Brentwood, California, Measure L, 815-Acre Development Project (November 2019)
| Measure L: Brentwood 815-Acre Development Project |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 5, 2019 |
| Status: |
 Defeated
|
| Topic: |
| Local zoning, land use and development |
| Related articles |
| Local zoning, land use and development on the ballot November 5, 2019 ballot measures in California Contra Costa County, California ballot measures |
| See also |
| Brentwood, California |
A measure to amend the city's urban line limit, general plan, and municipal code was on the ballot for Brentwood voters in Contra Costa County, California, on November 5, 2019. It was defeated.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of authorizing an 815-acre development project located on Brentwood’s western border. |
| A no vote was a vote against authorizing an 815-acre development project located on Brentwood’s western border. |
Election results
|
Brentwood Measure L |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 4,334 | 28.52% | ||
|
|
10,863 | 71.48% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot question
The ballot question was as follows:[1]
| “ |
Shall the Initiative to Allow for Development of Residential Dwellings and Commercial/Civic Uses, and the Protection of Open Space, by amending the Urban Limit Line, the Brentwood General Plan, and Municipal Code; Adopting a New Specific Plan; Constructing Road Improvements; and Providing Funds for Public Facilities be adopted? |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the City Attorney:
| “ |
This Measure concerns approximately 815 acres (the Area) located on Brentwood’s western border, bounded by Balfour Road, Deer Valley Road, the City of Antioch, and the Shadow Lakes development. The Measure qualified for the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters and which would require majority voter approval to become law. It would:
In the Area’s residential portion (approximately 555 acres), up to 2,400 housing units could be constructed, of which at least 80% would be age-restricted (generally, 55 and over). No more than 20% of the residential units could be developed with non-age-restricted housing. Housing would range from single family homes (1-18 units per acre) to multifamily development (up to 30 units per acre). Overall Area density could not exceed 3 units per acre. All multifamily development would be age-restricted, and would be prohibited on hilltops, ridges, and within 100 feet of the Area’s eastern boundary. Community recreation uses (approximately 15 acres) could include gathering areas and recreational features. No less than 225 acres would be permanently designated open space and could include agriculture and associated facilities. Commercial/civic development would generally be limited to approximately 20 acres at the Area’s southwestern corner, and could include agricultural and farm-to-table uses, outdoor amphitheater, wineries, hotel uses, and nurseries. Residential development could also be located here. Senior care facilities would be permitted by right as a commercial use in the Area’s commercial and residential portions, and would not be included in the housing cap. American Avenue would be extended to intersect Balfour Road at a second location. Portions of Balfour Road would be improved and widened, in phases. Area development would generate transportation impact fees. While the Measure proposes such fees be spent on Deer Valley Road safety improvements, the City does not exercise control over that roadway and could not require such expenditures. Other fees would be imposed on Area development for such purposes as schools; parks; and fire, drainage, flood control, water, and sewer facilities. A report ordered by the City Council to study the Measure’s impacts found that, over time, it could:
Area development would require approval of other agencies. Amending the Measure would require voter approval for 20 years, following its effective date; thereafter, the City Council could approve modifications as allowed by law. |
” |
| —City Attorney[1] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[1]
- Kevin R. King, Retired Brentwood Police Officer & 2018 Brentwood Citizen of the year
- Barbara Guise, Former Mayor, City of Brentwood
- Carlos P. Sanabria, Brentwood Union School District Board Member
- Annette Beckstrand, Brentwood Business Owner & Former Vice Mayor, City of Brentwood
- Steven Padgett, Retired Firefighter
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[1]
| “ |
We’ve lived in and served Brentwood for generations as police officers, business owners, mayors, teachers and environmentalists. We care deeply about Brentwood. Before you believe misinformation from naysayers who oppose everything in Brentwood, look closely at the real benefits of Measure L, coming at no taxpayer cost: Measure L — permanently preserves over 1,700 acres of open space. Save Mount Diablo supports Measure L because according to Land Conservation Director Seth Adams, Measure L is providing an opportunity for a once-in-a-generation environmental tradeoff agreement to protect over 1,500 acres of open space between Brentwood and Mount Diablo: a net conservation gain. Another 225 acres will be protected on the property itself following Measure L’s passage. Measure L — millions for fire protection and emergency response. The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District is critically underfunded which, coupled with California’s wildfires, is hazardous for everyone. Passing Measure L will contribute an estimated $175,000,000 in direct revenue to critical public services, including funding for fire district staffing and a new station, road construction, and water line extensions — making Brentwood safer. Measure L — creates real jobs. It provides hundreds of permanent local jobs, including over 200 healthcare careers at John Muir and Kaiser. Measure L — road repairs for improved traffic flow and safety. Improvements include widening Balfour Road and extending American Avenue. Also eligible for Measure L funding is Deer Valley Road to Kaiser (which hasn’t been improved in decades). Measure L — millions for local schools Yet as 80% senior housing, it won’t add many students to Brentwood schools. Finally, by adding a senior community, Measure L’s benefits come with very little impact. Seniors shop locally and contribute far less crime and rush-hour traffic than other residents. |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[1]
- Kathy Griffin, Principal Officer, Brentwood Alliance for Smart Growth, Traffic Abatement, Jobs Creation and Land Protection
- Rod Flohr, Brentwood Resident
- John R. Pock, Lead Field Representative, Carpenters Local Union 152 and Brentwood Resident
- Jovita Mendoza, Brentwood Resident
- John Fink, Former Brentwood Planning Commissioner
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[1]
| “ |
Influential developers who crafted Measure L are trying to sell their plan to Brentwood – don’t buy it. It breaks Brentwood’s voter-approved Urban Limit Line to construct 2,400 houses we don’t need on 815 acres of dry-farmed agricultural land. That’s why thousands of Brentwood residents and groups like Greenbelt Alliance, the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, Carpenters Local Union 152, and other organizations oppose Measure L. Measure L is a LOSING PROPOSITION because:
Our Urban Limit Line is our DEFENSE against unjustified sprawl, additional traffic, lost farmland and developer control. VOTE NO ON MEASURE L! www.AllianceforaBetterBrentwood.org[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition campaign.
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
