the General Plan, mandates specific time frames for the completion and improvements of existing roadways, and most important, provides 100-percent input from every Brentwood citizen. Measure F does not even meet these basic standards. We currently have the power to control the future of Brentwood. Don’t vote it away. Vote No on Measure F. Al Del Grande Brentwood
History a key to understanding F Editor: There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of Measure F. A little history should help in making an intelligent decision. The city has had the property in question in its sphere of influence for years. In fact, when the land was purchased for Adams and Heritage schools, the city not only extended the utilities there, but also oversized for planned future development with the understanding the cost would be reimbursed by the developer. In fact, how many are aware that Roddy Ranch Golf Course is irrigated from the city’s wastewater treatment plant? The pipe was extended and paid for by the developers of the ranch at Deer Valley Road at the end of Balfour Road. Why did the city encourage development to the west? The land in question is not pristine, but marginal farmland and the city wanted to take development pressure off the pristine farmland to the east.
The Board of Supervisors in 2000 redrew the urban limit line knowing that the school sites were purchased and would be developed. The action by the board created dangerous road conditions in that area because the schools were landlocked and the circulation plans had to be scrapped. This also created another situation: the city’s desire to save the prime farmland to the east of Brentwood by developing the western corridor forced developers to go to the unincorporated area in the west, thus allowing rampant growth in the highproduction farmland east of Brentwood near Discovery Bay. After the urban limit line fiasco, the citizens of Antioch, Pittsburg and San Ramon voted to move their urban limit line back to where it was before the Supervisors’ “land grab.” Some people are insinuating that the supporters of Measure F are using scare tactics that Antioch may build in that area if our citizens don’t vote for Measure F. If you look at a map, you’ll see that the Antioch Roddy Ranch property is right up to the property in question. I encourage everyone to read the letter to the editor “Consequences of Measure F results” by LAFCO in the May 7 issue of the Brentwood Press. LAFCO is the agency that approves or disapproves all annexations in the county. This is not a scare tactic by supporters of F, but a strong possibility that Antioch could someday annex that property. If Measure F passes, Brentwood citizens will have control of that area for the planning process. So ask yourself: will the land in question be developed in the future by Antioch if Measure F loses (refer to LAFCO)? Then ask yourself this question: who do you think would do a better plan and demand more amenities from a developer, Antioch or Brentwood? Vote yes on Measure F. Barbara Guise former Mayor of Brentwood
Slick mailers Editor: Measure F doesn’t pass the smell test. In the past weeks we have been inundated with slick color mailers, phone calls, and door-to-door campaigners pushing the plan. If one spends the time studying the issue, it will bring to mind
|
17A
the old Watergate Era expression “Simply follow the money.” The Contra Costa Times put it quite succinctly: “Disingenuous initiative would expand the community’s urban limit line with the misleading promise that local residents would be given more control over the future of their city.” Don’t be hoodwinked. Vote “no” on F. J.F. Scott MacLeod Brentwood
Land between two cities Editor: 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. Disputes arise among cities regularly. We’ve also had to decide between a given city and the unincorporated county area. These disagreements can be intense. However, we strive to consider all available information in order to make an equitable decision. We generally do not annex land that is agriculturally highly productive. We also try to avoid “leap frog” annexations. However, in locations that are already between two cities and not of prime agricultural value, our LAFCO has normally been supportive of annexing such territory to a city. This is true as we are also obligated to support orderly development. As a proud resident of East County, I am very familiar with the land involved in Measure F and the problems with Balfour Road and American Avenue. While I have not taken a position on Measure F, I did want to provide input to the people of Brentwood as they make their decision. Dwight Meadows LAFCO Commissioner see Letters page 18A