During a 3-hour discussion Tuesday night, the Brentwood City Council heard from residents who opposed zoning an emergency homeless shelter within the City of Brentwood.
By state law, Brentwood is forced to designate a location or they could lose funding. In total the council heard from 36-residents who opposed the idea of zoning the emergency shelter at Davis Camp off Jane Way as well as the proposed area near the Police Department.
On April 7, the Planning Commission reversed course from the proposed Davis Camp location and recommended the zoning for an emergency homeless shelter be placed across the street from the Police Department (9100 Brentwood Blvd) after hearing more than 2-hours’ worth of public comments from residents.
Site locations discussed included:
- Davis Camp: 1907 and 1909 Jane Way
- PD-12: Across the Street from the Police Department
- PD-38: Empire & Lone Tree (highlighted in purple)
On Tuesday, residents from the Jane Lane neighborhood showed up and highlighted why that area was not a good choice. The Council agreed that Jane Lane was not an ideal location.
Brentwood Mayor Bob Taylor stated Brentwood was trying to get the best location possible the Brentwood way. The mayor noted that if the city did not follow state law, they could lose a total of $8.75 million in funding.
“We have always been rebellious, we have always done things differently and that has what has made this city unique and I am very proud to be a part of that, “said Taylor.
During public comments from both the Planning Commission Meeting and Tuesdays meeting, accused the city of making a fast decision with little notice to the public.
Councilman Steve Barr addressed those concerns stating this was not a quick decision, but something that took 18-months of planning. He explained there is almost no place in Brentwood where a school would not be impacted by this decision. He noted the Land Use and Development Committee recommend the land along Lone Tree Way and Empire Avenue (PD-38) as the best location.
“Is there a perfect place, I would say no. When we brought the first recommendation to council it was based on the information we had at the time, some has been refined since then. The decision when I was on the committee to bring this to the council I knew full well that a very good friend of mine owned property in that area. It was very difficult to bring forward, but having to make the hard decisions, it was a site that met the criteria by the state and had the least impact,” explained Barr. “Anywhere you put this in a city there is impact. We made the decision and brought it forward based on a lot of vetting. I have a clear conscious how it was placed there, I apologize to the neighbors that each neighborhood has been faced with this, first near Jane Lane and now near the police department, it seems like a rash and a short decision. I would agree with you. The original site (PD-38) had been fully vetted. “
Barr further explained when the planning commission and city council got together on March 10th; the consensus was a neighborhood who happened not to be in the room at the time. Then last week at the Planning Commission, the same thing happened and the site was changed.
“I am not willing to sit here tonight and pick another site of a community in this town whose neighbors are not here tonight. That is what we are doing and happened twice. The can got kicked down the road,” said Barr. “Unfortunately, this is where the buck stops. We have to make the decision.”
Councilman Gene Clare stated there is no good location.
“I would like not to build a homeless shelter,” said Clare. “I understand people do not want a homeless shelter in their neighborhood. But what I struggle with is we have a law we have to follow. We have an obligation to designate a site. I’d like to believe that it would never be built. But I do understand is zoning it does set up that possibility.”
Councilman Erick Stonebarger stated this was the first time the council gets to address the issue and its put Brentwood in a challenging spot.
“If this was easy, it would have been done in the first couple of meetings. This is definitely not easy,“ said Stonebarger. “There is not one good spot in the community that it fits and any spot that it goes in the community it’s going to impact a similar group of people like we have in the room tonight.”
He further highlighted how down the road, they could risk loss of funding while a judge could ultimately make the decision for the city on a location for a zoned emergency homeless shelter. He urged the council to make a decision tonight.
Mayor Taylor said that if they pick a site, he was learning towards the Police Department no matter what is said.
“I think the idea that it is on the very far end of town, I would hope that police officers that are in an out of there would observe, if this ever came being, would be able to observe something that is illegal or going on,” said Taylor. “I would propose that we pick the police department with the caveat directing staff to at least look or explore to make sure we are making the right decision.”
Councilman Stonebarger countered that if we pick the police station site to look out in the room because it will be the same conversation for which ever site is selected.
“The longer we postpone and propose sites, it’s not going to get easier,” said Stonebarger.
Mayor Taylor called for a motion and received crickets as no one on the council made a motion where Stonebarger requested more discussion.
“We can move away from the Jane Way site which is probably a path of progress for us really, to be honest, was a little bit of an error in judgment and I am comfortable making that statement because it didn’t work the way I had intended it to work,” explained Stonebarger. “I intended for us to have some control on a city owned site. Moving it to PD-38 which was land use recommendation as the least impactful has a valid argument and valid merits. “
Councilman Clare had reservations about PD-38 because it’s private property and didn’t want the burden put on the property owners and preferred it be placed on city owned parcels saying they are not being a negative impact on the private property owner.
Councilman Barr disagreed with Councilman Clare saying public property is not protected and is somewhat is a better choice than private property.
“We are fooling ourselves if we think we are imposing that on ourselves, we are imposing that on whatever neighborhood that area is sited, period! You can find reasons all day long but none of them hold water,” said Barr. “I know everyone when we had our joint-workshop that that was it. A perfect solution. Let’s throw it on city property and no one is going to care. Let me remind you that during that meeting, I told you those neighbors would be here. I am going to say the same thing on the PD site, those neighbors will be here because they are concerned about it and they should be.”
Barr further explained that public property has less say because a private property does not have to sell if they own it. He noted this is nothing more than an additional zoning designation but that it doesn’t mean it has to be built.
Councilman Stonebarger wanted to make it clear they are not re-zoning property, but the zoning is going to stay residential. This ordinance would only add a zoning for a emergency homeless shelter.
“I fall back with Steve’s argument that there may be more control on a private property than a public property. Our ability to choose not to sell would be more difficult than a private property owner choosing not to sell,” said Stonebarger. “The impact around neighborhood community is really the ultimate price that is going to be paid if an emergency housing shelter gets built… if it does get built, it will have challenges.”
Stonebarger further explained that whatever decision the Council makes is going to be uncomfortable but stayed they needed to do so which would result in the least impact noting there was a case for PD-38 (Empire & Lone Tree).
“We need to be very comfortable that when there is a significant push back that we are okay with making that decision,” said Stonebarger. “I am comfortable making a decision tonight on one of the three sites tonight.”
Mayor Bob Taylor noted that PD-38 is right there with Antioch.
“I don’t know who would control it. Antioch police? I feel like Brentwood should have the control of where it should be and the location in this part of town. I don’t think I could get better than with the police station. But then it’s going to impact that neighborhood,” said Taylor.
Councilman Barr made a motion to designate PD-38 off Empire Road as the location for the Emergency Homeless Shelter—the original location selected by the Land Use and Development Committee. The motion failed to pass in a 2-2 vote with Barr and Stonebarger saying “yes” and Taylor and Clare saying “no”.
Councilman Clare then made a motion for PD-12 across from the Police Department site as a temporary determination and that staff will continue to work on finding another location. That vote failed to pass with a 2-2 vote. Taylor and Clare “yes”, Barr and Stonebarger “no”.
Mayor Taylor stated that the council had to pick a site at PD-38 if it would fall under Antioch’s jurisdiction. Staff explained that this property would fall under Brentwood, but they could not speak about the police enforcement since it would be on the border and the roadway is the City of Antioch which is an Antioch issue. The site would be under Brentwood. Staff said the site is 4-parcels on 30-combined acres.
“I agree with councilman Barr and Stonebarger that we have got to make a decision tonight. I am not willing to kick the can down the road,” said Taylor.
Councilman Stonebarger highlighted the least impact to the community was on PD-38.
“We could still go to PD-38 and give direction to one or two parcels, or continue this conversation to see if we can find a different parcel in the community. If it gets build in some point in time. If we put it next to the PD site, we would have control until they cross the canal and then the County has control. If you put it in PD-38, we would have control until it crossed Empire where the City of Antioch would have control,” explained Stonebarger. “They are both pretty difficult areas and neither one of them are petty good. If you put it at Davis Camp, then the City of Brentwood would have control all the way around. I understand the concerns having it across the street from a residential neighborhood.”
He noted PD-38 was the furthest away from Brentwood schools in general but highlighted it’s still not perfect.
“I know its next to Freedom High School and Pioneer, but I think it has the least impact on our community in general,” said Stonebarger.
Councilman Barr made a motion to move forward with PD-38. The motion passed 3-1 with Clare opposing.
The City will continue the public hearing on April 28, 2015.
7 comments
Typical City of Brentwood passing the buck to Antioch and Oakley who will likely utilize their police services should this ever be built. Where was Antioch and Oakley council or staff to fight for their residents? Shame on all of East County city councils!
Anyone know where Antioch and Oakley zoned their shelters? Does this location mean if its built, homeless downtown will now hang out on Empire and Lone Tree? Well done Brentwood you morons!
Time to replace the city Council Brentwood looks like
Is the council selling Brentwood’s future for 8 pieces of fake gold?($8.75 Million). Shame on them! Come election time we will have to vote for someone that really looks out for the best for Brentwood, not just for the dollars a detrimental decision would bring. i am sure the $8.75 M can be brought in with new developments that would keep the integrity of our town much better than bringing undesirables to our streets to increase crime and lower property values and quality of life we now enjoy.
There is no escape, Brentwood. Soon you will be in the same boat as Antioch. The liberals and idiots who run the city of Antioch are the same people who have been brought to power by idiots who believe people who flip burgers deserve $15 an hour. LMAO.
You will be wallowing in garbage, filth, prostituion, and smoke shops, just like Antioch.
I might as well say it now, Brentwood welcome to Antioch. Lol
Today it will be homeless shelters. Then it will be free food handouts at every corner, low income rentals, and free medical marijuana just like in Berkeley. Then your beloved precious school district will get sued by the NAACP if they even think about disciplining one of Obama’s kids. LMAO
Good luck Brentwood.
Wow, while I understand some of the concerns stated here, was hoping that Brentwood would NOT mimic so many other cities in their disdain for the less privileged. Not all out on the streets are criminals, a lot of them are veterans who defended our country and were left without support by our own government….here’s hoping SOME of those people get help from this city…
Carlos you have revealed how incompetent the council is. $$$$ has tainted their thought patterns.The city will trade 8 million dollars of income for 8 million dollars of crime.The cost of rape , rob , and pillage will only be exchanged netting the city with an eventual deficit. The results will be a much lower quality of life and safety. A perfect example of this type failure has been shown in Antioch today.
Always funny how the bleeding hearts come out and impose guilt on people that will be directly effected. Those same people that would convince you to make a bad self-harming decision, that does not effect them, will not be there when your property value falls, your community becomes blighted and your neighbors start to be replaced one by one as those who can leave do.
The people that end up at these places are not normally vets and struggling families, those are the exception, not the rule, the people that end up at these places are typically the mentally ill and addicts. They need real help, not a staging area that lets the loose upon the community at dawn.
An emergency shelter is open at dusk and closes at dawn. It is a holding area, not a treatment facility. It does not benefit the community, it only burdens it. The state needs to create programs to fix the problem, not dump it on the unlucky residents in a given area.
If the city can, they need to turn down the money, it comes at too high a cost. This city already runs at a surplus, no reason to take on a losing cause when it is not needed. The consequences of this will have lasting effects. The least problematic location seems to be the police station, at least there it can be monitored and mitigated most easily. But like all of us, they don’t want it in their neighborhood either.
Comments are closed.